capodice from new hampshire public radio's civic 101 podcast discussed the importance of civics education. all that and your calls, texts, and tweets washington journal -- next on washington journal. ♪ >> host: welcome to washington journal. a jury acquitted kyle rittenhouse on all charges more than year after he fatally shot two people in kenosha, wisconsin. he was among a group of people who said they were there to protect businesses after the city was shaken by toroidal -- turmoil. the shooting death and following trial and verdict have raised questions about vigilantism, self-defense, guns and the law

in the united states moving forward. our question this morning, what do you think about kyle rittenhouse being found not guilty on all charges? we will open of regional lines. that means if you are in the eastern or central time zones, your telephone number is (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, your telephone number is (202) 748-8001. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media, facebook, on twitter, and you can follow us on instagram. once again, kyle rittenhouse yesterday was found not guilty on all counts following for shooting in kenosha, wisconsin, more than year ago.

for those of you who might not have followed what happened with the trial, let's go to the washington post and see what they have written about what happened in kenosha. a jury acquitted kyle rittenhouse on all counts friday, more than a year after the teenager fatally shot two people and wounded a third of it unrest over police shootings in kenosha, a case that set off a national debate over guns, race, vigilante is him and self-defense -- vigilantism and self-defense. they delivered their verdict in a courtroom just blocks from where rittenhouse, then 17, opened fire on august 20 5, 2020. he traveled to kenosha, joining a massive armed civilians that took to the streets after a white police officer shot jacob blake, a black man. rittenhouse began breaking down as he listened to the words "not

guilty", including homicide, and slumped over the defense table as they finished. the teenager embraced one of his attorneys and drank from a water bottle, his hands trembling. he quickly left the courtroom. rittenhouse appeared in the streets with an ar 15 rifle in august of 2020, sankey was there to help protect businesses amid the unrest. but during brief confrontations, rittenhouse shot and killed joseph rosenbaum and anthony huber. he shot and killed --rittenhouse faced a potential life sentence if convicted. we want to bring to you a little video that comes from the courthouse in kenosha where the trial happened. the kenosha county circuit courtroom.

we want to bring you video as the verdict was read. [video] >> the defendants will rise and face the jury. >> the state of wisconsin versus kyle rittenhouse. first count, we the jury find the defendant not guilty. as to the second count of the information, we find the defendant kyle rittenhouse not guilty. as to the third count of the information, the unknown male, we find the defendant kyle rittenhouse not guilty. as to the fourth count of the information, we find the defendant kyle rittenhouse not guilty. as to the fifth count of the information, we find the defendant kyle rittenhouse not guilty. >> members of the jury, this is

your unanimous verdict? is there anyone who does not agree with the verdict thus read? folks, your job is done. host: we want to know what you think this morning about the trial that went on in kenosha and what you think about the verdict of not guilty for kyle rittenhouse on all charges. let's start with evan from milwaukee, wisconsin. caller: i feel it was all they set up, because i did not like the demeanor of the judge. from the beginning he showed bias, before the trial even got started. not to mention from what i understand fox and friends paid for his defense. now he is going to be on the speaker circuit for the republicans and also on fox, and

at trump rallies promoting self-defense. i guess he will be the new face of self-defense movements for the republican party. as far as i'm concerned it was a sham. it was a set up. it was expected. that is just how i feel. thank you. host: ray from ithaca, new york. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i think that jerry made the right decision -- jury made the right decision. the prosecution was terrible and the judge was correcting him as he was breaking basic law practices. i think the jury 100% made the correct decision. they looked at all the evidence and it was clear-cut to me. host: let's talk to robert from fayetteville, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning.

i can't believe you came to the correct decision on this. i've bounced around and listened to different media sources. everyone you went to was like watching a different court proceeding somewhere, making up their own so-called facts, evidence and such. the only what i saw they got it right was fox. i don't think the judge will go on a speaking tour when he was appointed by democrat. i think he did a good job keeping the prosecution from using false evidence and making sure they gave the defense the right stuff to defend the defendant. i'm amazed this turned out as good as it did. host: let's go to eric calling from columbus, georgia. good morning. caller: how are you today?

thank you for taking my call. i watched the trial. i think they did everything right. i do. i think the people who are upset behind this are not upset because -- they are calling it a miscarriage of justice. they are upset because their political agenda was not met. this guy, in my opinion, is a light in the dark in terms of hope. i don't think these democrats want us republican supporters to actually have that. host: that will be a question we will talk about i suspect a lot this morning. what do you think the political agendas were in this case that people were layering on top of this case? caller: that's an excellent question. thank you for asking that. i think the agenda was to make it look like anyone who stood up against what these people call

peaceful protests -- peaceful pushback, anyone who pushes back against that is an anarchist, a rebel, and anyone that says trump won is definitely that. all you have to do is say don't support what the democrats support and they will automatically put that on you. thank you. host: diane calling from waterbury, connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, diane. caller: i was thinking the two men that kyle rittenhouse killed were black. in the news they said he had killed two white men. i just realized yesterday the two men he killed her white.

i think most black people should be glad he was found innocent, because if he had killed two black men, i can understand why blacks would be upset if he was found innocent. however, he killed two white men. i don't understand why black lives matter is so upset because he got off as being innocent. host: should it matter whether the people who died were white or black? does it matter? caller: the whole situation is a racist thing. host: now that you know the people who were shot -- the shooter was white and the two people killed were white, does that make a difference? caller: to me it makes the difference. host: why? caller: i'm thinking the two men he killed were black. i was very upset over it. when i found out they were white, i was shocked because i

was thinking -- i think the majority of the black people think he killed two black men. host: i don't know if i can agree with you on that. it has been very well-publicized. we have seen the pictures of the people who died several times. i don't know if i agree that most people thought the people who died were white -- were black. i don't think i agree with that. caller: they don't empathize the fact that the men who died were white. they do not empathize that. -- emphasize that. host: why would it matter? they were americans. they were humans. caller: because this is what blacks are angry about. we are angry about black people not getting justice and being shot by the police and shot and killed by white people. that is what the whole situation is about. host: walter calling from

michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. well, i feel the facts remain that two people died. that is the most important part. i think that every american should think about what direction we are going in here. is this what it has come to? we politicize everything. america is so divided now. i just don't think we are heading in a good direction here. host: walter, i asked a caller earlier. what political considerations were layered on top of this rittenhouse case? caller: certain news stations are making an issue out of it.

the real issue to me is that two people died. one was that he will never walk again -- one was -- he will never walk again. kyle rittenhouse will have to live with this for the rest of his life. if i killed a human being in any way, i am not sure i would be able to function as an adult anymore. i think i would feel such remorse that it would weigh heavy on me. that is how i feel about the whole situation. i don't think this is a healthy thing, the direction we are going in. when people just pick up and carry guns to a certain

situation, i think we should have more training on how to use a gun, because this 17-year-old who had this gun, i don't think he was in the right frame of mind. i don't think, you know, he actually knew the repercussions of going. host: margo calling from country club hills, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. once again i am outraged. this is such a squash on the first amendment, because -- the second minute -- people with the second minute are so involved in that -- second amendment are so

involved in that -- i'm sorry. if you pick up a book and put down the gun, maybe then we can have some sort of reform. the reason they want to keep folks out -- books out is because information is freedom. it makes you get along. it makes you want to strive for more information and learning about other people. we are all the same. we are all god's creatures. there is nothing in the bible about being armed, picking up guns, you know. it is sad and unfortunate. i pray that things will get better. host: kevin calling from michigan. good morning. caller: i think everybody is

missing the point here. the point should be, why were the cops told to stand down? this whole summer, you know, black lives matter and people were burning cities down. ok? constantly. you see the cops just standing by and letting them do it. to me, i planed the mayor of the city -- blame the mayor of the city and governor for telling their police to stand down. had they went in and stopped the stuff in it first started, i don't think he would have been there to shoot anybody. when you are watching people's business is being destroyed and no cops trying to help them, what do you do? i kind of see his point when he went down there to try to save people's property or help people. i can't say i was happy about him shooting people but if people are going to attack you,

you have the right to self-defense. host: that was one of the questions that came up during the trial. do you have a right to self-defense when you put yourself into a volatile situation? for example, if somewhat on the national mall goes out and decides to go attend a march at the national mall and opposes what the people are marching for, do they have a right to defend themselves in the middle of a crowd that they know from the beginning that opposed what they think? caller: the way i see it was the cops were not doing their jobs. the governors were not doing their jobs. they should be held for charges because they did not do nothing. they did not send the cops to stop when it first started. i think that is the number one thing. we can't have protests going crazy and not having anybody stopping it. that is number one.

period. host: don't we have a right to gather and protest? caller: you do, but you don't have the right to burn buildings, shoot stuff at cops, take over city streets. that you don't have the right to do. host: let's go to james calling from north royalton, ohio. good morning. caller: hello? how are you doing? thank you for c-span. let me be clear. people who watched the trial did not get this part. there are three people shot. three people with criminal records. one was a pedophile. h-1b his grandma -- one beat his grandma. one had multiple duis. host: where are you getting that

information from? caller: it's all a fact. you can look it up. host: you got it off the internet is what you are saying? caller: a lot of things come from the internet. yeah. i watched the whole trial on the internet. yeah. anybody can verify for themselves. it is a matter of public record. i don't think -- what are the odds he shoots three people in all three of them are felons and have a lengthy criminal record? only at a black lives rally will something like that happen. thank you. host: steve from arizona. good morning. caller: how is it going? host: i'm fine. go ahead. caller: i have a few points to make. it is a clear-cut case of self-defense. nobody is saying this.

put yourself in that young man's shoes. maybe he was in a tight position. when you have threats of death against you, you will do whatever it takes to preserve your life. i don't care who you are. when it comes down to that, you will preserve your own life. that is what he did. i think they got it right on this one. yeah, there is a lot of controversy that is continuing to swirl around. nick sandmann had to sue the media. they had it wrong. just like in this case, this young man should get together with his folks and sue the media for all the trouble they caused. the one lady called in. i watch c-span everyday. she thought he had killed a couple of black people. black people were enraged over this whole deal. how did that get out that he killed a couple of black people when he did not kill any black people? the thing is, it is getting to

be about race in this country. we are an open carry state. when i go out in public i greet all kinds of people with a hello and a smile, not a handshake because of covid, but people of all ethnicities greet me and our friendly. i always ask them before i leave -- i think the media has it wrong. do you? i don't feel like we are at each other's throats. every person says yes, you are right. where are they getting this from? somebody has to do something to reign in the media. not the c-spans, but the cnns, and fox newses. as much opposition as you have in the political realm, you have that much opposition in the media realm. host: speaking of politics, president biden was asked yesterday about the rittenhouse

verdict as he was going to his annual physical at walter reed, and about friday posey vote in the house on his bill back better bill. here is president biden. [video] caller: i did not watch -- pres. biden: i did not watch the trial. >> you stand by past comments about white supremacy? pres. biden: i stand by what the jury concluded. the jury system works. you have to abide by that. >> what is the state of your health after this? pres. biden: good. they will release all the details. i feel great. nothing has changed. we are in good shape. i am looking forward to celebrating my birthday. >> now that it has passed the house, when the you expected to land on your desk? pres. biden: i don't know.

it will take a while to get through the senate. i think after thanksgiving. i will sign it, period. host: let's be clear about something president biden just said. it is not his 50th birthday. today his 79th birthday. today is president biden's 79th birthday. people from across the political spectrum, including politicians, have been commenting on the kyle rittenhouse verdict. i want to review tweets from lawmakers put out yesterday and today on the rittenhouse verdict. this is from andy levin. "greatly disappointed but not surprised. lack of common sense gun laws and systemic racism allowed him to kill two innocent people.

now he gets to walk free." jason crow. "the justice system cannot fail if it was never meant to deliver justice for some people in the first place. the verdict is a tragedy. we have the better. my thoughts are with the families and the communities that are hurting." from jerry nadler. "this is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by doj. justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engaged in first amendment protected protests." from -- "the verdict did not deliver justice. it should serve as a stark reminder of the work that lies ahead in the reform of the broken system and bring justice to communities that have been unjustly criminalized for so long."

here is one from warren davidson. "thank you to the jury for showing their can be integrity in our struggling justice system. some observations. at least one protest -- fake news harms us all." let's go back to the phone lines and talk to bennett from maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you so much. i stand with joe biden on this one. i trust our criminal justice system. i wanted to say to the previous caller about the right to assemble under our constitution. i think when we have biases, they can prevent us from parsing out bad parts of our argument --

some of the good parts. it leads us to accept essentially the full plate of the offering. it is hard for republicans, for example, to criticize the storming of the capitol. i don't want to call it an assault. they reached the doors and walked in. i would argue liberals are having a hard time invalidating the violent forms of protests that occurred after the george floyd killing. i think people need to be more reasonable and see this kid should not have been out there. he was 17 years old. we don't need jedi nights or vigilantes -- jedi knights or vigilantes. we need police forces to enforce the laws and prevent lawlessness.

everyone has a right to peacefully protest. by all means do so. but if one can't see there was plenty of violent, mob-like behavior that was unjustified and unlawful, i think that is the root of our issue. our biases and inability to be more reasonable. host: let's talk to doug from forks, washington. caller: good morning. just one point. it doesn't matter if they were black or white. it was self-defense. it does not matter who attacks you, what color they are. if it is self-defense, it is

self-defense. that kid handled that gun very well as far as i'm concerned. he must have already had training because he did great. i don't mean that in the wrong kind of way. also, although leaders like nadler, all of them, it is like they wanted to incite the riots in the cities and have everything torn apart. the only reason it did not happen last night is because everybody with common sense. those people that did march know it was self-defense. luckily it was all on tape and they saw it. everything went well. thank god nobody rioted. it was a full-blown riot. it was not peaceful protesters. host: mark from carlisle, pennsylvania. caller: good morning, jesse. great topic.

great comments. i agree with james and kevin for sure, and the last guy that called. let's get the facts out. jacob blake had a warrant, knife. he is trying to steal his car. his girlfriend posey car. --'earl friends -- his girlfriend's car. this was not a peaceful protest. these politicians like the last guy just said that her treating this -- that are creating this problem and not knowing the facts, they need to be investigated and held accountable. it was not peaceful protests. it was riots and people got killed. innocent people got killed. let's stick to the facts. host:-- host: let's go to rudolph. good morning. caller: good morning.

host: go ahead. caller: first of all, where did the kid get the gun from? host: that's a good question. caller: i've been hearing he got it from his mother. he was 17 years old. his mother should have been arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. all of this stuff about this country is divided, come on, man. everybody knows what time it is. we've been divided for over 400 years. i don't know why people say that. it has nothing to do with division. everybody knows we are divided. it was by design. as far as the trial is concerned, what if everybody did what kyle rittenhouse did and ran to a protest? you are talking about 15 people

dead. they need to stop this. they really need to stop it. i'm so sick and tired of all of this madness. it is disgusting. host: let's talk to maxine, who is calling from new baltimore, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i'm very thrilled with this verdict. for once, a jury got it right. this young man was defending his life. he had been attacked by a skateboard -- with a skateboard. this was nuts. -- this was not a miscarriage of justice. this was justice personified. the jury system did its job. you can talk all you want about him being where he was. he was there protecting his neighborhood. and these thugs thought they were going to do to him what they were doing to the buildings

and they got a surprise. host: just be clear, it was not his neighborhood. he is not from kenosha. caller: he was protecting -- he was there, protecting property. these three men were there to destroy property. and to take his life. attacked him with a skateboard. they attacked him, grabbed the gun. they had to be idiots. to grab a gun and try to take his gun away. host: let's talk to travis, who is calling from bismarck, north dakota. travis, good morning. caller: yes, sir. host: go ahead, travis. caller: hello. let's get down to the true brass and facts. there are two men that are dead and one that is injured. plain and simple. the man should be in jail.

he drove miles. yes, he did what he thought was right. not justifying any of it. but, let's put it down to brass and facts. he took two people's lives and injured one. host: travis, do you think that this verdict is going to make more people armed themselves and attempt vigilante is him -- vigilantism by going out and doing what they think the cops should be doing? caller: i should hope not. honestly, i should hope not. anybody that has any training, go ahead, utilize it. don't do it that way. all lives matter. that's all i'm calling about. host: let's go to carolyn, who is calling from mount vernon, new york. carolyn, good morning.

caller: good morning, jessie and c-span viewers. first of all, this little killer , and that's when he was, killed two white people and injured a third white person. now, the media was very clever that they never, in the beginning, told you who they killed -- who he killed. they never said they were white or black. we did not find out they were white until later. the media was complicit in that. they said he killed people. where were his relatives? where were the people he shot? they never showed their relatives on tv. all they showed was the killer side of the family. now, -- killer's side of the family. this was a miscarriage of justice and the killer got off.

if he was black, believe he would have been in jail from the beginning. but, they let him go. the police let him go. they thought he -- they saw he had a rifle and was underage. they let him go. if he was black, they would have shot him down in the street like a dog. but, the media was complicit in it. the judge was a catastrophe. and this whole miscarriage of justice is a sham. 5 -- host: yesterday, after the verdict, mark richards, who is the defense attorney for kyle rittenhouse, came out and spoke with the media after the trial verdict was read here is what mr. richards had to say. >> it's been a long day and a long three weeks. we are happy that the jury took the time to put in an incredible

amount of effort. there were times we doubted the case. there were times we were confident. to say that we were relieved would be a gross understatement. kyle is not here. he is on his way home. he wants to get on with his life. he has a huge sense of relief for the jury did to him today. he wishes none of this would have ever happened. but, as he said when he testified, he did not start this . we are thankful in more ways than one, that the jury got to hear the true story. when i say the media, i am talking about social media and things like that. the story that came out from the beginning was not the true story.

that was something we had to work to overcome in court. and we think we did that. host: let's look at some more tweets from lawmakers that came out yesterday and today, on the verdict in the kyle rittenhouse trial. there is one from paul gosar, that says justice was served for kyle rittenhouse and he is fully exonerated. as i said last year, obviously self-defense. i will arm wrestle matt gaetz to get dibs for kyle as an intern. this is from senator ted cruz. this acquittal is not just about kyle rittenhouse. this verdict rita rates that every american has the god-given right to self-defense and the protections of the second amendment. the corporate media should be appalled by their coverage of this case from start to finish. and from senator ron johnson, i believe justice has been served in the kyle rittenhouse trial. i hope everyone can accept the verdict, remain peaceful and let

the community of kenosha heal and rebuild. and from senator tom cotton, joe biden needs to publicly apologize to kyle rittenhouse. we want to know what you think about the jury verdict that kyle rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges. that's go to shirley, who is calling from new castle, pennsylvania. surely, good morning. -- shirley, good morning. caller: thank you. first of all, i'm 83 years old and i think it is terrible what is going on in this country today. are you there? host: yes, go ahead. caller: ok. and i would like to say something to every governor of every state, every commonwealth, and every mayor of every city. start doing something about this. the constituents that voted you

in expect you to do your job. what i mean by that is work for the people who voted you in. what are you doing? when you see all this writing going on, all of these buildings being burned down and stuff stolen and people's lives being taken, what are you doing about it? i don't think much of anything. so, why are you sitting there in that building, watching all of this go on and nothing is being done? host: let's go to larry who is calling from indianapolis, indiana. larry, good morning. caller: good morning. i hope you don't cut me off. here is the viewpoint. a message was sent to decent white people that if you support any black cause, any cause like that, you are being a traitor. that is why it is justified that they let this kid off. it goes back to the days of slavery. if a white person helps a blacks

gave -- slave escape, -- a black slave escape, he is a threat and was wrong. if you support a black cause or a cause of people of color, you can be killed legally. host: let's go to richard, who is calling from louisville, kentucky. good morning. caller: the rule of law was shown to the country yesterday in the last couple of weeks. you have the prosecution, that tried to slide in different things that the judge told them before the trial started, we are not going to do this, we are not going to do that. then they hid evidence on him and the judge still let it go to the jury. the prosecution was absolutely terrible. collar rittenhouse, it is a shame that a 17-year-old son, and by the way, sir, his father lives in kenosha.

his father lives in kenosha. you said he had no business being there, he had all the right to be there. is it a shame that these people were killed, absolutely, it was a shame. but, i will not stand back and let people tell me i have to stay home and locked down because black or antifa or any group for that matter, tells me that they want to come and burn down my place of business, i will protect myself. i will protect my business. and i will ask people to come and help me. if you forget -- did you forget, sir, it was the democrats who said the police were told to stand down. in 2020, in the summer of 2020, you had the big movement by black lives matter and the congressional black caucus

called to defund the police. people are going to protect themselves. host: let's go to mary from south burlington, vermont. caller: good morning. my heart is absolutely broken this morning. we are all going to be out on the streets, shooting each other. 17 years old. you have a big gun under your arm and you are walking down the street. i will keep it simple. we are losing our way. we are losing our hearts, we are losing our minds. people are dead. because we can't get along and because of this and because of that. it breaks my heart. i'm so sad to see this happen in our country. 17 years old with a gun.

what might he do down the road now that he is out on his own? he might have another problem and destroy something else, someone else down the road. god bless america and let us get back to the basics. host: let's go to ann, who is calling for montana. good morning. caller: good morning. first, i want to say i watched the whole trial. this kid, the jury found him innocent. rightfully so. but, if you, jesse, would play tapes of joe biden, msnbc, cnn before this trial, they gave all of the misinformation to the public. if you would just play some of

their statements, referring to this kid, it is unbelievable. this is where it all starts. when our leader of this country is calling this kid a white supremacist, he supposed to care for the whole country. it starts on his back. i will tell you what, i hope this kyle sue's cnn, fox news, i've watched all the news broadcasts. fox news, play all three of them before the trial, jesse. fox news was the only one that had the facts. host: the caller mentioned president biden's statement and

i want to read to you the president biden statement that came out yesterday. we played for you what he said to the media. he put out an additional statement i want to bring to you here. while the verdict in kenosha will leave many americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken. iran on a promise to bring americans together because i believe that -- i ran on a promise to bring americans to -- together because i believe that what unites us is stronger than what divides us. i know that were not going to heal our country's wounds overnight, but i remain steadfast in my commitment to do everything in my power to ensure that every american is treated equally. violence and destruction of property has no place in our democracy. that is a statement from president biden that came out yesterday. let's talk to robert, who is calling from brooklyn, new york.

robert, good morning. caller: hi, good morning. i just wanted to say that everyone is missing the point. everyone is saying it is self-defense. it is focused on the act of shooting someone when this is about reckless endangerment. everyone who is saying it is self-defense is saying the protests were not peaceful. if you go to a riot with a gun, that is a textbook case of reckless endangerment. i think this is where things break down. this is where people will think it is ok to put themselves in this position and they will be standoffs. that is where i stand. i don't see it as a triumph of the rule of law, i see it as a triumph of s cleaning things. host: let's go to connie,

calling from chicago, illinois. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say that, first off, all of the people that are calling in that support kyle rittenhouse's behavior, his actions, are saying that in addition to the jury, he's not guilty. in their eyesight and in their opinions, that is what they are entitled to think and believe. however, in spite of his getting the not guilty verdict, the fact remains that he killed somebody. two people. that leads to the fact that he is still a murderer. he is not free from being labeled a murderer. another point i wanted to focus on was his mother.

it was alleged that she drove him across state lines. where are the charges on her? where are the charges on her? ok? this whole matter expected george zimmerman, a self-appointed neighborhood watchman. i'm going to make sure the neighborhood is safe. safe from who? host: let's go to lou, who is calling from highland park, illinois. lou, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good. caller: one, if all the injured people in this case were black, this would never have hit the news like it did. this stuff happens in chicago

all the time. no one gives a damn. secondly, i think all sides in this case are wrong. it is one of those situations where a boy who went into the town holding a gun, which is very provoking, imagine someone walking into your house, holding an ak-47, you would be provoked into defending yourself and hurting that person, whether he pulled the trigger or not. i think there is all kinds of visions that are not being discussed. i think the third case is think of jacob blake. he is paralyzed for life. and in that situation, i think everyone was wrong. the cops could have handled him much better, without shooting him. the cops had all the time. and you don't have to shoot

somebody. host: let's go to brenda, who is calling from manchester, washington. good morning. caller: i agree with the man that was from new york who talked about the reckless endangerment. that's what i could not comprehend. he comes in with a gun. isn't that starting trouble right there? as far as the fella hitting him with the skateboard, i guess a lot of my thunder has been stolen. but basically, welcome to the wild west. this verdict basically says just bring a gun and if you feel threatened, you can shoot because you were threatened. it doesn't matter that you were threatened with something that can't kill you. how hard would he have to beat him with the skateboard? i did not want to go off on that. my main point is people are dead

. someone came in with a gun. he said he felt threatened even though he had the gun. the lady that brought up george zimmerman, i thought of that, exactly. here is a man. the police told him stay back and stand down and he went out with his gun, because he felt threatened by someone without a gun, shot him and was justified. things have got to change with gun safety. and who can carry them. i looked across and have a beautiful view of seattle. we go to seattle regularly. that is a kind little spot. and i'm tired of hearing cities are on fire. that was last summer. it was a horrific event. it was a small section of seattle. it was blocked.

it is beautiful. it has been beautiful for a long time. people are protesting for righteous reasons. it is a shame that the looting happened. but we cannot lose sight of the fact there needs to be social justice reform. host: let's go to edward, who is calling from texas. edward, good morning. caller: people, the protests are great. when it becomes a riot, that is when the law needs to take over. it seems like we can't protest properly. for me, the young man -- they say he should not have been there. he was there protesting. when his life was in danger, look what happened. two lives were killed and one was hurt.

lives were taken. i think the young man defended himself and i believe he did right. host: let's go to matthew, who is calling from emerson, new jersey. matt, good morning. -- matthew, good morning. caller: thank you and happy early thanksgiving to everyone. let's look at facts, please. this has nothing to do with race . absolutely nothing. because, the so-called news media, never reported that the two individuals who rittenhouse killed in self-defense were white. one of these individuals who rittenhouse killed in self-defense was a child rapist and predator. ok? a criminal. by the way, this is a victory for justice and self-defense.

it is a defeat for the fake news media like msnbc, who followed the juror fan to intimidate them. the judge banned them from the courtroom. so please, don't bring race into this. the facts showed that does not apply. the man was threatened. his life was threatened. and this business about crossing state lines is alive. it is false. because, in wisconsin, it was not illegal. it is legal, the type of gun he had, for a person of his age to carry. crossing state lines is a red herring. it is fake news for people who hate what happened. most of them, democrats, by the way. host: let's go to jeff, who is

calling from parkersburg, west virginia. good morning. caller: thank you, jesse. i would like to say every time something goes wrong in this country, fox news always says antifa or black lives matter. i just want to flip the script and say if i was a black man going down with a long gun at a white supremacist protest, they would have shot me down like a dog. i would not have to go to court. all of this stuff about black lives matter and antifa is a bunch of crap. i can tell they watch fox news news. they don't have to say. host: let's go to john who is calling from vicksburg, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. how are you doing? the way i look at this -- first and foremost, the jury came to a

verdict. the verdict was not guilty. now, the way i look at a not guilty verdict, i don't automatically consider it a pronouncement of innocence. i think, in my own opinion, kyle was motivated to go to that protest with a gun. i think that he was seeking trouble. but, that being said, the laws in wisconsin are what they are. the finding of not guilty was justified. but my fear is is that in future protests, both sides are going to start coming to these gatherings armed. and it will take very little to set these people off into a

full-fledged non-battle in the streets. thank you so much, i appreciate it. host: let's go to andy, who is calling from lewiston, california. andy, good morning. caller: hey, jesse. i've heard a lot of calls this morning. they want to talk about the facts. and they want to talk about self-defense. so, for example, the first kid that was shot, self-defense, you have as much force as you need to stop the threat. when he shot that guy the first time and shattered his hip and the guy fell to the ground, how can you justify self-defense when he shot the man in the back and killed him on his third or fourth shot? explain that to me, how that is self-defense. could you help me out, jesse?

host: we would like to thank all of the colors for the first segment. coming up next, we will be joined by kaiser family foundations tricia neuman to talk about the future of medicare and the recently announced jump in premium. leader on, our weekly spotlight on podcasts segment features hannah mccarthy and nick cap beachy -- nick capodice. we will talk about the creation of their show and the role of civics education in america. stick with us. we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv, every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books at noon eastern. live coverage of the miami book fair, featuring authors

including craig whitlock, with his book the afghanistan papers, a sister -- secret history of the war. discussing the three places he has lived. chris hedges talks about the american prison system, which details his time teaching literature to kids incarcerated in a new jersey prison. and at 11:00 p.m. eastern, on afterwards, pulitzer prize-winning journalist talks about her book, american made. what happens to people when work disappears. she is interviewed by alyssa ward, author and executive editor of the economic hardship reporting project. watch book tv, every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule or watch online, anytime at book

tv.org. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with tricia neuman who is the senior vice president and executive director at the kaiser family foundation. she is here this morning with us to discuss the future of medicare and rising medicare premiums. good morning.

guest: good morning. host: for our viewers, some of whom might not know, can you give us an explanation of what the medicare program is and how it is funded? guest: medicare is a very popular program mostly for people 65 and older, but also for younger people with disabilities. there are 62 million people who rely on the medicare program for health insurance coverage. medicare provides basic health benefits, inpatient hospital, physician, prescription drugs, preventive services and it is funded in a combination of ways. it is funded by payroll taxes, all of us working people pay and employers pay throughout our working lives so that medicare is there for us when we retire. it is also funded by premiums that people on medicare pay and it is funded by general revenue.

that is taxpayer dollars that go for lots of different programs funded by the federal government , all of the departments, and also medicare. one of the things i should point out is medicare is different from medicaid and sometimes people get the two confused because it is not a subject program. people are eligible without regard to their income and people are also eligible without regard to their health conditions. anybody with any pre-existing condition can qualify if they meet other eligibility criteria. host: we hear a lot especially now about the different parts of medicare. medicare part a, b, c, d. can you explain to our against a little bit about all of these different parts of medicare and how it affects the people who are on medicare? let's start with part a. guest: i am sorry it is a little

more complicated than it needs to be. but it is. part a is the part of the program that pays for inpatient services like hospital services, skilled nursing facility services. it is mostly the inpatient part of the program and it is funded primarily by the payroll taxes that i mentioned before. that is part a. when people go on medicare, it is automatic. ready for part b? guest: tell us the difference between part a and part b because part b also deals with insurance. guest: part b is also part of medicare. every part is part of medicare, but part b pays for physician first -- services, outpatient services, preventive care, things that do not have during the hospital stay or during skilled nursing facilities. that is the outpatient side.

it also pays for drugs that are administered by doctors and that is important because that has become a growing part of healthcare spending for medicare. that is part b. part b is funded by premiums and general revenue. host: let's move to part c. what is part c? guest: part c is the part of the program that covers these benefits i was just talking about, but does it through private insurance companies. these are medicare, hmos, and ppos that are offered by insurance companies and the way that works is companies get a fixed amount of money from medicare for every person that they enroll and they commit to provide all medicare benefits and they often provide additional benefits. this is called the medicare advantage program. people across the country have a choice of lots of these programs.

it is an alternative to what people might think of as regular medicare or original medicare or traditional medicare, which is you just go on medicare and you do not sign up for private plans for your radical -- regular benefits. host: this is the part that we are seeing commercials about. medicare part d, the drug coverage. tell us what that is about. guest: people are seeing a lot of ads because it is an enrollment period. part the is the way people in traditional medicare get their drug benefits. the way it works in medicare is the drug benefit is only administered through private plans. people who are in traditional medicare can sign up for just the drug plan to complement their regular medicare benefits. people could also get their drug benefits through what is called the medicare advantage plan. part d is the part of the

program that delivers the outpatient prescription drug benefit, the drug that you get when you go to a pharmacy. part d is paid for by premiums and general revenue. people are paying for their part d benefit through their premium and taxpayers are paying for part of the program. host: who determines the cost? who sets the prices? guest: the secretary of hhs ultimately puts out there premiums and deductibles each year. the secretary is relying on actuaries that work for the centers for medicare and medicaid services to follow a formula and make some decisions about what premiums should be took cover the beneficiary portion of medicare spending.

host: do people have a choice of whether to use these medicare, all of these different parts, or are there options or is this an opt in plan where you can use it if you want to, but you don't have to? guest: they are not many alternatives. virtually everybody 65 and older goes on medicare. part a is an entitlement if people work for 10 years and reach 65. they are automatically entitled to part a. there is no premium. people kind of do that. part b, many people choose to delay part b if they are working and get coverage from an employer plan. so there is some sort of choice in part b and part c. people can say, i get these benefits through my employer. i am still working. i am drawing social security. i'm going to delay medicare and

that is a decision many people make. other than people who have employer-sponsored coverage, you are working longer, most people who are eligible for medicare take it because there is really no other option and people get sicker as they get older and they are much more concerned about healthcare costs as a result so once the financial protection, there is peace of mind that comes with medicare. host: now that we have the basics out of the way, let me remind our viewers that they can take part in this conversation about the future of medicare and rising prices. we will open up our regular lines. that means that democrats, your line is going to be (202) 748-8000. republicans, you can call at (202) 748-8001. independents, your line is (202) 748-8002. we are going to open up a special line for medicare recipients. we want you to call with your questions, thoughts, concerns about the future of medicare.

medicare recipients, your line is going to be (202) 748-8003. keep in mind, we are always reading on social media and on twitter at c-spanwj, on facebook, and you can text us at (202) 748-8003. let's get to the most recent news. earlier this month, the government announced the standard medicare part b premium will be increasing $21 a month to $170.10 from the current $148.50. what caused this jump and how are they justifying it? guest: that really is a jump as we think about premium increases over the years. the actuaries in the government are thinking about how to pay for future services and there is

a lot of uncertainty. there are two things in particular that they are particularly uncertain about and want to be sure there is sufficient funds available to pay for services, if need be. that is costs associated with the pandemic. there is still uncertainty about what the cost will be next year. and then there is uncertainty about a new drug, which is an alzheimer's drug that was approved by the fda, but medicare has not made a decision about whether or not it will be covered and so the actuaries have said we need a contingency fund in case medicare does decide to cover this drug because it is really pricey. it is $56,000 per person. people who have varying stages of dementia take this drug, it

would be covered under part of the program or the costs are shared by the medicare program and people on the program through their premium. what the actuaries have said is we need to be sure there is sufficient money coming in in order to cover those costs. i will say that the government has not decided whether medicare will pay for this and we will not know until january and there is a possibility the government will say we are not going to cover it. the v.a. has made that decision. but there is also a possibility that it will be covered. medicare has a track record of covering virtually every drug covered by the fda. this is sort of a cautious move on behalf of the actuaries that has resulted in a big jump in premiums. host: does this mean that if the federal government decides not to cover this one drug that the premiums will go back down or is this a permanent increase? guest: that is a great question.

it would not go automatically down in 2022. that would take a major policy decision to make an adjustment during the year because they normally, virtually always have set the premiums in the year before and those premiums are locked in for the following year. i suppose there could be an act of congress or there could be some kind of decision to adjust premiums, but i do not know that that has happened before. i think there is a possibility that in the following year, 2023, premiums could be lower, substantially lower than they would be if medicare decides not to cover the drug. host: have medicare premiums ever gone down or are they consistently going up? guest: they pretty much go up every year.

it is only a question of how much. some years, they have held constant. some years, they have gone up a tiny bit. this is a relatively big jump. i will say that the very lowest income people on medicare who also qualify for medicaid and the medicare savings program have their premiums paid for by medicaid. they will not feel this acutely. but it is the middle income people who may notice this quite a bit and for them what this really means is a reduction in their social security cost-of-living because the premium is deducted from the social security check. rather than have their social security check go up as much as it might have gone up, the amount will be reduced by the additional $21.60 you mentioned earlier. "washington journal." you jump -- host: you jump ahead to what was

going to be my next question. does the increase that they are planning affect all medicare recipients? do higher income recipients pay even more or how does that work? guest: yes, they do. there is what is called an income related premium for higher income seniors. it is for people with incomes above the $85,000 and it scales on up so that at the highest level, people are pay more than $500 per month for their premium. this will affect people at all income levels, but relatively speaking and relative to their monthly income, it's biggest impact will be on lower income people who do not get extra health from medicaid or the medicare savings program. host: let's let some of our viewers take part in this conversation about medicare and its future. let's start with frank who is a

medicare recipient out of pensacola, florida. good morning. guest: yes, can you hear me? host: go ahead. guest: i am looking at all of the programs today and i was talking to a medicare company and they informed me that you cannot use the advantage program if you are using the v.a. system. they said you have to stick to a supplement program and i talked to united yesterday and i was told, that is not correct. i could use my v.a. program and still use the advantage program. so i am very confused about what i will be able to do. i do not want to go back out of the v.a. because it has saved me

quite a bit in my medical and it is a lot easier and simpler. i would like to know if i'm able to use the advantage program with my medicare program and my v.a. at the same time. guest: frank, i believe that you are but i would like to recommend that you contact the state health insurance program, which is set up to provide one on one canceling -- counseling for people who are dealing with conflict issues related to their medicare choices. they are available in each state and i think you should call them and get information from them directly because you are hearing different things from different companies. i believe that you can use the v.a. services and also be on medicare advantage plan. situations may vary. that would be my best advice.

host: we are hearing a lot of debate on our social media channel on whether you call medicare an earned benefit or welfare. which category would you put medicare under? guest: no question, i call it an earned benefit. host: why? guest: because i have been contributed to it all of my life. every working person who has paid payroll taxes has contributed to it all of their working life. it is just like social security in that regard. it is based on my -- my contributions are based on my earnings. that is a very fair definition. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to kirk who is calling from morganton, north carolina on the democratic line. good morning. guest: good morning. this supplement stuff, i had humana and then i got older and

i started taking care of myself. i do not really need any more drugs from big pharma. i sat down with my pharmacist i have been using for the last 30 years. he told me if you do not get a plan when you do need to get some more drugs in your older years, you will be paying more for the years you did not use them. can i understand that? guest: absolutely. the pharmacist is right. the idea is that everybody has been can tripping to the system, not just people who are needing expensive medications. the way that the program works is if you delay part b enrollment, the drug plan part of the program, then you will pay a penalty for every year you delay when you do sign up for a drug plan. if you are a person who really does not take expensive drugs,

you still have time now during the open enrollment period to choose a relatively expensive plan with very low premiums. but it is probably a good idea to do that because if you do not and you wait 10 years, you could pay a hefty premium penalty for your drug plans for the rest of your life. the pharmacist is trying to protect you from a premium penalty and there are plans out there that have relatively low costs. it is probably a good idea to look at those plans now before the open aroma period ends december 7 just to save yourself the financial burden if you should start to need an expensive drug in the future. host: we have another question from our social media followers who want to know about whether they should get into medicare now. the question goes, "i turned 65 last month, went online phoned

medicare and was told i did not have to sign up because i am still employed and ensured. do i need to sign up for a now or not?" guest: you do not need to sign up for medicare. what you might want to do is contact medicare or the social security office to be clear that they know that you have employer-based coverage and to delay enrollment in part b and c because there is no reason to pay the premium if you have coverage from an employer plan. no, you do not need to sign up now until you are ready to leave your employment-based coverage and you should to make sure you have continuous coverage and you do not pay penalty for late enrollment. host: right now, lawmakers will start debating in the senate the biden build back better plan. included in that plan is an agreement that would empower medicare to negotiate the price of some drugs.

how significant with this development be if it passes the senate? guest: there are a lot of things in the build back better legislation that would make a difference for people on medicare. this particular provision is one that is very popular. we did some polling and we found that democrats, republicans, and independents all agree with the idea of allowing the government to use its purchasing power to leverage lower prices for people on medicare. congress has been working on this now for some time. the house of representatives had a bill a couple of years ago that would have included more prescription drugs that are -- than are in the build back better legislation. the build back better legislation is moving through, would be a precedent change. it would move the process forward, allow the secretary to

negotiate prices for the most expensive drugs under part b, the physician administered part of the program for physician-administered cancer drugs and part d where there are other expensive drugs. it starts gradually. it starts with just 10 drugs in 2025. it would be a big deal for those drugs and it would help provide peace of mind to people who are taking various kinds of drugs and the same time, it is structured in a way to give the good -- drug companies an opportunity to be on the market for a while, capture some of their investments before the government is even able to start negotiating with them. host: i want to put a few of these other provisions of the democrats medicare drug polling here on screen and have you talk a little bit more about each one of these provisions. understand that these provisions

are not final. the bill is going to the senate and there will be some changes. so far like we just talked about, it would allow medicare parts b and d to negotiate prices directly with drug manufacturers on certain drugs. it would tap out-of-pocket prescription seniors -- prescription spending for seniors and $2000 a year. understand in the latest proposal, those price negotiations are going to apply to fewer drugs, require smaller discounts, and shield some new drugs from the negotiation. first of all, do you see these provisions surviving the senate and going to the conference committee? tell us what do you think the final proposal will look like. i know we do not know because the senate can do anything, but tell us what you think about the provisions and whether they will provide. guest: ok. you are asking me to predict what the senate will do and i am

not so sure i am not so sure i'm the best person to do that. but i will tell you that some of these provisions are quite popular and have bipartisan support in the senate. in particular, the limit on out-of-pocket spending, the $2000 cap is not really a -- that is a big deal for people on medicare. if you think about it, i know somebody who is taking a drug that is $12,000 a year for her even with part d. that is a huge amount of money from somebody who has insurance, but still has to pay for a very important drug. this provision, if the senate adopts it, will say no matter who you are in medicare part d, the most you will pay is $2000 for just -- for this drug or any type of drug. that is a game changer for

people on medicare who rely on drugs that are very pricey. i think there is bipartisan support for that. it was a bill in the senate. it also had a cap on par be spending. if the bigger bill goes through, i think that has a good shot of making it to the finish line. the same with several of these other proposals. i think the negotiation provision has been scaled way back, probably more than the progressives would have liked. now the congressional budget office says it would affect drugs coming to market. there was concern it would dampen innovation. they say fewer than 1% of drugs that would have come to the market will not come to the market. that argument has not been put to rest. i would say minimized by the congressional budget office's estimates that came out just

this week and i think there is also concern about inflation. there was a provision like that in the senate. i think the medicare provision might change a little bit, but i think there is a fair amount of support for each provision and more. host: let's go back to our phone lines and let's talk to laverne, a medicare recipient from tuscaloosa, alabama. good morning. guest: hello? host: go ahead. guest: i was concerned about the medicare. i think that if they cut it, it would be hard on a lot of people. i have lupus. the benefits that we have now are great. they really help me a lot with getting the medical procedure i need.

i was just trying to figure out what they are going to cut. guest: i'm glad to hear you say that medicare is working so well for you. this legislation does not have cuts to medicare benefits. in fact, it has an additional medicare benefit and the cuts are really in drug prices, the cost of drugs, and to people, that is a benefit. when medicare slows the growth in drug prices or has an out-of-pocket cap for drugs, that is a benefit enhancement for people covered by the program. i am not anticipating a reduction in benefits in this legislation. i think it could be just a win for people in the program. host: let's talk to michael who is calling from fayette, alabama on the democrat line. good morning. guest: hello.

i am calling to ask, i want to say that we too many times forget that we are to help people who need help. i also want to say that i am for one-size-fits-all. i believe that inflation, which is one question i wanted to ask, because some people think that $2000, that is still way too much, especially if you are on disability. i am wondering how would the inflation be covered if we did have a one-size-fits-all in medicare and what that cover or even lower and how would that work? guest: good question.

i want to point out that with the medicare drug benefit, there are special provisions for lower income people, including people who are on disability. the medicare drug program has low income premium and cautionary assistance for lower income people, which hopefully makes a difference. the inflation protections that we were just talking about apply only to prescription drugs for medicare and people with private insurance, which is something that often gets overlooked. the way that works is drug companies would have to pay the government, pay medicare back money if they increase their prices faster than inflation. it is a strong incentive for drug companies to keep their

drug prices, price increases no more than inflation because if they raise their prices faster than inflation, they need to send a check to the government. the idea is that will dampen the growth in drug prices, which will make it easier for everyone on medicare to pay for their prescriptions. host: biden's build back better plan which was passed overwhelmingly by democrats in the house now goes to the senate. where are republicans on the medicare portion of the build back better plan? are they talking about this or is it just -- or are they just staying silent as the bill works its waste -- works its way through? guest: that is another good question. i have not heard specific criticism from republicans.

there will likely be concerned about the prescription drug provisions being scaled back. there are people who feel this is a crack in the armor and puts the government and a stronger position to to set prices or decide what drugs people take. i have seen ads about this. there is nothing in this legislation that would have the government decide what drugs plans will cover. that is not something that is being envisioned. the drug industry has been lobbying aggressively against this provision and it could be that there continues to be some resistance. i do not know that there is much resistance on the out-of-pocket cap. that is a popular bipartisan proposal. the other benefit we have not talked about, there are a few other benefits. one is that cap on insulin costs, which would help people with diabetes on medicare and i

think that could be popular across the aisle and i also think there is a hearing benefit that is in the house bill and i am not sure that there would be opposition to that. i think the opposition is about the broader issues and there are concerns about the spending, the overall spending in the legislation. but i do not know specifically that there are concerns about the insulin benefit or the caps on out-of-pocket spending for the hearing benefit, all of which would make significant improvements for people covered by the program. host: we have a question from one of our social media followers that wants to ask this about the future of medicare. "will the eligibility age ever be changed for medicare?" guest: i cannot predict the future. i do not think there is a strong move to do that at the moment. there is a long-term financing

challenge facing medicare with all of his aging into the program at some point in the future. baby boomers are starting to age into the program. the medicare, hospital insurance, that is part a, it is facing a projected insolvency date of 2026. what does that mean? that means congress will have to make some tough decisions in order to shore up the financing of the medicare trust fund. congress has done this in the past and it is almost unthinkable that congress would allow the trust fund to be insolvent, but that could involve some tough choices about raising revenues and -- the more money comes in, or cutting spending and raising the eligibility age would be one way to cut spending, but it one -- may be one of the more unpopular ways to do that. host: who have to make that decision? what that be a congressional decision?

with that be a decision coming from the executive branch? guest: that would take an act of congress because the eligibility age is set in law. for the eligibility to change, for the eligibility age to change up or down, that would require an act of congress. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to allen calling from scottsdale, arizona on the republican line. good morning. caller: hi. good morning. i am 73 years old. i have plan g so we have not heard about plan g. thank god for medicare because when i turned 65, i went right in and i would not be talking today if i did not have it. the other thing is i'm self-employed and i do not plan on retiring until i can book the palladium in london.

so much for humor. i would like to know little bit about plan g. the other thing is regarding the democrats build back program. republicans had zero input. no committees, nothing in the house. mccarthy was on for eight hours and 32 minutes or whatever it was, wanting to be part of the party. evidently, we are not. thank you for c-span. i am having a great time being on medicare. they have been great. just to mention really quick, three tests i have had for covid, i am still negative. three years ago, i went meet people -- i went medieval on myself. i went from 285 to 234. but i am taking some really good

things vitamin-wise. b-3, zinc, and b complex. i have been around a lot of people who have have covid. two of my employees have had it. i am 100% right now. host: before you answer, tell us what part g is. guest: thanks for raising that. many people on medicare have supplemental insurance. this helps people with medicare deductibles and coinsurance and medigap has different letters because they are different standard policies and g is one of the more popular policies out there. for people who are in regular medicare, non-medicare advantage plan, often purchase medigap

because it helps with the extra cost and it also makes bill paying easier because there is coordination between medicare and medigap plans. i want to make a point about medigap now that you have raised it because when people go on medicare and they are choosing between medicare advantage and traditional medicare, a lot of people are starting to choose medicare advantage because they offer extra benefits and low premiums. the one thing that is important to take into account is that while people always have the option of going from medicare advantage to traditional medicare and vice versa during the open enrollment period, in most cases medigap insurers are permitted to underwrite to either deny people coverage because of a pre-existing condition or charge more. it is something that people who are going on medicare should really think about because

people think they have the opportunity to go back and forth and they always do, but they may not have the opportunity to purchase a medigap policy if -- once they get older and sicker and have a pre-existing condition. when they got to be over 75 or 81, one person was 90 and she wanted to switch plans and they said you cannot or we will charge you more. that is something to bear in mind. medigap is not a medicare program. medigap is offered by private insurers. that is not use any federal dollars. that is paid for by premiums that people on medicare pay, if they choose it. host: let's talk to trish who was calling from seattle,

washington. trish is a medicare recipient. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, tricia. i have a question for you. it was a point of discussion over my birthday lunch yesterday. i read the reason for the cost of the significant price increase was due to the new alzheimer's drug by biogen that was fiercely fought by the fda. in fact, several members quit. the east you is bucking back on that now -- the eu is bucking back on that now. that is my question. for the gentleman who just called, i do not understand why you would not get vaccinated at your age. as a nurse, you must have read the statistics of people getting covid without having been

vaccinated. again, it is all about me, not about anybody else. as a nurse, i do not understand that logic, why you would want to put your family through that and put the medical folks in the line of fire. host: go ahead and respond, tricia. guest: i think you have spoken clearly about the vaccine situation so i'm going to go back to the part b premium and tell you that you are right. the major factor is the concern about the cost of this one drug by bio-gen. the concern there from the government actuaries is that if medicare decides to cover it, then it could drive up medicare spending and if it does, then

the premiums would need to cover those additional costs. as a conservative measure, the actuaries have said we need to increase the premium in the event that it is covered and doctors prescribe it. you are completely right that there has been strong resistance to -- strong opposition to the fda decision to approve this particular drug and there was pushback in europe and the insurance companies and the v.a. it is uncertain what medicare will do. the actuaries looked at medicare's record and they typically cover drugs that have been approved by the fda. that was one major factor in the bump in premiums. host: how did the pandemic affect medicare? did the pandemic affect medicare? guest: that had to make did

affect medicare. medicare stepped up in terms of offering vaccines and covering vaccines and helping hospitals by paying more for covid-related admissions. it has certainly affected people on medicare. if we think about the early stories of nursing homes, any of which were medicare beneficiaries who were the first in line to get covid and die from covid and be hospitalized with covid. the pandemic certainly have ripple effects on people in the program who were disproportionately affected by the pandemic. at the same time, medicare stepped up to do whatever changes it could in order to support providers who were struggling with a pandemic in terms of payment policy and other decisions. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to dawn calling

from baton rouge, louisiana. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. i am on medicare. i am 70 years old. i am looking at the medicare advantage plans. i am currently on the ppo with supplemental with another insurance company and i sat with my doctor, but i want to lower my drug costs. i have quite a few ailments. my drug costs are pretty high. i'm a diabetic, high blood pressure, and all of that. what i am afraid of is for the specialist for the medicare advantage plans, i would have to pay to see a specialist.

you do not have to pay to see your regular primary care doctor. my drugs may not be -- it may not be advantageous for the drug prices. guest: i am glad that we are still in the open enrollment period. there is one place, there are a couple of things you can do. one is you can go to medicare.gov. there is something called the medicare plan finder. if you are good with computers, it is a great place to go because what you can do is enter each drug that you take, the pharmacy that you like to go to, and it will list all the plans that operate in your area and the cost of those plans to you. it takes a bit of work. it is not that much fun to do. but you can start to get a feel

for how much you might pay under one plan or another. it really does make a difference. people don't want to do it and i know it is hard to do. it takes time, particularly if you take a number of drugs. i also would advise you to find out if the doctors who you see regularly are in the network of those plans, whatever plan you are choosing because there could be high costs for going out of network, which would mean you would pay more to see a specialist if they are not in your insurance company's network. the other thing you can do is go into traditional medicare by a medigap -- buy a medigap policy and a separate drug plan. but no matter what choice you make, this is a great time to go through the medicare plan finder and try to sort through all the different things that matter to you.

what is important? is pharmacy important? which of your drugs are covered and at what cost? are all of your doctors in the network? this is the moment between now and december 7. i would strongly encourage you to do that because when i have been helping other people, i find it can make an enormous difference. that because there plan choices and people have a choice on average of something like 30 medicare advantage plans in their area and the same number of drug plans, it is almost bewildering. people say it is too much, it is overwhelming. but it really can be worth it. i'm glad he raised the question because you do have time. i hope you can find a plan that will lower your cost and best meet your needs. host: we would like to thank the kaiser family foundation's tricia neuman for being with us this morning and talking us through the future of medicare and rising medicare premiums. thank you so much for being with us this morning. guest: it has been a pleasure.

host: coming up, we will move to our open forum where you can call and talk about the most important political story on your mind. you see the numbers they are on screen. later, our weekly spotlight on podcast segment features hannah mccarthy and nick capodice who are the host and producers of new hampshire public radio's civics 101 podcast. we will talk about the creation of their show and the role of civic education in america. we will be right back. ♪ >> exploring the people and events that tell the american story on american history tv. fox news anchor bret. discusses his book to rescue the republic, a sprain, and which he insists that the presidency was underrated. a symposium on robert caro that

runs with the opening of the new york historical society's exhibition, "turn every page." speakers include bob woodward and a keynote address by robin carroll. watch american history tv every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> c-spanshop.org's c-span's online store. rouse through our collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are in our open forum

segment where you can call and talk about the most important political stories on your mind. we are opening up our regular lines. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we will start off by pointing out that on friday, the federal health officials said that all americans are eligible for coronavirus vaccine boosters. i bring to you a couple of paragraphs of the story from "the washington post." all american adults became eligible for boosters on friday, ending confusion over complicated guidelines that have slowed their uptake and profit unilateral moves by governors from maine to california to make the shots available more broadly. health officials hope that a straightforward boosters for all

policy will prompt millions more to get the job before they travel or gather with friends and family over the holidays. many are concerned about the worsening picture as winter approaches. after new cases dipped to almost 69,000 on october 25, their lowest point in months, they began climbing again with a 70 average rise of 40% to more than 96,000 on thursday. that is from "the washington post." their story with federal officials making all american adults eligible for a coronavirus booster. what is on your mind? let's start with hooshie calling from nevada on the democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for the chance to speak with you. i have heard a lot regarding healthcare costs, but nobody seems to be having a decent resolution and also approach to

decrease the cost of healthcare. i would like someone to challenge me because i published a book related to the decreasing the healthcare operations and improving the quality of healthcare in our country. but nobody seems to be interested. also, asking the critical questions. nobody provides me with an opportunity to show them what it is that i am suggesting and if you would like to look at my book, you do realize that this issue has been detailed and i have a lot of ideas and i hope that there are a lot of people that will be asking the questions, how can i do that. host: let's go to bill calling from georgia on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to point out that you are a spreader of misinformation. the kyle rittenhouse, who was a

minor at the time of the shooting, his father lived in kenosha. ergo, he lives in kenosha. you never stated. you, yourself never stated that clearly he lives in kenosha, wisconsin. you kept saying that it is across state lines. he lives in kenosha, wisconsin where his father lives. if you please correct that. host: let's go to robin calling from santa fe, new mexico on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for the opportunity to ask this question. i am currently on medicare, medicaid as a disabled person. but i will be turning 65 soon so i do not know if this is going to automatically change, stay the same. do i need to switch insurance companies? i am unclear what happens at that point in time. i also had a question about coverage for alternative

medication. for example, i go to an acupuncturist and they have a lot of different chinese herbs, but none of those are covered under any plan that i can think of. additionally, what about medical marijuana? do you think that that will ever be covered under any plan? host: i'm going to suggest you direct your questions for a medicare expert in your state. i can tell you that i do not know much about the medicare rules and what you should do. but there has to be somebody out there you can ask. let's go to gloria who is calling from massachusetts on the independent line. good morning. are you there? caller: yes. host: go ahead, gloria. turn your television down and go ahead. caller: also, 12 years ago, that is why i stopped working.

i was 40 and i got sick and i got diagnosed with bipolar and depression. i am on disability also. there was no way i was going to be able to pay medicare when it went up to $500. host: let's go to sue calling from florence, massachusetts on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. a lot of people are focused on the rittenhouse verdict. it is horrifying that you could go to another state and carry an ar 15 and end up killing people and get off. everyone should watch the trial for the ahmaud arbery murder. how we are as a country is going to be framed by how serious of a

verdict of those guys get because i believe it is a modern example of the horrible culture of the south murdering black men. as a republican, if we really want law and order, we ought to hope that those guys go to jail and they throw away the key. i just want to say that. i am a northeastern republican so sometimes they tell us we are not really republicans, but i'm a lifelong republican and i'm horrified by what happened to him. host: on friday, we also got a report on president joe biden's help from his physician following his physical the day before his 79th birthday. today is president joe biden's 79th birthday. here is a story from "the hill." president biden's physician on friday determined he was healthy

and fit to execute the duties of the presidency following his annual physical the day before his 79th birthday. biden visited walter reed medical center for a colonoscopy and a routine checkup. kevin o'connor, positioned to the president, determined biden to be in good health. "president biden remains a healthy 78-year-old male who is 56 actually execute the duties -- fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency." o'connor wrote in a six page summary of biden's physical. o'connor did highlight areas that warrant investigation. biden's recent clearing and what he describes as a stiffened gait. " the president appears to be stiffer and less fluid. he does acknowledge early morning stiffness that improves throughout the day." that comes from "the hill"

newspaper on president biden's health after he took his physical examination on friday, the day before today, which was his 79th birthday. let's go back to the phone and talk to eddie -- betty calling from riverside, connecticut on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning, everybody. i was going to say about the kyle case, i think that they definitely made a big mistake. i am a big advocate for gun safety. my personal opinion, i think if that was a black teenager, a black man, or whoever, they would have found him guilty and put him in jail for a long time. also about the medicare, i was hoping to get in on that real quick.

i have medicare and medicaid and i also have what they call qmb. it pays the premium for the medicare. also, i don't know about medicare advantage. when i had a total knee replacement and i had a home health agency here for six weeks and even more just for physical therapy. and for whatever reason, i am glad i did not have medicare advantage because they told me that if i had regular medicare that everything would be covered. if i had plain old medicare, not medicare advantage, because medicare advantage for whatever reason, it might not have been

covered. real quick, tuesday i had a desk removed from my -- a disc removed from my back. i stayed overnight and came home. i am also a lung cancer survivor. i do not have cancer anymore. with all of these things, all i ever had was had was medicare and medicaid, and all i can say is god bless the democrats. host: let's go to jeff, calling from missouri. good morning, jeff. caller: good morning, jesse. my comment is on the idea of self-defense. on both cases, aubery in atlanta and the other one, they were both being attacked by individuals who had no respect

for the fact that they were holding a gun. i am not into anybody being shot or killed, but you would think anybody with common sense would not try to go after somebody if holding a gun and try to take the gun from them. where is the responsibility to those who are invading the space of the person with the gun? the gun was there for the reason that maybe they couldn't defend themselves against the crowd or against a bigger person or against a violent individual. so, i think people should realize that all are not able to defend themselves with just their hands. if you have the right to bear arms, you have the right to defend yourself. i wish everybody the best to lost anybody. i feel for everybody who was injured, but common sense has to

prevail. host: let's go to sandy, calling from ohio on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i kind of agree with the guy that just spoke, but the woman who called in, she is just repeating democrat talking points. kyle rittenhouse's father lived in kenosha, his grandmother lived in kenosha. the gun was with his father in kenosha. he did not bring it across lines. he was there to help put out fires because his dad lived in the community and he was worried. he was attacked by three men, one who had a gun, and they all three had criminal records. and if a black man had used a weapon to shoot people who were attacking him, trying to kill him with a skateboard -- the other guy tried to slam his head in the ground with his foot and the other had a gun, he would have been found in his sins,

just like rittenhouse was -- found innocent, just like rittenhouse was. these people need to quit weighing in on things and stop lying -- the trial was shown on newsmax and fox. there was all kinds of video. if you want to know the truth, you need to go find that video. host: let's go to omar, calling from brooklyn, new york on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse, good morning, america, good morning, black america. the people on the line calling about the rittenhouse case are trying to -- their way out of what happened. i would like all the black americans to pay attention and listen closely to how they speak. first of all, if anyone here is 17 years old, and you walk out at 17 years old at 10:00 at

night, why are your parents not around? when i was going around after school when i was 17, i was arrested and my parents got me out. that was a light offense. this 17-year-old was walking around with a gun with no supervision. this was a black lives matter protest because a black man. shot seven times in his back walking away from police. these three white men were expressing themselves by saying, this is not right. this is to show you guys, they are going to make it seem like it is -- to walk outside and kill people during black lives matter protest. they are trying to whitesplain their way out. you cannot. you cannot do that with a

17-year-old child walking around with no supervision. where is the background on this child, this 17-year-old, kyle rittenhouse? he got beat up by some black girls because he beat up a white girl in school. they videotaped it, put it on social media, and he was embarrassed. he told his friend, not his father, not his mother, to buy him an assault rifle. host: let's go to matt, calling from maryland on the democrat line. good morning. caller: hey, how are you doing? host: good, matt. caller: as far as the last guy that just called, what he said, i agree with everything. that little rittenhouse boy is a criminal. he is a murderer. he killed two people

shamelessly. i don't care what the law is in the state. by the way, he is not a resident because his father lives there, he lives with his mother. so he is not a resident. host: let's go to nathan, calling from denver, colorado on the republican line. nathan, good morning. caller: good morning. what i want to talk about is how the, the democrats, they have been helping people with different many ways. but i feel like electing, letting the medicare people help us, there is nobody that would say hey, medicare people, you know, he is on fixed income. they need some help.

there is no one that has been standing up for those kinds of people. it shocks me how everyone forgot all about the stimulus that was supposed to help the medicare recipients, and, you know, everybody in that category. who's going to help those people, you know what i mean? ok, yeah, you've got this and that her children and for -- for children and people who are working, but who is going to help those people with fixed incomes? there are one million people on fixed income, mothers, fathers, grandpas. i don't understand that, you know? host: let's go to kevin, calling from lee, massachusetts on the

independent line. kevin, good morning. caller: hi. i like your show. i have a suggestion for you. if you would like to do the rittenhouse thing over again, have people call in who have actually watched the trial and all that happened. host: do you think just watching the trial means you understand all the issues involved? caller: uh, if you watch it and do a little bit of fact checking as far as what really are the laws and all of that, you can come to your own conclusion. but there's a lot of things that have been set on both sides of it that aren't necessarily true -- said on both sides of it that aren't necessarily true, and people are showing they have a lot of opinion and very little information. people would probably get along

a lot better if they were more informed with real facts. host: i completely agree with you there, kevin. i have heard several people say that watching the trial means they are experts on what happened and the issues. i have to disagree, just because you watched the trial does not mean you understand all the issues. that's why lawyers go to law school. let's go to barbara, calling from oklahoma city, oklahoma on the democrat line. caller: thank you, jesse. i'm just in shock. i can't believe that they are letting these people get by with these things. he is 17 years old,. -- 17 years old, period. i don't understand the law here anymore. every time they get into this,

they are still trying to make sure that black lives matter, they aren't doing anything. they are like martin luther king. they have been together 20 something years, they left every day at 4:00 and got out of there when things got rough. they did not stay for riots and you have not caught any of them with a gun. the two people he shot did not have a gun and the one tried to get his gun -- yeah, they were trying to get his gun. he came in and started shooting people. he had already got his gun off and they were scared of him. you are twisting and turning these things -- c-span, you should have things on that tell us, that see through these lies the republicans are getting going here. this is awful. we are going to lose our country and that boy will be in trouble again. just watch. host: let's go to david, calling from french lick, indiana on the republican line.

caller: good morning, jesse. i find it interesting on the rittenhouse case, which i believe was adjudicated properly. both sides presented the evidence and the jury made the decision. the racism sensationalism used by the media is absolutely apparent, and nobody brings it up. joe scarborough said rittenhouse was -- rittenhouse shot 40 times. one of the stories said mr. blake had been killed. in fact, he is paralyzed, but he is quite alive. displaying in -- this playing in on race for entertainment value, everyone is welcome to their opinion, but if this continues, the division will continue. politicians putting their nose in this when it has no apparent reason -- c-span i thought was a form to discuss political

coverage of congress and associated facts, not racist sensationalism. thank you. host: let's go to ryan, calling from phoenix, arizona on the independent line. ryan, good morning. caller: good morning. i like your show, you did a good job, and i am calling about the rittenhouse thing as well. obviously, half of these people didn't watch the trial. it's a sad deal, people lost their lives, but the kid was getting chased around. he shot in self-defense. his defense team proved that. the jury, obviously they dug at the truth. they took their time and the right verdict was announced, thankfully, in my opinion. self-defense has been a case for thousands of years. we definitely need that. not all those protests were

peaceful. they were burning down car dealerships and stuff. the kid should not have probably been out there, but he was legal age for curfew. he went through it all. the system was correct. like the last caller said, these sensationalism, if people look at the fbi stats and stuff, the reality is a totally different picture than what these people think. it's sad, you do a good job on the show, i hope americans can come together and quit the sensationalism. we are all the human race had good people for the most part. people need to wake up, and i am no expert, but i agree with the jury in the law was correct. -- and the law was correct. host: let's go to kathleen, calling from georgetown, delaware on the democrat line. caller: yes, good morning. i would like to say, there is so much racism in the world.

it's terrible, horrible, but it happens everywhere across the country and across the world. ever since the bible with cain and abel, hatred has been a thing and it is always going to be a thing. i heard a saying the other day -- equality is an illusion. thank you. host: let's go to jack, calling from south dakota on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for the show, i appreciate you have an open forum, but i agree, don't make comments if you haven't watched the trial. the woman from oklahoma -- losing our country? the borders are flooded with illegals, the gas prices are out of control, the food is getting out of control. talk about losing our country -- we are losing it at a rapid rate already. we need to wake up. for the president of the united

states to make comments like he did about kyle rittenhouse, i believe it ought to be immediate impeachment for joe biden. thank you, have a great day. host: thanks for all of our callers who called in for our open forum segment. coming up next, our weekly spotlight on podcasts segments. we will be joined by hannah mccarthy and nick capodice hosts , and producers of new hampshire public radio's civics 101 podcast. they will be here to discuss the creation of their show and the role of civics education in america. stick around, we will be right back. >> sunday night on q&a -- >> i know so many people will pick up this book and say, i want to know the story of how america became a so-called melting pot of different cultures and cuisines, you know?

a place where you can get mexican cooking on one block and indian cooking on the next, and something else the next one after that. i want my readers to understand that there is so much struggle embedded in that wonderful reality. you see the story in each of those men and women, and we should honor that story as much as possible. >> an author discusses his book "taste makers," profiling seven immigrant women and how they transformed american cuisine during the second half of the 20th century. sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on the new c-span now app. ♪ >> c-span offers a variety of podcasts that have something for

every listener. weekdays, washington today gives you the latest from the nation's capital. and book notes plus has interviews with writers about their latest work. while the weekly uses audio from our immense archive to look at how issues of the day developed over years. and our occasional series, talking with, features conversations with historians about their lives and work. many of our television programs are also available as podcasts. you can find them on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> ok, hi. >> take a look at this. >> ok. ♪ it's like a rorschach test. >> that's marilyn's third district and it is called the praying mantis -- maryland's third district and it is called the praying mantis.

>> that looks like it has a long trunk that has water spraying out of it. >> that is texas' 35th district and it is called the upside down elephant. >> this one looks like someone yelling at someone else and kicking there but -- their butt. >> that is pennsylvania's congressional district that doesn't exist anymore, and it is called goofy kicking donald duck. >> so you know these don't look the same anymore. >> when americans vote, it is not americans picking representatives, but representatives picking them. you are listening to civics 101. i'm nick capodice. >> and i'm hannah mccarthy. >> today, we are talking about

gerrymandering. dividing voters on election day so one party is more likely to win. host: and that's new hampshire public radio's civics 101 podcast. here are the cohosts and producers, hannah mccarthy and nick capodice. thank you for joining us today. hannah: it's a pleasure to be here today, thank you. nick: thank you, jessie, it's a delight. host: let's get into the origins of the civics 10 one podcast. how did this first start? hannah: yeah, i can lay that on you. shortly after the 2016 election, we were working for new hampshire public radio and our station, as i'm sure stations across the country were, were flooded with questions from regular news listeners who were paying a little more attention. there were democratic norms people believed were being skirted or broken, and people wanted to know -- i know we have

a secretary of state, but i don't know what that secretary of state does. or how does a bill become a law? or what is a rioter? one of our producers wrote at the time on a post-it note -- i call this the west wing moment, writing on a napkin. but someone wrote on a post-it note -- pardon me -- "schoolhouse rock for adults." so many of us don't remember what we were taught back in grade school or we were never taught it to begin with. we come at our current news with this a sensible understanding of american democracy, but do we actually have it? we started a biweekly, twice a week show that would break down what a commander-in-chief

would actually need. originally it was a to a show -- two way show with a one-on-one interview. it had a different host at the time. when she left the station, nick and i were lucky to be asked, we got along really well and we were asked to be the cohosts. we made it a bit more of an in-depth, engaged show with many guests on who try to explain american democracy to a growing audience of not just these adults, adults who needed schoolhouse rock, but students and teachers who were using this podcast in the classroom. it turns out there was a hunger across the board for resources for civic education. so that is how we came to be. host: who would you describe as your audience so far? nick: that's a great question. initially, the show was created for the american public.

it was tremendously successful at first with that audience in mind. but we discovered, as hannah mentioned, that more and more teachers across the country were using it in their classrooms. we have a secret audience. so we make the show for the general public, but the secret audience we make these out in -- we make these episodes for our high school students who need an addendum to what they are listening to in the classroom. that's what we designed the show as, with a lot of music, sound design, jokes, effects and gags. we are lucky to interview the smartest people in the country about these civics issues. hannah and i are not civics scholars by any stretch of the imagination, but we get to talk to them. we call political scientists across the country, they break them down for us and we break things down for the audience as simply and nonpartisanly as possible. a lot of teachers who listen to the show say they appreciate it, because they have trouble

talking about some of these topics in the classroom. to have them -- a guide through complicated issues is really helpful. host: so why does the podcast format work for this? why not a webpage or newsletter? nick: well, i will jump in and then you, hannah, can take over, but i think the podcast is so important for this. as i have seen is apparent in the era of covid, my children are seeing a screen more and more and more. podcasting, listening to something by yourself, is one of the last private forms of media out there. what i prefer his win adults, students -- is when adults, students, anybody

can listen to it while they are doing the dishes or taking a walk. it's plugging into how this country works. hannah: and one of the best way to understand how the country works is to hear these stories. i think audio is the best way to get this narrative storytelling across. it's isolated, you are alone, you have your earbuds in your ears or you are sitting quietly in the classroom listening to it. to bring these characters to life through audio storytelling, we can cement these lessons from american democracy in a way that reading the fact on the page may not. we changed it from this straight interview format to a narrative format, because we thought, what's the best way to educate students, to keep them interested, to have them from a member -- have them remember something when they are adults? if they read a piece of news 20 years later, they might better remember a fara -- figure

from american history rather than a simple fact bulleted on a page. host: so put us through how you put together the podcast. how do you choose the topic? how do you choose the guest? how do you work on this before it is released to the public? nick: that's an interesting question. we used to do episodes every two weeks, but we are now doing one every week. hannah has one coming up this tuesday on diplomacy. so we work as fast as we can. we now get together as a team and come up with a series or episode idea, and then this whole team of producers at civics 101, we pull ideas as to who would be a good guest to talk to. we look for political scientists, for teachers --

because they teach for a living. they know the best way to teach articles of confederation. we interview people and take about two to three weeks to assemble it, but more time, if we can. what's most fun for me is when we get to do series, serieses, i should say. he did one on the right to privacy, on supreme court cases that were related to equal justice in america. we did a series on first amendment in school cases, and i love to be able to tackle supreme court episodes. we have covered the supreme court, and their stories, supreme court cases are some of the most fascinating stories of individuals going through things. what better medium to sink your teeth into in a podcast then a rich story that results in law? that results in how our country works?

it's a delight. we did a series on foundational documents and i had the privilege of interviewing daniel allen on the declaration of independence. we are desperate to make sure that we get a diversity of oysters and thought in all of -- voices and thought in all of these episodes. i did not have a lot of diversity in my teachers as a kid, and being able to hear scholars from diverse backgrounds across the country talk about the declaration of independence is a different education than the one i had growing up. host: hannah, do you try to stay topical with the topics? do you base some of your topics on what is going on in the country, in the news right now, or are you looking across the entire country history for the civics education you are giving your listener? hannah: it's a little bit of both. when the show started out, it was very much not tied to the

news. we would have listeners submit questions that were inspired by the news, but we would stay out of the topical world. then, during the most recent presidential election, we were flooded with so many questions, highly specific questions about what was going on. meanwhile, you had remote education going on, teachers attempting to explain subjects that regardless of whether or not they were quite literally political and partisan, might be pr -- perceived differently in the classrooms. so we answer questions that were topical at the time without making the episode itself tied directly to what was going on in democracy, right? so we know, yes, people want to know what insurrection actually is. we make an episode that defines insurrection and looks at the history broadly. we are giving you the context. we have sort of continued that

ever since, because we realized we can be a better resource to our listeners if we can provide in the moment an episode that relates to something topical. it's not directly addressing it, but we always try to keep out of the potential of partisanship by explaining that subject to give lesson --listeners a context to what is going on in the news. host: viewers can take part in this conversation. we will open up regional lines. if you are in the eastern or central time zone, you can call (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, your number is (202) 748-8001. keep in mind, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003 and we are always reading on social media, on twitter at @cspanwj and facebook at facebook.com/cspan.

hannah, i will stick with you for this question. some people would say the creation and existence of this podcast is a criticism of civics education in america. would you agree there needs to be more or may be different, maybe better physics education -- civics education going on in high schools and colleges in the united states? hannah: as a journalist, i can't advocate for anything, but i will say i do believe the civics education is an absolutely essential tool that all american students should have. at the federal level, we spend $50 per student on stem education. we spent five dollars per student on civics education. civics education has been steadily declining since the 1960's. yes, we spend more time and

money teaching our students how to read and how to do math and science, this is necessary, but then they graduate and it is an election and they go into the voting booth and they have never researched the spend a little time reading. to understand the platform of the person, or they do not vote. suddenly, you have people who are making the laws that govern your daily life, especially at the local level, and you have not had any say in it, even though you live in a nation which grants you the ability, if you are a citizen, who has the ability to vote, to choose who is governing your life. i firmly believe that in order to have the best quality of life in this country, you have to know how it actually works.

it is not just always going to go your way. things will go wrong. people will break the law. at the very least, they will do something that is not in your interest at you do have the ability to do something about it, but only -- you can talk to your senator. only if you understand that, as a child, you have political power. you have sway. i absolutely believe that civics education is an essential aspect of what we should be teaching our children in school today. host: some people call civics education the operating manual for our democracy. do we need to teach more in elementary, middle and high school? guest: it is happening whether anybody likes it or not. how can i not say that i consider that a good thing,

personally? we started the show, there were 30 then fewer -- there were 30% fewer of americans who could do that. 56% of americans in a survey this year identified -- that is the highest that number has been since they started doing the survey. an interest in civics is happening. students -- it is happening in their private lives as well as in their classroom. with social media, everyone is engaged. one great joy that hannah and i have is that we travel the country and we see students making podcasts. they make at the sows for us and they are phenomenal. hannah and i are professionally saying that no matter what we do , things will be fine because this generation in high school right now is with it, they are cynically engaged, they are active, and they are as smart as

can be. yes, i think that is always true with education, but i think it is going to happen whether we get involved or not. i will be happy to see it. host: let's let some of our viewers take part in this conversation. we are going to start with james who is calling from cape charles, virginia. james. good moring. caller: hello. i have a totally different subject then you are set up for. i want all kinds of news, right side, left side, it doesn't matter. one thing that struck me. i was watching a show -- the supreme court, wow, i was wondering, when did it start? it seems like 1785, there was the first supreme court, you know, there. a few years later, there was

another one. but in 1789, a few years later, there were five in the supreme court. >> yes. caller: then there were six. in 1984, there were nine. since then, there were nine. and a court of appeals. in 1891, there were 19, and today, there are 197 court of appeals judges. we still have only nine supreme court justices. let's go to district courts. district courts need federal judges, too. we have 679, right? guest: i think it's fascinating, and you have a good understanding of history, when it relates to numbers. i would encourage you, if you want to know more, we didn't --

didn't episode on the judicial branch, and we spoke to a solicitor general who was an advocate in the supreme court about the history of the supreme court. what is most interesting, is how it has massive. -- it has gotten massive. there is nothing in the constitution that says there should be a specific number of justices. there is only a chief justice. it doesn't say about the specific roles. the supreme court in particular is fascinating because it was a branch that our framers considered the weakest. it had neither the power of the sword. it is pathetic and cannot do anything. they used to meet in a basement. they did not have their own building, back in the day. it has grown. these justices throughout the years, and the power of the supreme court since the ruling of marbury v madison in order to

interpret the constitution, that went through with a whimper and not a bang at the time, but it has grown. the power of the supreme court has grown and changed. i think that is what is fascinating about our constitution. it is a living document. everything can grow and change. i am delighted that there is someone else out there interested in the development of the court system. host: anything you want to add to that, hannah? guest: i would encourage everyone out there to read the opinion in marbury v madison. you see a court that is for the most part, having their wagon breakdown in the middle of muddy and rainy fields, swamps. it was miserable. then the supreme court decided here's what our power is. we can interpret the constitution. everything changed.

you had, suddenly, made his absently powerful, and it was one fell swoop that no one said anything. it was a long time after that before the supreme court really what that power to use in order to interpret the constitution. there is a lot going on in opinions. there is a lot of self empowerment. there is a lot of establishing of what jobs are actually and what they need. there were nine people. i encourage everyone to go to ohyay.org, and you can read the opinions and come to understand why it is so powerful and what it means in the united states. host: that is one thing about civics education. there are some places where our government has ruled -- rules that are clear-cut.

but there are other places where it depends on who you talk to. how do you teach areas where there may be disagreements on what the actual rules are? guest: we take a look at how things were actually written, and we take a look at the various laws that have abided since. there are supreme court cases as well. all we can do is present the various interpretations over the course of history. what we do try to avoid is engaging with explicit misinterpretations outside of the legislation, outside of judicial proceedings. we can only really engage with those moments in which that right, for example, it is actually been interpreted. what you are getting at is that there is something going on in the united states where, for

example, i would say, we talk about the importance of freedom in the united states. but we do not actually talk about the fact that all the constitution provides is that congress shall pass no law that will prevent freedom. it does not mean that there are many practices going on any one time that would oppress freedom. our job is to give you as much knowledge about our constitution , our rights, our laws, as we can. these culturally conscious misinterpretations do not color the way you approach democracy. you might have higher expectations then are actually provided for in our bill of rights. that is how we at least attempt to do it. we give at least as much raw food as we can.

guest: how many episodes of we done? 200? there is not a single episode we have done that does not hit that muddy area. a foggy interpretation of things. in the episode, that is one of the great joys of it. we get to talk about these various interpretations, and we let the listener decide. this is with the court said, or this is how the legislation actually works. the brightest minds in the country have to say this about it. you get to late -- make up your mind for yourself. you mentioned the first amendment. i grew up thinking the first amendment, i loved it. it was my introduction to civics in college, first mimic cases. it was not until the 1920's, the 1920's, that there was a supreme court case that was dealing with something restricted by the first amendment. it is the thing we revere and most important, but nothing was done, no law was done,

constitutionally, until the 1920's. what are episodes is on the bill of rights, and one of my favorite scholars was talking about the notion of the bill of rights. many friends of mine favorite part of the constitution as being, at the time, a distraction. no one was fighting against freedom of speech or religion in the united states. people were not worried about the guns being taken away from them at our founding. centuries later, we really start to argue and interpret these things that happen hundred 50 years earlier. host: let's talk to thomas, who is calling from glenwood, arkansas. morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate your segment very much.

i would like to keep in mind the written outs -- rittenhouse case recently. dino john locke was? and what are natural rights? why are they important? i believe the import -- i believe the majority of the bill of rights are based on the natural rights. if they could explain that, i would appreciate that. guest: you know, john locke -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness came from john locke. life, liberty, property. we did a series on the declaration of independence, and we talked to the scholars about it. what happened, when we were investigating the declaration of independence, we looked at those inalienable rights. life, liberty, happiness. we could not help but also

investigate to whom those did not apply. what i would ask you to do, listen not only to our episode on the declaration of independence. you know me, and hannah, let us know what you think. we really want to know what our listeners think about the show. but we did another series the summer called the declaration revisited, where we interviewed scholars from and related to categories of people who were not given those allotted benefits of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness prayed we didn't episode called declaration revisited -- black america. coloration revisited -- native americans. the most offensive part of the declaration that had no remedy in it, which refers to american indian tribes and savages. the declaration of sentiments -- how women who could not vote, who were part of our citizenry at the founding, use the declaration of independence to fight for their own to do it.

the supreme court is malleable and we have a living constitution. so should our interpretation of our founding document. it is not just the bill of rights or the separation -- decoration of independence hang on a wall. we have changed. that is always the truth. join to add to that? i think i went a little too long. guest: what is wonderful about what is contained in our founding documents is that there are wonderful principles. there are great things that we hold as our foundational freedoms as american citizens, and isn't it wonderful? what if spectacular democracy was set up for us. yes, it was. the words are wonderful and the ideas are great. but it took a long time for those rights to be accessible, sensibly, to everybody.

you can argue that they still are not. i love interrogating the false american history. there are those moments where individuals who are not given the pleasure of those rights, and the privileges of those rights, and i think i'm going to fight for it. it is still going on today. just because it is written on a piece of paper, that does not mean you get to enjoy it. i would say that even if you have been granted in the past, the reason that we have to understand what our rights are, to your point, potentially natural rights, we need to know when they are not being exercised. we need to know when they are being potentially stripped or taken away. then, we can say, you told me i had this right in this country. for example, citizen is able to be protected by this and live this way.

if you don't know what those rights are, you cannot argue for them. you cannot fight for them. you cannot uphold them. you cannot say, i was not granted that. it is time for me to be granted that, as well. i love looking at that history. the very many successes and the various failures in the night stays. just to remind me that it is a constant active participation in this democracy. it allows you to exercise those rights. host: i will stick with you, hannah. what topics generate the most response from your listeners? and then i will ask you the same question, nick. guest: frankly, i have a great deal of engagement when it comes to supreme court cases. it was interesting to me because nick has been pushing for cases for a long time. he is the education and outreach producer on the show. teachers really want episode on these cases. i was not entirely sold.

i thought the supreme court was interesting, but i wasn't sure that was going to be more interesting than doing an episode on the cia. or on housing and urban development, which i still intend to do. but what i think is so powerful about those supreme court cases and episodes is that they engage with inalienable rights. they look at these moments in american history where an entity, the supreme court, decides what a law means and who it applies to. we didn't just get great engagement from students and teachers. we got great engagement across the board for many of our listeners. i also want to say that what i really loved about the show, in our listenership, is that, with a few exceptions, there is not any clear political affiliation when it comes to our listeners. this is across the board.

people are interested in democracy. they are interested in civics. they want to understand what is going on. i really find it quite wonderful that, you know, i underestimated ari listeners -- our listeners. i did nothing there would be a great deal of interest in how our laws were deliberated and decided. there was. that is exactly how engaged our listenership is that they should love a series on supreme court cases. that is really delightful to me. host: outside of the supreme court, what are the topics you get great response from your readers on? guest: there was an episode with listeners that we got something like 60 million down roads -- download since we started. what episodes get more downloads and what if you are? we start to cover something as

you alluded to earlier, things in the moment. when the impeachment happened, when the trials were happening, we had to make an episode on impeachment right now. we have to make in a day. we did. that episode got a tremendous response. through the roof. then you look at the course of four years of episodes, impeachment got a big response in that moment, but it doesn't have as many downloads as are most download episode, to my knowledge, how a bill becomes a law. after that, the constitution. after that, the declaration of independence. it is our starter kit series, which we did six episodes of the basics of what you need to know to understand how the government works. the three branches, checks and balances, how a bill becomes a law. federalism. that is what makes us unique. we are, in some ways, 50

countries instead of one. there is a classic civics topic that i had personally been a bit of a mediocre history learner. they are the things that listeners return to, over and over again. in addition to making episodes like impeachment or purely nonpartisan episodes on the history of presidential power and the price of gasoline. if we made episode next week, it would do a tremendous amount of downloads, but over the long haul, people will return to how a bill becomes a law. host: let's talk to james who is calling from port angeles, washington. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: being bipartisan, from new hampshire, how do you keep your own opinions to yourselves on your stroke -- oak?

-- show west mark --? how close did you actually come to, during the insurrection, to losing our democracy? if you talk about bipartisanship today, and give me a couple minutes each on your answer. thank you. host: who wants to take that on first? guest: i am not an expert in political systems, and i am not an expert in successful insurrections or not. i cannot tell you how close we came to losing our democracy in that moment. i know what that moment did was make a lot of people concern about our democracy. it made our legislators much

more interested in investing in education. when it comes to keeping our own opinions out of the show, i firmly believe that we are privileged to be in a role that we are in. there is no safe in trying to educate people about their system of government for any sort of partisan opinion that might color that education somehow. i really believe that our job is to give anybody who is coming to the news or coming to our podcast the source for understanding the world aaron. i believe in sin vick -- civic empowerment across the board. everyone should know who they are voting for and how they can exercise the rights. everyone should know how powerful their voices. what the laws are. after the insurrection, i am

buoyed by the fact that there are -- there were 88 bills across 40 states in 2021. they were, and spark -- part, inspired by our democracy when some people felt that the democracy was being questioned or threatened. there seems to be a greater investment in civics education, and you know, that is a net positive to me. those bills being passed and further empowering our young citizens to engage meaningfully and participate. guest: well put. to answer the question of how we keep our personal opinions out of the episode, we do our level best area --.

we don't write the episode until we talk to scholars. perhaps you can say who we choose to scholars could influence how the episode goes. but i have to say, these are daniel allen, alton hillery, these are people who i adore who are brilliant. we don't figure out how we make the episode until we interviewed three or four people, and we take their words and we try to find a better way to tell the story as accurately as possible. our show is not hannah and i waxing philosophically on this or that. it is trying to interpret the words of these people. i feel like someone who is perhaps on the far this far right of the political spectrum, and someone who is on the far this far left of the political spectrum have in common a slavish devotion to the words of the constitution.

if you going to any website arguing anything in the country right now, you will see quotes on the constitution, laws and legal procedures, but the truth is, we are an interpretive country. laws can be interpreted. the constitution is constantly being reinterpreted. we keep our partisanship out by talking to people smarter than we. host: let's talk to merv who is stalling -- calling from martin town, tennessee. caller: i have a bone to pick with your guests. i've been teaching civics for 22 years in american school classrooms in tennessee. the united states of america is not a democracy. it never has been and never will be. it is a public -- republic. we passed laws and govern ourselves through elected representatives and the rule of law. if you want to run and a

democracy, i think you should look at the democratic republic or the performance -- former soviet union who allowed people to vote. but they only had one choice. i find your efforts outstanding. the ignorance of the average american citizen, i truly wish you well in this endeavor. i challenge you to scour the federalist papers, hamilton, jefferson, madison, and find a word democracy anywhere. thank you so very much. you take care and have a great thanksgiving. merry christmas. host: who was to take that. guest: sorry, go ahead. guest: hannah did a whole episode on this. guest: i did a whole episode on federalism which i am devoted to. i want to address this as well

because we so often get this comment, that america is not a democracy. it is a republic. i've spoken to many experts who essentially say both statements are true. i could not agree more, frankly, that one of the most essential rinse bulls of this nation is the federalist element of it. the fact that we are what i would call a democratic federalist republic. the importance of that element, the idea that we are 50 semi sovereign entities operating underneath the umbrella of the federal government, and our country is a constant pull between what that state has the right to do, what laws that state is going to pass, how that

state is going to govern its citizens, versus how the state will work with the federal government to uphold federal laws as well. i often bring up the point of decriminalized marijuana in various states because still, at a federal level, marijuana is a schedule one drug. however, in massachusetts, you can walk into a dispensary without a card and purchase legally, in terms of messages luck, or want to. -- marijuana. what you are seeing is a state directly in congress with federal laws and resolutions that are operating without, so far, direct active penalty from the federal government. this is the dance, the constant

dance, that is done in the united states. what does the federal government choose to do in terms of violations, and how does the federal government look at laws passed in states and say wow, that was a great litmus test. we need to bring that to the federal level. that was being played around with in the sandbox over there. let's make it even bigger because it works. it is proof positive, and looking at other states, we can do it to, and we can bring it to a federal level. to your point, read the federalist papers, try to understand the incredibly nuanced federalist system that allows for semi sovereign states within the federal government. i want to give you the opportunity --. host: this is the final word. guest: the final word. i would encourage viewers to listen to the podcast on federalist and anti-federalist papers. he explored them as best as we could, given how many there are.

to the final point, the bone that merv had, the most common bone pick with our show. common bone packed with our show. the one star review on apple podcast is usually followed by " we are a republic,, not a democracy." why have so many political for philosophers referred to us as a democracy? when did the notion of calling it a republic becomes something we fought for? we did an episode on the democratic party. we learned how this realignment happened. how did this party, the small government party wrote to be a -- grow to be the party that

elected the first black president of the united states? listen to the episode where we analyze the word democracy. host: we would like to thank hannah mccarthy and nick capodi ce for talking to us about their podcast, civics 101. thank you for being with us this morning. we would like to thank all of our guests, viewers, social media followers, and you for being with us this morning on another episode of washington journal. stay safe, wash your hands, have a great saturday, everyone. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government provided by these television companies and more. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that is why charter has invested billions, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span two leading authors discussing nonfiction books.