>>

♪ ♪ host: good morning "washington journal and welcome to the "washington journal" on this thursday, june 29.

all eyes are on the supreme court for the final days of this year's term as the justices have yet to issue decisions on a handful of high-profile cases. these rulings come with heightened scrutiny on the ethical conduct of justices with calls for term limits. this morning, we will get your view of the nation's highest court. this is how you can dial in this morning -- we will take your phone calls, republicans can call at (202) 748-8001, and independent (202) 748-8002 and you can text. (202) 748-8003. you can join us on facebook as well. we will get two calls in a minute but let's begin recent polls and this is from quinnipiac.

they asked your view -- we will start with the remaining supreme court cases actually and then will get to those poles. these are the high profilcases they have yet to decide. affirmative action in colle admissions, religious rights of businesses to deny lgbtq customers, president biden's student loan program and there is still that case on religious accommodations in the workple. these are the high-prole cases we are watching and we could hear from the court as early as today on one or some of these cases. back to the quinnipiac poll, this is what they found when they asked folks there view of the supreme court. frank went up? they found that the court is deeply unpopular. 58% disapprove while 29% approve. this is the lowest rating since

the poll began asking the question in 2004. only 11% of respondents identified as democrats and 29% of those identifying as independents approved of the court. more from the quinnipiac poll -- 68% say that the supreme court is mainly motivated by politics, 25% said mainly voted -- mainly motivated by the law. do you share these survey results? what is your view of the supreme court this morning? on msnbc, former speaker nancy pelosi discussed the dobbs anniversary. you can also weigh in on that decision this morning and her support for term limits, take a listen. [video clip] >> we have a body chosen and never had to run for office, nominated, confirmed for life

with no accountability for their ethics behavior. 30% seems high. >> do you think there should be changes and reforms to the supreme court, term limits? >> i don't note that expanding -- we've had an expansion of the court in the time of lincoln than it went up to nine. the subject of whether that should happen is a discussion, that's not a rallying cry. it's a discussion, the president formed a commission and they would not recommend expansion of the court. there certainly should be term limits. if nothing else, there should be some ethical rules that should be followed. host: do you agree with the former speaker that there should be term limits for the supreme court? your view of the high court this morning as we wait to see how they decide on a handful of high-profile cases.

cold spring, new york, democratic caller, good morning. caller: i disagree that they shouldn't expend the court, i think they should because there are 13 circuits and there should be 13 justices. there should deftly be term limits and we have real issues. i have no faith in the court whatsoever. they are so corrupt, some of the republican appointees on the word in those stolen seats, that it's just discussing -- disgusting and how can they be satisfied they took away the rights of 50% of the population. host: yuri fuhr -- you are referring to the abortion decision? caller: yes, i am. host: is it because of rulings they've made that you don't trust them or is it because of the scrutiny of late on how the justices conduct themselves? caller: it's both because it was obvious and clear they lied during their confirmation hearings.

also, the public opinion, the court serves the people in the public opinion is not with the overturning of roe. that was a political agenda, a religious agenda that's been going on for the last 60 years. that and the corruption, alito and his smugness had taken bribes in clarence thomas -- thomas taking bribes with his wife involved and the insurrection, this is despicable. he should've been removed immediately if there is any justice whatsoever. host: fill in cleveland, ohio, republican, let's get your take. caller: good morning. can i just say that the supreme court is made up of judges and the word judge means to limit so if they are going to be able to limit and no man or woman is above the law, why shouldn't they have limitations on them? of course, they should have limitations and only a certain

time in office. can i say one other thing? i am a vietnam you're a veteran. and i have a granddaughter. can you folks stop blowing up all these fireworks? do you know what it does to us veterans and their dogs? god bless america and you. host: ginny knickerbocker on facebook says -- quinnipiac asked that question is will in the recent poll and they found that 63% of folks polled said yes, they support term limits for the supreme court justices. 29% oppose the idea. do you agree with those poll numbers? would you like to see term limits? what is your view of the supreme court. recently on "washington journal ," we spoke to joshua kaplan for pro publica who has looked into

travel and, travel and other places where the supreme court justices have been. he along with his colleagues wrote a piece about samuel alito. he is talking about the lack of an ethics committee for the supreme court. >> if you go to any other public official and you say, this is something that looks off, it looks potentially unethical, what do you say in response? the best possible response for them to say is i went to an ethics official ahead of time and they told me i should do it in this way and they told me it was ok to do that everything here was ok. i had someone objectively look at it and tell me this was within the bounds of my responsibility as a public servant to the american people.

that doesn't exist in the supreme court, there is no ethics panel on the supreme court, there is no one to call balls and strikes when it comes to that. what you are getting at here is a significant point that there is a lack of transparency and oversight in the supreme court that is in stark contrast to other branches of government. the justices are largely left to police themselves and ethical issues. there are very few restrictions and when potential conflicts arise, they decide how to handle it. there is no outside arbeiter. host: joshua kaplan saying justices are largely left to police themselves. this morning, your view of the supreme court. they are ending their term, about to break for their summer recess and they have about seven

cases left to issue opinions on and we are watching the court this morning on c-span and getting your view of the justices. and the makeup of the court. david in florida, independent, share your view, go ahead. caller: i think the supreme court is about right. i really do support them. host: we lost you come you don't believe, what? caller: i don't leave the house of representatives or the senate or the president, they are a separate branch of government. these people are trying to rule over the dish over the supreme court and justify some action by some of the things they do they don't agree with. it doesn't mean they are wrong, they just don't agree with them. what is happening right now is that my only concern about the supreme court is that they take on too many cases that are

really state issues. everything is an opinion. some of those things don't really bounce out against the constitution. i think they should handle cases like, the only one i saw you had put up on television was the one with president biden. i think president biden is overstepping his boundaries on student loans and i think it's political and i think it's political and i things to try to get personally. it is also something that it's the house of representative's portion, the house of representatives controls the budget, not the president of the united states in that respect. host: can you give us an example of where you felt the court should not have meddled and left a decision to the states? caller: we can throw up the same one we always throw up, roe v. wade, long time ago, they should never have got involved in that

and you can see the problem is caused over the years. i personally think this abortion action is between a doctor and his patient. i am older and i remember the coathanger about dish abortions that were happening. i get concerned about that because the health issue of the woman, sometimes they sterilize them and that's something they never should have gotten involved in back in the 70's. i can't really think of another case right now but there are lots of cases that i hear them taking up that are really state issue. it doesn't have to be the same thing in every state, doesn't have to be universal. you live in wyoming, it's a different place than you live in chicago. it's a different thing. host: understood, david brought

up the student loan forgiveness case and the supreme court will weigh in on what president biden did to forgive loans and the american enterprise institute will have a discussion about that today at 4:30 p.m. eastern time. you can watch it right here on c-span on our video video mobile app c-span that were on our website, c-span.org. john stevens on facebook says -- mitchell in ohio, republican, mitchell, good morning. caller: hello? host: it's your turn, your view of the supreme court. caller: i don't believe that they been compromised. there is a couple on their that i don't really approve of but everyone has their own opinion. for the most part, i think

they've done a pretty good job with what they've been given. they needed to let the brunson case go forward. i know that much. other than that, i have no complaints of what the supreme court does. host: who are the two you are not fond of and why? caller: uh, katanji. host: ketanji brown jackson, ok. caller: the reason why is the way she preaches, i don't think it's correct. and justice roberts is kind of iffy but for the most part, he does his job. other than that, i have no problem with clarence thomas or

gorsuch or any of those. the ones that schumer called out, no, no problems with them at all. those are square minded individuals who have a brain. host: diane on facebook -- bill in talladega alabama, independent, good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. my first comment that i have is when you put nancy pelosi up, you broadcast her to talk about term limits, lord have mercy. bless her heart, nancy pelosi would should be the last one,

getting her opinion about anything, you realize how rich she has become? she has been in congress and talking about the supreme court. i agree, leave the supreme court exactly as it is. my one complaint about the supreme court is the last appointee, ms. jackson who couldn't give the definition of a woman and was appointed solely because of her color and her gender. host: how do you know that? caller: the words from president biden. his own words, that's how i know it. do you not realize that? host: ok, bill's opinion there in alabama. ron desantis, the governor of florida, 20 24 republican presidential candidate,

according to nbc at a recent event with conservatives in washington, the freedom conference, vowed to pick more conservative judges than former president donald trump. he is quoted as saying we will do better, take a listen. [video clip] > when i became governor of florida, our state supreme court was perhaps the most liberal supreme or anywhere in the united states. well, we've now been able to make seven appointments to that court and florida now has the most conservative supreme court anywhere in the united states. and we got more work to do. [applause] as president, i will nominate and appoint justices to the supreme court in the mold of justices clarence thomas and justice samuel alito. [applause] >> we will also stand and defend them against scurrilous attacks

you are seeing in the media and by left-wing groups. the left knows they have lost control of the court and they don't like it. if they are able to sweep in 2020 four, they will pass the u.s. supreme court with liberal justices. you may have 13 people on the supreme court after they get done with it and they will install a liberal majority. they are part of this effort of trying to lay the groundwork for that by delegitimizing our great conservative justices. let me just say that i stand with justice thomas, i stand with justice alito and the task in the face of these attacks. they are wrong. [applause] host: governor ron desantis at the faith and freedom conference earlier this week. equal justice under law, those are the words written into the building of the supreme court here in the nation's capital. this morning, we are getting your view of the court and the

justices that serve in the issues that surround the supreme court. term limits, expanding the court, the cases they have to decide. that's all on the table this morning. the hill.com recently ran this piece -- you heard governor ron desantis making the supreme court an issue in this upcoming election. jamaica, new york, independent. caller: i remember judge roberts stating that there is no judge -- there is no trump judges, no obama judges, no clinton judges, but apparently ron desantis did not get the memo. i don't understand. they are fueling the fire by doing this. you're going to these right or left-wing areas and just saying

these things to get applause. this is not about that. it's about the justices doing their job. alito and thomas, they did with they did and folks coming on here this morning saying they did nothing wrong is absolutely crazy. i cannot fathom what most of these callers are thinking. you are putting your reputation on the line by one -- by being wined and died by these early and and millionaires to get a law passed to benefit them. this is just crazy. i don't know what the supreme court is about area i'm probably one of them that says i disapprove of them and thanks for taking my call. host: before you go, what do you make of the pole that quinnipiac did when they asked about whether the court -- what is their motivation?

68% said the supreme court is mainly motivated by politics. caller: i totally agree. we are seeing it for ourselves. desantis just set it a moment ago. he's going to appoint justices to fill the void of conservatism. that shouldn't be. it shouldn't be that at all. go ahead. host: who should appoint these justices? caller: i think we should vote them in like the local judges in new york state. we vote for those judges. let us make the choices, not congress, not the president. we should, the people. just like we vote in the congress, we should be able to vote them in. that is my take on it. that weight there is no bias at all. host: michael allen on facebook --

randall in oklahoma city, democratic caller, what do you say? caller: i think they are bought and paid for. they don't judge. their expedited docket, the don't even list their opinion and why and who voted what. the half a million dollars trip to indonesia by one of them, i have no opinion. i don't have any good opinion. i think it's the dred scott decision, i think that's kind of what they are. they are bought and paid for like the rest of our congress. when they do something pretty good that makes sense, i am surprised. three of them voted for an

independent state legislator. it's a crackpot decision. host: what do you mean? do you disagree with the ruling? caller: i agree with the ruling but the three people that voted for it, what they are saying is the state legislature has no judicial review. that's what courts are for his judicial review. host: you mean the state courts have no review policy. caller: that's what they are trying to do. texas wanted to say biden will be present we don't care with the voters said, they voted for trump but we will say ok, fine, they can do that. there is no judicial review. the governor couldn't do anything. it's nuts. it's saying we don't have a court system. there is a certain narrow -- i

think every decision anybody makes in government can have a judicial review. that's why that's a crackpot decision and why three voted for it. i don't know. host: what do you make of the chief justice and other conservative judges citing with the so-called liberal justices? caller: i think he realizes he's got, i don't think he wanted the dog decision because it's overturning roe v. wade, 49 years of the abortion thing. i don't think he wants to be with the far right french federalist politicians. i think he was a federalist member of that society and i think he resigned. a few years ago because it's gone so far.

we have a great country and we need a better court. i don't care if they are conservative or liberal, we need very good judges. it shouldn't matter whether they are conservative or liberal. they should rule on the statutes and you go by whatever's been decided, that's what you go by and not what we feel like. i don't care what you feel like, it's what's on the paper. you go by laws and then you go from there. i really appreciate that. host: we appreciate you calling in this morning. abc on the case randall was talking about, the supreme court rejects broad state legislature power over federal election rules. the courts repudiated the independent state legislator theory which could have transformed elections for congress and the president. they note the supreme court this week on tuesday ruled in a case

to threaten to upend state election laws. aaron, maryland, independent, you are next. caller: good morning, how are you? host: doing well, your view of the supreme court? caller: i generally do support the supreme court. for everybody complaining about how they are a political branch, they are the least political branch of our three branches of government by far.

they are actually required to show their work in their opinion . the president and congress doesn't really have to do. term limits should be off the table as should an expansion of the court. the president's commission, which was i think composed of a pretty broad ideological group of participants said you cannot pack the court, it will destroy the institution. the best thing we could probably do that's realistic, maybe it's not realistic, but the best thing we could do is restore the 60 vote rule in the senate confirmation of justices, the worst thing former senator harry reid did was change the rule to allow for of bare majority to confirm a justice. that allowed justices to be

confirmed on a purely party-line vote, thus inflaming and politicizing the process even further. if we kept a 60 vote confirmation majority, some kind of consensus would be required in order to be confirmed. that probably the best thing we can do right now or at least moving forward to change the perceptions of the court as a political institution. you have to be very careful because the founders of our country put these protections to insulate the justices from public opinion. when you cite the poll or when they are bidding put out saying 60% of the country disagrees with the supreme court, it's irrelevant. the supreme court is not

intended to follow public opinion. it often does but it's intention was to make decisions on the basis of what the constitution requires and says. in my mind, the best thing we can do is restore the 60 vote majority and i think it was a huge mistake. democrats realize it and i think republicans realize it as well because we are at a point. we haven't had the opportunity where you have a democratic president and a republican senate try to confirm a justice or the other way around. they change that threshold and it's always been the president of one party and the senate of the same party. that's how it then since they changed the 60 vote threshold. host: let's review history here. what happened in 2013 when harry reid, the democratic senator from nevada was the majority

leader and just and the obama administration was in place is the senate approved an historic rule change and this was in 2013 by eliminating the use of the filibuster on all presidential nominees except those to the u.s. supreme court. so that happened in 2013, the so-called nuclear option. then in 2018, mitch mcconnell went nuclear to confirm neil gorsuch and the -- they change the filibuster rule first. then it was mitch mcconnell, the republican senator from kentucky changed the rules to the bare minimum for the supreme court justices. caller: that's right but the precedent, it's always about precedent, the precedent was set by harry reid mitch mcconnell explicitly warned the democrats at that time and said you will

regret this one day. and that's what ended up happening. it's always about precedent. it's undeniable that the democrats set the precedent first and mitch mcconnell ran with it because that's -- of course that's what they will do but you cannot say that republicans set the precedent in terms of changing a vote threshold. host: not saying that, just citing the sequence of events here. it sounds like you've been watching closely over the years. caller: i would say one more thing. i generally approve of the justices. all nine of them i think are honorable people. i really do think that. i understand there have been some news stories about clarence thomas or samuel alito. there was an issue with sonia sotomayor but it really wasn't

publicized. that being said, do i think sonia sotomayor or any of them are corrupt? i don't think so. i think they are honest jurists and what bothers me a little bit is that democratic appointed justices never cross over to the other side. it's only the other way around, sometimes but not all the time. host: i better leave it there. will in ohio, republican. caller: hi, thanks. i cannot get over the word supreme. it sounds like it's as high as you can go. supreme. host: isn't it? isn't it as high as you can go? caller: that's what i understand and correct me if i'm wrong.

there is no court higher than the supreme court. that brings me to my question -- if a case goes to the supreme court, can the supreme court say i don't want to hear it? we don't want to hear it. host: sure, they've done that on the grounds that it should be decided on the state level or -- yes, they have decided not to hear certain cases. caller: are they playing some kind of game? it's already been sent to the supreme court. are they saying that someone in the lower courts made a mistake? i don't get it.

host: republican in ohio. we are watching the supreme court today as they have decisions yet to be made. here are the high-profile cases left. we expect rulings on affirmative action in college admissions, relious right of businesses to deny lgqustomers, president biden's student loan program and religious accommodation in the workplace. we will hear from the justices on one or several of these cases today. steve and columbus, ohio, democraticaller. caller: hi, how a you? host: good morning. we are listening. caller: ok, i think the problem wi t ethics is the biggest problem now and i think things with alito and thomas are perfect example of white there deftly nds to be some sort of

ethical standa for the supreme court. also, it would also help if you had a wider background of the people who get put on the same just the supreme court. too many of them come out of a corporate background. i would really be shocked if there ever was someone with a public defender background on the supreme court. i think that might actually help run the supreme court. host: got it, johnny in massachusetts, independent. caller: hi. it's been interesting listening. i have a couple of opinions on this whole thing. when i first turned you guys want and i tried to call once a month because i know you don't want us to call too many times. host: we appreciate that. caller: there's all these issues

but when i turned it on, pelosi was going on about what her thoughts were. then you had to santos on. you talked about hypocrisy. how long has for lucy been in congress? god knows how long. -- how long has pelosi been in congress? they seem to go kicking and screaming before they get out so i would give a suggestion and this is just to be fair with everybody. if they want to limit the years on the supreme court, then they have to go along with limiting themselves in congress. i think that would be kind of fair. host: how many terms do you think members of congress should serve? what should be the limit? caller: i have an idea on it but i just don't like going to the

extreme. i think that's what we get wrapped up in sometimes. the eight years for president i think is wonderful. just like the rest of us who go out there and work in the world for maybe 30 years or whatever, i would say 20 years for congress, 25 years for the supreme court and the reason for the 25 years is that they are the watchdog over whole system, our three-tier system. i look at the supreme court and whether i agree with them or not and i've agreed with some of the cases and disagreed with others that is life, that's the way it goes. you have to have big boys and big girls who understand how the system works. the one thing i don't like is that when they go to the extreme on anything. my example would be, for instance, the abortion issue. back in the 1970's, i'm a pretty

old guy but back in the 1970's, that was what we needed was that law to protect women because it was pretty bad back then. over the years, we are in the 21st century and with technology, it's gone so far that what was going on with women in the 21st century has -- it was so advanced. what do you call that? the organization that was doing all kinds of stuff, it was awful. i think the supreme court finally looked at all of this and said we've gone too far. we have to slow down. i'm not against abortion, i'm saying i think we have -- we go to the extremes so many timess.

that's one of the things in our government and i love the country and everything that goes on but i wish we just wouldn't go to the extreme with all this stuff. we look at the supreme court as the watchdog. host: understood, thank you. more of your calls coming up on your view of the supreme court. i want to also show you what the president had to say yesterday about the economy. he has leaned into the phrase bidenomics. and yesterday in a tweet, kevin mccarthy said -- he talked about economic disaster with government spending and regulation, saying that's what it is, it's blind faith in government spending and regulation.

the white house, the president sending out their own tweet on bidenomics, saying that this is bidenomics, folks. the president pointing to middle out and the bottom up. that's what he wants to do with growing the economy. his economic vision where we make smart investments in america and educate and empower american workers and promote competition to lower costs and help small businesses. the president flew to chicago yesterday to give his address of bidenomics, coupled with some fundraising efforts for the 2024 cycle, here is the president yesterday. [video clip] >> guess what, bidenomics is working. supply chains are broken and millions of people unemployed, hundreds of small businesses on

the verge of closing after so many had already closed. today, the u.s. has the highest economic growth rate leading the world economy again -- since the pandemic, the highest in the world. [applause] as dix says, 13.4 million new jobs, more jobs in two years than any president has ever made in four years. [applause] folks,omics in action come about building an economy from the middle out and the top down -- from the middle out in the bottom up, not the top down. it's first making smart investments in america, second, educating and empowering american workers to grow and third, promoting competition to lower costs that help small businesses. host: president biden in chicago

on the economy. the wall street journal framed it this way -- the federal reserve chair yesterday over in europe for the europe central banking forum had this to say about inflation. [video clip] >> getting back to 2% this year or next year. >> you don't? >> i see is making steady progress on core inflation but headline inflation is coming down but core inflation, i don't see us getting to 2% this year or next year. i see us getting there next year or the year after. >> 2025 so you will be restricted for a long time? >> we will be restrictive as long as we need to be.

if inflation is coming down sharply and we are confident it's on a path of 2%, that would be a different situation. you would begin to think about loosening policy. but we are a long way from that. that's not something we are thinking about now or the near future. host: some insight from the federal reserve chair, jerome powell on what the fed might do next on interest rates. if you'd like to hear the entire discussion, you can go to our website, c-span.org. this morning, our first hour of the "washington journal," your view of the supreme court. we are awaiting justices to give us their decisions on a handful of high-profile cases. darien, connecticut, democratic caller, what is your view of the oort -- of the courts? caller: i generally feel lately

i'd disapprove of the court. it's been a bit of a down spiral since the merrick garland saga. i have not approved of the court lately especially some of the ethics by the justices that have come up especially clarence thomas and samuel alito. i think it's the supreme court so it's supposed to be very high up. it's supposed to be -- it doesn't have to go with public opinion. it doesn't have to hear every case but it should. it's a bit complicated for me but i think there are deftly problems with it and they could -- there are ways to be solved such as implanting higher ethics

standards with some of the justices. host: if there was some reform to ethics, do you think that would help with their approval rating? caller: yes, i think so because if there were justices with ethics problems, then more so if we saw them and the justices got ousted, yes, i think we would see more support among the work -- among the courts. i think it was harry reid in 2013 from nevada, when he eliminated the 60 votes filibuster to make it a bare majority, i think that was a bit of a problem. i think both parties have used that for ways to get justices across. there has not been -- at least brett kavanaugh passed with only party-line vote pretty much.

except for joe manchin. the 60 vote filibuster back in play would help with the supreme court. host: we reminded viewers that it was harry reid in 2013 who eliminated the 60 vote threshold, the filibuster for presidential nominees except for the supreme court but it was then minority leader mitch mcconnell who warned him at the time that you will regret this and he became majority leader. this is the headline from nbc news -- went nuclear to confirm gorsuch but democrats change the senate filibuster rules first. they change in recent years allowing presidential pix to be confirmed with a simple majority and that includes now supreme court justices. allen and rhinelander, wisconsin. good morning to you. caller: good morning. my view of the supreme court quite rightly depends on how

they decide the decision this morning. hopefully they will, on student loan cancellation. it's become a politicized issue and it doesn't need to be that way. the president and secretary have broad authority to cancel student loans. donald trump as president was the first president to broadly cancel student loans by executive order. this case quite frankly should never made it to courts. i hope some of the justices like amy coney barrett and others will rule against even the standing of the plaintiffs to bring this case in the first place. no matter how supreme court decides this case, student loan borrowers are absolutely screwed. the number one dream of the student debt collection industry is to get these loans turned back on and the constitutional right of bankruptcy going from the loans. no matter how this case goes,

$10,000 does not help the worst borrowers. end of summer, there will be tens of millions of people who are not going to resume paying their loans and they will be served up as long as the constitution right of bankruptcy remains gone from the loans. i wish particular the republicans, particularly the house republicans would get this through their skulls. politically and optically, the republicans are looking likecrap on this. their base has student loans, over half of student loan borrowers are republican. host: do you think there could be some bipartisan agreement if the two sides came together on the bankruptcy part of this? caller: absolutely. host: if someone can prove they are bankrupt because of student loans that you would allow them to file bankruptcy.

caller: right, student loans should be treated exactly the same way as all other loans in bankruptcy court. it's never a good reason to remove this important right. republicans, good republicans like john cornyn and josh hawley and others in congress agree and people from the federal society and cato institute, congress in particular the republicans seem to be unwilling to actually make this happen. it's not just the republicans. the last session, the democrats latently betrayed the citizens with a house bill in the senate. they had the house, the senate and the presidency at the last minute, the democrats reneged on bankruptcy. there is an opportunity for bipartisan cooperation going forward regardless of the supreme court decision. host: tell us why you follow

this issue so closely. caller: i started student loan justice.org and we started a petition before anybody was talking about canceling student loan. we started the petition that launched the idea and started the public conversation. it's been pretty amazing to be picked up by leading senators like chuck schumer and to come where it is today. today is a big day for us. as i said, the court in this issue is bankruptcy. host: what do you think the court will do on student loan forgiveness? caller: if you look at the merits of the case, it's kind of a slamdunk. the plaintiffs have no standing. there are different ports of lobe of the law in question is pretty unambiguous.

i think the court will pretty can -- the court will confirm this. i don't think it's a win for the borrowers but $10,000 not help the woman who has repaid 100 thousand dollars on a $25,000 loan over 40 years and still owes over $100,000. there is a lot of people out there like that. to them, a lot of our members say they may as well add $10,000 on. it's just monopoly money at this point for many people. host: we will go to winston-salem, north carolina, democratic caller. caller: good morning and thank you. i agree with everything the caller said about the student loans. i have two children that need the student loan and need to be helped.

$10,000 is nothing. that's just to help them. everything president biden tried to do, they put a stop to it. this shows me they don't care anything about the people. they are not for the people, therefore the republicans. that's not right. people come here that doesn't live here and are paying for their houses and everything's free for them. when the banks went down, they paid for the banks. ukraine, but what about the regular people? i cannot see nowhere that they have helped american people to help with anything. we are just asking for a little help with the student loans. thank you so much. i pray that everybody vote, please vote. primary and president, vote. host: betty, south carolina,

republican. caller: i support the supreme court and i hope they do not vote for the student loans. it's not fair for people of the day, my kids couldn't go to college because i couldn't afford to send them. if they agreed with the president, this would not be going on. everything he's done and everybody is slammed everything he'd done. tell me one thing that man has done that helped. it has not help the american people, the ones he is supposed to be working for. he tells us how, what we have in

our house. host: all right, phyllis in kansas city, independent. we are talking about the supreme court so what is your view of the justices in the course? -- in the court. caller: first, like the supreme court, we should not extend it. none of them is fine. but no more. and then the opinions of them -- i don't agree a lot on their opinions because the one opinion that really burnt me up was when they said that corporations were people. that meant that they could donate so much money to political stuff in the american people that worked for them.

i don't know how that could have been because is the supreme court saying that i am a property of a corporation that i work for? and they can donate money? in my name? for a certain political party? i think that's when the country went crazy. on the student loan, the way i feel is if they can do it for thedaca illegal kids like 73.1 billion dollars per year and there are 600,000 of them, why can't they do something for the american kids? it's about time they did something for the american

people. host: filmore is in culver city, california, your view of the supreme court? caller: i thought we were talking about limits. there should be a 24 year limit on all political appointments. that's enough and i think that would cover the supreme word. several callers back, you were talking about the limits and having the votes rescinded by harry reid. harry reid did that because the republicans wouldn't let and -- wouldn't let obama get anything through. before obama's term, they hardly ever used it but when obama got in there, the wiccans went against everything he tried to do. after a while, john boehner gave

up. the point i'm making is that the filibuster was changed by harry reid because the republicans did not let obama get anything. that was the goal and the goal was to destroy the president. if you look at what happened after obama won the election in 2008, we got them bowing down before bush to save the banks. bush did give them what they needed and when obama got in there, it was 800,000 jobs in the first six month of his term. host: all right, michael in north carolina, republican. your turn, your view of the supreme court. caller: good morning. i enjoyed seeing you a little extra last week. i think you were two or three

days on "washington journal" and that was a great surprise. i think the supreme court is spot on. i would like to say we have always heard that changes good and great and i say bravo to the supreme court. it's time to give abortion to the states and let them decide. as far as the caller earlier, alan, i really think he makes a good strong case. i've always been against student loan forgiveness. he makes a good point. he has just about swayed my opinion. maybe they should allow people to have that $10,000 forgiveness. he made a really good argument for the democrats. host: thanks for listening and calling in. richard is independent in massachusetts, hi there. caller: hi. i have no use for the supreme

court or the federal court or the state court. when it comes to the court system and the law in this country, it's a [indiscernible] i'm 79 years old and i've never seen the likes of this in this country. it's just a joke, that's all. host: dean, florida, democratic caller, your take on the. court. caller: totally corrupt. thomas and alito got caught. it's in their face. they were taking bribes. there is no argument, they got caught. it was thousands of dollars of bribes. everybody should be outraged. host: david in georgia, republican, what do you think? caller: good morning.

the country has a major problem. i think it's a shame that in the past were somebody leaked out information where some of the justices lived and they had to deal with all the protests from their house and all that. i just felt like in a sense that that was intimidation on them. it's a shame they have to live there lives doing what theyand f problem. you know, brought to their neighbors and their community. thank you for letting me comment. host: we are going to take a break. when we come back we are going to turn our attention to the economy.

brian blais of paragon health institute talk about the president's pitch and how states are unwinding medicaid coverage. then later, svante myrick discusses the rise of book bands and the removal of certain content from schools across the country. we will be right back. ♪ >> former president theodore roosevelt died on january 6, 1919. he was 60 years old. author elliott hazel grove in his book chose to focus on the last two years of his life. it is titled "the last charge of the rough rider." mr. hazel grove takes us through pr's feud with woodrow wilson. he wanted to form another regiment and go fight in europe.

wilson turned him down, in spite of the fact that the u.s. senate and u.s. house had approved roosevelt's request. >> william hazel grove and his book on this episode of notes plus. book notes plus is available on the c-span now at or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling authors and influential interviewers on the afterwards podcast. on q&a, hear conversations with nonfiction authors and others who are making things happen. book notes plus episodes are conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. and the about books podcast takes you behind the scenes of the publishing industry, with insight or interviews and bestsellers lists.

♪ >> in 1814 attorney and author francis scott key a song that will go on to become the national anthem of the united states. sunday on q&a, american culture professor mark plague -- discusses his book about the history and cultural impact of the star-spangled banner. >> one of my big insights, or beliefs about the song, is it is actually a living document. it is not a frozen icon. it is not something static. it is something alive and it is brought to life in performance by people like jimi hendrix. but every time we sing the song we sort of elevate the questions and tension and crisis and the

hope that is in that song. >> mark plague with his book "o say, can you hear?" you can listen to q&a on our free c-span now app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: brian blase is the president of the paragon health institute and a former national economic council policy advisor during the trump administration. let's begin with the economy. we also want to talk about medicaid this morning as well. what is the paragon health institute? guest: good morning. thank you for having me on. paragon will be celebrating its two-year anniversary later this year. it is a research center focused on evaluating how government health and entitlement programs are working and developing solutions that empower patients and reform government programs. host: how are you funded?

guest: we have a wide range of individuals and organizations that fund paragon. we are a 5013 c nonprofit. host: what is your goal? guest: our goal is to improve health policy in the united states, so that people spend less, that government programs deliver better value, and ultimately americans are better off, both from a health perspective and economic perspective. host: when you look at the president going to chicago yesterday, talking about the economy overall, how much of a role is health care cost playing in people's economic woes right now? guest: rising health care costs have been a big feature of the american economy for decades. if you look at the average family budget what they spent on health insurance is significant. almost 20% of american income goes to health care.

if you look at government budgets, rising costs of medicare and medicaid are the biggest fiscal challenges the u.s. faces. host: what then would your group due to lower health care costs? guest: thanks for the question. put out a paper earlier this year. one quantifies the magnitude of the challenge. we think that federal spending on health care needs to come down by about 1.7 trillion dollars over the next decade to put us on a sustainable path. we put out a number of policy proposals that would reform both medicare and medicaid, to move us in that direction. host: if you lowered federal spending on health care, how would that help the american people with how much they are paying for health care? guest: if you lower federal spending you are lowering federal taxes, you are reducing federal deficits, you are putting downward pressure on inflation can't -- inflation and interest rates. federal health care spending and

some of the subsidy programs push up overall prices throughout the health sector. there are policy changes to medicare, and we have overpayments for hospital services in medicare, and through medicaid, where the federal government is over-subsidizing space -- state spending. that will put downward pressure on both government spending and prices. host: give us an example of how that dynamic works today. guest: sure. to talk about medicaid, because we are going to get there, the government provides an open-ended reimbursement of state medicaid spending. the more states spend on medicaid, the more money they get from the federal government. this is a problem that was exacerbated by the affordable care act, or obamacare. obamacare created a new class of individuals, able-bodied, working age adults, who are

enrolled with obamacare. if you think about the incentives facing states when they're able to spend with all federal money, they do not have incentives to get value or because having conscious. they are allocating additional resources on the medicaid program that would be better spent elsewhere. host: your group is calling for the unwinding of medicaid enrollment. explain. guest: so, go back to the start of covid. in march 2020 congress was concerned, understandably, that people would lose jobs and health insurance through the workplace. there were also concerned that states would be in a tough fiscal position. they passed a bill, the families first coronavirus relief act, gave more money to states through medicaid. basically, they increased the amount of what the federal government reimburses for states. so long as states did not take any actions to restrict

eligibility or remove people from the program. so long as the public health emergency lasted. the public health emergency lasted a very long time. it lasted more than three years. in december last year congress passed legislation that allowed states to begin unwinding this sort of enhanced medicaid enrollment. we have about 20 million people on medicaid as of april 1, when the unwinding started, that do not meet eligibility requirements for the program. so now the extra federal funding is also phasing out. so states face a big challenge this year of her moving close to 20 million people on medicaid who are not eligible for the program. again, because states did not take any action over the last three years to remove ineligible people. host: we want to get your thoughts this morning on this idea of unwinding medicaid enrollments. we will also talk about the

medicaid program. this is how we are dividing the lines. republicans, (202) 748-8001. mcgrath, -- democrats, (202) 748-8000. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . if you are on medicaid and went on the program during the pandemic, we would like to hear from you. (202) 748-8003. that same number all of you can use to text. include your first name, city, and state. what has been the downside, in your opinion, to adding people to the medicaid program during the pandemic? guest: i think it was understandable at the beginning of the pandemic to have that flexibility. what became clear was that a lot of individuals went back to work and got coverage through work. and the fact that states could not remove them from the medicaid program meant you had taxpayers paying for them to be on medicaid while they also had

other sources of coverage. we think about 5 million of those individuals on medicaid currently have other sources of coverage. in most are eligible for other sources of coverage if they were to be removed from medicaid programs. basically you have a large taxpayer cost, probably between $80 billion and $100 billion a year, for people that already have employer-sponsored recovered -- coverage, or would have employer-sponsored coverage, or other coverage. guest: so $80 billion to $100 billion. we want to hear from callers about that number. if you are one of those folks that are on medicaid, do you agree, disagree that you have another option? brian blase is our guest this morning. that $80 billion to $100 billion cost to the has -- to the taxpayer, what is that doing to health care costs overall?

guest: states, we want them to be able to spend medicaid resources on people eligible for the program. a lot of medicaid programs have weight lists. people with disabilities on weight lists to get coverage for their needs. states also have other priorities other than health care. have education priorities, infrastructure, transportation, money they are spending on medicaid for people that already have other coverage is less resources they can devote to those purposes. the third big issue is that these are payments that are going to health insurance companies. the vast majority of people enrolled in medicaid are enrolled in what is called a medicaid managed care organization. the government is sending a check every month to the health insurance company for individuals who are not using services or enrolled in other coverage. you want those resources to be used in much more productive ways. we do not want health insurance

companies to get money through an employer-sponsored plan and medicaid. you also have an issue, since there has not been eligibility reviews in three years, a lot of people have moved. they could be on medicaid in multiple states. have insurance companies receiving payments for the same individual in multiple states. we estimate that number of individuals could be as high as 5 million. host: tim in california. good morning. you are up first. caller: i'm glad for c-span. i do want to talk about this. so, my situation, i cannot talk about everybody else, but i was a postal worker. in my health care was kaiser. i lived in california. and it was $700 for me and my daughter. when my daughter got off it was still going to be $400 a month. when i retired, i find it very

hard on my retirement gives me something like $40,000 a year. and $400 a month goes toward that. that is not sustainable. we need universal health care. and i, as a federal employee, and looked at as a high health care, you know, given. but i find it hard -- i'm struggling to make $400. and here is the thing. universal health care is what is needed. during the pandemic when all of those people joined, should have like you and your organization understand that there is thousands of people that are dying for care every day. we need universal health care, like every other -- like europe. many of the countries there have

universal health care. we need to stop this. when you talk about union workers needing health care, no, we pay a lot of money every month for health care. people pay $1200 a month when they have health care. my answer is, how do you think we can sustain on that? host: we will get a response. brian blase? guest: thanks for that question, kim. we are pretty close to universal health coverage in the united states. if you look at people over the age of 65, entitled to medical care -- to medicare, the vast majority of the under-65 population is enrolled in a plan sponsored by an employer. you have the aca, or obamacare, exchanges. and you have medicaid. only about 9% of the population is uninsured. of the people who are uninsured,

the vast majority are either unlawful residents, or they have access to a heavily-subsidized plan, and they have just chosen not to enroll. so, they are eligible for medicaid and have chosen not to enroll. they are admirable -- there alec -- they are eligible for a plan on the exchanges and have chosen not to enroll. it is only a few million people in the u.s. who do not have access to any of those options. what we really need to focus on is, how can we get better health care at better prices and lower cost? i think reforming government programs that have pushed up health care prices is really an important way to go about getting a better health care system. so the health care is more affordable and the health coverage is more affordable. host: marie, colby, south carolina. independent. caller: my story is convoluted.

i had a dog, and i had my grandson on my insurance, but when the obamacare came i had to take him off of my insurance and i had to buy insurance at my job. and he had to go to medicaid. that was 2012. i reenrolled him in my employee insurance plan. now, i worked on a job for 13 years and we had no problems. in 2021i had an accident, so workmen's comp. was paying my way, my insurance and, but when workmen's comp. finished nobody in the house had insurance, so i had to go back and get him on medicaid. we got temporary medicaid for him.

he had an accident, a horrible accident, so now he is in rehab with occupational therapy. he asked his doctor if we could have the vocational rehab for him. vocational rehab says they cannot do anything for him because they don't know how much therapy. host: can i have you ask your question? caller: yes ma'am. host: go ahead. caller: you are asking the question? host: we are asking you to ask your question of brian blase. caller: what do we go to? because they have removed him from medicaid in the middle of therapy. what avenue do we have? because we tried the workplace, and the workplace is $1300 a

month for me and him to carry. at this point i am unemployed and he is unemployed. we do not have any insurance at all. host: brian blase? are you following? guest: well, i mean, if you are unemployed and he is unemployed and have no income, i mean, that, to me, suggests you should look and apply for the medicaid program, that that might be the best fit for you. the eligibility depends on your household income, and you should probably find an expert to talk to that can sort through your eligibility for medicaid or for an exchange plan in the aca individual market. host: we will go to augustine, georgia. democratic caller. caller: good morning. as a veteran, i used the v.a. for procedures or testing and

everything. i also decided i needed to go ahead and get a backup source of medical coverage. now, we have states, republican governors who took the medicaid subsidies, and they are doing quite well with the medicaid subsidies. the affordable care act. when i first joined the affordable subsidies was eight cents. it cost me more to get a a money order to mail in the eight cents. you have free medicaid money for states like the lady in south carolina, and now she cannot get coverage if she still had medicaid. maybe she could still get the help and preventive medicine help. republicans had over 14 years to

come up with a health care plan and still to this day have not come up anything that will benefit the american people as in other developed countries have. the insurance companies are ripping us off. now you have corporations that are making record profits, but they do not want to contribute tax dollars to help us pay for medical coverage in this country. and if you saw the story on msnbc the other day, they showed the companies that colluded to raise prices on goods and services to the american people. host: right, richard. brian blase? guest: i will start with the health insurance companies. i am concerned -- i support profit and the profit motive. i am concerned with companies that are getting most of their profit from maximizing payments they get from government

programs. and i am concerned with taxpayer money going to health insurance companies for people not enrolled in the medicaid program right now. insurance companies are sitting on record profits, and that is one of the core reasons why we need to remove people from the medicaid program right now who are not eligible for them, so the federal and state governments stop paying health insurance companies. you mentioned republicans had a lot of time to work on a health care plan. i was in the trump administration for the first 2.5 years. obviously there was a lot of work on a health care plan. congress was unable to move the ball forward in 2017. the administration was able to take some action to expand options for individuals and small businesses to get coverage. did an effort on price transparency, so requiring hospitals and insurance companies to disclose prices so people have access to how much they are going to be charged for

services and procedures before they receive care, and to help employers in their sponsoring of care. i would encourage you to look at paragoninstitute.org, or we are developing health care policies to move the ball forward, to empower patients, and lower health care costs. host: jamaal is a republican in south carolina. caller: i am a black republican on top of that. that is the beautiful thing about it. i want to ask brian a question, then i have a comment. how much did you say that it was costing our government for the overage? you said 5 million people were on the roles that were getting medicare and also having another form of insurance, or something like that? you said a number. how much was that number? guest: we estimate that -- there is about $18 million to $20

million in eligible people on medicaid. some states have started a redetermination, but as of april 1 there are about 20 million. if you take the cost of those 18 million to 20 million people, our estimate is that is about $80 billion to $100 billion overall. the 5 million number you cited is the estimate of the individuals who have medicaid coverage in multiple states. they had medicaid coverage, this tape is not able to remove them during this covid policy. they then moved to another state and got medicaid coverage in that state. so, there medicaid coverage should have been canceled in the original state they were in, that coverage was not canceled because of the prohibition on doing a little budget -- eligibility reviews during the last three years. caller: so you said $80 billion

was for that 20 million people on the coverage? my question to you is -- i don't even have a question, i'm going to say this. we have sent more than that overseas to ukraine, and also to other countries to fight war. so, for the american people to have health coverage and have something solid, myself, i have epilepsy. i take medicine every day, with a terminal illness, to keep myself living. if, for whatever reason, i am working a job and i get fired from that job -- which, i have been fired from jobs before -- my medical coverage in ceases. if i do not take the medicine required of me, which monthly would be $400 a bottle if i did not have some type of insurance

to supplement the cost, i would cease to exist. host: let's take jamaal's point, that we spend billions of dollars on war and eight other countries. why not spend this money on the american people? guest: very sorry to hear about your situation, first. this is money we are spending for people that already have -- for the vast majority of them, already have coverage. they are enrolled in an employer plan. so their employer plan is paying a health insurance company to administer that plan and paying for those claims. this is the government really paying an unnecessary amount. so, for instance, iowa, we did a program with iowa health and human services director two days ago, that most people are not responding to the state's request during this redetermination process. they already have other

coverage. florida told made the majority of people that are not responding to them have not used a medicaid service in the previous year. so, these are people that are not using the service, that have other coverage, and yet the government is paying health insurance companies a monthly rate to cover these individuals. so, i do not want to miss spend money in any way. i do not want to miss spend money through the defense department, and i do not want to miss spend money through our health programs. we need to get these eligibility redetermination's done so that we stop wasting taxpayer money, and we can use taxpayer money on people that actually need the programs and services. host: geraldine, griffin, georgia. caller: good morning, greta. morning, brian. this is about medicare. i am 74.

i am on united health care, pedicure advantage. and i also pay into social security. i pay $144 for my medicare advantage, and i pay about $148 for part b medicare. and listen. i'm getting ready to go into the hospital to have a knee replacement. i am 74, i live alone. i had the same surgery nine years ago. this has been a stressful time for me, because they have changed -- they are trying to send me home without anybody being here. my husband died about five years ago. i live alone. now, i need the knee replacement, but i cannot come home. i need to go to rehab. what has happened to medicare, to where you have to come home now once you have this knee replacement surgery?

that is not a surgery where you can see about yourself eating out of the hospital the same day. host: understood, geraldine. guest: i can't answer that specific question, but you are talking about -- i want to make here -- make clear you are talking about the medicare program, which is for seniors and certain people with disabilities. and you are enrolled in a medicare advantage plan, which is a way most seniors now -- i think most, 50% -- he keeps rising because of the popularity of medicare advantage plans. they get their coverage through medicare advantage. the issue i have been talking about his medicaid, which is a welfare program for certain categories of low income americans. host: amy in new york. independent. caller: hi. good morning, everybody. when i would like to ask the guest today is why he thinks

that medicare for all is not a good idea. now, i work as a therapist. i'm a mental health counselor. and every single day i have patients come in who do not qualify for medicaid, cannot afford insurance through the affordable care act -- because there is a very high deductible or co-pay -- and really struggle to get the counseling and help they need. now, i am lucky in that my clinic also does sliding scale fees, a lot of clinics down and there is a huge need for mental health counseling that a lot of people cannot afford. united states also pays more money for health care for less-good options than many other countries do. in addition to that, the u.s. is one of the few i suppose, "first world countries" out there that does not offer any kind of

universal health care. guest: amy, thank you for the question. i think there are certainly a lot of inefficiencies in the u.s. health care system. i did not give my view on medicare for all, but you have correctly deduced that i do not support medicare fraud. there is two main reasons. one is the fiscal cost. the estimated cost of medicare for all is something like $3 trillion to $4 trillion a year. the government is running $2 trillion deficits a year. there is no way we can afford a massive expansion of government health care programs and anything like medicare for all. but equally problematic is that i think his -- health care quality would get significantly worse under medicare for all. there is one really good example of the u.s. health care system that operates under medicare for all, and it is end-stage renal disease, kidney care. since the early 1970's medicare

has been just about the only payer for kidney care, and the quality of dialysis and kidney care treatment has really not improved that much over 50 years. people still have to go into institutions to get their dialysis treat. we are way behind other countries in the way they treat people with in stage renal disease, and i am afraid of the government being in charge of the entire health sector. if you have the government in charge of the entire health sector they are deciding what gets reimbursed. they are deciding what the reimbursement rates are. so instead of new procedures and technologies coming in that could meet individual patient needs, there would have to have representatives from those companies meet with bureaucrats in d.c., lobby them to try to get new therapies, new products reimbursed, and at what reimbursement rate. you would have a lot of

inefficiency and bias toward the status quo, which is already way too prevalent with cms and medicare in charge of so much of the health care sector. we need to reduce government's power over the health care sector, not government's power through programs like medicare for all. host: let's hear next from rick, who is a medicaid recipient in florida. rick, good morning. caller: hi. it is medicare. i have an argument against more government spending. i am a 100 percent disabled veteran, and therefore i am eligible for all of my treatment through the v.a. i just turned 65 and bought a plan because i felt forced to buy a plan, because if i ever need it --right now i am 15 minutes from a v.a. facility. i get 100% of my care there. if i ever moved and it was inconvenient to go to the v.a. albert want to use a medicare system, would not be eligible if i did not buy it right now.

right now the government is paying my premium for a medicare advantage for part c, whatever it is, that i'm never going to use. it is because of the overregulation, because of government over-spending that i am in this position. host: explain why you have to sign up now. why can't you delay signing up for medicare? caller: because there is certain aspects of it you will not be eligible for if you do not sign up when you are first eligible. that is the way it was explained to me. i bought a plan that was -- i'm on social security as well, so social security, they are deducting the premium for the medicare from my social security, whether i want to medicare or not. therefore i signed up for a plan that is reimbursing me for the premium. this company is getting paid by the government for a service i will never use, because of the way they regulate it. because they force your hand. guest: i can't really comment on

your specific situation, rick, that i can tell you that is one of the reasons that i am here talking about the problem with medicaid. there is a lot of people enrolled in medicaid that do not want it and do not know they have it. there is just government payments going to health insurance companies right now their behalf, and that is why we need to unwind all of the ineligible people on the medicaid program. host: christie in wyoming. thanks for joining us. caller: how are you today? host: good morning, go ahead. caller: hi, this is crispy -- christie. i was wondering about this medicare, medicaid. any care, medicaid is important to have for everybody, and that everybody needs to have it. they can't afford it, anything like -- because i pay $500 this month for -- $500 for the

hospital bill, because i was there for a while. i was there for three months. i was wondering if it was possible that the medicare and medicaid, is that not supposed to happen? because i have medicare and medicaid. host: are you asking if that is not supposed to happen? caller: no, is medicare and medicaid the ok to have? because i need help on the medical bills, you know? host: i see. ok. guest: it is hard for me to answer specifically to your situation. there are a fair number of individuals who have medicare and medicaid that are called du al-enrollees. i would think that medicaid would be reimbursing the $500 for the hospital bill. so, that is something you should

look into. host: bill in idaho, a republican. welcome to the conversation. caller: hi, i'm bill. thanks for having me on. i would like to try and put an answer to his question on lowering the cost of insurance. i think if they did away with insurance companies for health -- not for cars or personal property or homes, but to do away with it for health. put hospitals on the stock market so they could get investors to supplement their income to the hospitals, so they can use that money for their research and employment and everything else. and also that the customers become clients of the hospital for insurance. so, they pay a premium directly

to the hospitals that they use. also, for the pharmacies and stuff, so that the money stays local and is accessible to the people using the facilities and convenience of having everything local. host: ok, bill. caller: nationwide policy just does not make any sense to me. host: we will take your suggestions. guest: if you think about health insurance, health insurance certainly has value. and he tried to break it into two components. one is, people face generally low probability or unlikely events there would be extremely costly. like, you get into a bad car accident and have significant medical expenses. there is definitely a role. people want protection from catastrophic medical expenses. the other part of insurance is, it is really prepaid medical

care. so, people buy an insurance plan, and maybe it carries an extremely low deductible and they view that as a way to pay their medical expenses. there are concerns with that structure, in that it reduces the incentive for individuals to care what prices are, or to because having conscious. in those ways you can become brands of health insurance that works to push up overall prices in the health care sector. so, what other people have to pay for health care. i think what we need to do is reduce the government bias in favor of comprehensive health insurance, and really equalize the playing field and support all types of coverage and care that people want, to reduce some of the government subsidies that incentivize people to get too much health insurance. host: we will go to houston, texas. carl, democratic caller.

caller: how are you doing, brian? i was just listening to you, and i would like to say something. one, as you become a senior citizen, there is about everything you have to go to the hospital for becomes catastrophic in your mind. but my main concern is, you all spend a lot of time complaining about medicare and health care for the old, but i never hear you all getting to the waste and fraud, complaining about the trillions of dollars that was given to billionaires, ultra-billionaires. i don't hear you say one time, oh, we need to take that money back. we need to cut back on some of those tax breaks. can you tell me why that is? thanks for taking my call. guest: sure. i want to give you the

impression that i'm complaining about the medicare program. i think the medicare program provides significant value. i think the medicare program also needs significant reform. its fiscal trajectory is unsustainable. i think we can build off of the success of medicare advantage, which has been shown to have significant deficiencies -- significant efficiencies, and also coordinating care for seniors on the program relative to the traditional fee-for-service program. but i'm totally with you that we should go after waste, fraud, and abuse in government medical programs. i spent three years as a staffer on the house oversight committee. there are a lot of special interests that have carved out favorable policies in the health care sector. whether it is hospitals, health insurance companies, and we should target wasteful spending throughout the health care sector. there is a ton of it.

host: kimberly, nashville, tennessee. independent. caller: good morning. i have several things to say. that last gentleman was so right about waste and fraud. it was when the medicare advantage plans just started, and the company was paying $550 a month per member, depending on the area, county, what have you. and we were able to eliminate all of the deductibles and 20% without a premium, eliminate the need for a blue cross blue shield -- can't think of the name of it now. but anyways, that cost a lot of money and they go up year after year. still, the company made $1 million profit three consecutive months in a row. that is how inefficient original medicare is.

they only look at 1% of claims that come in, so they are sometimes double and triple-built, the same bill, and pay it. medicare supply places that don't even exist, they get medicare numbers. the commercials that say, you know, we will take care of all of the dr. papers and you won't pay anything, get this brace? that is ridiculous. i wanted to say that now i am disabled and i have medicare. i hadn't surgery, and they build $225,000 for the surgery to medicare. any care only approved $32,000, which i felt was kind of appropriate. but i requested the bills, and it charged for the same exact thing consecutively on the bill, to the same penny and everything. they didn't try to change it, right? they charged for each titanium screw and drilling it in. each screw was $7,000.

it was crazy. host: i'm going to leave it there and have our guest respond to you. guest: you are right. overbilling is a problem and these prices that are charged by hospitals are really fictitious and inflated, and do not represent either real costs or real value. you make a good point about the problems with medicare fee-for-service. medicare fee-for-service, if you have a fraudulent provider, they get a billing id, they can just build the program and if medicare fee-for-service is a pay and chase model, a program has to pay within a few days. then when they realize there is ms. payments, they need to try to go back and recover, and it is a terrible process. so there is significant amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse with that model of payment. medicare advantage -- this is

the advantage of running through insurance companies. insurance companies have an incentive to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. have lower improper payment rates in medicare advantage then you do in traditional fee-for-service, because of the incentives that the attic. advantage plans have to reduce misspending. host: if you want to learn more from paragon health institute you can go to their website. brian blase, thanks for the conversation. guest: thank you very much. host: we will take a break. when we come back svante myrick joins us to discuss the rise in book and and the removal of certain content from schools across the country. before we get to that conversation we are going to return to our question from earlier. your view of the supreme court. there are the lines on your screen. start dialing in now. ♪

>> book tv every sunday on c-span2, features leading authors discussing theiratest nonfiction books. live at noon eastern, professor francis fukuyama returns to book tb's in-depth to talk about lics, international affairs, and liberalism. at 7:00 p.m. eastern bethany brookshire explores human and animal relationships and what it means when we've villainized certain animals. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> a healthy democracy does not

just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, when citizens are truly informed. our republic drives. get informed, straight from the source. on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. the opinion that matters most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span. powered by cable. >> the c-span bookshelves podcast fee makes it easy for you to listen to all of c-span's podcast that featured nonfiction books in one place. you can discover new authors and ideas. we are making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with authors discussing history, they are groupies, current events, and culture. listen to c-span's bookshelf

podcast feed today. you can find all of our podcasts on the free c-span now mile video app, or wherever you get your podcasts. and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with today's biggest events from the u.s. congress, white house, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal," and find scheduling information, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available in the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span now. your fnt row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere.

>> former president theodore roosevelt died on january 6, 1919. he was 60 years old. author william elliott hazel grove in his book chose to focus mostly on the last two years of his life. it is titled "the last charge of the rough rider." mr. hazel grove takes us through tr's feud with woodrow wilson. he wanted to form another rough rider regiment and go fight in europe. wilson turned him down, in spite of the fact that both the u.s. senate and u.s. house had approved roosevelt's request. >> william hazel grove and his new book on this episode of book notes pl. book notes plus is available on c-span now at or wherever you get your podcasts.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: all eyes on the supreme court this morning as they are finishing up their term. there are a number of -- a number of high-profile cases yet to be determined by the justices. this morning we are asking you your view of the supreme court. here are some of the high-profile remaining court cases. affirmative action in college admissions. religious rights of businses to deny lgbtq customers. d president biden's student loan program, along with religious accommodation in the workplace. so, this morning wanting to get your take on the court, the justices. any reforms you want to see to the supreme court. morgan in pennsylvania, democratic caller. good morning to you. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. yes, this -- the supreme court has become corrupt. i think claire's thomas --

clarence thomas is an abomination. not only does clarence thomas go against anything that benefits people of caller, -- people of color, but he is married to a woman who is complicit with the insurrection on our capital. what a disgrace. host: we will hear from romney, who is a republican, in california. your take on the court? caller: my take on the court is that -- and good morning, greta. i have been a c-span listener since before the clinton impeachment, and i'll join this program. my view on the court is, as they started to rule more partisan, it just seemed that i thought the quality had gone down. i still believe in the justices. i still believe in justice roberts, i wish he would correct

the ethical problems they are having. thank you. host: can it be acted a poll recently and asked voters their approval and disapproval, whether or not they approve or disapprove of the court. 58% say they disapprove, while 29% said they approve. they also asked them motivations of the justices. 68 percent say the supreme court has mainly motivated by politics, while 25% say mainly by the law. then they asked about term limits. they found that 63% support the idea, while 29% oppose term limits. you can weigh in on those questions as well. mark in mason city, iowa. democratic caller. caller: yes ma'am. thank you for having me on c-span. host: good morning. caller: i think the term limits, that is the thing.

we have these guys in there sat in their ways, but they are not listening to the american public. like, even the abortion issue was over 70%. and they still went against it. they have been going against a lot of rules that affect the small person. that is all i need to say today. host: right, jackson in virginia. independent. what do you have to say? caller: i think the only abomination was your first caller. also thinking about clarence thomas, i celebrate clarence thomas as a black man on the supreme court. i think to disparage him just goes to white supremacy. but i would also say this. the supreme court is not the worst supreme court we have had. i do not think it is great, and i think it is interesting to hear people calling for term limits of the supreme court when we just elected a president who was in office as a senator for 30 some odd years. nancy pelosi has been in office for 40 some odd years.

now we are talking about term limits on the supreme court. the supreme court has made very bipartisan decisions, and i was surprised. knock off the politics. if anybody calls in and they want to be intelligent about it, criticize them for what they do, but uphold them for the things they have done. i'm not going to knock clarence thomas down, because, you know, he is a black man on the supreme court, and the democrats could have appointed more of those, but they didn't. host: jackson, you are bringing up nancy pelosi. she was on msnbc, and this is what she had to say about this idea of term limits. >> here we have a body chosen for life, never have to run for office, nominated, confirmed for life, with no accountability for their ethics behavior. >> do you think there should be changes, reforms to the supreme court?

term limits? an expansion? >> no. it has been over 150 years since we have had an expansion of the court. in the time of lincoln it went up to nine. the subject of whether that should happen is a discussion, but it is not a rallying cry. it is a discussion. the president formed a commission. they did not recommend expansion of the court. that should not be the end of it. there certainly should be term limits. and if nothing else there should be some ethical rules that would be followed. host: agree or disagree with the former speaker about the supreme court? we are getting your take on the court and the justices, and any reform ideas this morning. michael in michigan, republican. caller: hello. i'm wondering why the democrats are mad about the court when trump said he would put a court in that would be pro-life.

i always wondered why nobody blames hillary for being out-work. she never visited wisconsin. in my state of michigan, trump was there at midnight he of the election, and he outwork her. -- outworked her. host: modesto, california. caller: good morning. thank you. i kind of agree with the gentleman in the last call. democrats lost a lot to trump because democrats make promises they don't keep. you contact their offices, they never respond. i have talked to trump supporters who always get return calls. so, democrats need to get busy. host: right, sheila. tony is an independent in florida. caller: good morning, greta. i am really steamed about what is an attack on the court and an

attempt to delegitimize them. like fidel castro says, you have to delegitimize people's faith in institutions to have a valid present -- valid revolution. you had a guest from pro public talk, who in his article fired off 73 of his vast reporting says that the judicial council told judge randolph he did not have to report the stuff they are smearing a lead away. and the racist attacks on clarence thomas need to stop. the democrats do not own us anymore. nobody owns us. we are a free and independent people. c-span needs to stop cooperating with it. thank you. host: the caller referring to joshua kaplan, a reporter with pro public up. he and his colleagues have written pieces about justice thomas, and the most recent

piece about justice alito. we talked to joshua kaplan, and here is what he had to say about the lack of an ethics committee for the supreme court. >> if you go into any other public official and you say, you know, this is something that looks kind of off, this looks potentially unethical, do say in response, the best possible response for them to say is, i went to an ethics official ahead of time. they told me i should do it in this way, and they told me it was ok to do. you know, that everything here was ok. i had someone objectively look at it and tell me this was within the bounds of my responsibility as a public servant to the american people. and that does not exist at the supreme court. there is no ethics officer at the supreme court. there is not anyone to call balls and strikes when it comes to ethical issues. what you are really getting at here is a significant point. there is a lack of transparency

and oversight at the supreme court. that is in stark contrast to other branches of government. i mean, the justices are largely left to police themselves on ethical issues. there are very few restrictions on gifts they can accept. when potential conflicts arise they are the ones who decide how to handle it. there is no outside arbiter. host: we are live this morning from the supreme court. our cameras out front of the court as we wait for the justices to let us know rulings on a number of high-profile cases. they have seven left from this term, then they will go on a break until they return in october. as they get set to make that break we want to know from you what you think of the supreme court. ginny in farmington, new mexico, republican. caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: hi, good morning.

i just wanted to ask the people calling in -- i know they are attacking justice thomas and alito right now. they need to do some googling on some of the other supreme court justices. ruth bader ginsburg, she went on 14 different trips that was paid by billionaires who also had cases before her in the supreme court. they are all doing this, not just one. but it is kind of funny that the democrats all of a sudden do not have as many all of a sudden they wanted the court to look like it is not doing its job. they are doing their job, they are going by the constitution. i don't approve of everything they do, but they are trying to do the best they can.

another thing, we talk about the riots and everything this last year i guess to be supreme court where they marched on their homes to try to get them not to vote for roe v. wade. that is against the law. it is against the law for anyone to go and protest in front of their homes. that this funny thing against our doj come he was wrong to allow it, you should have prosecuted everyone of those people marching in front of our supreme court homes. that was against the law and nobody has said anything about that. that was breaking the law. we have rules and we have laws. they let some of the liberals get by with everything and not prosecuting them. this is a problem right now. host: karen in virginia,

democratic caller. caller: oh my god. can we please stay on topic? forget who call in and talk about what the democrats can do, you know we were all around when government was denied a seat -- let's not pretend the liberals tried to balance the court when we had the opportunity to do so. it was over at mitch mcconnell's house and it was shut down. when we talk about ethics, we want to say this is wrong and people should know better, but the supreme court should know better. they should lead by example on how ethics, behavior should be in this country. when you sit up there and you catch clarence thomas having his

home bodily billionaires and alito is on private jets, that has nothing to do with racism, it is that wrong -- it is dead wrong. let's try -- let's stop treasure quick this. because their policy, because nobody told them they shouldn't do it, it is ridiculous. if we want to improve how this court runs, we need to get our head out of our behind, whether you like it or not. that is the bottom line. my view is -- my view of the supreme court is garbage until we start electing people in congress that is going to hold the court accountable for the way we want them to act. host: you and others interested in this issue of ethics at least can go to our website, go to our video library, the search engine at the top of the website and

put in those words "ethics supreme court" and you will see the coverage by us here on c-span. we have covered issues of late. it is decision date in washington, supreme court set to make rulings this morning on a handful of cases they have yet to decide. we will wait and see what they do. some of e high-profile cases we shared with you earlier today include affirmative action in college admissions religious rights of businesses to deny lgbtq customers, president biden's student loan program, and accommodation in the workplace. william in ohio, independent. your take on the court. caller: my take is i wish they would be honest. when they take these trips, i don't care if they are democrat

or republican, they should not be political. if they get caught doing this stuff, it is time to get rid of them. can't they be impeached? don't we have a right to get rid of a crook in office? we almost tried to get rid of trump when he was being paid crook, can't we do the same thing to supreme court judges? host: been in -- ben in lexington, kentucky. what do you say? caller: -- one of those states with california, voted against having same-sex marriage. the supreme court swooped in and made that the law of the land. how is it that the supreme court can make laws?

how is it a president can have the executive order that will make a law to do away with student loans? i thought laws were supposed to be made by the legislature, descendant, and the president signing the. who gave them the power? host: juan in georgia. democratic caller. caller: i would not have made this call if i did not hear this guy from virginia talking about clarence thomas. clarence thomas took a bribe, so did alito. they should be charged with a crime. you have -- with his wife sending money and lawyers to represent --

you have the captain charged with raping a woman, everybody knows the man raped a woman. this is the kind of court we have got. i have no confidence in this court. clarence thomas and alito should be charged with crimes. they took a bribe. host: robert in lynchburg, virginia, independent. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. the supreme court should he term limits. like the man just said, clarence thomas ain't nothing but a crook and alito because the lady that just called talking about people demonstrated at the people's house, it is a crime to take a bribe, too. somebody needs to be held accountable. vote them out.

they should be voted in by the public and not confirmed by the senate. thank you for taking my call. host: rose, you are next in illinois, a republican. caller: i think they're working hard. i think they are trying to work together. i am 79 years old, i lived mostly under a democratic regime and we are trying to get away from the constitution and just make laws that apply to socialistic ideas the democrats have. they have not been following the capitalistic, democratic republic constitution and declaration they should for many years. they have any agenda and now we have a different agenda. we are going on the right road. nobody likes it. talking about the speaker you

just played, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. congress is so guilty, i have been watching it all my life, all of their trips, all their gifts, other gifts come all of their sex perversions, paying off their own budgets. makes me sick what they get away with and they are throwing stones. let's clean up everything if we are going to start doing this. host: rose's thoughts comparing supreme court to the congress. harry in salem, massachusetts. your view of the supreme court? caller: if we are quick to clean up anything, it is the trash that keeps calling in with their nazi sympathizing sentiments. this is the most unethical court that has ever existed. it makes sense, because who put them in?

they lied about the president, roe v. wade, and how they would uphold these previous 50 years, supreme court justices wiped out as they lied about how they would uphold this court. clarence thomas was put in by the bush administration after the other thurgood marshall. he was paid for and he is just the shoeshine boy. host: linda in missouri, republican. caller: thanks so much for letting me respond to this question. i am 72, i have been watching for years. ideas to get up in the morning and turn it on while i was getting ready. now that i am retired, i watch all the time. i think a lot of the colors are so angry about this.

i am not. i think the supreme court is fine the way it is. you start messing with the supreme court, you have literally destroyed the country. this reporter, what is he, 25 or 30 years old? he has not lived through the things many of us have lived through either the supreme court -- through under the supreme court. sometimes it was in, sometimes it doesn't. it doesn't matter. you cannot -- you need to do term limits on congress, definitely. as far as the supreme court, i believe they are honest jurists and i don't think they have done anything the people in congress, the people in the presidency or anybody else has done.

i think the point we are making is people are mad about roe v. wade and even ruth bader skipper -- rivera ginsberg said that ruling -- ruth bader ginsburg said that ruling should not have been that way. it was presented wrong. it is not that abortion is illegal, it went back to the states. i don't know what everyone is upset about. as far as them doing a hit job on alito and tom is, you need to look at some of the other wants. nine is the perfect number. when the democrats get a chance, they will put somebody radical in there. that is fine. that is the way the system works. it has worked for all of these years, leave it alone. host: linda there in missouri.

we are asking your view of the supreme court. we will go to phoenix, arizona, independent. what is your name? caller: my name is sufjan. i studied paralegal and one thing i read is there are two types of law, one written and one is interpreted law. if the written law and the interpreted law are not the same, you'll always have -- in the sense that roe v. wade is the law of the land because a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to abort her child that has been given to her, for example in a rape or it is going to affect her life, adversity. as far as time limits, there should be term limits. at any given point in a man's life, he is subject to make

decisions based on monetary gain or his personal feelings. it is hard to keep personal feelings from politics. everybody calling in is upset and expressing all of this anger. the way to deal with something intellectually and then emotionally, the same thing with a woman. we have to deal with these things intellectually, not emotion. don't get mad, just do something about them. clarence thomas, everybody knows this guy accepted a bribe. i love this brother because of what he has done in life come his achievements. -- in life, his achievements. we don't praise the wrong he has done. every man has the right to do wrong. host: donna, north carolina. democratic caller. caller: good morning, how are you? host: doing well.

what is your view of the supreme court? caller: i think they should have term limits. i don't think they should have a job for life. because of things like this. no man is perfect. i think congress can do something about it. congress, the court, i don't have any faith in any of them and that is sad. i am not mad, i am just disappointed. the supreme court is supposed to be fair and it is not fair. how can we think it is fair when you can bribe them and they can get all of these gifts? they are not making judgments on their own. that is the biggest thing. host: kenneth is an independent

in michigan. kenneth, it is your turn. caller: i don't have a lot to say about the supreme court, they seem to be doing quite good. if they had an intelligence test before they were appointed, that would be a good thing. the first question on the test should be are you a male or a female. if they cannot answer that, how can they rule on major cases? that is all i have to say. host: benjamin is in michigan, a democratic caller. what is your view of the supreme court? caller: i think the court is corrupt. mitch mcconnell should have been charged with obstruction of justice when he wouldn't let merrick garland have a hearing for a chance to be on the court. host: jackie in dallas, texas.

independent. we will take your thoughts. caller: regardless of what the supreme court decides today upon student loans, the issue is we need bankruptcy rights restored for all student loans. there is no reason student loans should uniquely be not allowed to file bankruptcy. all other debts, collateral and non-collateral are allowed to file for group c. -- for bankruptcy. that is the only solution and the only way this is going to get solved, the store bankruptcy rights for student loan borrowers. host: mall is also an independent in charlotte, north carolina.

what do you think about the supreme court? caller: i think it is a tragedy. i think our court has been impacted by the extremes of both sides that it is making it difficult for them to do their job. justice is supposed to be blind. i think the american public does not have a good handle on what the supreme court justice supposed to do and what their role is and how they make decisions based on the constitution. i believe each of our justices deserve some degree of respect and they are living in fear. it is tragic, it is very disparaging. i believe we should have term limits and we should be guided by particular ethics. on the other hand, when you have justices who are female who

cannot define what a woman is, i believe we are so polarized and we have to remember if supreme court sets the example. they reach across the aisle saying they develop deep ships and we need to do the same as the american public -- develop deep relationships and we need to do the same as the american public. host: greg, a republican. caller: good morning. i hear you. host: tell us your view of the court. caller: i think they do a pretty good job for what they have to do. so many people want that or the other. host: catherine from new jersey, democratic caller. caller: this is catherine from burlington. you only come on on thursdays now?

anyway, i agree with nancy pelosi and the lady from virginia. one thing i would add is these people are called the supreme court, but they are not supreme human beings. they have made mistakes so they need somebody to hold them accountable. have a good day and happy fourth of july. host: same to you. thank you for calling in and giving us your view of the supreme court. we will take a short break. when we come back, we will be joined by svante myrick. we will discuss his organization's effort to stop the book bans and book removal efforts across the country. ♪ >> le sunday on "in-depth,"

author and professor talks politics, international affairs, liberalism, and more. he is the author of "the end of history." he has published several books including "the origins of political order" join your -- join the conversation with your calls, comments, and tweets. "in-depth" live on tv on c-span2. >> be up to date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books with nonfiction releases, plus, bestseller lists, industry news, and trend through -- and trends. you can find it on c-span now or you get your podcasts.

>> order your copy of the 118th congressional directory now available at c-spanshop.org. is your access to the federal government with contact information for every house and senate members. the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors. scan the code to order your copy today or go to c-spanshop.org. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. -- >> c-spanshop.org is our online store. browse through our products, peril, books, home to core, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase supports our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at

c-spanshop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we went to welcome svante myrick, president of people for the american where and former governor of new york -- former mayor of new york. guest: we are a civil flirtation that fights for truth, justice, and the american way. the american rate is the right for everyone to enjoy safety in their home, freedom of speech, and a vote. host: how are you find it? -- are you funded? guest: through donations. we have 6 million members who donate and a few foundations like the barbra streisand foundation which is a lot of fun. we were founded by a media icon,

normal layer. there are a lot of hollywood types that support people for the american way which is a lot of fun for kids from a small town to meet these celebrities. host: you talk about parents rights and public education, this issue of banning books. guest: it is about freedom for us. the freedom to vote is foundational for the american way, the freedom to feel safe, but also the freedom to learn. the freedom to learn facts of life and to do that in libraries and schools is so important. our founder is passionate about this. we found a group of seniors who want to make sure their grandchildren are able to access

all of the effects of living in this world. that is what will make us competitive on the world stage. also, that is what makes us better citizens, better voters, better able to stand up against authoritarianism. norman before he became a television icon went to war at 18 years old. he dropped bombs over nazi germany. he came home to find people saying he was unpatriotic simply because he was progressive and he was job -- and he was jewish. he thought the folks who believe you cannot be a patriot if you are progressive were not bad people, but lacked civic education. he and we have always thought for a great pacific's being taught in our schools and we are concerned about the rise of censorship. host: what is the status of

censorship and book banning across the country? guest: it is pretty alarming. it is not just a one-off media story. folks who track this say that not only have the number of banned books doubled this year compared to last year, we have twice as many books taken out of libraries this year as last year. that means this year is the highest number of banned books on record. the 20 plus years the american library association has been tracking it, there have been more book bans this year. that should freak us out. some books we would know, "to kill a mockingbird," "catcher in the rye," "maus." the trend should we all of us. host: this is from penn

america's index of school book bans. they found 1777 instances of book bans, 844 titles affected. this is up to the prior six months. what is your group doing to counter this? guest: grandparents for truth which is part of people of the american way are about educating people so they can show up at the school boards and pushback. they can advocate in their local communities and they themselves run for physical work. we think the school board is where most of this tension is going to be resolved. we want to make sure everyone has access to engage at that level. from missouri to saw -- to reconcile, states are defining public libraries. state legislators who are treated they cannot ban more books faster are trying to use

their power of the purse to remove funding from public libraries and content into submission. we are fighting them at the bell mark. we are encouraging more people to run for the statehouse and training them to run for office and supporting them when they put their name on the ballot. these are bills affectingevel, libraries. 24 p 22 enacted, two vetoed please tilt and to modify or remove -- under state laws for our brains and educators, modify state definitions of obscenity, material harmful to minors, limits access to lever databases, and impose book rating systems or labeling requirements. guest: in arkansas, and lepers must remove books that are claimed to be obscene. what does that mean?

that means anybody your grant. -- that means anybody that claims it is obscene. there is a textbook that was claimed to be obscene and now we have to remove it. there is a reason we have public school. it is so we can train a cohort of experts to curate information that is in the best interest of students. every parent should have a right to have a say in what their child learns. but should not have the right to dictate to the rest of them what is publicly available for children to learn. i worry that groups like moms for liberty are veering towards dictating the information available for every student. host: moms for liberty is organizing this weekend in philadelphia. they are around 120,000 people

in 45 states according to their website. they are going to hear from republican president joe candidates, nikki haley, governor desantis, former president donald trump. all others are going to be talking before this group. what are you doing? host: will be there -- guest: we will be there. we will be rallying with 12 organizations across the street from the convention center posting moms for liberty. we are not there to change their minds, we are not going to convince ron desantis or donald trump, we are just there to make sure americans know what moms for liberty stand for. it is such a wonderful name. but the name belies what i think is a more sinister agenda. what they're actually after is creating a platform for people who are subject books.

it starts at pulling books from shelves but ends with the dismantling of public education, with the public school system being broken down into component parts where poor kids can't afford private school are sent to work any factory. everybody else is sent to a parochial or religious school. that is not an america i want to live in. as much attention as moms for liberty get, voters can decide for themselves if they want to vote for a candidate that wants to get -- host: we want our viewers to join us in this conversation. start dialing in. let's listen to the cofounder of moms for liberty, tiffany justice. she was on fox news. she described her organization's efforts to educate parents. [video clip] >> when we started on the school

board, we saw behind the curtain. we saw how broken the system was and how the education system in america is being used to transform our country. our children are being taught in schools often times that america is a systemically racist country, that we are broken, that based on the color of their skin or the religion they may have, they would be different and not as equal as another child. there is no room for discrimination in public school classrooms. moms are rallying behind the fact that they want every child to reach their full potential in the classroom. our moms get together in chapters, they meet once a month in local communities, they review the agenda of the local school board, they review legislative ills and initiatives by elected officials and they are paying attention to national politics.

host: how do you respond? guest: is sounds good, right -- it sounds good, right? they review the agenda of the local station and then they storm these rooms. people have probably seen the footage on their local tv. they shout obscenities at any school board member they view as even mildly progressive. they harass people until they resign from office. they don't wait until elections. they try to get folks who are volunteering their time, they followed them around in grocery stores and heckle them. when the indiana chapter of moms for liberty quoted adolf hitler sank -- saying something like "whoever controls the children controls the future." a local man asked for a moment

of silence at his school board meeting to remember holocaust victims. local moms for liberty intentionally caught their way through the moment of silence -- coughed their way to the motor sense. -- the moment of silence. the fact that the cofounders are acolytes of ron desantis is not an accident. they run the operation from florida, it is not a decentralized grassroots organization. this is a right-wing arm of the ron desantis campaign. americans who might see the chapters popping up should know that before they sign up. host: roy, independent.

right -- roy? you have to mute your television. just listen and talk through that phone. caller: okay. host: go ahead. caller: i was going to ask mr. myrick if he books he is against banning are age-appropriate. it sounds like he is a progressive. i guess he wants third-graders reading and studying about gay sex and transsexual activities. we are being bombarded with the media. i am wondering if it is only through -- your organization

sounds like it is full of democratics. which ones is he looking to ban? guest: i am not looking to ban any books because i don't think any books is how you combat that information. more information and context is how you create a better and more informed america and how you create a cohort of children able to survive and thrive in the real-world. all children should access information that is age-appropriate. what is age-appropriate mean? that is different for each kid. all kids should be aware before they reach adulthood that there is such a thing as gayness. there always has been. gayness, sexual orientation has

to do with sexual acts. every kid should have a thorough education. why should? they have that helps them avoid trouble. it will help them avoid unwanted pregnancies, it will help them avoid abuse and predation. sexual education is a way in which young people discover what a human member or neighbor has been doing to them is actually assault. it helps them to find the words to report those folks who have been accountable and deliver missive country. what the right age is for the redbook is something that educators and families should work together to figure out. but banning these books, and let's be clear, the fact they are being banned is not just those talking about sex. the preponderance of these

books, real facts about race in this country, also about lgbtq people. the agenda here is not just to protect young people from information they are not ready for, it is to try to convince kids that people who are not like them are not normal. lgbtq communities should not have to go back in the closet. they should not have to pretend they don't exist. they should not have to pretend that their irritation is somehow dangerous. it is in every country through every period of time. if young people than that, they will be better equipped. host: marquez is in new jersey, democratic caller #is -- mark is in new jersey, democratic. caller. caller: it is really refreshing to hear you. i also don't want to live in

america where kids cannot get the proper knowledge. i have never had kids and that is fine, i pay some of the highest property taxes in the country and i am happy to do it because i don't want kids to be ignored. i don't want racist homophobic parents to decide what kids learn. that is a matter for educators who have masters degrees. let's get real. we need to improve public schools, but to try to get rid of them is sick. it is fascist. guest: i didn't hear a question but i appreciate the question. i agree with it. i have been blessed. normal leader -- our founder is 101 and if my son lives to 101, it will be 2124.

what kind of world will it be? on the east coast, you can see a haze. i grew up in the northeast, fires from canada and injured runner of. -- from canada were unheard of. what kind of world we are going to live in is not just up to him and me, it is up to those kids you are paying taxes for. by they going to be able to contribute to our world and make it a better place? yes. they can compete with kids from other countries to get into universities here in our country. if their education continues to be undermined, our future is at stake. we want to have scientists and engineers, urban planners, the

next power forward. if we are being outcompeted because we cannot agree on a set of facts on which we can raise our kids, our entire way of life is being undermined. that is not the american way. host: john is in new jersey, independent. caller: hi, greta. good morning, you do a fabulous job. your rundown on the issues is outstanding. i have a brother-in-law who is gay, wonderful guy. god made you the way you are. however, my issue and many people's issue, a principal is pulling kids out of class to do a -- what age do you think we should start pulling kids out of class to worship maturation --

masturbation? what would normally be pornographic including men walking the street -- it is pornographic. he is not for this. this causes more lgbtq problems. at what age are you fine with the exposure of this to elementary kids? guest: i am not sure about the worship of masturbation, sounds like a short story titled. at what point should it begin? some began in sixth grade, seventh grade. i think we have to be careful. your brother-in-law is as how

god made him. i believe the same. that is to say, reading a book with gay characters or reading about how to gain his works -- gayness works is not about what makes somebody gay. if you are concerned there is a contagion effect, if they learned about it in seventh grade, are they going to become gay? note. . what is the point of education? to prepare our children for a future they have to live in. it is not by sheltering them from information that makes us uncomfortable. the world is full of uncomfortable facts. i know you know this, most of the information our kids get about sex they will not first be hearing from a teacher.

it is unfortunate but it is true. it was true for us on his phobos -- for us on the school bus. this information is everywhere. the sooner we can give them context so they can feel safe, so they know what is healthy versus unhealthy, they can keep themselves and their friends free from abuse. that is what i vote for. third grade, fifth grade, seventh grade, that is what should be decided by teachers and professionals and consultation with parents. it should not be decided by a browbeating, screaming mob trying to take over his school board. host: our guest is svante myrick , the president for people of the american way and former mayor of ithaca, new york. nicholas in maryland, democratic caller. you are next. caller: thank you for taking my

call. despite being a democrat, i believe your progressivism is providing a one-sided view of the moms in action. there are individuals who go little crazy, but i don't believe they are the kind of terrorists you make them not to be. in your commentary on what any apocalyptic result would be, you commented on parochial school in. in baltimore, parochial schools provide better education than any other public school has. i would encourage you to not fall into that myth that you have so far given into. guest: your reaction? guest: parochial schools are a great choice. anybody who chooses that avenue should be able to. folks who choose the public school system should be able to.

the future i am worried about is one in which public schools are so badly defunded that they splinter and collapse. it is something that baltimore has had to deal with. host: rich in new jersey, republican. you are next. caller: good morning. svante, you are great propagandist and it's pure -- and spewer of misinformation. looks being abandoned in so many states are attacking the first, second, and third graders with graphic pictures, graphic words about sodomy and oral sex. that is not the education department's business. that is up to parents and you keep spewing these crazy ideas

that it is so bad too books -- it is so bad to ban books. children do not need to read these in second, third, and fourth grade. host: where do you know that is happening? caller: i saw the books some in virginia, some in texas. they were so graphic. guest: they were being taught to first-graders? what book was that? caller: i am an ex -schoolteacher. i saw people bring these books. just go online, you can see them. guest: you can find a lot of things on my. you can find almost anything you want, including things that are not true. one book is "gender queer."

there is one page that is tough to look at. it shows explicitly the way sex works between two men. you look and say they are teaching that to second graders, they should be. they should not be. the second graders don't have the concept for that, it is too much. nobody is assuring that to second graders. the person who wrote the book did not want it to be shown to second graders. it was made for people who are young adults and up. why is it that people believe this is being shown to third-graders? groups like moms for liberty are telling people they are. they are creating a maelstrom that has ended up with 874 unique titles being banned. a book by amanda gorman is being banned.

"catcher in the rye" is being banned. there is more authoritarian at overreach and physician, more danger there then kids just trying to get a good education and educators doing the best they can. you can find a lot of stuff online if you google it. i encourage you to dig deeper. find the context for the things you are saying and try to get a sense of scope. is this one book supposed to be in the teenage section and accurately put in the middle school section one time? or is it in the epidemic? browbeating and teachers being harassed, that is the epidemic level. host: stuff on in virginia. caller: visit your -- this

viewer has got me. he is disingenuous. i work in physical systems, these books are in the school system. every state is having this problem. the books are on the shelves, in a limited schools. we can tell lies all he wants. "the honey pot," "the queer eye," they are all in there. public schools, math, science, reading. we destroyed ephedrine covid. parents raise kids. you teach math, science, reading, period. guest: not physical education or sexual education? caller: why are you teaching kids sex? guest: schools who teach sexual education have lower indications

of stds and unwanted pregnancies. states who teach sexual education have lower levels of unwanted pregnancies, sexual assault, and stds. what is the point of education is not to prepare young people for the real world? that is the point of education. you have comprehensive sexual education, young people are better prepared to survive it. if math, reading, and science was all we had in school, my gpa is -- my gpa would be higher. but a well-rounded acute issue -- a well-rounded education includes music, dance, and civics is also an important thing. the world is complicated, more complicated than when we were kids. we are preparing people for that

-- preparing younger people for that world is an all hands on deck activity. host: margaret, your question or comment. caller: first, i would like to say that i have knowledge in the area you dart discussing -- the area you are discussing. i heard you say that you don't have any children. guest: i do. caller: i will say that i believe having education is taught above the fifth grade. as i remember, -- they can opt out. they can opt out of the school sex program.

i do believe that things are starting to go too far when it tends to what the schools are teaching their kids. i think the parents that are calling in with complaints, because that is what it is, complaints about what is being taught with lgbtq, transgender, a lot of that is unchartered territories. chemically altering kids before they get to the age of 18, i think those are legitimate concerns. at this point, one could say that is experimental. kids don't really have a good idea of who they are, their brains are still developing. they get to 25 and they are still developing a frontal cortex. they need young individuals -- many young individuals don't

want to go from a transition. there is a lot of questions. kids go through depression during these periods of time. as a female, i did not want to go through some of that stuff, but i did. it is a passage of right. i will add that there are so many cases that go unreported, sexual content between employees and school and children themselves. that does not really get reported. that gets settled out of court. kids should not become too comfortable when it comes to their sexuality. they do become targets. host: i'm going to have svante myrick's response.

guest: this is an important point, how do we prevent sexual proration. it is not kids becoming sexual -- becoming comfortable with their sexuality. kids need to have a language of what is normal and healthy at what is not. they need to have a language to express what is happening to them. maybe at home, in school, in any alleyway. -- an alleyway. that is how we crackdown on central salt of minors, having better systems all around, better education so they can speak up for themselves. that is really important. i believe in age-appropriate education. people should receive sexual education when it is time, when it is appropriate and fits with their own development. that is exactly what happens in our public schools. folks are true taking one or

another school where they think this happened too fast or i'm not comfortable with lgbtq aspect. if they're using to attack him is a good people who work on school boards and educators in our public schools to make their lives harder and drive their own right-wing agenda. that is what i think is dangerous. the fact that we are seeing it double digit percent increase in banned books over the last six months with the highest rate of book in the country, this should raise alarm bells. nothing good comes from this flippers look. -- this slippery slope. host: david is in georgia, independent. caller: good morning. i missed the topic and i thought it was more on the bending of books -- banning of books.

my concern is there are a lot of good books being and -- being banned that hold for the great people the idea of exchanges of ideas and helping people understand other people. the books i have found that have been banned, sung by langston hughes -- some by langston hughes. it is incredible to see that american history. you were talking about civics earlier and that is another part of the educational system through the books being banned, our young people are not learning about our country or the strength of our country and everything we have gone through. because now everything is marked as crt on some of these books, critical race theory.

from my understanding, the way they explain it is too these books so their children -- to ban these books so their children don't feel bad about being white. it is kind of like making them feel bad but making them understand our american history and other things in our clinical systems. as far as children books and everything on sexuality, i look at it now as, and i don't want to say agenda, but kind of like i do feel the lgbtq community really does want to push an agenda of being gay as being accepted. i don't have any issues with gay people, but i do feel our young

children are impressionable. for the student to change their gender before they are 18. europe has stopped that that they cannot change their gender until they are 18. given that, it is the thing i think we need to have, more oversight. that is not against the gay community. host: let's get a response. guest: i think you put your finger on something. the lgbtq community, the agenda that they want acceptance. i think that is what they want, acceptance. they know that a gay kids are

more likely to and out of their homes, more likely to end up homeless, more likely to turn to substance abuse and more likely to commit suicide than any young democrat. those numbers are even scarier for trans kids. they know that is the result of not being accepted. i do not think -- that the lgbtq community is trying to recruit new members by just explaining the very existence of guinness -- gaynes. s. that is not how people become gate or trans. and the sooner as a country we come to that reality the better. the details of how sex works, a graphic sexual education, third grade -- it is not ready for elementary school. it should already happen of the appropriate engines.

but exactly what you side, this is the pairing i'm concerned moms for liberty are attempted to do. you're saying don't let them fan books on critical race theory, lack an african market history, we need to learn those a comfortable -- black and african-american history, we need to learn those facts. but the other communities are maybe ok. be better allies. we have to say yes, it might make people uncomfortable to learn about the failings of america in the past. but it is going to make our students better people and better citizens and that is true for the lgbtq community. the same with antisemitism. we will all hang separately.

what all these books have in common that are being banned is that they make your child intelligent. it challenges them. we might think it is wrong, it might not be wrong, but the challenges -- maybe the other side. it turns you into a more well-rounded, more understanding , better informed adult. we should want the same things for our kids at age-appropriate times. banning these folks is not the way to do it. and we should not pretend that banning books in public library will stop kids from accessing sensitive information. all know we live in that when he for sentry and they will have access to this and much worse without the context and guidance of responsible adults.

host: you can learn more on their website. guest: our country would be a better place if the average americans watched one hour a week. much better country. host: now to a conversation happening in washington today. the carnegie endowment for international peace, the future of international policy with deputy national security advisor mike pyle. >> welcome to our extreme rushed -- distinguished guest. here in person and in washington, d.c. today, as well as online and on c-span.