the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess subject to the call of the chair. looks

like. c-span, powered by cable. host: good morning. welcome back to washington journal. we are joined by openthebooks.com founder adam andrzejewski. he will be discussing his research into waste and abuse in government spending. guest: great to be here. thanks for having me back.

host: tell us about openthebooks.com. how long has it been around? how do you find what we see on the website? guest: we believe transparency is transformational. we are nonprofit and nonpartisan and believe that transparency revolutionizes public policy and politics. we started in the super bowl of corruption in 2011. we were the first to post the pensions of every illinois public employee at every level. and last year, we filed 55,000 freedom of information act requests. we captured nearly every dime spent at every level of government across the country. we do this so regular people can come to our website at openthebooks.com and follow the money. and hold the political class

accountable. host: your website covers those federal and state level spending. it has analysis on where you see waste or fraud. guest: we open the books, audit the books. audits make national news. on our website, our database is comprised of nearly all federal spending since 2001, all 50 state checkbooks and 15,000 units for level checkbooks. -- municipal level checkbooks. we hold a record of nearly every single public employee at the federal, state, and local level. 25 million salary and pension records. you can see who makes how much, even in your local school district or municipality. host: your organization with the recently -- your organization

recently put out a report on earmarks. what are they? how are they approved by congress? guest: in earmark is a member cap project. members of congress request a project in their district. it has been described as legal bribery. an earmark is like the $1 million macadamia not initiative in hawaii. hawaii is only .1% of all agricultural production but the senator wanted $1 million for the macadamia nut initiative. it is likely money that went to pittsburgh to make pittsburgh into hollywood and the phase ii of the michelle obama trail. phase i was paid for i dekalb

county taxpayers. it is like the $5 million into naples, florida. into their septic system. phase i was paid for by local and state taxpayers. $5 million of federal money is paying for phase ii, literally flushing money down the septic system naples. the average home there is an average of $600,000 -- host: we mentned that the macadamia nut initiative, showing $4 million for buses in wisconsin and $5 million for the ozark empire fairgrounds and six main dollars to institutions where members of congress, their spouses works. do you make a judgment on

whether these earmarks are appropriate or good level of spending? in your opinion, are all your marks bad? is there a way to determine what is better spending than others? guest: our position is that local projects of merit should be funded locally. they should not be funded out of washington, d.c. earmarks were banned for the last decade. two years ago, republicans in the house, 102 republicans voted in secret to join it nancy pelosi's democrats and bring back this earmark, the currency of corruption. last year, before mccarthy was elected speaker, they again today secret vote. this time, 158 republicans

joined democrats to bring back remarks. in december of last year, the bilby's -- the bill signed between christmas and new marks, many earmarks were stepped into that year end budget bill. $16 billion worth of projects. just seven republicans earmarked $3.1 billion in that bill. host: we want to open it up to the phone lines. i want to give our viewers the numbers to call to talk about earmarks, government spending and your opinions on whether there is waste and fraud. democrats, your line is (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also send a text message, (202) 748-8003. representative mike simpson, a republican from idaho, put out what he calls a defensive earmarks. they call them community project funding. i want to read you an excerpt of what he said in that defense posted on bsit he writes, "ma no mistake, e federal government has a problem but congressionirecd spending is not more spending. it is simply a way for members to prioritize projects within their own districts within existing budget limits.

these projects are limited to no more than 1% of the discretionary budget." what is your response to his defense of what he calls community project funding? guest: first, we have to change the name. earmarks, when they were banned, most wanted them banned because of corruption in congress. simpson is putting forth the mary poppins theory, that you need sugar to move these bills through congress. earmarks by definition circumvent the regular budget process in congress. earmarks are irregular. no one is against the splash pad in michigan or the $2 million earmark for the member of congress in baltimore for the great blacks in wax museum.

six months previously, he was ensconced with a wax figurine. no one is against these projects if they are paid for locally. host: let's go again to the phone lines, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. our first color is from north carolina, independent line. caller: one to know how much money has been spent on the banks, wall street, tax cuts for the rich, the war in afghanistan and iraq. pins the department of homeland security -- and the department

of homeland security that cannot predict january 6. have you done that? -- done studies on that? the money that he is talking about is not affecting the budget that much, but these are the things that really are. it's his organization doing a study on the? guest: thanks for the question. here is our position on earmarks. $16 billion in a 1.7 trillion dollar budget bill, you may say it is not a lot of money but it is the gateway drug that fuels the big spending bill. this is the currency of corruption. i want to show in the next

couple of examples how members of congress are benefiting through earmarks. we had patrick lady. he was going to retire at the end of the last session. six months ago, he earmarked $30 million into the university of vermont honors college. in may of this year, after the senator retired, diversity of vermont renamed their honors college after senator patrick lady -- lehey. and the president of the university of vermont even a permanent presidential fellowship at the school. and then lehey earmarks $30 million into the burlington international airport. in april, the city council in burlington renamed the airport after him.

and richard shelby, retiring from congress, earmarks money into his alma mater, the university of alabama which was also going to host his senate archive. he earmarked it for the university of alabama endowment, which already stood at $1 billion. think about that. we have borrowed against the national debt. and we stuffed it into the university of alabama endowment, already $1 billion. this is a school where they pay their football coach $11 million a year. host: our next caller is phil, long island, new york, independent line. caller: history repeats itself. go back to sandy relief. everybody criticized ted cruz.

he said he did not want these earmarks that had nothing to do with sandy in the bill. now what happens? peter king, congressman from long island, and chris christie all beat up ted cruz because he said i will give you money for sandy but i do not want all these earmarks. and they just passed the debt ceiling. part of that was to claw back covid money. what did the long island republican congressman do? he voted for that but at the same time, the national county executive is trying to find ways to spend $268 million. they are all come out left and right, addicted to spending our money. i grew up with nothing. i am sacrificing now so might kids and grandchildren do not have to pay. but we have got to get this wasteful spending under control.

they are both filtered of it. we need a third party. host: --guest: the caller is correct. both parties are addicted to spending taxpayer dollars. it is equivalent to an open bar for a lunch of alcoholics. my evidence on this is the national debt. in the 1980's, our national debt stood at the less than $1 trillion. more than 40 years later, we are at $32.5 trillion. both parties are addicted to spending taxpayer money. host: i go back to what republicans say. it is interesting when you think about earmarks. republicans were somewhat critical. they ended earmarks 11 or 12 years ago. democrats brought it back last

year under nancy pelosi. under kevin mccarthy, earmarks of continued but with some changes. this is from a report in rollcall earlier this year. as house republican appropriators have banned earmarks from labor, hhs, labor, education and put fresh -- on community project funding, regulating that process. kay granger, republican from texas, announced the new rules tuesday night. earmarks spending will be capped at .5% of total discretionary spending in the fiscal 2024 bill. members will have to submit a written statement describing the federal nexus for their earmark request. if tests republicans are able to follow through on their pledge

to cut total fiscal 2024 appropriations, earmarked funds and has spending bills would drop to about $7.4 billion, less than half of what was appropriated. and this year, omnibus at about 10% less than the $8.2 billion included last year. house republicans will say you cannot do anymore of those education earmarks that you identified as problematic, no more naming things after people. they got rid of that and are tapping it further. what would you say to has republicans who say we have created new rules to address a lot of the issues you have raised about earmarks. is that enough? why or why not? guest: fungus rates the rules and the rules are completely

lacks -- congress writes the rules and the rules are completely lax. republicans have gone wild for earmarks in 2024. the situation is getting worse. you have 4700 earmarks. 62% are from republicans. the first 63 largest your markers for 2024 in the house are republicans. republicans are loading up. we have called on kevin mccarthy. republicans to this point have only taken a secret vote in the house on earmarks. we are calling on speaker mccarthy to call for a public vote. if we are going to have this mechanism of earmarks, kevin mccarthy -- the american people

need to be able to see who is in and out on earmarks. are they really going to cast a public vote on your marks? we deserve to find out. host: tybalt of that article you mentioned. this is in rollcall, published yesterday. it says, "house republicans have thoroughly stacked the earmarking that in their favor in appropriations for the upcoming year. the top democratic recipient does not even appear in the top 60 in that chamber. in their first year in the majority, they brought back the practice republicans banned a decade earlier. gop lawmakers are spreading money across projects stepped inside the fiscal 2024 appropriations bill."

guest: senator susan collins of maine, at six months ago, in the omnibus spending bill, she proved through $300 million worth of earmarks for maine. her counterpart, angus king, earmarked $100 million but he saw how it worked. here is what they have requested for 2024. susan collins, $500 million worth of earmarks. angus king, $900 million worth of earmarks. together, the two senators in maine are requesting 1.4 billion dollars of special projects. host: our next caller is dee in seattle, democratic line. caller: republicans were not worried when trump spent over $140 million of taxpayer money

on golf. then you had 1.5 trillion cut in medicare -- $1.5 trillion in medicaid, medicare, $25 billion in social security, cuts in temporary assistance. when you took office, the national debt was $19 trillion. you left, it was $27 trillion. you do not care about america and our debt. it is shocking that you have valued your job over the security of this country. you are not willing to deal with the realities at hand. you should be ashamed of yourselves. period. done. guest: we are nonpartisan. when the comp administration was in power, we held them accountable, too.

right here from this program, i called out the trump administration and the two houses of congress controlled by republicans for trillion dollar budget deficits. i called that dangerous. we have held the trump administration accountable. we need to hold the republican majority in the house accountable and the biden administration as our national debt soars. this year, the projected budget deficit that is spending over revenues is $1.5 trillion. there is no end in sight to the runaway spending of this government. host: let's go to new carlisle, ohio. bernie is on the independent line. caller: good morning. number one, something i think should be mentioned everyday on c-span is climate change.

but they will comment is the gentleman -- my real comment is the gentleman did not respond to the first caller regarding the big money spent in wars. i would like to mention the fact that use ago, i heard that the pentagon could not account for $11 trillion worth of stuff they spend money on. like leroy said, could remain dollars here and they are all adds up. you look into the kind of spending and that at the time. that is my comment. host: before adam response, i want to let you know we will get to climate change later today. stay tuned. adam, he wants you to talk about the effect that there is so much

other government spending that far outweighs what you find in earmarks. guest: your marks are the gateway drug to the big spending bills. there has been trillions of dollars worth of spending racked up over the last decade. that is obvious from the both of the national debt. during the pandemic, there was over $5 trillion worth of coronavirus aid doled out to everybody. nearly every federal program was legally gained by insiders or illegally looted. on stealing alone, the estimates are north of $500 million stolen by criminals around the world. then you have the legalized gaming of the system by insiders. for example, we took a look at the top 300 law firms in the

country. 126 were forgiven paycheck protection loans. these loans were designed for mom-and-pop businesses shut down during the lockdown. they were not designed for the most successful law firms in the countries whose partners during this period, we prove, were taking millions of dollars annually while there firms were forgiven for $800 million. host: you just mentioned a different report called improper payments on your openthebooks.com website. we have listed somehlights from that report on public payments. you mentioned some. you found that $247 billion in

improper federal pmes in 2022 that theayeck protection program has spent more than $29 billion. in social security's survivors and disability and -- disability programs also misspent money. where do you think the money went? guest: every year, there is a report mandated by congress that the office of management and budget has to release. it is the mistaken and improper. these are payments that went to the wrong person, wrong amount, wrong set of rules. there are obviously mistakes. the biden administration the first two years has it it'd to a staggering $530 billion worth of

these mistakes. it is the first administration since 2004 that is on pace to admit to over $1 trillion in programs worth of mistakes. it is a staggering statistic that quantifies the institutional incompetence of government. host: we are talking with adam andrzejewski, founder of openthebooks.com, which researches waste and abuse in government spending. we are taking your questions and calls. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans , (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. next, we have been georgia from

absalom any, michigan, independent line. caller: i do not know whether the looming new about the money joe biden left in afghanistan when he pulled out as part of the money they admitted you. but you should add that in if you have not. guest: i want to respond to that. an observation -- as the taliban advanced on afghanistan in august of 2021, our auditors nailed the number, $82.9 billion dollars over 20 years provided by u.s. tax payers.

it was 600,000 weapons, 300,000 machine guns, vehicles that we stood to leave behind. so, yes, we were all over that number and we were the subject matter experts during that period. to hold the biden administration accountable for their please do withdrawal. host: george, did you have another part to your question? caller: the other, and is democrats are calling in, blaming trump, trenton, trump. but what about all this money that trump had to spend to rebuild our military because barack obama left it in port shape? between george bush and barack obama, this country was going to the pits. when donald trump was in there, gas was like two dollars and $.30 a gallon. i would go to the grocery store

-- i go to the grocery store now. i do my shopping at walmart. people frown on that but i do my shopping at walmart. you can hardly buy a half apart. groceries now and get out of that store for less than $125. this is ridiculous. gas prices are creeping up, back to almost $3.50 here in the southeast michigan where i live. this is ridiculous. the only way they are going to get this back under control is the have got to get trump back in to get this economy moving again. if you leave democrats in charge of all that money, you are just going to get more of what you got. it will get worse. guest: the democrats are spending a lot of money. let's go back to the american

rescue act plan of 2021. there was a $350 million bailout. and you had republican governors in there with democrats. nancy pelosi said it, republicans in congress will vote no, but republican governors will take the dough. that is what happens. even in texas and florida, you had texas running a $1 billion budget surplus. and greg abbott took a bailout. same thing in florida. republican governors took the money and spend it. beverly hills, california, 30,000 municipalities across the country were bailed out. 90210 received a bailout.

and the richest spot in america have got $1.3 million worth of bailout. and you had los angeles county. they took $2 billion out of the american rescue act. it was so much money that l.a. county lifeguards now make up to 510,000 dollars a year. 98 of them made more than $200,000 last year. and the top paid l.a. county lifeguard made $510,000. host: i want to read a text message from tony in sugar land, texas -- " the house passed rules from last congress that did not get much media attention dealing with reimbursement for housing, food, etc."

you talked about the subsidies or the money that goes to reimbursement to members of congress or state they may receive for housing and food if such exists for members of congress or their staff. guest: i think that those of increase. the congressional office allotment went higher over the course of the last couple of years. but we have not studied this issue. host: kelly in lynchburg, virginia rights, open quote waste is in the eye of the beholder. government spending allowed for national parks and interstates. how do you address that? guest: that is true. you can layout the -- we lay out the examples so you have the

information and can hold the political class accountable from your perspective. i want to give you an example of how earmarks are corrupting congress. you have roy blunt out of missouri. six months ago in the omnibus spending bill, he did two earmarks for a total of $91 billion. $61 million went into the university of missouri into a building that was named after him. that was for upgrades and equipment. then he did it again at his almost bought her, missouri state. a $30 million earmark into a building that trustees named after roy blunt two weeks before the vote. all told, $91 million of our

money went to do two buildings that bear the senator's name. host: this is a question from text messages from steve in albany, new york. can you cite any examples of citizens becoming aware of wasteful spending on the local level and effectively combating it? guest: yes. in new orleans, there was an employee of the new orleans police department. he knew many came to openthebooks.com something was not right. people were making more than what they should have been making. when he died deeper, it -- deb deeper, it kicked off a federal investigation. officers were put on leave and the results of the investigation are pending. at openthebooks.com, we have been able to rack up a lot of wins, even here in 2023.

the house republican majority adopted a new transparency and legislation rule. for two years, we had run a campaign to read the bills. we put this in the wall street journal. we put tens of thousands of signatures on a position. it was a night 9% issue -- a 99% issue with the american people that we need to see what is in legislation before a vote. that was adopted for the first time in the house rules by house republicans. host: tony, new york, independent line. caller: good morning. on the subject of wasteful spending, i want to focus on the local level. one of the biggest things is police spending. i am calling from suffolk

county, new york. we paid more than 165 million dollars in lawsuits against police misconduct. in general, the institute also says that policing costs the nation about $115 billion per year. i think when we talk about police budgets, they have gone up. my candy has one of the highest police budgets in the nation. we need to talk about policing in and of itself. at the federal level, there are programs that militarize police. the 1033 program supplies in a lot of the local police departments. i think we talk about cutting costs, we need to not bailout banks, not bellow corporations.

thank you. host: a lot in --guest: a lot in that. 1033 is a transfer of surplus military equipment into local police departments. at openthebooks.com, you can go to the maps section, put in a zip code and see in your own community what has been transferred from the pentagon to your local police department. in terms of police budgets, we went through a period where there was a defund the police movement. in austin, texas, they are down about 300 officers on headcount versus what they called for in their budget. they are under policed. austin requested that texas state troopers come in to help with local policing this spring. in baltimore, one of the most

dangerous cities in america, we took a look at the headcount on police officers over the last decade. incredibly, in baltimore, they are down 500 officers, as robberies and smaller crimes are up 38% this year. policing is complicated. military station of federal agencies -- we are subject matter experts on this -- since 2006, there has been 3.7 million dollars spent on military style equipment amongst federal agencies but only 26 are traditional law enforcement agencies. under the department of justice or homeland security, 76 of those federal agencies are traditional paper pushing

regulatory agencies. for example, like the department of education, like social security, health and human services or the irs. when you hear that the irs is armed up after grabbing legal power, they are amassing firepower on the irs has spent $35 million since 2006 on guns, ammunition, and military style. host: adam andrzejewski,,. we are going to kick things off by chatting with brendan peterson, he is a financial services reporter for punch bowl news. good morning. guest: good morning. host: thank you for joining us. we know that federal reserve is meeting today and tomorrow. what are analysts expecting from the meeting? guest: we are expecting a 25

basis point hike. this is pretty much in line with how things have been going for the past 16 months or so. the federal reserve has been embarking on a historic interest rate raising campaign to bring down inflation. we paused last time, economists expect the fed to hike again. the real question looking forward is what the fed does after this. officials have projected they want to hold interest rates higher, rather than raising them every time. the question will become how long do we hold interest rates as high as they are? if the fed hikes tomorrow, we are looking at an interest rate between 5.2 5% and 5.5% of the federal level. host: we hear a lot about this softly ending the federal reserve is trying to create or accomplish. what does that mean, and how

does that impact rate hikes? guest: something you might hear folks say on business cable and in general is the phrase immaculate disinflation. what that means is the fed successfully raising rates and ringing down inflation at the same time without seeing a significant increase in unemployment or other metrics of economic pain. raising rates usually has a cost. it has been correlated with lost jobs and higher levels of unemployment historically. that has not happened at this time around in large part because the labor market has been so tight for so long. if we achieve a soft landing, that means we get lower inflation without losing a whole bunch of jobs. i think we are a little ways away from declaring victory on that. inflation is a long process to

bring down and the real friction of the fed interest rate in the economy is going to take place over the next several months, if not years, as we keep rates elevated. host: speaking of the elevated rates, what is the impact on consumers if the fed does move forward with hiking interest rates today and tomorrow? guest: in the short term, i do not think consumers will feel that much difference. we are kind of in matter of degree territory. a lot of fed officials have said we are feeling comfortable with where we are at, some fed officials want to push us past the 5.5 percentage point and get us closer to 6%. in general, a lot of the effects of higher interest rates have been moving their way through the economy over the last several months. consumers will probably see higher interest rates on various

types of loans, like mortgages and credit card payments. you might already be experiencing that. other ways will be harder for regular consumers to gauge. for example, big companies will probably be borrowing less money as interest rates get higher. that might translate down the line to fewer opportunities or smaller pools of investment. in general, with rates already being so elevated, i think today's hike would just be a little on top, rather than a significant event. host: testing your historical knowledge, i am curious -- he said between five point 25% and 5.5% could be the interest rate after this week. people like me who are not experts, we do not know how that

compares. ? ? is that really high historically is this kind of normal? is it hard to compare? that is my question. guest: it is not that hard to compare. part of the issue is consumer expectations. for the last decade or so, interest rates have been really low, especially coming out of the financial crisis. we are talking about interest rates that were at or below zero , which is free money. because inflation has been so stubbornly low over the past decade up until after the pandemic, rates stayed pretty low. my adult lifetime, i am not used to seeing interest rates this high. that said, we saw much higher interest rates in the 70's and 80's. famously, paul volker, the

previous chair of the federal reserve really had to campaign against inflation. had to crank up interest rates to stamp it out after inflation was stubbornly high for much of the 70's and 80's. interest rates were in the teens, i want to say. i do not know the exact number off the top of my head. people paying out for 15% mortgages, which we are getting there in the housing market, but we are not anywhere near that level any meaningful sense. it has definitely been worse in the past, but expectations are everything and interest rates have gotten higher in a short period of time. host: let us talk about the political impact on president joe biden. he has been talking up the economy, painting a pretty positive picture. but one of the political stakes for president biden as we know

consumers are still worried about inflation? guest: it is a tricky dance, running for reelection as the president when you had an economy where voters pretty widely agreed it is not the most comfortable thing in the world right now, but everything is getting better. when you are talking about the president and economy, it is everything right now. until the economy craters out or unemployment starts to go up, stock market, any of the little metrics we like to talk about -- republicans do not actually have all that much to run against biden on. they have made a big stink about inflation and the economy for good reason, because republicans know people care about that, because they do. as long as things are getting better, those attacks will carry less water.

that is part of the reason why we are seeing so many republicans leaning into cultural war fights over lgbtq issues, what is happening in schools, things like that. without the economy, republicans do not have as much to fall back on and that could be a defining characteristic of the 2024 presidential race. host: before i let you go, the million-dollar question. just in your analysis, are we still at risk of inflation? you said it is too early to claim victory for a soft landing. what indicators are you looking for? guest: unemployment, certainly, is the big question on everyone's mind. i do not think anyone would be surprised if unemployment goes up a little bit over the next several months. the fed itself has projections on the books saying by the end of the year, they expect it to go up enough that potentially

millions of people could be out of work in this country. we are a big country, one million is not the largest number. it is significant. losing a job in the u.s. is one of the most disastrous things that could happen to you as a personal-finance matter. the other thing is wages. people want to know that their wages are keeping up or exceeding what we are seeing in inflation. under the biden economy, low and middle income workers have seen income rise as historically fast rates. they are closing the inequality gap with the upper thresholds of our economy. upper to upper middle-class americans have certainly seen their income go up. they have not seen it go up as fast as low and middle income folks, so they are feeling the economy in a different way than the lower end middle-class, which is always been the case. but the shoe is on the other foot this time, so that is what we are tracking in terms of

quality of life as well as with the macro unemployment rate. host: that has been great information you shared with us this morning. again, plentiful news financial services reporter brendan peterson, thank you again for joining us. we are back to the phone lines, because our question this morning is what is the impact of inflation on your personal finances? do you see things getting better or worse, and how is

doesn't look good for the democrats. i mean, to me, they own this. i voted for the democrats. i was expecting way more than -- >> the president of the united states, accompanied by the honorable senator debbie stabenow and ms. rochelle key.