the commodities futures trading commission discuss what powers the agency needs to crackdown on the cryptocurrency market. watch this week live on the c-span networks or on c-span now , our mobile video app. or to stream video live or on-demand any time. your unfiltered view of government. . host: the city of minneapolis minnesota was the scene of another community demonstration over another murder of a civilian by police. welcome to washington journal.

we will ask you about the relationship between your community, your town and the police. the relationship between you and the police. (202) 748-8000 eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 mountain and pacific region. (202) 748-8002 law enforcement officials. you can send us a text at (202) 748-8003 and tell us your name and where you are texting from. you can post your comments on twitter and instagram and that's at c-span wj. we are interested in hearing how relationships are between your town and the police. now it's been affected in a surge in crime across the country and if the whole movement toward defunding or changing police funding has

affected your community. here's the reporting of the star tribune out of minneapolis yesterday over the protest of a police murder draws hundreds to minneapolis. a sense of deja vu was palpable. three days after minneapolis police officer murdered a 22-year-old, the city found itself once again mired in a better conversation about race, policing and no-knock warrants. exacerbated feelings of dread and exhaustion and a place that has been trying to rebuild and reform itself since the police murdered george floyd in 2020. >> it is just so unnecessary. host: that from the star

tribune. the president this week was in new york city broadly addressing the surge in violent crime in the nation. here's some of what president biden had to say earlier this week. >> every day this country, three 116 people are shot. 106 are killed. and a six officers have been victims of gun violence so far just this year. the same in the town north of me philadelphia. 64 children injured by gun violence so far this year. 26 killed. enough is enough because we know we can do things about this but for the resistance we are getting from some sectors of the government and the congress and the state legislatures and the

organizational structures out there. mayor adams, you and i agree. the answer is not to abandon our streak. the answers is to come together. building trust and making us all safer. the answer is not to defund the police. it's to give you the tools, the training, the funding to be partners, to be protect others and community needs you. host: we will ask about police and community relations in your town. (202) 748-8000 eastern and central. (202) 748-8001 mountain and pacific. (202) 748-8002 if you are in law enforcement. specifically on the relationship between the african-american community and police. this is the most recent polling from gallup on.

in the u.s., black confidence in police recovers after dipping to a new low last year following the police murdering george floyd. confidence in the police remains low. 27% of black adults in the u.s. say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the police up from just 18% in 2020. white americans confidence in police is unchanged from a year ago and lower than it had been before the floyd incident. let's hear from patrick in lady lake, florida on the relations with the police and community in your town. go ahead. caller: is this c-span's version of cancel culture? you didn't bring up the head of

the new york police union was fired over nice way to put it his colorful comments. harvey hated which i have called twice about which puts these police manuals together, it brings full circle. there was a big fbi investigation into police in florida saying how many police officers are in these colorful hate group's and this man who did the investigation says the fbi and federal government is down praying the number of police officers in these hate groups and it's kind of grade school level. how are police community relationships in your town? one last fact you didn't bring up, the wall street journal reported there's been 18,000 deaths of people that were in police custody at the time on

reported to the public. well done, c-span. caller: here in highland park new jersey, there is mutual trust between the public and the law enforcement community. host: what's behind that trust? why is there such a trusting relationship there? caller: well, what can we say but -- each of the public has a respect for law enforcement and vice versa.

host: has that changed much over the years? caller: no it hasn't. host: this is an opinion piece in the wall street journal. it is by the fbi director christopher read. headline cops who didn't come home. while many americans celebrated holidays with their families, law enforcement kept working. four officers didn't make it home. they were murdered while doing their job keeping others safe. baltimore police officer key holy ambushed alone in her car died on christmas eve. wayne county sheriff's deputy sean riley was killed during a call for assistance. a bradley sergeant was shot while attempting to locate the owner of dogs left in a car. cleveland police officer shane bartlett was killed in an

attempted carjacking. the highest annual number since the 9/11 attacks. all of that is available on the wall street journal website. the president in new york this past week talked about the rise in crime and calling for increased funding for anti-crime programs. >> it's time to fund communities. community police and the people who are going to protect them. we are not about defunding. we are about funding and providing the additional services you need beyond someone with a gun strapped to their hip. we need more social workers, more mental health workers. more people who is not just someone standing there with a weapon. someone who also knows how to talk to people. we can't expect you to do every

single solitary thing that needs to be done to keep the community safe. it's time to fund community policing to protect and serve the community. i'm also calling for increased funding for the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. i am confident if we fund these programs we will see a reduction. host: back to your calls on the police community relations in your town. steve is in wake forest, north carolina. caller: good morning. i can't speak for my whole community, but i love and respect the police. i love my community. they do a great job. so far this year 36 police across this country have been shot. there have been stabbings, looting's and murder all over the country.

every day people are murdered by black people in this country and not a single police officer has ever been spoken about on c-span but as soon as a black man is killed by a cop. host: steve, that's not true at all. we just read an opinion piece about that. we just read the figures from 2021 about police being shot. that's not true. we will go to oral in florida -- earl in florida. caller: how are you doing? i'm a retired law enforcement officer. i work as a correctional officer in the prison system and i was involved in a lot of training and i think a lot of this problem what's going on with the community and the separation between the community and law enforcement has basically got a lot to do with training. training to interject with the

public and the more the public, the officer is out on the street interacting with the community, he can pick up a lot of intelligence also. this will stop a lot of your shooting and all of that because you will have prime knowledge of. and also bring a lot more trust. you also have to go back to training because training is so important. host: if you are police officer, does your training compensate for the fact that all across the country we are seeing an increase in violent crime in particular, shootings, murder obviously. does that change the way you approach, does your training: you to change the way you approach your day-to-day job? caller: sure. i worked at a very dangerous facility.

all of my career. i did 25 years. and what i found out is, and i didn't have that many fights on the compound because i could quell it before it started. a lot of time the people, the individuals around you would give you a lot of information whether they want to or not. you pick up on a lot of intelligence. you have to be visual. i found out the more i stayed present and moving, the less situations i had. you have to change your way of thinking because a lot of people are from the old school way of thinking. host: what is that old-school school way of thinking in your view? caller: i trained a lot of police and training and a lot of it was like -- them against the

community. us against them. ok. i've never seen it that way. that's why i got involved in training because i knew it was a better way of doing it. host: we will go to market in marston hills, massachusetts. caller: i think the police need to do a better job of leading by example. ever since trump really was like -- when he was giving a speech, that he was telling the cops to beat on the prisoners or whatever a little more. i think that was a precipitous moment. the biggest problem that i have is in a lot of states we have tent codes on windows so you

can't attend your windows. i understand you don't want to walk up to a car and you can't see anybody inside it. you go by a police station and every single cop car and fire department all have their windows tinted 100%. so start leading by example. top down. pull up your boots and that's that. host: tyrone in new york city. caller: good morning. thank you. it's a very challenging thing with this police officer and the civilians connection. i live around the corner from where the police officers were killed and it was a really trying time for the community because we were at odds with the fact that these police officers just got killed in our community was suffering from this whole proliferation of drugs and guns and crime. now we know that we need the police to help us through all of this, but we want quick answers.

not just here in harlem but around this country. we don't want to hear that it's mental illness, but it's the proliferation of guns in the community. we just want things fixed. throw people in jail and that should fix everything. that is not the answer for every problem we have in this country until he realized that we do have to work together with law enforcement. we are going to continue to run on this treadmill and not go anywhere. we need to change like time. time moves forward. we've got to continue to move forward as a country. if we don't do that, we are going to continue in this madness. this is madness. host: do you have a lot of confidence in mayor adams to do the things that you're hoping for in terms of police presence,

resolving the crime issues in harlem in particular? caller: i think he understands how law enforcement operates. i hope he has more of a connection to how communities operate with law enforcement, because there's a lot of problems that we deal with as far as the community in dealing with police. i have no interactions with law enforcement. sometimes i say good morning. but they are on age. you just had police officers shot. and i know because i used to work for law enforcement. i know when i hear that something happens to another law enforcement, that puts me on edge because people don't really have my best interest at heart. somebody killed a police officer, shot a police officer and you work for law enforcement.

we have a lot of variables that bring this problem to light because these people have mental health problems. they have access to guns and we don't want to have that as an answer. host: thanks for that. on the guns issue, the president addressed that specifically on efforts to get rid of illegal guns on the streets of new york. >> we put together a comprehensive strategy to combat gun crime in cities like new york, philadelphia, atlanta, san francisco. we went to crack down on the flow of firearms used to commit violence. that includes taking on and shutting down rogue gun dealers. it's about doing background checks as well as outright selling of making sure the people who are not allowed to have a gun don't get the gun in the first place. and again -- this doesn't

violate anybody's second amendment right. there is no violation of the second amendment right. we talk like there is no amendment that's absolute. the amendment was passed, it didn't say anybody could own any kind of gun in any kind of weapon. he couldn't buy a canon when this amendment was passed. there is no reason you should be able to buy certain assault weapons. that's another issue. one of the things that we focused on, the attorney general and i will be able to have a real impact on it, includes going after ghost guns. those are the guns that can be purchased in parts, assembled at home, no serial number and can't be traced. and they are as deadly as any other weapon out there. the fact is they are out there.

this spring the justice department will issue a final rule to regulate these so-called ghost guns. there is more we can do. police department to report sharp increases in the number of ghost guns founded crime scenes. the department is launching an intensified national ghost gun enforcement initiative to deter criminals from using those weapons to cover their tracks. if you commit a crime with a ghost gun, not only our state and local prosecutors going to come after you, but expect federal charges and federal prosecution as well. we have also created a strike force to crack down on illegal gun traffic across state lines. guns that are used to kill people in new york city aren't made in new york city or sold in new york city. they are sold in other places. today the attorney general directed all u.s. attorneys in

the united states to prioritize combating gun trafficking across state lines and city boundaries. the justice department is sending additional resources to shut down the iron pipeline that funnels guns from shops to crime scenes in baltimore, new york and so many other places. host: some comments on police community relations in your town. michael says, the police know how to clean up the crime that's occurring. they did it in the late 80's through the 90's. it's their political masters who want to be elected who are hesitant. no-knock warrants kills people. did they think it was a burglar, why is a no knock -- why isn't no-knock warrant unconstitutional. police departments all throughout this nation need

reform. the police seem to think they have supreme power. the no-knock warrant was the issue in the police murder of amir locke in minneapolis. hundreds of protesters marched through minneapolis after the police shooting of amir locke. next up is terrence in honolulu. good morning. caller: i think everyone's missing the real problem here. i was born in philadelphia. raised in philadelphia but i've been living in hawaii for 32 years. the biggest difference between hawaii and the inner-city places that the children are raised to respect authority and respect the police and they grow up respecting themselves and respecting their environment. when you have 75% of black children born and raised without a father in the home, they are not raised to respect authority.

they don't even respect their own parents in their own homes so they join gangs and they become their father. and the gangs have an agenda that only matters to the gangs. they definitely don't have any appreciation for the police and they fight the police. when you look at the crime statistics, 90% of all crime in the black community is committed by young black men. it doesn't make any sense. we have to go after these criminals and change that. there's too many that are already beyond help. they have to be locked up and put away. we have to set an example for the next generation and let them know that that is not the way to go. our government has created this problem with this welfare and taking the fathers out of the homes. that needs to change.

but people make up 13% of the population. yet commit 30% of all crimes in this country. host: john in pennsylvania, good morning. caller: i'm glad you had me on here on cnn light. i guess it's time to start storing the racial pot. i'm from philadelphia. they just had two tow truck drivers shoot it out like a wild west. a three-year-old was hit. i don't see benny crump and black lives matter down here complaining about this murder capital we got here. this city is only a fraction of the size of new york and los angeles and you can't go down there without arming yourself to the teeth. it's crazy. host: jack in savannah, georgia.

caller: good morning. i would like to say that i agree with the gentleman hawaii, but we have to go back into the communities that are led by single-parent families and help them. make programs for them because he's is right about the gangs. but our police officers, the people who want to defund the police, when something happens to them the first people they call is the local sheriff's department or the city police. and you know -- you can't have 100% in anything that you do. you're going to have bad apples. but police are people who just do not chase criminals. they deal with people who have mental health problems. they deal with domestic

violence. they deal with people who are feeling down about themselves. i've seen police officers here in atlanta were homeless people didn't have codes and they went to the vehicle and grabbed an extra coat they had for themselves and gave it to the people. they are human beings, too. and the men and women who get out here to protect us and then we want to bash them. i'm not saying there's not a bad element. there is a bad element in anything you deal with. i understand, i support the second amendment completely. the ghost guns i agree with. it's not the gun owners selling these rogue guns. these are guns that are either stolen, if you carry a weapon in your car and you don't have a concealed weapons license, you need to take that weapon out and take it with you wherever you

go. that would cut down on getting people illegal guns. we have to reach out to the young people and educate them and give them a chance. that man from hawaii hit the nail on the head. but it's just not the black community's fault. it's everybody's fault. host: this is the latest reporting on how americans view police funding. a growing number of americans say they want more spending on police in their area amid concerns about violent crime. attitudes about police funding have shifted significantly. the share of adults who say spending on policing in the area should be increased now stands at 47% up from 31% in june of 2020. that includes 21% who say funding for their local police should be increased a lot.

here's chuck grassley, top republican on the judiciary committee in the senate talking earlier this week about the spike in crime in the united states. >> it still isn't a secret what liberal cities need to do to keep crime out of their cities. out of their railways. out of their subways. out of their streets. and out of their stores. send police where the crime happens. tell the police to arrest criminals. prosecute those criminals. do not release dangerous criminals out on bail. it is a very simple and effective way to reduce the amount of crime. you know what won't work, some of my colleagues on the other side of the break think the

solution is gun-control. but here's the issue. gun control won't stop a criminal from pushing an innocent victim in front of the subway, let alone keep a criminal from obtaining an illegal gun. the real problem is enforcement by the police. the crime spike began in june 2020 when blue cities nationwide pulled the police off their streets, progressive prosecutors at that time stopped prosecuting in these blue cities started bail reform policies that released violent criminals into the street. no police on the streets but a lot of criminals on the streets. it's no surprise that crime has risen.

host: reaction on twitter to our morning topic about police community relations. joseph tweets there was some police action outside and when it was over i thanks the guy for his serve is and he told me that's odd to it we never hear that these days. by the way, the police actions that night were not perfect. this one says i remember when body cams were seen as a game changer for cap misconduct. they are the rooney rule of police reform. cops continue to conveniently have cameras turned off while they commit crimes. qualified immunity allows this to continue. lussier from michael in new jersey next. caller: i want to -- wanted to say that it seems a gay want to let lawlessness abound. you have felonies they want to make misdemeanors, they want to have low bail, let you out for

free. truly without a consequence, here's what's fair in my eyes, you do the crime, you do the time. we should be it fair for the victim whose being hurt or killed or something happened, you want to make some the to deter crime. right now it seems like -- i don't know the opposite of deter is, they want to make it more active. joe biden said january 6 was worse than 9/11. they don't have any memorials for january 6 but they have plenty of them for 9/11. so tell joe biden that he's a little deranged. he needs to get his mind together because joe biden said generally sixth was worse than 9/11 -- january 6 was worse than

9/11. they want a new world order, they want to change america. host: let's hear from philadelphia. mary is calling. caller: good morning. i want to inform people how we can improve relationships with the police, of community. throwing more money at the police, these anti-violence groups where we as citizens in this country, we are not seeing any influence, no boots on the ground from the police or from these anti-violence groups. we are wasting money, if anything we need to make sure that we look at the programs that we already have in place. the police department in philadelphia we increased the budget for the police department yet we have less police officers

on the ground because of the disability benefits that we provided for our police department where they can go out at any time based on any minor disability. this is what's causing our problem. we have less anti-violence groups on the ground where the money does not trickle down to the people that are supposed to get the money paid we need to pay employers to hire x offenders yet they do not hire them. this is the problem, we are throwing money to the people and then the money is not trickling down to the people who are really required to get it. host: wall street journal reports part of the problem is recruiting and retaining police officers. here's the headline, police department's are losing officers and struggling to replace them.

in a city of about 5500 people lost three members of its nine person police force last year, unable to find replacements, of the chief has taken on extra duties including working on a patrol shift on thanksgiving day. saying it's been a terrible struggle trying to fill vacancies. another took a maintenance job at a distribution center and a third began struggle studying to become an accountant. across the country, police chiefs are struggling to keep apartments fully staffed as resignations increase and hiring gets tougher. at the same time officers describe the job as more stressful and less rewarding than it was in the past. as a result, chiefs say the departments are taking longer to respond to some calls while crimes including homicides are on the rise nationwide. let's hear from lester in sandy, oregon. welcome. caller: hello.

host: good morning. caller: we have a good police department here, it's different races, we are not too far from mount hood. it's not our law enforcement, i'm sure you've heard this already, that are prosecutors are trying to do their job. they follow the orders from the governor. the governor is very, put it this way, she's not doing her job.

we already have a law passed in oregon that if somebody steals --, i get prosecuted too. in america we should support each other. we to police officer being jumped on going towards mount hood. i'm in support of law enforcement, they're just not getting the big support. in order to do that you have to mayors and governors and stuff that are supportive of the law. have a good day. host: from cnn, the intentional

killings of law enforcement officers reach a 20 year high the fbi said. the chair of the senate judiciary committee on the floor of the senate recently blamed republicans for holding up funding that would go to hiring police and other anti-crime programs. [video clip] >> many speeches given by the rise of crime in america prayed i know this personally were presented the state of illinois and the great city of chicago. the number of violent gun crimes in this last calendar year was just shocking. when you look at all the people who have been hurt and killed by the use of guns in cities across america it's clear we need to invest in our police force in law enforcement. hold them accountable for the right values and conduct but put in their hands the resources to protect neighborhoods. the same decision brother

publican leaders to not bring any appropriation bills approved by the congress. it's just mindless. you can preach on one end you want to fund the police and then stop the appropriation process which the republicans in the senate have done. it's time to pass the omnibus appropriation bill so resources are going to enforcement agencies that can help state and local law enforcement efforts trying to suppress this violent crime. so don't preach about the need for this money and then turn around and stop it here on capitol hill. why aren't we voting on appropriation bill this week? why can't we get this done next week? it was supposed to be done last october. it's time for us to do it. host: crystal is up next in west palm beach. caller: good morning. i'm upset by the people who are calling and attributing the

crime issue to the black population. maybe a portion of it is with that population but wherever you have high density upheaval, regardless of the color there's going to be more crime. shooting, i have to say in terms of this being an issue, police arrive after the fact. so those two variables are totally unrelated and also lastly on the staffing issue not being able to find police officers, there's staffing issues across the board in every single area this is one of the issues we have right now in this economy. so the highest issue with police officers, of the reason why they are dying and have the highest

rate of death due to not taking the covert shots. i just want to say this whole argument feels like opening the doors for the republicans to comment on this issue and it's totally orchestrated. between the programs and the lack of programs and poverty that are contributing to the issue, not black people. host: connecticut, james. good morning. caller: how are you doing. first of all i want to call. the guy from hawaii has lost his mind talking about philadelphia. the problem is jobs. now you have known with a job. 99% of people who commit these

violent crimes are people who don't have a job. what they want to do about the jobs i wouldn't know. but the other thing i would like to say is he sat there and talked about how much you wanted to pass these bills to give these money -- give this money to the police officers. the first thing they need to really start doing is deal with china because china has the one destroying this whole country. thank you for taking my call. host: this is what the new york times reporting on this morning. january 6 committee borrows tactics of a prosecution. the house select committee scrutinizing the january 6 assault on the capital borrowing to, using aggressive tactics typically used against

terrorists that seems to break through stonewalling to develop evidence that could lead to a criminal case. the best opportunity to hold his team accountable, the committee which has no authority to pursue criminal charges use using what powers it has inexpensive ways in the hopes of pressing merrick garland to use the justice department to investigate and prosecute them. the panel's investigation is being run way former u.s. attorney and the top investigator from cyst focus on mr. trump's inner circle is also a former u.s. attorney. the panel is hired more than a dozen former federal prosecutors. they've interviewed more than 475 witnesses and issued 105 subpoenas glued for banks and telecommunications. some of the subpoenas have swept up personal data from the trump family, members and allies and local politicians.

representative -- back to community calls. jamaica, new york is where wayne is calling from. caller: good morning. spot on for the young lady in florida and gentlemen in connecticut. it's so strange and funny, chuck grassley says the blue cities and how it's out of control. if you turn on fox, a free commotion they have is but the cities or. who are you trying to scare? middle america that the black people of the bogeyman? that's exactly what's happening. they want to get back into power to try and scare people and make certain parts of this country happy again. we just went through another

person being shot in the foot. i'm just disgusted with this whole entire process. host: here's the senator from south carolina tim scott on fox news earlier this week. his thoughts on the biden administration's efforts to fight crime. [video clip] >> they've been bad on crime and terrible for the communities. crime in local communities is really bad for those who can go anywhere else and for the officers coming into those communities we are seeing what you just saw on the screen. a 67% increase in crimes against officers, nearly 50% increase in

homicides around our country. what we need is a tough stance against criminals who are violent. we need a tougher stance from the white house giving the officers the resources. host: senator tim scott of south carolina on fox news this past thursday. what are police community relations like in your town? 202-748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones. 202-748-8001 for mountain and pacific. if you are law enforcement, that line is 202-748-8002. comments on twitter. mimi says let's audit what police department's are doing with the money they are receiving now and then we can see the need. police departments are becoming defense departments, just throwing money at it like water. millions of guns on the streets are normal, it doesn't make sense. jody says this officers killing

has brought civic groups and the police together. when the blm protest came to fayetteville the police protected protesters and because of cooperation police arrested provocateurs who came with backpacks and hammers. gregory in grand rapids, michigan. caller: my name is gregory. i'm a 61-year-old black male. i've never been to prison, the police, you have good cops and bad cops. you have criminals, upstanding black males and i feel all of us shouldn't be treated the way that a criminal is being treated. i believe what you teach a child in the home he takes into the

world when he walks out the door. you can stereotype one person and that's where my issue comes in. host: do you feel like the police do stereotype people in your town? caller: i have seen it done. it's amazing always around christmas time i have seen several white people where the judge let them out on personal recognizance and they make us stay or pay. so the whole justice system needs to be looked at. it's not my call to make but i can speak for myself and what i see is not right. all cops are not bad and all blacks are not bad. lowell system needs to be reformed into goes even through

the medical system. it's a shame it is like that. i just feel that the whole system needs to be looked at, that's my opinion. i don't carry a gun because i'm not around people to have to carry a gun. i don't even own a gun. you can live and live in peace and stay away from corruption. those who go out and commit crimes, if they are punished in a certain way, that is on them. those who walk upright shouldn't be treated like those who go out killing and shooting. host: two bernard in cap -- to bernard in elk grove. caller: those officers at the capitol building, washington, d.c., they are heroes, they held

the line, they did their job. but now this other stuff that's going on with these officers like the man sleeping and they surrounded him after coming to his home. he wakes up, police around him and shoot him. can you imagine that happening to you. they are doing all of these things with body cameras on, can you imagine what they would be doing if they didn't have body cameras? half these people, these officers would be lying and saying something else happened. we are just living in a terrible time, but it's all about -- it's always been about the money because law enforcement -- is let's get this money from the

leased population, that's what the courts, of the prisons, white people have been making money and livelihoods off of black people in america. anybody with intelligence knows that. we just have to try to be better as people and do something about this qualified immunity. it has to be adjusted so these officers can be accountable for what they are doing. host: an earlier caller had mentioned this. deaths of officers due to covid. covid was again the leading cause of death among u.s. law enforcement in 2021, last year was the deadliest for active-duty law enforcement nearly a century. with covid-19 identifies the

leading cause of death for the second year in a row. in ohio we hear from jerry on the line. go ahead. >> i just want to say a couple callers before this, the black guy that was talking, he's dead on. guy was just talking. our government is what's stoking this. you think this democratic party, nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, that man is a joke. and if you ask me the guy before me is saying white people making money off of black people, that is celibacy in its pathetic. it's just sad -- that is so obscene it is pathetic. newspeople are supposed to be news people that can get up

there and tell lies, i've seen it over and over again. it's the democratic party, they are in cahoots with them. i cannot believe that i used to be a democrat. the light has come on in my head and i see what's going on and it's pitiful. my little town, a poor man got stopped by the cops. this cop shot that man eight times in the back and nothing was ever done to that cop. host: was he a local police officer? caller: he was. host: he didn't face a trial or any sort of discipline? caller: they charged him with the same charge that i would give growing marijuana or

something of that nature. host: this is the opinion of the washington examiner. their opinion on the biden administration sponsors faced with a crime wave, a week biden tries to change the subject of the president's visit. how do you know president biden is worried about his rock-bottom approval ratings? he's finally been forced to address the massive rise of crime rates on his watch. the long belated pronunciation of his parties defund the police message came just after a police funeral at which manhattan soft on crime democratic prosecutor was excoriated by the widow. better late than never but his attempts of the plot -- to flexion will not actually stop crime. we will hear from brooklyn, new york. go ahead. >> good morning. statistics of cops dying in this country are 1% are black shoot

and kill cops print rest of them are white. the majority of white people killed -- whites are killed more by cops than blacks. it's the media the distorts the truth and we have to stop putting all of our faith into the media because it's controlled by corporations. thank you. host: chicago. good morning, joy. caller: first thing in want to say is people need to stop racial lysing everything and people need to open up their minds and stop with this republican democrat. one thing is true, crime is an industry. initially the ghettos were a billion-dollar industry. a lot of these government officials don't even doing anything. they have a blind eye to what's

going on in the streets of chicago. the pharmaceutical industry plays on what's affecting role white americans. you saw an uptick in crime and miseducation and all of that. and the same thing on the ghettos in the chicago area. who runs those areas. while the gang bangers are low-level, you want to look at the real money, go to a pipeline where the opiates are coming from. now we have a new subculture going on, kids are -- it's not about money and jobs it's about fun and thrill. these kids are like zombies now. we have another issue.

if you keep on looking at everything is black-and-white, evil has no color and we need to stop it. the whole industry of law enforcement needs to be taken a look at differently. we are all victims in this. host: robert next up in michigan. caller: i grew up in michigan. i've never been convicted of any crimes. i'll tell you what the matter is , parents are not allowed to teach their kids respect. i'm not talking child abuse. kids are growing up because the states and that. if the parents as you can do that the kid goes to school and says my dad said i can do that.

i'm not talking abuse. another thing, that lady who was just on hit it on the head. i grew up around racist people and i don't have a racist bone in my body. this world has to stick together and start taking care of their own or these other countries are going to take over the united states of america. this black-and-white -- has got to stop worried all lives matter. if people say one color is better than others, that's wrong. that's all i have to stay -- say on the subject. i had a hard life coming up. host: freddie in south carolina, go ahead. caller: how are you doing today? host: great, go ahead. caller: i want to say i have

never sold drugs in my life, i come from a town and i know what it's like selling drugs. there lots of people, especially a lot of white people have guns and they come to the black community and they take a $700 gun in charge three and a dollars for drugs. that white person will go to the insurance company and say someone stole my gun and they'll replace it. they traded for drugs but he's glad to get the gun than the white person turns around and claims they lost the gun and the

insurance company gives them another gun. but i know. and they go right back in turnaround and trade it. host: going to let you go there and get one more call. this in ohio. good morning. caller: i'm not a good talker. but these guys on here with black lives matter and antifa, they are nothing but terrorist groups. this black i was just on their talking about white people selling them guns. that's not true. there's more wax causing the crime, that's the reason why the police are doing what they are doing. the police are being stabbed in the back by the government and by everybody. host: more ahead on washington

journal. up next will focus on the developing crisis in ukraine. we will talk with the brookings institution's michael hanlon to talk about tensions and russia's growing partnership with china. later, ceo michael peterson will talk of the national debt hitting $30 trillion this past week and the foundation's role in promoting deficit reduction. ♪ >> our u.s. intelligence agencies prepare for espionage threats facing the united states. from china, russia, iran and north korea. we examine the question tonight on "u.n. day" -- "q&a."

>> i think we are living in a moment of reckoning akin to 9/11 where the intelligence community has to undergo a transformation to deal with the threats that are driven by new technology. i think about these threats driven by technology in terms of work they create for the intelligence community. more threats they can work across that in the cyberspace. threats are moving at much faster paces than they were before. more data they confront in the world. more customers the don't have security clearances that need intelligence. people who need to understand foreign election interference. and more competitors. i think that's probably the most challenging work which is that u.s. intelligence agencies don't dominate the collection and analysis of information like they did in the cold war.

>> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." weekends on book tv feature leading authors talking about the latest nonfiction books. georgetown university law professor cheryl cassian be our guest discussing race relations and inequality in america. the many books include the agitators daughter and most recently white space, a black hood. ro khanna shares his book where he looks at the digital divide in america and offers suggestions on how to close the gap. he's interviewed by julia anglin. watch book tv every weekend and

find a full schedule on your program guide or you can watch online. >> "washington journal" continues. host: michael hanlon is with us, he heads the broking institutions research and foreign policy program. he's the author of a number of books including "the art of war in the age of peace." welcome back to washington journal. guest: thank you. let me quickly clarify. i'm not the director of the program but only research within. thank you for having me. host: on this morning to talk about the developing conflict between russia and ukraine and the growing partnership between china and russia. let's start there. with the olympics getting underway with the two most prominent leaders meeting both on the sidelines of those

olympics. the wall street journal framing that meeting as them uniting in a challenge to the u.s.. what you think of -- that the challenge meeting -- means for the u.s.? >> i think it's a long-term threat that will continue. i don't think there's a particular decision that is somehow noteworthy in and of itself except the olympics, outgoing russia situation ukraine. out of the brush will help type -- china try to seize taiwan. i think it will collaborate again. they've been doing that at the u.n. security council. certainly their economic relationship can develop more. as the u.s. buys less russian oil and gas, china can buy more. they can never completely compensate for each other for the loss of western markets for

example but they can do a fair amount to cushion the blow of future sanctions or other pressure we might apply. we think they sense the united states and its allies are trying to put pressure on both of them that's naturally going to push them together. host: this is been a developing relationship over the years. what do you think both want out of this for their countries? guest: i think they both want to limit american power and the ability of the united states and its allies dominate the terms of international issues. the way we see it is all we are trying to do is keep world trade going and keep international borders secure and prevent conflict. the way they see it is the united states continues to expand its alliances. sometimes without formal international blessing. but where more of a traditional great power than we admit and were not just defending human

rights, but her own interests. obviously the specifics of the taiwan issue and also the nato expansion issue become perhaps the most geographically specific but it's broader than that. host: was this the first time we heard china way in on the expansion of nato like that? guest: yes my senses china has largely stayed out of this one. they were willing to tolerate our alliances in the western pacific region because they thought it might constrain japan to have a u.s. japan alliance. i think you are right to say in recent times china has become a little bit more wary and downright opposed to american alliances in general and that's made it easier for them to then support putin because he complains about nato expansion. for china and russia it's part and parcel, the united states preaches universal values and

democracy but we are expanding our own power. host: we mentioned at the top your most recent book the art of war in the age of peace, u.s. grand strategy and resolute strength. how does this evolving relationship between china and russia change u.s. strategy? host: -- guest: first i still think by historical standards this is an age of peace. i do not expect war. i think putin is playing an exit can -- and blame -- an excellent mind game. but by the standards of history we don't see great powers doing major overland conflicts in the modern era. i don't think that will happen, largely because russian is the consequences. it would be difficult in ukraine itself but face long-term economic punishment from the west in markets they can't really afford to lose but that's sort of the age of peace part, the restraint part is even

though i don't like having to make this kind of decision at the point of a gun i do think nato has expanded far enough in the idea of bringing ukraine and georgia and any other former soviet republics they want to consider membership in the future into an alliance that was set up 70 years ago to deal with the soviet threat that no longer exists, this is bound to create negative reaction from russia. i think we have defined different ways without conceding to russia should be willing to negotiate about an alternative arrangement for us to mutually secure ukraine. i think it will take work and we shouldn't concede the issue up front. i think we need a little bit more restraint. >> absent an invasion of ukraine do you think the russians could be successful in getting the west to some sort of agreement or changes to the terms of their views on the expansion based on

nato particularly regarding ukraine? guest: we are not in a kick current members out even if the russians think the baltic states or poland or romania shouldn't be in their paired what's done is done. russia has no inherent right to those countries. during and after world war ii often a great deal of violence with no legitimacy. i'm not suggesting we adopt his view of the world but i do think there's a high chance that we will think differently about ukraine and georgia. we don't even have a definite plan for them to come into nato. we made the promise in the bush administration in 2008 along with the rest of nato but there was no timetable or security guarantees. we painted a bull's-eye on their back. the president of ukraine started requesting expedited nato membership which i think is what partially brought this issue back. i think out of nato's current

efforts, all of which would have to agree people remember this crisis and some countries won't want to run the risk of conflict with russia and won't want to bring ukraine in. the question becomes how do we promote ukraine's interest without nato membership. host: what do you think the ukrainian president and ukrainian people want coming out of this conflict? guest: i think he would like made a membership. a number of ukrainians in the east of the country would perhaps still be wary. the ones in the west probably want nato membership because there is the sort of regional division in some parts of ukraine. i think ukrainians in general onto stronger country. my good friend who disagrees with me on this issue of nato expansion, he underscores just how much vladimir putin has

managed to unify ukrainians as a people and a country. they don't appreciate being bullied by their big brother to the north and east and they have a stronger sense of national identity and sovereignty. so i think we have to get -- help them strengthen their own nation. it certainly means getting their economy going, reducing corruption in their own nationstate. was the types of things i think ukraine needs to think the key to moving its military which is a lot better than it was 10 years ago. we will see if i'm right in the weeks and months to come. host: we are talking about the conflict between russia and ukraine and the growing alliance between russia and china particular after the meeting this week between president putin and xi jinping. we welcome your comments. lines for those, republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000.

for independents and others, 202-748-8002. viewers and listeners to a piece you had recently in the hill. why we think we can read putin's mind and ukraine. just a bit from that. you write the former cia director was fond of saying we have a perfect record and for the next war we much -- we always get it wrong. we didn't it is paid pearl harbor or the korean invasion of south korea, of afghanistan. saddam hussein's invasion of kuwait in 1990, nor did we for see putin's attack on ukraine in 2014 or the move into syria in 2015. tell us more broadly what concerns you about this track record you write about. >> part of it is human beings are unpredictable. there are some of those

conflicts we probably should've seen coming better than we did. we can talk history if you want. pearl harbor, at least we didn't have the aircraft carrier support. having said all of that, my main point was if putin was going to invade ukraine i'm not sure he would've given us too much warning. he would've needed time to prepare and there still more russian forces in ukraine and belarus all the time. so perhaps he's just preparing this in a very patient way. but it's really hard to operate tanks and road vehicles in the cold and winter of ukraine and russia. it's also hard to operate them in the spring. so i don't really see when a good time is. i have a very good colleague at brookings who says usually one -- when russia invades others it

tends to happen around june. there aren't too many good months for fighting in that part of the world. and frankly russia still depends on big tanks, vehicles that support those tanks, just not a great time to attack. i don't really think that's what the game is. i think putin wants to remind us he could attack and that that will change the conversation about ukraine's future. guest: let -- host: back to the meeting between president xi jinping and president putin, the statement that came out of that meeting for the washington post this morning. they write about this in a part of that statement they write the two leaders sketched out a shared vision of universal values that diverted from the western worldview. it's only up to the people of their country to decide whether their state is a democratic one. a reference to repeated western

criticism of a lack of political freedom in russia and china. the u.s. and other nations are staging a diplomatic boycott of the beijing winter olympics to protest china's human rights abuses. they write while the criticism of western democracy isn't new, it's included in a joint statement at the beginning of a high-profile event such as the olympics requests there does resolve to build a growing collagen -- coalition of like-minded nations. guest: i agree with a good deal of that. president putin wants to go to the olympics and president xi jinping wants to host them. they visited each other dozens of times in their were specked in areas of leadership. this is not a surprise. most of the conversations they are having are ongoing. but i generally agree that they have different priorities for politics to put it mildly and putin in particular has an ax to grind with us. i think president xi jinping sees the commonest parties rule

in china as very beneficial to the economic growth and beneficial for holding together the country of 1.4 billion and generally successful. even though we disagree with him, i don't think he is quite a cynical as vladimir putin. for him, this rhetoric is used to justify his own suppression of his own fellow russians including the killings of dissidents and politicians. and he's really turned back the clock on democracy in russia. some people would say that about xi jinping but he's essentially the strong-armed leader of an ongoing communist regime in china where his putin took what was a promising democracy and took it backwards. i was still largely agree with the washington post. host: part of the efforts of the chinese under president she has been economic expansion, investment worldwide. that's not necessarily the case with russia. they don't share necessarily the

same worldwide expansion or development goals. i'm thinking of the belt road project that the chinese have been spreading out early. >> no doubt. russia doesn't have that capacity. it is 1/10 the population of china, 1/10 the economic growth rate. putin became popular because the economy stabilized and improved. in the last decade due to sanctions and upside down from the oil markets and covid, the russian economic growth has been very mediocre. china has all this investment in high tech sectors that the russians are losing ground on partially because of the sanctions and the inability to collaborate with the western world for a lot of the high-tech -- where a lot of the high-tech exists. these countries on partially different trajectories.

i would say russia has ambition that they are more specific and limited and they are more old school in the sense russia likes to dominate the politics and security of eastern europe down through as much of the middle east as it can and then into parts of north africa. it does have a substantial presence in a number of those regions. like you say, china's position for the globe is largely to be the dominant economic power. i think the military is more in support of that vision and it's willing to use it state power and even coercion, mercantilism isn't always a fair player, to expand its economic power. >> let's hear from our viewers. let's go to alan in brooklyn. you are on the air, go ahead. caller: good morning, thank you very much. i'm a little concerned not with this particular discussion but in general that they're so

little mention of the recent history of trumps attempt to involve ukraine in swaying the 2020 election led to his first impeachment. and how that relates to our place in the world vis-a-vis russia and china. for most of the cold war it was considered -- of america that our support for free enterprise economically was also tied to our general support for democracy. now that the communists control of the economies of china and russia have seated ground to capitalistic economic processes, america seems to be showing a lack of commitment to the democratic side of the coin. especially trump, he seemed to be announcing to the world democracy didn't matter to us

but anybody who gave it to the -- gave it to us was favoring our interest as a country. the same thing with louis the 14th. shifting the definition of our national interest. i'm just wondering at the time trump was in office all his behavior including the favoring of putin's security analysis over that of our own intelligence agencies at helsinki. host: thanks for the call. guest: let me mostly agree but at a point or two as well. i think president trump's stance on democracy as a threat to our country and certainly standing in the world and i worry about 2024. however i would also note the

problem we had with russia is deep and very pie partisan. you have a democratic and republican call in line. on this issue of not sure the things break that way but go back to the bush administration when ukraine and georgia were first promised membership. most, credit foreign policy experts are in that same camp, the biden administration has refused russia's demand that we exclude the possibility of ukrainian membership tomato. it's fully in line with george w. bush on that point. i think president obama was little different. is he blessed enthusiastic about nato membership in general but he did try to create an alternative path structure for ukraine and he did not detract the promise. on this issue i think we have to think more fundamentally. with donald trump still hanging over our heads and the possibility of running again in two years time is -- you do have

to ask how that's going to change the dynamic because certainly prudent and trump seem to have a certain rapport and part of me was glad president trump would tried to wind down the temperature of the u.s. russia relationship, the way he did it and the lack of any kind of durable bipartisan support for that policy and also the lack of any real idea behind president trump on how to improve the relation was a pretty thin read. still managing to talk with putin. i think president biden has done a pretty good job with that so far. they didn't want to escalate the personal animosity but he otherwise didn't have a serious plan for how to improve our relationship with russia and we need one. host: let's go to jim in georgia. caller: after the last caller and the gentleman on there now

speaking to i can tell the bias on this channel. socialists and the democrat party. but anyway, where's the u.n. that was set up for prude we go rushing into these things. the u.s. -- of the western hemisphere in the eastern hemisphere and we should focus on canada, central and south america and try to get things straight over here. let the u.n. the u.k. and all of them try to work it out. russia is a second world nation trying to play first world game and we are allowing them to do it. china is a whole new ballgame. their technology and, the stranglehold they have on their people is what they are looking to do here.

guest: first let me say i don't think sees managers possible for my comments and i do think president trump is a threat to our democracy and i'm not going to avoid saying so just because of offending trump supporters. the way he behaved on january 6 was not the way -- was not in favor of the constitution. the western hemisphere is one billion people in the way you define the eastern hemisphere apparently is most of the rest, almost 7 billion. the eastern hemisphere is where we see world wars developed previously. so the notion we can disengage with what goes on there and just hope it's not going to affect us is something that historically doesn't seem to hold up. if you don't mind going to come back i still like part of your thinking. we don't need to have a showdown with russia and china over each and every issue.

the u.n. can solve the problem because russia and china each have a veto on the security council so anything that would require putting pressure on them in response to their actions can really happen. the european union has done a pretty good job sanctioning russia over what it did in 2014. that's been a big part i think of what's in vladimir putin's mind. even if the eu could make sanctions worse and someday perhaps even cut off imports of russian oil and gas. that would take a considerable amount of effort. but as david victor from university of california san diego and i have argued their path you could adopt to reduce that dependency over time and i think putin knows the west might do that including the european union. i'm proud of our european allies. i think they have been at the center of a lot of how we handled russia since 2014 and ending that weighs on putin's mind. host: the exchange among several

of the united nations and the security council. the russian u.s. exchange -- a change accusations. a picture of our ambassador in that article. when you think of that -- what do you think of that and was that further solidification of the alignment between russia and china? >> i had no particular problem with the conversation but i knew it wouldn't go anywhere and i'm more in favor of being tough with our sanctions and at the same time driving a more creative diplomacy with russia i think we need to save you don't want ukraine and nato what are your ideas for how to protect that country, that sovereign nation. just because it has extract -- historical association with you doesn't mean you get to make the terms for it but let's hear the ideas. i've been calling for this for a long time. we should have various lines of dialogue including u.s. --

former u.s. officials who understand the russians and american security interests. let's see if we can create new ideas. that would be my suggestion in terms of how to change the dynamic and change the conversation. host: jimmy in brooklyn. caller: i love the debate about your hatred of trump, i know that's not the topic now. this russia china thing, they've been together america, russia and china had contact for 100 years print the commonest party in each of these countries has been in contact and working together for 100 years. russia and china are allies because they're both communist. putin is a communist, china is commonest. certainly they have capitalism now but that's what you have to go through to reach socialism according to basics marxism.

we built russia to counter china and china to counter russia. this term about u.s. intelligence, that's an oxymoron. we've been outplayed by russia and china for all these years, now they are united together with their terrorist allies. we are being totally outplayed. they are not just now getting together, they've been together. and the american side is losing. both sides don't understand that they've been working together. now they have iran, a radical islam is an ally of the soviets. totally outplayed. host: any response? guest: i agree with your point russia and china have been collaborating for a long time and i think they also do as my friend recently wrote, but they do have some common interest with iran in a certain way. except some of what you said for sure.

there's been background information that would support that. on the other hand i don't see this is turning into a partnership that rivals the west in overall power print we have to bear in mind our own strengths here. the nato alliance plus japan, australia and other countries that are close to the united states and our own power, we encounter for two thirds of world economic power and military spending in the world's democracies are generally united dealing with this kind of threat. we are -- i want to maintain our confidence. the last thing i'll say is i don't think rush is a communist nation but i'm not sure that's good news. it's a kind of kleptocracy that putin has created in russia is in some ways just as dangerous because it legitimates and provides a playbook for authoritarians who don't have to use leninist language. they can use anger the outside world and

they twisted nationalism in their own countries and can use that to deny their own people democratic rights. i think we share an assessment that the politics of russia and china are dangerous. i would put it in different terms. host: how effective can sanctions be against russia if the u.s. goes that route? guest: very hard-hitting, but we are going to have to be willing to bear some costs ourselves because 60% of russia's foreign revenue is from exports of oil and gas. even though putin just promised xi a new contract for natural gas, that was less than 2% of russia's annual production. it is not a huge market yet. they do not have enough capacity with pipelines or whatever means to immediately turn from the west to the east. they can develop that over time.

if the europeans are willing to pay more for energy and get their natural gas from others around the world, develop the infrastructure, and pay a higher price for their energy, we could definitely take away much of russia's foreign export earnings over the next half decade. i think we should be saying to putin right now that we can do this. if you invade ukraine, you can bet that we will. host: let's hear from richard in north carolina, republican line. host: i've got an opinion -- caller: i've got an opinion. i don't see why everybody is calling biden weak. he is not weak. he is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing. russia and china are coming together.

biden is killing our military bringing in people that will go against the american people. they will try to take your guns. they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. they want a one world government. thank you. host: any reaction, michael o'hanlon? guest: the military is still in good shape. i will give bipartisan credit. president trump did increase military spending. he chose two excellent secretaries of defense. a lot of problems that developed in previous 15, 18 years with our wars in the middle east, readiness crises, and budget problems got better in the trump ears and continue to get better now -- years and continue to get better now. they will have to pass a budget to get the military its money because we are about to run out of funds into weeks.

generally speaking, we have a high level of military spending. i consider its readiness to be quite good. it has a ways to go restoring all of the strains of the last two decades. that is par for the course. we are never perfect in military readiness. i am big fan of the armed forces . even as the politics in the white house change, i see a steadiness in their commitment to the nation, so i do not share the caller's view of the state of the military. i think it is quite good. host: "political" says russia, 70% of ukraine military buildup, they have assembled 70% of military firepower it plans to have in place by midmonth to give putin the option of launching a full invasion of ukraine. these stories are based on

background conversations with u.s. officials. why is a story like that out at a time like this? guest: i think the russian buildup does continue. today's "wall street journal" reports russia has as many as 83 battalion strike crews around the borders of ukraine. that is up from 53 a few weeks ago. they are expanding their buildup. they say it is for an exercise. i say it is for coercion. some sated for invasion -- some say that it is for invasion. i think that is a big part of the conversation. i don't think anybody can calculate with exact precision what it will take russia to dominate ukraine. we thought we could do those calculus is before iraq and afghanistan. we were proven wrong.

the soviets thought they could do that in afghanistan. they were proven wrong. these wars have a way of taking on a life of their own. i hope putin realizes any estimates of how long they would last and any casualties they would cause are just rough guess es. war has a way of going in directions you don't expect. host: let's hear from tom in pennsylvania on the independent line. caller: yes, i think you guys are avoiding the reality of what created the mess we are in right now with china. american financial and business interests ran over there chasing cheap labor, gave away their technology, and now we are in a crisis because of it. i think any discussion that

excludes that subject is ridiculous. it is not going to change until we see some patriotism from america's financial and business interests. guest: you put it well. probably more colorfully and bluntly than i would have or could have, but i have a hard time disagreeing. let me put it in more academic language which is that ever since kissinger and nixon went to china in the early 1970's, we have been trying to engage with them. we hoped it would work. we hoped it would make them wealthier. that part worked. we hoped it would bring the more into the international order that we support of playing by certain rules, not trying to use force to resolve international disputes, and that part has not worked so well. i think you are correct. we have seen evidence of that in

the last two decades. the consensus of helping china get wealthier is gone in the national security world, grand strategy world. but i agree with your point that there are still many in business who hope they can make a lot of money in china. unfortunately, china has not played with an open or even playing field. they have taken a lot of our technology and set up unfair trade practices. i think we need to push harder. if you are concerned about that, the good news is i think washington gets that. bad news is a lot of the business and financial world are still making their way down the path of figuring that out. we will have to create some new understandings. i don't think china is an enemy, but i don't think china is a complete friend either certainly not a fair player on a lot of this stuff. i agree with a lot of what you said. host: michael o'hanlon's latest

book is "the art of war." troy is in pittsburgh on the republican line. go ahead. caller: you were talking about how june would be perfect to going to fight. just because of the climate. they have vehicles where the weather does not matter. they also have satellites over ukraine. everything we are dropping off now, they know exactly where it is going so they go after the supply dumps and know the military targets before they go in. everything will be blown up. we saw the last time they were in the ukrainians do not need

the weapons. i think it will be the same. guest: let me use a visual guide from a book i have been reading on tank warfare in 1941 and 1942. the cold was similar in russia. the tanks were smaller. they did not have an easy time in the south even if tanks can sometimes roll over a lightly snowed field. the fluid in the batteries freezes. hydraulic fluid freezes. hoses break. if the treads come off, it is hard to put them back on at -30 fahrenheit. this is not an easy place to wait warfare in the winter. even if the tanks could get across a snowy field, the support vehicles the tanks need for maintenance, parts, fuel, food for the soldiers, ammunition, those are generally wheeled vehicles. you are right to point out the

possibility the russians could figure this out so exquisitely that they seize major roads and choose the right moment when there is not a lot of recent snow. if everything lines up usually fleet -- beautifully, they could maybe pull it off. anybody who's studied history understands the dilemma. i appreciate your caution. we should never let down our guard. i don't think will happen this time of year. it would be extremely hard for the russians to pull off. host: the next caller from michigan. caller: have you seen the movie "t34." you are talking about tanks. i am a vietnam veteran against war. i remember johnson lying in the speech, "i will not send american boys to vietnam."

i told my brother we were going to vietnam. a year later, he went to vietnam. two years later, i went. i know russians will provoke you like with the apartment bombings. just like we provoked with the gulf of tonkin and weapons of mass destruction, i see us getting into the war against russia and ukraine. they've got the latest tanks and atomic bombs. let's negotiate and pray for peace. that is what i say. negotiate and continue to negotiate. bring down the tensions. host: thanks for the call. guest: and thank you to the vietnam generation who did so much and does not get the credit and fought a war the country was not behind. you folks went through a lot. i think it is a good morning anytime we hear from your generation about how we have to think about international politics.

even if i think the united states is a much more moral force in international politics than russia or china, i do not think we should take for granted that everyone else is designed the same way. i think we have made a ton of mistakes in for policy we need to bear in mind -- foreign policy we need to bear in mind while still standing strong in our principles and in defense of our allies. they have the right attitude. host: let's hear from debbie from florida. caller: i want to know why i should listen to you. the bias is unbelievable. i could be wrong, but i am sure that is true. guest: it is not true. there is a former research assistant at brookings that ended up being implicated in this after he left brookings.

i am proud of my brookings colleagues that have worked with both administrations and both administrations and both parties in defense of this country. my good colleague and friend fiona hill went into work with president trump out of the relationship with h.r. mcmaster and did great service for the country and tried very hard to make the u.s.-russia relationship work as best she could for staying firm in defense of our values and allies. i think brookings has a strong track record of working with both parties. i spent a lot of time talking with people in the trump administration, at the pentagon, thinking about this question. i am upset with the number of journalists that have perpetuated this wrongheaded analysis. we are not biased in favor of russia or democrats. host: one more question for you, text from russ in texas, would you agree that putin sees

ukraine as a threat to his rule? a prosperous ukraine is a big negative for him. guest: i think that is right. there's part of russia in putin 's mind that wants to dominate ukraine, keeping them subservient, not having the become prosperous and perhaps premarket, pro-western, and therefore inferior to russian every way, just to remind them of who is the big brother in this relationship. i do fear that is part of putin mindset. i'm willing to have a conversation about alternative security structures for ukrainians in the future. but in terms of ukraine growing its viability, i think we need to be strongly in support of a stronger, stable, more democratic ukraine.

that will lead us to a competition with putin we have to continue to wage. host: his latest book is "the art of war in an age of peace." michael o'hanlon, thanks for being with us on "washington journal." guest: thank you all kindly. host: still more ahead on the program. we will be talking about the national debt. michael peterson joins us. he is the ceo at the peter g. peterson foundation. we will be talking about the debt hitting $30 trillion this past week. we will also talk about the foundation's role promoting deficit reduction. we will talk about violent crime with thomas abt. >> this week on the c-span networks, the house and senate are both in session. the house takes up legislation

to fund the government to avert a shutdown. the senate will follow suit on the bill. the upper chamber will continue work on president biden's judicial and executive nominations. tuesday on c-span3, the senate arms services committee holds a confirmation hearing. 10:00 eastern, the u.s. surgeon general testifies before the senate finance committee on shortfalls in mental health care for children and teenagers in america. wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3, the senate holds a confirmation committee hearing. thursday, the chair of the commodity futures trading commission testifies before the senate agriculture committee to discuss what powers the agency needs to crack down on abuse in

cryptocurrency markets. watch this live on c-span networks or c-span now. head over to c-span.org for information anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> today on "in-depth," the georgetown university professor will be our guest to talk about race relations and inequality in america. her latest book is "white space, black hood." text and tweet your questions live. before the program, visit c-span.org to get your copy of her book.

>> get c-span on the go. watch the day's biggest political events live or on-demand anytime, anywhere on our new mobile app. download c-spa now today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by michael peterson, the chair and ceo of the peter peterson foundation, joining us to talk about the growth of the national debt hitting the $30 trillion mark. michael peterson, welcome to the program. guest: thank you, bill. great to be here. host: remind us of what your foundation is all about. what is its mission? guest: the peterson foundation is a nonpartisan, nonprofit foundation dedicated to

increasing awareness and accelerating action on america's long-term fiscal challenges. we are concerned about our budget and the trajectory of our debt over the coming decades. and as you know, very little attention is paid to this in washington. is a real threat to the future of the company -- it is a real threat to the future of the country. we work with policy organizations to build consensus on a bipartisan basis. host: this was the week where the u.s. national debt hit $30 trillion. why should americans care about that number? guest: it is a big burden placed on current citizens, based on our past budgetary irresponsibility. americans should care for any number of reasons. today, we are spending $1 billion a day on interest. that is a lot of money. over the next 10 years, it is

$5.4 billion on interest alone. as we tackle problems, that places a significant burden on our ability and resources available for those things. $30 trillion is a huge number. it a result of both parties' inaction. that is what we are here to help raise awareness around. host: what has been the biggest contributor to the national debt? guest: there's a host of reasons why we are in it. the last couple of years, it has been covid. it has been a national emergency, a crisis. we spent about $6 trillion addressing the pandemic and its effects. we were supportive of that because this is an emergency. it is an unusual event in america, and it's citizens needed help and economic terms.

technically speaking, we did add a significant amount of debt as a result of the pendant. that is not why we are here. the big driver of debt is many decades where we raised a certain level of revenue that is not sufficient to fund all the programs we have passed. there is a structural deficit where we have growing expenditures and a level of revenue that does not support it. but is the driver we are concerned about because it is structural, permanent, and left unaddressed. host: growth of the deficit, congress after congress, there are occasional times when they say the deficit will be less than last year. but yet, the national debt continues to climb. guest: yes, well, there are small fluctuations but the trajectory is certain.

we have three main drivers of the long run debt. first of all, demographics. we have about 76 million baby boomers in this country. we have known about this generation for a long time. about 10,000 attire every day -- retire every day. they stop paying in and start taking funds out of the retirement system. that is a double whammy when they retire. that is a huge driver of fiscal issues. second, health care costs in the united states are very high. we spend about twice as much as many other advanced nations. it is a very expensive system we have here. lastly, you have the level of revenue that does not support that. you have a large number of people living longer, consuming health care in a very expensive system, and yet our revenue is not designed to cover that. a lot of the funds we've taken and programs, those funds have been spent. the trajectory is well-known and

well-established. that is what we are here to raise awareness around because it is a real threat to the future. host: we will go to the phone lines to hear from viewers on the national debt and deficit issues with michael peterson, the chair and ceo of the peterson foundation. on a couple of things you just named, does your organization have solutions for how we fund retirement in the future, how we bolster the funds of social security, or how we increase revenue in this country? guest: the only good thing about this problem is it is very solvable. we know a lot of policies we can put in place that will solve it quickly and fairly.

as opposed to trying to deal with ukraine or climate change solutions are difficult and involve international actors, we are in full control of our budget in washington and they can make changes whenever they are ready to do so. our foundation works hard on solutions. we convene different policy organizations from across the political spectrum to come up with solutions and promote them. essentially, it is a simple balance of revenue and spending. we have a taxation system that does not pull in enough revenue to support the level of government we have agreed to. social security runs into insolvency in 2034. we know that because we can look at the data and see when the spending is going to occur and how many individuals will be in the system. we know for certain that a lot of these issues are confronting us. the solutions are right in front of us. in social security, we could raise the wage cap at which people are taxed.

we could change the retirement age gradually. certain proposals raise it by two years over 20 or 30 years, so it will be gradual so people can prepare. there are any number of solutions to our budget. that is the good news. they are right in front of us. it is just a matter of political will to implement them. host: you mentioned the wage cap. there have been bipartisan calls to raise the figure at which you stop paying into social security. guest: yes. it is a little over $100,000. many proposals involve gradual increases in that level. retirement age is something. when it was founded, retirement age was six to five and life expectancy was 64. that was designed to be sustainable. longevity has gone up. that is a great thing for everybody. but it does mean more years of

retirement. that is a financial and fiscal reality we need to deal with. many of us feel gradual, steady increases to the retirement age over a long time would be very fair. you could exempt people below certain economic levels who are not able to do that. is a wide range of solutions. ideologically, people don't always agree on those. we are here to try to bring people together to address the problem. host: what is the peterson confidence index? guest: we designed something akin to the consumer confidence index that measures people's attitude about our national debt. we have been doing that for several years now. we do it on a monthly basis. when you hit $30 trillion, the confidence level is quite low. most recent level was 41 on a scale of 200 with 100 being neutral. we asked people about the level

of concern and how big of a priority this should be and how you feel about recent events. the concern is definitely there among the american people on both sides of the aisle. 76% of respondents this week think addressing our debt should be one of the top three priorities. that is about 85% of republicans and a lot of democrats and independents. there is significant concern around the country. it is clear people understand this debt is a problem. host: you mentioned politicians on both sides of the aisle lack the political will to tackle this. that also means the american public have not shown the political will to support those efforts. would you agree with that? guest: to some extent, yes. that is why we have this foundation and are out there talking to americans, trying to educate and bring additional attention on this. but this is washington's

problem. they need leadership in washington. most members of congress understand this. my expectation is if you are in washington leading our nation, you need to be forthright with the american people. you need to explain these issues. from my own experience talking to americans, they would be receptive to it. there is general concern when running for office that you would not want to propose any pain or revenue increases or cut programs. there certainly evidence that can be politically difficult. most americans understand these types of issues. a huge majority are concerned about it. i think if leaders in washington came to the market people and said this is a moral issue for the next generation, we need to build a solid and strong future rather than settling our kids with that and here are the things we need to do and they are reasonable, if you start early, you can do it in a gradual way and take 3% or 4% of

gdp over time which is manageable and affordable in the richest country in the world, i think people would be responsive to it if they showed leadership in washington getting around this. that is what we are trying to promote. host: we have calls. thomas in west virginia, go ahead. caller: mr. peterson, i get tired of people talking about social security. why don't they pay the $2.7 trillion they owe us that they borrowed to build bridges and fund the war? and then hide it in the budget so nobody will know it. guest: well, let me unpack that a little bit. the social security system, you are absolutely right, we have taken trillions as the baby boom generation work hard and paid into the system. many congresses spent that money

pit they put it into a trust fund but there are no funds in it. they take accounting of it and spend the money. in the future, we have a balance but it is an intra-government balance. there are some trillions left in that that we will be running down by 2034. that trust fund runs out. if we don't do something, we will have an immediate cut in benefits of around 20% at that time. i think that would be incredibly unfair to the people that paid in. i think we need to implement steps to extend the solvency of that critical program. about half of the recipients, it represents 80% of their income that comes from the social security check. it is essential to millions of lives. the idea we leave it on the path of insolvency without addressing it is totally unfair and unreasonable. host: what is the potential danger to the reputation of the united states or the fiscal

health of the united states of a debt of $30 trillion and increasing? guest: it is any number of issues. as admiral mullen said, the single greatest threat to our national security is our debt. it is not just a financial or economic thing. it also reflects our leadership role in the world. it is hard to project strength and deal with issues like ukraine, confront china, when we are saddled with this debt. the $30 trillion is there. we need to address it going forward. i think it represents a real threat to prosperity, social security, to our climate. we all know climate change is in existential threat to the planet. it means resources to invest in green technology -- it means resources to invest in green technology. if anyone thinks saddling us with $30 trillion and spending

$1 trillion on interest is helpful, they need to care about it. host: go ahead. caller: i am trying to figure out between democrats and republicans, why can't either party decide to put the money they take in through taxes, why can't any of that money, and of course, the rich are the only ones that actually have money, what can't the rich be paying -- be charged more but putting that money down on the deficit? and then, they can pretend to play the stock market. i would rather see something tangible putting down the deficit from the income coming in, from taxes coming in, rather than trying to play the deck after you already spend the money, theoretically.

iam at a prorated tax cycle allowing when you're not to pay the federal tax to be a balance to what they are taking and then putting out. thank you. host: ok. michael peterson. guest: in essence, you are right, sir. on a basically permanent basis, we taken about this much and spend about this much. you would not do that in your household because you could not. you would not do that in your business because you would go bankrupt. as a country, we can get away with it because we can borrow and lots of people around the world want to own our debt. at some point, that runs out. even before it runs out, you are burdening our future at the expense of the next generation. i don't think it is fair to add $30 trillion, we will add $13 trillion on the next 10 years on autopilot, before some of the new things we are thinking about. that places a significant burden

on our future. i think it is something we need to address immediately. host: following thought to that from roy on twitter. would it be better to call the baby boomer generation the dying ine and dash generation? it seems we are leaving quite a bill for our offspring to take care of. pat in west virginia on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. mr. peterson, the way i understand it, you are suggesting that people work hard and pay more. i am 69. i work a full-time job right now, and i have a second job as a city councilman in my little town. i am working two jobs in order to provide for others. i have a better suggestion than the workingmen working more hours and working longer in his

life to provide for billionaires to fly off into outer space in rocket ships and have a good time on yachts and move all around the world at their leisure. how about this? since they are six great entrepreneurs -- since they are such great entrepreneurs, they can pay on the debt. since we are not taking any of their businesses away, they still have the same source of income. since they are such great entrepreneurs, they can again begin to accumulate their wealth with what they have left. we are not taking away their business. we are just taking away the accumulated wealth so the rest of us might get a chance to breathe before we die. you already mentioned the way the actuary was set up so people would die before they got social security in the old days. let us go ahead and get our retirement. don't make us work more hours, sir.

make these people not doing anything except sitting back and raking in the money pay up for the privilege of living like kings in our country. you already said we were the richest country in the world. host: ok, pat, we will hear from our guest. guest: let me explain. you are absolutely right that the wealthy can pay more. that is what we talked about was the wage cap. right now, above $100,000 plus, they don't pay any taxes to social security. that is why that is on the table . that could bring in a huge amount of money that would support people who need it. on the retirement age, almost every proposal even considered exempt anyone above 55. yourself at 69 would be exempt. good for you for working and providing for your family. this would exempt anyone above

55 because they have paid in. this is a system under their employment. i think it would be unreasonable to change that at the last minute. we are talking about people in their 40's working an extra six to 12 months based on how you do that. some might say it is unfair. there needs to be some combination of different approaches to stabilize this. i think social security dry is on acceptable to the future of america. host: george on the republican line, hello. caller: one of the things on social security i think is a problem is the cost of living increases. could there be some way to phase those out? it is a pension program. pensions are normally fixed incomes. it seems like we have made it

almost a welfare program. it is supposed to be a supplemental program, i thought. guest: you are right. social security has automatic cost-of-living adjustments that increase the payout on an annual basis. that is something people have looked at. there is chain cpi that changes the calculation for that that president obama proposed. it brings in more revenue and slows down the growth rate. i think it is reasonable to have some inflation because costco up -- costs go up. what is the measurement of that? it has a huge impact over millions of people and decades. those things add up. .5% here or there can make a huge difference. we don't have a prescription. we promote fiscal responsibility and gather different perspectives from across the political spectrum and put it forward. most proposals involve some combination of these things. it is simple math.

it has to come from revenue or expenditures. if revenue, which taxpayers should it come from? if expenditures, should we change the retirement age? should we do it all from revenue? some people think it should be all from revenue. our point is something has to happen and we have to address this. we will weaken the safety net many of us feel is extremely important for these people. host: a bookkeeping question for you, michael peterson. juanita asks if the social security payment is carried on the books as an asset or debt. guest: good question because it is complicated. the baby boom generation as they were working paid into the system. in those years, we just spent the money. it is not like we put it away and bought assets with it. we did not invest it in the stock market. because it is our government, we

used the money elsewhere. we did create a trust fund where we said $1 trillion was put in, several trillion dollars went in there. as this generation started to retire, we started to take from the trust fund. we did have that location so it is accounted for. it's simple he means as you start taking out of the trust fund, we are just -- it simply means as you are taking out of the trust fund, we are borrowing more. there is no money there. it was spent. it adds to our debt burden now this group is retiring. that imbalance runs out in 2034. after that point, there is no trust fund theoretical or actual. we are in danger of having those recipients, including the 69-year-old who called, receive a 20% immediate cut in benefits if we don't address it. our point is let's address it early so we can do it in a fair and reasonable manner as

opposed to some crisis at that time. host: howard from indiana, welcome. caller: in hearing this gentleman speak about the budget deficit and the $30 trillion deficit, that is all untrue. we are a sovereign, fiat-based country. the u.s. federal government is the issuer of currency. this is a disappointing presentation from this gentleman because the u.s. government does not operate like a business. it does not operate like a household because the federal government can issue its own currency at any value we want. these kindsof frustrate me because he is scaring people to think their social security is at risk on some fallacy that we have to raise revenue in order to fund

important initiatives. that is not true. the u.s. government can issue currency related to enhancing our productive capacity. the measure should not be budget deficit. it should be full employment and price stability or inflation. as long as we keep those things in check, the check between revenue, tax revenue and expenditures does not matter. host: michael peterson on issuing our own currency? guest: we are already doing some of that with the fed buying in treasury securities. obvious he, i don't agree with that. the $30 trillion is real and has been issued. half of our debt is owned by foreign countries. we are writing them checks every six month on those bonds paying them off. it is $1 billion every single day. $5.4 trillion over the next 10

years. that is real money that has to be sent out by our government under the full faith and credit of the united states. that is a real expenditure. we have a lot to care about in this country from income inequality to the climate. this is real money getting spent on the past that is not invested in our future. he is right that we do have our own currency. to the extent we wanted to print our own money forever, we would have rapid inflation. 7% inflation right now is hurting americans at the grocery store. i don't think the answer is to print more money. the answer is let's create a sustainable fiscal foundation for our future that allows this country to be the great country it should be going forward and gives the next generation a better chance. host: joseph in florida on the independent line. caller: good morning.

couple of quick points. first of all, president biden, when we pulled out of afghanistan made a comment in his speech. his number was we had spent $235 million every single day for 20 years. that is a lot of money. think about the war in iraq which i think was best described by the title of the book named "fiasco," so we have to be careful about how we are spending money on unnecessary wars. also, income tax, our main source of revenue, we know there is a lot of money out there not being collected. the money i heard was $500 million sitting there and not being collected because we don't have enough personnel at irs to enforce it. we tried to do something and it has been rejected.

also, i think the best solution is elizabeth warren's idea of a wealth tax because the income tax system is not working. people who have a lot of money hire lawyers and are able to avoid income tax. host: ok, joseph in florida, a couple of things there if you want to wrap up with any or all of them. guest: your views are terrific because they all have the right idea. there are many ways to deal with this. to the extent we are insignificant wars that cost trillions of dollars that needs to get paid for, that adds to the problem. unfortunately, those wars were not paid for, they were borrowed for. on income taxes, he is right. there are many different ways to collect. we do have people that do not pay taxes in this country. that makes the system work. we have legislated ability to get out of taxes via tax breaks and credits. there is about $1 trillion year

that could be collected if we did not allow those deductions. that is an area a lot of people like to look at. there's any number of solutions. i think that is the good news. there are ways to collect more revenue. there are ways to reduce spending. parties will not always agree on that. but as a country, we need to come together and recognize this level of borrowing is a threat to our future and capture some combination of these solutions your viewers are putting forth to stabilize our debt and give the country the best position to succeed in coming decades. host: we have been talking with miter peterson, the chair of the peter peterson foundation. great to have you with us this morning. guest: thank you, bill. host: more coming up on "washington journal." next, we will talk about the rise in violent crime in the u.s. with thomas abt, chair of the violent crime working group.

♪ >> in early 2001, the writer at "fortune" magazine, asked the question in an article, how does enron make its money? her reporting, along with others, led to inquiries put to the enron management. within months, the company was bankrupt. her subsequent 2003 book titled "the smartest guys in the room" became a bestseller. next, a successful documentary. since 2008, she has made a career writing about american financial crises. in january, she discussed her

reaction to the theranos saga in an essay about convicted felon elizabeth holmes. she wrote, "for those who believe she was guilty of a great crime, it is a disappointing verdict." >> the journalist and author on this week's episode available on the c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations in office. here many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the 1954 civil rights act, the presidential campaign, the gulf of tonkin incident, the march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew that they were being recorded.

>> certainly, johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who make sure the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> i want a report of the number of people assigned to kennedy the day he died in the number assigned to me now. if i can't go to the bathroom, i won't go. i will just stay right behind these black gates. >> presidential recordings. find it on the c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: as we talked about a number of times on this program, violent crime is on the rise in

the united states. joining us next to help us understand that and get a handle on it is thomas abt with the council on criminal justice. is the chair of their violent crime working group. welcome to "washington journal." guest: a pleasure to be with you. host: tell us about your organization and the specific work you do with the violent crime working group. guest: the council on criminal justice is a not-for-profit, nonpartisan think tank. our goal is to understand the -- hold on one second. host: absolutely. guest: sorry. having a little feedback. i apologize. our goal is to understand -- our goal is to sort of understand the sensible center in criminal justice. violent crime working group was established in july of this year

to specifically look at this important issue and recommend solutions that can reduce crime and violence right now. host: you are on with us to talk about that report from the council on criminal justice, one of the headlines, "pandemic, social unrest, and crime." i want to go through some of the findings you're working group discovered in terms of the crime rate comparing 2021 to 2020. you examined monthly crime rates in 22 sundays -- cities. homicides were up 5%. up 44% since 2019. aggravated assault up 4%. gun assaults up 8%. burglary is down 6%. larceny down 6%. drug offenses down 12%. motor vehicle theft and other

violent crime, 14%. it is among violent crime that crime rates are up. is there a single driving factor behind that? guest: great question. there is no single factor. if you look across what the expert community is saying, there's three broad reasons. the first reason is of course the pandemic. the pandemic placed those already at risk for gun violence, young men often without a lot of opportunity or much hope, under a tremendous amount of strain. they were already under significant strain, but the pandemic concentrated initially precise in the same communities where gun violence concentrates. at the same time, the pandemic also put enormous pressure on the institutions charged with responding to violence. police, ems, hospitals, but also

the community-based groups doing good work in terms of engaging these young men trying to help them turn their lives around. the pandemic is the first reason. the second reason is the social unrest that followed the brutal murder of george floyd in minneapolis. that incident and the aftermath drove a wedge between police and the communities they serve. we saw in the wake of that incident homicides rise significant. the reason is a combination of two things. it was the police being alienated from the communities they serve, often reducing their proactive enforcement and investigations, responding to crime but not getting on the front foot in trying to prevent crime. and then also, communities being alienated from police, calling 911 less, offering less information. essentially, trying to handle, unfortunately, sometimes the everyday conflicts that happen

in these communities themselves. this conflicts can begin with an argument and turn into a fight and ultimately with a shooting or murder. host: i think it is helpful for folks watching on television, this is a chart that covers 2017 through december 2020, the graphic spike of homicides in cities of 100,000 population just radically increasing through july of that year. the two things you mentioned in terms of police action, reducing proactive activities. and on the citizen side, reduced calls to 911. it is a double-edged sword because both of those mean less engagement by the police and community in helping to solve and report those crimes. guest: absolutely right. unfortunate, homicide clearance rates also have been reduced during the pandemic. the third and final reason is simply guns.

there was a massive surge in firearms sales at the beginning of the pandemic and it has continued on. we have learned if you look at the a.t.f. data that a percentage of those guns, a greater percentage than is normal, is finding their way into the hands of criminals faster than normal. criminologists call this the "time to crime." we have seen during the pandemic that the time to crime for legally purchased guns that are possibly stolen, sold, and end up in the hands of someone who should not have them, has shrunk significantly. it is those three factors. the pandemic, social unrest, and guns. host: you mentioned the homicide clearance rate. does that mean solving a homicide? guest: that means making an arrest in a homicide case. the technical definition of clearance is probably not something your viewers are that

interested in. basically what it means is making an arrest in a homicide case. unfortunately, across the country, police are making less arrests in homicide cases. host: is part of that due to the fact people were not out? early in the pandemic, no one was really outside. people were inside, sheltered in place, and people cannot be found. guest: it is possible. unfortunately, the people at the highest risk for shootings or getting shot were outside. they were not obeying the social distancing mandates, but it is possible. host: we read this article earlier from "the wall street journal" talking about the problems losing officers and having trouble replacing them partly because of the job market and partly because officers are

finding it a much more stressful career than it used to be. guest: absolutely. there is a significant issue in law enforcement in the united states right now with recruitment and retention of police officers. policing is always a difficult job. it has been annexed ordinarily difficult job over the -- it has been an extraordinarily difficult job over the past two years. host: our guest is thomas abt. he is with the council on criminal justice. he heads the violent crime working group. we are talking about their report on the rise in violent crime across the united states and welcome your calls and comments. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for democrats. if you want to send a text, you can do that at (202) 748-8003.

i wanted to get to your working group's release on the report on what steps cities can take to fight violent crime. what did you find? guest: there have been a lot of conversation the country about what to do in the surgeon violent crime. you have law enforcement talking about it. you have activists and advocates talking about it. and you have had folks in academia talking about it. but there has not been a lot of conversation across those lines. what we did is we brought those groups together. we brought a group of 16 experts from public health and public safety in the community to look at the evidence and give a concise roadmap of what cities should and should not be doing. i am pleased to say that despite the hyper-polarized political atmosphere in this country

today, we were able to come together. the document is called "10 essentials." the first action is setting clear goals. it is important people understand you need to set a clear goal of reducing fatal and nonfatal shootings. we suggested a 10% annual reduction is a realistic goal. the second thing is, in order to meet the goal, you need to know where your gun violence is concentrated. in every city, a surprisingly small number of people and places are disproportionately driving the violence. if cities do not do a rigorous analysis to know where that is, they are flying blind. we urge that every city do that analysis so they know precisely who and where the violence is concentrated. then third, you have to create a plan.

that plan has to be looking to engage those people and places with a balance of empathy and accountability. one thing the research is very clear about is the that policing, punishment, law enforcement is an essential element of violence reduction, but it is not the only element. people need things to say yes to as well as to say no to. you need to balance the law enforcement approaches with community-based approaches. calls after the murder of george floyd for be -- for defunding the police gone voyager report, out in terms of funding issues for police ? guest: we don't specifically address the issue. one thing the evidence is clear about is it's not so much how much money you're spending but are you spending it properly. that's the key issue. i have to say the sort of hard left defund abolish movement is

probably not a constructive one in terms of the violence reduction. of course we need to balance our need for public safety and her need for justice reform. we need those to be happening at the same time. what we need our leaders to do is we need them to push back on the extremes. we can have our public safety agenda be determined just by the activists or just by the police unions. we need to have a balanced sort of middle oriented approach. host: with the council on criminal justice, the headline from cbs on the report. homicides in major american cities increased in 2021 a new study finds. let's go first to stratford, connecticut. nancy is on the line. caller: good morning. the republicans and x president

trump seem to still support the violence of january 6. we all heard trump say go to the capital and fight. the republicans recently censored cheney and consider who are against violence. also former president trump says stand back and stand by to hate groups. do you believe this mindset is spilling over to criminal minded people and ramping them up to violence? guest: thank you, nancy. it's an interesting question. i think it would be very hard to do a study or know for sure if there's a connection. i can say this. the sort of level of aggression in our political discourse and our level of polarization in our political discourse can deaf -- is definitely impacting what's possible in terms of policies in terms of crime.

one of the issues i see is when you have a hyper politicized hyper polarized political environment the relatively nonpartisan fact and evidenced based solutions, a little bit of policing and a little bit of prevention, there's not a lot of appetite for that and everybody is screaming for one another. i think that is definitely impacting crime on the streets. host: steve in central point, oregon on the republican line. caller: good morning. i think the problem trying to say gun control, the guns are just like a weapon, looking nice or anything else. but the main problem i think is the drugs. if you take drugs out of the equation i think this whole

country would be a lot better off, a lot of these democrat states, the governors allow you to grow marijuana. it's really high grade marijuana and it's causing a lot of mental problems and you get a lot of mental health people you're going to have a lot more crimes. host: is there a correlation between relaxed marijuana laws in this country and an increase in violent crime in particular? guest: thanks for your question. obviously there's some relationship between drugs and crime, specific drugs and violence, but one of the things that's interesting is if you look at the data this actually much less of a connection than there used to be. back in the late 80's and early 90's when the rates of violent crime or their highest, there

was a lot of evidence showing the violence was driven by the very violent trade in crack cocaine. we do not see that anymore and actually our biggest and deadliest drug surge, opioids, is not that connected to criminal violence, at least not the same degree that it was before. the connection is a little bit looser than it used to be. in terms of guns, we may just have to agree to disagree. there is this amount of rigorous empirical evidence that shows more access you have to guns, the more likely you're going to have gun violence. that's just an empirical fact, and strayed over and over again. states that have looser gun laws have higher rates of gun violence. i think it's important to note that no one is suggesting that we eliminate all guns or ban all guns but there are a lot of loot

really reasonable things we could do like just licensing guns the same way we issue drivers license that have been demonstrated to have a seriously strong impact on gun violence. i think there's middle ground here. host: the, it's a president biden in new york city last -- this week on illegal guns and his administration's plan. here's president biden. [video clip] >> put together a comprehensive strategy about gun crime in cities like new york and atlanta , san francisco. we want to crackdown on those who commit violence. that includes taking on and shutting down broke gun dealers. it's about doing background checks as well as outright selling and making sure people who are not allowed to have guns don't get the gun in the first place.

>> this doesn't violate anybody's second amendment rights. no violation of the second amendment right. it no amendment that's absolute. when it was past it said anybody could own a gun at any time. you couldn't buy canon when this amendment was passed. one of the things we focused the attorney general on organ to appoint where will be able to have a real impact on it. it can be purchased in parts, no serial number, can be traced. there is deadly as any other weapon out there. the fact is they are out there. this spring the justice

department will issue a final rule to regulate the so-called ghost guns. there's more we can do across the country, the reported sharp increases in the number of ghost guns found crime scenes. they intensified national ghost gun to determine -- deter criminals from using those weapons and cover their tracks. not only are state and local properties going up after but expect federal prosecution as well. we've also greedily strike force for trafficking across state lines. guns that are used to kill people in new york city aren't made in new york city, they aren't sold in new york city, they are sold in other places. the attorney general directed u.s. attorneys in the united

states in combating gun trafficking across state lines and city boundaries. the justice department is sending additional resources to help shutdown what's referred to as the iron pipeline that funnels guns from shops in states like florida to crime scenes in baltimore and philadelphia new york. host: thomas of the council on criminal justice. several things laid out in the president's comments there. what do you think among them will help? guest: i think all of them will help the question is will they make a significant difference. i think that remains to be seen. the president is doing what he can given that there is no appetite among republicans in congress for any additional regulation of guns. so he's using the executive powers he has in front of him to do what he can.

it's important to understand what the president is talking about. he's drawing a clear distinction between legal gun ownership and illegal gun ownership. he's making the very common sense argument but we need to crackdown on illegal gun ownership. the only thing americans we need to think about is are we doing what legal gun owners doing what's required in terms of safeguarding their weapons so that they don't fall into the wrong hands and are we impeding our government from doing the common sense thing. but don't have a criminal background aren't domestic violence users, if they don't have access to these weapons. we see it's those people and not legal owners who are driving crime. host: jackson, new jersey on the

democrats line. caller: good morning, thanks for having me. this is the first time i've called the program. we were discussing earlier about policing and how it was hard to get police on the force. the problem i feel they are not police anymore. the police is just like the military. what happens throughout history to the african-american community, the police weren't seen as somebody protecting you because they came in with these high tech weapons and all its equipment now and judging on the bad policing we have that the police became a gang. i watched the blue lives matter flag the police where as part of

their uniform on their faces and face masks when they should be wearing the american flag. why are they allowed to be able to have that in terms of the blue lives matter flag, that should be outlawed for them to wear. once they have such a strong union and they don't even tell on the bad police. policing is not policing anymore. we have to find a way to be able to have justice in the policing. you have to be able to have a way in the justice system to treat everybody fairly. that's what we don't have. what happened is i listened when the officers got shot and that her the president of the police union yelling and screaming about my brother and we got together and hundreds of cops came to the hospital. what about the police who shoot

unarmed people? now you know how it feels. i'm not saying we should defund the police. i disagree with that. i think they have to feel more understanding for the community they serve. guest: thank you for the question. we are can i have to disagree about the fact the police are a gang or we should outlaw speech supporting the police. i think our hearts have to go out to the officers who tragically lost their lives, really dying to serve us. but at the same time we can say that we need police to improve what they are doing and that these incidents of police violence have to stop. that's a really important thing for people to understand across the country's we can do two things of the same time. we can support our police while

insisting on accountability and improving police. if you look at the polling, it's consistent across racial groups, all economic groups, people are open and willing and understand their needs to be reform in policing and policing needs to get drip -- get better and it's having his proportional impact on people and that has to be addressed. at the same time people firmly oppose the defund label and that idea. we just need to listen to regular folks on this and understand that we should reform the police and we should expect better from the police and we can have police violence, but of course we need to support the overwhelming majority of police who take on a very difficult and very dangerous job. host: let's hear from david in

pleasant hill, missouri on the republican line. you are on the air, go ahead. caller: what -- when i was going to college in the early 1970's i took a course and i had to do a term paper and a capital punishment is my topic. in the early 1970's i found an article that said at that time the japanese had the highest incident of gun violence in any country in the world. they had very harsh laws but they passed a law that said if you did a felony and you were convicted of that at that time you had on yourself a firearm whether you used are not it was the automatic death penalty. and they said they went from the highest rate of gun violence in the world to the lowest rate in one year. i would suggest they do that here. thank you. guest: thanks for that comment.

i'm not aware of that research, it sound quite dramatic. the research here in the u.s. on the death penalty says something quite different which is the death penalty doesn't seem to be associated with much of either an increase or decrease in crime. as an important reason for that. if you think about punishment. we know there are three components of punishment that matter. how swift the punishment happens, how certain the punishment happens and how severe it is. everything we know about deterrent theory suggests it's much more effective when it swift, certain and its severity -- in the minds of the average criminal they are not calculating in the back of their head i could get this much time for this offense and this much for that. they are thinking, to get caught.

and that's the critical thing. we need to decrease this -- increase the certainty of apprehension. that's why the death penalty is not a particularly effective charge for a crime. yes it's extremely severe it's not particularly certain and not particularly swift. host: another protest on police involved shooting. and an incident earlier, they were fatally shot in early morning raid, there calls their with concerns over no-knock warrant. what's your understanding of how a no-knock warrant works? guest: at the counsel in criminal justice we convene to separate group to look at this issue and recommend evidence-based reforms were policing. this was one of the strongest

recommendations. we should abandon the use of no-knock warrants or at least limit them to the most extreme circumstances. i think you can see from this incident and many others the dangerousness of these no knock situations where citizens and police are put in highly volatile situations. a split-second decision could mean life or death. we really need to scale those no-knock warrants back. no-knock warrants back. host: let's hear from rhonda in new jersey. democrats line. caller: good morning. a very good topic. i truly believe the problem with our policing now is all the public videos showing executions of young african-american men.

it's gotten to a point where it's so spiraled out of control that now african-american men are driving armed to self -- defend themselves because they are afraid that a cop is going to murder them. this is such a sad situation. we have news stations like fox promoting violence 24 hours a day. calling black lives matter a terrorist organization. they were protesting all over the world for george floyd but they are calling them a terrorist organization. offering pardons by the former president of the united states for five dead police officers per 150 injured.

this has got to stop. do you know what we need? we need black policing in black neighborhoods. if you have lack cops, more black cops on the beat and we increase the funding for police, have minorities hired, put them in those neighborhoods and do some community service activism we can lift these communities up like we did in the 70's. host: thomas, any thoughts? and also the makeup of police force. two they reflect what their community makeup is? guest: sure. thank you for the question. i have to disagree with one of -- some of those characterizations. we've made strides across the country in terms of increasing minority representation so that

communities of color are being policed increasingly by people who look like them. we have a ways to go and it's important to know if you look at evidence, this is no panacea. many cities in the united states that are majority minority have majority minority police departments and often in senior leadership is also member of a minority group as well. that's not necessarily going to solve the problem, it's one step. the issue of how we police in the united states, the issue of how we reduce crime in the united states, these challenges are complicated and you been with us -- and have been with us for years. we would've done it by now. everything we know about these

guys is you have to chip away. you need not one strategy but, of 15 strategies all working together to slowly reduce only the number of black lives taken by police, but the number of black lives that are taken in the community on the streets. i think it's really important to understand we have to do both. americans have to stop when they look at these issues, they have to stop trying to win an argument and they have to start looking to fix the problem. in the have to start asking for leaders to do that. these rhetorical debates back and forth, very hard to get anything done on the streets when everything is -- when everybody is shouting at one another. americans demand a different style of politics and governments from leaders. host: anna in new jersey,

independent line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say i'm good to get different type of look at this. i think guns and violence have to do with making money. guns have to do with control over others. we should teach our children as well as others other ways of handling their anger so they don't resort to gun violence. also i think we should teach more business to kids in poor areas because a lot of times it's not taught and so people have to make money so what they do, they resort to violence. i didn't even have money myself. also i think we should be

teaching low-tech programs more. everybody does not need to go to college. a lot of times it's unattainable for everyone, not only are middle-class or poor. i think a different angle of looking at this now so they are not resorting to violence. that's my perspective. thank you and have a great day. host: thank you. we will go to alan in indiana. caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm wondering whatever happened to accountability. no one ever talks about when somebody commits a crime there's no accountability anymore. there's no consequences for anybody's actions these days. people commit crimes and then they go in front of your prosecutor and they are the next

day. they are very light on crime, it doesn't matter how the committing the crime or what tool they are using, it's about consequences isn't it? it's about the person doing the action. host: this goes back to your point about punishment, your three points there. in general is the punishment in this rise of crime, has the punishment been fitting the crimes that have been happening over the last couple of years? guest: it's interesting if you sort of bundle those past two questions you really get pretty close to the solution. the first person said what about jobs, what about services for these individuals so that they can try to change their lives and get ahead of this issue and not just lock someone up after they commit a crime. and the questioner after that

says what about accountability, don't there need to be consequences for this very serious criminal conduct. they are both right. in our 10 actions we talk about that and say you have to engage these highest risk individuals because it's important to understand this is again a highly concentrated phenomenon. we have to say we know your involvement with violence it has to stop, if you let us we will help you but if you make us we will stop you. you also have to look at locations with his violence is happening and say we have to increase law enforcement in those areas, the interrupt the cycles of violence and keep folks safe. we also often make investments, restore city services. we have to fix streetlights and address abandoned buildings and vacant lots.

we need -- so that's the hard thing about this issue and about talking about it, it's not one thing or the other. you have to have a balanced approach. host: bobby in missouri on the democrats line. caller: good morning. the biggest issue in crime is poverty. there's a linkage between poverty and crime in the community is shot out on mobility, there's not that much evidence for people to make money, locally three things happen. one is the used to have midnight basketball for youth and then they got rid of that. the police here have no polo --

have no control. we don't have central control over police funding. so the state controls the funding of the police. they're trying to wrestle that back. third is of course the proliferation of guns. then we have laws trying to be passed in missouri that would basically make murder legal. the train to pass a self-defense law which basely makes murder a legal thing. under the defund the police things will find all the problems are caused by the republican party with guns and with not being able to help communities.

those of the main issues in my mind. thank you so much. host: thanks for your call. any thoughts on his points? guest: let me take his first and third point. i'm inclined to disagree with him on the first and to agree with him on the third. this is a very common idea that poverty causes crime if you dress poverty, crime will go down. this really a huge amount of evidence that shows if anything poverty is really only impacting property crime and violent crime moves pretty independently of poverty. violent crimes plummeted during the great -- depression and rose during the looming 60's -- booming 60's and remained flat during the great recession. is not this huge connection. between those things. in the broadest sense, poverty,

especially concentrated poverty over multiple generations places individuals, families and communities under pressure and over time creates social dysfunction like crime and violence. that's something that's going to take a very long time to unwind and our group was focused on what can we do right now this year or next year to give these communities immediate relief. we absolutely can and should address poverty but if were expecting an immediate reaction in terms of violence that's unlikely to happen. on guns, i think missouri is a really important example here because in the past few years missouri has done -- undone tremendous amount of gun legislation and its promoted open carry, concealed carry. so that people not only can own

weapons but they can take them wherever they want. i have heard from countless members of law enforcement that this makes their job next to impossible. if guns are everywhere, fearing every apartment, if anyone can have them under any circumstances it makes the job diffusing gun violence incredibly difficult. this is my point about gun control or gun regulation in general, this is not about the absolute right to own guns, it's about having very reasonable restrictions on how you own a gun, how you operate a gun and how you safeguard that gun. you need to be willing to take responsibility in this way. it is undeniable the united states has 50 times higher rates

of gun violence than other high income nations despite the fact violent crime rates are not that different from a nation like the u.k.. we are not more violent than other wealthy neighbors prayed we are more deadly. the reason for that is guns. host: thomas with the council on criminal justice, appreciate you being with us here this morning on washington journal. guest: thank you. host: that will do it for the program this morning, we are back tomorrow at 7:00 eastern. we hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022]

>> c-span's washington journal. every day, we take your calls live on the air on the news of the day. and we discuss policy issues that impact you. we will discuss the recent rise in traffic fatalities in the u.s. with president of advocates for highway and auto safety. and a look at covid-19 vaccines and testing. watch washington journal live at 7:00 monday morning on c-span or c-span.org or c-span now, and join the conversation with your facebook comments, phone calls texts, and tweets. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more.

>> the greatest town on earth is the place you call home. right now we are all facing our greatest challenge. that's why sparklight is working around the clock to keep you connected. we are doing our part so it's a little easier to do yours. >> c-span supports -- sparklight supports c-span as a public service. >> remarks from the rnc chairwoman ronna mcdaniel, who spoke at the 2022 winter meeting, where the group voted to censure representative liz cheney and representative adam kinzinger for their votes on the january 6 committee. this is just under an hour. [applause] >> hello, everyone. it is great to see you.