coast of china, not in their airspace over the heartland here that is what they did with this balloon. host: thank you so much michael jordan, national security correspondent from the wall street journal. that is going to do it for "washington journal" today we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

washington journal starts now. ♪ host: good morning. it is sunday, february 12 and we start this morning hearing from colors 65 years old and older. we want to know what is your top issue for watching this. that's been a great deal of conversations on the seniors and budget spending and programs like medicare and social

security. what is your top issue? give us a call. you can start calling in right now. eastern/central timezones, 202-748-8000. mountain/pacific timezones, 202-748-8001. you can text us at 202-748-8003. if you do that, please include your name and where you live. you can leave us a comment. you can also find us on twitter at @cspanwj and on instagram @cspanwj. here's an article from the washington post. it starts off by recounting last week's state of the union address and president biden back

and forth with republican members. social security and medicare should be a central concern of the government. there is a good reason this is where they ended up. america's population is growing older at an unprecedented clip meaning the number of people relying on those programs is soaring and because older americans vote more very few elected officials want to go on record in favor of cuts. over the course of the speed biden midget seniors or to delete nine times. the most the group has been mention in any state of the union in the past 40 years. he also mentioned medicare and social security more frequently than past presidents. that was in part due to his back and forth with the attended republicans. here is a cold chair -- a cold

chart damages seniors -- here is a cold chart damages seniors and senior citizens. you see biden as the final bar let's go to what president biden has said. this is him speaking last week in tampa florida. he warned he will veto any proposal that would cut medicare and social security. [video clip] democrats, 202-748-8000. -- pres. biden: you may have seen we had eight bait at the state of the union. i guess i should not say anymore. politically social security and medicare. republican seemed shocked when i talked about them cutting medicare social security.

senator scott proposal, read from the proposal from a senator from wisconsin. they were offended. liar, liar. there about four or five or how many. i reminded them the guy who ran the senate campaign committee for republicans last year had a plan. maybe he changed his mind, maybe he seen the lord. [laughter] that is not likely to get voted out but i tell you what it is likely a got cut drastically if you do it every five years. the very idea senator was the put social security and medicare on the chopping block every five years, i find to be outrageous. so outrageous you may not believe it.

all federal legislation every five years the law is worth keeping so that congress can pass it over. it does not get reauthorized, because alt of existent. congress wants, they have to keep it and vote on it. in case there's any doubt yesterday he concerned he still likes the proposal. i guarantee you, it will not happen. i will veto it. [applause] host: that was president biden speaking last week about conversations on social security, medicare. we go back to the washington post article. it says, there are moments when amwas aging, but not to the degree we see now.

in 1990 were about 31 million peopl aged 55 years old and older, a group that made up 13% of the population. 10 years later that group was about 35 million people and the same percent the population. now there are than 54 million people aged 55 and older 16% of the population. the bureau expects those numbers to surge over the coming decades. we talk about the future of social security and medicare, here are some statistics. via pbs nshr, medicare will be as solvent in 2028 and payments will beut by about 10, if congress does notct to raiseevenue or change the program and the social security retie funds will be solvent in

-- and solvent in 2024 benefits cut by 20%. a part of the conversation to make medicare and social security more solvent includes things le increasing payroll taxesor some or all americans, raising the eligibily ages and adjusting the criteria for eligibility, refmi how medicare faces providers, -- pays his providers and lowering benefits for some or all americans. that's a conversational social security and medicare. our question this morning which is for those age 65 years old and older, what is your top issue? eastern/central timezones, 202-748-8000. mountain/pacific timezones,

202-748-8001. we will take your calls right now. mike is in south carolina. what is your top issue? caller: my top issue and i am 81 years old is the continuing increasing cadet -- increasing debt as no provisions to stop the growth and start attacking the huge debt. some people say, do not worry about that. well, it is something to be highly concerned about because unless we attacked the debt, our future generations will be totally responsible for it. current legislators need to focus on that. host: what do you think as far

as how should the debt be cut? that is where congress tends to not get anything done. would you suggest for cutting the debt? caller: i will suggest we take a look at things like sunset provisions for all of those programs that carry on your after year and look and see are they achieving the desired objectives and are they being really scrutinize to make sure there is not fraud waste and abuse and everything else that goes with those kinds of programs. that includes major weapons systems and the defense department. it includes the entire

intelligence community and it also includes some of our foreign aid's programs that go to countries that we really at times do not have much use for. host: appreciate your call this morning. let's go to orange park, florida. bill is on the line. caller: yeah, i would cut out some of the programs that are multiple. you can get two or three programs in one thing. you do not need to have a separate program for every little thing, like the school system. they got so many different things going into the school system and none of them worked for the kids. host: your number one top issue is also cutting the national debt? caller: there are many ways they cut the national debt. they could cut that by one penny

out of a dollar and in tenure solve it -- 10 years solve it. host: our next caller is patrice in south carolina. what is your top issue? caller: yes, my top issue is to eliminate 80-90% of congress and also -- host: go ahead, i think you cut out. caller: yes, eliminate 80% to 90% of congress, that is my top issue. host: eliminate congress? alright. we are also having a robust conversation on our facebook page. here are some of the responses we are receiving. cynthia says, protect social security, medicare, and

medicaid. do not raise age of retirement. march rights, the rigged election is our top issue. john wrote, close the borders. tom said, gun safety, and eliminate the debt ceiling. let's take one more from facebook. helen writes, voting rights because of this was fair, everything would be ok. those are some of the comments we are receiving on facebook to our question those aged 65 years old and older, your top issue for washington. an article from today's washington post, it is from the fact checker, and he raced down

the numbers when it comes to the conversation about the debt and spending and how to balanced the budget. he gets at the conversation about what should or should not be cut about balancing the budget and up here it says, the federal government keeps borrowing from general revenue to make payments to entitlement programs like social security and medicare. he says that is why the top contributors to the current deficit, these payments. more than half of the projected $21 trillion deficit in the next decade will come from such transfers. in part, that is because most people receive more in benefits than the taxes they paid into the system, especially for medicare as people live longer and health because prison --

health costs has risen. let's go earlier in the same article, another passage i want to highlight about the numbers. he says quoting president biden state of the union, sub folks as we all agree, social security and medicare is off the books right now. he writes that would mean a 31% cut elsewhere to reach balance. balancing the budget would require a 31% cut federal spending is social security and medicare off the books. he goes on to write, of national defense is also off the table, the rest of the budget would need to be reduced by 40%. that is some of the numbers in today's washington post, breaking down the discussion. let's go to more of your calls. tenant in -- kenneth in florida.

caller: my top issue is trying to educate the american people. when it comes to the debt and all of this stuff, america has been creating debts as i have been born. we look back when george bush junior came into office, we had a national surplus of $5 million or $5 trillion, he said we do not have a justification to continue to collect money from the american people. that is why he's starts sending all the money back to create a debt. they say as you get older, you should be wiser, but the people in my age group, 65 years old and older, it is not showing no since of wisdom because they fall for all of these lying politicians and continue to vote for them over and over. the same people who are getting

nothing done, they continue to vote for them, mostly because of skin color. it would be nice when god strikes them let us go away so the world and country can move on. host: our next caller is harbored in michigan. --herbert in michigan. what is your top issue? caller: my top issue would be social security and medicare. all of these people retiring out there, i am sure a lot of them remember back in the 80's when ronald reagan and republicans borrowing from social security, at that time it was not in trouble. the money was never paid back. all these lawmakers that want to cut social security and medicare, i paid them. i paid their health care. the best health care in the world. they do not pay anything, but

they're going to cut mine? let's start by paying back what they borrowed from social security. then we can look at the military. we are stronger than 10 nations around the world, including russia and china. with our military. why do we need so much? we need that to build weapons, to sell them overseas, and kill people. those are the things i am looking at, that is what we need to do. host: appreciate your call this morning. let's go to marietta, georgia. what is your thoughts this morning? caller: good morning. what i have relies -- realize, with the social security and medicare, with that money is taken out of your paycheck, that

money is earmarked for those two areas and what i government has been doing is misappropriating the funds, they use those funds for things that were not earmarked for those funds. therefore when they talk about there is no money in their, we never talk about how they have misuse social security because there are three, the federal regular tax for anything other than medicare and social security because those two are in -- earmarked. that is misappropriating funds. they take it and use it for something else that was not intended for. that is misappropriation of funds and the government does that legally. if any other country did that,

it will be against the law but the u.s. government does it and makes it legal. the other thing i wanted to say was that, when president clinton balanced the budget, he balanced the budget from the money coming in from social security. obama took money from the medicare to be able to set up his program, affordable care act. then they say we do not have the money. we do not have it because you misappropriated it. host: we appreciate your call this morning. let's go to kentucky, rosie on the line. caller: yes. i was just calling over medicare and social security. i am 70 years old and i worked

and paid into have this. this is why rely on every month -- what i rely on every month for my income and if they take that away, it is not going to be just me, but a lot of people hurting. i was given my point of view. they need to consider that. thank you. host: thank you for your call. our next caller is mike in florida. what is your top issue? caller: hi. social security fix suggestion. there are so many things that could be done. raise the retirement age. increase the pay in rate. increase the pay in cap or some combination. my suggestion is quite simple.

there are many programs best fit -- based on the means testing and that is what needs to happen. we should have this debate. there is a number: 300,000 or 400,000 terms of source and come people have, over which you should not be getting social security. the business about suggesting that i paid in all of this money, voucher -- while it is true, it misses the point which is -- ease be social security was not tax and then in 1982 they started to tax it. we will give you the money and then tax it at 100% on the backend. host: all right.

we appreciate your call. this is another video from president biden last week in tampa, florida. he discusses the federal role in guaranteeing social security. pres. biden: senator scott, sims or johnson, has only plan he laid out social security should be on the chopping block every year. he says he wants to do it every single year. let us remember what this is all about. some of you are on social security or your parents or grandparents are. you earned it. you it every single penny and paid and to every paycheck you ever got, from the time you were a teenager. you have money taken out from this program. government programs are a promise we made. work hard and contribute to the time comes to retire will be there to help you out. it has been a sacred trust, a

rocksolid guarantee generations have counted on and it works. the number of seniors living in poverty has plummeted since social security was created and now these guys must own. i did not get it -- do not get it, i really do not. we saw tuesday nights republicans do not like being called out on this. there are not happy with me pointing this out. i know a lot of republicans dreams the cut social security and medicare, let me say this, that is your dream, i am your nightmare. host: that was president biden speaking last week saying he would veto plans cut social security and other programs. discuss a of your cause. -- lets us go to more of your calls and rest speaking to 65

years old and older for your top issue of washington. eastern/central timezones, 202-748-8000. mountain/pacific timezones, 202-748-8001. let's go to mike in new york, go ahead. caller: yeah. quick thing, i agree with everybody who was calling about social security and everything. everybody -- i've never heard anybody talk about this yet. with covid there has been over a million people who have died from covid, and from what i understand 80% that died from covid are over 65 years old. let's do a little math. if a hundred thousand people --

how much money is not going out to social security though supposed to be paid -- that was so supposed to be paid? a hundred thousand people and they do not have to pay that no more times 12 months a year. we did the math and it comes out to $9.6 billion that is if you consider the people getting social security checks are getting $1000 a month which on average i think they get a lot more than that. this year alone, $10 billion that is not going to be spent. not counting the money medicare is not paying for all the people who have died, tragically, of course. between -- on top of all of that, we have the highest employment we have had since

1969, which means there is even more money going into social security. on top of the people who have died they're not collecting checks anymore, i believe there are billions of dollars that was due to be spent that is not going to be spent. where did the money go? we lost it already? i'm having a hard time understanding that. it is a lot of money we were not spending on people who died from covid. host: we have heard from some callers about social security fund. i wanted to bring up an article in financial website that says, the belief among some folks is that congress has stolen trillions of dollars of social security and if this money was

returned to the program, it would not be in such dire financial shape, but the real surprise a digging deeper is that congress has not stolen a dime from social security, and when you slow down the talk about bonds. it says are these bonds sold by the federal government? yes but i does not equate to selling rather the federal government is borrowing capital that would be losing money to inflation and paying interest into the social security program on is borrowing. that is a little bit of background on that. lecretia in florida, what is your top issue? caller: my top issue this wish they would get to work and work together. medicare and social security.

on the screen was all the invoices. i do not see anywhere where it should be suggested to take off the cap social security and also the bonds and stocks, that would take care of it. that is what i have to say. host: our next caller is kyle in new york, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span and everybody. a couple last callers made excellent points with covid gentlemen and the money not being allotted out. the last caller raising the contribution but also let's keep in mind 1934 social security act was not designed for disability and other programs that are now

being covered under that. if we can maybe get those programs under a different title there may be have a different separate deduction for those programs, as far disability and ssi and all that stuff, that would help too. where at 33 trillion dollars in debt and the bonds are paid back, i do not understand how, if you are that much in debt, but we need to go back to the basic idea of social security and have it for retirees only, people who contributed just to that. maybe like i said, have a different fund for those who are disabled and ssi and people who are younger who get social security checks to educational purposes. there's a lot of money coming out that is not delegated for

retirement and raise the contribution for people making over, i think that cap is at $118,000, that is pretty much it. host: michael in texas. caller: how are you doing this morning? host: good morning. caller: i got a couple of questions. the two parties, democrats and republicans, they are not separate. good cop, bad cop. i'm a black man and animal social security. one thing they can do they can bring all the people on the border, they got security for medical and all that kind of

stuff, the ones they want and once they do not want, they can throw them back out. [indiscernible] everybody talking on that phone line, give answers to solve the problems. when you call the show, have a suggestion to solve the problem. thank you. host: our next caller is rick in los angeles. you are on the line, what would you like to share this morning? caller: [inaudible]

host: can you harris? -- can you hear us? caller: can you hear me now? host: now, i can hear you. caller: a wise man once said it is easier to for the people, then it is to convince the people they have been fold. it is easier to fool the people then it is easier to convince the people they have been fooled. play the clip from january 1995 at their president biden gave the crime bill that locked up a generation of black people. this is a con man and you country bumpkins keep voting for

the democrats and the con man. play is the clip from january 31, 1995 and president biden doing what he tried to do with social security and medicare four times. host: i will work out pulling up an article about that. in the meantime, raab in colorado. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. my big thing is immigration. we need more workers. it will solve a lot of the problems with social security and medicare. we need between 2 million and 3 million new people to help work because if you go back to the origination of such security there is something between 18-20 people contributing several retired and now is between two and three and that is why they are not the funds that were before. we have to do something about medicare. 50% of medicare fund payments come out of the general fund,

maybe we can get the seniors to pay more. but she would love to have a program where it is it 80-20 split. that i be able to help out and get more funds into the program. as far as the caller with ssi, no social security funds are use for social security -- ssi. we need to get more workers into the country to pay them -- have them pay into social security and medicare and assist increasing the funds. host: we had a caller mention president biden and positions have taken in the past. this is an article from the hill that was published a few days ago it says, president biden as a first-term senator in 1975 introduce the bill that would have limited budget authority

for all federal programs between four and six years which expert says will require new legislation to fund medicare, social security, and other federal programs. the biden measure for striking plans to sunset off federal legislation for five years which is now at the center of a political firestorm. scott always they put the spotlight on president biden's bill from decades ago to defend his proposal, which has become a regular target of democrat attack. his quote, i always wonder why president biden was so insistent of attacking me and that we know, he's a hypocrite with a guilty conscience. he said, he did what he is accusing me of doing. i do not have a bill to sunset social security but president biden did. let's hear from more of senator

scott. he was interviewed last week on fox news. this is some of him responding to president biden's criticism of him and his proposal to sunset all federal programs. [video clip] pres. biden: clarify which idea was. you want to look at everything. >> i did as as governor. you go back and look and you say did it work? i put out you can go to rescue america.com and look at every program every five years and there's lots of programs we should not doing if we keep it, we keep it. we do not pass a 20 year defense budget every year, we do it every year. to the american public how we are going to preserve such security. here is how president biden is it hypocrite.

he says republicans want to cut social security and medicare. i never. he proposed it when he was in the senate to sunset everything. not addressing the quote he says when i argue we freeze federal spending, i meant social security as well, medicare, medicaid, veterans benefits. that is what president biden said. >> 28 years ago and we got something i want to remind you up. he also said on tuesday night, everyone who doubts it, contact my office and i will give you a copy of the proposal. >> is that true? >> go to rescue america.com and you can look at it. i put out my ideas. i must make sure rebalance -- we balanced the budget. the good on the path we are going down to trillion dollars

deficit, there is no federal program we can deserve. >> the other day you tweeted he rambled for a while, he was confused. i'm asking you whether or not he was telling the truth. was he? >> is a lie. he has been lying the whole time. i have called him a liar. his come to florida and i will be in florida tonight. i plan add up, not only did this -- i put an ad up and not only did this guy lie he did not do his taxes on medicare. host: that is florida senator rick scott responding to the criticism he has faced from president biden about his plan to call for a sunset of federal programs unless congress voted to reauthorize. a part of the debate of balancing the budget and spending on programs of social security and medicare.

we want to talk to you of your age 65 years old or older, what is your top issue for washington? eastern/central timezones, 202-748-8000. mountain/pacific timezones, 202-748-8001. right now we have on the line pam in ohio. what is your top issue? caller: i do not know this to a difference. i talked about this with friends of mine in education for a few years, i'm going to retire soon. i feel like there are so much corruption and greed in our government today. i know a lot of these issues that have up are good ideas, but i often wonder, if we set term limits for our senators and representatives a set of turning them into career politicians --

instead of turning them into career politicians and it might eliminate the issues we have. the senator presented a different office, they start working on the next election cycle. how much of their efforts and energies are put towards us, their constituents? how much of it is being bought by big business instead of? i felt like this were some of this could be eliminated. i appreciate you allowing me to make this call and of the idea out there. host: appreciate your call. georgia calling me from louisiana, good morning. caller: good morning. my question is i do not understand how we are paying for people who are self-employed, they're part of the social

security and medicare taxes, and get rewarded at the end of the year because the income is low. self-employed people do not pay nothing out of their pocket. they are taking the money and we are, taxpayers, paying their social security and medicare. that needs to be cut out. they need to take a long cloak with a need to sunset -- a long look at what they need to sunset. i am 70 years old and i'm still working. i did not understand how we can afford to pay self-employed people social security and medicare taxes for them. thank you. host: our next caller is terry in inglewood, florida. what is your thoughts this morning yucca -- your thoughts this morning? caller: i am 76 years old and i pay the 2000 two social

security. i have received 2400 dollars back and i'm two years away from average life expectancy. as a program, it is great. i do not know how it can sustain itself. second point is about medicare advantage programs. i do not know how much i government is spending with insurance companies to keep advantage programs going, but there's nothing wrong with medicare. it is great for people my age but the advantage programs, i've a a for link are very expensive for our government -- a filling are very expensive for our government. host: repeat your numbers one time. caller: when i registered in my 60's i paid in $52,000. my earnings in my life were

barely $1 million. i paid in $52,000 and as far as i can figure i receive $244,000. that leaves me a year and a half life expects the average. host: what would you suggest? you for like the programs are not sustainable because people are living longer and getting more out of the programs than they put in. what would you suggest to help make programs like social security and medicare more solvent? caller: pay in a little more or get paid a little less or both. i do not see any way around it unless there is some other parameter. hey pretty much tells the story.

mine is the anecdotal because like i say i am 76 years old and the average american male i think lives 77. never mind if i live to be 90. host: appreciate your call this morning. i want to bring up a few comments we have received on our facebook page. jody time rights, i just turned 65 years old and now i would not have to pay the most costly health insurance in the world. america could have mayor keller -- medicare for all. i like my advantage plan. i do not understand why republicans want to take away what we all paid in with every paycheck, but it is in the rick scott bill.

oven brown rice, congress can fix the social security benefits by raising the minimum income limit because the millionaires and billionaires are paying the same amount as a person making less than a year and that is only $18,000 a year in contributions going into the social security funds. joseph before cutting social safety net programs, how about cutting the salaries and benefits of our suppose elected officials and then we talk about cutting the national debt. one more before heading back to the phones. george in campbell writes, my top issue is too much focus on name-calling and finger-pointing with parties wanting only to swing left or right rather than true leadership wanted to move my generation and our posterity forward.

laura in indiana. what are your comments this morning? caller: all these senators, presidents are buying managers and we have people living wherever they can find a place to lay down and in this greendale is going to cause all the money for that and go all the charging stations. what if another country comes over here and his our electric lines and stuff? were almost in a war right now and people are so stupid and blind they cannot see what is going on. it is crazy. host: appreciate your call this morning. chris in arizona. what are your thoughts? caller: hey. for i give you my thoughts, the gentleman who said he was getting overpaid, that is only about a 7% return on his

investment, which is maybe a little below average. what i was going to say, we really need the government to take pride -- we need an initiative to resolve latin america. central and south america. something on the level, big level where we have economic development and reconstruction because there is huge opportunity there to grow our economy, their economies, that would solve a lot of these issues we are dealing with. i would ended with, we spent 20 years -- we spent $3 trillion in afghanistan over 20 years.

yes, it protected us for 20 years but we have nothing to show for it. so far, i believe we have spent 300 billion over the last 20 years mostly on protecting our border versus reconstruction. if we came up with an initiative that took, we spent $3 trillion the next 20 years uneconomic element in reconstruction -- on economic development and production in central america, the economy will go off the rails. next 20 years would be good. tons of jobs. that is what i think we need to do. thank you. host: thank you. our next caller is alyssa in maryland. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning, america.

my concern is the lack of intelligence, morals, and character in congress is given name of maintaining power. i think there should be term limits. that is it. host: that was alyssa in maryland. let's go to washington, alan is on the line. caller: hello. pretty simple. all they got to do is do away with the department of education. it is useless. we got by with it for many years. and stop giving illegals money. no public money for illegals. they can work into anything else, but no public money. if pelosi and biden one illegals here, -- want illegals here, they can pay for them, support them.

the democrats can support them. don't you think that will be a good idea? host: that was alan in washington. our next caller is ali in virginia. caller: yes, good morning. i'm concerned about people that die before they start collecting social security. also, people who pay in but did not qualify to get money back, or people who do not pay enough to qualify. with all that said and done, i'm surprised what we do not still have enough money to get -- take care of all the people. host: chris in los angeles, california. what is your top issue? caller: well, medicare.

the republicans, the red states are probably biggest on the medicare budget. you talk about the poor states, alabama, louisiana, mr. b. they can bring in less in everything. louisiana, 29 billion and half of that goes to medicare. it is rapport -- real poor and rural red and they do not deal with their own health issues. louisiana is a poor state. at the end of the mississippi, it is the country's toilet. it is a military dumping, military burning.

alabama, the same thing. arkansas, the same thing. mississippi right next door. the same thing. they do not clean the water. jackson, mississippi. you cannot drink the water. it tastes like the red river. this downriver from the united states. it is the toilet of our country. host: we have been hearing a lot of conversation about social security and medicare. this is audio from senate majority leader mitch mcconnell speaking thursday with long-term kentucky radio host terry minors talking about his opposition to senator scott plans to sunset federal legislation. let's listen. >> the republicans want to sunset social security and medicare. is that true?

>> unfortunately, that was the scott plan. it is not a republican plan. it is the rick scott plan. the republican plan we would become the majority. there are no plans to raise taxes on the american people or to sunset medicare social security. it is clearly the rick scott plan. it is not the republican plan. that is the view of the speaker of how the house as well. -- speaker of the house as well. >> rick scott saying that is not his plan at all. was the answer in social security and medicare for the american people to hear to counterbalance what the president is saying? >> speaker mccarthy said, social security and medicare are not to be touched. i have said the same. we are more authoritative position to say with position of the party is there any single senator.

>> rick scott is not back in the fold after he ran against you for leadership? >> this does not have anything to do with that. it is just a bad idea. i think it will be a challenge for him to do with this in his own reelection in florida with more elderly people in any state in america. host: that was senate republican leader mitch mcconnell speaking on the radio criticizing fellow republican senator rick scott plan to sunset federal legislation which has been held up as a potential cut medicare and social security. two more of your calls on the top issue in washington. carla in maryland, what is your response to that question? caller: good morning. good morning, america. term limits. i would like to see, learn more,

do research regarding what we can do as a people to implement term limits in the senate and in the house. many of them are there too long. senator grassley. my dear, dear senator feinstein and i'm trying to be fair here with acknowledging both sides. there there too long. it is not fair to the young folks coming up. we need fresh ideas. i want to learn and do research about how we as a people can make certain term limits are brought to the floor for a vote. thank you. host: thank you. let's go to iowa, don is on the line. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, america. i would first want to say what's wrong about social security and what we have problems with it because over the years, i pay

probably 40 years whenever it started, they have taken those funds and use them for something else. something is in the government like higher wages for politicians. for people who should not be a social security, they are not of age may be -- that the trouble with it. with the people want to hear a solutions. they do not want to hear about the problem, but that is the problem. with the republicans are trying to do is get things straightened around where they can get through some of the stuff that is cricket -- crooked. they want to get the spending down. there is a trillion dollars every year on social security and am sure all of that is not legitimate. host: appreciate your call.

as go to jacksonville, texas. bob is on the line. caller: good morning. thank you very much. the previous fellow had a point about the solutions, but let me tell you how to fix social security. i am an old man. i'm not going to tell you how old i am. i have studied this for a long time. my solution is first of all, you have to understand what entitlements are. you hear people talk about entitlements, they only mention social security, medicare, medicaid. entitlements are anything that is written into law. that covers a whole lot of territory. there's lots of people that have entitlements, such as government workers, all tax paid workers,

their retirements are written into law. they are entitlements. if you include all of that, when you start talking about how to fix medicare and medicaid and social security, i promise you, it will get fixed. host: that is bob in texas. we take another caller now in texas. caller: good morning. i wanted to say, i am 69 years old. i earned including social security 67,000 more or less. and i get tax social security texts me up to 85% -- taxes me

up to 85%. uncle sam is going to keep $9,000 this year. i have to work like many people because social security does not cover the money needed to survive. i still get coverage for my workers health insurance and observation is that, people say that they want to get rid of medicare, they will not get rid of that. one of the things the coverage, if i may say, people have gotten reductions of coverages and i would think it will be a good idea to get c-span to do something in reading into legislative roles that have lowered coverages current and a speaker regarding that. that is a good idea.

host: next caller is bubba in tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. legislative rules. that is a good idea what the president said the next day. i don't know why the democrats can't get that through their heads, that democrats do --

republicans do not want social security. you hear that on msnbc. you will not be able to tell what a liar biden is. have a good day, everybody. host: we are going to take a quick break. coming up, 2 views from a republican and democratic pollster. join us for our round up of the biggest stories of the week, including president biden's state of the union speech. michael gordon discusses the threat that chinese surveillance capabilities posed to the u.s. and the reaction from washington.

we will be right back. ♪ >> this ek on the c-span networks, the houses out, the senate -- house is out, the senate is in. it tuesday morning the commerce committee considers the nominaon of song. the finance committee considers the nomination of daniel warfel. the departments of state, justice, and the white house will testify this week . head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.

♪ >> host: -- >> weekends bring you book tv featuring authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. following access to president biden, chris whipple ges an insider account of a presidency in progress. on afterwards, my a corn burglar shares her book, which looks at the functions of committees and examines their strengths and weaknesses. she is interviewed by kevin sar. fi the whole program on your tv guide. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our latest collection of books, home decor,

and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> 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. >> washington journal continues. host: democratic pollster carly cooperman and republican pollster brian need neighbor now joins us to discuss the

political stories of the week. welcome brian and carly. >> thank you for having us. host: let's start with president biden's state of the union. how would you rate it? what do you think where the strengths and weaknesses he displayed during that speech? carly: he came off as in charge, he reminded people of his achievements over the last 2 years and he laid out the most popular points of his agenda going forward. he reminded people he would stand firm on negotiations over the debt ceiling. he was able to paint the republican leaders, the people of the house as chaotic and extreme in the way that they

responded when he spoke about social security. he came off as an adult in the room, showing that he was eager to govern over the next 2 years in a bipartisan fashion. host: brian, what did you think of the speech, particularly the whole exchange with republicans? do you agree that biden came out looking good? >> both of us have national paulding that shows -- polling that shows disappointment. singling out a misleading thing from one senators release -- he has thwarted, to then use that

to beta some of them are colorful republican members into being upset, it is sad we are not seeing people more eager to lead. a demagogue can use this for personal gain. host:host: we want to get to calls from our audience. for your questions or comments on the news of the week questions for carly cooperman or brian nienaber. if you are a republican, call us at (202) 748-8003. if you are a democrat -- us at

(202) 748-8001. if you are a democrat, call (202) 748-8000. this is an article by the hill. it says "how the house gop blew up at the state of the union." it begins by saying, " kevin mccarthy said the republicans would not play 'childish games' on tuesday. the speech had some of the rowdy is to push back from the opposing party in recent memory. brian, i want to ask you, what are the optics? what are public attitudes towards republicans right now? >> when we look at any kind of

pulling, both parties are upside -- polling, both parties are upside down. it is tough to govern. there hasn't been a lot of action in washington. that can be disappointing to voters. that is a bad place to be for numbers of congress but i think when you see -- kevin mccarthy said he does not want to put these things on the table. the interview earlier with chuck mcconnell saying the same. conservative republicans have said the same. to fight over something that does not exist as a waste of everyone's time. host: carly, you recently cowrote a piece on the hill with the headline " america's

distrust of washington is a five alarm political crisis." why are public attitudes towards government getting worse? what are the causes? is there anything congress can do to fix this perception? carly: poling at my firm discovered that -- polling at my firm discovered that 28 percent of people believe that the country is heading in the right direction. that is down from 40%. u is clear why voters -- it is clear why voters think that. 73% think the economy is fair or poor. 71% say inflation has gotten worse. over two thirds of voters said crime as well as immigration and the migrant crisis at the

southern border has gotten, worse over this past year so voters are frustrated. they think the major issues facing the country are getting worse and not better and there is a lack of trust in government. they are looking for both republicans and democrats to govern and not engage in partisanship. they are hoping to see action. it -- in our polling we saw negative ratings for president biden and for president trump. in general there is a lot of skepticism towards the party's ability to govern. republicans -- voters believe republicans are more likely to try to investigate biden and

democrats than address the real issues so a lot of where we will see the parties position will have to deal with whether or not they will have to address the issues americans are concerned about. host: we are talking this morning with 2 pollsters. you have republican pollster brian nienaber and democratic pollster carly cooperman. we want to get to your calls now. caller: i heard them talk about that biden had proposed reviewing social security and medicare earlier in the year but we are under a new generation. they were saying that they want to have terms in government. with the influx of people like

marjorie taylor, republicans following the leadership like trump, i do not trust any of the new people, the influx of the new people. as far as social security and medicare, it needs to stay in place. we need to allow more immigrants in so they can get to work and pay into the system. that is the way it is going to work. we have a declining population. we have to have more people to work in order to pay those things. those billionaires and millionaires, their income should not be capped because every dime a poor person makes ends up in a rich person's pocket anyway. host: brian, i would ask you to respond to that caller. one thing she brought up is the

perception that republicans are getting too far right. what would you suggest to republican lawmakers who are in charge? >> certainly polling suggests that voters are frustrated. he would like congress to be more respectful. more civility would be welcomed to the entire electorate. these are duly elected people. you might not like their demeanor or their personalities but they are people who have gone out and made the case to voters to get elected. it is ok to publicly shame them end make it so -- and make it so they are not welcome in restaurants. i would welcome someone who is

belligerent rather than -- host: let's go back to the phone lines. susan in fairfax, virginia. what is your question or comment? caller: my comment is about how the state of the union went. i watched the whole thing. it was very boring, not a lot of content. that is indicated, not only by my opinion, but by the fact that what everyone is discussing is his comment about republicans wanting to end or cut social security. that is what everyone is talking about. that is the only thing people are talking about. i paid attention. i can barely remember what else he said.

we have some serious problems in this country. we are not addressing them as a people, as a government, as a media. it is very unfortunate. that is my comment. we are not dealing with reality here in this country. i sure would like some leaders to start dealing with that reality. host: i appreciate your call. i want to read off, this was a cnn/poll saying this is what people thought of biden's address. according to a cnn poll, 34% reacted very positively. that tempered enthusiasm is

similar to the reception for biden's speech last year. in 2022 71 percent of speech watchers reacted positively to his address with 41% saying there reaction was very positive -- their reaction was very positive. good marks from speech watchers are typical for presidential addresses to congress. in past years most reviewers reported positive reactions to third-year addresses from former presidents donald trump, barack obama, and george w. bush. is there some risk that the back and forth, and all the focus on it, since the speech has overshadowed the other hour plus

that biden spoke on tuesday night, carly? carly: both what the collar is saying and what this poll -- caller is saying and what this poll is saying is that there is a connection between -- one of the reasons biden is highlighting that some republicans want to do things like cut social security and medicare is he knows that most voters do not want that to happen. these speeches tend to be filled with things people will like, but there is a disconnect between what politicians are saying and what americans are feeling in their day-to-day lives. this is why we often find data that shows people are pessimistic and they do not give

lawmakers on either side of the aisle good ratings. there are uphill battles that lay ahead in terms of their ability to actually accomplish things and may be close the gap between where people rate them and how they feel about some of the policy positions. host: let's go back to the phone lines now. guy in michigan, what is your comment? caller: my comment is on social security. why don't they go back to when -- back to when they put social security in a trust? during ronald reagan's time in office, they wanted -- they said the fund was too big so they wanted to put it in a general fund. it would not affect the social security down the road.

also that was put into the general fund, but why are there so many government employees that do not pay social security? that would help fund it. we are funding them. why won't they fund the people out here working for a living? it doesn't seem fair to me. host: brian, can you talk about that? what solutions are out there and why it is so hard for anything to get done, frankly? brian: i am not the expert. a significant problem with this is everything has gotten more expensive as we have gotten much older. raising taxes, cutting benefits, raising retirement age, changing how you reimburse doctors or how programs work. things you cannot fix in 2 or 3

months of congressional action. uf there was a -- if there was a simple solution, we would have headed a long time ago. host: kay is in madison, alabama. go ahead. caller: i want to make a comment about the state of the union address. i wondered if anyone remembers when president trump made his how ms. pelosi sat behind him and tore up the papers. she is the leadership of the party. yes, the republicans with president biden shouted out, but mr. mccarthy sat behind him and acted very respectful. at times he did not clap, but he did not do what pelosi did and tara papers, even if she -- tea

r up papers. she was like a first grader tearing up papers she didn't like. these comments people are making now, they need to think back about that and how that made their party look and her look as a leader. they heckled him, yes, about social security. they shouldn't have done it. 2 wrongs don't make a right. but when the leadership of your party is sitting directly behind, and everyone is watching, and as far as president biden goes, i think he is very weak. i am a nurse myself. the older you get, there should be age limits on the presidency, because we have a natural aging process. you can tell he has it. if he runs for another

reelection, 86 years old, our country in his hands at that age,'s ability will not be there. people better think. that is all the comment i have. host: carly, let's talk about this. what is your polling telling us about whether democratic voters, but in general what is the reaction to another biden term and are you hearing that voters are concerned about biden's age? carly: we are seeing when we ask voters if they want to see biden reelected or whether they think you should be replaced by someone else. the majority of voters say they want to biden replaced by somebody else. if you ask democrats who they support, they are still saying they support biden. we are consistently seeing this

theme where there are lukewarm sentiments towards him in terms of his handling of key issues, in terms of how they rate him in terms of favorability and staff approval. while there is this lukewarm sentiment, it is not clear there is an alternative for democrats that they feel more strongly about. the point that biden and his team felt is may be ratings aren't very strong, but they are comparable to the republican leaders leading the party right now. what biden does have going for him is he supports a series of policy positions. he has always been a strong supporter of social security and medicare. he is supporting a legal right to abortion, something a majority of voters do agree with, stressing police reform.

there are a lot of positions that are supported by voters, and i think the biden administration is making a bet based on the outcome of the midterms. it is not so much about how he is on his own, but it is a contrast between how he and the democrats are doing compared to the republicans and their leaders. voters are unhappy with everyone right now. that is the reality of where we are. host: to your point, this is an associated press article i want to bring up. it says "the majority of democrats think one term is plenty for president joe biden. that is according to a poll from the associated press. just 37% of democrats say they

want him to seek a second term, down in the weeks since the midterm elections." that poll was conducted prior to the state of the union address. let's go to more calls now. we have carl in north little rock, arkansas. caller: good morning. you have been talking about social security. social security, -- i want to say that if you paid in social security, then you basically turned over your money, if you worked. you had to work.

you work, you pay in your taxes and also social security. you paid that money in. you have earned that money. to talk about going broke, basically, that is because paying out of social security made people put in, people that didn't pay anything in. it goes to the so-called immigration, which is actually an invasion. all these people, millions of them, don't pay any taxes. the government is paying them to come in.

host: carl, let's let our panelistss respon -- panelists respond. brian, republicans have said they are concerned about raising the debt ceiling without talking at the same time about reining in the federal budget. now they have taken social security and medicare off the table, which are 2 big drivers of federal spending. have they painted themselves into a corner? what can be done is republicans -- if republicans want to accomplish this goal? brian: it is a very challenging atmosphere, but we have some insightful leaders. there are some things you can do to have less federal oversight.

if you reduce federal spending every year, 1% to 5% cut, something that would not be devastating to the average person in their daily lives. as the caller mentioned, almost every worker has been paying into the social security and medicare program their entire lives. to paul that rug out from underneath them is a nonstarter. host: this is video of president joe biden, more from his estate of the union address. here is the president discussing the future of the nation and the need for unity. [video clip] host: guest: every -- >> every generation of americans have been called upon to defend it, into this is our moment. my fellow americans, we meet tonight at an inflection point, one of those moments when the

direction we now take will decide the course of this nation for decades to come. we are not bystanders in history. we are not powerless before the forces that confront us. it is within the power of the people -- of we the people. we have to be the nation we have always been at our best, a nation that embraces light over dark, hope over fear, stability over chaos. we have to see each other as the fellow americans, the only nation in the world built on an idea. the only one. [applause] >> other nations are defined by geography, ethnicity, but we are

the only nation based on an idea, that all of us, everyone of us is created equal in the image of god, a nation that stands as a beacon to the world, and nation in a new age of possibilities. i have come to fulfill my constitutional obligation to report the state of the union. here is my report. because the soul of this nation is strong, because the backbone of this nation is strong, because the people of this nation are strong, the state of the union is strong. host: that was the conclusion of president biden's state of the union address. what was your response to the closing message of that speech? do believe he and his administration have done a good job of spreading that message in the days since? carly: that closing message is

spot on to what voters want to hear, and they are looking for unity. they are looking to hear that the president wants to work together with legislators on both sides of the aisle to get things done. i think they are also looking to see the leader be a cheerleader to some extent. president biden did a good job of doing that in his speech. there is also disconnect between biden's administration, not so much the messaging, but there has been a gap between voters feeling that he understands ands connects to their problems and what the biden administration is saying. for a long time as the economy was improving, as wages were increasing, even as inflation has started to drop, the biden

administration was having a hard time having voters see that . they really stepped up in the past 9 to 12 months to increase that messaging, speak to it, and connected voters more so about the day-to-day problems facing them. what we are seeing in terms of the disconnect between his ratings and some of the improvements that have been made reflect the fact that voters have not been able to connect to what biden has been saying. host: brian, house investigations into the biden family's weaponization of the federal government kicked into high gear this week. is the public paying attention?

what would your advice be to these republicans on these investigations focused on concerns about the biden family or biden administration? brian: i think of average day-to-day voter is concerned about paying their taxes. and paying their bills there is a segment of the republican party very concerned. what was hunter biden engaged in? he appeared to have jobs well beyond his qualifications that were may be trading on his family name, his access to his father. these are real questions to be raised. when, they were in control the trump family was under investigation. host: we are going to go back to the phone lines now. if you have a comment or question for our guests, give us a call.

republicans, call us at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. we are speaking this morning with carly cooperman and brian nienaber. let's go to reston, virginia now. mike is on the line. what is your question or comment, mike? caller: i do not think -- joe biden is a decent man, that i don't think he is healthy enough to run for president in 2024. i want to answer a few callers. they said he did not cover anything in the speech.

he talked about climate change, which is going to create more jobs and better paying jobs. also unemployment in 40 years, 3.4%. the republicans talk about social security and medicare. all they want to do is match the workers -- i don't know why anyone would vote for a republicana -- for a republican. they're running the states, and they are the poor states. i don't understand it. i also want to talk about public financing. a must change public financing,

we will not have a clean government. democrat or republican, both to some degree, the democrats last, our current -- democrats less, are corrupt. i don't care if her put -- host: thank you for your call. brian, i want to ask you, michael was very critical of president biden but still said he -- he was much more critical of republicans, i would say. what is your polling showing us about how voters are deciding whether republicans or democrats would be stronger jerome the government and why? what topics or areas do they think one party is more successful in than the other?

brian: i think republicans tend to come out ahead on the economy and inflation. other polling we have internally shows that is a big issue across the country. i think in a lot of this demagoguery around social security and medicare, we could. talk about all morning it is an effort to change the subject. keeping your taxes lower, having a government that spends less, if you are a democratic national leader, you do not want to be talking about those. host: let's go to jackson, pennsylvania now. martin is on the line. good morning, martin. caller: good morning there. there were some of this issue about the population.

we are putting money into social security. you cannot abort 60 million youngsters and have people to do the work. when biden's speech was on, uc see congress people instead of having the american flag, they have -- you see congress people instead of having their american flag, they have an abortion pin. that is the same as a swastika to me. for social security, if a person has a government pension that should take priority over having to pay out social security. i recall before obama, i paid roughly $200 a month on my own insurance. after that in my 60's, i was paying 1000, 1100 -- paying

$1000, $1100 a month. i have not taken social security yet. it will only be $500. these are some of the problems. we cannot be putting money out for people coming over the border. it has to be americans first, then if there is money left over the united nations take care of these problems. host: carly, let's go back to you about. some of these issues your polling has showed us where our democrats -- are democrats seen as stronger than republicans on the issues? carly: republicans are seen as

stronger on addressing the migrant crisis, on bringing down inflation, on addressing crime. those issues have dominated a lot of the conversation over the past few years. that is why we sell republicans take control of the house. the democrats, however, they are seen as stronger in other areas. obviously, the issue of abortion became front and center last election. voters strongly support some kind of legal right to abortion. that is -- the democrats are trusted more on improving education, on protecting democracy which was an issue that was put front and center after donald trump denied the

outcome of the election last time. we saw a whole slew of people on the republican side be nominated to various positions where their job is to uphold election law and democracy who ultimately did not get elected. there are key issues -- climate change as well -- facing the country that democrats are trusted more on. host: let's go to david in gulf breeze, florida caller: i think we are being controlled by the media more than anything. president biden put out the social security thing so he would have a narrative to put up so we get opinions by all the news people. that effects the polls. it is a nonissue. nothing is going to change. we know that. here the media controls a lot of things.

i have a lot of friends here. i belong to a lot of clubs. nobody agrees that we should be supporting ukraine, yet you do not hear that on the media. the media controls the polling. i want to the 2 pollsters to know they are really being controlled by the media on all issues. crime is a local issue. what happened in memphis was a tragedy. it should have never happened, but that is a local issue. it is not a national issue. we have great police where i am at and i support them wholeheartedly. i do not see this stuff happening down here. that is what i have to say. host: let's start there, brian. can you talk about your polling? i know you have different

clients but who in general is supporting your polling? are you media affiliated? brian: the public polling that we do, do -- we do, do is a georgetown university poll. it is a bipartisan poll. we work closely with georgetown. those are collaborative efforts i never feel like we are getting manipulated are treated poorly. it seems to be a thoughtful effort. host: our next caller is suzanne in philadelphia. caller: i just want to say i love this show. i really love the people on it too. this is great.

anyway, i will tell you i am literally happy and trusting with the president. i watched his address and i feel really happy and trusting with everything that he was talking about and i feel like -- well, one thing i did not like at all is when people were calling him a liar. anyway,, i could not believe that they were calling him that. anyway, it is not much. host: all right. suzanne, we appreciate that call. have you done any polling since the state of the are have you seen any polling since the state of the union that shows how that exchange went over?

carly: i have not been in the field since the state of the union finished. aside from the data you shared from the snap poll in terms of people rating the speech, i have not seen other polling. i expect we will see some getting those reactions. there definitely is a lot of conversation that is largely positive in terms of'bidens speech -- in terms of biden's speech. i is a speech so down the road it is about what happened -- it is a speech. polling is usually for private clients, a political person running for office and the like, but when we do internal polls

for public use it is driven by us, our firm, and what. we find happening in the country what is so interesting about polling is we are asking what people feel and think. for instance, the economy. one of the things biden has been so frustrated with i even when thingss -- with is even when things were improving, people did not feel like it. i feel like when we share with people what people are fearing and -- brian: i looked up. viewership on the state of the union 27 million people watched. i am very grateful for all the callers, but 160 4 million

people will vote in the election. more than 70% of those people are 65 and above. the vast majority of the electorate was doing other things on that tuesday night. host: i'm glad you bring that up because we are going to pivot to the 2024 election. there is an article in politico. the headline says, "the gop is beginning to plot against donald trump." the subhead says, "they do not have a clear plan to stop him. arcle written by politico'st david friedlander. it "one oddity of the current moment is the weaker trump seen and -- scene, t

higher that reblican political candidates will launch their own campaigns and e more candidates enter the easier it becomes far trump to win with an increasingly smaller share of the vote, so tell us what is your polling? there is only one candidate currently in. that is donald trump. we expect nikki haley to announce this week. what -- brian: we do not have anything right now. one of our competitors today poll about it.

i think carly has some more data. trump in a three way with him, desantis, and another candidate, he is 28%. that lays out whether there are 3 candidates running more 2 candidates running, he is in the 28% to 30% range. in a broad field, hillary clinton was always going to get 30%. in a 3 person race that is probably not good enough. people think about running for president. you want someone who can stand up to that 28% that trump is certain to get, our mi someone who will bleed away votes from

someone -- am i someone who will bleed away votes -- host: let's go to more calls. dan in ohio. what is your question or comment? caller: my comment is, the lady brought up about when nancy pelosi -- when trump was giving his speech. biden said he has created more jobs than it has been for however many years. how do you create the jobs when you are the one who got rid of the jobs to begin with, shutting down the keystone pipeline end everything else, which put everybody in a hurting way. my gas bill for my natural gas has tripled from what i paid last year. i was locked into $1.99 at ucf.

now it is $6.29. i used to be a democrat. i went republican. they made such a big deal about the people who went into the white house on january 6. all of us people were made from one god, black, white, hispanic, whatever. they make the republican party sound so bad. when trump asked for them to send national guards in two weeks prior to when this happened in washington, he asked nancy pelosi. she refused to give help. they make these people sound so bad, but when there was a riot in minnesota, they got pictures

of these people's faces on tv. why haven't they arrested them? you cannot get rid of jobs and say, "i created all these jobs." host: that is dan in ohio. any response, carly? carly: there are a lot of things that impacted jobs. the economy was being hit. we have seen over the last 2 years, we have seen job loss and jobs gained. i think that there are a lot of factors going into play right now, but to the caller's point this is why biden is facing

negative ratings about the economy. there is clearly a disconnect between what voters feel and what biden is saying. host: we have a graphic showing those job numbers. the unemployment rate in january was 3.4%. 517,000 jobs were added. david in concorde, north carolina. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to point out that the democratic party when donald trump won in 2016, miss waters did not want to ratify the vote. joe biden was the speaker of the house. he said it could not be done. there were questions on it.

i can go back even further, 199 5. the president was calling for medicare, medicaid. that was in 1995. you can find him saying that now. i can go back even further when he used other people's speeches to try to get there. so if you want to look back at a liar, joe biden is the best in it. i wouldn't trust him with a bucket of dung. democrats, i don't know how they forget. it is all in the past, but it is all true about the man. you want me as an american to trust a guy who has also said if he can bring enough immigrants

in he can change our outlook in the united states. nothing has ever happened to him. the man should be impeached. he is a liar. host: we appreciate your call. let's let our guest, brian, respond. that is a lot of republican red meat from that collar. is it resonating -- that caller. is it resonating? brian: i think he taps into the frustration a lot of others feel. i used to have a full head of hair. in 2005 i remember the democrats reading objections, silly things about voting booths in ohio switching votes. it is frustrating to see these fingers pointed and saying "you

are a demagogue," when the president has advocated for program renewal every 4 years. to think that these are new things -- host: our next caller is craig in illinois. caller: good morning, america. my question is to brian. brian seemed to think that there is only one republican who wants to do away with social security. rod johnson on c-span this week, there was a congressman with all kinds of charts and stuff. he also was suggesting we get rid of social security. here is my thing about social security. it is a ponzi scheme.

someone who is 90 years old and find out what they paid into social security, and they have already got back 50 times that money. they have to do something. but what? nobody wants to solve any problems. they want hunter biden and trump. cut the bs. host: your response, brian? brian: there is a joke my friends have that social security is not a ponzi scheme because with ponzi scheme's at least you can get out and get your money back. that money is gone forever. senator scott phrase it in articulately, but social security is running out of money.

i am also disappointed in the president if he thought that people would not vote for it overwhelmingly to reauthorize it. that is a terrible place for anybody to be. host: we are going to end on that note. i want to think most of 00 both of -- thank both of their guests this morning, brian nienaber and carly cooperman. we will take a quick break. up next, michael gordon will be discussing the latest on the chinese surveillance balloon and how u.s. officials are responding to the threat of surveillance and military capabilities shortly. ♪

>> the author of master, sleeve -- slave. tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. you can listen to q and a and all of our podcasts on our free app. >> since 1979, c-span has provided coverage of the halls of congress and senate floor to congressional hearings, briefings and committee

meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat. note interruptions and completely unfiltered. -- no interruptions and completely unfiltered. >> the up-to-date book tv podcast about books. bestseller lists and industry news. find it now on our free mobile app. >> c-span's american president website is your one stop shop. find biographies, video

urces telling the lives of their presidency. visit c-span.org/president to explore the catalog of resources. >> there are a lot of leases to get political -- places to get political information, no matter where you stand on the issue, c-span is unfiltered, unbiased, word for word, here or here or here or anywhere that matters. host: welcome back. we are joined by the wall street journal national security

correspondent michael gordon discussing the biden administration response to chinese military capabilities and threats posed to the u.s. thank you for joining us. guest: glad to be here. host: there were some briefings in congress about the balloon since it was shot down off the coast of south carolina. what did we learn about its capabilities? guest: shoot down -- the shootdown was not the first one. a colleague and i had an account which exposed that there were

four other instances. none of the pieces did the radar detect. the intelligence community went back after the fact to determine them. it was intended to geolocation them. it was a pretty substantial intelligence aspect. host: we want you to start calling in with questions or comments. he is willing to discuss anything about international

intelligence. he wrote a book about the inside war against the islamic state from barack obama to donald trump. he has a lot of insight about security in general. republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, and independents (202) 748-8002. this chinese spy balloon, for people like me who are the experts like you are, why were they not tucked in in real time and what type of intelligence, how do you detect them after they have already gone back to wherever they came from?

what intelligence was used to say that now we know months or years prior similar balloons did cross into u.s. airspace? guest: none of us are balloon experts. two weeks ago it was tanks and this week it is balloons. the continental air defense network is not the most robust system. it has been a top priority for decades. to the extent it is funded, it has a different set of threats. it looks at missiles that might be fired of the coast of the united states. it is not optimized for balloon threats. they are smooth -- slow-moving and small and don't follow

traditional trajectories. they are inherently hard to detect. it is called a domain awareness gap. the u.s. intelligence agencies focus on activity in china and one area that has been active is a non--- hanan. they were able to determine the chinese were launching these not just over the united states but over five continents, europe, asia, central and south america at a high altitude over a period of years to pick up signals. balloons can loiter and the chinese saw some advantage in it

because they put a lot of effort into it. host: we have been talking about the chinese spy balloon that was shot down and confirmed earlier in the week. friday, there was another unidentified object that was shot down over canada it was shot over on the orders that violated canadian airspace cap cap norad's command, the shot it down. u.s. aircraft were scrambled and an f-22 shot at the object. the object was cylindrical and

smaller than the suspected chinese balloon shot down last weekend. a canadian minister said later saturday, the white house confirmed that judo and u.s. president joe biden -- true to -- justin trudeau and u.s. president joe biden coordinated. do we know anything about these objects? what were they? was it from china or do we not know that? guest: we don't know that. to put it in a broader context, when the first balloon traversed in the virgin islands, the u.s. said let's watch it and see what this is going and what it is all about. the pentagon said it was not over anything sensitive so they

were monitoring it. before we knew it was over idaho and on tanner we have missiles and then it became a political issue in washington. -- and montana where we have missiles and then it became a political issue in washington. over the last few days, a lot of political pressure on the white house to demonstrate to congress and the people of alaska that even if the balloons are not a threat will not let them over our airspace. the aircraft that shot down all three, they are calling them objects. they have to fish it out.

they can try to retrieve at and figure out what they destroyed. all three art shot down by -- all three were shot down. one balloon and two mistry objects in just a matter of days, it has the capability to fly high capability. it wasn't intended to kill balloons but it has been called the premier balloon killer. host: let's go to the lines. carl is calling from west virginia. caller: my thing is, the balloon

was just a test object. host: he said the balloon was just a test object. can you tell us more? did china send it just to see what would happen or was it more of an active apparatus that had its own capabilities for intelligence gathering. host: -- guest: that was not viewed as a test object by the government. it's part of a fleet of chinese airships outfitted with sensors and intelligence gathering operations. not entirely clear the chinese fully intended to send the balloon where it rifted, but it was certainly on an intelligence gathering mission at the time.

when the fbi picks the pieces up and takes them back to quantico and examines them, it will become clear. host: what was china's excuse? they said it was for meteorological purposes. guest: there appears to have been some confusion on the chinese part. it is hard for me to believe this was directed from the very top because secretary of state antony blinken and the deputy secretary of state were about to lead a delegation in beijing for high-level talks. it is probably not what you want to do to set the stage for these talks. i personally question whether it went to places if didn't intend and we will probably not know.

it is a capability they have nurtured over time and they got caught with it. what they said it was was a meter logic balloon -- a meter logic -- meteorology loon. also, if it had been a civilian object, presumably they would have notified the united states, hey, it whether balloon got lost instead of fumbling around for days to come up with an answer and there are reports that they hire part of the meteorology service. host: steve is in eden prairie, minnesota. caller: good morning.

with the original balloon, were they able to monitor the singles coming off of it -- signals coming off of it and jam it? guest: those are excellent questions the government hasn't answered. one would think that since we had reconnaissance planes flying around the balloon four days. to do this, the military does not collect intelligence and they have to have permission that they were able to detect signals that they could jam. every time this question has been put to officials, they have not answered them directly. i think you have to assume an effort was made to jim signals -- jam signals.

they haven't acknowledged that. host: on the line from fort worth, texas, let's go to bobby. caller: thank you for taking my call. be careful of the emts. they can be delivered -- emps. host: francis in new jersey, what is your question or comment? caller: i think this is more of the biggest national security breach ever. how is china, with a balloon at 60,000 feet able to travel

halfway across the country and in the meantime it was only picked up because individuals called it in? we had no idea it was there. you go back in time when we lost a helicopter, all that reversed technology, whatever they bought from pakistan, were we able to detect this? the second one was intentionally brought down was the size of an age from. -- the size of an h bomb. they went across icbm

capabilities and let them go right offshore. we have laser systems that we spent billions of dollars on. they could have brought that balloon done in a controlled environment overland without damaging anything. instead, we drop it into saltwater, why? host: he says why did they wait so long for it to go over water? was that a missed opportunity? guest: this is not my decision to make, but i can tell you at the pentagon and military says because it came up in testimony over the past week. they did detect it over idaho and montana. they didn't need people in billings airport to tell them that. by the time they texted it, -- detected it, what to do about

it. president biden's instincts was to shoot it down, but now they have an object that is 200 feet tall carrying a sensor package that is the size of a small aircraft and weighs a couple thousand pounds. the question was, where will this fall? they had to do a lot of modeling about where would it fall and where would the debris fall and how big an area? the director of the joint staff at the pentagon told congress that the risk of the intelligence gathering was limited to moderate because the chinese have low-earth orbit satellites and have means of gathering intelligence. the risk to hitting something on the ground was moderate to significant so they were trying to waive the balance -- way the balance -- weigh the balance so

they decided to do it when it was over u.s. territorial waters not international, so they would have a legal case for shooting it down. the other argument is the water was 47 feet deep and they could try to retrieve the components of the sensor system and analyze it. it might be much more difficult for them to retrieve whatever they shut down over the arctic because it is in arctic ice and it is cold and dark. that is the case they made. for what it is worth, the governments position was the intentional -- the additional gain in intelligence was not that great because they had so many other means of monitoring our country, including from space.

it wasn't zero either. that is the balance they struck. host: on the independent line from san bernardino, california, greg is calling. caller: i have a comment. my major concern is the narrative that is being painted. i noticed that the guest has never stated a spy balloon. but i see you painting a narrative by you stating several times that it was a spy balloon. it could be a whether balloon. we don't know. it could be a diversion to keep the americans minds off the billions and billions of dollars we are sending to ukraine.

you wouldn't come out and paint narrative on something that hadn't been substantiated. host: so the first object, is it confirmed to be a chinese balloon? guest: we know it is chinese since they agreed it is theirs. so that is not in question. it was tracked pretty carefully. the u.s. government says if you look at the centers hanging off of the balloon, they seem to be optimized for intelligence collection so they assessed it to be a spy balloon and not a weather balloon. the government's case appears to be pretty credible on that. host: that is the first one, but the two more recent ones are unidentified object shut down friday and saturday.

so one spy balloon and two unidentified objects. we were go to frank in houston, texas. caller: good morning to you guys. i hadn't been listening to everything, but could you tell me, michael, why are they shooting things down with sidewinder's? i noticed when they shut the balloon they took half of the payload came down. i don't understand. why don't they use a 20 millimeter, put holes in the balloon and have a controlled fall? guest: first off, in the first instance, we don't even know what the other things were exactly or who might have sent them or what they were all about , at least the pentagon hasn't said. the first case, the balloon

flying at 55,000 feet, 65,000 feet, to get up there, the f-22 was able to take a shot from the 58,000 feet. i think it was just determined given the altitude of the balloon and the idea they want to make it fall in territorial waters that the optical -- optimal weapon, it did take it down directly. the goal now is to look at all of the elements. it wasn't f-22 and sidewinder used to knock down the balloon and these other intruding

objects that are not been identified. host: let's go to the democratic line. january is calling from bellevue, washington. caller: is there any possibility that somebody at a lower level in china was not happy about the upcoming meeting with secretary blinken and was trying to disrupt that? guest: i think that is unlikely. that is an autocratic government, highly controlled society. but i think it is indeed possible, i think, intelligence operatives or agencies in china were carrying out this program and certainly in the foreign ministry are at top of the chinese leadership it may not

have been anticipated that this intrusion was going to happen at this time or certainly it was going to be so obvious. there is confusion within our own system and within our own military conflicts, i covered the co-civil war and it was an episode then with the u.s. hit a building in belgrade. that was not intentional. they meant to hit the building and didn't realize it was a chinese embassy. it was a screwup that happened for a variety of reasons in the targeting process but you will never convince the chinese of that. it is possible that what happened here was not understood by all elements of that system and was something they had to deal with. the fleet of balloons was part of a spy program.

the timing and path it ended up taking was not appreciated by everyone in the system. i think that is entirely possible. host: in concert with all the things happening this week, was a memo put out by an air force general that i will read from an article. officers told to aim for the head. this is how the news article starts out. astar air force general in aemo friday two officers he commands that predicts the u.s. be at work with china in two years and tells him to get ready by firing a clip at a target and aim for the head. the memo was obtained and he said, i hope i am wrong my gut tells me we will strike in 2025

air mobility comma has 50,000 service members and 500 planes is responsible for transporting and refueling. he said in the memo that because taiwan and the u.s. will have presidential elections in 2024, the u.s. will be "distracted," and president xi jinping will have an opportunity to move on taiwan. this is the full excerpt from the memo that comes from the washington post. i want to read the full excerpt. he writes, my gut tells me we fight with china in 2025. third term was sethe war counciln ocber 2022. tom wants elections are in 2024 anwill offer a reason. the united states presidential elections are 2020 for and

will also see a distracted america. these are all aligned with 2025. later he says, i hope i am wrong. what has your reporting tells you in more context about this general's concerns and do you think he is right? guest: first of all, this memo was oliver twitter that day -- all over twitter that day. it was really confirmed as authentic to anyone who asked. they didn't try to hide it. it was out on twitter. he is the head of a command involved with refueling and those sorts of activities. he was previously the deputy commander and in tune to the

china threat. he recognizes the pentagon is that -- does not endorse this memo or the analysis behind the memo. secretary austen has said he does not think war is eminent. that said, there is concern among the military that the next five years could be a tense period. the cia has said publicly they think that xi jinping told the chinese military to have the capability in taiwan by 2027. it doesn't mean they will, but the capability. i think it was an attempt by the general to rally troops. i don't think his theory as to how a conflict might arise was endorsed by anybody in the administration.

host: let's go back to the phone lines. art is calling on the independent line from fort lee, new jersey. caller: my question is a two-part. the first is -- wouldn't the slow speed or almost drifting nature of the objects indicate they are balloons and could the detectability issue be partially due to chinese use of perhaps stolen technology? guest: first, they are not even calling the second object and object. they are saying there is no indication. the most recent things shot down were at 40,000 feet and not at 65,000, which was the one that

was shot down off the coast of south carolina. so what it is all about, who knows? they justified shooting them down saying at that altitude they could interfere with civilian air traffic. it is not even clear if they are chinese. it is not clear what they were. we will just have to see. i think the chinese are very good at technology. they made efforts to steal american technology, but are ahead of the u.s. in certain areas, hypersonic missiles for example. i don't know how elaborate the capability needs to be to put sensors on an object that float around at 50 miles our and up intelligence and transmits it somewhere, but i think we really need to give it a little time before we can render the judgment that all three of these

things are of chinese province. there have been things like this floating around before, but now because they are focused on it they are shooting things down. host: on the republican line, peter is calling from new york. caller: we are getting caught up in this balloon issue which is a minor thing. the big question is, the threat chinese -- china is to the united states. the united states and european countries have invested trends of dollars in china and if anybody believes that the chinese people are not going to build up their military and want to achieve world dominance is simply a full. -- fool. we are investing billions and billions of dollars every year in china.

i cocos very was on -- michael pills very -- michael pillsbury was on the show and it is believed that if we helped china develop that somehow they would become more democratic. the truth is, and michael pillsbury will tell you, that was a false, and it turns out we are becoming more like china than china is becoming more like us. we cannot invest money in china and the chinese will not allow an american company to have full ownership of any business in china, they can come here and invest in a business in the united states and have 100% control. this is ridiculous. we feed the lion and say we are afraid the line is going to eat us. let's stop talking about the

balloon and start talking about what the real threats are that we need to decouple with china and not allow more bad -- businesses to go over them and empower them and weaken this country. host: what is your response? guest: the pentagon, which i cover, shiny -- china is considered a threat. russia is what they call an acute threat, a big problem now but not so sure it will be so in 10 or 20 years. they may be wrong about the latter. as far as china is concerned, they are building up in substantial ways, including nuclear. they have a modest clear deterrent of 400 warheads according to the pentagon. the u.s. has many more than that and is superior in many ways. one of the concerns is an the 20

30's, the u.s. will face not only russia, which has long-range nuclear weapons capability similar to the united states but china and a longer has merely 400 nuclear warheads but may have triple that. some significant number that could reach the united states. it means there will be a very cockaded strategic arena where arms controllers will be challenged because all of our arms control expense with -- is with russia and not with china. host: i want to ask you related on that, you had exclusive reporting in the "washington journal about the icbm launchers and the lead lays it all out, the u.s. military has notified congress that china now has more

land-based intercontinental missile launchers than the u.s. how should washington respond to the buildup? can you tell us more about that reporting and what has been the response that china now has more icbm launchers than the u.s.? guest: this comes from the u.s. strategic command and general kotten is the new commander and he sent a letter to congress that it is important to put it in context. what he said was the chinese now have more icbm punchers, including empty silos as i understand it, but -- launchers, including empty silos as i understand it, but the u.s. has more warheads on the icbms.

china is not nearly as capable force as the united states. reason this is significant is they are making an effort to catch up and as part of this longer-term effort to try to be a much more substantial ways, they are building three silo fields in china, sub -- some substantial portion has been completed. the silos are awaiting missiles. that was the significance of the letter to congress. it was saying china is on a course to have 400 warheads now and have 1000 by 2030, many directed at the u.s.. the pentagon speculated they may have more.

they are building launchers and silos and proceeding with this program. they are not there yet but headed in that direction. the debate in congress is, does that mean we need more weapons to conquer russia and china and if we build more weapons, aren't they going to just build more weapons? then we will be in an endless spiraling arms race. that is what the speculation is all about. host: jim in florida on the democratic line, what is your question or comment? caller: the comments and questions i have is that i understand there are american-made objects on the balloon and that american-made objects should be easily detected. what can they do with american companies that had some connection with the chinese?

is it espionage or something else? what objects were on the balloon and what can they do about it? guest: i don't know if there were american-made objects on the balloon myself. the u.s. is trying to crack down on products to china, including the chips. china is now helping russia and have righted lethal weapons and are aligned with -- have provided these weapons and are aligned with russia. what the state department has said is there will be sanctions against companies with concerns with the involvement of the balloon conglomeration.

the u.s. is involved in an effort to crack down on technology diversion to china but that as historically been a huge problem. host: we are with michael gordon. we are able to take more calls. republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, an independents (202) 748-8002. the question we received on twitter says why do u.s. corporations continue giving china so much business if high-ranking officials leave we might be at war with china in 2025? i know you talked about the war issue, but can you talk what the business in trade relationship

with china? china is a major trading partner in this enormous u.s. commerce. with china, i don't have my iphone in the studio, but i'm sure it was made in china on at least components. the kind of bargain has been struck up until now has been american consumers at things cheaper than they would if that were made in the united states. the downside of that is it is not good for jobs in the united states and in certain areas it makes us dependent on supply chains from china. you have a tense relationship with a country on whom you have some great of economic

dependence. that is a big issue to unravel. no one wants to go to war with china. everything should be done to deter war with china. it would be horrible if there was a war over taiwan. it would be good if taiwan maintained its independent status and china was deterred from military action. we do need to trade with them, and there is some benefit in that, but the supply chain issue is a very serious one because you don't want to become dependent on a country that may become a full-fledged antagonist. it is something that all of american society in a sense is a part of. you look at your clothes or consumer-electronics, where do you think that comes from? a lot of it comes from china.

host: made in china, right. joe is in brockville, illinois on the independent line. caller: in light of -- well, when ukraine gave up their nukes , i guess we agreed to stick up for them, but i guess the deal with russia fell through. what kind of treaties are there for biological weapons? when i see a balloon floating across the continental united states, what are the possibilities of using that rather than risking poisoning the whole planet with nuclear fallout, a biological weapon would be advantageous to the chinese, because, i mean, the mutual assured destruction strategy of the past doesn't

seem to be working with china, especially now they have coupled with russia. i just have to say in final that decoupling with china is the only path forward. announced it right away and that would be the leverage to use over the chinese people and xi in particular. the threat of decoupling would go further towards the planetary peace than anything we are doing right now. if we wait for them to fill those silos, it is all over. i am old, and to me personally it doesn't matter, but what about our kids, grandchildren

and great grandchildren? is this the future they have to look forward to? host: let's let michael respond. guest: there are more efficient ways to deliver biological weapons by an adversary and a conspicuous large balloon at 65,000 feet. just look at the country, you can wring virtually anything into this country. biological weapons is a concern, but i wouldn't think that is the most efficient way of doing it. on ukraine, there was an agreement where ukraine languishes nuclear weapons and they were giving cash given something called surgeons -- something called assurances. if there is an end to that

conflict, there'll have to be something more than assurances, less than security guarantees they would get as a member of nato which they are unlikely to become. unfortunately, negotiation seemed far away at this point. host: the caller mentioned decoupling. i know we talked about how much the u.s. relies on chinese goods and materials. is there anything you think could come from this talk about decoupling from china? guest: i'm not an expert economist, but i think a full-fledged decoupling is unrealistic given the interdependence between the two countries and it is not necessarily bad to have trade with a country, yes, we are potential adversaries now, but do we always have to be potential adversaries?

forever is a long time. maybe they can look at russia, right now it is a big problem. under yeltsin, we were dealing much more effectively. maybe after putin and those around him are gone they may be easier to deal with. it is hard to say. full decoupling is not practical, what you want to do is make sure you're not dependent for pharmaceuticals or critical minerals or key items, chips, key items you need to keep our society running. you don't want to be dependent on them or on other countries that might be caught up in a conflict if you can help it. i think that is a big part of it. you want to make sure they are not benefiting from our

technology and just go furring things that -- pilfering things we developed and incorporating that into their own operation. it is a huge challenge. i think full-fledged decoupling is neither desirable nor likely. host: paul is on the line. caller: one think i want to explain that the wall street journal several years ago wrote men with ak-47s taking out a transformer in the midwest that would take up hundreds of thousands of homes. then you reported that if they had taken out to specific transformers they could have taken of the entire united states.

that is the way to do business if you want to take out a country. every military man would agree with that. an emp with be more effective. when you take the people out, we bury bodies and as they move in they take assets and it is easy. the russians learned that chernobyl was not the way to go because you took out 20,000 square miles which was unlivable for years and years. so those balloons, the big balloon was a two ton payload which was capable of bringing in a small nuclear suitcase device, low-grade. that is all you need at 60,000 feet. two or three of those would take out the electrical grid for the united states. so when you report and say they are only interested in doing

surveillance. i think you are wrong. i think this is a test and they are bringing balloons in and test the ones that will work. think about the smaller ones that would take a small suitcase . there are many ways to take out a country but you want the infrastructure. host: we appreciate that. michael, you have addressed the fact that you don't necessarily think the balloons are being used for biological weapons. this caller brought up attacks on the power grid. is that something that could be used for more likely an international attack or are we seeing the power grid attacks as more domestic terrorism? guest: power grid attacks in the country currently our domestic in origin. there is a theory in some

circles there could be an electromagnetic pulse and they can generate it and fry our electronics and this is not a new theory and goes back some years. what doesn't make much sense to me is why a country would do this in the most conspicuous way possible, a big balloon you monitor four days where you know where it comes from and we know who did it, when there are much sneakier ways of going about something like that. plus for the 80 plus billion dollars we spend on intelligence, they are all over this balloon and i have heard on say it was an emp or a weapon of any kind. it is a spy balloon with a self-destruct mechanism, probably, that for some reason didn't, at least at think it could have a self-destruct mechanism. the chinese seem to think the

high altitude area is an area they can move around in and operate in and gather intelligence on to support other intelligence they are getting from satellites and the low-earth orbit satellites and other means. that is the u.s. government assessment. the pentagon has said they didn't see this as a threat but as a spy system. when they pull up all of the pieces and take them to quantico, we will see what they will conclude but i think that is what they will validate. caller: on the democratic line, joe from utah is on the line. caller: i am wondering if they are right about china getting a base on the moon first. host: china on the moon? guest: they have a very active space program.

they are big in space and it is certainly plausible. they have 1.3 billion people and they have scientists and space capabilities and they are putting a lot of priority in and they have their own programs and if there was to be a conflict, they would have their own programs and they would be trying to deny us the use of space. some years ago when i was with the new york times, they had blown up a satellite in space and i wrote about it and have the capability to attack our satellites which is also a concern. have to assume if there was a major war with china, and let's hope there isn't, you have to assume it would spread to space and involve attacks either at the pentagon likes to say is connecticut, shooting something down with a missile or jamming

at reconnaissance satellites and medication satellites and the like, with the aim of making it harder for us to command and control our own cyst in the pacific. that is a very -- our own forces in the pacific. host: massachusetts, independent line. caller: don't you think this is a call to action for the department of defense and all of the wasted projects over the past 20 years? let's start first with these basic force, which was basically a subset of the air force. now the new york times has an article about the ships in addition to the f-35 which is $1.7 trillion waste of money and it seems like the other

countries are using their money much more efficiently while we are wasting money. another one is the destroyer naval ship. we wasted trains of dollars. thank you. guest: before we assume we are doing everything wrong and everyone else is doing it right, you can look at the russian performance in ukraine and go back a couple of years and people were talking about -- i used to live in russia, about how their military has improved. they certainly haven't executed that operation very well. even china, and invasion of taiwan would be a real stretch for them. they don't have the capability for the attack at this time and it would be a stretch for them to get there.

it is certainly close to them. a lot of complex military operations would be complicated for all sides. you make a good point. i have been -- has been waste in the u.s. we have poured billions of dollars into weapons systems that don't seem optimal for the current strategic environment. but the pentagon is involved in hasn't been fully reported, even though they are totally open about it, is a massive transformation of capabilities and doctrine and strategy to deter china more effectively and aiming for the 20 30's to deploy new capabilities and strategies, new command and control systems. it should be important that money be spent effectively and not wasted. one thing the balloon shows is there is a way to go in terms of

continental air defense and all these people who have said it was treated as a lesser priority, but now if you can't detect balloons flying over your territory and you are not aware of them for years until the intelligence community comes to norad and says you have been missing something, there will be at least a political requirement. this past week in congress in the hearings, lawmakers of both parties made it clear they expect the pentagon to come up with a better radar system or network to protect against these threats. it is not just an american problem, but a canadian problem. they also have to be prepared to spend the money to fill those gaps. host: we are going to take one more quick call. this in south carolina, what is

your question or comment? caller: i have a chinese acquaintance who has told us that was only a weather balloon and also that the americans at some point released some type of craft close to china that was blown up. you know anything about that? guest: the chinese line has been it is a weather balloon. that is their explanation. i think it is implausible in the american government says even the sensors they are recovering, that it was a spy balloon. that is the chinese explanation. the u.s. does reconnaissance flights in international airspace of the coast of china. there was an episode in december where an air force plane, a

chinese jet intercepted it and came within 20 feet of it. it was regarded as a close call. there was no direct confrontation. secretary austin tried to call his chinese counterpart and establish dialogue, but the chinese did not take the call. he tried to call him after the donning of the balloon -- after the downing of the balloon and they didn't take the call. there was an accident where a reconnaissance plane and the chinese jet collided. we eventually got it back in pieces and the crew was allowed to leave. the difference is, the u.s. were constance flights were done in what we consider to be international airspace off the coast of china, not in their airspace over the heartland here that is what they did with this balloon. host: thank you so much michael jordan, national security correspondent from the wall

street journal. that is going to do it for "washington journal" today we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]