♪ host: good morning.

it is monday, april 3, 2023. the house and senate will meet in brief pro forma sessions today. the next full session will be april 17. we begin with a question about the rule of law in america. in the wake of former president donald trump's indictment, that has been plenty of discussion about what does or does not constitute the rule of law, so we are asking you. let us know your definition of that term and tell us, are you confident in the rule of law in america today. if you say yes, you are confident in the rule of law, (202) 748-8000 is the number. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002. you can also send as a text, that number (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. otherwise, catch up with us on social media, on twitter, @cspanwj, on facebook, facebook.com/cspan.

good monday morning. you can go ahead and start calling in now as we show you some of the headlines in recent days about this term, the topic, rule of law, starting with the washington examiner that the day after the news of donald trump's indictment came out. the headline, a bad day for donald trump and the rule of law . an opinion piece saying that, by indicting donald trump, alvin bragg restores our faith in the rule of law. the spokesman review out of spokane, washington, donald trump indictment deemed political by republicans, democrats cite the rule of law. international paper is getting involved as well, this is "the globe and mail," donald trump indictment is a triumph for the rule of law and u.s. democracy. it is not just the news organizations talking about the rule of law. members of congress tweeting about the rule of law as well.

here are two high-profile ones from the minority leader, hakeem jeffries. the preeminence of the rule of law is integral to the democracy, he wrote. it must be applied equally without fear or favor. the indictment of a former president is a serious moment for the nation. a jury of donald trump spears will now decide his -- ppers will now decide -- peers when i decide is fate. -- the indictment of trump is a moment in the death of the rule of law. our founders are weeping. law is supposed to be fair regardless of political party, it is not used -- it is not supposed to be used to attack political enemies. we are asking you are you confident in the rule of law in this country today? if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, it is (202) 748-8001.

if you're unsure, that is ok as well --(202) 748-8002. we want to get right to the phones in this conversation. up first come out of huntington beach, california, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: doing well. your thoughts on, how you define it, are you confident in it now? caller: when you say "rule of law," what exactly are you saying? host: so here is the definition from uscourts.gov, the homepage of the judiciary branch. they say the rule of law is a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, independently adjudicated, and consistent with international human rights principles. that is from the judicial branch. that is the definition on their homepage of the rule of law.

do you agree with that finish in, and are you confident that that is happening in our country today? caller: i will have to think about that again. i am sorry. [laughter] host: that is ok, it is a call-in show. caller: i enjoy your show. host: if you want to call back in, we will get you on so you can actually discuss that. that is what we want you to do. we do not want you to lose your one-month phone call for that, not being able to answer right away. this is rob in new york. are you confident in in this country? caller: good morning. not so much, since they are going after trump, and hunter biden, and all the rest of the biden crime family is running free. so i do not put a lot of faith in what is going on right now. as far as c-span goes, why are you guys picking the subjects every morning that do not mean

a hell of a lot to anybody? you should get the people on there, the 51 intelligence officials who said hunter's laptops are -- you guys are publicly supported. if you want to continue to be publicly supported, i suggest you talk to both sides on the issue, not just bash trump 24/7. host: that is what we tried to do every morning, here both sides and give you a forum. this morning,, whether it is happening, whether it is not happening. a lot of that discussion played out on the sunday shows. this from fox news sunday, senator bill cassidy, republican of louisiana, talking about the indictment of president trump. [video clip] >> no one should be above the law, but no one should be a target of the law. as bill barr has said, this is less about the crime and more about the target.

so it has to play out. this is kind of set in motion. on the other hand, what i think is a particular problem is it will lead to all kinds of political theater, theater that is going to distract from addressing the issues that are incredibly important to our country right now the are not about this one person or about someone running for reelection as ba in new york, but rather about the future of our country, whether it is social security, inflation, crime on the streets. unfortunately, the theater will distract from that discussion. host: senator bill cassidy there, republican from louisiana , on fox news sunday yesterday. democrat adam schiff of california was on nbc's inside with jen psaki. he was talking about speaker mccarthy's response to the trump indictment. caller: i think what is motivating him is he senses the base of the republican party is still with donald trump, so therefore he will still be with

donald trump. he is doing what he and jim jordan and others did during the impeachment proceedings, and that is act as a surrogate criminal defense team for donald trump, run interference for him, in this case tried to interfere with the manhattan district attorney prosecution. that, of course, is not the role of congress. what he should be doing as speaker is uplifting the justice system, saying that the jury decide, leather prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. if it can, refrain from violence. this is what any responsible speaker would say. sadly, under donald trump, the republican party in congress has become this cult around his personality, shredding any devotion it is hard to. host: ending his comment with that term, once again,. we are asking you, how do you define that, and do you think that is happening in our country today? if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001.

if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002. joseph, fredericksburg, virginia , that line for those who say they are unsure. caller: thank you. you know, the same controversy occurred when jack was indicted for the harsh payments were made when he had the dalliance in massachusetts -- excuse me, i am wrong. old man kennedy spread the cash around so that did not happen. i humbly apologize for that. the same thing occurred, although people were upset when bill clinton had the dalliances he had in arkansas. excuse me, i apologize again. that did not happen. jon, if half -- half the congress people would be indicted if they had the payoffs. there is the rule of law, but there is a prosecutorial discretion.

notice that the last new york city prosecutor, i cannot member his exact name is, he did not do this, because he knew it did not make any sense. yes, there is a rule of law, but there is prosecutorial discretion. you do not get pulled over for doing one mile over the speed limit. you get pulled over if you do 10 miles over the speed limit, etc. there is some prosecutorial judgment not being applied here. host: joseph, got your point. i wonder if you may agree with jason willett today in the washington post. this is how he begins his column -- aggressors who can barely contain their glee at donald trump's criminal indictment for something -- finally trying to camouflage this vindictiveness with gravitas by uttering a somber incantation, "no one is

above the law." this slogan attempts to justify the grand jury indictment by appealing to americans' federal appreciation for equality in the eyes of law. the ploy is not as ingenious as promoters. the slogan can be used to justify any prosecution, no matter how poorly predicated, selective, or malicious. aside from -- outside of making war, the ability to incarcerate sensation -- citizens is the rawest ability -- you must think someone is above the law. the argument, he writes, has no clear limits. we will read more from him -- -- this is nelson, upper muldrow, maryland -- upper marlboro, maryland. caller: good morning. i will say it, i am very confident in the rule of law.

as jason said, nobody is above the law. for so many years, republicans have told us america is a country of law, immigrants have to abide by the law. now we have a president who is being indicted, and they turned a 360 turn. no, it should be prosecutorial discretion. that is all malarkey. he is a citizen like anybody else. if you committed any crime, misdemeanor, felony, he should be accountable for it. host: stanley out of new york, that line for those unsure about the rule of law in america today. go ahead. go ahead, i can hear you. caller: ok. i believe in the rule of law, but the question is, with the supreme court today, with this kind of a case, what i would

like to run by my fellow americans, if this were to be joe biden, for an example, the democrat party has been pushing so hard in the left wing news media to browbeat donald trump. and i thought about this, and i said, wait a second. if this is the other way around, what would it be like in this country? totally quiet. what is it that they are afraid of? when they say there is no one above the law, outside of murder, that office is above the law. it is not matter what person it is, joe biden or donald trump or anyone in the future. are we going to drive the level of this country down to a banana republic? host: joanne, south carolina,

what makes you confident about in america today? caller: i believe in the rule of law. i believe no one is above the law. i am hopeful it is being applied fairly in our country today. i do not think it has always been applied fairly, but i am hopeful that it will be, and that is all i have to say about the rule of law. because i am not going to comment on the indictment until i know all the facts of that case. host: that is joanne in south carolina. one more definition of the rule of law come another place you may want to go to look it up, the american bar association. the rule of law is a set of printable or ideals for ensuring an orderly and just society. many countries throughout the world strive to uphold the rule of law where no one is above the law, everyone is treated equally under the law, everyone is held accountable to the same laws,

and there are clear and fair processes for enforcing laws. there is an independent judiciary, and human rights are guaranteed for all. we are asking you your definition of the rule of law, is it happening in america today? deborah in south bend, indiana, good morning. caller: good morning. it is hard to say yes, and it is hard to say no, because this indictment of donald trump, it is going to challenge the -- politicians when they signed into law. they are above the law. now since they want to indict donald trump, that means that we, the people, can finally get rid of the immunity clause.

we have been trying to get rid of the immunity clause for the politicians -- host: so you are saying you think all politicians are above the law or presidents? politicians in general? caller: politicians, judges, lawyers -- congress passed an immunity clause, where they cannot be held accountable for anything, any harm they have caused. now this, here, will correct that. host: this is jan, west hills, california. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span. i want to say i am definitely confident in the rule of law. in regards to what the other gentleman said earlier, the reason cyrus vance did not continue on with -- hello? host: i am listening. go ahead. caller: the reason cyrus vance

did not continue on with the prosecution of donald trump was because bill barr and donald trump told him to stop. and besides, it is the exact same charge about michael cohen was charged for, by donald trump and bill barr. so i definitely believe in the rule of law, and i am glad donald trump has been indicted. host: laura is next out of hampton, georgia, unsure about the rule of law in this country. why? caller: i am unsure about the rule of law because it depends on how much money you have, what is your status here in america. based on what i've seen throughout my life, people with money, it applies to them. now when 5 black and brown guys, the central park 5, donald trump put an ad out, saying the

death penalty. and those guys were innocent. so it depends. how much money you have. thank you. host: turning back to the "globe and mail" column out of canada, this is part of what he writes in the column that came over the weekend. to back down from a fair and rigorous application of the law in the case of mr. trump, despite the possibility of backlash and violence, would it take another step down the path of corruption, it has already well trodden in countries such as brazil, but also in the u.s. itself. he points out to december of 1974. president gerald ford pardoned his predecessor for any crimes related to the watergate scandal. in his remarks, mr. ford noted my primary concern must be all the people of the united states

whose servant i am. the utilitarian calculation of the moment, implicit and exquisite in those remarks, was that allowing proceedings against mr. nixon prolong america's long national nightmare. while the pardon was legal, is that a dangerous president, further politicizing justice beyond its boundaries and confirming in so many minds that -- and the likely refusal of joe biden to refuse to pardon donald trump will be a step back in the right direction. that column appearing in the canadian paper. ernie in chicago, illinois, you are next. caller: my name is vernie. host: go ahead, vernie. what do you think? caller: that is the problem with the law, as far as i am experiencing.

contradiction in the fifth amendment. there is a law that's violating the constitution, the for the moment, violating the fifth amendment. there are laws violating the amendment, and -- i do not have any lawyers who want to help me out, but they do not want to remove or interfere with the party that has the law in the law books. host: this is jessy, rosedale, maryland, asking are you confident in the rule of law in the united states? are you there? caller: hello? host: good morning. turn down your tv and talk to your phone. caller: --

understanding the rule of law -- host: alright, remember to turn down your tv and speak through your phone, otherwise it is a lot harder to understand this is new jersey, mickey. good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning kid i would like to say i am saying a prayer for donald trump this morning. i am saying a prayer for his safety, because if anything happened to him today, this country could explode. my fear is that some of the global elites, that is exactly what they would like to see. host: mickey in new jersey. rich in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to think i believe in the rule of law. however, i do not think we are seeing an equal application of the law. i do not want to get philosophical, but i like to think american citizens take the rule of law seriously.

i do believe that. but seeing what is going on in the court system these days, it is hard to have faith in it. you listening? host: what is the last time you had faith in the court system? [laughter] and i am happy for you to get philosophical. that is fine here, too. caller: 27 years of -- and more in boston, one of the biggest police departments in america. i lost faith in the criminal justice system seeing how decisions were made. and i worked hand-in-hand with the enactment district attorney's office, through cy vance. i never worked with alvin bragg. but to see how they pick and choose when to go to trial, the standards they have, it is hard to have faith. host: so you talk about standards to you. one other viewer was talking about the prosecutorial

discretion, and that is where the unfairness of the system is shown. would you agree? caller: correct. yes. you have prosecutors that go in there, and things are dismissed or dismissed at arraignment or a motion hearing before it actually gets to a judge and anyone speaks on what actually occurred and what is going on. this is what occurred, this is what the law enforcement side did, this is what the alleged that guided -- let a judge make the decision on the rule of law. prosecutors come in and look and say i do not think i can win this case, i do not want to take the loss, i will dismiss it. i do not want to lose a trial, or i will plead this down to such a sweetheart deal that i will take the win, but it will be far less than the crime that was committed. host: where you nypd? caller: yes, sir, 27 years.

host: and in that time, how many trials did you attend of incidents that you investigated or were involved in? caller: i testified in over 125 trials. host: in those 125, do you think the rule of law was served? caller: the fear of the law was served. like, everyone acting in good faith. again, it goes to discretionary things on the prosecutors. you have victims of crimes, and victims are the ones that lose. prosecutors do not want to -- and it understandable page you have children who are victims of crimes, and you maybe do not want to put them on the stand to recount the horrific things that happened to them. however, you cannot cut somebody

a deal and release them in to society in a short amount of time before they get rehabilitated. it is things like that, where prosecutors look at it and say -- listen, i've had prosecutors admit to me that they are afraid of this defense attorney, he will tear me up, i will make a deal. that is 100% true. i've had a prosecutors say that to me. host: is that what the rule of law is supposed to serve, that somebody who is a shark in the courtroom can do better? caller: no. there should be no theatrics. it should be entirely facts. the prosecution goes in, this is the case we have this is what my witnesses are telling me. you are innocent when you walk in that courtroom. we ring in the innocent -- the witnesses, the victims. the theatrics need to come out of it. and if you want to bring this

back to trap, it is a political show. let's say the facts of this case. i do not know what the facts are yet because we have not seen the indictment, but let the judge look at the line say -- at the law and say this procedurally was done correct, and this observation was correct, and this was within the guidelines of the law. and that the defendant was treated fairly in the arrest process and during the accusatory part of it, the arraignment, the motion hearings, and on to trial. we have gone to theater in the courtroom. courtroom is a creator now. it is no longer a trial of fact. look what a prosecutor earns. what quality of attorney do you think that you are getting?

that is another portion of this. you are not getting a kid coming out of one of the best law schools in the country, coming to work for a district attorney's office and not being able to pay his bills. host: that's rich out of new york. appreciate the call. you mentioned the arraignment process. that is what is next. former president trump expected to be in new york this evening, expected to be arraigned in a manhattan court on tuesday. "usa today" walking through what happens in the arraignment process. the arraignment is when the formal charges against the accused are read by the judge. the preceding is the first time that the accused appears before a judge and is told about the specific charges. the judge identifies the defendant by name, reads the official charges. the accused is asked how they wish to plead and are told about their right to a lawyer. the judge will determine if bail

is required, or the judge can decide to set no bail, and the story going on from there, talking about the various steps. the question, do you go to jail after arraignment? there is a potential to go to jail after arraignment. the judge decides if bail is set. if the defendant cannot eat, they will likely be confined to jail while awaiting trial. usa today walking through the steps of the arraignment process. back to your calls, coming up on 7:30, halfway through this first segment of the "washington journal," and we are simply asking about this idea, the rule of law in america. are you confident that the rule of law is happening in this country? if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002. this is mike, baltimore, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing? i am leaving the rule of law and

everything that applies it -- i feel sorry for trump. he never should have ran for president. we did this to ourselves. when you let a person who has a shady background and has done things that are not constitutionally legal before he was president, what would you expect? that the rule of law is going to kick in -- i do not care if you are a janitor or a job at a government facility, you are investigated. he knew at some point, or somebody in his circle new, at some point, the day he was elected, everything he has ever done was going to come to light. i do not understand what everybody's upset about. this -- january 6, to me, was in motion the day he was elected.

all the stuff he has done in the 1980's and real estate deals, the taxes. this was bound to happen. i feel sorry for him, because he got into a game that put the spotlight on his life. that is all i would like to say. and thank you, c-span. yes, i believe in the rule of law. and everything that is happening is supposed to happen. host: this is tom in tennessee. good morning. caller: hello, can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: i'm unsure about the rule of law. i think johnny cochran said it best. you are innocent until proven broke. look at all the laws they are not enforcing the laws they constantly write. host: i am listening. the calls that constantly write. caller: this is a law that just

wrote up, but they change it every time they do something. they will take peoples social security and medicare away from them. i cannot hear you talking. host: i am just this thing to you. appreciate the call. this is bill in maine. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i am doing well. go ahead. caller: i definitely believe the rule of law. i will say, years ago, i believed in it quite a bit. but over the past five or six years, given the riots and the people going in the stores and rummaging through them and stealing people's property and not allowing owners to protect themselves, etc. and so forth -- to me, this is not just about this little thing over donald trump and all that crap. it's far bigger than that.

when politicians and people and communities stop enforcing the law equally for everybody -- tha t includes people breaking into stores, rioting and throwing stuff at several buildings -- what we have is anarchy. and we are not far from it. have a good day. host: before you go, what do you say to the people who say, look, a president can be held accountable as well, former president can be held accountable, that this proves there is equal justice under the law? what do you say to those folks? caller: i say to them, let's look back -- was he sitting in the white house at the time, getting a blowjob from a girl? who knows? host: maria is next. caller: i'm in california. i am mexican. i came to the united states in

the 1970's, and all the gas prices and that, and the rule of law was terrible than. the rule of law is terrible now. it is very selective. going after trump is totally political. with the rule of law, which is the biggest weapon that the united states has against its people. i am not a citizen, so i really do not have an opinion, but i listen to you americans talk a lot and the way you do things -- my husband is american, and i have american kids, and they are soldiers -- it is so scary, but it is also uplifting. because i think that, like the previous caller said, it is like opening up a door. with trump, it is first this, first that, first everything. but i think, with him being a

citizen and one of us, just a civilian, it will open up the door for other politicians, like the biden empire, to actually be looked at. and now, the people will not be able to riot about it, because look what they put our president through, look what they put trump through for four years plus, plus, plus. and now, when it happens to them, they can't do anything about it, because it's the rule of law. it is so sad, what they are doing to this country. it is so, so sad. host: canada ask you, stepping away from donald trump and the presidency, your thoughts on the rule of law and how it applies to citizens, particularly as somebody who was not a citizen of this country, and you have been here since the 1970's, how it applies to noncitizens living in this country? caller: it is tough. it is tough.

i experienced the rule of law. and it's tough, because at the time, when you do not have a green card, you are like, they are going to deport me. but protections, god, whatever kept me in this country. but just to see what is happening with the way certain people are prosecuted, certain people aren't -- i see the rule of law changing here in california. i've a 25-year-old, 26-year-old who still lives at home, and the things he gets into and just comes home from jail -- it is like, dude, if that was us, i would still be in jail trying to say wait, i am innocent, because you are guilty until proven innocent. it is so crazy. it is very selective. it is like the other lady said, the rich can afford it. people who end up in jail who

should stay in jail, but the wallets and the way, they make ale and get out, and you are like, why are you out? host: appreciate the call. jimmy is in baltimore, maryland, waiting to chat. go ahead. caller: i'm unsure, and the reason is i think, at times, the rule of law does work, at times it doesn't. it really seems to revolve around -- and several people have said this before me -- it's the rich, the well-connected, and the powerful opposed to the poor and people like that. the rule of law is vastly different. there are thousands of people that are in jail because they plea-bargained, even though they were maybe innocent, and the prosecutors did that just to ke

ep their record up. on the other hand, within the groups, within the poor, there may be a common rule of law that's equal. and with the rich, there's a common rule of law that is equal , but if you compare between the rich and the poor, it is vastly different. host: thanks for the call. bruce in florida, your thoughts on the rule of law in this country? caller: my thoughts on law in this country is it does not really much exist for the rich and powerful. case in point, if a group were to have done -- certain groups were to have done what president did on january 6, they would have all been arrested.

and we have had nothing from that. it was just, oh, it was a misunderstanding, it was this or that. host: have you been following the prosecutions, encore prosecutions of the january 6, the riots going down down the streets -- it is one of the biggest efforts in history for the department of justice. caller: yes. what is going to include in those -- is ex-president trump going to be indicted for anything? no. and he was the ringleader. it just makes me think that, when you get to that point, and you are carrying that many chips around with you, you can pay off

whatever debt that they think you have. they just do not seem -- it does not seem to be a big deal. everybody explains it away, but the words around the, they are burnt into the fabric of america. to me, there's no rule of law. host: that is what we are talking about, the rule of law in this first hour of the "washington journal." it's (202) 748-8000 if you say you're confident in the rule of law in this country. (202) 748-8001 if you say no. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002. back to the discussion from the sunday shows yesterday, this is congressman mike turner, they chairman of the intelligence committee, the republican chairman, saying on "state of the union," talking about the indictment against donald trump. [video clip] >> our laws should not be bent

to target someone. if he really is unfortunate you are seeing the numbers of the people on the left and op-eds, even ones that have appeared on cnn's website, celebrating that there present is being charged and listing a long list of grievances that have nothing to do with this case that involve circumstances well before he was president. i think, really, we ought to all let the criminal process play out. i do think this is a politically motivated. certainly the senators was saying, when this comes out and we finally get to see what is happening, if this is politically motivated, this will be a shame on our criminal justice system. it is one thing when you have a cancel culture, it is another we have eight cancel criminal justice system. i certainly hope we are not turning to that. host: that is from cnn yesterday, "state of the union" on the sunday shows, asking you are you confident in the rule of law in this country?

earl, washington state. good morning, your next. caller: hey. it is crazy to listen to people, a mexican woman call in, with the children that are separated at the border that they still cannot find. she calls in and defends this guy. there was a biography program on all day yesterday that talked about the really terrible life that this guy has lived. for him to finally get a parking ticket, basically, and go up on charges for, it is like a mass murderer. he's rotten, a rotten person. host: -- you're next. caller: good morning, c-span.

first of all, we do not have a rule of law. what we have in america now is a left-wing, fascist country. why do i say that? linda fascists take over the country, the first thing they take over is the news media. 90% of them use -- of the news media in this country is radical left. on top of that, every newspaper, according to a report by the new york post, every newspaper in america, with the exception of two newspapers, endorsed biden. you know how that works. you are a journalist. the newspapers start, and then the talking heads on the totally corrupt news media, they just repeat what the new york times, the washington post has to say. this country, now, is already gone. i do not even know if donald trump can bring it back, if

anybody can bring the country back and stop the corruption. the fbi, the cia, especially the news media that is really just a propaganda machine -- host: how do you feel about the washington times? do you ever read it? caller: i beg your pardon? host: how do you feel about the washington times newspaper? caller: the washington heights newspaper? host: the washington times here in washington, d.c. i know you are in new york city. but do you ever read the washington times? caller: yes, i do not read it, but i know it is a conservative paper. but fox news, the other conservative stations, and that one newspaper, may some local newspapers, tell the truth. the rest of the news media -- look, january 6 was a hit job. that is all it was. every person who testified was anti-trump. he did not have one defender.

on top of that, when jim jordan tried to put his people on, the left-wing fascist running the house at that time -- what is her name, i forget her name -- but she pulled them out and put in her own haze trump phonies. host: that's pat out of new york city. this is the washington times today, their lead editorial, shattering norms the headline. they write the left's pursuit of donald trump has an unrelenting. they continue to shatter norms, hoping donald trump never returns to power. mr. trump was the first president to be impeached twice. his presidential campaign was the first to be wiretapped by the department of justice. he was the first president to be banned from private -- social media. he was the first private person

that congress decided it was ok to release his tax returns. now he is the first ex-president to be indicted on charges many of his critics agree are flimsy. this is shirley, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. i have to applaud you for keeping a poker face when these people call in with the derogatory, vulgar terms they use. my grandchildren, great grandchildren listen to c-span. i have to applaud you. host: what do you believe about the rule of law? caller: i believe in the rule of law. i'm a black female, a democrat, and i still believe in the rule of law. i have hope there is more good in these court systems than bad. just because it is donald trump, a lot of people are all up in the air about it. but an ordinary citizen can be

done completely wrong, and not one person will speak up for them. i still believe that the court systems work. and thank you for your program. host: watertown, tennessee. al, good morning. you are next. caller: thanks for taking my call. the lady that was just on believes in the court system. let me tell you about the court system. the reason they are in that new york city court is because that is where you can get trump. that is why you go to d.c. courts to get people that were there january 6. the bigger picture is this is just like the soviet union. you have this tremendous volume of laws, so we are all lawbreakers. we cannot abide by all the thousands of laws. so show me the man, i will show you the crime here that is exactly what we have got now. it is selective enforcement. the bidens and clintons walk free.

and the people who are not part of the administration of state get hammered. host: what are some laws we should do away with? you talk about all the laws out there and we cannot not be a lawbreaker. what should we do away with? caller: i will tell you right now, the irs code is tens of thousands of pages. why is that? because the irs -- the tax code is used to reward political cronies. so if you had a one page of a 1040, and you couldn't repay your campaign donors, so that is where you can start right there, with the tax code. the epa, same thing. the laws of the environment. these are typically bureaucratic regulations that have the effect of law. there is plenty to be done. host: thanks for the call. this is steve, baltimore, maryland. good morning, your next. caller: good morning.

america is still trying to become a more perfect union. harvey weinstein, jeffrey epstein -- of were billionaires who ran afoul of the law. the founding fathers made this government so that there would be checks and balances on each segment of power. that includes the president. so now that is not working toward their favorite, republicans want to sort of get rid of that. i remember that richard nixon committed a crime at watergate. richard nixon should have been prosecuted. but because of a political interference of gerald ford, he wasn't. one more thing is, if joe biden were facing the charges that donald trump will soon be facing, believe me, though she would be on the other foot, and

republicans will be saying, we have to prosecute joe biden. thank you very much. host: that is steve in baltimore, maryland. about time is left in this verse segment of the "washington journal." a lively discussion on our social media pages k let me read a few of the comments -- are you confident in rule of law in this country? patrick saying faith in the rule of law. four trump i will not pass judgment of the jury does. politics dominate justice. i remember the words of john adams -- facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they can alter the state of facts and evidence. --not spending as much on hunter biden, trump, its enforcement, and that fairlessness. this one saying every single

republican says no one is above the rule of law is followed by "but." what will be your argument when he does shoot somebody on for the avenue? and jeffrey says the law, yes, equal enforcement, no. just a few comments. facebook, twitter, instagram. you can have discussions on all of our social media platforms. or you can call in, like sean did out of new jersey on that line for those who say they are unsure in the rule of law in this country. why is that? caller: how are you doing k thanks for taking my call. pretty much what that gentleman said from tennessee to thunder. just putting much how it is enforced and who it is being enforced with. me, i am paying attention to the stock market, they do not

enforce the law at all. when they do, it is minor fines for how much they are stealing from our pension funds. it is pretty much the most corrupt thing i've ever seen. i just started paying attention to this stuff. it is kind of sad. i'm not sure what people are paying attention to. is there anything in the constitution that protects the people? can we restart a lot of this stuff? because it is pretty bad. host: for you, it is the equal enforcement that you do not see in the rule of law? caller: not even equal enforcement. just actually enforcing the law we actually have, not changing them. these hedge funds and these guys just breaks the law, and there is no enforcement. we saw what happened with bernie made off, the 1%, and that is when he got jumped up and put in jail and whatever the hell h appened to him.

it is in favor of whoever is making the most money. we see what is happening with the banks right now. the people are going to rebel. since 1776, the world has only had dictators, but now it seems it has seven or eight dictators, the people that control the money. they are not enforcing laws. host: got your point. from uscourts.gov, the website of the judicial branch, their explainer on this idea of rule of law. rule of law is a printable under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are public leap promulgated, equally enforced, independently adjudicated, and consistent with international human rights principles. their quick definition of the rule of law. we are asking if that is happening in our country today. ross in d.c., good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i do not think there is equal application of the law. kennedy let a woman drowned and did not even report it until the next morning, yet he was celebrated as the lion of the senate, and on and on. donald trump is the most persecuted man in the history of the white house. joe biden is the most corrupt man in the history of the white house. his son can lie on an application, nothing is done. his whole family has enriched themselves with shady deals, the selling out of america, and on and on and on. if you are connected -- nancy pelosi has made a fortune of insider trading of stocks. we all know this.

host: ruth is next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to know why is everybody talking like trump is not a crook? he's been a crook all of his life. he was scared when they announced he would be prosecuted. he thought he would go down then. he is the first so-called president that ever had putin in the white house without an interpreter. nobody knows what he was talking about then. he's a rat, and he will be in front of a judge. but our judge and jury is above us all, and that is god. he will go down in history as nothing. he's just a rotten rat that they are trying to protect. this is ra -- host:this is raymond. caller: good morning kate i cannot agree with the last caller -- i mean i agree with

the last caller is what i mean to say. this question should look at history. i would implore all republicans to look back in the 1920's. when theater roosevelt was going to pass a law with people going around and picking up black people and telling them they owe the money. then i will go to oklahoma, over 300 people killed, not one person arrested. i am a black man. i am 65 years old. 95% of the present population -- i mean 2% of the population, so justice is not distributed equally. the next christian --

the next question c-span should ask is do you believe is there such a thing as white privilege in this country? it was forged during the early years of this country's existence. until we had knowledge of the house of flavoring and everything that went on, that there is white privilege in this country, nothing will be understood. and i will last quote malcolm x. he said the chickens are coming home to roost. if donald trump is put back in the white house, he will launch a nuclear weapon. it will happen. it is in the future. thank you, america. god bless. and do the right thing and believe in god and be truthful to yourselves. thankful -- thank you. host: that is raymond. from the pew research service, taking a look at prison

populations in the united states are this is a couple years old at this point, from the end of 2019, but they note that, when it comes to the racial gap in the present publishing, blacks have long outnumbered whites in u.s. prisons, but the decline of black prisoners has narrowed that gap. at the end of 2017, federal prisons have about 475,900 prisoners who were lack over 165,000 -- 10 years earlier, there were -- that'different about 93,000. the decline in the black-white cap was -- gap was driven by a 20% decrease in the number of black inmates. the pew research center, please we often go to to try to get

statistics at hand. --a place we often go to try to get statistics at hand. a few more phone calls. caller: good morning. i believe in the rule of law, but i must say that the rule of law begins with the truth. and the truth, which really comes down on the right, starting from the foxnews. this stuff going on with fox and deming and needs to be covered more, i wish, by you guys. because the people that are listening to fox are listening to complete fibs, which is completely dividing our country. i also believe the republican gop, gop leaders need to step up, because otherwise we will never be together. it is always going to be a division now if the truth is not stated. so please, people -- i listen to

people on this show, and they talk about the washington examiner and breitbart and bannon and fox -- these guys are lying to you, and they are taking your money. trump is making more money than he ever made his entire life because he is coasting everybody. host: from the hill newspaper on the dominion lawsuit. the headline was from the end of last week. in case you missed it, a judge in delaware ordered a jury trial in deming and's voting systems walk faster law against fox news, setting the stage for one of the most consequential defamation decisions against an american media company in decades. lawyers face doctoring a two day hearing for a summary judgment with each side unsuccessfully arguing the court should rule in their favor and not go through a jury trial. this could further bring to light internal discussions at fox news network following the

2020 elections. that case now headed to trial, a $1.6 billion lawsuit. time for one more phone call, deborah, houston, texas. are you confident in the rule of law in this country? caller: good morning, and i am not confident. if you are rich and have money, you can get out of anything. i am a 58-year-old white woman. prisons were created to continues lavery. that is my opinion on all of that. host: that is deborah in texas, our last caller in the segment of the "washington journal." many more topics to talk about, including up next, we talk about the new estimates that are out about the physical condition of social security and medicare. george mason university's charles the chief economist will join us on the state of the economy.

the interest rate hike, stick around for that discussion. ♪ >> since january 6, 20 21, more than 1000 defendants have been arrested in nearly all 50 states and the district of columbia. those arrested have been charged with a lonlist of felonies and misdemeanors including assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees of the u.s. capitol. over 580 individuals have already pled guilty to a number of offenses. over 60 people have been found guilty at contested trials. a judge found defendants guilty of both felonies and misdemeanors. trying to understand more about the judicial trial process, we asked a juror on this r trial to tell us her observations. >> hear from a juror in the oath

keepersal on this episode of book notes plus. but notes pluss available on the c-span now free mobile app wherever you get your podcasts. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the latest events with hearings from u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span tv and radio along with a variety of podcasts. download for free today. c-span now, your front row to washington anytime, anywhere. if you enjoying book tv, sign up

for our newsletter. any time c-span two, temp -- television for serious readers. announcer: washington journal continues. host: we begin with the topics of social security and medicare. george mason university, the social security and medicaid trust fund. that yearly forecast came out late friday afternoon about the long-term health of social security and medicare. what did that report find? guest: that report found would all have found for several years now.

unfortunately, these reports tell of that we are going to have to make some pretty substantial changes to align the benefits with their project -- rejected tax revenue if we want to preserve and retain the type of social security and medicare programs that we now have. host: how long are we expected to have social security and medicare fully funded? guest: that is a great question. i'd like to answer that in a very bifurcated way. you also tsipras reporting focusing on the dates of depletion of the social security trust funds and the medicare hospital insurance trust fund. and those dates respectively are 2033 for the old-age and survivors insurance trust fund with social security, what people think of as retirement that. 2034 for the combined trust fund. 2041 for the medicare hospital insurance trust fund.

but i do encourage people to look past those dates a little bit for a number of reasons. one, especially in medicare's case, the insolvency date doesn't tell you that much. medicare only has one trust fund, a hospital insurance trust fund that even has an insolvency date and it is less than half of medicare. if you just talk about the depletion date and medicare, you miss over half of the program. and in social security, the date of depletion it doesn't really tell you when you have to act. you have to act a lot sooner than that. the reason is that by the time the trust funds are actually running out of resources, it is far, far too late to preserve the operation of social security as it currently is. if you were to wait to start making changes, you would not be able to preserve program

solvency, even if you completely denied all new benefits. just didn't pay benefit to anyone who is newly coming onto the role of 2023. at that point, clearly the game is long over. you can't retain it social security functioning in the way that it has historically operated, and so the window of opportunity to deal with social security is really in the process of closing up. host: this yearly report, the headline full was going around those insolvency dates, those depletion dates. this is one from the washington post focusing on social security's cynically. that social maturity one now expected to hit that date a year earlier than what was reported last year for medicare. it is projected to hit that day three years later. what determines these dates moving back and forth and why would one happen later and the other happened earlier?

guest: good question. let me answer the last part of it first. someone might wonder, why is social security depletion date moving in one direction and why is medicare hospital insurance moving the other direction? i think the short answer is that the factors that affect both programs, things like inflation, real wage growth, the general state of the economy, those things basically got worse and that causes social security to get worse. medicare hospital insurance has another factor, which is the growth of health-care costs and health care spending. that was a little bit less than projected in last year's report. medicare hospital insurance is projected to last a little bit longer. host: we had them on the program

in the past. if you want to join the conversation as we talk about medicare and social security, you can do so on the phone lines as usual. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. and a special line specifically for medicare and social security recipients, (202) 748-8003. if that confuses you, we will put the numbers on the screen for you. along with working at george mason university, a former public trustee of the social security and medicare trust funds from 2010-2015. explain what the trustees do. guest: the public trustees, which i was one, are basically there to represent the public and oversee and act as an independent, bipartisan check on

the financial projections for social security and medicare. i'm very pleased to have the opportunity to talk about that because it really cuts to the heart of why we have trustee reports and why they are important. the fact is that social security and medicare are not price for federal programs. they are not considered to be welfare programs. if you look at most other programs in the federal government, we don't have this report process. we don't have separate trust funds. we don't have a separate payroll tax. we don't have all these things that social security and medicare have. and the reason is that we are basically just collecting taxes from people on the basis of their ability to pay. and we are paying benefits to people on the basis of needs. and so you have different sets of people financing the programs and collecting the programs, and so you often have the sort of political collisions, these collisions of interest between people financing the programs and people drawing benefits from

them that lead to very frequent revisions of benefit levels, eligibility rules, different requirements, so forth. things that social security and medicare generally escape. why do social security and medicare not tend to have those very frequent, recurring assessments of what people are getting out of the program? the reason for that is that they are, by contrast, contributory insurance programs. we all pay into these programs when we are wage earners. we contribute payroll taxes. we withdraw benefits from these programs, and our benefits and social security are linked to the amount that we paid in. and so because of that, participants can say you can't just come in and cut our benefits. our benefits reflect the resources that we paid into the trust funds and we are not pulling out more collectively than we contributed, then we

earned. there is a price for that very special political status, which is that we have to make sure we keep these programs in alignment. we have to make sure the benefits are promising and don't exceed woodworkers contributions can actually fund. and that is the problem we have right now, the way these programs are automatically indexed to grow, they are promising payments far in excess of what they can finance, and we need to bring those back into alignment and the trustees report basically tells us what we need to do order to be able to continue that type of set up it is a very important set of annual reports that the public trustee is, they job is to represent the public and voucher the integrity and objectivity of the process. host: what were the trustees saying back in 2010 when you first became a public trustee about the insolvency dates of these new programs, but also how

to fix these programs? were they saying the same things? guest: very much so. it is discouraging in a way to get these warnings have been coming for decades. by the early 90's, we knew that both programs were very badly out of financial balance. there has been some adjustments to improve medicare finances over the years, some in the late 90's, some more in 2010. social security has not received much in the way of remedial action, and for years, the trustees have been saying with increasing urgency that you've got to deal with this. don't wait until 2023. unfortunately, we have waited until 2023 and also a longer, so we've made the problem much more difficult to solve than it would have been if we had acted back then. host: prayer visual learners, some of the note that this latest report. it came out late on a friday

afternoon last week and we are digging into it this morning. the social security trustees report found that the retirement trust fund can pay 100% of the benefits until 2023. afte20, reserves will become depleted and continuing income can be 7% of benefits. when it comes to the medicare trustees report, medicare will be able to pay 100% of benefits until 2031. that is three years later than last year. after 2031, 10 ewing program income will be sufficient to pay 89%. those were sort of the topline numbers from that report. we are talking with you that it, taking your questions about the future of health, social security and medicare. plenty of callers for you as usual on this topic. out of california, good morning.

caller: good morning to you. thank you for c-span. i am a chronic pain patient, so i keenly rely on those payments. i just have one question. the military seems to have so much money, they don't even tell us where it is going. has anybody thought of, you know, forcing them into the light a little bit? it wouldn't matter to me how they did it. it just seems to be so much money going there. host: as a way to fully fund these programs for longer? caller: yeah, or at least a part of the solution. i don't know that it could be the full solution, but just maybe a good chunk of it. because they spend so much money and they don't even tell us how much or what for.

and if there were more transparency in that, maybe we could agree that they don't need whatever it is. host: solutions, that as one proposed solution. your thoughts? guest: i would make a couple of points about that. we certainly could go to a different kind of system in both social security and medicare. we can say let's not worry anymore about making the programs work, it's just ray that the general funds, give them whatever revenues they need from general fund revenues from income tax revenues and stop with all this business about keeping programs in effect, financing them. we could do that. but i think we need to be aware of the consequences of doing that. what has generally happen with programs that are financed from the general fund is you have this sort of annual, recurring realization of benefit levels

and eligibility rules that happens inevitably because you had a lot of people paying income taxes that other people aren't paying, and a lot of people drawing benefits that they didn't pay for. so you have these frequent collisions between taxpayers and beneficiaries that cause the contracting programs to be continually rewritten. social security and medicare, we haven't had that happen to the same degree, and the reason for that is that fdr deliberately designed social security to abate that process. he wanted workers to be able to say we pay for our own benefits and the benefits request will be paid. he thought that would give them additional protection from some cuts. i think his calculation has proved to be correct in that regard. much more secure and reliable

than other federal benefits over the years. we could dispense with that. we could say forget it, we will start paying benefits to people irrespective of whether the payroll tax contributions were enough to finance them we could go that way. but i would issue a warning against doing that because we will lose, i think, something pretty important about social security. this idea that workers pay for their benefits and therefore, should be more secure against them. host: so what are your thoughts on this proposed solution? this is part of a statement of president biden released when he released his budge proposal back at the end of last month. my bud proposes an increase of the medicare tax rate on earn unearned income above $4 to 5% from 3.8%. went on to say as i propose in the past, my budget will ensure that the taxes for medicare, this modest increase

in medicare contributions will be the highest incomes and help keep the medicare program strong for decades to come. guest: i was fairly critical in president biden's proposal here. not so much for attacks increased part. different people could have different opinions about whether that tax increase is desirable or not, but that is a real tax increase that would ring in real revenue and by doing that, that would create some extension in medicare hospital insurance probably. the basis of my concern with the president's proposal was really the other elements of it, taking credit for a much, much longer extension of insolvency, decades. basically getting credit to the medicare hospital insurance trust fund for savings that were

being assumed elsewhere or for things the government was already collecting. basically, he proposed that savings from the prescription drug benefits that they projected based on enhanced negotiating powers of the federal government, transferring those to the medicare hospital with insurance trust funds, because medicare investment tax which doesn't go for the hospital insurance, putting that in the medicare hospital insurance trust fund. those are basically -- that is not you revenue. those are things someone is already doing. by giving medicare hospital insurance permission to spend more money, you are not actually fixing anything from a fiscal perspective, you are just saying your things the government is already doing, and we are going to give medicare permission to spend more money based on that. i think that is problematic because that basically gives up on the idea that hospital insurance should be kept solid on its own. if you are able to say look, we

spent less money over in the program, so now it's give medicare hospital insurance permission to spend that money, there's no reason you can't do that everywhere. we are spending less on program next y, now hospital insurance can spend more money. that deals a fatal blow to the idea of a solid hospital insurance program. it basically says hospital insurance has permission to spend money that it didn't generate. i think that is very problematic. that is not a criticism of the president's proposal with respect of the tax increases, but i do have concerns about playing with the accounting in this way to create an apparent improvement in medicare's finances without actually accomplishing anything. host: milwaukee, wisconsin, republican. good morning. caller: good morning, i have two questions, i will start with the longer one and see if you have

time to the second one. it is in regard to social security solvency. my understanding is that in order to make it solvent, we would have to do a number of different things like increase the amount of income that is subject to social security taxes, but also increase the retirement age and however, i would be delighted if the biden administration and bernie sanders, i heard this about a month ago -- i wanted to see if you think the numbers are jive. for the upper income folks, how much of their income is subject to social security taxes being taken out as they are making income? i think it is only the first $185,000 now or whatever, and i think bernie sanders said if we start doing 250,000 as well, it would be solvent for like 70 years. and even if we only did 400,000,

that it would still make it solvent for another 30. host: you're talking about raising the cap, as it is known. guest: there is a number of great things in the question that i just want to emphasize and reiterate. let me start with the second part of the question about specifically the mechanism of increasing the amount of earnings subject to social security tax. social security solvency as our more popular, per se, but that is one that surveys relatively well. a lot of people favor that. the component of a social security solution, in large part because the burden of it would fall primarily on the high income end, and there is a general consensus from left to right that for people bearing the burden of enhancing

solvency, it should happen on the high income end. i would wager that is very likely to appear in any bipartisan social security agreement. having said that, it only gets you so far. one of my frustrations as a trustee is that there is a lot of exaggeration and social media commentary about how much that would do. it doesn't draw that much. even if you completely exposed, eliminated the taxable wages altogether, exposed all earnings without limit to taxation, you would only solve about 30% of the program permanent shortfalls. why is that? in social security, benefits and taxation are linked. you pay more into the system, you have bigger benefits. now, there is a way around that.

you can say we are going to ratchet down the benefit accrual rate on the higher income and so it is not a big benefit for that. but that just get you back to the earning point which is that there is really no way to avoid dealing with the growth of the benefit formula on the high income end. you are pretty much stuck with having to do that. we are going to have to do a little bit of each, a little bit the backside, a little bit on the eligibility side. there's probably not time here to walk through all the numbers, but i would summarize by saying it is virtually impossible to come up with a viable social security solvency solution at this point that doesn't do a little bit of everything. and for that reason, people are

going to have to compromise because everyone is going to get -- at some point in the process. host: california, line for democrats, good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. the speaker has just touched on something that has been a favorite topic of mine for many years. but no one ever talks about it. and that is that there is a keyword, and it is called insurance. no one ever emphasizes that insurance is a risk that ensures you against a hazard. and my hazard -- point is that the hazard is already here. that is why fdr wanted to guarantee against the hazard of

people being in the street, of poverty. now, my proposal is that in addition to raising what someone has to contribute, that the people that make a higher income should not be the beneficiaries of that risk pool because they are not suffering poverty. so in other words, someone who makes $250,000, $400,000, if they make $300,000 a year from their investments, their rentals , whatever kind of income they are making, why do they need to get a social security check? i think they should not get one. host: you are talking about a mandatory insurance policy that if you don't need, you don't get? caller: exactly.

host: let charles jump in on that. guest: a couple great questions you. just to emphasize some of the things that the caller said, people do tend to talk loosely about social security. we think of retirement benefits, pension, this or that. but at the caller correctly says, it is actually called old age and survivors insurance. if you look at the acronym, federal insurance contribution act, the disability insurance was added later, and this is how fdr thought of it. he thought of it as income insurance. the philosophy when social security was established was we need to ensure people against the risk of income loss. in that income loss could be as a result of a number of things. it could be old age, it could be

the workforce, it could be later on because of disability. it could be because of a loss of a primary wage earner passing away at a young age despite survivors insurance. insurance is the repeated throughout the report of the first committees that advised fdr on this program. and that is how he thought of them, as a contributory insurance program. and it is for that reason that the benefit formula in social security is pretty heavily skewed on the lower income e nd. the first block of your taxable wages subject to social security tax return a much higher rate of return and benefits then you get as you get more and more earnings. so there is a 90% accrual rate when you start out, and then 15%

of the very top. and that reflects this idea of ensuring people against wants in retirement and against needs. what we haven't done is go as far as the caller suggested, which is to say we're just going to cut you off after a certain one, you don't get any benefits at all if you have enough income outside of social security to support yourself. we could do that, that is a decision we could make. that is not historically have social security has operated. one of the other things fdr didn't want, he didn't want a situation where some people in america were beneficiaries and other people were not. he wanted everyone in the system. he was certainly a believer in the old adage that a program for the poor is a poor program. he didn't want a dynamic where higher income people were lobbying the federal government to cut benefits that only low income people were getting.

so even though people from the high income end get a low accrual rate, have never cut them off completely. that would be a pretty significant departure from how this was set up. host: i want to take you to mark stone's tweet this morning. if you think we are going to be having this conversation for the next eight years. he said we all know that congress isn't going to do anything on social security or medicare until 2031, until the date. guest: yes, i fear that is possibly an accurate assessment. and i think if it is true, it is very unfortunate. i think we are adopting an attitude in washington that is very -- to the interest of the american public. back in 1983, last time social security was rescued, it happened when they were just a few months away from not being able to send out the benefit checks and they were able to get it done because at least at that

point, they were so far apart. they could be closed on an urgent basis. but that is not where we are, not where we were headed. we had to raise eligibility, we had to expose benefits for the first time. we had to bring in all newly hired federal employees to pay payroll taxes into the system. that is not a measure we can use again because it has already been used. they accelerated a previously enacted increase on the payroll tax rates. they delayed for six months. that was all very controversial. what we are dealing with his several times larger in terms of the severity of all would be required. so the fact that this happened in 1983 in no way implies that it could happen in 2030.

however, i fear that the analysis is correct, that delays perhaps more likely than not, and that would be very unfortunate. if that happens this time, we are simply not going to be able to get the job done. there is no realistic scenario where they can patch social security together to keep it functioning the way it currently is. even if you completely cut off all these benefits at that point, you wouldn't be able to keep the system solid. it is simply not realistic. even a solution enacted today would have to be much, much more severe than the enacted in 1983. for example, if you wanted to do it on the tax side today for a payroll tax increase, you would have to raise the payroll tax immediately to 15.84%. on the benefit side today, if you didn't want to cut benefits for people already receiving them, he would have to cut benefits across the board 25%

immediately, and that is for the poor as well as the rich. so obviously we're are not going to do that. anything we would do would be later, more gradual. if we keep delaying, there is simply no way it is going to happen. in fact, i think, is very unfortunate. politicians at the last minute to do what politicians do and say we are going to give up on solvency. do away with this whole idea of a financing system, do away with a program financed by payroll taxes. give up on the idea of winding benefits and taxes. we could do that. but social security recipients would lose the reliability and security that they had for decades through this framework. so that may be where we are headed. if we are headed there, my opinion is it should only happen because that is what the american public wants.

if the american public wants to abandon the way the system is currently run, so be it. but it shouldn't happen because politicians procrastinated and gave the american public something they did not want to have happen which is the demise of a framework that they wanted to retain. that is just malpractice and does not reflect well on elected officeholders if that were to happen. host: charles of george mason university, plenty of calls awaiting. north carolina, go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. let's see if you really speak the truth. the people in the united states also know, they take the money out of the trust fund, the treasury department. they owe the trust fund $5 trillion. you put that in, you save it.

social security is a nice little ponzi scheme. that means you contribute money, you are supposed to get benefit back, and you've got to have more people going in because you don't have enough to get out because you politicians and you people that are controlling it take it out and they should change the name did not the trust fund, but the honey pot of the government. guest: there is a mix of things that the caller said, some of which i will accentuate and some i will take issue with. i would accentuate what he said with respect to calling a ponzi scheme. the way social security works is that when you are working, your contributions are going to pay beneficiaries. the government is not saving your money in an account anywhere, that is not how it happens. it is basically relying on a pyramid intruding to the system,

so that when you attain an aide or a status of eligibility, your benefits are not paid from an account that you funded, but rather by taxing the next generation of workers. that is how it works. certainly, there is a wide body of academic research that supports the caller's view that in the past, when social security has run, the effect of the surplus was to finance additional federal government spending and additional federal government consumption. i agree with all of those elements on the call. 1.i would make, though, is that it is not the case that simply by paying back the money that the federal government spent or took or stole or whatever euphemism people want to imply what somehow fix this all.

that is not the case. social security has been on a cash deficit since 2010. the government has been paying back into the trust fund the amounts and interest earnings on past surpluses that were amassed. the fact that social security has run surpluses in the past, that those surpluses were used by securities, treasury securities for the federal government, those rving redeemed by the social security trust fund as we speak and social security will get back every penny of that. in fact, it is already in the process of doing so. if the program runs out of funds in the early 20 30's, even after the repayment of every penny, even after the redemption of every penny. there is an element of truth to all of that, but it is not something that really touches upon what we have to do to solve the problem which is benefit promises with tax revenues.

host: some 67 million americans per month receive social security benefits. the average monthly benefit is about $1800. that report on friday came out that retirement trust fund to pay 100% of benefits until 2033. that is what we've been talking about this morning. the medicare trustees report, a few more calls on the topic. michigan, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, you are on. caller: yes, i'm very disturbed on how this could happen. i'm disabled, i will not the able to work at all anymore and by husband, my husband and i both have worked over 35 years of their life. it is just a terrible thing that my husband that lost his job

only got a job at $50 per hour. what would it do for us if we don't -- i mean, as you are saying, by 2033, he won't be able to even retire. he will be 56 and i'm 56. we will be 66 at the time. so even at retirement age, i mean, he won't even be able to retire and get the money for retirement. guest: i think the caller's situation, this is not a matter of just getting -- across. these are real people, real lives, real situations, real needs. this is one reason why i get very disturbed when people shrug their shoulders about it.

people saying well, what the problem? we will deal with it when we deal with. if we have to bailout the program with general revenue and change how it works, who cares? i care. i care because the caller -- there are historically social security benefits that have been reliable and secure. whether you are disabled, a retiree, a widow or a widower, there is a reliability and security that has always come with those benefits that we will lose if we aren't able to preserve their solvency. yes, the federal government could continue to write checks and pay benefit even if we were to allow the programs to become insolvent. i'm sure they would continue to do that. but the reality is that if and once social security is just merged in with the rest of the federal budget, with other welfare programs each year with the rest of the federal budget,

those benefits aren't going to be as secure. they are going to be more changeable, they are going to come with more strings attached, and you aren't going to know with a you're going to be penalized for your work participation record for whatever. continuing disability reviews, the criteria might change. all sorts of things could happen once social security, if and once it is merged with larger sector. i think it does that. i think it matters greatly. the caller just a reminder of why social security has been such a uniquely stable and popular program and it is at apparel that we ignore was necessary to keep it that way. host: in our next segment, we are going to be talking with the chief economist, and among the topics, the ongoing effort to pick up those interest rates, the feds effort.

what did those interest rate hikes mean for social security and medicare? >> higher interest rate or a problem for a lot of people. they are actually good for social security medicare. higher interest ratings and trust funds actually extend solvency. it is not a huge effect, not as big as things like fertility rates, but it does help. if the trust fund bonds earn a higher rate of interest, they do last a little bit longer. it is one of the slight upsides of the current economic program. host: diego in sebastian, florida, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make a little statement. in order to approach solvency and social security, what if we

had social security polls -- $180,000. 68 or 67. medicare at 66 instead of 65. also capping the benefit. would that help to resolve the issue of social security? guest: it would help a little bit, i think is the short answer. if we were to raise the payroll tax, i think the caller indicated an increase in the earnings tax of about $30,000 or so. it would have a slight effect. even if you cap the benefit rules, it wouldn't solve for more than 10% of the long-term problem, the permanent problem. the increase of one year in the eligibility age often top of my

head, it might get you another 10% or so. not a huge amount, so you would still have the preponderance of the problem to solve. but my guess is that an increase in the eligibility age and increase in the taxable maximum would be relatively likely to be part of the solvency package. host: we would try to get one more call in. alexander in new york, good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i've worked over 30 years in this country and stuff like that. originally i had social security and they have taken that also each month.

two younger ones, 11 date nine years old. host: we are running short on time, what is your question? caller: what i'm receiving now, it's like i would be paying again, or what? host: i'm sorry, one more time. caller: the social security benefit i'm receiving right now. i would pay additional taxes on it? host: taxing social security benefits that he is receiving. caller:-- guest: i assume the caller is referring to the fact that under current law, 85% of your social security benefit is expected to be income tax. it is possible that could be increased in a solvency package. in fact, the question was posed the other day with a plan that had some benefit growth changes,

revenue changes, eligibility changes. they did recommend an increase in taxation. i'm not able to get a perfect fit on the caller's situation at the caller is not on the higher income side. we do always appreciate your time and chatting with

washington journal will air one of our winning documentaries were students are asked to share with her top priorities would be if they were a newly elected member of congress. once the top 21 winning studentc dumentary all this month at .m. eastern on c-span also., head over to studentcam.org to watch all winning entries online. >> your copy of the 118th congressional directory now available at c-spanshop.org. or go to c-spanshop.org. it's $29 $.95 plus shipping and handling and every purchase

helps support our nonprofit operations. >> there are a lot of places to get political operation -- information, but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you stand on the issue, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span powered by cable. >> for c-span radio app, listening just got easier. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern. important congressional hearings and other public affairs throughout the day. text washington today for a fast-paced report of the stories of the day. this into c-span anytime.

just tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. announcer: washington journal continues. host: back with us once again is mark sandy. in the months since we last chatted with you, we've seen the federal reserve have a serious interest rate hikes. is it working? guest: good to be with you, i can't believe it has been three months. that went fast. nice to be with you. yeah, i think they are working. the intent here is to slow economic growth so that it quells the painfully high inflation. but i think the effort that made progress because growth is slowing, inflation is moderating. it is a long way to go, but

hopefully we continue to see inflation come back in over the next few months, the next year. yeah, i think the efforts are working. i will say, there are some negative side effects to the hiring rates, and one of the most obvious is the pressure on the banking system. i do think one of the reasons why we saw this stretch of failure recently in the past few weeks is related to the interest rate hikes. but all in all, i'd say that the efforts are working, yes. host: when it comes to what percentage we should be using, a half-point, a quarter point, any concern about their decisions on those rate numbers?

>> the operating committee of the fed, they raised rates three quarters of a point to be extraordinary in an effort to get interest rates backup mortgage system with the strength of the economy and inflation. more recently, they dial back those rate increases. it wasn't last week, it with the week before. they raise rates a quarter-point and intimated that they are getting pretty close to the end of the rate hikes. they dial things back. yes, for most of the year i've been right on board with them. they've been very consistent with the need for slow growth and getting inflation back in. it came right on the heels of that banking crisis and all the extraordinary efforts that they took along with the u.s. treasury and fbi see. on the one hand, they were doing all these things to help out the banking system and then they are raising interest rates which of

course hurt the banking system. that isn't quite congruent to me. i would probably be focused on making sure the banking system is on sound ground and making sure that everybody believe the banking system is on very sound ground, and when that is established, turning back to inflation again as necessary. host: do you think we are done with bank failures? do you think what happened has shaken loose the banks that were worse-condition, or are there more to come? caller: i'd be surprised if there was another failure or two or three, but i think they will be small, i don't think they will be a big deal. given all the support that the government has been providing for the system, most significantly with the failed banks, silicon valley bank, signature bank, they stepped up and they said regardless of whether your deposit amount is below the guaranteed deposit or

above, your money is good, it is going to be guaranteed by the government. once the government did that, i think we should all feel confident of the banking system is safe, that our money is safe, that we would get that out when we need it. there may be other failures, but i don't think we should be at all worried that we're not going to get our money out at this point. >> the banks that failed, in front page story in the washington post. silicon valley bank decisions, your postmortem here, what is the most important cousin learned from the two big banks -- lesson learned? guest: the federal reserve who was the regulator silicon valley bank is doing a postmortem detail, trying to figure at

exactly what went wrong here. generally when you have things like this happen, it is not one thing you, it is a series of things. hopefully they can identify that more carefully and use that as a basis. but one thing i think seems pretty clear to me is that the regulations that were put in place after todd frank, after the financial crisis, some of those regulations were rolled back for banking institutions at less than $250 billion in assets. svb didn't need to do many of the things to make sure that they are safe and sound. they have to digest all the losses on the lending. liquidity, risk management. i do think it makes sense for regulators to make sure that banks of smaller sizes, $100

billion in assets do need to go through the more rigorous kind of examinations and testing and hold more capital just like the big guys. they could cause problems as well. host: questions from viewers when we have you one. let me give the numbers. (202) 748-8001 for republicans to call in. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. a question we always ask when you are on as well is your thoughts on a recession on the horizon? do you see that happening in 2023? guest: when i was on three months ago i probably said recession risks are very high, uncomfortably high because we are in a world of client ration and rising interest rates. but some really good policymaking by the fed and a little bit of luck, we should be able to navigate through without

much economic downturn over the next 12 to 18 months. i still believe that to be the case. it makes me more uncomfortable. the risks are actually higher. otherwise, recession will occur. a soft landing, not a recession. a recession is a broad-based industry, persistent, more than a few months decline in economic activities. that is an economic recession. anything that is not bad, will call a soft landing. i would go as far as to say that does not really feel like an apt description of what is dead ahead. even if we don't go into a recession, it is going to be very uncomfortable. we are going to see some job loss, we are going to feel uncomfortable about it.

soft landing doesn't cut it for me. i'm not sure i would use that word to describe it. one of my colleagues turned -- coined the term slowcession. not a recession, but an economy that is not going anywhere fast. host: taking your phone calls for you, independent, good morning. caller: yes, i wanted to ask -- first i want to say thank you to c-span and i appreciate this program. one of the questions i have is related to the rule and why the fed seems to go from these really radical control approaches of having a stable interest rate staying with that. that's the question i have, thank you very much. host: could you do that?

guest: i was just testifying at the house budget committee last week on the budget and the fiscal situation and a stanford professor was on the panel. he is an icon in monetary policy. and it is pretty simple. obviously very thoughtful and insightful, and the federal reserve when setting interest rates, that they should look at the unemployment rate as a benchmark for have the job market is going. look at inflation, because there are the mandates used to set interest rate policies. inflation is low and stable. inflation expectations, what people think the future of inflation will be.

and that formula can be used to determine the appropriate interest rate or monetary policy that the fed should set. in fact, historically, most times the fed does that. it doesn't mechanically calculate using the womb, and effectively that is where they land when cutting interest rates. there are times when the actual policy, the actual interest rate diverges from what it will say, and that was certainly the case a year ago. you may recall back early last year, the interest rate the fed controls was at zero, and the literal interpretation of it would say the interest rates have been 2.5%. i would say the schedule is later raising interest rates and that would be one reason why inflation is so high today. one caveat and then i will stop. this is of course the pandemic.

the pandemic what this massive shock to the economy that throws everything off the rails. the federal reserve, it is hard to remember that long ago, but we're still pretty nervous about the pandemic and the fallout. you may remember the omicron wave of the virus through 2022. the fed was saying look, they may be saying this, but it does not account for the pandemic. if you account for the pandemic, we should air on the side of being over the accom

i thought it might have been a more contentious hearing. i did not find that. i found that everyone's was quite thoughtful or vain trying to think through the differences.

just talking about the different types of policy that could be used. on the spending side to try to rein in our future buffet -- budget deficits and get a grip on long-term fiscal issues. guest: slightly younger mark sandy on the panel in 2008. it was government assistance for the automotive industry. viewers can see that. it was five hours 41 minutes according to the timer on the c-span website. guest: [laughter] can you imagine? think about that. host: i do three hours a day. no, i cannot imagine. rhode island, democrat. good morning. caller: thank you so much, c-span, for all you do. i have three questions. first is listening to c-span last week. somebody talked about the spread of interest that generally spread between the banks get the money for with what they

basically sell it for is two points. the person who was talking, is it three points now, it should come down at some point. here we have the bank making an extra point while we are going through this economic difficulty. the second question is, why absolve banks who are making -- who have left assets? why do they get a pass on mismanagement? last is, i still do not understand who is paying for the bailout with these banks. it has got to come down to the consumer at some point. the banks are the worst people in the world to do business with, because they are always going to make their money. thank you again, c-span. i am waiting for your response. host: mr. zandi. guest: great question. in terms of who pays, most directly it is the banks themselves. the fdic, who is coming into

resolve these failed institutions and payout depositors and other creditors, polls that money out of the deposit insurance fund, the fund that has been established where banks contribute into that for this very purpose, to pay for failed institutions. clearly, the banks will then try to pass at least some of that along to their customers. they will eat some of it in the form of less earnings, lower profits, probably affects the pay of their executives and other employees. ultimately, it likely also ends up in lower deposit rates for lower depositor and higher -- costs for lenders. the cost is borne broadly by customers on the banking system, which is for most of us. having said that, the calculation you have to do here

is -- if the fbi did not step in and resolve these institutions and the government had provided that kind of strong backstop, what was the counterfactual? what would have happened? a couple of weeks ago, it felt uncomfortable. it felt like the banking system could come under extreme pressure, deposit runs and ultimately, the cost to all of us would be even greater because the government would have to step in, provide more support. there would be more failures. the cost to us would be even greater. no good choice here, i think policymakers made the least bad choice they had. ultimately, we all bear the cost of that as customers of the bank. that is to the first question. to the second observation question about, why not regulate banks -- smaller banks with less

than $100 billion in assets? they are regulated, they just do not have this extra level of regulation that the banks right now under law, $250 billion or higher. the thinking is, the smallest institutions fail, no big deal. they are not so-called systemic, they are not going to take out other banks. they are not going to be a bigger, economic problem. it is ok. they do not operate the same kind of earnings and margins. they operate on thinner profit margins. if you put these extra cost on them, they may not be able to operate. they may not be out there doing what they do. one of the keys of our financial system that makes the u.s. financial taking system so different than other systems in the world is, we've got a lot of small institutions.

we have 4700 fbi say -- fbi c insured institutions. that makes us stronger as an economy. those small banks cater to small businesses that the bigger guys would not -- i will give you one example and i will stop. when i started my company 30 years ago because i ultimately sold it to moody's, i was a start up. i started with my brother and a good friend. we got to a size where we needed a loan. i knocked on the door of the local regional bank. great bank. my bank today. i said, can you give me a loan? they said, we cannot. here i was, a young guy. i had no assets. the local bank, the president's daughter was -- on my daughter's soccer team. he said, i will give you a loan. all you have to do is promise to pay me back and secured by your home and i get personal guarantees. i got that loan and it worked

out very well. that is where the small banks come in. they are really important to small business, which is key to innovation and productivity growth. it is important we have a lot of small banks. we do not want to overburden them if we do not need to. in this case, i do not think we need to. host: with that economy.com you were talking about? guest: that is right. i started coming back in 1990. it was called regional management associates. no internet, at least none that i knew about. we changed it to economy.com in 2000 in the middle of the technology boom. host: moody's analytics is where mark zandi is the chief economist. he is here for the next 20 minutes taking your phone calls as we talk about the state of the united states economy. john in louisiana, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i was born into a family, my dad

and mom got married in 1930 called the great depression my father had a rule that he lived by and i lived by. if you cannot afford it, do not buy it. i would like to have the gentleman sitting there look straight into the tv and explain how we are going to get rid of $30 trillion of something that we bought and cannot afford. thank you. host: mr. zandi. guest: thanks for the great question. you are right. we do have a significant fiscal problem. we have borrowed a lot of money. we are borrowing a lot of money. our debt load as a nation has risen considerably, just to put a number on it. if you look at all of the debt we have, publicly traded debt we

have and look at it relative to gdp, that is the value of all the things we produced, it is all most 100%. for context, between say after world war ii up and through the financial crisis a little over a decade ago, that to gdp ratio was less than half that, closer to 45%. it has reason considerably in part because of the financial crisis, in part because of the pandemic, in part because of the decisions to cut taxes without paying for them and increase spending without paying for that. we have all contributed to this now very high debt load. if you look at the forecast, this is now done by the congressional budget office ceo, a nonpartisan group that does the budgeting for the nation. if we do not change something, if there is no change in law, the debt to gdp ratio 10 years from now will be almost 120%.

the world does not stop in 10 years, you keep on going. you do the arithmetic, our debt load is going to be significant. it is a serious issue. fortunately, interest rates have been low enough for loewen off -- long enough that our interest rate on that debt has remained relatively low and manageable. it has not been a problem. going forward, one can imagine interest rates are going to be higher. combine that with high debt load, that is going to be a problem we are going to have to address. that was the purpose of the budget committee hearing, that is the purpose of a lot of conversations in washington around the debt limit and what to do about the debt limit. how are we going to address these long-term, fiscal problems we face? i say, just a couple of things and i will stop. one, i think if lawmakers come up with any other legislation that cuts taxes or increases government spending, that needs to be paid for.

if i cut taxes -- if i cut spending, increase spending, i am going to have to increase taxes. it has to be paid for. that should oppose some discipline. second, we need to do more than that. to address long-term fiscal problems, we need both tax revenue. raise taxes on high income net worth household and big businesses and government spending restrained. most of the issues regarding government spending continue to go back to the cost of health care. because of the large medicare and medicaid programs, it is about the cost of health care and how fast it is growing over time that is the biggest contributor of our long-term government spending issues. we are going to do all of the above to get a grip on this. i hear you. i think you should spend it so much as you can afford it. host: world debt clock.com, a

look at the national that. -- debt. comes out to about $95,000 per u.s. citizen. u.s. debt clock. org. out of silver spring maryland, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. you are truly an americans champion, no question about it. my comment is, because the cdc -- we know the epidemics can occur. when is their committee ready to go? i work in health care. i agreed that some of us did not need to those checks. we were going to keep working. certain areas of this economy, policeman, hospitals. the work was not going to stop. we would eventually get through the epidemic. i think a committee should have

been set up for people in those particular industries that might be stressed at a certain level. they can go and get help. a girlfriend of mine, which surprised me -- she has a heavy load financially. she takes care of herself. she even agreed that we should not have received those checks. we should not have. host: let me stop there. on stimulus checks, mark zandi. guest: you make a good point. in total, you add up all the government support to households and businesses, it totaled about -- this is during the pandemic as it began with the cares act, that was the first piece of rescue legislation passed in march of 2020. it ended with the american rescue plan, the rescue package passed in march of 2021. the total amount of support was about $5 trillion, that is 25% of gdp. that goes back to the debt to

gdp ratio and why it has risen so much in recent years. the pandemic contributed. at includes lots of things. stimulus checks, i think there were three rounds a total of stimulus checks. a lot of enhanced unappointed insurance. rental assistance for people losing their homes. there was food assistance, snap programs. there was the ppp program, that was a large, costly program but very effective in supporting small businesses who had to shut down. i can go on and on and on. there was a lot of support. i am sure -- you are right. some of that money went to folks that probably cannot -- did not need it to get through that period. you have to remember at that point in time, it was something we had not experienced. and maybe -- 100 years ago was the last time. there was complete chaos. we shut the entire economy down. people cannot go out of their

homes. they cannot go to work. many people could not. the economy was evaporating right before our eyes because of all of this. a lot of scared people. we did not understand what the pandemic was about. how life-threatening is this? we did not understand any of it. in that chaos and uncertainty, lawmakers aired on the side of doing too much. i think that is appropriate. one of the tenets of good policymaking is, if you are unsure, if you are uncertain, if you do not know, it is better to air on the side of doing too much rather than too little. if you do too little, it is going to cost more because the economy will evaporate. it will take tax revenue with it, spending higher as a result and we will be in a much worse position. that is what lawmakers did. fortunately, things worked out reasonably well. it was not great. it was hard on many people. we got that vaccine at

surprising speeds. it was rolled out very effectively. things turned around a lot faster than i think people feared. it ultimately ended up the sport we all about was probably more than we needed. you have to think back to that period of what we were going through and the need to make sure if you are going to make a mistake, air on the side of doing too much, not too little. host: help me understand a reuters headline that came out last week. u.s. money supply falling at the fastest rate since the 1930's. why, and what does that mean for us? guest: money supply is what we have in our deposit accounts, checking accounts, cds, money market accounts, that is basically the cash we have as households and businesses sitting in our banks and money market funds. that money supply took off

during the pandemic because of the government support. people got those checks. a put it in their account, that increased money supply. businesses got that ppp loan that was cashed. they put it in their checking accounts. that increased their money supply. we were sheltering in place. we could not spend high income -- middle income household cannot spend at all. high income, middle income households saved a lot of their income. that went into checking accounts and deposit accounts and cds. on the flipside of that, because of high inflation, we are all using money in our deposit accounts. those deposits are being drawn down. that banking crisis caused a lot of deposit -- people pulled money out of their banks, put them into money market accounts. and other savings vehicles. that caused money supply to the client.

this decline we are observing now is simply amid station of us drawing down savings and run down what we have in our deposit checking accounts. host: this is john in detroit, michigan. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i would like to ask you -- i know svb and the other banks out last, what they did is by law, dated treasuries, badly made products. my question is, mark, the federal reserve did the exact same thing. they are rolling out $90 billion every month. if they do a mark to market, they are losing half their value that they bought they treasury at 2%. now, they have to sell it at 4%. that is a 50% loss. are they losing $45 billion a

month as they are rolling this off? another question -- host: let's go with that because we are running short on time. guest: you are right. effectively, the federal serve had -- reserve had the same issues on paper that the banks do. the banks had deposits during the pandemic. they took that money and in many cases, invested in treasury bonds and mortgage securities. they bought them when interest rates were very low. now, interest rates are higher. the value of those securities are lower. that is a problem for a lot of banks, they need to sell those treasury mortgage securities to generate cash to pay off depositors and meet their other funding needs. that is fundamentally the issue here in the banking system, ultimately why many reasons why svb failed and signature failed. that is one of the key reasons.

that has the same balance sheet, same issue. here is the difference. they do not need to sell this treasury to securities and mortgage securities, and they will not. they are allowing securities to mature. in the case of mortgage securities, prepay. they are not selling anything. they are not taking any losses. they can hold to maturity those bonds so they do not have the same issue that traditional bank does. that is why they can step in and support the banking system. that is one of the big things they did three weeks ago in the middle of the crisis. they stepped up and said, hey, banks. we are going to establish this credit facility where you can are both from me, the federal reserve, using the collateral of your treasury mortgage securities to get cash so you can pay off depositors. the fed allen's sheet is similar -- balance sheet is similar, but they do not have to sell securities at a loss and

therefore, they do not have the same problem as the banking system. host: can i come back to the national debt for a second? jim in california rights, does he subscribe to the idea we will never pay off or pay down the $31 trillion national debt and a day of financial ruin simply awaiting us? guest: note -- here, look. we are not going to pay back that debt. we can service the debt. what matters is making sure we can pay the interest and principal that comes due on the debt as it matures. we can do that if the economy continues to grow. what we really need to do is stabilize -- remember that debt to gdp ratio, that should be our goal. if we can do that, we do not need to reintroduce -- reduce the size of the debt. the debt can increase. our economy is bigger, we are

generating more tax revenue. we are able to produce more. we are able to service that debt, it is not a problem. we do not need to reduce the debt or eliminate debt. what we need to do is make sure that debt continues to grow at no more than the rate of growth in our economy, the size of our economy. all of us have debt and we have mortgage loans, credit card loans, auto loans. if our incomes keep rising, that is gdp. if our incomes keep rising, the burn of that -- the burden of that that becomes smaller over time. we do not need to eliminate the debt. we do not need to reduce it relative to the size of the economy. we need to make sure it does not continue to grow at a pace faster than the rate of growth for the economy. host: this is karen out of long island, republican. good morning. caller: how are you today? host: doing well. what is your question? caller: my name is karen.

can you hear me? host: i can. caller: i worked at new york community bank. where was hr? where was the managers? they knew this bank was going under for 15 months and nobody said anything and did anything to make another bank takeover. it does not make sense. there's auditors that check this stuff here and we need an independent john kennedy from what--illinois, where he is from -- he asked the question, could we have independent people come into check? there was more withdrawals come out, more wire transfers. they knew it was going under and let it happen. the american people have to pay this debt. it is over $30 trillion. two banks. it is a domino effect. they knew it was going to happen, but they let it. where was the managers? host: we will take the question. guest: wonderful observation. this goes back to the root cause

analysis that we need to understand clearly, transparently, what exactly happened here. one of the factors contributing to the failure -- as i said earlier, there is probably many, is bank management. that needs to be investigated. also, supervision. the federal serve is the main regulator -- reserve is the main regulator of the svb. what happened there? why didn't the examiners that the caller referred to, the regulators catch this? if they didn't catch it, why were they able -- did catch it, why were they able to -- so they did not get into this mess? we need to understand all of that. i think we are going to get that root cause analysis, that study from the federal reserve. i suspect probably from the

inspector general for the federal reserve, which is an independent body that looks at what the government agencies do. let's see what they say. i think it is appropriate to make a judgment whether we need further in-depth analysis on what would happen and how to address these problems going forward. host: last call from south carolina. this is maybe, democrat. good morning. caller: ok. i want to ask a question and i want to say something. why can't we get government out of our business and whatnot? i mean, you know. if we make a debt, we've got to pay for. the government should not be sending out free checks to pay for it. do not go to a high price college if you cannot afford it. basically, that is it -- host: let me have you focus on student loans, specifically, and

the debate right now over whether the federal government should take on some amount of loans. guest: i am not a fan of the so-called debt forgiveness. the idea that the government will forgive debt. i do, very clearly, there are hard-pressed kids -- even older folks with student loans that have low incomes. things didn't work out, they were not able to graduate, they do not have the earnings to support the debt. i do not think debt forgiveness is the way to go. i think income repayment plans makes sense. you pay a certain percent of your income towards the student loan debt over a certain period of time. if you have not paid it off over that period of time, say a decade, it is forgiven. you are providing relief, support to folks that are stressed and need that help and not folks that do not.

the student loan debt for doing the right thing, raise their educational attainment and improve their earnings. we have income repayment plans in place. i think they need to be made much more muscular and helpful. that is the way i would go. i will quickly say, the question about government in our lives. this is the age-old question that americans have been asking themselves since alexander, abraham, jefferson. what is the balance? that is the conversation we are having at c-span continually, why it is so important. at the end of the day, it makes us stronger because of that debate and discussion. we need to make sure the government is not -- too aggressively. we need to have government in times of crises when all of us collectively backstop.

that is what the government is, providing that backstop. that is the balance we need to strike. host: mark zandi, chief economist at moody's analytics. always appreciate your time, glad we were able to go back to way back machine today and view you into thousand eight. guest: thanks, jon. host: we will continue our open forum, letting you lead the discussion. any public policy issue you want to talk about. the phone numbers are on the screen. go ahead and start calling now and we will be back. ♪ ♪ >> c-span shop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor and accessories. there is nothing for every

c-span -- something for every c-span fan. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. ♪ >> the up-to-date and the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books. with current nonfiction book releases, plus bestseller lists as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ ♪ >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress. from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings

. c-span gives you a front row seat and how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ ♪ >> listening to programs on c-span3 c-span radio got easier. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern. important congressional hearings and public affairs events throughout the day. weekdays at five a copy and demand 9:00 p.m. eastern. catch washington today for a fast-paced report of the stories of the day. listen to c-span anytime. tell your smart feet -- smart speaker, play c-span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. host: ending our program with open form, letting you lead the discussion with any political issue that you want to talk about.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. as you are calling income a note that you will only be seeing reef pro forma sessions on the floor of the house and senate today. members are away back in their districts, back in their home states. the house and senate will not be back in session with a full complement of members of congress until april the 12th. that is when they will be back. for you to see on the c-span networks today and throughout the week, a look at some of what you can watch today here on c-span at 11:00 a.m. this morning. nasa indicatinspace injured see will announce the namesf the four astronauts on the artemis to missionlight test. that is the prelude to the long-term mission to return humans to the moon. live from houston, covera begins at 11:00 a.m. on c-span, c-span now and c-span.org.

at noon eastern, the former ambassadors of pakistan and afghanistan will discuss the withdrawal of u.s. forces from afghanistan and the taliban's return to power. hosted by the hudson institute. you can watch that on c-span, c-span.org and the free c-span now video app. :00 p.m., washington post holding a discussion with -- in wake of the recent school shooting in nashville with the director of the bureau of alcohol and tobacco, firearms and explosives. that discussion, 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org and the free c-span now video app. 3:30 p.m. eastern from the atlantic council, a discussion on the long-term implications of ground combat in ukraine. on c-span, c-span art org -- c-span.org and the free c-span video app. plenty to talk about. for the next 25 minutes, you leading the discussion on whatever you want to talk about. it is our open forum.

this is iris in south lyon, michigan. independent. you are up first. caller: good morning, everybody at are you? listen, we just got done discussing this expense, the clock, the ticking off, the expenses. we will never pay it. but, we take on every debt from every nation in the world. our government is spending money like water. the president has total control during we are going to fight the war of the worlds. he is expending -- he is not spinning all of your money, but us. how can we stop it? what is a president supposed to do? does he take command of the world? has he got control of our lives? can you control the phone calls that come in, these spam calls coming in from everywhere? they want to drill our brains, get our money, get our information.

host: that is iris. this is and in new york, democrat. caller: good morning. i just want to point out, we hear often with your speakers who are always great, how we are running out of money as a country. we cannot sustain the services for people. yet, come every election, somehow the money just pours in. millions and millions for these candidates. just look at wisconsin race for the supreme court judge. tomorrow as an example. the republicans like to talk about george soros, it is there one note. on the republican side, you have got the walton family. you've got the coke brothers. you've got billionaires who pour money in and pretty much purses -- purchase gerrymandered states. i feel some of these high earners in our country need to cough up more of their money to help america.

they make -- they use public services and pocket private gains. thanks so much for listening. host: sherwood, arkansas. this is scott, republican. good morning. caller: i am wondering if you have any articles about the oil saudi arabia plans on cutting back over one million barrels a day. i see on the market, oil has already gone up about four dollars a barrel. we've got the summer driving season coming up. america, get prepared. host: scott, a question for you. have a story on that. i did want to ask you about asa hutchinson, your former governor jumping into the republican presidential contest for 2024. caller: not a chance. host: why not? caller: he just do not cut it. host: did you vote for him when he ran for governor? caller: no sir.

host: why not? caller: he just do not cut it. he will not have a chance. host: who are you looking to support in the gop primary? caller: i could go with trump, nikki haley, ron desantis. there is probably more, but those are the top three i would be looking at. host: certainly not your former governor. caller: no, sir. host: asa hutchinson announcing his bid over the weekend. here is his appearance yesterday on abc this week. [video clip] >> i have made a decision. i'm going to run for president of the united states. while the formal announcement will be later in april in bentonville, i wanted to make clear that i am running. the reason is, i have traveled the country for six months. hear people talk about the leadership of our country. i am convinced people want leaders that appeal to the best of america and not simply appeal

to our worst instincts. that inspires me when i see everyday americans just saying, give us good leadership. give us common sense, consistent conservatism and optimism about our great country. that inspires me. i believe i can be that leader for the people of america. >> you've got a lot expense. you have been a prosecutor, a member of congress, a governor. most people in arkansas do not know who you are. how do you break through? >> a lot of hard work and good messaging. i spent some time in iowa. i love the response i get there. it is still about retail politics in many of these states. this is one of the most unpredictable political environments i have seen in my lifetime. my message of experience of consistent conservatism of hope for our future and solving problems that face americans, i think that resonates.

whenever i make the final announcement, i will be everywhere. i think it is a plan that can work in this environment. >> how does the indictment of donald trump iv manhattan d.a. change this race? >> as to the unpredictable it of it, i think it is a sad day for america that we have a former president that is indicted. it is a great distraction. at the same time, we cannot set aside what our constitution requires, which is electing a new leader for our country, just because we have this side controversy and criminal charges that are pending. host: asa hutchinson on abc's this week yesterday. back to your phone calls. i should note, the caller was asking for a story about that announcement yesterday about oil prices and oil supply around the world. here's the associated press story on that. the saudi arabia and other major oil producers announced yesterday cuts totaling up to 1.1 5 million barrels per day

from may until the end of the year. ap notes the production cuts alone could push u.s. gasoline prices up by roughly $.26 per gallon. in addition to usual increases that come when refineries change gasoline blend during the summer driving season, that according to the managing director of clearview energy artist. the energy department calculates the seasonal increase at an average of $.32 per gallon this year. this story from the associated press. we found that out yesterday from the wall street journal. several other papers, as well. this is barbara in oklahoma city. independent. good morning. this is our open forum. caller: hi. [laughter] god. i cannot believe it. you have these people on here every day just lying and lying and lying. do not care about asa hutchinson and what he has got to say. you have every republican that has got anything to say on here.

it is always lies. we have one problem with our social security. greed. that is it. you keep having them in here. we need to do this, you do not need to do anything. get rid of the great. that is all. until we do, it is going to be like this. we do not have capitalism. if you do not have people fighting to make the best product, which is what capitalism is, you do not get to merge, you do not get to buy off the people who are against you, who have the same kind of business. we stay little businesses, that is capitalism. these people. [laughter] they do not have $1 trillion in the bank. there is not $1 trillion in the world. we are running on $20,000 a year, they are up to $1 trillion a year. this is stupidity deluxe. host: this is jimmy and

california. good morning. caller: thank you so much for c-span. to touch on the greed female a bit. i am a 66-year-old gentleman from california. been on medicare, recent enrollee. i pay two thirds of my health insurance costs out-of-pocket, go to top, private health insurance companies. only one third for medicare. with your guest about medicare cost and mr. zandi saying health care costs are the most important increases we have going forward. when i was an early teenager, i dated someone whose father was a health insurance broker. he would take us on a job. after a couple glasses of wine, he admitted he had fraudulent malpractice insurance he was selling.

50 years later, i hear about rick scott, who is now a senator with a 200 foot yacht settling as a ceo with united health care for $1.6 billion with medicare. we need medicare for all. we need to get the private insurance companies out of the health care business. that would go a long way towards saving americans money. we could pay and set of insurance premiums, we could pay a little bit more for medicare. take care of health care for everyone. finally, solve a problem that has been going on for 50 years. my entire life. so, do you have any questions on that? host: thanks for the call, jimmy. this is paul in flora. republican. good morning. caller: hi. i wanted to talk to the economist. i watch tv.

i hear the economists talking how good the economy is. i beg to differ. i think we have 25% inflation on the things that count. your energy cost. the cost of your water bill. the cost of your electricity bill. the cost of your food. the cost of going to a movie. the cost of going -- of buying anything. everything has skyrocketed for the little person. the person with not a lot of money, or the person who cannot access the system or people who are not -- and cannot access the things available to them. host: what line of work are you in in palm harbor, florida? caller: i am recently retired from the post office. another thing. when they gave that stimulus check, i told my coworkers, some of my friends, we should not be

getting a stainless. we did not lose our job. some of the money was stolen. people -- i know some people that used this money to gamble or by bitcoin. nobody turned it down. you cannot just if other people -- future people, your kids and grandchildren, money you do not have. somebody will have to eventually pay for that. one guy told me, why don't you give yours back? i told him, if i see a quarter on the floor, i do not need it, but i pick it up. if you give it to me, i am going to take it. what am i going to do with it? host: were you a postal worker during the covid pandemic? caller: yes. host: what was that like in the early days? did you ever stop making your rounds? caller: no. i worked on the inside. i had more chances. got covid

everybody else. the last covid, the real contagious one. i got that covid. everybody got that. i am in pretty good health. it was like a cold. i got over it. my immune system, i had already taken the two pfizer shots. i live with an elderly parent. would not have taken it for myself. i did not know enough. i did not want to be responsible for killing my parent. other than that. i cannot hear you. host: i am just listening to your story. thanks for calling. this is marianne in north carolina, independent. caller: good morning. thank you for listening. i just want to say i have been an independent forever. i am 69 years old. i am wondering, isn't there some younger -- out there? these old people keep trying to run for president. the other thing i want to say

is, i was a low income earner. now, i only get $21 a month. how do you live off of $21 a month paid medicine and etc. etc.? host: marianne, is there a younger candidate out there that you would like to see run? is there somebody, a younger politician that you are watching right now that you hope would step up? caller: not at the moment. but, anybody that is under 50 should. these old people like me, 57, we need some young, new blood. that is all i can say. thank you so much for listening. host: any thoughts on nikki haley? i believe she is 51. caller: i heard her one day. i was impressed with her. she talked about god.

she is a reflection of the new republican, even though i am an independent. yes, she would definitely get my vote. host: that is marianne out of the tar heel state. back to the old-line state, jim, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. my question has to do with the federal budget. with the national debt ceiling, there is the debt ceiling coming up. 2002 for budget coming up. there is a lot of discussion on how we achieve certain goals, balancing it. i am not an accountant or financial guy. i always wondered when people -- what is spending? getting a chance to look at our budget the last few years, coming to the realization that between mandatory spending like medicare, medicaid, snap,

department of defense, which i am sure people would not want to reduce. accounts to over 70% of our spending. people talk about way spending. the best i can tell, it is not a lot of waste spending. some people only want to cut some debt remaining out of 30%. what are we willing to cut? i do not want to be democrat or republican, but i want to see a line by line agreement on what we can cut. the congressional budget office has come forward as they do every year with a plan of how we can do this with various options. until -- i do not want to be republican or democrat. until we can come forward with an alternative plan on, what do you want to cut, i do not think we will ever come to an agreement. i think americans have spoiled the economy. we want a lot, but we do not want to spend. at some point, we have to decide how we want to come to a

decision. whether we want to spend more, spend less and get less. that was my basic point. host: jim talked about going to the white house website, whitehouse.gov. there are plenty of tables to sort through a few sort through the budget and the historical tables there. including the outlays, by function of the federal government dating back to 1940. from 1940, projections into the years to come. plenty of tables to go through talking about the different agencies and the federal government over the years and how much money has been spent. whitehouse.gov is where you can go. this is ronald, long island, republican. good morning. caller: good morning, john. i think you are a decent guy. however, you might be too embarrassed to comment on the comment i am about to make.

this is supposed to be open forum. as soon as it is announced it is open forum, first, we have simple news and commercials about c-span. then, it is not supposed to be open forum for asa hutchinson. he will get plenty of opportunity to speak without taking up time on open forum, of which there is so little. so, let's comment what i would like to make now. do not think it will change. if i were a host, it would improve in that sense. it would just be for callers to call in with their thoughts and comments. host: i tell you, ronald. we certainly hear that people like the open forum. we have been doing it more in recent months and years then we did in the past, at least in my experience about 10 years of

doing this. have you noticed that we have been having more open forum segments per week? it is something we try to do. caller: i have not noticed that. basically, what i have noticed is that the posts waste -- hosts waste time by having well-known public figures take up time on open forum, taking away the very limited time that is for callers. host: got you. noted, ronald. will put you in the category of folks. is there a public policy issue you want to talk about since you have the time right now? caller: yes. i would like to say although c-span seems to be fear minded as far as the political parties are concerned, it has been anything other than fair-minded as far as health issues are concerned. in other words, with covid,

there are thousands and thousands of distinguished doctors in this country and elsewhere that never get a chance to say a word and opposition to the vaccine, with concerns about the safety of the vaccine. and other issues as far as clarifications with covid. they never have an opportunity to speak on the c-span or any of the other networks. so, it is a shame. it is fear minded. and more respects, they would have an opportunity to speak and give their opinions as well as the well-known doctors in favor of the existing policy. host: if you go to c-span.org, i guarantee you will likely find somebody you agree with that we have out onto dock about it. did you ever get vaccinated yourself? caller: i have not.

fortunately, i have not had the virus. i take other things that has helped me. i think some people for some reason may just have some built in defense against it that others do not. but, that is never acknowledged. host: that is ronald out of long island. this is margie in delaware. good morning. caller: good morning. i am really shocked no one has brought this up on your program before. speaking about ai. do people realize ai is going to take over more and more and more? more people are going to be out of jobs. what happens to social security then? ai took that -- in social security. i never hear anybody bring it up. it is going to be more so as the years go by. what happens to social security?

host: that is margie. this is patrick. portland, oregon, independent. good morning. caller: hi. good morning. i wanted to talk about plastic recycling. another topic that hardly ever gets talked about on the national level. we are inundated with plastic. anybody that has ever tried to go without plastic packaging for a month, it is almost impossible. everything is in plastic. there are many places that are converting plastic to essentially diesel fuel and natural gas. people are doing it in their backyards. people are doing it on small scales. for instance, the city of salt lake city. people are doing it all around the world. it is essentially turning fossil fuel that was converted to plastic back into a fossil fuel for use as energy. it is very low-tech. it is basically heating plastic in a non-oxygen environment and

converting it back to what it was, which was a fossil fuel for use for energy. unfortunately, we are going to be using fossil fuels probably for a wild. nobody is dealing with plastics in a meaningful way. recycling is hit or miss. most of the world does not really effectively recycle. we think we recycle a lot, it is only like 15% of plastic gets recycle. i think turning it back into a fossil fuel for use as energy in the short-term would be something that the government and the country should invest in if we really are concerned with plastic recycling. in the negative effects of micro plastics on our environment and our health host: did you catch that hearing last week before the senate varmint and public works committee on plastic production and pollution? this exact topic? we carried it on c-span if you did not catch it. caller: i did not, but i will look on the archives. the other thing to talk about,

if you cannot recycle it, you should make it. nobody is held the feet to the fire of these plastic manufacturers or saying, if you cannot easily on the -- at the curbside recycle this plastic, you should not be making it. that is another way to address the plastics epidemic, if you will. host: patrick out in oregon. this is donald in washington, d.c. independent. good morning. i am sorry. this is franklin in maryland. independent. caller: good morning. how are you today? i understand it is open forum. want to preface it by, i was a donald trump fan in the 1980's until i started buying his book and paying attention to the man. every donald trump fan needs to purchase his books and realize that even in his books, he tells you he is a liar. it is clear, the man lies for profit.

he lies for business. he lies to make money. just pay attention and stop believing everything the man says. thank you. host: franklin. believe this is donald in d.c. independent. good money. caller: thank you. i want to talk about tiktok. when new set the point to -- tiktok, i do not care about banning tiktok. i think tiktok should be sued for the harm it is costing to a lot of people who had their car stolen because the kids are learning how to steal cars on tiktok. right now, i have my hyundai, i think he is and fond eyes, you can learn to steal them on -- kia's and hyundais, you can learn to steal them on tiktok.

my car has been stolen, it has been two months now. your family will not get the parts from korea to fit the car. my rental options, they told me i have to pay out-of-pocket. i think tiktok needs to be sued. there should be a class-action lawsuit. they should pay for all that damage. thank you. host: our last caller in today's washington journal. we will of course be back here tomorrow morning. it is 7:00 a.m. eastern. four clock a.m. pacific. in the meantime, have a great monday. ♪

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the nation captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> a busy day ahead on c-span. looking at our live coverage, at 11:00, nasa and the canadian space agency announced the four astronauts for the artemis to remission. it is the effort to establish a long-term human presence on the mountain. at noon eastern, former ambassadors of pakistan and afghanistan talk about the withdrawal of u.s. forces from afghanistan, and the television's return to power. the event is hosted by the hudson institute in washington, d.c. at 3:00 eastern with a check with the washington post, the director of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives will discuss gun violence and his agency's work to combat the illegal distribution of firearms in the u.s. and then a discussion on the long-term implications of ground combat in ukraine.

the atlantic council in washington, d.c. is the host of the event. ♪ >> all this month, wants the top 21 winning videos from c-span's 2023 studentcam documentary competition. every morning, washington journal were where one of our winning documentaries, where students were asked to share with their top priorities would be if they were an elected member of congress. watch the 21 winning documentaries all this month at 6:50 a.m. eastern on c-span, also go to studentcam.org to watch the winning entries anytime online. ♪ >> since january 6, 2021, more than 1000 defendants have been arrested in nearly all 50 states and the district of columbia.

those arrested have been charged with a long list of felonies and misdemeanors including assaulting, resisting, or imputing officers or employees of the u.s. capitol. over 518 individuals have already pled guilty to a number of offenses. over 60 people have been found guilty at contested trials. a judge completed an oath keepers trial found defendant guilty of both felonies and misdemeanors. to try and understand more about the judicial trial process, we has danger on this recent trial to tell us her observation. >> hear from a jurore oath keepers trial in this episode of book notes plus, available on the c-span no mobile app, or wherev got y your podcasts. ♪ >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with live streams of

floor proceedings, proceedings from the u.s. congress, white house events, courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for tv networks and c-span radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span note is available in the apple store and google play. download today. c-span now, your front row seat washington, anytime, anywhere. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by the television companies and more, including comcast. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers to create wi-fi-enabled liposomes. so students from low income families can get rdy for anything.