happening in washington live and on demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the court, campaigns, and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. . in making the announcement about this proposal, president biden talked about his plans for defense spending. here is some of that from yesterday. [video clip] >> this budget provides the resources we need to keep america safe, ensuring our military remains the best prepared, best trained, best

equipped military in the world. this also provides additional funding to respond to putin's aggression against ukraine and its consequences. the world has changed. in addition to dealing with terrorist organizations, once again facing increased competition from other nationstates, china and russia, which will require investments to make things like space and cyber and other advanced capabilities, including hypersonic's. this will be among the largest investments in our national security in history. some do not like the increase, but we are in a different world. america's more prosperous, more successful, and more just when it is more secure. host: when it comes to defense spinning proposals, the new york times highlights some of what the $700 billion would do, a rise through 2022, $4 billion of that going to research.

$5 billion of that would go to a space age missile warning system to detect global threats. $2 billion of that goes for a missile interceptor to protect the united states against ballistic missile threats from states like north korea and iran. that is the new york times. that was the proposal taking a look at defense. the president talked about some people not liking these proposals. that is highlighted in the washington post. they write, the release marked a departure for mr. biden's budget plan a year ago as he sought to bulk up the social safety net during the pandemic and shows less regard for physical restraint. last year's version would have race to the deficit over 10 years. this story added not all democrats were satisfied and the hours after the budget went public. it was clear some that helped with mr. biden's agenda still existed and said they were the

budget proposal would offer too much money for defense spending at the expense of other programs. do not need to raise the defense budget, tweeted the chair of the congressional progressive caucus, adding the united states needs to make investment in communities. under question by a reporter, she said there are a lot of good things in the proposal. unfortunately, presidents on both sides have continued to prioritize military spending. mr. biden also spoke about a new tax that he would use and levy against households of wealth. here is some of the proposal from yesterday from the president. >> for most americans, the last few years were hard, stretching them to the breaking point. billionaires and large corporations got richer than ever. right now quit billionaires pay an average rate of 8% on their total income. that is the average they pay. i am a capitalist, but if you

make a billion dollars, great. just pay your fair share. a firefighter and a teacher pay more than double the tax rate that a billionaire pays. that is not right. that is not fair. my budget contains a billionaire minimum tax because of that. the 20% minimum tax applies only to the top 100 of 1%. the billionaire minimum tax is fair and raises $360 billion that can be used to lower costs for families and cut the deficit. host: more of that available at our website at c-span.org and on our app. some of you texting in your thoughts this morning. this is restaurant california, saying the defense budget is way over. taxing the rich is warranted, but will not bail out the

spending problem. this is from larry in new jersey, saying the billionaires tax percentagewise is about fair compared to what the general public gives the government in taxes. again, texting us is a way you can reach out to us. (202) 748-8003. robert in california starts us off, democrats line. go ahead. caller: rein in the desert out here. i think it is a good plan to tax the billionaires. it makes sense. compared to taxing the whittle class. we need a lot of money to replace all those javelins and stinger missiles that we are supplying.

host: what do you think about the defense department request? caller: we are using a lot of our supply of stinger and javelins, so. host: let's hear from james, pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. my only thing is tobacco. it is a plant. where is all that money going? host: how does that relate to defense department spending or the tax on billionaires? caller: you got me there. god bless you. host: tell me why you think tobacco is important. caller: where is all the money going? it is a plant.

where is it going? host: we will hear from edward in columbia station, ohio, republican line. caller: good morning. he does enough putting his foot in his mouth every day. going over to europe was a waste. you want to talk about a hypocrite, you should talk about the budget we are talking about today. does the country know that the media's mom for years come his sun is indicted -- his son is indicted, grand juries are paying the big guy millions from ukraine. host: stick to the budget side since you called in on that. caller: you're going to cut me off? paying a fair share to get this system who met -- melts the

system for years quite ridiculous. -- milk the system for years, ridiculous. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002 is how you can reach us. that takes a little more of a deep dive on issues when it comes to defense department spending. they write on their website that mr. biden's budget request is a percent more than requested last year. congress finally approved the 2022 defense appropriation. the 2023 request is $30 billion more than that. the real growth is 1.5% after inflation, going on to say this is not about making the force bigger, saying a senior defense official who spoke on a nominative -- a nominative --

anominity. joe is next, washington, d.c. democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. i am not against military spending at all. i think given the current situation we should be focusing on modernizing our defense systems and our technology and things like that. the more you listen to experts who analyze how that budget is spent in the pentagon and elsewhere, i think that is something we should focus on more. we should focus on how funds are allocated and whether that money is being spent in the most efficient way. the other point i wanted to make is in this proposal president biden has asked to increase funding for title i.

i do not have the numbers in front of me. the budget last year asked for an increase in funding and he only got a fraction of what he asked for. this time around, he to double the title i budget, which for those of you who do not know is used to fund low income schools. i cannot stress enough how important it is to be investing in education and our communities , as said by a representative the other day. i hope moving forward congress is able to recognize the importance of investing in education, kind of the root of everything. if you have an educated population that can think critically and hopefully vote. host: from the wall street journal this morning,

highlighting spending by department. defense to permit spending, the largest allocation current $173 billion. following that, one hundred $38 billion for health and human services, $135 billion to the department of veterans affairs. the education department, $88 billion in spending. there is more there on the wall street journal side if you want to look at comments on defense spending or the tax the president is proposing. mark and maryland, republican line. -- in maryland, republican line. caller: the thing is, the tax on millionaires, people who make more than $400 million? host: worth over $100 million, the household. caller: one of the big problems we have in this country is we tend to other millionaires.

i know that sounds look a funny thing to say, but we tend to forget. when you have somebody like a bernie sanders who proposes this kind of stuff, it is other ring people -- othering people. most americans do not realize they pay about 40% of the taxes. what do you think people do who make money like that? they do not just hide it other their mattress. they invest it. they create jobs for americans. democrats have taken this narrative of government needs to create jobs for people and government has never created jobs for people other than federal, wasteful little projects that they have no business being involved in in the first place. millionaires and billionaires

put money into people, but politicians will not have us believe that because americans are not educated. the education system -- they have basically thrust this narrative on school and college that capitalism is bad somehow. host: that is mark in maryland. cbs is saying mr. biden's budget would pledge the kind of wealth tax many republicans think would hurt the economy by diminishing private investments and causing the wealthy to put their fortunes to work abroad. republican lawmakers have said the spending over the last year has led to greater economic pain in the form of higher prices and inflation as closures from the pandemic began to end amplified by low interest rates and now disruptions in the oil and natural gas markets because of russia's invasion of ukraine.

you have heard people talk about the billionaire tax side of this, the defense spending side of this. you can comment on one of those things and other aspects. the number is (202) 748-8000 for democrats. for republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. kevin in port st. lucie, florida, independent line. caller: thank you. i wanted to say taxing millionaires and billionaires is not going to work. it is not going to work. these people have generational wealth. taxing them more is not going to fix the problem. these people are rich because they are smart, because they know better than us. these people will find out anyway to keep their wealth inherited. as far as defense spending, it should be cut. how much more do we need?

how much more military do we need? we have bases scattered all around the world while people in our own country suffer. it is ridiculous. host: do you think events in ukraine and russia have changed a philosophy toward spending? caller: i think it is irrelevant. the war has been going on since 2014. it is only relevant now because of the news. host: this is from william connecticut, saying when it comes to the budget that the tax on unrealized income seems extreme, quelling traditional investing strategies for lower income investors. other items seem more traditional. from a viewer from twitter, -- then we can talk about more money for defense. and then saying, if it is not

fair that billionaires pay this in tax, why aren't you lowering taxes for middle workers so they can pay as little as the billionaires? some of you commenting on twitter this morning, some of you posting on facebook at facebook.com/cspan and texting us if you want at (202) 748-8003 . this is jaffe in michigan, democrats line. caller: can you hear me? you were talking to somebody about common sense. they do not stand for nothing. all they do is wine and one -- whine and whine. host: these proposals from the

president, what do you think? caller: he should do more. some people out here need help. they just whine all the time. they have been getting away all the time. host: would you advocate for a higher defense budget? caller: no. [no audio] -- [indiscernible] the industrial military people would waste all this money.

they don't believe in abortion. host: let's go to brad in california, republican line. caller: the democrats believe the government should be in charge of all that. they believe in bureaucrats and higher taxes, more regulations, and that is the central difference between the two parties. a side note is i am a retired teacher. there is not one guest post that you have that is a conservative, not one. they are all left of center. host: as far as our guest hosts are concerned -- you can have that perception. let's go to steve in new york,

democrats line. caller: i want to say that personally i have some rather extreme beliefs when it comes to the taxation of billionaires. i believe there should be some way to work around this. the way i think it works out is when we have the 1% of the 1% kind of thing, the extreme wealthy, it just becomes that capitalism breaks because they have so much assets that they just accrue on top of themselves. it breaks how capitalism works at a certain level. i do not know what the solution is, but it needs a solution. obviously it would have to be a rather extreme one because people have to either lose money or value of money would have to change in some way. it is not something that is

easily done. host: that is steve in new york. for these proposals by the white house, and opening proposal when it comes to the 2023 budget, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. one of the people responding yesterday to the president's budget proposal was the senate republican leader, mitch mcconnell, on the floor the senate yesterday with thoughts on that proposal. here he is. [video clip] >> our own forces may get the short end of the stick in this white house but plenty of far left domestic priorities will be swimming in cash. while they limit defense to 4% growth before inflation, nondefense spending would get a larger increase. not all domestic spending -- border security and the department of homeland security barely tread water, just like our troops.

other agencies and department's that are more useful for the far left agenda like the irs make out like bandits with gigantic increases of 20% and 30% since 2021. they want to pour money into absurdities like the green climate fund for china to -- to hand free money back to china. there's plenty of money for things like anti-gun regulations, free lawyers for illegal immigrants, and something called environmental justice. this whole far left feast leaves out the reckless taxing and spending spree that democrats failed to pass last year and are now trying to revive. the biden administration still wants that spending, but they could not even budget for it honestly. host: if you go to the website

this morning, there is a piece following up on the proposal on the tax on certain households. you can find this online at thehill.com. estate lawyers monday were paying attention to a technical but more powerful set of proposed revisions to a state -- he state and gift taxes that would go after inherited wealth that has long stood beyond the reach of tax collectors. the changes seep -- seek to downgrade sophisticated types of shelter that allow money worth billions of dollars to go untaxed as they accrue over centuries while the provisions in the treasury's so-called green book will be debated over several months and may not make it into law. tax attorneys describe the proposals as more expressly targeted than similar measures. let's hear from thomas in

honolulu, independent line. >> good morning. i was prodded to call by the comments of a couple folks before me. i want to address what i think is one of the biggest myths from econ 101, that rich people need to stay rich so they can create jobs for the rest of us. it is a convenient fiction for them, but as we used to tell new entrepreneurs, the last thing you do in businesses is higher people. you avoid that expense as long as you can and only hire when it is unavoidable. the idea that they go into business to create jobs is not lunacy but fantasy, i would say. if we were to balance the budget instead of a token tax on billionaires i would suggest we look at the corporate welfare stock throughout the tax code.

the federal tax code is 6000 pages long, plus rules and regulations. it does not need to be as long if there were not all the special tax breaks crammed into the small print. finally, instead of just arguing over how many crumbs we should hand out to the have-nots, we need to focus on ways to democratize the ownership of income producing wealth, beginning with things like employee stock over ship plans. host: thomas in honolulu. the journal of accountancy talks not only by the minimum income tax at when he percent but as the budget would increase the corporate tax rate from the current 21% to 28% and institute measures supporting united states participation in the global minimum tax. this is jim in florida, republican line. caller: good morning.

number one, on defense, people need to realize that when you talk about defense today it is not we have 100 destroyers and they have 150 destroyers. what it has become is a technological race. we have been caught with our pants down on hypersonic. we may be in the process of being caught with our pants down on other defense systems also, in other words underwater propulsion. so think technology. don't think of the number of tanks and how big the army is. that takes a lot of money, and we obviously have not been spending enough on it because we just got caught with our pants down on hypersonic. number two, on billionaires, i am of two minds about

billionaires. my first thought is billionaires made all these pronouncements about how they needed to be taxed more during the last election year and i am thinking, let's those democrats go. you wanted more taxes? you got them. sit it in your lap and live with it. my other mind is that with democrats and taxes, the beginning is never the end. the beginning is never the end. they are looking at billionaires today but soon they will say, that works pretty good. we don't have to just do billionaires. we will do it with everybody. this is a disastrous thing. billionaires are a very small fraction of anything happening in our country, but they focus on it for political reasons. this is not going to pass.

host: that is jim in florida. let's hear from tom, democrats line. caller: the gentleman that called prior talking about not having -- you not having conservative views, it is true. the washington journal as far to the left and i'm a democrat. host: to the budget request, what you think of that? caller: why don't we talk more about the great reset? this is not conspiracy. this is reality. this has to deal with the budget. host: we are talking about the budget today. you called in and said how it was large. explain why. caller: i am here but you cut me off. host: you said the budget is large. explain why. caller: why aren't we talking

corruption? it is because of these bs bills that they are going to line their pockets with. host: we will go to larry, maryland, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to say we should -- the united state should unite and the proposal that president biden did yesterday is correct. we have to rebuild our military. china and russia, they tried to bring india and looking back now at what is happening in ukraine, we should militarize -- update

our military. it has to be spent wisely. it has to be militarized better. that is my opinion. host: when it comes to china, the website defense one takes a look at proposals. you can find it on its website, saying under pressure from congress mr. biden requested $400 million for the countering of the countering the people's republic of china malign influence fund, more than the version still awaiting reconciliation with the house. it is the largest ever, according to defense officials, and seeks to boost research into hypersonic weapons, microelectronics, and 5g wireless and biotechnology. the budget also calls for retiring more than 1000 navy ships to fry -- free up money to buy new weapons and the air force wants to cut its plan of

search and rescue helicopters, a variant of the blackrock meant to replace older helicopters from hundred 13 to 75 aircraft. more there in that story if you want to see the breakdown of the weapon systems being proposed. if you're interested in learning more about the defense side, we will be joined by todd harrison of the center for strategic international studies, specifically studying defense budgets, and we will ask him about details as far as the defense side of the budget request. you can comment on that. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. a couple things to keep in mind when it comes to the budget, he house budget committee will have a hearing today with the office of management and budget cuts talking about the request. you can see that at 10:00 this

morning on c-span3 and on our app. when it comes to matters of security, a hearing with the commander of the u.s. european command and nato supreme allied commander. you can see that if you want on our website. that will be at 9:30, but we are going to rebroadcast it at 8:00 tonight. you can see that on c-span two, c-span.org, and c-span now. later today, rep. d. young: lying in state in the statuary hall of the u.s. capitol. that is on c-span, c-span.org, and c-span now. steven in kentucky, democrats line. caller: good morning. i am a huge fan of you. you do a great job. the budget is too high. we spend too much on military, unnecessary things.

we balloon these numbers. it is too high. on the billionaire tax, what is up with americans not liking to tax billionaires? why should there be billionaires in this world? they can pay a little more for all of us to benefit. it is like trickle-down economics does not work. reagan did not know what he was talking about. host: statistically it does not work. host:back to the defense department, why do you think it is too high? caller: every year he gets higher. if we can have one year that we do not exceed or

i think they say average working people pay 30%, 33% of their income in taxes and the rich may pay half of that or less, a third or a quarter of that. so maybe they can lower it to 15%, 20%. i think that would lower -- that would be fair. i think it could be fair and it would lower the rate for everyone. hilary: that's -- host: that's the caller talking about the flat rate that's been described.

host: $1.5 trillion would go to spending programs. the senior vice president of the committee for a responsible federal budget, that's a group that advocates for lower deficits, says that's like a $2.5 trillion swing. last year the white house was increasing the deficit by $1.4 trillion. now they're decreasing it by offering $1 trillion -- $1 trillion, that's according to him. that's in "the washington post." let's go to howell, republican line in florida. go ahead. caller: yes. i'd like to respond to the defense budget and the taxes. look, we need more military, not less. when you look at what russia is doing and what china is threatening to do, there's no way we can't spend money to defend ourselves. you know, china has designs on

taiwan, has designs on the world. you know, this is just crazy that, you know, someone says, oh, we have to lower the defense budget. well honestly, someone's got to stop china, someone's got to stop russia. and that's the way it is. host: and how do you think more spending would achieve that? caller: more money would give more money to research and development to get what they already got which is high -- very, very high-speed rockets. they got rockets that go literally 10 times the speed of ours. this is insane. we have to have a way to counter what they're doing. if you pit our budgets with their budgets, we spend more than the top five people combined, that's crazy.

their money, you can't say it's money. they're spending like you wouldn't believe on their armed forces. they don't call it money. they are a communist country. they can call it whatever they want and they can shovel money in. this is crazy we let taiwan fall and ukraine fall. as far as the billionaires tax, that's like when we finally got an income tax and we swore up and down, everybody swore, oh, it would only be for the rich. well, by the end of the 1930's, it was literally a tax off every dollar you made over certain amount if you made over a certain amount. and we're talking over 80%. this is insane. i had this explained by a relative when i was young. couldn't make money after a certain point because it didn't matter what he made. it all went to one form of the government or the other. host: ok. that's howell there in florida.

when it comes to the politics behind the release of the budget, politico picks up with a story by laura lopez this morning saying it's joe biden's budget delivered with a joe manchin style. they're boasting the president's budget contains deficit reduction. a calculated appeal to a handful of centrist lawmakers who holds the fate of the mid-term in their hands. it comes as mr. biden looks to have talks with west virginia's joe manchin on central elements of his now defunct spending bill. that's universal preschool. and to woo over those lawmakers focused message not to mention more money for policing and the pentagon and alienating progressives. the left appeared fine with the overture. more of that in "politico" if you want to read it there. in massachusetts, this is eddie,