♪ host: a new quote from the associated press asking people about government spending. the topic of the poll was whether the government spends too much, too little or the right amount.

most on the pole say the government spends too much but most indicate, when it comes to the most expensive programs, they don't want to see cuts. we want you to tell us on whether you want washington to spend more spend less or where do you want those to go. republicans (202) 748-8000, democrats (202) 748-8002 --(202) 748-8001, and independents (202) 748-8002. you can post on facebook and twitter and you can follow the show on instagram. the associated press poll came out last month. re some overall takeaways. if foundhat u.s. adults are

to see a bigger governmentnt offering bigger services -- more services or a smaller government offering fewer services. 64% says the government is spending too much. 16% says the government is spending too little and 6 -- others think the government is spending the right amount. about half say too much is spent on the environment. republicans are more likely than democrats to indicate that t military, law enforcement, and border security are underfunded. far more democrs say too little is spent on the poor, the environment, government assistance and scientific research.

that is the poll. here his how you can let us know. -- here is how you can let us know. republicans (202) 748-8000, democrats (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. maybe if you want to text --if you want to text us, (202) 748-8003. you can follow the show and post on twitter and instagram. you saw that overall type line -- topline figure and 64% saying the government spending too much

and 12% of those responding say the government is spending too much on education versus 65% saying the government is spending too little and 21% saying it is the right amount. health, 16% saying the government is spending too much and 63% saying it is spending to level -- little and 90% saying it is spending the right amount. 62% saying the government is spending too little and issues are medicare, 10% of those things too much spending happening and too much -- little is 50% and border security and military. military, 29% of those saying the government is spending too much and 35% saying they are spending too little and 34% saying it is not the right amount. maybe you have your own categories where the government should spend more or spend less.

maybe you want to throw in the right amount. primarily, spending less categories, if you want to make comments, (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8000, democrats, and independents (202) 748-8002. caller: we should probably spend more money on crime and homelessness and health care and i think we can give back money by giving a military -- the military a a hair cut 10%. host: what kind of programs -- if we will spend that money, what would you like to see done

with those categories? caller: it is clear, if you look at san francisco and other cities, the homelessness -- even in san diego, it is out of control and it is sad and heartbreaking. when you have got nothing, crime is up -- on the rights --rise. we spent 60 times more on a military been checked -- then china does. we can get that money from the military and some stuff we don't need. at 10% haircut on military would give us enough resources to help them. i am not a sociologist. i just know by going around town and what i am seeing on the news, increased crime rate and

it is the richest country on earth and it is disgraceful we have these problems. i wish i could turn a blind eye but is everywhere. host: let's hear from michelle, silver spring maryland. do you want the government to spend more or less money? caller: i would like to see the government spent more money in be carried -- the area of homelessness. what my comment is, and also other programs such as cleaning the excrement from the street from the homeless. i would like to see the government create a job base of getting people off the street. i have to literally step over people who are laying on the street when i get off the subway and when i walked down the street -- that is a national emergency. that is my comment admit -- and

the excrement, the soil of the people is on the street and that is in contrary to what american is -- america is in the bible says what we do to the least of them you do the most to me. host: gen. mcconville: -- host: sherry the wake --dewick -- when it comes to be suspending issues, more on america, she says, and less on foreign countries. one person says zero dollars on elected bureaucrats and/or garlic -- dollars on three letter agencies. one person says spend less on the military industrial complex. where would you like to see the government spend more or less? the 2023 national defense authorization act -- this is

what they found. it was a $857 billion topline defense spendinghat is of a percent from $777 billion and $45 billion was origill requested from the white house. it was $30 billion in the energy department for natiol security programs, $10 billion for fense-related activities outside the jurisdiction and it would include 4.6% pay raise for military service numbers and doc civilian members. as we go to the larger issue of president biden's 20 for request. you can find that on c-span. if you go to our archived at c-span.org and go to february.

you can find the program stare at c-span.org. virgil in nevada. democrats -- democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. if the people who were --are making all the money as a result of living in america, if they pay their fair share of taxes, they would not have this conversation. host: as far -- that is the sourcing, where would you like to see the government spend more or less money? caller: homeless is important. it is a big country. it is like an aircraft carrier. everything, keep it running, it has to be there and there are people not paying their fair share.

it is hard to keep the ship running. host: just to show you the headline from reuters, the united states, the irs planning on hiring staff over the next two years with $80 billion in new federal funds and part of that desire when it comes to collections and the work of collections by that agency. jonathan in california. caller: good morning and i am delighted to be on the cell because i have been watching it -- on the show because i have been watching it for decades and i have been watching all of you. on the subject of government spending, -- [laughter] we have to do -- reduce it by 25% and we have to take away benefits from the nonproductive rational senatorial people. -- congressional senatorial people. host: why start there?

caller: bayer nonproductive. they don't have a profit motive. efficiency is not important. host: jonathan there. then in for covington -- ben in fort covington, new york. caller: thank you for c-span. my suggestion is the gentleman who called, trying to cut down -- hello? host: you are on. caller: it is trying to cut down on the cost of government itself. all of the elected officials in washington and i live in new york state, how much do each one of them get to run the office and hire their staff? they get free mail. the mail my representative sent

to me and it is full of them cutting ribbons and things like that. the other thing i wondered, if you are -- if you win a one term election in the house of representatives, does that mean you get health care for the rest of your life? do you get a pension? i am wondering how high that is but i that they are underpaying williams of dollars that could be cut. host: the congressional budget office on their website took a look at fiscal year 2022. as far as spending and revenue. they found the federal government laid out $6.3 trillion, 4.1 trillion dollars in mandatory spending and 1.7 in mandatory spending and the revenues that the government

took in, $4.9 trillion. they break it down by category and when it comes to the mandatory spending, 4.1 trillion overall and $1.2 trillion in spending. medicaid, $592 billion. student loan programs, $482 billion and other spending $520 billion. defense, $751 billion and the category of interest, $475 billion for category -- calendar year 2022. more charts like this at cb o.org. republican line. caller: i think they should spend less on the giveaways.

some giveaways are good. some giveaways for poor people are good and they need to address their -- the homelessness and babies and the wanted --women -- for women who need help. i am conservative but they waste too much on military. there is a lot of fraud in the military. the -- day off to help senior citizens -- they ought to help senior citizens. i have to have four major noninvasive examinations and that will cost me in co-pays over $1500 and i cannot afford it. i have called the darn insurance company and they say there is nothing i can do about it. i have to have a brain scan for my memory and cancer probably.

they should be more cognizant of those of us living on our social security. we work 40 years and we only get social security. i think they should give us more assistance. some of these federal giveaways, they go overboard. host: what do you find -- define as a giveaway program? caller: recently, all these things -- they are giving these so-called women with a lot of children. i am against that. i went to a restaurant the other day when they were giving away money and they were partying with some of that money that they get instead of attending to their children.

there should be more accountability on how they spend that money, individuals. they don't give senior citizens a darn thing. host: bob is telling his story and what he thinks where governments should be spending more or less. ricky in virginia. democrats line. caller: can you very? -- hear me? the u.s. should spend more money on the middle class. i think that they should invest in human energy, which would decrease unemployment, decrease property, and -- poverty and increase help --health. it can be done through decreasing the military -- the fund and the military.

it can deliver peace of mind to everyone. host: when you say the middle class, and human energy, what would you like spending to look like? what type of specific spending are you talking about? caller: you have no industry in this country, per se. through energy technicians supplemented by the government, it would save money and increase health and decrease the lack of energy. as well as decrease pollution. these things can be thought out and done and more money needs to go there. host: ricky in alexandria, virginia. if you are joining us, where would you like to see the

government spend more money or where would you like them to spend less money? call us on the line, (202) 748-8001 four republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, independents (202) 748-8002. when it comes to spending issues, this person says raise the debt ceiling. jeff in michigan, stop giving the oil industry subsidies. stop funding autocracies in the middle east. one person on our facebook page, spend more on the tax code. the cbo shows the government spending by category. $1.5 trillion for payroll taxes,

other sources of revenue $356 billion. . is a lot of information on the cbo site. richmond, virginia, independent line. sean. caller: how are you? host: go ahead. caller: more money should be spent on education specifically, for local income areas and public schools. that is a big problem. homelessness is a major problem, especially in my city, 82% low income. i feel like it is bigger than just political. i feel like american should put their values more into people instead of money. i also believe there should be more spending also in mental

health areas. a lot of these money's going towards lee terry. -- military. crime is outrageous but crime is something that will not be eliminated so i feel like the government should focus more on money, mental health, public education, and homelessness. host: education. thank you. education, back to the poll, 12% responding think the government is spending too much with education issues and 65% saying too little is spent and 21% are saying it is just the right amount of money spent on that category. basis from john, -- this is from john, west virginia, republican line. caller: how are you? the reason i think we should be

spending less trying to put tru mp in jail so he cannot run for president. look how much we are spending on the border and giving people new clothes and putting them in hotels and people here sleeping on the street and it is pathetic the way this country is getting. host: border security is one of the categories. 23% of those same -- saying that too much money is being spent there. how they define border security is broad but in general, 63% say that enough is being spent on that category and 22% saying the right amount of money on border security. a lot of categories there and if you want to see the poll, you can find it online at ap.org.

albie in nebraska. independent line. you are next. caller: i think we should continue to spend more in the military because of the fact that we are embarking on a new embarking of fighting -- importance of finding --emb arkment on fighting. -- and how other countries look at that so i think we need to spend more. even though it is the largest project -- budget, we need to understand that we are not fighting with just bullets. we are fighting strategically and i would say we need that. we need to educate -- spend more

in educate -- education because we want to be smart. we want to be proactive and not just reactive in the sense of understanding what is going on down only in our country but globally. we need to have more jobs in america. we have to get the people out there and get them the job that has meaning and value and that will pay the bills. host: that is albie. he talks about education and we take a look at the president's 2024 budget request. how much that money will go to specific grant programs. education program from k-12, 20 billion requested for title i --

932 million dollars for part c and it would grant if approved, title to teacher professional state grants $2.2 billion. $360 billion school grants. it breaks health -- down health and other things. this is a look at the 2024 budget request the president had made and how it would break things down if it were approved. republican line. new york. caller: my problem is. public housing, how they treat people in public housing. . how they went from the same

income housing and rent went from $23,000 and low rent, it is not low income housing because those appointments -- we need housing. for the homeless, low income, and the low income people and we don't have it and when -- what we do have, they charge people too much money. they don't explain to people what they get when they move into those apartments, you know what i'm saying? what the section eight means, it doesn't have meaning -- people to explain that stuff and the state needs to start making them do that. host: you are saying more money for section eight? caller: yes, low income and new

income and the homeless. host: that is ruth in new york. a breakdown on large categories and small categories, tell us where you want to see the government spend more or less. independent line, been in florida --ben in florida. caller: we are looking at a situation where no one wants to save money but they are looking to spend money in areas they think. we need to get accountability into our spending. if we are looking at education, what was it, $307 million was given to the education and they cannot account for it? our education has dropped from is spring predominate in the world to -- from us being predominate in the world to 27th

worldwide? before we spend anything on education and giveaway programs, we have to make them accountable. we have to know where our money is going but it goes to you people and they get wealthy administering it. you have to cut back on government, the irs situation is a joke. go to fair tax where everyone pays a certain amount of money, whether it is rich or poor. it doesn't matter. you pay 20%, 15%, right out the top, everyone goes, you don't need an irs. there is no discount or giveaways. it is a fixed amount everyone pays. it is sensible. we don't do it because government wants to keep us a, separated and b beating at the

government -- feeding at the government's teat. host: democrats line. caller: i went to say that, we should be spending it on education, we should be training children to have some kind of decency, and we need to take out all the lying and carrying on. all these things that are happening that should not happen. as far as the money is spent, they should be given an account and someone should check on them. host: laverne in indiana. we spent a half hour on you telling us where you you would like to see the government spend more or less and some of you mentioning specifics and you can do that at (202) 748-8001 for

republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats and independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. you will remember that in the days before congress left for their break after the introduction of the 2024 budget, kevin mccarthy went before cameras not to not only talk about budget issues but talk about spending issues or cuts in spending before the raising of the debt ceiling and here is that justification. [video clip] >> i have given the president many ideas. how would you limit? we have billions of dollars sitting bear that has been dormant for more than two years. why don't you save taxpayer money? we have abilities to help the supply chain. how can we help people get back

to work? split work requirements. they're going to school and if they are looking for job, they are fine but we can help the supply chain. we can grow the economy. hr1 is one of those abilities and there are a lot of ideas out and we have more than $4 trillion in savings and we can limit the amount of growth and the real difficulty here is simply checking the facts. the president will read with deep rational budget office -- with the congressional budget office. under president, he is spending more than 23.7 percent on the gdp on the way to 25%. if you look at revenues because the president's only answer is to raise more taxes. only 200 times in the u.s. have

we brought this much money. when the democrats had the majority, they spent like drunken sailors. they created inflation and they went after the energy industry. what we need to do is sit down like any household would have it and find places that we can eliminate waste, fraud, and create a system that makes the energy in america stronger but make the economy better. host: people on facebook telling us where they would like to see the government spend more or less. one person says when it comes to more spending, he references chips and arms. debbie saying cut spending that is not of interest to the country.

one person says we can start by cutting the pay of $174,000 a year towards newly elected officials. who started that salary? jason trott says about the irs -- abolished the irs. --abolish the irs. george in maryland, independent line. hi. caller: i am not an expert but i am in the military and some think we should spend on the military but instead of senate seat -- incentivizing other agencies to spend their budget or spend it or lose it, they should make a way to incentivize savings as well as a lot of the redundant agencies like the atf,

most states have a version of the atf and most states have other agencies that the federal government has a redundancy for so minimizing, the fda at a federal level and rely on states would probably be a good start. that is me applying common sense. host: george in maryland. janet in new jersey, republican line. caller: hi. i have to agree with ben from florida. we need more accountability in government. look at the money spent by the national institute of health. they tortured animals and not showing results helpful to mankind. the teacher unions have so much control of the education system

that any money that goes to education has to be accountable for -- accounted for. rather than teaching children things about -- that will alienate them. we should be teaching them the basic things of wrath and history and i don't think there is much civics in history. when i was in school, we learned world and u.s. history and we had civics class. everyone in the government should be held accountable. i don't know if it is true but if you serve your term in congress, you get your salary for the rest --in your retirement? if that is true, that is wrong. host: janet in new jersey. the peterson foundation takes a look at health care issues and spending that they found for

2021. you can find it online, spending through private health insurance rose by five point 8% during that time and medicare spending rose 8.4% and totaling 901 billion in 2021. that is what increases. medicaid spending, rose 9.2% in 2020 12 $734 billion -- 2021 to $734 billion. out-of-pocket spending felt -- with 10.4% increases driven -- following the decrease in use observed in 2020 two to the impact of the covid-19 pandemic.

you can find information there. where should the government spend more or spend less? democrats line, new jersey, charles. caller: good morning. i will tell you three things, how to stop the crime, how to stop the killing, and how to stop the dropout in school. [indiscernible] you set up a program where you train young men how to read and write because you did not teach them in school and give them a trade. give them to $50 a week --$250 dollars a week. give them something to look

forward to. every young student coming out of high school should know a trade. f8 don't go to college, they don't know how to live because they don't know nothing. teach them a trade. young men in children, -- prison. let them all come. you train them and let them go to school at night. host: jim in mississippi. independent line. caller: i want to expose a lot of realists that people don't want to keep real. the fact that all of these americans are all complicit to a crime. the crime is this country expects black people to be the burden bearers of the economy. they expect $1.5 trillion to not be billed and we spent 99% of it

and we don't save anything. that is attentional. they won't give us free education after enslaving us. they want to put us in the same basket of everyone else. in order for us to be -- the credit card for the country. host: if that is your belief, where should the government spend more spend less? caller: the government should spend more -- spend less on military industrial complex and and spend more in african-americans, people who built the country because you can't spent -- say anything about hitler's when you think about the atrocities that america has done. we don't have the moral compass to say anything about anyone else if it is ok to do black people like this. it is not -- not ok to give

black people reparations and in a war or pandemic, we will put you back into slavery. that is what you are saying. host: if you go to the website of republican congressman ron perry, in pennsylvania, he has a q and a portion of the site. he has a myth. members of congress have no tenure and all house members are elected two years and congressional pension is similar to federal employees. at 207 -- eight 2007 report outlines it. unless they declined the covers, members covered by the system also paid 1.3% of full sabra -- salary to the civil service retirement fund and members of congress are eligible for

pension at age 62 if they have five years of service and members are eligible at age 50 if they have 25 years of service. by law, the starting amount of members retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of the final salary. if you want to read more, as far as some of you asking about the members of congress and the benefits they get, you can read that, that is representative scott perry. you can find more from yourself. we have 19 minutes, where would you like to see the government either spend more money or spend less money? you can call us (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats and independents

(202) 748-8002 and textiles at -- and text us (202) 748-8003. you can post on facebook and twitter. joanne in washington dc. democrats line. caller: where i would like to see more money spent is programs for the children out of poverty. the earned income tax credit, that seemed to help a lot of families pull themselves up and out other situation as far as, being able to have more, especially with the increase of rent in a lot of cities. it is a struggle for parents with children to make it, for the food insecurity. i am not a parent. i don't have children. i do see the benefit in my

neighborhood of that type of support. i would like to come into the man from new jersey talking about trade. making sure there is trade in school. i believe in that. when i was in high school, there was automotive's trades that you could follow, cosmetology. everyone is not meant to go to college but i think everyone should leave high school prepare for life and not just thinking about trigonometry unless you want to be a math person but some real life skills. host: joanne in washington dc. this is carlos from delaware, texas, saying the end of corporate welfare is something he would like to see. david saying spending more on

green and tech and public schools and health care and job training. and community policing. carl from facebook, universal health care for and it -- health care for every american citizen. that is some things people are listing when it comes to spending. france's in virginia -- francis in virginia. independent line. caller: if you can hear me out, i would like to see the government abolished the irs -- abolish the irs and replace that with a tax and take the money saved from abolishing be --the irs and spending -- and spend it

on materials for tiny houses similar to a program, built by volunteers -- by former president jimmy carter. host: who would get -- with -- with a tiny houses be available for a certain sector for the country? caller: for the homeless. for this country's homeless people, especially our military veterans and others, families. host: francis. thank you, francis, there. you heard kevin mccarthy talking about spending issues and it was also towards the end of march before congress left for their break on the senate side of the majority leader schumer, talking

about the house approach to debt ceiling and here is some of what he had to say. [video clip] >> if republicans want to push a separate section of the budget, that is their prerogative and it has been done many times by both parties. republicans would be reckless to take the full faith and credit of the united states hostage to force the conversation of the budget when there is an alternative path, separate. debt ceiling and raising the ability of us to pay debt and discussions on the budget on taxes and spending. it is time -- that is reckless -- and it is becoming clearer to republicans themselves, even in the, -- house, the only path

forward is having a clean debt spending and republicans can't push the separate discussion on the -- can't push the separate discussion on the budget. i started telling republican leaders, show us your plans. president biden and hocking jeffries -- hakeem jeffries joined in. you cannot sit down and discuss something if you do not have a plan. leader mccarthy said just meet but what will they do, discussed the weather -- discuss the weather? do with the right way. -- do it the right way. the best way to do this is no hostagetaking, no brinksmanship on the debt ceiling and a strong and passionate discussion on spending issues, one separate

from the other. host: you can find these at our website at c-span.org and let's hear from howard in indiana. democrats line. caller: good morning. pierre is to expand funding is university -- the area to spend -- expand funding is reversal health care and spend money on space force so we dominate the next frontier of space. that will enable the u.s. and the rest of the world to tap into the abundance resource of -- abundant resource of the solar system. reparations for african americans, from 2020 dollars to $100 trillion that will establish justice required by our constitution together.

with all treaties that people -- the americans have made with the indigenous people. we must establish justice because we live in a state of historical legacy injustice. those are the areas in which i would fund or drive funding. host: howard. from florida, independent line, ken. caller: i was thinking, give more money on cybersecurity. russia is kicking our butt and everyone else and we need to catch up. host: you don't think our cyber systems are up to par? caller: not even close. as far as the money thing with

economics, we were doing fine until donald trump wanted to go after our trading with china. this is when everything broke loose in -- hand our economy blew up --and our economy blew up. host: 10 in florida --ken in florida. if you go to usaidspending.gov, it shows the spending that. $3.7 trillion of an obligated amount but when it comes to breakdowns, these are things we have seen as far as most of that going to national defense. social security 16.1% and 13.6 percent going to health-care

spending and income security 10.5% and interest is 8.6%. usaspending.gov. it breaks down the government spending to give information when it comes to how much is being spent and what category is being spent. republican line, virginia, jerry. caller: yes. we could save a lot of money on supporting those illegal and records -- illegal immigrants. we are at a trillion dollars so far? -- $8 trillion so far? all this new energy stuff, be inflation reduction act has something to do with reducing inflation but it is green energy. that is silly. that time to think about the debt ceiling would have -- and

then go to the bank and see if you could burn money to pay for it. that is what congress did. that is ridiculous. host: kathleen in georgetown, delaware. democrats line. caller: good morning. i would like to say that more money should be spent right here in america instead of sending $750 billion to this country and $300 trillion to backcountry. i would like to see more american tax dollars, workers being spent in america. we have delta and bayou and mississippi and all kinds of cities and towns and communities, there should be more money spent on housing instead of the shacks they built

from rusted material. on top of that, we are not only gaily -- giving millions where a lot of people are suffering. they talk about food and gas but what about children's clothing? kids are outgrowing their clothes and shoes. they may be half the side of -- size of adults but they are just as expensive and on top of that, right now, with the crisis that we are in in ukraine and everywhere else, we are looking at china and russia and you know darn sure they are watching every move we are making and i am wonder who is watching home? --un? host: we will go to nathaniel?

republican line. caller: i think that we as a country should definitely spend less money on giving aid to foreign countries and working on the homeless epidemic we have in america. in america, we see the countless homeless publishing go up and people dying on the street. people that need help and resources and we continue to give so many resources to foreign countries where that money can be spent and i know americans make a lot of money on defense contracts. we need to have a centralized focus on helping the homeless and that is where a lot of our resources could go to the homeless population. they need our help and associates. --assistant. -- assistance. host: this takes a look at the topic of foreign aid saying the new head of the person -- that

overseas they. --the aid -- kevin mccarthy said he wants to see fiscal 2020 four spending reduced to 2022 levels but has been vague about how to accomplish it. that dynamic has made foreign aid advocates nervous that far right republicans who made calls to the trump administration to pass deep cuts to foreign aid spending. it is only less than 1% of federal spending, " i am a strong believer that we can find savings." " we have to sharpen our pencils and do a very thorough job on two things. we have to make sure the money that is being spent in -- is a

priority and in priority areas, the money is being well spent." a few minutes left on this topic. on where you would like to see washington spend either more or less. natural, tennessee. -- nashville, tennessee. independent line. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i would like to see money going to campaigns to stop. it is too much and they are not doing that good of a job. there has been 21 billion appointed to shore up the plan for people and ukraine? --in ukraine? that is too far. more money has to be put into homeless housing and here.

are some put into where they are spending the money on. is it going to work? do you have to use the fossil fuel to make electricity for electric cars? or thought to put -- a little more thought to put into it. host: a facebook post this morning, spend money on the citizens and the country instead of ukraine. one person says you are tax breaks for people who have more money than they can spend and more money to those where it makes a material difference in their quality of life with things like universal health care. one person saying spending less everywhere and eliminating -- pork. offered salary bonuses -- 50% of all unspent and a return of two $1 billion and any 5% up to spending of 100 billion -- just

to give you information when it comes to debt. pew research did a survey of debt and taking a look at five facts about the national debt, you can find it online. they said one of those things, the federal government total public debt stood over several trillion. ss for several years, the nation's debt is bigger than its gross domestic product, which is 36.13 trillion and eight the third quarter of 2024 -- 2022. that includes feta care -- medicare, the federal reserve system is the single largest

holder of u.s. debt and number five, servicing the debt is one of the federal government's biggest expenses and net interest payment on the debt is estimated total -- 6.8% -- adding that is more than 100 billion then the government expects to snt on federal benefits and more that it will spent on elementary and secretary -- secondary education. pew did this poll on february of this year. one more call, denver, colorado. this is jack. caller: i am talking about basic quality. when a boy reaches 18 years old, have to register for the draft and women do not.

hand to hand combat will not exist in the next or. if we will poke at china, we will have a backup and have it ready and. -- it is have it ready and it is not right. you can take away your scholarship if you are not registered and there are all kinds of backlash. this is not ignored by your employers. they will come back at you and say, you are not people to a register and be involved in the military. you're just not equal. host: that is from denver, colorado finishing off the route of calls. look at spending issues and economic issues with university of maryland professor emeritus peter morici, we will talk about

that and the debate over federal spending. will hear leader from executive director gabe ross discussing recent days events, including justice clarence thomas. coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> edward acorn has been a lifelong reader of abraham lincoln. in 2020 he published his first book on the 16th president called "every drop of blood: the momentous inauguration of abraham lincoln." he dropped back to the beginning of the national political

career, 1860. the matter inside the republican convention held in chicago. this time the book is titled the lincoln miracle. edward acorn is the former editorial page editor of the providence journal in massachusetts. >> edward acorn and his bk on book notes plus, available on the free mobile app or wherever you got your mobile app -- your nearest. -- podcasts. >> all this week including at 7:00 p.m. eastern, encore presentations with q and a, with writers, journalists and historians. tonight, philip k howard has a critique of public employee unions, arguing that the

american union for teachers and is unconstitutional. at 7:00 p.m. eastern on q and a. you can listen to q a day and all the podcasts on our c-span now app. c-span campaign 2024 coverage is your front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail, with announcements, meet and greets, features and events. campaign 2024 on the c-span network. c-span now, our free mobile video app, or anytime online. your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ >> washington journal continues. host: peter morici is a

columnist and a professor emeritus at the university of maryland. you look at greedy corporations and the influence on the enomy or the perception thereof. at prompted this? guest: we just of not been keeping up with inflation. where is the money going? in some cases, people are making a lot of money. like food processors and whatnot. but corporate profits have been declining as inflation has picked up. there in the same boat we are and that is one reason stock prices have been not great for the past year and a half. 15 months, really. it turns out, economists play with numbers, the government has increased spending from before the pandemic.

government spending is up a great deal but taxes are not up very much. there's only one way it can be resolved if you have full employment because you can't create more gdp. they have to buy inflation. host: what to the latest job numbers tell you about employment levels and how does this factor into what corporations are doing? guest: the economy is slowing. i can't go anywhere without some of the asking me are we going to have a recession? the economy is slowing down. does it matter that much if it grows -- goes down half a percentage point? the economy is slowing down. we going to have a slow economy or a negative economy. but it is not going to be a deep recession. is not going to be like the pandemic, the financial crisis.

it may temper inflation but i think it is not going to do enough if they continue spending the way they are. one way or another, you have to pay for what you spend. either you tax us or use inflation to do it. host: if corporations are not doing well and the economy is slowing down, where it is the vitriol toward corporations come from? guest: i don't want to be partisan, but this administration throws out a lot of rhetoric in that direction. think of the hostility shown toward oil companies. do not set the price of gasoline. it is almost a fixed amount of refining capacity. once you hit it that is it. and the market pushes up the price. they make money when that happens but they are not manipulating the price. i don't think it serves the country well to blame them any

more than donald trump would harass jay powell -- now we have a chairman who likes raising interest rates. something in the water cooler in the west wing causes the senior staff to have alibis, exclude -- excuses and blaming. then you get some of the calls you got. people being angry. that is not good. host: when it comes to corporations, the front page of the wall street journal says earning season coming up, presenting next stocks. analysts expect companies in the s&p 500 to report a second consecutive decline, they are predicted to draw -- drop 6.8%, according to something called fact set. guest: it is the source on stock

prices and things like that. they are not partisan or anything. they are a service that compiles data and sells it to people on wall street. it is reliable. i use it. if you want to look at a chart of corporate profits over the last six quarters. it is like real income, not a pretty picture or keeping up. there are exceptions, some food processes have done well. i wonder whether campaign contributions have something to do with how much blame is thrown around and when republicans are in a group gets blamed and democrats, another. but we are at full employment. the government takes the biggest slice of the pie and does not pay you to take that, it will, in inflation. either they print bonds, they sell them, and the federal

reserve purchases bonds includes -- increasing the money supply. but there are four dollars, a lot abroad. they come into the economy this way. but also it might not be money put on a corporate balance sheet they are close. unlike the silicon valley bank, you can turn them into liquidity. they are not quite money. but they are liquidity. host: if you want to ask peter morici questions, guest: -- (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 independents and (202) 748-8003 for text.

--the onset of covid. guest: the economy is slowing and juergen push back on prices. but the margins are narrowing. there are still a lot of cash floating around. people would pay anything to get on an error -- airplane and stay at a nice hotel. now people only -- don't charge that much, you get blowback. the service is not like it was in 2019. everybody scaled back and nobody has scaled back up. little things people notice. if you go to a hotel once a year, you like to come -- collect the little bottles, they pass those around. now it is on the wall and you pump it. people noticed that. it is interesting. you can raise the prices and turn back for services, make portions smaller in a

restaurant. for three months it is not have any effect, this people come in, they have dinner, and suddenly they don't come back. for a few months it is ok but you have to take pushback. host: is it just operating costs or is it consumer spending? guest: first, people wanted to get out of their houses and do things. they are becoming more careful. so as a combination. don't read a lot about the dust executives taking cuts in their pay sweeps. mcdonald's has raised prices, are cutting staff all over the place and in the most cowardly way. i hope you don't get too many calls from donald's. they closed their offices so they could do it by zoom, phone

calls and emails. not even meeting with the people. that meant people were coming in. they did not finish them. for a lot of executives they cap, they lowered the pay packages. they said it your pay package and stock options are lower, you can quit or stain your job. people in the top tier car races. i'm assuming -- we got 3% raises in the president got six or 7%. next time you need a hamburger, there is no a lot of catch-up, they're probably putting it on this in the corporate offices at mcdonald's. for we go to climate -- he wants to cut it --i love that clip.

i have been saying where's you plan? if you want to run the government and you want people like me to remain loyal to show true -- loyal. they are like the guys at the school board no window so to fix it. will -- i don't belong to any organized political party. if you are the -- less suing for the publicans, organize. host: he says make those distinct discussions. don't make them budget combined with the debt ceiling. with keep it separate. guest: mccarthy can't do that because he does not have a wide majority and has people who are

very belligerent that they want spending cuts. when you only have a narrow majority, one house in congress, you can't separate the discussions. i don't blame them for wanting to use the debt ceiling as the competition white. you have to cut spending. we are spending too much. but you have to have a plan and i don't see that they have any plans. the republicans are great at defending against the title -- entitlement spending until they get a chance to cut it. they get cold feet. you can't get republican in the same time zone as an election to go against entitlement unless it comes from a very safe rural district. just like you can't get any democrat that does not want increased spending, pay reparations and more if they come from an inner-city district because that works all the time. host: so you think they stepping

back of social security and medicare should not happened? >> we have two choices. raise the retirement age or run out of money. but i don't see any president -- the rick president showing any recognition of that. they said -- they sent their budget director. we are going to hit the wall on social security in 2022. and to think the biggest threat is republicans wanting to ask it, that was intended for headlines in the hometown newspapers and demonstrated -- democratic districts. that does not show great choices . they minister should has a lot of ideologues and so does mr. mccarthy on the hill. do you want accountability in the government? ask people --

host: a democrat, thank you, go ahead. caller: i am headed into college soon and i'm worried about interest rates. i just wanted to ask is this a sign the fed will lower interest rates or the government should cut spending or what can the government do about these high interest rates? guest: not much now. they might not raise interest rates much further but they will be cutting them -- i doubt they will be cutting them. my advice is do some thing practical, if you are not planning on law school or something like that, you want to take some thing practical in school. it is a hard reality that if you

want to be so many whose not burdened with debt, major in sociology and, hitting your parents and you won't be able to earn a living. host: i'm sure the university of maryland might be interested. guest: when i came up for emeritus professor about a third of the faculty voted against me because they said stuff i say on tv and radio is harmful. i get a hard time for being a conservative. i get an outraged phone call saying you can't say things like that without a backlash. it is from me. host: somebody on twitter takes the mcdonald's example and says when it comes to that example, macdonald said that to save money but perhaps they know the country is full of highly armed, angry people, some of whom work at mcdonald's. guest: [laughter]

i don't think it is that. they have developed too many layers. one thing that working from home reveals is we have two money bosses. if you work in an office, you go in every day and you -- half of the conversations in a touchy-feely era are about empathy and caring, not about running the office. when you are on zoom there is much less. you probably can supervise more people. at facebook, zuckerberg must've gone to business school during the pandemic because he's no longer behaving like this teenager. he has discovered facebook has too many people. we went through this in the 80's. i was a young man and sat down with one of the top people at exxon. they were making money. he said to me, we have too many

people. we don't need this many people to pump oil out of the ground and boil it up into gasoline. we are not going through a recession but we are going to have fewer people. and they downsized. companies go through periods where they higher, thinking they're going to do new and innovative things and and up getting too much payroll. then they go through these periods where they shrink which is hard and -- i will never forget. i was testifying at the united states international trade commission and somebody comes over and says i am the chief macroeconomists for u.s. steel. i said you have a chief economist? he says yes. why do you need two? do you know how much economics there is to making steel? not alive. if you look at the formulas,

there is not a lot of economics. you need one or two economists to read the forecast from wells fargo, send them to the ceo, and the rest could be better used making steel. host: assign from the comments -- aside from the comments, the worker and mcdonald's, what is the state of working in fast food and retail? are people seeing they can demand more when their choices? guest: there's a lot of scarcity. host: the comment from the viewer. about being highly armed. guest: no that is totally inappropriate. i don't think there's any of that at mcdonald's. it is difficult to get help for public facing jobs.

one interesting thing that went on, and i want to link this to artificial intelligence, this is -- an estimate of about 10% of public facing workers in these ordinary jobs took the pandemic money and retrained. they did not go down to the local community college or the university of maryland, they went -- they had industry programs and things where you could learn to code in 12 weeks or something. a lot of them have disappeared. as the progressives were saying, we can't get daycare. a lot of people found better things to do that pay the more. there is a scarcity of people to do that kind of work. it is one reason service is slow in restaurants. host: david in maryland, independent line. >> yeah, i'm a 33 and all over

social media right now is this -- and the nations going through for oil and chinese currency and even trump i think got on and was talking about this is the beginning of the end of the dollar. he starts talking about how inflation is like a tax on the people. it is not just the american people. when our government decides to start inflating our currency it looks bad to the rest the world. in all of this talk on social media about this, is there any merit to this? guest: no. the saudi's and others have to have sales in things other than oil for you to be able to buy

your oil with chinese you want or ripples or whatever. the chinese would like to see it be this -- but behind the dollar system is a payments network that is the swift network and citi bikes so dust global payments network, a mastercard system for companies. -- if you were general motors, or a foreign company, would you feel comfortable about your money in chinese government bonds? that is a place where the presidency is angry with you and

he does not get on tv and jack up prices. you just disappear. it is like the mafia. we had a banker disappeared. you wake up and decide the company cannot sell stock and the company -- they did this to a lot of tech companies. jack ma basically lost his company. i had bill clinton saying i don't like this -- you are gone. people like that are not going to establish a global currency system. host: democrat line. (202) 748-8002 -- caller: i am 66 years old.

i was living in florida around the ronald reagan years. that was not very good back then. i know for a fact that republicans -- guest: i'm not aware of republicans -- i paid into get it. i'm collecting it and i'm 74. we call expenses entitlements when the congress does not get to decide what is spent that year. but rather there is a law that says a person is entitled to a certain amount if they meet

certain qualifications. you are entitled to food stamps if you earned below a certain amount of money and you have children. that is an entitlement. you are entitled to social security, if you are over 62 and you file for it. congress does not have control over what goes out unless they change the law underneath the program. in the budget, there is interest on the national debt. there are entitlements which are not controlled unless you can get the house and senate to pass a law and the president to sign it and you can't do that through reconciliation. then there is discretionary spending and we divide that between defense and nondefense. if you are not going to deal with entitlements, which republicans are not going to do, there are places in the entitlements where things should be done and i have written about it, you are limited to discretionary spending.

after paid interest on the debt. -- we are going to deal with the waste, fraud and abuse in government. -- an upgrade will not be in place until the 20 30's. they're still getting the same appropriations level they got 10 or 12 years ago or something. with no adjustment for inflation.

they don't have the resources they need. congress gives them money to -- sending money to straighten out the phone lines. they can make sure the phones get answered at the irs. host: rosemarie says the easy fix would be to raise the wage gap. guest: they always say that. -- there all this untaxed income. if you are a high-end compression in new york city, you're already paying about 50% of your income in taxes. if you are self-employed in new york city, you are paying more than that. raise the wage cap. you're going to be looking at people with 65% unemployment. if you want to make chuck

schumer's office space in manhattan as cheapest possible, you do that because it will not pay to work in new york city because for -- between state and local taxes, you're putting this outside of that on top of a high marginal tax rate. you do that, it will be impossible to make working work in new york city. if you are a surgeon and you make it $700,000 a year, you will only work half the year. because after the first half of the year it does not pay. after they pay 65% after certain point, people don't work. do that and people don't work. people don't get more money because they pay more social security tax. the benefit structure is structured so the lower half of

the population in terms of wages gets paid well relative to what they are paid. that is not the answer. it is simple. there is a high of the economy -- pie. if the population ages, the wedge in that pie that we need to give the elderly people increases unless we define the elderly as a smaller group by raising the age. you have to find some way to do that. the political dynamics of that is such that it is not going to happen unless we rage dust raise the age. i worked until i was 68. i don't see nothing wrong with that. a woman who washes the floors cannot work that long. we find them other jobs. we've always done that. baseball players quit at 40 if

they're lucky to get that far. you have to transition them to other jobs so they can remain productive. glenn in georgia. thus -- host: glenn in georgia. caller: it is a pleasure. i'm a big news junkie, 75 years old, retired for quite a while, but my 30 in, they hundred 40-year-old company -- 140-year-old company. what i'm hearing, me having a large appetite for c-span, i hear politicians on both sides -- i am a newly born independent because i disappointed on both sides of the room, i hear many of your peers say look, i don't know where you're getting the fact -- the fact that the rich are not paying their fair share. your peers say they are paying

their fair share. it while ago you made a comment, i picked it up from the kitchen, that if you are a businessman or woman in new york city, you're going to pay 50% of your income. guest: your marginal rate. caller: without interrupting, could you elaborate and tell us are the rich paying their fair share we had to -- share? we have to get off the soapbox and say the cure-all is making the rich and famous pay their fair share. guest: i can't tell you what is fair but the irs publishes data on the proportion of the income tax paid by the top 10% or when 5%. it is large. it is very large where's the

bottom half and two thirds does not pay that much. especially if we compare ourselves to european countries. i am getting boehm -- banked on the head by feminists that we don't have government paid for child care. that is fine but then the schoolteacher will have to pay the kind of taxes they pay in the netherlands. people who -- they pay half their income in taxes but they get a free college education and free childcare and so forth. so you can't pay for all of those things by printing money and that is what build back america was about. the budget numbers say it and there is a real problem. you're going to have to pay for it somehow.

taxing the rich has its limits. you can't text people is 75% of their marginal income and expect them to go to work. they're not going to. let's say hello to our next caller in maryland. caller: do your guest professor, i was wondering whether or not you were aware corporate was not making the profits they were intended to make. they are still making profits, even though the line is going down. they may have gone from $9 billion to $6 billion. i don't have a lot of sympathy for that. the oil companies are shutting down the amount of oil they are producing just so they can raise prices.

they were putting out one million barrels of oil, and they are going to reduce it to 60. they chose to do that. the prices are going up. it is not like there is a fair, free-market. they are intentionally manipulating supply. that was shown last year with the oil companies making billions of dollars in the same quarter that they compared it to in the last quarter. i have no sympathy for them. they are not paying their fair share. even though we are taxing them, they have all of these tax holes -- loopholes where they do not have to pay taxes. trump said that. they are taking advantage of the tax system. guest: the trump administration was just as guilty of demagoguery as this administration is. what you are talking about is demagoguery.

oil companies cannot drill as much as they want on government land because the biden administration won't let them. he has shut down drilling on government land, and a lot of the oil is on government land. go to the white house and say "i want more oil. stop shutting down drilling on government land." oil is not in the same place. you need pipes to bring it in. you cannot lay pipelines. the other thing is the administration has made it very clear it wants to get rid of oil. there is not a lot of incentive to build new refining capacity. that is the strength of the system. if you say they are manipulating prices by colluding to reduce the supply of gasoline, prove it. if there was proof out there, in

the public domain this administration would have them in court because that is a legal. it is criminal -- is illegal. it is criminal. caller: i'm not sure that is a fair assessment of what is going on. i know you are talking about new pumping sites. these were sites that were already in the control of the oil companies. that is not the same thing. host: thank you for the call. guest: i think if they were colluding to reduce the amount of oil they pump, it would be pretty easy to take them to court under the clayton act. that sort of behavior to collude is not a civil offense. it is a criminal offense. host: only be because you talked about oil, the administration

if reporting is correct they will introduce stricter vehicle emissions standards this weekend. can these standards get put forth and stay? caller: it did -- guest: it depends on how you do it. if you bring in electric vehicles into the mix, it brings your average emissions down and it works and it works. one of the things to remember is that we are constrained in terms of how many electric vehicles we will be able to use in the coming years because of lithium and the ability to scale up production and the batteries. i know the car companies -- they amuse me. to general motors is spending billions of dollars to -- a japanese company will puta car

on the road for not as much. an electric vehicle as a washing machine on wheels, but it has a complex system for transferring the energy. there is a limited supply of lithium out there. scaling up their prediction is difficult. the real key to getting everybody electric is improving battery technology. here the administration is spot on, and it is trying to promote battery innovation. some of it is happening in the united states. right now the chinese have the lead, but there is a company out in silicon valley. they are probably figuring it out and producing them in iowa or something. they have figured out a battery to get you 20% more miles by changing the composition of what goes in there.

it gets you more out of lithium. those kinds of innovations will make it possible, that there are finite limits to what we can do. by 2030, you will not be able to buy an internal combustion engine unless it runs on fumes or something. that is absurd. they may not be able to get the lithium. talk about taxes and inflation. do you know how much it will cost by electric vehicles? if and everybody -- if everybody has to buy a car, and everybody gets a subsidy you will have to print a lot of money. cars will take a bigger chunk out of people's checks because lithium ion batteries

are so expensive. host: next is dorothy in michigan. caller: i went to talk about social security. in my opinion there will always be social security. so many people have died during covid that were receiving social security, and they would not be receiving social security now plus people dying every day. the other thing is, a long time ago i had heard that -- like 20 years ago -- people that had died were still getting social security getting put into their estate. the other thing i would like to touch on, you can get minimum wage another $10 and the workers will not be ahead because when

they get the minimum wage, everything is raised. the food, the insurance, the gas, and that is all, thank you very much. guest: the fact that many people passed away sooner because of covid, i think they put out a year when the fund runs out of money, but it still runs out of money, and we will not have an accelerated death rate every year. covid is over. it is illegal for your estate or heirs to permit the social security payments, to continue past your death and the social security administration that very seriously. a a lot of times the mother will have one or two of her children have signing privileges on the checkbook.

the checking account lives on while they are clearing things out, selling mom's house, paying the electric bills and all that stuff. when my mom died, my sister performed that function because she lived close by. she immediately called up social security, because they take a very dim view of heirs allowing money to continue dumping into the account. it is considered a serious offense. with regards to raising the minimum wage, you are partially right. i think $7.25 is an absolute joke. why have a minimum wage if it is $7.25? to me that is sinful, if you're going to have a minimum wage. if you raise the minimum wage that these front-line workers get, prices will go up. they also go up for the brain

surgeon. prices do not go up quite as much as the minimum wage goes up so the minimum wage earner is still better off. one of the problems we have in americai we have is -- america is we have a much bigger difference between jamie dimon and the guy who sells him his burger. i'm afraid that america's they tell you we are -- america's top executives tell you that "we are competing -- that "we are competing for talent!" they sit on each other's boards and raise each other's salaries.

it is like a wage cartel near the top. the gap gets bigger and bigger. anything to reduce that gap, but taxes are not the way to do it. jamie dimon isn't going to pay more taxes. he we'll find some way around it. host: -- so that is the problem. you want to talk about taxes? if they get parried -- paid in shares, there are ways to work that out so that if you are in private equity you would get deals and pay yourself then shares so you only pay the capital gains rate, instead of the tax rate which is much lower. whenever the democrats have a tax bill it is half of the list of the things they are going to do. we make joint committees, -- in

the last hours it always seems to fallout. those are the fairies same guys paying -- very same guys paying themselves the salaries. even donald trump talked about doing it. in the end did he do something about it? by the way there are tax breaks joe biden took advantage of that did not get into his bill. host: economics professor emeritus at university of maryland, thank you for your time. we are going to go to open forum, but later on in the program we will talk about the supreme court and the new disclosure rules put in regarding the stories from justice thomas. but first open forum if you want to call in (202) 748-8001 for

republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 for independents. we will take those calls when we return. ♪ >> all this month watch the top 21 winning videos from c-span's 2023's c-span -- 2023 studentcam competition. students were asked to share what their top priorities would be if they were a elected member of congress. watch all of the entries anytime online.

♪ > all this week beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern we are featuring encore presentations of q and a. tonight attorney and best-selling author phyllis howard with his book "not accountable>" he argues that the fraternal order of police have usurped decion-making power from lawmakers. philip howard on c-span's q and a. you can listen to all of our podcasts on the c-span now cap. -- c-span now app. >> listening to c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker play

c-span radio. on weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern 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. >> washington journal continues. host: again to participate in open forum,, you can call (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and for independents, (202) 748-8002. how the arborist sarah yesterday on the sunday shows -- javier becerra yesterday on the sunday shows said that the biden administration is considering ignoring an order by a federal judge in texas blocking the

government's approval of an abortion pill. [video clip] >> when you turn upside down the entire fda approval process, you are talking about every kind of drug, you're talking about our vaccines, insulin, the new alzheimer's drugs that may came on. if a judge decides to substitute his personal opinion over that of scientistss, what drug is not up for legal challenge? for women sake we have to prevail on this. >> my next guest, alexandria oak osseo cortez thinks the fda should ignore the texas judge's ruling. the fda has broad discretion to simply choose not to enforce a ban and allow the drug to remain on the market. yes or no as the hhs secretary,

do you want the fda to enforce the texas ruling if it is upheld ? >> we want the courts to overturn this reckless decision. we want women to continue to have access to a drug. millions of women have used this drug. >> but what if they do not act in the interim before you get to that point? >> i have got to believe that the appeals court, the supreme court has to understand that this ruling by this one judge overturns not just access to this drug, but possibly 20 number of drugs. >> what if they don't? >> that is speculation i think is not worth engaging in. >> are you taking it off the table that you will recommend the fda not enforce the bam? >> every option is on the table. host: that was from the sunday

shows yesterday. jeff starting us off in open forum on the democrats' line. go ed. --go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate washington journal. you had that guy on their talking about social security. nobody ever talks about when the last time that they raised the level of money that you had to pay for. most people inc. everybody pays all the money that they make. if they are a billion -- most people think everybody pays all the money that they make. the amount of money, the maximum amount you can be charged with against something like $150,000. after that you pay no social security. that is what needs to be raised according with the cost of

living, and they should start from when they started the program, add it all up and see where they are at and change that amount to support. social security host: yolanda in virginia. caller: thank you for having me on. i want to comment in light of tax season and the point about wanting to raise taxes, whether it is through social security or other issues. i want to call to the public to really think about the core issue underlying everything. our tax system is so problematic. every tax season is a little bit of a game of figuring out what different things can we put in two maybe try and lower the tax amount here and there.

then this whole antagonizing group of people, i think is so unhelpful. tax the rich or the other side saying there are too many people benefiting from social programs. those are not the problem. the public needs to be judicious and not be influenced by that rhetoric and get to the heart of the issue. we have a really broken tax code . i really wonder maybe someday in my life we could see that change happen when we go to a better tax code. that is super complicated and likely not going to happen, but i want people to stop listening to those calls to target a specific group of people. host: do you do your own taxes? caller: i do, i use turbotax.

this season my husband and i, we are seasonally high earners. we do not fall into the category where biden is going to raise taxes, but because we are professionals will we do is use three different turbotax accounts to figure out which way of filing, married jointly or married separately, is it more financially sound to get a divorce because it will be easier? host: [laughter] sorry, i don't mean to laugh. caller: it is the reality!~ thank you for turbotax allowing us to play around with these things, that should not be how the taxes come in. it is ridiculous. host: dominic in canada, independent line. caller: good morning.

the last guy you had on he was talking about $400 to $600 meals. that is rent to most people in this world. no one spends $400 on a meal. you are the richest country in the world but you cannot find the money? how is that possible. there is a big budget hole you could slash to nothing. it is called your military spending. it is insane. until you get your military spending under control, you cannot eliminate poverty in your country. until you eliminate poverty in your country, you will not eliminate how people think about your country. host: has canada eliminated poverty? caller: better than the u.s.. host: how do you measure that? caller: by the amount of homeless people on the streets. host: there are -- what about in

ontario? caller: there are homeless everywhere! the only country that has eliminated homelessness is china. host: dominic in canada. let's hear from austin in pennsylvania, democrats' line. caller: i want to address the previous comments your guest made on morality. everybody has different morals, but really it is objectively worse if people are rich and a portion of the economy is starving. states like kansas where republican tax system almost destroyed the entire economy and

places where conservative leadership almost crashed the entire economy. it is idiotic rest he -- idiocracy. when there is a discussion around morals, it is a red herring. host: that is austin in pennsylvania. we will do open forum for 20 minutes or so. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. you heard from how the are becerra on the morning show -- from javier becerra on the morning show. [video clip] >> i have six children.

i am a prolific pro-lifer. i believe it is important we protect the sanctity of life. in texas we had a heartbeat bill that was passed. it is important that states dictate their futures. we need to have the courts uphold these. it is dangerous when you have the biden administration coming out and saying they may not uphold a ruling? as an appropriator on the house republicans' side, the house republicans have the power of the purse, and if the administration does not want to, leave this ruling we may have a problem. there may be a point where house republicans have to defund fda programs that do not make sense. >> you said that you want this to be states rights, but isn't a federal judge saying on a national level that a pill cannot be administered the

opposite of states rights? >> the states started this. the states had their ruling. now the federal government is coming in and dictating there's. we have to --dictating theirs. we have to allow our institutions to lead. we do not have marijuana here. if marijuana is in california and other places, if those are the things your community wants, than work it through the state and federal level, but we have to uphold our institutions. it is dangerous when we erode them. host: from richard in michigan, republican line. caller: -- i hope the people in the government are ashley watching the show. they would really see what the

people like and would have to do something. you showed a clip earlier. it seems like when people get on air, the way they spoke to him of they are talking about one law that has not been approved yet. at the end of his conversation, you're talking about a drug and he brings up insulin and other drugs or whatever. these drugs have been approved and are working great and the democrats open their mouth, they throw in these hypotheticals. this is about one pill, not about insulin for other drugs. it's not about everything else. the caller a few callers back made the statement that 50% of america is really wealthy and the other 50% are starving. why do people call up and throw

this out there. they were talking about one thing and then they slice these other stuff into it. they really think it's true. host: let me push back on one point is that many legislators are aware of this program that when congress is in session, we invite legislators to have conversations with us. keep watching and we appreciate all the legislators who make time for us. from texas, democrats line, hi. caller: how are you doing? thanks for taking my call. when they cut social security out, they cut it real bad, this country is going to hell in a handbag.

social security is keeping a lot of things propped up because people spend the money. i needed and i'm one of them. i thank you for taking my call. host: next is nick from illinois. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i want to say thank you for pushing back on the canadian caller. there is a lot of people in our country, a lot of people around the world who are uneducated, flat out across the board. we have them in government as well but that's the way it is with freedom of speech. out of 39 million people, there is 3 million people from canada who are impoverished. i spent $100 just making new york style cheesecake cookies. that's here in illinois.

3 million people in canada to talk to. host: president biden is expected to travel overseas in the early part of this week. ireland is one of the stops he will make. president biden is set to touchdown in northern ireland on tuesday evening before heading to the republic of ireland. he is due to visit belfast to mark the 25th anniversary of the good friday agreement. the visit was rumored as far back as his inauguration. he will make the trip to mark the tremendous progress since the signing of the belfast good friday agreement. and to underscore the readiness of the united states potential for the benefit of all communities. that's part of the coverage and you will watch out for that trip going on this week.

if you're interested in another perspective on the good friday accord, bill clinton was in at the signing of the accords and wrote in an op-ed. let's go to pennsylvania, independent line. caller: good morning. i'm very interested in the fact that farming is becoming very difficult to do now. one of the issues that are farmers had was stratospheric aerosol injection program is being implemented throughout the entire country and people should open their eyes and look at the skies and see that this is a real problem to our atmospheric

conditions, especially with the interference of the military-industrial complex actually spraying us day today with chemicals in our skies especially barium and aluminum. i wish people would open their eyes. it goes beyond their congresspeople and arsenic. let's look at it from this perspective, please. host: arcadia, florida, republican line. caller: they said floyd but my name is lane. i have problem with everybody looking at the proud boys as a white supremacy organization when we have multiples of latinos and multitudes of blacks in our organization. that's the biggest misnomer on

the planet. the other thing i would like to mention is how in the heck does nancy pelosi come up with $250 million in her bank account? her husband is a real estate dealer and when nancy pelosi pushed to get waterfront property in san francisco improvement plan, he made $1.3 billion and that deal so let's look at the finances of all these purkett peoples. i used to think mexico was the quickest place in the planet but i think we are now. worse than ukraine or anywhere else. host: you said you identify as a proud boy, why is that? caller: because i am? host: why are you part of the organization, i'm just curious? caller: because all our conservative all believe in the same thing and freedom and the

rights and anticorruption and anti-crime. we are all law enforcement enforcers, ex military people. i spent 10 years in the army and i'm the oldest proud boy on the earth. host: what about the members of the organization who were involved in january 6, do you support that? caller: i don't, we were told not to go to washington, d.c.. there was 12 or 13 guys who were proud boys that were busted on the january 6 thing and it turns out that six of them were fbi were six or seven. host: where do you get that? caller: do your research. host: you tell me, you made the claim. where'd you get that? caller: i get that out of the

information i read. host: from where and from whom? caller: here's a perfect example of it, where you think and rico terrio is who is supposedly our big spokesperson was also black cuban, he was a big time proud boy and all of a sudden, it turns out he is a federal informant it's all baloney. you can take that to the bank, i'm done. host: georgia, democrats line, hello. caller: good morning. i woke -- i wake up in the morning and i turn on c-span and a caller earlier on said they don't think the politicians watch c-span. i disagree to the point that we

talk about everything but what we should talk about except the topic. the gentleman just got through talking about proud boys, that's what makes this country the way it is now. i'm one of the guys that works on the waterfront and during the pandemic, we cap america and the world going. the men and women of the u.s. never stopped working. we worked to make sure the customer gets the product they needed to keep their families going. whatever it was. i'm proud of being a longshoreman that i can get up in the morning time and listen to the show that it brings the most -- that i think brings the most information to this country that's around. i want to talk to -- talk about the texas supreme court justice who made that crazy decision

about bill that would affect the lives of women. i heard the congressman say it a while ago that they might defund some of the different things they need to fund. when you take the rights from a group of people, 50 year law and have a supreme court justice make a decision to take down roe v. wade, i think it was one of the most damaging things in american history going back to the colonies. host: that was georgia. the press reporting --

here's part of that conversation. [video clip] >> let me start with you. you met with vice president harrison president biden, what was their message to you and what did you hear from them? >> thank you so much for having us on today. the most resounding message we are hearing from the white house across the world and across the nation's this attack on democracy will not go on unchallenged. the tennessee house republicans attempted to crucify them and let a movement by young people to restore democracy. we are in the midst of a third

reconstruction in the message we will continue to resist that this is not the end. the people will hold them accountable at the county level and the special election going forward through our legal processes. >> have you talked to any of your former colleagues since this vote? have any of them explain why you were ousted and the others were not? >> no, i haven't talked where former colleagues but the reality is, the institution is filled with people more concerned about supporting the nra and the second amendment and first iraq amendment rights to be up to come to the capital and advocate for gun violence prevention laws is not the type of legislation we deserve and need to have. the speaker of the house called those children and teenagers

insurrectionist and is that type of language, that political ideology that is destructive to our democracy and what ends up happening is the perpetuation of injustice by white supremacy that leads to the expulsion of the two youngest black lawmakers in tennessee. host: from ohio, republican line. caller: i want to say i'm a former republican because i think the republican party has left. host: are you a republican currently were not? caller: i'm leaning toward more independent. host: are you republican or not? caller: not now. host: i will have to let you go. we try to keep the lines open for the party that best represents you. independent line, hello. caller: good morning.

i'd like to say good morning to all my fellow immigrant americans. we are all immigrants here. we need more immigrants to help pick up the slack as far as work . women should be able to have the pill. where was i going? the pill needs to be there, the democrats and republicans are in bed together. they take turns being in trouble , you're in trouble now in now it's our turn to be in trouble. nothing gets done. when i was growing up, i'm 60 now and is disabled truck driver, when i was young, it was called kicking the can. they don't call it kicking the can no more, they just like to spread chaos and debt. the corporations have been in bed with our government for long time and until we can get the corporations out of her

government, it's going to stay the same. host: that's tom in missouri. the washington times reporting -- you can find that story in the washington times. republican line is next, hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. want to comment on the first caller from last week who talked about how he was informed and knew everything about it and it

was those republican fox listeners that don't have an understanding of the world around them. the host said to her, what do you listen to? he said i listen to msnbc, atlantic magazine, the new yorker, the new york post and i'm the most informed person in the world. i'm sitting there and if people want to be informed, if you watch msnbc, you should listen to fox. the people who listen to fox listen to other sources. i like listening to c-span because they bring in other opinions. if you just want to listen to one type, you don't know really what's going on. you can disagree but you shouldn't listen that's probably one of the biggest things we face that i'm 68 and when i grew up, you had reporters and newscasters that would show different opinions that weren't

so opinionated. one of the things i wanted to say is that c-span had the two tennessee legislators that were sent out there and you didn't have a story about the people. it would have been great to have a story from the people why they did that and why it was necessary so you can show both views. host: that's peter in new york. on the networks today at 2:00 p.m., a discussion on the state of the global con me which will feature the treasury undersecretary for international affairs. that will be at the brookings institution. if you're interested in learning, watches starting at 2:00 on c-span and the app is c-span now and you can watch online at c-span.org. willis in mississippi, democrats line. caller: thanks for having me.

host: go ahead. caller: i'm a big fan of your show. host: i'm going to put you on hold for a second because i need you to turn down your television that way it keeps the interference low and it also keeps the conversation going. new york city, independent line, hello. caller: good morning. i just want to make a quick statement. i want to say i'm mystified by the general american public as to why they would refute a president who comes along and says i want to put americans first in america and people have a problem with that. . i think only people under a mystical spell would have a problem with that.

january 6 incident that happened at the capital, when i think about it, i didn't know -- notice one congressperson who displayed bravery to defend the capital. instead, they ran like carrots. host: that finishes off this round of open for him. coming up, he discussion, taking a look at the transparency of the activities of the member of -- members of the supreme court. gabe roth will be joining us. that conversation is coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> edward acorn has been a lifelong reader of abraham lincoln.

in 2020, he published his first book on the 16th president called". every drop of blood" in his second book just published on lincoln, he dropped back to the beginning of honest apes national political career in. 1860 the subject matter was inside the republican convention held in chicago. this time, the book is titled ". the lincoln miracle" \ he's a former editorial page editor of the providence journal and lives in rehobeth, massachu >> that's on the next episode of book notes plus available on the c-span now free mobilerpp were ever you get your podcasts. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of happening in washington live

and on demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your finger pit tips -- stay up-to-date with latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for the c-span b networks and he's been radio and a variety of compelling podcasts. it's available at the apple store and google play. >> c-span shop that were is there online stores of brows were latest collection. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase of support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: gate brought joins us now. he's joining us to talk about the supreme court and how it approaches disclosure. guest: thanks for having me. host: can you talk about your organization when it comes to matters of the supreme court, what position do you take and how you are funded and who supports you? guest: it's been around since 2014. we are a 5013 c profit organ is -- nonprofit organization and funded by various foundations and individual donors. host: when it comes to matters of the supreme court, generally, when it comes to justices on the supreme court, how they handle disclosure of the of activities? guest: each justice like each member of congress in each top-level official in the

executive branch has to file an annual financial disclosure. they tell the public once a year what debts they have and outside income they might have earned from teaching or book royalties and any trips they went on paid for by third parties. there is a personal hospitality exemption but disclosures they file are fairly similar to what members of congress and other lower court judges file on an annual basis. host: what are the differences between a person -- if one of the justices travels under hospitality or something else? guest: that changed recently. until three weeks ago, if you were flown on a private plane by a friend, you didn't have to report it your annual disclosure. if you state at a resort or ski chalet or hunting lodge owned by

a friend or a commercial property owned by a friend, you didn't have to report it on your annual financial disclosure. that has changed as of march 14 so starting the next round of disclosures due in may, the justices will have to report if they took any private plane rides for free or they stated any resorts for free and it doesn't matter who paid for it. it could be the brookings institution or a liberal or conservative mega downer, they will have to start reporting it but one of the other main difference is the members have to file a report within 30 days of where they went and how much it cost. supreme court justices only have to file a single report once a year that just says who paid and it doesn't say how much the hotel cost or how much the flight cost very much the meal cost. there is no internal ethics

office at double checks with the justices to be sure they are crossing theirt's and dotting theiri's. the senate and house both have their own internal ethics offices. if you remember congress, the sponsors themselves have to file a report with the ethics committee and that doesn't exist for the justices of the supreme court or lower court judges. host: i want to talk to you about the rules. what put them in that place in the first place? guest: i think it was years of lobbying by members of congress toward the federal judiciary. in the years following justice scalia's death, more interest around this issue because just as cool -- scalia died on it -- because justice scalia died in a trip he did not report any flu

commercial from d.c. to houston. then he switched planes in houston and flew on a private jet to a ranch and martha, texas and that stay at the ranch would not have been reported under the old rules on his annual disclosure. there is a lot of intrigue around that for many reasons, one of which was in addition to a private plane is expensive and the hotel room it it was $800 per night but also the person who is paying all that had a case that reached the supreme court. i think that peaked a bunch of interest. there have been other weird travel experiences unquestionable travel expenses from the justices in the intervening years. it really crystallized with the 2016 scalia trip and it took a while but then the democrats have been lobbing judiciary to change the rules which is

potentially easier to do than getting a bill passed in congress. it was coincidence that the thomas story came out last week. three weeks prior, the judiciary change the rules you have certain noncommercial flights and commercial stays on your annual disclosure no matter who was giving it to you. host: on its face, what do you think of this authority? guest: i helped them on it. i was happy came out. anytime you're a public official in your accepting lavish gifts and lavish trips, it raises russians. every american -- it raises questions. we want our justices to be above board. i don't think there is any question that in many of the trips reported, clarence and

ginni thomas were not acting ethically. is there a way to impeach them, of course not. i think that story is a reflection of the existing rules. we need to change lax rules and make it so that supreme court doesn't have the weakest oversight in the three branches but maybe because they are supposed to be these neutral entities, they should have stronger ethics among the federal government branches. host: gave roth is with us until 10:00 a.m. and if you want to asking questions -- -- ask him questions -- you probably seen the statement

concerning these matters saying that my wife kathy and i have been friends with justice thomas. hospitality we've extended to them is no different from the hospitality we'd extended to many other friends. from harlan roth, what do you think of the response? guest: justice thomas has been on the supreme court since 1991. to me, i think you have to look at a friendship that developed after an individual has attained a position of so much power in our federal government. i think that we are talking about -- it's one thing if justice ginsburg was staying at a friends house in western massachusetts before she went to the opera and didn't reported on her disclosure but it's a completely different thing to be

flown in a private jet halfway around the world and be given a letter's vacation and be someone who is sponsoring turning a cannery into museum where justice thomas's mother worked. and paying for a statute of thomas as middle school teacher in suburban new york and flying justice thomas tune investiture of a lower court judge. i'm not sure why he couldn't have flown commercial. to me, it's the quantity which speaks volumes. to me, i think all the justices should have friends and i don't think they should live monastic lives but it reaches a certain point where it's reasonable to ask questions about propriety. host: you have probably seen the clarence stop thomas statement saying he did nothing wrong

because it was early in his tenure when he did these things. he said this personal hospitality who did not have business before the court was not reportable. what is your perspective on his responses? guest: i'm sure glad he is going to abide by the new rules but there is this assumption that the justices would follow the new rules but because there are efforts on the lower courts and justices positions were created by congress, there is tension about justices following them. presumably he and his colleagues will follow the rules. this idea that you are taking this loophole and flying a private plane through it is just ridiculous to me. the federal losses personal

hospitality extent -- personal hospitality extends to a personal friend. a private plane is a facility or property but if you look at the senate rules, it explains that a private plane doesn't count and the fact that the judiciary didn't include that little clarification until three weeks ago, this is one of the things where you will want more disclosure and more transparency from your top officials in a political third branch. maybe by the letter of the law it doesn't violate anything that it doesn't pass the salt test. this is gave roth -- gabe roth joining us for this conversation. we will start on the independent

line in maryland. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a question as it relates to conflict of interest. it doesn't deal with this direct subject matter but it's difficult to hear topics pertaining to the supreme court. the particular justice i'm interested in is brett kavanaugh. in my opinion, during his confirmation, it was awkward and it was expedited. there were a lot of questions that were not answered it he set on a case of mine at the circuit level for the district. however, i discovered was also a special counsel to the administration where he

confirmed an appointee through the judiciary committee which i had adjudication against that agency. my concern as i realized through public service announcements, where does the conflict of interest lie. i solicited against his confirmation for the supreme court although that case matriculated to the supreme court at that time. host: what would you like airgas specifically to address? -- our guest caller: caller: specifically to address? just the lack of transparency. host: thank you. guest: eight of the nine

justices right now were judges in the lower court. if they hear a case in the lower courts whether they are a district judge or an appeals court judge or on the circuit court or all the judges of the circuit and they house anywhere from seven to 53 countries, then if the same judge becomes a supreme court justice he should refer -- he should recuse you in that the federal law. if a judge or an individual has previously participated in a case, they should recuse themselves and be disqualified should they be asked to hear the case again if they move up to the supreme court. if that hasn't happened in your case, i typically will emails supreme court clerk the public information officer and say you missed one and usually they make a correction and they will deal

with that say a justices now recuse in the case. sometimes you can be on recuse if it's the amazon versus smith case and of justice alito owns amazon stock, he can sell the stock and participate in the case. the justices decide whether they abide by the rules. if a lower judge in the caller's example moved from district to the circuit court in the case also moved but the judge did not recuse. you can bring a complaint against the judge. there is disciplinary action that could happen. there isn't such disciplinary action at the supreme court. even the federal recusal law, there is no punishment for violating it with impeachment

and removal. then how strong is the law so there needs to be more accountability measures and investigatory ability for the supreme court because at least let's have the transparency in place because otherwise, we are all in the dark and concerned about the propriety of the justices. host: alexandria, virginia, independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. as an individual private citizen working in the financial services industry a couple of years ago, i was required to disclose any gift of any sort, box of candy, a lunch or something like that that was over $25.

if the gift was over $100, i had to refuse that gift. i had to return it. i would like to look at this privilege that exists in all branches of government i think but certainly in the legislature and the judiciary and executive branches. there is a disconnect from what they have to do relative to what we had to do as private citizens. guest: there are many industries which the gift rules are far stricter than for the supreme court. you think this would be the strictest. my sister g is as5 which is a grade in government. she's in little rock, arkansas and she couldn't accept any of the gifts clarence thomas had.

you can accept anything from a lobbyist -- you can't accept anything from a lobbyist or foreign agent. if you have a non-friend, you are supposed to report it assuming it's more than $415. the bust of a blinken, the frederick douglass bible that clarence received were between 15 and $20,000. those were reported on his financial disclosure. that pales in comparison to some of the other gifts that the justices have received. new gorsuch got an autographed louisville slugger bath. john roberts got a betsy ross quilt valued at $175. justice kagan got box seats to a

big-time university of michigan football game. those are not like free flights on a private plane. it's difference by degree. i think that's a good point is that the gift rule, the disclosure rules but the tangible gift rules is confusing because in the statutes, it also means travel. but you are also talking about tangible gifts. those need to be clarified and at the least, there needs to be in office within the supreme court that goes justice to justice and asks if they have received gifts. are you sure no one has given you a $5,000 painting? there completely needs to be better rules and regulations and i think members of congress because the supreme court will not act on this likely, members

of the congress need to rewrite the rules to ensure the justices have the same gift acceptance rules that they had to follow, nothing more than $50. host: if there is no investigating body once these documents are turned in, what -- what happens? guest: the annual financial disclosure report last year was posted online. it's crazy it took that long to post them online. . they are by law posted online. then you look through them. the court of public opinion happens next and journalists will read through them and one year, neil gorsuch reported getting a fishing rod from a guy in colorado. i didn't know who this guy was. i called him up and i asked why

he gave me fishing rod and he said i read about him in the paper any mention you likes fishing and i thought it would be a nice thing to do. one of the first colorado-based supreme court justices. it was nothing nefarious so that's something that should be happening. using journalistic and investigative practices to see if any of the things that were listed impute a conflict of interest. you are also supposed to list your spouse's primary place of work. several justices have spouses who work in the legal field and i don't think any of them have any reason to worry about conflicts. it's worth asking the question if justice barrett's firm will have case before the supreme court, in jane roberts firm will have cases before the supreme court of katie's addition of katie thomas is going to work with supreme court, there are

more plausible reasons for conflicts with ginny. justice jackson's husband was a doctor but did some consulting work for legal firms on medical malpractice in the normal course of things, these are questions that should be asked. the justices we know are not being so forthcoming with that which they are receiving. we need stronger laws to make that happen. host: representative alexandria ocasio-cortez have called for stricter rules. what the light of -- what's the likelihood of that happening? guest: it's the same as impeaching a president, he would need a majority vote in the house and to remove a justice, it would be two thirds of the senate which is never happened at one justice was impatient and acquitted. that was 220 years ago so i

think impeachment talk is mostly pointless. it will not happen with a republican congress and even in a democratic congress, i don't think you would get a majority of the democrats behind that. it's not fomenting an insurrection but the other thing is that it's not something you will get 67 senators on. it might not be the best use of time. a better use of time is looking at your own rules and drafting them onto -- and grafting them onto the justices. host: senator sheldon whitehouse t a atement -- guest: senator whitehouse has

been a leader in trying -- he is the chairman of the senate judiciary committee subcommittee . there is one in the senate. as his role, he works typically on a bipartisan asia so i think the most recent round of letters were democrats only. he has really pushed the judicial conference which is the policymaking body of the judiciary. the judiciary loves federalism. it's very much in favor of federalism so everyone does their own thing on a lot of different policy matters but the judicial conference is a body to come together twice a year and they have committees and they talk about ways to improve the effectiveness of the judiciary. sheldon whitehouse has been asking for them to close the loophole and they have the power to do so.

under the post-watergate law, the it says disclosures have to -- have to happen from all three branches of government and gives them the ability to tighten those laws without needing congressional approval. after scalia's death on a free ranch happened, he started pushing for closing the personal hospitality loophole and it took a lot of years that he pushed the judicial conference to change their policy and the committee decided to do so and they voted to change the policy to require reporting of private planes and resorts stays three weeks ago. host: here is christopher in illinois, democrats line, thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. excellent topic. i wrote some notes down. i want to be clear and coherent.

no individual organization should ever have any capability to sway any possible decision or opinion and the ultimate bottom line in my opinion is always much is given, much is expected. any possibility of all, any suggestion of favor intimating a ruling to go some other direction, to go along with what somebody or an organization wants like somebody has a ranch or somebody has a museum somewhere in the world. it's profoundly dangerous. to be as neutral as possible is the whole idea behind the justice system. a small town in mississippi or

the united states supreme court. host: thank you, caller. guest: we expect judges in our meniscal cords and lower federal courts to lead by example and lead with integrity. i think there is a yawning gap between what should we should expect from supreme court and what's actually happening when it comes to their ethical responsibility. host: from rich in new jersey, republican line. caller: good morning. let me start this way, if it wasn't justice thomas appointed by republican, this wouldn't be a story. guest: of course it would be. host: let him finish and we will get your response. caller: did you do any investigation on our bg or sotomayor?

none of them have ever taken -- guest: they have not taken a nickel but they have flown --host: let him finish and then you can respond. caller: where is the report on all democrat appointed justices? there isn't any? for 30 years, you guys have been going after justice thomas for every little thing since he was appointed. this is a nonstory, percival. -- first of all. how about putting biden and his son on every day on "washington journal". you don't host: want to do that. we talked about that topic several times but we are talking about this topic now. guest: i'm not an expert on the other branches but with the supreme court, i've done extensive research on justice ginsburg and justice sotomayor and justice kagan and a little

on justice jackson but they've all accepted gifts that they probably shouldn't have. justice ginsburg flew to jordan on the dime of an individual who had a company similar to scalia who had a company who had a case before the justices months before and accepted that flight. justice sotomayor flew to rhode island to give a talk in 2016 that she didn't put on her annual financial disclosure or where the university of rhode island where she was speaking for commencement in put together a motorcade with her security detail and had her stay in 11 rooms for free and one of the nicest hotels in the state. we've done this work. that report came at the same week as the pandemic was getting going in march of 2020.

briar went on a private plane to nantucket in 2013 and we reported on that so there have been words from other groups about other justices but we cannot do equivalency if there aren't equivalent numbers. if there were trips to indonesia and new zealand and the adirondacks and east texas like with thomas or the free hunting trips that scalia did not report, it's a numbers game and there were way more that they were doing. as a nonprofit, it would be nice if there were two liberal justices who had a pension for a free trip as the two conservative justices but that's not the world we live in. i'm trying to respond to what i see in what's going on. it might have a partisan bent but it shouldn't and the rules that apply to members of

congress, they should apply to the supreme court. if that impacts one just as more than another, so be it. by definition, they should be apolitical. host: democrats line next, hi. caller: i have a thank you for everything you do. i can remember i've been following the supreme court since nixon. i remember it being conservative i don't remember it leaning or even a liberal majority, i don't think. host: it's been majority republican appointees for 53 years now. caller: my point is, if joe biden came out today and said i want to resurrect the u.s. supreme court committee that he had when he first get into office and says i want to

appoint for justices now this year while he had the majority in the senate, what do you think that would do through the political world? i think it would shake things up. guest: i think to pass that law because it would change the law, you would have to get the house on board and i don't think house republicans will get on board with that and a majority of house democrats are not on board with that either. it's an interesting exercise. we support term limits as a way to shake things up. the thing with court expansion is we have 13 justices and then if we get a different president and they will add six justices and there won't be a supreme court. that might be the end goal of the people who want to expand the court which is to reduce the power of the work to make it

chaos. i think it's an intellectual exercise. i like the idea of disempowering the supreme court. i think our representatives in congress and the executive branch from the president on down should be the ones who are setting policy in this country. the supreme court is becoming most powerful and the least accountable part of our government and not that's not the way the founders had envisioned it. term limits to me is a better proposition. it's politically neutral and every president under the term limit plan that are most prevalent would get to terms as a limit. then you would have 18 year terms or nine times two is 18 so that means of four-year term in a new justice and it would be a disempowering reform but i appreciate the biden administration bringing this

conversation to the four. it has set in a drawer for the past year. host: maureen in florida, republican line. caller: kudos to you. wonderful investigation. i'm loving every minute of it. i used to be a probation officer in new york. it's definitely needed. i see in audit group until this is cleaned up. i think that would expedite the whole thing. three things i would like to say. president trump is being used to hide what biden and china and russia are up to. they are distracting us with that. host: i apologize because it's

not what we are talking about. this idea of a code of ethics for the supreme court, does it exist? guest: the project on government oversight came out with a model code of conduct that the justices should consider. when you think about a code of contact, there is one that exists for the lower court judges, the 2500 federal judges not on the lower just nons of -- none supreme court have to follow. i think you can take that coda make a few changes and i would change it a little bit but i think there are ethical canons that are universal you could apply to the supreme court and discipline court would apply to themselves and you need to be more prescriptive as far as saying no attending political fundraising or taking gifts. there are things you can kick up

a notch when it comes to their ethical requirements. this exists in every other court in the country. every lower court has to follow a code. justice kagan mentioned in 2019 the chief justice roberts was working on it but it's tough to write a code that covers everything. it doesn't take four years to do this. my hope is that with this recent talk of justice thomas and other ethical lapses that it reinvigorate its the code but some sort of accountability measures so there is the ability of members of the public to file a complaint and pointed to the supreme or that you shouldn't have taken that flight were accepted that gift and there should be some sort of report that is taken and sent to

congress saying these are the times the justices did not follow the code. given that we will not impeach a justice and none of them has done anything that's impeachable, i think we need to be creative about accountability measures. there are steps that can be taken on a bipartisan basis to ensure error highest court is not have the lowest -- that our highest court does not have the lowest ethical standards. host: gabe roth is the executive director and you can find them online, thank you for your time. guest: host: host: thank you. "washington journal"washington journal another edition of" comes your way at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. have a good day. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023]

>> c-span is unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers and we are just getting started. building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charterommunications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> today, a look at the state of the global economy with treasury undersecretary for international affairs at the brookings institution. watch live beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern on