>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> are you thinking about the community center? >> it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with hundreds of committee centers so children from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast support c-span is a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up on "washington journal" concorde coalition executive director robert bixby on the depth amid. then we are joined by greg brown of the national apartment association for a conversation about the cdc eviction moratorium. later, a look at the decrease in

u.s. life expectancy in 2020, the biggest drop since world war ii. we will talk with university of texas sociology professor mark hayward. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: this is the washington journal for august 11. three hours ago the senate approved a $3.5 trillion budget blueprint setting up the framework for passing a budget without gop vote later this year. the senate also approving a $1 trillion infrastructure package. more on that later this morning. in our first hour, your comments on andrew cuomo resigning a week after the state attorney general reported the governor harassed multiple women. here's how you can comment.

call us at (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 free democrats, and independents (202) 748-8002. for york residents, call us at (202) 748-8003. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. post on facebook or twitter or follow the show on instagram. governor cuomo went before tammuz yesterday announcing his resignation -- went before cameras yesterday announcing his resignation. the new york times highlighting that speech, saying by stepping down mr. cuomo dampened talk of impeachment in the state assembly and left open the possibility for a political revival. in the 2021 minute -- in the 21 minute speech cuomo decried the effort to remove him and said

his initial instinct was to fight the controversy and said he believes it was politically motivated. some of the comments from the speech. with that, we will see a little bit from yesterday. as we are preparing that sot, we want to take their calls in this first hour. none of the resignation itself, but about issues of the governor in light of the release of that report. for republicans in the audience, (202) 748-8001, for democrats, (202) 748-8000. for independents, (202) 748-8002 . for new york residents you can let us know at (202) 748-8003. use that same number if you wish to text is your thoughts. you can post on facebook and twitter and follow us as well. with more from yesterday, a

portion of the governor speech announcing his resignation. here is governor andrew cuomo. >> new york tough means new york loving. i love new york. i love you. everything i have ever done has been motivated by that love. i would never want to be unhelpful in any way. i think that, given the circumstances, the best way i can help now is if i step aside and let government get back to governing. therefore that is what i will do. i work for you. doing the right thing is doing the right thing for you. as we say, it not about me. it is about we. kathy hochul, my lieutenant

governor, is smart and competent. this transition must be seamless. we have a lot going on. i am very worried about the delta variant, and so should you be. she could come up to speed quickly. my resignation will be effective in 14 days. host: governor cuomo commenting on the lieutenant governor who will become the first female governor of new york. adding this, saying as part of her political history, kathy hochul won the house seat western new york a decade ago after the republican representative resigned after reports he had solicited a woman on craigslist. a badly needed morale boost for house democrats after losing their house majority six months earlier. the chair was short-lived as hochul lost her 2012 reelection but built enough political

profile that in 2014 governor cuomo selected her as his running mate. kathy hochul became lieutenant governor on january 1 of 2014. when it comes to the incoming governor of new york, you can find a little bit about her local background. she joined us once on this program in her capacity as lieutenant governor. she also appeared many times on floor speeches as a representative. you can get our website at c-span.org to find more of her background in congress and as lieutenant governor of new york. from our republican line, you are first. this is doug. go ahead. caller: this governor and his actions are emblematic of what is going on with the entire political class today. they live in a bubble. the only reason he is gone is

because the democratic party wanted him gone. this is a guy who has a brother who is a correspondent for a national network who interviewed the guy and asked him about his dating profile, for god sakes. this governor sent 15,000 people to their deaths and that is why they should be investigating. host: that is doug's comment from california in san jose. when it comes to the background of what went on before the announcement, this is from the new york times. lawmakers discussed impeachment at the capitol complex. mr. cuomo was drafting resignation remarks in the executive residence. he was joined by miss derosa, but most of the writing was his according to the new york times. reflecting his equivocal

feelings about it all, he would tell new yorkers who love them and he would be leaving them and the claims against him, despite the decision on tuesday were not to be believed. that is little bit about the background that took place before the resignation. it is also talked about his accomplishments as governor of the empire state. here is a portion of that from yesterday. >> we made new york state progressive capital of the nation. no other state government accomplished more to help people. that is what it is all about. think about what we did. we passed marriage equality, creating a new civil right. legalized love for the lgbtq community and we generated a force for change that swept the nation. we passed the safe act, the smartest gun safety lot in the united states of america. it bands the madness of assault

weapons. we have saved countless lives with that law. $15 minimum wage, the highest number wage in the nation, lifting millions of families standard of living, putting more food on the table and clothes on their backs. we led the nation in economic justice with that reform. we have managed every emergency mother nature could throw at us. fires, floods, hurricanes, super storms, and pandemic. we balance the state budget and got it done on time more than any other administration, because government should work and perform. free college tuition for struggling families. nobody in this state will be denied their college stream because of their income. airports, rail, roads across the state, faster and better than ever before. more than any state in the

nation, the most effective green economy program in the nation. we did more for black and latino families than any other administration. we did more for working families , we did more for our union brothers and sisters, we did more to battle racism and anti-semitism. caller: -- host: from our republican line, this is michael. caller: thank you for taking my call, thanks for c-span. i think we are in uncharted waters. this is trying times for our country. as far as mario cuomo is concerned, i think he would not be gone if the democratic party did not want him gone. also the media. the media is one in the same as the democratic party. host: you made andrew cuomo -- you mean andrew cuomo? caller: yes.

host: continue on. caller: the horrible things he has done are nonetheless bad, they are not worth defending too much. i think he is no harvey weinstein. the charges the women have brought could have been defended by the democratic party, by other people, perhaps, but it is funny how he has been lauded by the powers that be, by the media and the democratic party for so long, and now all of a sudden he is thrown under the bus. i think his real sin is what he did with those nursing homes. the nursing home crisis. that is what they do not want to come out. it is not just tea that has done that, but are governor infant -- it is not just he that has done

that but our governor in pennsylvania, the way the other governors have handled the covid crisis. host: that is michael in pennsylvania. we set aside a line for republicans, democrats, and independents, for new york residents, too. if you want to directly comment, (202) 748-8003 is how you do that. mike in california, democrats line. caller: he has been protected by the elite liberal media for years. the elite liberal media serves as the office of the left. host: are you a democrat? caller: i am a democrat. host: that is mike in sun city. continue on with the comments. from the political aspect of this, this is from the washington post reporting that

cuomo did not try to call to plead his case with the assembly speaker call, with some people close to him saying it would be a futile effort comment over the past week his advisers determined he had fewer than a dozen supporters in the assembly. several thought he would certainly be convicted in the senate and urged him to consider resigning. he had no chance there. others spoke on the condition of anonymity, adding cuomo found few people able to say anything on his behalf and state and local leaders expressed relief's at the downfall of a figure they had long feared and never loved. on twitter of you are making the comment saying when it comes to the events of yesterday, and orderly transfer even when the chips are down, adding democrats resigned and republicans do not. robert saying cuomo is now part of the cancel culture. shirley in missouri, democrats line.

you are on the line. caller: i'm calling about, they keep talking about what andrew cuomo did to the nursing facility. what did they think about trump killing millions of people? i do not think andrew cuomo should step down. he was good for new york. host: what you think about the allegations against him? caller: i think it is like his attorney said. they should take it all the way to the end. they should investigate these ladies and see what went down. sometimes ladies approach men more than men approach ladies. look what trump did.

host: what makes you think governor cuomo could have survived? caller: i think he could've survived if he investigated the ladies book him of these things. i'm not saying they are lying. sometimes you have to investigate and see what is going on. he might not of done the things they wanted so they put out allegations against him. they need to leave andrew cuomo alone and get trump. host: that is surely in missouri adding thoughts to the resignation of governor cuomo. if you want to make your thoughts and comments you can do that on our phone lines and also text us if you wish at (202) 748-8003 and post on our social media feeds.

we will continue on with those calls but let you know about events that took place in washington, d.c., critically on the senate side as big events do to talk about. joining us if the conversation is laura davidson of bloomberg. she covers congress. thanks for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: can we start with the passage of the government planned yesterday. senate democrats achieving what they want. what happens now? guest: early this morning at about 4:00 a.m. they passed the budget resolution, the first step in the legislative process for democrats to achieve joe biden's economic agenda. they set the limit for up to $3.5 trillion worth of investments in childcare, health care, education funded by tax increases on the wealthy and corporations. this goes to the house. the house announced they will

come back early from august recess and vote on this plan. nancy pelosi is in a difficult position. she has different fractions of the party, moderates and progressives who have a lot of opinions about how to proceed forward. you will go back earlier in the day yesterday, the senate also passed a $550 billion infrastructure bill. basically, you have different factions of the party wanting to address these in different orders. moderates are saying we want to move forward with infrastructure bill, progressive saying we want to make sure this bigger belt, the 3.5 chili dollar bill is also get -- the $3.5 trillion bill is also getting about. that is why pelosi will call people back to expedite this. host: on the infrastructure bill , the president and the vice president watching the events play out as these boats were taking place. with that infrastructure bill,

19 republicans joining. what was a reaction to that number of republicans joining? guest: in some ways a surprising number at the very end. mitch mcconnell joined in with some of his colleagues in voting for this. this amounts to a huge political wind for joe biden. he was elected on the idea he can cut bipartisan deals. a lot of people, particularly earlier this year, it did not look like that would be possible. there were talks with republicans that have fallen apart. this bipartisan group formed and they were able to get a bill done. the spirit of bipartisanship ended as it is they pass the bill around noon. they started on the partisan process of budget reconciliation. it remains to be seen if there could be more close collaboration between the parties or if this is a one-shot deal on this one issue. for years both parties have been talking about where they have a lot of common interests.

host: when it comes to that idea of working together, what appeals do you expect to be made to senators like joe manchin and kyrsten sinema who have spoken out on aspects of the bill and the price tags attached? guest: both of those senators are the two most-watched and being the ones to reject some, they are too progressive or they are too costly. what democrats say, folks like the chairman of the house ways and means committee, he says this is our one shot at democrats to achieve all of the things we've been talking about. it is very likely democrats will lose one or both of their majorities in congress. who knows what happens with the presidential election. they say we have an opportunity to achieve a lot of the economic priorities we've been talking about come investment into things like childcare, some sort

of free college tuition. policies that in polling are very popular. things like a child tax credit. monthly payments to parents up to $300 per child. this is good policy as well as good politics and right now is the time we need to do it. host: on the budget plan passed yesterday, on the ability of passing a budget without republican support, what is the republican strategy? guest: the republican strategy is to try to find ways to drive wage between democrats and those are more likely to buck their party like joe senate -- joe manchin and kyrsten sinema. they talk about the cost and how more additional physical been spending -- more fiscal spending good read to an area -- they've been talking about inflation and we've seen prices go up. other economists say this is transitory.

some republicans are worried there could be a longer-term problem the economy could face. democrats have no room for error. they have to get all 50 senate democrats. they can only lose a couple in the house. this could be a difficult fight, particular if there are major issues that moderates or progressive dig their heels and say i'm not voting for a bill unless it has x or y or z. host: laura davidson of bloomberg on the events of yesterday. thanks for your time. guest: thank you. host: we continue on with our calls concerning governor cuomo's resignation. you can call in line for republicans, (202) 748-8001, democrats, (202) 748-8000, and independents, (202) 748-8002. new york residents give us a call at (202) 748-80023.

jodey from twitter says i'm glad he is gone. the democrats clean up people in their party. they missed their chance with donald trump. lizzie from twitter saying, was investigated and the evidence is overwhelming that he had to resign. he is trying to escape jail time by resigning. you can text us if you want. let's hear from jake in south carolina. independent line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to tell you one thing. all of these people that are getting so offended with people, what they say, what they do, and treat politicians the way they treated governor cuomo, think about it. if you are not in a prestigious position and you do not have a lot of money, nobody ever says anything about anything you do.

the minute they find some way to get money out of something, they will claim anything. if you're so offended to be called honey, then there is something else. host: what did you think about the report that came up which led to the governor's resignation? caller: that is a bunch of women who want to do what they want to do to get fame and say we took down the governor. i am an independent. i am really a republican, but i am an independent republican. i never voted straight ticket. host: why do you believe that statement you just said? caller: look at what has happened with the people that has done it. every time somebody has been

charged with sexual harassment, they are either a movie star -- if you are sexually harassed, call the police. do not wait 10 years to say i was raped. host: that is jake in south carolina. our line from democrats, st. louis, dolores, your next. -- you are next. caller: my comment is in regards to something i said on the internet. people do not want governor cuomo to run for president. that is what that is about. i'm wondering why they did not want him to run for president. it is unfortunate, all of these claims involve rude and offensive behavior, it does not rise to the level of sexual trauma. it is unfortunate that this type of behavior is grouped in with something that is more serious,

where this is more like soft offenses. host: why do you think it is not rise to that level? caller: is very different than when you have a very violent sexual trauma. when somebody is groping you or touching your backside, it does not rise to that level of trauma. even though it is rude. host: the attorney general report came out showed this pattern, do you tend not to believe the report? what you think of the report itself in light of what it did for the governor as far as his resignation? caller: i think it is unfortunate behavior, but it is very popular. given the seriousness of other problems we have, i think those should be addressed. you read about the situation in new york city with random

crimes. host: that is dolores, st. louis, missouri. williamsburg, virginia, independent line. this is jeff. caller: i am an independent and i think it is obvious how they treat the left and right differently. in virginia you remember governor ralph northam was in blackface or wearing a kkk rope. many people call for him to resign and then the media moved on, he never resign. one these and -- one reason is because his lieutenant governor had been credibly accused of rape. he is still in office. that is not good but the media did not make him resign. host: how does that apply to governor cuomo? caller: the media wanted to talk

about the sexual assault allegations belatedly and they will not talk about the fact the new york governor, the new jersey governor, they have high death rates of elderly people in nursing homes because of their policy decisions. the media will not talk about that because i see a lack of evenhanded treatment. host: aside from that story, but what about this story concerning the governor's resignation? what you think about those events? caller: he should've resigned along time ago and he would've been held to account if you were republican. as an independent it is so obvious. the president was accused of sexual assault by tara reade whose own mother called larry king. it is on tape. joe biden is in office because the media talked about it for two days and moved on. cuomo should be in jail if the allegations are true. if he had an r after his name he

would've been already. host: we go to florida. annie, go ahead. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i think they need to leave him alone. they wanted him to resign, he did. i do not think donald trump should have been allowed to run for president. they have him on tape. host: this is about governor cuomo. what did you think about the accusations? caller: if i can look at what happened on the capital, donald trump and the republicans -- i can believe him, because they lie every day. host: how does this apply to governor cuomo as far as the accusations? caller: that is what i said. host: that is any in florida. we will go to al in plymouth,

massachusetts. caller: i want to look at this from a different angle. this is more of an indictment of the left-wing media complex. how could mr. cuomo think he could get away with this during the #metoo movement? let's do some investigation like chris wallace would do. why did the governor think he could get away with that the last year and a half? this went on and on until there was an official investigation. let me remind people, i am old enough to remember the 1990's. all you liberals did everything you could to keep bill clinton in office. you cause to this. you look in the mirror. you caused this atmosphere with mr. weinstein and everything else that has gone on because you allowed it in the 1990's. you need that man in office so

you sold your soul. you people are selling your soul even cheaper now today. this guy should have been gone years ago. it took a state investigation for it to be on the headlines. host: that is al in massachusetts. when it comes to people bringing up topics of media, there's a sidebar story in the new york times concerning the governor's brother chris cuomo, saying he is off this week. a planned vacation for his birthday. he has spoken with governor cuomo by telephone and advised his brother to resign according to two people who requested anonymity. cnn barred chris cuomo from engaging in strategy sessions with the governor's aid and said it would not prohibit him from speaking directly with his brother about the scandal. francesca in arizona city in arizona, independent line. caller: i think mr. new yorker

got his hands caught in the cookie jar and we are lucky we are letting him get off by resigning. we need to let the new generation come up into office. let's let the new age sit in these chairs. work harder for less cheaper. we are trying to get everybody out. there is no detail on the scandal, because nobody cares. host: there were details from the attorney general's report. caller: that is irrelevant. host: why is it irrelevant? caller:'s profile does not fit anymore. host: can you clarify that? caller: i feel like this is

about faith. mr. new yorker, you know what i mean, whoever has more influence. host: francesca in arizona. when it comes to the next generation it will be the lieutenant governor kathy hochul who becomes governor of new york . as you heard governor cuomo mentioned she won in may 2011 and the 26 district. her searing in took place on june 1, 2011 -- her swearing-in speech took place june 1, 2011. here is a portion. >> is an honor and a privilege to be here on the floor of the u.s. house of representatives, where i will serve the people of the 26 district of the state of new york. i promise to work for them tirelessly every single day and continue to fight for them with every breath i have. i look forward to working with each of you in the spirit of

bipartisanship and cooperation as we work towards a brighter future and a stronger america. this is a proud day for my family and for me to begin this new chapter in our lives. a chance where i hope to build with accomplishment that will serve the people of my district and your districts. before i begin this journey i must help the peak -- i must thank the people who helped me get where i am. to the people of the 26th congressional district i am humbled by your support and the faith you put in me. my family, my husband of 27 years, you are my inspiration. [applause]

my son, billy, my daughter katie. my parents. my brothers and my sister sheila who worked tirelessly throughout this campaign. host: if you go to our website at c-span.org you can see that speech. she joined us on this program in her capacity as lieutenant governor to talk about the issues of new york state. you can go to the website to see more of that interview. might new york, republican line. -- mike in new york, republican line. caller: i am happy governor cuomo resigned. he is very egotistical. arrogant, he is a womanizer. his policies in reference to new york state, i hope they rename

-- get rid of the cuomo bridge. ego. this guy needs to be locked up. he is a killer. the scandals with nursing homes. come on. this guy needs to go. host: omar in new jersey, republican line. caller: good morning, how are you? it is different with cuomo and with donald trump. cuomo did a lot for the people. donald trump was out for himself. it is just sad the way the government has been run right now. if you have money you can get into government. you can buy everything. we need to impeach everyone. host: are using the actions of the governor while he was

governor outweigh the actions in the attorney general report? caller: i am not saying that. the attorney general report -- yesterday it was proven some of the women were lying. host: proven by whom? caller: by the attorney general. host: as far as the governor's actions themselves, what you think of that? caller: disgraceful. but he did a good job. what you do in your private life i do not consider that, unless you hit somebody drunk driving. host: is her sexual harassment charges. you do not think that forces a resignation? caller: i think he should've resigned way before it got here. we have these politicians that do that.

you know how it is in congress. they sexually harass women in congress and get away with it. he thought he could get away with this. host: let's hear from carol, democrats line. caller: governor cuomo said he did not realize the extent the lines were redrawn, which to meet leaves the question, does he mean he would take it as far as he could, or if he had known he would correct his behavior? which did he mean? that is a big question. he stated this himself. i wish we could keep it to sexual harassment and not his performance. we miss the point. address this and not his performance. what he did.

the man said keep it private. it is not private when you are in the office and somebody is feeling you were saying things you do not want to be set. -- do not want to be said. there is a bigger issue. he is of the age group that some of these things were acceptable prior to his age. some things were acceptable and women just set tee hee and walked away. we are all accountable. it is our culture we need to change. host: the first question about the governor statement from his speech, how would you answer that question? caller: i am not sure stop this leads the question, would he have taken it as far as he has taken it and back off, or doesn't mean he would correct his behavior? host: there's a peach on the web -- there is a piece on the website by benjamin parker called andrew cuomo resigned because the democrats are called.

-- at the current moment the democrats are up local party and the republicans are a cult. letitia james had no reason to fear reprisal, political or otherwise while investigating the allegations against cuomo. democrats in the state house probably figured their prospects as a party would improve without the weight of cuomo's alleged misdeeds around their ankles. in the republican party contradicting their dear leader is an offense worthy of expulsion if not worse. that is not to say republicans do not have some internal competition, but the degree to which some competition exist is between actors showing fealty to the supreme leader who is above and insulated from any such challenge. more of that piece in the bulwark. you can find it online. the new york times, when talking about those internal debates before the announcement yesterday, saying the top advisors believed the goodwill

the governor headed vast -- the governor had amassed during the pandemic would allow him to survive despite this findings from the attorney general investigation, but mr. cuomo cannot contain the scandal with his usual mix of threat and charm, the percent of that made him a political matinee idol during the pandemic. he is ill-suited suited to addressing the emotionally charged allegations of sexual harassment against them, some made by women not even half his age. that is from the new york times right up. we are asking your thoughts on resignation. from new york, this is mark. good morning. he hung up. let's go to denise in michigan. democrat line. caller: hello, how are you doing? host: i am fine. go ahead. caller: i am looking to the republicans.

i am not your typical democrat. i believe in listening to the problem. the problem is all the republicans are saying he should resign, he is all of this. i think you should have a long time ago. i cannot understand the -- being hypocrites with donald trump. he has 17 women that should've had their day in court and it was put off by the attorney general in washington. the clock is ticking for him in court. host: for governor cuomo's action specifically, what you think of those? caller: they are disgraceful. they are horrible. he should've resigned. he should've been fired. he is done. we had al franken taken out by a picture showing him going close to a woman's breast and he resigned. it seems like all the democrats resign quick and republicans are all there.

it is just a two way street. host: denise in michigan. in north carolina, independent line, barry is next. caller: first there was a comment made earlier about the conduct being acceptable in the 1970's or 1980's. i think it was accepted, but it was not acceptable. we may have tolerated it, but it was still wrong. as to the attorney general report, the governor had asked us to wait for the attorney general to complete the investigation and to look at it in a fair response to that. the ag came out and found they were reasonable in these charges had been substantiated, so it was appropriate for him to step down. it took longer than i think it should have. he should have done it immediately.

as far as the conduct, it was absolutely abhorrent. it should not be tolerated at any level. it cannot be tolerated, whether it is a manager of mcdonald's or at the government level he is at. host: you believe governor cuomo is done as far as his clinical career is concerned? caller: i do. once you have a sexual scandal it is hard to get back in it. the same thing for the governor prior to him, spitzer. it is hard to come back when you've had those allegations because you lose 50% of your potential voters. host: that is barry in north carolina. many calling from other states about this event focused on new york state. republicans (202) 748-8001,

democrats (202) 748-8000. independent bank -- independents (202) 748-8002. if you're from new york state, call us at (202) 748-8003. the new york newspapers putting this event on their headlines. this is newman in san antonio, texas. democrat line. caller: he should've been resigned. i'm so angry listening to people calling in like they're trying to give him a pass, talking about what he's done for the state of new york. it irks when i hear people calling saying things giving this man a past. -- giving this man a pass. this man should have been resigned. imagine it was someone in your family.

if it was someone in your family doing that to a member of your family. would you like? they say these women are line. this is been going on -- they say these women are lying. this has been going on for generations. who are you talking to, men. it is sad when i hear people say that. this man should be gone, this man should not be a story. host: that is san antonio, texas. we will go to our republican line. this is steve in south carolina. caller: that color from texas stole little bit of my thunder. -- that caller from texas stole little bit of my thunder. they give this was your

daughter. i was a supervisor that a federal government building. the federal government took this very seriously. i have to be briefed every year over what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace. all across the south and southwest we grew up calling girls sweetheart, sugar, honey. you cannot do that anymore. i worked with a fellow supervisor at the shipyard and he got time off for allowing hostile varmint -- a hostile environment to exist. a lady complaint men were telling dirty jokes and he did not put a stop to it. host: how does it apply to governor cuomo? caller: he is a person of authority.

he holds the careers of people under him in his hands. people are generally scared to come on board with the supervisor who determines their future and commits that kind of crime. for somebody who knows the rules to do it, this is not a partisan issue. host: that is stephen south carolina. about 15 minutes left. you can call in as you wish. to highlight a couple of other things when it comes to the passage of the infrastructure built, the washington post highlights the -- the infrastructure bill. the washington post highlights the length of time about states getting money for the project. about $556 billion in new spending, only about 20 billion dollars of that will be spent by 2022 according to estimates in the ceo -- in the congressional budget office. also, $125 billion, about a

quarter of the funding by september 2024. that is ahead of the 2024 presidential election. one of the people commenting on the passage of the bill was president biden himself. there are some of those comments from yesterday. >> first of all, i want to thank the group of senators, democrats and republicans, for doing what they told me they would do. the death of this legislation was mildly premature, as reported. they said they were willing to work in a bipartisan manner. i want to thank them for keeping their word. after years and years of infrastructure week, we are on the cusp of infrastructure decade that i believe will transform america. as you all know, just a short while ago, united states senate passed the infrastructure investment and jobs act.

the very legislation iran on when i announced my candidacy -- the very legislation i ran on when i announced my candidacy for president. historic investment in roads and bridges and transit come in our drinking water system and clean energy, environmental cleanup and making infrastructure more resilient and the climate crisis much more in our minds. we are -- making the same kind of investments that have made possible for americans to build the future and allow us to outcompete the rest of the world. from building the airy canal in the early 1800s -- from building the erie canal to the transcontinental railroad to the dwight eisenhower interstate

highway system, the investments have connected our entire nation and fundamentally change the pattern of life in america. to the public investments that took us to the moon and the discovery of lifesaving medicine and vaccines, that gave us the internet, america has often had the greatest prosperity and made the most progress when we invest in america itself. that is what this into structure bill does. with overwhelming support from the united states senate, 69 votes in the senate. a vote margin bigger than when the interstate highway system past the senate in 1956. host: let's hear from mount pleasant, south carolina. democrat line. caller: i think you guys are piling on too much on the governor. one wishy-washy thing.

on the one hand you pile on him. democrats are so quick to concede. you ask about the attorney general report. that is just their report. how much do we have other people like trump? i would not be so quick to pile on. i think he did more good than bad. why should people wait so long to report it? they do it because they want to pile on. they probably went along with that and now they want to change their minds. host: widely described as a pylon? -- what you described as a pile on? do you think the conclusion of the report is questionable? caller: i do. gloria made a lot of sense in my opinion. host: governor cuomo also talking about the political climate adding to the reasons of his resignation.

what you think about that aspect of it? caller: if trump can survive all that stuff he did, i think cuomo , i think he is pretty credible. he is a tough guy and he does good things. host: melvin in south carolina. we will hear next from charles in richmond, virginia. this is charles. go ahead. caller: good morning. when i do things now at the age i am and i listen to people i try to figure out why things happen. why is it that cuomo is being ostracized? cuomo last year all you saw was him on television talking about the virus. cuomo was the expert. now this year cuomo is a

villain. i'm trying to figure out why. why was he criticized like he has been criticized? i think about what the democrats do. they work in a circular firing squad. they destroyed their own people. then i think about roseanne barr. it was obvious. host: let's go back to governor cuomo. do you think he did anything wrong? caller: it revolves around the same thing. host: you think governor cuomo did anything wrong? caller: i personally do not. i think he is just a guy that does things and hugs women. most italian guys do that.

one thing we have not ever had is an entire president. you might say why are you criticizing cuomo all of a sudden. two years ago they determine to would be the next president of the united states. i will say this, we never had an italian president. host: that is charles in richmond, virginia. lieutenant governor of new york kathy hochul will now be the governor of new york, sent out this tweet. "i agree with governor cuomo's decision to step down. it is the right thing to do and in the best interest of new yorkers. as a money was served at all levels of government i am prepared to lead as new york state 57th governor." a representative from york seeing between andrew cuomo's deadly nursing home order -- his exit from albany is long overdue. he has resigned to start accountability.

he still must face consequences for his criminality. andy biggs saying governor cuomo has resigned and cnn cuomo should be next in line. covering up the deaths of thousands of senior citizens cannot be forgotten. that is some of the reaction from twitter from the lieutenant governor and people on capitol hill. joel in michigan, democrat line. caller: i think cuomo should have resigned, but i also think there is a double standard. the republicans have a couple people on their side that are accused of sexual misconduct. you do not hear of it anymore. i'm talking about matt gaetz. you do not hear of his sexual misconduct performances. it is all about the democrats. i have done some research and i do note, i've quotes i wrote

down in a notebook about how the republicans think about this kind of stuff. like rick santorum. he is quoted as saying as a woman you should just relax and enjoy it. there's representative from maine who says at least nobody got hurt. that is their attitude about it. host: joel in michigan, democrats line. international news to share out of poland, something to follow along on a different front altogether, saying residents demonstrated nationwide on tuesday against a bill widely viewed as an effort for the national party to file as a u.s. owned television broadcaster that is critical to government. the bill would prevent nonpolar shoulders from having controlling stakes and push --

many channels that operate -- the flagship even -- the flagship evening news program -- is a place for foreign companies to do business. the proposal is trading relations with united states, a key ally. a report from new york times putting out a tweet saying "it comes to these events the parliament will vote whether the one remaining independent tv station is allowed to remain on air. the government are begging and bribing members of parliament. poland can no longer be considered a democracy." something to follow along if you're interested in that kind of thing. from pittsburgh, pennsylvania, we will hear from sondra. caller: i wanted to say what governor cuomo did was despicable. let's remember four years ago

you had a reality show host get on national tv and say you can grab them by the you know what and they don't care. people put him as presidents. the republican party him as president. let's not forget what he had said. that was despicable, also. the country found it so acceptable with women to vote him in as a president of the united states, and what he said was despicable also host:. that is -- was despicable also. host: that is sandra in pennsylvania. another, this is john. caller: i do not always agree with alan dershowitz, but he is of the opinion that cuomo did not do anything that was illegal

or criminal or whatever you want to call it. the politicians always complain about kissing babies. i wonder if these children can come back and say to the public that the person to held them was a pedophile. host: do believe governor cuomo did anything wrong? caller: i do not think he did anything criminal. i did not think he should have resigned. he probably did the best thing for the state of new york by not having this thing go on and on. the thing of it is, some of these women thought they wanted to go to bed with him or something like that. you cannot file charges on someone's thinking. it is actions that speak louder than words. in this court of law, they would've laughed that person out of court as far -- a lot of these things were inference.

as far as touching goes, none of the things were at the level of rape or actual sexual abuse. host: that is john in pennsylvania. one more call from a new yorker. this is dylan, independent line. caller: speaking on governor cuomo, i was watching the press conference yesterday and texting a friend. for the first 10 minutes we were disappointed but not surprised. when he said he was stepping aside, i took away from the press conference that he disgraced the office of the governorship of new york. by continuing to fight this he went away from every oath he has taken as a governor of new york. as someone who has consistently voted democrat in this state, i question where we will be in a

2022. what people are missing as we have senate majority leader andra stewarti don't think peopg about that enough. the power vacuum that may be created with new york state's constitutional provisions where the incoming governor can appoint whoever to lieutenant governor without a vote. i don't think we are really done when it comes to the impact of cuomo in the state of new york. i really do think he disgraced the office by continuing to smear these women who, in new york politics, people knew governor cuomo was not the cleanest guy when it came to his track record. host: that is dylan from new york. we will finish out this hour of all of you participating. we turn our attention to several topics during the course of the morning. talking about matters of fiscal

affairs, about the debt limit when it comes to raising that in light of other things the federal government finances. joining us is bob bixby of the concord coalition, the executive director. later on we will hear from greg brown, senior vice president for government affairs for the national parks association discussing the if action moratorium and related matters. those conversations are coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> baltimore police commissioner michael harrison talks about police reform and crime prevention with the washington post. live coverage today at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listed on the free c-span radio app. >> c-spanshop.org.

browse to see what is new. your purchase will support our nonprofit operations. you have time to order the congressional directory with information for members of congress and the biden administration. c-spanshop.org. >> sunday night's on q&a, elizabeth becker tells the story of female vietnam war correspondents at a time when covering work was a male dominated profession. >> there was no embedding like we have now. no military censorship. it was probably the first and last uncensored american war. the south vietnamese had their censorship. it was for women a gift. it was only because of this lack of codification, this openness

that women could get through what had been the biggest barrier as a war correspondent that you were not allowed on the field. >> elizabeth becker, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. you can find all interviews were ever you get your podcasts. >> washington journal continued. host: this is bob bixby, the executive director of the concord coalition to talk about spending issues and the debt limit. good morning. guest: good morning, pedro. host: remind viewers about the concord coalition and how you are financially backed. guest: we started in 1992 by two former united states senators, paul tsongas and warren redman. former commerce secretary p peterson. the idea was to have a grassroots organization that would be based in washington but be active around the country to

focus on issues of fiscal responsibility. we are backed by people who send us donations every year. we have a fundraising dinner most years. we have not the last year or so because of the covid 19 situation. we get funding from the peter peterson foundation among others. host: i want to ask about the passage of not only the budget reconciliation but the infrastructure built. i want to start on the debt limit. it has been in the news. tell people exactly what it is and how it works. guest: sure. we have a statutory debt limit, which means there is a particular dollar cap, now around $28 trillion, he on which the treasury cannot borrow to finance the government's operations. it was originally enactedin

world war i -- enacted in world war i to facilitate government borrowing. at that time congress needed to approve every issuance of debt. they said borrow up to this limit. ironically it was meant to make it easier to borrow money. we think of it now is a way to prevent the debt from going up. that is not what it does though. i think the debt limit is very misunderstood. it does not prevent spending from going up. it does not raise taxes. it doesn't do anything to affect the policies that produce the debt, it just says to the treasury once these authorized policies take affect, you cannot pay for it beyond a certain amount. i think it's a very flawed mechanism, but it has gone back

into effect. some point in the next few months the treasury will probably not be able to issue new debt to pay its bills. host: the treasury department says technically the total of meta-money the government is authorized to borrow to meet legal obligations including social security, military salaries, tax refunds and other payments. is there a formula for how the raising of the debt limit is calculated? guest: no. it's an arbitrary number. that's another flaw with it. it has no economic significance. it is not tied to any particular budget plan. congress simply sets a number. when they bump up against it, they either raise it or suspend the debt limit, which is what they have been doing for the past several years. rather than raising it to a

particular amount suspend it -- for example, the debt limit was suspended for the past two years. from august 2019. on august 1, 2021, the debt limit reappeared. the number was the prior number plus any cumulative debt in the interim. that was the formula, which does not make a lot of sense either. so, there you go with the debt limit. host: congress is the one that determines it. one person speaking out against it was mitch mcconnell. the prospect among the new democratic many proposals he talked about. here is a portion of mitch mcconnell from monday. [video] >> i understand they sent out the treasury secretary to argue both parties have addressed the debt ceiling together. of course it is our senate

democratic colleagues who have no interest in what is historically in order. they are borrowing and -- there borrowing and spending are historically abnormal. democrats boast about how wild and revolutionary their partisan vision is. our friends across the aisle should not expect traditional bipartisan borrowing to finance their nontraditional, reckless taxing and spending spree. that is not how it is going to work. democrats have all the existing tools they need to raise the debt limit on a partisan basis. if they want 50 lockstep, cutting votes to spend trillions and trillions more, they can find 50 democratic votes to finance it. if they don't republicans, they don't need our help. host: mr. bixby, those of the statements paid by -- made by

the minority leader of the senate. how do you respond? guest: a flaw in the argument is the bills the government needs to pay now, the reason to raise the debt limit, has nothing to do with the democrats' spending proposals in the future. it's about past bills that have a key under both administrations -- administrations of both parties. we would have to raise the debt limit no matter who was in charge. if mitch mcconnell was president, we would have to raise the limit. he would be asking the democrats to help him do it. treasury secretaries of both parties realized the alternative to raising the debt limit is defaulting on u.s. government obligations, which would be not only irresponsible but hugely damaging to the nation's credit worthiness. again, i would agree with anybody who says we have a debt

problem. that is one of the central premises of the concord coalition. we have debt on an unsustainable track. what i'm arguing is that the way to deal with that is to affect the policies that produce the debt. the debt is produced by spending that is going up much faster than revenues. so, debt is on an unsustainable track. simply saying we will place a cap on the debt does not change the spending and tax policies that are producing the debt. you are left with the government saying we have authorized all this, authorized this debt, but we will just not pay for it. that turns uncle sam into a deadbeat and would affect the nation's credit worthiness. the political back-and-forth over the death limit is dangerous. it puts the nation's creditworthiness at risk and that does not help anybody.

you know, what they need to do to get the debt under control is to start cutting spending or raising revenues in a way that would produce less debt. host: bob bixby joining us to talk about the debt limit and fiscal matters. you can ask questions. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. free democrats, (202) 748-8000 -- for democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. we saw the passage of this reconciliation bill, the framework for a budget. the debt limit was not included. could it be included in that or attached to another piece of legislation? guest: the democrats could have -- they have a couple of options. they could have put debt limit instructions into the budget reconciliation. that could still happen.

the problem with that is that if you do things the reconciliation, you get to follow the reconciliation rules. because it's an exception to so-called order. in recent years congress and presidents have suspended the debt limit rather than raising it to a specific level. you can't suspend the debt limit through reconciliation. the reconciliation rules specifically say you have to raise the debt limit or -- i forget the exact language -- it says something like a specific amount. the democrats would have to raise the debt limit by x trillion. they view that as a politically difficult vote and would rather suspend the debt limit so you don't have to put a number in there.

if you go through reconciliation, you would have to specify the number. the other way to do it is through regular order, which is just put a bill on the floor that raises the debt limit or suspends the debt limit. that would be subject to a republican filibuster. they would need 60 votes. that is the route they appear to be going. it is problematic in the sense that mitch mcconnell has been making the comments he has and republicans are not inclined at this point to provide the votes the democrats would need. in standing on the sidelines of this i worry a great deal about the unintended consequences that turning the fight over fiscal policy into the government actually defaulting on its

obligations, even if it happens unintentionally, i think would be very problematic for the country. host: the wall street journal reports almost all the senators -- not all but four have signed onto a letter saying they will not help the democrats as far as the debt ceiling is concerned. what does history tell us about making these kind of statements and then actually going against that and eventually voting to increase it? guest: eventually they will vote to increase it. there may be some way of obscuring it by attaching a debt limit increase or suspension onto must-have appropriations bills. congress has got the past by september 30 funding for the next fiscal year or the government shuts down. so they could attach a debt limit.

they will not pass the appropriation bill but they will probably pass the continuing resolution, a so-called cr. they will kick the can down the road. it's possible an increase could be part of the bill. if lies under the radar screen. host: we have some calls. miguel from maryland, you are on with bob bixby. go ahead with a question or comment. caller: how is it going? thanks for having me. a few years ago, they were talking about as far as the debt is concerned about issuing trillion dollar coins from the federal government to pay down the debt. i think that's a great idea. make 20 coins or whatever. mint them. the federal government is dealing one that has power to mint money. i think it's a genius idea and he would be perfect to get rid of the debt.

guest: do you really think that would get rid of the debt? caller: they created the dollar. they created the money we have now. how else would you get rid of it? guest: i don't think it would be taken credibly by financial markets. it would get rid of the debt limit to a certain extent, so it might limit that problem. i don't think we should be looking for magic solutions. we are spending more than we take in by increasing amounts every year on autopilot. that is the problem we need to fix. host: let's hear from of you were from beaver falls, pennsylvania. marilyn. you are on. caller: -- guest: it could be. probably not the kind of stimulus check that went out under the recovery act.

i don't think that is part of the new budget resolution. i think the democrats plan to continue the child tax credit that was passed in the rescue plan. they would like to extend that for a few more years. some would like to make it permanent. those checks will probably continue. host: we saw the cbo tell the senate if the passage of the infrastructure built took place, they would be debt accumulative with that. many republicans signing on yesterday to support that. what do you think of that move by republicans? guest: it's interesting. anybody who voted for that bill refuses to raise the debt limit, they really need to take a hard look in the mirror. that bill, according to cbo, would increase the debt by $256 billion.

if you are at the debt limit, how can you say we will vote for this bill that authorizes -- result in more deficits? the treasury cannot pay the bills. there has to be some consistency in thinking. i wish they had done more to pay for the infrastructure built. -- bill. there is an argument for roads and bridges and that sort of thing, you might not have to pay for it immediately because it 's an investment that will pay dividends over time. very few people would say the bill would pay for itself. i think they should have done more on the pay for side. some of the pay fors they used were kinda gimmicky. to get back to your question, which is a good one, if you just

voted for a big bill the cbo says will increase the deficit and you are saying will refuse to raise the debt limit, there's a fundamental inconsistency there. host: to redo the treasury secretary janet yellen's statement on the increase, "it does not increase the government's spending. it allows treasury to pay for previously enacted expenditures. it was in recent years that congress addressed the debt limit to regular order with broad bipartisan support." you think that could be future going forward -- feature going forward? guest: treasury secretary's have issued similar letters when we are running up against the debt limit. host: janice in massachusetts, independent line. you are on with bob bixby of the concord coalition. caller: i am tired of the democrats and republicans going

overboard with our money. i am so sick of them. they can all go scratch a nickel. host: the court of public opinion when it comes to these discussions. guest: exactly. it is understandable that people would be upset about running huge deficits. the last year we had a deficit, the annual shortfall. not talking about the accumulated total debt. the annual shortfall was around $3 trillion last year. it will be about $3 trillion this year. those are huge numbers. that was unusual because of the pandemic. there was a huge amount of emergency spending needed because the economy shut down and we had the health care emergency. these last couple of years are

not the years you want to focus on when thinking about the fiscal situation the government is actually in. what worries me is when the effect of the pandemic spending fade we are still at a point where we will be running trillion dollar plus deficits over the next decade and getting bigger and bigger. the budget was on an unsustainable track before the pandemic hit. it will be back on an unsustainable track after the pandemic fades. we need to focus on that. host: tony asks why is the debt limit separate from authorizations? when we set them, we are told spending is paid for in the limit will be set in the phony accounting would have consequences. guest: i think that is one of the options they should look at. the problem with the deadly limit is it is unconnected to the decisions that produce the debt. the questioner asked a good one.

if you raise spending or cut taxes and is estimated to increase the debt, should the debt limit go up by that amount? i think that would be a good amendment. host: howard and saulsberry, north yolanda, democrats line -- north carolina, democrats line. caller: i have a comment into question. i know there is a lot of other americans in debt. if they are going to be in debt, which republicans always talk about when the democrats are president, the debt, but if america is going to be in debt, let them be in debt for the people. like health care for all, or schooling for all. let's be in debt for fair housing for all. you know what happens? we are in debt partially because

we give the one 1% of citizens of america debt-free money. give us an idea of some of these corporations, how much money they are not spending back into america. thank you. guest: i don't have a specific estimate on that. it is probably a matter of subjective analysis of how much should or should not be reinvested. i think the caller points out that we need to have a debate when we talk about federal money and federal debt about what it is being used for. that is what they should be talking about. that's a perfectly legitimate argument the caller is making. debt for a particular reason that he supports is -- you

would have people arguing for lower taxes. it would be good for the economy to have lower taxes. that kind of political debate on where our physical priorities should be is what we should be doing. my point is whatever we decide, it needs to add up to a sustainable path so if you enact a lot of new spending programs, if you wanted to look at the budget resolutions, potential reconciliation bill we have coming up, and it will enact a lot of new spending programs if they want to. the key is it is not so much of good programs at bad programs, but if you want to enact them the need to be a sustainable, solid revenue source that would pay for them and not just think you can run ever rising debt to pay for whatever you want to do.

same is true on the tax side. republicans have been cutting taxes. the latest was 2017. let's have our policy debate, but make sure whatever we decide is done within a fiscal responsibly framework so it adds up over time. host: we have probably seen the national debt clocks when it talks about the level of debt. $28 trillion plus. this breaks it down to about $86,000 per person. how much does the individual -- who owes other debt? who were the main holders of the debt and how much of that is the individual person? guest: the number of debt per person, your share, is an abstract. it is not like you individually owe that much money. it is just trying to break the number down into something that

sounds a little bit more useful to people than -- more understandable than $28 trillion. we used to have a debt clock that we took around the country to do events. sometimes people would come up and say that number, that $28 trillion, what is your family's share? cannot write a check for that and then i am free and don't have to worry about it anymore? it doesn't work that way. we all own the debt in the sense that u.s. federal taxpayers have to pay for the interest costs on the debt. in terms of who holds it, mostly by investors. it is held by savers. a lot of companies that have pension funds, insurance funds want to hold u.s. debt because it is safe and sound investments

as long as people don't go around defaulting on the debt by refusing to raise the debt limit. also, we have about 33% of the debt is owned by foreign countries and foreign investors. there is that part of the debt as well. host: here is for bob bixby, keith in maryland on the republican line. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: i'm from fargo, north dakota. host: go ahead. caller: we have spent how much money on two wars with iraq? why do we make them pay up so we can get our debt down? if they don't want to pay out, let's collect some oil from them. do something.

between the bushes and their wars, that is how we ended up with a lot of problems right there. host: that is keith. mr. bixby, go ahead. guest: the war is over. we did spend a lot of money on iraq and afghanistan both. that did increase defense spending. generally speaking, war reparations tend not to be a good idea, coming back to people and saying now pay up. many historians would argue war reparations after world war i helped lead to world war ii. it is not, again, that sort of thing would not care our overall

structural deficit between the money coming in and the money going out. i guess what i would say is a lot of the people who made those decisions to initiate those military -- felt they would be doing it for the safety of the united states. people can argue about that until the cows come home. i'm not taking sides when we are the other. that is another way of looking at that money. host: we have been focusing on the policies of this administration. going back to the last administration, how much debt they did accrue? what did it add to the deficit and what was that attributable to? are there other factors? guest: i'm not sureguest: i can break that down specifically. i think the trump administration added about $7 trillion to the debt. don't hold me to that if i'm a

few hundred billion dollars off. part of it was the tax-cut, but certainly not anywhere near all of it. a lot of it was new spending and a lot of it was just baked into the cake. this is the fundamental point. we have a lot of programs that run on autopilot that are growing. medicare, social security, medicaid. because the population is aging and health care costs rise, the cost goes up every year. revenues don't keep pace so you get a larger deficit then debt -- deficit and debt every year. when trump took office you had an escalating deficit and debt. i believe the administration added to that.

some of that, an important part of it is it is already baked into the cake. we will add debt even if we do nothing. host: ray in pennsylvania, independent line. ray in clinton, pennsylvania, hello? let's go to jim in indiana, democrats line. caller: first of all good morning to you, good morning mr. bixby. a couple of questions and to verify my own beliefs. all these tax cuts we have been dealing with over the last 50 years has obviously, in my opinion, created a lack of revenue. that is our spending source. the second thing i think has led to this is the inability to downsize government to manageable numbers. you mentioned if we don't pass

the continuing resolution in september, the government shuts down. these happen months at a time. we are probably too big the way it is and that he simplifies the fact that maybe there are too many programs, too many employees and kind of thing. that there think -- third thing i hope you could help me with his i'm trying to read an article about wealthy people using their property and our collections and cars as collateral to borrow money from banks so they don't have to pay capital improvement taxes -- capital investment taxes. i wondered if he could speak on that last one as well. guest: i think your fundamental point is the right one, which is we need to look at spending and revenues. we, instead of looking at the

ways to keep spending under control or coming in at the same level as revenues so you have a sustainable fiscal policy, we are going the opposite direction. it is not surprising we have a debt problem. on the last point you made, i am not terribly familiar with the specifics of that. i apologize for -- i don't know about that particular tax maneuver. it does point out there certainly are provisions in the tax code that allow people to legally avoid paying higher tax. there is a lot of manipulation that can go on. much of it is legal. that is the problem. i do think we need to enact

measures that would simplify the tax code, get rid of the incentives that exist for people to limit -- to avoid taxation. host: when it comes to the reconciliation package, the efforts to raise revenue, you've heard about raising corporate taxes, taxing certain individuals, giving the irs more power. what are you -- irs more power. guest: those are options that ought to be on the table. to corporate income tax rate was cut of the 2017 tax cuts. it went way below what people were talking about. the obama administration proposed a rate reduction from 35% to 28%. originally the tax bill talked about maybe taking it down to 25%. then went all the way down to

21% or 22%. i think he came up to 22% in the end. at any rate it seemed to be more of a politically motivated target then when that was necessitated by, you know, considerations of competitiveness and the economy. let me just -- the other thing. there are a lot of things of people talking about the tax gap. the difference between what taxes are owed and what taxes are paid. if you enhance the irs enforcement, can you get some of that money back? the answer is probably yes. probably not as much as proponents would like, like hundreds of billions of dollars. there certainly is room to improve the tax collection and bring in money that is already legitimately owed. host: as far as the expectation, as far as bringing in -- what

the hope is, what is the difference? why can't that be met? guest: there is a lot of hopefulness and optimism about money that could be collected that is not currently being paid. it takes a lot of money to track that down. you can have a situation where you are estimating a certain amount of tax -- exceeding. -- excuse me. there is a certain amount of revenue coming in because of tax avoidance. you have to track it down. that requires a lot of effort. the irs does recoup some of that. how much you are actually going to bring in on a net basis, i have seen projections you could get in $600 billion to $700

billion over 10 years. it is more likely to be a much lower number, maybe $100 billion. we should try to do that but don't expect that it's a real gusher of new revenue. host: ray on the independent line. caller: good morning, jonathan. mr. bixby, i would like to ask a question about -- i think you should enlighten the american people. a lot of people think the government owns money. they do not. the fed at a bunch of bankers print this currency. they are now buying treasuries, which is dangerous. you are printing money out of thin air that has no value and they are buying the currency. the debt is not owned by people anymore like different countries are not buying our debt. janet yellen was on here in 2017 on this program. she told the senate banking

committee you have got to quit spending money. we can't afford to keep renting this money. janet yellen said that. lately she said we have to open up the printing presses because she is back in the business again. i think what is going to happen here, this money will become worthless one day. the fed owns the money. they are not regulating. ron paul has been trying to get an audit on these people for years. there is no audit. we don't know how much was printed. you only get your information from the fed. all this stuff you are telling me, -- the american government does not own the money. host: let's let our guests respond. -- guest respond. guest: the fed has a difficult task. there is a huge pandemic and the government is shoveling money

out the door to respond to it. i believe that's a legitimate thing for the government to do in the face of a huge emergency. the fed, which does apply the money, is caught in the situation of how much is too much. when do you begin to pull back so you don't lead to a situation where you have great inflation? right now this is kind of an unprecedented situation. they are trying to determine when is the right time to begin scaling back and stop purchasing those securities and keeping interest rates very low. if you continue these policies, you would eventually cause damage through inflation. the fed has been saying they are

not concerned about inflation right now. they think it is temporarily high but it will come down and that is something we will have to see how that plays out. i can't tell you that i know exactly. i do know we can't keep the easy money policies we have in place now once the pandemic fades. i think the fed would actually agree with that. where you draw the line is some people think it's already gone too far and others say it should continue. you can't keep borrowing indefinitely and shoveling money into the economy indefinitely forever without it causing some harm to the nation's -- to the dollar, the value of the dollar and the inflation to the economy.

anyway, -- host: concordcoalition.org robert bixby serves as the executive director. guest: thank you very much, pedro. host: coming up, greg brown, senior vice president -- discusses the eviction moratorium. later on, mark hayward, professor from the university of texas talking about life expectancy. that's coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. you will find events and people -- book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. it is television for serious readers.

learn, discover, explore, weekends on c-span2. ♪ ♪ >> british writer charles dickens's credit with creating some of the world's best-known fictional characters. over 2000 for that matter, scattered throughout his 14.5

published novels. american authors and politicians often refer to situations as being dickensian. jenny hartley, abydos professor at pro-hapten university in london has published three books on charles dickens. the most recent "a very short introduction" by oxford press. we asked her to tell us about dickens's life and encompass meant. >> jenny hartley on this episode of book notes plus. listen at c-span.org/podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ washington journal continues. host: joining us is greg brown from the national apartment association. thank you for joining us this morning. guest: good to be here. host: who do you represent?

guest: the national apartment association is a federation of apartment associations around the country. we represent property owners and managers of all shapes and sizes, from the smallest with a single unit under management up to the largest firms in the business. we represent every different segment of rental housing. all different kinds, all different shapes and sizes. host: we have talking about the eviction moratorium, the previous one put in by the biden administration. the current one put in place by the biden administration. through the cdc. what do they do for those you represent? guest: we oppose eviction moratoriums as a tool to deal with this housing crisis from covid. what we have seen over the last 15 months is what we fear most. rental debt keeps piling up, both for residents and for owners. it's important to understand a

little about the industry. half of our industry are mom-and-pop's. about 22 million units are represented by those types of owners. they operate on a very thin margin. only $.10 of every dollar actually goes to the owner of a property. everything else goes to someone else, the mortgage, the taxes, the salaries, those types of things. when you go for months without getting rent, it places your whole financial solvency at risk. a lot of owners have been in that very situation. they are hanging on by their fingernails. it is bad for their business, bad for housing affordability long-term, and bad for residents. they have a pile that they have to eventually pay off and it will be due. we believe those policies are bad for everyone all around. host: as far as a landlord is confirmed -- concerned, what can they do under the moratoriums if a person is behind on the rent? guest: what they have been doing

is working with their residents, communicating with residents, talking to them about the situation and figure out a way to help them through the pandemic. from the beginning our members have been helping people with payment plans, protecting them with socials -- connecting them with social service organizations. some have created programs to help people bridge between the start of the pandemic, they could get employed again. our members are doing everything they can with their residents to carry them through this so we can come out on the other side at some point. host: as far as actual evictions, they cannot take place under what is the current administration? guest: you cannot physically remove someone, that's correct. they have to file ac/dc form that declares -- a cdc form that declares they are affected by covid. host: when it comes to

coming into the qualifications, can anyone get it or do they have to meet specific qualifications? guest: you have to be impacted by covid, and there are some income limits. if you make up to $99,000 as an individual, you are covered by the order. host: we have heard from the administration. it was to give the government more time to get money to the states to turn to the tenants themselves. what is the difficulty as far as getting the money out to the states? guest: the money has gotten to the states. the first 25 billion dollars approved last december was distributed to grantees quickly, within 45 days of the passage of the bill. that challenge has not been the government getting the money to the grantees, is the money getting to the residents and property owner. you have an inconsistent experience.

in virginia, colorado, good programs, solid processes working with landlords and residents. the money has been flowing fairly good. utah is another good example. unfortunately they are the minority. most are struggling to get the money out. there are a lot of different reasons. some of the pay or bureaucratic requirements the program has in place can take time to filter through for residents and owners. some of these grantees have never operated a rental assistance program before. it has been a struggle to get it operational. other places are bit of self infliction. michigan and new york the legislatures got involved. in new york, they only started out giving money out in the last 30 days. it has been a struggle. we are less than $4 billion

allocated out of the total $47 billion provided by congress and the president. we are struggling. our job is to help grantees help the admin's ration find the spots to improve the process and that is what we have been trying to do. host: treasury offers information on the money coming out. about 12% of that emergency rental assistance distributed after six months. that is some of the information. greg brown joining us for this conversation. you can call and make your comments known for the renters out there -- make your comments known. renters, (202) 748-8000. landlords, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text at (202) 748-8003. your organization has filed a suit against the biden administration. can you discuss that? guest: sure. you do the math about how much a

unpaid rents is out there versus what the government provided, the suit is to make sure landlords and residents are made whole. there are about 26 billy dollars and uncovered rent debt that is outstanding. -- $28 billion in uncovered rent debt that is outstanding. subtracting with the government allocated, you're left with a proximally $26.6 billion. -- approximately $26.6 billion. we cannot let the debt go by. those folks have got to be made whole. residents have got to be made whole. the feature of affordability is at stake here if those folks do not come out on the other side financially solvent. the other matter is we don't think the cdc had the right to take this action. that is part of our lawsuit as

well, challenging go right to take this action. host: what exactly are you seeking? guest: we are seeking that landlords that have not been able to recover can be made whole at this process. how a provided with some information about their losses. you cannot double dip. you cannot take a loss on somewhere where you are taking rental assistance. certain states are not eligible to be part of the lawsuit because they have evicted moratoriums that were stricter than the federal moratorium. the process works its way through. if a judge agrees -- i'm not an attorney -- if a judge agrees with us, no individual landlords would receive compensation from the federal government for the losses. host: one of the people talking about the moratorium was representative cori bush. one thing she talked about is what it could be facing in the

course. we will play what she has to say and then get your response to it. [video] >> your efforts resulted in a 60-date of eviction freezer people living in areas with higher substantial covid transmission, which basically covers almost the whole country now. even president biden said he is not sure whether this move is constitutional. it's facing legal challenges. if the courts strike it down, what is the next move? >> that is why i rushed back to st. louis to make sure that -- we have been saying it nationally. we have to do the work now to get this money out. we have to do the work to make sure our states and local governments are able to release this money, get this money into the hands of the people who need it the most. we are telling tenants and landlords to go online porsche up at the country and apply for

this money. and for the local governments and states, please get this money out. in 60 days -- 60 days, we may not have. we are pushing hard to make sure people apply. we keep hearing, especially locally, people are not applying. there have been barriers to people applying in those resources able to be moved. we are working out the kinks right now. host: mr. brown, how do you respond? guest: we agree with what she says. is the single most important thing you can do, to get this money into the hands of those folks that need it. i agree with the congresswoman. there are barriers to people applying. it can be intimidating for residents and small landlords. you are asking for a lot of documentation that is difficult to obtain or just makes people nervous to provide some of these things if you are a resident.

you are facing all this process and its intimidating. they need to get into the community and educate people about the programs, make them comfortable and get them to apply. the grantees have to make sure the money can actually flow. some of the requirements as far as documentation of someone's eligibility, income, covid impact, this contributes to slowing down the process. the treasury department ought to be exploring ways to streamline that even further so the funds can flow more quickly. host: there was a hearing earlier on july 27. represented jim clyburn. he says the failure of some large landlord companies to comply with the eviction moratorium is grading significant hardship for tenants affected by the coronavirus crisis and could contribute to

the housing crisis as the nation recovers from the pandemic and its economic fallout. guest: we provide guidance to our members into the industry about how to comply with the cdc order. every housing provider ought to be complying. there is a new wrinkle with this new 60-day extension. it is connected to community transmission of covid-19. there is a new element you have to be checking with the cdc portal to see where your local community is and those kind of things. until courts decide those of the rules so we our members to follow those. in terms of participating in rental assistance programs, i have to say the point of the emergency rental program was to move money from here to there. that is residents and housing providers to get them past this. some grantees decided it's an opportunity to add other things

that become disincentives for landlords to participate. taking away some of their future rights to manage their properties, providing less than 100% of compensation for rent that has not been paid, and the bureaucratic process itself. we have encouraged our members to participate in this program. we also hear back, i want to do that but i'm being asked to accept things that have nothing to do with emergency rental assistance. the process is not very friendly. i understand hesitation among housing providers and landlords participating. we continue to encourage them to do their best to get into the process. there are two sides to this equation. the landlord needs to participate and so does the resident. we are hearing story after story of residents that start the process but don't complete the process or they will not communicate at all. this is a real challenge. there are many residents that have stopped communicating with

her housing providers altogether. since the rules are they have to participate, no rental assistance can flow to that unit or individual without their participation. landlords are left to do without a lot of options. host: this is darrell in greenville, north carolina, on the line for others with greg brown from the national apartment association. caller: what i don't understand is a lot of these employers right now are struggling to get employees back to work. they will not give back to work with the federal subsidy unemployment and stay on appointment. they are making more money sitting at home on their butt. if they're making more money not working, why should they be paying rent to begin with? guest: i would say the point about the number of jobs out there and available, that's a cause for positive feelings for

us. it means the economy is coming back. we are hoping that will help folks get back on track with paying the rent. in the interim there is clearly a gap where people have been unable to pay. some of this is going back nine months, 12 months. consider that. we have tens of billions of dollars out there. the programs can bring people current. people having more opportunities can take care of us going forward. host: tom from connecticut, good morning. caller: good morning. in connecticut, the application -- my landlord will not cooperate with me. i have written letters. i've disabled, 77, i've had covid.

in connecticut, the application is basically by telephone. i am working with an entity called access agency. it is a nonprofit, or a not-for-profit agency. there is no paper backup. it is very, very frustrating because i want to pay my back rent. additionally, in february when i got covid and i got my shots shortly after that, i kept getting notice from the landlord. i saved all the paperwork. in connecticut, they don't accept paper applications. host: ok, tom. we will let our guests respond toguest: that is an interesting

situation. in terms of the process itself, this is one of the things we have been you have that flexibility here for application. not everybody has the same access to resources in terms of computers or whatever it might be to do? -only processing. -- to do digital-only processing. i'm hoping that is just a bad communication to the community in terms of how you apply. i can't speak to how the housing provider is not communicating with you. there could be any number of reasons for that. we are encouraging our members and providers to communicate with residents, grantees, and do the best they can with the programs as they are, understanding there are challenges that make it difficult for owners to engage in the process. host: let's say in a perfect

world that all of the applications are filed and everybody participates. what is the turnaround time before a renter gets money and how much of that is provided? guest: it varies. it varies widely. in some places -- i heard an anecdote yesterday where a grantee set up a system or a resident arrives at a courthouse, the grantee would have a representative. they would process the application with the housing provider on the spot and that housing provider would be paid within 14 days. the provider told me that was happening. 14 days, payment was received. other places it can take weeks or months, because of young's like trying to verify someone's income. one of the fears i believe is out there among grantees is that they're going to put money somewhere they should not have and be audited.

there is a lot of fear. because of that, there is a lot of oversight being built in and that drags the process out. it varies widely. some grantees, like utah or virginia, they are already paying forward for rent in the future. it varies. host: what guarantees that the money provided by the government makes it to the homeowner/provider? guest: i don't know about guarantees. there is supposed to be a process set up where we contract. as a housing provider i say resident a has this much in outstanding arrears, then i submit that to the grantee during the tenant does their part, and there is a record that i have arrears debt for that resident that i can show to the grantee. the process should be set up, and amongst the most sophisticated grantees i think this is happening. you contract that and there is a

clear record of everything having been done. it's not going to work that way everywhere, unfortunately. that is the objective. host: this is frank. frank is from pennsylvania. ahead, please. -- go ahead, please. caller: good morning. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: me and my girlfriend, she owns a trailer. we rent the lot. i don't have issues at the moment, with everything going on i don't want to be stuck, you know? host: ok. guest: go ahead. host: he is done. guest: i think i would say any renter or resident that is having any kind of challenge but is struggling to find the solution to that, there is a portal -- excuse me, the

consumer financial protection bureau website, for all assistance programs across the country. if you are thinking, where do i go for help? it is real simple. it is on the homepage for the cfpb. you can put in your zip code and it will pull up the local grantee for rental assistance. i encourage anybody during what to do to start their and you can get the information you need. host: some qualifications set up by the cdc. that person that needs help may have to make the best effort to obtain all government assistance or available assistance. earning no more than $99,000 during the 2021 calendar year. unable to pay due to loss, layoff, or extreme medical expenses. eviction would likely render the individual homeless. another one is, to reside in the u.s. county experiencing

substantial or high rates of covid transmission. what do you think about those qualifications, mr. brown? guest: i mean, in the context of what the cdc is attempting to do they certainly fit with model they have put out there. you know, as i said, the difference between the new order and old one is this transmission piece. that is an additional wrinkle. it ultimately comes down to a declaration by a resident that they fit all of those criteria. i will point out one thing. the income eligibility requirements for the assistance programs are cap that 80% of area median income. you do not qualify if you make more than 80% of the area median income. there is a significant gap between that number and the cdc income guideline of $99,000 per individual.

in some communities there has been this cap created of people that are covered by the cdc order but not eligible for rental assistance. that can be a real challenge for providers, because then i don't have -- as a provider i'm left with, where do i encourage my residents to get their emergency assistance? i would point out that piece. host: our guest is greg brown. he is with the national apartment association. this is denise from albany. hello. caller: hi. i am wondering why is it that -- before i got into the situation i'm in now, which i owe money to a landlord -- i wanted to go rent another apartment, because the landlord don't want me here because he is selling the building. i'm looking for an apartment, and they are asking for credit

checks. your credit got to be good. this is ridiculous. everywhere you go that is how it is. i don't understand, where my supposed to go to? i'm supposed to be living in the street? i don't know what to do. guest: i mean, that is a very difficult situation, denise. i understand what you are saying and the options can be difficult in that scenario where a housing provider is selling a building. unfortunately during the current covid crisis it is happening more and more, because many small-sized owners are leaving the business because they cannot afford to be in the business anymore. the covid crisis has been particularly bad as well, so they have had to sell the property. in terms of your options, it is difficult for me to give you a specific recommendation, because i don't know the local circumstances, the good news is the housing community in almost every local community has a lot of resources can help people

find options. this is going to sound empty, but i would encourage you to try to access those if you can. i am sympathetic to your plight, because a lot of people are facing a challenge. host: how much weight does a credit check play into a renter getting a place? guest: it plays a role. how much depends on each housing provider. they are all different. risk management for housing providers is very important and they look at many factors. to ensure that whom they are going to lease, that person is going to be able to pay the rent and be a good resident. it varies as to how much of a role it plays, but it does play a role for most providers. host: from alabama, a landlord. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on with our guest. go ahead, please. caller: i'm not a landlord, i'm a resident in alabama.

my question is, right now i only get 794 dollars a month in disability. all of us out here that is getting a check, our rent is more than a check. we are getting told that there is no funds available for us. if it were not for my fiance i would be on the street. what do we do from there? guest: thank you for the question. i don't know who is telling you there is not resources for folks in alabama. there are resources for every state in the country. i was answering the earlier question, if you have access to wi-fi and a computer, even on your phone you can go to the cfp b website and put in where you are living. their job is to put money out to

folks who need it to help you, not just with rent you may own, but rent you need going forward. you can get assistance and work with a provider. there are resources for every state and there is a grantee for every state. the resources are significant. no one should be saying there is no resources for you. i would encourage you to find that grantee and connect with them. host: the current moratorium expires in early october. what happens after that? if a person is found with back rent or a landlord has to be forced to evict a person? guest: our members have said to us if someone is communicating with them they are going to work with them until the end of this process to keep them in their unit. this comes down to communication. if you are a resident and you are in trouble -- you can't find a job, you have been affected by covid, you have rent, whatever it may be -- talk to your

housing provider and work out a plan with them. if you need help accessing rental assistance, do that so you can get the resources you need. that is the first thing. for those housing providers who have residents who have been uncommunicative -- and these are stories we hear often. for whatever reason, if it is fear of talking to the provider, in some cases people taking advantage of the cdc order, there are few options but to pursue eviction. they have to be able to reclaim the unit and get someone in that unit who can pay and wants to pay, whether it is with federal resources or with their own resources. there will be evictions when the moratorium expires. like i said, at least from our membership what i hear is, it is worse for me to evict someone and to keep them where they are. that is always the last resort. i'm going to do everything i can to keep that person where they

are. for those that don't leave me any other choice, i will have to pursue that. host: and about state moratoriums that exist? guest: those remain. new jersey has a moratorium that lasts through january. california, various jurisdictions have moratoriums. those do not change. the cdc is an overlay. everything else remains after it expires. host: this next call is from florida on our line for others. hello. caller: good morning, how are you? i have a question and i am not a renter, but i want to know how landlords are going to afford to pay their mortgage if people don't pay their rent. guest: thanks for the question. it is the single question they asked me, when my members call me.

one of my supposed to do? many of them have been -- have made very difficult choices. especially those mom and pops, they are borrowing money separately. they are using credit cards. they are doing whatever they can do to make that mortgage payment, because, you know, banks are being flexible, but they can only be so flexible and only for so long. you are asking the number one question, and the other question that my members are asking is, how do i pay my people? if they have people employed, its workers, leasing agents, custodial, all of those folks that help make these properties run. what about them? you are asking the right question. if the rent is not coming in, and it is very, very difficult to do that. host: from oklahoma, our line for others. we will hear from wayne. caller: i wanted to ask mr.

brown, with all of the money the government has issued, the extra unemployment and stuff, why there are so many people who failed to pay their rent? guest: i wish i had an answer for you. it is a difficult one. i don't know. there have been quite a few financial resources out there for families and individuals that are struggling during covid. everybody's situation is different, and we presume there are very good reasons why people are unable to pay. rankly all we are concerned with is finding the resources to help them pay the rent. host: this is a viewer from twitter asking about an economic question. can you explain the doubling of rental costs? especially consider the wages -- considering the wages that have stagnated? guest: that gets to a much larger issue, which is the lack of supply. housing affordability is the category of issues we have

placed this topic into. we have not been building enough rental housing for a very long time to meet the need. it is very basic economics. not enough supply and a whole lot of demand. prices are going to go up. it had been happening for years. covid has made it worse, certainly. the economics are, need to build more housing, more rental housing at all price points. almost every community in the country, everybody has a varying level of impact, but that's where we need to focus. that is another setback -- set of advocacy we are working on to bring down barriers to develop new housing, get more supply into the market. that is what is going to bring rents down. we have to keep our eye on the long-term issues too. host: this is a renter. hello. caller: hi. i wanted to say, a lot of these rents are not in sync with

people's wages and salaries. people making $15 per hour, i will even say $20. i live in an area, it wasn't always like this. rents are anywhere between $1600, up to about $2000 a month. it was not always like this. then the place has these master meters, and the water, sewer, and heat, they split the bill amongst how many people are in the building. there is like, 13, 15 buildings out here. we have to pay. the problem is, some of the apartments have double families and everything in it. i don't think they should be allowed -- a complex this size, a little single house someone divided into part -- divided into apartments, fine, but not

in complexes. i think it should be individual. people who play to the rules and only have the amount of people in their that are supposed to be living, we are paying for their water and heat. host: that was it jan, a renter. mr. brown, go ahead. guest: i hear what you are saying. when markets change, when communities change, and they become more popular, have more demand, prices will go up. it goes back to that supply problem. the answer to that is to get more supply into the market, to get more construction of rental housing. there may be a credo -- may be a greater need in that community. there is a lot of great programs for that. on the water question, you are getting master meters where you split the cost of utilities across all units, i understand what you are describing. it can be an issue with the

vintage of the building. sub-metering is everybody pays what they use. i can see where that could happen. some buildings are not able to be sub-metered. state laws and local laws regarding how you handle utilities, billing, and how they are metered is different by each community. that can be complicated and frustrating. host: this is a tweet saying, i would hope landlords and tenants would work out induced rent payments. guest: well, certainly payment plans are a big part of what our members have been doing since the start of covid to help residents get through the process. some of that is differing rent to later. as far as reducing rents altogether, that is not -- an owner builder property, purchases a property on a certain set of financial assumptions. those are that the rents being

charged covered the costs to make that property run. negotiating a lower rent, that is something an individual owner could pursue, but ultimately it becomes a matter of, is that the right community for that individual at that price point? if it is not, it is better for that individual to find an alternative community that fits their needs. that is the way the market works. or at least it should. we have price points so that people can find what fits best for them. host: let's hear from one more caller. this is darrell in williamsburg, virginia read -- virginia. good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a domestic partner situation where after a while i was literally put out of the mystic partner situation, and

because i am on social security and low income i have been unable to get a place to live, and there are other circumstances with the credit check and the application fees and things like that that are mounting up. i still don't have a place to live. i'm trying to work things out, but my domestic partner is not cooperating with me and not allowing me to do anything other than just get out and leave. guest: i'm sorry for that situation. that sounds incredibly hard to work through, obviously. i don't know what the solution is, they do know that you happen to be in a state that has a very good emergency rental assistance

program and has a very good infrastructure of social service organizations. i hate to be a broken record, but what it sounds like is that you have had an impact on your personal financial situation during covid and that help could be provided through emergency rental assistance or something else. i would encourage you to pursue that. in virginia it is almost a one stop shop -- it is a two-stop shop and there are resources there. i don't know your situation well enough to know if that would solve the issue, certainly it can help. the key is to get resources. in the virginias case they have done a good job. host: the website is naahq.org for the national apartment association. mr. brown, thank you for your time today. guest: really appreciate the opportunity. host: our next guest is going to talk about a new report that

shows there is a decline in u.s. life expectancy. mark hayward of the university of texas at austin joins us when washington jumped -- when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> sunday, c-span series january 6 continues. three more members of congress share stories of what they saw, heard, and experienced that day, including dean phillips of minnesota. >> at that moment, when the capitol police officer announced we should take cover, i stood up at the back of the gallery on the second level. representative gosar was objecting to the slate of electors. at that moment i shouted out at the top of my lungs, this is because of you. i screamed it. this is because of you!

and i think i was representing four years of angst and anxiety and anger. many of us saw this coming from a mile away. i think i represented probably millions of americans who felt the same way. at that very moment the entire country, including myself, recognized the fragility of our democracy. i have a great appreciation for the traditions in the the congress and decorum. i do not like to violate it, that i do not regret it, because it was what i was feeling and it was four years of pent-up anxiety about what was transpiring. >> this week you will also hear from jamie raskin of maryland and brian fitzpatrick of pennsylvania. january 6, used from the house, sunday night at 10:00 eastern on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: this is mark hayward, he is a professor of sociology at the university of texas at austin. professor, thanks for giving us your time today. guest: you're welcome, thank you. host: what would you say is life expectancy and what is it based on? guest: life expectancy usually is a summary matrix indicator. it is based on the current mortality rates of people from birth to death. hypothetically it says, if a baby was born today, how long would they live if the current mortality rates persisted throughout their lifetime? essentially it is a model, an indicator, but it is clearly unrealistic because mortality will change over time. host: is there an average? guest: it is the expected value. it is like a mean.

host: an explanation. guest: when you say the life expectancy of someone is 25, it says on average, for the average person who is alive at a specific age, this is what their expected life would look like. if those rates persisted throughout the remainder of their lives. host: you were quoted on a new report, or information that came out from the cdc when it took a look at life expectancy showing an overall decline. could you talk about what that report found? guest: the overall report said that the life expectancy dropped about 1.5 years in the united states for the entire population for the year that was covered by the pandemic. basically, 2020 is what the report covers. it brackets the change of life expectancy from the beginning of

the year to the end of the year. then it went into the kind of life expectancy changes for major ethnic groups. for black americans and hispanic americans, and it also talked about the types of -- the role of covid deaths in -- that they played in the decline of life expectancy. it also talked about other kinds of deaths each offset covid deaths and had we not had improvements in some aspects of our mortality the effects of covid would have been even greater. host: one of the comparisons made from the release of this information, the biggest drop since world war ii. what do you think that comparison? guest: i think that is a fair comparison. if you think about what world war ii means, it means there was a disaster that happened. it was a shock to our population. that is exactly what the

pandemic is, it is a major shock to our mortality. we haven't seen that kind of drop in the life expectancy since world war ii. in a modern country we expect that life expectancy will continue to improve over time. and we see these kinds of dramatic drops in life expectancy, that is cause for concern, because it says realistically some people in some groups are facing quite high risks, unusual, and they appeared rapidly. that is the nature of covid in the pandemic. host: our guest with us to talk about these latest trends. he is michael hayward of the university of texas at austin. you can ask them questions on this report and the information there. you can call us at (202) 748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for the mountain and pacific time zones. professor, we talked about the impact of covid when it comes to these jobs.

aside from that, were there other factors? guest: in terms of the decline in life expectancy, we saw some additional contributions from drug poisoning. the opioid epidemic continues to percolate along, as it did before covid. then we had some increases in accidents and homicides. those were kind of small potatoes in comparison to covid. to some extent i actually wonder if the effects are not greater than we are seeing, because it took us a while to actually measure covid deaths with some degree of accuracy. as we got better at identifying deaths on the death certificates. host: is this measured by deaths directly related to covid or deaths because of associated factors to covid? is that measured in there? guest: this is death due to

covid. code, so we are not talking about overall increases of mortality through that time period. what we call excess mortality. we are dealing with cause of death on the death certificate. host: when it comes to groups impacted by what the cdc's data show -- hispanics, black americans -- how did they factor into these numbers? guest: if you think about magnitude of the problem in populations it was about three years in decline of life expectancy for hispanics, and about the same amount in black americans too. when we say 1.5 years is a big drop, three years is a much bigger drop. you see the disproportionate impact of covid on these two minority populations. that kind of rearranged what we think about as the mortality disparities between groups. for african-americans, they been

closing the gap with whites for some time. all of a sudden the cap drastically widened next to covid. for hispanics, there mortality was actually better. their life expectancy was better than whites. what their increased mortality -- they essentially closed the gap between hispanics and whites. host: how often is this type of data looked at, and would trends change depending on where we are as far as vaccination availability and who takes it and other factors there? guest: yeah. what we are seeing is kind of a mixture. when you see the mortality over the entire time period, we have different phases of the pandemic. we had the phases where it was on the east coast and there was no vaccination, then it spread into different parts of the

country. our ethnic groups are not randomly distributed. they are concentrated in certain geographic areas. as the pandemic moves, their experience changes as well. then, of course, you got to the latter part of the pandemic where we are beginning to see the effects of the vaccines. that is also rearranging the kind of inequality we are seeing, because lacks hispanics traditionally are less likely to be vaccinated than whites, although what we have a real divide on is education. less educated people are much less likely to be vaccinated. it is this combination of education and rate and -- and race and ethnicity. host: a discussion on u.s. life expectancy with mark hayward of the university of texas at austin. our first caller is michael. you are on with mr. hayward. go ahead. caller: hello.

i have to tell you, i'm down in our county, which you may have seen on the news. we are the county that are under attack, essentially, by a governor to force our kids to go into schools with masks. this ties in directly and i am thrilled to have someone in sociology addressing this, because what he is doing, he is in a corner. he knows history is going to come out and the dictionary definitions of natural immunity and genocide means he is going to go into history books with a black hat. he is doubling down on us, and when you discuss things like mortality and longevity and education, what we are really talking about the hind the open your crisis and behind the covid crisis, the deep sociological roots, or a deep western eugenic bias that started in the 1860's with herbert spencer.

on both the right and left, you know, think tanks on both sides have a firm belief that -- and it is wrong, just like with climate change -- they think evolution optimizes and the free market competition, you know, like nature, leads to optimum outcomes. neither of those things could be further from the truth. as a result it has caused a eugenic virus. we think it is for the greater good that we have these mortality with let's educated -- the less educated, the poor. host: you put a lot out there, so we will let our guest respond. guest: i think motivation is hard for me to actually put out there. i will say there are certainly different values placed on different political goals, so you have some openers that are

more interested in what we would call economic freedom, which is essentially allowing companies to have, enjoy an environment where they can maximize profit. other states and other governors are prioritizing public health, so you have a different set of regulations that ensue. this is actually not news. it has been going on for some time. we have seen a growing divide across states. a long time before covid ever appeared rate we had states investing in their populations in a variety of ways and states that were not investing in their populations. that has led to drastic changes in life expectancies of states, such as the comparison between mississippi or louisiana and states such as as a juicer tour and a soda. this is actually -- this has actually evolved over time and

when you add covid into the mix, it is really the capstone in kind of the, i would say, case study in the ways in which politics affects population health. this has been the case for a long time. host: we have a viewer from twitter. is life expectancy based on all things being equal, or is poverty, gender, and ethnicity figured into it? guest: it is based on the average of the population. it doesn't separate out poor people and well educated people unless you are going to generate tables specific to those groups. so it says, for the average american this is what life expectancy is expected to be if the rates persisted throughout their entire lifetime. that is the average person, and that means we have rich and poor, and black-and-white and hispanic and asian. what we were talking about is the average that comes down to all of those factors pulled

together -- pooled together. there are wide disparities in life expectancy, as we have seen reflected in the report. we have known this for quite a long time and we recently have been looking at the changes in life expectancy by education group. what is clear is that the only group improving in life expectancy in the united states are well educated, college-educated people. life expectancy has been on the decline for some time among the less-educated population of the united states. my group is not the only group to publish and talk about these findings. there is some excellent work done at princeton university. host: this is scott in the beach, go ahead, please. -- in myrtle beach, go ahead, please. caller: i want you to know i'm a

big dallas cowboys fan. however, i have an issue with these people in missouri, and arkansas, and florida who don't want to take the vaccine and basically try to live their life so they spread it to other people. shouldn't we at some point courting these people off -- cordon these people off? l.a. county has 10 million people in one county. there are people there that might want the vaccine and can't get it, and these people in missouri and arkansas have the opportunity to get it and they don't want it. they are just going to go to new york and get on a tour bus and spread through new york. -- spread it through new york. host: that is scott in south carolina. guest: i fear the frustration between the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations in the u.s., and certainly it has created a major divide in how we

think about the world. i understand people's frustrations. i'm of the opinion that we should not give up on the unvaccinated. i know it is hard, because we have a larger resistant group, but i will tell you it doesn't matter what public health initiative we go after, it is really easy to have an effect on the beginnings of health issues. if he were to take a look at smoking and anti-smoking campaigns, we were massively effective in reducing smoking at the beginning, even behind a quite resistant group. it is the same in the pandemic. we can't in good conscience give up on them. it may take longer and new strategies and things we haven't thought about before, because we haven't been in this situation before. that said, i absolutely agree that we should be helping out other countries.

this really is a global issue. you cast it in terms of states, but it is a global issue. the united states can be as well-vaccinated as we can be, but we are still at the risk of new variants developing in other countries because they are unvaccinated. we really do have to have a global effort and that is not easy to do. host: we have a few are off of twitter who says it is estimated obesity takes 300 thousand lives in america per year. he asks the question why, but how does that factor in? guest: in this case obesity operates as a risk factor for covert mortality. i'm sure there is an obesity component to the covert statistics and increase in mortality in that group, but i

think there are other risk factors as well. we have to take into account, certainly, h. the other part is that the risk factors may change over time. we simply don't know that. sometimes the science is going to be behind, because we are collecting data on a pandemic that is moving very fast. i always think about this as, i have some friends that go, gosh, the guidelines have changed, or, we have new evidence about masks, what are we going to do? i say yes, we have a lot of uncertainty. that is because of the way science has to move in order to get data. at the same time, science is trying to gather data, covid is racing ahead. host: fairfax, virginia. go ahead. caller: i just had a quick question. i think we are looking at a trend that started in 2017.

i remember the cdc director discussed life expectancy dropping, and he attributed that largely to the increase in suicide and the opioid epidemic. i'm wondering if we are seeing a natural trend and that covid was just a confound or of this -- and found -- conf of this. ounder guest: i would hesitate to say a trend. if you look at life expectancy relative to other companies, we used to be a middle of the backcountry and it came to life expectancy. -- middle of the pack country when it came to life expectancy. over time we started falling behind. it is a lot about the quality of life people are experiencing, the average american. we have been having some

difficulties relative to other company -- relative to other countries for some time. we have had growing inequality within states as well. i don't want to cast it as a red state/blue state, clearly we have states where the populations have been invested in, and states where populations have been de-invested in. along comes a shot -- a shock like the opioid epidemic. this is something that came out from the pharmaceutical industry and was also -- and also some of the mexican cartels. we have this unnatural shock, and by accident we have the covid pandemic. i don't want to say unnatural, but clearly this exacerbated the

trend we have seen going on for some time. it is reflected at the national level, it is reflected among education groups, it is reflected among ethnic groups. host: as far as men and women are concerned, what did the report show about life expectancy between those groups? guest: we saw a decline. with a greater decline in life expectancy among males, if i remember correctly. some of that has to do with exposure, like workers. when we think about the race/ethnic differences and why they are so large in the covid-related mortality, you have to think about, it is not just a race issue as much as it is a social issue, where there are front-line workers and living arrangements combine, as well as health care access and the quality of health care.

basically all phases of life in terms of exposure and care. those groups are worse off than whites are, which leads to these higher covid-related deaths. host: our guest, arce hayward of the university of texas at austin. he is talking about a report looking at the life expectancy decline in the united states. michelle, you are next. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a comment on, when did saving lives become a political issue? with this covid-19 in these certain states like texas and florida and elsewhere who are fighting the mask mandates and the covid-19 vaccinations, i don't see why this is happening. our country has always been vaccinated for other things -- smallpox, mmr.

nobody gave, you know, argued against that, and yet we are trying to get this under control. i'm a health care giver, and we are trying to these things under control with the covid and vaccines and mask mandates to protect everybody, and yet there is a certain people out there that think it is against their rights. i don't understand why saving lives is immoral. to me that is a moral issue and everybody should be on board to that to protect themselves and others. you know, you are right, sir, it is also a global issue, trying to get other countries on board, because this will continue, and people will die. i don't understand why people close their eyes to that. host: that is michelle emily wisconsin. -- michelle in wisconsin. guest: i hear you on the moral issue, it in many ways i want to go back to the politics of

health. we've had a situation in this country where we have had strong debates, political debates, about the kinds of policies we bring to bear that would improve people's health. if you remember the medicaid expansion, medicare issues we have had, child nutrition programs, food stamps, any number of programs where we have seen a political divide on how we react to these programs, which people on one side have evidence that it will improve health, and people on the others are less interested in earning those programs into play. this has been going on for some time. it is kind of percolating underneath the surface, but at -- but it has been part of the american political landscape for decades. and now covid happens, and covid

is a crisis during -- crisis. when we are in this situation of chronic disease, we kind of can put aside the consequences of some of these programs. the health consequences have always been there. now we have to pandemic. the health consequences are real and they are immediate. that is where you see this stark relief in terms of the political divide, and perhaps let's be optimistic. perhaps that political divide will not continue. to the extent we have seen some movement where people are coming together and -- i have to be someone optimistic about this is -- about this issue. host: a viewer on twitter says, is there a way to calculate how many americans died from disease

other than covid because they did not seek medical treatment or the overwhelmed health care system being able to care for them? guest: demographers and epidemiologists track what we call excess mortality. the number of deaths that occurred last year or some period of time, a three year average compared to last year's pandemic. to get a sense of the overall direct and indirect effects of covid. the combined effects are quite large. what you are saying is, when we talk about these changes in life expectancy associated with covid here, we are talking about covid-coded deaths in death certificates. we are not talking about the indirect effects, but they are certainly there. we just cannot isolate them in

this data. but we do calculate it. in the past a lot of times what we have done in the the cdc reports, if we want to look at the effects of a flu epidemic, over time we use the same approach in terms of looking at the excess mortality. host: here is nancy in new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe black people have a lower life expectancy because we have to share the earth with most people people ever to walk the face of this earth, and that is white people. the promoters of supremacy have tried to say that it was race due to the low mortality rates of black women, then they did the study and found out it was racism that caused the lower mortality rates, ok? straight up, the evilness of white people. host: that is nancy in new jersey. guest: i think that, you know,

one of the things we want to think about in terms of racism is who has access to quality care, and how does it play out in terms of covid-related outcomes? i'm going to make it pretty specific, because racism has been around for a long time, and we have a lot of evidence that racism is a killer. this is not a surprise. in the context of covid, a comes into stark relief in terms of the ways in which, where people live, the kinds of living conditions people have, and the kinds of living arrangements people have. if you are poor, if you have multiple generations per household, if you have one frontline worker that goes out and has nowhere to isolate and bring survivors home -- bring the virus home, if you enter the hospital, if you can find the hospital, if you get in, the quality of the hospital, the

quality of care, and the outcome. all phases of the disease process, from exposure to treatment, we are seeing is a way in which minority populations are disadvantaged. so, if you wonder why we have a three year drop in the expectancy for black americans and hispanic americans, it is really not a surprise given the kinds of adverse exposures they have compared to other parts of the population, and it is baked into our structure. host: according to the data, professor, 1981 someone was expected to live 74.1 years. the data says they lived five years beyond that. what accounted for that change and what can change life expectancy numbers, at least for increasing that? guest: i will give you a simple example. the one group that is continuing to improve in the life expectancy are college-educated

people. that is the group for whom the quality of life has continued to improve in terms of good jobs, good relationships, they were able to self-actualize and protect themselves, they have the resources and can avoid the risks that other groups cannot. given the growing divide, the social inequality divide within the united states and other parts of the globe, what we have seen is the segregation and division of the haves and have-nots. i think at some point we cannot ignore the role that inequality plays in our overall national trends. i think this is actually driving -- in some ways it is holding the national average back, because we have a large group of the population, large segment of the population, we have not invested in.

you have heard it on your show, i know, and i was just listening to this issue beforehand, the quality of housing and housing support. and what are parents facing in terms of raising their kids? what kinds of school options, what kind of job options to people have? all of these factors, they all come into play. i help behavior model. it is a social exposure model. host: tommy in massachusetts. hello. caller: hi, pedro. how are you doing? and professor hayward, i want to say that black woman who said why people are evil is deplorable and irredeemable. second, i had covid and i recovered. all of these people against people not taking the vaccine, there are studies that say people that recover from covid

have seven times the antibodies, and the longer away from the illness it increases. there is no reason that people who had covid should have to get a vaccine, and actually there has been a lot of cases where people have recovered and gotten the vaccine have had health effects from it, bad health effects. also it is funny that all of these vaccine nazis, they are pro-choice for killing babies, but when it comes to a vaccine -- an experimental vaccine to put in your body -- they are against it. pedro, you are the best. you can never tell what politics you have, and you always be -- you always keep people on track. thank you. host: we will let you finish there, and then let our guests respond. guest: i think what you just said is quite a bit of misinformation, and i am sorry

that that kind of misinformation has gotten out into the public. i will say that the organized way in which misinformation -- organized misinformation is put out there is disturbing. i wish there was some counterpoint where science and public health had a strong way of getting the correct information out there to individuals. right now i think this proliferation of the media has allowed misinformation to get into the public. vaccines do work. they work amazingly well. they are our most effective way of going after the pandemic. i'm sorry, but antibodies do decline over time in individuals. the other part is, we have var iants. you have to be very careful about the kinds of information that you are receiving, and i think it is important to think

about the sources of the information. are you getting it from authorities who have been doing science all of their lives and helping to protect the public? or are you getting it from someone who does not have the qualifications, but may have some personal affinity with what your political beliefs are? i think at some point we have to think about, what is the source and how do we interpret that information? host: this is from john in illinois. john, we are about to go to an event and a couple of minutes. caller: good morning, pedro, good morning, mr. hayward. on the categories for the different groups for the life expectancy, what about the haitians? -- asians? i am always interested in why that is. guest: it has to do with the

numbers of people. and how we calculate the life expectancy estimates. we simply don't have enough asians to have an official table for asian-americans in the united states. i didn't talk about trends for hispanics, and the reason is the primary author, she actually put out the first table for hispanics not long ago. my team published life expectancy estimates about hispanics about the same time. we were thrilled to validate our results with her results, because, you know, when you publish these results for the first time you want to be right, because these numbers mean something to a lot of people. another issue is, simply, we have lots of heterogeneity within these groups.

that is true among black americans, hispanic americans, and asian americans. we still have this problem with heterogeneity. the national center for health statistics will only put out reports and life tables that it has the confidence to stand behind, so until we have the numbers and methods and, you know, there is a lot of measurement error so we have to be careful with what we put out there. host: leo, go ahead with your question or comment from california. caller: good morning, professor. a fellow scientist. i'm curious in your demographic factoring situation, do you take into consideration the entire population of the united states, and you have a factor for the foreign-born, regardless of their status, in your demographic analysis? guest: actually, yes, because

when they show up in the statistics -- the numerator comes from death certificates. the denominator comes from the population itself and the size of the population in the united states or a state, depending on how you are calculating life expectancy. both the numerator and denominator, should be capturing everyone. host: go ahead and finish your thought. i'm sorry. guest: i was going to say, there is always some measurement error. we published results for foreign-born and native-born hispanics, and it was a difficult task, methodologically. host: he said sociology, how did you get interested in the life expectancy? guest: well, i'm a mongrel for. we are asked -- a demographer. we are actually paid to do this.

we are the statisticians of the field. host: this is mark hayward, he is the university of texas at austin, a professor of sociology, taking a look at issues when it comes to life expectancy here to talk about the cdc numbers. thanks for your time this morning. guest: thank you very much. host: we are about to take you in the short order to an event sponsored by the washington post. a live discussion with the baltimore police commissioner to talk about crime and policing issues. don't forget, as far as work in the senate, work on the infrastructure bill, if you want to see what happened early in the morning and yesterday, go to our website at c-span.org, and you can see all of the debate that took place leading up to these votes. we now take you to the "washington post,"