with u.s. chamber of commerce executive vice president neil bradley and matt bennett, cofounder of the think tank third way, talks about divisions between moderates and progressives within the credit party on spending programs and priorities. washington journal is next. -- the democratic party on spending programs and priorities. washington journal is next. ♪ host: it is the washington journal for october 5. president biden heads to michigan later today to tout his infrastructure agenda. that includes social programs, extending universal pre-k, and other initiatives. on capitol hill, the mike ross are going to determine how the proposals could be impacted -- democrats are going to determine how the proposals could be impacted. when it comes to spending on the social safety net program, including the new initiatives

from the biden administration, do you think more should be spent on these programs, less should be spent? or perhaps you think they are adequately funded. if you say spend more on these programs, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call. if you say spend less, coalesce at (202) 748-8001 -- call us at (202) 748-8001. if you say there are adequately funded, call us at (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. you can post on our facebook and twitter. the washington times takes up what is facing the democratic party on capitol hill as they look forward to the price tag of the build back better agenda and what it might mean for programs involved. it is a story from this morning's paper saying programs for providing free community college, expended childcare, and more robust health care services including expended dental

coverage for medicare is the redline. they say the democratic base is eager for bold reform but most mechanisms used for mean testing are -- means testing are flawed. -- and does not factor in cost-of-living. that is representative alexandria ocasio-cortez. this means there are likely more poor people in the u.s. then we admit, adding instead of means testing the proposed programs congress should shorten the effective date to cut costs. programs in the current bill would not take effect for a decade. we have shown you this several times over the last few weeks. it comes back to what the biden administration is proposing, including establishing universal pre-k, extending child tax

credit and earned income tax credit, and creating a federal paid family and medical leave benefit. other proposals include requiring electric utility sectors to generate 80% of power from clean energy sources, immunity college for free for two years, and reducing prescription drug costs. this is on top of the current programs already existing from the federal government. we are asking you in this first hour when it comes to spending on those programs would you like to see more spent or less spent? or perhaps he would say those programs are fine as they are currently funded. if you want to tell us more should be spent on these programs, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call. (202) 748-8001 if you say less should be spent. if you say those programs are well-funded as they are, (202) 748-8002. one of the people on capitol hill making the case for the funding of these programs was senate majority leader chuck

schumer, talking about not only the october 31 deadline democrats have set to vote on or least agree on a framework for the bill but also talking about the programs involved. [video clip] >> none of this is going to be easy. it will require sacrifice, compromise, and finding common ground. nobody's going to get everything they want. our final proposal will deliver the promise made to the american people. we will take bold action on climate change while creating millions of jobs. we will expand health care opportunities and lower costs for working americans. we will cut taxes for the working and middle-class while asking the wealthy to pay their fair share. i am confident we will be proud of the end result, a bill that will dramatically improve the lives of every american not just for today but for generations, a bill that would rebuild ladders

for working people to get to the middle class, help people stay in the middle class who are there already, and rekindle that sunny american disposition so central to our national identity that seems to be fading. this is worth a couple of hard days. this is worth many hard days. we did not come to washington to take the easy way out. we came committed to work every day to work toward the things the american people have placed in us. host: senator schumer from yesterday. one of the editorials in the wall street journal takes a look at some of the programs and the price tag involved. consider the allowance of 3030 $600 -- $3600 per child.

the allowance will end after 2025. democrats will accuse republicans of raising taxes on families if the gop ever tries to end it. or take the bill's accounting for its childcare program which runs on paper through 2027. it provides three years of fixed funding for the states. starting in fiscal 2025, it opens up the entitlement spigots to such sums as may be necessary to run the program through its fictitious end date. you can talk about that. talk about other social programs as well, social safety net programs as they are known. give us a sense on more should be spent on it, spend less on these programs, or perhaps you think they are adequately funded.

we will start in bridgewater, new jersey. john, go ahead. caller: joe biden says it is he bill -- he is bill. we know it is not. he made a deal the left-wing. if aoc is for it, i am against it. there are some reasonable things there, but this is just -- they are trying to take over the government. host: let's start with why you said less should be spent. caller: i do not know les is the right word. less of the 3.5 trillion. host: spending less on social safety net programs overall. caller: i do not know where these numbers come from. host: why would you say spend

less? caller: because it is a takeover of the government. i have children. they want to work. their kids went to daycare. now because of the pandemic they cannot go to daycare anymore. i do not understand that. host: we will go to gary in ohio , also says spend less on these programs. good morning. caller: good morning. i wrote an editorial several months ago about infrastructure. infrastructure in my opinion is just bridges, roads, all your landscaping. these other social programs should not be included in this. infrastructure is not the social programs. they should be separate.

the democrats have put too much pork in these programs and it does not take a work of science to figure out what they are trying to do. host: to the social programs, why do you say spend less? caller: spent less on the land -- host: there are two separate bills, the infrastructure bill and social programs bill. when it comes to the social programs bill, why do you say spend less? caller: just take one program at a time. i know they are separate, but we have a lot of illegal immigrants coming in this country. we are supposed to be a country of laws. they are getting a lot of other stuff given to them. i feel sorry for them. our country is in debt and my grandkids are going to have to pay for this stuff. host: jerry in ohio also saying when it comes to these programs for these initiatives, that less should be spent on them.

people respond on facebook as well this morning. this is amy saying when it comes to that spending way more should be spent. we gave away trillions of our money to defending other countries' social safety nets. that is our money. we get nothing for our taxes. from larry in michigan, saying spending is too high. people should not live off the fruits of other people's labor. nikki sank the social safety net has turned into a social safety crutch. only hear about a few of these things they use as bait to get support. if facebook is the way you want to post, you can do that at facebook.com/cspan. perhaps you want to give us your thought on taxes. some of you have this morning. you can do so at (202) 748-8003. aside from new proposals from the biden administration, when it comes to other proposals, a sense of the major federal,

state, and local welfare programs. they include the supplemental security income, supplemental nutritional assistance program, the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children. assistance for families including child support, and also general assistance. they say this benefits from the social insurance program -- say these benefits from the social insurance program are usually based on -- they add other programs as well. if you want to comment on that as you are commenting on the programs proposed by the biden administration, you can do that. a piece in usa today takes a look at the unemployment aid given as part of efforts to help during the coronavirus. the story writes that an analysis done by the century foundation says states that ended a federal boost of jobless benefits experienced the same drop in unemployment of this

summer as states that maintained the extra assistance. from june to august, jobless rate -- dipped by 0.2 5% compared with a 0.26% drop in states the continued the benefits. that is according to an analysis of data from the bureau of labor statistics done by the century foundation about which is labeled in this piece a progressive think tank. the president has to michigan later today to talk about his build back better agenda and his infrastructure program when it comes to the social safety net programs, social programs included in that agenda. if you want to see less spent or more spent or say these programs are fine as they are currently funded, you can let us know. roger also says spend less on these programs. caller: thanks for having me.

can you hear me? host: you are on. tell us why you think less should be spent. host: -- caller: the democrats sold out to the socialists and then put biden in office. this social safety net -- there is your answer. host: why do you think less should be spent? caller: i think we are overspending now. the budget is blown out of proportion. this country is going to go broke. this country is in trouble. we have to put a stop to this. host: this is jeffrey up next from woodbridge, virginia meant making the case for more to be spent on these programs. -- virginia, making the case for

more to be spent on these programs. caller: if we are talking about spending more on social programs, over the last four years between deregulation and slashing the tax code you see a lot of people who avoid paying taxes or companies who do not pay anything in terms of what profits are. we talk about social safety spending. democrats are talking about $350 billion a year over 10 years. we spent 7.8 $7 trillion over 10 years. that is from the pentagon budget. social programs have been slashed. folks cannot afford childcare or daycare. let's look at what is actually in the spending bill and budget before we go on the attack. we are the only country in the world that does not have paid family leave or vacation leave.

we do not subsidize daycare or childcare. if this bill is passed, they will get dental benefits. how can folks be against something -- it is a poor job of the democrats. they do not sell the benefits of the bill. $3.5 trillion is all you hear over and over. host: when it comes to the programs, do you think some type of test should be applied especially to new programs on eligibility? caller: yes. i do not think a family who is making 300,000 dollars should necessarily qualify for something. i am fine with stuff being on a sliding scale, but the thing is really testing it in terms of where you are targeting relief. it is definitely in the table to

look at the cross. at the same time, we have been under investing in the american people, society, families. you look at the top three expenses that have gone up four years ago, it is housing, health care, child costs. we have not kept up with social safety nets to counter the costs. host: lloyd in west virginia says spend less on these programs. go ahead. caller: i am saying democrats have put us in this position by spending so much money down on the border. they do not know how to handle the immigration. if they kept building the wall, it would have paid off in the long run. host: as far as social safety net programs, why do you say spent less specifically?

caller: if they spend less, they will help the country. anybody knows you spend more you just get deeper in debt. host: from the morning consult, they have a story taking a look at the idea of paid family leave. the headline, republican women want that. the party's men are starting to get on board. this is a piece by claire williams. she writes the president's attempt to mandate paid family leave has an unexpected constituency got republican women. more than half of republican women support paid family and medical leave even when framed as a democratic proposal. republican men have not always been on board but are coming around to the idea. political polling tract public opinion among registered voters throughout august on various measures that could be included in that framework. it is an unusual split. typically men and women of the same party do not differ

strongly on policies that impact household budgets. there is no significant difference between democratic men and women voters on paid family leave and republican men and women tend to agree on other measures democrats are expected to pursue via reconciliation. if you want to read that, you can find it at morningconsuls.com. michael from maine says these products -- projects need less spent on them. caller: i have been calling the police about it -- host: caller -- we will go to alan. caller: i have a speaker here. i believe more spending is needed for a specific reason. we are looking at this as a surrogate for intergenerational justice. we must care about the needs of

future children and generations and also the debt we are putting on them. we have to spend more and also take more of the burden of that debt off the future. how do we do that except by drastically increasing not just the taxation but the clawback of excess giveaways to this and past generations of wealthy estates? host: how did you come to view this as a justice issue? caller: the best way of catalyzing my thing about it was a letter i read in a biography of jefferson years ago. jefferson to madison in 1789, where he said no generation has the right to oppose -- impose debt on the next generation anymore than one family has the right to impose mortgage costs on their children after they die. the debt is personal to parents and you cannot make it somehow transmissible to future generations, but that is what jefferson said we have done.

we have to find a way not of thinking of that extra pro taxation and tax but as a corrective the same way we did when bernie made off created false prophets -- bernie madoff created false profits on his statements. a correction of fraudulent information. we are doing the same thing as a nation by one generation to another and we have to correct that by clawing back assets mostly that were given away in tax cuts on the wealthy at a time when we already had -- host: there is a current debate as far as the final price tag especially on the build back better agenda. what do you think about that debate at the lowering of that price tag and what it might do for these initiatives? caller: as long as we are talking about it in the abstract, i do not think the

idea of a need for more will gain traction. i think this is the best way to approach a discussion. we are not really talking about raising taxes. we are talking about removing from the backs of children burdens in terms of climate and infrastructure decay and debt. host: the policy is directly tied to that. caller: i am not saying any one set of these programs are the ideal mixture for addressing that larger need mom but it is a step in the right direction. we can get the public behind that kind of measure by explaining to them we are already doing things to the future we have no right to do. host: alan making his case for spending more on these so-called safety net programs. again, you can make that case if you say spending more. if you say spent less or think the current level of spending is fine, you can do that too.

the phone lines are available to you. choose the line that best represents your thinking. this is a text from mike saying affordable health care needs to be extended, social security needs to be funded, better medicare and medicaid, child's daycare. warren miller of twitter says if we can build military planes that do not fly and tanks no one wants, we can support our own taxpayers. slash pentagon spending. the issues -- issue is our system cannot sustain the needs of the people. all the wealth generated by society is going up to the bezos and waltons and away from the people. diane from facebook adding when it comes to the education side of the programs that education is not a safety net. that is an investment.

his ended -- isn't it about time we invested in the u.s.? a variety of ways to post. you can do that on our facebook at facebook.com/cspan. twitter is @cspanwj if you want to do that. and it comes to the programs, it was the house minority leader hosting a recent op-ed in the new york post. part reads as such. the biden administration is more interested in handouts that pay as much to stay at home is go to work. since taking office, president joe biden and congressional democrats are prioritized big government over earned pay stubs. a proposal would eliminate the child tax credit as we know it, replacing it with welfare without any work requirement. republicans believe the family is the foundation of a strong

society. that is why we support expanding the child tax credit but also know there is no government substitute for a job and earned income. you can read those if you want to find more of that op-ed at the new york post. from virginia, spend less. caller: that guy from new york, that sure was slick the way he was talking about spend more to take the burden off the children. if i already have debt on my credit card and want to raise the ceiling or limit on my debt, it is not to pay for what i have already bought. it is so i can add more debt. that is the line that i hear pelosi talking about. the other thing too -- i am a christian. from a christian perspective, the one thing the roman government got in trouble with was they were always taxing and

taxing the people. there are a lot of people that years ago like my husband and i made a lot of sacrifices to go to college and wait until we finish to get married and then we have our family and we have a large family. we have five children. we sent them to college. what right does someone who did not do those things and probably spent their time drinking and getting high, having babies or doing whatever they were doing -- i'm not talking about the people that need help. i am talking but the people that squander their lives and now look to me and my husband, who did the right things, to pay for them. i think it is a good thing to help people when they are down, but just to tax people for all the stupid programs? i do not agree with that. host: several people have made the comparison over these programs, including our last caller saying -- maybe a

previous caller said if we spend so much on the military or defense programs, why not make that similar investment in these programs? what do thing about that argument? caller: whenever you're talking about taking care of the military, which benefits all of us -- i have a responsibility as a christian because i said i am one. i have a responsibility as a christian to be able to give and help. my husband took a homeless man here a couple nights ago and gave him a couple nights in a hotel room. i spent a lot of money sending it over to st. jude's for children with cancer. we have a response ability as citizens, but do not put a gun to my head and tell me i have to do these things. the military is totally different. host: cheryl there and virginia making her case for less spending on these programs. you may agree or disagree with her. you are welcome to call in. one of the people disagreeing

overall with susan collins on the floor of the senate last week, talking with the expansion of some of these programs. we will hear from her. >> -- [video clip] >> never forget the first version of the green new deal included guaranteed income for those unable or unwilling to work. mr. president, we must not go down that path. we will not build a more prosperous, just, and equitable society characterized by opportunity, dignity, and meaning just by issuing government checks. the time-tested way to achieve those goals for american families is by supporting and rewarding work. it is by recognizing the dignity

of work. that is the tradition that we must continue to embrace. host: that is the republican senator of maine. michael says spend less on these programs. caller: what i'm saying is spend less on these programs because these people, the people -- problem we are having with them is they are violating law as government servants. a government contract years ago -- for the counties and things we had to bring our own school lunches to school. people were causing trouble and sickness with the food years ago. they got kicked out. we have had them closed down for 50 years. now they are starting back to get infirmary is going.

-- infirmaries going. host: how does that relate to spending on these programs? caller: you have to make an adjustment in the construct and spend less on psychotic medicines and all this medical malpractice we have going on. it is getting too much. the case worker cannot get them out -- caseworkers, get them out. host: debra in alabama says spend more on these programs. caller: not necessarily spend more but where they came in and took out a lot of the permanent -- they were not really permanent either. a lot of the tax cuts, the credits and things for child

care, they literally made corporate people, corporate companies tax cut permanent -- tax cuts permanent. they only gave tax cuts for lower-class people and made them temporary that were already permanent. to the lady that was talking with the credit card, you spend on your credit card before you make the payment, which is what is going on now in congress. all this money was already appropriated and democrats now are just trying to pay that bill. when i hear things like they do not really have the correct mindset as far as to how this actually works, it is going to take spending more money to get

middle and lower class people back to where they need to be. i did not have a problem with these people being find all these billionaires who do not pay a dime in taxes and people like me that make maybe $70,000 a year paying anywhere between 13% and 18% of their income in taxes and then they call in here and it is all about partisan. people should not be so partisan. it should be who does this benefit. is it going to benefit the actual people of the united states or the corporations that have offshore money and everything else? host: that is deborah in montgomery, alabama, making her case when she talks about the idea of tax havens and the like. that has been the subject of a series of reports in the washington post, the pandora papers as they are known.

their latest story today is about the gain by some u.s. people from these havens, saying the washington post an international consortium of investigative journalists gained a look into the money flowing into trusts in the united states by examining more than 11.9 million confidential documents maintained by trust and corporate service providers around the world. the records exposed how leaders moved money and other assets from long-established tax havens to u.s. trust companies. the investigation identified trusts linked to 41 companies. nearly 31% of trust held assets were connected to companies accused of human rights abuses. today's report you can find online. good morning. caller: how are you doing?

the reason i am calling -- i hear people say a lot of things but they need to look and see who is getting the money. the people that need the money does not get it. the ones that gets the money is the one taking the money. they are the corporations. the corporations take all the money and do not pay taxes. when i was a kid, we paid 80%. companies paid about 80% in income tax and now we do not let them pay anything. the people hurting are the ones getting left. host: as far as spending more specifically on these programs, why do you think the government should make these investments? caller: because it is necessary. we are falling behind. host: how so? caller: in our education, in our climate control, in forest fires

and different things that are going on. we need to bring our technology up-to-date and we are not doing it. host: david is next, saying spend less. caller: good morning. i have to say this. i keep hearing this argument that this great debt is going to kill the future. that is not going to do that. that is going to kill the president. the inflation you're looking at now is just the sign of it. i do not see how you cannot understand that. secondly, i have to say that government spending, especially in the area i am living in, they just built an amphitheater for entertainment purposes. they have -- i know it does not run at a profit. i see on the news they want to build an aquarium.

all this spending on entertainment and bread and circuses -- this is reminiscent -- it is hard to tell you this. i will say one last thing. what alan greenspan said when he got out the door on his way out of the fed, he said make sure you have an economy that can supply all the things you desire. in a second statement, the -- both of those things are true. host: david in new york, thanks for the call. one of the other storylines taking place today on capitol hill is the operation of facebook especially when it comes to postings of information . yahoo! finance saying frances haugen is testifying today about the internal documents she

leaked to the wall street journal that expose the social network's knowledge that its platforms are riddled with knowledge that cause harm. she is a former engineer testifying at 10:00 today the senators less than a week after the global head of facebook was grilled by the same subsidy over hiding research that tobacco products are harmful. if you want to see that hearing, you can tune in live. you will see it on c-span at 10:00 today. you can also view it at c-span.org. if you want to take advantage of our new c-span video app, on which you can see streaming video, archived programs, you can download that from your app store and view it there at our c-span now video app. our coverage will start at 9:55 today, so you can watch it on a lot of different platforms and watch it later as well. susan from south dakota says

spend more on these programs. caller: i have a couple different things to say. i concern number one is the amount of money being spent on specific areas like infrastructure needed. what about each state paying for their own? we have construction here all the time. we certainly have money to spend on luxury items, so i do not understand why the state or county cannot pay for their own infrastructure. that seems crazy to me. a lot of these other items are focused on groups that do not -- it does not connect with all of us in the united states. i think one of the biggest things that most people i know of complain about is the insurance rates, the medicines. we need help there.

how about all of us have basic coverage like the government has? host: what do you mean by that? caller: the community college does not necessarily benefit all americans. i just think every dollar we spend should be focused on helping as many people as we can and i am all about helping the low income people and so on to have a hand up, but most of us have never had that hand up. we have all had to make it on our own. i look at our government arguing back and forth about these things and not helping anybody. maybe they need to eat some hamburgers and hotdogs and budget themselves down and cut their incomes. we need help in america, and i hope people can understand it needs to be for everybody as much as possible. host: let me leave you there

because we have phil waiting from hastings, nebraska, saying spend less on these programs. caller: property tax probably go up in this situation. most property tax is going to the school systems. this program wants to give free preschool in college, which will probably double the property tax. that affects homeowners, everybody. i do not know why they say it is not going to cost the middle or lower class any money. it is going to cost us quite a bit. host: is that the main argument you say? spend less on these programs? -- say spend less on these programs? caller: that is the main one. host: the president talking about a lot of different issues can't warning about the raising of the debt ceiling and

accomplishing that before mid-october. he also talked about the consequences of default if that happens. one thing he did talk about as well is budget reconciliation and why he was not able to close the deal last week on that process. here is the president from yesterday. [video clip] >> you have often touted your experience in the senate and talked about your ability to be a closer on deals involving legislation. why were you unable to close the deal with members of your own party on key parts of your legislative agenda? >> i was able to close a deal with 99% of my party hearing two people. that is still underway. i do nothing there has been a president who has been able to close deals who has been in a position where he has only 50 votes in the senate and a bear

majority in the house. it is a process. we will get it done. >> it sounds like you are putting the blame squarely on two u.s. senators for your inability to close that deal. is that with the blame lies with? >> i need 50 votes in the senate . i have 48. host: also referring to senator sinema yesterday, president biden according to the washington times saying he downplayed leftist activists who followed her into a bathroom, calling such actions part of politics. i do not think they are appropriate tactics, but it happens to everyone, mr. biden said. the only people does not happen to our people who have secret service standing around them.

the story adding the white house press secretary sought to clarify the president on the incident, saying mr. biden shorthanded his objection. that is some of the reporting from the washington times. from detroit, michigan, tony says spend more on these programs. tell us why. caller: good morning. i think america needs to wake up because the richest 2% of america has all of the wealth. so you had a call if you calls back from virginia, a lady. she made a comment about drunks and people and her at her husband were college educated. she is angry with the drunks and the poor. her taxes are raised from the wealthy. she is actually paying for the

wealthy not to have to work. they do not even pay taxes. they get everything for free. it is not business that they are so business oriented. they are really the laziest people, the wealthy. that was my comment. host: you're saying spend more on these programs. tell us why. caller: yes, because i feel like the rest of america outside of the 2% of the wealthy, the rest of america is lower middle class and poor. we need help. we need help to get a leg up. what is wrong with bringing people out of poverty? what is wrong with that? why keep paying people who do not need money? and then complain about the people who do not have it. that is backwards and i think a

lot of people are really not paying attention. host: that is tony in michigan. let's hear from dean in kentucky, saying spend less. caller: [inaudible] your congress, your senate -- your tax write offs. -- they say we are going to -- [indiscernible] host: when it comes to social programs, why do you say spend less? caller: we spend more money than any country on the world on education and we have 30 ninth place in the world.

-- [indiscernible] personal piggy bank. host: that is dean in kentucky. -- the need for government support is less. i'm tired of subsidizing corporations so they can cheapskate employees. adam swift from twitter saying, spend more. we have backbreaking levels of inequality. this is one way to improve the lives of average americans. from massachusetts, saying it should not be about spending more or less. these social programs should be eliminated altogether. another viewer texting us this morning saying spending should be based on need and the ability to work. it should require specific zip codes to encourage assimilation to our society, not encourage

neighborhoods of socially dependent families. those are some of the comments. debby says spend more on these programs. you are next up. caller: i have to say i am pushing 70 years old. i have never stood in a welfare line. none of these things will benefit me. my retirement is set. i have dental, vision, all that stuff. i do not need anything from our government. i set that up that way because president trump, i could not trust him to treat us well. in regard to your question, the safety net in my lifetime -- i have seen our government bail on the airline industry, wall street, general motors, and now they want to do something for the people. in regard to the pandemic, most people need that help. the lady from south dakota that says she wishes each state would

pay for their infrastructure, i have to tell you you would not have interstates in south dakota because there are not enough people up there to pay enough to build one. joe manchin needs to go be a republican. he said we have to look out for the entitlement society. i think anybody that gets half $1 million a year from the coal industry are the entitlement society, not us. host: michael is next in arkansas, saying spending is adequate. you may be the first want to call this morning on that and go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm just an arkansas hick. i am not well educated. -- made a big blunder by bundling in one package. they should have voted single-line. make the republican party vote

against extending child credits. put those in separate bills. let things fall as they may. -- funding for 12 years versus for 14 years -- we have no permanent funding to go to 12 years of school. we should not have a problem extending to 14 years with community college. the more education you have, the more benefits that are of able to you for jobs. that is a given. thanks for taking my call. host: before you go, since you say spending is adequate, what did you think about this and issue a price tag of what is being proposed by the biden administration? caller: in business -- i have been in business. you are not caring enough product.

invest more to open the door to more buyers. that is how you raise business. it is the same thing with the country. when your business is failing, you invest more in business to create more jobs. everybody pays more taxes. it is a simple deduction. i am not very well educated, but i have common sense. make republicans vote against things most people want. host: you made that point. what you think about the current debate to lower the price tag, particularly taking place among some democrats in the party? caller: again, separate the bills into different entities. separate them out into individual bills so you make one party either vote for or against what people do not want. that is the way politics should work. host: this is carrie in oregon,

saying spend more. caller: can you hear me? i wanted to say i agree with the programs and i think it is good to help people that are -- a lot of people need money right now i think because of the pandemic. i worked all through the pandemic. i really need money and i see a lot of people where i live in my city out here on the west coast, a lot of homeless people. a lot of people need money. i think some programs to help them is good. i do not think the programs have to be permanent. they do not have to go on forever, but just right now after the pandemic and everything to help things get back up. i did like the stimulus payments

because i feel they go directly to people and people spend it as they want to and as they need to. i think that helps the economy. people spend at the business they think is good. they go to the mechanic who does a good job. they use a home repair man who does a good job. it is good for the economy, not forever maybe but just for one or two. >> some would say some of these programs start temporarily but end up being forever and that is a concern. caller: i do not think the stimulus payments and that would go on forever because -- host: some of the concern especially with new programs being advocated in the build back better agenda. caller: most of the programs are

pretty good. i think the infrastructure create jobs and improves -- is good for the country. most of the programs sound good. host: that is carrie in oregon making the case for more spending on these programs. again, some social safety net programs in the build back better agenda by the president, a lot of discussion around capitol hill, a lot of illustration here in washington, d.c.. brian lamb noticed the signs being placed around various parts, particularly when it comes to the climate change aspect of it and took pictures of those signs so you can see how this is playing out in washington, d.c. we have about eight more minutes of calls if you want to give your thoughts on these programs. one of the things to tell you about is andrew yang, and during

the lead up in the last election , now leaving the democratic party to become an independent, saying he described the two party system as a stock, saying he could be more honest about politicians if you were not constrained by official membership as a democrat. he offered his support for open primaries and ranked choice voting, saying these were key reforms that would give more choices to voters, saying i believe i can reach people who are outside the system more effectively. i feel more independent. he will be on this program tomorrow from 9:00 to 10:00 eastern if you want to talk to him about his decision to leave the democratic party cannot become an independent, and the things related to that. again, andrew yang from 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. we will go to blake in mississippi. caller: i can understand why mr. yang wants to be an independent

because i feel like african-americans need to be independent because this is not working for us. when europeans came to this country, they got over 2 billion acres of land. african-americans did not get an inch after building this country. it is time for federal land to be sold so african-americans can have some safety. if we do not have land, you are basically a stray dog. every former people needs to have a homeland. african-americans are the most genetically diverse people on the planet. host: when it comes to specific social programs, do you say spend more, spend less? caller: first of all, there needs to be an even playing field. i do not think america wants an even playing field. it basically says i do not want

to give any reparations or education on value to the genetically diverse people on the planet because then my offspring will have to compete with them. i am satisfied with the status quo of my life privilege or whatever you want to call it -- white privilege or whatever you want to call it. i am black. it happened because my position. my family pulls themselves -- i want to believe my family pulled themselves up by their bootstraps with that is not the truth. wars have been fought and drugs put into my neighborhood. general hoover killed all my leaders. host: we will go to mitch mcconnell on the senate floor monday, talking about democratic proposals and spending bills. [video clip] >> this government is behind closed doors brainstorming ways

to make inflation more painful for american families. their next reckless taxing and spending spree is packed with radical policies and the biggest tax hike on the american people in half a century. so far, the bill is more than 2400 pages long. it can be summarized in just four words. hurts families and helps china. hurts families and helps china, wasting trillions of dollars on socialism would be a bad idea any day, but it is a uniquely bad idea at a time when american families are already hammered by inflation and soaring costs. government data continues to indicate the historic inflation that has begun to take hold of our economy is not going anywhere anytime soon.

the chairman of the federal reserve acknowledged last week that rising prices have become increasingly broad and structural problem. last week the commerce department reported inflation has continued to rise faster than at any time since 1991. the democrats' inflation is so bad that even though the average american worker has gotten a multiple percentage point pay raise over the last year the actual purchasing power has been cut. host: angela is next in virginia, saying spend less on the program. caller: i think less can be spent. 3.5 trillion dollars, that is way more than what is needed for the programs you are talking about. where does all of that money really go?

i think it is going toward special interest groups. it will cost -- it is -- it will cost crippling inflation property taxes will go up. i do not know anyone that can afford $1000 more on their property taxes. this stuff is for special interest groups. you can see the greed. it is not about partisanship. it is about what is going to hurt the american people. we can barely afford bills because it the supply chain has been messed up because of the pandemic and then $3.5 trillion -- why does it need to be $3.5 trillion? because they are going to do all they can for special interest groups. host: which special interest groups are you thinking of? caller: the unions, definitely the teachers union. there are a lot of special interest groups.

i do not really know their names, but i know a lot of it is going to go toward special interest groups and the american people will not see that money. host: one more call, clarence from louisiana commencing spending is adequate. caller: the highways and bridges, the physical infrastructure, yes. as far as social infrastructure, i do not understand. these democrats say we have a problem on social spending in this country but our chief spends millions now. aliens are coming from haiti and south and central america, crossing the border illegally. and that is ok. we need the money here for

not for everyone throughout the world. host: clarence finishing off this hour of your calls on safety net programs. thank you to all who participated. two perspectives coming up on efforts by the biden administration, particularly on infrastructure and build back better. our conversation next will be with the u.s. chamber of commerce executive vice president and chief policy officer, talking about the stalemate going on in washington. later on, co-founder of the center-left think tank third way will talk about the divide in the democratic party on the president's agenda. those conversations are coming up on "washington journal." ♪ announcer: today, a face but whistleblower testifies about protecting children online with privacy regulations and laws.

live coverage of that hearing starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. watch online at c-span.org with our new video app, c-span now. announcer: you can be part of the conversation by participating in c-span's student video competition. whether you are a middle or high school student, we are asking you to create a five minute documentary that answers the question, how does the federal government impact your life? that might show supporting and appointing points of view on a federal program that affects you or your community using c-span video clips which are easy to access at c-span.org. the studentca competitionm awards cash prizes and you have a shot at winning the grand prize of $5,000. entries must be received before january 20, 2022. for more information, visit

studentcam.org. ♪ announcer: download c-span's new mobile app and stay up-to-date with coverage of the day's biggest events from live streams at the house and senate, to key congressional hearings, to supreme court arguments, even our morning program "washington journal," where we hear your voices everyday. download the app for free today. ♪ announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: neil bradley is the u.s. chamber of commerce executive vice president and chief policy officer, joining us this morning. thank you for your time. guest: it is a pleasure to be with you. host: who do you represent? guest: millions of businesses of all sizes across all industries, all over the u.s. it could be the family store on

main street all the way to the largest corporations. host: how many member companies are involved and, many people exactly do you represent? guest: directly and through our federation of local chambers, about 3 million businesses. host: there is a report this morning about the chamber's position on the infrastructure bill. there has been a change of mind on that, what has changed? guest: i wouldn't call it a change of mind more than a change of situation we are facing. the chamber is a strong supporter of the infrastructure bill that makes $1 trillion of investments in our bridges, broadband, replacing lead water pipes. he got 60 votes in the senate. we want to see that bill passed. we want to see it be signed into law. but on friday, the president and the democratic leadership sought

to link that bipartisan infrastructure bill to the partisan tax and spend reconciliation bill. we oppose that linkage and the reconciliation bill and we will not change our position our reconciliation because of our support for infrastructure. host: to clarify on the infrastructure bill, what is the position our reconciliation? guest: we are opposed to the reconciliation bill. whether we are talking about $2 trillion or $3.5 trillion, you are talking about a record level of government spending that will contribute to inflation, higher prices for consumers and it is partially funded by punitive taxes, both on investors, small businesses, midsize and large businesses in a way we believe will destroy the current economic recovery. so, we need to get america working again, we need to get control of inflation and to this bill would take us in the opposite direction. host: when it comes to the infrastructure bill, was there

value in supporting it as far as member companies and what happens now? guest: our hope is we can de-link the bills and return to getting a standalone vote on the infrastructure bill because it deserves to pass, that is why he got 69 bipartisan votes in the senate. how many times do you see bills passed like that? we supported it because we are long overdue in making investments in our infrastructure, whether it is congestion on our highways, potholes in our city streets, the lack of broadband for millions across the u.s., or literally we still have lead pipes that bring water into people's homes and schools that are poisoning them. this bill would help us replace all those pipes, so it is good for america, good for families and it deserves to become a long. host: you know well that the debate on capitol hill is tying these together, what is the

potential right now of de-linking them? guest: i hope the president and democratic leadership come to the realization that linking the bills only means nothing gets done, that we do not replace the lead water pipes and bridges. so we had a chance six weeks ago, we had a chance last week to pass the infrastructure bill and for it to become law, so we could start building these things again. and we missed that opportunity, so we need to go back. i do not know if the president and a democratic leadership will listen, but de-linking these bills and getting the infrastructure bill done would be the right thing to do. host: our guest is joining us this morning. if you want to call, 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. you can also text us at 202-748-8003. you said six weeks ago there was

a chance to pass the bill, can you elaborate? guest: at the end of august the house was taking up the budget resolution, a process they have to go through for some of these budgetary bills, like reconciliation. the senate had passed the infrastructure bill and we should have passed it in the house then. it would already be law today. there are other things for elected officials to fight about, but at least we would have gotten something done for the country. that is what i mean. host: the budget reconciliation bill, how much is the chamber' opposition tieds to changes in tax policy? guest: that is a big part of it. if you go to the grocery store and you walk down an aisle, everything that comes in a plastic container will cost more if the proposed reconciliation bill becomes law because as a tax on plastic in it, so from there all the way to

the tax increases for small businesses, we are opposed to that. if you took the tax increases away, you would talk about record levels of spending. let me put it in context. at $3.5 trillion, the level of spending is more than twice the combined budget of all 50 states. so think about wherever you are sitting, in your statement everything the state government spends, close everything other states spend multiply that by two. and it is still not as big. host: there is a good chance that that figure will not stay the same if it comes down to the levels like one point $5 trillion or $2 trillion, what are the chances of supporting it? guest: it needs to come down, no question. but listen to what the progressive caucus members are pushing for. they are not suggesting reducing

the size of the bill, they are suggesting to play budgetary gimmicks. if you had a program like a free community college that was supposed to last for 10 years, they would sunset it to five years and pretend the next five years have no cost to them. when you start playing games like that, that is how they disguise the cost and it will contribute to not only more inflation, but more uncertainty for the american people. you cannot create a big new government -- and then for partisan gains in washington, but tend like you are going to yank it away in three or five years. so that is a real problem. i hope the price tag comes down, but i hope they do this in an honest way. host: you mentioned education, but other parts of the bill have to do with medical and family leave. how does the chamber feel? guest: all these things have been rolled together.

there are problems that need to be solved. if we took them out of this bill, we could solve them. paid family leave is one of them. there is a path forward on a program. the bill that existed before it got rolled into this reconciliation bill was one modeled off of states like california and it states on the east coast have done, which recognizes that this is an employee benefit and you pay for it through a combined payroll tax. when this bill got folded into the reconciliation bill, all of a sudden the common sense was gone and instead it was replaced with the punitive tax on american employers. we are not having honest debates about how to solve these problems, instead it's a partisan attempt to jam all these things into one bill and force it through congress. host: political reporting that there is an organization known

as the women affect action to find that sent a letter to your organization, talking about these efforts in which they say the executives and successful corporations, there's a lack of investment and care economy that takes our retention and business productivity as well as the health and economic security of families, as you have acknowledged, implementation of family-friendly policies is critical to achieving racial justice. don't these programs promote good business in the long run? guest: some of them could, that is why they deserve to be pulled out of this reconciliation bill and debated and considered on their own. so, i actually think that we could come to an agreement. it would involve negotiations, but good sense negotiations could produce an agreement on things like paid family leave. instead what is happening is we are taking approximately 100 different proposals, throwing them into one bill and decided

to try to pass it on the strength of one single party's vote. that is the wrong way to legislate. so, if we want to solve problems like paid family leave, let's pull it out of the bill, negotiate -- and by the way, there is a proven pathway to get there. look at the infrastructure bill, 69 votes in the senate, we can come to an agreement on things. host: our guest is with the u.s. chamber of commerce. we have caused lined -- calls lined up. joe on the democrats line, go ahead. caller: i think that you are the wrong person to talk about the bill, that is in question because -- bill that is in question, because let's be honest, they chamber is only interested in big business. if it does not affect or be of

some value to big business, then taking care of the american people is not your concern. my other issue is, when we talk about jobs, you always say how theere are jobs -- there are jobs nobody wants to work. people want to work. are you not thinking about how people died during this covid pandemic, and that may be there is not the population there to fill these jobs anymore? and the fact that corporations are now having machines take over what jobs people did have? your argument is invalid to me. it is an excuse for big business to earn more money. and the average person paying more taxes, so that big

businesses do not have to pay taxes. host: jo in new orleans. guest: 90% of the chamber members are small businesses, fewer than 10 employees. there's businesses like the one i grew up with. my dad owned a radiator shop and he fixed cars. my mom ran a screenprinting business and printed t-shirts. neither one of them had employees, but they were successful small business owners, that is the majority of our owners -- of our businesses. we're proud to represent them. when we think about the business community, it is an ecosystem. the radiators my father repaired, they were for consumers and for big industrial companies in our hometown. so those big businesses needed my dad, the small businesses needed those big businesses, and that is true all over the

country. that is the kind of system we want to encourage. jo is right, there is a worker shortage. the pandemic has been devastating on individual families, so it is important to get more people vaccinated. and we then have to adjust the worker shortage. it really is holding back the american recovery. host: from california, harold on the independent line. caller: listen, all the money in the world will never get the lead out of the water. we have to stop putting ammonia in the water. the ammonia we are putting in is leeching in the lead out of all our pipes. it's in the houses and everything else. as long as we are putting ammonia in our water, we will continue to have it. it is a cheap way to take the bacteria out of the water. there is other ways to do it,

but it is more expensive. i am talking about chlorine. host: the infrastructure bill does tackle issues of water, go ahead. guest: we need to look at our water system. we would all agree that have a lead water pipes service our homes and schools is something we should replace. this bill provides the funding to do that. so whether it is the chemicals going into treating the water, or getting rid of the pipes to begin with where we already had it leaching, let's tackle the problem. unless we provide the investments in the bill and they are signed into law, there will not be the resources. host: on the republican line, larry in lafayette, indiana. caller: good morning. i was just -- the bill is too big. nobody is going to ever read it.

they say it is $3.5 trillion, that is probably $8 trillion. everybody would have to read it at least two months before. it has nothing to do with you and i, it has got to do with illegal aliens. i have not been able to work for five years and i have not got one time. -- dime. i haven't got a cent because i was not qualified. but all these other -- it helps nobody, it only helps people who do not want help. guest: i think that he raises an important point about the size of the bill and its complexity. one thing we have discovered as we have been going through the several thousand pages that exist, is how these provisions it into her work -- interwork,

and in many cases do not work together. some family-owned small businesses will actually face higher tax increases than the biggest companies, not because of any single provision, but because when you add up multiple different provisions in the bill and stack them together, it is a 17% increase in taxes on some family-owned businesses. so there are other examples on climate change and with critical minerals and china that i could point to, but one of the problems is win you through these things together it does not come together, it is not consistent. you end up with many contradictory policies, and that is why it is no way to legislate. host: senator schumer said there was a framework as far as tax policies, once they decide upon a final number. do you have a sense of what that looks like? guest: it is a list of possible tax increases.

it's not a framework about narrowing the scope of the bill or punitive job destroying tax increases, instead it is a list of options. so we need to get serious about addressing these issues. i'm worried we will not get serious, as long as there is a question of how many policies can we put into one bill at one time and squeak it through. host: what are those telling you as far as how they will prepare on tax increases? guest: they are making transactions, they are making acquisitions and purchases right now in anticipation that taxes might go up in a punitive fashion. the worst thing they are doing is they are looking at their u.s. investment plans, their investments in u.s. manufacturing that's creating jobs here, and they are having to look at global operations and it may turn out is no longer feasible to build those planss

in the u.s. -- plants in the united states because the u.s. would have a higher tax rate on businesses here than what china imposes on their companies. it's also true in europe. so if you are a company, if you are a country, the last thing you want to do is have them most punitive taxes in the world. host: what industries are considering that now? guest: it is important to know when businesses do that. in 2017, we had a lot of industries or u.s. companies purchased by overseas companies because it was economically advantageous to be located abroad because of the punitive u.s. taxes. in 2017, a tax reform bill was passed, and since then the number of corporate and versions, u.s. companies re-incorporating into a foreign country has been zero. that is an important bill that

has protected america's industrial base. but what would happen if this bill becomes law is we would reverse that and go back to the days where u.s. companies are sitting targets for foreign competitors. host: on twitter, what was the chamber's position in the previous administration on the tax cut from donald trump that blew a hole in the budget? guest: we supported the tax cut of 2017. we would have liked to have seen a bill that brought both sides together and had more bipartisan support because it would've been more durable and may be having these debates -- and maybe we would not be having these debates. we could have made changes to get that bipartisan buy in. that may have turned out to be better for the long-term u.s. economy. host: go ahead. caller: titles like human

infrastructure, or to say that the $3.5 trillion bill would cost zero, or saying that companies will not have an increase in their taxes or costs that they pass on to the consumers, this is the way that the democrats and socialists have always operated. they -- you take the word welfare from long ago, what about welfare? the government intervention has reached a level -- i study american history, financial, judicial, and everything. i have been spending months studying up on the depression and different things leading up to it, and we are looking a lot like 1921 to 1929, where the new fed -- it was created in

1913. expanding credit is what leads to a boom, which is then followed by a bust. look at the past 250 years since the free market economy, especially. look at the united kingdom and united states. look at the booms and busts. it's constant. if the theories of the politicians and the so-called economists that they have working, if they had the answers, we wouldn't continue with booms and busts. again, you take a look at 1921-1929, hoover was the treasury secretary, a very smart guy. the predominant thought than was keep the wages high and prices high and people will be able to buy more goods and keep the economy rolling. host: let's get a response. guest: i think it shows the

importance of getting a policy right. so that is one of the biggest things we are concerned about in this multi trillion dollar reconciliation bill. we are already seeing pandemic influenced price increases. so, the pandemic was not brought on by politicians. thi is a once -- this is a once in a century event. the important thing for elected officials to do is to help manage disruptions and not pile other disruptions on top of it. if congress was to enact a $2 trillion or $3 trillion reconciliation bill, you will supercharge inflation, it will raise prices for american consumers across the board. it will put u.s. companies at a disadvantage to local -- global competitors and it will kill the

economic recovery. so let's focus on getting the policy right to avoid that boom and bust cycle. host: on the independent line. caller: yes, please do not hit that button too quickly because i have something to say. i challenge c-span to go back to ronald reagan and then come up to all the presidents, present day, and to see how much money each party spent. and you will see the republicans outspent the democrats big-time. the last president we had to balance a budget was bill clinton, a democrat, but since then the republicans got a sense of these wars -- host: i appreciate the perspective, but why don't you direct a comment to our guest? caller: when they say it is said and then, we spent trillions on

these wars, so a $2 trillion tax cut, $350 billion a year to homeland security, which could not even predict the january 6 insurrection. this is ridiculous. and this guy is coming on here, and every time there is something spent for the american people they have a problem with it. imagine if we would have saved all that money the republicans spent and it spent it on our infrastructure, we would not have a problem. then we would not have this guy on the show. guest: we invited him as our guest, go ahead. guest: we have a real fiscal problem in the government. it exists under republican administrations and democrat administrations. that is how we went from a $2 trillion federal debt to $28

trillion in debt today. we need to solve these problems. the chamber was proud to push republicans and democrats towards fiscal solutions a decade ago. the last time we had a serious debate about getting our deficit under control. so we are long overdue for having that debate again. we'll sit down with anybody, republican or democrat, the white house, or congress to get our fiscal situation under control. we're not going to get it under control, however, by this $3.5 trillion bill. let's have a conversation about deficits, but not confuse at the spending bill with getting our house in order. host: but if it helps interstate commerce, wouldn't that help businesses across the nation? guest: i think it will help people because it will improve efficiency.

importantly, the infrastructure bill was paid for through a collection of bipartisan things folks could agree with. it's a long-term investment in improving the economy. so people would have greater access to high-speed internet. this bill puts billions into unclogging our ports. then we could get the ships unloaded and get more loaded with the things we will sell across the world and at that would make the u.s. economy stronger. host: doesn't and deal with taxation, why don't you have a problem on that side? guest: they are different. if you look at the scope of the paid fors on the reconciliation bill, you are talking about broad-based tax increases that are really sizable. take for example of the house proposed bill. that results in employers across the u.s., on average, employers

-- if you aggregate them together -- they will pay 25% more in taxes over the next decade under the bill proposed in the house. that's not a minor increase, that is a large, substantial increase in the taxes collected. imagine the viewers today, if you are talking about property taxes, imagine those going up 25%. and what that does to your household budget. employers, the employer's taxes, on average going up 25% would have economically devastating consequences. host: there is a piece in the new york times talking about lobbying groups pushing back against the build back better, and your group is mentioned, saying you spent $30 million this year on --. guest: it is not just on build back better, we engage in

lobbying activities on 300 different issues at any one time. we advocate on behalf of our membership, based on policy positions that businesses of all sizes take. so that is an accurate figure, if you take into account all the work we do. host: because they are so involved in the conversation, how much of the lobbying has been targeted to senators mentioned and senator -- to senator joe manchin and senator sinema? guest: we talked to democrats and republicans across the spectrum. while washington and the media is focused appropriately on these two big bills, infrastructure and or the reconciliation bill, every day there is hundreds of other things going on. cybersecurity, an important bill we have been talking about just this week, to make sure that when foreign actors attack u.s.

companies through these ransomware attack's, that we have the resources to be able to push back on them and we have laws to deter those cyber attacks. that's just one example of the 300 different issues we are working with policymakers on today. host: you had conversations with both of those senators about this legislation? guest: them and others. host: joe in massachusetts on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i have a question about the tax rate for american companies. i heard the idea floated that if we took a 15% tax rate for all businesses in america, and we had that same rate throughout europe and other countries we do business with, it would prevent our companies from sending business overseas, and we would

help our own economy by putting jobs or keeping jobs in our country. is that a reasonable solution? guest: i do think we have to find an international agreement on the tax issues. the problem here is not the attempt in finding an international agreement, we think there are legitimate ways to do that, but our biggest concern is the legislation in congress would implement that global worldwide minimum tax that you described, the 15%, before any other country does it. and it would assume that the other countries would follow the u.s.'s lead. historically, that has proven to be a bad assumption. that means other countries, companies and other countries, would actually get a competitive advantage over u.s. businesses and u.s. employers. if we can get global agreement, great. but we should not punish u.s. businesses in the meantime while

waiting to try to achieve that global minimum. host: henry is in south carolina on the republican line. caller: hello. my name is henry and i am calling, i'm a republican but i do not agree with some of the policies. host: go ahead. caller: joe biden ran and won the presidency by a substantial number of the popular vote. when george w. bush was in he gave a $1.3 trillion tax cut to the rich and president trump gave a $1.9 trillion cut to the rich, so about the same amount that the reconciliation bill reaches. the democrats have said that they will pay for the bill by taxing corporations at a lower

tax rate than what they were being taxed before donald trump's tax cut. what's wrong with the corporations paying for it, because anytime we go to war we always find money to pay for that and it does not go to the troops. right now, contractors fight more in the american wars, so it is the military-industrial complex we are financing and not the military itself. and even as a republican, i see some of the policies now and they knew not -- they do not line up with my beliefs. host: henry in south carolina. guest: he raises important points, we should get the facts right on these tax issues. let's dive into the corporate tax rate. most large employers are corporations, and they pay

corporate tax rate. prior to 2017, the rate was 35%, the highest in the industrial ized world. over decades, congress had given these little credits, people called them loopholes, in the code to try to offset some of those, the punitive tax rates. the 2017 law said all of those loopholes, the deductions, we will get rid of most of them an d in exchange we will lower the tax rate to 21%. so the employer's, companies facing the tax, actually gave up the special benefits in order to get the lower tax rate. the next tax cut for business was essentially zero. so when you say, we are going to keep the repeal of all those

loopholes, credits and deductions, but raise the rate back up, what you are doing is you are comparing apples and oranges. when you look at it in terms of global competitiveness, what it means ultimately is that u.s. businesses in a globally competitive market are worse off than before. that is the fundamental difference, you have to look at both sides to understand the true impact. it could be economically devastated because of what it will do to employment in the u.s. host: part of the proposal by the administration also includes money for enforcement of the irs to better audit high earners. has the chamber taken a position on that? guest: not formally, but there's multiple proposals floating out there. there's no question we need to make more investment in the irs,

it has been starved of resources. they are using systems from the 1960's. so if you wonder why tax returns are delayed, why your refund is delayed, one reason is we are still using 1960's computers when we process tax returns. we should upgrade that. that would lead to a better system, more efficient. we believe everybody should pay 100% of the taxes that they owe, and we need to make sure the irs has the resources to enforces tax rules. host: part of the effort is to cut down on tax evasion, what it would mean for those corporations? guest: they need to pay their taxes. so, we want a fair, competitive tax system but whatever the law requires, companies should pay, just like individuals. no one should be getting out of their legal tax obligations. host: one thing we did not talk

about was the debt ceiling, particularly what the chamber might think about if we surpass the debt ceiling and the efforts to stop that? guest: we cannot have a situation in which we reach the debt ceiling without an increase in we default on our debt. the u.s. has never default on legal obligations, that is why we are the world's reserve currency and why the safest investments are investments in our treasury bills. if we were to default on our debt come all of that would go away. the estimates from the economists, just estimates, is that it will cost millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in investment. we cannot afford to do that, that is why congress has to do the responsible thing and raise the debt limit long before we reach the deadline.

host: should republicans be more involved in the process of not crossing the debt ceiling? guest: both sides need to figure out how to move forward together. the danger is the more politicized it is, and it happens under democrats and republicans, the more dangerous the situation gets. congress has to figure out a way forward, like they have every other time we have faced this issue come and preserve -- issue, and preserve the u.s. government and we do not have a self-inflicted wound that will cost jobs, investments and costly u.s. its prestige as a globally responsible power. host: on the democrats line. caller: one question. i wanted to know, you represent the businesses in this country,

and use the 90% of them are small businesses, so i want to know who the other 10% are? guest: many are midsized. think about a business that has 300 or 400 employees. some are bigger, they have 1000. we are also proud to represent the largest employers in the nation. they have tens of thousands of employees in many instances, who earn their paycheck and to support their families by working for those companies. so, we are proud to represent all of them. and we think of it as an ecosystem. small businesses need big businesses and vice versa. host: charleston, south carolina is where joe is from on the republican line. caller: it is a pleasure. i have a feeling you may feel like i do, when it comes to funding programs you would do a

bottom up approach. in other words, here is my idea, here is what we need, then you prove it to me. not have a pot of money to reach into and grab dollar bills out of. i have a real problem with people who really gripe and get angry at companies that offer incentives to build a plant or a company in your neighborhood or town. if you penalize someone, they will leave. look at amazon, i remember the 2017 revision of the corporate tax structure and companies started building factories here. there was the foxconn deal in wisconsin and that fell apart.

we gave incentives, but it made people angry. but people forget, those employees spend money, they pay federal and local income taxes. they pay sales tax. they stimulate the local economy. they buy goods, services. the spinoff industries are tremendous. and i do not understand why people do not see that, it fuels the economy if you give a company a break. what's the biggest hindrance right now in your view? i'm scared that these companies are going to go to ireland, or the caribbean or canada. guest: he said it better than i could. we believe that americans can outcompete anybody in the world, that is how we became the strongest economy in the world, the world's superpower, because of the ingenuity of the american system and of the american people. but what happens with these tax

policies, where we operate at a disadvantage to other companies and countries -- we fight with one hand tied behind her back. imagine what would happen if we unleashed the american businesses to compete on a level playing field globally. taht's when we -- that's when we start to see factories come into the u.s., that is when we start to see new companies founded at home. at that is how we get to the economy all of us want to see. host: russ in maryland on the independent line. caller: hi, thank you. first i wanted to say that you keep saying this is an unprecedented level of spending. this bill pillows in comparison to the explosive military budget from the last 20 years. and his position is clear, the ownership and financiers have it

way too hard. and the hourly wage worker has it way too easy. that's not true. wealth is not accumulating with the hourly workers, it is accumulating at the top. if you want employees to compete with the rest of the world, you need our infrastructure and public transportation to catch up, and we have neglected all of that. and we have seen wealth accumulate at the top, largely through things like tax cuts and a system that works for the ownership, not for the worker. guest: if you look out over the past several months at the economic recovery, and if you go back to the last year before the pandemic hit, the biggest income growth we were seeing was actually at the bottom end of the income scale. the lower income workers were seeing their pay rise faster

than anyone else across the income spectrum. that's a good thing. we should want to have policies that encourage that. the problem is right now those wage increases are being wiped out by inflation. so, people cannot keep up. they are living paycheck-to-paycheck because inflation is going up faster than wages. that is the concern that we see. we want to create an environment where we have strong wage growth without inflationary pressures. when we look at this reconciliation bill we see a program that will supercharge the inflationary pressures, meaning higher prices for families and consumers, and at the same time remove the job creation and business growth. that's a recipe for the kind of a stagflation we saw in the 1970's. that was a long time ago, but we

could repeat it if we make some of these policy mistakes being proposed. host: the u.s. chamber's website is the u.s. chamber.com. neil bradley, thank you for your time. coming up, another discussion on these topics with the co-founder of the center-left think tank third way, matt bennett, to talk about what is going on in the democratic party. that conversation is coming up on "washington journal." announcer: today, u.s. deputy attorney general lisa monaco testifies on the reauthorization on the violence against women act. coverage starts at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3, on c-span.org or on our new video app, c-span now. announcer: watch book tv's coverage of the national book festival. on sunday, the virtual event will feature online author

discussions, plus call in segments. "the cause"'s author will talk about his book and join us at 2:30 p.m. to take your calls. at 3:00 p.m. committee discussion about the opioid epidemic with the author of "empire pain." after the discussion, we will be joined alive by the authors. and then a look at russia. with two authors. at 4:30 p.m., the history of women in medicine with the author of "the doctor's will." and at 5:00 p.m., sharice davids talk about -- talks about her but, "a native kid becomes a

congresswoman." watch coverage of the 21st annual national book festival on sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on but navy, on c-span2. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is matt bennett of the third way. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: can you describe your group and people you represent? guest: we are a centerleft think tank and advocacy organization, essentially moderate democrats and we work closely with groups like the moderates and the senate, and of course course with the biden administration. host: talk about what it is like to be a moderate democrat, especially these days on capitol hill and at the debate on the build back better administration. guest: it is the best of times and worst of times.

on the good news front, there's a lot of us. we are one of the largest caucuses in the congress, in the senate. we are willing quite a bit of power. and the president is a self-described moderate. so it is a good time to be a moderate. on the other hand, when you're having these interparty debates and what it means to be a moderate is being defined by a small number of members, it can be tricky as well. so these are good and bad things for our democratic party. host: how would you define being a moderate? at least from your organization's perspective, what does it mean? guest: in politics, there is this image of what it means to be a democratic moderate that was forged in 1992, when bill

clinton ran for president. i worked for that campaign and in the clinton white house, and i am proud of that moment when the idea of being a new democrat was born, but this was 30 years ago now. so, the notion of what a moderate is has evolved. we live in a completely different world. in our view, a moderate is somebody who believes deeply that the government is vital in making sure that our economy runs properly and that there is opportunity for everyone, but also the private sector needs to thrive. we believe both of those things are possible, but we need sensible regulation and taxation and spending policies to make sure that happens. host: you think both things are possible in the build back better agenda? guest: without a doubt.

the president's approach to the economic mess that he took over, as well as the pandemic and climate change, and the growing inequality in the country, all require a big response. we got a little bit of that with the recovery act and now with the reconciliation bill, the build back better bill are the next the blocks that will move us toward a better functioning economy. host: the debate as far as progressives and moderates, one issue is the price tag -- how do you see that and how does it impact the debate? guest: on the one hand, you have folks on the left wanting to start at $10 trillion. that's where senator sanders wanted to start. then we heard it $6 trillion was their number. then the bill that came out was

$3.5 trillion. so i think everybody understands, given the pressure of getting 50 votes -- 60 votes in the senate, it will be lower than that. the new number is hovering around $2 trillion, plus or minus, so i think that is probably where we will end up. host: our guest is with us until 9:30 a.m., but please note the house will come in at 9:00 a.m. we want to ask questions leading up to that. things are different today. if you describe yourself as a moderate democrat, call 202-748-8000. a progressive democrat, 202-748-8001. republicans at 202-748-8002. independents at 202-748-8003. mr. bennet, let's talk about the role of the moderate. let's put that in a sketch up of

senator joe manchin these days, how would you see that? guest: of course, we have to have erasing no democratic vote -- every single democratic vote for the bill. in his about matters enormously. -- and his vote matters enormously. he is on the energy committee and that will play a role, so he is an important player. obviously, but he knew -- so, obviously, everybody knows by now that he and senator sinema are the most uneasy about the bill of anybody in the democratic caucus, so they have been having a lot discussions with the president and with the speaker about what the bill will look like. he is playing a huge role in crafting pretty much everything. host: as far as their skepticism, do you agree with it

or disagree with it? guest: well, our view is we needed to have a huge response to these crises. i would say we probably agree on some things, disagree on others. i do not know exactly where the senators stand on any of these particular things because they have been doing negotiating in private, which is where it should have been. these deals, when they come together come are better hashed out face to face. so we do not know exactly where he is. we know where he wants to lean with the certain provisions so we are not giving away money to rich people. that makes sense. but we do not know precisely where he wants to cut. one of the big questions now is do they simply reduce the time period, or the price tag, for

each of these programs, or do we take some out and keep the rest at a more robust level? i think that senator joe manchin's view is we should do the latter. some and the progressive caucus want to do the former. host: we know where he is as far as the price tag of $1.5 trillion. what do you thing about dropping to those levels? guest: my guess is we will not end up quite that low. i think there is a good case to be made that that would cut some of the things most urgently needed, as we confront these crises, including climate change. i think probably what we are talking about is a topline number closer to $2 trillion. that's a lot of money. the difference is the defense budget of the united states. that's inconsequential amount.

and our view is the number they are negotiating over is probably that. host: matt bennett is with us. jerry in maryland, you are on. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: what is the total intake for the federal government on an annual basis, because the budget , i believe, exceeds half of the total intake, so where is that money coming from? number two, the democratic agenda has this policy, and we have an economy shrinking, and we have over 2 million people coming in taking away potential jobs. what's the policy that the democrats have tried to achieve? you have working people trying to get minimum wage increased,

then you have the influx of new people taking away jobs, so what is the policy? why is that policy good for the country? host: thank you. guest: so, a couple points, jerry. in terms of the overall budget, the numbers we are talking about our 10 year numbers. what the president has made clear his along with spending increases or tax cuts for the middle and working classes, there are no tax cuts for the rich in this bill, we will offset those with increases in other places, including increases on the wealthy. people who make more than $400,000 a year. if you make more than $400,000 a year, it's possible your taxes will go up. if you make a lot of money and capital gains, which is you are invested in the stock market, you might see prices rise.

taxes may go up on corporations, which saw taxes slashed by president trump. and in our view, some of those need to be rebalanced. if those move, as written, it will not add to the long-term debt of the u.s. on immigration, the numbers jerry said were wrong, we are not seeing 2 million people, in. t -- come in. there probably will not be an immigration portion of this bill. we do not have enough votes for immigration reform. the republicans will not allow the democrats to include immigration in the reconciliation bill. i will say this, what we have seen is that jobs are plentiful in the sectors that immigrants tend to take, those that are

very difficult for employers to fill, often in agriculture or industry or in food processing. and it is not the case that immigrants are taking the jobs of americans who are looking to work, because for the most part those jobs are open and available. and there's fewer workers than jobs. host: steve on twitter talks about senator sinema, saying she will probably get primaried over this. are there political ramifications? guest: it is possible, there is noise on twitter and elsewhere. she's being chased by activists. so there is no question that people are upset about her hold up on this bill. my view is she will vote for the package in the end, and the interparty debates will calm

themselves. remember, she is not up for reelection for another four years, so i doubt that this couple weeks of interparty feuding will lead to a primary that could be fueled by anger in four years. host: co-founder of the center-left think tank third way matt bennett will continue with us. if you are on the line, waited just a few minutes. we will take you to the house session, then continue our conversation once it concludes.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the

speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., october 5, 2021. i hereby appoint the honorable anthony g. brown to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, lisa wink schultz, office of the senate chaplain, washington, d.c. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen, today, we are thankful that you have made us relational beings made in your image. may our relationships on capitol hill be fruitful and marked by joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control. where we have discord and

faction, help us to remember that the entire law is fulfilled by loving our neighbors as ourselves. lord, we long to be fruitful image-bearers. help us in your mighty name. amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 11-a of house resolution 188, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk

received the following message from the secretary of the senate on october 2, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 2278, h.r. 5434. appointment, senate delegation to the british american intraparliamentary group conference. signed sincerely, gloria j.lett. the speaker pro tempore: the following enrolled bill was signed by speaker pro tempore brown. the clerk: to provide an extension of federal-aid highway, highway transit programs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the following -- before the house the following enrolled bills. the clerk: h.r. 23278 -- 2278,

an act to designate the september 11 national memorial trail route and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment section to 4-g-1 of house resolution 8, 117th congress, and the order of the house of january 4, 2021, of the following members to the select committee on economic disparity and growth. the clerk: mr. steele of wisconsin, mr. arrington of texas, mrs. bice of texas, mrs. cammack of florida, mr. donalds of florida. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 11-b of house resolution 188, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on friday, october 8, 2021.

chase bob carried down in a movie theater where he had gone to get away from the pressure of negotiating that bill. you saw the same things happening over the affordable care act when that was being negotiated in 2009. presidents trying to do big things and that got majorities, because almost all presidents come in and try to do their work and there was a big debate. there was the crime bill in 1994 and again in 2009. host: would you say moderates have been able to flex that kind of muscle to have an impact? guest: nobody could flex this kind of muscle because the margins were nowhere near as thin as the president's party is now. you cannot lose a single vote in

descendant which means senator manchin or senator kyrsten sinema can hold up this process if they are unwilling to vote for certain provisions. that gives enormous leverage to the senate and to almost all of the house democrats because there is only a three vote margin. in past fights, the majority leader and descendant rebel to give passes to some ambivalent members who felt like the politics would be bad for them or their state and district. in this one, there are no passes to be given. host: let's go to nicole. she lives in chandler, arizona and defined herself as a moderate democrat. you are on with matt bennett. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to call in to let you guys know i am disappointed with kyrsten sinema. i voted for her and i was excited for her to help arizona

be democratic and get the kind of government we need. i want to know why the democrats are not going harder on her. why is she not being called out for disrespecting the party? it is majority rule than most of the party wants this agenda done with president biden. guest: nicole raises an important point. there is a lot of pressure on the president, chuck schumer -- the president and chuck schumer to turn up the heat on people like senator kyrsten sinema. the problem is that the tools at their disposal don't really allow them to do that. there is not much more pressure that can be brought to bear on an individual. when lyndon johnson was majority leader and then-president, he would be able to threaten

senators with think that would really scare them, like being taken off key committees or having campaign funds cut or being iced out of power in certain ways. that really does not happen in the modern senate. every senator is a king and queen on their own. it is very difficult to pressure them to do things they don't want to do. i think the president and other democratic leaders are doing everything they can to keep kyrsten sinema at the table. i think this bill will be passed eventually but it is tougher to do -- to try to persuade. host: is there a best way forward for moderate and progresses to come together to hash out these issues internally ? guest: yes, and i think that is essentially what is happened. -- happening.

the president needs to be in the center of negotiating and i think he is. he met with a group of moderates yesterday. this ping-pong negotiation is the way these deals get done. it is what happened when senator nelson was unhappy about one thing and others were unhappy about others. just checking things off the list is only way to get it done, particularly when these bills are big and super complicated. host: from fred in florida, republican line. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i have a quick question. my question is about the ceiling cap they are debating. president biden came out yesterday and put the scare tactics that we are going to lose our social security if this does not get past.

i am under the understanding that social security is a completely different entity than what we are talking about. that will not be touched. am i wrong or can you clear the air? guest: you are not entirely wrong. it is true that the social security trust fund is different from the budget of the united states. it is likely that social security checks will continue to flow for a time. the problem is that that is kind of a fiction. there is not really a separate pot of money that exists physically apart from the rest of the u.s. budget. i think with the president was saying is that if you lose the ability to borrow, which is what would happen if the debt ceiling was reached and the credit of

the united states was called into kristin and money fled the u.s. and went to more stable currencies like the euro or chinese currency, that could make it difficult for the government to function. it does not mean that social security checks would start the next day -- would stop the next day, but it could threaten our ability to fund social security going forward. host: from augusta, georgia, moderate democrat. good morning. caller: i am calling to reference the commentary being made. i would like to see the john lewis bill get passed because the gerrymandering going on in southern states is hurting us. i am a veteran and i am dependent on my social security check not to be interrupted every month. thank you, sir.

guest: you have put your finger on a thing where there is absolutely no disagreement among democrats. we all believe it is vital that congress pass reforms like the john lewis bill. what we are seeing in a lot of states, especially southern states and red states elsewhere is republican efforts to make it it vote -- to make it vote and harder to make those votes to count. both voter suppression which is throwing people off of the voting rolls and gerrymandering the districts so they don't have the opportunity to choose a broader array, and other things that make it harder for people to reach the polls, that is one set of things. the other dangerous precedent we

are seeing is a state legislatures telling a local and state election officials that the legislators will be a target in the elections. there is a dangerous and scary array of things happening in these states and it is vital for congress to pass these democracy reform bills. the problem is it cannot be done by democrats alone unless the filibuster is eliminated. that is almost certainly not going to happen. we would need to attract tenants and it republicans to vote for these bills. that is not impossible but it is a very heavy lift. senator manchin is trying to do that. he has a compromise bill that the reform groups we like. there are a few republicans who have indicated they would vote for it but i'm not sure we would get to 10. host: when it comes to the strategy of tying the budget bill and the infrastructure build together, what do you think of that? guest: i think it was inevitable

that was going to have to happen. it is just true that a couple of folks in the senate, joe manchin and kyrsten sinema, are not on board with the idea of moving to a reconciliation bill now and that is not where a vast majority of democrats are. the notion was they wanted to pass a bill that was part of a compromise that brought the build together and made a bipartisan. mitch mcconnell voted for it in descendant. she wants -- voted for it in descendant in his -- voted for it in the senate. they would need to keep both bills tied together and that is probably right. host: from our independent line from massachusetts, this is dd

-- this is dede. caller: i have to call bs on this conversation. i find it odd that nobody questions the fact that kyrsten sinema and joe manchin are really being looked at by the majority of the country as being the ones who know what they are talking about. the democratic party has gone insane. i am 70 years old. my first election was when i was in college in the 1970's so i have seen a bit of political history. i have never seen anything like this. you have the president lying to us about we may see -- we may say $3 trillion but it is not really big. joe would say, come on man. that woman who said it is a majority rule, when did it

become a majority rule? it is a republic. i support joe manchin and kyrsten sinema because they are doing what their constituents want which is what they are there for, not for making millions of dollars which is a lot of what some people seem interested in. host: that is dede from massachusetts. guest: she puts her finger on a big divide in our politics. there is no question that there are a lot of americans who are worried about spending this kind of money. that is irrational fear -- that is a rational fear. it is outweighed by the huge deferred work that congress has been failing to do for decades to make sure we are responding appropriate to climate change,

to make sure americans can get ahead. what we have seen in the last 30 years is a huge growth in the stock market, huge advancements from people at the top, unbelievable wealth accumulated by very few people. the opportunity is not spread evenly and not enough people have the opportunity to earn a decent life. when the market is acting efficiently, it means market needs to step in and do things. the market is not going to respond on its own. government is important. the reconciliation bill is paid for by tax increases on corporations and very wealthy people. it provides an enormous tax cut to the middle class. we think that is appropriate

policy. host: from charlie, democrat line. he calls himself a progressive. guest: we really -- caller: we really need to pass the top line joe manchin will go with and fund every program because they are all important and make it over five years. funded for five years and get the ball rolling -- fund it for five years and get the ball rolling. the next people who get in there and change it at that point. but get the ball rolling. there are people waiting to get the economy turning -- economy churning again. i think about what susan collins said, we will raise the debt ceiling if you get this up.

that is disingenuous and that is the way republicans have been. we are so far behind because all they wanted to do was get rid of obama care for years. all of this stuff needs to get done. they need to make one carveout -- two carveouts, one for the debt ceiling and one for voting rights. voting rights should be like interstate commerce, there should be level rights all across the board. there is no negotiating with the republicans. make the carveout response to getting the supreme court justices in place, let's make it even stephen here. let's get the contributing -- let's get the country moving. guest: the carveouts he was referring to would refer to the filibuster rule. there are a few already.

a filibuster is not allowed when descendant is voting on the president's nominees to his or her cabinet. they are not allowed for judicial nominations, at least to the supreme court. those were carveouts because the rule remains pretty much for everything else. there is another one which is the budget reconciliation carveout which is more complicated. there is a lot of discussion around the idea of making a carveout for voting rights because it is so fundamental and so important and should be universal, should be national. there are a whole bunch of folks who think that is a good idea, but it is not clear that senators mansion and cinema -- senators joe manchin and kyrsten sinema will go along with it.

i would say it is not likely we are going to see that. host: i wanted to point to something you said about these packages being paid for and liked of what the congressional budget office said, that there are more deficits to the tune of 256 billion dollars because of these packages -- $256 billion because of these packages. guest: there is always huge debate over exactly -- what impact a very large bills are going to have. we don't know what the tax sheets are going to look like in coming years and the impact of these big bills will have on the economy. will they choose economic activity so more taxes come in or will they raise inflation and have a negative impact? you get a lot of predictions from both sides of the political debate, one side saying this is going to be extraordinarily expensive and the other side

saying this is going to bring in more tax revenue than we need. the cdo is making a prediction of its own. the president and omb have concluded that this package will be paid for. much depends on what taxes and up in the final bill, if the taxes go up, to what level, if there is any interest deduction. there are a lot of tax provisions that have yet to be negotiated and that will have a huge impact on the final number. host: andrew is in new hampshire, independent line. caller: it is actually new hampton. given the comments from the call about the debt ceiling and what has been going on with these bills, what senators are on

board for this--what republican senators are on board for this? guest: the answer is none currently. the hope of avoiding the debt ceiling would be avoiding -- but that is not an incentive from mitch mcconnell. they have dug in their heels and said repeatedly they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling which is ridiculous. that is where our politics are. they don't try to defend it. you heard the quote from senator collins saying it has to go up, we cannot default on the debt. there are some in the republican senate who think we should, but they are a minority. they understand this is a game we are playing but it is a very dangerous game and we're getting close to the edge of an cliff -- to the edge of a cliff.

democrats will have to do it on their own but it is hard to do and it is not certain they can get it done in time. host: from henrietta in florida, progressive democrat. good morning. caller: two points, first of all the debt ceiling and second of all taxes on the rich. if the congress wanted to change the law, they could. they could gain a lot of money from interests, people with a lot of money, taking money out of the business and not considering get a salary. you could do that. you have not done in -- you have not done it. the democrats can raise the debt ceiling the reconciliation, but they don't want to do that

because they want to see the reconciliation to shove something else down our throat. i am sure you are a nice guy but you are lying to us, straightfaced. change the laws for the rich. don't suck it out of corporations, suck it out of the human beings in those corporations. please, stop lying. we are smart now. the one thing that trump did was rip the veil off of the elite. host: i had to clarify, you are a progressive democrat? caller: yes. host: finish your thought. caller: just saying, you want to tax the rich, go after the human beings and not the corporations. host: thanks. guest: d2 -- the two parts henrietta race, one is just not true. democrats were not reluctant to

raise the debt ceiling on their own because it would have an impact on the record bill, it wouldn't. the rules allow them to raise the debt ceiling through the same process but through a separate bill that has nothing to do with the big bill they are negotiating. the reason they are pushing to not do it that way is because it is a responsible for republicans to require the democrats to jump through these parliamentary hoops where it is going to take dozens of hours of senate floor time and will require democrats to do it on their own, to do anything republicans admit must be done. that is the reason. i am not lying about that, those are the facts. the point about taxes, we agree taxes should go up on the wealthy. they have come down too far not only in the trump era but

before. the wealthy don't pay enough in taxes. many of them pay nothing. democratic leaders have been saying that should go up and that is part of the reconciliation bill raising taxes on the wealthy. for example, there is a loophole that allows wealthy people to pay very little in taxes when they die and their estate is inherited by their children or heirs. we agreed that. our view is that there are some corporate loopholes that should be closed. we will just have to disagree on that point. host: this is from steve in ohio, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to say to your guest that the democrats are not the same party as our fathers and grandfathers. they have gone so far bernie

sanders left that they are alexandria ocasio-cortez crazy. i would like to equate it to -- answers the doubt the guest and his wife have an unlimited credit card. i doubt they give unlimited credit cards to their children if they are high school or college age. this is exactly what the democratic party is doing with this spending bill. they act like they have an unlimited credit card and they don't worry about paying it back because their rich parents will pay for it. i think it is totally responsible and i wish the guest and democratic party would find their common sense because this certainly lost it. host: that is steve in ohio. mr. bennet? caller: i will have to -- guest: i will have to disagree

with the guest. there are provisions in the bill that will pay for this. loading up national debt is a problem. it is a serious problem we will have to deal with as a nation. neither party has been particularly responsible about doing so. president trump saw the sovereign debt rise by historic amounts in parts because he massively cut taxes for rich people and corporations. that is spending also. it does not look the same, you not cutting a check, but it has the exact same effect. if the caller is worried about the debt which is a reasonably think to be, you have to look at both parties. if you look at the performance of both parties, bill clinton had a surplus in the budget that

he handed over to president bush who ended with a gigantic deficit that he handed to president obama who got closer to even. donald trump drove it into the bed with his huge tax cuts. -- drove it into the red with his huge tax cuts. host: matt bennett, the cofounder of third way. thirdway.org is their website if you want to find out more. thank you for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will finish the program with open forum until 10:00. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000,. independents, 202-748-8002. you can call right now and we will take those calls when "washington journal" continues. ♪

>> browse through our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor, accessories. there a link for every c-span fan. every purchase supports our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. >> today, former government officials testify on the afghanistan withdrawal before the house foreign affairs committee. live coverage begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span come online at c-span.org. watchful coverage on our video app, c-span now. >> yes is been on the go. watch the day's biggest political events live or on-demand anytime, anywhere, on our new mobile video app. access top pilots, listen to

c-span radio, and discover new podcasts for free. download c-span now today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we will take you to the sub committee hearing with the facebook ploy who lived documents about internal workings. frances haugen is her name. she told 60 minutes on said night she was the source of leaked documents to the wall street journal. it was the first time she spoke publicly. she is calling yourself an advocate of public oversight of social media and was employed by facebook for two years. she worked to combat election interference and misinformation. that hearing is at 10:00. you can sit on c-span, c-span.org, or if you want to follow along on the device of

your chores, you can download our c-span now video app which will show streaming video of the hearing. there is the hearing room in which it will take place. our coverage will start at 9:55. . until then, open forum. you can call us on the lines or text us at 202-748-8003. let's start with iowa, this is from bloomfield. melissa on our independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i guess this is still to your gentlemen who was on the show. leaders in congress cannot afford to go without a paycheck if the government shuts down, but everybody else can seem to go without one. i think that this is a critical.

host: this is richard in california, democrats line. caller: you look at the overall picture, talking about that ceilings and responsible government, it has been republicans who are supposed to be the conservative party when you talk about debt who have, since reagan, increased the debt immensely. it has been the democrats who have been trying to bring it back to some reasonable level. trump just decimated the tax base by giving huge tax breaks to the super rich. just look at the stock market, who is really benefiting? this infrastructure bill is something that has to be done for the entire country. i know that joe manchin is in the republican state, but his

state's 49th in all levels. health care infrastructure, education. it is a disaster, the state itself. he is not doing what his constituents need. when you are in the senate, it is not just about your state, it is about the well-being and the good of the country. host: let's hear from sabrina in asheville, north carolina. caller: hi. i hear this all the time, always wanting to tax the rich more. most of the rich does job creation. if we take all of the money from the rich, we don't have jobs we need. the economy is like a rain cloud. the bottom filters up to the top to the rain cloud and ministers to rain. the same thing works with our money. if the bottom level of people

are able to go to the store and get what they need or paid deposits for houses and bills, that money trickles to the top. the ones at the top can do amazing things like convert into clean energy. take elon musk, a prime example of what money can do with the right mind. host: that is sabrina in asheville, north carolina. the supreme court met for the first time in its new term yesterday and making one of its first decisions dealing with voting rights in the district of columbia. the court confirmed a ruling that d.c. is not constitutionally entitled to voting representation, deflating hopes that they could secure representation to the courts rather than legislation. the court issued its decision and if you sentence order without holding a hearing citing a previous legal precedent in

which the court decided d.c. is not eligible for representation because it is not a state. does not preclude congress from passing a law that would grant strict a vote. this is from steven in new jersey, republican line. caller: good morning. the biggest thing we are having now is misinformation. one of the biggest promoters of misinformation is the fox news network. how the fcc given the title of the news -- if they do not promote news that provides of the debate. the last republican to be honest was senator mccain. 90 have fox news spewing a lie after lie -- now you have fox

news spewing lie after lie. you have tom cotton going on in spewing more lies. there is not seem to be an ounce of ethical action by the republican party. i am a registered republican and i am so disappointed in how my representatives are allowing this country to fit -- to sit on the verge of default which would make the entire country cover -- the entire country suffer but they get on the fox news corporation and spread lies about everything. host: that is stephen in new jersey. the president himself talking about the dangers of default and the debt ceiling yesterday before reporters at the white house. here's a portion of what he had to say. [video clip] pres. biden: vaulting on the debt would take our economy over a cliff and risk jobs and retirement savings, social security benefits, salaries for service members, benefits for veterans and so much more.

hey failure to raise the debt limit will call into question congress's willingness to meet our obligations that we have already incurred. this will undermine the safety of the u.s. treasury securities and will threaten the reserve status of the dollar as the world's currency that the world relies on. the american credit rating will be downgraded, interest rates will rise for mortgages, auto loans, credit cards, borrowing. folks watching at home, you should know this is the republican position. they won't vote to raise the debt limit to cover their own spending. democrats vote with them to cover that spending the last four years. they say democrats should do it alone. but then, they are threatening to use a procedural power called the filibuster, meaning we would

have to get 60 votes, not 50 votes, to increase the debt limit. this would block the democrats' ability and prevent congress from raising the debt limit. not only are republicans refusing to do their job, they are threatening to use their power to prevent us from doing our job, saving the economy from a catastrophic event. i think it is hypocritical, dangerous, and disgraceful. host: the biden administration yesterday reversed the ban on abortion -- the department of health and human services said deregulation will restore the family planning program under the obama med administration when clinics were able to defer a woman seeking an abortion to provider. the goal is to strengthen the services.

groups revisiting the clinics said they hope the administration's action will lead some 1300 local facilities that left the program in protest over former president trump's policy to return. from new jersey, independent line, this is ron. caller: i agree with the last caller about fox news. second of all, $9 trillion or $8 trillion of the debt went to the military and we have not won a war since world war ii. the other $7 trillion went by the republicans. the republicans created more of the debt that the democrats did. they don't want to take any responsibility. next, the insurance companies in america are paying out 1% on their premiums. that is for your home and

umbrella and things like that. i am not talking about health. there is plenty of money the insurance companies have to invest too low to the government. -- invest to loan to the government. the wealthy people plan on the transportation system for their employees, education system, for their employees. they depend on the bridges and infrastructure for their employees. they depend that their employees are not homeless and cannot pay their rent and mortgages. host: let's hear from missy and a south carolina. cash missy in south carolina -- let's hear from missy in south carolina. caller: i think the democrats are having a messaging problem. the last guest you had on their -- the last guest you had on there was talking about how this

infrastructure plan would be partially paid for. this money is right out over 10 years. -- is spread out over 10 years. it turns out to be $800 billion a year not $3 trillion plus. if they would try to get that out instead of being defensive, it would be successful in getting more people behind it. host: from sylvia in virginia. we will hear from her next, republican line. caller: i think virginia roads are beautiful. i think we need more infrastructure and good use of the money like we had in virginia. other states do not take care of their roads like we do. i feel the infrastructure bill is necessary to get the workout. i don't think we should be cursing at the president on these ballgames, i think that is

schoolyard bullying. host: the balance website has a piece looking at budget deficits , looking at previous administrations, a piece you can find online. they said the four presidents with the worst deficits have been barack obama, donald trump, george w. bush, and ronald reagan. president obama had the largest deficits by the end of his final budget fy 2017. that's a 50% increase from president george w. bush's budget. donald trump was estimated to hold $6.6 trillion in deficit. george w. bush took office in 2001 and racked up $3.2 trillion in deficits by the end of his term. president reagan took office in 1981 adding $1.4 trillion in deficits and almost doubled the debt. a lot more to that piece at the

balance if you're interested in the topic of deficits. this is from scott in utah', democrats -- scott in utah, democrats' line. caller: what ron and missy set were right on. you had a naive republican with this tired story about job creation. i am old enough to see when we had a middle-class in the 70's and watch that middle-class disappear. these corporations are more interested in the ceos making billions of dollars while i am making $10 to $20 -- i making $10.20 per hour. the middle class disappeared. this last, we had for president has made the country so much more nurses cystic -- so much more narcissistic that i can see it in my everyday life.

we need to bring back to middle-class. did we forget our history? that is all i have got. host: we will go to marlene in florida, independent line. caller: the color saying that fox allies and his prejudice, cnn and msnbc are just as prejudice but i don't know why they can't see that. his second thing i want to bring up is the monster bill for $2500 -- monster bill with 2500 pages. if it has that many pages, they are hiding something. that is like 10 bucks worth of bills -- $10 worth of bills. host: go ahead and finish your thought. caller: that is it, i'm just saying to 2500 page bill is hiding something. host: that is marlene in

florida. looking at oil prices, the new york times looks at decisions by opec plus, saying in a news release that it would only raise production by 400,000 barrels a day in november, less than 0.5% of the world's demand. the group shrugged off pressure to ramp up oil production to ease attending market. analysts say the group is more cautious in their outlook than those who see the demand for oil stripping supply. the demand for oil is recovering after crashing last year. the pandemic remains a concern in key oil consuming nations. just a few more minutes until we take you live to the subcommittee hearing featuring frances haugen from facebook talking about information put on that platform. you can see that on c-span1 or follow on our c-span now video

app. if you have not had a chance to do that, go to your favorite app store to do that, go to our website and the details of our c-span now video app. from john in new york, independent line. caller: thank you for what you do. the best speaker you had on -- the previous speaker did not. he had one thing being forgotten about the $3.5 trillion package. everyone talks about what it costs. compared to the speaker of the chamber of commerce, he explains what that affects. as a junior cash as a senior, i am limited on the -- as a

senior, i am limited on the number of things i can purchase because of the cost of my prescriptions. this is true for all people throughout the country. if they had the ability to pay less for their prescriptions, they could purchase various other things which would mean more jobs for this country which would improve our economy. yet, no one seems to talk about that. they are just focusing on the negative side and they are not saying how this could be beneficial to the economy. host: from lisa in virginia, democrat line. caller: thank you for having me. i want to say that biden is trying to do the best he can with the republican obstructionist party. republicans chose to give tax cuts to the billionaires and now they want to take that tax cut

back. the corporations have agreed to these tax cuts, they are already negotiated. the bill they're trying to pass, the $3.5 trillion is only going to be $580 million a year for the next 10 years and it would pay for itself with the infrastructure plan. but also for getting out broadband up. can we just have broadband? host: that is lisa in virginia. some new services set for the u.s. postal service. postal customers cannot redeem paychex in virginia and the bronx with gift cards out at $500. post offices expect to expand the pilot into a fuller study. jim from plainfield, illinois, independent line.

caller: my comment is that 10 years is a long time. we need to possibly consider that we could go into world war iii. we could have a depression worse than the 1920's. we could have coronavirus outbreaks, stocks can drop in one day, there could be a 9/11 incident worse than the original 9/11. trade with china could collapse. the job market could collapse. it is not going to be smooth sailing for the next 10 years. maybe, but maybe not. we need to have a safety net. host: a tweet from dcn -- cnbc executive producer saying that the justice department is to address threats against school officials so they can work without fear of their safety.

threats against public officials are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation's core values." in virginia, your next up. that's right, you are from pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: i would like to say that this is god's world and god's country and. . we must obey god whether republican -- god's country and we must obey god. whether republican, or democrat, or independent. there is a rebellion against god and against the constitution. host: joan from minnesota, democrats' line. caller: i just wanted to go back to what that one lady said about taxes.

i think it is backward because if it were not for the millions of people working hard every day , the rich would not have a dollar in their pocket. they are wealthy because of the hard work of these people. it is showing up because of the lack of people who can work right now because of the pandemic. it should be that the rich pay these people back and say thank you for working every day and putting money in my pocket. i'm going to make you a part of it and we will do this together. host: that is joan from minnesota. that is it for our program. we will take you in a few minutes the start of that commerce subcommittee hearing with a facebook -- with a former facebook employee. if you