reform act, and we will be joined by historians edward berkowitz and sanford schram. "washington journal" starts now. host: good morning. this is "washington journal" for july 24. a recent poll found those that have been watching the january 6 committee hearings only 6% have changed their mind on the events of the day. for the next hour we want to hear from you. have you been watching the hearings? and has anything you watched or heard changed your mind about january 6? democrats can call at (202)-748-8000.

republicans dial (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002 and you can text us at (202)-748-8003 but include your name and city. you can also send a tweet or find us on instagram @cspanwj and facebook.com/c-span. let's start by talking about the monmouth university poll. it was taken earlier in the hearings before the most explosive hearings, for example, the cassidy hutchinson hearing. but of those that have been watching the initial hearings only 6% changed their mind. it said about one in 10 republicans have changed their mind.

the same poll asked what people think about american democracy in general. the number of people who thinks the american system is sound has also decreased since the last time the poll was taken. but when it comes to watching the hearing it found 6% overall. we also have another poll that came out recently. the majority of people think former president trump was somewhat responsible for what happened january 6, but they do not believe he will be charged. 57% of americans up from 53% in january said he deserves at least a good amount of the blame

for what happened at the u.s. capitol. half of them think he should be charged with crimes but only 28% of u.s. adults think he will face criminal charges. most republicans, but even 45%, do not think former president trump should be charged. we want to hear from you and we go to the phone lines in just a second. i wanted to bring up this morning's "washington post." in an article that says, refusing to accept he lost. trump set u.s. on path to january 6 and it includes this chart. the chart is labeled, the 15 times trump chose to escalate

efforts, according to the committee's evidence. it starts with aides saying, bearing bad news. they told trump he lost the election but the former president would not accept the conclusion, even from his attorney general. it goes into the fake electors, the wild tweet about january 6 and other examples. 15 times the former president shows to escalate efforts to overturn the election. that is according to the january 6 committee. let's go to the phone lines. we want to hear from you about whether you have been watching the hearings and whether anything you seen has change your mind. we are going to hear from herbert in woodford, virginia on

the democratic line. good morning. what do you think? caller: his daughter was trying to coach him. i wanted the republicans to see -- they always talk about joe biden stumbling over speeches. i would like them to see that video. i would appreciate if you showed it. host: thank you, herbert. thomas on the independent line calling from deerwood, maryland. caller: good morning. i watched it from beginning to end. it is clear criminal charges

should be brought against donald trump. it is clear the republicans are watching it but when you put them in front of a microphone, they state they do not watch it. that is clearly a lie like donald trump was telling lies. the republicans are still telling lies. donald trump came into this election, to me, as a segregationist. he tried to choose people around him that were segregationist. they tried to call him racist but he is really a segregationist. and he is a crook. host: thank you, thomas. michael in ashburn, virginia on the republican line. caller: good morning. host: good morning.

caller: i watched it. i am not surprised 6% have changed their mind. it has been a pretty one-sided thing. i am not surprised. host: these are some remarks from liz cheney. she is the vice chair of the committee. she has given her opening remarks and we are going to hear from her now. [video clip] >> in our initial hearing, the chairman and i described what became donald trump's seven part plan to overturn the 2020 election. a plan stretching from before election day to january 6. at the close of today's hearings we will have addressed each element of that plan. but in the course of these

hearings we have received new evidence and new witnesses have bravely stepped forward. efforts to overcome immunity and executive privilege claims have been successful and those continue. doors have opened, new subpoenas have been issued, and the dam has begun to break. even as we conduct our ninth hearing we have considerably more to do. we have far more evidence to share with the american people and more to gather. our committee will spend august pursuing emerging information on multiple fronts before convening further hearings the september. today we know far more about the president's plans and actions to overturn the elections that almost all members of congress did when president trump was impeached january 13, 2021 or when he was tried by the senate in february of that year.

the senators voted to convict president trump and 20 others said they were voting against conviction because the president's term had already expired. the republican leader of the senate said this. >> a mob was assaulting a capitol in his name. these criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him. it was obvious that only president trump could end this. he was the only one. >> leader mcconnell reached those conclusions based on what he knew, without the detailed

evidence you will see today. host: that was representative liz cheney, the vice chairwoman of the house select committee investigating january 6. we want to hear from you about whether you have been watching the hearings and if anything you have seen have changed your mind about the events of the day. democrats can call at (202)-748-8000. republicans dial (202)-748-8001. independents, the number is (202)-748-8003. you can also text us at -- independents is (202)-748-8002 and you can text us at (202)-748-8003. please include your name and city. you can also send a tweet @csp anwj, on instagram @cspanwj and

facebook.com /c-span. we are going to go back to the phone lines to jacqueline. caller: although i am calling on the democratic line i do not see this as an independent or democratic issue. when you have done what donald trump did as president, i don't care who it is, it is wrong. he needs to be held accountable and so do the congressmen who are sitting in those seats at the capitol. they need to be held accountable also because this is about democracy, and it cannot survive with all of this deceit and

lies, scheming and division. that's all i have to say. host: next we are going to hear from bubba in memphis, tennessee. caller: good morning. this is for the dude in maryland that called all republicans liars. i have not watched one minute of the hearings other than what i have seen on the newscast. i do not care nothing about it because it is a kangaroo court. it is a one-sided deal. they have been after trump since day one. they were supposed to have all this evidence that trump did this. it is a one-sided deal. they need to question pelosi, find out what she knew, when she

knew it. they said they were going to peacefully march and let their voices get heard. schumer told brett he did not know what was going to hit him when brett almost got killed. it is a democratic witchhunt to get trump where he cannot run again. he is going to be the next president and he has to get this country in shape like it was before the old dude got in. he don't even know what day it is. the country is going to hell with him in charge. host: next is lydia in new orleans on the democratic line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have been watching the hearings off and on and it has not changed my mind. my mind was made up as far as

what donald trump and his cohorts have been doing. i agree with the caller a couple before me. this is really not a republican or democratic issue or independent issue. this is a fight for democracy. this man has subverted every agency that was in the government since the time he was in there. he did all kinds of nefarious things that were not legal and he had people in there that let him do whatever he needed to do. the hearing is fair. the republicans had their opportunity to participate and they chose not to. the republicans that are earnest about finding out the truth, if the other republicans were interested, they would have been on the panel as well. this is the side you get, the truth.

if they would have been on the panel, there would have been drama and we would have never gotten to this point. whatever is being shown is true. it is amazing to me people still will not believe the truth. you could put a mirror in front of them face and they will still say it is not them. these people will believe to the end and if that is the case, they need to go like jim jones and drink the kool-aid. thank you. host: lydia mentioned the republicans on the panel. we know that republicans did reject the initial bipartisan panel. the select committee mostly has democrats but there are two republicans, liz cheney and representative adam kinzinger. i am pulling up the profile that ran in "the washington post"

about adam kissinger and they said he was considered a star in the conservative party. he was one of the favorites of kevin mccarthy. he said now that he served on the committee investigating former president trump's role in inciting the capitol riot, he is no longer the baby faced 32-year-old whose future seems limitless. forced into retirement this year he reserves his anger for people like mccarthy and other leaders who keep falling in line with the ex-president they privately, and sometimes publicly, condemned. he is one of two republicans on the january 6 committee. back to the phone lines in decatur, georgia. you will have to tell me your name. i think it is gar?

caller: gar, g-a-r. i called trump the derek chauvin of politics. we saw derek chauvin kyl george floyd and some people say it is all right. you are going to have people say, it did not happen. what we have in america today is some people want a dictator leadership. biden is no dictator. he could not be a dictator if he wanted to be, but americans want a dictator. trump understand that. hitler had followers. mussolini had followers. trump had followers. that is what we have got to understand. thank you. host: next elaine on the

republican line from south glastonbury, connecticut. go ahead. caller: the media, there is so much january 6. how many times are we going to hear the same things over and over and over? i am 86 years old and i live on a low income. when trump was in everything was beautiful. gas, oil, everything. when biden came in everything was a rotten disaster. nobody seems to look at that or care about it and he blames everything on somebody else. it is just a disgrace what he has done to america. i think these people, schumer and pelosi, they knew that was going to happen. they asked for help before it

happened and they discarded it. and the thing of it is, you have a rotten panel. they are all democrats, they all hate trump. they ripped him apart since day one. it was disgusting what they have done to that man and his family. host: thank you so much. we are going to take another call. adam from jersey city, go ahead. adam, are you with us? let's go ahead and hear from president trump's former attorney general bill barr. he is talking about the committee's ability to build a criminal case against former president trump. [video clip]

>> i think if people want to view this as a potential crime, the police to investigate is the department of justice through grand jury. >> and they are. >> that is a secret process. we do not know how much is going on. i don't think the congress is the proper vehicle. i think they should focus on the storyline. if they want to make the case this was reprehensible behavior, which i think it was, or the president was derelict in not following up during the hours this was going on, make the case but the constant talking heads talking about whether this is a crime or evidence of a crime is a misuse of the process. it highlights the fact it is a committee that has been weighted

one direction. however, i think that is also stale. there is no cross-examination. that's true. but still, they have brought out important facts people need to take note of. for merrick garland to pull the trigger on a criminal prosecution of a former president is a high bar. i think he will apply. i think you will need clear evidence and i think i am dubious they have reached that stage. host: that was bill barr talking about building a case against former president trump. back to the phone lines to hear from you on whether you have been watching the january 6 committee hearings and if anything you have heard has changed your mind. michelle in upper marlboro, maryland on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

yes, i have watched the hearings. my mind has been changed. i did not have a favorable idea of trump in the beginning but what changed my mind was the administration, his administration. i was not aware of the number of people that told him he lost the election. it was really just rudy giuliani keeping it going. i was happy to see that not everyone in the white house was in step with the lie. the second point i want to make is i wish that the hearings would not only focus on trump's desire for power but also money. losers do not make money and i think trump wanted to win. he could not bear losing not because he wanted to be president for power, but he wanted to brand that trump name and losers do not bring in as

much money. i wish folks would focus on that. but i have been pleased with the hearings and have learned a lot. really blessed and inspired by the women, cassidy hutchinson, liz cheney, who are really taking -- not taking charge -- but playing a pivotal role in the hearings. lastly, with gas prices and inflation this is reaction to the months of covid. trump did not create covid but he worsened it by not taking action. this is the market trying to recapture those losses. host: thank you so much, michelle. michelle mentioned the women who have often been at the forefront of these committee hearings. this is "the new york times"

this morning, women face vitriol for testimony. before sarah matthews, a former deputy white house press secretary, even opened her mouth to testify thursday before the select committee investigating the january 6 assault on the capitol the house attacked her on twitter as a liar and pond of democrats -- pawn of democrats. they did not mention the man sitting before her, the former national deputy security advisor, who was also issuing a scathing indictment of donald trump's behavior on the day of the riot. nor did mr. trump mention mr. pottinger but calling ms.

matthews a liar. we will go back to the phone lines. adam, jersey city, new jersey on the democratic line. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i think the original question was, what has changed your mind? i have been impressed by liz cheney. i do not agree with almost any of her policies but i think she has profound courage. she has lost her political career for standing up for her values. she is standing up for the constitution. i think that is incredible. we are dealing with fascism in gestation and we will take any newcomers. we want to make sure we can fight for democracy and the right to vote and peaceful policymaking. thank you so much. host: thank you, adam. you mentioned liz cheney. we are going to hear from her

now during her closing statements of the january 6 committee hearings this past week. she touched on former president donald trump's supporters. [video clip] >> here is the worst part. donald trump knows that millions of americans who supported him would stand up and defend our nation were it threatened. they would put their lives and their freedom at stake to protect her. and he is preying other patriotism, their sense of justice, and on january 6 donald trump turned their love of country into a weapon against our capitol and constitution. he has purposely created the false impression that america is threatened by a foreign force controlling voting machines. or a wave of tens of millions of false ballots were secretly

injected into our elections systems. or that ballot workers are stealing elections. all complete nonsense. we must remember we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation. host: that was representative liz cheney speaking directly to former president trump's supporters during her closing remarks of the january 6 committee hearings. we are talking to you today about whether you have been watching and if anything you have seen has changed your mind. john in virginia. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i don't think donald trump should get the blame for january 6, i think democrats should get the blame. they were the ones that insisted on mailing in all of these

ballots so they could cheat. it is pretty obvious that they did cheat. host: thank you, john. liz in new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i have watched all of the hearings and i found them to be informative. i enjoyed seeing the people largely giving testimony have been republicans who backed president trump but understood attacking the capitol was too far. i think liz cheney and kinzinger

have distinguished themselves. the trumpers will never accept it but if they wanted to win the popular vote again, they have not won since 2004. they could nominate cheney and kinzinger. they would represent the middle of the road conservative views and they could gather democratic and independent voters. i want all of the people here who are so gung ho on trump, whether you like him or not, he never won the popular vote. he did not win that in either election. the fluke of the electoral college counting.

he did not have popular support. i don't know why this devotion to trump. if you lived in my home state of new jersey, you have got a front side view of him and his normal behavior of bullying and fraudulent behavior in his businesses. he went bankrupt six times. this man has never had much to contribute. never went to the military. i cannot tell you which foot has spurs on it. host: thank you, liz. next up is anthony in detroit on the independent line. caller: good morning.

i think it is a bipartisan clown show for democrats and republicans. i don't really care. i call it the redneck riot because that is what it was. usually the people would be in the back of the blue crowd -- be in the backing the blue crowd but they were assaulting police. we have liz cheney who is probably one of the biggest warmongers in congress. i think she might know a thing or two about overthrowing elections. she was deeply involved in her father's vice presidential middle east affairs. i think liz cheney is one of the biggest problems in our country today. and then we have jamie raskin talking about his dad. his dad was very against the

national security state. he was in the jfk demonstration and he was against what he called the national security state, what we might call the deep state. it is interesting to see jamie shunning his dad's legacy. and then we have adam schiff on the committee. where did russiagate go with adam schiff? where was the collusion? all they got was people lying to the fbi. the whole thing is a clash of and irrelevant to me. host: thank you, anthony. we received a couple of text messages and one comes from john in michigan. he says, until they investigate hilary and schiff these hearings are a scam. carol is in panama city,

florida. i have not changed my mind. i did not need the investigation to know that trump was head honcho for all that transpired january 6. if he is not charged, not only will that be a disgrace, we will become a laughingstock around the world. to allow that man to get away such egregious behavior would be beyond disgusting. we are going to go back to a couple of more callers. roy in woodstock, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. if we were being honest and look at the actual timeline, and look at something other than mainstream media, we would see another guy called michael epps encouraging people to storm the capitol. john sullivan, who was a trump hater, was at the front of the

capitol. agencies have come in because remember, trump voters know that five states changed. the secretary of state changed the rules. we expected the vice president to come in and a senator to support it. pence was supposed to send them back to the state legislature. that was what this was about, stopping pence sending it back to the states. host: roy mentioned epps. he has been around speculation

and rumors regarding the riot at the capitol. he was recently interviewed. this is from his home in rocky mountain and he talks about how he suffered because of right wing conspiracy theories. ray epps suffered enormously the past months as right-wing media figures and republican politicians have baselessly described him as a covert government agent who helped instigate the attack on the capitol last year. strangers have assailed him as a coward and traitor, causing him to sleep with one i open. it talks about him changing his life and feeling like he had to move because he is the source conspiracy theories regarding january 6. he was at the capitol but did

not go in. jeff in parkersburg, west virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have quick points. i have seen something on msnbc with steve bannon. three or four months before the election was held he said, this is what is trump is going to do. if he loses, he will save the election is stolen and he will never concede. everything bannon said came to pass. number two, trump says, if i can shoot somebody in the middle of manhattan, my followers would say, it wasn't me. that is how crazy his followers are. my final point is, i am from west virginia and it is a red state. my coworkers and stuff that are trump supporters they will say, oh yeah, he may have done this but gas prices were low.

that is all they go to. they watch the hearings and say, gas prices are low, food prices are low. they ignore everything else that the hearings have to say. thank you for taking my call. god bless america. host: next caller is michael in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. you had a lot of great callers from both sides of the issue, especially i believe the january 6 hearings are illegitimate. they are very one-sided. how would anyone of your listeners want to be dominated by the prosecution where you had no defense? it is a show trial. typical of soviet russia. so many people have brought up good facts. the caller from georgia and the

caller from new jersey. the reason people hate trump so much is most of the media has been focused on making him a laughingstock and wants everyone to believe -- that there was no reason to be elected president. he wanted to change things, he wanted to change the focus of what was happening in our country where it was ruled by these warmongers, like liz cheney, and so many have changed the direction of our country such that it was not benefiting the average american. host: thank you. matt is our next caller in boulder, colorado. caller: thank you. i hope i may be able to bridge some of the political gap with my comment.

it seems really clear that folks on both sides, republicans and democrats, each side believes the other side has been involved in mass election cheating. in those cases, i think both sides believe the cheating that has taken place has often happened because superiors in the parties and organizations who saw the bigger picture and knew what cheating needed to be done, they gave orders to their subordinates to carry out those orders to cheat in a variety of ways. if both sides are to be believed, those were both illegal acts to do. and they were ordered by their superiors to do unlawful acts. from the first impeachment we know the power of whistleblowing

, the colonel blew the whistle on the conversation between trump and zelensky. he reported it after the fact but it had already happened. what i propose is we can actually expand whistleblower protection to what i would call refuser protection. the moment they receive an unlawful order, if that support and understands it is unlawful, they would have the right to say to their employer, sorry, i can't do that. that would be unlawful and they could not be fired or punished in any way. this is a new concept but it has

been written into proposed legislation by lawyers in some of the washington, d.c. whistleblowers. thank you so much. host: thank you. this is former president trump responding to the select committee on truth social, which is his own social media network. he says, why aren't they asking nancy pelosi and the mayor of d.c. to testify on why they turned down my recommendation of 20,000 troops to stand guard? had they followed this recommendation there would have been no problem on january 6. they must testify. that is former president trump giving his take on the select committee. we are going to bring up the "washington post" editorial about the most recent hearing.

an excerpt says, the new details shared thursday are damning on their own but also along with the committee has laid out. all of this culminated in violence was no surprise and no accident. mr. trump had the power to start what occurred january 6 and he had the power to stop it. having exercised the former he was held to the latter. this was a violation of his oath of office, when the begin the moment he realized he lost the election, and continued until the disaster he invited struck. now the country must figure out what to do about it. from the other side of the debate on this committee we have an op-ed written by john yiu and here is an excerpt. the house committee so far has

failed to do the job for the justice department. dereliction of duty is not a federal crime. it is a political failure for which the remedy is impeachment. trump did not clearly commit incitement to violence. he spoke recklessly, but not criminally as defined by the supreme court. nor has the committee produced evidence trump inspired with violent right-wing groups to carry out the assault on the capitol, which could amount to sedition, fraud on the u.s., or obstruction of congress. so far, the committee has not shown such an understanding existed between trump and the rioters, even if many believe his words were calling on them to stop the electoral vote count. that as a couple of op-eds with takes but we want to hear from you. have you been watching the hearings and have you changed your mind?

keith in mill valley, california. what do you think? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. no, i have been watching very closely and i have not changed my mind. i have known trump from being an east coaster for 50 years. in my opinion, he has been financially and morally bankrupt since day one. that is all i have to say. host: thank you. scott in silver spring, maryland. caller: i am a retired military member. i am a never trumper but he was my president. he was elected fairly and squarely. i did not approve of it, i did

not approve of him in office, but he was my president. i am incensed he would take my vote away, that he would insight this riot, and i am incensed. i have been watching the hearings. i think the most chilling part for me was when we were listening to the secret service talking about how they were in fear for their life. these people pledged to protect the president and the vice president and they are fearful and our president is nothing to stop it. there is no defense. i agree 100% with what mccarthy and mcconnell said right after the january 6 insurrection. there is no defense for what he did. i do not want to get him jailed, i do not want the president jailed because i do not want to look like some third world nation who lacks up their political opponents -- locks up their political opponents, but

he has to be held responsible. this is america, not a third world country, and we deserve better. host: next up is jack in warren, ohio. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: good morning, america. has a black man in america that january 6 stuff was nothing but a joke. people were upset because they thought the democrats were taking this the wrong direction. please don't cut me off like they always do. what we are focusing on now is our gas prices, our groceries are so high, and biden told us, if you ain't black, you cannot vote for me. but when it came to our anti-hate crime bill it was crickets from the democratic party. when it came to reparations it

was crickets for black america. but when it came to afghanistan, what did the democrats do? they pull their wallets out. when they came for illegal aliens they pulled their wallets out. when they came for afghanistan, they pulled their wallets out. but what about america? what about the american people? we need help now. we need our gas prices down, we need our groceries down, and it is a shame on what the democratic party was doing. january 6 is only because of what the democratic party is doing. host: we are going to read a couple of text messages we have received. joan from minnesota says, if they had left jordan and banks of the committee it might have been believable, but it is not. the hearings have only proved how corrupt they are. john in baltimore says, all of

the witnesses, all, have been republicans. all have been longtime trump supporters and insiders, especially ivanca and jared. jim jordan is that the other congress critters, mccarthy named, would have done nothing but sabotage the hearing. let's take another phone call. glenn in port chester, new york. caller: hello, america. how are you? i am a presidential candidate but the reason is i have heard the hearings and i think former president trump possibly could be guilty of trying to overthrow the united states government with the use of force. i would have respected him if he would have put hillary clinton in jail because she destroyed evidence.

i have solutions for russia-ukraine. that is why gas prices are high. president trump did not sign the paris treaty which would have helped with our heating problem right now. god bless america. host: thank you. nancy is our next caller from montgomery village. caller: i am calling because america needs to realize we are not enemies of one another. they fail to realize that our children are watching us and they don't need to feel that america is a black or white thing. the republicans agitated and encouraged donald trump and made him feel like he was superman and could get away with anything. if you continue to encourage the

bad behavior of donald trump, what is going to happen in this country? what is going to take place when america turns against americans? i do believe the republican party, they have allowed it. they wanted this to happen but yet, when it comes time for voting, that is when they want to say, please give me your vote. please support me. send me money. but look at what is going on in their own backyard. and who sent all the american jobs to a foreign country rather than keeping it here at home? all for the benefit of reaping

the money off the american people. host: thank you, nancy. thomas in raleigh, north carolina. caller: the hearings have not changed my mind. jim jordan and mr. banks should have been on the committee but nancy pelosi knew that they would present the other side. why haven't we covered all of the rioting going on in portland? officers and businesses got looted. name one thing joe biden has done since he got in. look at baby food, gas prices, on and on and he will not take a single question when he does a press conference. if donald trump did not take a single question, the media would be going crazy. anything joe biden or kamala harris has done has helped this country. the midterms will be the biggest

red wave you have ever seen. host: barry in maryland. go ahead. caller: good morning, america. i called in because it always begs the question as to why the republican callers cannot understand this is a hearing. a hearing does not allow you or does not offer that there is going to be a defense of what they are talking about. they are holding the hearing to get information as to what went on. why do these republicans keep talking about, oh, the hearing is not legit because there is no defense. you only get defense when you go to trial. hopefully donald trump will go to trial and he will be able to give his defense. but understand, republicans,

this is not a trial, this is a hearing. there is no defense offered at a hearing. thank you. host: thank you. gilbert in lathonia, georgia. caller: good morning. we also what happened with our eyes and if they don't, they need a psychologist. most republicans want money. all they want is money and greed and they would sell their own buddies for money and greed. the things that have been done, they knew about it all the time. they eat up all the grass. they need to stop this. if the world goes on like this,

they will wish something never happened. people are going to rise from the bottom. they already rise all the billy hills but trump was the worst president we ever had in the united states. he should get everything coming for him and the people that follow him. every one of those at the white house know. hatred is going to kill you because people love you even though they hate you. host: thank you, gilbert. next caller is april, rock island, illinois. good morning. caller: hi. how are you? host: good. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: i'm sorry.

the only thing i have to say about january 6 is there were 200,000 people there and 250 of them were idiots. it is not a coup, it is just a bunch of idiots. you have got a lot of calls from people that hate donald trump for some reason but i want to know if they know what the first step program is. trump in the first year of his presidency made it possible for people to get tax exemptions if they opened up a business in low income neighborhoods, and nobody cares about that. host: thank you, april. next caller is carlos in

riverside, rhode island. caller: good morning, good morning. it is a wonderful thing we have here. my question is, why trump is still -- they should have put the man in jail, you know what i mean? that is where he belongs. host: thank you, carlos. next caller is marie in glen oak, maryland. caller: i think january 6 was one of the greatest gifts to african-americans. i was proud of black men that did not fall for the trap. everyone is calling on the republican side and not saying anything about mike pence.

they wanted to kill their own vice president. you put killing a vice president against joe biden's son? listen to what you are hearing. this was one of the worst days in the united states and to be honest, i would vote for donald trump to go. i have gained about 10 pounds just to see what this man was doing. i told my sister, i bet he is sitting down watching tv, watching those policeman get theirs behinds whipped. it was a great day for african-americans. host: gwen in philadelphia, you are next.

caller: hi. i wanted to talk about liz cheney on the hearing committee. she was one of the only people that did not fold to donald trump and when she speaks, she speaks the truth. she is honest and she has integrity. these other guys that said what they said right after the insurrection, they ended up changing their tune in order to bow down to donald trump. i give her a lot of credit and adam kinzinger. on another order, biden is getting the blame for all of the problems in our country. but did you consider that trump left it that way? trump, when he lost the election november 3, he really did not do anything presidential from

november 5 until january 6. he was missing in action, playing golf or whatever he was doing. he really left the country in bad shape. he was poor on the pandemic. he never encouraged people to wear masks. he never tried to mitigate the pandemic. he refused to wear masks and all of us that got vaccines, the people who didn't, they are riding on our backs. this would still be going strong if people would have not gotten the vaccine and not tried their best to stop the pandemic. one more thing. everybody says, well, there were billions of people disappointed. that happens every time there is an election. there is always a side that is disappointed. i had tell my own sister

that. host: we are going to take a quick break. coming back, we will have b.j. martino and jim manley discuss campaign 2022 and political news of the campaign 2022 and political news of the day. later, our landmark legislation series continues with a focus on the 1996 personal responsibility and work opportunity act, which overhauled the nation's welfare programs. we will be joined by two historians with expertise on the issue, edward berkowitz of george washington university and sanford schram of spencer college. ♪

>> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house january six committee hearings. go to c-span.org/january6, our web resource page, to watch videos of the hearing, briefings, and investigation since january 6, 20 21 to we will have reaction for members of the congress, white house, and journalists. go to c-span.org/january6, for a fast and easy way to watch when you can't see it live. this week on the c-span networks, wednesday morning, ceo's of some of america's leading firearms manufacturers will testify before the house oversight committee on the axis and office of gun makers. on thursday morning, the house

judiciary committee testifies on the house division, and the department of veterans affairs on ending sexual harassment the v.a. the senate returns to capitol hill on monday. it plans to expand health care benefits to veterans exposed to toxins during their service. the house is picking up legislation expected to be passed by the senate. members will vote on a wildfire and drought relief bill. watch this week live on the c-span networks or on c-spannow, our free mobile video app. head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video, live or on-demand, anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ join "washington journal" every

sunday for a special six part series on landmark legislation. each week, historians and experts will explore a piece of legislation that helped shape today's america, how we get around, educate our kids, pay for health care, and welcome new citizens to the country. this morning, we will look at the welfare reform act of 1990 six, which requires recipients to begin working within two years of receiving benefits and enacting a five-year cap. watch live at 9:00 a.m. eastern this morning on c-span or on c-span now, our free mobile app. "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back and welcome to our guest of the hour. we have with us republican pollster b.j. martino, and then we also have democratic strategist jim manley, and they are going to talk to us about

campaign 2022 and the political news of the day. b.j., you are the new president and ceo of the tarrance group, and i want to ask you about the january 6 hearings. we were just talking about them. what are your thoughts on the impact so far? do you think it is cut through at all to people at home? guest 1: well, if you look at the numbers in terms of the ratings for the hearings, it is about less than 20% of what we would expect turn up to be in an off year election. in many ways, many people paying the most attention to these hearings are democratic base voters, those who are already going to show on election day, those who are already going to vote for democrats. what you are seeing is an impact in terms of energizing that ocean of the base -- portion of the base. you see higher motivation among the right now could the question going into the fall for

democrats is whether that energy level can be sustained, given that there are so many other issues, particularly economic concerns, driving the electorate. if you look at the course of the hearings, yes, there is some democratic base motivation, but as we move into the fall and the campaigns get underway, i think that will be difficult for democrats to sustain. host: we will get your calls in just a moment. i want to remind you that democrats can dial (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, dial (202) 748-8002. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. please include your name and your city. you can also send us a tweet @cspanwj. we are also on instagram @cspanwj and facebook.com/cspan. jim, i want to ask you a little

bit more about the january 6 hearings, because b.j. just said that, you know, he feels like it is really the democrats who are watching this and getting the most fired up. do you agree with that? do you think there is any way that republicans are swayable at all when it comes to these hearings and their particular influence? guest 2: well, a couple of things. first of all, let me say i spent 21 years, i spent far more time that i probably deserved either putting together hearings, watching hearings, attending hearings. these are by far the best hearings i have ever seen in my lifetime, in part because it has been played very smart, and they limited the number of speakers, and that while each and every senator and house member, as the case may be, to onto the gate. regarding your -- to

pontificate. regarding a question, it remains to be seen. the level of a monday night football game, 18 million people. i think that republicans on the hill are feeling a little bit of heat, if you are watching their body language, they are certainly feeling some pain. but how much of an impact it is going to have on the elections in november, i think, remains to be seen. host: b.j., i'm going to ask you a question, but first, we are going to hear from liz cheney, during her closing statements, this is her touching on former president trump supporters. [video clip] rep. cheney: here is the worst part. donald trump knows that millions of americans who supported him would stand up and defend our nation, were it threatened.

they would put their lives and their freedom at stake to protect her, and he is praying on their patriotism. he is preying on their sense of justice. on january 6, donald trump turned their love of country into a weapon against our capital and our constitution. he has purposely created the false impression that america is threatened by a foreign force voting machine, tens of millions of false ballots secretly injected into our election system, or that ballot workers have secret thumb drives and are stealing elections with them. all complete nonsense. we must remember that we cannot abandoned the truth and remain a free nation. host: so, b.j., we just heard from representative liz cheney, the vice chair of that committee. do you think that is a fair care

grace vision that she laid out -- characterization that she laid out? guest 1: i think in terms of the messaging, particularly republican voters being told they are victims and have been duped is a message that is likely going to fall on deaf ears. but i think more importantly, it speaks to this desire and desperation from some to make donald trump the issue again, make him relevant to voters in terms of their vote decision. what we have not had a discussion, and i'm sure we will get to, is the fact that he is not president anymore, and one thing we saw very clearly in the virginia elections last year was that despite the efforts of democrats to make donald trump relevant, they ran over 12,500 individual spots trying to link glenn youngkin to donald trump. joe biden is president.

it is the reality of everyday lives that is driving the decision-making. when i hear this, i think that, first of all, republicans are not going to be very amenable to that message. and at the end of the day, when we get into the issues of this campaign, the decision-making is going to be made about the realities of today and not backward looking to events that were a year and a half ago. host: so b.j. just mentioned that, of course, trump is no longer president, but we know that a lot of republican candidates are still eager to have his endorsement. so last month, layton masters, who is running for senate in arizona, a swing state, aired this ad come and which he is endorsed by former president trump. the winner of the primary will face incumbent senator democrat mark kelly. [video clip] mr. trump: blake masters is an american first fighter.

he will protect our borders, he is strong on election fraud, frankly, strong on everything needed to keep america first. blake masters has my complete and total endorsement. mr. masters: i am blake masters, and i approve this message. thank you. mr. trump: thank you. host: jim, i'm going to send this question to you first. we are looking at former president trump in endorsing in this senate primary in arizona. do you think his endorsement still has weight? what kind of impact does the trump endorsement have, especially in primaries? guest 2: well, once again, we are going to have to wait and see how this all plays out, but i think, if you take a step back, you will find he has somewhat of a mixed record of course, being trump, he likes to pad his record by telling, you know, the max endorsement of

endorsements and/or winners. he is playing in a primary, and the question is whether it will blow up in his face or not, or, in mitch mcconnell's case, because i am in a weird situation right now, where i am hoping against hope that in these republican primaries, they nominate the most extreme, most toxic person possible, in the hope, in the expectation that they are going to lose in november. i never thought i was going to be in that position, but here we are. 1 well, if i can jump in, too, i think, to jim's point, he is not alone in that sentiment, that there are democratic entities around the country who are spending millions of dollars playing in the republican primaries right now in order to grant jim his wish. on top of that, when you look at the donald trump endorsement, in a primary, all things being equal, i liken it to an olympic

level regimen of diet and exercise that can take a seasoned athlete and turned them into an olympian. give me an olympic level diet and exercise regimen, i am not going to win a gold medal. he has to have quality candidates, and when he has quality candidates running good campaigns, coupled with a trump endorsement, that is often times a recipe for success, but you have to have both of those things going on. you can not make someone a whole cloth, the nominee, without a strong campaign. host: we have your calls now, jim manley is a democratic strategist, and b.j. martino is a republican pollster, make sure not to miss those up. you can get in on the cause, (202) 748-8000, if you're a democrat. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, dial (202) 748-8002.

you can also text us, with your name and city, and send it to (202) 748-8003. we also have twitter, @cspanwj. first on the phone lines, we have malik in arlington, texas. go ahead, malik. caller: first of all, i would like to say, the republican party as of now is nothing more than a socially acceptable fascist movement led by the unintelligent, most morally corrupt, worst president in the history of the united states in donald trump. i also watch the january 6 hearings, and in my opinion, they laid out a strong case that donald trump is guilty of treason. i'm not being bombastic. i really believe he should be tried for treason. if he goes to jail, i hope they would convict. talking about november, i am not hearing any party, republicans

or democrats, talk about the housing crisis in this country, the rates of mortgages, the extreme increase in housing prices, the amount of corporate landlords, the increase in rent. there's going to be a housing crisis coming soon with working-class people. here in texas, we have houses worth maybe $20,000, $30,000 in very drug infested communities asking prices a quarter million dollars. we need to talk about banking reforms, such as getting rid of private mortgage insurance or any reform that would help working-class people. we don't have it anymore. we have one party, the democrats , obsessed with the legal immigrants, and we have the other party, republicans, obsessed with social issues, abortion, gay marriage, things that do not move the country forward in any kind of way. host: ok, thanks.

we will let our guests respond. we will start with you, b.j.. guest 1: sure. you make a good point in terms of housing costs. it is part of the basket of economic concerns voters have. in their day-to-day level, there are gas prices, grocery prices, and those are something voters struggle with almost on a day-to-day basis. then there is housing costs, and there are solutions out there. i think you will hear them from republican candidates going forward, as campaigns continue. bringing down overall the level of inflation and putting halt to rising prices, particularly by stopping the gross amount of spending going on in washington. secondarily, it is also about producing regulations that allow us to build new housing. there is only one way to sort of grow out of housing price troubles, and that is to allow new houses to start. host: let's go to our next, caller, amy in georgia on the

democratic line. go ahead, amy. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: our country was attacked on january 6 by republicans, white nationalists, and insurrectionists, and there is an ongoing attack. so why are we treating the selection liken normal election with a normal republican candidate? we saw them attack the constitution, the rule of law, they don't believe in it, and here you guys are, talking like we are having a normal midterm election. we are not. we are under attack by fellow citizens who do not believe in multi-racial pleural distro democracy. explain to me why we are just continuing as if it is a business as usual, when it isn't? host: thank you. guest 2: let's state the obvious, i largely agree.

we are dealing with, when it comes to the republican party one that is this tingly at all odds with our democratic -- distinctly at odds with democratic traditions. i got lucky, was spent in the capital, to see those themes again last thursday night of the rampaging running through the senate, which was extremely disturbing, and, frankly, very upsetting. it does not mean we can't sit here and talk about the issues, but, you know, again, even in their party, there is a fundamental disconnect in one party, members of one party want to undermine basic democratic norms in this country. host: all right, next caller, n

ate in las vegas. nate, go ahead. caller: yeah, good morning. after listening to the first two callers, now i know this country is messed up. donald trump is the most conservative president we have ever had. we have him to thank for taking hold of this abortion issue. the idea that ms. january 6 thing -- this january 6 thing was more or less a little riot, ok, but the 90% of media, which is democrat, keeps it on the burner. what needs to happen is, after we take back the house, make donald trump the speaker of the house, put it right in their face that republicans have the guts to do this. i'm disappointed that republicans chose to ignore these hearings. it would have been nice to hear someone come back on.

where are the two marines supposedly to testify about grabbing the wheel? where are they? why hasn't nancy pelosi been called? trump said nancy pelosi refused national guard troops. why is it what down? ? i see this democratic strategist talk about monday night football having the same amount of viewings. that is garbage. al gore challenged the election, and because he challenged the election, bush could not put in his government. and i blame him for 9/11. host: ok. a lot of people think like nate. guest 1: there is a great deal of media focus on these hearings, as they should be, because it is large national news. but it is going to change. these hearings are going to come to an end. voters are going to focus on

things that matter to their everyday lives. it is undeniable in the polling that a vast plurality if not a majority of voters have focused on rising costs of living. we see time and time again over the course of this year, as different events occur, there's a temporary focus, as voters pay attention to those things, up within two days later, they go back to the gas pump, they go back to the grocery store and the economic realities of their lives come back into play. once again, the focus will turn to this current administration, the biden administration, and the democratic control of congress that has led to -- and many voters believe -- has led to these economic problems that we are in now. at the campaigns really kick into high gear, i think you will see a return to that focus, and you will see that that will, you know, make the races much more competitive and allow us to really tell the story, from a republican perspective, of what

is going on in the last year and a half. guest 2: for what it's worth, if i could, tia, i largely agree with what b.j. just said. i said i was not competent how this will play out kid i think b.j. largely nailed it when he said at some point, it is going to get back to economic issues. gas prices are going down pit when it comes to november, in the end, i think it will largely be dominated by economic issues. host: thank you for that. let's bring up a new ad from the nonprofit group one nation, that is aligned with senate republican leader mitch mcconnell. this is an ad attacking incumbent senator mark kelly, who is a democrat. it puts inflation, talks about his support for president biden's spending plan. let's watch this ad. [video clip] >> wasteful government spending is to blame for inflation.

senator mark kelly was a deciding vote for president biden's's spending spree, millions spent on golf courses, wasting $140 million on a high-end florida hotel. senator kelly and president biden's spending, and what do we get? inflation, soaring groceries. tell senator mark kelly, stop being record spending to stop inflation. host: jim, we just saw that ad, as we have been talking about. republicans are saying this upcoming midterm will be about the economy, and by tying democrats to president biden's message, they can defeat them. what do you think when you see ads like this? guest 2: among other things, the issue of inflation is incredibly powerful. i'm not going to sit here and deny that that is not going to be a problem in november. as your viewers may or may not

know, we have a whole bunch of economic news coming out this week, you know, those that watch it carefully are calling it a torrent of important numbers coming out this week. at the end of the week, we are going to have a better handle on, you know, where we are going with the economy and inflation in particular. but the issue of inflation is very insidious. it is right through, you know, everything important to the american people, including gas prices, grocery prices, etc. it is going to be something that is going to cause this administration some pain for the next couple of months, until it rings itself out of the system. in the meantime, i was just in minnesota. i saw similar ads and is a local congresswoman,

attacking her for similar issues. guest 1: historically, in washington, we have paid attention to rates, inflation, down to 7%, hooray, we fixed it. the fact is, to so many americans, the economic damage that has been done by higher prices is going to be felt far into the future. wages, in many ways, will still not catch up to inflation, and voters may talk to them in focus groups and in surveys. they don't pay attention to what the number is on the inflation rate. they are paying attention to the things they see in and around their lives, businesses on main street my housing prices, their own bank accounts, what the gas prices are. they are going to look at all these indicators, and in many ways, even if the inflation rate starts to take down into the fall, for many americans, they are going to be in the whole and deeply in the hole.

there's a point at which, until things turn down, the reality is for many americans, they will not be out of this economic damage that has been w rought for a year or more to come. host: let's talk to another viewer, john west in lafayette, indiana says, "how did the two guests thank the scotus decision will impact the upcoming election?" we are talking about the abortion decision. the democratic national committee released an ad targeting republicans on abortion. let's watch this ad. [video clip] >> republicans are celebrating ending a woman's right to choose. >> this is a moment of incredible celebration. >> what a great victory. >> they are not done yet. mike pence wants to ban abortion in every state. mitch mcconnell says a national abortion ban is possible. 50 years of women's rights

stripped away by the few, but we are the many. we will fight for freedom, and we will not be silenced. the democratic national committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. host: we will start with you, b.j. are you concerned at all that, you know, despite a lot of things going into republicans' favor going into midterms, that abortion will be something that could help turnout democrats? guest 1: it certainly is a motivating factor. again, when we saw the decision come out, we saw a level of intensity rise among base democratic voters. and now with the january 6 hearings. but those things tend to be temporary and, again, it comes back to, as everyday lives happened voters, and they have to pay attention to things around them, and their basic needs of providing shelter and food for their family. so we see issues like this, and i know that democratic campaigns will continue to beat this, because it is a way to continue

to generate intensity within their base. but the thing about the abortion issue we need to pay attention to is we so easily polarizes country into pro-life, pro-choice, right? and you will find voters who they call themselves pro-choice or they may call themselves pro-life, but they agree on a number of things, and those who believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, up until the minute of birth, for whatever reason, are small numbers, as are those who believe abortion should be illegal for any reason. when you have are people who either don't want to talk about this issue, because they are focused mother things, or they don't see it as polarized that way, they see it as areas of gray in between. and as we talk about this issue more, i think you are going to find that both sides, both

extremes are going to turn voters off. when that is muddied, they go back on and moved to other issues. the easy issue that they have to go focus on once again is economics. host: jim, i want to bring you in. what are your thoughts on the impacts of the supreme court decision, reversing roe v. wade, might have on this midterm? guest 2: a couple different things, tia. first of all, if you look in the past, the supreme court, for whatever reason, has been much more vague rallying cry for republicans than it has been for democrats. as someone who has complained publicly about this for years, every two years, i hope to change it. i wish it would change, but it hasn't. this time, i am once again expressing the hope that it is going to serve as a motivating factor that the democrats will get out a vote. that is number one. number two, i would remind you that it is not only

abortion-related issues but also the gay marriage issue also as well, and so that is why it is fascinating to me to watch the house this week. they had a series of votes this week on abortion and gay marriage, and it was fascinating to watch, to see how republicans in the house and also in the senate were maneuvering to try to deal with both of those issues. there is going to be a vote, i think, on gay marriage the senate as well, following up on what the house did, in the weeks to come, and, you know, first of all, a whole bunch of, a set of republicans really did not seem interested in having that vote. but as more and more folks kept on to the issue, they are resigned to the fact that they are going to have to vote on it. you know, again, i hope it will

serve as a motivating factor for democrats in the election in november. i'm a little dismayed that, you know, young folks aren't showing so much enthusiasm for biden right now. i guess i understand some of that, the dismayed, and my hope is that this issue in particular is going to get them out and voting in november, because the choice could not be clearer. guest 1: well, if i may come awaiting into the supreme court decision has been dangerous for democrats in the past. the solutions democrats are putting forward in terms of increasing the numbers on the court n-terminal meds for justices are all things that will, i think, inadvertently for democrats, and up motivating republicans if not more than

democrats. it is dangerous ground. host: we have michael from akron, ohio. go ahead. caller: good morning. i know that you guys on the inside has to have a google when you hear some of these comments or these ignorant people calling in. i am just -- the level of disconnect, the level of ignorance, the cognitive dissonance, these are the individual that scare me, not the jim jordans, not the ntg's, they have an agenda. they have an election. he is a popular guy, so they have to stand behind him. but i know it is all about really this white nationalist stuff that is going on. it is amazing. i cannot believe that these individuals who cannot count past the second amendment, who believe the pandemic was "fake news" started by democrats, and

all the other countries care about american politics. and it is like they are just there to distract. these are the individuals i am scared of. they are there to radicalize, and they are listening to this bull. so i'm just saying. host: thanks, michael. b.j., would you care to respond? guest 1: i'm always happy to hear from a fellow ohioan. i was just back there last week. in terms of politics, what we hear, especially in social media and what is elevated, extreme voices are often elevated often times on both sides and appeared to have a larger share of the mind than one would expect, because they are screaming so loudly. i think what you look at when you look at the vast majority of voters in this country, and i'm talking vast majority, are reasonable people who care about reasonable things, and given the vote, when they do make reasonable decisions, not based

on extremism on either side. host: all right, and dj, in hampton, virginia, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question for you first. the hearings are over now until september. why do you keep on dragging this up every day? we want some other news. let's see c-span cover the hunter biden thing for the next month, and then you can go back in september and do the hearings. but 1% of the american people are listening to these hearings. that shows you how disinterested the american public is. so please try something else. we are really tired of hearing about this. and, to your guests, i have a couple of things, i wonder how

they feel about the hearings and i believe personally that the democrats are so afraid of the election coming up that they are hanging on to anything they can, and that is why they keep hammering away at these hearings. we are not interested in that anymore. host: ok, thank you, b.j. we are going to let jim respond, but i want to first point out that c-span does cover all congressional hearings, committee hearings, and floor actions, gavel-to-gavel. so anything that is going on involving u.s. congress will be on c-span. but, jim, do you want to respond to that caller? guest 2: well, we just checked one box. you can't have a discussion in this day and age without raising hunter biden, so we have got that going for us. number two, she may say that the

american people are not paying attention, but that is not factually true. number three, the reason why those hearings are covered is because the president of the united states, along with his aides, try to undermine the government of this country. you know, in a perfect world, these hearings would not have occurred. in a perfect world, we would try to figure out ways to compromise on legislation and try to get it through the house and senate, to the president for his signature. unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, and it is crucial that we conduct these hearings to get to the bottom of what exactly happened and put blame accordingly if need be. obviously i am biased, but my take away from these hearings is this president, or former

president, excuse me, is guilty of formal charges, including aiding and abetting insurrection, whatever the technical term is that the lawyers are going to use. so, you know, i cannot wait for the hearing in september, is what i'm trying to say. it has been devastating, and smart republicans know it. if you don't want to pay attention to it, that is fine, but a lot of other people are. guest 1: jim slipped a bit and called trump the president instead of the former president. guest 2: i was hoping you would not notice that. [laughter] guest 1: it is an attempt for many on the democratic side to try to change the subject from a really hard truth, and that is that president biden has a 37 percent job approval rating nationally across the average of all the national polls. and there is an immense about of gravity among that number, and when voters are focused on his term as president and the issues that are surrounding that, and

everything starting with back to afghanistan and covid cases rising and crime, and then add on top of that the number one issue of rising prices and costs of living, that focus is a real danger for democrats going into the fall. so there is really an attempt, yes, to make this election about literally anything else other than the president, because they know that if there is any amount of focus on the part of voters, on the existing administration and those who are actually in congress right now, that spells trouble for democrats. host: elmo in denton, texas, you are on. caller: hello. next week, i turn 90 years old, and one of the curses of being 90 is that you've seen most of everything, and you know how it is going to turn out, and that is kind of what is going on now.

the day that biden was inaugurated, i filled up my pickup for $1.39. why? one, because i live in texas, thank god. there are six filling stations within two blocks of the corner, which gave me a heavy incentive, and three, the u.s. was energy nondependent. now, as a result of the last election and the ineptitude of biden's staff -- not biden, but biden's staff -- i'm becoming much better off than i was before. i'm a little bit ashamed of it. i don't know much about investing. i wish they had taught that in high school, but when i went to high school, we were still using savings stamps.

but i have heard about supply and demand. so what i figured is when biden shut down the oil patch, the supply was going to be limited. so i took all of my retirement account and bought petroleum companies stocks. . i bought almost every company and discovered they pay something called dividends. every three months, they give you this cash. and then i read that they are having trouble getting fruit from the permian back to the refineries, because they did not have enough pipelines, and we have regulations against pipelines. and i find out that these companies, lnp's, they pay bigger dividends. host: elmo, so do you have a question for our guests today? caller: do i have a question?

host: yes, please. caller: no, i guess i don't have a question, what i am doing is saying that the negative part of inflation and -- is if you are thinking about it, you can overcome it, like i by u.s. choice t-bone steaks for five dollars a pound at albertson's if i buy four at a time. host: thank you, elmo. jim, do you want to respond to the caller? he was talking about inflation, high gas costs, a lot of those pocketbook issues. guest 2: well, first of all, kudos for reaching 90 next week. that is one heck of an achievement. yeah, i guess i appreciate the fact that he is finding ways to get around inflation. not everyone is having that kind

of success right now, quite friendly, i'm not so sure i agree -- in fact, i know i don't agree with his reference to this country being not energy independent, understood him correctly. we are. you know, the economy is -- i am not a stockbroker, but by dividend stocks, absolutely. host: all right, next caller, earnestine in north carolina on the democratic line. you are on. caller: yes. good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a lot to say, but i cannot get it all in this 1 -- host: pick your biggest point and go ahead. caller: ok. my biggest point is trump. he has bipolar.

people don't know it -- no, they know it, but they don't want to accept it. when he was coming out of the chair, his own people were so scared he was going to hit the button and start world war iii, they started begging people to get him out the chair. and not only that, when that woman said "we are going to go down to the capital, and fight, fight," what did that mean? that means he was going to fight and pardon what followed. not only that, the republican people sat in this room with him -- i mean, they are not thinking clearly. it is going to happen to democrats. it is going to happen to them, too. not only that, but president biden, lord, thank you jesus, when they got him in a chair, trunk locked him out of the

white house, so he could not get in. he is a bully. who wants a bully to run for president? he should not be allowed to run for anything. what he should be allowed to do is go to jail. host: thank you. this is a tweet from a larry hogan, of maryland. he is a term limited governor. he said "trump loss the white house and the senate. he selfishly colluded to cost as a governor seat in maryland, where i ran 45 went ahead of him. he is fighting for his ego. we are fighting to win, and the fight goes on." dj, i want to ask you, is president trump's existence, is his continued involvement something that you think is a

positive or negative overall for the republican party? guest 1: overall it is a positive for the republican party our coalition has changed since 2016. look at the voters who are voting republican now. the prior caller notwithstanding, not the first person who said i am not right and they had, but i go back to the 2016 election, and i think about what i started hearing from voters, and president trump talked to those working-class voters who are lower and middle class that have been ignored by the democratic party for years, and it created new opportunities for our already to talk to voters who had not considered voting republican in the past. and that includes "new york times hispanic voters -- and that includes, you know, hispanic voters, which have seen significant changes over the last several years. there are certainly opportunities for republican candidates. but, again, the fact is, he is

not the president, and the desire to talk to either relitigate the past in these campaigns, or you watch democrats already talking about 2024, as if jill biden is out of office, they are trying to just ignore this space that is filled by the sitting president and pretend that he is not there, and voters see that. they are not being gas led by democrats who want to talk about something else, and certainly republican campaigns are going to remind them of that and the existing administration. host: let's talk about some of these campaigns in swing states, in seats that either republicans or democrats would like to pick up seats, to try to sway that majority. we are going to bring up a new ad about personal values from herschel walker, who is challenging incumbent senator raphael warnock in georgia. let's watch this ad. [video clip]

>> here is what i can do to make things better and bring people together. i love this country. i believe in peace and strength. when we have no strength, we will have no peace. i believe in backing the blue. i believe the constitution. i believe everyone will have the chance to have their say. we have problems? yes. can we solve them? yes. georgia is my family. the united states is my home, so i'm going to fight and take care of them. i am herschel walker, and i approve this message. host: jim, i'm going to ask you, you know, there has been a lot of talk about gop candidates being flawed, but we know in the polling, herschel walker, you know, you talk about j.d. vance, you talk about some of these other candidates. even though they are flawed, they are pulling very well. what do you make of this? guest 2: what do i make of it? i reference to this earlier, and i will reiterate once again, i

am in a position where, look, for me, control of the senate is everything, ok? the question is whether democrats can keep the senate, and i am hopeful that we can keep the senate, in part because of candidates like herschel walker, who is a walking disaster. i mean, he just strong nice words together. not sure what they mean, but once you get him on a stop, you know, the guy cannot string together, you know, anything intelligible in english. he is not telling the truth. he has got wacky ideas. and, you know, i can only imagine that senator mcconnell is looking, getting a little nervous, you know, looking at these races, you know, wondering

if he will be able to maintain the majority or not. host: dj, let me bring you in. we know republicans are hoping to pick up a theater to, so that they can get a majority in the senate. where do you think the candidates are, and you candidates like herschel walker make it tougher for republican candidates? guest 1: you make it sound like flawed candidates is something republican candidates have cornered the market on. candidates are flawed. this is why we run campaigns. it is not the initial stumbles, it is not the initial statements as a candidate who is raw, such as herschel walker, who has never run for office before, makes. it is about what happens when they start messaging to them. when you look at an ad like this, he is introducing himself in a way that just touches on a lot of, different things and it is really setting the table for a lot of what the campaign is going to be about. despite the fact that he has not run for office before and has

not been known as a political figure before, you are exactly right -- the numbers are in single digits right now. you look at a state like ohio, where we are going to keep the senate seat there, you know, there are fundamental forces at work in terms of the partisanship at stake that are undeniable. i think you will see things ultimately change as we really get into these campaigns. there's a fundamental difference between the moment prior to when these campaigns have really begun spending money on the air, talking about us getting their message through unfiltered to voters and what happens after that once the give-and-take really starts. host: i think the voters in georgia and other states say, "there's going to be more ads?" because they are already seeing quite a bunch months before that november election. let's go back to the phone line. john in california.

john, go ahead. caller: you were right on. most people aren't. thank you for taking my call, number one. i'm a little off subject in my own head, because i heard the democrat supporter talk about herschel walker not being able to string together a sentence and like that. his comments sounded almost racist. but i wonder if he has listened to his president lately and see how he gets along. the thing about herschel walker is that he is a man of principles, he is a christian, which the left-wing conservative black person, it is like a cross to a vampire. they cannot stand the fact that somebody that grew up in the segregated south or in the sort of racist south have decided that maybe the republican party and may be the conservative way does them more good than these

left-wing, far left like the person that herschel is running against, which is, i think, an avowed socialist. he is a defined the policer and things like that. what i want to talk about is donald trump. i am a person who supported trump very strongly. he has lost me completely. anybody who thought that the vice president could decide he does not have to count the electoral votes and overturn the election, any constitutional student knows better than that. taycan love -- if he had just been slightly gracious and said, ok, i don't think the election would be fair, he would be a shoo-in in 2024, but to be honest with you, i think the election was unfair also. i think it was rigged.

i think there were a lot of anomalies. one of the things that is glaring is the republicans pick up 14 seats in the congress, but their presidential candidate, the incumbent, loses. i think that is very much an anomaly. and we are never going to know for sure. i have trouble believing that 85 million americans are going to vote for joe biden, but that is just me. but donald trump needs to go away. he is going to hurt the republican party. we are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in this midterm. i'm going to be surprised if we pick up 10 to 20 seats. we ought to pick up 40 to 50. and we have no plan. remember the 1990 four election, the newt gingrich, "the contract with america"? we don't have an agenda about inflation and increasing the petroleum production, which is entirely joe biden's fault. host: thank you, john.

jim, i am going to start out by letting you respond. guest 2: i don't know where to begin without it on the one hand, i'm glad that he wants joe biden -- i mean, donald trump gone. let me address the biden comment. i have known the president a long time, back when he was senator. i have not talked with him for years, but i had to deal with him all the time when he was senator. joe biden, like my former boss, senator reid, was prone, shall we say, every once in a while to put his foot in his mouth. that was true then and it is true now. i look at the guy, and, you know, he is a man of his faculties, sure he has lost a few steps -- he is a little bit older, after all, but, you know, the kind of baseless attacks that some are running against him are just absolutely

ridiculous. host: ok. mary in north carolina, you are our next caller. go ahead. caller: hi. i have a question for the democratic individual there. my question is on the border. why do democrats totally ignore what is going on on the border? i have relatives in houston and austin, and they say it is absolutely horrible what is going on, but you never hear anything about it on mainstream media. i listen to fox. i listen to newsmax. i listen to cnn and msnbc, and the only one that is talking about is fox and newsmax. but they are finding people in bushes that are dead, that have died from the heat. it is cruel, it is inhumane, and i don't understand why democrats have no interest in it.

but the man over homeland security cable tv and said "there's no problem at the border." host: ok, thank you, mary. jim, go ahead. guest 2: well, with all due respect, i don't think it is fair to say that democrats are not paying attention to what is going on at the border. i am more than willing to agree there's a difference in how we approach it. former president trump pointed out last night once again that the wall has been built, so republicans have a funny way about what is going on down there. more needs to be done. there's no doubt about it. my hope, my desire, my wish is that someday we could pass comprehensive immigration reform that deals with a whole host of issues, including what is going on at the border. host: all right.

tim in albany, new york. go ahead, tim. tim, can you hear us? caller: can you hear me? host: yes, now. go ahead. caller: hi. i just had a question for your guest there. the republicans tying their wagon to trump, i mean, i don't know where you're republican guest thanks it is going to get them, because the republicans are basically dead anyway, because the demographics are changing. he is a malignant narcissist. he follows cognitive dissidents, and they just believe what is going on. you know, the democratic friend,

winter they going to start changing citizens united and start supporting the candidates who are against getting donations from the people they serve and not serving the p.a.c. money interests? i think these are going to be the future of, you know, the party. right now, it is just the democrats and mostly liberals, but i think this will be the future of politicians, the ones that don't take private p.a.c. money and just take money from the people themselves. host: 10, thank you so much. we are going to let b.j. respond to that. guest 1: there's no denying that race has been a driving factor in american politics for as long as there have been american politics, but i would disagree with the gentleman in saying that demographics is not destiny. the old ideology that came out

many years ago that ultimately demographics would change and would lead to a democrat majority has ultimately been proven false. as you are seeing, in terms of candidates like herschel walker, and voters who are voting republican right now, you are beginning to see other things driving this decision, and the big new cleavage in american politics is economic lines, and this idea of economic populism supporting the lower and middle class versus those who are supporting the rich liberal elites, as you saw in the mark kelly add that we saw earlier today. so i disagree that demographics is destiny. republicans are certainly doing better across all demographic groups than we have historically before, and we will be a competitive two-party country for many, many years to come. host: thank you so much. we have been chatting this morning with republican pollster b.j. martino.

he was just named president and ceo of the tarrance group. we have also been speaking with democratic strategist jim manley, who spent 21 years on capitol hill. we thank both of you for joining our discussion this morning. we are going to take a quick break. up next is our landmark legislationit continues with a e 1996 personal responsibility and work opportunity act of 1996 with over -- which overhauled the nation's welfare program. we will talk to experts with expertise on the program. edward berkowitz of george washington university and sanford schram of hunter college. ♪ >> live sunday, august 7 on in-depth. columnist and talkshow host larry elder will be our guest to

talk about political correctness, the left and racial politics in the united states. he is the author of several books including 10 things you can't say in america. what's race got to do with it. and a lot like me, am i more about his termination -- his turbulent -- a memoir about his turbulent relationship with his father. at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. to hear many of those conversations during seasons to c-span's podcast, presidential recording. >> the nixon tapes. 100% unfiltered. >> the main thing is it will pass and my heart goes out to

those people who with the best of intentions are overzealous. if i could have spent a little more time being a politician last year -- i didn't know what they were doing. >> presidential recordings on c-span2. >> in march 2020, america's cruise ships experienced a covid-19 outbreak and no court would allow them to dog. -- dock. the book cabin fever and the eventual safe harbor given in south florida. >> the virus really started becoming apparent about a week into the cruise.

some of the people looking back on it noticed people were getting sick and coughing even before then. >> it kind of felt like the cruise company gambled that perhaps one last cruise could go out. this one ship and these 2000 people aboard really is a journey that symbolizes a lot of the horrors that we all went through. >> michael smith and jonathan franklin with their book, cabin fever. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now at. -- cap -- app. >> listening to programs on c-span just got easier. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio. important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day and weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.

eastern. catch washington today for a fast-paced report of the stories of today. c-span, powered by cable. >> the new covenant can break the cycle of welfare. welfare should be a second chance, not a way of life. we are going to put an end to welfare as we have come to know it. i want to erase the stigma of welfare for good by restoring a simple dignified principle. no one who can work and stay on welfare forever. those who need education and training and child care and medical coverage for their kids will get it. we will give them all the help they need. and we will keep them on public assistance for up to two years. but after that people who are able to work have to go to work great either in the private sector or through community service job.

no more permanent dependence on welfare as a way of life. host: that was then presidential candidate bill clinton at georgetown university in 1991 making his first pledge to end welfare as we know it. five years later he signed the personal responsibility and work opportunity act which did just that. here to talk about that legislation and its impact are two historians with expertise on the u.s. social safety net. edward berkowitz at george washington university. we also have sanford schram of hunter college. thank you both for joining us this morning. >> good morning. host: edward, this is the fifth in our series of landmark legislation. why do you think that the 1996 welfare reform bill fits the description of landmark legislation? >> well, i would say it's not in

the top tier of landmark legislation. it's not a founding piece of legislation like the social security act of 1935. but it's important. it's one of the key pieces of legislation that attempted to change the direction of the welfare state from a relatively liberal position to a more conservative position. it brought the beginning of what might be called the gingrich era of social policies. that's why i think it's important. host: sanford, what was the safety net before the 1996 bill? what did it change when it was passed? >> the 1990 six law abolished aid to families with dependent children, which was titled four of the social security act that

had expanded over time and become the main cash assistance program for the non-aged poor. primarily single mothers with children. it was replaced by temporary assistance for needy families, which was a block grant that was given to states to encourage welfare recipients to get off welfare and go to work. and most of them were already working. it put time limits on how long they could receive assistance and it had sanctions if they failed to comply with the welfare to work requirements and it massively reduced number of people receiving assistance even though many of them remained eligible and impoverished. >> if i could add to that.

1935, the federal government passes the social security act and among the many things in that social security act, what we call welfare or public assistance which is defined as a program where you have to pass a means test to prove you are poor to get benefits as opposed to social security. that program was amended many times. it started in 1935. there were basically no blacks on the southern welfare rolls. that changed significantly over time. 1962 there was a liberal approach to welfare reform. let's rehab people that are on welfare. that gradually changed until 1996. you have the end of that program which is very unusual. the key step is the 1996 law made it so that the welfare was not an entitlement. before that if you could prove

you are poor and you met the other terms the states impose, you could get welfare. after this there was a limit on how much money you could get in the aid was in the form of a block grant. host: i want to ask sanford. can you tell me more about just the political atmosphere in the early 90's. we talk about bill clinton's campaign leading up to his 1992 election. and then in the 94 midterms you also had republicans coming in. can you talk just a little bit for the listeners at home what that political climate was then. >> yes. i think clinton ran as what was called a new democrat. the idea was that the democrats were going to compete with republicans by being more moderate, trying to not be seen as liberal so much. he promised to end welfare as we

know it. he famously said and he was kind of trapped by that promise. he wanted to pass like national health insurance. he wanted to guarantee many other benefits. and then limit welfare. in particular because he was losing support as a president and he was running for reelection. it was the monica lewinsky schedule. i think he felt obligated even though he was ahead in the polls against dole in 1996, to sign a law that he wasn't entirely in favor of. in fact he had vetoed it twice before. he was kind of trapped by his own words and ended up with this highly punitive restrictive program that massively reduced assistance and access to aid.

and by 2000, the roles had been cut by about 60% and also by 2000, over half the block going to the states was no longer going for cash assistance. some of it was being used to pave the highways. it was very loosely distributed and there weren't many restrictions. they could stretch the definition of what was a good expenditure for aiding the poor and getting them off welfare. it led to increases in deep poverty and extreme poverty and what are called disconnected mothers who received neither cash assistance nor wages. if it weren't for things like the expansion of the earned income tax credit and some other programs, the poverty rate would be even higher today.

host: we are going to get to your calls in just a moment. if you are eastern or central region, you can call (202) 748-8000. mountain or pacific areas: --(202) 748-8001. if you are a welfare recipient, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text at (202) 748-8003. please include your name. and your town. send us a tweet at c-span wj. we are also on instagram and facebook.com/c-span. let's listen to -- this is georgia republican newt gingrich just days into his role as house speaker back in 1994 testifying before the house ways and means committee on what gop's contract

with america promise in reforming the nation's social safety net programs. >> the personal responsibility act which looks at work requirements, cuts welfare spending, attempts to reduce illegitimacy and looks at restrict welfare for non-americans. i just think we have to engage in honest discussion and i indicated yesterday that i hope in the next few months that virtually every member who represents a poor district will match up with somebody who represents an economically better off district and we will have a genuine bipartisan effort to educate each other and really open a dialogue and i don't know what the details are. the governor's are very excited and have their ideas. i think in the next few weeks the president has already indicated a strong interest in working together on this. we should be able to craft a bold new direction in welfare reform and we should be able to start the move from dependency to independency and back to behaviors that work in america.

host: we just heard from newt gingrich in 1995. talk to us about how that impact of bill clinton wanting to not let conservatives have an edge on this issue affected that discussion. >> if you go back to his campaign in 1992, he made a commercial as a matter of fact in which he said i've been the governor of the state of arkansas and he had been a leader of the previous effort to try to reform the welfare system. we have been able to do this in arkansas, we cut down the number of people on the welfare look -- load and put people in jobs. when he got to washington he found out it's actually more complicated than that. he pushed health insurance before welfare reform.

by the time he got interest in welfare reform, the election occurred and newt gingrich came along. so that was interesting. both parties were pledging to end welfare as we know it. he kept saying, we can work something out. gingrich and his more ideological way said i think we can have a dialogue here. both wanted credit for ending welfare as we know it. host: he mentioned the racial element that by the time this discussion about reforms began that what the welfare rolls looked like was a lot more diverse than how it started out in the 1930's. do you think that played an impact in elected officials wanting those reforms to happen at the time? >> yes. no doubt. the politics of welfare over the last century really has been racially fraught.

there's no question that going back as far as nixon playing the race card and demonizing welfare recipients as these undeserving black people who were lazy and promiscuous and were costing us money, nixon called the welfare mess. by the time you get reagan demonizing the welfare queen, they were playing the race card like crazy to try and delegitimize public assistance to needy families. and it was a crescendo in the early 90's. part of clinton's attempt to see more moderate is to join in in playing the race card when he was campaigning. unfortunately in certain instances. and the campaign for welfare reform is highly documented.

a lot of people in congress, not just gingrich but other republicans made many outrageous statements comparing welfare recipients to elementals -- to animals, alligators and so on. it was just a really sordid moment in our history where race was played so extravagant a role in delegitimizing a legitimate program. >> if we go back to the history of welfare, you can go back to 1912 when the states decided that there be special grants from others with dependent children. they are exclusively widows at first. 1935 the federal government picks up part of the tab. again, widows. not in any way illegitimate

children. white rather than black. as the welfare program got underway, there were several categories you could fall into. the key point is there were many more elderly people on welfare than there were dependent children. so welfare really does get stigmatized -- doesn't get stigmatized the way he paints it until the 1950's. as the social security act began to take up more people and blacks migrated from the south, -- became blacker and the politics at its worst could devolve into this racial confrontation between blacks who are on welfare and whites who are not. host: we are talking about the landmark legislation of 1996 welfare reform. let's talk about what was actually in that act. you will see on your screen and the personal responsibility and work opportunity act of 1996 replaced aid to families with

dependent children with what we now know as temporary assistance for needy families. tanf required work within two years, created a lifetime cap of five years for federal benefits and enhanced child support enforcement and withheld occupational licensure for undocumented immigrants. let's listen to a caller from iowa. she says she is a welfare recipient. we would like to hear from you. >> yes. i am 69 years old and i receive food stamp assistance unfortunately not by choice. i worked all my life, 54 years. my money i paid into social security. i get $685 because i had a husband. my husband left after 32 years. i asked elizabeth warren what happened to my money before i

became -- i worked. you can get disability up to five years prior to social security. during that five-year period, i was not getting any kind of income because i wasn't able to work. so i went and applied for the disabilities, it said i had a husband. i couldn't get it because he made $7.25 an hour. i asked elizabeth warren, what happened to my money i made all my life? she said that was a really good question. i said it's not really fair to someone who became disabled. i was married 32 years. he leaves. my income is $685 and i've never been without a job. so now i'm forced to go back to work to survive and i don't want to count on the government for my money. and here's the other question

quickly. my other question is how is it they take social security out of a person who is retired at 69 because i am working a job taking care of an autistic gentleman. and they take social security out of my paycheck. which i don't make that much. but they still take social security out of someone who's already receiving social security. so i'm kind of confused. >> what's happening to you has almost nothing to do with what we are talking about today. the welfare law of 1996. what you are involved in is both social security and a program called ssi or supplemental security income, which is our welfare program for people that are adults like you. so the question is i am working,

why are they taking social security out? that is because when social security started, it was going to ensure the condition of retirement and if you work you are penalized. gradually we ended that. you find as you age, that penalty will end. host: richard in nashville tennessee. go ahead. caller: good morning. the question has always loomed. i'm 69 years old. lived through a lot of stuff. it doesn't matter if i'm left or right. what matters is i would like to ask these gentlemen. we got 50 states in the united states of america. when we look at welfare whether it be food stamps or whatever it may be whether the government actually gives somebody or subsidizes them. any governor when you take over estate, why don't they immediately go in an audit every

agency. i don't care if its energy, human resources. i don't care what it is. audit them to make sure that money is being funneled to the people who really need it. whether they are disabled children with down syndrome or wherever -- whatever it may be. why don't they audit these agencies and make sure that if you are getting welfare or food stamps that you truly need it? what i see is people driving new cars, working under the table and drawing paychecks. i'm not saying all of them are guilty of this, but there is a large amount of people and i still work at 69 because i can't afford. and inflation doesn't bother me because i don't have to buy. if i can't afford a stake i will buy hamburger. if i can't afford this i will buy cereal. i will find a way in america. you know why? because i'm free.

every election, every agency needs to be audited to make sure that money is going to those people who are truly in need because those people gaming the system are taking away from the same people that are their mothers or grandparents. whoever it may be that truly need this money. host: do you want to respond to the caller? >> it's a great question. we definitely want program integrity. we want these programs to be honestly administered. welfare fraud is insignificant compared to tax fraud by the wealthy in particular. so it's just greatly exaggerated that there are a large number of people who are getting welfare and ripping off the system. by the way, if you are ripping off the welfare system, that means you are not poor. so targeting the poor is somewhat of a mistake. welfare is audited and one of the bad things among the many bad things in the 96 law was

that they changed the auditing system so that you are penalized for overpayments of welfare, when the federal government looks at what the state state. but they don't penalize them for underpayments. so it's biased against trying to help people. there is very little welfare fraud. it's greatly exaggerated. it's sort of like a prominent enduring conspiracy theory. whether it's about people moving from one state to another to get welfare and so on and so forth. all these things are not factually supported and we should be looking elsewhere like they have welfare ripping off our government. >> that color really nicely articulates the case against welfare in many people's minds. people say these people are

getting money and they don't deserve it. they are not really poor etc. etc. and that has enough resonance to be carried over today and politicians like ronald reagan made a lot out of it and people like professor sanford have been pushing back against this for many years about the composition of the welfare load and how black it is . the notion of these welfare queens with lots of money and how fallacious that is. and still despite their good work, we still have people who believe at its face, welfare is a ripoff. host: next color is lynette in hartland, wisconsin. go ahead. caller: hello. i'm a senior citizen.

and when i was 19, 20 years old i was in a car accident. and i needed help because i had no medical insurance. and they forced me to take food stamps. and i said i don't need food stamps. but they forced me to take them. so i gave them to a girlfriend who was 16, pregnant and had a child. now, i tried like hell to not get the food stamps. because i didn't need them. i just needed medical help. but that was part of the package. you guys, i will tell you. go ahead. cut me off. host: do you want to respond to the caller?

>> the discussion was about food stamps, which are basically ways of giving money to people and subsidizing their diet so it's better. and it's a favorite example of how it's not just welfare, it's not just social security. we have many other programs that operate all at once. and why do we have this food stamps which was greatly expanded by president nixon. we have it because of people like senator dole who was worried about the excess food commodities that we have. food stamps is still an important part of our welfare state that just hasn't gone away even as we've changed the income side of the welfare state. host: helen and washington, d.c., you are on.

caller: i just wanted to say something. when i was going through a crisis, all of a sudden my health went bad because i was taking care of my aunt who was 89 years old. and we had no food. and i had to go on welfare to make sure that we got something to eat so i could feed her. nobody wants to get on welfare. but when welfare comes into a way of getting food and especially during a pandemic, when the president decided to give us a check or whatever, the first thing i did was go out and buy food. i don't have no freezer. i live in an apartment. so i had to buy very carefully. and i have food stamps. but i don't use all my food stamps. i tried to save it because at one time i was getting only $30.

i can't buy a bag of groceries with some meat and vegetables and dairy products with $30. and they are talking about -- the congress people are talking about i don't care whether they are republican or democrat. you can't live off of that. i remember years ago, somebody went to a senator or congressperson and saw how nice the house was. we are not stupid, people. we want what you got. but what is it that you're always making appendages to laws that affect poor people? host: thank you for your call. >> we are where they. host: i'm going to let you respond to helen. -- >> we are worthy. host: i'm going to let you respond to helen.

>> i think that's a very poignant comment. there has been a successful campaign to demonize the poor, very often using race. a lot of people don't know much about welfare. most people don't receive it. most people don't actually know other people that are receiving at. especially among white people, there is a lot of ignorance about the level of need in our country. especially after society becomes increasingly unequal. and people are really removed from the suffering that a lot of people in our country are going through continuing post-pandemic and so on. it's just a shame. that we have such an inadequate social safety net that in part is perpetuated by our political culture being so individualistic. just take care of yourself. and being so myopic, sort of a

willful blindness about how other people are enduring in an increasingly adverse economy. host: i want to pull up some video. this is president bill clinton and his 7/1/1995 radio address talking about efforts to overhaul welfare programs and pushing congress to pass legislation to do the same. but he says without drastic cuts providing essential safety net resources to new single mothers. >> we do want people to be good workers and parents and if we want parents on welfare to go to work, we have to make sure they can find good clean safe places for their children to go during the day. many in congress want to cut childcare just to save money. i want to cut spending and save money, too. but we have to do it the smart way. cutting childcare will make it harder for parents to get off and stay off welfare.

it will therefore cost us far more down the road and it will ever save in the near term. some people in congress want to take even more extreme steps that will hurt, not strengthen families. they don't want welfare reform unless it cuts up all help to poor unmarried mothers. we should require teen mothers to live at home, stay in school and turn their lives around. so they and their children stay off welfare for good. host: we have a tweet that says, this act was an example of scaling back personal security by giving states more control and welfare benefits unilaterally, which they did. the racial disparity in the outcome was as planned as it was un-american. what are your thoughts about this? >> i think that's a very insightful comment. i totally agree with that.

years ago, a famous political scientist in the book semi sovereign people said there is the privatization of conflict and mainly he saw this happening by the federal government giving up on certain causes and allowing states to battle it out. you are sort of privatizing the conflict. making it go away. it's a little bit what's happening now with dobbs decision regarding appealing roe v. wade and ending the national right to abortion. let the state's handling it. you are sort of privatizing the conflict. so the battle about welfare and the ongoing need that a lot of people have had sort of been submerged at the state level. and most states have not handled this very well.

my own research for a long time has shown that race plays a big role in whether estate is going to be more punitive and cutting back on public assistance and it's way more important than any other factor like the level of income or revenue or party competition or whatever. it's like the federal government is giving states an opportunity offstage to play the race card and make access to public assistance more restrictive by demonizing recipients who are disproportionately or are primarily white, but are depicted in political discourse as nonwhite and therefore furthering the idea that these are people who are undeserving and aren't playing by white

people's middle-class rules of work and family. host: another caller, richard in scranton pennsylvania. caller: i have a question and a comment. you are talking about the bill that was eventually signed by president bill clinton. i guess your guest began by giving an overview of the bill. they mentioned that there was a five-year amendment on it. as i understand it, that could be split up. some of them could be on it for two years and then off and then go back on. but they would have three years of eligibility. i believe the bill may have had an age requirement in it. i think there was a work requirement. and i think if you were between the ages of 18 and 45 and not

disabled and in good health, the work requirement for your welfare applied. i could be confusing that with pennsylvania's law that was signed by governor jake thornburg. i think clinton's bill incorporated a similar thing. am i correct in that that there was an age requirement? >> the elderly in our complicated social welfare system have a different program than dependent children. the elderly have ssi so that agent is kind built into the system and the objective of the 1996 law was not the elderly who have always been the more deserving of the poor, but rather people with dependent children. particularly people with illegitimate children. one thing i might inject into

the conversation now is that a key part of the politics of this had to do with immigrants. there were these people that were getting welfare benefits but they weren't citizens. they were legally in the united states they weren't citizens in both parties really had a field day with that, including your senator from pennsylvania was one of the leaders in the politics of this bill. host: ok. we have another tweet. it says on 9/30/2002, -- expired with a heavy load of congressional business in the fall of 2002. congress did not meet the deadline for making the decision necessary to reauthorize the law. so what replaced it. can you give us some of that context? >> i'm actually not familiar with that. as far as i know the law is

still in effect. i think more and more people have come to appreciate that the law has failed now and there is discussion in congress to replace it and i've been on an advisory committee in the house to help craft an alternative bill. but it hasn't even been marked up let alone have hearings in its likelihood of passage i think is still in doubt. so i think what's going on is originally welfare was part of what's called reconciliation. it's actually called the personal responsibility and work opportunity reconciliation act. that's part of the budget process. so i think what's going on is it's being carried forward under annual budget appropriations.

>> the point is this is a law that's been on the books for a while and it's going to stay on the law and be one of the enduring social welfare laws that govern their country. the part about reconciliation is actually interesting. originally we just passed laws like the social security act or the economic opportunity act or whatever. but increasingly beginning really with ronald reagan and the omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1991, part of a package where congress gets a budget target they agree on and all the committees have to come up with programs that will meet that target. it's all put together in omnibus law. bill clinton vetoed the welfare law twice. he also vetoed it as part of the reconciliation package.

these things are intertwined. reconciliation has been a very important phenomenon. one of the reasons are medicaid program is as generous as it is is through this reconciliation process where representative waxman from california was able to liberalize it step by step. host: i think what the caller was referring to, the act did have authorization. congress may have missed their deadline but they ultimately passed some new reauthorization's to welfare reform. jackie in manhattan, new york. you're on. caller: i wanted to explain to your viewers. host: i think we lost you. caller: i'm here. host: keep going. caller: i wanted them to explain

the difference between ssi and social security. a lot of viewers get it confused. so ssi to my knowledge is someone that never paid into social security. and social security is based on the amount of money that you pay into social security. and a lot of your viewers called in and said social program. if you receive ssi, that is money the government is giving to you. you didn't work for this. a lot of times they receive money -- the red states don't pay a lot in social security. that's why they receive a little. in the blue states pay more into social security than the red states. they still want to call it a socialist program. they get more than the blue states.

>> this is another piece of our history. without needing to sound like a pedantic professor, the social security act created programs like old-age insurance. that was what they call social insurance. basically you are entitled as a right for the fact that you pay in or your employer pays payroll taxes eventually you get a benefit when you reach retirement age. what's important about social security is the head of the dallas cowboys, whoever that happens to be at the moment, he gets social security. anybody who has worked gets social security. it's very much an entitlement. ssi originally started in the social security act as the so-called adult welfare categories. the aged and the blind.

in 1972, congress changed that and federalized the law so there was a uniform benefit for people in all the different states and they called this supplemental security income. it was supposed to add to social security. but it is means tested. you have to prove you are poor and ssi. you don't have to prove you are poor to get social security or unemployment compensation. host: it does seem that welfare is more criticized and politicized than social security. why is that the different safety nets have different perceptions perhaps in the public or political sphere? >> it's a fascinating thing. it's an example of what political scientists call policy feedback.

the way the policies were structured originally created this invidious distinction between the deserving and undeserving based on how the program was funded. it's called the insurance myth. the idea that social security recipients pay in and they earn their benefits and they are just getting back their money that they invested in some social insurance scheme. that this is like private insurance. and welfare recipients are just getting a handout. they are taking other people's money. this distinction is built right into the original social security act and unfortunately over time politicians have exploited it to demonize the poor as undeserving when in fact many social security recipients get back more than they paid in and many welfare recipients are getting benefits but they've been working and paying wages even though they are seen as being lazy and on welfare.

>> many social security recipients are also getting ssi by the way. >> so the distinction is just entirely false and it's politically exploitive. unfortunately at the expense of people's well-being. >> we might want to mention the fact that in 1935 when we started all this, the categories for welfare assistance which meant the federal government would give money to the states for it where the blind. they were considered very worthy recipients. the elderly were considered very worthy recipients. and mothers with dependent children. widows were considered very worthy recipients. so this notion of welfare being different than social security is a modern idea. there were many more people on welfare in 1950 in there were getting social security. welfare benefits were higher than social security benefits in 1950. it's only after that that social

security became perceived as the more genuine where the program and welfare became less worthy program. that does correlate, my fellow guests would agree that does correlate with race and other things. that's the post-1950 development and its only when social security began to reach a lot of people in 1950 that the switch between welfare and social insurance developed and after that the split between welfare for the elderly and welfare for dependent children developed. so by the time it comes to 1996, there are lots of illegitimate children. and this became, we haven't really mentioned it, but this was central to the politics of 1996. the republicans said illegitimate children are the

source of all the problems we have in the country. they are more likely to commit crimes, more likely to go on welfare. this became the point further welfare debate in 1996. host: this is a text review -- text we received. what about obama getting the bill? he terminated the work requirement. we have pulled up a fact-check post because this became an issue during obama's reelection in 2012 when he was up against mitt romney. can you tell us about that? what did president obama want to do with the welfare program? >> it's interesting. obama was one of the presidents who didn't do that much with the welfare program. reagan, nixon, carter, ford. they were all very involved. obama much less so because it

was a much more settled issue when he became the president. he had other things to deal with like the recession. i don't know exactly specifically what you are referring to, but that's the general background. >> i think it was during the great recession, there was exemption for areas with high unemployment. which is built into the law. obama got that expanded as part of his recovery legislation. so he was allowing more people in those areas do not have to meet the work environment -- requirement because there wasn't work available. then the heritage foundation and a lot of conservatives really gave him a hard time about that. but that eventually went away. >> another thing that's interesting is when obama was the president and we did have this terrible recession. for a while he cut off social security tax payments by people as a way for them to keep more money in their paychecks.

that really underscores how even though people attack social security for all these various reasons, it is still an incredibly popular program that figures into our politics. host: we are going to go back to the phone lines now. nancy and las vegas. go ahead. caller: i grew up very poor. 14 people in the family. we did get welfare for some time. it wasn't even enough to feed us. we never had seconds in my home. i remember when i was in second grade the teacher scolding us as children being on welfare. so when i grew up i said i will never be on welfare. anyway, i worked all my life. i'm 73 right now. i hurt myself where i had two broken wrists.

so i called social security to see if there was some home care programs to help me. they gave me some names and i called all those homecare's and they all said that they only helped medicaid. i said you know what's ironic about this whole program? is that people on medicare are the ones that paid for the medicaid people. and yet we get no services of home care or any kind of services and yet people that have never really paid taxes get everything free. and i don't think that's right. that needs to change. because we all donated into this fund and yet when we need it we do not have the service. another thing when people cry about people on welfare, they should cry about corporate welfare. corporate welfare is spending all the money that should be going to the poor people. i think that social security

thing needs to be changed. because it is not right that we worked all our life, paid into that fund, and people that never worked and never paid into the fund get everything free. that is unjust. host: your thoughts? >> i definitely recognize that the welfare system is complicated and there a lot of glitches in it and it's not always properly administered. some of those things being said here now are i think a little confusing and i'm not sure if i'm following it. it might be incorrect. so the idea that people on medicare are paying in or paid in and the people on medicaid didn't is not really true. this is this invidious distinction, the social insurance net and so on.

a lot of people on welfare have worked. a lot of people on medicaid which i know conservatives have often over the years wanted to call it welfare health care, but they are working and paying in. they may not be contributing to a fund that is supposedly set aside. this is another part of the myth. people don't pay into social security and medicare into a separate fund. that's just not true. they make it sound like there's a trust fund. al gore promised when he was running for president he was going to put in the lockbox. people pay in and most of the money goes out to benefits of people who are currently receiving. they are just two different welfare programs. one is in her class welfare -- inner class welfare programs. generational welfare programs. it's not healthy for us to

continue to make this distinction. people like joe manchin recently while posing the child tax credit on the grounds that there has to be a work requirement. doesn't want us to be an entitlement society. it's just further throwing fuel on the fire of this invidious distinction. >> it turns out we have these two programs and what lies behind that is we don't have any national health insurance at least until obama care. so we have medicaid which was intended for welfare beneficiaries and we have medicare which goes to social security recipients. in fact, medicare is funded quite liberally with general revenues. medicaid is funded with both state and federal revenues. it's important that medicaid has

become an important part of the safety net. we talked about how the aid to families with dependent children or tanf has become one of the key parts of the safety net. even more so has medicaid. it's the one program people have added things so it no longer just goes to the people on welfare or to the poor. people that are in some other situation like being pregnant that people think deserve state aid. medicare has always tried not to be the program that pays for long-term care because they want to subsidize people in mental health hospitals who are an enormous number of people in 1965. but it has been moving much more to funding home health care as part of this general trend in medicine to keep people out of hospitals. so all these things are going on at the same time that the welfare reform discussion is

going on. host: peter in fairfax, virginia. caller: newt gingrich testified about welfare reform just last week arguing that work requirements have been a success. he further recommended that we replicate that model for all federal welfare programs. what he ignores is the fact that the requirements are unreasonable for recipients and unrealistic for states. unreasonable because they require a single parent to participate 130 hours a month for a grant of a few hundred dollars, affecting them having them value their time at a few dollars per hour. the target states are expected to achieve our unrealistic so they take advantage of all sorts of loopholes. the work requirements are really not about work. and there is zero evidence that they have had the effects that gingrich claims. so how do we get conservative politicians to move beyond

misleading talking points to focusing on implementation and policy details so we can have a reform that helps versus pushing families off? and i realize that's a difficult question to answer. host: edward, you want to go first? >> that's a very complicated question and very profound social commentary. so what can we do about this. we can push social security and medicare more than we do. because those programs are ones that the more conservative republican politicians have difficulty in cutting like george bush at the beginning of our present century. so that's one thing you can do. another thing you can do is try and who knows how, it may be sanford has better ideas about this. we have to make these sort of general programs that help people. not welfare programs that only help poor people. programs that come to people's

aid and help them through life. we don't have a general assistance law in this country which would give money to any poor person. we need something a little bit more like that. i think it's very important -- newt gingrich would like to have all policy be like the 1996 welfare act. he would like to have more block grants, more power given to the states. i think that possibly we are having every consideration of that today. that's clearly something that we need to do. host: this has been a great discussion. we have been chatting today with two historians with expertise on the u.s. social safety net. we are talking about landmark legislation, which is the personal responsibility and work opportunity act of 1996. which is welfare reform. we thank you for joining us. it's edward berkowitz of george washington university and

sanford schram of hunter college. thank you both so much for this discussion. >> thank you >> thank you. host: you can join c-span later this evening tonight. former vice president mike pence is on the campaign trail as he contemplates a presidential run in 2024. he recently traveled to south carolina to talk about policy proposals after the supreme court struck down roe v. wade. you can watch his remarks tonight at 9:50 p.m. eastern. that will be held today for washington journal. you can join us tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. thank you for joining us. ♪

>> c-span did every day we take your calls live on the air. coming up monday morning we discuss the major events in congress with emily wilkins. then the brookings institution government senior fellow molly reynolds on the effort to change the way electoral votes are counted after a presidential election and we will preview the week ahead with the washington examiner's white house reporter. watch washington journal monday morning on c-span or on c-span now our free mobile app. join the conversation. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more

including cox. >> homework can be hard. but squatting in a diner for internetwork is even harder. we are providing lower income students with access to affordable internet. so homework can just be homework. >> cox along with these other television providers giving your front row seat to democracy. >> in march 20, -- 2020, a cruise ship expense to covert outbreak and no port would allow them to dock. michael smith and jonathan franklin recount what happened with their book and the eventual safe harbor given in south florida. >> although some of the people

we talked to looking back on it. they noticed some of the people were getting sick or coughing. >> it felt like the cruise company gambled that one last cruise could go out. this one ship and 2000 people aboard really is a journey. >> michael smith and jonathan franklin with their book cabin fever tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q and a. you can listen to q and day on arpa -- and all of our podcast on the c-span now app. >> this week on the c-span networks. wednesday morning, ceos of america's leading firearm manufacturers will testify before the house oversight committee on the practice and profit of gun makers. on thursday morning to house judiciary committee will conduct

an on the national security division and the house veterans affairs committee but the department of veterans affairs on ending sexual harassment at the v.a. paid the senate returns to the capitol hill on monday to vote on a bill to provide help for the u.s. computer chip industry and those exposed talked in -- toxins. the houses back on tuesday with plans to take up the computer chip legislation expected to be passed by the senate. watch this week live on the c-span network or on c-span now, our free mobile video app. live for on demand any time. your unfiltered view of government. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring the unfiltered view of what's happening in

washington live and on demand. keep up with the biggest events livestreamed proceedings, white house events, the court room, campaigns and more for the world of politics all on your fingertips. stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and radio. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. host: good morning. this is "washington journal" for july 24. a recent poll found those that have been watching the january 6 committee hearings only 6% have changed their mind