♪ host: good morning on this thursday, august 29. we begin with campaign 2024 and the economy.

which candidates do you prefer on the topic? republicans dail in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. you can post on facebook.com/ cspan, or on x at @cspanwj. the former president's edge on the economy has flipped. look at the numbers from this poll conducted august 23 through 25. 43% said they prefer former president trump's approach on the economy. 40%aid they would prefer the

vice president's approach. a july poll taken by reuters found that the former president had an 11 poin advantage on the economy. that has fallen. the three point difference reuters notes isoo small to be significant given the four percentage point margin of error. the economy as a topic the candidates hit often when you're on the campaign trail and in ads. take a look at two recent ads by the candidates. [video] >> every day across our nation families talk about their plans to the future. they talk about how they will that prices are too high. i will make it a top priority to bring down costs. we should be doing everything we can to make it more affordable to buy a home. under my plan more than 100

million americans will get a tax cut. i will help families, letting you keep more of your hard-earned money. as president i will be laser focused on creating opportunities for the middle class that advance the economic security, stability and dignity. look with a fight for. donald trump pfizer billionaires and large corporations. i will fight to give money back to working and middle-class americans. i'm kamala harris and i approve this message. [video] >> everyday prices are too high. food, rent, gas, afterschool clothes. that is called by the nymex. -- bidenomics. up almost 50%. there's not much left at the end of the month. bidenomics is working.

it feels so hard to just be able to get ahead. we are very proud of bidenomics. host: the vice president and former president with recent ads on the economy. our question for you is, who do you prefer on this issue? thomas in california, democratic caller is up first. thomas, good morning. democratic caller. thomas, one last call for you. are you there? let me move onto cheyenne in st. petersburg, florida. independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question. i just heard that the democratic platform includes a tax on unearned capital gains, something crazy like that. is that true? host: i don't know off the top of my head. give me your reaction to that. why you bring that up?

-- why do you bring that up? caller: you might be forced to sell to pay the tax. does that strata common is him? -- isn't that straight up communism? host: who are you voting for? caller: i'm definitely voting for trump. i cannot throw the economy into the toilet with unearned capital gains tax. that shows a definite ignorance of economics. for some it important as the presidential candidate to go and propose communist policies for our country in the future, i think people better get their noses out of social media and get into and not canonic textbook and figure out what these proposals are going to do to our country. host: here is what the vice president has proposed on taxes from newsnation.com. harris proposed an opportunity

economy that focuses on the middle class, which includes tax relief or whether 100 million middle-class and lower income families. harris has not provided specifics but says the former president's proposed elimination of taxes would be devastating to the middle class. harris calls for a 44% tax rate for top earners, up from 39%. like the former president, harris would favor the elimination of taxes on income that comes from tips. harris has called for an extended child tax credit worth up to $6,000 in total tax relief for families and new were children -- new were children. and the corporate tax rate to jump from 21% to 20%, which the nonprofit -- 28%, which estimates an increase to 20% would reduce the federal budget by around $1 trillion over the next 10 years. cheyenne, i would do more research if i were you on what you were just talking about. roy in nashville, tennessee.

republican. who do you prefer on the economy? caller: good morning. my name is roy. i'm calling from nashville. i 100% president trump. i cannot wait to vote for him a third time in november. with all due respect to the vice president, all anybody has to do is take a look -- frankly anything she said over the past few decades as attorney general of california or senator from california or vice president. she has said some of the most radical left things imaginable in the united states of america. you look at with the first caller alluded to. some of these communist policies she's proposing. it is crazy. i don't know who her advisors are. if she has her opponent calling her communist frequently why unearth earth would you propose price controls? that is my question. host: let's hear from eddie in

georgia, independent. caller: i don't know. people must have bad covid. they don't understand when trump was in office trump didn't do nothing. trump stands only for the rich. -- when biden got in office my big account is over $10,000. when trump was in office, it was $100. trump ain't talking about no policies. that's all he wants to talk about, his people, how they treated him. trump gets back in office and we are going to be in trouble. host: what do you like about the vice president's economic plan if she were to win in november? caller: i like that she's going to be working for the american

people. not just trump's family. i like she is trying. she is for everybody. she sounds like she is for everybody. just like when biden -- what biden did for the people. trump ain't going to do nothing. i'm telling you. i don't know why these people are backing trump. he says rumbling, talking about nothing. host: let's listen to the former president at a stop in glendale, arizona. he spoke about manufacturing tax and tariff policy. [video] >> they always say we have more liquid gold under our feet than any other country in the world, including saudi arabia. including russia. we will use it to reduce taxes

and energy costs for our people. we will reduce your energy bills in one year by more than 50%. that is here and that is everywhere in the country. that includes heating, air conditioning, electricity and gasoline for your car. i will turn the united states into a manufacturing superpower, more than it has ever been. we will bring back jobs to america. we will no longer allow foreign countries to take our jobs and steal our wealth. we will make our own products and we will buy far less from foreign countries than we are buying right now. we will make it here. other countries that make us pay a tax to do business with them will be charged the same tax when they send their product into the united states. it will be called the trump reciprocal trade act.

if china or any other country charges us a 100% tax or tariff, we will charge them a reciprocal tariff of 100% or 200%. [cheers] in the words of a great president william mckinley, the protective tariff policies of the lives of our countrymen sweeter, brighter, brighter, it is the best our citizenship and civilization can ever have. better destiny for our people. we ought to take care of our own nation. we have to take care of our industries first. we have to take care of our country first. host: the former president on his economic plan should he win in november. take a look at more details. this was put together by the tax undation.

this is what the former pridt we want to do wld want to do. lower the corporate tax rate from 21% to 20%. kehe expiring income tax cut an estate tax from the 2017 tax cut and dobbs act permanent. exempt tips from income taxes. the vice president says she agrees with that. the forr president would exempt social security benefits from taxatn. consider replacing personal income taxes wh increased tariffs. he would like to impose a universal baseline tariff on all u.s. imports at 10% to 20%. impose a 60% tariff on all u.s. imports from china. tax large private universities endowments. what you think about those ideas? which candidate do you prefer on the economy? darlene in georgia, republican caller. caller: good morning.

i am a registered republican. but i will never, and i mean never vote for donald trump. donald trump does not care about this country. the problems we are having today are because of donald trump's tariffs. donald trump goes to arlington national cemetery and what does he do? the most sacred place in america where we honor our dead. he turns it into a photo op. he does not care about our veterans. no, he does not care about veterans. when people ask you are you better off today than you were four years ago, i am a republican and i am better off today than i was four years ago under donald trump. i cannot vote for a man that sexually assaults women. he's a convicted 34 time felon. host: who did you vote for an

2016? -- in 2016? caller: hillary clinton. host: 2020? caller: joe biden. host: will you be voting for the vice president in november? caller: i will be voting for kamala harris in november. host: who was the last republican you voted for? caller: brian kemp. host: what do you think about your governor fundraising for the former president? caller: what i think about my governor? governor kemp fundraising for donald trump? that is his right. this is america. you can do whatever you feel is right in your heart. that is why we live in america. that is why i'm a registered republican. we have the rights we have to protect. under donald trump or former president trump, whatever he wants to be called, those rights will be gone for my daughter's,

my granddaughters. yes, i am a pro life. let me get that straight. i'm pro-life but just as many republicans as democrats have abortions. i believe -- this is what i used to believe. the choice should have been made before you lay down. i realize in my heart a lot of women do not get that choice. a lot of women, their lives are on the line. host: i will leave it there. we will stick to the economy. james from south carolina sends " kamala is a disaster on every issue, including the ecomy we were in much better shape under donald. trump 100%. make sure you are registered to vote and make your voice heard." dwight from fairfield, california. independent.

which candidate do you prefer on the economy? caller: on that question, which candidate do i prefer, i don't prefer either one of them. host: why not? caller: former president trump will continue giving corporations their huge tax cuts. kamala harris will continue giving illegal immigrants their money for free. the person that will be stuck with the bill is me. a hard-working american. what about me? neither talked about state and local taxes. i'm looking at former president's tax cuts, the corporation tax cuts which are permanent. the individual tax cut which is expiring but he did not say he wanted to make this permanent as well. i don't like either candidate. i'm focusing on the down ballot. we have to get congressman and

senators in there that are trying to look at the people and saying somebody will have to quit paying the bill because either way if trump gets in there or kamala, the middle class is trying to go to work and they will be stuck with the bill like we always are. host: which party do you prefer down ballot to address what you are talking about here? caller: the party that wants to cut my taxes, that wants to secure the border, that wants to make it a possibility that my kids and grandkids might be able to afford a home. whoever is talking on the issues that affect me. not just mouthing the issues. looking at the records. my governor is gavin newsom. what a joke. this guy gives me everything. i'm a native california but they are just giving everything away. my kids and grandkids can't buy a house but they have a program

for illegal immigrants to buy a house. $150,000. are you kidding me? they are taking that money from me. i'm the one that will fit the bill. we are hard-working people. we try to work hard. we go nowhere. host: you may be interested. front page of usa today, inside the wall street journal are stories about recent polls on the american dream. usa today. how much does the american dream cost after historically high inflation? they write in here that the american dream now costs 36% more for an additional $47,000. the median household income has grown 46% according to the census bureau. the bad news. only about one in eight

households earned enough 10 years ago to pay for the dream. that ratio has not significantly changed. they are talking about buying a house, having a car, medical bills, groceries and education, clothing, utilities. that is what they are breaking down in usa today when it comes to the american dream. how much do these things cost? they compare it to a decade ago. in 2014, a family car, suv, $11,000. today, $13,000. a 95% increase in the median housing costs and groceries up 19%. medical up 32%. usa today. fits into what we are talking about this morning and the first hour.

which candidate do you prefer on the economy? which do you think could make the american dream more attainable? joe in dayton, ohio. republican. caller: good morning from dayton, ohio. donald trump, i support him 100%. i was better off for years ago than i am today. kamala harris flip-flops worse than a fish out of water. who knows what her economic plan is. cnbc business channel the last two days destroyed her economic plan. by the way, you are incorrect. she does want to charge 25% on unrecognizable tax gains. that is on your real estate and everything else.

the overall inflation under the biden-harris administration is almost 20%. she's the one that signed off on the inflation reduction act, $1 trillion. our inflation is still high. it has ticked down a few percentage points. also on my friend from the republican from georgia, at least donald trump did pay respect to the fallen soldiers and kamala harris and biden never did. host: on what you said about unrealized capital gains, here is from axios on that. silicon valley was burning up the socials this week after learning kamala harris has endorsed a tax on unrealized capital gains. lots of what was shared was inaccurate. reality check. this would only impact a small subset of america's wealthiest

people. most investors would be spared. harris did not release a new tax plan. her campaign said it agrees with a series of items in president biden's last budget proposal. the most relevant of which were non-starters in congress and did not become law. this includes the new tax on unrealized capital gains. it applies only to individuals with the least $100 million in wealth who do not pay at least a 25% tax rate on their income. inclusive of unrealized capital gains. payments can be spread out over subsequent years. within the $100 million club, you only pay taxes on unrealized capital gains if at least 80% of your wealth is in tradable assets, not shares of private startups or real estate. one caveat for this illiquid group is that they would be a deferred tax of up to 10% on unrealized capital gains upon

exit. in short, it would not apply to most startup founders or investors if any group should be tweeting mad face umoja's it is top hedge fund managers. that is from axios, the reality of kamala harris's plan to tax unrealized capital gains. let's go to the vice president's acceptance speech at the democratic national convention. she spoke broadly about how she would address the economy. here is what she had to say. [video] >> this is personal for me. the middle class is where i come from. my mother kept a strict budget. we live within our means. yet we wanted for little. she expected us to make the most of the opportunities that were available to us. and to be grateful for them. because, as she taught us,

opportunity is not available to everyone. that is why we will create what i call an opportunity economy, an opportunity economy were everyone has the chance to compete and a chance to succeed. [cheers] whether you live in a rural area, small town or big-city. as president i will bring together labor and workers and small business owners and entrepreneurs and american companies to create jobs, to grow our economy and to lower the cost of everyday needs like health care and housing and groceries. we will provide access to capital for small business owners and entrepreneurs and founders. we will end america's housing shortage. [cheers]

and protect social security and medicare. host: the vice president in chicago when she accepted the democratic nomination. we are asking you this morning, which one of these candidates do you prefer on the economy? eleanor in utica, new york. democratic caller. caller: definitely kamala harris. she represents america. in every way, foreign and domestic. she does not represent the trump 1% corporate people. she represents really the the republican pride and joy of abraham lincoln. of the people, by the people, for the people. that explains the attitude i have. my first election at 18 years old was for eisenhower, a very

fine man. maybe not presidential bit a fine moral citizen. we don't have this with mr. trump. you very much. host: what specific economic policy do you think will work for the middle class? you heard from the vice president. caller: i feel as if she has her hand on the problem. i feel as if she will come around to us. the four years we had with mr. trump created a great deal of trouble as well as his foolishness that went with covid and all the female problems and his amoral personality. i think all those problems developed with him. by the time mr. biden got into place we had a lot of solutions to come up with. i still think we need time. with him and then that will

continue with her. kamala harris will be -- host: eleanor in new york with those thoughts. jimmy in new york -- independent. hello? host: jimmy, it's your turn. caller: what is the question? host: what candidate do you prefer on the economy? caller: i'm unaffiliated. i'm a prior republican but if i did have to choose it would be donald trump just because of the years he was in office versus the years joe biden and kamala harris have been an office. it shows -- it does end up being about each individual. what did they speak to as far as each individual's needs?

host: how is the former president speaking to your needs? caller: he's not speaking to my needs at this point. he's not an office. everything he has been saying, the democrats keep saying he's not talking about any issues. he's not bringing up any policies. the same way he is running out is how he ran and 2016. the economy was booming. jobs are up. local here in the states. i don't see how the democrats are saying he doesn't do anything. they worry about him being a felon. that is his personal stuff. it's a popularity contest. that is all it is at this point. host: i want to show you and others in the opinion section of the new york times. they take apart both economic

plans by the vice president and the former president and said they are shredding basic economic good sense. here is what he writes. "in a speech on the economy, economic policy in raleigh, kamala harris uncorked a beautiful rift that slammed a certain policy proposal is nothing more than a national sales tax on the american public, one that would raise the price of everyday products and basic necessities and cost a typical family $3900. for once a presidential candidate was speaking like an economist with a realistic grasp of supply and demand. the proposal she knocked was that of her opponent, donald trump. namely a tariff, as much as 20% and can steadily higher on chinese imports. she got it right. tariffs are attacks paid by american consumers -- a tax paid by american consumers. when mr. trump tried them during

his administration it resulted in no new net jobs in american consumers, including employers that depend on foreign steel were stuck with higher prices, hurting homegrown industry. moreover, other nations retaliated against -- america produced a little more in areas where it is less competitive such as washing machines and so less of what it does best such as soybeans. that nonsensical result is when mr. trump's proposed tariff sanction for mates one of the two worst ideas to surface in his campaign. he writes unfortunately the other one was unfurled in the same speech and with equal violence to free-market principles. mrs. harris sought to control food prices. she was hard-hitting and specific in describing mr. trump's failed tariff policies. she was vague in pitching price controls. she would not go after all companies, only bad actors that ask what crises by price

gouging. forget her proposal is a problem the longer exists. over the past year food prices rose a mere 1%. that supermarkets operate on notoriously thin margins. her ignorance of price controls almost without exception have the shortages, supply chain disruptions and eventually higher prices." that is the new york times breaking down the economic ideas of both candidate. perry in philadelphia, who do you think is best on the economy? caller: looking at my personal portfolio i have to say donald trump. when donald trump was in office the interest rates were much lower, gasoline was much lower. we were -- we had energy coming out of everywhere. when you look at what -- you go to the grocery store. i used to go to the grocery

store and buy four bags of groceries under $50. now three bags is $75 to $100. it is terrible with what is going on with the young people today. i don't know how they can get married and buy a home. it's impossible. i worked hard my whole life. when i see all these illegals coming into the country, who was going to pay for that? they will have to do something. there are 20 million in the country that are doing nothing. i go to the local mall the other day and there has to be 100 sitting out under a tree doing nothing. host: talking about the economy and immigration. roy in wake forest, north carolina. republican. caller: good morning. like either just spoke to me before -- before me was exact the right. he was a democrat.

i want to say democrats and republicans, your neighbors and everything, we mostly agree 75%. it is just the media that tears us apart. just like you correcting that lady about tax policy. democrats tax, which means they make your government. they believe in bigger government. republicans tend to cut taxes because we want less government. that is not what always happens but we believe in the people. we believe in people making money and carrying the government. you have some call correcting that lady this morning. then you came back with the paper that basically said yes, that is what she is considering doing. taxing on gathered taxes before you sell a property which make people have to sell their property. why don't you correct every democrat that calls in and says trump and russia collusion when that was all found out -- hey

are you still with me? host: i'm listening. i'm sorry i gave the perception that i was correcting her. i said at the top i was not sure of that specific policy off the top of my head. we found an article about it later. i said you might want to do more research. did not mean to come across as a correction to her. roxanne in spartanburg, self-reliant. democratic -- south carolina. democratic caller. caller: i was calling. i believe kamala harris would be better for the economy. even though i don't have young children, i like the tax credit for people to help them get ahead. childcare is a big expense. i have a home. if they were to give the $25,000 to help first-time homebuyers, that would be all right. the problem with america is the

selfishness. everybody wants for themselves and they think about themselves. you have to but god wants you -- even though you might not have much, you are supposed to help the least of. it boggles the mind. he -- trump put us in the situation with covid, which everybody seems to forget. they keep talking about the economy was better for years ago. i'm sure somebody had a loved one who died. all because of his incompetence. and him trying to make him look good. you had a loved one who died. to say the economy was better, you're lying. as for the other gentlemen a couple of calls before talking about at least they pay their respects at the graveyard at arlington, he should not have put it on tape. if i die, nobody should put it

on facebook or tiktok. if you cared about me, either call me or come see about my family or send a message. that is the way to do anything. as for roy, the one who just made that comment to you, yeah you are a trumper. what man -- look who they look up to. thumane man is not supposed to disrespect a woman if her mama taught you better. host: i will leave it at that. you brought up what has made the front pages of the newspaper. this is the washington post. attempt to enforce rules led to dispute as sacred cemetery. earlier this month, donald trump's campaign contacted military officials about visiting arlington national cemetery to mark the third anniversary of the islamic state bombing that killed 13 u.s. service members during the evacuation from afghanistan. federal law prohibits election related activities that military cemeteries.

arlington is the most prestigious and sacred of all. pentagon officials were deeply concerned about the former president trying to visit -- turning the visit into a campaign stop at the didn't want to block them from coming according to officials and internal messages reviewed by the washington post. officials said they wanted to respect the wishes of grieving family members who wanted the former president there. this is from the washington post. yesterday, ohio senator jd vance was asked about this media coverage of the former president's visit to arlington cemetery. here is what he had to say. [video] >> i think first of all the altercation at arlington cemetery is the media creating a story where i don't think there is one. there is verifiable evidence -- there is verifiable evidence that the campaign was allowed to have a photographer there.

they were invited to have a photographer there. there is evidence that the families of these four people who had their loved ones die three years ago at avenue your, -- abby gate, those 13 americans, a lot were there with the president. they invited him to be there answer them. that is not an insult to the memories of their loved ones. they wanted donald trump there and thank god we have a president who stands with our veterans instead of one to run -- instead of one who runs away from them. [applause] it is amazing to me that you have apparently somebody at arlington cemetery, some staff member had a disagreement with somebody. they have turned -- the media turn this into a national news story. you know what i think our veterans care more about? that the vp nominee lied about his military service.

the other thing our veterans care a lot more about is that three years ago, 13 brave, innocent americans died. they died because kamala harris refused to do her job and there has not been a single investigation or single firing. look, sometimes mistakes happen. that is just the nature of government, the nature of military service. but to have those 13 americans lose their lives and not fire a single person is disgraceful. kamala harris is disgraceful. we are talking about a story of those innocent americans who lost their lives. it is kamala harris is so asleep at the wheel that she wants to yell donald trump because he showed up. she can go to hell. host: senator jd vance making news, those comments at the end of his visit on the campaign

stop yesterday. we covered it here at c-span. you can follow along with our coverage if you go to c-span.org /campaign2024. we covered tim walz yesterday. the minnesota governor and the vice president met up in georgia and started a tour of that state yesterday. it will end today. they also plant to take this afternoon an interview with cnn at 1:45 p.m. eastern time. later the vice president will have a rally in savannah before returning to washington. the former president will have a rally in michigan at 3:30 p.m. and a visit to la crosse, wisconsin at a town hall represent by tulsi gabbard at 7:00 p.m. eastern. find all of our coverage on

c-span.org, on demand there. you can download the free video mobile app c-span now. don in concord, new hampshire. who do you prefer on the economy? caller: i name is dan. host: what did i say? sorry. dan. caller: it's interesting to listening to these callers and the last thing you played was supposed to be what economics. the democrats love to change the subject. let's go through the list. under the biden-harris, now harris administration, the cost of auto insurance is up 51%. gas is up 40.7%. eggs are up 40 percent. housing is up 21.4%. meat is up 21%. used because cars 20%.

milk is 13%. people need to understand basic economics. look at what costs are now. this is their record. this target with them with the war on energy and the spending. this build back better built was almost $2 trillion. when the people came into power the inflation rate was under 2%. inflation is dropping a little bit but the overall costs are up. this is the economic record. this is what people need to look at. host: the former president mentioned the price of cars. the former president talked about that recently during a visit to virginia. here's what he said about reviving the industry. [video] >> the next up is michigan.

we will save the auto industry. we will not have an auto industry. they are making all electric cars in china. we will save the auto industry and bring back many plans. we will make automobile production bigger than it ever was in this country. it will be easy to do. we are not going to let china build massive auto factories in mexico where they are building them now. they are building massive factories in mexico. they think they will make cars in mexico, sell them to us and we will lose all of our jobs. not going to happen. host: the former president during a recent visit to virginia talking about the auto industry and what he would like to do about it. he talked about tax policy and the difference between the two candidates. how would that impact the economy? more from the democratic national convention and the vice president's acceptance speech. here's what she said about her policies versus the former

president's. [video] >> everyone here knows he does not actually fight for the middle class. he doesn't actually fight for the middle class. he fights for himself and his billionaire friends. he will give them another round of tax breaks that will add up to $5 trillion to the national debt. all the while he intends to enact what is in effect a national sales tax, quality trump tax -- call it the trump tax that would raise prices on middle-class family by almost $4000 a year. [booing] the trump tax hike. we will passive middle-class tax cut that will benefit more than one hundred million americans. host: that was the vice president in chicago when she accepted the nomination. we will dig into what both candidates are saying on taxes

in the next hour of the washington journal. until then, which candidate do you prefer on the economy? jason, gunnery, alabama. democratic caller -- montgomery, alabama. caller: you don't owe nobody no apology. time and time again trump supporters call in complaining about you just -- the presenters simply giving facts. you can't be held accountable for maga land gas lighting. good on you for taking -- being the bigger person. second, speaking of the magaland gas lighting, it is crazy his

own cheapest sse call soldiers losers but all of a sudden you play piece by a man to pretend like trump really loves the veterans. it is all a lie. as far as the economy, i trust that harris-walls ticket -- walz ticket. trump is a liar. trump added $8 trillion to the deficit. a lot of that was due to covid. now republicans pretend like they didn't know or no one knew all the spending under him would add to inflation and that would be something that biden would have to deal with. all these years later, four years later, the inflation rate is 2.9%. the target is 2%. it is coming down and it's close to the target now that it has been. it takes time to recover. it is the same -- the republicans are going to the same playbook they did in the obama years. they always said the target should be 3% annual growth. even though obama inherited the second-largest recession in american history, republicans

never had a plan to make it do better. they just complained about how fast it was progressing or not progressing. with biden it is the same thing. covid is the thing. it happened. a lot of that stuff, the ripple effects and consequences were inherited and now they are mad and they want something to complain about. host: listen to roger lowenstein's piece from the new york times talking about both candidates' policies. "another cause for huge government deficits. under mr. trump and president biden with the national debt nearing a record as a share of the economy, the nonpartisan committee for responsible federal budget said we are hearing shockingly little in the way of plans to turn things around. mrs. harris's agenda to lower cost for american families is an agenda to reallocate cost the respondent entitlement and tax credits would increase deficits by an estimated $1.7 trillion to

$2 trillion over the next decade. he goes on to write, mr. trump has countered with a suggestion to and taxation of social security payments, which would increase deficits by approximately $1.7 trillion. he made matters worse by pledging to exempt fixed income, a dubious attempt at industrial policy encouraging restaurants as opposed to home construction or brazen attempt to buy votes. good enough or mr. trumpet good enough for mrs. harris who adopted the idea. some of mrs. harris's plans are laudable, especially on childcare which would counter poverty. even good programs need to be paid for. they should be weighed against the need to stabilize existing programs such as social security and medicare. neither campaign has proposed significant or specific spending

cuts. how about eliminating child credits on higher incomes or raising the mortgage deduction?" a little bit more from roger lowenstein. you can read that in the new york times opinion section for yourself. bill from republican, florida. caller: hi greta. my choice for the economy is trump. no doubt about it. it's interesting. all they have to do is listen to what the candidates say. kamala will say i will a million times but she never does. she cannot say i have. well, actually she can. she can say i have caused 13 deaths in afghanistan. i caused a horrible economy. she can say that but she cannot say i have created a wonderful

economy. trump can. that is why i voted for trump. he's definitely the only way americans are going to state america first. host: catherine is a democrat in burlington, new jersey. good morning. caller: this is catherine and burlison. long time no see. host: thanks for calling in. caller: with harris, that will be my choice. she is a woman and i think a woman may have gone to the supermarket and bought some stuff for the family, not mr. trump who is rich. she would do a better job at looking at people who have ordinary lives. i would say everybody talks about the economy like the weather. there is nothing you can do about it.

shop wisely, greta. host: kim from jessup, maryland. democratic caller. which is better on the economy? caller: i definitely look at donald trump's former business career. if you look at that, he has not been a successful businessman. i'm confused by those that believe that he is adept at handling economic issues. every business has failed. while the united states is not a business. we are handling people. we are handling people's concerns. you can't run a country like a business and that is where we fail. that is where we come into the moral issues with donald trump. with the appearance of being -- i don't want to get into morals

because is not necessarily always about morals. it is what drives him even as a businessman. you can't run this country like is run his businesses. they have all failed. those that continue to go back to he is such a great businessman, where do we see that? the four years he was in office? we know that covid was the primary director of what was going on in our country at the time. he is simply not a good businessman. i'm concerned about those that would think he is the correct one to run our country. host: we will go to mark, a republican in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i support trump. the reasons why our numbers. they always talk about tariffs causing inflation. they did studies on this.

not just multiplying numbers out for 10 years. these are liberal colleges, harvard and others found a 20% tariff does raise inflation just a tad. it is called .7%. all this nonsense about multiplying the number is wrong. tariffs have run this country for hundreds of years prior to the taxes being imposed upon us in the 1930's. it would work again. as far as the tax cuts go, i swear the democrats are just crying about how much debt we added to our bottom line. now she's proposing and suddenly it's a miracle and she's the smartest person in the room. the debt -- trump under debt. he basically was running $800 billion of deficit spending per year. you had a guest on the of the day that noted this number. you look at biden-harris.

$1.6 trillion. these people really do not know how to manage anything. it is proven she's coming back with this hyperinflation we already had. she is saying she will spend trillions and trillions of more money not paid for and she was to wipe out the rich people with her 25% tax on unrealized gains. this is catastrophic. you can kiss this country goodbye. there is no way we will do better. the numbers don't lie. one thing people say, trump is a failed businessman. yes, he's had failed businesses. jimenez managed that terribly. after that he came back improved to the american people he could run a great business with his hotels and golf courses and every thing else. this is the type of thing we are looking at. we don't look at everybody cozy individual problems that they had all through their lives.

we know what he's going to do and that's why we support him. host: victor, independent, stone mountain, georgia. caller: good morning. i will cut to the chase. kamala harris will be the 47th president of the united states and that's it. bye. host: diana, hartford, connecticut. republican. caller: i will be voting for trump. president trump when he was president before this term. according to cnn, we had the best economy ever. according to an nbc reporter we not only had the best economy but we had prison reform, immigration reform, peace in the middle east. the reporter said i've known a lot of presidents but this is

the only president to meet promises and cap them. i'm a retired teacher. i taught for 36.5 years. my top salary was $57,000. when i retired i got $34,000. under president trump, that went up because my retirement and if it -- benefit is based on the economy. i have annuities. when biden got into office i lost everything i earned under president trump. everyone has mentioned the price of gasoline changed. we went from being energy independent to being dependent on another country. everyone knows if you have to buy something from another country you will pay extra. that is the leeway it is. he hated trump so much that he will not do anything trump did. our great economy went down the tubes. gas prices skyrocketed. we have more than the middle

east. as far as harris, she's part of that biden-harris policy. i don't trust her because we know she does not tell the truth. i would not trust a socialist communist in my country. host: nancy is next in myrtle beach, south carolina. democratic caller. caller: hello. am i on? host: who do you prefer on the economy? caller: thank you for taking my call. i prefer the democrats. it has been proven over and over again that the republicans always run up the economy and the deficit and the democrats have to always bail them out. every single time. if we use common sense, when president obama was president

the economy was great. that is the economy that trump is taking credit for. he did not even run on the economy. when he ran, he ran on build the wall, drill, baby, drill. the economy was great. for two years it was great until his term kicked in. the last two years was covid. that is what -- we are post-pandemic. we are trying to recover from the mess he did. he's done the economy. he's done with the country. he has ruined everything. he continues to do that. host: nancy's thought some south carolina. we will drill down into tax policy next. erica york will discuss the tax

proposals from both of these candidates. later, david sterrett, principal research scientist at the associated press-norc center for public affairs research discusses public opinion polling and campaign 2024. >>

>> "washington journal" continues. host:

we believe the tax code should be simple, neutral, transparent and stable in it should not stand in the way the vice president tax proposals, some of them, she's proposed exempt tax income from taxation similar to the former president. expand the child tax

credit. 3000 for older children. expand the earned income tax credit for filers o do not claimcredit for fathers who do t claim children is so what s proposed. housing tax credits including -- a credit for new homebuyers and a credit for the construction of starter homes. overall, your reaction to these proposals. guest: she is outlining a vision of much higher taxes for businesses for high income and net wealth individuals in the united states taking tax rates above what we see and significant expansions of social programs the tax code that require the irs to run more

programs whether it is the housing tax credit, expanded to a larger group of parents to qualify it. it is a combination of much higher taxes on the one hand and much more involvement of the tax code in different aspects of economic life. we don't yet have a full accounting of exactly how it would stack of and that is because we are at the point where i would characterize her tax plan and still coming together. we are getting details of how she would structure things. it is impossible it is likely that it will be deficit increasing. host: and the other idea of how deficit increasing it would be? guest: the policies in the biden budget which harris has said she

throws her support behind together added up to $5 trillion of tax increases. when we modeled that we found it a bit closer to $4 trillion because of uncertainty in new types of taxes that may not raise as much revenue as anticipated and when you add the expanded tax path -- child tax credits and earn income tax, the revenue dropped to three drilling -- $3 trillion. when you text that on with the larger $6,000 amount, that costs another trillion dollars. the premium tax credit making those permanent takes a few hundred billion more dollars. housing subsidies are uncertain at this point but likely a combination of those proposals would use up all of that or potentially more of all that increased revenue.

so the ballpark could be, hard to put a precise number because there is an certainty on the spending proposals but maybe somewhere around a $1 trillion increase in the deficit. host: you said it would eat of the revenue she would bring in if she were elected. she has called for a 44% increase per tax partners up from 39% and has called for the corporate tax rate to jump from 21 to 28% which the nonpartisan committee estimates and increased to 28% would reduce the federal budget by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. guest: our estimates also found that would be a $1 trillion tax increase but a child tax credit expansion alone costs more than that so it just shows how tough it is to pay for these large programs. another thing our analysis shows

is the economic trade-off of higher taxes on business investment in higher taxes on work and savings. we estimate the tax increase in the biden budget include the higher capital gains rate and corporate rate would shrink the economy in the long run by 1.5%. there is a trade-off when it comes to the economic incentives under the higher tax rates that need to be considered. host: let's talk about the approach to capital gains. what does she say? guest: she has three changes. one is taxing at ordinary income rates that make more than $1 million and so they tax rates would be raised up to 39.6 percent. there are additional taxes that would be expanded like the net income tax that apply to capital gains and taking that up to the 40 4% that you mentioned. additionally, right now capital gains are not taxed until they

are realized. if someone owns a business that is increasing in value, the increase in net value is not taxed annually but only from the sale of the business. for a very high net welfare taxpayers, at least 100 million dollars, that would change. capital gains would be taxed on an annual basis through what has been termed the building or minimum tax of 20 5% rates of people who have assets that are worth that much would have to calculate your minimum tax by taking the regular taxable income plus unrealized capital gains or the increase in value of holding and pay the minimum tax of 25% on that. that would be payable over time and lots of rules that address what do you do it and asset on market value.

but we don't see that idea used anywhere across the world. the the tax gains now waiting until late realized is the norm and that would be a fundamental change for the taxpayers at the top and the final change on capital gains is switching to taxation's of gains at death for people who have $5 million or more in income and for joint filers with over $10 million or more so instead of what happens under current law there would be taxation of those unrealized gains. host: here is aoon new jersey with a text. if your guest would explain how i capital gain spark increase would affect the housing market and middle investment savings. guest: as a structured, the tax

increases wouldn't apply to the average taxpayer. the unrealized gains doesn't kick in until net wealth is about a hundred million dollars. the changes to taxing at ordinary rates kick in when income is above $1 million. for household hit by that come it directly increases the tax burden on the savings. but for the average taxpayer, average income level they wouldn't directly see the tax liability change. host: even if you have an investment in real estate? guest: the only way unrealized gains would be brought into the tax system is if your net wealth is about $100 million. so even if you are a real estate investor, if you are not at that level of net wealth, you would not be caught up in the new

billing or tax system. if you fold holdings and you had a capital gains that took your income above $1 million, than the higher tax rate would kick in. so if you have a large increase in income in one year because you are selling a business or something of that sort, then the capital gains could be hit by the higher ranks. -- rates. host: the former president wants to lower the corporate tax rate from 21% to 20%. make t tax cuts and estate tax cuts from the 2017 tax cuts and jobs act permanent. he wants to exempt tim's -- tips and social security benefi from taxatioand consider replacing personal income taxes with increased tariffs and impose a universe of baseline tariff on all u.s. imports of 10% to 20% and impose a 60%

tariff on all u.s. imports from china and tax large private universities endowment. over all your takeaways from this plan. guest: if the tariffs are fully pursued as outlined it would offset the economic benefit of the improvements to the tax system, a lower corporate rates, the permanent tax cuts for individuals, the benefits of that would be swept away by the harms caused by higher tariffs. it would also increase the tax burden on lower and middle income households, potentially offsetting the tax cuts they would get. so it is not a really compelling vision of tax policy proposals. there are also a lot of moving parts to it. for instance, the idea

mathematically impossible in today's economy. the individual income tax raises more than $2 trillion in imports in total are about $3 trillion. there is just a really big math challenge with that idea of the full replacement of income tax. the other ideas like permanence for the individual tax cuts and improving the backs -- business tax the right direction but would significantly increase the deficit. estimated that permanence for individuals in the business tax changes would cost from trillion dollars over the 10 year budget window. there would need to be a way to pay for them and offset the cost and tears are not a good way to

do that. host: the last one is tax large private university endowments. talk about how they are not taxed now and what kind of revenue with that bring in? guest: the 2017 tax law introduced a small tax structure from a small excise tax on private university endowments. large amounts of money invested but the returns are not subject to any tax like capital gains or income taxes. they are a type of tax-free investment income at universities. it introduced a small tax on that and the term proposal would expand that. it is not a large revenue raiser and would ultimately depend on the rate, probably somewhere in the billions range rather than

the trillions that would offset the cost of the tax cuts he is pursuing. host: let's get to calls, body in illinois. caller: back when bush was in office and obama took over, he inherited a real bad economy and my 401(k) and all that went to negative. obama brought it back and turned it over to trump and then again it went to a negative. same thing when biden took over from trump, it has come back in the stock market is at the all-time highest. it seems like when trump gets

behind closed doors he lets the investors know what he plans to do for them. with the tariff he is proposing, that is the way he has to come up with money to pay for all of that. can she explain again how a tariff would harm us going forward. host: ok, bobby. guest: a tariff is a tax on things americans purchase from foreign businesses. think of it like a tax that applies to the goods we buy. so if i buy a washing machine or a mattress, i pay the cost of that to the florida business selling it and then i pay the percentage tax of the tariff to the u.s. government. it operates similarly to a sales tech only applies to imports. this can increase the cost of doing business in the united states or businesses that rely

on inputs from foreign businesses and for steel or wood or those that you use capital machinery that you use in your manufacturing facility in the united states. could have -- putting a tariff on those increases the cost of doing business in the u.s.. similarly if we put tariffs on consumer goods, that increases the cost for consumers. and we had to pay more for those we have less money left over. businesses lose out on sales because they have less income after the tax. that is how a tariff harms the u.s. economy. it increase costs and ultimately producing business revenue and produces real income because of higher after-tax cost. wheat found in our modeling that the proposed 10% tariff on everything plus 60% on china

would reduce the size of the long run economy by .8%. if you factor in foreign retaliation which is another downside of tariffs, not the tax week apply but incentivizes foreign countries to retaliate. we think those would further reduce the u.s. gdp by .4%. it combines the harm of the tariffs and doesn't generate any additional revenue for the federal government. host: we will go to alabama, barbara, a republican. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say about the economy that my car insurance has doubled, groceries seem like they have doubled. i don't know, kemal is, since

all this and who is going to pay for this. and if she gives medicare to everyone, that means we won't be able to get a doctor. host: on taxes, what is your tax bill, how does it compare from the to be trump administration. caller: i am still working a little bit part-time and i can come to be 90 on my birthday but am still working but i had to pay on my social security this time because i spent 10 years saving in 8401(k) and took it out because i had to have it to live on and they taxed all thousand dollars on my social security which i did not think was right. host: let's take taxing social

security benefits. guest: the taxation of social security can be a tough topic and complicated. the way it is structured, part of the benefits can be taxable depending on the income level of the person receiving those benefits. the thought behind that is half of the is is is pretty benefits are like the traditional retirement account. a business when it pays your social security taxes gets to deduct that as the cost of doing business. at the end when the benefit is received it is tax like traditionally. on the other hand, the employee side of the payroll tax is reverse. you are not taxed on that front -- or you are taxed up front but when you see the benefit it goes

untaxed. right now so benefits are treated differently depending on which half of the benefit it is and which income level the retiree is at. host: what you are saying is that of business gets to write off their cost of social security as they go along with an employee but in the end, the employee has to pay the tax that has been written off by the business? guest: the exact way the regular income works. when the business pays you, that is a deduction and labor costs to them and then you pay income tax on your wages. the same treatment as income you receive directly as income you receive indirectly as a benefit. economically it makes sense because it is a form of income

and treated as income for the income taxed at the taxation is complicated in that it depends what income level you are at. it can be a bit confusing, especially if the retiree is still working and income is changing, like working part time and the income changes in your two year, it can be confusing to see what your tax bill is. host: the former president wants to exempt social security benefits from taxation. what is the impact? guest: the -- impact is worsening the insolvency problem of social security. we have estimated that exempting all social security benefits from tax would increase the deficit by 1.6 trillion dollars and would accelerate the insolvency of the social security program at which

benefits are scheduled to automatically be cut because receipt coming and doesn't cover costs going out. it would worsen the imbalance in the program in place to a bigger picture and this was mentioned earlier on the program, neither candidate is proposing anything significant to help with the insolvency issue and in the case of the exemption for social security would worsen the insolvency issue. host: ralph in new york, democrat. caller: i have worked the last 11 years as a tax preparer and i wanted to focus on two antipoverty tax credits, the child tax credits, the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. under current law the child tax credits are out of proportion because a family filing head of household up to $200,000 and married filing jointly up to

400,000, but a little income, not all low income families are getting the total $2000 if the income is low. work better to fight child poverty in this country is to bring back the enhanced child tax credit in the earned income tax credit, lower the age from 25 back down to age 19 or a single file or. and for congress to come to a compromise in receipt the child tax credit you have to have a level of earned income. i think you for your time. host: thank you. guest: the child tax credit as it currently is, once $2500, each additional is matched with $.15 of credit.

if you don't have high enough income, you don't qualify for the full $2000 credit. there is a cap on how much can be refundable. that is inflation adjusted so that over time it will match but right now it is below $2000. the big economic effect of that is that in essence that 15% matching rate creates a negative tax rate on income at the phase in level and creates an incentive to work additional hours enjoying the labor force in the first place to get that essentially work bonus or participation bonus for the credit. the trade-off of moving to a fully refundable credit like we saw during the pandemic, the temporary expansion of the child tax credit under the biden administration provided an enhanced childcare amount of $3000 or 3600 and the full

amount was available regardless of your income level. it provided the full benefit increases on every how much benefit you receive but also the marginal tax rate that lower income workers face on their income so there is trade-off there and also the trade-off with cost could we estimated that harris' proposed expansion would cost $1.6 trillion over the 10 year budget window. so the next incentive program if they would enact it to find a way to pay for it. host: ryan in albuquerque, new mexico, independent. caller: a couple of comments. that's all remember that congress writes the tax bills, not the president. the whole discussion is silly. if congress is dysfunctional and

not doing their job but we don't talk about that. i am for tariffs. let me explain why. we will spend hundreds of billions of dollars at the defense department, cia and private companies defending themselves against communist china and all of the bad acting. i think the people who are dying to do business with china should pay the cost to defend against china. why not? the global corporations could move factories and put them in central america or brazil. they don't have to be in communist china. so tariffs are an incentive for companies to behave themselves and act like a good corporate global citizen. host: take that point. our tears incentives like he said? guest: tariffs do reallocate

income and redistribute income and reallocate where we are located in the economy. one of the main motivations for the tears on china was a section 301 investigation each unfair chinese trade practices in that investigation uncovered individual property theft, serious issues with china's trade practices. unfortunately, tariffs have not been a tool to result in any improvement in those unfair trade practices that china engages in. just saw the published review of those 301 tariffs and that review found that in some instances, china has been more aggressive in the i.t. theft practices. there is a disconnect between placing a tax on the purchase of those goods that we import from

china, consumer goods, capital goods, taxing americans for purchasing those doesn't really address the unfair trade practices that china is engaging in an costs our economy. multiple studies have found that it cost us jobs and production because it increased our production costs in the u.s. and made us for as a result without yielding better practices from china. i agree concerning practices out of china but disagree that the chairs are the tools that truly address those. host: erica york is the senior economist from the tax foundation. we are talking about what the two presidential candidates want to do on taxes. walter in naples, florida, republican. caller: good morning. i was just reading the 16th amendment authorized the

leveraging of income tax. it doesn't say anything about levying a wealth tax. this makes me want to ask, all these proposals that they talk about, can this just to be political smoke that they know as soon as it gets challenged that no one will be able to tax unrealized capital gains because it is wealth and not income and we base our income most all of us on a yearly deal with the irs. that and the fact that we didn't have an income tax until 1913 and you wonder how the country survived for that hundred 40 years or whatever it was. host: we will take your question. guest: i am not a lawyer but i have heard lawyers say it would be constitutional changes to a wealth tax and that is a real concern. i also think it is highly

unlikely that something like this billionaire minimum tax would make its way through congress. so it is a real concern to see it proposed. it would have significant ramifications and negative trade-offs. i think it is far from something that is close to being implemented it. if it was attempted, i believe there would be challenges raised to it. on the other question, our modern income tax base in 2013 -- 1913, they tried to taxes prior to that but tariffs were one of the main revenues for the government leading up to that. a few caveats to that or reasons why it is different than from now, the size of the federal government was significantly smaller and required a smaller stream of revenue than our government today. our government is much larger.

we can debate the trade-offs of having a larger government but just knowing the government we have now could not be funded by tariffs. tariffs in the early american period were primarily for raising revenue. they were not levied at high rates and were not designed to discourage imports or prop up one sector over another. they were relatively low so they could generate revenue without discouraging. there were periods of american history where protectionism was tried. most people learned about the tariffs during the great depression in history classes and we all have come away with the understanding that those were not a good policy and the end it up hurting up -- hurting americans and american businesses and so were quickly done away with. similar instances happened in the past as well in the early

1800s post-civil war and again, we have had to learn that lesson what it means when you raise production costs in the u.s. economy multiple times. host: debra in florida, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i wasn't sure if erica had given a bottom line on what the trump plan would do to the deficit. in my second question is have we ever had a committee of say nonpartisan economists who have come together a plan may be based off of what those parties want to do but to make it so that it would actually work? to give benefit to citizens and

also to keep our deficit down. host: erica york? guest: bottom line on the trump proposals is an increase in the deficit and similar to harris' is difficult to give a number because we have heard different things to fully removing income tax to make current ones permanent and like not taxing tips and also a 50% corporate rate on the tear side. so given the range of competing ideas, there is a range of numbers but across that ranged it is an increase in the deficit , probably up at least to $20 or potentially more if we factor in things like the social security income tax exemption, the tip exemption.

a precise number is difficult but an increase in the deficit for sure. on the commission, there have been commissions in the past that issued recommendations. often the commissions will come up with the ideal solutions or tough trade-offs that politicians on their own wouldn't offer because when you start talking about social security and medicare, these are programs that people rely on and are very accustomed to. the taxes that we pay, we are accustomed to the level we are at now and in general, not ready for seeing changes. the recommendation is to look at future retiree benefits in think about how we could to slowly growth or look at the tax system and think about where additional revenues could come from. they represent tough political

choices so getting a commission report on how you can bring fiscal sanity to the budget is one thing but actually getting that enacted is a tougher challenge. host: we will go to bob in rhode island, independent. caller: good morning. i haven't called for quite a while, haven't been able to get in. i have something that has been bothering me. i am 84 and was an educator and also in business for 43 years. now i have the time to watch "washington journal every day which i have been doing for quite a while. this is a simple thing i am going to say and something i thought about and it is simplistic.

but the blame game i hear over and over again about trump, about harris, about anybody, congress, and the blame game seems like it is the one everybody likes to play the most. i wonder if the idea of the american public's role in our problems in general, the decisions of what they decide they are going to buy, what they decide they want and how much they pay for it, i don't hear it talked about much. every once in a while a subject like that comes up but i believe the american people are more in charge than they think they are. but we have to sacrifice or not to buy or decide to show

corporate america that we are not going to take the prices that they have jacked up on almost everything in the united states right now. host: do you have any thoughts on what bob was saying? guest: there is a plan to debate in the tax policy and the desire that the tax code be a lot simpler. i don't think anyone has a fun time when they go to file their 1040. most people want tax simplification but getting to tax vacation means getting rid of a lot of things in the tax code that people like and want to have like the mortgage interest deduction or tax credits and decreased tax liability but require complicated forms to fill out. there is that tension between wanting tax simplification and losing the trade-offs that come along with that and giving up tax preferences.

that could tie into what the caller was talking about. host: we will go to charlotte, north carolina, charlie, a republican. caller: i have two different questions in they are totally different. the first question is, we have the harris and biden pushing the infrastructure bill at 1.8 trillion dollars, earth shattering, life-changing. first of all, i would like you to talk about that good for business and you talk about payback on expenditures and how will we ever get paid back for the $1.8 trillion? can you actually name and maybe three or four of the top investments that the biden-harris administration has made that will be great business for america that will increase the economy and there will be a payback?

i and i can't find anywhere up or i can see were major project that will have any payback. i hear a lot of talk about dei and talking about the charging stations. and number two, in my business, i work with folks who have to hire at minimum wage people or people making between eight and $20 an hour and they can't find anybody to work. nobody is willing to work for this and that has only been since the biden-harris administration. there is a phenomenon that after covid there was so much money paid out a got people out of the habit of working and that has been in my business had a dramatic effect in people being able to run business and make profit and stay in business.

host: erica york? guest: the biden administration has enacted several new spending programs and one of them is the infrastructure law passed on a bipartisan basis and enacted the inflation reduction act which was a bill that included tons of new subsidies for green energy investment, electric vehicle investment, and the cost of that is also ballooning. then there was also the chips and science act which included new grants and investments for semiconductor production. we are seeing problems with implementation and slowly build out. the jury is still out on the ultimate effect. i would separate them into a couple different buckets. in general, the infrastructure investment should be expected to

see some return on just maintaining infrastructure which is important for the economic health of the country. when we look at the other spending programs, they divert from the idea of just general improvement to infrastructure overall to reallocating investment across the economy. trying to sway business and investment to pursue things that probably otherwise wouldn't be viable but because of the subsidies available and tax credits available put those projects on the map. whether that relate results in improved productivity, greater across the country still is to be determined. host: let's go to cory in florida, independent. caller: good morning. a couple of comments. when president trump pushed back the age to have to take minimum

distributions from retirement plans, he pushed that back to 72.5 some years ago and that benefited me in my tax lady told me that saved me $3000, which is basically one month of pay for me even though i am 74 and retired, that is what i bring in on a monthly basis. i am wondering if the harris proposal or trump proposal would be bringing back any moratorium on distributions on retirement plans. and people are always complaining about all the bad actors in the world and how they are affecting the united states. about this and especially for china, let's put a stop education visas for anybody coming from a country that the

united states considers a bad actor? it will bring these countries to their knees in we won't need sanctions or tariffs. that would take care of the problem. guest: on the retirement tax policy, the care act and the secure 2.0 acts were both bipartisan pieces of legislation enacted in recent years that made several changes to retirement savings, changing ages for minimum distribution and increasing participation in various types of plans, increasing the favors credit which helps match contributions that lower income households and taxpayers make to them -- to retirement plans. there have been improvements and loosening of these complex restrictions on retirement accounts. one things we write a lot about at tax foundation is the idea of a universal bank account.

they are similar in tax or treatment to a retirement account but they don't come with the restrictions that retirement accounts come with. there are not rules for minimum withdraws or restrictions on what you can use the money for. they truly are a tax neutral savings account that can help families weather emergencies, pay for education, pay for it, health expenses without worrying about the restrictions and hoops you have to jump through for the other retirement accounts. that is worth considering as we go forward. neither major candidate right now has proposed universal savings account but it is an idea that has seen some interest in congress. host: to learn more go to taxfoundation.org. erica york is the senior economist and research director for federal tax policy at the

tax foundation. thank you for the conversation this morning. guest: thank you. next, david sterrett, principal research scientist at the associated press-norc center for public affairs research will talk about polling and campaign 2024. >> c-span bookshelf podcast makes it easy to look -- listen to podcasts all in one place and discover new authors and ideas. each week we make it convenient to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, by -- current events and culture and afterwards, book notes plus and q and a. listen to bookshelf podcasts today. can find it on the free c-span

now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts come in on our website c-span.org/podcasts. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, explain the people and events that tell the american story. at 6:15 p.m. eastern, the national portrait gallery prints and drawings curator takes a look at the exhibit that tells the story of american women who went to paris in the early 20th century going to make their mark on the arts by breaking gender and -- gender bias. watch historic speeches with the boat remarks by presidential nominees and political figures from the past several decades this week, texas governor george w. bush accepted his party's nomination at the 2000

republican national convention. exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturdays on c-span 2 and find it on your program guide or watch online at c-span.org/history. >> the house will be in order. >> c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. 1979, we have been your primary source for congress. taking you to where the policies are debated and decided, all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is david sterrett, the principal research scientist for the associated

press's center for public affairs research. i want to talk about what the vice president is seen. here is a headline, democratic pollsters have a warning about kamala harris' lead, urged bite numbers to rosie in 2016 and 2020, democrats holding their breath as harris surges against donald trump. your reaction? guest: think it is important to remember that polls are a snapshot in time. i think there has obviously been caution because in 2016 and 2020, the polls did overestimate the support for the democratic candidate, whether that be hillary clinton or joe biden. it is important that people don't play -- pay to close

attention to what the numbers are now and that is what the democratic pollsters are trying to warn people to not get too caught up in what number satan out a few months before the election as there is a lot of time before and things can change. host: less than 70 days until the november election rate is there a way to tell that the polls may be off? guest: i don't think there is ever a way to know that they are off. if there were, they would be making sure they worked off. i think hole -- polling is rapidly changing. pollsters are looking hard to try to produce data that is the most reliable and accurate. it is important to realize that

polls, what is happening now could be different 70 days from now and also people who have a rigorous pulling methods -- polling methods is not as easy to just say, are they accurate or not and it is something that it is important to not put one particular poll or get too focused on the numbers, because they could fluctuate and all four -- polls have emergence of errors. from a statistical tan -- standpoint they have margins of errors. people working recognizing they are and estimate and not

designed to be exactly within a percentage point. host: the associated rest has come up with a new methodology. explain what this is and why the change. guest: it is something that the university of chicago worked with the associated press and fox news to develop it following the 2016 election. the goal of the survey is to try to reach voters where they are and try to get the most reliable estimates that can be used on election night and following the election. combines a probability base where we reached out to people and ask them to complete a survey in the week coming to the election and including online nonprobability panels. it is very large and we often interview 120,000 registered

voters and try to understand not just their choice but what is driving choice in terms of the issues in demographic groups of those supporting the candidates. host: is it an exit poll? guest: i would say it is an alternative to the traditional exit poll in terms of the traditional is just interviewing people traditionally as they leave the polling place. as more and more people are voting early and voting absentee, the goal with a p vote cast is we can catch them where they are and make it easy for them to complete the interview either online or via the phone so we can capture the most representative segment of registered voters and highly reliable data in all 50 states. host: this is done in the days leading up to the election, but what about right now when we are weeks out from the 2024 election

#how do you conduct polling? guest: most of it what we do with our partners is by panel which is a panel where we recruit people and actually send interviewers out to people's houses to help recruit them and reach out on the phone. they join the panel and participate in a wide variety of surveys and each time we want to conduct a survey, we reach out to them and they can complete the survey online or via the phone and this is a national probability based panel where we can get a really reliable segment of the population in terms of education, demographics, gender, age, those types of things. host: i want to show viewers and have you react to this video to

say that this is going to be a close race. [video clip] >> i am sure you are seeing the polls and feel excellent about them. this is a dead heat in the emerging of the error rates and we are winning some battleground states and losing some. we have not done enough to make sure that we have set ourselves on the path to 270, and it is the work of the less than 80 days in front of us. i think when i worry, i worry about a lot, i worry fundamentally that people could see what's happening and feel like we have had this great moment in now we are ok. the only way we are ok if we keep doing the work because there are still more people than not that don't know enough about

who the vice president is and what she stands for. there are still more people than i would like who are looking at donald trump and still are giving him support at the highest level he has had even since 2016. so fundamentally, this is going to be as close of a race as we have ever had and we are a polarized country. host: what do you make of her analysis? guest: i think she has a lot of points that are very accurate. i think a lot of the polling is a close and more importantly, people are focused on seven swing states being michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania arizona and nevada, georgia in north carolina. we look at the polling there, it is a close race and usually most have it within the margin of error. as she noted and we have talked about, there is still a lot of time for polls to change and

events that lead to changes in the polls, especially in swing states where there could be more fluctuations potentially. host: we are talking with david sterrett about polling. want your opinion. republicans call (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8001, all others (202) 748-8002. you can also text. you -- we will get to your thoughts. the associated press-norc did a poll. 63% of democrats are excited about the idea of a harris administration, up sharply from

40% who felt that way in march about a biden victory. when you see those numbers, what does that mean or turn out, possibly of the democratic voters? guest: i think those numbers are indicating there is a much more growing enthusiasm and energy behind the harris campaign and there was previously for the biden campaign. that is important for turnout. it is hard, people being excited in august doesn't necessarily mean they will show up on a tuesday in november but you would much rather have people excited and enthusiastic. in general, that does tend to lead to higher turnout. it is very difficult from boko -- polls to know who is going to show up. people often times will tell you they will or won't turn out that

doesn't always play out that way. when you are the enthusiasm numbers, it is definitely something that is encouraging for those in the democratic party who are hoping for the turnout. you see growing enthusiasm with some traditional democratic support groups, such as women, people of color, young adults, and those are groups that previously there were concerns about when they show up to support biden and in the polling data coming out, you are seeing enthusiasm in those groups. host: who is enthusiastic? what voting blocs are enthusiastic when you look at another trump administration? guest: trump has a very strong support, especially with groups such as men, people without a college education, evangelicals. he does very well with those groups and has strong support

amongst those groups. host: we will go to to west palm beach, florida, republican. caller: good morning. i am calling, you have the perfect guest on right now. it is about the polling and how it works. what has led me to vote for donald trump became president. the biggest thing was right near the end watching the numbers, i better get there and i usually vote on the day of voting which will be november 5 this year. when when i saw those polls and i saw

hillary clinton not going to wisconsin, i said i better get up and make sure i get there to vote for trump, which i did, and he won. absolutely, i went by what's in the polling numbers. just about every poll that was out there at that time. when i saw she was not going to wisconsin, i said, ok, i better go vote. host: david stern, what happened in 2016 polls? guest: i think there was a lot of evidence that the polling in 2016 -- has been a lot of diagnostics trying to understand it. i think what organizations and researchers have found is that in 20 a lot of the national polls were not overly off and could be relatively accurate, but the polling in some of the swing states, like the caller mentioned in wisconsin and places like pennsylvania, in florida -- a lot of the state

polling in 20 16 was off pretty significantly. think what most people found was that a lot of the state polls in 2016 -- the polls tended to under represent a group of people without college degrees, who ended up showing up at high levels in voting for president trump. it was that underestimation, probably, of those voters, by some of these polls in some of these swing states -- inaccurate and less reliable than they had been. host: what led to the underestimation of those voters? guest: at the time, what was going on -- i just think those voters were not responding to surveys at the same rates as people with higher education. and at that time, most political pollsters were not including education in their waiting adjustments -- weighting adjustments, so they were not getting enough of these people

with lower education and were not accounting for that. what most posters have done since 2016 is try to make efforts to increase and reach more people without college degrees, recognizing they are a very important part of the electorate. also, if they don't reach enough of them, making sure they do the proper adjustment. it can be a hard group of people to meet -- to reach for pollsters often. now, they weight education, which means they make sure they have the right percentage of people in each education category in their survey. host: in republican caller. caller: except for one thing. in 2020, they were off by the same amount as they were in 2016. so let's be honest. the polling is wrong, way outside the margin of error, because you guys can't get a

hold of people. you say the numbers -- that implies that the numbers have some factual basis. you guys are not coming up with factual basis. it is changing constantly. the polls often use methodology to synthesize to a result they want. right now, if you go with the last two elections -- i have to say it upsets me to hear you pretend it is the uneducated people that really fooled us in 2016. we corrected it. wait a minute. in 2020, it went right down the craft for them -- crapper for them too. guest: good question, terry. you are correct to point out that a lot of polls in 2020 it also underestimate trump.

i think a lot of people have looked at trying to understand that. it does seem like as you mentioned there were a lot of people who corrected for education in 2020, and that did not necessarily fix all the polls. it is a rapidly changing environment with pollsters. i think it is really trying to get the most representative group possible. and i think you are correct to point out in both those previous campaigns that a lot of polls have tended to under represent trump. that might be because of trump supporters being less likely to respond to polls. as you noted, most posters try to correct theemmakeup of pollse sure they have the right number of people. different ages, different races, things like that stuff. if people who support trump are responding less, that could lead to an underestimation of trump.

there are polls that have been off. obviously, there is a wide variety of polls that have a lot of different methods. usually polls are more accurate or less accurate. i think most posters -- i would say the goal is to get it as right as possible. the goal is to make the polls as accurate and reliable as possible. you are right that the past two presidential elections, posters have under predicted trump. people look and say, are they underrepresented him now? polling organizations are trying their best not to under represent him. are they? that is something we do not know at this point. we will see how it all shakes out after the election. host: let's go to john in mississippi, independent. caller: how you doing? i really don't have a lot of

faith in polls. i look at the last three elections and the democrats who supposedly are the party that is going to save democracy and manipulated the primary process in every election since obama -- i think we have probably the worst two candidates we have had in a long time. i'm voting democrat. i am in independent, i vote democrat because i promised my wife that i would not vote for anybody but joe biden or trump, and i said the only way i would vote democratic is if it was somebody other than biden. my faith in the polls is nothing, so thank you very much. host: how do you get people to

have faith in the polls? guest: i think the polling community is constantly trying to improve our methods, and recognizes that polls have not always been as accurate as we all hope. but i think it is also how you are interpreting polls and what you are using polls for. think a lot of the time polls have a margin of error. on a 50/50 rate, if it shows at 48-49, that makes a huge deal in an election and changes the result. it in terms of polling accuracy, polls are not designed to be picked up at the level of precision. i would say at the center we try to avoid doing horserace polls where we are asking who you are going to vote for this far out before an election. we think it is more beneficial to ask people their views about the candidates and their positions on the candidates, to really try to understand the race so that the public can

understand what things they are expecting out of the candidates and how they are viewing the candidates, so that you can understand things such as the last poll i was talking about. the polling showed there were many people who were not satisfied with an election between biden and trump, who were looking for someone else to look for. i think with polls the goal is not to get fixated on the top line number. obviously, we try hard to get the top line number as right as possible in the polling community. the richness of understanding stuff like what groups are supporting each candidate and what they view as the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate -- you can understand the dynamics of the race more than just what the number of people who say they are going to vote for him, which is something that can change or fluctuate over time. host: the date of the poll, when

it was conducted -- why do they matter? guest: i think the difference with the date is obviously there are people whose opinion changes over time. a lot of people, especially talking about now -- a lot of people -- not people who listen to this show and call -- many americans do not pay that close attention to politics during their regular lives. a lot of times, they don't start to form their final opinions and attitudes until he gets close to election day, the further out they are from election day, a lot of people are not paying attention to politics and there is time for things to change because of the debate performance or a new story or interview. people's opinions about the candidates and how they are going to vote is going to change. the further out you are from election day, and the more campaign strategists and stuff will read that things can still change -- you put less into the top line numbers. host: speaking of interviews,

the vice president promised to sit down for an interview before the end of the month, has scheduled that interview. she and her running mate, tim walz, will sit down with dana bash this afternoon. that will be at 9:00 p.m. eastern time. before the airing of that interview, the vice president will have a rally in savannah, georgia as well. the former president is campaigning in michigan and wisconsin this week. our campaign 2024 coverage can be found on demand, online, on c-span.org. in marietta, georgia, democratic caller. good morning. caller: i was just wondering, what is the methodology you are using, polling the people you are going to poll?

i'm in my mid 60's and have been active since the age of 18 and political stuff as well. just never, ever received any calls as far as polls, so that is what makes me doubt the accuracy of it. is there a different methodology that could possibly help pull more voters that would give you a more accurate counterpart? guest: thanks for calling. maybe we'll have to give me your number so we can make sure we get you in polls. pollsters are always looking to get as many people as they can. i would say with polling methodology, and has been changing rapidly in the last couple decades. traditionally, polls were done via telephone interviews. the idea was that everyone who had a phone had an equal chance to be selected because they were

randomly calling numbers over time. it seems like most people are not as excited to do a poll as you might be. we are seeing the response rates on phones have dropped dramatically. now, there is kind of two main methodologies pollsters are using. some are still calling people and trying to reach voters that way, in addition to testing. the other method that is becoming more and more common is using recruitment to a panel, where you recruit people into panels where they can do a whole host of different surveys over the course of months or years. i think both methodologies, whether you are interviewing people by phone or doing online panels -- both have strengths and weaknesses, and i think you hit edit. both methods, the goal is to try to get a really representative

sample of americans, so trying to get people in urban and rural and suburban areas, and different ages and races and genders. i think the biggest challenge for pollsters is more and more people are declining invitations to do surveys. especially when we get the phone calls, any people do not even know when pollsters are trying to call them because it might get blocked by a spam filter, by their carrier or by their cell phone. so trying to get people to do surveys is a growing challenge. we also try to outreach people via mail because at least they can see it and it gives them the option to call us or do the survey online. that is something we have done with the vote cast her -- caster. you can reach out to a nice representative sample that way and give people different options. i think that is another thing we think is really important. we recognize some people want to do a survey on the phone.

other people want to do it online. we could get a fully representative sample of americans. host: fairfax, california, republican. caller: i am a republican in name only because i was scared of george bush at the 9/11 time. i wanted to kind of say the same thing the last caller said. i wonder why you don't use the census workers, maybe, or just go out on the street. i have never been pulled. -- polled. i am older. a golden age woman, should we say. why not go out on the street and poll people? why is it so remote, on the phone? and quickly, i would like to say -- about indigenous peoples rights, i have to squeeze it in,

greta, and black people who should get money because they built the country with slave labor. i had to say it. how come you don't use the senses? -- census? guest: good question. by its nature, the census is designed to provide an accurate count of the people for funding in different congressional programs. it is an organization that -- they don't do anything related to politics. it would not ask you if you are a democrat or a republican. it is very cost prohibitive, usually. the census data is so widely used and needed that it can afford to do the in person interviewing, which is much more expensive than doing interviewing other ways. also, it can be hard to get an accurate national sample with

interviewers because obviously you would need to meet people in so many different communities. doing a survey of a thousand americans nationwide, interviewing people in different parts of the country -- to have interviewers in each of those areas knocking on peoples doors would be pretty expensive. there is also a decline in the number of people who answer their doors and agree to do those. i would also say that as far as your second question, there have been organizations that have done holding about issues -- reparations and that stuff. there was a partnership to do a survey about the views of evanson residents. i know there has been some other polling. it was an issue in california, where there might be poles about

what president views are like, the possibility of reparations. host: why should voters pay attention to national polls when we hear so much about swing states? and then it will come down to swing states deciding which candidate gets 270 electoral votes. guest: i think that is a really good question. if the focus is just on who is going to win the election, the national polls are not going to be as productive. if you are looking at the swing states, as we discussed. national polls have a lot of value in trying to understand the race. but it lets you see what groups of people are supporting each candidate and why. there is a reason to believe that if african-americans in a national poll are showing greater support or less support

for one candidate, it is likely that it might be the same thing in a swing state like georgia or north carolina. i think with national polls what you are really trying to see is the mood of different groups, especially key electoral groups. and if that is what is happening nationally, we assume that could happen in swing states. some emma graphics are more critical than others in swing states, given the demographic makeup like african-american voters are incredibly important in places like georgia and north carolina and pennsylvania, whereas hispanic voters might be incredibly critical in states like arizona and nevada. host: mentioning the swing state of georgia -- that is where the vice president was yesterday, and she will be there today as well, holding a rally in savannah, georgia at 5:15 p.m. eastern time.

we will have coverage of that here on c-span. if you are on the go or online, on demand at c-span.org -- and president trump will be in wisconsin at 7:00 p.m. eastern time and that will be live on c-span. that will be on the mobile app as well as online. jd vance, this afternoon, 12:30 eastern time, delivering remarks at a firefighters union annual convention in boston. our free video mobile app, or online at c-span.org. the vice president's running mate, tim walz, spoke to the firefighters union yesterday in boston. we covered those remarks. you can find them along with our campaign 22 any for coverage

online at c-span.org. let's hear from an independent. caller: david, i am surprised you are not more savvy than this. in the 2016 election, they were interviewing people regarding who they were going to vote for, and you had to have noticed that not many people were saying, i'm in line but i have not made up my mind yet. i recognized there was something extremely different in the coyness. people were not expressing, as they had before in the past -- i am voting for so-and-so. all of a sudden, it just turned on us, and i thought that was odd. as i said, it just seemed like it was a very coy play.

i think they had often ramped up on trump's side -- had already been programmed to not -- "i don't know. i don't know." i would just like you to respond to that if possible. being a pollster, you can really recognize the difference in the shift in people. guest: good question. i think what you are referencing is something a lot of people have tried to research. it is referred to as the shy trump folder in 2016. this idea that maybe posters were reaching people who said they did not know who they were going to vote for when they were planning to vote for trump. this is something a lot of polling organizations have gone back and tried to review mc. at this point, there was not a lot of strong evidence that there were people not telling pollsters that they were voting for trump and that was the

reason for some of the problems with the 2016 polling results. that does not mean maybe what you are alluding to -- that may people supporting trump have been less likely to take the surveys in the first place. those people who maybe were supportive of trump were less likely to do the survey, so there were less people voting for trump. crump supporters were being under representative. -- trump reporters are being underrepresented. this is the biggest challenges for pollsters. if one group of people who are more supportive of a certain candidate are less likely to do polls, refer to that as nonresponse bias. that can affect your poll because you are not having a representative sample. that is something pollsters are constantly trying to look at and see if there is a difference, so responders of both parties are equally likely respond to the

poll. if there are demographic factors or other things that are known about people that can allow us to adjust it to make sure we are getting a representative sample of americans. host: political observers of late have talked about the "turning the page" moment -- that there are certain elections where voters want to do that. can polls predict that this could be a turning the page election? guest: i think the question -- this gets to where it is important to understand maybe what people are prioritizing. i do think that often times you will see in polls that people will ask questions such as which candidate is more likely to bring about change, and trying to understand what features or parts of it candidate are driving the most support. i think people are looking for potentially stability or a return to normalcy, whereas at other points in times, people

are looking for change. looking at the most recent democratic presidents, i think obviously in 2008 obama ran much more on change and that seemed like something that polling picked up, because of the idea of change. i think in 2020, joe biden was focused on a return to normalcy was one of his themes. not whether he would make dramatic change, but whether he would bring things back to more stability. rather than just asking people which candidates they are supporting, trying to understand what they want out of a candidate -- someone who is going to be able to handle a crisis, who is disciplined or honest. something we focus on is trying to understand what factors people are most interested in when they are deciding who to support for president. host: in pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: polls don't take into

consideration the electoral college. for example, hillary actually beat the people of trump and 2016 the popular vote. so the polls were probably right when it came to voting, if you will, in a normal weight. under the stupid electoral college system, the polls are skewed by that. that is what i wanted to say. that makes the polling inaccurate. thank you. host: do you agree? guest: this goes back to the point we were talking about earlier. the national polls are not designed to predict the electoral college and you could look at a national poll and see how that relates potentially after the election to the popular vote, as the caller was referencing. if the goal is to try to understand who is going to try to get the electoral vote, that

is where the state polling does become more important. often you do see a lot of news organizations and pollsters doing polls in the swing states. i would think you would continue to see more and more polling in those states. if you are just focused on the electoral college, obviously understanding those estates is more important than understanding the popular vote. that is what national polls are designed to pick up -- the national overall opinion. host: talk about the ap's work in the votecast methodology in swing states in the days leading up to the election. what will you do? guest: one of the big advantages of ap votecast is we have a peak people in all 50 states. we pay a lot of attention to swing states. a lot of swing states in the week after the election -- we

will interview between 2000 and 4000 people and get their opinions. we will interview people online or via the phone. we'll ask after the election a series of questions about how likely they are to vote and if they have already voted, who they are supporting, and try to ask questions about understanding the reasons for their vote, what issues are most important to them, so we can understand who voters are and what other top priorities, and what led those people to support either harris or trump. host: just a reminder, the electoral votes are allocated among the states based on the census. this is from archive.gov. every state is allocated a number of senators and representatives in its u.s. congressional delegation. you vote for senators in the u.s. senate. the number of votes equal to the number of its congressional

district. under the 23rd amendment of the constitution, the district of columbia was allocated three electors and treated like a state for purposes of the electoral college. each state decides how to appoint its electors. however, they must do so according to a law enacted before election day. that is a little education and a reminder. paul in pennsylvania. sorry, pat in seaport, new jersey. caller: i am interested in how accurate polls can be, going into the future, given that americans are self sorting. we used to have people of all walks of life, democrats, republicans, independent, all living in the same area, and now people are fleeing the north and moving south. except on the most local level, how accurate can any poll be,

when people with like-minded views are self sorting and moving to places where others share their view? thank you. guest: i think it is a good question and there is a lot of research to support the statement you were making about how americans are becoming more polarized, and there are starting to be more sorting amongst where people live and the communities they live. i think that is something that polling is constant and trying to adapt to and understand there is a need to then make sure that communities of both sides are being representative. whether it is rural or urban or suburban areas, that you are representing all those communities. good polls are working really hard to make sure they are accounting for factors whether it is demographic characteristics, so all those points can be heard. as the country becomes more polarized, it could be more of a

challenge. host: pat in seaport, new jersey, republican. caller: i was just on. host: you were just on. pat, i'm sorry. that was our last call for david stern, who is the principal research scientist for the associated press. david stern, thank you for the conversation. appreciate it this morning. that does it. we are going to take a break. when we come back, we come back, we're going to open forum. you can continue talking about campaign 2024, as well as any public policy. we will be right back. ♪ >> shop and save during our

labor day sale, going on right now. our online store. get 15% off of all of our great c-span products -- like hats, hoodies, home decor, accessories, and more. there is something for every c-span fan, let's support our nonprofit organization. support us online at c-span.org. sunday on q&a, patrick kennedy, author of profiles in mental health courage, talks about the role family members play in care. >> my brother and sister and i had to get guardianship over my mother. we saved her life so she can be around with my kids.

my kids never met my father, who died before they were born, but they got to meet my mom. they got to meet my mom because my brother and sister and i went to court to get guardianship over our mother to keep her from killing herself. she was so happy. at the time, she was not happy. she ended up being so grateful that she was able, because we intervened. >> patrick kennedy with the book "profiles in mental health courage." you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> the house will be in order. >> c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. it's 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill, the running balance, unfiltered coverage of government, with

policies debated and decided with the support of america's cable company. c-span -- 45 years and counting -- powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with open forum. politics or public policy is on the table. this is the headline in usa today. harris and dams put georgia in play. in the state of georgia, the vice president landed yesterday for a bus tour with her running mate. today, she will do a rally at 5:15 p.m. eastern time in savannah, and we will have coverage of that rally on c-span , and we are also covering the former president on c-span. he will be in wisconsin, in la

crosse, wisconsin. that is where the former president will be at seven a clock p.m. eastern time come up with a town hall there. we will watch on c-span. his running mate, jd vance, the senator from ohio, will be in boston today to talk to fire fighters at their annual convention. those were marked at 12:30 p.m. eastern time on c-span, c-span now, or c-span.org. the governor also spoke for the firefighters union yesterday, and you can find his remarks on our website at c-span.org. harrison walls -- harris and walz will sit down with danna basch ahead of a rally to that is airing on cn -- on c-span --

airing on cnn. democratic caller, rob, what is on your mind? we are in open forum? caller: it is a question and a comment. is it a live interview? host: it is a taped interview. she is going to sit down this afternoon and it is going to air this evening at nine a clock p.m. eastern time. caller: so it could be edited. that makes no sense. my comment -- what about the games in denver, the venezuelan gangs taking over? is there anything you have done about it? is anyone talking about it? host: rob, not trusting cnn's interview, or trusting cnn to air it without editing it.

that is at 9:00 p.m. eastern time on cnn. mike in north carolina, republican. caller: good morning. when biden was running, he was going to bring the country together, supposedly. he went far left, ok? kamala harris, you look at her -- look at all the things she is talking about. building walls. going to lower inflation prices. what has she been doing for the past three years? democrats are acting like trump is the incumbent. she is a person from the biden terrorist administration. as far as the borders, saying she is going to open the borders -- the gentleman you had on earlier -- august 14, it shows how many democrat voters do not

even know her stance on her far left agenda. as far as the interview goes tonight, you know why she is bringing walz on there. she cannot do an interview by herself and that big windbag walz is going to be talking over her answering the questions. host: that is what mike believes in north carolina, republican. mike, what could cnn do to have you believe that they have done this -- this interview ethically ? for whatever reason that you distrust them, what could they do? caller: do it live. we know how cnn, msnbc, cbs, abc are all democrat news channels. do it live by herself. see, they've got walz in there so they can divide the time up.

she cannot do a whole interview by herself. the juicy footage of her at the high school yesterday? she talks to those people like she is talking to preschoolers. these are high schoolers. they cannot even vote. host: from the new york times on the next presidential debate, hosted by abc -- if microphones are on, will the debate be off? maggie hagerman -- haberman reports that donald trump announced a second time he will participate in a debate by abc news and suggested the question of whether microphones will be muted when a candidate is speaking has been resolved. but a person briefed on the harris campaign speaking said that the issue of whether the microphones will be muted, something the trump team favors and the harris team does not, remains an open discussion. a spokesperson for abc declined to comment.

the rules of the debate will be the same as the last cmm debate, which seem to work well for everyone except perhaps president biden. the debate hosted by cnn on june 27 was calamitous for president biden, precipitating his decision to end his reelection effort. this debate happening september 10, hosted by abc. here at c-span, we will preview the debate, and after the debate we will open up the phone lines as well. nancy in california, democratic caller. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i have a question and a comment. first, my comment. i want to talk about the security at that barnyard in pennsylvania.

they had a lot of security there. who is in charge of the security? is this all the secret service? is it, you know, police? host: we are in open forum. any pickle issue on your mind is on the table. we go out to wisconsin, independent. caller: about the elections -- so nobody likes trump. or a lot of people like trump online because of his big mouth. that is part of it. the other thing is, who do you want in the white house? if china, russia, or somebody else keeps trying to mess with

us, who do you want sitting in the oval office? people better think about this, because it is coming close where something is going to happen. people under this country, under this administration -- when the ai starts taking everybody's jobs away from them, what do you think is going to happen then? people better think about this. host: in knoxville, tennessee, a democratic caller. caller: i would like to ask, how can we have a fair election when so many votes are being suppressed? how can we have a winner? host: in what way? how are votes being suppressed? caller: what the republicans are doing in all of the seven states that they call the main states that is going to decide who the president is. the swing states. why is it legal for them to be

able to suppress votes when in the last election there were only three people that were caught cheating, and they were all voting for trump? why have all these changes been made? why can't we have a fair election? illegal immigrants voting -- we all know that is a lie. we know it is not true. we need to stop it. as far as everybody talking about being safe and all -- trump started the myth -- the mess in ukraine, and he is talking with the guy in israel. people, come on. let's get real. host: i'm went to leave it at that point and pick up on what you said about swing states.

this is about npr. it starts with the electoral college. the way the presidential elections are conducted with the electoral college -- the u.s. does not elect presidents based on u.s. popular vote. what is a swing state anyway? first, the state is a battleground for national candidates and their campaigns visiting places to stump for votes between memorial day and labor day. second, it is a competitive state. the margin of victory for the winning presidential candidate has been less than 5% of the vote. third, the state would be considered a bellwether. in past elections, the candidate who won this state has gone on to win the presidency. some states have been good predictors of who would ultimately end up at the white house. this is npr with their take on

the electoral college and swing states. after the election results are in, people known as electors, appointed by all 50 states and the district of columbia, send their vote for president and vice president to congress, based on results of the votes tallied in the jurisdiction. maine and nebraska assigned their electors proportionally. the other 48 states and the district of columbia have a winner take all system, meaning they assign all their electors to the candidate who wins a majority of the vote. in most of the country, a candidate who wins a state by even a slim margin gets all of that state's electoral votes. the 2000 presidential election between bush and democrat al gore came down to a difference of just 537 votes in one swing state -- as you all know, florida. john in iowa, republican. good morning. caller: i have been listening to

c-span for 6, 7, eight months, and i have been listening to people call him who support joe biden and kamala harris. and i don't really blame joe biden or kamala harris for the situations that we have faced in the last four years. i place the responsibility for this situation directly where they belong, and they belong on the people who are voting democrat. they have no idea what these people have done to us in the last four years. not only that, but we don't know what they did to us back in 2012, with lois lerner keeping the money from the tea party in the 2012 election. if those people don't get with the program soon, we are not going to be able to save them

again. so i wish they would rethink their positions on kamala harris real soon. host: vice president kamala harris and the former president campaigning in swing states today. go to c-span.org for our campaign 2024 coverage. let's go to denise in california, independent. caller: hello, dear. how are you? i am a first time caller. what i have been watching for years, and i have seen a lot of things. that are very shocking and very hurtful. i wanted to talk about them, just a few of them, really quick. the former president, trump -- i

voted for republicans, for democrats, and for independence. --independents. i'm not stricter for the democrats, and i want to make that clear. it is about the policy, not about the rhetoric that i hear on this show. what i'm one to say was there is a fine line between hate and the attempted assassination on a president. we have had so many people call this program and demean the former president, and we have the moderators fact checking all of the people who call about the democrats, but they don't fact

check when they talk trash about trump. and i wanted to give an example of the stuff that he never said that. it is not on record. there is no way. it is hearsay. and you keep letting people say it. that is so demeaning to our military. and trump loves our military! host: denise in california. delia is in new york. democratic caller. caller: yes, harris/walz 100 percent. even trump's own administration, kelly, mcmaster -- they absolutely hate trump. they work for him. they have explained to the public what this administration,

what a second term administration would be under this unhinged, crazy -- this unhinged crazy that wants to get rid of the constitution. he disrespects our military, calling them losers. are you kidding me? the draft dodger? it is hard to me. i can't believe that the polls actually show that it is even close, that it is even close. host: if some of you need a break from politics, we were showing rulings from the supreme court's most recent term, and we will also talk to reporters about the background of the case and the impact of the court ruling. tonight, we highlight the ruling in fisher v united states, a 6-3 decision. the federal court narrowed the

federal statute used in january 6. it could affect cases including the election interference case against donald trump. tune in for this and other supreme court rulings all this week at 9:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span. you can always find all of our supreme court coverage on our website, c-span.org. nancy in rotunda, west florida. republican. nancy? nancy? nancy in florida, republican caller? alright, i will move to bruce in indiana, republican. caller: hello. host: what is on your mind? caller: yeah, i'm -- i was listening to the polling earlier , the talk about that.

for the most part, i think the polling in a lot of ways is worthless because when politicians are interviewed, whoever is interviewing them will let their opinions guide the questions. time after time, i have seen this, when they are being interviewed. if they are not getting the answer they want, they immediate the interrupt and throw another question out there. so the reporters need to stop --

on both sides. this is not on one side. this is across the board. host: iowa, republican. caller: yes. talk about democrats saying the voting is suppressed. if that was the case, how did my dead mom in 2018 she passed away in 2008 and voted in 2020. how is that possible? democrats say it is suppressed. ridiculous. host: johns island, south carolina, democrat caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i guess my comment here is that donald trump has been doing whatever he wants to do. it is horrible what the dnc has

two indoor here. i can't hear you. host: because we are listening to you. what has the dnc had to endure? caller: democrats are just -- they are the minority. that is what i feel. our election process has been pretty sound. trust in county in charleston has been pretty good about supporting the democrats. i am really frightened that donald trump should get elected. i know that somehow in our state he will be. he will be elected from us here. and listening to some of my fellow democrat callers, probably 2025 is alarming and upsetting. and i do believe this is a foreign thing that is being taken over by putin.

i believe he is under the influence of putin. and all this propaganda that we are all going through is prudent. and i do believe that my party is trying to stop it. i do believe this. and i am all for kamala harris and for tim walz. i want them to win and get rid of donald trump. that is all i have to say. host: we will go to a cookie, new mexico, andrew, independent. -- to albuquerque, new mexico. caller: let's see if i can stay on point fast enough. you guys are too swift for me. every election season or cycle, i see the american electoral media talking. it makes me feel psychologically depressed and i find it abusive. i do a lot of reading.

every time i hear a message from a candidate, it does not matter which side it is on. they are not really very precise in what they are saying. and they make me feel like they are always lying. and then i listen to all the great americans out there who answer these phone lines, who are so discouraged by what they hear on these official lines of propaganda. it disturbs me even worse. i guess that is as clean a message as i can give you. i wish you have a nice day. host: thank you, andrew. we will go to joe in trinidad, colorado. that is the wrong line. joe in colorado. independent. caller: i would like to point out to the american public that there is a basic hostile takeover by donald trump for the

last eight years, and for some reason we cannot get past this fan club of his from the apprentice. no person -- no american person, is above the scrutiny of being able to get past it and letting it go. it is time for the next person. i'm hoping the american public comes back around to say we've got to let this guy go. thanks. that is all i have got. host: a democrat in fort wayne, indiana. roger? caller: thank you, c-span, for taking my call. one comment. firstly, i think the whole trump gang, jd vance, all them, is using the 13 fallen soldiers in afghanistan as political games. here is the reason i am saying

that. if they really care about the veterans, you would think they would acknowledge them all that died in afghanistan, fighting that war. but the only ones he speaks about or is concerned about is those 13 that supposedly is helping him politically. i think it is a disgrace that they are doing that. support all the veterans from afghanistan, not just those 13. host: the conversation ends therefor today. we will be back tomorrow morning, 7:00 a.m. eastern time, for more conversations. tune in then. thanks for watching today. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪

>> all this week, we are showing several major rulings from the supreme court's most recent term. we will talk with reporters about the background of each case and the impact of the court decision. tonight, we are highlighting the ruling in fisher versus united states, or in a six-three decision, the supreme court ruled to narrow the interpretation of a federal statute used to charge january 6 rioters with obstruction. it could affect jack smith's election interference case against former president donald trump. the justices heard the argument back in april. tune in for this and other supreme court rulings all this week. you can find all of our supreme court coverage on our website.

>> sunday on q and a, former rhode island democratic commerce and patrick kennedy, author of profiles in mental health courage, talks about americans who struggle with mental illness and the role family members play in their care. >> my brother and sister and i had to get guardianship over my mother. we saved her life so she could be around with my kids. my kids never met my father, obviously, who died before they were born. but they got to meet my mom. they got to meet my mom because my brother and sister and i went to court to get guardianship over our mother, to keep her from killing herself. happy, at the time she wasn't happy but she ended up being so grateful because we intervened. >> patrick kennedy with his book profiles of mental health courage, sunday