♪ host: morning from washington on this thursday, april 6.

we begin with politics and your view of vice president kamala harris. president biden considers a second round in 2024 we will take your view of the vice president as his running mate. republicans dial in at 202-748-8001, democrats 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. you can join the conversation in a text including your first name, city and state to 202-748-8003. or on facebook.com/c-span and in a tweet with the handle at c-span wj. good morning everyone, take a look at the recent polling by 538 showing the vice president's approval and disapproval ratings. disapproval nearly at 49%. you can see how she has fared

over the months and her approval rating at 40.7%. the vice president recently traveled to africa. yesterday she spoke about the trip. here's what she had to say about the trip in context with her other duties in meeting with world leaders. [video clip] >> i have now traveled to many places around the world in my capacity as vice president. at this point of met with over 100 world leaders, be they presidents, prime ministers, chancellors or kings. in these meetings and in these travels it he is always with a sense of the responsibility that we have is the united states of america to be present and engaged with our allies and partners, with people whom we have great interdependence and

intersection in so many ways. as i've traveled all over the world practically and this trip to the continent of africa was in line with that approach. but with an incredible sense of optimism about what is happening on the continent. the median age on the continent of africa is 19. by 2050, one in four people occupying space on mother earth will be on the continent of africa. think about what that means in terms of the opportunity, in terms of the future, in terms of the obvious fact i believe as evidenced by the demographics i just shared.

which is that what happens on that continent will impact the entire globe. host: vice president kamala harris just back from a trip from africa talking about her role meeting with world leaders. we want to get your take on her tenure so far. a piece done about the criticism of late of the vice president and they write this that questions about harris' effectiveness reach their peak early during an interview with lester holt when she was repeatedly questioned about going to the southern u.s. border and offered a confusing response. here's a bit from that interview. [video clip] >> do you have any plans to visit the border? >> i'm here in guatemala today. at some point.

we are going to the border, we've been to the border. this whole thing about the border, we've been to the border. >> you haven't been to the border. >> and i haven't been teilhard up. i don't understand the point you're making. i'm not discounting the importance of the border. >> i know republicans -- but democratic congressman has a border district as said you and the president to come. >> i care about what's happening at the border. i'm in guatemala because my focus is dealing with the root causes of migration. there may be some who think it's not important, but is my firm belief that if we care about what's happening at the border we better care about the root causes and address them in so that is what i'm doing. host: that was vice president harris in an interview with lester holt. she did travel to the border for

the first time later that month on june 25, 2021. let's start in memphis, tennessee. we are getting your view of the vice president this morning. >> good morning. host: go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. to me, she works directly for the president and if something were to happen then she would be the president. but her job -- that's what i'm thinking. i think in this kind of racial background because she doesn't really have any decision-making powers. i wanted to say this. she is a good, smart woman. that's what i would suggest us doing and i would say this in my

state, we have a racial congress here and i would want to say it's wrong and it's bad, we need to get rid of the ar-15's, get rid of them because they aren't doing anything but killing children and hurting all of these families and we need to get rid of them. thank you. host: john mentioning her role in breaking ties in the u.s. senate which she has done frequently during this time in the biden harris administration and people have made note of that as well. from fox pot -- vox's reporting. there's been concerned about staff turnover and most recently worries about whether she's been effective as a vp and what that

could mean for her future as leader of the party. the latest wave of criticism features unnamed democrats disparaging her and worrying she wouldn't be able to win an election the top of the ticket. a particular stinging line in a new york times piece put it, even some democrats referred reporters confided privately they have lost hope in her. such intense scrutiny has been driven in part by a high focus as joe biden successor given the president's age and the possibility she may have to step in to the presidency there's been a bigger spotlight on her record then there otherwise might have been. the first woman, black person in south asian person to hold the vps's office has also contributed to an unprecedented level of attention relative to her predecessors.

paul in alabama, democratic caller. what do you say? what's your view? caller: my view of vice president harris, she is following the lead from president joe biden. i have always thought that joe biden has not given her the things that she is able to speak on well. one of the things is abortion. he has not let her or given her places to go where she can speak on abortion, as a woman, as a black woman. this is something that should've been done way before it got to the supreme court. he is not to let her speak on voting rights, which is, as the vice president and a black woman

, she is very well suited to speak on voting rights. as far as her going to the border or going anywhere, she cannot go and make her own decisions where she's going to go, what she is going to say when she gets there. from what the president tells her. so a tough position on her view or people's view of her is really the view of how the president is not using her to full capacity. host: there are articles about what you are talking about, that she can leave washington, she wants to, she is expressed frustration about that according to articles that she wants to get out and one of her biggest regrets was not leaving washington. it's partly because she physically can't. she is the tie-breaking vote in the senate and so sometimes she

will even have to turn around and come back to washington because she's needed in that chamber. caller: it hasn't happened where she is also tied up in breaking the vote where she can do these other things that's important. >> this was in politico. sunday afternoon this is from may 17, 2022. vice president, harris led an american delegation to the united arab emirates in the death of the federation president. by monday morning she was on her way home. the need for the turnaround reflects one of the critical roles harris has been forced to play in office. the second most high-profile member of the administration and these 101 first senator. the latter which requires her to be in washington in case she needs to cast a tie-breaking vote. in her 16 months as vice

president, harris has broken 23 ties in her official role as president of the senate according to the account. that puts her third of all time only trailing america's very first vice president and its seventh, 31 votes. last week alone harris cast six tie-breaking votes. >> see these tie-breaking votes, what it is she does not get the coverage. she does not get media coverage. she is making these tie-breaking votes but it's really not -- you really don't see, not before the public or the american people where she is speaking with, where she is exposed. these tie-breaking votes, she's not even exposed them.

people don't even know what votes are being broken. she does not get to have on the coverage that she needs to be for her rating to improve. host: who's fault is that? caller: that's joe biden's. she has to do what he asks her to do. host: we turned you down a little bit there. what were you saying? caller: she can't do anything on her own. she has to follow the lead of the president and if he doesn't give her these places to go and public arenas, even when they had the in 2020, it could have been going to when they go to

town hall meetings, she hasn't even been to a town hall meeting. he hasn't allowed her to do a lot of things. he hasn't allowed her to do anything. >> i'm good a leave it there and go back to this article. here's a quote from joe goldstein. a vice presidential historian. he says when vice president harris votes it's important to the administration, it means whenever there is a tie, they win. yet the need to stick around washington has not always cause for enthusiastic celebration. local officials described the coordination with chuck schumer's team over her schedule as a give and take. accommodating the schedule doesn't make white house travel impossible but the team has usually relied on trips that start early and end with late-night returns and have held off on larger travel for when the senate is not in session.

there are some perks to being tethered to the hill. harris uses the visits to reconnect with former colleagues on policies and issues often in her senate office located just off the floor. officials say harris will meet with senators on both sides of the aisle to catch up or have substantive conversations about policies being worked on by the administration. your view of vice president kamala harris, that's the conversation this morning on the first hour of the washington journal. lily in, an independent. >> thank you so much for giving me time to speak, i appreciate it. i just want to say i cannot believe that she was so flippant when she was asked by lester holt if she visited the southern border. she should know she's in guatemala, she's not visiting the southern border. the u.s. as a border with mexico

and she should know that considering she was the senator i believe, of california. i could be wrong. so she should know that and she should be aware of those issues and she should be aware of the issues that affect every state which is a very important state. and affects the country as a whole. i cannot believe she could be so flippant and so ignorant to something of that nature. it just incenses me that this was somebody that i voted for and this is somebody i believed in and i do not believe in this person anymore. to be honest i don't believe in them. i don't believe in the democratic party. >> you voted for the biden ticket in 2020 read as it stands right now with the field you have several other -- you've several republican candidates, who would you vote for. caller: at the moment i haven't

considered them. i think the election cycle is way too long. i think it affects every aspect of our life and i think it needs to be shortened. and i think that there are other issues at hand. i'll consider that in 2020 >> we are getting your view of vice president kamala harris this morning. republicans, 202-748-8000 --202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000. independents 202-748-8002. text us as well, include your first name and state. or post on facebook.com/c-span and in a tweet with the handle on c-span wj. the previous caller mentioned he would like to see the vice

president talking more about the issue of abortion. he says it's been a mistake that the biden administration, that the president has not had her out there talking about this more. we want to show you what she had to say. this is an excerpt of the vice president's speech back in january. speaking about republican efforts to roll back abortion rights on the 50th anniversary of the supreme court decision of roe v. wade. >> many states have gone further. and now have total bands in effect. alabama, missouri and south dakota to name a few. as clinics close in those states, understand as clinics are closing in those states, patients have lost access to other basic care. such as routine checkups, cancer screenings and contraception.

and to everyone listening, be sure, no one is immune from these impacts. even in states that protect reproductive rights like new jersey, illinois, oregon. even then people lived in fear of what might be next. because republicans in congress are now calling for a nationwide abortion ban. some even from the moment of conception. the rights of every woman in every state in this country to make decisions about her own body is on the line. and i've said it before and i will say it again, how dare they. >> the vice president on the

50th anniversary of roe v. wade. we are getting your thoughts on her as the vp as president biden considers a second run in 2024. carolyn in ohio, democratic caller. >> very happy with, let harris and i agree wholeheartedly with both of the gentleman that have called in. i will add one mention on the racial being some of the reasons it seems like everything. when i'm online paying bills, everything i see is negative about her. and i think it's not only racial i think a big part is that she's the first woman and she's got to take it i guess. i hate to say that but i was in management and i know it was rough going being a woman in

management and i guess it's just like that in the politics as well. but i will say they do not cover like the gentleman was saying because i know i have heard and i think it was c-span that she was doing something and i can't for the life of me remember where she was going but i wanted to hear about it and i had to go online to see what happened. and then one time -- host: was it recent? caller: no. one time, c-span covered her giving -- i believe it was when the senators were sworn in and i just -- i had to laugh. the funny thing that went on behind the camera i guess it was the old senate section that she had to redo for pictures or

something. >> they do a mock swearing-in on the senate floor. they go to the old senate chamber and the vice president traditionally has been sworn in the senators, their hand on the bible and they take a picture. we captured the back-and-forth before they do that ritual. caller: i loved it because i can't remember the senator's name, but his children were trying to kick at -- he was only two or three years old. he doesn't know better but i enjoyed it. i thought it was very funny. >> you can see her relationship like many who have served in the senate and they go on to the executive branch you can see the relationship she's had with those senators when she served

as the representative of california in the senate. caller: i am so impressed. i am just so impss with her and i just respr so much for what all she did even before being vp and her service. i know i could not do what she has done. i am impressed and i had to say that because the two gentlemen which i'm proud of them for saying what they did, i totally agree with both of the two gentlemen who have spoken. it's really all i wanted to add. >> what she was talking about you can find on our website along with other coverage of the vice president. if you just go to the top of our website you'll see a search engine for our video library, type in the words kamala harris and you can watch for yourself

the coverage that we have of her and decide your opinion of her as you contemplate as we talked about campaign 2024. it is early but folks are gearing up for the contest. democratic caller. >> good morning. i'm going to be a positive, i'm not can be judgmental. in my opinion, my hero is not only kamala harris, but gretchen whitmer. the governor who has taken so much heat, she has more -- than men and getting to the abortion question, what gives men the right to dictate this. i would go for -- vote for any woman who ran for office because as a man i'm disgusted with the

men who are not acting like men. they've lost ethics. they are all about power. as i recall when biden was vice president, i could not tell you what he did. he did not get much press coverage. he is not charismatic, she is more charismatic. he just comes across as a dry person. she comes across as really meaning what she says. that's just my profession. i just wanted to throw a positive spin on the negativity that seems to be in this country, of the divisiveness. we have to start coming together. host: i'm going to go on to tim in oklahoma. republican. >> i take the position that joe

biden was very shrewd in his selection of kamala harris, basically her vote in the presidential, she basically failed as a presidential candidate based on her run against joe biden. but he still selected her and i think he needed insurance because biden knew there was potential criminal activity with hunter biden and everything that went on there. so the country looked at the two leaders here in biden and harris and you wouldn't want to replace joe biden with kamala harris

based on her lack of confidence. so joe is protected to a degree by a less popular vice president. >> where in your opinion has she shown incompetence. caller: on the border absolutely. that's a total failure of leadership but yet she was appointed czar of the border, no one can see anything but a total invasion and failure with what she was charged to take on. so every other assignment whenever she goes to europe, giggling in situations and

laughing inappropriately in serious ceremonies, it is a high level they protected her. i think her fate -- gray's performance tie-breaking votes. it would be amazing if she ever voted against the democrat position, but yet that's touted as her number one performance achievement is tie-breaking votes. so there's nothing that she's done that could demonstrate competence. host: tim in tulsa, a republican. i'm curious if democrats and independents share criticism in her role of mitigating the situation at the border. she said the president put her in charge of policy on the southern border. we showed you the interview she had with lester holt on that

topic. she was criticized for her answer to lester holt. there are those who have come to her defense, donna brazil wrote an opinion piece, this is it in the new york times, the influence of, harris is hiding in plain sight. this is from march of this year and this is what donna brazil writes. she notes in this piece she encouraged president biden to choose kamala harris as his running mate. she says we should think about these expectations for the vice presidency. it was only starting with the presidency of jimmy carter and the role of vice president walter mondale played that the job became more than a ceremonial position. vice president harris ranks third in breaking senate ties and first in the first two years in office. some calling her duties breaking ties in the senate have limited her scope of influence, the

reality is she rarely traveled the country to meet with americans even as she cast a tie-breaking vote to better the lives of the american people including the inflation reduction act. the objective to strengthen america foreign alliances, she has met mostly in person with more than 100 world leaders to repair damaged or international relations caused by donald trump. at the security conference in february she announced the administration has formally concluded russia is guilty of crimes against humanity in its war against ukraine and warned china not to assist russia in its invasion. two public-private partnerships, she helped raise 4.2 billion dollars to address the root cause of migration from central america. miss she's pushed for legislation to secure voting rights, expand access in the income tax credits is a --

on worker organizing and power meant, was an integral part of the white house push to get americans vaccinated against covid it is the chair of the national space council. questions have been raised about the fitness of just about every vice president to move into the oval office since the president died. a role she will continue serving for another reason. mr. biden knew what he was doing when he selected ms. harris to be his vice president and had confidence she would be up to the task of succeeding him if necessary. i hope it never happens but if tragedy strikes, mr. biden's judgment will be proven correct. do you agree or disagree with the piece. the excellence of kamala harris hiding in planes -- plain sight. caller: the new york times and donna brazil really outdid themselves this time. let's go back a little bit, she

was pulling so bad she had to leave the democratic primary before it happened in california. she was only pulling it like 2%. in fairness, vice president's have had a hard time of it. going back to dan quayle when he couldn't spell potato. it goes on and on. but this is clearly a case of identity politics. she was appointed the czar and getting to the root of the problem at the border, that did not work out well. and then over there she cackled. maybe it's a nervous laugh. she had a propensity to do this. she really does not come off that well and it's obvious right now that they are trying to

rehabilitate her. edie's -- it seems ludicrous. host: what do you mean, what do you .2, what are they doing in your view? host: because i think -- caller: because i think she is a liability. the only reason he took her with them, south carolina, -- host: james clyburn. caller: clyburn endorsed her and then if you remember bernie sanders was leading but they knew he could never win the general election and he knows that as well. so he took her. she lost validity publicly when biden said i'm going to take a black female as my running mate. he should've picked condoleezza rice or someone like that.

this identity politics is crazy. personally -- it's about policy. every time this woman speaks, she speaks in a word salad. it's hard for me to understand. i don't understand what she's saying. she speaks in platitudes. i think she's very incompetent. >> an independent voter. let's listen a bit from the vice president yesterday. she was back in washington and after recent travel to africa and this is what she had to say about her trip. related to the teaching of slavery in the united states. [video clip] >> first of all people were kidnapped from their homes and taken for miles to this place. they did not know where they were headed.

untold numbers died on that voyage. then to be put in dungeons where there's a hole towards the ceiling where the lights would, but depending if there was a pathway behind it is where the stars would watch. and from time to time they might give water and the water -- it was so little that he described about these people who had been kidnapped, of these victims of these horrible crimes would try to survive including drinking the water off of somebody else's hair. and you see these claims and

it's horrendous and so after we had press with us on the trip and after they had, i spoke to the press and i had some prepared comments and i looked down at the prepared comments and i said i'm not doing that. and i just said what i felt. [applause] and it was about yes. in the midst of so-called leaders who are trying to erase history in our country, what we must all do to stand up and speak out about this as loud as we can. it's not just about forget, they are trying to erase history.

let's understand what this means. there's historical precedents for this kind of approach and what it means. >> that was the vice president yesterday back in washington after a trip to africa. she talks about her travels there. you can go to our website, c-span.org. donna in washington, democratic caller your talking about the vice president this morning getting your view of her job, of the job she's done so far. >> thank you. i have watched vice president harris as well as president biden. and i have read a lot of history both political and social, etc. in my life. i have to say she is one of the most impressive people i have ever seen in politics and i will

tell you why. i'm 78 so i have a rather long history here. to have a woman who is this brilliant, talented, warm, she has a great sense of humor. every now and then someone hears her laugh it's not because she necessarily thinks it's funny. there's all different kinds of expressions of humor or laughter . men certainly have had that freedom throughout all of history. i would like to say her going to guatemala. i did nephew in the peace corps there. guatemala, nicaragua, that's where a huge number of people are fleeing all kinds of horrible situations.

so for her to go there even before going to the border is not weird or odd. to be criticized for that is odd in my view. the leaders in these countries, you have to talk to them and other people to talk about how to use stem the number of people going to our border which definitely is a horrible mess and it has been even under our former presidents. nothing to brag about for any president dealing with that horrible problem. anyway, i admire her, e has great credentials, her resume to be the attorney general california and anybody who thinks she is not talented, super capable, that's the biggest state of the union. i think they have 40 million people in california now. we need to give her some credit

and i really think instead of any of this criticizing, characteristics of people and i watch myself on that. talk about facts, where she's been, where she hasn't been. it is how she might take on certain legislation in terms of working with the congress to influence them, both parties. because she was a senator. breaking votes -- breaking the ties is completely appropriate, that's her role and she can start missing votes. guess what, since democrats do not have the house 80's critical she gets to the senate on those occasions. >> donna noting her resume for

you. she served as attorney general of california and went on to serve in the senate. representing that state before she was chosen by president biden to be his running mate in 2020 and has been serving as vice president. more of your calls coming up, your view of the vice president this morning. front page of the wall street journal shows the speaker of the house kevin mccarthy in california yesterday with a bipartisan group of lawmakers met with the president of taiwan. that on the front page of the wall street journal. and you have this in the washington times front page above the fold, taiwan leader invoke -- evokes reagan in meeting with mccarthy. chinese show anger with military hostility near its island and they say leaders of china's

ruling communist party were bristling at the increasingly warm relations between the u.s. and taiwan. the island democracy the beijing considers a breakaway province as within house speaker nancy pelosi last summer, beijing said the high level contact with mr. mccarthy is a violation of the long-standing one china policy. listen to the speaker of the house yesterday in california about that visit. [video clip] >> the relationship between the people of the united states and taiwan has not been stronger in my lifetime. we had a productive discussion with the president of taiwan today. we covered the crucial way to further our bond read based on our conversation it's clear that there are several actions are necessary. first, we must continue the arms sales to taiwan and make sure such sales reached taiwan in a

timely basis. second, we must strengthen our economic cooperation, particularly with trade and technology. third, we must continue to promote our shared value on the stage. we live in a decisive moment in history and must act with urgency. tension in the world is at its highest point since the end of the cold war. as authoritarian leaders seek to use violence and fear to provoke lethal conflict. the bond between the people of america and taiwan is foundational and long-standing. together our people have weathered multiple crisis and cooperated in important areas of technology, trade and human rights. america must stay true to remain consistent in our support for the people of taiwan who share

american people's desire to live in peace, freedom and democracy. >> the speaker of the house kevin mccarthy in california with democratic and republican lawmakers standing behind him yesterday as they met with the president of taiwan. we covered that on c-span. you can find it on our website. sylvia back to our question here this morning. your thoughts in virginia, republican though ahead. caller: i like her. the way she giggles, my sister did that and every time she does that i miss my sister. i'm glad you read about what donna brazil had written. i think we need to remember what she has done and she will get better as time goes by. i think it has to be a learned thing.

this is our first woman vice president. i don't agree with her on everything but i think we have to start stop making fun of people that are in the office and we need to respect them and we will think a whole lot more of them. thank you so much. host: let me ask you this. the washington post notes this criticism and say the broader doubts about harris largely fall into two categories. some party members are simply not willing to elect a woman of color as president. especially given the racism and sexism they see emerging. others worry that harris herself lacks the political skills to win a national race. your reaction to those criticisms? caller: i don't think it's altogether true. she could be a great president and i don't think we've had a woman vice president because of

comments that they don't think -- they just put her down all the time. i'm tired of it even though more republican and i love donna brazil and i'm thankful that you read that piece that she wrote. thank you very much. >> linda. good morning to you. >> i am a retired 73-year-old woman. i achieve my education by joining the u.s. army. i got a four year degree. i encountered many people, women like, let harris throughout my life. if i had done as many special favors as this woman, i probably would've been command sergeant

major by the time i got out of the military. the man from new york was right on. the woman from washington, there is a reason she did not do good when she started out in the polls. she lacks character, lacks leadership in this woman would definitely put us in a war and i thank you very much and i will have everyone i come in contact with to go against her. host: democratic caller, hello robert. >> in contrast to donna brazil. i don't agree with her. because regarding, let harris, that nervous laugh and giggly nature is quite disturbing to a

number of us black folks in washington dc. i told my father when she was elected that she didn't seem like a strong and determined type of leader. but german chancellor or even this taiwan leader that just came here. i don't know. i think of her and i think what is she going to be like if she were to become president sitting in front of the guys from saudi arabia or negotiating with people from russia or china. she just does not seem to have that presence if you will. don't get me wrong, i am absolutely for a strong black

woman. my mother should be in her position. but in essence, she just sounds like an ill educated kind of person versus someone from the real hu which is hampton university. >> the washington post with another critical headline of the vice president. staff exit we ignites questions about her leadership style and her future ambition. vice president harris will ping -- burnt out this a few months after historic swearing-in and pondering exit strategies. harris posted a party where most of her office -- and posted pictures of smiling congenial coworkers on twitter.

five months later, one of the top officials leading the vice president's office, the high-profile member of the exit is that includes communications chief and two other staffers helped shape the vice president public image. this of the departures not due to any unhappiness or dysfunction but rather because she is ready for a break. and advising biden and harris while navigating a global pandemic. the quartet of soon to be empty desks reigniting questions about why harris churned through top-level staff. including her historic but uneven first year as vice president. now there's questions about her management extending to whether it will hamper the ability to seek the presidency.

henrietta, a republican. your turn. caller: good morning. i am not impressed with, let harris at all. unfortunately, she ill represents women and black women. she is the perfect poster child for why affirmative action does not work. there are hundreds, thousands of other black women who are more fitted to a vice presidential post then she is. host: what makes her not fit? caller: look at her track record. quite frankly, she is an embarrassment. everything she has touched has flopped. host: like what? caller: first of all, the border.

i get it was a problem. however, she did not even address it. we have a border that was working -- had a border that was working and now does not. to be put in that position of handling this task, i get it. it was over her head. and honestly this position shows how small she is. you can be a wet mop in california with a d by your name and be elected to anything. that's what she represents, she represents an easy flow, not ready for prime time. she is an embarrassment to women and black women. she shows her incompetence at everything she does. >> you mentioned immigration, other other policy areas.

caller: what has she been in charge of. supposedly she went to south america to find out the root cause of immigration. that in of itself when they said that is the root cause, are you kidding me? these people are dumb as door nails and have wrecked everything up, they are great for america. -- host: who are you talking about? caller: kemal and joe. the fact that they were elected is the best thing to happen to the republican party. everything since they took office is in the toilet and spiraling south. host: got it. kathleen in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, independent. we will get your take on this.

host: a disgrace. -- caller: a disgrace. now that she is the vp and in her office asked how many have left. doesn't want to do the job. it's a disgrace. just always remember, hearing about race, race, it's a bunch of baloney. checking identity boxes does not make a leader. get on track. we are a joke. how about her speech about time, the passage of time. this woman is a morand. it's really been just like biden, 50 years been paid by the taxpayers. and now you're finally seeing what an imbecile he is. host: kathleen's thoughts in pittsburgh. kirsten allen who works with a

vice presidential office responded in february to the critical headline that the administration was seeing about their vice president and this is what she had to say in a twitter thread. it is no shortage of people willing to throw shade and seemingly no shortage of publications willing to write it up and gossip. this to question the vp's role in choosing not to see what's right in front of them. she writes sadly this month she's also traveled on behalf of a grieving country to mourn with families in a celebration of life for tyre nichols in memphis tennessee. talking about her january schedule, the vp has traveled to michigan, florida and pennsylvania. speaking to thousands about historic work of the biden harris administration to deliver the american people. she writes in the washington post, harris visits after the north korean missile tests

noting her visited there. she also writes about the associated press headline. vp harris assures asian leaders the u.s. is here to stay noting her travel over there. harris meets with zelenskyy in munich at the munich security conference. and then, noting this. all while lifting up our nation small businesses and remembering those who are routinely left behind. here is a little bit from the vice president urging congress to act on policing reform legislation following the death of tyre nichols. here she is speaking at a funeral service in memphis, tennessee early february. >> when i think about the courage and strength of this family i think it demands we speak truth. and with this i will say this violent act was not in pursuit

of public safety. it was not in the interest of keeping the public safe because one must ask was not it in the interest of keeping the public safe then tyre nichols would be with us here today. [applause] >> was he not also entitled to the right to be safe? so when we talk about public safety let us understand what it means in its truest form. tyre nichols should have been safe. so i will just close by saying this, as a u.s. senator a co-author of the original justice and policing act. as vice president of the united

states we demand congress pass the george floyd justice and policing act. joe biden will sign it. and we should not delay and we will not be denied, it is nonnegotiable. host: the vice president of the celebration of life ceremony for tyre nichols. juanita in cincinnati, we have a few minutes left in this conversation. we are getting your view of the vice president. caller: good morning. i have two things to say. i'm a 72-year-old affirmative action baby. i think they're doing a wonderful job. to my friend in virginia, i will not allow her and i don't think, allah will allow her -- kamala

will allow her to define what a lack woman of affirmative action is. for my brother in washington, d.c., i'm not concerned about what it looks like in public. what i am concerned about as a black woman, i want to know what's happening behind the doors. if she is effective there. her being all these other things tells me she is effective somewhere. thank you very much. have a good day. host: political news from the new york times, kennedy junior, eighth ouchi critic, has vowed to run for president. the blue collectivist known filed paperwork offering a

potential longshot challenge to president biden. greenville, tennessee, dave, republican. caller: donna brazil's opinion is like the cesspool new york times she wrote it in. you have to wonder who is an honest source of truth. she provided hillary with questions before the debate. harris is a no-show joke in terms of being in charge of the southern border. she might be racist. she, like our last supreme court justice had to be a black woman to be considered and does not know what a woman is. she's providing bale to rioters so they host: we are going to take a break. when we come back, we will be talking about social security. we will talk to the social

security executive director on the latest social security medicare trustees report. later, the american bankers association president and ceo discusses calls for increased federal banking oversight and regulation after the recent collapse of financial institutions. we will be right back. ♪ >> fridays at 8:00 p.m. eastern, see sprint being rude afterwards from book tv -- c-span brings you afterwards from book tv with nonfiction authors on the latest books. this week, david mccormick outlines his vision for a better future for america in his book "superpower in peril."

watch every friday at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> a lifelong reader of abraham lincoln. in 2020, he published his first book called "every drop of blood: the momentous second inauguration of abraham lincoln." in his second work just published on lincoln, he dropped back to the beginning of honest abe's national political career. the year was 1860. the subject matter, inside the republican convention held in chicago. this time, the book is titled "miracle." he is the former editor of the providence journal and lives rehobeth, massachusetts. >> edwar acorn and his book

"theln miracle." book notes plus is available on the free c-span mobile app or wherever your podcasts. >> campaign 2024 coverage, your front row seat to the presidential elections. watch our coverage on the campaign trail with announcements, meet and greets, speeches and events. campaign 2024 on the c-span network. c-span now, our free mobile video app or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. announcer: washington journal continues. host: alex lawson is the executive director of social security works. thank you for being here to talk about the future of social security and medicare.

what is your take on what should happen with this program? >> it's really simple. social security work, everybody knows no one gives us anything when it comes to social security. we pay for it, we see it coming out of our paychecks. it is our money. so the last thing that anybody wants is some politician reaching their hand in your pocket and stealing our money by cutting our budget. and that is what is being debated. so we fully reject that. and the idea that there is any sort of crisis. this is not a system in crisis. if we just asked millionaires and billionaires to pay the same rate into social security as all of the rest of us do, then we could expand benefits, increase benefits for everyone and have solvency into the next century. it's the opposite of a crisis. it's actually incredibly safe and millions of americans know that.

>> let's talk about the current ste of social security. the retirement tstund can pay 100% of benefits until 2033, a year earlier than last yea after 2010- 2033, reserves becomeepted and continuing income can pay up to 77% o benefits. disability insurance trust funds can pay 100% of benefits until 2097. you said millionaires and billionaires need to pay the same rate. what do you mean? >> right now there is a cap on what you pay into social security. people pay on the first $160,000 of their wages. after that, people don't pay in at all. the more money someone makes, the less they are paying into the system. there is no reason for it. right now, that explains the entire problem that we are seeing with social security. there is a problem with social security. the benefits are too low for

millions of people. but in 2033, you have to do the whole system and is 80% of benefits after 2033. there is a 20% automatic benefit reduction because social security can't borrow any money. so that is the problem, a 20% benefit cut. the solution can't be a 20% benefit cut right now. and that is what republicans are proposing. that is what a lot of experts will be proposing. but they are not being honest with the american people. all we have to do, we have a decade to get millionaires and billionaires to pay into the system on all of their income just like the rest of us and there is no problem. in fact, we can expand benefits, increase them for everyone in the country. host: you call it an accident of history that we have this cap. explain?

guest: it literally is just an accident of history. there's always a back and forth in terms of creating policy. that was true during the new deal era as well. a lot of things that frances perkins and the other new dealers wanted like health care was originally part of the new deal were not included. even then, there is this republican and democratic debate and the republicans were consistently trying to give less. they wanted to cut things back. so deals remained. one of the deals, rich people were going to pay less into the system than working people and that is the only problem that we really have to fix with those -- social security. host: your argument is rais interest cap on millionaires and billionaires. earlier this week, a former

public trustee of social security and medicare trust funds discussed proposal to raise the cap on earnings. here is what he had to say. >> it only gets you so far. one of my frustrations as a former trustee is that there's a lot of exaggeration in media commentary, social media commentary. it doesn't do all that much. even if you completely exposed and eliminated the cap, got rid of it altogether, exposed all earnings without limited taxation, it only solve about 38% of the permanent shortfalls. why is that? in social security, benefits and prosecutions are linked. you painted the system, you make a major benefit. there is a way around that. what you can do, you can ratchet

down the benefits approval rate so it is not a big benefit windfall for them. but that just get you back to the starting point that there is really no way to avoid dealing with the growth of the benefit formula on the high income end. with an increase in the tax base, without an increase in the tax base, you are pretty much stuck having to do that. we are going to have to do a little bit of each. a little bit on the tax side, a little bit on the eligibility side, a little bit on the benefit formula side. host: your response? guest: with all due respect to chuck, the man is a paid liar. nothing that he said there is actually true and we have all the paper to show it. senators elizabeth warren and bernie sanders released a bill, and in the bill they removed the cap on what people pay in the.

they asked millionaires and billionaires to pay all of their income just like the rest of us do. they not only achieved 75 year solvency, they also increased everybody's benefits in this country by $200 per month. it is simple. this man -- i'm sorry, i am pointing at chuck -- he is not being honest with the american people. he is making it seem like the only choice to address the problem of a benefit cut in a decade is to cut benefits now. that's not a solution to the problem, it is just the problem sooner. and then his math is not correct. you can check the actuaries math on the sanders-warrenville and see that it achieves 75 year solvency. host: does it do that by delinking benefits to income? guest: yes, it does. what it does, you just adjust the formula which is what we have right now. the more that you pay in in

social security, the less there is a return on the seller's -- salaries at the high end. you just continue that, and that is a way of making the benefits very progressive. right now, the revenue is incredibly regressive. the richer you are, the less you pay into social security. now, all we have to do, make the revenue progressive, continue with the benefit structure and again, solvency into the next century, increased benefits for everybody. everybody wins except maybe some billionaires. that is what this is about. the billionaires saturate this town with money. they create whole thing take -- thinktanks to pretend there is a crisis. there is not a crisis, they just don't want to pay taxes. they have the entire industry set up here. huge money pulling into this

town so that they don't have to pay their fair share. > what would be the millionaire and billionaire's fair share? what is the percentage, all of their income? guest: correct. host: what would be the percentage? guest: 12.6% just like everybody in this country. the vast majority of americans in this country. they pay 12 point 6% into social security from their wages. it is how they earn their benefits. half of it comes in their employer, half of it comes from themselves. millionaires and billionaires do not pay 12.6%. the more they make, the less that percentage is. someone like elon musk probably pays .0000001% of his income. i want him to pay the same amount as every american on all of his income. these billionaires have an army of lawyers. and what those lawyers do is

create complex financial situations so that they don't have to pay their fair share. i say we end the rig system that allows millionaires and billionaires to have an unfair redistribution of wealth in the country and instead, we have them pay the same rate as the rest of working americans. it is pretty simple. host: the medicare trustees report. the programs will be able to pay 100% of benefits until 2031, three years later than reported last year. continuing program will be sufficient to pay 89% of total benefits. what we do about the program, in your opinion? guest: again, the trustees report should be an occasion every year for everyone to be happy and the like, look, everything is going for the well. and we have a decade to figure out some small tweaks of making millionaires and billionaires pay the same rate and the system will continue functioning. with medicare, the reason it has

increased is because the administration has put forward some ideas to stop corporations from ripping off the american people. for example, we just allowed medicare to negotiate drug prices. that's hundreds of billions of dollars into the system, and all we had to do was say pharmaceutical corporations can't rip off the american people anymore, who, for the most part, the american people pay to develop the drugs through the nih and tax dollars and then we pay the highest drug prices to the world. let's stop getting ripped off by corporations on health care, put that money into medicare, stand medicare benefits, cover vision, hearing and dental, so people don't have a liability that they can't afford. these are the ideas that are really simple, that stop

insurance corporations from making their money by delaying and denying care and ripping off the government by just overcharging them. again, we see some emotion in that direction from the biden administration. we are talking tens of billions of dollars per year. again, there is no crisis except for the crisis of political will. who does this town work for? does it work for the american people who have built this country, for the billionaires who are definitely pouring money into the city, but are doing it so that they can extract from the country, not add to it? host: the president in a statement on march 7 says "my buroposal to increase the medicare tax rate on earned dollars to 5% from 3.8% as000 proposed in the past, my budget will also ensure that t tax that supports medicare can't be avoided. this modest increase in

contributions from bills of the highest incomes will help keep the medicare program strong for decades to come. your reaction? guest: that is one part of the plan on medicare. it is a little bit tax policy-wonky because the deals with pass-through incomes, but the real easy thing is what i said before. billionaires have an army of lawyers and accountants, and what they figure out how to do is create complex financial situations so that they don't have to pay what they actually owe. when you have them pay what they owe, there's no problem. so most of it president biden is addressing is actually a loophole that was exploited by the ultra-wealthy. host: let's get to the calls because they are lighting up for you. executive director director of social security works. bob in wisconsin, republican. caller: i believe mr. lawson

accused someone of lying when he himself i think is at least misleading the public. he said something like that it is an accident of history that the contributions are capped. actually, what happened with the benefits were capped because the social security is called supplemental security income, and they believed back then when they started that people of a certain income category would not need that supplemental security income, so they capped the benefits first, and then they tied the benefits cap -- excuse me, the contributions cap to the benefits cap. we can have a discussion on whether you want to raise that, but are you going to raise the benefits as well? or are you just going to make it more of a welfare program when it comes to not paying people their fair share? host: bob, hang on the line. alex lawson will respond.

guest: a couple things. supplemental security income is a different program than social security. it is administered by the social security administration, but it is not what we are talking about today, just as a point of clarification and fact. ssi is different than social security. some of the other things that you said are true, except backwards. there was a maximum tax rate, and because of that, a maximum benefit rate. and it went in that direction. the idea is that social security is an insurance program. you pay into it, you earn your benefits when you become fully insured, and again, we could have had everybody paying in on all of their income from the beginning with a benefit structure that is very similar to what we have right now, it just returns less and less as

you get up into those elon musk numbers of billions of dollars. host: bob, do you have a follow-up? caller: i believe he's wrong. social security was originally, as i believe, the ssi and all the other things that you are about have been added on between when that started and now. that is what i was talking about and i still think he is wrong about how it began. benefits were cap first. i still believe that's true. guest: i would invite anybody who is listening to just google "ssi history" and you will see that this program happened way later than the creation of social security as we are talking about it. ssi is a critical program that we actually need to increase -- i just want to clarify this on the facts. and again, if you're interested,

i would suggest that you take a look at nancy altman's book, "social security works." you can read about the history of it. you could also just google history of social security and read all about how it came together, wide areas decisions were made, and how a lot of it is, like i said, accidents of history. accidents of history might be eating a little generous. it is actually just the give of politics. the reason that we don't have health care today is because that was negotiated away to some of the conservative senators at the time, and we still don't have guaranteed health care in this country. the history of social security is really accessible if you want to actually just google it. host: albuquerque, new mexico, independent. caller: good morning. i'd like to combine another

social issue with this, and that is illegal immigration. lots and lots of businesses cheat by hiring illegal immigrants. the democrats don't say or do anything about it, they just want to let everybody in the country. and i'm sure the far left is really going to push for any part of immigration reform. we are going to just hand hundreds of millions of people, we are just going to give them everything. we are going to give them social security and we are going to give them medicare and medicaid. with that part of your plan, alex? please inform me. guest: a couple things. one is that you have it completely reversed. the problem with our broken immigration system right now is that millions of people are working in the shadows to benefit big business, and those workers who are trying to make a decent living basically

following the rules of this country, including paying into social security to the tune of tens of billions of dollars that they are paying into social security, undocumented people paying into the system without getting any benefits out. that is the current situation. what i would do in the future, if we fix our immigration system, if we bring people out of the shadows so that they are actually working with the same legal protections as citizens in this country, then we are going to see wages go up for everybody. that is the single best policy for social security possible. you don't have to believe me, you can go and look at the actuary website and see it for yourself. if we stop letting billionaires and big business rip us off, in this case by creating a broken

immigration system so that there is a pool of low-paid workers that drives every working wage down in the country, we have a very american immigration system where we invite people into this country and we say if you play by the rules, if you work hard, we are going to have your back. social security is going to have your back. labor laws are going to have your back. you are not going to be able to be exploited by a big corporation so that they can profit off of your unpaid labor. i'm sorry, caller. i think that if you look into this, you will find that there is a lot of misinformation being fed to you by the billionaires to protect their money, and to go even further, to reach into your pocket and steal your money. so what it all comes down to, we

all need to stand together and say no more. it is time for them to pay their fair share into the system in a host of different ways. host: florida, republican, you're up next. question or comment on social security and medicare. caller: i do have a question and i also have a comment, and they are both very important so please don't cut me off, i would appreciate that. first, the question i will ask him. i'm 87 years old, ok, and i've lost a lot of friends over the years. my question to him is what about all of the billions and billions and all of the trillions of dollars over all of these decades that people pay into social security? a lot of my friends died before they were old enough to collect social security. their children are adults now. how does the government end up being the beneficiaries of the billions of dollars that these

people do not collect? you've got all this extra money coming in. host: we will take that question and then i will come back to you. go ahead. guest: it is an important question. the fact is that nothing can create a system where we can protect against all of life, but we can provide a system that provides some economic security. there is no way of knowing who is going to die when. in fact, there's no way of knowing who is going to live a very long life and outlive their savings and a family network of support. that is a big reason that social security was created. before social security, one in two seniors in this country lived in poverty. in fact, there was a poorhouse in every single state in this

country except new mexico. and the house is where people were put when they ran out of money, when they didn't have familial support. it was an american debtor's prison. the doors were locked at night. what social security did is created a system where we pay in during our working lives, and then it is there for us when we needed, including if we live to the age of 102, including if we face a life changing and become disabled and can no longer work, regardless -- not regardless, but as long as people are fully insured, regardless of how old they are. and the surviving children in the loss of a breadwinner. old age, disability and survivors insurance against the loss of wages. there is no way that we can dictate who is going to die

young and not be able to access the old-age benefits any more than we can predict who is going to become disabled and access their benefits. this is a system that really does work for everybody, but the reality is that we can't predict when everybody is going to die. host: did you have a comment you wanted? caller: yes, yes. first off, that's a lot of garbage she is spewing out ther e. i wish he would stop saying this is been going on for decades and decades, these talking points. billionaires and millionaires and women and children, the talking points of democrats for decades now. why can't you have a conversation about the billionaires and then throw nothing in the top of that? you guys are so good at talking

points for decades, please just stop. host: let me ask it this way. where is the common ground? where could you with the other side say i would be ok with your proposal on x? guest: i mean, you are seeing a lot of bipartisanship. where there is common ground, i, personally, people across this country, i will say that your callers aren't fully representative of how public opinion is. outside of washington, d.c., social security is absolutely bipartisanly beloved. it is actually like 7% of people including republicans, independent, democrat want to see a penny of benefit cut. less than 10%. 90% of the american people are

saying do not steal my money. i won't find common ground with anybody in this town, with any politician in this town that goes against the will of 90% of the american people. republicans right now know that. that is why they are pretending and hard as they can that they are not trying to cut social security benefits, even though they go on tv and say we definitely are going to do that. now they are saying no, we are not trying to cut social security benefits, because they know how deeply unpopular it is. so when it comes to making bipartisan decisions moving forward, let's listen on social security to the bipartisan consensus that exists everywhere in this country, except washington, d.c. host: was there bipartisan consensus when president obama

established a bipartisan national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform? why not? guest: there's two different bipartisans. there is one here in washington, d.c. where you find republican politicians who wants to cut social security, and you may even find some particularly democratic people who agree with them and they want to be the serious people around town. go outside of washington, d.c. i have. i go all over and asked people about social security. it doesn't matter where you are or who you are talking to. a bunch of electric vehicles in the parking lot, nobody wants to cut social security. in fact, everybody wants to expand benefits and pay for it by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay into the system. so i can say asking the ultrarich to pay into the system to stop letting the ultrarich

rip us off, massive bipartisan consensus outside of washington, d.c. there is this bipartisanship that exists between wall street and d.c., so the billionaires who call the tunes and the politicians who dance to it, they pretend that that represents some sort of coming together. but on social security, the only thing it represents is a deep rejection of what the american people are saying over and over again, which is "don't cut my benefits, don't take a single penny from my benefits." in fact, expand benefits and pay for it by getting the ultrarich to paint of the system. host: conrad in new kensington, pennsylvania, independent. caller: -- millionaires and

billionaires is insane. it is insane. -- on all of us. -- from covid. the cost of living wages. -- passed legislation that would be able to -- that from my income tax. when you -- anyone with a net worth -- cost living wage. host: i think we understand your point, a little bit muffled. are you good, did you understand? guest: the idea of not giving cost-of-living increases to some people is just not a good one.

the complexity of doing that would change the beautiful simplicity of social security. all of their benefits include a cost-of-living adjustment. and the truth is, you wouldn't get that much from getting -- the ultrarich in this country are not profiting wildly off of the social security cost-of-living adjustments. they are profiting wildly off of not paying their taxes. so you don't go after on the benefits side, because that is not where the system is broken. the system is broken on people paying almost nothing into the social security system. and just the final point, you don't need a law to opt out because no one is forced to take their benefits. anybody at any point could just donate whatever they wanted to the federal treasury. there is a form online for it. so if anybody feels passionately

about that, it is not something that we should involve the congress in, forcing americans to do. so i think that is the answer for conrad. host: kathleen, massachusetts, democratic caller. caller: yes. i just wanted to say the woman that was talking about there are so many millionaires in this country and a lot of billionaires, but it worries me because tugging, the billionaires and millionaires -- it sounds like you're talking about socialism again. i think i'm getting a little bit stuck here host:, i'm sorry. host:let's take your point. are we talking about socialism here? guest: i think that that word is

pretty meaningless at this point. it is tossed around to mean a whole bunch of different things depending on what venue. so what we are talking about is an american system of fairness. in fact, if you go back and look at what was happening at the creation of social security, it really was to create an american system that rewards hard work, delayed gratification following the rules. it is inherently about wages. we live in a capitalist system. that is just fact. social security is there in the system to prevent against a of wages, because in this system, if you don't have wages, you can't live. and social security was an american system set up in order to create -- not to try to fix everything, just to make it so

that one in two seniors didn't die in poverty. that we didn't have seniors and people with disabilities dying in the streets. it was created at a time when wealth and income inequality were wildly higher than at any point in history except today. and what we did then, because the inequality, the ultrarich are not doing their part, the ultrarich exploiting the system led to the great depression. what we did as policy respondents, we did many things, but we protected the right of workers to collectively bargain and create unions to raise wages. we created unemployment insurance. we created social security and we have to look at these systems for what they are and what they

were set up to do, and then look at our system right now, our situation right now. find out where the parts that are not working are. the benefits are working great. for over 85 years through boom time investing, war and peace, health and pandemic, not a single benefit hasn't been paid. the american people can count on that. that is the rock that people can count on. they can build their retirement future on. compare that to the risky alternatives of wall street. people see the 401(k) turn into 21k. these are the things that you can't count on. social security, you can. the only problem is that we have a few ultrarich in this country who don't want to play by the rules, and that is the problem.

social security is an american system set up to reward people who do play by the rules. right now, we have a bunch of ultrarich who are not playing by the rules, and that is the part where congress has to step in and exit. host: we are talking about the future of social security and medicare with the executive director of the group social security works. for our viewers, some numbers as we continue with this conversation. this morning, 67 million people per month receive a social security benefit. the average monthly benefit for retired workers is 1008 hundred dollars and disabled workers receive $1480 monthly benefit. we've been talking this morning, republicans, democrats, independents. well in pennsylvania,

republican, we will go to you next. >> thank you for the service you guys provide. i just had a couple of quick questions for you. it seems interesting to me that when you use your argument, you use the words poor people or working people, whatever is more convenient for the point you're are trying to make. and it also, people they contribute as much to the general economy as building a business where they might make several million dollars, someone in contributive uppers of $20,000 back into the system. that is a pretty substantial amount off their taxes. if they also get taxed upwards of $1 million per year, how does it really seem fair that you use the word stealing when you referenced how they take from the people, which that is not even the policy. they pay taxes. i know for a fact, i pay a massive amount of taxes.

so i don't personally feel when i include 1200 people in this people who have the ability to raise a family and put kids through college, whilst the income they generate from the jobs i provide -- why should i then have to be taxed at an even higher rate than everyone else when i never will use social security? that $20,000 would amount to about $800,000 over my lifetime and will never, ever come back to me. and i'm fine with that. why should i still have to continue to support everyone else when i already do that data day? -- day to day? guest: there is a lot there. i can understand your first point. there are perky -- poor people, there are working people. some poor people work. that is the way of the world. i understand what you are saying vaguely. generally, we are not talking about you. it is why i flipped to alter bridge so that we can really understand who we are talking about. moderately wealthy people in this country, senator sanders --

sanders and elizabeth warren's proposal, they are not starting at $160,000, the current cap. only people who make above $250,000 per year are going to have to pay in on all of the money above to hunter $50,000. what president biden ran on is about $400,000 per year. we are talking about a very small percentage of the american people who would see even a nickel increase taxes paid in, and the benefit in the sanders-warren case is everybody, the 67 million today and everyone in the future will see their benefits go up by $200 per month. it really is simple. there are a very small number of

ultra-wealthy who are exploiting the system. that is the problem. we are not talking about the vast majority of americans whether they create a business or whether they are going to work every day at that business on the line. that is the system that social security works with. the only problem is that for decades now, a small amount of ultra-wealthy has exploited the system. they've created incredibly complex tax situations, an angel situations, offshore bank accounts. all of this in order to not pay in what they should pay into the system, and the solution is to just focus on the problem, the ultra-wealthy exploiting the situation, and then solve it. ask them to pay into the system just like the rest of us do. host: can i go back to you after

hearing the explanation from alex lawson now? change your mind? caller: i think he just kind of talk in circles and didn't address my question. let me put it like this. i need 7.3 million last year. i paid over $1.2 million in taxes. is that not fair? guest: i don't know your situation. caller: those numbers, is that not fair? guest: again, i don't know your situation. i can't tell you if it is fair. i do know math, is that your income tax, is that your payroll including everything? we've got a lot of different pieces here. caller: we can go into complexity here and i'm sure we could do that with all these arguments. guest: but what i would like to say to you is you are incredibly lucky to be making $7 million in this country. and the reason that you can is

because you live in this country. the reason you have a business is because of the roads that get your product where they are going. the reason you can have a business is because you can rely on the courts and the laws to enforce the contract that you make with your business. you are incredibly lucky to live in america where you can succeed the way that you are. so i think it is on you to decide, is it fair, then, that you pay in some of your enormous income into the system to reap the benefits that collectively come to everybody in this country? host: dave is in las vegas, independent. caller: thank you very much. the wealthy don't pay their fair share. this guy talking about how he is making so much money.

they don't care about seniors anymore. trump cut the social security tax when millionaires and billionaires were making tons of money. and another thing, the earliest you can get it is like 62 or 65. i waited until i was 62 and they don't even pay until you die, and most people die on average at 63. they don't even pay for your funerals. in all of these congressmen, they worked for years and they get a full pension. they don't care. and the republicans want to cut social security. desantis wants to cut social security, he will. they don't care. the republicans never voted for social security. so i mean, why not just raise the cap? that is all they've got to do.

medicare is a good thing. it is ridiculous. people are on social security and aren't getting very much money if at all. there congressmen, they get a full $170,000. republicans, they don't want to raise the cap. they've got us spending trillions. host: we are running out of time. final thoughts here. guest: i think the important thing here that dave brought up that is related to all of the callers, it is what you said. the average monthly benefit for a retired worker is $1800 per month. that is what we are talking about. should we have the people who are making $1800 per month, should it come out of their pocket? should it come out of their pocket? the fact that millionaires and

billionaires are exploiting the system, should we have to fix that problem by taking money away from people who are barely scraping by after a lifetime of hard work? or should we go after the problem? the ultra-wealthy who are exploiting the system and not paying in? to me, the choice is really clear. you don't reach into the pockets of the people who have followed the rules. host: many argue that they are not talking about cutting benefits to those that are on the program now, they are talking about benefits for those that are coming into the program in the future years. guest: so i think that many people are deeply misunderstanding the american people because i talk to seniors today and i say are you a k with your benefits being cut? what about your grandchildren's benefits? and they say no. so it is not ok to rob future

generations of their benefits anymore than it is to rob current beneficiaries of their benefits. you are asking people to pay the same amount in and giving them less. you are taking their money away. that is when it comes down to. yes, i don't want to reach into current beneficiaries pocket or future beneficiaries pockets, because they are not the problem. they are the ones playing by the rules. it is the ultra-wealthy exploiting the system that are the problem. host: alex lawson, our viewers can find more from you if they go to socialsecurityworks.org. thank you. guest: thank you so much. host: we will take a break. we come back, american bankers association president and ceo rob nichols joined us to talk about increased federal banking oversight and regulation after the recent collapse of financial institutions.

announcer: book tv every sunday features leadi authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at the history and rise of drag to the rise of drag queen --. and then, in his book "superpower in peril," former ceo and 2022 pennsylvania republican candidate for u.s. senate david mccormick outlines his vision for a better future for america. he's interviewed by john bateman. watch online anytime at book .orgv.

>> american history tv saturdays on c-span two exploring the people and events that tell the american story. the 2022 international conference on world war ii hose through by the national world war ii museum including a conversation with a world war ii veteran who recounts his time when he had 25 missions over france and germany. paul lockhart on the developing of weapons technology, exploring the american story. watch saturday on c-span 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> tell your smart speaker play

c-span radio. important congressional hearings and other public affairs throughout the day. catch washington today for a fast-paced report on the stories of the day. listen to c-span any time. just tell your smart speaker play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. 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 biggest events and live streams of the hearings from what has the events, the courts, campaigns and more for the world of politics all at your fingertips. find scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio.

the apple store, google play. your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. washington journal continues. host: turning up this morning is rob nichols, president and ceo of the american bankers association. that's been with your association. who do you represent? guest: thank you for inviting me and having it. the american bankers association established in roughly 1875 represents about 4700 banks in the united states, the overwhelming majority of which are small, community banks. we also have midsized banks, regional banks, and large, globally active banks. we represent the entire sector of the entire industry. host: people are going to be very familiar with seleka and valley bank as well as signature bank.

what happened? guest: the first bank failure in roughly three years ago, we take this very, very seriously. what is important to point out is that the overall sector, with regard to your question about what happened. monitoring and investigating to see exactly what happened. first it was a failing of the management team diminished interest rate risk. there was also a concentration risk. they were just heavily focused on the community. they had a large amount of unrealized losses in a huge amount of unsafe -- uninsured deposits. so there is a whole set of management, risk management failures. their unique and particular to this bank.

there were supervisory failures as well. and third, this is new, the first time in the history of our public, social media is a contributor, not the foundational cause, but social media for the first time is a participant in the bank rise of the united states. host: who is doing this and what was the reaction? guest: less than a month or so ago -- host: on twitter? guest: one venture capitalist sent out a note saying we may want to consider pulling money out. started tweeting about it. the day before the fdic the

california bank, $42 billion is taken at the institution in less than a day. the fact that social media the rapid integration is certainly a factor here they want to look at this. host: are you saying people would not have access to their money digitally as fast as they did in this situation? guest: the fact that banking has become so art by $42 billion was

taken out of banks in less than one business day. host: let's talk about the rule of the federal government in oversight here. you talked about red and yellow lights flashing. first of all, who receives these? who is responsible on a regular depart? guest: this bank is overseen by the federal reserve. specifically, the supervisory san francisco fed. that was the primary regulator of the silicon valley bank. the totality of the banking regulators, the federal reserve, the fbi see. the regular -- regular agencies were in harmony with this particular svb overseen by the federal reserve.

host: they testified about what happened there. what did you hear from them? guest: what i think was really important is that they are going to do a study the itself looking internally to see if we missed some things, if we had sufficient tools to manage risk, so they are going to look internally to see if we missed something, what happened here? were there supervisory failures? do we need a whole new set of banking rules? we don't think that is the case. we think this is idiosyncratic. we think the fed didn't have the necessary tools to control what is happening. again, acknowledging that the foundational purpose here is not the fed, it is svb. that acknowledgment on the part of chair powell and others that they should look at the thoughtful and reflective around what happened here, that was

incredibly important. guest: they sure were. we saw the first round of hearings that share brown and chair mchenry hosted, that we looked at what happened that weekend. as they resolve those institutions and they took the steps to help stabilize the banking sector, that was kind of the first round of hearings. next round of hearings will focus on actual management of the banks themselves, so those questions will be posed. then i think we will have a firmer sense of what happens. it is understandable that people want to do that. host:host: let's talk about the bank itself, it is the first thing that you talk about, three things that were happening. were the lawsuits related to venture capitalist money? guest: this is their bond

portfolio. basically, interest rates have been a growing for a long time and as the fed announced that they would be going up, the banks would hedge those interest rate risk. i also have what is very traditionally called -- risk. that is another issue as well. and those help create come along with social media and other factors, this bank run that occurred about a month or so ago. host: a diversified depositor portfolio, wouldn't that have been a red flag for regulators? guest: those are the questions being asked, but exactly. regulators are going to do this review of what happened on their

part, and holistic congressional things. risk management in the part of the banking sector, and then the fed is also doing it, a study on where the exam for misses as well. host: is silicon valley bank the outlier here? what happened with signature bank? guest: again, i think they were rather idiosyncratic. signature bank cratered in recent months, that was a very different set of circumstances. they had a heavy concentration risk to one industry sector. there were some similarities there. but i think that the key message really important for the american people, the viewer this morning is that we look at the entire sector the 4700 banks doing business across the united states, the sector is resilient,

well-capitalized. solid liquidity. that's been conveyed by president biden, secretary yellen, chairman powell, chairman mchenry, chairman brown .i think that's a really important message that what happened at these institutions is not symbolic suggestive of a systemic challenge that the sector is facing. host: we want to invite every euro to join us -- what are all the other banks doing that are not in similar trouble to silicon valley bank and signature bank?

what have they done in recent years and how are they protecting against interest rates by the federal reserve? guest: there are many ways they can hedge risk. there is a lot of thing the banks are doing. in the last immediate aftermath of the last month, many banks have looked internally to ask how we are doing. i'm sure those conversations had occurred in banks across the country. the industry is solid and on solid footing soak in a good place. this is not a 2008 all over again. that's what i really want to convey to the viewers. we had a lot of questions like is this another financial crisis. its really not. its really important for folks to hear. also, right now, given the understandable questions on the part of the public policy community, the regulatory folks, the folks in the biden administration, the folks on capitol hill are saying do we

need a new set of laws. we are actively involved in that , in conversation now to say we really doing think we do. we need to overhaul and rewrite the entire set of banking rules, that would be a misstep. host: hot springs, arkansas, democratic caller. caller: mr. nichols, i been trying to follow this, what's going on with silicon bank. guest: yes, svb for short. caller: i understand these people moved their money in large quantities and billions of dollars from this bank to other banks. via the internet or whatever. i bank with a regional bank here. whenever i call them, click on calling you know, i get a menu of services i can access moving

my money from savings to checking or whatever,. canceling checks or whatever is to take all of my money from that bank and put it into another bank like you hear the silicon valley stuff going on. how do these people move their money? i cant do it. guest: thank you so it. . in a regional bank and they played an important role in the u.s. economy and with companies and entities. you do have options of all thanks of all sizes from our nation's most banks to our nation's largest banks to move money in and out of those accounts. you do have those options as a general observation. what happened in regard to silicon valley bank roughly a month or so ago is a lot of the

companies that had their money there decided to pull it out very quickly which created that bank run. you are able to do that at banks of all sizes. thanks have embraced a digital footing which we think is good because ultimately, we are getting more choice to customers in having a healthy and competitive banking sector. we think that's really important. i am glad that you are happy with your regional bank, playing orton role in the economy so stick with them. host: port st. lucie, florida, independent. caller: good morning. what do you think of the dodd frank rule? should it be reinstated to protect funds? guest: thank you for the call. the dodd frank law is the law of the land so i done think we would need to reinstate it because its here with us now. one thing i think is important

that you bring up is as regulators and legislators, the administration looks at the current strife and stress in the sector. do we want to fight the last war were make sure we are not just seeking lessons from 10 years ago and bring them into the public policy debate today? dodd frank is the law and it. is we have seen parts of dodd frank that really work. then there are parts that policymakers have considered over the last nine or 10 years of factoring in. for example, there is a whole set of non-bank entities that are subject to a different set of regulatory standards as banks and one thing we have said in so many others have said is if you're going to do bank like things, you should be subject to bank-like activity in terms of

safety and soundness and systemic protections and consumer protections. that something we think is important. as folks look at modifying laws, we think its a principal worth adhering to. host: people have said there is a rollback of dodd frank and 2018. some have blamed that for what we sow with silicon valley bank. guest: there is nothing in that legislation that prohibited the fed from imposing stricter oversight on svb. we do it see evidence of that. i understand many have asserted that but there dozen appeared to be evidence for that. host: the president would like to see more liquidity requirements and enhanced liquidity stress testing and annual supervisory capit stress test. comprehensive resolution plans also known as living wills, strong capital requirements for

banks and appropriate time after a considerable transition, what do you make of those? guest: the president said some things we agree with but other things we doubt. let's see what happened and did happen before we rush to impose different capital or liquidity requirements. i've heard some people on capitol hill say let's make the whole system saver and jack of capital requirements but that might be a misstep. we are going into a time of economic uncertainty and the idea of rationing of capital requirements in a way that could impede economic activity i think is something that should be considered very carefully. getting the calibration of capital right is important. we want things to be able to support world's largest and most vibrant economy. you. want to stifle that. you want to make sure there is enough capital so we are safe and sound. before we rush to judgment, let's see what happened here before saying we need this on

capital or liquidity. host: other requests for the biden administration -- expanded authority to get compensation from banks and strengthen the rules of holding -- of executives holding positions in the banking industry's when their banks fail and bringing civil cases, or those good ideas? guest: if anyone broke an existing rule, they should be held accountable. host: should they be banned? guest: before there is legislative ideas here in addition to what the president has said, we want to make sure we understand the full regulatory authorities that exist today. make no mistake, if someone broke a law or broken existing rule, they should be held accountable period. host: let's go to wisconsin,

republican line. caller: good morning. i read something yesterday, and email, not being a financial whiz, i did not understand area it sounded as though it might be something that, again, could hurt the little guy. it called a bail in. i'm wondering what you might know about that. guest: i'm not exactly sure. i would rather not speculate live on television if i'm not sure but i look forward to learning more about it. host: new york, democratic caller, we are talking with rob nichols, the president and ceo of the american bankers association. what is your question or comment? caller: good morning, thank you for the program. we have a large group of insolvent banks and every bank

is unique in its management, business models and operation and certainly people. to manage this universal for 5000 banks to prevent similar problems happening, do we really have confidence regulators can regulate effectively all 5000 banks and prevent the surprises in the future so we have to run into similar problems again? the banking industry is too complex. can you really do your job well? guest: a great question. let's talk about the supervisory entities over the u.s. banking system. we have a dual banking system powerful and port system and the president of the usb we work with every day. that's the state superintendent of banking across the country. you are looking within that state and then you have the four federal regulators that i talked

about. at the moment, they are all looking internally to make sure they have the proper tools to supervise the sector. when you look at the overall u.s. banking system, it is unique in its that uniqueness, the diversity of model that i think serves the u.s. economy well. we are the envy of the world with regard to our banking system. when on overseas i talked to my counterparts, they say we have three or four large institutions so how do you get such a vibrant banking system with thousands of community banks and midsize banks and regional banks and a handful of globally active banks? each serves the uniqueness of the u.s. economy that is important. that's in part why we have the world's largest and most dynamic and robust economy because of the banking system. to your point about supervision, not only are the state banking superintendents there but the four federal regulators are at

all times looking to make sure they have world-class people doing the right job with regard to safety and soundness, systemic protection and consumer protection. its ongoing work and it never ends, but its nonetheless quite important. host: he rose text -- -- here is a text -- guest: i cant tell you exactly how many. with regard to liquidity, there are many options. in the marketplace come is that there's a federal home loan system and the fed has a new liquidy difficile -- facility that they put in over the weekend so it banks were seeking another liquidity option apart from what they can buy and sell and cash on hand, with that new

system in the home loan bank system, there is a lot of look at the options but i cannot say the number of the 4700. host: birmingham, alabama, independent. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. what they do talk about his silver gate which was in some kind of mixup with px whereby ftx had called into trillion dollars. it happened november of 2022. we only hear about silicon valley. what is the distinction between silicon valley and silver gate? they lost $2 trillion and it popped up on cnn and then it disappeared and i have heard nothing about it since that morning.

guest: silver gate, was also having a significant exposure to the crypto sector and when it failed, it was not the same degree of contagion possibilities that's why you did and here much about it in the news as you did svb. another idiosyncratic institution with a set of risk management failures as well. in a free market economy, thanks, -- can and do fail. its important but the banks do on occasion fail and that's why you have the fbi see and deposit insurance, system that has served us well for decades. we have a system to resolve in an orderly non-chaotic fashion, a bank if it does fail, not something we want to see but on occasion, it can happen. host: what roles are banks playing in the cryptocurrency market? guest: right now not a lot.

the federal regulators have been pumping the brakes on banks playing the role of a custodian. if america wanted to have some exposure to crypto, could they hold at their bank like a share of tesla or apple stock? the regulators are saying we are not confident about it so let's hold off on that now. there is a lot of conversation between the crypto sector in the banking sector but right now, there is not a big set of intertwining characteristics at this point. host: nelson, florida, republican. caller: hello, good morning. i'm wondering if the huge amounts of regulations that is involved in the most socialist state in the country, namely california has anything to do with any of this. i live in south florida. we have a lot of refugees from

communist countries here. the huge regulations that have taken place in those countries has added to the collapse of their banking systems. i'm wondering what you think about that. i know that regulations are necessary based on our experiences of 1929, but i'm wondering -- it may be the state of california is maybe overdoing it and if that has any bearing, thank you. guest: our nation's banking system is the envy of the world so your comparison with some of the international systems is on point. we will see if the california bank superintendent missed some of these warning signs as well. the federal reserve is looking internally to see if they missed anything. i would imagine the california bank superintendent may be doing something similar as well.

host: james in alexandria sent this text -- guest: that's a great question. that's what we are trying to uncover and explore and determine and fact find about. i read that they did and have a cheese -- a chief risk officer for the bulk of last year which has been read or did so that's why this investigation internally at svb and the potential for maybe a supervisory miss is really important before we rush to do any sort of legislation. host: will we hear from management of svb on capitol hill? guest: yes, we will. i talked to chair mchenry and chair brown.

both did a series of hearings already with the regulators in the next set will be with the management team from svb. host: will they testify? guest: i believe they will. host: they will not plead the fifth? guest: they will be called to testify but i do know how they will plead. host: will there be lawsuits against them? guest: i imagine there may be. host: john is next, republican, thank you. caller: i'm calling in online. i think this gentleman is disingenuous. the american bankers association advocated for changes in 2018 that happened after the trump administration. under that legislation, they moved the 50 alien dollars -- 50 billion dollars which was a base for dodd frank to be applied to

$250 billion. that increase made a big difference. if that had been 50 billion, there would have been more dodd frank applied. the point i want to make his since the banks collapse, they affect everyone. the fbi see rates will go up now and we who use local banks here are going to end up getting less because of that. the second thing is the longest holder of this bank was vanguard . vanguard had the most shares. i have my retirement in vanguard. i'm living here in new mexico, and i lose out when these banks fail. we had an earlier segment on social security on how we bail out the rich. this is another example how we bail out the affluent and ordinary people lose.

thank you. guest: the legislation from 2018 did nothing to prevent the fed from imposing stricter oversight on svb if they wanted to. that's been a misconception in the marketplace. secondly, on the word bailout, its a loaded term and i seen it used a fair amount but i doubt think its accurate here because there is no taxpayer money put on the table here. the money with regard to ensuring the deposits that svb, north of 250 would come out of the fbi see fun, not out of taxpayer coffers. we do it really view it as a bailout but its a term that gets used quite a bit. host: is there enough in that fund? guest: there is enough and that fund. there are important questions that will be debated in the weeks and months ahead over what the deposit insurance fund should look like. yes, there is ample money in the fund to cover the losses here.

we do know what the losses are yet. the fbi see -- the fdic's still in the process of resolving it and we want that number to be as small as possible. they will sell the remaining assets and portions of svb and some of it was already picked up by first citizens out of raleigh, north carolina but there are other pieces they are trying to sell them want that number to be as small as possible. i think it is brought important questions we should consider and think about regard to the future of the deposit insurance architecture in the united states. as of right now, we've had deposits up to 250 thousand dollars insured by the fdic banks pay for that, not taxpayers. its not a bailout in that sense. should we look at the deposit insurance system? should that number be hired? should be higher for a business

account versus an individual account? should banks pay into it differently? these are the questions and we will take a position but we want to come up with and make sure our nations deposit insurance system serves the world's largest economy, serves depositors and works for the u.s. banking sector. host: do banks make up that fund with fees on their clients? guest: thanks to charge fees for services. the fbi see sets an annual rate the banks need to pay into the deposit fund and they review that on occasion. banks pay into it and the deposit insurance fund has served our nation well for decades and decades. host: pennsylvania, independent. we will take your question or comment here. caller: thanks for taking my call. i been hearing lots of rumors about the government pushing for

a cashless society. i guess that would take care of the banking altogether. is there any truth to this rumor? guest: great question, banking has become more digital and there are more options. zelle is one of a host of other which provides convenience for the customers and clients of banks. it is true that some people like to use digitalp to p versus cash. i do think we will go cashless but there are broader debates in washington around the thesis of your question. they asked should there be a central bank digital currency. we think that is a concerning idea and concept. we think we have a really competitive marketplace and probably does need a central bank digital currency that we think could leak into the free market banking system. idle think we ever go fully

cashless but its true that our economy today is more digital with regard to the banking options than ever before. we think that provides a lot of convenience and safety and security for people but there are policy issues associated with it. host: but tear from donna in wisconsin, independent. caller: hello, i have a couple of questions. how could biden and janet yellen waive their magic hand to get rid of the $250,000 guarantee? guest: they invoked what's called the systemic risk exemption or designation. for that to occur, the fed, the fdic the treasury, by a super majority need to decide that that needs to occur to help prevent possible contagion. that's what they did. it was the fed, the fdic and the

treasury invoking the systemic risk designation which allowed them to backup the deposits at svb and signature north of the $250,000 limit that is current law. with secretary yellen has said is that if they see another bank that could fail or could lead to contagion, that they would possibly consider invoking the systemic risk designation again. that is the tool of law, to go north of the 250 cap. host: south carolina, independent. caller: hi there. as much is i just luck and -- just like a distrust politicians, i just luck -- i just like a disrespect for his more. the last two representative of a banker in my opinion was milburn drysdale. good day. guest: thank you. host: what about people's views

of banks? guest: when i look at the overall u.s. banking sector, i see women and men, 2 million of them who helped make dreams come true and take ideas and turn them into reality. thanks just aggregate the local savings of that community and deploy that capital in the form of risk capital. they can take an idea and turn it into reality and hire people, off to the re-aces and it creates hiring opportunities and economic growth and abound is -- in a bank is foundational to make that happen. the gentleman is not a big fan of banks but i am a huge fan of banks and that important role of aggregating the local savings of that economy and then deploying it in the form of capital so we can create jobs and growth. i am passionate about that. it is also why the u.s. banking

system is why we have the most diverse are robust and dynamic economy in the world. host: let's talk about mortgages. in the banking industry, what does the portfolio look like for mortgages? guest: with the rising interest rate environment, the housing market has tightened a little bit. in some parts of the united states, that's probably a good thing because housing price inflation was considerable. other parts of the country, it makes it harder for be -- for first-time homebuyers. we work closely with the realtors, the homebuilders and mortgage bankers to get that balance right in terms of housing supply and demand and making sure the financing options are there as well. host: rob nichols, president and ceo of the american bankers association a can learn more ataba.com or on twitter, thank you for the conversation. we will take a break and when we come back, we will turn to open for, any public policy issue on your mind.

there are the lines on your screen so start dialing in now. >> the name of america which belongs to you in your national capacity >> fourscore score and seven years ago >> asked not what your country can do for you >> throughout american history, presidents have delivered pivotal speeches during inaugurations, times of challenges and farewells. on saturday, watch the final episode of our 10 part series, speeches that defined a presidency on american history tv. here are the words of george washington, abraham lincoln, ronald reagan and this week, barack obama. we feature his 2012 speech console and the residents of newtown, connecticut and the nation at the mesh -- after the mass shooting at sandy hook and three years later after the

shooting at mother emanuel ame church in charleston, south carolina, president obama led the country in morning. by singing amazing grace ♪ >> amazing grace [laughter] [applause] >> how sweet the sound. >> watch our 10 part series, speeches that defined a presidency saturday at 9:30 a.m. and p.m. on c-span2's american history tv. >> all this month, what's the top 21 winning videos from c-span 2023 studentcam video documentary competition. every morning at 6:50 a.m. before washington journal, we will air one of the winning documentaries westerns were asked to share what their topper yorty would be if they were a newly elected member of congress.

plus the top 21 winning documentaries all this month at 6:50 a.m. eastern on c-span and head over to studentcam.org to watch all the winning entries anytime online. >>" washington journal continues" host: we are in open forum until the top of the area and any public policy issue or politics that is on your mind this morning -- let's start with john in south carolina, republican caller. what do you want to talk about? caller: social security for one thing. i paid in all my working life into social security and now they will cut mine. all these illegal immigrants they get in can get a social security card and a medicare card and they have and paid a dime. host: how do you know that all of them are getting that? guest: the majority of them have applied and they got accepted. host: how do you know that? guest: i know of three in this

area that came here and applied because i talked to them. they have paid a dime in. host: that's three. caller: the other thing that's political, the democrats promise everything to get elected and then they dump care about the average fellow. its all the rich and influential. i think everybody that -- should be eight years like the president and then you are out. host: term limits, washington, d.c., independent. caller: good morning. i just wanted to call in and quickly say that i think when we are analyzing things like banking institutions, we have to think about who they are serving and with their current regulations, the banks are currently serving the 1%, not

really serving the average american. when we think about ways to change our society, we need to structure things on who benefits and right now, things are not working for the average american, thank you. host: susan in hartsdale, new york, democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to comment over the last few days with the trump indictment. as an american jew, one thing that i really resent is all the hyperbolic terminology about the george soros funded d.a. trump is doing it, desantis is doing it, many other republicans are doing it and they are going to incite more anti-semitism in this country. for the people who do support trump, i have two things to ask them. the man is a narcissist.

every time he says something, he is the best or he did the most. [no audio] its in his speeches and he is always the best and the most. my last point is that he has never said he was sorry he made a mistake. there is a problem with a person who cannot do that, particularly one who was in power and its very scary to me. that's all i wanted to say. have a great easter. host: george soros tweeted about what you were talking about. he said i did and contribute to alvin bragg's campaign but i supported other reforms. anyone who wants to know why should read this article he wrote. its been fact checked by the washington post so people should look at that. florida, republican, good

morning to you. caller: good morning. the one who just called and was beating up on trump, i dope care what a person is like, if he gets the job done, he is ok in my book. biden has got to be the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. i put all my cash out. i understand if you are democrat, your cash is safe but if you are republican or something else, you're not going to get the full $250,000 guarantee. that's all i have to say. host: the charges against the former president are still on some of the front pages this morning. here is usa today -- the new york times headline --

host: inside the opinion pages of the wall street journal, the candidate running for president is arguing that the current president can pardon former

president trump. let's go back to the calls, scott, good morning to you in oregon, independent. what is the public policy or political issue on your mind? caller: i called in as an independent but technically, i'm a member of the green party. i'd like to remind everybody there is what we call third-party candidates that run for president. when ralph nader ran over 20 years ago, i looked at what he said and i voted for him and

ever since, i have not voted for a democrat or republican. i would like to suggest your phone number for independents should be changed to something like all others. there are third-party candidates. host: we do that at times. there is another presidential candidate throwing his hat in the ring and that's robert kennedy junior, the political activist known most recently for his campaign to discredit coronavirus vaccines. he filed paperwork on wednesday to run for president as a democrat, offering a potential long shot challenge to president biden. el paso, texas, democratic caller. we will go to you next. caller: hi, good morning. i agree with scott, the green party is the way to go and i voted for ralph nader as well. what i'd like to address is i'm

a liberal democrat and i have an ongoing list of things i been called by callers to your program and from politicians, stupid socialist, communist, baby killer, pervert, satan, corrupt, sinister, criminal, elitist, radical left lunatic, insein, and it it ended generate psychopath entry hugger which i am. that's old school. and a tree hugger, which i am, that's old school. i am mexican-american so that's a whole different category of names i been called. its not hurtful to me personally , but i think is just not helpful to our civic discourse. host: i agree.

and we want to have a civil discourse on this program. we as people not to call each other names, make your argument without doing so. people are capable of doing that. mississippi, republican, hi there. caller: how are you doing? it they got president trump indicted, why have they not indicted president biden and his sons? and hillary clinton for the things she has done. that is a two-tiered system and until they correct that, things will always be messed up in this country. the news media is the biggest problem of all. we've got the soros news system.

host: more headlines for you from the washington post -- you also have this headline in the new york times -- the speaker of the house said that the congress has oversight over the district attorney's decision to bring these charges against the former president because his office received federal funding.

scott in ohio, independent, what is on your mind this morning? caller: good morning, the last fellow that was on from the bank said the bailout came in that the money for over the 200 $50,000 was just a special fund. to me, all money is federal money, our money. you can say a fun but it still came out of our pockets. host: its a fund that the banks have to pay into. caller: yes, they pay into it

where is the money made? it easy to say money comes from one area or another but when you say 250 thousand dollars, it should only cover that. anyone who is guilty like trump, if he's truthfully guilty of more than this lady of the night deal, he should be, i would be. i would be prosecuted. they would not play this game. if i talk like that and i'm on the tv about the judge and this and that. they would take me away tomorrow. that's all i have to say, thank you. host: a democrat in riverdale, new jersey. caller: top of the morning. i love c-span, both sides, i love everything you guys are doing.

i think we need to see more guests like alex, the gentleman you had on who made it clear point about the sanders tax bill above 250 in the biden above 400. these are not affecting the majority of americans, just a small subset of people that truly are taking from people and doing whatever they can to exploit. he had a caller that called in the talked about making $7.6 million and i believe he was taxed 1.3. my math is not great but i believe that's a little over a 17% tax rate. i dope think i'd ever paid 17% tax in my life. i'm pretty sure its always been higher than that so to answer his question, yeah, i dope think that's enough at all. that's everything from me.

host: making front pages this morning is the speaker of the house who had a meeting yesterday along with a group of bipartisan lawmakers with the taiwanese president. you are looking at the front page of the wall street journal with this headline -- this happened in california yesterday. from the washington times, they note that the taiwan leader was in the meeting and meanwhile, the leaders of china's ruling communist party were bristling at the increasingly warm relations between the u.s. and taiwan, and independently governed hiring that -- island that china considers its possession. beijing said the high level contact of mr. mccarthy is a violation of the long-standing one china policy. here is some of what the speaker of the house had to say

yesterday after this bipartisan group of lawmakers met with the taiwanese president. [video clip] >> the relationship between the people of the united states and taiwan has never been stronger in my lifetime. we had a very productive discussion with the president of taiwan today. we covered the crucial ways to further our bonds. based on our conversation, its clear that there is several actions necessary. first, we must continue the arms sales to taiwan and make sure such sales reached taiwan on a very timely basis. second, we must strengthen our economic cooperation, particularly with trade and technology. third, we must continue to promote our shared values on the world stage. we live in a decisive moment in

history and must act with urgency. tension in the world is at its highest point since the end of the cold war. as authoritarian leaders seek to use violence and fear to provoke needless conflict. the bond between the people of america anti-one is foundational and long-standing. together, our people have weathered multiple crises and cooperated in important areas of technology, trade and human rights. america must stay true to our values and remain consistent in our support for the people of taiwan, who share american people's desire to live in peace , freedom and democracy. host: that was the speaker of the house, kevin mccarthy in california yesterday. you can watch that entire news conference [no audio] if you go to our website, c-span.org. we are in open forum for the rest of today's washington

journal, talk about public policy issues that are on your mind. the washington post took one of its pages this morning in its newspaper to advocate for the release of the wall street journal reporter who was taken by russian authorities. the hashtag that's being used for this is free evan. mike in rockford, illinois, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. my monthly brick to the government, the shout out is

what i have seen during the holidays, the ronald mcdonald house. i hope all corporations can emulate what the corporation did when they see a problem they addressed it with no fanfare and no spotlight. if corporations would do with a should do, this country would be a better place. also a shout out to c-span.org/ shop. i got my c-span gear and i noticed there are elephants and the other brand. there wasn't anything for independents. we rotate republicans and democrats but we never rotate independents. my monthly brick is to the supreme court where we have them using the orange goose that lays

golden indictments as diversions . apparently they filled out these two banks with all the fdic insurance money and left the other banks to pay for it. three people were able to do this. my all of --host: i have to get in some other calls, north hollywood, california. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would really love to hear a couple of things. they always say one thing about trump is he did everything he promised that he was going to do. i feel like i'm living in a different world, reality or universe. in my mind, what he promised he was going to do was to deliver a health plan which he said for

four years it was coming into weeks and he said he was going to build a wall across america, that never happened. he said he was going to have mexico pay for it. that never happened. he said he was going to stop the war in afghanistan. that never happened so i really would love to hear what it was that they think he said he was going to do that he got done. the always thing the -- the other thing they always say is everything was so much better when trump was president then when biden now was president. i'm not saying biden is the best thing either. as far as what i remember when trump was president, covid was killing tens of thousands, up to one million americans, republicans, particularly trump supporters, were irate because they were asked to wear a mask.

there is nothing in the stores. we were all competing and fighting for toilet paper. what is it they remember that i got wrong? host: i will leave it there. speaking a foreign policy any case you missed it yesterday, finland joined nato in an historic shift. i want to show you what the secretary of state antony blinken had to say when he and the nato secretary-general addressed the press prior to finland's ascension into the alliance. the secretary of state met with several different foreign ministers, his counterparts from across the country, when he was at nato in brussels to talk about finland's historic entry into nato, here it is. [video clip] >> this is truly an historic day.

very shortly, we will -- we will welcome finland into the alliance with seats at the table. i'm tempted to say this is maybe the one thing i can thank mr. pruden four. he claimed he wanted to prevent this by russian aggression. he's causing many countries to believe they had to do more in their own defense. they want to make sure they could deter possible russian aggression going forward. i would be thrilled to have finland as the 31st member of this alliance. its an important day on an important day already in nato history. host: that was from yesterday. manassas, virginia, republican, back to your calls. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about global warming. we keep pushing the issue that

we need to stop global warming but in my mind, there is a pretty easy way to reverse it. its probably in 10 or 15 years. we keep building infrastructure and pouring asphalt on the ground and asphalt absorbs sunlight and turns it into heat. if we could find a way to make an aircraft with paint that reflects radar waves, why can we make paint for asphalt that reflects sunlight? it seems so simple to me. if we could make asphalt itself, just asphalt reflected, we could reverse global warming in just a few years. i know that kind -- that sounds kind of simple, i am a simple guy. host: eric in chicago, independent. caller: thank you for answering my call. i just want to say i appreciate the opportunity.

pearl harbor day, recall september 9 and january 6 as a navy veteran and a man who loves his country, it really hurt what happened on january 6 and i've no personal animosity against the ex-president but i really think he and those who lead that insurrection attempt should be held accountable for that. its is kind of embarrassing to see an express in or anyone involved in what he was involved in in new york but particularly january 6. i think as a nation, we should overlook that. murder and mayhem was intended that day an actual insurrection. thank you very much for listening. host: terry is next in eugene, oregon, democratic caller. caller: good morning. thank you very much.

i want to ask you a question -- the other day, trump was in court and you started taking calls afterwards. does that count against error 30 day call in for washington journal? host: you called in the evening? caller: no, i did and call but in general because a lot of people respect the 30 days. when we call in on another thing that's not washington journal, do we consider that our 30 day call? host: i'd own thing so. caller: thank you very much. what i would like to say is i would really -- i want to thank you for mr. lawson. he was really a great guest. the thing that i enjoy about washington journal so much as when i learned something. when the lobbyists are on and when corporate people are on, i

feel like we are getting talked to and being lied to and it happens a lot. mr. lawson was awesome. especially when that woman called and said i do want to be a socialist. that's the trigger word that goes on a lot. did and he answered great? socialism is not a scary thing. its to give us a chance to exist in a real capitalist environment. the last thing i would like to bring up is about the latest propublica story on clarence thomas. for all these years, how he has been doing all these secret trips. its a great exposure of how corrupt our supreme court is. the last thing i want to say is i love president biden.

that man came to this and accepted the role of president. he has been trying to keep us together. its beyond politics. we were almost falling apart at the seams. host: i will let viewers know about an event that's happening this evening that we are covering on c-span. many of you may be interested, jon stewart interviewed the deputy defense secretary kathleen hicks and they will discuss the human impact of military service with members of the public and senior government officials. that's happening this evening at 7 p.m. eastern time on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org.

caller: good morning to you. i have a quick thing to say. all you hear from both sides as trump, hillary, russia. my question is, how come i don't hear more journalist calling out these representatives for their corruption? it seems like every body whether it's democratic or republican is bought and paid for by a special interest. they do nothing, keep the status quo. onon all of the shows, no one er rubs her face in it. host: stacey abrams is coming to the nation's capital. voting rights activist and author is joining howard

university for the inaugural appointment to howard. she will travel to d.c. representing georgia. there is a series and a series e washington times and is looking at the cost of higher education. the number of four-year degrees granted and liberal arts majors, psychology, history, declined. the numberthe number of enginee, biomedical, sciences and health sciences rows in the same 10 year. period. from the class of 2003 to the class of 2023, the cost of a four-year degree has soared

. up till 440 universities ranked by u.s. news & world report. in fairfax, virginia. you are next. caller: why don't we talk about the classified documents of the deep state? host: thank you all for watching. we will be back tomorrow you alr watching. we will be back tomorrow morning , 7:00 a.m. eastern time. ♪

>> coming up on c-span, you c-sn cyber strategy with the director. live at 10:15 eastern. the former eastern. the former ukrainian politician talks about the state of ukraine after the invasion from russia. jon stewart joins defense secretary kathryn hicks to discuss the impact of military service. watch our live coverage on c-span now are freewatch our lin c-span now are free at or online at c-span.org. -- free online-- free online apt c-span.org. >> charger is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers and we're are just getting started.