♪ host: it is sunday, november 24, 2024. president-elect trump has named

his nominees for top cabinet positions as well as choices to lead what could become a new agency in the coming administration. the department of government efficiency. this morning we want to hear your thoughts on this proposal. our number for democrats is 202-748-8000. for republicans, 202-748-8001. and for independentss 202-748-8002. we also have a special line for federal workers at 202-748-8003. that's also the number where you can text asked but please to be sure to include your name and where you are writing in from. if you would like to contact us via social media we are facebook.com/c-span and on x at c-span wj. the president-elect has named elon musk and vivek ramaswamy as the top officials took potentially lead this agency and in an op-ed in the wall street

journal, the to entrepreneurs and businessmen discussed what this agency might look like the trump transition team toing fy and hire a lean team of small government crusaders including some of the sharpest technical and legal minds in america. the team will work inhe new administration closely with the white house office ofement and budget. we will advise at step to pursue three major kinds of reform, regulatory precision, administrative reductions and cost savings. we will focus on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than bypassing new laws. elon musk spoke at a trump campaign rally last month and put a dollar amount on the cuts he expects the new department would be able to make. here is a portion of those comments. [video clip] >> i only have one question because this is your stage. how much do you think we can rip

out of this $6.5 trillion harris biden budget. >> i think we can do at least 2 trillion. >> yeah. >> at the end of the day you are being taxed all government spending is taxation so whether it's direct taxation or spending, it either becomes inflation or direct taxation. your money is being wasted and the department of government efficiency will fix that. [applause] >> we are going to get the government off your back and out of your pocketbook. and americans -- america is going to reach heights that it has never seen before. the future is going to be amazing.

>> $2 trillion represents that about a third of what federal spending and many experts are questioning whether or not that is possible to cut including one expert who has written here one expert says this is not possible with the brookings institution senior fellow who is the former director of the national performance review a under bill clinton's administration says that this would be very challenging and not realistic, but listen to her comments. >> the federal government each year spends about $6.1 trillion. most of that money, more than half is spent on what is called mandatory spending. that means it is social security payments, medicare payments, retirement payments for veterans, etc.. so you cannot touch that unless you want to raise a gross big political stink which i don't think trump wants to do.

i do not think he will be wild about cutting social security payments or anything like that. so that takes more than half out of there. then you have interest on the debt and then you have 1.7 trillion left for what we call discretionary spending. that's the military, that is the faa, the justice department, that is the education department, hud, all the rest of the government. now elon musk has said and vivek ramaswamy have said they want to cut $2 trillion. that is more than the entire discretionary spending. so what you have to ask them is what are you going to cut? what are you going to do without and this is where the devil is in the details. >> i heard some folks say what they should target is the regulatory state that if you really target that you will find some government waste,

duplication and efficiency, what do you make of that argument? >> it's not in the regulatory personnel. that's where it gets fully. we should be looking at regulations there is no doubt. we should look at permitting it all of this stuff, but that does not cut bureaucrats, save money, the number of people involved in administrating regulatory state is really small compared to the money in the federal government. that is a different exercise than cutting the government and until you understand that, we did that twice, with federal regulations and with internal agency regulations. it is a very good thing to do, they did a little of this in the bush administration, they did summon the obama administration. it doesn't say $2 trillion and it does not cut 80% of the

workforce. >> that was a comment from elaine speaking on the asking for a trend show from yahoo! finance. let's get to some your comments on facebook. matthew says elon musk just wants control of the regulatory agencies regulating him, this whole election was his paid for scam. cynthia says has no teeth. they are sidelined, they will not put in the work required to be effective. peggy miles says on facebook love it, government is bloated. julie christine says she is super excited about the idea of the department of government efficiency. once again we would love to hear your comments vi facebook.com/c-span or on x at c-span wj. for democrats, 202-748-8000, republicans 202-748-8001.

independents 202-748-8002. we have a special line for government workers. 202-748-8003. let's start with glenn in pennsylvania on our line for republicans pre-good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. everybody just needs to calm down. trump was in office once before ok and he did well. but listen, all of this misinformation and everything, he has his cabinet, give the guy a chance. ok, all of this misinformation from this person, misinformation from that person. i think trump has an idea of what he needs to do. he has picked his cabinet. he might not have them all yet but give the guy a chance. you know, he is a businessman, he's done business for years. host: what do you think specifically of this idea of the department of government efficiency. caller: well, somebody has to

start somewhere. we've been living like this for how many years? doesn't everybody want to have a great america? doesn't everybody want to have money in their pocket, less bills to pay, less to pay for groceries, just give the man a chance. host: anthony is in detroit and is a federal worker, good morning. caller: good morning. my idea for cutting waste is there's a whole federal department, the department of homeland security created in 2002, we need to eliminate that, that is such a waste. all the agencies in different departments, before it was created, get rid of homeland security. there's several hundred billion dollars right there. tsa, that's transportation, customs is treasury. immigration is justice

department. so eliminate homeland security. host: are you at all worried about your job being at risk under the efforts of this new department of government efficiency? caller: not really because -- i don't want to say which in -- which one, but an independent federal agency. we are not really subject to political appointees as much as other departments. host: next up we have karen in alexandria, virginia, also a federal worker. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a federal employee. i will be retiring the friday before trump takes office. federal employees -- coming to an agency near you.

vivek ramaswamy and elon musk have no clue as to what they are doing. the woman that was interviewed from the brookings institute that you showed, she was entirely correct about what she said. however, the federal government employees are in the crosshairs and so federal employees, take care, protect your retirement. thank you very much. host: thank you karen. she made reference to schedule -- a policy which would give greater authority to remove people as federal workers, here is an article in government executive the trump is expected to tap the schedule f architect promising widespread federal layoffs which ended up happening previously held the job and now wants federal workers to be viewed as the villains. president-elect trump plans to turn to a familiar name to head

his management and budget office. affecting the former director and architect of his schedule plan to lead the key white house agencies. and in an interview laying out the vision for the federal workforce saying large-scale reductions gives the trump administration the legal basis to shrink agencies. let's get back to your calls. alice is in georgia on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. host: what do you think of the department of government efficiency. caller: i tell you one thing, it is like this. president-elect trump is what we have and we have a co-president elon musk. the lady said --

to me, if you're a billionaire and he's a millionaire, they can say whatever they want to say. and one other thing i just want to say is this. whatever trump says, of those people are going to believe. whatever elon musk says, that's what they will believe. why don't you listen to the people who know their jobs. the woman who was talking earlier knows what she's talking about. a billionaire and a millionaire can say what they want to say, it's not going to affect them. one other thing, when people say give the man a chance. the man already -- he's been bankrupt five or six times. give the man a chance? he doesn't know what he's doing.

how can you say he's giving amanda chance and he doesn't even know how to run a casino. i love your hair and i want you to have a wonderful day. >> thank you. now then, let's hear from alan in michigan who is also a federal worker, good morning. >> hello. host: what are your thoughts on the apartment of government efficiency. caller: hello, yes for the people saying give trump a chance, donald trump in case they do not know this cut the medicare budget twice when he was president before. the number one reason a lot of testing is not covered now, a lot of medications aren't covered. for the people say give him a chance, he is going to cut it again and as soon as these cuts hit as soon as biden takes

office, it's who they blame. host: now then, greg is in virginia on our line for independents, good morning. caller: good morning. the federal workers are knocking to like me saying this but the government has become too big. there's too many people working for the federal government right now if you want to bring inflation down which is what everyone wants to do, you will have to make some cuts. $36 trillion in debt, if you want to get serious about bringing inflation down, something like this has to happen but the only problem is i do not know if they really have any enforcement powers to be able to do it. so it is going to have to go through the legislative process and that's where it might get bogged down. again this is taxpayer money and

people have to remember that it's always the money that belongs to the american people. they are paying for the salaries of all of these millions of federal workers. so it is a difficult issue but we will see what happens. host: cbs news has an article with a few things to note about the department of government efficiency pointing out that the name is a nod to elon musk's support of a cryptocurrency. which was created as a joke by two software engineers and uses the image of a smiling sheba in a dog. trump says elon musk and vivek ramaswamy's work will conclude no later than july 4, 2020 six or by the 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence. trump only outlined the initiative contours and did not discuss i will be staffed or funded. on thursday and x account for

doge says they are accepting resumes for those willing to work 80 plus hours per week on unglamorous cost-cutting. in a separate post elon musk said cost is zero. can it actually cut federal spending? at the moment that appears unlikely given that it is not a real government department which we need to be created by congressional approval. federal spending is authorized by congress and senators and house representatives may have supports to major progress -- have to support cuts to major programs like social security and medicare which are popular with millions of voters or to the nation's military. it's not clear how the organization will operate. you could, of the federal advisory committee act which dictates how external groups must operate and be accountable to the public. let's get back to your calls. patrick is in pittsburgh on our line for republicans. good morning patrick.

caller: it is stunning the disinformation being spouted here. the brookings institute representative is not telling any -- she is so far off it is beyond comprehension. you've got to look at where we are. we are $36 trillion in debt. we are literally on the edge of economic ruin and the fact that we are arguing about the two most brilliant people in this country when it comes to not only the technological prowess but their economic prowess. elon musk is a hero to this nation. he is going to streamline our government, he is going to articulate technologies that are absolutely mind blowing. we will have humanoid robots helping the american people with families, deconstructing all of the -- that we are dealing with. vivek is a genius when it comes to economics and

technology. it stunning that the brooking institute representative would not talk about the unprecedented waste the corporations and the systems within our government, particularly with our military witches just beyond comprehension. i would remind all viewers that it -- the defense department cannot account for over 3 trillion of your tax dollars. while the saudi arabia and government is building breathtaking cities, one point $2 trillion care. just think about this, our infrastructure is literally imploding and we are allowing all of these corporations these corporate cartels to loot the national treasury, to carve up our taxation without any type of reality, this is the a-team on steroids, just wait. and furthermore let me be very clear about this, the aspect of

enforceability is good to be articulated to the political representatives and let me be very clear, they will take the recommendations of our a-team, elon and the fact and other incredible gifted people that will be representing this new paradigm for america. we are literally going to be in the golden age of this country. that's a fact. host: howard is in indiana on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. this whole initiative with elon musk is concerning. this last gentleman that just spoke is so inaccurate in his statements and i'm afraid that's unfortunately going to be the framing of most people looking at this issue as it relates to the federal budget deficit. everyone needs to really understand that we are a sovereign fiat currency based

country. the u.s. can issue enough money for anything it wants and i think it strongly suggests that everyone view finding the money documentary available in the public domain website on youtube today by stephanie kelton, of the economist who wrote the deficit myth. there's a lot that concerns the election of a criminal like trump that most citizens or many city -- he is not -- so still a very close election. the only thing that may provide some hope is elon musk regardless of what you think about him is a brilliant individual. he may be able to see the value in finding the money documentary because it talks about the modern monetary concept of how

our money is actually constructed, our monetary action works in the u.s. of a great deal of possibility to benefit this country. we get out of the silly paradigms that budget deficits are real, they are not what you think they are. they are important were not on the brink of some disaster. that is totally wrong. the budget deficits of federal government runs our surpluses in the rest of our economy that benefits us. host: i do just want to point out you mentioned earlier that president trump did not win the popular vote, but we still have ballots coming in obviously but at this point it is still clear that president-elect trump did win the popular vote. here on c-span.org you can see the vote count we have so far still showing that president-elect trump not only

winning the electoral college but also did win the popular vote with more than 76 million votes. i just wanted to -- >> he just didn't win a majority of the vote, that's the point. he didn't win over 50%. >> right now it is at exactly 50.0%. caller: thank you so much for that. >> let's go on to sharon in waterford new jersey who is a federal worker. caller: good morning, yes good morning i would like to say good morning to all of our c-span viewers. as a federal employee and i've been a federal employee now for going on 15 years, is there waste, is there fraud? is there abuse, yes absolutely.

are there ways to cut, yes absolutely. one of the things and i hear everybody all the time on c-span saying there are just so many government employees. not true. we are so understaffed that we cannot complete the work we need to complete for the taxpayers of america and the gentleman is correct. i do work for you. but we are so understaffed. we can get done what we need to get done. calling the social security administration, try calling medicare. and the internal revenue service and you are on the line for forever and as a federal employee that has happened to me. and as far as the waste fraud and abuse is concerned, one of the things i want to say quickly is during the pandemic, the

majority of federal workers were on telework. and everybody railed against telework, however telework puts the expense on the federal employee because we are using our own utilities, using our own electricity and at the same time we are getting rid of these leases that we paid to commercial entities. some of the leases for just a small office space run anywhere between six step 6000 to $10,000 a month. host: i want to highlight something in that op-ed by elon musk and vivek ramaswamy about the departmentvernnt efficien in at op-ed they said requirinral ees to come to the office five days a weekouldesult in a wave of voluntary terminations that we e.

a federal employees don't want shouldn't pay them for the covid era privilege of staying home. i wonder what you would think of that and whether you're at all concerned about your job in a potential cut under the department of government efficiency if it is created. caller: so again, when i look at what they have said, again this is a misconception because this is a way in my opinion to turn the civilian enforcement of the federal worker. i do not have a problem if i have to go in five days a week i don't have a problem going in five days a week as well as does the normal employee, however what you have to consider is that now we are now paying for lights five days a week, and

most workers work over four or five or 6:00 so we pay an overage for any additional time that we work in offices over 4:00 p.m.. so you're paying extra utility costs for four to 6 p.m.. if i've to go in five days a week i go in five days a week. that's just the way it is. >> i want to play more from vivek ramaswamy who sat down with fox news in an interview last week to discuss the role of this new department of government efficiency and how they expect to downsize the government. >> are you expecting to close down entire agencies that has talked about the department of education for example. >> we expect mass reductions, we expect certain agencies to be deleted outright. we expect mass reductions in areas of the government that are

bloated, we expect massive cuts of federal contractors and others who are overbilling the federal government so yes we expect all of the above and i think people will be surprised by how quickly we are able to move with some of those changes given the legal backdrop the supreme court has given us. >> you have a deep state, people who have been career bureaucrats in place right now. didn't president biden put in plans to assure you will not be able to fire those people at all? how do you get around that? i asked joni ernst, are you for term limits and she said i am as long as the people around me are also for term limits. how do you get rid of those people who are dug in? >> president biden has made a lot of changes trying to intense the ministry of state. the supreme court is slap them on the wrist -- on the wrist. using about a president of united states like donald trump with the mandate he's been given, both chambers belonging to republicans.

a six-three conservative majority in the supreme court. if we don't downsize now it will never happen in the future as well. this is a historic opportunity we are not going to squander this but part of the key is to move quickly and effectively. i think that mass deregulation earlier gives us the industrial line to make cuts to that iraq receipt and move quickly. host: referencing their the legal framework that might be used to make some of these reductions. they also play that out in their wall street journal op-ed saying our northstar for reform will be the u.s. constitution with a focus on two critical supreme t r issued during president biden's tenure. in westirginia the environmental protection agency in 2022, the justices held the agencies cannot impose regulation dealing with major economic or policy questions unless congress specifically authorizes them so.

the court overturned the che ne and held federal courts shouldlong defer to federal agencies determinations -- interpretations of the law or eir own rulemaking authorities. together these cases suggest a plethora of current feder regulations exceed the authority congress granted under the law. david is in tyler, texas on our line for republicans. caller: yes, they need to have their poll a little bit taller without white flag, they are and melt down and do. let's get these radical democrats out right now and let these republicans take over, the country would be so much better. did you hear that democrats? thank you. host: rick is in iowa and is a federal worker, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm actually retired from the v.a. health care system.

i think that the last time trump was and they made it so the union can no longer have an office for representation in the facility which made it very hard to keep things going smoothly. the state of iowa did the same thing. the problem is there's a lot of people that just don't want to do those jobs. if you take the pay away you will have a hard time finding help just like the state of iowa did. and they will suffer -- you know who's going to suffer, of the veterans. below it is to make everybody pay their fair share of taxes. living in iol like farm subsidies they spend billions on that. the new agency when this is all said and done most people won't have to pay, small business they're friends of small businesses who pay zero taxes. i'm not saying we should pull

the rug out from all of those people but let's make the tax fair. i think that would solve a lot of the problems. >> douglas is in manchester, new hampshire underline for independence. >> i think they will do a great job, the people voted in trump for a reason. they want efficiency, if you cut the government in half and still have a great country. the country would be better off, right now about one third of our tax money gets wasted anyway. trump should start -- he should stop those 89,000 irs agents. , we should get rid of the irs altogether.

>> elon musk and vivek ramaswamy save it 10 tends to work with important -- appointees and agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required in an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and mandated fun. the number federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number federal regulations that are null required for fewer regulations buthe agency would produce fewer regulations once the authority is properly limite employees whose ons are eliminated deserve to be treated with respect and t goal is to help support their transition into the private sector. the president can use existing law intended for early retirement and make voluntary severance payments to facilitate a graceful exit braden tim is in maryland, what do you think of the department of government efficiency and the plan they are

laying out for federal workers. caller: i don't know specifically what they plan to do, but this is a very workable, the first thing that i would do is have a hiring freeze. that would cut the workforce considerably. i work for the department of education, it is a total waste of money we spent day after day filling out worthless forms tracking and retracting and making sure the states doing that and focusing on the southern states and it's all just a terrible waste of money. the second thing they can do is as i said eliminate these needless forms. it spread across all the government agencies just endless

workers filling out needless forms tracking some self-imposed regulations, policy dictates, it is a terrible waste of money. host: stay with me for a moment. as i'm sure you're probably well aware and this is also highlighted in the article from the associated press, some have called for dismantling the department of education saying president-elect trump has heaped scorn on the federal permit of education describing it as being infiltrated by radical zealots and marxist and he picked linda mcmahon, a former wrestling executive lead the department but like many conservative politicians before him, trump is called for a dismantling of the department altogether, a cumbersome task that would likely require action from congress. given that trump is calling for the dismantling of the department of education and you

are also saying it has a lot of waste, are you concerned about your own job? caller: absolutely not. and i agree, this entire department of education should be eliminated. it is doing absolutely nothing worthwhile. host: so what will you do if it is dismantled? will you go work for another federal agency or leave to the private sector? caller: i will have to do what people in the real world to do and that's go find a job. that's the way life is. deal with it. caller: to roy in florida on our line for independence, good morning. can you turn down the volume on your tv and then go ahead with your thought on the department of government efficiency. ok we are going to wait for you to get that together. let's hear from paul in new york

on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning at happy thanksgiving to everybody out there in tv land. i say go for it. this is can it be like an onion. you will feel the layers back and expose a lot of things that these governments are hiding. government is more creative with hiding a dollar bill then steven spielberg is for making a movie. i say go for it, let's see what's out there. to the first caller, amen. everybody just get over it, stop worrying about this and that, the dollar bill is better in your pocket than anybody else's and metal my grandmother always told me so i wish them all the best in this and i wish them success because they can put a couple dollars back for the taxpayers wallet, that would be great. if they can use that money to fix the infrastructure, that would be great. i hope they do find the money it's put to good use and doesn't make its way into someone else's pocket.

thanks again for letting me speak. have a great thanksgiving forecast. host: a couple of comments via text on social media, randy in michigan, my thoughts on the apartment of government efficiency is you want to make the government more efficient by creating another government entity? that is real brilliant thiing there. on facebook, tanya says two stupid rich men thinking they can come to the d.c. enforce half the workers to go along because ids good. another text message this one from stephen in florida saying very e aboute, every successful organization has a dent focused on limiting waste and cost saving. time to trim the nonessential employees, working from home ntributing very little associated costs. time for adults to make difficult choices. america is on the edge of economic collapse. susan is in florida on our line

for independence, good morning. host: -- caller: first, the biden harris budget came in $2 trillion less than trump's 8 trillion. both were created by his tax cuts for the wealthy which he plans to continue and also making them better cuts for those people. the mass deportation project will cost us billions or more and then add the extension of the tracks trump wants to make will also be a deficit. and where do you think all of this money will come from. who is going to pay for it? the middle class. but cuts to social security and medicare. you all heard what dr. oz plans to do. elon musk himself is an illegal alien due to his fall student status. he lied on his citizenship application and then anyone else would be deported for that. he is a total threat to the entire world, he is a spiteful

and evil man and i cannot imagine -- we cannot do anything about him anymore because if you argue with him, he will pull the rug out from someone's feet. he is a threat to the actual world and regarding cutting out the department of education, are you going to have different standards in different states? that is absurd. everyone should get the same kind of education to make them eligible for college and unfortunately this goes back decades and decades. the republican mantra always was keep them dumb, keep them down. >> carlton is in kentucky on our line for democrats, good morning. caller: yes. what they are going to cut -- they are not going to cut jobs in the federal government, they will cut the benefits that say

for retired veterans or disabled veterans, just like they did in 2019. to make the tax cuts for the rich. that's all they are doing. they are not finding waste, they are finding money to continue the tax breaks for the 1%. thank you for having me and letting me talk and you have a good day. >> everett calley, the head of the union representing federal employees was our guest on the program friday morning in here is his reaction to the proposed plans to cut federal workers. >> i think it's asinine to even think of the possibility of cutting 75% of the federal workforce. i see it as a direct attack against veterans of which i am a veteran myself.

about 642,000 of that workforce are veterans. so when you say juergen a cut -- you are going to cut 75% it's an attack on veterans itself and i'm appalled by that. >> when you say every federal employee is a necessary employee. caller: absolute -- >> absolutely. think about the people we represent. the people at the v.a., these other people that we provide a service to the veterans that are returning home from war. that's a necessary job. when you think about social security. they are the people to take care in my opinion, the most prized possession of this nation, that is our elders making sure they get the social security checks on time. fema they are not running away from disasters, they are running to them to provide a service for the american people. when you think about the bureau of prisons, they are making sure

our community is safe every single day. we sleep easier at night because criminals behind bars. at any rate of these organizations or agencies, we make sure that we are servicing the american people. host: nick is in michigan on our line for republicans, good morning. go ahead. >> just a quick statement. for about 30 years i was a private contractor. every time that we had gotten a government job, the price was automatically double. so a million-dollar project for private entity i was doing a $3 million job for the federal government. that is a standard practice across the board. so the idea that government over spends is everywhere. host: what do you think should be done about that specifically? caller: i don't know.

i think it's a good entity, i think they can eliminate a lot of things. i don't know exactly what they're going to illuminate. we hope they don't remove social security or any major programs, but there are a lot of areas of the government that can be cut. a lot of unnecessary employees as well. anybody that i knew that work for the federal government they can do -- you could eliminate two out of three jobs. and they could still do that job. >> ronald is in ohio on our line for independence, good morning ronald. >> good morning. i love listening to your show and you do a good job on there. i just wanted to say that i think of donald -- the donald trump is so smart and he has been very smart his whole life because he filed bankruptcy so many times. maybe he can figure a way to

file it for our government. and get us out of this debt. that's a lot of loopholes that he uses in the government. maybe they can create loopholes for our government. >> what do you think of this idea of the department of government efficiency. >> there's a lot of things that go on that i don't approve of what social security, there's too many thing -- i see people collecting social security checks that have never worked a day in their lives and i don't know how they are getting social security but they are. i know one person who can't read or write, he gets a check on month just because he didn't want to go back to school to learn how to read and write. that's one of the things. other things with social security it was set up for the people for retirement more or less. years ago. and i thought that was where was going to go but he goes to other

people. i know other people need money they should set another system up for the other people. but that's about all i had to say on this matter. >> in maryland on our line for democrats. >> good morning. just wanted to say first i don't think you should let people defame that woman from brookings printer numberarcongressional be which is a nonpartisan government agency that advises republicans and democrats in congress. the second thing is the total cost of federal civilian employees for the federal government is from the cbo about $281 billion in 2022. they say it's 300 billion now. but that's not even, that means if you got rid of the entire federal civilian workforce and you would only save about one

third of a trillion, not even one third of a trillion dollars out of 2 trillion so they're going to have to go after them. the other thing is the percentage of the workforce that's now accounted for the federal government's 1.9%. the postwar average was 3.3%. now it's at an all-time low at that point. the federal government is not overstaffed particularly given the rise of population in a postwar era. it is like that other woman said, understaffed. biden gives them fund to the irs to get through to the irs a little bit more easily then you could four years ago where you could stay online and never get the phone answered. there are benefits being able to interact with the federal government and you can ask businesses about that because they will be the ones

complaining the loudest when they cannot get a response from the government. and need guidance or something else. one last comment is you really should not just let people call in and say these numbers are wrong without providing real numbers. real numbers are available, they are on the cbo website. as i said you get rid of everybody. national park's, the irs which everybody hates of course even though it brings in more money. host: i want to read a little bit more from the cbs news article, which ask the question where could the trump administration cut spending and lays out that while experts are skeptical of the claim you can cut $2 trillion in spending they also point out that there are opportunities to look at efficiencies. limiting medicare fraud is one area that could result in savings according to the

citizens against government waste, a nonpartisan group that looks at government spending. its recommendations include reducing the nation's contribution to the united nations and ending subsidies for some agriculture products like dairy and sugar. its projected savings $377 million -- 370 $7 billion in the first year. scott is in florida on our line for independence, good morning scott. >> good morning c-span and happy holidays. i think that those programs will work out great. the reason why is elon musk got a hold of twitter, twitter was the back door communication for the deep state. he knows where all the bodies are buried. so since he has that information , he will be able to pass it on to the authorities, the justice department. host: what do you think of the

claims would -- plans for the part of the government efficiency. >> it's all added in. it's a good way to make sure he gets all that information. look at this system. 1940, u of a school 300 children. 28 teachers. at times 900 students, 388 teachers. 1500 students, 988 teachers. 2000 students, 1800 teachers. do you see what's going on here. in other words, the teachers unions are so strong. and we send them the most money. so all the states that are doing the work, they are getting the most money and every year they do worse with more teachers. if that is not a scam you're

going to knock that out. >> joe is in minnesota on our line for democrats, good morning. caller: i just want to say i think it is unconscionable that we are giving tax breaks to the billionaires to the tune of almost $2 trillion or to the billionaires of the tune of almost $1 trillion on the backs of the most vulnerable people in the nation. this is unsustainable and i really don't think this is the mandate that trump was voted in to do. he just given -- giving elon musk carte blanche on the government is just ridiculous. and i will take any comments off air. >> raymond is in tennessee on our line for independence, good morning raymond. >> hello.

i have three friends who live in virginia, two of my friends in florida for the winter but they are working from home in virginia for the government. now when they come back to florida, to virginia than they will be working from home again. but they're working from their fifth wheels in florida over the internet. i don't know if people know this they go camping all summer and they are working from home. people are ripping the government off, this working from home is paid vacations. don't these people understand that they're not working from home there working from florida and they could go to jamaica there working from home. it's a ripoff. they are stealing money from the government and lying. >> jennifer jones on facebook says that pament, of government efficiency doesn't even exist y a none of them

will have e power tcut anything. that's congress's job. republicans in the house of representatives have not passed anything to help the american people. speaking of congress, there is a story in fox news that says create -- should create a subcommittee with marjorie taylor greene to work with elon musk and the fake ramaswamy. he told fox news digital that he and his team have met with comber and green and they look forward to working together and comber being a house oversight committee chair. is expected to establish a subcommittee that will work with the newly formed department of government efficiency led by elon musk and vivek ramaswamy to limited government waste fox digital has learned. a source familiar told fox digital that represent of marjorie taylor greene a republican from georgia will chair the delivering on government efficiency subcommittee which will focus on rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government.

brent is in washington on our line for democrats. good morning brent. caller: as far as the dodge -- the doge committee, that is a joke that the person said it has to be created by congress. the president doesn't just create government departments out of thin air. and as far as the election itself, right now we are just in the calm before the storm so all you people excited about cutting money in every thing else, you better be ready because it's coming for your social security and medicare and your other social services people depend on. as far as the department of education why do you -- what you think they will do, take it upon themselves to find the money to make any fission school system. that's why they need the government's help. like i said the storm is coming

so all of you people be ready for when the unemployment goes up, the debt and deficit goes up. when everything just crashes. you all own this. everyone of you that voted for him owns this and you will feel the pain in the next two years. thank you. host: alyssa is in oregon on our line for independence. caller: thank you. i hear your grievance. it's not just republican or democrat or federal, you can get the two people in the same room to decide exactly where we need to have more or less. let me give you an example. how many people are put in black bags in a truck that's using up pg&e. for how long has that been on. can you dig a hole with the truck back into the hole and put a person's name on it.

does that save money? come on. you are rich, middle-class or poor. state and federal on that stuff we are paying. >> joe is in virginia on our line for democrats, good morning. >> i don't know why they keep giving all these big tax cuts to the rich. the rich should be paying more money. so the little, how is the working going to pay for all of these tax cuts for the rich and they're going and the government to stop cutting. first thing they will start cutting his social security, medicare and medicaid which will hurt the poorest in the country. they need all of this so i don't know every time when a republican getting in their always being tax cuts for the rich, the average working man never gets a tax cut. all they do is get burden down

in taxes, paying for the tax cuts for the rich all the time so why did they keep on giving the rich all these tax cuts and they don't give it to the average working person who's working every day two or three jobs trying to make it and every time you get a check there is lower and lower taking more taxes to pay for the rich, the rich need to pay more taxes. host: let's hear from diane in st. louis, missouri on our line for republicans. can you hear us? all right then let's go to neil in new york on our line for independence. >> good morning can you hear me ok today? >> excellent. have you ever been in a post office? these are cavernous giant real estate sucks. anywhere i've gone in all the many years that we have become

more efficient in offices using laptops and of giant computers to move information, using tools that are more and more efficient and effective, you cannot walk in and tell me you are walking into a federal post office where the wave is immense. on top of which there are no people in a giant space rented in cities, states and so on. this would be a place to cut immediately. they have so much inefficiency in the actual paperwork, not just the envelopes but every other part of it is ineffective and inefficient. who is managing this, who is the postmaster general in the federal government getting paid to manage. it's almost as if we have not seen what's going on in normal commercial industry with workplaces and laptops and tools

that we have that are minuscule and require almostto run serious businesses. the post office is one of the places we could cut significantly, just the states alone would save a ton of money, let alone the tools and equipment, all of it. it is ridiculous. just one thing we could see and focus on. and nobody could argue that. host: let's hear from rebecca in arkansas on our line for republicans paid good morning. >> i think this department is going to be so efficient once the illegal immigrants are deported, that will cut our funds so much if we could send them back home, if we stop ridiculous tests like whether or not monkeys will get dropped -- drunk from gin or vodka faster and the man that said the president can just make up

departments willy-nilly, what you think biden has been doing for the last four years? seriously. host: ok. let's hear from a gal in new mexico on our line for democrats. good morning miguel. caller: there are 25,000 corporations? host: caller: i'm sorry? caller:25,000 corporations in the u.s.. that's about how many states we are going to have. they are running the country >>. >>what do you think about this idea of the department of government efficiency. >> well ifthe idea of government efficiency? -- caller: if there is something they can do about government efficiency, that's fine. but if you want the government to take control things that have

to be controlled, that's fine. but corporations need to be controlled. that's my say. host: ok. jeff is in south carolina on our line for republicans. the, jeff. hi, jeff. can you hear us? caller: i can. host: what do you think about the government efficiency idea? caller: i like it. this is going to be an exciting time, coming up. until people get around the table and start looking at things that can be changed, you are really never going to know. and when you have social security sending money to deceased people, plenty of savings all over. you just have to start looking at it. i wouldn't want to come from a position of saying nothing can be changed and we shouldn't try. because when you look at the

debt, you have to try something. you have to get around the table. i'm anxious to see what's going to happen in the next two months. host: pat is in hollywood, florida on our line for independents. good morning, pat. caller: good morning. i have three points i would like to make real quick. number one, we are talking about government waste and efficiency. by the mere fact that we are using the acronym doge, we are giving free advertisement for elon musk and the cryptocurrency they just started. number two, i believe this office thing to get the department and say they will be more efficient is their way of merging church and state. everything they do, especially christian national, god this and

god that, the state is trying to bring church into public school. i believe in god and everything like that but there needs to be a separation and loss that the states cannot bring that into the country. and yet the legislation changes the rule to allow that. lastly, elimination of the department of education. there again, they are trying to bring the bible and push it down everybody's throat. here in florida, desantis has ruined us. he eliminated a whole bunch of people and put in his cronies. this is what we will end up with. there cronies who they blame everyone else for. host: sue is in michigan on the line for democrats. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: as far as elon musk goes, he paid over $1 million to trump's campaign. one of the reasons he did that is because he owned many, many

companies that have contracts with the federal government. and trump wants to make him head of the regulations. we need many of those regulations. regulations for air, for our water. for our land. a lot of those contracts, these people go and mess up things like that. and we, the people, have to fix that. we have to pay for that. he can't wait to get in there so he can cut regulations. and when he cuts regulations for his own businesses and stuff, he will make billions off of that, people. i swear to god, you have no idea what you are doing with this man. he is out of control. and he is doing all he can to make himself money. himself and trump. trump, the person who raped e. jean carroll in case anybody is wondering. he did rape e. jean carroll.

host: we are just about out of time for this segment. thank you to everyone who called in with their thoughts on the potential of government efficiency. coming up next, we will have cook political report founder charlie cook here to discuss the final results of the 2024 campaign and key political trends to watch. later, we will have a conversation with allison jaslow , ceo of the afghanistan terans of america. with her, we will discuss potential changes to the military and defense department in president elect donald trump's second term. >> tonight on c-span's q and a, peggy nunez, pulitzer prize-winning columnist and former speechwriter for president reagan talks about her book, a certain idea of america.

a collection of her columns over the past quarter century. she discusses her time working in the white house and her career in radio after graduating from college. >> walter cronkite was the anchor of the cbs news. he had a radio show every day he did a radio commentary. it was written by a wonderful writer named dale minor. when he was off on vacation, i filled in for him. once when i was filling in for dale minor, cronkite himself took vacation. and then dan rather came in. i wound up writing for him. dan became the anchor for cbs and i became his daily radio writer of his commentary, which was like doing a column every day. >> peggy nunez, with her book a certain idea of america, tonight

at 8:00 eastern on c-span q and a. you can listen on all of our podcasts -- to all of our podcasts on our free c-span app. >> visit c-span.org/results for conference of coverage of the 2024 campaign results. get the final electoral college breakdown in the presidential race and see which states each candidate carried. dive into our interactive map to explore the outcomes in senates, house and governors races and monitor be final balance of power in congress. watch acceptance and consistent speeches on demand need time. -- anytime. stay up-to-date. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are joined now by charlie cook, the founder and contributor at cook clinical report. good morning. guest: good morning, kimberly. host: so, we are now several

weeks out from the election. in a postelection piece you wrote titled more a ripple than a wave, you wrote this might be the most misunderstood election in modern american political history even given that it came after another misunderstood result in 2022. what do you mean by that? guest: yes, people, a lot of times, if the election result is not exactly what people were expecting, they think of it as a huge election. when, this was kind of a split election in some ways. the polls were showing the race was going to be nationally speaking, very close. and it was. president elect trumps margin will be about 1.6 percentage points, 40 point -- 49.9-50 percent. and six of the seven swing states were within the margin of error. arizona was the only surprise.

basically, there were three closer elections since the end of world war ii and only six closer ones since the beginning of the civil war. this was not a huge landslide, it was a pretty close race. in terms of the electoral college, he received six more electoral votes than he did in 2016 and six more than biden got six years ago. but it's still not a very big number. it may have been a surprise to some people. but it wasn't a landslide by any stretch of the imagination. landslides are generally 10 percentage points. the amazing thing is how little things happened below that on the ballot. you had 2 billion dollars spent in the house of representatives and republicans may have gone in with 221 seats and come out with 220 one with the democrats at

214. where it just did not happen. not a single governorship in the country changed parties. minimal change in the state legislature. in the u.s. senate, republicans picked up four senate seats but three of them were in states that trump carried, bright red states that trump carried in 2016 and 2020 and 2024. the only five swing states in terms of senate races were republicans -- democrats held onto four and democrats lost one, pennsylvania's bob casey. this was not the earth shattering election that a lot of people make it out to be. it was pretty much focused on president biden and the last four years. host: so, what surprised you about the outcome of the election, especially as we get more detail about the way that voters actually made that decision? guest: i guess i was most

surprised by, i thought harris would probably come out on top -- ahead in the popular vote, very narrowly. but, we knew the electoral college was going to be extremely close. the thing to remember is that undecided voters rarely split down the middle. they generally break one direction or the other. the same thing with swing states. they generally break one way or the other. in 2016, these same seven swing presidential states, donald trump won six and hillary clinton won one, nevada. in 2020, biden won six and trump won one, north carolina. this time, they went 7-0. it's enough, he carried all seven swing states.

that was a little bit of a surprise. they rarely break down the middle anymore. host: let's have a look at some of the populations were trump gained support. 46% of latino voters back trump, which is up seven points from 20 he w latino men, 5-40 3%. he won white women, 53%-40 7%. let's talk about latino voters in particular and how trump won latino men. do you see that as a trend or something unique to this year? guest: when we saw the erosion from democrats among latino voters in 2020.

you can look at this as the glass half empty or half-full. i don't think this election was about donald trump that much. i think just as in 2016, i think the election was about president trump and it was a close call and it was rejection. this time, it was more of a referendum on president biden and the last four years. to me, if you had a broad, multicultural rejection of biden or the biden-harris administration over four years, i see it as that, not really trump picking up. and so, i think the democrat party ties are loosening, absolutely. but part of this i think was mostly driven by cost of living being 20% higher than it was four years ago and the border having been out of control for three years.

they finally, within the last year, started getting the border under control. that was after claiming that they did not have the authority to do anything. the last year, they started doing what they said they didn't have the authority to do. those of the two issues that i think really dragged harris down, that republicans tried to have her name legally changed from kamala harris to biden-harris. which is fair, i would have tried to do the same thing. -- host: the washington examiner, 's tim carney has a calm, democrats extremist positions cost them the election.

saying des to run away from president joe ' inflation and immigration disasters andwelling inside a liberal media bubble, demo thought they could win the 2024 election by focusing hard on on. at the same time, the party made no effort to shed its recent excesses on gender ideology on -- and other radical stances. this hard left campaign on social issues may have cost them the election by alienating socially conservative hispanics and muslims and turning off socially moderate buttoned up suburban parents. do you find anything in the data to indicate that is what happened? guest: no, not really. that is a conservative view of it. no, first of all, i think the cost of living, which is inflation itself, not just monthly but cumulative over four years and interest rates, higher interest rates, that was

probably about 70% of what happened. the border was probably 20%. that left only 10% for other things. and, in terms of the gender -- transgender surgery and it being taxpayer-funded, that was something, democrats did not bring that up. it was an ad in a trump campaign, a very effective ad, probably the most effective at in this campaign, bringing upper attorney general's race 10 years or so ago. that was an issue that republicans ran on and used effectively but it was not something the democrats brought up. the only thing i would agree with that piece is that democrats thought that the abortion issue and the dobbs decision would be a silver bullet for them.

that it would be a get out of jail free card from inflation, cost-of-living and border. the thing is it is a powerful issue. when it is on the ballot, it generally does really well. but, it does not, in the mixture with a bigger election, it gets diluted. don't think what happened in the 2022 midterm elections, i don't think it had anything to do with the dobbs decision and the dobbs decision clearly did not save democrats in this one. it just gets mixed up. as i said, diluted by other issues that more people have on a day-to-day basis. host: we will be taking your calls with questions for charlie cook of the cook political report. our number for democrats is (202) 748-8000. for republicans, (202) 748-8001. for independents, (202) 748-8002 . and charlie, their is another

op-ed -- there is another op-ed, saying trump thinks he w a on a mandate to change america. histys otherwise. he says while trump openly campaigned on a platform of ibution, few people were expecting these specific moves. ere are reasons people may oted for trump. true believers but others found him enteng or did not like his opponent. a may have voted for trump but that does not mean most americans actually want trumpism . charlie, what do you think of this idea of trump having a mandate? do you think that it was? guest: no, i think it was baloney. i don't think he had a mandate in 2016, when he lost the popular vote.

i don't think joe biden had a mandate in 2020. mandates come from number one, how big was your margin? generally, it might be a landslide. which is 10 percentage points. what is very interesting is in the 21 presidential elections from 1900 to 1984, 14 of them were landslides, 10 percentage points or more. after reagan-mondale in 1984, there has not been a single landslide residential election at all. 1.6 percentage points is not a landslide. no change in the house. one of the narrowest majorities in house history. that is not a landslide. 53 seats in the senate, that is good but it is not a landslide. there is absolutely nothing that someone could point to that would suggest this was a landslide. to me, it is a cardinal sin for

a political figure or a party to pretend or presume they have a mandate when they did not. and i think biden and democrats presumed, pretended they had won in 2020 when they didn't. there is a danger of republicans and trump thinking they have one here when they don't either. we have two parties where there will not be mandates anytime soon. host: let's get to your calls and questions for charlie cook. we will start with henrietta in fort pierce, florida on the line for republicans. caller: good. -- good morning. i think this gentleman is just giving us lots of drivel. 316 electoral votes, please. when's the last time someone he got that? in addition to that, it's been

20 plus years since a republican won the popular vote. in addition to that, this was a statement from america as a whole that we rejected everything that the democrats have done for the past four years. host: before we get to your question, i want to point out that trump won 312 electoral college votes and not three injured 16 the go-ahead with your question. -- 316, but go ahead with your question. caller: why is he trying to denigrate the mandate that trump was clearly, clearly given? host: let's let charlie respond to that. go ahead, charlie. guest: 1.6 percentage points is not a mandate. that's not anymore than joe biden -- how about this for the

caller, it is a more narrow margin than joe biden had in 2020, did she think joe biden had a mandate then? just checking some historic numbers, 312 or 316, that's not a big margin. it just isn't. maybe she needs to look at her history books a little bit. that's nowhere near a landslide or mandate area. does she think -- did biden have a mandate in 2020? host: let's hear from john in syracuse on the line for democrats. caller: my speculation on this is that it would have turned out a lot differently had biden just

kept his remain in mexico policy that trump had, it was a great policy. the only thing the republicans have correct is immigration. everything else, they are wrong on. tax cuts for the rich, who wants that? to me, immigration, there was a big problem for the democrats. the one question that i don't believe is that women, the majority of women voted for trump. i know guys like me, we like trump. women, i have a hard time believing, because i've been married to a woman for 50 years, almost every woman that she is friends with, they don't like trump because of the things he has done to women. he's been married a hundred times. i don't believe he carried the women's vote. guest: let me interrupt. who said trump carried the

women's vote? caller: you put the statistics on the screen. guest: trump carried white women. but not all women. and i never, ever, ever have seen an exit paul that says that. -- exit poll that says that. host: let's look at some exit polling on the nbc news website. 53% of women voted for harris versus 45% of men. she did win with women. but, if we scroll down and go to sex by race, white women are the ones who did support trump in particular. 53% of white women here supporting trump as opposed to 45% for kamala harris. go ahead, john. did you want to say more? caller: my wife is a white

woman. all of her friends -- none of these women, these are older women, none of them like trump. it is surprising three. as a guy, i liked him. but i just don't believe -- his past history with women, the sexual harassment -- that he carried the white women's vote, i don't believe it. guest: what makes you think you live around a cross-section of all women in all 50 states? caller: i think i have a good grasp of what white women want because i've been married to one for 50 years. guest: i have too. that's just i don't know what to say. race is a big factor in american politics. gender is a big factor.

trump lost among all women. look at any of the exit polling. nothing shows trump was ahead among all women. i think people -- they look around and they see the people they live with or around and they extrapolate that for all 50 states. and, you would be a rare person indeed if everyone you knew constituted a cross-section of the entire country. host: historically, white women have voted republican over time, yes? guest: whites tend to vote more republican. they tend to vote more republican and women tend to vote more democratic. but white women, republicans do win those, narrowly in recent years. it just is what it is.

i don't think anybody should assume that the people they are in contact with day today are a cross-section of the entire country. that -- i can't imagine who could think that. host: let's hear from paul in new york city on the line for independents. good morning, paul. caller: my question is along these lines. you seem to be downplaying the significance of the election. i agree with your position that it does not seem like a mandate or anything to me. but i think it is remarkable that, considering donald trump has this january 6 charges against him, all of the trials or all of the court cases against him, the convicted felon argument that was constantly being repeated in the media, much more money than harris had.

much more media support. yet he won and she lost. i think david axelrod was obama's former campaign strategist or what have you, he -- they want to make a choice. people are so desperate for change -- host: go ahead, charlie. guest: the thing is that i don't think -- i'm not downplaying the significance of this election. what i am sort of saying is i think the interpretation is a bit off. i think this election was almost entirely about president biden and the biden-harris administration in the last four years and the cost of living.

secondarily, the border. but, you know, whenever you have an incumbent, it is a referendum up and down on the incumbent. this campaign started with an incumbent running, biden and then late in the game, he changed. but they practically changed kamala harris's name to biden harris, which is fair and a smart thing for them to do. this election was about the biden-harris administration. i don't think it was about donald trump much at all. just as i don't think in 2020, that election was not about joe biden. joe biden may have thought he had a mandate but that was not a mandate anymore than this is a mandate. host: in p.r..org has an interesting map here showing that most of the country shifted right in the 2024 presidential election. and we did see a lot of this,

you know, it was a lower voter turnout than the last presidential election but definitely more republican support. this sets up a question we received from andrew. do you think democrats should embrace ogressive economic ideas the federal minimum wage andedicare f a to win future presidential elections? guest: i think they would lose by worse margins. the maps where they have an arrow, a blue or red error, a red error to the right or a blue arrow to the left, showing whether that county trended more democratic or republican compared to four years ago, which is fine. you have to remember, if it is one arrow per county and lots of counties have few people in them, it can be misleading.

as you theoretically have the size of the arrow which should indicate how many people were trending in that direction. but, no. the thing is you have 46, 47, 40 8% of the voters who will vote democrat no matter what and 46, 47, 48% will vote for republican no matter what, leaving 2% to court row percent -- 4% that are in the middle. when you have such high floors and low ceilings for each party, and that does translate ideologically, what that means is there is no ideological mandate for liberalism or progressivism or for conservatism. you know, what election results like this suggest is a

president, a party shooting for the 40 yard line or whatever on their side of the 50 yard line, not far off at all. but the data points more to moderation and centrism. not either farther to the left or farther to the right. that is not where the country is. host: we have a question we receivedia text from kristin in ptld, maine. she says i am a staunch democrat but the pictures of afghanistan were an indelible picture of chaos and incompetence. no matter what the context was, the pictures say a thousand words. do you think that had a big impact in this election? guest: i think it did but not a lasting impact. if you think about it, look at the gallup poll for example, from january of 2021 when biden took office through june, his

approval ratings were in the mid to high 50's. in june of 2021, it was at 56%. starting in july, you had the border creating some problems. then you had a inflation start shooting up in may and june. then, the second half of august was when you had afghanistan. you saw president biden's approval rating dropped from 56% in june to 46 percent in october. a 13 point drop -- 42% in october. a 13 point drop. afghanistan was a piece of what took him down. but eventually afghanistan, i agree that it did look incompetent, absolutely. we have a son that served in combat in afghanistan and it hurt a lot of people to see that.

i don't think it was a lasting impact and it got replaced by concerns about his age that started creeping in in 2022 and 2023. but, i think certainly, afghanistan contributed to the decline. but it is not what kept him down for a sickly 3.5 more years. -- basically 3.5 more years. host: ralph in michigan. caller: good morning. i apologize for the cold. host: it's ok. go ahead with your question. caller: number one, you are a very good moderator. and the fact that you let your callers talk and you let your guests have a good conversation with you with not a lot of interruption. mostly, what i want to do is i have some things over the years that i have figured out. life is not rocket science. there are three things you need.

food, shelter and transportation. if you've got two out of the three, you have one out of the three. when you cross the border to put food on your table, watch out. at any time, that border could closing you will have no food. host: ralph, did you have a question for charlie? caller: yes, i will get to that shortly. no accountability starts with our education, our public education in the schools. if you don't hold the kids accountable for why they are there and what they are supposed to be doing, then you end up with no accountability in the job market. whether or not it be government work or private work. you just can't have a good outcome if you have no accountability. for charlie, i have this to say.

charlie, i think you live in somewhat of a d.c. bubble. guest: i don't live in d.c.. caller: alright, let me put it this way. you are too close to it. trump won the election without any problem at all. there is no question. you can push the numbers any which way you want. but there is certainly an outcry from this nation that says we want change. and the change in things such as the border, such as taxes, such as having boys go in girls bathrooms, i'm sorry. that just doesn't get it. hopefully, the two gentlemen, the two very good business gentlemen who wish to apply some accountability to our government spending, gosh i hope they get a chance to do it. host: ralph, did you have a

question because i want to get to some other folks so we can hear what charlie has to say. caller: my main question is how can you discount the election results? i just don't see it. host: ok, let's let charlie respond. guest: i don't discount the election. i agree with the caller that it was about change. people were angry and they wanted change. where i differ with the caller is, to me, they were angry at the biden-harris administration, the last four years. a lot of the policies that happened the last four years including the border the caller talked about. but that it was more about biden-harris. and not about donald trump so much. in 2020 when donald trump was the president, that was about change too and it was about donald trump. it was not about joe biden. to me, the 2020 election was not

about joe biden at all. he was just sort of the vehicle, if you voted for change, he was the vehicle. that's the same thing here for trump. it is wanting to change. -- wanting change. no question about that. only 30% of americans think the country is headed the right direction. 69% to 70% say it is on the wrong track. clearly it was a change election. were they angry at one side or really excited about the other side? i would argue there was a lot more anger at the democratic side and the biden side than it was donald trump, here he is, i love everything he says and wants to do and i'm for him. i'm saying it was more of an anti-election than it was a trump election. host: terry is in colorado on the line for the democrats.

go ahead with your question for charlie cook. caller: first, i have to say i am really worried about our government and the way they will handle things. i am afraid about the post office. i have family who work at the post office and i have a family who are teachers. and with the cuts they are going to be doing, it's going to affect them and my grandkids. i live in a community of government support, pretty much. a lot of elderly, low income farmers and ranchers and that out here. now, we have a lot of people who work from home and who are coming in with money. host: terry, did you have a question for charlie about the election results and the way people voted? caller: yes, i do. donald trump -- i have a few things to say and i will get to

the question. donald trump went against the united states of america on january 6. and i don't know how the hell he could even be able to be a president anymore. according to our constitution and everything, what he has done in the past eliminates him from being president, no matter who votes for what or what. host: terry, we are running out on time, can you ask your question for charlie? caller: pretty much, how does he -- how is he able to be elected, number one? number two, what are you going to do when you deport people back to mexico? are you going to shoot them because they turn around and try to fight back? host: let's let charlie to respond to some of these points you have raised. guest: yeah, i, presidents for

as long as i can remember, i remember jimmy carter being elected in 1976 and he wanted to make government more efficient and that was one of his priorities. we all would like government to be more efficient. but, you know, i think the odds of any single president ever making a measurable difference in the efficiency of government is pretty unlikely, given the size of it, the scope of it and how little a president can actually affect things without getting congress to pass. in terms of the polity, the constitution is there and laws are there and judges interpret it. if the federal judicial system judge that -- judged that donald

trump was ineligible to be president, then he would not be able to be. you could have an opinion, i can have an opinion, we all can have opinions. the ones that count at this point are those in the district and courts of appeal and the supreme court. i think you and i both know that is not likely to go against trump or it didn't. we can like that or not like that. but it is the courts that interpret what that law -- what laws say and what they mean. unfortunately, we are not allowed to do that. we had our voice with the election. and, you know, clearly about 49.9 or 50% said they would pick trump. and that's the way we do things. and i don't expect to see the supreme court go against him on anything like this. so, yeah, i understand the

caller's frustration. but, we all have our own interpretations of things. oftentimes, what we think doesn't count. it's what the supreme court thinks. host: jeff is on our line for independents in hoboken, new jersey. caller: i agree with what charlie said about people being angry but i think the democrats are doing the same old wrong things. the problem with the democrats now is you have the elitist them kratz and the rank and file and then you have the populist. the populists right now are the majority. and they are not getting what they want. kamala harris did not give any concrete policies when she was up there. she had celebrities. she did all of these other things but did not say things like let's raise the minimum

wage, let's get health care, universal health care. kate home sick leave, childcare, none of that. there was no message at all. there was nothing at all that she gave. ok? the other thing i would like to know what he thinks about is the influence of aipac and the israeli government that nobody was talking about. they had a huge influence. if you look at trump's cabinet picks, he's picked ultra right wing zionist people to be on his cabinet. combined with the fact that mary and allison gave him 100 nine dollars, that had a lot to do with the outcome of this election. must affect the muslims and brown people did not come out and vote for kamala harris. i'd like to know what charlie thinks about that. thank you. guest: yeah. i guess the place where i would agree that there is that much populism left in the democratic party. there used to be a lot. but now, not so much. populism resides mostly over on

the republican side. but, where i do agree with the caller is that heading into the final stretch of the campaign, there -- it was a very close race. there were 2%, 3%, 4% under fight -- undecided. when harris was asked on the view, is there anything that president biden did that you would do differently, and she said i couldn't think of anything. and if you look at the exit polls, it shows that of the people that made their mind up in the last week, those people broke toward trump pretty strongly. and my interpretation is that there were people who were hoping to vote for -- open to voting for her but they were waiting to see. this particular group right

here, they did not want donald trump again. but they didn't want another four years like they had with biden again. so, they were waiting to hear what would she do differently and when she didn't come up with that, with anything, that last 2%, 3%, 4% just sort of swung over to trump and that ended up being the difference. but, i do think that for a vice president, you have been handpicked by a president, i think it is easier said than done for a vice president to break. and to break off or break away from that president. clearly, she should have said in retrospect, i would have done or y or z. do it in a nice way. but, she needed to create some kind of separation. but that is really easier said than done when somebody picked you and you been working with them for four years.

i think the other fallacy out there is that, with the exception of george w. bush and dick cheney, anybody that thinks that any sitting vice president is one of the 10 most powerful people in the building is delusional. vice presidents don't usually have much say at all. when things go right, they don't deserve much credit and when things go wrong, they don't usually deserve much blame. the caller is right that she didn't need to create some kind of separation. but again, that is easier said than done. caller: let's get our last caller in for now, ron indiana on the line for democrats. good morning, ron -- ron in indiana on the line for democrats. good morning, ron. caller: this recent election, a week before the election took

place, approximately 870,000 votes were stricken from the role due to challenges to voter ability by a group called vigilantes incorporated. this is a ridiculous number of people who have been challenged. after the election, almost 79% of them have been found to be valid voters whose votes did not count. could you speak to how this might have affected the election? guest: let me ask the caller while he is still on, where was that? i'm not familiar with that group. caller: on fs tv.com, a report called vigilantes. host: where in the country was that happening? guest: it's -- caller: it's everywhere across the country. vigilantes incorporated is a civilization that was formed after the kkk fell apart. they used to only have 88-90

members. this year, their role tallies have jumped to over 86,000 members. and these votes that have been poached are in every state of the union. guest: the caller, in a country with 150 4 million people voted -- 154 million people who voted, i've never heard this vigilante group, i know there have been efforts to purge voter rolls. i think our local election officials do a good job. one thing they have not been very good at is claiming off dead people or people that have moved away. they are sitting on the rolls, they don't vote. but clearly things could be purged and some degree of purging is good if it is somebody that is dead or does not live in that county anymore. but, the number, out of 154 million votes, that's not --

that's not much at all. but i'm not familiar with that group and i'm not familiar with that website that the caller was talking about. there is a certain degree of purging that happens all the time and is necessary. now, to the extent that if they are purging people off of roles that legitimately should be on the voter rolls, that is wrong. that is wrong. and i would hope they would get caught. i would hope that they would get prosecuted. but frankly, i think our local election officials, i think they do a really good job. and usually with very little budget and it is certainly a thankless job. but i think it is amazing our elections work out as well as they do given the pressure they are under and having to deal with, in this case, 154 million votes. but i certainly hope that many

people who should have been able to vote were not purged. i clearly hope that. but i would need to know more about who these people were that were purged. and where they still alive or living in that jurisdiction? were they registered to vote in someplace else? those were all things that were legitimate questions. host: we will have to leave it there. charlie cook is the founder and contributor at the cook political report. thank you, charlie. guest: thank you, kim really. host: thanks to everybody who calledn with your questions. we have more of your phone calls coming after the break in open form. you can call now, the numbers are on your screen. later, we will have a conversation with allison jaslow, ceo of the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. we will discuss changes to the military and the defense department under president elect donald trump's second term.

we will be right back. ♪ >> talmage boston considers himself a full-time lawyer and a full-time historian. his latest book is called how the best did it. leadership lessons from our top presidents. he chose the first four of eight off the face of mount rushmore. fort washington, thomas jefferson, abraham lincoln and theodore roosevelt. -- george washington, thomas jefferson, abraham lincoln and theodore roosevelt. he chose distinct leadership traits that were exhibited by the presidents. the other presidents are fdr, dwight eisenhower, john f. kennedy and ronald reagan. 71-year-old talmage boston lives in dallas, texas. >> lawyer and his talmage boston with his book, how the best did

it, leadership lessons from our top presin this episode of book nots withost, brian lamb. book notes plus is available on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse throughout latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books and home decor. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington. live and on-demand, keep up with the days biggest events with live streams and floor proceedings. white house events. all at your fingertips.

you can stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and watch scheduling information for c-span's network . c-span now is available at the apple store for google play. download it for free today or visit our website at c-span.org/c-span now. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are in open forum. starting with james on our line for democrats. good morning, james. caller: hi, thank you for having me. i've -- i do a lot of thinking. it's not just donald trump is a crook. everybody says the insurrection he had, killing police officers

and innocent people. i don't want to get back into that but i want to point out, the first of the 10 commandments is now shout not kill, if they are going to be reading the bible in scroll, they will have to live up to the fact that there president is a murderer. and that he broke the 10 commandments. one thing i want to say about another issue about tobacco. the deep south is against abortion. but the cigarettes they produce caused spontaneous abortions in women. they make the fetus sick. if they are so much against killing people, why are they

producing a product in the deep south where trump got elected that is killing all of our people and giving people diabetes, asthma and spontaneous abortions? host: ok. ray is in syracuse, new york, on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. sorry i missed mr. cook. he must have been misspeaking. he said when he was talking about whether it was a landslide or not, he said it was only 49.9 or something, in other words it was not quite half of the elector it. -- electorate that caused the win but it was over 50%, wasn't it? host: some of the votes are still being counted. as we are waiting for a final

tally, right now, where it stands is that president elect trump won 76,830,069 votes, which is at exactly 50% of the electorate, 50.0% of the votes versus kamala harris, who got 48.4% of the votes. caller: so where is the missing whatever? host: probably third parties or jill stein or something like that. caller: so it was almost a tie in terms of what that is telling us? host: in terms of the popular vote. caller: right. host: it's a 1.6 percent difference. but go ahead. ok. let's go to joe in new york on our line for independents. go ahead. caller: good morning. i did listen to charlie cook and

it was funny because when the caller said to him you are in d.c., he answered with i live 500 miles outside of d.c. the guy who called was talking about in his head, in his physical -- not in his physical location. number one. number two, my comment is on j six. you had a caller call in. j six was a set up by the democratic party as far as i'm concerned. also, you have callers calling in saying it was not a landslide. i think it was a landslide. you get 50% of the vote, that is pretty serious stuff. also, i called in after the kamala-trump bay and said kamala would not win. -- debate and said kamala would

not win. she lost because she was not qualified. it had nothing to do with race, gender, any of that stuff. if you look at my comments then, they are true now. she wasn't a good candidate. host: we have a text message om mar in illinois who said if the election was about biden, he was the best the party uld choose. the democratic party needs new leadership. radley is in northport, michigan, on our line for democrats. -- bradley is in northport, michigan on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: i would like to echo what keith olbermann said on his podcast that biden should consider pardoning generals meli, kelly, liz cheney and adam schiff, people who might be prosecuted by donald trump.

i wish that he would not pardon his son nor himself but everyone else should lead a decent life because they have served this country and should not have to worry about going to court and having these trumped up charges. host: james is in new jersey on the line for independents. caller:yes, i was involved -- si was three years old. and one thing that is very dangerous, one woman in a position of intelligence had to stop giving intelligence information to people in washington, d.c.

had to stop her. host: ok. in north carolina on overline for republicans -- on our line for republicans, good morning, tate. caller: yes, i am retired. probably never had a job in his life, never had dirt under his fingernails, but what i am saying is over there come a life of people in north carolina, but mr. trump, i don't like his language. he is from new york. i understand new yorkers are disgusting people. they come down here and visit. down here, we always say that if they go back, they are yankees. but if they stay, they are yankees. yes? host: i was just saying to keep

the language clean. finish up your point. caller: yes. i am from north carolina. i am a dairy farmer. retired. i am 79 years old. i don't like the language that president trump uses because he is a new yorker. they come down here and they visit. host: ok. i think we've got the idea. let's hear from john in tennessee on our line for democrats. good morning, john. caller: good morning. am i connected? host: yes you are. we are in open forum. go ahead. caller: correct me if i am wrong, but what i saw sitting on the stump in the mountains, not like the vice president thinks he is in ohio, but i saw in 2020

this started to overthrow the united states government by the maga republicans and donald trump. they destroyed the republican party. they had one option, a one party system. and the united states, the voters of the united states have voted, voted for an authoritarian or a dictatorship, period. thank you very much. host: mike is on overline for independents. caller: yes, good morning. excuse my voice. my question to mr. cook would have been the demographics of the election. i think 71% of white americans voted for donald trump. and if that is true, there is no weight in the world anyone else could have won the election. host: so i am looking here at some exit polling from nbc news, and it looks like 57% of white

americans voted for trump. caller: there is no way anybody else could have won the election. true? host: yes because they represent 71% of the population. caller: that is my point. yes. the only thing i could say, i hope he does not mean too much to anybody, but i voted for character. i did not vote for sex or race or whatever. i just voted for character. but that is just me. you have a good day. host: tom is in new jersey on our line for republicans. good morning, tom. caller: yeah. how you doing today? basically, what i want to say, it is totally frightening that kamala harris was even that close. and that is what really frightens.

and the good thing that will come out of this is that michelle obama does not have a chance. go trump. eliminate most of the government. thank you. host: donald is in south bend, indiana, on our line for democrats. good morning, donald. caller: yes. hi. i just want to remind the voters in the upcoming cost-cutting the current administration is going to do the second time around, remember the first time he did that, correct me if i am wrong, he cut the group that would go into countries to mitigate these emerging viruses. and if he does that again, we are going to have covid, "covid part two." so just remember that, voters. that is what you just voted for. thank you. host: bubba is on overline from memphis, tennessee, on our line

for republicans. caller: you just had a republican call in a while ago and used a word. you had a democratic guest on your show last week that used the same word, and you did not even say anything to him. democrats call in a lot about insurrection. there was no insurrection. you need to be correcting these people. donald has not been charged with insurrection or rape, and democrats continuously call in and lie. but when republicans get on the line, you are quick to hit the button. that is all i got. good morning. goodbye. host: john is in north carolina on overline for independents. good morning, john. caller: yes. i just like to hear democrats correct. i will make them try to cry a little bit more. why is it that joe biden and

obama did things they said they could not do? the supreme court lost its power. they do anything they want with the law or against the law. they get by with it. i wish you would let people come back, democrats, republicans, independents. i have been trying to call for two months, and i have just finally got through. it is not that they are not calling. we just cannot get through. independents need to have just as much right to say something as anybody else. i just thank you for everything. i prayed that trump would win. he did. me and my wife prayed. that is so good. host: ok. wisdom is in memphis, tennessee, on our line for democrats. good morning, wisdom.

caller: this is brother wisdom. first i salute you, queen, and i hope they give you a raise. what i would like to say is a few things. the first thing is when you are privileged, equality seems like oppression. people have a problem with other people being equal and given their god-given rights. so they rationalize and justify any wrong that trump does, it is about us getting back what we had or have. and those who do not have, as long as it is not another race getting it, they are all right with it. how dare they have what we already don't have but what they think they do have. one more point i want to make. you have the 5%, 10%, and 85%.

the 10%, they control the 85%. the 5%, they are ignored. they don't have the media to influence people. so those 10% are influencers the 85%, and the 85% are fighting amongst one another. that is why woke is a big problem in this world. even though everyone wants to be woke, nobody wants to be a sleep. they have a problem with the word, and when they use it as a weapon. thank you for having me. host: in homestead, florida, on overline for independents, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. the point i want to make is i voted for the first time back in 2008 when obama came into presidency, and ever since then i have been voting democrat.

now as i am older now, a little more wiser, you know, i have started to notice a shift where a lot of democrats have been having more values or more of the things that they have been talking about have only been focused on the lgbtq, writes. now -- rights, and now that i am 35 come i think about other democrats who have other values who want to hear about topics not related to the small minority group. this year when i voted, this was the first year i was undecided. not only have we not had primary elections in the past two elections, we have not had any other candidates who have been able to represent us as democrats in the way that we want to. i think the shift will be

happened where we now saw more democrats vote for republicans because kamala harris really in my opinion did not have the qualifications to be president. and i think herself she knew this because obama the whole time was having speeches for her. but regardless of that, i think that we are seeing the momentum now with robert f kennedy -- f. kennedy, who he was having these debates on his own and having some type of momentum. i think we have to probably consider whether or not having a two-party system in this country is still a valid system. now i think maybe we should start considering a three party system where there are other values that are being spoken

about because there is too much radicalism in the left and too much in the right. host: ok. tom is in illinois on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well, thank you. caller: i just got one or two comments. host: can you just turn down the volume on your tv? and you can go ahead. caller: i'm sorry. is that better? host: yes, thank you. caller: ok. i just got one or two comments. i am an air force veteran of the vietnam era. and i swear i never thought i would ever see the day that we are fighting communism in the united states. but it is so prevalent. and on point. everywhere you look, it is communists, communists, communists wanting to take over country over. so i have one statement from the good old days. america, love it or leave it. host: ok. in west babylon, new york, on

overline for independents, good morning, tony and. caller: hi good morning -- hi, good morning. i am fired up today because i am hearing people say kamala harris is not qualified. she is the only one that ran in three parts of government, judicial, executive, and legislative branch. but a reality tv host has more qualifications. explain that to me. am i better off than i was four years ago? yes, i am. i had my student loans forgiven as a teacher. $64,000 believed off of my back. i can contribute to the economy. ok. what the republicans have is a right wing ecosystem that has been brainwashing people. i see it when i go to my own father's house. ok. they get part of the story. everything trump does is great and everything that biden-harris

administration did is horrible. it is like brainwashing. that is what they have on their side. look at the people they are putting in government that he is picking for his cabinet with sexual abuse. a week before the election, i am watching this man who supposedly has good qualifications and he is performing disgusting things with a microphone, ok, which i don't know if i can say that, and dancing around for 40 minutes. did not want to answer questions. a big buffoon. that is what we want to have as a president. we are a laughingstock for the world. ok. that is all. host: we are going to go to rodney in louisiana on overline for democrats. caller: yeah, good morning. i have a question for the black from supporters -- trump supporters. has any black person asked elon musk how he feels about black people?

everyone knows the history of white south africans in south africa. do any black people in america trust elon musk to have their best interest? i don't think so. and why did he give money? he is a white south african. isn't it kind of ironic that one of the richest people in the world is a white man from africa? it is just so strange to me. thank you. host: that is all the time we have for open forum. thanks to everyone who called in. coming up, we will have a conversation with allisojaslow , ceo of the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america to talk about president and elect -- president-elect trump and talk about what that means for the military and defense department. we will be right back. ♪ >> all weekend, book tv brings you live to the miami book fair.

highlights include stacey abrams, author of a children's book, malcolm gladwell with "revenge of the tipping point," and a roundtable. an astrophysicist explains the search for life outside of earth in his book "is exceptional? -- is eth exceptional -- "is earth exceptional?" and then a book on reproductive birthrights and birth control. watch book tv every weekend on c-span2. find a full schedule on your program guide or watch it online anytime at booktv.org. >> attention, middle and high school students across america.

it is time to make your voice heard. c-span studentcam documentary contest 2025 is here. this is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness, and make an impact. your message to the president. what is you is most -- what issue is most important to you or your community? whether you are passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories, studentcam is your platform to share your message with the world. with $100,000 in prizes with the grand prize of $5,000, this is your opportunity to not only make an impact would also be rewarded for your creativity and hard work. enter your submissions tod scan the code or visit studentcam.org for all the details on how to enter. the deadline is january 20, 2025. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back.

we are joined now by allison jaslow, who is the ceo of iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. welcome to "washington journal." guest: thank you for having me. host: can you tell us a little bit about your organization and how you are funded? guest: sure. iraq and afghanistan veterans of america is a membership organization that represents more than 425,000 members and supporters nationwide. we are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. host: president-elect trump says that he is poised to basically bring quite a few changes to the department of defense from deploying troops domestically to banning transgender people from openly serving in the military. what are some of the potential changes that you heard about thus far that has caught the attention of your organization?

guest: i think the unfortunate part about the things we are in right now is there is a lot of hypotheticals and not a lot to react to. i do think that many people believe that the transgender ban will take place again in the military, which is unfortunate. outside of that, he has elevated a secretary of defense or at least nominated somebody to be secretary of defense who has unfortunately updated views about women in the military as well. a lot remains to be seen as the trump administration has not been installed yet. host: trump confirmed on monday that he plans to declare a national emergency and deploy the military to carry out mass deportations. do you believe this is an appropriate use of the military on the home front? guest: i think trump wants to

something like your viewers but honestly the entire united states should get more attention and information on the fact that the national guard has been deployed to the southern border for many years now. at this point, the way in which we use our military i think should get more attention, and i am glad we are having this national conversation around the ways in which we not only deploy our military here at home, but also how our military is deployed abroad. i think most of your viewers are probably not aware we have troops in iraq, syria right now. passed in 2001 and 2002 to activate the again a stand and iraq wars. big picture -- activate in -- to activate the afghanistan and iraq wars. host: and what do you think it

would do to military personnel, to morale and particular -- in particular, if these actions that president-elect trump is talking about were carried out? guest: i thing there are a couple of things that you need to maintain a perspective. number one, anything that might be an unlawful order -- the military i have faith in that they will not execute anything that is a hypothetical unlawful order that might come their way. so that is the first thing. secondly, i think what we should think about as a country and what especially the united states senators need to think about in confirmation is we have a volunteer force, and as long as we fight our wars with a volunteer force and that is the will of the people in america, we need to think about who is not only just commander-in-chief but overseeing the policies in the military because we want to make sure raising your hand and

pledging an oath not only to the constitution but to defend the nation and go in harm's way to defend our country and our national security, we want every able-bodied american who is willing and qualified to be able to do that. the policies that we put in place from the top down at the defense department need to ensure that the most amount of americans who are able to serve our country will want to serve our country. and so again, big picture, this is not about any one person's ideology. it is about the health and readiness of our volunteer force. not just now, but also into the future. host: pete hegseth is president-elect trump's choice for leading the pentagon. and some of his experience includes being a fox news channel host an army national guard veteran as well -- an army

nationald guard veteran as well as bronze star. do you think this experience is enough to lead the department of defense? guest: i think a couple of things. the fact that he is bringing in lived experience not just in the military, i think national guard experience is valuable experience. i think the fact that he has had multiple deployments is important experience to bring to the job. that said, it is an enormous agency.it has the largest budget of any agency in the federal government. a workforce of around 3 million employees, which includes not just uniform servicemembers but also federal government workers. and i think, again, the united states senate who will confirm that next administration's nominees for not just the defense department but all agencies need to think about whether he has the chops to step into that role, not

because he is a member -- a veteran or a former member of the military, but also the ability to run a large agency of that size. and also like i think policymaking experience would be valuable in that role too. you have seen many members of the military who have also transitioned, become members of congress, or had senior pentagon roles before they stepped into that role, which is very, very different from what pete hegseth has going into the role. host: he earlier made comments about women in the military, and here is him expanding on that on an appearance on the sean ryan show earlier this month. [video clip] >> everything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated. and complication in combat means casualties are worse. when you actually go under the

hood, i got 99% positive responses, a little bit of pushback, but when you break down what they did in the studies to open the door for women in combat, they just ignored them. so the marine corps was the only service that actually tried to fight back and say -- obviously, special operations which thus far held the line pretty well because they were lowering the standard to become a navy to let women in the navy seals, that would change the capability of the navy. a small example of a female super soldier who was kept below doing that, but because the way washington works with people low are the standards and push for quotas. these standards are not just changing. they are evolving. they are evolving to meet the needs of today. they are getting lower. and take someone like millie. who was coming down to

individual units to make sure they had female commanders? what is the chief doing question company command spots? it is all an agenda to say we have this first or this and that. that is proliferating everywhere . the reason women started getting income but because of support companies and we were integrating the rear echelon activities into bct's that were now deploying forward at an entity. so we had women truck drivers or mechanics on these convoys in iraq and afghanistan and he would be hit by ied's and now suddenly you have women in combat. that is a reality of a 360 battlefield. that is different than intentionally saying we will put women into combat roles so they will do the combat jobs of men. knowing that we changed the standards and putting them there, which means you changed the capability of that unit. if you say you haven't, you are

a liar. everybody knows between bone density and lung capacity and muscle strength, men and women are just different. host: allison, what is your response to his view that those standards have been lowered? guest: i think first and foremost it is worth noting i actually saw combat before. he correctly noted that in our most recent wars, combat found women. so it is honestly very poignant to hear from a contemporary of mine. pete hegseth is i think two years older than me. the fact that he cannot evolve's viewpoint to understand the reality -- evolve his viewpoint to understand the reality of the wars he fought in and what it entailed, it is honestly very discouraging because he is

almost turning a blind eye to the battlefield we are currently fighting on and did fight on that overlap 20 years brought towards women. and i think that, you know, for better or worse, there are some women who i served alongside of who are way more bad -- you know, tougher than i am. there are women who are weaker than i am but there were also men who worked tougher than i am and weaker than i am. i think honestly understanding -- if you served in the last 20 years in our united states military, there are women who have proven over and over again to meet the demand of not only our current warfare and the way we are waging battle and also fighting counterterrorism today abroad, but women who are graduating from school, i don't know how

much your viewers know about the united states military but ranger school is a 50% failure rate. so the women graduating from ranger school are objectively mentally and physically tougher than many men in the united states military. and i think maintaining that perspective is very important as this debate continues. host: we are going to be taking your calls for allison jaslow, ceo of iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans on (202) 748-8001. independents at (202) 748-8002. we also have a special line for active military and veterans. you can call in at (202) 748-8003. and now, i do want to ask about some of the controversial stories that have been coming out, particularly in relation to the allegations of sexual abuse

that hegseth is facing given that this is an issue. how big of a problem do you think this is going to be for his confirmation? guest: i definitely think it is concerning, especially as we still are trying to tackle the issue of military sexual assaults in the united states military right now. but honestly, i think the most concerning thing about pete hegseth's background as he seemingly thinks war crimes are permissible. he lobbied who is now president elect to get convicted war criminals pardoned, and to become a that is the most disqualifying factor of his background as he seeks to be secretary of defense. host: there is an article in "time magazine" about this, pete hegseth's role in controversial pardons of men accused of war crimes. pete hegseth, an outspoken

critic, has built a career around challenging the military establishment. he held an influential role in advocating for trump's to intervene on behalf of service members in three cases involving war crimes accusations in 20, cases that provided the military -- divided the military and ignited the base over the limit of executive power and military accountability. we have a question from jd reading on twitter who says hegseth's advocacy for members cused of war crimes has been controversial. how do you see this affecting military discipline and the legal framework within the military? guest: i mean, i would double down on what i said just a minute ago, that if we make a choice as a country, or if the united states senate does, to elevate somebody as secretary of defense who seemingly thinks war crimes are permissible, that has cascading impact on how we not

only wage war going forward, but the reason we have those guardrails is we want to make sure that other countries have a certain level of, you know, war is complicated, and even talking about character around waging war is complicated, but we want to make sure that our u.s. service members aren't murdered in war, that they aren't, you know, mistreated. you've seen in recent wars a lot of conversations around torture and what that means, and, again, i can't control, and pete hegseth can't control what our adversaries might do to u.s. servicemen and women come of the standards with which we hold ourselves to and that also hold our own members of the military to account is important when it

comes to when we want to hold our adversaries to account. and so we can't be lowering our own standards, especially at the level of secretary of defense, if we want to be able to hold our adversaries to account when they might cross the line, when it relates to the men and women who are serving our nation and were deployed and are in harm's way right now to defend our country. host: the "wall street journal" has an article reporting on a tron draft executive order that would create a board to purge generals, saying that the term transition team is considering a draft executive order that would establish a board of retired senior military personnel with the power to recommend removals for any deemed unfit for leadership. if donald trump approves the order, it would fast-track those who are lacking in leadership

qualities, according to the review by the "wall street journal," but it could create a chilling effect on top military officers, given the president elect's past valves to fire "woke generals," referring to officer seen as promoting diversity in the ranks at the expense of military readiness. what types of programs are at issue here, and do you think that they have been implemented in a way that is a detriment to military readiness? guest: first, to say it is worthwhile for your viewers to know, folks who are military veterans would already know this, but once you reach the rank of, you know, general, if you are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate, so they are, for lack of a better way to describe it, political appointees. so whatever construct the president elect is thinking

about reviewing and/or, you know, potentially firing some of his generals, because he will be the commander-in-chief at that point, or generals who are already serving, like, it is within his right to be able to, you know, change leadership within the united states military. that said, like, i think it would be a little bit destabilizing to the military if there was a ton of house clean. it is a very large bureaucracy, and the military itself, i think, benefits from having a lot of stability within the institution, because that allows you to deal with a lot of instability elsewhere in the world. and so, you know, if i was the commander-in-chief or an advisor to the commander-in-chief, i would not want to create too much instability within the military itself, because that could disrupt the ability for

the military to also then deal with instability elsewhere in the world. host: let's go to your calls. david is in california on our line for republicans. good morning, david. caller: yes, hello, good morning. i have a few questions. the first is, what is the number of military bases outside of the united states, and how many of them do you really believe are necessary? guest: david, i apologize, but i do not have those facts right in front of me. but i do think it is helpful to have u.s. troops who aren't just here at home but repositioned elsewhere in the world if we need to be able to rapidly deploy them. caller: ok, so i'm shocked that a person in your position does not know that, first of all, but the number is between 750 and 800. now, if you thought that there were 750 to 800, how many of

those do you really think are necessary or could be consolidated? host: allison, do you feel like any of those basins could be consolidated or that there needs to be a reduction in u.s. presence abroad or even domestically? guest: currently, i would not say so. host: ok. let's go to ted in oregon on our line for military, active-duty military. good morning, ted. caller: good morning. i was active-duty in the u.s. air force, red horse civil engineers for six years, two months, 12 days, from 1978 until 1985. and i was really wondering why people cannot understand how the military really works. the active-duty, that's

federally funded money. you know that and i know that. you get into the army reserve, the air force reserve, the naval reserve, that also is federal money. when you get into the national guard in the air national guard, that is state money, and back in my day, we would deal with the air force reserve, we would deal with the international guard at times, and what we found is active-duty guns, you cannot take a person two days a month, two weeks a year, and expect them to think like we did. it does not work. i mean, i was on many deployments -- host: ted, what is your question? caller: my question is, why do people not understand that all bases are needed, all personnel are needed, and that is why, in this day and age, there are

military contractors. in my days, there were no military contractors. we were able to do it all. i want to know the change. thank you very much. host: go ahead, allison. guest: i don't know that i have a lot to offert there, except that i can relate to, you know, the feeling of disconnect between the average american, the united states military, and the understanding of how and where we are waging our wars currently, and that is going to be, you know, work that i would do personally but also our organization to bridge the military-civilian by, not just in the present day but going forward. host: brad is in minnesota on our line for republicans. good morning, brad. caller: good morning. kind of interesting coming from a lady that can probably hardly get out of a wet paper bag -- host: in new york on our line

for independents, good morning, robin. caller: good morning. i want to thank the guest for her service. i have a little understanding as a former volunteer firefighter, basic exterior certification with hazmat, and i'm against war, but i think we should have. 100% draft everybody should serve in whatever capacity that they can. andy comment about males being superior as physical strength and all that, at the end of the day, athletes, there is a small difference until we introduce steroids. even iq, they used to say women could not have higher iq, because men have bigger heads, but it turns out that is fatty insulation. so unless we are talking about group source with no thinking, there's not much difference, and women can withstand pain better because of childbirth. so those are my comments and my

thoughts. host: any response to that, allison? guest: i have nothing. host: ok. mary is in the data on our line for democrats. good morning, mary. caller: good morning. i'm just tuning in. i'm concerned about more than just the defense department, i'm concerned about all of our major institutions. the nominees are all unquantified. -- unqualified. they are not being. vetted by the fbi. we are watching afghanistan, there was some conversation earlier, earlier programs, there's plenty of blame to go around there, ok? there's no perfect way to leave a war zone, and donald trump is the one who negotiated the surrender with the taliban, so that stage was already set. he breaks things. he is going to throw ukraine under the bus could we have an obligation to defend

ukraine, who was attacked by putin, who is our enemy. what they are doing, money, there's a big grip to going on. trump is a grifter, and it is trickle-down economics. host: mary, did you have a question for allison? caller: no, no question, just a lot of comments. thank you. host: ok. we do have a question coming omevin on nex related to women in the military, saying e ysical fitness standards are different, and why is that? i will point to an associated press article back from 2022 with the headline, "army eases fitness test standards for women and older troops," saying, this was back in march of 2022, after three years of complaints and debate, the army had scrapped its move to have a physical fitness test that is gender and age neutral and will now allow women and older soldiers to pass while meeting some reduced

standards. so kevin wants to know why these standards are different. guest: i don't know if kevin has served himself, but the important thing to maintain a perspective is there's two things being discussed here, one, whether men and women have the same physical standards to serve in the military altogether, or whether women are capable of being in combat, and especially before hand, the women who are not just participating in but also passing ranger school are not only meeting the same standards of men but are also objectively much tougher, both mentally and physically, than many other men who are serving. so, i think, it is important to know that women who are capable of serving in combat, many women like myself who have also, like, been in combat, whether we

wanted to or not, you know, i think is the important factor to maintain perspective here and not as much, you know, particular standards are being mandated for the entire force. host: we have a question from joan in minnesota who asks, why do you think the different branches no longer fill their quotas for a new soldiers? guest: well, i think you bring up a very good point, that also dovetails with our conversation around the neck secretary of defense. we are undergoing a recruitment crisis right now, and if, again, we want to wage our wars with an all volunteer force, we need to make sure every able-bodied american who is willing and qualified wants to step up, raise their hand, pledge an oath to the constitution, and also serve our country in uniform. so, you know, right now, i cannot speak to like them especially post-pandemic, the

military is struggling to recruit and fill all of the slots it feels it needs to maintain a healthy, all volunteer force, but i do think as we continue to tackle that problem, we need to make sure that all of the policies that we are implementing for the all volunteer military are supporting, making sure every able-bodied american who wants to serve and can serve, is willing to step up and do so. host: a couple more comments in a question related to women in the military, this one from robert in utah. history fl of examples of women warrio bng affected i combat. history is also full of examples of ineffective leadership provided byen. ineffective leadership is the greatest danger to a military force, period. on x, women are allowed ithe navy seals. one woman passed rigorous training but she chose to serve

in a different capacity. anything else to serve on this, allison? guest: i would just agree with the first view are who you referenced there, that, like, leadership is most consequential to making sure that we have a healthy military, an ethical military, to make sure we have a military where people want to continue to serve, and whether it is a man or a woman, i do think having high-quality leaders who we elevate, not just in level appointees roles like the secretary of defense but also our officers, generals, and admirals. so i would agree with him, that no matter who we are elevating, like, if they are not a good leader, that has cascading effect on our entire all volunteer force. host: stephen is in wisconsin on our line for republicans. good morning, stephen. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

what are your thoughts on the administration's attempts previously to federalize the national guard, and do you think that would have a negative or positive effect? thank you. guest: just a point of clarification, the national guard has been federalized at different points in our history, both to provide roles here at home for supports for, you know, natural disasters or the pandemic and also on the southern border, but the national guard has also deployed abroad as well. when i first deployed almost 20 years ago, the unit that, my unit replaced was a national guard unit, and so i think it is worthwhile for viewers of this program to understand that, you know, the national guard has been federalized at points over and over again, when the federal government has needed.

and i think it is not a bad practice, you know,, but the american public should also understand how and when the national guard is federalized, but almost no different than the american public should understand how and when our active-duty military or our reserves are deployed into harms way. host: kate is on california on our line for democrats. good morning, k. caller: good morning, allison. i wanted to address the administration issue, incoming administration issue, where they are saying they are going to be cutting the budget for the military. wouldn't there be a cost benefit in cutting the number of contractors who are paid quite a bit of a differencet than active service members around the world, and what is that price difference between active service member and contractors? thank you. guest: well, kate, i think it is

important to maintain perspective on the fact that this is not a black and white issue. i don't think any administration can view the complexity of our, you know, global national security issues as a black and white issue. and so, considering any cuts, i think we need to not think about the cuts themselves, but what is the impact of those cuts? is it just a cost savings, or could it actually cause a national security crisis or a national security concern or vulnerability? i think we need to have a conversation that includes not just price tags but also the impact of whatever expenditures that lawmakers, the department of defense, or whoever else is recommending. host: russell is in south carolina and is on our line for active-duty military folks. good morning, russell. caller: actually, i am a veteran, an air force veteran.

my question for the guest is, the tuskegee airmen were my first example of di, so when you look -- dei, so when you look at the general being attacked by the president elect and the record that the tuskegee airmen left behind when they started escorting the b-29's. and a lot of people say they are instrumental in winning the air campaign against the germans in world war ii, and the761st all -negro take battalion was instrumental in the battle of the bulge, so when they start attacking military dei, aren't they really attacking america's ability to be ready for war?

that is my question for the guest. guest: well, i will repeat myself, that i believe that as long as we are a nation who wants to fight its wars with an all-volunteer force, we have to think about what most benefit the health of that all-volunteer force, and also building a culture in that all-volunteer force that makes it most appealing for any able-bodied american who wants to step up and serve. to your point about cq brown, i think he is an incredible leader. i think he is the cooler had we need in the times we are living. i had an opportunity to interact with him personally a number of times, and i have the utmost respect for him. and my hope is we make in the continuity in the continuity and the chair of joint chiefs. host: melissa is on our line for independents. good morning, melissa.

caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. some questions for you, ms. jaslow. you say there's really no difference between men and women, and they should both be in combat, well, there is a lot of physicality difference between men and women if you're you are speaking to somebody who has been in the military. i've been through basic training, the whole nine yards. there is a big difference when it goes through physicality through men and women in the military. their requirements for women, for physical requirements for women in basic training are different than they are for men. men have to do pull-ups, women do bent-arm hangs. the runs are not as long, the packs are not as heavy, there is a difference, because there is a difference between men and women physically. yes, there might be a woman out of 100,000 that can go through field training, regular field training, or go through the

old-fashioned ranger school and pass. not everybody is built the same. now, as far as combat goes, yes, there is an issue, because when you are there with your brother and a brother, that is what you are fighting next to is your brother, but when you have your sister that is next to you, you are double worried. you are more worried about your sister getting hurt then you are worried about yourself getting hurt or yourself handling what needs to be done. you know this if you were in combat. and another question, what was your m.o.s. when you were in the military? i would really like to know what your m.o.s. was. were you a tech diver? i'm waiting for your response on your m.o.s. host: you can respond to whatever points you would like to start with. guest: sure. so i do not have an m.o.s.,

because i served as an officer. i went to school on an rotc scholarship. my freshman year was the fall of 2000, so i wanted to serve my country before even 9/11 happened. of course, my sophomore year, the trajectory of my service changed fundamentally. when i deployed almost 20 years ago today, the day after thanksgiving in 2004, i became a platoon leader of a platoon that had a mission that was confined to a base, but within 60 days, our mission was contracted, largely. there was one part that wasn't. and most of my platoon was in charge of basic security, so if you can envision a watch with two soldiers in it. but we were also a convoy security platoon, otherwise called a gun truck platoon. so my soldiers job when we went on convoys was to protect a convoy as it went from base to base throughout iraq.

we experienced small arms fire, convoys that i was on regularly were hit by improvised explosive device's or roadside bombs. and, you know, to her point, women come in all shapes and sizes, but i will tell you that when we experience that a change of mission, i had some of my women soldiers impress the hell out of me and also some of my male soldiers get really intimidated by the change of mission. so i think we need to maintain a perspective that there are, again, i would point to ranger school, there are women who are objectively mentally and physically tougher than many of the men who are even serving in the military, and it is very much true, and i have, you know, my own witness of this, that there are, you know, women who have exceeded expectations in combat, in war time, honestly,

it is sad that we are having this conversation today, because we have made so many advances over the last 20 years. women are serving and leaving in the combat arms, in the infantry, and honestly, i feel very sad for the male soldiers right now who probably have a ton of respect for them, that they are watching this play out publicly right now. we should all be very sad that this is even a debate that we are still having today. host: joe is in north carolina on our line for independents. good morning, joe. caller: thank you for taking my call. and thank you, ms. jaslow, for your service. i wanted to touch on a couple of things. i think you'll find it almost difficult to prevent some of us to join at the military when you've got a guy in charge of the military that is not legally

supposed to have guns, being a convicted felon. he's also, you know, not so supposed to be voting. it is wild that this guy is in charge of our weaponry and everything, and he is not held to the same standards could you talk about the differences and standards between men and women, but really, he's not even held to, like, the same fortitude standards of the people in service that he's a head over. and i just wanted to hear your thoughts on that. guest: i mean, i guess the most important thing to note here is that the american public in this democracy that we live in has made a decision to, you know, elect this next president, and i think we have to reckon with our fellow americans is the choices that we are making, and i think that that is honestly something that as a people, we need to wrestle out with each other

versus my specific stance. host: liam is in fayetteville, north carolina on our line for military, active duty military and veterans. good morning, liam. caller: good morning. i'm retired military on special forces, and i've seen this before on our crossings on service and the military. i want to say that in terms of when the gentleman asked her about how many bases where we were and how they needed to be consolidated, some of my last jobs was teaching at the commanding general and staff college level. i had interactions with training at the national training center, that got you certified to go to

war. now the thing is that i wanted to say, our position is to position our bases as far forward as possible, so if there is anything that needs to threaten america, we don't have to fight in the streets of the united states of america. we have forces that are pre-positioned, like allison said, so we can respond quickly to fill those gaps and protect us here at home. now, in terms of why we don't have a lot of people joining the military, i think it is an education problem as well as physical fitness. host: liam, we are just about out of time for this segment. i want to let allison respond to some of your points before we have to end. guest: well, i will just say that, you know, i agree with him

in the sense that if more people knew about military service, if they knew about the benefits of military service, not just the honor of serving your country but also the fact that you can have a paycheck, great benefits them and also potentially post service, you know, your country investing in your higher education, i think we would have more people serving. so i hope that, you know, as a nation, we can continue to educate better, you know, our young people as to the benefits of military service. host: thank you so much, allison jaslow, ceo of iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. i appreciate your time this morning. thank you. guest: thank you for having me. host: thank you for everyone who called in today for "washington journal." we will be back in tomorrow with another edition of the show at 7:00 a.m. eastern. everyone, have a great day. [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]