washington journal, your calls and comments live. and then congressional reporter reese gorman joins us for an update on mike johnson's stopgap spending proposal to keep the government funded. and the cato institute's romia boccia and ben ritz of the progressive policy institute discuss the national debt. washington journal is next. ♪ host: this is a two hour program as the house is expected to come in at 9:00 to pass a stopgap bill that would keep the government from running out of money by the end of friday. across the street at the supreme

court, all nine justices signing off on a code of ethics for the court. democrats criticized it as not going far enough. both of those topics of her comment as we start the program. if you want to comment about the government running out of money or the code of ethics, call us at (202)-748-8000 free democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, and (202)-748-8002 for independents. if you want to text your thoughts, (202)-748-8003 is how you do that. if you want to post on social media about the government running out of money or the supreme court code of ethics, facebook or twitter. the associated press writing that it was on monday adopting

the first code of ethics in the face of criticism over some gift s. it does not appear to impose any significant new requirements and leaves compliance to each justice. the justices have long adhered to the ethics standards and said the misunderstanding was more than just missteps. when it comes to the text it an equivalent of common laweld ethics rules, a erived from a variety of sourc including statutory provisions. the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary -- ethics advisory opinions on the codes of conduct and

of a code has led to the absence misunderstanding that justices of this court, unlike all other j regard themselves as unrestricted by ancs rules. toispel this misunderstanding we are issuing this code which largely represents the codification of principles we have long regarded as governing our conduct. that came out from the court yesterday. we will talk more about the details of this code of ethics with an expert. heading over to the house of representatives, expected today a stopgap build keep the government funded past friday, which is the deadline. the legislature expected to vote on that today. several republicans have expressed concerns over the text or the context of that measure.

some democrats expressing support. you can comment on either of these topics, whether it be the government possibly shutting down and running out of money, or this code of ethics. (202)-748-8000 free democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, and independents (202)-748-8002. if you want to text us, you can do that at (202)-748-8003. comment on either of those things. you can also post on social media at facebook.com/c-span and on x. when it comes to the matters of the supreme court and the code of ethics it was on the senate floor yesterday that senator dick durbin, chair of the judiciary committee, spoke about some criticisms he had. [video clip] sen. durbin: at a glance, these

are similar to the standards that apply to all other lower court federal judges. the court's code of conduct include canons on upholding integrity and independence of the judiciary and avoiding impropriety. all of these are important steps but they fall short of what we could and should expect when supreme court issues a code of conduct. the statement notes, "for the most part, these rules and principles are not new." that is a problem because the court's previous practices were plainly inadequate. the court's new code of conduct does not appear to contain any meaningful enforcement mechanism to hold justices accountable for any violation of the code. it also leaves a wide range of decisions up to the discretion of individual justices including

decisions on recusal from sitting on cases. i am still reviewing the court's code of conduct. for now, i will note the court's adoption marks a step in the right direction. it may fall short of the ethical standards which other federal judges are held to and that is unacceptable. and if it falls short, the american people will ultimately have the last word and the integrity of the court is at issue. we are going to carefully review this proposed code of conduct to evaluate whether it complies with our goal that the highest court in the land not languish with the lowest standard of ethics in our federal government. but this released today, long overdue, begins a dialogue which could end up in the integrity of the court. host: that was senator dick durbin. you can see that speech on c-span.org and on our app, c-span now. call and comment on this idea of

a code of conduct for the supreme court. or if you wanted to comment on the government running out of money, the numbers, (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, and (202)-748-8002 for independents. on the topic of that code of ethics joining us to walk through what was released yesterday and what it means for the court is greg storck. thank you for your time. guest: hello, pedro. host: how does this affect the day-to-day for the court? guest: they said it clearly in the opening statement. this is not new. this is largely a codification of what they have been doing. there is no new mechanism. there is no new review system. there is not even a system

whereby the court as a whole reviews the conduct of one of them. they continue doing what they have been doing. host: did anything in the text revealed to you about how they operate, especially when it comes to those ethics conversations the court has gained attention for? guest: honestly, no. they had released this statement of ethical principles back when the chief justice was invited to testify and that explains here is what we do. this code along with some commentary says the same thing but in a different form. instead of saying here is what we do, it is here is what we expect ourselves to do. that is perhaps the advancement. but primarily, you know, what is

notable in this document is what it does not contain an that is any enforcement mechanism or complaint system whereby somebody from the outside can file a claim. and whether some of than the court itself or the justices themselves will review that. host: does the lower court have any type of mechanism you spoke about? guest: they do. there is this body called the judicial conference that sets policy, except for the supreme court. there is a system. it is multilevel where if there is a complaint, it can go to the chief judge in the circuit or the district and from there there is a system by where a panel can review something. there are disciplinary measures that the conference can take,

short of impeachment. there is none of that in the supreme court therefore impeachment would be the ultimate sanction. but there is not that internal mechanism. host: we saw senator durbin make his criticism from what was released yesterday. what is the likelihood democrats will continue on in their pursuit of more when it comes to this topic? guest: i would expect them to. you heard him say the beginning of a dialogue and senator whitehouse also described this as a first up. a lot of outside groups are not satisfied with this. they point to that lack of enforcement that i was speaking about. i would certainly expect there to be more talk about that. the question that we cannot answer is whether this will quiet the din. whether this will take the air out of the efforts to get the

justices to up their ethical standards. host: what are you looking out for in the days ahead when it comes to the topic of ethics at the court? guest: we know the senate judiciary committee has been trying -- is talking about subpoenaing some people on the outside, like the person who has been a factor of justice clarence thomas. we will see where it goes. we will see if there are new revelations about this. in terms of the process, i would not expect more out of the court. i think for the foreseeable future this is the court's final word. host: greg stohr covers the court for bloomberg. thank you for your time. guest: you are welcome. host: when it comes to this potential shutdown in four days and what the house will do about it today in passing that

short-term bill the new york times reporting hakeem jeffries said in a letter to fellow democrats that the leadership was "carefully evaluating the proposal and remained concerned about the bifurcation of the continuing resolution. the proposal did not contain the policy provisions that would make the plan a nonstarter with democrats but it failed to make progress on aid to ukraine and israel. the white house has been critical but president biden declined to weigh in on whether he would veto a plan if it reached his desk." will you can call and let us know. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, independents (202)-748-8002. david in kansas, republican line. thank you for calling and holding on. go ahead. caller: good morning.

yor clip of dick durbin -- your clip of dick durbin stole my thunder a little bit but the code of ethics that was recently disseminated admits it is a long-standing code. so, i now see this code as an indictment of the justices that did not follow the code in the past. the question should be turned to the court -- what are we going to do about the problems the public knows about? host: how would you like to see a resolve to those problems and what problems are you talking about? caller: i am talking about the conflict of interest with alito an thomas, but i do not see the solution of having a board over the supreme court. we have got to trust the

justices. but i am afraid with his group we cannot do it. host: that is david. we will hear from sharee in north carolina. hello? one more time for sharee in north carolina, democrats line. ok. callers, if you are calling in and you want to comment on these topics when it comes to the government shutdown or the code of ethics, call but be ready to calm on when it is your time. the numbers will be on the screen. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, and independents (202)-748-8002. here's what to expect today when it comes to looking out for the house. they are expected to come in at 9:00 to vote on the short-term

cr that would fund the government temporarily to keep the government from running out of money this coming friday. with republican support, about 50 democrats signing off against. democrats possibly joining on with it as well. some of the details ofhat would include funding until january 19 for topics such as military, construction, vetans affairs, agriculture, energy, water, transportation, and hud. it would fund until february 2 all other agencies. it would extend current spending levels. no changes to that. as the papers and legislators ve noted, specifically does not include any supplemental funding requested by the white house, including funding for

$106 billion for israel, ukraine, taiwan, and the u.s.-mexico border. none of that in the short term bill. on the senate side several leaders expressing support for what is happening in the house including mitch mcconnell,, backing the speaker and this proposal the fund the government even though it does not include funding of ukraine. mcconnell's decision to embrace the strategy means republican leaders are united leading to the deadline. as a result, there is growing pressure on the minority leader to go along. let's try sharee again in north carolina. caller: hi, yes. host: go ahead. caller: hello? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: hello? host: go ahead and ignore your

television and just make your statement or comment please. we will put you on hold while you get that situated. if you go to the huffington post, you heard about what is happening with republicans. democrats also open to that temporary government funding measure from speaker johnson. it was the minority leader saying in that letter he is carefully reviewing that. hakeem jeffries noting mr. johnson would have staggered agency funding in a more piecemeal fashion. jeff in ohio, independent line. hi. caller: good morning, america. good morning, pedro. as far as the supreme court goes i do not think anybody deserves a lifetime appointment. the problem is washington are so

corrupt that once you get in you become corrupt yourself over time. as far as the government shutdown, shut it down. these people are on a spending spree. we are $33 trillion in debt and they are still printing money. we are actually in two wars, whether we are supporting them or not. we are giving away our own military support to these countries to fight it out. why is the u.n. not over there? as far as ethics, there is no ethics on either side. whatever happened to the ethics department? can somebody turn a light on so we can lock these people up for breaking the constitution? what are we going to do? $33 trillion and we are going to kick the can down the road again. they do this every year. every year they do this. they kick it down the road.

we need to hold these people responsible. i will tell you what we should do. we should let them stay in washington and not get paid until they get everything in order. host: let's hear from eric and west virginia, republican line. caller: good morning. you know, you do not hear much about the ethics situation in the supreme court until the conservatives took charge. you are talking about ethics. i think it would be better if we passed a code of ethics for joe biden, hunter biden, and the rest of the biden family. host: as far as the court, what do you think about this release of a code of ethics? caller: [laughs] you never heard anything about code of ethics as long as the

liberals were in charge of the supreme court. it is like the press picks out one republican or conservative and dashes him until the -- bashes him until the public think he is a demon. host: maryland, hello. caller: i think the code of ethics was long overdue. we never heard of what justice clarence thomas was up to with his benefactors. and at the same time, you know, the republican conference has not even passed a single appropriations bill. speaker johnson is trying to do whatever he could do to keep the government open.

once again they need democratic votes even though they are in majority to pass these bills. they have not done nothing and they did not even consider any supplemental funding. so, you know, next year the house is going back to the democrats, they will keep the senate, and they understand that every time this happens they are failing to do their job. host: the associated press reporting of the supreme court code of ethics saying republicans complained democrats were mostly reacting to decisions they did not like from a conservative dominated court, including overturning the right to an abortion. the democrat backed ethics bill that is percolating would require the justices provide more information about potential conflicts of interest and written explanations about the decisions not to recuse. it would seek to approve transparency around gifts

received by justices. the bill has little prospect of becoming law in the republican-controlled house. the other thing is the potential shutdown of the federal government in four days. you can comment on either one of those things. you can also text us at (202)-748-8003. let's hear from ray in ithaca, new york, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. on the supreme court, i support the ethics agreement that the justices have made and i think these are all nine honorable people. i think republicans will support speaker johnson. it only hurts republicans if we shut down the government. all we are doing is giving back pay. let's support this and keep things going and keep working on

deals. host: are you ok with passing a bill if it means a good deal of democrats signing onto it as well? caller: that is fine with me. i think we have to work together. that is the only way we are going to get things done. i am good with that. host: that is ray in ithaca, new york. one of the people commenting yesterday was texas republican chip roy at a press conference on capitol hill. talking about his hesitation to support speaker johnson's proposal. [video clip] >> for the same reasons i proposed the cr on october 1 i proposed as well the cr speaker johnson put forth. they do not want me to continue spending money do not have. the pelosi spending policies and priority and that is what this is doing.

we have republicans who opposed that a year ago who are now trying to say that we need to continue that. that is precisely what was put down on saturday, october 1 that resulted in the motion to vacate kevin that following tuesday. we are doing the same thing. it is still a clean cr. the whole purpose of the bifurcation was to isolate so we can have a debate without letting it get lumped in with the dod and other issues because we need to have that debate. the american people want us to have that debate about how to a secure the border. this is the only real angle to try and pressure secretary mayorkas to do something about it. i proposed the role, adding in the farm bill extension and no changes to chinese ownership of land, no changes to the big

ag overstepping small ranchers and farmers. we will extend it until next september. it will get extended again. this is set for another series of dominoes to kick the cannot into just 2024 but 2025. i think we need to go back. host: that took place on capitol hill. let's hear from joe in north carolina on the independent line. caller: [indiscernible]

host: what does that have to do with the topics we are talking about, whether it be the supreme or government shut down? caller: ethics. do what the law is and do what the books say. i am my own attorney on bringing up all the legal issues in the keep denying me. now the attorney for the defendant is pulling some hanky-panky and they want to throw the motion aside. host: barney is next in florida. barney in florida, hello? one more time for barney in florida.

folks, we told you this over the years but one more time. if you are on hold and waiting to get online, turn your television down. if you listen to the television, there is a delay and that means there is a delay for you getting on air. if you are online, do that. if you are calling in, remember as you do that. here is some of what the document for the supreme court includes. when it comes to the actual text that was released it says a justice should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. a justice should maintain high standards of conduct in order to preserve the integrity and independence. it includes canon two, a justice should avoid impropriety and appearance of impropriety when it comes to respect for the law. a justice should respect and comply with the law and acted all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in

the law. when it comes to outside influence, a justice should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence conduct or judgment. a justice should not advance the private interest of the justice or others nor knowingly permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the justice. a justice should not testify voluntarily as a character witness. you can find that online if you are interested in this document released by the supreme court yesterday. a first for the court. you heard our guest talk about the details. you can find more details online. you can talk about that and the plans to keep the government funded past friday as the house expected to take a vote later today in an effort to do that. michelle in alabama, republican line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead.

caller: what i wanted to say was about the shut down. you have to have the senate cooperate with the house of representatives in order to get anything done. the senate has to cooperate. we are going to keep having these shutdowns until you have the senate cooperate. host: do you think the senate is not going to cooperate? caller: they have not taken up any of the appropriations bills yet, and you have to have them take up the bills and come to an agreement and then you get your funding. host: ok. mitchell in new jersey, democrat line. caller: good morning, pedro. a couple of comments on the pending government shutdown. first, i would argue that the republicans are misjudging their ability to pull this off. this will be the first government shutdown where the

military does not get paid because they have not approved the defense spending. so, that is a core constituency they rely on and i think they are going to have big problems if they go ahead. secondly, with the government spending, it is hard to take the republicans seriously when they will not put any emphasis on revenue and tax and it seems a rather ridiculous that the first thing they propose doing a's cutting the new spending for irs agents which would be a cost-effective measure in recouping funds that tax invaders are getting away with all over the place. basically, our government is primarily a military and

insurance program. that is the bulk of our spending. what is left, the other programs, the american people greatly depend on. even those republicans who are saying cut the debt, cut the debt. yes, we had to cut the debt, but we also have to look at the revenue and factor that into the equation, measure the cost of these programs upon the day-to-day lives of the american people. i think the republicans are misjudging this whole process. host: mitchell in new jersey giving his comments on the government spending aspect of today's two topics you can comment on. a government expected to run out of money by friday, if resolve is not found. you can comment on that. you can also comment on this code of ethics released by the supreme court. (202) 748-8000 four democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans.

independent, (202) 748-8002. an update from reese gorman today, congressional reporter for the washington examiner. mr. gorman, thank you for your time. could you walk us through the details of what you expect today? guest: today, they'll be voting on this two-part cr, the house is, in two separate parts. the first part is four appropriations bills set to expire january 19, energy and water. we can have those four separated elsewhere. the rest of the bills go to february 2. what would happen is you work until january 19 to pass those bills. today they are voted to pass that cr but they are doing under suspension of the rules. usually what happens is the bill would go to the rules committee, where they would vote out a

rule, the rule would go to the floor and it would have to pass to vote on the bill, which would then require a majority. usually what happens, democrats don't vote for rules from republicans, republicans don't vote for rules from democrats. this would ultimately kill the bill on a procedural motion. what you have now is they will bring it up for suspension which requires a three fourths vote to pass. it is likely to get that. we saw this happen at the end of september, beginning of october when the shutdown was to happen on october 1, mitch mcconnell brought out this clean cr, it passed with three fourths support. more democrat did vote for the building republicans, which is likely what you will see here, more democrats will vote for the cr then republicans. republicans have a lot of opposition to this. host: if that does happen, does

that spell further trouble for speaker johnson to the road? guest: i don't necessarily think it does, per se. you heard eli crane told cnn, this is the sentiment, a lot of this is mccarthy thinking, for some people it was policy-based, some people it was personal. a lot of this personal animosity toward kevin mccarthy, looking for a reason to get it out. people view johnson as a true conservative. especially the freedom caucus, they view him as aligned with their thinking. even though he is doing this clean cr, i don't think you'll see as much backlash. but one member who is likely very upset is chuck roy of texas. when asked yesterday in the press conference, you played it earlier. bringing it up on suspension,

would that be smart of johnson? he said if johnson rings it up under suspension, he would be making "a huge mistake." that is the sentiment that you see from some of these members. marjorie taylor greene will likely be upset. they have all brought up their opposition to this bill, especially on suspension, skirting around the procedural motions in the house. that is one thing that you will likely see. host: if it happens today, a cr passes, democrats support in the house, the white house supports as well, what is the plan to keep funding in the long term rather than these short-term measures? guest: the plan to keep funding in the long-term is to pass the appropriations bills in the time allotted. say the bill could signed into law on wednesday, which is a hypothetical.

you can start working on those four appropriations bills that expire january 19, to try and get those past. if you have those four bills passed, you can work on the remaining eight bills until february 2. but there is a lack of certainty that all of this can happen. they have been having a tough time passing conservative only appropriations bills when there is no pressure attached. these bills would never become law. now you have to do put on a tight timeframe with an actual shutdown at the end of it. one thing that johnson said on this gop member call when he unveiled this cr, after this, he is done with short-term crs. if they cannot get the appropriations bills passed by february 2 and it is looking like the government may shut down again, he is done with short-term continuing resolutions. he said he would go to the most painful version of a year-long cr, which means that would

implement cuts across the board. according to johnson, 8% cut across the board of nondefense spending, which would take a huge haircut off of everything. that would also be hard to pass because he would have to pass the year-long cr with those cuts in it, which is unlikely, but this is just the outlook of everything going on right now. that is kind of their plan but it is uncertain that this will happen because they are having trouble passing bills as it is. host: reese gorman report for on congress for the washington examiner, watching what will happen with the short-term funding measure. mr. gorman, thanks for your time. let's hear from armin in florida. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning, pedro. thanks very much for c-span. about the government shutdown, they are saying, republicans say

we have a spending problem. then we have the democrats saying we don't have a spending problem. well, we have a spending problem, but we have a revenue problem. republicans want to cut the irs because there are more tax cheats out there than donald trump. marco rubio said it, he wants the law of the land for government jobs. e-verify should be the law of the land for every business in the united states. that way you can get all of these people working under the table to pay their fair share of taxes and the revenue would exponentially go crazy. we could fund everything we have to fund and they wouldn't be a spending problem, we would have a revenue problem, too much money. host: a couple people on social media on the code of ethics released by the supreme court, a

viewer saying, it los like congress will ha tpolice the supreme court. already proved incapable of doing themselves. no one's taking a fortune will never chan. robert douglas adding, a se-iosed court of ethics even for the supreme court will require total consistent and unwavering commitment on every justice on the court. if you want to make those comments there, x is how you do it. you can also post on facebook. you can always give us a call on the phone lines, if you want to make your comments on either one of these topics. mary is next in pennsylvania on the democrats line. guest: i was calling to see, why aren't we sending hospital ships

to all of these people? host: that is mary in pennsylvania. calling in and giving thoughts on those topics. you can do the same. one of the people commenting yesterday on the funding measures, this was on the senate side yesterday, senator mitch mcconnell talking about support of those actions going on in the house when it comes to keeping the government funded. this is what he had to say. [video clip] >> encouraged by the progress that our appropriations committee has made to restoring regular order to the way we fund the federal government. as i said before, shutting down the government does nothing to advance that work. regular order requires that congress provide itself the time for careful consideration and thorough amendment. i am glad to see that speaker johnson has reduced the

continuing resolution that would do exactly that. there is a lot of work left to do aside from the remaining full-year appropriation bills, glaring national security priority issues continue to demand our attention from israel to ukraine to the indo pacific, and of course, our southern border. house republicans have produced a responsible measure that will keep the lights on, avoid a harmful lapse in government funding, and provide the time and space to finish that important work. host: again, that is on the senate side. if you want to see more, go to our website, c-span.org, and you can follow along on the app, c-span now, to see what various legislator said about this. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans.

(202) 748-8002, independents. this is the headline. let's root for the least crazy plan to avoid a shutdown. this sets up an ugly spending fight next year and offers no additional aid for israel and ukraine which the biden administration urgently wants. gimmicky as it is, johnson's two steps looks like the best option. passing something like it ever to crisis, keep the funding levels through the holidays, and would give the speaker a small victory as he gears up for tough fights ahead. this would let congress use the rest of the year to focus on israel. in short, veteran lawmakers could find a way forward between the two groups. far right house republicans say they will only vote for bills that/the mystic spending by 8% and everyone else who preferred

to stick with the deal president and mr. mccarthy made in may. that agreement would keep spending essentially unchanged up until 2024. some of the perspectives there in "the washington post." one of those perspectives coming from the senate side, majority leader chuck schumer, they have their own version of the cr ready to go. they pulled that off for a few days to see what happens on the house side. we will hear from him in a bit. let's hear from maryland in missouri, democrats line, on the supreme court or the potential government shutdown. caller: good morning. calling about the supreme court and the government shutdown, which i don't think we should do. host: you are on, marilyn. go ahead. caller: we need to do something about this budget, it's ridiculous. we keep going on and on without any funding for the courts.

no one does anything about the bills. we need to get somebody up there that knows what they are doing, pass some laws. host: ok. that is the government potential shutdown. you said you wanted to comment on the code of ethics for the supreme court? caller: i certainly do. they need to get their act together. i don't think they know what the word means. host: what do you think about the code itself? caller: release of the code? host: what do you think about the release of the code of ethics? caller: they need to get their act together and get something done. host: that is marilyn in missouri. chuck schumer yesterday on efforts to keeping the government open. [video clip] >> the last thing the american people want to see is another unnecessary and painful government shutdown.

democrats only don't want a shutdown, and many of our republican colleagues have claimed they don't want to see when either. merely the act of approaching a shutdown is damaging. last friday when moody's announced they lower the united states reddit rating -- credit rating, citing continued polarization as one of its reasons, that proved to be true. the answer for aborting a government shutdown is what i have said all along. bipartisanship is necessary. i have said on multiple occasions that if we are going to work together to keep the government open, speaker johnson will have to avoid pushing steep cuts or poison pills that democrats cannot support. for now i am pleased that speaker johnson seems to be moving in our direction by advancing a cr that does not include the highly partisan cuts that democrats have warned against. the speaker's proposal is far

from perfect the most important thing is that it refrains from making steep cuts while also extending funding for defense in the second tranche of bills in february, not the first in january. host: again, if you want to follow along what happens on the senate, particularly when it comes to discussions on funding, keeping the government open, you can do with a couple of ways. go to our website, c-span.org. if you want to do it on your phone or other device, download the c-span now app. short access to video that we take in during the day, events in the house and senate, special events, as well. you can download that wherever you get your apps from. when it comes to that code of ethics, by the way, the editors of the wall street journal taking a look at what was released yesterday. the supreme court ethics code, the editors write, talking about

democratic reaction to it. sheldon whitehouse and other democrats want congress to detail ethics procedures to the high court. under his bill, complaints to the justices would be reviewed by lower justices. recusal requests would no longer be the decision of justices themselves. this would be an invitation to turn every big case and there recusal standoff. a justice might reasonably recuse for a series of reasons such as financial interest in the matter in controversy, or if a close relationship within the third degree of a party, lawyer in the case. the editors also writing this morning that the real misunderstanding here is believing that critics are operating in good faith. despite the headlines in recent months about which justice went on the occasion with which wealthy friend, those people did not have business before the court. no one has come up with a

genuine conflict of interest or a case where the recusal standard has been broken. that is the editors of the wall street journal can either take on that. this action by the court over the last few days was seated by several stories and publications taking a look at practices of some of the justices. we will show you that in just a bit. let's hear from donald in michigan, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. good morning to the american people. i think these laws for the supreme court, it's about time. we need to get one for clarence thomas, definitely. the new speaker of the house is going to have his hands full trying to get his members to work for the american people instead of working for vendettas, personal grievances

that they have with other members. all in all, i think biden is doing the best of the situation that he was left with after that criminal trump left office. best wishes to mr. johnson. hopefully he will put a package on the floor that both sides of the aisle can find agreement on. host: greg is next in mechanicsburg, pennsylvania. independent line. caller: good morning, mr. echevarria. first, a comment on the trees in the background. i'm a couple hours away. it is very green there, hard to believe. the new studio for c-span looks like a starship knockoff. the rug looks like a microchip. host: it is a map of the

district of columbia. the studio is brand-new. the video that you see is video, part of a revamp into the show that i think is very nice. caller: and shall government shutdown. i have been a lawyer for 40 five years. the wall street journal that you just read something from it, the criticism is not valid. nobody is talking about sotomayor, ginsberg. let's try to be objective about this. as to the budget, i saw the segment with representative roy. chip roy is very articulate.

he should be on a lot more. another suggestion is, why don't you have callers -- used to do this maybe 10 years ago. you would have a caller on one side, caller on the other, and you would let them argue a little bit. host: that goes back quite a ways, even further than 10 years, but i do remember. as it comes to chip roy, what did he say that particularly struck you? caller: he answered every question directly. directly. he didn't read anything, unlike chuck schumer, unlike hunter's dad. it is refreshing to have somebody listen to a question and answer the question. host: greg in pennsylvania, when it comes to speaker johnson and the efforts he is macon to pass the bill, washington post

highlights now that a plan is official and a shutdown looms, democrats are signaling openness by not broadly criticizing it. leadership is still discussing how to approach the measure. appreciate that there are no conservative poison pills attached to it. democrats also worried they could lose their leverage to pass emergency funding for ukraine and israel. the story also adding that before johnson made his decision on the proposal to avert a government shutdown, many republicans that he should ultimately be supporting passage of a clean extension to possibly tax on israel aid, because members of the freedom caucus would not move immediately if he did. several members said they would not make a motion to vacate johnson from speakership, several admitted a decision to pass a clean funding extension ostensibly with the help of democrats, which would start to test their patience. some of the political

back-and-forth about the passing of legislation to keep the government open. the end of friday is the deadline. look today on the house side, as this process starts, to see where it goes, follow along on c-span, our main channel, if you wish. you can also follow on our app, c-span now. a few more calls until we start looking at budget and debt matters with guests on that discussion. alabama is next. stand on the republican line. hi. caller: good morning. host: how are you? caller: it is a cool morning here in alabama. i want to make some references to the supreme court. they need to be together up there. they are not too supreme in my book. back to the government and johnson. they have to get it together up there and has some funding and stuff.

it is hard to be a republican sometimes in alabama especially because everything is already kind of baked in here. we don't have as much choice here in alabama as we use to. the deal for me, why does the government keep on doing this over and over again about the shutdowns? all you do is get the american public scared. you have people out here who don't understand, they think they are not getting their social security checks, ok? simple, basic things like that. i don't know what we have to do, but something has to give about this whole thing. host: john is next in maryland. independent line. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i am well, go ahead. caller: the supreme court has a very high esteem to view

of themselves. some pigs are more equal. they have not realize that they should be like every other judge on the federal bench and treated the same. host: as far as this code of ethics that was released, does it make any strides into changing that practice, perception? caller: the fact that it exists is like a whitewash. it is just laying some tissues over the eyes of people to think that they will actually circumscribe themselves and limit the things that they do, which they haven't, i think in their entire history, aside from their success in building under budget. host: that is john in maryland. a story by the wall street journal this morning about the fbi see, federal deposit insurance corporation. one of the lead stories, sex, booze, bank regulation. fbi c is rife with bias.

a supervisor in san francisco invited employees to a strip club. a supervisor in denver had sex with his employees, told other employees about it, pressed her to drink whiskey during work. senior examiners texted photos. all of the men remaining employed at the agency. i say all that because one of the thing being looked at is some of the practices. the fdic chair expect it to appear before congress today to talk about a variety of topics but probably those highlighted in the paper, from a senate banking hearing the oversight of financial regulators, will feature the chair, vice chair in front of the senate banking committee. watch live coverage at 10:00 on c-span3, c-span now, our mobile app, c-span.org. later on today before the senate rules committee, a hearing confirming the backlog of military nominations,

highlighting the fact, an effort to circumvent alabama senator tommy tuberville's month-long hold on military nominees. the committee will meet to consider a proposal to allow several of those nominations to be confirmed all at once. the story making news over the last couple weeks. if you want to see that hearing at 3:00, that is on c-span3, c-span now, .org, too. from california, republican line. rory. caller: good morning. i was looking at some of the stuff about the shutdown and i begin to realize the standalone, why the democrats don't like it, they cannot use it as a slush fund. ukraine will go to ukraine come israel to israel, and you cannot shift the funds around for any political shenanigans. i also heard something else. they are about ready to split the ins, one for enforcement and

the other for processing. now some of the congressmen want to separate it, where you do processing people and the others, as they come across the border, they kicked them back. i don't know what to say about that. i heard something, and then the democrats, cnn keeps cutting it out. host: ok. mary is next in florida. democrats line. caller: hi there. the country is not going in the right direction, which i think you will find a lot of people agreeing to that statement. campaign-finance, if that was done, we would have people serving us that are not beholden to big money and corporations. just follow the money. it is unreal.

here, they are talking about the irs. how many people get away with not paying any of their taxes? they are getting richer and richer. that is a big part of our debt. it was the tax breaks that was given to the corporations and the wealthy. i don't understand why so many of these big money are strictly donators to people that are in office. if campaign-finance was done, we could take out the dark money, and we wouldn't have these businesses owning our representatives and senators. host: (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can text us your thoughts on (202) 748-8003.

either on the potential government shutdown on friday or the code of ethics released by the supreme court. in michigan, this is ruth, democrats line. hi. caller: yes. i would like to talk about the code of ethics. it's about time that this happened. these republicans have just ruined our supreme court, and i would like to have that stopped. trump is involved in this entirely. host: why do you think the code of ethics will change these practices? caller: it won't because they set the code up. we need somebody else who does not go along with their shenanigans doing it, putting the code out, doing an ethics code. and the ones that broke the code should be removed. host: under the section of the document released by the supreme court yesterday on the code of

ethics, topics of disqualification -- a justice is presumed impartial as an obligation to sit unless disqualified. a justice should disqualify himself or herself in which partiality might be questioned. that is where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the justice could fairly discharge his or her duties. sanchez instance includes, but are not limited to, a prior stage of the proceeding the justice represented a party in which they previously practiced law. or the justice knows the justice's spouse or minor child

has a financial interest in the subject matter or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the impact of that proceeding. there is a lot. you can also find it on the website. this from teresa in texas, independent line. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a remark regarding the budget. i used to work with the estate before i moved back to texas. i think if we want to make some type of recommendation where the republicans and democrats, if they were bipartisan and could come up with a budget, we could just not put them back into office.

if they cannot come up with a budget, they cannot come back to the office. that is all i got to say. host: teresa in tyler, texas talking about matters of the budget. the white house press secretary talking about this proposal coming from the republicans and from house speaker mike johnson. the approach it takes when it comes to extending the government funding. [video clip] reporter: i wanted to follow up on the cr. you previously said this would not be a recipe for chaos. i am wondering what the president's message is to those democrats who seem intrigued by this proposal. for instance, the minnesota representative has said the cr is a perfect solution. >> the latest proposal is

definitely untested. this is something that the president was saying moments ago before we came out into the briefing room. we are going to be in touch with democratic leadership in the house and senate. our number one goal is to make sure we move -- we take the best path forward for the american people. but this is untested. that is something we are seeing coming from them. look, this is something they could have avoided. instead of avoiding where we are, days from a government shutdown, they have wasted time. democratic leadership is going to have that conversation in the house and senate on how to move forward. host: that white house briefing taking place nearly every day except for days like today where the president is traveling to california for that summit he

will take with the chinese president. this will take place in san francisco for several days. talking about several issues. the president expected later on today before taking the trip to make comments when it comes to climate change. you can stay close to the network for all of that taking place today. one of the other stories that took place on capitol hill yesterday concerning the homeland security secretary. this is the headline from the new york times saying the house blocks a snap impeachment vote on mr. mayorkas, saying a small band of republicans joined democrats on monday to block the snap vote. the secretary turning back an attempt to oust him before the gop led committee has completed the investigation into his handling of the border. it was forced by marjorie taylor greene from georgia but shot down by a vote of 209 to 201.

some veteran republican lawmakers voted with democrats to block the impeachment. republicans have pushed for months to make mr. mayorkas the first cabinet official to be impeached since the secretary of war in 1876. but any impeachment effort that passes the house would meet with the defeat in the democratically controlled senate. jane in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: hello. how are you this morning? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: i am calling on behalf of republicans. i do not know why everybody has such a problem with them. i think they should let it happen.

you should not be doing anything until your house is in order. when your house is in order then you can proceed and do the smart thing and take care of the american people. that way it would eliminate a lot of bias. that is all i have to say. thank you very much. host: mike from illinois, independent line. caller: let me put something in the pipe for the supreme court. if it is not in the ethics, it is not going to matter. plus, congress has to vote to pass it. if citizens united is not going to be revisited, it is not going to matter. the patriot act is not going to matter. the covid and the shots and the whatnot. host: before we go too far

either stick to the code of ethics or the potential shutdown. caller: i am hoping they will add these interims. host: but why should that be added to a supreme court code of ethics? caller: because they were ruled and they should never have been. all the way back to the marriage thing. two-thirds were against and they passed it. the same with abortion. they need to revisit this. what they did to the fdic. host: bonnie in minnesota, democrat's line. caller: i do not believe they will shut the government down because it is almost thanksgiving. they are not going to want to be there through the holiday, so, i

think they will just, you know, fund it for the time being. host: ok. caller: we will celebrate christmas and be all holy and get drunk on new year's. host: jerry in virginia, republican line. you finish us off. caller: it is crazy that somebody thinks they are not going to want to shut down because of thanksgiving. i got to go to work. i got to worry about christmas because the economy is terrible. but i am calling because if anybody watches this does not think mayorkas needs to be impeached -- i am glad for the eight republicans. they are the rhinos that needed to be voted out. host: thanks to all who participated. watch out for what happens on c-span when it comes to the house. expected at 9:00 to start the

process of passing legislation to keep the government funded past friday. part of that will be our discussion when it looks at budget. the cato institute's romia boccia will join us's as well as the progressive policy institute's ben ritz. those conversations, coming up on "washington journal". ♪ ♪ announcer: monday watch the conclusion of c-span's series, in partnership with the library of congress, books that change america. it will feature the words of cesar chavez. published in 2002 it is a collection of speeches and other

writings by the leader. it recounts the history of the farm labor movement and explains how chavez used nonviolent methods like marches and fasting to deliver his message. miriam powell will join us on the program to discuss the book. watch books that shaped america, featuring the words of cesar chavez, monday live at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. also, be sure to scan the qr code to listen to our companion podcast where you can learn more about the authors of the books featured. ♪ ♪ announcer: c-spanshop.org, browse the latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.

there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase supports our nonprofit organization. shop now or anytime at c-sp anshop.org. ♪ announcer: since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress. from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ ♪ announcer: 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 thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capitol to wherever you are, because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. announcer: washington journal continues. host: a discussion on debt and the federal budget with two guests. ben ritz with the progressive policy institute and romia boccia of the cato institute. guest: thank you for having us. host: we have been talking about this idea of keeping the government funded via cr. what do you think about that as a strategy in light of a

long-term strategy to fund the federal government? romia: short-term resolutions are not ideal because you get stuck with the policies of the past. however, the political reality is the divisions between the house and the senate are too big which is why we are seeing the stopgap funding bills. the question is what is at the end of the road? in most cases, we see commerce pass an omnibus -- congress pass an omnibus bill before christmas. now we are talking about a continuing resolution that goes into february. but there is not much time left for agencies to implement any new policy changes that congress will want to pass. i think it is a sign of the dysfunction we are witnessing more broadly in this congress, the data being the major one,

and the appropriations cycle is just a signal of that dysfunction where members rally around to demonstrate whether policy interests are and using appropriations as a way to gain leverage. host: the reason it seems to be getting democratic support for the time being is there are no new things being introduced. ben: one of the challenges former speaker mccarthy had was trying to load these bills with partisan poison pills to rally his own caucus. i think the fact that johnson is leading -- at least at this point -- with a bill that does not have any of that and does not do egregious deep spending cuts makes it a more serious offer. host: if this is a short-term right now, what is the guarantee

another short-term process happens next year should those deadlines come? ben: great question. what we need to see is republicans be willing to stick to the deal they made back during the debt limit deal. in may, there was an agreement by president biden, the leadership of all four parties, the majority of the conferences agreeing on spending levels for next year. part of the reason we are in this mess is because under mccarthy there was a push by the far right to cut spending below those levels. i think in order to not be jumping from short-term solution to short-term solution and finally do full year appropriations there needs to be a recognition by house republicans that they need to stick to the deal they cut with everybody else. host: the house republicans, one of the things they are touting as we are passing appropriations bills now. we have not seen that before. romia: i actually think this goes both sides. senate democrats have also not been sticking to the fiscal

responsibility act. they have been loading up their appropriations bills with additional emergency spending for things that do not really qualify. just regular operations, including salaries for the fbi, for example. it is abusing the emergency spending category to increase spending above those levels. that is also contributing to the dysfunction. i think both sides need to grab themselves by the nsoe and say -- nose and say we made a deal. host: our guests with us until 9:00. if you want to ask about federal debt and the budget, (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, and (202)-748-8002 for independents. if you want to text as your questions or comments, it is (202)-748-8003. do you think the senate and the house, should these bills pass, the figures will be different.

how do they resolve that and can they resolve that? romia: they will have to eventually otherwise we will not have full year appropriations bills. although we are talking about six to eight months with this continuing resolution. i would say that another poison pill is in all of the cases we saw the biden administration try to tack on additional supplemental spending. we tallied it up at over $160 billion on top of a $2 trillion deficit seems fiscally irresponsible. i think the whole process shows congress is fighting over a shrinking portion of the budget. spending on health care, social security, and other mandatory programs continues to grow and that is where we need the focus to shift. the pie is going to continue to shrink. we are going to continue to see

dysfunction in that portion of the budget and wrangling for limited resources if we do not address the bigger drivers of spending and debt. host: to the idea of the president's supplemental request, particularly israel and ukraine, how should that be handled, or should it be handled? ben: i think it is important that we fund these priorities. these are important national security challenges and, you know, especially with regard to ukraine. if we do not deal with the problem now with russian aggression, i think there is the potential for that to become a greater cost in the long term. right now, we have ukraine fighting for itself. we do not have to put u.s. troops there. we are just keeping them armed and they are willing to fight for their independence and hold the line for democracy. that is an important investment that we are able to protect and fully fund. i would not nickel and dime -- when we are talking about a $2

trillion deficit, $160 billion is not that much. but they will become more difficult to address in the future. host: everybody seems to have an idea of what those drivers are. how would you define them? ben: the cost of our retirement and health care programs growing faster than the revenues we need to support them. host: ms. boccia. romia: the treasury shows 95% of the federal government's un funded obligation -- between what they plan on spending and we project to collect in taxes -- 95% is driven by two programs

and that is medicare and social security. host: we will have discussions -- and i am sure questions on it -- but congress has talked about these issues for years, decades. why until this point was there no result to correct the problem? romia: we fundamentally face a political problem when it comes to these old age benefit programs. we are seeing this in the selection cycle. president biden made it toxic to even discuss the need for reform of medicare and social security. we have seen even republicans that have been fiscally conservative on these issues retreating as they are being attacked in campaign videos. that is not conducive to finding a bipartisan agreement to tackle what are structural challenges our nation faces as the u.s. population is aging, fertility

has declined, these programs have not been structured in a way that they are affordable for generations to come. both medicare and social security are projected to run out of bartering authority before 2033. less than 10 years down the road where congress will have to make a decision what to do or beneficiaries face automatic cuts to the tune of 2030% and those would hit indiscriminately -- 23% and those would hit discriminate late. -- indiscriminately. ben: we have seen a chronic unwillingness to tackle entitlement spending. that is a bipartisan problem. donald trump when he ran for president also ran on a similar pledge. also, unlike president biden, he has stuck to the republican pledge of no new taxes. the combination of republican

tax cuts and bipartisan unwillingness to talk about entitlement spending is why we have had the problem. the other point i want to raise is for the last decade we had warnings of a fiscal crisis coming, but there was not any pressure to deal with it. interest costs were low coming out of the financial crisis and i did not put any pressure. we are now seeing interest rates and inflation really skyrocketing. we are going to see not trillion dollar deficits but trillion dollar interest payments. i think that should hopefully light a fire under lawmakers to address this in a way they have not been willing to for some time. host: we have calls lined up. howard in indiana, democrat's line. caller: good morning. i hear these discussions relative to debt and federal budget and i am frustrated every time these take place.

they are not rational. the federal government is funded, first, by appropriations, and then the issuance of a sovereign fiat currency. it is not based on revenue generation. it is not based on loans that we have to issue. we can issue currency free of taxes, free of loans or debt. we have to have a rational discussion where we establish our federal budget based on our productive national capacity. things like medicare for all should be funded. just this morning i read a report out of jama that says the life expectancy of americans have fallen six years, citing preventative care is one of the major drivers. a single health care system

would enable that. when we budget our productive capacity we enable the individual to be effective. host: gotcha. mr. ritz. ben: thank you for your call. i think it is important we look at our real productive capacity, but right now we are at it. we are running $2 trillion deficits. we have had the highest inflation in my lifetime and that is something economists across the spectrum agree is a sign we are -- it is the time to look at getting our fiscal house in order. i think the debate over productive capacity has passed. no matter what economic theory you subscribe to we are now spending above that capacity and we have to look at training it

in. romia: the position that i heard from the caller is referred to as modern monetary theory. we saw this on display at a budget committee hearing about whether there is the need for a physical commission. the government should not worry about interest payments or borrowing because we can print all the money that we need or want. that is a recipe for massive inflation and we saw some of this during the pandemic as the fed was buying a lot of treasury bonds to support the emergency spending. there is a real risk that if washington does not come to an agreement that there will be more pressure on the federal reserve to issue more currency in order to support treasury

borrowing at a time when the markets seem to be retreating and less interested in buying long-term government bonds as investors expect higher inflation for longer given our massive deficits. this is a very dangerous and misleading theory to base public policy decisions on because there are several countries that have plagued this out, printed money and spent without limits, and they are venezuela and zimbabwe. things have not been pretty. host: this is from our republican line in ohio. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am going back to what she said about the omnibus bill and our continuing resolution. i think the continuing resolution needs to make sure that we have something addressing our borders. i know the 117th congress did

the omnibus bill which far exceeded their term, which is called legislative entrenchment. that kept our hands tied until september. i think the continuing resolution is not good unless we got something done with our homeland first. host: is the best continuing resolution a clean resolution without any attachments? romia: when congress debates spending levels they should be debating policy priorities as well. but because there are disagreements about things like additional border funding the question is are you willing to use the disagreements and risk a shutdown? they do not seem to be interested in having one with thanksgiving around the corner. it is unlikely that provisions like this, which are considered contentious, will be attached. host: mr. ritz, sometimes that

works, attaching these things? ben: i think attaching things to get something done generally makes sense in the context of broader long-term spending bills. when you have a continuing resolution and you have a shutdown threat in the next couple of days and you are nowhere near compromise, that is not the time to attach things that could lead to a shutdown. host: robert is limit texas, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro and the guests. what are your thoughts concerning universal based income as part of a policy -- as part of an appropriations package as a right of entitlement? hear me out. there have been a number of people currently and historically that have advocated for it. richard nixon tried to pass it through congress in 1969 as part

of the family systems plan. thomas payne in his pamphlet advocated for it as well. to pedro, when will you have scott stanton on the show? he is a strong advocate for universal-based income. with the amount of research he and andrew yang have conducted they could fill a book. host: ok. thank you for the recommendation. you may have to explain what it is. ben: universal basic income is the idea the government will whether through the tax code or a check in the mail that they will send everyone a monthly subsistence allowance. it is like social security for everyone. i think there are two questions. does it make sense to do in the aggregate? does it make sense to do on an appropriations bill?

on an appropriations bill the answer is no. appropriations bills are for discretionary spending and that is part of the budget that is appropriated each year. this being a new entitlement program we would want to consider that in a broader context since it is a long-term program. as far as whether it makes sense, i think there are arguments for and against. i am not a fan but the biggest challenge is if we decided to do it, people would have to pay for it. andrew yang proposed to fund it across the board with a value added tax. i think such a tax has merit, but we have to realize it is going to be a tax in excess of president biden's $400,000 pledge. the amount proposed was not nearly enough to cover the cost of what he wanted to do. romia: i would only add we have

to think about what we are trying to accomplish to the degree that fiscal conservatives and libertarians were in favor. it was always in the context of eliminating the welfare state. making welfare provision more efficient by giving people direct cash instead of the litany of government agencies that administer a variety of programs. also in the context of programs that benefit those in need that tend to have unintended side effects. discouraging work, for example. but just adding it on top would actually discourage work and there is the question as to what is the purpose of this additional payment? host: $33 trillion is the current u.s. debt. that is what they tell me. the treasury department says it is $66 trillion. maybe i am reading that wrong. how did we get here? romia: it has been a combination

of policies. in the big picture, the government has spent more than what it has raised in revenue in every year. that gap contributes to this growing national debt. in terms of the bigger picture, medicare and health care spending has been one of the largest drivers. we should also not discount emergency spending. these repeated bouts of spending increase -- like the biden administration is calling for an additional $160 billion -- they add up. roughly one out of every $10 spent has been labeled as emergency spending. whether that was following 9/11 or spending during the great recession or the massive emergency spending we saw during the pandemic. there is also a trend where

government abuses emergency spending in order to get around spending caps, which are a result of congress focusing on the wrong thing and trying to tighten discretionary spending while allowing mandatory spending, which covers health care and social security and other welfare programs to continue growing unabated on autopilot based on laws that congress adopted decades ago. that is where we need to grab the reins and make reforms. host: where do you think tax revenue comes in? romia: tax revenue is fairly high at the moment. it has been retreating over the past year, but if you look at the increase in spending since 2019, it was about 46% while tax revenue grew 28%. we are seeing rising tax revenues chasing ever higher spending. there is a limit to how much the government can tax. that is a reflection of our

economy's productive capacity and the willingness of americans to pay those taxes. especially wealthy income earners who tend to have more options to move themselves and their families abroad. there is only so much you can tax without imposing higher taxes on all americans. to pay for the welfare state that democrats envision i do not think they will be able to hold -- i know they will not be able to hold to the $400,000 tax pledge. everyone is going to have to pay higher taxes whether that is income taxes or a new tax. host: same question to you. ben: i agree with some of what romia said. one important piece of context is that even though taxes are going up part of that is a combination of inflation, populace growth, our economy growing. the right way to look at it is a

percentage of economic output. taxes are not the highest they have been for all time. it is a more reasonable level. but i also think as our society is aging the reality is we are going to need some mix of modernizing those programs, but also, revenue to support them. in the past, our society had more workers paying the benefit. that is going to require higher tax revenue. host: two guests joining us. you heard from ben ritz with the progressive policy institute. a little bit about what you focus on. ben: i am the director of funding america's future. we are a centerleft think tank focused on fiscal policy and focused on trying to strengthen public investments in a fiscally responsible way. i like to think of us as the voice for a fiscally responsible centerleft.

host: romia boccia, a little bullet about your institute. romia: we are a libertarian think tank based in washington, d.c. and we advise congress and educate the public on the classical liberal tradition, economic freedom, and the benefits of peace and individual liberty for everyone. host: let's hear from linda in connecticut, democrat's line. caller: good morning. first of all, i think we should call things with actually are. social security and medicare are insurance programs. i do not know about you but i have been paying for a long time. i have never had an insurance policy who did not adjust their premiums to accordingly pay what it owes to its policyholders. social security and medicare have not had a premium increase

since reagan was president. now, this is math. this is not policy. we have to raise the premiums on our insurance policies. they are not entitlements. social security has funded itself and will continue to do so until i believe 2030 maybe? but the whole discussion is not honest. we do not call things what they are. host: we will see if our guests agree. mr. ritz. ben: thank you for the question. i absolutely think higher premiums need to be part of the equation. i would say two things. number one, there has been somewhat of an automatic increase with the increase in the payroll cap that has been growing with wages over time. the other thing is that is not just a question of revenue

versus spending. there is also an intergenerational component. you know, maybe it would have been the right move to just raise the premium 20, 30 years ago but we now have a situation where we have been underpaying into the program. it is already spending more than it takes in and has been doing so for many years. there was a question about whether these costs of the benefits for folks whose premium did not cover the cost should that be borne by the younger americans or should be balanced? i am more on the balanced side. romia: i am also with the balanced approach. but social security and medicare benefits are getting more generous every year. if you look at the initial benefit formula the determined benefits, it is only loosely related to what people paid into the program.

the initial benefit index for wage growth is one of the biggest drivers behind social security benefits getting more generous. we should also be looking at who needs those benefits. are they getting adequate benefits? are there people getting benefits in excess of what is reasonable? for example, a high earning couple can collect more than $9,000 a month from social security. i think that is excessive. about 80% of americans agree that we should look at reducing benefits for social security and medicare for the wealthiest individuals. rather than increasing taxes, which could reduce future investment and therefore reduce economic growth, if we cut back benefits for wealthy retirees, we could save a lot of money in a less harmful way. host: paul in indianapolis,

independent line. caller: good morning. i think in terms of the question of how we got here, over a long career in the department of defense i saw the carter administration, clinton administration, and obama administration cut back on the muscle of the defense department, the maintenance and training. and then when the next republican administration gets in the democrats insist on increasing the spending on social programs equal to the amount of money required to get the department of defense back to the point where it is useful. that has added a huge amount of money to the spending. we need to delink those two and then we can add onto the extras. host: let's leave it there. romia: i agree with the caller. thank you for that point. it does not make sense to tie

defense and non-defense spending. the obama administration was particularly guilty in calling for parity that every one dollar increase needed to be matched on the non-defense spending. a lot of non-defense spending is for things that should be local, state, or private level. there is no reason to link those together other than for political leverage. i think the caller is right. ben: i do not fully agree. i think a lot of these discretionary programs is the core of our public investment. science, education, infrastructure, all of these things we think of as basic public goods is in that tiny part of the budget. i do think those are very important. but i also want to go to one thing the caller said which is this idea of excessively deep defense cuts over time.

my first year at ppi, congress appropriated for discretionary spending a non-defense level above what president obama asked for and appropriated above what donald trump asked for, for defense in his budget. i think the idea the military is starving right now and that we have cut it to the bone, i do not agree. as we have these increasing national security needs, like israel and ukraine, it is important we do not underfund our defense capabilities, but we also need to be reasonable about what we need to be spending. host: from dennis in pennsylvania, democrat's line. caller: thank you for taking my call. nancy mace was on your program about two months ago. she made the statement that there had to be spending cuts. she turns right around and says

there has to be tax cuts. she did nothing. did nothing to solve the debt problem. the committee for a responsible budget says there has to be tax increases and spending cuts. remember, it was dick cheney who famously said deficits do not matter. thank you and have a nice day. host: mr. ritz. ben: thank you. i completely agree with the caller. i do not know -- he said it perfectly. we do need taxes as part of the solution and when we have republicans doing the trump tax cuts, trillions of dollars in lost revenue, and then saying we cannot afford spending programs? i think that is hypocritical. it means republicans are not actually addressing the problem and both sides need to be putting forward serious savings as opposed to just using taxes

to pay for new spending or using spending to pay for new tax cuts. romia: i think americans have long been suffering from what buchanan called fiscal illusion of getting more government than they pay for. we should pay for the government we want and then we will make better trade-off considerations. the issue we have right now by not parent tax revenue with the level of spending that the government is doing, we just drive up debt and deficits with the potential to drive into a debt loop where interest rates grow where we have to borrow more to pay the interest, and that further drives up interest rates. that is a scenario we should avoid. it is not taking trade-offs into consideration that got us to this point. while i do not agree we necessarily need to raise taxes -- because we are getting more

government than we should be getting -- they should be more closely aligned. host: one of the things we have seen the last couple of weeks is -- i think they were created by romney and manchin -- creating a debt commission. what do you think about the idea and what makes it effective? what will make it work? romia: the idea of a fiscal commission has a lot of merit, especially when it comes to tackling politically divisive issues, which medicare and social security are the prime candidates. we have seen this work in other countries. in the u.s., we have had commissions in the past that have been successful. if we look at one of the successful commissions that closed military bases after the cold war ended, i think it is a good model for overcoming political division, dealing with a national problem, and doing

so by empowering a commission with real authority in not forcing congress to take an affirmative vote on something that would be difficult for them to pass through congress. i do think the current approach has flaws, but congress is moving the right direction and i am encouraged by legislators on both sides taking the debt more seriously and putting their weight behind the commission. host: what would make this an effective working commission? ben: i think the thing we need to most make it effective is congress needs to be willing to look at what they produce. you put a bunch of experts like me and romia in a room, we can come up with something we could agree on. whether that passes through congress is up to congress. i think the challenge -- romia

said it would be great if they did not have to take the hard vote. the reality is, you know, it is the placement of faces and you could argue that is something the military should be doing. fiscal policy or budgets reflect our values. the power of the purse is congress' in the constitution. a broad rewrite congress will need to take an up or down vote. but having independent experts as part of the conversation is something we have pushed for. i think there needs to be a balance where you have independent experts making sure the conversation is serious. you are having real conversations about the trade-offs, what is rational economic policy, what works, but you also need politicians at the table. if we produce a great plan that does not go anywhere, that is another failure. host: is it an idea at this

point or is the movement to making this happen? ben: i think there is real movement. what happened was in september there was a push awesome independent experts -- both of us included -- to do a fiscal commission. the house introduced a fiscal commission bill. speaker mccarthy added that to a continuing resolution. one of his many proposals that 198 republicans have already voted for and that we have this bipartisan bill in the senate. 1/10 of the senate is already on board. i think there is real momentum and speaker johnson has sent it is one of his top priorities. i think there is momentum. i think we just need a little bit more support from my side of the aisle to get it across and we are doing what we can. host: can you elaborate? ben: yeah. i would just say speaker johnson has said one of his top

priorities is the fiscal commission and democratic party leaders have not gone there yet. thankfully, most of them have not come out against it. i know there are some on the far left who are not so thrilled about the proposal. but i think democratic leadership has been more quiet about it and i think they will need to support it ultimately. for it to be successful because if it was just a republican spending cut commission, that is going to be a failure. frankly, i think that should be a failure. but in order for it to get across the finish line we will need more democratic support. romia: i agree. there is momentum. i would say it started even earlier. senator romney and senator manchin introduced the trust act that was in the game last year and earlier this year in negotiations over the debt limit. it ultimately did not get attached.

one of the reasons it did not get momentum is it ended up being considered more a republican priority. it is really important for this to be bipartisan. i am worried that even if a commission came up with a great proposal, for congress to have to take that affirmative vote to put it into action could kill the proposal. unless we are really close to medicare and social security running out -- because that is what happened with the greenspan commission, only because there was the threat of automatic benefit cuts were they able to get something through congress. i know the fiscal commission is looking at more expedited procedures, no amendments, just an up or down vote, but i question whether that is enough political cover to allow a

majority of republicans and democrats to sign off on entitlement reform. host: nick is in florida, independent line. caller: i have a question for both of the guests. how much money will be saved if we do away with all of the billionaires' tax cuts? should congress bring a bill to the floor, whether they like it or not, if you do not pass the budget, if you do not pay our bills, nobody goes home? host: two separate ideas. romia: most of the tax cuts were not for wealthy individuals, but i think there is a lot of low hanging fruit when it comes to subsidies being doled out through the tax code that we should address. also, tax policy does not make sense, like the state and local tax deduction the democrats seem

to want to bring back. i am going to have to go to ben. i forgot the second part. host: should congress stay home. romia: i am a fan of no budget, no pay. you should pay for performance and this is part of congress' job. i recognize it could be considered a silly proposal but this was proposed in 2013 and it worked. ben: i will take them in reverse order. i am not as much of a fan of no budget, no pay. it makes intuitive sense. it passes the gut check but most members of congress are pretty wealthy. they do not need the paycheck.

i think all it does is discourages those lower and middle income folks who represent a broader swath of our community from serving. it puts undue pressure on them -- a lot of them are voting to keep the government open and their wealthier colleagues are voting to shut it down. i do not think that is fair. i do not think it would -- it worked in one instance but i do not think that would solve any of these fundamental problems. the question of billionaire tax increases, i absolutely think we should be raising taxes on billionaires. it will not be surprising from sunday from the progressive policy institute. but i also think there is only so much money at the top and we are going to have a report later this year that really illuminates the fact that we cannot just get everything we want from taxing the top 1%. if we want a government that works for everyone, everyone has to make that work. host: we have a few minutes left.

let's hear from daniel in virginia, republican line. caller: good morning, c-span. quick comment and question. my comment is i had the opportunity to live in denmark for a few years, which is supposed to be the socialist bastion utopia. i can tell you that they still have private hospitals and they still have a desire to have second opinions. but when you have so much of your money taken in taxes the middle class can no longer afford to buy private insurance and get second opinions. that is one point. my question, particularly for your guest from the ppi, what are inherent governmental functions? can everything be centralized and done by the central planners and experts? what can be pushed off to the state and local level and why did the taxes have to be collected at the federal level? why can't we use state and local

areas as experiments and see what works and what does not work? host: thanks. ben: excellent question. i think core government functions are mainly public goods. things the government can do that the private sector cannot. i think to the caller's point -- which is a federalist point about state versus national government -- there are some functions better handled at the state level whereas the government needs to be closer to the people. but we need to be wary about a race to the bottom where some states, you note, they are competing against each other to attract jobs. where we see differential investments between different states of different levels of wealth. the national government has a role to play in equalizing those

inequalities so everyone has a fair opportunity. i think it is important that the government fulfills those responsibility. romia: i will take the health care component. i think putting more of the health care dollars that the federal government provides in the form of subsidies directly to people so they can buy insurance that fits their needs and allowing them to save any excess if they buy lower-cost plans, they could then use that for retirement, deductibles, etc. and could bring about price transparency, lower prices, increased competition, and allow for quality health care where individuals are in control of their own health care dollars and health decisions. we need to move closer to that. medicare advantage is one

example but i think we can go further. host: from henry and alabama, we are running short on time. jump in with your question or comment. caller: i think we should tax anyone above $400,000 a year. their taxes should be raised and you should not cancel out social security at any time in your employment. for the full length of the employment you should have to pay social security. that will solve the problem. secondly, we need to load up several b-52 bombers, wipe out the iran oilfields.

host: a little beyond the context but, ms. boccia. romia: i think workers are already paying too much into social security. i think it is troubling for lower and middle income workers. it makes them hard to stay for their own needs. in terms of expanding payroll taxes to all incomes, we would need to look at how much more the government will pay out. i think benefits for the highest income earners are already excessive and if we cut that type between what people pay what they get out, we change the nature of the program, in which social security will be a welfare program. then we should look at who should really get those benefits. ben: i agree with what romia said. number one, even if we got rid of the payroll tax cap, that is

not enough to make the program solvent. that is not a solution anymore. it could have been years ago but it would not work now. i think -- it sounds easy to make everybody pay the tax but to apply that to all incomes over $400,000 is a 12.4% marginal tax increase. i do not think that is necessarily bad for the wealthy but if we use that for social security, how are we going to pay for the unfunded medicare obligations? host: ben ritz with the progressive policy institute. progressivepolicy.org if you want to check them out. and romia boccia of the cato institute. catoinstitute.org if you want to check them out. romia: thank you. host: follow along on our main channel.