president biden and vice president harris speak about the party's accomplishments and plans for the future. watch today on c-span, cpan now, or online at c-span.org. this morning on washington journal, we look at the dates headlines. the 30th anniversary of the family and medical leave act and erica york of the tax foundation discusses the legislation from republicans that would replace federal taxes with the federal sales tax. washington journal begins now. ♪ >> yesterday on c-span, the house debated and voted a resolution to remove elon omar,

from the foreign affairs committee. previous statements that many had criticized as anti-semitic. the measure was approved 218-211 . lawmakers took their turn from each side on this resolution yesterday and this morning, we want to get your take on it. do you support or oppose the resolution? if you supported (202) 748-8000, if you oppose it (202) 748-8001, texas with their thoughts and include your first name, city and state to (202) 748-8003. you can post them on facebook at facebook.com/cspan or send a tweet to http://twitter.com/cspanwj. we will get to your comments in a minute but let's begin with kevin mccarthy of california defending this resolution brought to the floor now that

his party controls the chamber. >> when it comes to congresswoman omar, based on her anti-semitic comments, it's all about the benjamin's. the israeli military equal to hamas, and on 9/11 something happened that day. they believe her comments are wrong. when the resolution was brought up to deal with this last time, she never apologize. we are not removing her from other committees. we do not believe that when it comes to foreign affairs, especially the responsibility of that position around the world with the comments that she made. she not have said them. if it was tit-for-tat we would've picked committees and kick people off. i just had a conversation with

hakeem jeffries. i asked him to select a couple of members, i think what we should do is put in a code of conduct. i think that should be clear. there is a concern that it's tit-for-tat but in moving forward, every single member of congress has a responsibility to how they carry themselves. host: kevin mccarthy yesterday, you heard him responding to questions about this was a tit-for-tat by republicans because democrats when they were in the majority blocked to republicans from serving on committees for their statements. representative kahele hot omar came to the floor and spoke about the resolution. listen to what she had to say. [video clip] >> if anyone -- is anyone

surprised i am being targeted and deemed unworthy to speak about american foreign policy or they see me as a powerful voice that needs to be silenced? frankly, it is expected. when you push power, power pushes back. representation matters, continuing to expand our ideas of who is american and who can partake in the american experience -- experiment, is a good thing. i am an american, and american who was sent here by her constituents to represent them and congress. a refugee who survived the horrors of the civil war. someone who spent her childhood in a refugee camp.

someone who knows what it means to have a shot at a better life here in the united states and someone who believes in the american dream and the american possibility and the promise and ability to participate in the democratic process. host: the minnesota democrat on the floor yesterday defending herself. she was removed from the foreign affairs committee. she will serve on other committees. do you support or oppose the action taken by house republicans yesterday approved the long part of line votes 200 18 republicans, 211 democrats. we want to know if you support it or oppose it? mike lawler of new york said yesterday that representative omar deserved to be held accountable. >> comments made by members of this body about support for israel being all about the

benjamin's. but that the state of israel is engaging in apartheid are appalling, wrong and disqualifying. those who dismiss 9/11 as some people who did something, are you kidding me? it was a terrorist attack. it was not some people doing something. to equate the united states and israel to the taliban and hamas? those who promote the antisemitic bds movement. you are a dam right they deserved to be held accountable. as a member who represents a district to suffered greatly due to 9/11 and has constituents grappling with that horrific day , dying of 9/11 health related situations. i find those remarks jarring and alarming and insulting.

to be clear, the representative can say whatever she wants. but we don't have to expected -- except it or embrace it. individuals who hold hateful views should be barred from that type of committee. we cannot let the poisonous ideology of anti-cementitious into policy decisions that impact the lives of millions of jews around the world. host: do you agree with congressman lawler and republican style and at (202) 748-8000, if you oppose or disagree (202) 748-8001. you can also text support or oppose, city and state to (202) 748-8003. join us on facebook.com/c-span or send a tweet with the handle c-span wj.

let's listen to hakeem jeffries, the democratic leader in the house. accusing republicans of political retribution by removing representative omar from the committee. [video clip] >> there has been accountability, she has apologized and said she would learn from her mistakes. we believe in building bridges and not walls. building bridges with the jewish community including leaders right here in the united states congress. is ill hot omar perfect? no, none of us are. we have all fallen short in the eyes of the lord. right here in this capital, the brooklyn tabernacle said we need grace and mercy. eleanor has been held accountable.

this is not about accountability. it is about political revenge. host: that was to keep jeffries of new york yesterday. you have heard the democrat from minnesota and 2019 tweeted this it is all about the benjamin's baby. she later sent out an apology with the caption learning but standing strong. she said anti-semitism is real and i am grateful for people educating me on jewish road. my intention is to never insult jewish americans. we have to sit through criticism. just as i hope people will hear me when people attack me. at the same time, we need to

address it. let's talk to loretta, you oppose the resolution that was approved yesterday, tell us why? caller: good morning greta, good morning america. i oppose all of what happened yesterday. something is really wrong with republicans. they are acting tyrannical, they are acting in a dictator fashion. they act like they have an iron fist. this is no way to legislate. i think back about what happened not long ago when it was the

truck people that were marching saying jews will not replace us. and then, we have a house member who is out preaching the gospel of jewish space lasers. you have to deal with greta, who said that they are jew -ish? what is this? what is happening with republicans? host: sam, from crystal springs, mississippi. do you support the resolution? caller: i wholeheartedly support it. this woman has been antisemitic. she has been anti-american ever since she came to the united states.

she came from a war-torn region of the world and has always been anti-american on everything she come across on. we are sick and tired of the people behind her. cori bush, and then you had horse phase. host: ok. florence and philadelphia, you oppose? caller: i think that the democrats are a bunch of hypocrites. this woman apologized and set the record straight. that she was not anti-jewish and as far as i'm concerned, the whole republican party is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. host: sharon and california, let us hear from you. caller: i have got to tell you

that the democratic party, i don't know. they have something wrong with them because there is zero common sense and hate. and omar, they need to kick her out of the senate are out of the house. she is just evil. a lot of those democrats are evil people. host: why would you call them people? caller: their hate. if you look in their faces, you just see hate and no common sense. none, whatsoever. they just want to spend, spend our taxpayer money. they do not care and they want to do stupid things with that. they have a lot of things that i have issues with. they have no common sense whatsoever. host: you heard from

congresswoman omar about her childhood. she is serving her third term and represents the fifth congressional district in minnesota. it's minneapolis and surrounding suburbs. she is the first african-american refugee in congress and the first woman of color to represent minnesota in one of the first two muslim american women elected to congress. she was born in somalia. they fled the country's civil war when she was eight. they spent four years in a refugee camp in kenya before coming to the united states in the 1990's. in 1990 seven she moved to minneapolis with their family. she was elected in 2016 as the minnesota house of representatives to making her the highest elected somali american public official in the u.s.. the first somali-american

legislator. since the end -- cynthia from florida. you oppose? caller: i oppose the republicans and what they have done to omar. the gop has misled what her words were. she spoke the truth about the middle east. it is committing genocide on the palestinians. we have to stop them. there is a peaceful way of stopping this. just stop it. host: cynthia from florida. vicki and st. petersburg, florida. you support the resolution? caller: yes i do and it's just like common sense in the business world. when leadership changes, positions change. i think c-span, you brought this

issue up and it is dividing the country. what we should do is unifier country. i wish that c-span would not have this type of format. in the real world, this is what happens. even with our budget and, it happens. just enter this on national media, i don't know. i have high standards and i listen to you guys every day. like the last caller just said, everything produces hate. host: so this was debated on the house floor for a good chunk of time yesterday. it was a lively debate between the two parties. and they voted on this resolution along party lines. the conversation gives you an

opportunity to tell the lawmakers behind this what you think of the actions that they took. caller: absolutely, i understand that. there are a lot of issues in our country right now that deserve more of a platform than what happened with representative omar. host: well we are here seven days a week every morning. we certainly change up the topics of conversation with all of you. let's listen to kevin mccarthy from yesterday. he was asking if removing ilhan omar was revenge for democrats removing committee members while they were in power? [video clip] >> was put in perspective what the democrats did. the democrats removed republican members from a committee.

they just one republican member not based on what she said, what she said prior to even getting to congress. i am not removing from all committees and i am not judging something that someone said when they're not a member of congress. the first two people we did not allow to be out ill tell. if you got the brief i got from the fbi, you know that swalwell should be on intel. how many believe that if you are member of congress the moment your leadership appoints you the fbi comes knocking on the leadership store and says we have a problem, this person has a relationship with a chinese spy. how many people believe that person should be on intel? is not to say he's no longer on intel but there are members that have concerns. host: let's turn back to your

phone calls. vicki and st. petersburg, florida. you support? caller: hi there. you just took my call. host: i did. caller: everyone out there in america and around the world, if they tune into c-span. this is what we really enjoy is hearing from other people across this country and world. take another call, in and other -- you already took mine. host: david in detroit, you oppose? caller: i am a longtime listener and a trident call in every 30 days. i only call when something really ignites a real interest in me using my 30 day allotment. let me get to my point.

i see a lot of inconsistency in removing her and the reason i say i find a great deal of inconsistency is that number one, we have a congressperson who stood there before an audience of people that if her and steve bannon had been in charge of january 6, the outcome would have been completely different. that is insightful. if anybody should be censored, that type of rhetoric. i am a believer of free speech, that is ginning up a more aggressive behavior for an act that took place.

there is not an act you can pin on ilhan omar. host: what about the anti-semitic, as the papers note, widely condemned us anti-semitic, her statements? by both parties. caller: two wrongs don't make a right. in detroit, we have proceeded to leave and when she first became a congressperson, she was on the hot mike and was heard saying f the mf, or impeach the mf. i am surprised that they haven't attacked her. but all of them, reseated to

leave, ilhan omar, ayanna pressley, and because he or cortez became a target. let me just say this real quick. the callers, that call-in and some of the things that come out of their mouth are stultifying and it makes me think that where we are today is no different than where we were back in the 1960's. there was a clip of this white woman in 1950's saying how they oppose and they hated that black folks were trying to get civil rights to use a grocery store in they should stay in their places. we still have people today in 2023 that have those opinions. that lady that just called in, she reminded me of that

stultifying wrath, stuck in place. host: let's listen to the democratic leader again, hakeem jeffries during his news conference yesterday. here he is talking about his conversations with speaker mccarthy about the committee asters and the impact on their working relationship. [video clip] >> with respect to speaker mccarthy, our conversations have been generally productive. we agree to disagree at times without being disagreeable. we strongly disagree with each other on the approach that has been taken by house republicans with respect to adam schiff, eric swalwell and ilhan omar. it is a quadruple and beyond standard when you think about all of the members, these are just three.

who have engaged in highly offensive, at times anti-semitic behavior, rhetoric, hate, including making reference to the gentlewoman from georgia to hitler's and nazis and drawing a false equivalence between hitler's, nazis and president joe biden. marjorie taylor greene has been rewarded with his seat on the homeland security committee. you can't make this up. speaker mccarthy knows i strongly disagree with him and them on this issue in this type of poisonous, toxic, double standard is going to complicate the relationship moving forward. between house democrats and house republicans. host: congressman hakeem

jeffries, in the house. david in detroit, whether you think about this debate and vote yesterday? caller: i keep doing that. i'm going to move on. sandra and pickens, south carolina. you support? caller: yes, i do. host: good morning go ahead. caller: i do support it. in the future, any leadership that we have from any state, their morals and the way they conduct themselves in the way they speak about other people should be looked at. this woman should never have been put there to start with. i am appalled that the

democrats, my mother used to vote democrat but she chased a republican. my mom explained to me as a young girl how important it was to vote. i am appalled and shocked at the way americans vote for some of these people. we have good people, we have bad people. both black and white, or any other nationality. i don't think we should be looking at the color of a person's skin. we need to look at their heart in their way of thinking. i pray every day for our nation and ma'am, i want you to know this. i love newsmax, is the only channel i watch. thank you for taking my call. host: yesterday as we said the vote was a long party lines 218-211. leader mccarthy, ahead of the

vote met with congresswoman nancy mace who said she was going to oppose this resolution. because she thought that there should be due process for removing a member from a committee rather than a resolution on the floor. it should go to the ethics committee where it is divided equally between democrats and republicans and they have to come to a unanimous decision about lawmakers behaviors and actions. she thought it should go through that process. nancy mace tweeted out yesterday, before the vote. i am a yes and met with speaker mccarthy before the vote. i will lead a bipartisan effort to ensure committee removals are not politicized in the future.

this fear between sin, i oppose it. she apologized. she made a mistake and is willing to learn from it. let's bring civility back to politics. this is mike, a former republican. gary and conway, new hampshire. caller: good morning and how are you this morning? i think this is petty revenge on part of the republican party. they are getting revenge because democrats kicked off to republicans when they were in control of the house. the republicans are saying it's ok for gosar and marjorie taylor greene, it's ok gosar to be a trump supporter knowing that he

was the one who caused the insurrection to overturn our democracy that belongs to the people of this country. this is petty revenge on the part of the republican party. they need to stop, they need to get to the business of governing this country and getting it back on track. host: janice and california, you support the resolution? caller: i most certainly do. i have a couple points to make. the color that spoke about how the democratic party is so evil she could not give you a true example. they have been nothing, they have been running amok for the last four years. they have been pandering, they played the race card at every single turn. they have changed things. they have gone to the last

minute and made decisions to benefit them. i want to get back to ilhan omar , she doesn't represent me. she married her brother, did all sorts of other things once she got in this country. -- at the end of the day, she is an anti-semitic woman. she hates the jews. i don't care what she says no. w. she got up there and talked about some people did something on 9/11? are you kidding me? this woman in the entire democratic party, they are evil people. host: yesterday on the floor, representative alexandra alexandria ocasio-cortez of new

york came to the floor and called out the effort to oust ilhan omar as an attempt to silence women of color. [video clip] >> one of the things we should talk about here in this one of the disgusting patterns after 9/11 is the racism against muslim americans and this is an extension of that legacy. there is nothing consistent with the republican party as they continued to accept racism of violence against women of color in this caucus. i had someone in the republican caucus throughout my life and you rewarded him with one of the renowned assignments and committees. don't tell me this is a condemnation against antisemitic when you have a member of congress talking about jewish

space lasers and elevated her to some of the highest committee assignments in this body. this is about targeting women of color in the united states of america. i did not get a single apology after those threats. thank you. host: from the debate on the floor yesterday over the resolution to remove representative omar. it was improved along party lines. 218-2 111, your turn to tell decision-makers what you think of that debate and vote. if you support you could dial in on your line at (202) 748-8000, if you oppose (202) 748-8001. join us by texting at (202) 748-8003, include first income a city and state and also you can send a tweet with the handle http://twitter.com/cspanwj or post on facebook facebook.com/cspan. let's take a look at the front

pages of the minnesota papers. the pioneer press with the headline ilhan omar ousted from committees. the first paragraph, the republican-led house voted after a raucous debate to oust minnesota representative ilhan omar citing her past anti-israel comments in the dramatic response to democrat session for booting gop lawmakers over incendiary remarks. from the minneapolis tribune, their first -- front page saying omar defiant after committee elster. house republicans wielded their power thursday to oust ilhan omar from the foreign affairs committee seizing on comments made by the democrat to stop her from returning to the prized slot. rachel in milwaukee, wisconsin.

you oppose? caller: i was worried you would have me followed that speech by aoc because that was amazing and is one of the points i want to make for people of color are people from underrepresented groups. when they tell us what is happening we should believe them. and at least give them that amount of respect. you have multiple people saying that this is racially motivated in any way, that was a great speech from aoc. what i wanted to call in about, when you hold these representatives to a higher standard from what we expect from other people and ourselves, the only representative we have are the ones that can sweep these kind of things under the

rug. weather is someone considered antisemitic or an affair or whatever the case may be. we end up with people who do not represent us because we are all flawed. what representative omar said was she apologized. she did not realize that could be perceived as anti-semitic. she admitted fault and said i am sorry and i am learning for this mistake. what more do you want from these people? what more do we want from a coworker in our jobs? we want these people to represent us and there are no perfect people. when somebody threatens -- i would have done a better job if i was on january 6.

host: marjorie taylor greene? caller: that was pretty violent, right? that's kind of illegal. we all say stupid things at times and we need to give them some grace or we will end up with people that don't represent us. host: respond to this tweet from steve, our viewer who says this action was correct, the resolution. even a hint of anti-semitism reveals hypocrisy on our part. our brothers and sisters will lose faith in us. there are other committees she would be welcome to serve on. caller: she's an immigrant, correct? so she is first-generation. having a diverse foreign affairs committee seems like a really

good idea to me. as for not having people who are anti-semitic, she did not realize the contacts that could be taken in, the comments. if i continue to happen then there is a problem. but it's one time that she did not realize and learn from it? that's what we want to representative to do. host: she was born in somalia and her family fled that country's civil war when she was eight years old. she spent four years in a refugee camp in kenya before coming to the united states in the 1990's. in 1997, she and her family moved to minneapolis. before office she worked as a community educator and was a policy fellow at the humphrey school. she served in the statehouse of minnesota.

paul from alabama, you support the resolution? caller: no i don't support the resolution, i oppose ilhan omar being removed. you played something by a congressperson, a lawyer who made a statement there about ilhan omar and i wish that in order to balance that antisemitic remarked you would play, but also people can hear what marjorie taylor greene said about jewish people and judge whether she has been anti-semitic and her statements because she has made a number of them. the other thing is, kevin mccarthy is just doing what he was put there to do by the republicans of the house. by the end of this year, mccarthy is going to be removed

because he has served this purpose. that's all i have to say. host: in other news, this is the new york times with the story about the action that the democrats will be taking when they meet for their winter meeting in philadelphia. democrats rethink how to pick a president. the democratic party's presidential nominations have been profoundly shaped by the states where the process begins, iowa. this weekend, and philadelphia, democrats are poised to abandon the relation -- tradition by using south carolina as the first date. south carolina's population size and diversity might change the presidential race. the dnc is moving -- meeting in philadelphia for their annual winter meeting and they will be voting on making south carolina and georgia one of the earlier

states, rather than the state of iowa. moving around the states the boat first, biden and kamala harr will address the membe of the dnc. that is today a6:00 p.m. eastern, life here on c-span, on our website at c-span.org and you can download our free mobile app and watch it there called c-span now. there's also another story in the papers today about the dnc meeting this morning. -- excuse me, meeting this weekend. the washington times story, president biden and the vice president are there today. as you just saw on your screen,

we will have coverage of the democratic national committee voting its voting process, primary calendar. that will be live right here on c-span, our mobile apps c-span now and on demand at c-span.org. let's hear from charles in st. petersburg florida who opposes the resolution, voted on yesterday and approved along party lines to remove representative omar from the foreign affairs committee. hi charles. caller: good morning how are you? host: good morning. caller: i would like to say i am a longtime watcher, i enjoy watching c-span and the washington journal. however, i can't help but to feel extremely sad at times on how divided we are as a country. it breaks my heart to see how people can be so misled and

misinformed and don't have the facts. i truly oppose what happened to this young lady. i think we need to learn to come together a lot better than what we have been doing. i think the republican party has done and said, or members of the republican have said some things that are so hateful but it is overlooked in the same colors that support this have no clue or no understanding of how hateful some of their members that they support our. it is just frightening. i believe we need to do better as a country and a people as the young lady said earlier, hold people to a higher standard and have them be more accountable and like the gentleman said earlier, the republican party

has been more than hypocrites, they have been hateful. let us all i have to say. i hope we could do better as a people. host: a washington post story with the sub died from october 20 22, house democrats seek a center of marjorie taylor grain over the biden and hitler's comment. of the time they were seeking to censure the congresswoman over the social media post. this is after that marjorie greene posted the president out of small mustache. in the statement, congressman schneider said green's comments demonstrate that she has not learned or perhaps she does not care. representative green demonstrated her apology was insincere and she remains devoted to sully the reputation

of the house of representatives. here's an independent texting us from south carolina, i'm an independent and i see both sides. this is the most pathetic thing i've seen. there is no policy here, just a vendetta in front of the american people. there is no truth anymore just one lie after another. we have a divided country, unitive we stand divided we fall. we are falling fast. mike, let us hear from you. caller: good morning america. the last text, i wish he would read it again because that is what's going on here. let's talk about the facts about omar. she apologized, she knew that the republicans will come in and take action on her words. words are everything. i spent an hour yesterday watching these clowns and i'm using that term loosely.

the democrats, they stirred so much hatred and racism. that's all i hear out of them. that's how they get out of what's going on. we are going down the toilet and we allow these people to fight amongst themselves and not work together. let's get back to omar, she comes into this country, mary sir brother. gets everything handed to her and she came in he legally by burying her brother. then she gets caught with her husband, which was her brother. come on people? how much more are we gonna take. host: from the business insider, everything know about the rumors that ilhan omar married her brother. she has for years found herself on the receiving end of incendiary attacks from trump

including rumors that she married her brother. lauren boebert was the latest high-profile conservative to revive that unverified claim. omar came to america as a refugee with her father and siblings in 1995 by way of a kenyan refugee camp. she resettled in minneapolis where she became a u.s. citizen. she was elected to the minnesota house of representatives and then into congress in 2016. unverified rumors that she buried her brother originated from an anonymous user in 2016 and has circulated around the internet ever since. conservative bloggers have claimed that her second husband is her brother and she married him to help fraudulently gain a green card. there is no evidence like a birth certificate or legal document that surfaced approve

that her husband mr. brother or fraud was committed. she has not explained some discrepancies in her marriage history. this is james and collins, mississippi. you oppose? caller: yes ma'am, good morning. it is sad to sit here today today. after listening to this previous voting of last year by people being voted into office. it's sad to see where these men so unaware of the wisdom and blessings of women of every race, every color. for some reason, the republican

party, let me change that. i'm not going to say the republican party, i will save these politicians, these men of the republican party better politicians, they are wolves in sheep's clothing. i can go down memory lane and tell you some of the things, not only what they've said and repented of but president trump has said awful things about every body. president trump talked about israel, antisemitic, ms. green, this is not about discipline. this is about a racial and prejudiced an evil time from one

side that cannot win by respect. they do not respect women. they even lied against the lady from arizona when she stood up and said that president trump was the main leader of january 6. host: understood james. i will go to richard who supports the resolution. caller: good morning greta. i watch a lot of c-span and it is amazing that it seems like it's always race and gender with the democrats. i look at the pictures that were shown today on c-span and i see no caucasian people behind the speakers. i think more importantly, i want to see spend all day, i can't get around it.

the other day on c-span two or three they had one of their first meanings and i think this is a bigger story. the democrats spent one hour trying to get under god out of the pledge of allegiance and in the same meeting, they had a vote saying that america will never be -- [indiscernible] we have a bigger problem. that's not white against black. host: diane in st. paul, you oppose the resolution? caller: are you talking to me? host: yes i am. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i definitely oppose the resolution that was made. they will campaign for this young woman because her

constituents were the one who put her in the house of representatives. they had no business doing those things because she did not threaten violence. marjorie taylor greene threaten people, that other man threaten people. she didn't threaten anyone. she apologies. i have not heard apologies from those other two people who republicans put on very important committees. the insurrection that happened on january 6, everybody agrees that it happened when it happened. then the republicans have all lied about it since that time. we know what happened. so yeah, i live in st. paul. i will go to minneapolis and work for her. have a good day. host: kathy in san diego, that you support the resolution? caller: i'm sorry, did you say

kathy? host: i did, it's your turn. caller: i believe she should have been removed for her behavior and comments about israel. even nancy pelosi has said that she can remove whoever she wants. it's hard to believe that democrats, went aoc wasn't anywhere near congress on january 6. they need to learn how to get along. there is hysteria surrounding anything they don't agree with. they need to start to behave in a professional manner. it's so important to deal with the truth about omar and not blame race. host: edward, keyport, new jersey. opposing. caller: i definitely oppose, i am wondering where all these

people crying about the homeless and the money we could have $4 billion a year to israel. it is fair that we should call out their apartheid regime. the vote was ridiculous. a lot of people running around with their alternative reality. i did not expect much out of these people, it was painful to watch what was going on yesterday. host: that is edward's opinion in newport, new jersey. in december, we had on the program and tied to issues leagues president and i asked him what the line was between legitimate criticism against israel and antisemitism.

>> you can be critical of america or any other country but legitimacy as a trope that have been used against jews for a long time. we now have a jewish state that is a legitimate country. there is nothing wrong with criticizing the policies of israel and jewish society. but when you demonize, dehumanize, hold them up to double standards. when you have set is not about an issue but israel's existence, that is the kind of anti-semitism. and look, to those critics who say their colonialist or white supremacist. it is a multiracial, multiethnic democracy more riposte -- robust than others. if you want to call out israel

as colonialist and you hold the same beliefs against the united states of america? do you feel that against other countries in the world? if you are universal in your condemnation that's one thing. but overwhelmingly, the people who obsess about israel are silent, that this hypocrisy on other forms of issues, issues with countries and i find that problematic. host: you can hear our entire conversation with the president of the antidefamation league on c-span.org. i want to share with you also this friday's opinion page of the washington post d the headline is, we are liberal american scientists do we stand with israel protesters. the crisis in israel that has brought crowds into the streets opposing the far right government of netanyahu has become a crisis for us to and

for people like us, we are american liberals and liberal zionists who have supported israel and regarded american support of israel as patriotic pride. netanyahu's government has put the democrat principles, tolerance under greater pressure than israel has seen before. it's not just a matter of restricting the power of the supreme court, the only check and balance of israel system. a law that he has proposed for the purpose of rescuing himself from his owen legal morass. the whole spirit of their enterprise is visibly hostile towards democratic tolerance and rationality. that's from the washington post this morning. susan in new york you support the resolution to remove

congresswoman omar from the foreign affairs committee? go ahead. caller: i am a democrat and from the time she was appointed i was concerned because i don't know, now i'm trying to go up the door to get to work. i am really hustling. i really didn't like what she said about jewish people. i find it very offensive and also, she was due to go over with the congressional delegate over to israel and her and tla ib, they didn't want to go. they wanted it under their conditions. i don't see it, i think that's not right. i was concerned from the get go from a national security

standpoint. anyway, that is all i have to say. god bless you and have a wonderful day. i have to run to work. host: warren in brandon, florida, you oppose? caller: are you talking to me? host: yes. caller: oh yeah i oppose, your last caller she put on a beautiful display of why i oppose. she had nothing credible to say except i had a bad feeling about it. i wonder why that feeling was? hmmm, come on. we all know what this was about. partly is the ousted president, we know why there's a problem. let's not kid ourselves. she is probably one of the best

things that happened to that committee because there a different perspective being that she was born in another country. but we don't want that. we can't seem to have that greatness. we know what this is about. host: thank you all for joining in this conversation this morning. we will take a quick break and when we come back, a discussion of the 30th anniversary of the family leave act with indivar dutta-gupta and rachel greszler of the heritage foundation and later erica york joins us to look at the fair tax act. a bill that a group of house republicans are proposing. it said to be on the house floor in the next couple of months.

♪ >> ♪ american history. saturdays on c-span two. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 7:00 p.m. eastern, the association of black women historians celebrate the careers and legacies of historians paula giving's, laura brooks and debra grey-white. it :00 p.m., stone hill college professor talks about the history of the state of the union addresses and details how george washington delivers his first address in person, but subsequent presidents wrote statements to congress. he explores how the state of the union speeches evolved, along with new technologies and had been used to bolster political platforms. exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span two and find the full schedule on your

program guide or watch online anytime at the span.org/history. -- c-span.org/history. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span two features the leading audiscussing their latest nonfiction book. at noon eastern time live on in-depth author and journalist lance morrow joins us to talk and take your calls on american culture, politics and history. he is the author of several books, including the chief and soon to be published the noise of typewriters. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, community organizer and author of the greatest gates retells the story of how a group of men from india entered the u.s. as guest workers to become trappe and forced labor. he is interviewed by lucifer to see. watch -- i the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org.

♪ >> c-span now is a free mobile lap featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the days biggest events with live streams and floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress. white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips and stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio plus a variety of -- variety of podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. c-span now, your front row seat to wasngton anytime, anywhere. ♪ >> the state of the union is strong because you, the american people, are strong. >> president biden delivers the

annual state of the union address outlining his priorities to congress on tuesday. his first state of the union speech since republicans won back control of the house. we will hear republican response and take your phone calls, text and tweets. watch live coverage on the state of the union beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back for a discussion on the family and medical leave act. president biden marked the 30th anniversary of it yesterday. joining us for that discussion is rachel reszler with the heritage foundation along with indivar dutta-gupta with the center for law and social policy. before we get into a discussion of this policy, let's go back to

c-span archives and show our viewers what then president clinton had to say when he signed this bill into law. >> family and medical leave has always had the support of the majority of americans from every walk of life from both political parties. some people opposed it, it took eight years and two vetoes to make this legislation the law of the land. millions of our people will no longer have to choose between their jobs and their families. the law guarantees the right of up to 12 weeks of paid leave per year when it is urgently needed at home to care for a newborn child or a ill family member. this bill will strengthen our families and i believe it will strengthen our businesses and economy. >> [applause] host: president bill clinton from 30 years ago.

rachel, let's begin with you and your thoughts on it. eight years, two vetoes. tell us about your reaction to the legislation signed into law. caller: this was important recognition. guest: we want workers to be able to take the time off they need to care for themselves and their family members. we have experience prior to the signing of the law in the states that had enacted some laws before that. i think one of the consequences that has come out, there are sometimes unintended consequences from things we might universally agree with and looking at those things over time how the difference between what is a mandate and what is the policy that comes from the employer's. i am hoping we can look in those and recognizing this was a momentous -- momentous occasion and celebrating workers have guaranteed access. host: indivar, your take. guest: since the bill was

signed, we have seen 60 million instances of americans using it. despite that success and people primarily use it to care for themselves but also to care for their loved ones, despite that extraordinary success even in recent years, we are seeing say 15 million uses in a year but 7 million people who say they cannot take leave because they cannot afford it when it is unpaid. we still have a lot more to do. there is no doubt that offering people job protection has been enormously helpful. we look forward to talking more about who is left out because almost half of workers are still left out. host: let's talk about the legislation and who is eligible from the fmla, which is often referred to as -- if you have worked for a covered employer r least 12 months, hav worked at least 1250 hours for that employer in the previous 12

months, roughly 24 hours a week and you work at a location where the employer has at least 50 employees within 75 miles. that, from the department of labor. rachel, you mentioned consequences. what are they? guest: looking at those definitions, you have federal law. you have to define what that means and have to have eligibility standard. the reality there, by those metrics, 50 or more employees, certain number of hours, that tends to disproportionately leave out lower income workers. just looking at the percentage of them working at smaller employers and urban institute study, 40 percent of people low income are working for an employer who has 20 or fewer employees. that is demonstrating the magnitude of even when you have this policy, it is difficult to capture everybody. the alternative could have been,

we apply it universally to every employer regardless of how long you have worked. they recognized that could have more unintended consequences. it is a difficult issue to balance. how do you benefit who you want without having consequences? host: are you for paid leave? guest: i think it is fabulous when employers provide paid leave. i am more for flexible policies employers are able to provide. i think that is great, especially in light of covid-19 and the reality you had to provide this. that we have seen a massive expansion in paid family leave. i'm not for a government mandate of it. i think too many of those unintended consequences come out and you end up with more rigid policies that do not meet workers needs. host: indivar, why not let companies do it on their own? guest: we should let companies do that on their own. turns out, they fall short. we welcome companies adding paid leave, especially to 11 states

and washington, d.c.'s paid leave program. we have had 30 companies -- 30 years of companies with epic -- with fmla being encouraged. it disproportionately affects women of color, tends of millions of workers who needs the care needs as us, sometimes even greater care needs. they may be working part time and might not qualify for a company's. let's remember, the united states is the only wealthy country in the world without a program like this. no doubt we can afford it. businesses can support it and small businesses. seven out of 10 small businesses support it in some research. i think it is great when companies add policies like we do as an employer, but the d.c. paid leave law for example is the basis folks can count on so they do not have to win the employer lottery to take care of

their loved ones and themselves. host: rachel, can the united states afford it? guest: we can, and i think we can afford it better when it comes from employers themselves or families or the opportunities they have in a universal savings account. we have seen a 77% increase in workers having access to paid family leave the past five years alone. we are on this upward trajectory. when i do not think we can afford is a one size for all government and eight. that is not because the cost of it. i think the cost will be higher than people were told it would be. it is because we cannot afford people being left out. there will have to be rules and restrictions like working for 12 months, working a certain number of hours, work king -- working for a certain number of employers. those people are left out and at the same time you are crowding out the employer provided leads. we have seen in states that have mandates with government programs, employers do not pick

up their own programs because they are paying into the government one so they feel like they do not need that. in d.c., it is not an easy process. evidence has shown especially for lower income americans, it is like the door is closed because it is bureaucratic. you have to submit paperwork. you have to say how many days in advance you will be off and you cannot change that in advance -- you cannot change that without a difficult process. you cannot take half a day off for a doctors appointment. it is a lot more cumbersome than me simply saying to my boss, i have a doctors appointment, i need one day off. i am going to have a child. i need 16 weeks off. i encourage more of those personal relationships. the government program cannot be personal and cannot understand each governments needs. host: indivar, why not follow that outline? guest: we have seen in decades they have not follow that

outline. they have given leaves two people lower paid, workers often do not have the power especially in an economy where unionization has declined dramatically the last half-century. the relationship rachel mentioned means a lot of workers , their families are at the whim of employers who are likely to say no, see them as replaceable. again, we need not only a national paid leave program, but other supports, too. almost everything rachel discussed, the short comings in particular of the paid leave program -- there are other states that have less than full day leave, for example. i think what we need is the protections for workers to be able to not only keep their jobs but also be able to afford

leave. we will have to remember when workers are having to raise this with their employers, they are absolutely risking losing their jobs and thus, getting unpaid leave. especially if they are low-paid workers, disproportionately women and workers of color. host: we would love to hear your thoughts on the 30th anniversary of medical leave. what has been your experience and where do you want to see the policy go next? are you for paid family and medical leave? we've got the lines divided by democrats, republicans and independents. if you are a republican, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text, first name, city and state to (202) 748-8003. indivar, i want to begin with asking about this next article.

democrats revive bid for paid time off. reporting a group of democrats were calling for a paid leave proposal and his coming budget plan and has offered a package of bills that will create a national 12 week paid family leave system and expand access to fmla. this is one of a handful of countries that does not have a national paid parental leave. guest: the budget represents our values, what we think is important as a country. i think it is important for the president's budget to represent the decorative -- the direction he wants the country to go, regardless of the composition of congress. here, the president is still dealing with the pandemic. i don't think it would be right to include a national, robust paid leave program. we tried during the pandemic,

offering employers the chance to get a subsidy, and incredibly generous subsidy for leave that they would offer their employees. we found that less than 4% of employers took up that tax credit. this is in a pandemic that hermetically increased caregiving needs for virtually all families. i think it makes good sense for the president to continue the momentum. we have never had a single hearing in congress unpaid family medical leave until this last congress. we came close to enacting a robust plan and i think it is essential the president continues to signal it is important to me, i value families. if you alley families, you can as a nation make a commitment to let them have time to care for themselves and loved ones. host: let's listen to the president yesterday at the white house marking the anniversary of fmla. [video clip] >> the united states, still one

of the only countries in the world that does not guarantee paid leave. the only countries in the world -- look, as a result, 94% of our lowest wage workers, mostly women and workers of color, have no paid family leave at all. 94%. meaning, you can only take care to care for your loved one if you can afford to give up your salary. i remain committed to changing that and bringing align with every single major economy in the world bypassing a national program of paid medical leave. >> [applause] >> by the way -- >> [applause] pres. biden: american workers deserve paid sick days, as well. page six days. -- paid sick days.

i have called on congress to act, i will continue fighting as i know all of you will. no american should have to choose between a paycheck and taking care of a family member or themselves. host: president biden at the white house yesterday marking the 30th anniversary of the family and medical leave act. at the event was former president clinton who signed the bill into law. bill in sarah kress -- syracuse, new york. democratic collar. let's hear from you. caller: i am in favor of the family medical leave act. it seems to have so many loopholes in it it is not going to help a lot of the people who really need it. if we are going to have one, we ought to have one that have some bite in it. the problem is, can we get congress to approve a real,

strong medical leave act? unfortunately, i think congress is still pretty much owned by corporations, by people who do not want to have that. i want to know, will party discipline keep people from voting on this or not? host: rachel, do you want to take that one? caller: hello from a fellow western new yorker. i think this is a porton issue that you bring up. guest: the reality of the government programs out there, we have examples from the states and what we are trying to get at is lower income workers who do not have access to family medical leave for paid family and medical leave. we are looking for a solution to that. in california that had the longest running state program, only 4% of people in the lowest income quintile use the government program. 4% of claims come from them, whereas 21% of the claims come

from people in the highest income quintile. we have seen the reality is, these government programs that aim to help lower income workers disproportionately help the upper income workers. they are regressive. how can we better find the solution to that? you would have to expand the programs and make them easier to qualify for. we have seen in the case of the limited fmla, there has been widespread misuse and abuse. you can have workplaces that have up to 45% of workers who have a fmla certification and this is not the people who need to take time off because they have had a child or are caring for a family member. for a lot of these people, it is a get out of jail free card. the ability to on your way into work, fmla claim, i have a migraine and not be penalized for late or take off the first day of hunting season or anytime you are assigned a weekend shift or holiday shift. this has become the reality in

some workplaces. not all, but it demonstrates there are opportunities for misuse and abuse when you have a one-size-fits-all government program. it needs to expand to reach more people and it ends up reaching the people it was intended to begin with. host: tony, in melville, new york. independent. caller: hi. i have a comment. first off, access to paid family leave is a right. access to free childcare is a right. these are compliments under places like the soviet union and cuba, which had policies that improved working conditions for women especially. i think to talk about the abuses of this system without talking about the abuses by businesses, the violations of labor laws on a daily basis are commonplace. i want to know why isn't that the subject behind labor law in the last 30 years?

needs to go after regulating workers, their ability to take time off, their ability to file claims. how can this fall on service workers, agricultural workers and etc. and why does this encompass incarcerated women, undocumented women, etc.? i guess, yeah. what would you say in the 30 years have -- has this legislation effect, where would you want it to go from here? guest: thank you, tony. we can look to our democracies today, we do not have to look to the past to see strong economies, strong democracies can provide this paid time off. in california which rachel mentioned, that paid leave program it have shortcomings. it has been improved. we are making it more

progressive with progressive wage replacement rates. a major reason why a lot of folks do not apply and have low incomes is, they cannot afford the cut. when we are getting paid -- paying folks near minimum wage and other low wages, it is hard to afford 70% of your wages or 60% of your wages. it is important to remember paid leave programs have shown they can any long-term improve women's labor force participation, especially the programs we are talking about in the united states. they improve infant health outcomes, maternal health outcomes. in this country, we have a huge crisis of black maternal mortality and challenges with mental health, especially postpartum health. paid leave is part of the answer. we think it is the employer's responsibility. labor law, we are seeing

progress where the biden administration has given protections to immigrant workers who raise claims. they are often afraid of the repercussions from their employers who raise claims of violations. we do need far more protections and a lot of folks are advocating for legislation like the proactive, which we -- pro-act, which makes it easier for organizers to protect themselves in the workplace. host: a text from wade in louisiana. how much does it cost programs and is there a penalty for the employee if they decide not to go back to work? guest: hi, wade. i am assuming you are talking about if we have a government program. there are wild estimates about what it would cost, from being as low as a cup of coffee a week to being a tank of gas a week. the reality is, it would probably cost $1500 for the average worker. the important point is looking at the cost and compare it to what would that cost to be for a

government program versus the employee itself. we it into the expansion with the government program and more people taking it. it might not necessarily have needed it or getting misuse and abuse, but not being available to those lower income workers for whom there is a greater barrier out there. host: carl, new york. democratic caller. caller: i went to to make a comment. i am a older, single woman with no children. i work in a place where people are pregnant, get up to six months of maternity leave for each child. they are paid, not to mention the fact when they are out, they still continue to collect vacation time, their pension. what do you think happens when they are on maternity leave? who has to cover them? the people who have no kids. not only do i have to do my job, i have to do their job for extended period of time. i have to do it or up to a year

and it is driving me crazy. i think it marginalizes women and gives employers a excuse to pay them less. i cannot believe when somebody comes in for a job, somebody is looking at them and saying, she is young, probably going to have two kids and it is going to cost us money. how are we going to balance our budget? we will just pay her less. a man will not take off as much time so we can pay him more money. when you say we can afford to pay it, i am sure we can. when we are paying that, do you realize hospitals are balancing their operational budget on my back? as a single person, i think it is unfair. it has not done anything for me. people take advantage of it. we have people who had three kids, they get there six months each and do not come back to work. this was done during covid when everybody had to work that much harder and sacrifice. that was the one group of people

who did not have to sacrifice. thank you for letting me speak. host: indivar, how do you take that call? guest: this makes a great case for expanding the definition of paid leave, including a family. everyone has some meaningful family, that should not be limited to having a child. paid leave and even unpaid family and medical leave act recognizes some of that. there is legislation that would go farther. and, let folks care for people like family. they could be not related by blood or any legal relationship, could be your best friend or someone you really care for. a neighbor you really care for. you are right, folks should come in, apply for a job and the employer should not have much idea of the chance of you taking leave. that is why we need to incorporate -- encourage more men to take leave. i am a father of two kids.

i have a sister who does not have kids. me taking time off and helping raise my kids as needed, including after their birth, will be good for the whole country. kids, those parents you talked about, they need to care for those kids. we can afford that. i think we can do more to support employees and employers during those moments. i have had many employees during my career as a employer take time off. i have been in your shoes filling in. this society does not work without care, without folks raising their kids and spending time with them, especially when they need to bond with them. i appreciate the burden you mentioned and i think we can do more to support folks in your shoes. we have a national paid leave it -- leave program, the employer saves money for wages otherwise that would have been paid. they might be able to benefit

from temp help and take other needs to help support the team. i have been there with a team of just a handful of folks and someone left to give birth, which itself is a demanding experience for anyone who does it. never mind also bonding and caring for a new child. i can relate to the situation. i think there is more we can do to address it. host: archie, michigan, independent. caller: this is an open question for both. i am an individual who has fmla. i have a chronic illness. on my job, we have -- you give up one week of your vacation to pay for your fmla days. paid leave would help, because sometimes, you do not have enough days off left after you give up that one weeks vacation.

you have no free time, no nothing. we are working as of march seven days a week, eight hours a day. we are having problems with trying to live and keep your chronic illness and you do not have to lose your job. i know it puts a benchmark where the absentee is at, but if you take off too many days which only allotted 480 hours a year. if you take more than that, you can be terminated from your job. i do not feel that is just for everybody else. me personally, due to my chronic illness, the cold is my worst enemy. you speak about women all the time, what about other individuals that are well beyond childbearing age that need fmla

so they can keep their job and maintain their homes and everything else? please answer that, either one of you. host: rachel, go ahead. guest: i'm glad you brought up the point it is not just women and mothers who take fmla leave. more than half of leaves taken for individual who has needed to care for their own health. that is an important point to make. i think there needs to be more opportunities, the reality of your situation is there is this law and there is a lot of strings attached and a lot of red tape. it sounds like your employer as a result of that has worked around it to say you must take this first leave as vacation because you have fmla, no longer have access to the vacation that would otherwise be an enjoyment for you because there is this law in place. we have to ask, what would be the alternative if instead employers had more freedom to provide the types of policies they wanted to? in one proposal i have in the

family leave space something called the working families flex ability act. this would get hourly workers. you were talking working eight hours a day seven days a week. you are working overtime. this proposal would do, if you work overtime instead of the law that currently mandates private sector employers given the option of overtime pay, they would be allowed to give you the option of overtime paid time off. if you work an extra 10 hours one week, you could choose between 15 hours of pay or 15 hours of paid time off, this is something called comp time and available to public sector workers. for some reason, we prevent it from being available to private sector workers. host: john in california, republican. caller: good morning. i wanted to -- i have a comment and a question. well, two questions. during the pandemic, didn't people take enough time off?

they were getting paid to sit at home and do their jobs. now, it seems like people have to go back to work and they are, oh, i need more time off. secondly, as i recall, bite and not too long ago pretty much tied the hands -- biden not too long ago tied to hands and congress made it illegal to strike. they are in process and negotiations of paid sick leave. not only did biden weaken unions in america and congress by not allowing us to strike if we do not deem what the employers putting out worthy, but it seems now it is coincidental he is bringing this up now and weakening unions in december. guest: it is the 30th

anniversary of fmla. now is as good of a time as any to build on the momentum to push for something like the family act, which in its recent incarnation for the 12 weeks of paid leave for folks, including men and others. it can be grandkids. i think it is an important moment to advance this in the pandemic. you asked if folks got enough time off in the pandemic. unfortunately, the need for care does not stop. it happens throughout our lives. we all need care. none of us would have gotten to an old hood without care. if we are fortunate enough to age, we are going to need care. a lot of us have chronic health issues. and, often need care. care is fundamental to allowing people to make it to work, to

show up at their best at their jobs. i think we have a lot to do to strengthen workers'power relative to their employers. in the united states, it is especially weak. when we talk about things like allowing workers to have flexibility by converting overtime to comp time, the problem is as we see in the private sector, often, workers will not be making that choice. it will be there employers making that choice for them. we need to do more to strengthen the power of workers. paid leave is one part of the answer. host: district heights, maryland. democrat caller. caller: the gentleman on the panel was a lot more diplomatic with the lady from new york a few callers ago, complaining about pregnant women taking time off to recover from childbirth. like, really? i am also a childhood adult and

a question. in a society that has made it possible for the state to force women to be pregnant, it is ridiculous. and, myopic to the extreme to complain about women taking time off to recover from pregnancy and bond with their children. but, that is not what i wanted to talk about. my primary point is, the united states is the wealthiest country in the history of humanity. there are a ton of countries that are less wealthy than us that provide paid family leave and paid medical leave to all employees in those countries. and, there are countries in the world that -- like the fraser institute out of british columbia, raised more economically free like the united states. like canada, new zealand, the netherlands, denmark that also

provide universal, paid family leave. in countries that are not as wealthy as the united states that have more economic freedom, there are more free markets in the united states can provide more paid family and medical leave, the united states can do so, as well. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. it is true we are the only industrialized country, one of the only countries in the world that does not have a government program. we are the only country in the world that has a growing private sector program that provides the more flexible responses that can work -- meet workers needs in the time they need them. that is my fear here. you get to a government program, it is not going to be able to meet workers needs when they need them, the amount of money they need them in order to continue supporting their families. i will know as you are commenting on the other caller, i am a mother with six young kids. i have certainly taken my disproportionate share of paid leave. i think within a workplace, it

is better suited to those employer-provided programs because they know you as a human as opposed to a application coming in and there can generally be less resilient and -- less resentment there because the employees are more willing to step up. that callers point did draw in, we cannot assume that paid family leave, there is no cost to it. there are costs worn by other workers. there are costs worn by the employer, paying the paycheck or the health insurance benefits. the cost of what they are producing is no longer being produced and there is value. if workers were not valuable, this would not matter. we cannot ignore those costs. host: let's go to west virginia. tom, independent caller. welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. i am reminded of that seen in -- scene in west side story.

♪ everything in america ♪ ♪ the previous caller said, richest nation on earth. that is true. we are also the most in detonation on earth. are we at $30 trillion? i forget. i am 63 years old. i remember when ronald reagan doubled the national debt in eight years. we went from $997 billion in national debt to $1.8 trillion. i would love to be $1.8 trillion in debt. wouldn't you? who is going to pay for this? don't say the government. it is the taxpayers that will pay for this. i am sorry. the government is not my religion. do not go laying christian guilt trips. i love it when progressives -- all, rediscover jesus. they never bring up mohammed's name, do they?

thank you, have a good day. guest: the united states economy is some 24 daily--$24 trillion in gdp every single year. our treasury securities are still considered some of the safest investments in the world. we are facing a challenge with what used to be a routine increase in the arbitrary debt limit, that has put some of that in question. the reason why the united states has sizable debt, although it is manageable, is not because we spend too much. we do not spend more than our peer countries. we tax much less. the family act which would provide paid leave has been estimated, and i believe in these estimates, it is closer to a cup of coffee per week. when we will -- pull workers -- poll workers, there is

substantial support from folks of all ideological views to pay that tax. what government is, to me, is a way we can come together to solve bigger problems. we can continue the approach we have continued, which is employers get to decide and continue to fall dramatically short of every other rich country. or, we can invest in our people that can row our economy. paid leave, even unpaid leave, can row our economy. there are health benefits. i mentioned it lowers poverty. we can design it in ways that make it accessible that help the employers. employers overly -- overwhelmingly find paid leave is -- it does not hurt them. 80% to 90% of employers with paid leave had showed this in u.s. and other countries as well. paid leave is something that can

equalize the floor and the playing field before -- with small and larger businesses. guest: let me jump in. have had --i have read different things. i understand the caller's concerns with the debt. we have seen estimates. the family act would be another unfunded entitlement. within eight years, it cost would be double -- it's cost would be double what they said it would be and those would grow over time. we have a social security and medicare unfunded entitlement equal to hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt per person and that does not include the $31 trillion in debt we have equal to the $260,000 per household. i think the reality is, a government paid family leave sounds great because we think we do not have to pay for it. when the polls show, would you still support it if it were to reduce your chances of a wage increase, reduce women's chances of a promotion, crowd out other

government programs, support drops from 74% to 29%. i do not thanks the reality is, everybody would be willing to pay for the actual cost. host: don in north carolina, democratic caller. caller: good morning, thank you for having this conversation. i think those people speaking to us are for doing something for everybody in the country who needs help relative to the subject. i am a little concerned that michelle is saying it should not be done by the government. host: rachel. caller: implying the government cannot do it fairly or will have losses. and, she said it would make the

employees who actually do this and might drop out of doing it, it might make them a little unhappy. now, that is too bad. the people who are trying to serve here are unhappy. and the people you are saying will be unhappy if this goes through because they will not be able to do their good deed. host: ok, let's let rachel respond. guest: thank you, that is a important concern. that is what i am looking at most, the lower income people who do not have access and we want to help expand it. what happens is, i mentioned about warty percent of lower income earners are working for employees who employ 20 or fewer people. they are likely in a company that does not yet offer paid family leave. when you have a government program that comes in and says we are the program, you do not

need to think about establishing a program anymore. if that company started out small and was going to be able to provide leave, it is no longer going to be able to do that. small businesses are the building rock of america. they start small and tend to grow big. over time, they can provide more flexible policies. i think the reality is, it becomes more difficult for a company to comply with a government program where they have to fill out paperwork and make sure they are doing the right things and cannot ask a employee answer one question on their leave, they could have a lawsuit. there are so many rules and red tape that get caught up with it. what i am looking for is, how can we have more opportunities for lower income people to get into jobs that are going to give them a path up to climb that career ladder and have access to the types of things we see more for middle-class and upper-class? host: do you want to jump in? guest: thanks, i appreciate it.

let's take or example the washington, d.c. paid leave. it doesn't end up costing much less than expected. we increasingly have a sense of what the costs are and can manage them in a sense of paying for them upfront, often saving in a trust fund. in the long run, it is beneficial for the economy. a lot of our economic growth the last half-century has been because we have included more people of color, more women in the economy more equitably paired we have a long way to go. one of the greatest cost employers saved its turnover and paid leave reduces turnover. folks who take paid leave are likelier to return to their employer. turnover can often cause something like 40% -- cost something like 40% per employee. in build back better, the

proposal the biden administration put out with support of most congressional democrats, they want a payroll tax. for what it is worth, they had loss of revenue and fully paid for it. as we know, other countries have higher economic mobility and paid leave. if we have -- want more higher economic mobility, paid leave can be consistent and we can promote it. host: let's go to eddie in massachusetts. a republican caller. good morning. caller: here in massachusetts, they passed a new tax. they say it is just for the rich, but i doubt that. in springfield, there is a gun manufacturer. a few days ago, my cousin's relatives lost their job when ge left pittsfield, massachusetts with blue -- bill clinton. they went south. we are not making anything anymore.

i went to buy a chevy apollo last year only to find out they do not make it anymore. host: what is your point? how is that related to what you are talking about? caller: rules, rules, rules. gimme, gimme. host: so the rules and the impact of that. guest: it is not just about one tax or government program. everything all combines the cost of government. we can say it is fully paid for. if it is not a payroll tax, you will not see it on your paycheck. money does not grow on trees. there is the impact of the regulations of the money we do not see that is costing employers. when you cost employers, they cost their workers. workers are the ones providing that compensation. i think that is a valid concern. in massachusetts, i grew up in new york. a lot of these blue states have come together recently and said they are going to combine and impose similar taxes on the wealthy. the wealthy are the ones who

directly -- them. by doing that, they are pushing those people out of the state. we are seeing companies leave states and you end up with fewer people paying taxes. you cannot only tax the wealthy. it has to push down to the middle and lower class. host: maryland, democratic caller. the morning to you. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes. caller: ok. thank you for taking my call. i love c-span. i am 25, i tried to call as often as i can because you guys do not have many people -- many young people calling. as young as me. this country is a individualist society. we do not care for people as much as other countries do. that goes into how we are raised and how we become productive members of society. with that being said, that is -- when you mentioned the turnovers

and because of burnout, i am sick right now and i am going to work because i cannot afford not to go to work. i do not have paid time off. i work with autistic children. children get sick often. i have no choice. i have to go to work. i am on my way to work right now. if this was not a priority from the jump from the conception of this country, it is going to take a while for people to get use this idea. we will have to pay for it as taxpayers, but if it was not already a priority and we have not gotten used to it, people are not going to want to do it. i wanted to make a comment about the woman of all people who was complaining about pregnant women or women who had children taking time off. i find that completely disrespectful. should have compassion for your own -- you should have compassion for your own.

i found that disrespectful. thanks you for taking my call. host: indi. guest: i, too, am a fan of c-span. let's see if we can get some more young oaks of your generation engaged. --young folks of your generation engaged. in my view, this country has always undervalued care primarily because the food is provided. it has been disproportionately women, women of color, immigrant women. it is time to value care. care makes everything else work. it is like the roads, it is like our plumbing. it makes everything else work. could not be here today if my kids could not be in school. i completely agree that we need to make sure this country values care. it is going to take work. i think we have made a lot of progress. that is why paid leave is part of a broader care agenda. it is about ensuring affordable

childcare for everyone. and, high-quality childcare. it is also about home and community based services, long-term care for folks with disabilities. the elderly. we can either tell everyone they are on their own or be in this together. what we see in states and countries throughout the world that when you say we are going to be in this together, everyone does better. everyone does better. the economy can grow when you have kids who are getting the care you are providing. for the children on the autism spectrum you mention, they are going to grow up to be adults. you providing that care is going to help them be better. it is the same as parents to get that help them provide that care. i am sorry you do not have paid time off. this underscores the need for paid sick leave as well. i was pleased to hear yesterday the biden administration was calling for paid sick leave. we have the healthy families

act, which mandates a small number of earned sick days. these are reasonable policies. companies do generally support a lot of these. in particular, we saw recently ibm called for a national paid leave program. i am optimistic. i think we are in a different place. the pandemic revealed some of the hidden care provided for -- to make our economy work. let's see what happens in the coming months and years ahead. host: joe is next. pittsburgh, independent caller. caller: hello. host: hi, joe. doing well. caller: thank you for taking my call. one quick comment, i would like to see you have a evening addition of the washington journal. and people are off work, maybe in the future. host: join us for state of the union night. after that, we are going to take your calls. caller: all right. my comment on the show today is,

they made -- i think rachel made a comment of social security being an entitlement. it is not an entitlement. it is a trust fund. our money goes into it as individuals. our companies match it. we paid -- pay into it into our whole life. when they wrote it into act, they made sure it was not an entitlement. that is why when the government borrows from it, they have to pay it back. they are required by law to pay it back into social security. we have to look at social security, we need to debate the fact it needs to be looked at. that is another issue. thank you. host: rachel, do you want to respond? guest: thank you, joe. you talk about a program that brought me into public security. workers are forced to pay this tax. employers are paying half of it. we are told this is money that is going to be there in our

retirement. this goes to what goes wrong when you have well-intentioned government program, security and retirement, paid family and medical leave, we all want that. what happens when you put politicians in charge of these with an essentially now limitless credit card is that they spend that money on other things. yes, social security has a right to raise more debt to pay certain benefits. every dollar that has gone into that program the last 11 years is immediately out the door to pay current benefits because the money was not saved. the program will be insolvent within a decade. doing nothing about it means you only get 75% of what you were told you were going to get. do we want to have a paid family medical leave and program to get to that point, we have to start rationing benefits and decide who gets benefits and gets a smaller amount of benefits. host: a quick headline on social security and medicare. wall street journal, republicans backing safety net cuts. they are reporting lindsay wise

republicans are backing away from proposals to reduce spending on those safety net programs as they enter talks with democrats over raising the nation's borrowing limit. liz, new jersey, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i am fortunate enough to live in the state of new jersey, which does have a paid family leave program. that does have some limitations. it does tend to benefit people who earn more money and are more secure in their job position. but, it is still a benefit. it helps in a variety of ways that you can use it. especially, i was glad to know it was there when i was a caregiver for my two elderly parents. one was terminally ill at the

beginning -- at the middle part of her life and we did not have family. we did not have anything back in the 1970's. it took an enormous effort from myself and my father to meet her needs until her death. my father lived in 1993. i, alone because i am single, had to care for him and balance a full-time teaching job. if you do not think that was difficult, it was extremely difficult. averaging four to five hours of sleep each night. i think the idea that people are willy-nilly taking family leave is not the case. i did not ever apply for family leave because i did not know the duration i would be giving care. host: i'm going to jump in. indi, share your final thoughts with us. we will take one more call after

that and i will turn to you, rachel. guest: liz, thank you for sharing that story and for the care you provided. i think it underscores that people need a helping hand. we have heard criticism here that these painfully programs are impossible to access and being used willy-nilly as you said. both cannot be true. we can design these programs well. they allow you to be there in the most important moments of your life. they give you some support. this is absolutely something not only we can afford to do, but we cannot keep affording not to do. we are losing out on so many people who could be connected to the workforce, stay connected to the workforce who could show up at their best at work because they are not afraid anymore of foreclosure, or eviction.

we had a loved one recently in our family -- not directly related, but somebody very close to us who faced a cancer diagnosis. that was hard enough on its own good then, he faced eviction when he could not work as much. that should be unacceptable in the united states of america. i will close by saying paid leave is a crucial part of how this country can grow its economy and allow people to care for themselves and their loved ones. i think there is no question that we have growing momentum and support. people understand this because it is something everyone has experienced, that need for care or providing care in their lives. thank you again. let's hope that paid leave continues to stay at the top of the agenda. host: james in newark, independent. go ahead. caller: hi.

rachel, glad to see you. now, i work on both sides of the spectrum politics wise. [indiscernible] nice and tender. now, paid tax. an independent back in 1937, part of the revolution. it is not entitlement. pentax, well 94%, mega-millionaire's are paying nothing in taxes. [indiscernible]

bye-bye. host: rachel? guest: thank you for your comments. i think we need to be looking when we talk about paid family leave, things we universally agree we want people to have and we need to make well rationed decisions so we need to look at the evidence, look to other programs, look to what has happened to women's wages and chances of promotion and look at the access, who uses the programs, so we have evidence that can guide whether or not they will be successful and who they will most benefit. there is evidence of the cost and they show they grow over time when talking about a government program. it's maybe worth it but we need to know both sides of the equation when we think about these policies such as a government one. i think we also not only should look to government programs and mandates but how could we make families better able to flourish in and of their own right so they can earn a paycheck and keep more of it and have the

opportunities to choose what is best for them and meet their families needs along their lifetime without having to jump through government hoops to determine what they do and do not qualify for. host: our two guests, we thank you both for the conversation. we will take a break. when we come back, we will take a closer look -- when we come back we will go to open forum for about 20 minutes and then after that we will turn the conversation to the national sales tax plan proposed by group of republicans. that conversation with erica yorkie, senior economist with the tax foundation. open form, any public policy issue on your mind, we get to that conversation in a minute. guest: thank you. announcer: in the two years

since january 6, 2000.1, close to 1000 people have been charged with federal crimes relating to the attack on the u.s. capitol. the process used by the federal justice system to deal with these cases is complicated and often out of sight to the american people. roger parr law, an attorney and journalist has been live tweeting some of the high-profile trials of the oath keepers and proud boys over the past several weeks. we asked him to explain to us in some detail how it all works. roger par lough is a senior editor at l'affaire. announcer: attorney and journalist roger parlof. book notes plus is available on the c-span up or wherever you get your podcasts. >> the name of america, which belongs to you in your national

capacity -- >> fourscore and seven years ago -- >> asked not what your country can do for you. announcer: throughout american history, presidents delivered pivotal speeches for times of tragedy, challenges, wars, and farewells. saturday, watch the first of our 10 part series, speeches that define a president -- defined a presidency. hear from abraham lincoln through reenactment and john f. kennedy, ronald reagan, george w. bush, and barack obama. this week will feature george washington's 1796 farewell address. the speech is read in the senate. >> the office to which you have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination. with me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country, to settle and mature it's yet recent institutions.

announcer: watch speeches that define a presidency, as saturday, 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span two. ♪ announcer: c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, and more from her the world of politics at your finger takes -- fingertips. also stay current with "washington journal" and scheduling information for c-span's network and radio plus a variety of podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime and anywhere. announcer: there are a lot of places to get political

information, but only had c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: we are an open forum for the next 15 minutes or so. we want to get your thoughts on any public policy issues on your mind. we start with the story that broke yesterday about the balloon seen over montana. the chinese are saying according to the associated press the balloon is for research and accidentally strayed. let me read a little from the article. china's foreign minister said today a balloon the u.s. the

specs of conducting surveillance was a civilian airship used for research mainly for meteorological purposes. the statement says the airspace -- it has limited steering capability and deviated far from its planned course because of wind. china regrets the unintended entry of the airship into u.s. airspace. the u.s. was tracking this suspected chinese surveillance balloon spotted over american airspace and china said friday it would look into reports. this is the later story. from the pentagon yesterday, they told reporters they decided not to shoot down the balloon yesterday which was potentially flying over sensitive sites because of concerns of hurting people on the ground. renewed reports say the president was briefed about this balloon and it was strongly recommended from the pentagon officials that they not shoot it down. this morning we learned china

says that this was a meteorological balloon and it was an accident. that is one public policy issue we can share with you. we also learned the latest economic numbers. in january, the unimportant rate was 3.4%, 517,000 jobs added in january. let's get the calls. ginger in kentucky, democratic caller, hi, ginger. what public policy issue do you want to bring up? caller: was you bringing up about the taxes? host: you can talk about taxes, go ahead. caller: well i messed up and i was talking to the girl about the taxes but the tax situation is a growing phenomenon by the republican party. we are in kentucky, the

legislation is now proposing that we have a consumption tax which is a sales tax instead of no regular income tax. this is a made up piece of business that some states i tennessee already got. when you go and look at these places, that's going to put more burden on the people that live there because they are going to have to pay more taxes for the roads and everything else. and now the republicans in washington, they have all been fed this from washington, all these states, so it will be a growing phenomenon, and on the other show you had the heritage foundation and the chamber of commerce is two of the worst organizations that has ever been

. greta, i think you and no matter what they say, this is one of the best programs, informational programs that there are on tv today. thank you very much. host: thank you, ginger. adam in silver springs, independent, hi, adam. caller: good morning. thank for taking my call. i want to talk about congress stepping in to overrule aspects of d.c. home rule. i live on the border of washington, d.c. my son goes to preschool in washington, d.c., and the other day i got a note saying do to gun violence across the street, we have our kids locked down in the classroom. this happened in a high school literally across the street from my kids preschool, the two days before there was a shooting incident about two blocks away and the mayor in d.c., the police chief have come out a grand -- against the criminal reform bill, they vetoed it, the

council overruled at and the gop said they would overturn this aspect of d.c. home rule, and i agree with that but there is a middle ground here. we have to do something about the underlying cause of this, which is gun violence. we cannot be soft on criminals but we also cannot allow guns to proliferate in our community. that is where both parties are failing. i think most normal people would agree. host: bill in missouri, republican, hey, bill. what is the public policy issue you want to talk about? caller: can you hear me? host: we can hear you. caller: ok. i would like to say, number one, china, regardless, has a balloon that's gathering information that is not weather related.

so we should have shot it down if president biden wanted to. number two, oh my. i have had two strokes so now my short-term memory is shot so i will just get off the phone. host: we heard your first point, no worries. anthony in chicago, democratic caller. caller: good morning. can you hear me all right? host: yes, we can hear you. caller: i wanted to talk about the sales tax the republican party is proposing. this is a policy that is extremely regressive and i want all the listeners whether republican, independent, however -- if you are a working person in the united states and you will be asked to give up what little take-home pay you take at the end of the day, that sales

tax will eat up all of your pay. you want to go home and feed her kids, feed yourself, get a cold beer on a friday night, the cost of doing so will take so much more out of your check. this is extremely regressive. why? most of your income goes toward consumption, buying food for yourself and your family, buying goods for yourself, just to enjoy in your few hours of leisure time you have. who doesn't end up paying a majority of their take-home pay for things like food? the very wealthy in this country. i hope folks wise up to this regressive tax and i appreciate taking my call. host: you bet. we will be talking about that issue in a few moments here. when a share issue -- want to share news that broke yesterday about how republicans plan to respond to the president's state of the union address in the washington examiner. the republicans chose governor

sarah huckabee sanders to deliver their rebuttal to biden's address. the leader of the republicans in the house, kevin mccarthy, tweeting she is the youngest governor in america, the first female governor in arkansas history, the first father/daughter governance in history. everyone including president biden should tune in. from the governor herself, she also sent a tweet, "i'm honored to have the opportunity to address the nation after the state of the union tuesday. what america needs and what republicans are offering is a return to common sense and a commitment to the ideals that made america the land of the free and home of the brave." here's a little bit of governor huckabee sanders inaugural address last month. >> my fellow arkansans, let us never forget what we are fighting for. as a mom, i am reminded what is at stake every time i tuck my three kids into bed each night.

no matter where you come from, no matter your race or color or creed, no matter who you voted for, my pledge to you is this, from this day forward, you will have an advocates, a reformer, a friend, and a fighter at the highest levels of your state government. [applause] all i ask in return are your heartfelt prayers, that god will help me be the leader that you deserve. with your help and devotion and unity of purpose and a singular spirit we will lift up the least of us and make arkansas the proud home of freedom that we know in our hearts it can be. host: she will be delivering the gop response to president biden's state of the union

address which is this tuesday coming up february 7 and our coverage begins on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. we will preview the speech, we will show you the speech in its entirety with no interruptions, no talking over the top of it, unfiltered. after, the republican -- after the republican response, after those set of remarks, we will turn our attention to reaction from all of you and take your phone calls here on c-span, on c-span.org, and you can watch and listen along with our mobile app, video mobile app, c-span now. steve in pennsylvania, independent. we are an open forum. hi. caller: good morning. thank you very much for having me on. i have things i could talk about but one thing in particular -- i had i thought the other day

about our energy situation. on one hand we have fossil fuels and on the other we have batteries. i'm trying to boil this down and i'm not the smartest kind the world but i hear on television a lot of times about the evil people in the oil industry and money they make and their record profits, you always hear that term. the president said it. so in my mind i did this, i thought, over here there is a tank full of gas and over here there is a battery. they both run the mill. how did you get the gas? what did it take to get the gas? the people that produced it. it came out of the ground in america, was refined in america and made into gas.

the people that work are compensated very well, these oil workers, they make good money. their children are in school, they have houses, cars, boats. they have normal, wonderful american lives. the people that made the gas. over here is the battery. i do subscribe to national geographic for the last 15 to 20 years and, from what i read in national geographic and other places and yarn television, everything in the battery came -- over 90% -- came from other countries and was mined by child labor. do people in africa and the other side of the american countries where the chinese go to take the cobalt and lithium and whatever other precious metals that operate all of our screens and phones, are they compensated?

do they have health care? no, they don't. host: i will get into more calls. jerry in virginia, republican. caller: good morning. first i would like to touch on this thing about this chinese spy balloon. i don't understand why they would even need the spy balloon. they have the ultimate spy on their payroll. he resides at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. make no mistake, china owns joe biden's stock an account. host: warren, michigan, democratic caller. what is your public policy issue? caller: my public policy issue is the influence of fox and the right-wing media for a long time.

1933 germany could not have happened without a jolt of global and now we have fox and company convincing people they are being victimized and a worn christmas is a perfect example of that. yes my smart friends and family believe it. they are not stupid people but there told don't even look at the hearing. all i ask them is look at the hearing. it is not a difference of opinion, it is a difference of reality. host: catherine, illinois, republican. what do you have to say this morning? caller: hello there. i have to say first of all c-span is awesome. i am very thankful to comcast for sponsoring c-span being on. and for all of you taking public commentary, which does not even happen in city of normal, called a town. there is so much corruption from the root up.

i'm a virtually nobody with no money and i'm putting myself on a ballot for a writing candidate this year. i think we all need to start thinking out-of-the-box. as president trump would say -- box, as president trump would say, and get our country back on track. if you are not part of the solution, you are proud of the problem. thank you to c-span and all of our commentators that service so well. host: president biden and vice president harris are traveling to philadelphia today to speak to those members of the democratic national committee gathered there for their annual winter meeting. they will give remarks 6:00 p.m. eastern time tonig. we will have coverage on c-span, there video mobile app, and c-span.org. also, the democratic national committewill vote on their presidential primary calendar tomorrow. we will have coverage of that here, saturday, 10:00 a.m. eastern, on c-span now, as well

as on c-span.org. coming up, we turn our attention as we talked about to national sales tax proposed by republicans erica york of the tax foundation joining us for that conversation. stay with us. ♪ ♪ announcer: american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 7:00 p.m. eastern, the association of like women historians celebrate careers and legacies of an historian -- of three historians. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, stonehill college professor peter you bert talks about the history of the state of the union addresses, each how -- detailing how george washington gave his in person but other gave written

statements until woodrow wilson. he also expose how the state of the union speech has evolved along with new technology and have been used to bolster political platforms. exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and fund a full schedule on your program guide or wnline anytime at c-span.org/history. announcer: c-span now is a free mobile app showing your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with live events with floor proceedings and hearings from u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find a scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play.

download it for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime and anywhere. announcer: there are a lot of places to get political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span, powered by cable. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: erica york, senior economist and research manager at tax foundation, is here to talk about a republican proposal to eliminate most federal taxes, replace them with a federal sales tax. erica york, remind us before we talk about this proposal of the mission of the tax foundation. guest: the tax foundation is an

independent tax policy nonprofit who has been around since 1937 and we produce analysis on global federal state and local tax policy. our mission is to improve life through better tax policies at least for economic growth and opportunity. host: so the fair tax of 2023 is the republican proposal we are talkin about which imposes a national sales tax in lieu of income tes, payroll taxes, estates, and gift taxes. sales tax rates will be 23% in 2025, adjusted in subsequent years. no irs funding after 2027 and it provides "a family consumption allowance to each household." it is worth the national sales tax paid on goods and services up to the poverty level. so let's talk about the pros and cons of this. guest: so really it is a fundamental alteration of the way federal government would raise revenue. it would shift from largely

income taxation that we have now to consumption taxation but it would create a number of challenges the way it is proposed. one of the big issues from a taxpayers perspective would be what it would mean for finances. the tax system we have today is a highly progressive tax system, that means as income rises, so do average tax rates. and the shares of taxes paid by higher income households are much larger than shares paid by lower income households. when you transition to something like a retail sales tax, it kind of flips that distribution of the tax burden on its head so lower and middle income households would face relatively larger tax burdens and higher income households would face relatively smaller tax burdens compared to the system we have today. another challenge created by the proposal as it is formulated now

is in terms of how much revenue the federal government raises. the rates the proposal has set about 23% tax inclusive rate which translates to a 30% tax exclusive rate, would not raise enough revenue, especially when you factor in the rebate program , to keep the government whole compared to the revenue it raises now under the current system. host: talk about the program they are proposing -- rebate program there proposing. guest: one of the big challenges with a sales tax is it is regressive in sales tax. too blunt that regressive impact, the proposal contains a rebate program. what it would do is send out monthly checks to every u.s. household, so there would be no income limit on receiving a check and it would be worth the 23% tax rate times the poverty level. as an example, a family of four, married couple with two kids over the course of a year, based

on current poverty levels would receive $9,000 from the government. so this would be kind of a can to universal basic income where the government sends out checks to every household based on their family size with no income limits on the checks and for context it would be larger in total cost than what the recovery rebates cost that we received during the pandemic. host: how much would that cover, the rebate, of what people would be spending on a national sales tax? guest: it would cover up to the poverty level. in a way you could think about it is kind of exempting basic necessities that a household would buy and that poverty level depends on household size so it increases per person in the house. they have also included a marriage penalty relief in that so a married couple would not receive less than two single

people would on their own. even with the rebate program, the tax would have a regressive impact and that is because it is compared to the current system we have now, where lower income households tend to receive more back from the tax system then they pay in thanks to things like refundable tax credits like the child tax credit and earned income tax credit, which would be going away under this proposed system. host: so what would get taxed at 23%? guest: basically everything a person would buy, and the tax rate you would face at the checkout would be 30%. if you bought something for one dollar, the price you would pay after taxes would be $1.30. the 23% comes from taking that $.30 of tax out of the share of the total $1.30 paid. it is called a tax inclusive rate. so the tax base would cover

virtually all private consumption, so if you buy a new house, if you buy a car, if you buy anything at the grocery store, durable goods, it would cover some financial services so think of the interest you pay on credit card or mortgage interest . part of that would face the sales tax as well. it is a very broad-based consumption tax and would also apply to federal, state, and local government purchases. host: so they also include a provision in here, no irs funding in fiscal year 2027. why? guest: so in lieu of having a centralized federal government collecting the revenue, they would devolve the revenue collection out to the states. so 50 states plus district of columbia, we would essentially see 51 mini irs is responsible for collecting the sales tax and remitting into the federal government rather than the

single irs at the federal level. there are some states that do not levy state sales taxes so in that case the legislation authorizes the treasury department to collect that and we would likely see some new department within treasury responsible of handling the monthly payments of families. so while there is no irs as we know it today and funding is cut for the irs as we know it today, something would have to take its place at the federal level to oversee this administration and make sure the tax was collected along with the states. in terms of cost, states would be compensated for collecting and remitting this to the federal government. they would be permitted to retain the sum of the tax they collect so in terms of how much the government is spending on tax administration, there are no cost savings associated. host: what would it do to the

lobbying industry in washington, d.c.? guest: what we see with the state tales -- sales tax system is that there have been legislative changes made to state sales tax bases. so even though more than 40 states levy sales tax, the base in each of those states differs because exemptions have been provided for various types of goods and services, so there still can be lobbying associated with tax code, it would just look different than it does today. then that leads to another issue with the fair tax. when you start including exemptions for specific types of goods, say health care gets an exemption or say groceries get an exemption, that reduces the amount of revenue the tax can raise and requires an even higher rate. host: let's get to calls. steve in ohio, democratic caller, what you think about this? caller: good morning.

yeah, i got a comment and question. the comment is in ohio, the legislature here is thinking of getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with a sales tax as well. i guess the comment is, with 23%, doesn't that rate of taxation have the concern of distorting economic decision-making because of the rate and even the proverbial invisible hand? people doing things under the table so to speak in terms of transactions. my question is relative to the value added tax. i know that has been suggested for years. i think treasury secretary paul ingle was suggest that for business tax, value added tax. in it, if done properly, and

other countries do it well -- there is no cascading of taxation, and it is self enforcing. why wouldn't we think about doing a value added tax on businesses and eliminating the corporate income tax as opposed to this on individuals? thank you very much. guest: thanks for that. on the first comment, that is absolutely a concern. the high rate that would be required to raise enough revenue is likely to lead to significant avoidance in innovation issues. that is one of the challenges of a national retail sacs -- retail tax replacing that. when you make up for lost revenue, it is too high of a rate to make sense. on the value added tax question, absolutely. the united states is the only country in the oecd that does

not have a broad-based consumption tax at the national level. a value added tax and national retail sales tax actually target the exact same tax base, they are targeting final retail sales or final consumption. the difference of that, collect that along the value-added chain as companies are producing goods and services whereas the national retail sales tax waits until the very end of the final consumption purchase. the economics are largely similar but what we see in other countries that have value-added taxes is they tend to be part of an overall tax system that also taxes income that has payroll taxes. they are not necessarily replacements, as in scrapping the entire federal tax asked him -- tax system and replacing it with a can some syntax. typically what we see is what the caller suggested, or placing part of the tax system with a value-added tax. host: one need a, south

carolina, independent. juanita, question or comment? caller: i had a question. i just turned this on so i may have missed something. do i understand that medications and food would be exempt from this national sales tax? caller: no -- guest: no, the cost would cover about 90% of expenditures including things like health care expenditures, on food, housing, goods and services broadly. they would all see the tax. host: we are talking with erica your, a senior economist at the tax foundation. she is a master -- has a masters in economics, undergraduate degree in business administration economics from sterling college where you're currently a professor as well. erica, this is a proposal, to be

clear, for our audience. this is not something that is being put into law proposal,. what happens or what are republicans talking about and when they would bring this up and emma kratz still control the senate. guest: that's right. this proposal is not imminent in any way shape or form. reportedly what has happened with the proposal is that speaker mccarthy said he would not stand in the way of its coming to the floor so that means it will likely get a hearing in the ways and means committee, they will get to vote on it and if it gets approval in the committee, it would then go to the floor and if, by some chance, it was approved by the house, it would go to the senate where it would not go any further. it is really in the early stages. there is no votes scheduled for this, no committee hearings scheduled for this yet but that could happen sometime later this year. host: we are talking up out --

talking about the idea of a national sales tax with erica york and we want to get your thoughts as well. do you like the idea or do you oppose it? we will take your questions and comments on it. fill in michigan, republican-- phil in michigan, republican. caller: my question would be is how does this affect someone whose entire income is just social security? isn't that going to really affect them badly? host: erica york? guest: yeah, that brings up a really good point of the transition from an income tax to a consumption tax. it would act as essentially a one time tax on all existing wealth so if someone has accumulated savings their entire life under the income tax system , they expect that savings to be worth a certain amount, to buy them a certain amount of goods and services. if now goods and services cost

30% more with a sales tax, their accumulated savings is worth less. when it comes to social security benefits, they would be adjusted for changes in the price level, including that 30% tax, so it does try to adjust for social security benefits. it also provides that monthly rebate check to exempt up to purchases up to the poverty level from facing the tax. those are two mitigating factors for people living solely on social security benefits but it could still facing the tax. lead to a sort of negative impact for people living on accumulated savings or benefits because of that issue of everything is now 30% more costly and, if you do not have earned income, if you are a retiree, you do not benefit from the income tax cuts because you are no longer earning income. so you do not get a benefit on one side and you pay the sales

tax on the other. host: is there any research on consumer's room -- consumerism under our current system and what consumers might look like if you switch to a national sales tax -- consumerism might look like if you switch to a national sales tax. guest: a reduction in -- an increase in savings. that's the idea behind it. when you have an income tax, it places a disadvantage on saving income. it binds the tax toward media consumption, and because of that additional layer of income tax you have saved, when you put money in a savings account, you paid money -- you pay taxes on income you saved, you also have to take taxes on income you earned from the savings. when you switch to a consumption tax, you do not have to pay the additional layer of tax. you are not penalized for saving an investment. we would ask x saving an -- and investment to increase and by

virtue of that consumption would decrease. we do not have any studies moving an entire federal taxes to him -- tax system away from income taxation to consumption taxation so there were nothing -- nothing would speak to the exact expanse but we expect more saving and less consumption in response to that change. host: what does wall street think of this idea? guest: it would be a really fundamental change. the one time tax on existing savings would reduce values of accumulated savings, whether a regular savings account, and mutual fund. there would be big implications in this transition period but, then moving forward, not facing a layer of tax on saving investment would be good for saving and investment. so there is some trade-offs there whether you are viewing it in transition period or long run

once the bumpy transition has taken effect. host: brent in quincy, michigan, democratic caller. caller: good morning. bear with me a moment for being off point but i would like to draw people's attentions to the federal law that prohibits people on domestic violence, restraining orders have been ruled unconstitutional by a right court report. host: you have to talk about the report here. caller: right. to your topic, i'm looking at march 2009, a quote from warren buffett and he says somebody has to be taxed and nobody likes to be taxed so i have explained my views plenty in the past, guys like me, billionaires, have gotten off too generously and the irs just came out with something the other day that the top 400 americans in 2006, top

earning 400, in terms of their taxable income, paid at a rate of 17 point something percent which was the lowest since it ever started the figures. so i think too much has been done for me for billionaires and too little has not been done for the people who work. the nebraska furniture mart's -- and we are going to have a huge gap in revenue and people at the lower end, whatever the number may be -- i don't think anything that helps me is needed and this is what the sales tax would be, once again a republican huge gift to the people on wall street. host: we understand your point. does it benefit the wealthy? guest: yes.

moving to the fair tax system from the tech system we have today would result in a tax cut for the wealthy and that is because, if you look at consumption at a share of income, lower and middle income households consume more of their income while higher income households have room to save more of their income and that savings would not face tax under consumption tax systems. so relative to the system we have today, it would be a tax cut for higher income households. host: would wealthy americans buy more if they were taxed less? guest: you mean how would their consumption change under the sales tax? host: yeah? guest: yeah, it is likely we would see change in consumption because consumption would go from not facing a national retail sales tax to facing a 30% retail sales tax. anything you buy would cost more

when you factor in that tax. and when prices go up, people tend to consume less. that is again one of the points of moving to a consumption tax is that you are removing the tax burden on saving and investment some more money can flow into that productive activity, which will raise living standards and is more economically efficient to consumption rather than taxing saving and investment. but one of the big trade-offs is that distributional impact. host: john in wilmington, illinois. independent. caller: hi, erica, how are you doing? i got a real simple facts for you. the 90.6% who earn less than $250,000 a year only pay 17% of our nations revenue and requires us to utilize over two thirds of the irs's resources to collect that money.

instead of your consumption tax being on everything we purchase, i would suggest a consumption tax on the stock market. a 1% transaction tax on the purchase of stocks, corporate bonds, stock options, second-rate commodities, and a 1% sales tax will generate five times the amount of revenue our nation currently collect's. that is without anybody paying any federal income tax. i think you would agree people earn more than the president of the united states. the world's most powerful job should pay a tax in order to live in this country and have the worldwide police protection, i.e. our military, to tax or business interests overseas. so if we can have five times more revenue, limited income tax for the 90.7% of people who earn less than our president -- 98.7% of people who earn less than our president, i'm confused on why we would choose your plan that

adds 30% onto everybody's budget when we could eliminate all these 401(k) rules and roth ira rules and all the other stuff when you put your money away in there. host: so to clarify, this is not erica york's plan, we are talking about a republican proposal. but do you want to respond? guest: yeah, the fair tax act is just a proposal in the house, it is not the tax plan. under the texas and we have today, we know from data from the irs the top 1% of households pay an average tax rate of 26.6% -- 20.6 percent, responsible of paying more than 40% of the vigil income taxes collected while the bottom half of taxpayers pay less than 1/8 of what the top 1% pays. so we have the highly progressive tax system under current law in which hein come households pay the highest average tax rates and the largest share of income tax.

and that is true across the tech system as a whole when you factor in all of the sources of revenue the government collect right now. the end result is a progressive system in which high income households pay a lot, low income households pay very low tax rates and sometimes even receive more back than they pay in because of the refundable tax credits we have under the system. talking about tax reform ideas moving towards a consumption tax base like a national retail sales tax to do would be more economically efficient than the income tax system today because it does create a drag on economic oath by burdening saving and investment which are productive activities. but there are a number of challenges with this fair tax proposal in particular and hit in some ways creates more questions than answers in terms of tax reform because of the administrative ability issues, because of the challenges it's in particular creates with the

burden -- the distributional burden of the tax. host: erica york, here is a text from our viewer, would this fair tax not create a huge black market to an underground economy -- and underground economy? guest: that is one of the major challenges with the fair tax act, it proposes a tax of 30%, but in order to be revenue neutral for the government to be able to main the services it provides an budget it does so now, the tax rate would be closer to the high 40's, potentially higher. that would incentivize a lot of avoidance behavior and that is one of the challenges of moving to a national retail sales tax in particular. host: let's go to pennsylvania, a democratic color. caller: hello. interesting topic you have here. if i have understood her correctly, she is saying

everyone would pay tax so i'm sitting here wondering how will this affect people on social security, ssi, or ssdi or people that receive food stamps, or people that receive free health care, health care which i repeatedly hear we pay five times for health care in the united states than any other country. i know from my household, my husband pays substantially and soda sieves -- and so does his employer and i preach preacher that is pretax. the contribution he has to make. host: erica york? guest: it would apply to everyone, yes, the national retail sales tax of 30% applied at the checkout. of course social security benefits would be adjusted for that price level, including the 30% tax, as a way to try to help people on those fixed incomes afford that tax and the rebate

is another effort to try to help blunt the impact on low income households in particular. but that is one of the challenges of moving to a broad based retail sales tax is people probably do not want to have to pay a 30% sales tax on everything they are purchasing. host: marshall in illinois, independent, hi, marshall, you are talking with erica york. caller: how are you doing today? i think we are missing points because it is not being covered properly. first of all the rebate makes a difference. this is substantial, it would help poor people that would not currently have any income, it would help them up front because they get this money up front and people are not understanding how much they get. social security comes up and they would get money up front. so it would raise the living standards of those people. as far as taxes, rich, wealthy people and companies, right now

they are avoiding taxes. this would not only make them pay taxes, it would also make the underground that exists now like drug dealers do not pay taxes of course, illegal immigrants and legal immigrants erie remember they would have to pay these consumption taxes however they would not get the benefits of the tax because they are not legal citizens so the truth is it would raise our income. right now everything is based on avoidance and we spend a lot of money just playing games and playing the system. the wealthy, we say the percentages but the wealthy hide their money so this taxable income, so the wealthy make more than what is published. they make a lot more but they create a situation where they decide what their taxable income is and that is what they pay based on. that money will be spent, trust me. a wealthy person dies, their kids will spend the money, they party, do everything, they are going to spend the money. as long as we have enforcement,

which now the irs is changing that to individuals, is making sure companies are collecting the money and there's consequences to them not doing it. i think that is where we are missing the point because everybody is scared. democrats are scared it is too regressive. republicans, even though most of the things they say are crazy this is one of the more smart -- one of the smart things proposed. host: hang on the line, we will get a response. guest: i see two parts to this, one is impact on lower income households absolutely the monthly payments would blunt some of the regressive impact but compared to tax system today where lower income households often face negative income tax rates, it is not clear that for every low income household they would be better off under this system. it would though blunt some regressive impact and would be paid on a monthly basis and that is why in the proposal it is called a pre-bate rather than

rebate because it's paid on a monthly basis regardless of what a household is spending or earning. it is paid out to everyone. then in terms of the burden on higher income households, relative to the tax system we have today, they would pay a lower share of the tax burden and face a lower tax burden and that is because, under the income tax system we have today, income as well as the return to saving and investment faced tax under consumption tax -- tax. under the can some syntax, it is just consuming portion that would face a. if you look at this over a person's entire lifetime and generally we assume consumption is equal to income over a person's life. that makes the impact of this flatter than a one year snapshot because it is each person is consuming the entirety of their income over their lifetime the tax has a more even impact than looking at a one

year snapshot. host: paul, you are next, st. louis, missouri, democratic caller. caller: thank you for my call. i have a problem with the real estate taxes in missouri in particular. i do not see how a person can own a house, pay for the ownership of the house for years , then have to pay tax for it. it just seems like -- i think it is a crime to me. i think it's a crime with this tax coming out every year that you have to pay a tax around christmas time at that. you gotta pay a tax every year. i christmas time for property taxes. -- at christmas time for property taxes. host: erica york? guest: taxes can be structured to fall on the money we are, things we own, or the money that we consume. there are trade-offs, especially when it comes to visibility of

those taxes, property taxes tend to be one of the meat tend to be one of the most visible. when it is a tax on things we earn or even a sales tax, we do not always pay has much attention as to the property tax. in terms of economic efficiency, property taxes tend to be the least economically damaging, at least with respect to income taxes. those are some of the trade-offs lawmakers have to grapple with as they design their tax system. host: matthew in michigan, democratic caller. caller: hi. i would like to ask miss york and the foundation if they have a tax plan. do they have a tax plan? guest: if you go to our website, you will see we have a paper called 10 options for growth and opportunities where we outlined 10 different policies that lawmakers could adopt that would move the tax code in a better

direction and a simpler, more transparent direction, and we do have options like that outline. as a nonprofit, we do not endorse or move against any particular piece of legislation. we do provide a view of the trade-offs of various tax policy options. host: wayne in arizona, independent. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i'm kind of eighth a fan of you -- kind of a fan of you, i have you bookmarked, and you had an article that was great, on the tariff. the tariff is a tax on the consumer. when you go into dollar general store and you pay one dollar and you great pay $1.29, the $.29 go

tariffs. the tariffs are the largest consumption tax ever placed on the american people, and i am independent. i am 86 and i voted twice for reagan and clinton, so we need to take a close look at the tariffs and i appreciate your article. announcer: i will jump in and have erica -- host: i will jump in and have erica york respond. guest: this would be a consumption tax that you are right, you would face it at the checkout of about 29%. interestingly enough, the fair tax act would get rid of individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, gift taxes, but it would leave taxes the government currently collect switch would include things like tariffs as well. so it would leave those in place and implement a national retail sales tax on top of that.

the burden of that would largely fall on consumers. it would be seen in the price level, most likely seen in the price level up by the full amount of the tax. host: jose in new jersey, democratic caller. caller: i don't know if this tax if it goes through willhost: aft inheritance tax. host: yeah, the proposal does eliminate the state and gift taxes -- estate and gift taxes, replacing it all with a national retail sales tax. host: you can find more information about the tax foundation if you go to their website, taxfoundation.org, on twitter @taxfoundation. erica york is their senior economist and resource manager. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: thanks to all of you for watching, calling in, texting, and tweeting us. we will be back tomorrow morning 7:00 a.m. eastern time. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] announcer: coming up today on c-span, live coverage with representatives from the health and pharmaceutical industry on the growth rate of health care spending in the u.s. announcer: coming up today on c-span live coverage discussing

the health and pharmaceutical industry on the growth rate and health care spending in the u.s. compared to other countries. that begins at 1:00 eastern and then at 6:00 we take you to the dnc national enter meeting. where president biden and president harris speak about accomplishments and plans for the future. watch today on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. >> the labor department reported that employers added 517 thousand jobs. and the unemployment rate fell from 5% to 3.4% the lowest since 1969. >> it is the name of america that belongs to you and your national capacity fourscore and seven years ago. >> ask not what your country can

do for you. >> throughout the history, presidents have delivered speeches from times of tragedy, war, and farewell, on saturday watch the first of our 10 part series the speeches that define presidency. hear from abraham lincoln reenactment, to john f. kennedy, george w. bush, and barack obama. this week will feature george washington 1796 farewell address. >> the office to which your severed is have been a uniform --sacrifice against the nation. >> in me, a predominant motive has been an endeavor to have time for our country to settle and mature its recent institutions. announcer: washington part series speeches that define presidency.

saturdays at nine a.m. and p.m. eastern. on c-span two. ♪ >> the state of the union is strong because you, the american people, are strong. announcer: president biden delivers the annual state of union address outlining his priorities to congress. on tuesday his first speech since republicans won control back to the house. we will take your phone calls, texts, and tweets. watch live tuesday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free video mobile app, or online at c-span.org. ♪ announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more, including sparklight. >> the greatest town on earth is the town you call home at sparklight it is our home too. right now we are all facing our

greatest