♪ host: "washington journal" for december 10. the house set to authorize 900

billion dollars for the department of defense. some have already come out against the bill due to its size, but others say the defense department is a prime example for the need for the newly department of government efficiency. to start the program, you can share your opinion on defense spending and on if washington should spend more or less on defense. here's how you can call and let us know. for republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . we have included a line for active and former military if you want to give us your thoughts on defense spending and if washington should spend more or less. (202) 748-8003 is how you call that number. you can also use that number to text us. you can post on facebook and on x.

the national defense authorization act would give government permission to spend the money for the defense department. the breakdown of it, breaking down defense shows where some of the spending will go, saying the defense bill included a number of key provisions requested by the defense department that would include permission to ink multitier contracts for submarines and certain missiles, 300 million dollars to support ukraine, and also add funds to buy platforms not originally requested by the u.s. military including a handful of support vehicles for the navy, additional 35 joint strike fighters, cargo planes, the maritime surveillance aircraft, and rotors. the bill also takes a look at procurement and research and development by $3 billion a piece, a noteworthy increase for development funds in particular. and it says the bill increase funds to the defense technology startups including 840 $2

million for the defense invasion unit and $200 million to begin the drone program. some of the details when it comes to this act which the house will take up this week and vote on. it would give the government permission to spend up to $900 billion when it comes to defense-related matters. if you think that is a good number or perhaps you think overall the government should spend less when it comes to defense matters, here is how you can call and let us know. again, for republicans in the audience, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. and independents, (202) 748-8002. for you former and active military, call us at (202) 748-8003. and use the same line to text us as well. there is a breakdown taking a look at facts on defense spending. when it comes to national defense, here are some of the infographics you can find.

national defense is a vital priority and fundamental responsibility of the federal government. it is also difficult to the defense spending accounting for 13% of all federal spending in 2023 and also adding it is the single largest category of discretionary spending when it comes to the federal government. the department of defense compared to others such as veterans benefits and transportation, health, and other categories. this also saying the u.s. spends more on defense than the next nine countries combined. 916 by the federal government compared to $883 billion, the combined wealth of china, russia, india, arabia, the united kingdom, germany, and the like.

the democrats line in south carolina, this is sharon. what is your thinking on as far as more or less for defense-related matters? caller: i think more should be spent on defense because we don't know when we may have to go to war so this is a very crucial issue as far as the federal funding for defense. i definitely think more should be spent. and they cannot cut the budget in any way as far as the federal government and defense. thank you. host: when you take a look at the number like $900 billion, why do you think we need more? i know you said we need to be prepared but we spend that kind of money anyway. why do we have to spend more? caller: as far as the funding of the military and the basic funding that is needed, i just think right now more could be done. and like i said, we don't know

what will happen in the future, especially with the new administration coming in. we don't know what could happen, you know. if a war breaks out, sending troops to other countries, we don't know what will happen. host: ok, sharon in south carolina. let's hear from ed in new jersey, independent line. you are next up. caller: yes, ed o'donnell. costa rica and 20 other countries have done away with our militaries completely and their problems have improved dramatically. absolute pacifism is the only solution. the quakers, the mennonites, the church of the brethren have the right position. you look at all the violence internationally right now, most of it is because these nations have militaries. host: so if we spend less on hours or adopt that kind of philosophy, what does that mean for other nations that keep on and continue on with developing

their military aspects? caller: our first priority should be to negotiate with all countries in the world to do away with their militaries. absolute pacifism is the key. host: ok. christine in virginia, republican byron, on this idea of that's republican -- republican line, on this idea. caller: i think we should definitely not approve this and should definitely restrict government spending on the military. it is too much. when we should be looking at other things like education. because you cannot convince me the amount of money they are trying to get it is worthwhile when we are spending more than nine other countries, the next nine countries combined. that is insane. host: why do you think -- do you

think spending less would make us more vulnerable? caller: no, because we are -- we have a ton of allies and most of those allies are also within the next nine countries. there is no reason we should be spending more than the next nine combined. host: christine there in virginia. you can continue calling. some of you posting on our facebook page if you want to make your comments there. peggy seymore on our defense convalesced to other countries such as ukraine. from bob, maybehe pentagon should pass an audit before they get any more money. a recenttory saying they passed. christopher going into specifics aying maybe more spending when it comes to one or two more carrier battle groups. also adding more drone and anti-drone a also better cybersecurity there too.

from alex, i am probably saying that wrong, i apologize. he says when it comes to spending, less on defense, more on science. you can add thoughts on our social media sites, facebook.com/c-span, on x @cspanwj. note the special phone line for active and former military if you want to give your thoughts on defense-related spending matters. (202) 748-8003. you can also use that same number if you want to text us your thoughts this morning too. fill in orange park, florida, democrats line, you are next up on the spending on the military, defense. caller: yes, good morning. we should spend more. people are saying we are spending too much. look at the value of a car right now. we are talking about technology. that is way more advanced than

what a car looks like. things cost more as the years pass. we have a lot of instability in this country, in this world. when we slack and don't protect what we have, eventually we might have to fight a war on this turf, so spend enough money to keep us better than any other country in the world. we have allies today. they could be enemies tomorrow. we must defend this country. we don't have to be crazy about it, but we have to spend it. this passive world that everybody is cool, we have crime happening every day just in new york city out of the blue somebody gets shot. how can we control what another person thinks or is going to do. we have to be prepared. when you are not prepared, you are going to fail so spend enough money come as much money as possible to keep the country

safe and keep the people who don't want to keep a safe. another floridian, this is robert. caller: thanks for taking michael. i think we should spend more money on our military because something is going to happen pretty soon. i mean, the war with russia and ukraine, so much money goes to them. we need to develop our military. host: when you say something is going to happen, what convinces you of that? caller: they got drones in the air all the time. they have spy things spy on us. somebody is planning on doing something to us. host: ok. that is robert in clearwater, florida. part of what the house will be voting on this week not only deals with hardware matters but also when it comes to money that

is given to those in the military, this is from military.com, saying junior enlisted service members will get a 14.5% pay raise next year under that compromised defense bill expected to pass congress this month under a deal reached by the house and senate over the weekend. the national defense authorization act will allow all service members to receive a 4.5 percent pay bump next year. additionally, troops in the ranks of e1-4 will get an extra 10% on top of that for a total of 14.5% for the military's most junior troops. across the board, four point 5% raise for all service members will take effect at the beginning of the year as normal. the extra raise for the junior enlisted troops will begin in april. this story from military.com adding that while not as high as the house's initial proposal for next year, the raise marks a

compromise for the troops to afford basic necessities such as food. military.com is where you can find the story on the ndaa as it is known. that is the authorization bill that allows the government to spend the money. almost $900 million. giving your thoughts overall when it comes to spending more or less when it comes to defense matters. buford in alabama, democrats line, go ahead. caller: yeah. i think we should keep it the way it is. no more, no less. and at the end, our cost of living raises. i think, you know, it is good. host: ok. let's go to frank in new york, former military. hello. caller: hello. i agree there should be spending on certain things more and other things less.

the troops especially. i was in vietnam. our salaries were ridiculous. i lived off base, and we struggled. but now we need the troops. we need the manpower. but there are other things we should spend less on, especially when there is a surplus of equipment and things that will not be of any use in the new war of technology, which is what it is all about. as far as the spending goes, it has to be carefully monitored and audited. thank you. host: when you say that spending less has to be done on certain things specifically are you talking weaponry, other things? what are you thinking of when you say there has to be less spending there? caller: weaponry especially because nowadays you have the large weapons, the tanks, not remote like rockets or targeted artillery. that is text in the big equipment kind of going by the

wayside now. warfare is now becoming so automated that you can take out an enemy position far better than you could during world war ii or even during vietnam. you have drones, all of these electronic surveillance as well as knowing what the enemy is doing, where they are, and that is important. extremely important. technology should always be upgraded in the military as it is in the civilian population. host: frank in new york, former military. that line if you are former or active, give us your perspective, (202) 748-8003 is how you do that. a website takes a look at military spending and compares it to the gross domestic product of the united states, saying current spending higher than any point in the cold war for inflation-adjusted terms but relatively love as a percentage of national income, saying defense spending is a share of

gdp is a gauge of a country's defense burden than the inflation-adjusted dollar about since the bigger economy can support greater spending. the money earmarked for defense spending in 2025 represents 3% of the gdp. this is a relatively low percentage compared to the experience of the past three quarters of the century. the united states economy has tended to grow faster than military spellings of defense spending as a share of the gdp has been decreasing. in the 1950's and through the vietnam era, defense spending was at 8% to 10% of the gdp. more there, and there is the chart the site was referencing when it comes to the amount spent on military compared to the ghost product of the united states. as you look at that, we will continue on our calls on if we should spend more or less on defense. this is evan in alexandria, virginia, democrats line. hi. caller: yeah, thanks for having

me. i think it is interesting, the chart you just brought up because it is important to compare it. if you just say we are spending $1 trillion, it seems like a lot and it is, but when you compare it to gdp, it shows we are actually spending less compared to previous generations. but i think we need to -- i mean not spend more or less. we need to look at what we have and spend accordingly. i am sure there are efficiencies we can make within the department and maybe spend more on things that are readily needed. luckily -- not luckily because the wars going on in ukraine and israel and gaza, we are seeing what is being used by our potential enemies and terrorists abroad. one caller said we don't need tanks anymore but unfortunately we do because you cannot just

bomb indiscriminately because they will hide among civilian populations so you have to get in there on the ground with troops, and i don't know if maybe eventually you can do it all with robots and uav but i don't know how the world will see that when you have robot warfare going in and killing humans. i think as america is the largest military spender in the world, we help to create that balance of power that balances it in the side of democracy versus autocracy or dictatorship. i think that is very important we keep that. if we lose our hegemony and decrease overspending because we think it is not that important, and the power of balance changes, i think people will be regretting we did not spend a little bit more. and when we are now living under the balance of power of say

iranian, chinese, north korean influence when america's influence wanes. host: ok, evan in alexandria, virginia, giving us his thoughts. evan brought up personnel get it accounts for nearly half of all defense spending while most of the other half goes towards procurement, research, development, and testing, going on to say budgeted salaries and benefits for the 1.3 million active duty 800,000 reserve uniform personnel for fy 2025 totals $832 billion including the cost of an all volunteer armed forces. a significant share of the roughly $340 billion in operations and maintenance budget will go to paying 750 thousand full-time civilian employees of the department of defense as well as contractors. roughly $170 billion earmarked for procurement, 143 billion dollars for research development testing, and evaluation.

gary up next in ohio, republican line. caller: good morning, america. my thoughts are we have 12 around that can destroy 2000 targets in the world, which is pretty much the world. we don't need anything. we don't need tanks or airplanes. we need to bring all of our troops home. nobody will mess with as. somebody messes with us, we tell them we will nuke you. let other people fed for themselves. that is just the way it has to be. host: david next from cleveland, ohio, independent line. caller: yes. in fact, the united states spends more combined than the next highest spenders combined, including russia and china, so

making a religion out of the military budget, depends on demonizing other countries to scare the american people. a leading senator in the senate in 1950, 1949 or 1950, told harry truman that he had to scare the hell out of it, and those were his exact words, of the american people to justify thousands of bases around the world, and truman's plan was for massive intervention around the world. it is sick and twisted, and i would recommend that i have come across another article on the crimes of the u.s. empire, and it shows the united states has been supporting terrorists, al

qaeda, whatever their alias is, the wood you had dean -- the mujahiddeen, and whatever their alias has been used to confuse the public, to attack countries that have been trying to get their own independence such as libya and syria. host: ok. caller: syria especially. host: that is dave in ohio. again, we will continue on. if you want to call and let us know about your thoughts on the idea of spending more or less on defense, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 free democrats -- for (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. that was a topic that came up in a recent conversation that vivek ramaswamy had at the summit. it was along the lines of what was duly created department of government efficiency should do. here is part of the exchange.

[video clip] >> let's talk about probably in the area of defense. the pentagon failed its seventh consecutive audit in a row. it is unconscionable. this historical lazy debate about whether or not that means more or less defense spending versus asking the question of actually, are we deploying the right kind of federal spending? if you want to make real improvements to the defense and security of the united states of america, we would be investing more in drones, in hypersonic missiles rather than in a wide range of other expenditures for new kinds of fighter jets or whatever. this is not the highest roi use to protect the interests of the united states or the united states itself so this broader discussion of if we spend less on defense that means we will be less secure and if we spend more, we will be more secure, that is a faulty premise. we ought to be asking what type of investment and what type of

spending will achieve the goal of the u.s. defense department, which is to protect the u.s. homeland, to stay out of words, and if we are in wars, to win them. that is not the question asked today. that is not the way it has been run. host: that was a forum with vivek ramaswamy. still available on c-span.org for the holcomb position on not only the defense spending aspect of the future of doge as it is known but other things when it comes to spending overall specifically when it comes to spending on defense. more or less should be done by the government. we are asking you. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. the story saying the senate appropriations committee a few months ago saying they approved the defense spending bill for fiscal 2025 that would provide full funding for the pentagon's high-profile autonomous systems initiative known as replicator. lawmakers raised the possibility more money could be allotted for

the effort. pentagon officials have secured $500 million from congress for fiscal 2024 to move forward, and they requested an additional $500 billion. it includes kamikaze drones, unmanned surface vehicles, and counter drone systems. defense department leaders are expected to decide on their selections. a key goal of replicator, which is a signature initiative of the deputy defense secretary kathleen hicks is to field thousands of attributable platforms across multiple domains by august of 2025 to counter china's military buildup in a cost efficient manner. defense group is where you find that story. that is part of the technology aspects of this bill. the ndaa as it is not being voted on in the house this week. authorization bill for funding that is for the defense department, a price tag close to $900 billion. this is from indiana, alan, democrats line. hi. caller: good morning and thank

you for taking my call. longtime listener, big-time fan. i definitely agree spending needs to be cut at least by half, but i would say it is not how much you spend, but it is how you spend it. it is ironic that the department of defense biggest budget and the department of education has the smallest budget. i always thought if we invested more, you would have to spend less on boots on the ground but a lot of money i am seeing in the military i believe is going for the military-industrial complex, the contractors, the f-35, which was a piece of crap. last i heard that cost taxpayers $1.5 trillion, and it still does not work right, but my understanding, the government never got rid of it because the states involved in making parts

for it put people to work, corporate welfare. we have 14 aircraft carriers. 14, and we are building a 15th one. all the rest of the world, there are five aircraft carriers, and i think england just launched their first when a couple years ago. so the problem is we have over 800 military bases. some said close to 1000. all the other countries in the world have less than 100 combined. the military is a great opportunity for young men and women to go in and get a career, but i feel most of this money is going just for a corporate welfare for the contractors and vendors who are making a killing off of the money being wasted there. host: ok, alan indiana. let's hear from harold in kansas. caller: good morning, pedro.

pedro, a second ago you introduced vivek ramaswamy in a little segment. is it your personal opinion that the doge department is crazy? host: i will not offer an opinion otherwise but in the context of what they want to do for spending and when it comes? to defense, what do you think? caller: i do not think it is crazy. you announced it was crazy. was that your opinion? host: i said nothing of the like. caller: run your tape. you said it. it came out of your mouth. this crazy department. you watch it later and you will see you call it equity department. host: again, i don't believe i said that, but the head and offer your opinion as far as spending is concerned. caller: i don't really have an opinion. i just want to watch your tape and realize it came out of your mouth. host: ok, jeff on the independent line, hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think we should step back and

take a look at what is the purpose of defense to figure out how much is reasonable to spend on it. if i was to say to you there was an enemy that recently killed a million people or more in the united states and we were unprepared for it and without saying anymore, it was assumed it was some nationstate that launched an attack, we would be up in arms literally and building defenses for it, but that is precisely what happened during the pandemic and we spent virtually nothing compared to what we spend on defense for public health. public health is not coordinated. it is 50 states doing whatever they want, and the federal government does not invest in it , so if you really want to save lives, the purpose of defense, i think we should spend it on public health and preparing for

the next pandemic, especially because pandemics like h5n1 are possible. and under very strict scrutiny right now. not necessarily it will happen any minute, but it could just like covid did. host: ok, jeff in new york, another person making the case for more spending for the defense department. the nebraska republican on this program not long ago serves on the armed services committee expressed concerns about possible cuts to defense spending going forward in the new administration. here are some of his thoughts from last week. [video clip] >> i am not opposed to looking at programs in the dod where we can cut. i think that is good to find waste. by all means, let's go for it. we can also not be a military that builds one attack submarine a year. that is undetectable. attack submarines are one of the most important things we have to

counter china and we are saying we are going to modernize to counter china. one will not do it. we will need f-35's, the next generation of fighters. the air force is looking at cutting the six generation fighter before we have it designed because they said there is not enough money to do it. i am not opposed to cutting wasteful programs where we find it but you have to have military equipment and a quality and quantity that can counter china, russia, and iran. we are not doing it right now. host: he was on this program giving his thoughts on defense spending. thanks to those of you who did this first half-hour. we will change topics and why did it to open forum. when it comes to matters of public policy or politics, if you want to add your thoughts, continuing on when it comes to defense spending, open forum is a chance to do that. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 four democrats -- for democrats.

and independents, (202) 748-8002 to participate in open forum. if you want to text us your thoughts, (202) 748-8003. one more call on the topic of defense spending. mike in massachusetts, democrats line, hi. caller: hi. been a long time. i spent 33 years of my life working for a defense contractor and i got the education. it comes down to one thing. never mind the patriotism that goes with defense spending and protecting us from war. it is all about jobs, jobs, jobs, and more jobs. when you make major cuts in defense spending, you are putting how many people out of work in this country. more or less, well-paid with good benefits. and it has been that way since

pearl harbor when roosevelt asked congress for $50 billion for defense that pulled us out of the great depression of the 1930's, and by 1945, we were the world's number one economic and technological giant. ever since world war ii, it seems like our economy has always been on a roll. we have higher levels of defense spending. i would ask this one question. what do you do if you did make major cuts in defense with all the people that would be thrown out of work? it is a shame we have to rely on weapons of death and destruction to have a booming economy, but in a free market capitalist society, the most profitable venture there is is defense spending, and it is followed by insurance. this is what a higher up

educated me on when i worked for a defense contractor. basically, that is what i wanted to say. host: mike in massachusetts, thank you for the perspective. one more mike. this is michael in michigan, republican line. mike in michigan, hello? michael in lexington, michigan, republican line. hi. caller: yeah, pedro, i don't believe you love your country at all. you sit there and you roll your eyes. host: ok. michael there. again, open forum. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to purchase a bit in open forum and want to text us, it is (202) 748-8003. the hill outlines what the white house is outlining when it comes to the remaining days of the biden administration, their priorities so to speak for the next 42 days. you can find this website on the

hill saying the white house chief of staff on monday outlined the priorities for the final days in office in a memo to white house staff. president biden plans to announce in january more student debt cancellation for public service workers and other borrowers, and the $2000 prescription drug cap willfully go into effect for all medicare part d beneficiaries. he also said the president "is currently engaged in another push with turkey, egypt, qatar, and others to achieve another cease-fire in gaza." and the president does more -- plans to do more to deliver more aid to ukraine. president biden investing in america agenda, more high-speed internet funds to states, chips and science act incentives, and the inflation reduction act funding. the white house will continue to urge the senate to confirm more judge nominees in the last days

of the biden administration and the priorities for the administration. you can find that on the hill. when it comes to topics of syria and the recent events there, new york times picks that up saying when it comes to the changes happening in the country, the headline, president biden showing caution saying mr. biden and his top advisers are debating the extent to which they engage directly with the rebel groups going forward. according to officials who described internal to liberation on the condition of an annuity, u.s. intelligence analysts and policymakers were trying to determine whether the groups prepared to changed -- groups changed or were prepared to change their stance. it goes on to quote mr. biden saying we are a clear eyed about the fact that isis will try to take advantage of any document to reestablish its capability to create a safe haven. we will not let that happen. that is the words of president biden. here are the words of defense

secretary lloyd austin in japan on monday talking about the events going on with the regime change in syria and the u.s. perspective. here is secretary austin. [video clip] >> i think the entire international community was surprised to see that the opposition forces moved as quickly as they did. i think everybody expected to see a much more stiff resistance from assad's forces. so the speed at which that unfolded was surprising i think to most everybody in the international community. in terms of what has transpired, of course as this unfolds, there is the potential that elements in the area such as isis could try to take advantage of this opportunity and regain capability.

we have been tracking isis as part of our defeat isis camping for some time, as you know, and we have seen cells trying to strengthen and develop additional capability out in the desert. those strikes were focused on those cells, and as you know, we reported out that we conducted a tax 75 targets with a number of different platforms, and we are still evaluating the results, but i think that we are going to find we have been pretty successful. but that is focused on isis, to keep the pressure on isis, and to deny them the ability to easily re-surge. host: it is open for him, and the numbers are on your screen. pick the number that best represents you.

let's start with john in minnesota, independent line, on this open forum. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. yeah, i love your show. very informative. donald trump keeps calling these so-called peacemakers and all of that for january 6, and if he is going to pardon every one of them, he should probably throw a party with ice cream and cake at mar-a-lago and invite every one of them, don't you think? host: that is john in minnesota. let's hear from robert in massachusetts, democrats line. caller: pedro, you are wonderful job you did not say it was crazy. i hope that guy listens to himself and his embarrassed. ok. my thing is here, i believe on january 20 we will enter into a constitutional crisis to its highest level.

this country was founded on the separation between church and the state. when you have church involved in politics and politics involved in church, that is not right. the evangelical people have these senators and congressmen coming to their church, preaching from the pulpit. that is unacceptable. allowing them to contaminate your church. and one other thing, pedro. it looks like groundhog day on january 20 with donald trump. he went to helsinki and met there for two hours with putin and putin gave him the ball and he came out like a seven-year-old boy. it was a shame. host: ok. robert there in massachusetts.

let's hear from bob in illinois, republican line. caller: morning, pedro. love c-span. you said newly created. democrats against trump, i think if they all got behind him and helped get rid of the violence causing havoc in our cities and usurping all of our funds, making our businesses fleet and citizens not willing to go in, if they were to help trump for the next three and a half years, i think that the callers would be calling and praising trump like half the country does now. host: bob in illinois. richard up next in ohio, independent line on this open forum. you are next up. hi. caller: good morning, pedro.

i wanted to let your audience know that i rolled the tape back concerning that crazy statement about vivek ramaswamy and you did not say that. i just wanted to let people know that you did not say that. have a good day. host: i appreciate it. that is richard in ohio. this is margaret in hawaii, independent line. hi. caller: yeah, good morning. i would like to make a comment about medicare advantage plans. i think it would be a good idea for the government and medicare to look at these plans because they have these medical insurance plans through medicare advantage that have defrauded the federal government by hundreds of billions of dollars since they came into being in 2006. and one of the issues that has come to light is a lot of these private insurance companies are for profit so their bottom line is money on wall street because they have to make sure they do well for the stockholder, and the issue with that is if

you have a number of increased denials with these plans that have left people in very bad situations because of the medicare advantage plan. one of the problems also is insurance agents get up to $700 in commissions through these plans and the federal government dishes out anywhere from $1000 to $3000 a month for each senior that is enrolled in this private form of what they call medicare advantage. once you enroll in one of these plans to get back to the original medicare, for most states you will have to go through medical underwriting to get a medicare supplement policy. and then this is my last comment. you also have a lot of doctors offices that are now not taking medicare advantage plans because they are battling an insurance company that does not pay the claims for their patients and you have plan administrators that basically decide what goes and what doesn't go, and some of these rural areas have medical

facilities that are shutting down because medicare advantage plans have not paid them for the claims that they had in regards to their patients meeting medical care. host: ok, we got it, margaret. thank you. atlanta, georgia, democrats line, albert, you are up next on this open forum. caller: hey, this is albert in atlanta. ex military. host: ok. caller: i think some of the money can be cut down from the defense because if we maintain our leaders with america, going overseas and fighting, and maintain coming this way, we cut down on a lot of the budget and maintain intensity in one area. we don't need it here. down here, we will be fighting together. come from up there, we will be fighting a common enemy.

we spend it on the defense here. we spend billions in too many places. and too many wars. by trying to obtain other folks properties and land and rights. we cut that back and maintain the war efforts. host: ok, that is albert in georgia. some of you were having thoughts on various social sites on the previous topic. if we are submissive about cuinthe national debt, we have to cut defense or medicare, medicaid, and social security. i think start by cutting the programs the pentagon does not want. keith schneider also on facebook saying it is not about more or less but allocating money and resources wisely versus complete audits that must be done.

again, you could continue making thoughts on this idea of defense spending during open forum if you would wish or you could talk about matters of politics or public policy. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . a couple other aspects when it comes to news out of syria, this from the washington post saying the united states is sending an envoy to search for an american freelance journalist abducted in syria nearly a dozen years ago. the story from the post saying while there is no concrete evidence that he is still alive, roger carstens has been dispatched to beirut to lead efforts to find him. two of those officials speaking yesterday was president biden himself and also the state department's matthew miller. here are the comments from yesterday. >> what is being done about austin tice?

>> there are intensive efforts underway by the united states to find austin tice and bring him home to his family. our special envoy for hostage repairs is in beirut and we are pressing all parties in the region to support this effort. we encourage anyone who has information about his whereabouts to contact the fbi immediately. you have made clear they will provide a reward to information that leads to return him home. as secretary blinken has sent directly to austin's family, including in the past few days, we will not rest until he is returned home safely to his loved ones. host: again, there is more there on the website or c-span now if you want to see those comments concerning events in syria. when it comes to things happening in washington, d.c., one of the things to watch out for is the oversig of the u.s. postal service.

e u.s. postmaster general will appear before the house oversight and accountability committee to talk about vaous topics when it comes to the mail being delivered and associated topics. you can see thatn c-span3 starting at 10:00 and also follow along on our free video app, c-span now. and then c-span.org available to you too if you want to see more of that hearing. let's hear from william in north carolina, democrats line, on this open forum. you are next. caller: yes, thanks for having me. i want people to be aware this country is being taken over by billionaires, and we have two billionaires that will remake our country with this government initiative program they proposed, and the republicans are welcoming them with open arms. people better be aware what is going on because they don't care

nothing about the american people. host: one of the reasons they were tapped is because they managed to perform efficiencies at their own companies such as elon musk. why do you think he is the wrong person for the job? caller: well, they are only in it for the money. the government is here to take care of people and they do not care about people. host: from lois in maryland, republican lime, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. just on my mind this morning, a lot of people were talking about medicare. the elderly especially, 60 and over, people that worked 30, 40, 50 years of their life and they go to retire and spend tons of money in taxes. they get medicare but have to turn around and pay for their medicare and medicine.

in my opinion, i think the elderly or the retirees that have worked and got social security, there should be some kind of a program established for those individuals that their health care is paid for. i feel they paid their debt to society by doing all this work for years and years, and most of our seniors, a lot of them passing now, have built our country, so i just think it is way out of control, and it is so sad to the paycheck to paycheck-to-paycheck, and i feel there should be something established to wear their medicare or insurance for health should be completely paid for by the government. host: this is low is that you just heard from maryland. dan also in maryland, democrats line. hello. caller: hello. i think the military needs to be audited. i think the waste and abuse in contracting has been well known for years.

evidence apparently has not been produced to prosecute some of this abuse. the general and our president -- general eisenhower, excuse me, after leaving the presidency warned us of the military-industrial complex. it has expanded greatly. the waste and abuse in afghanistan and iraq has been revealed. convoys full of military equipment. if they have a flat tire, they would destroy the tractor-trailer full of equipment so it would not fall in the hands of isis or other combatants because they did not have a spare tire. the cost of hammers involved. we need to have a complete top-down audit of the military. and then we need to cut out the

abuse in the large east. that is my comment, and that is where it ought to go. host: dan in maryland, democrats line, thanks. let's hear from willie in mississippi. caller: hey, good morning. thank you, pedro. thank you for taking my call. it has been several months since i last spoke with you. i want to address something that the lady in maryland i think lois -- well, first of all i want to talk about what the lady had said about siding with trump. a lot of people do not agree with his policies, especially project 2025. how can someone sighed with a person that they don't have anything in common or they don't care anything about? people need to stop with this foolishness. this country voted in a person based on racial bigotry and

misogyny, just like with hillary clinton, but it was even worse this time because a lot of you people voted against your own well-being. that is very, very sad. it is very, very sad. a lot of you all will face it quickly. people of color, we have been struggling. we know how to adjust. the people that think they are doing it for some type of a political win, you will see it will hurt. it will hurt you real bad. don't come in my face or nobody else's space looking for something. host: let's here from bobby on the democrats line -- bobby in oklahoma on the democrats line. bobby in oklahoma, hello? caller: yes, i was calling to talk about social security and medicare and medicaid.

cutting social security and medicare and medicaid, that will not happen. our governor here in oklahoma has medicaid for the people in oklahoma. we are not going to let -- trump was not elected with a mandate. it was taken over by the republicans. the poor people are not going to let vivek ramaswamy and elon musk cut our stuff out. host: that is bobby there in oklahoma. things to watch out for on capitol hill including the president elect's nominee for the defense department ptech seth -- pete hegseth. warming to him after days of being reticent of the accusations leveled against him.

she was a rape survivor and revealed she had encouraging discussions with the embattled fox news host. he echoed his frustrations with unknown sources attacking the cabinet pick's personal history. going on to say i support pete through the process and look forward to a hearing based on truth and not anonymous sources. that is from joni ernst. also happening this week on capitol hill when it comes to the president elect's choices, tulsi gabbard, the choice for the department of national intelligence, director of national intelligence saying the president elect's intelligence chief gabbert's scrutiny monday on capitol hill about her proximity to russian ally syria amid the country's collapse. she ignored questions about her 2017 visit to the war-torn

country. senators being asked to confirm president trump' nomineess.but a lieutenant colonel delivered a statement in which he reiterated support for a more limited u.s. military footprint overseas missing i want to address the issues in the headlines right now. i wholeheartedly agree with the statements president trump made the last few days with regard to developments in syria. keep watching for it as these various nominees visit with senators as part of the confirmation process. stan and michigan, independent line, go ahead. you are next up. caller: yeah, i was just wondering if you could do a little check for me in your recent news releases. i have not heard anything about this since early in the summer. can you tell me whether the russian warship off of the coast

of florida down there around cuba, are they still down there? wouldn't that be a military oriented question? host: ok. let's hear from nelson in maryland, independent line. hi. caller: hi. good morning, pedro. i just wanted to talk about the issue. we have over nine out of 11 states that voted for president trump. the minimum wage is $7.25. the majority of states voted against their own interests. what i am thinking is they think elon musk and viek, billionaires, will have their interest. they are wrong. the defense department needs to be cut. the defense contractors, the soldier that leaves the military

as an e4 goes to military contracting. i think they need to pay soldiers, military personnel more and they will cut down on some of the federal contracting. thank you, pedro. host: we will hear from tom in florida, republican line. hi. caller: yes, i just don't understand where these people are coming from, these democrats. i don't get it. you have majority of most of the democrats voted for trump you see even james carville is telling these people that the democrat message was garbage. their policies are garbage. for four years, we suffered high taxes, inflation, high gas prices. they tried shoving pills down kids throats, making them transgender. and even james carville, one of the democrats, warned what was going on. at these people still don't get it. trump is not a racist.

he is trying to help the country out. he does not need this aggravation. they tried jailing him. they tried assassinating him. who knows who is behind this? i would say obama is behind it. he never considered himself american. he always considered himself a victim like these black liberal democrats. host: ok, we will leave it there. that is the end of open forum. we will continue on with guests for the majority of our morning today. first, we will hear from the tax foundation's erica york. a new analysis from her about how much wealthy americans pay in taxes in the united states. that is coming up next. later in the program, we hear from democratic representative paul tonko. he will talk about the upcoming deadline for funding the federal government and how democrats will navigate the 119th congress next year. that conversation is coming up on "washington journal." >> are you a nonfiction book

lover looking for a new podcast? this holiday season, try listening to one of the many podcasts c-span has to offer. on q&a, you will listen to adjusting interviews with authors and writers writing about history and subjects that matter. learn something new on book notes plus with competitions from non-fiction authors and historians. bringing together authors with viewers for a wide-ranging hour-long conversation. and we talk about the business of books with news and views about the publishing industry and nonfiction authors. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app wherever you get your podcasts. >> attention middle and high so students across america. it's time to make your voice heard. 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 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 dollars in prizes including a grand prize of $5,000, this is your opportunity not only to make an impact but to also be rewarded for your eativity and hard work. enter your submissions today. scan the code or visit udentcam.org for all the details on how to enter. the deadline is january 20, 2025. be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books. with current nonfiction book releases plus bestseller list as well as industry news and trends

their insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever your podcasts. host: our first guest of the morning is erica york. she serves as a senior economist and research director for federal tax policy. thanks for your time this morning. guest: thanks, good morning. host: a little bit about the organization and who funds it. guest: tax foundation is a 501 c3 nonprofit. we've been around since 1937 and our mission is to provide education about the tax system. we believe that the town system tax system should be simple, train parent and stable. at the state and local level, and at the federal level and we are funded by a variety of

donors from the business community, the foundation community and individual donors. host: tell us about some of the studies that you do when it comes to taxes. the latest one to look at federal taxes and who pays what. where'd you get this data from? guest: this comes straight from the irs. statistics of income division publishes data that comes straight from the tax returns that we all filed during the tax season and they provide analysis on who pays what, what average tax rates are. so we take that and put it in a more digestible format in huge tables available for download on the irs website. host: what is the perception of what wealthy americans pay and what is the reality? guest: i think there is a big perception about the tax system that we have now that it is unfair and a big part of that is that the tax system that we have

is very complicated. i don't think anyone really enjoys filing the taxes each year. it can be a rough process and it is not always transparent who is paying what because of all of the different deductions and credits and exemptions available in the tax system. that gives a perception of unfairness. we also tend to see lots of stories about individual taxpayers who maybe don't have a large tax bill in a given year, so it creates a perception that high income taxpayers are getting a special break that low and middle income taxpayers don't have access to. but of course the data tell a different story and the data comes straight from the internal revenue service. host:host: one of the things in your report is a breakdown from the data, but starting on the top 1% just to show some details, about 1.5 million returns. the average tax rate, about 26%

when it comes to their share of total adjusted gross income, 22%. then the share of total income taxes paid, 30.4%. put that in context as far as what they pay vs. what others pay. guest: if you look at the average paid by the top 1%, that is about seven times larger than the rate paid by the bottom half of americans. and if you look at the shares of taxes paid, if you look at the top half of taxpayers, they are responsible for about 97% of the individual income tax while the bottom half pays the remaining 3%. what this tells us is that the structure of the income tax overall is highly progressive and that is what you should expect given the graduated income tax rate structure that we have under the income tax system where when you earn higher income, that higher

income is subject to a higher rate within that threshold. host: is there a difference with the federal government establishes as a tax rate, what is the top 1% and what the top 1% actually pay? guest: there is a difference between your marginal income tax rate, each additional dollar of income you earn pays about a 10% rate or say you are in the top bracket, each additional dollar faces a 37% rate. because earlier income you earned was taxed at a lower rate because there are tax credits like the child tax credit, because we provide deductions, either standard or for higher income taxpayers, they often itemize, so they take various deductions permitted for itemized deductions. the average rate that you pay overall can be different from the rate, the statutory tax rate that you are in.

host: is there a way to establish a profile of who lives in this top 1%? how do they make that money? guest: if you look at a breakdown of sources of income, you do see variations. for most taxpayers, their biggest source of income is wage and salary. higher income levels, there tends to be more business income. part of this is reported on the form, income from partnerships, llcs, stuff taxed at the individual level. you also see a greater share of investment income. dividends, interest income, capital gains also make up a greater share of income for those in the top 1%. host: back to that share of total income taxes paid, 40%. put that in perspective.

guest: in 2022, taxpayers paid a little over $2 trillion of individual income taxes. 40% of that $2 trillion number. quite a large share, and it is also important to remember that the individual income tax is the largest source of revenue for the federal government. even though there are other types of taxes, the largest share of it is paid by the top 1%. host: if you want to ask her about this breakdown of who pays what taxes in the united states, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to text us, (202) 748-8003. this data from 2002, has much changed in the years we live in today? guest: not much has changed. and this is the latest

information we have available. the irs releases these data sets with quite a bit of lag because they have to clean and analyze all the data and get it into a usable format. but nothing major has changed from 2022 to 2024 in the income tax system. we also provide in the analysis these trends over time, going back a couple of decades so you can see how tax rates have changed, and what you see is there is a lot of variation unless there is a tax reform law that significantly changes things. otherwise the tax system kind of just generally hums along without major changes in the average tax rates that people of different income levels face. host: you talked about the top 1%, let's go to the top 5%. what changes from what we know about that top 1%. guest: you're capturing a greater share of taxpayers who

on average have a little bit lower income level, so you see a slightly lower average tax rate overall. but generally, as you step down from the different percentiles, you see a pattern that emerges, that as income grows, so does the average tax rate. an overall the structure that emerges is one of a progressive tax system. i would characterize it as a highly progressive tax system when you see the differential between what those in the top half pay on average and in terms of the share of taxes paid compared to those in the bottom half. host: there's also the term regressive tax system. what is the difference? guest: progressive is where the average tax rate increases. a regressive tax system would be the opposite. it would place a higher percentage burden on lower

income taxpayers than it did on higher income taxpayers. host: we will talk a little bit more as we get through the morning but all of this comes as there is said to be a debate on the future of taxes in the united states how does this information inform that debate? guest: what you see in this report, and we got a chart in the report that compares tax rate from 2018 onward to pre-2018. 2018 of course being the first year that the tax cuts from the tax cuts and jobs act of 2017 took effect. that law lowered average tax rates for taxpayers of all income levels and since that law went into place, tax rates have remained below their 2017 levels. so the take away is that if those tax rates expire, if the tax cuts expire and the system reverts back to what it was prior to the new law, that is scheduled to take place in 2026.

we would expect tax burdens on taxpayers across the income spectrum to rise. and we've estimated that at least 62% of taxpayers would see significant tax increases if that law is allowed to expire. host: your first call comes from jeffrey in florida, republican line. you are on with our guest, good morning. caller: i was wanting to know who defines what qualifies as income, if that definition has changed since it was initiated in 1913. guest: so the definition of income for this report here is adjusted gross income. that is the number you calculate and what the irs uses and whatever the definition for adjusted gross income was in that given year. since the inception of the

income tax, it has changed significantly. in scope, as well as in the types of deduction and credits and exemptions that are permitted. you can also find debate amongst economists of what should count as income, do we count it on annual cash flow basis, do we count it on accrual basis? but for the purposes here that the irs uses, it is just that adjusted gross income number. host: we have a viewer who texts us saying explain fference between income and assets and the top liability of each. guest: income tends to be your wages and salaries. it is realized capital gains, interest income. business income, and that is captured in a year. so the irs operates on a tax year and for a given year, we pay taxes on income earned within that year. assets are the entire holdings.

if you own stocks, if you own your home, it is the value of all of that and the tax system generally doesn't like to someone's total wealth and it doesn't apply to their assets until you sell your assets and realize a gain. at that point it would face the capital gains tax. host: valerie in michigan, democrats line. caller: i would just like to know, are we still under the trump tax cuts? i think you just said that. poor and working-class and middle-class people will have a lower tax rate to pay? or will their taxes go up until he passes his new taxes, and do you know if he has plans for the working middle-class poor to pay more taxes for their earned money? guest: 2017 tax law is still in

effect. it cut taxes beginning in 2018 and those individual tax cuts last through the end of 2025. as i mentioned, what you can see from the irs data is that this tax law has lowered average tax rates for people across all income levels. so the bottom 10%, the top 10%, on average, taxpayers of all income levels saw a tax cut. if this expires, which it is scheduled to do in 2026, those tax cuts would revert and people would pay higher taxes on their income. the major changes of the tax called her lowering their rates and widening the bracket, increasing the standard deduction, increasing the child tax credit, zeroing out the personal exemption, the effective which boosted the benefits of having children from lower and middle income by replacing a credit.

lots of other moving pieces but altogether a reduction in average tax liabilities. trump campaigned on extending those tax cuts. there is a desire in congress to extend those tax cuts. what exactly that looks like will play out in 2025 as congress and the white house work together to legislate on taxes. host: what do you think of the questions that have to be asked by ponderous as they consider what comes next? guest: the same question is what you do about the deficit impact? continuing all of the tax cuts would reduce revenue by more than $4 trillion over the next decade. even more when you consider interest costs. so we would be on a path of much higher deficits, higher interest payments, higher debt. so the big question is what do you do to offset the cost? do you look at other baserunners and build on the reforms of the first tax law, the first edition made?

do you look at reforms on the spending side? i don't think there is an answer in congress to that question yet, but the fiscal pressure is going to be one of the big questions weighing on lawmakers minds. host: the congressional budget office reason he put on a report looking at the possibility of tax cuts and what would happen. they found that the expiration would modestly reduce labor supply by raising tax rates on individual income, the tax revenue increases from the expiration reduces federal deficit for borrowing, but those two effect largely offset each other, resulting in very small changes to gross domestic product. what do you think about those results? guest: i think it is absolutely right that when taxes go up that will reduce people's incentives to work, whether that is to enter the labor force or to change their hours worked. it makes sense we see a negative labor supply affect.

it would also increase federal tax revenue. i think we could question how big the effect that is occurring here is called a crowd out effect. they assume that when the federal deficit goes down, that provides more capital for businesses to be able to invest. there is a question of to what extent does that affect really play out in the real economy, because the u.s. is an open economy, so if our deficit goes up, we have to sell more treasuries and there are also foreign buyers, not just domestic buyers for those treasuries. so i would discount a little bit the crowd out effect that is assumed, but it is useful analysis to see that yes, deficits and how we offset increase in the deficit really matters for american income and for the potential economic effect of extension. host: eric is in connecticut, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my

call. my concern mainly is everything looks pretty on paper, but every time we hear in the news about loopholes and lawyers, that is my main question. the lawyer aspect of it and the corruption. if i was to go and fill out my taxes on a website to pay my taxes, within a week, they are emailing me and telling me we made a mistake. that is the whole thing that my question is about. thank you. guest: one of the things i mentioned earlier is that we do have a very complicated tax system and it is not transparent. i do think lawmakers absolutely have an opportunity to reform the tax system, make it simpler, ending a lot of credits that are available that tend to be mostly utilized by high-end taxpayers,

and really that type of base broadening is one of the best ways to raise revenue because it doesn't require you to significantly increase marginal tax rates. instead, you can broaden the tax face, get rid of some of these exemptions and credits and raise revenue that way, which also aids in making the tax system simpler and more transparent. host: you probably remember house speaker paul ryan one time wanted to reduce the tax system to a small one sheet of paper. what ever happened to that effort, did anything come out of that? guest: tc j made some strides in doing that. it placed limitations on itemized deductions, it significantly reduced the bite of the alternative minimum tax. it is a good aspiration to want to have such a simple tax code that is not a hassle for people to file it. but that often means trading off provisions that taxpayers enjoy, that taxpayers like having in

the system. so it creates this political obstacle to totally cleaning up the tax code because doing so means getting rid of preferences that benefit different constituencies, which can be a tough lift. we've done some simulations at the tax foundation looking at the tax system in the country of estonia which ranks number one in international tax competitiveness index and has for about a decade now. and on average it takes tax filers about three minutes to complete their tax returns. and we found that adopting a system like what estonia uses would significantly cut cost time and would boost economic growth and would raise sufficient revenue. but again, it is that political challenge of ken we the clean cleanup the tax code? host: this is erica york of the tax and nation joining us. john in virginia, republican line.

caller: thank you for taking my call. yes, i would like to see if you can clear up something for me. since donald trump's tax cuts, democrats have been saying that they add to the debt. but on television when i see people talk about tax, the united states treasury is getting record highs in revenue. how does record high revenue equate to adding to the debt? i don't understand. guest: the idea there is that revenue would be even higher if we didn't have the lower tax rates in place, and i think there is some truth to that. when we score tax plans we can do a conventional analysis and that says we are going to assume that incentives don't change and we are just going to look at how this would cut revenue. then you could do a dynamic analysis that says when you change the tax system, you

change incentives for working and investing, so you grow the economy. and what you find is on a dynamic analysis, tax cuts aren't as expensive as they look on a conventional basis, but tax cuts rarely fully pay for themselves. if you significantly cut tax rates, if you significantly boost tax credits, give people more of their money back, than the government is left with less revenue at the end of the day. and i think that is what we've seen play out. backing congressional budget office report that we were just discussing, they talked through why our revenue is higher, some of it is economic growth, some of it is inflation, some of it is unexpected sources of revenue like the higher tariffs that trump imposed during his first term that have brought in more customs revenue collection. so i think it is a complicated question and a complicated analysis to sort out what is moving where, but i think it is still fair to say that tax cuts

do reduce the revenue that the federal government brings in. >> we have if you were in michigan directing his comments to corporations. this is je saying corporations are not people regardless of what republicans say, and they aren't paying their fair share. guest: a corporation is a legal entity, a legal entity cuts the check to pay corporate taxes. the burden economically of that falls on various people and they can follow on corporate shareholders in the form of lower returns, and he can fall on workers in the form of lower wages. and this is what the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation, you raise corporate taxes, the burden of that even falls on low and middle income households enter the form of lower corporate returns as they are invested, they have a pension, if they have a 401(k), and through lower wages. so i think remembering that economic burden of the corporate tax is important for me call for

higher corporate tax because it is not just going to fall on some wealthy shareholders, it is going to fall on workers at corporations. host: jack in atlanta, democrats line. caller: i'd like to ask what share of agi income generated in the country is controlled or received by that top 20%, and has the share been growing before tax and after-tax over the past 10, 20, 30 years? thank you. host:host: this top 25% category which is closest to what he mentioned, but go ahead, please. guest: i don't have all the numbers off the top of my head but we do have the full data tables available for download where it breaks out in even more detail than our summary table the different percentiles, the

shares of agi, the shares of taxes. what you tend to see especially with the top 1% if that it fluctuates significantly with the business cycle. so there are years where the stockmarket really booms, capital gains realizations go up in the share of income for the top 1%. and same when business cycles are on a downward path. the stock market is going down, that share drops. the congressional budget office has a report called the distribution of household income, and they produce this on an annual basis. even on a greater lag than the irs data. i believe the latest we have available is 2021. but they go over shares of income before tax and transfers, after taxes, after tax transfer. and what you see from that report, especially on the tax side is that they've found since 1985 which is generally where the data begins for this report,

the tax system that we have has become ever more progressive every decade. and so even though you may see some growing disparities, the transfer system we have has significantly boosted income of lower and middle income households. host: the biden administration made it big effort to go after wealthy americans who weren't paying their taxes. recently janet yellen talked about what has come of that. i want to play some of her comments and then get your response. >> the first results of an initiative we launched to pursue 100 25,000 wealthy taxpayers who had not filed taxes for years. the irs had not had the resources to pursue these wealthy non-filers. well, now it does, and we are making significant progress. today i'm announcing that in only six months, nearly 21,000

of these taxpayers have led to $172 million recovered. this is just the first milestone . we look forward to more progress ahead. the irs has also made substantial progress to collect tax debt from wealthy filers, and i'm glad to share today that nearly 80% of 1600 millionaires with delinquent tax debt have now paid, leading to over $1.1 billion recovered. host: i should note that that was back in september. go ahead. guest: taxpayers should absolutely pay with a are legally obligated to pay. reducing the tax gap, the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid, especially in

areas that can be characterized as low hanging fruit. if the irs knows that taxpayers aren't paying and knows that they need to be paying, it absolutely makes sense to concentrate efforts and get the most return for taxpayer or irs investment dollars as possible. a couple of efforts that are complementary to this would be further simplifying the tax system to again get rid of these opportunities that taxpayers have to not pay with a are legally obligated to pay. and another element to think about with irs funding, that the irs itself has warned about, is that some of the funding that congress provided was to go to it upgrades, i.t. infrastructure, customer service. and the burn rate on that money at the irs is very fast. which indicates that potentially too much has been allocated to

enforcement at the expense of better i.t. services and better customer service. in so ensuring that the irs is investing where gift the most return on those dollars should be a big part of the conversation going forward. host: joe in ohio, independent line. caller: you say that the tax cuts went across the board, but didn't they disproportionately go to the wealthiest? didn't the wealthiest receive the most benefit while the lower incomes received the least benefit? guest: yeah, if you look at the percen c in after-tax income across the different income groups, the top 1%, the top quintile received a slightly larger tax cut than other income groups. but i think it is important to provide a couple pieces of context around that. the starting point of the tax system we have now is highly progressive. so providing a tax cut that

provides a larger tax cut to lower income households is quite difficult when, if you look at the effective tax rates on the bottom 20%, even the bottom 40%, for many taxpayers they are already negative. more refundable tax credits back then they pay in taxes. so given the progressive structure of the income tax itself, it lends itself to that type of distribution. and often costs the rhetoric we hear is that low and middle income households didn't see any benefit, and the data very clearly state that yes, they did. they cut taxes for people across all income levels. host: erika gorka's with the tax foundation, including this new analysis. thanks for your time. coming up we are going to hear from, credit represent of paul -- on the looming federal spending debt coming up plus the incoming trump administration

later on in the program. plus, tyler cox on the defense department and how they are preparing for the incoming trump administration. those conversations coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> since 1979 in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress. from house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to have issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates

and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on selected videos. this timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on point of interest. host: c-spanshop.org is c-span online store. browse our latest collection of products, apparel, books, home to core and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. the c-span bookshelf podcast makes it easy for you to listen to all of c-span's podcast that feature nonfiction books in one place so you can discover new

authors and ideas. each week we are making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biographies, current events and culture. from our signature programs, book notes plus and qa day, listen to the c-span bookshelf podcast feed today. you can find that and all of our podcasts on the free mobile video app or everthe podcast -- or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website. washington journal continues. host: joining us now, represent of paul --, democrat from new york. he serves on the energy and commerce committee. good morning, sir. guest:guest: great to join you and your viewers. host: thank you for giving us your time. there is a deadline coming up. when is the deadline and what are the options on the table so far?

guest:guest: i would not be surprised if there was a reach to the democrats to support an effort, but that will have to truly involve a bipartisan bill. we look forward to getting this done, that there is the pattern that has been to not get it done and have to come to the democrats to keep the lights on and keep government functioning. host: with the agreement involve resolving the issue totally or just pushing it forward? guest: at this point most people are considering going to march but let's hope we could get a budget done. i think that gives us more opportunity to perhaps -- and including additional items that would be helpful. you saw this back in september with republicans reaching out to democrats for that support. are there things democrats would want to look for?

guest: putting an emphasis on items like benefits for working families, making sure that tax relief for working families, cuts for corporations, would probably have them requesting a permanent cut for the wealthy, but i think we really need to think of fairness here to work with families. why they did elect president trump, i don't know if they liked his policies. i think they have buyers remorse already, people saying i like the border issues but i didn't like the terrace approach. we are going to have to nail down some of these issues that don't add cost for clothing, utility bills, and the like. host: one of the things we saw during the summer especially on the topic of disaster relief is

whether that will be addressed in any way, shape or form. guest: having represented a district for several years that has been impacted by mother nature and some very difficult storms, i think that we need to incorporate that into a final package. we know that it is very tough to come back from the storms. you don't come back completely but helping these communities is important. a federal release piece with price tags that these communities are facing. you look at something like western north carolina, devastation. historically devastated and we need to respond accordingly. host: this is representative paul tonko joining us for this conversation. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independent, (202) 748-8002 and you can text us at (202) 748-8003.

you serve on the energy and commerce committee. what does a new trump administration mean to you, particularly when it comes to energy-related matters? guest: to make certain there is not a clawback. making certain that the progress we've made, the relief that was provided by the american rescue plan, you think about the outcome of that and how it enabled us to do that post-covert recovery better than any industrialized nation in the world to move forward with the global discussion with the dollars that we shared from washington, allowing the locals to determine what is best for their regional economic comeback. and a huge investment in my district with semiconductors, with microelectronics. very important to keep that funding going. also the infrastructure built in

the inflation reduction act which provides aid for addressing climate change. as is the effort for the inflation reduction act for improvements to medicare. these are the investments that we made in the american public to really nail down cost reductions. we still have more work to do, but let's not take back the investments that we made or the public policy that was woven into this. host: the president has tapped the ceo of liberty energy. if he does get confirmed, what with that position mean to you? guest: the hydro-fracking industry, we are going to work as best we can in a bipartisan fashion. there are many, many innovative concepts incorporated into energy and congresses energy approach and making sure that clean energy, that transmission

is part of the outcome, making sure that all clean forms of energy are advanced and putting together a package that is futuristic, that enables us to really meet demands which will grow as our national economy continues to grow because of the measures of the biden administration. we are bringing back this economy. host: when it comes to your approach to energy, are you an all of the above energy person? guest: i think a clean energy agendas where we are at. but we also need to make certain that some of the startups with renewables are given benefits so as to affirm that we are in control of our destiny and not relying on imports to respond to the need or what has been some very strong corporate greed as it relates to the fossil fuel industry. host: our cast serves the 20th district of new york state.

our first collar is from albany, new york, line for democrats. you are on. caller: good morning. guest: good morning, rick. caller: i am an economist, and i remember that our current president said that he would like to accept social security income from income tax. what do you think the likelihood of congress to do that is? guest: i do not think that some of those measures are going to be able to be addressed by congress. i think that what we are going to be looking at is an approach to taxes that really puts a benefit on working families and they've enabled those who are most in need to go forward that address. i would think that democrats would be advancing a child tax credit opportunity.

we did that a couple of years ago for a calendar year and we saw half of children living in poverty lifted from that poverty. those will be priorities that will advance. host: that nbc interview, the president-elect saying he wouldn't touch social security. how much do you believe him on that? guest: i think the track record has been there where they want to privatize medicare, make cuts to medicaid. and i think that for some of the influence that these programs provide, and the need that is meeting many families, we have to make certain that we reject these sufferers. i think the track record is a weak one. there is a lot of suspicion about what might happen with those. host: brian joins us from albuquerque, independent line. caller: i'd like to drill down

on the illegal immigration issue, and i'd like to emphasize to all the democrats in congress, you need to change your language. the entire system is a giant mess. let's remember, half the problem is visa overstays. people who come in and never leave the country. i am working class guy. i'm a retired electrician. i know what goes on. they are putting illegal immigrants anywhere they can in their businesses, not just out in the field picking crops. they are working everywhere in our economy. so we need to control immigration because supply and demand drives down wages if you don't control it. so let's talk about controlling all the visa overstays as well as the border, and i think we do need to reinterpret the 14th amendment and look at the right

to citizenship. not everybody gets to come to the united states. it has to be controlled, it has to be limited. democrats need to start using the language of control and limits. guest: look, i think it was in 2013 that we lead a major effort for immigration reform, it is long overdue. and i think a sound pathway to citizenship should be the goal. we need to provide certainty in the process. we need to have the appropriate people, the resources, the infrastructure to be funded adequately so those looking for that pathway to citizenship, those looking to nail down their version of an american dream have ample opportunity. and i can tell you that immigration has a huge impact on many industries out there, including farming.

certainly the hospitality industry. and a lot of the tech industries and health care. in my district, we need this reform and we need it badly. there was an agreed-upon, bipartisan bill in the senate. unfortunately now president-elect trump had asked that that measure not be taken up, and i think that regrettably we lost a great opportunity. host: when it comes to the 119 congress last year, what has leadership said to you and other fellow democrats about the strategy moving forward? guest: with immigration reform? host: overall when it comes to how to respond to republican efforts in the house. guest: we are going to work in a bipartisan way to make certain that ration reform, which is much needed is provided. it is needed for worker positions that are not skilled, it is needed for dignity and fairness for those who are

entering, want to enter legally and provide a pathway to citizenship, and it will strengthen our economy. the impact of immigration can be as high as $7 billion. we cannot afford not to get this done correctly. it will enable everyone across the board to be in a winning situation. host: generally how democrats will function in the 119th congress, what is your expectation considering the senate will be in republican hands as far as with val strives to improve on their side? guest: a science-based, evidence-based discussion making sure that we deal with facts and policy. we will point out where ever there are not using facts unfavorably on the working middle income communities. when we see that unfairness we are going to highlight and share it because division or

unfairness in the system, we want to make certain we continue to go along those lines to prove the validity of tax policy and tax liability. host: there is a narrow gap when it comes to what republicans have advantage-wise. is that an opportunity for democrats? host: i think it most certainly is. it is an unusual pattern over the last couple of years. democrats in the house have bailed out the process so the government would continue. there would not be this impact on individuals who require certain programmatic efforts from washington to stay alive, keep their businesses functioning. these are very important to the american economy and the american public. we have been there, the pattern has been the democrats of the house bailing out the process and it looks like it might happen again. host: new york, independent line. caller: good morning.

how are you today? guest: doing well. caller: glad to hear that. i have probably three very brief comments, they won't take about 30 seconds and then one very important question. the first thing, i've been in the 20th district since 1976. it's been my observation that the last 20 years or so more government assistance goes to international corporations. of course, there's great benefit. but that is private industry that is being financed with public dollars to a very large extent. secondly, you said you support clean energy. well, i hope you will address fracking. fracking is a very important source of natural gas. natural gas is a relatively clean energy. finally, two things.

the tax on social security. i don't know why you would be working to champion the elimination of attacks on seniors that has been proposed, because as non-social security income grows, the tax in social security skyrockets. and my lasting would be an error area, how about the st. clair's hospital employees who have had their pensions essentially stolen? host: i will stop you there, thank you for the call. go ahead. guest: let me start with the last question. the first thing we did was reach out to the federal pension insurance fund to make sure that we could assist those pensioners. unfortunately, they release themselves from out of the program.

it's impossible to provide federal assistance as it relates to the social security tax relief. while i indicated i didn't think it would get done, i didn't think there would be some competing priorities, but of course any tax relief that we can provide especially for seniors in our area, that is a phenomenally good benefit. i was hoping we could get all of these accomplished, there will be bartering over which priorities to establish. but it is one that obviously bears a benefit. in terms of the semiconductor industry, when we did our version of the chips and science act, we made certain the democrats in the house of representatives had their form of a chips and sciences bill. most bills are with both houses, both parties negotiating. we wanted to make certain that investments made for these international companies whether

they were made by the u.s. government were going to be enjoyed in that sphere, in the u.s. economy, and we took a risk to make certain that we protected some of those efforts. in regard to clean energy, i agree, natural gas is a clean energy and will most certainly serve as a bridge as we go forward. but the emphasis also one transmission, making sure that permitting is expedited and not reducing any of the environmental benefits along with investing in clean energy, renewable energy i think are going to be big for the energy and congress committee. host: you mention fracking as a means forgetting that natural gas. guest: natural gas as a clean form is important. we will look at that issue for certain the session, but making certain that as a bridge therapy, natural gas will

probably be probably one of the more relied upon services. host: here is ryan on the independent line from north carolina. host: i have one question. i'm really interested in your view of hr 741-0 has a chance to pass in the next congress if it is reintroduced. host: collar, what is that act again? caller: hr 741-0. guest: with a new session being started, it will be the determination of the various committees to establish priorities for this given session. i am not certain where that would rank, but obviously there are new opportunities with a new

session of congress as we start the 119th. we will make certain that we review, that we have a progressive agenda going forward. host: i don't know if they visited with democrats but when elon musk and vivek ramaswamy were on to talk about government efficiency, what do you think about that effort overall? guest: i think some of the comments they are making with reductions in programs, you need to take a scalpel to some of these programs, not a cleaver. i think it is important for us to make certain that we look at all the benefits that these programs provide, where efficiencies can be rendered, but some of the approach i think is kind of pell-mell rush to across-the-board cuts which obviously would not be the most productive or effective way to get business done. host: daddy in maine, republican

line. -- debby. caller: hi. yes, i'm calling to make a comment about tonka. i think that is his name. host: go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i was wondering why he said donald trump killed the florida bill, because he didn't. democrats voted against it. hr two was passed in the house in may of 2022 and adam schiff never brought it up. host: ok we will that our guest respond. guest: i think they are talking about the legislation that was introduced and agreed upon in the senate in the middle of last year. everyone was ready to have those first steps of immigration reform which would have been a vitally encouraging process that would allow for the beginnings

of reform. the track record was pretty clear on that one. host: maryland, democrats line, you are up next. good morning. caller: good morning. with regard to obamacare, people need to stop voting against their own interests. trump was talking about a concept of a health care program and getting rid of obamacare or reducing funding for it, but republicans have laws that would end medicaid expansions if the federal funding is reduced. arizona, arkansas, illinois, indiana, montana, new hampshire, north carolina, utah and virginia. people need to stop voting against their own interests. your comments, representative? guest: when we get to medicaid expansion, i notice a lot of states had the largest numbers

of uninsured or underinsured children. i think it is important for us to put politics aside and allow policy to speak, to make it science-based, evidence-based. tens of millions of individuals and families out there with the improvements of the affordable care act that allows for all sorts of improvements for families. very pronounced in its success rate. they can get people who were exempted some insurance coverage, that they were denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. we are all benefited by the affordable care act and i think all sorts of people who came onto the insurance role allowing children to stay with their parents until the age of 26. so many improvements that were

part and parcel about legislation that really gave an impact. we are going to make certain that we do preserve that program and to enhance it. host: that health is expected to take up a bill this week taking a look at the water resources development act. tell us about that bill and your role in it. guest: we work very hard to make certain there was no -- that would improve the opportunity for communities with a water bill. we think there are significant investments that go toward water quality, water infrastructure, which fall under the switch of the environment and climate subcommittee which i've been the leading democrat on on energy and commerce. recently we got the news that there is a $100 million benefit for communities along the mohawk

river in upstate new york, the largest tributary into the hudson river. there were struggles made by a number of communities to be in compliance and this will be a big help in making sure that water quality has improved, that water programs and infrastructure programs are indeed made all the more available. host: i do want to ask you about the mba, where are you on that? guest: i've been communicating, adam schiff has been keeping us up-to-date. i think there's been great opportunities in that bill and we will see at the finish line with the finish line with a final passage looks like. it would be nice to have been approved. host: what do you think of the $500 million price tag? guest: it is making certain that there are investments that are essential in the forces that serve our national security.

again, we are looking at that final passage this week and hopefully a good outcome for those who are serving in the military. host: massachusetts, independent line. short on time so jumped right in. caller: appreciate you all on cnn. do you think there is a desire in the house and among your constituents for some into protection and cybersecurity? appreciate your time. >> absolutely i think there is a lot of interest. a number of subcommittees and committees are looking at that port of investments. in this modern day of technology, we need to look at consumer protection, we need to look at national security. i think those will be the thematic the tribe these hearings. host: the 20th district and on the energy and commerce committee joining us from

capitol hill, thank you for your time sir. guest: thank you so much. host: up next we will take a look at how the defense department is looking at the incoming trump administration. joining us when washington journal continues. ♪ >> are you a nonfiction book lover looking for a new podcast. try listening to one of the many podcasts c-span has to offer. on cue and day you'll listen to interesting interviews with people and authors and subjects that matter. learn something new on book notes plus through conversations with nonfiction authors and historians. afterwards brings together best-selling nonfiction authors with influential interviewers for wide-ranging hour-long

conversations. and on about books we talk about the business of books with news and interviews about the publishing industry and nonfiction authors predefined our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now apple or wherever you get your podcasts. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio is easy. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to -- important public affairs events throughout the day. listen to c-span any time, just tell your smart speaker play c-span radio. powered cable. >> 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 today's biggest events of live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress.

white house events, campaigns and more from the world of politics. all at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download it for free or visit our website c-span.org/c-span now. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> washington journal continues. host: tara joining us of the associated press talking about the incoming trump administration, what the defense department might think. quick about syria as far as where the defense department lies going forward. guest: the country is in a state of upheaval and there are a lot of questions to what a final state of syria will look like

weatherall be different quadrants or interests, but there are 900 u.s. forces there, a lot of them are in the south pray there are some near the north, they are not on the northwestern area that scene has -- that has seen so much evil. but there is a question of will that mission be able to continue. the defense department has said troops need to stay there because of the counter isis mission, particularly in the southeastern quadrant, that is where a lot of munitions need to move from iran backed militias to israel for example. and so you lose control of that territory you really open up a can of worms. host: we ask about the trump administration coming in, the average person in the defense department, what am i expecting with the new administration. guest: i think you are going to see almost immediately a lot of policies revert back to where president-elect trump had put them in 2017 and 2018, one good

example that a lot of people have talked about is the right for transgender troops to serve. trump change that policy literally through a tweet back in his first term in office and that led to three years of legal battles and those troops were reinstated with the right to serve under the biden administration. i think that pendulum will swing back and we will get back to an area where those troops are in legal limbo and this has to be processed through the courts. host: when it comes to the staffing, i know the president-elect has said things, his secretary of nominee about general spread what does that mean as far as what the administration or the incoming administration thinks and what does it mean inside the defense department. guest: it is really concerning and has had a chilling effect. i've spoken to a number of officers about this. you have people dedicated that are climbing up the ranks that have finally made brigadier

general looking at completing out a full career of service and now if they said something that could be construed as quote unquote woke because they are promoting diversity or protecting minority troops that have had a hard time climbing up the ranks for one reason or another. that could get them fired. depending on where you are in the ranks, you can be fired summarily because you serve at the pleasure of the president. depending on certain posts, but if you are still climbing up those ranks and thinking do you want to put yourself or family through this, that is a serious question for people who have already asked their families to do so much in this career. >> is there a sense of people at that level in preparation of the trumpet administration coming in. >> i haven't gotten that sense, but what has happened is you see a chilling effect in what people are willing to say publicly. there is a lot of discussion behind the scenes of why would a certain person be targeted. we heard last week about the

list the foundation is presented to the nominee saying here is 20 officers you should just fire right away on day one. some of these officers are targeted because they took in an event promoting diversity and inclusion. some are targeted because they themselves are female and talking about the struggles that sometimes females have faced, glass ceilings including breaking through the military ranks. if you want a military that will be reflective of the american population there has to be room for those types of conversations without it threatening the career of someone who's dedicated themselves to american service. host: that was the american accountability association. we will talk about him in a second but i want to invite folks into the conversation. 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats 202-748-8000. independents 202-748-8002. active in foreign milk -- active and former military, [captioning performed by the

national captioning institute, --202-748-8003 how do those in the pentagon think of pete hegseth. >> i have heard mixed views pray nobody is discrediting that he has served the country and served in combat. there are some questions as to whether or not he has the qualifications to lead a 2 million member military plus the almost 900,000 civilians and you basically make it a 3 million member organization. the ability for him to be a changemaker is the ability for him to be disruptive but there are things the president-elect wants and i was at the reagan national defense forum this weekend. hundreds of conservatively minded lawmakers and defense contractors and people who have been in the arena for a long time and one of the consensus ideas was there are plenty of people who could also be disruptors that might also have that additional experience that they would like to see in the role. host: when it comes to the

leadership ability how does he compare to others when it comes to leading large operations like the pentagon. guest: he has been a fox news commentator, he has been at two different veterans organizations. both of which have raised some questions about his behavior at those organizations and whether or not he left them financially sound as he found them. those are legitimate questions for the senate committee and confirmation hearing to see if he can really lead an organization that itself struggles with its own financial and passing an audit and all of that. the pentagon is a place where there's complicated problems every single day and he may be the person to lead it but there are definitely questions of whether he has the management experience to navigate this really complex bureaucracy. >> yesterday joni ernst put out statement along encouraging

conversations he committed to completing a full audit of the pentagon and senior official upholding the values of our servicemen and women based on the quality and standards in the prioritize strength and to prevent sexual assault within the ranks as i support them through this process i look forward to a fair hearing faced on troops not anonymous sources. she mentioned a full audit of the pentagon. why is that important. guest: the pentagon faces an audit year after year. i had a conversation this weekend where the marine corps got to say they passed their audit and that's a big deal because we had systems to penning on the budgeting process it's a mess. it is programs being which means a program gets too expensive over time so they reset the cost and what that baseline number is and so it's been literally impossible to get a good sense of where the pentagon is a financial aid. that has been not only the ernst party but a lot of senators have said it's time to get the

pentagon back on financial responsibility. >> the senior official upholding the roles and values of serviceman she's highlighting her past work and preventing sexual assault, can you elaborate on that what's going on in the pentagon. guest: the pentagon has made a lot of strides in the last decade or so to really tackle sexual assault in the ranks. it's trying to create a system where they feel like they can come forward when the person that assaulted them or allegedly assaulted them is within their unit and they have to go to a commander and report to their direct commander what has happened. that it itself is an intimidating process, you've seen them go through a lot of legislation in the last couple of years and inside the pentagon there's been an effort to get that prosecution to get that justice system outside the unit and outside of the ranks. that's been important to joni ernst and a number of female members and male members of congress.

the military's 17% female. not all of things with sexual assault are female but a vast majority are. this is a big issue for them. host: joining us for this conversation, let's hear from matthew in sacramento, california. for our line for those formally in the military -- formerly in the military. hello. caller: yes, i would like to add that the deep state who wants to stay in syria like last time they broke the donald trump's order to leave syria, they still want to stay there. they are part of the military-industrial complex. they want to stay in syria and stay everywhere else they can. so whoever wants to stay in syria are part of still the deep state so that should be a good litmus test for donald trump.

guest: sure. the pentagon's reasons for staying in syria the last few years is because whenever you have a vacuum, a power vacuum that tends to become the perfect nesting ground for terror and terrorism so you saw that in 2014 with the rise of isis. started in iraq and move toward syria so they have this wide swath of territory and that's literally why the u.s. troops went back into syria and have stayed there to protect them, there are a lot of questions as to how long the troops need to be there whether they are completely there for isis, a oil fields in the northeastern part of syria and you have seen the u.s. presence there but you have a massive prison that has thousands of former either isis affiliated or isis fighters and you really want that to spill out of control in an area that's already seen so much up people.

host: steve is in maryland, republican line. caller: i'm just calling in support of pete hegseth. i watch him on fox on the weekends and i just think he is an exemplary guy. he has two bronze stars, he's an actual war hero which many of the people who have been in the military cannot say they have one bronze star, yet two. he's a catholic with seven kids. we sit and we go to confession and we are all good. i give the man credit for what he's done as a military man, i think the military troops would embrace a military person who's been there and walk that walk. i go to the vfw and american legion a lot of military folks there. most of them have a drink once in a while. i don't know why they think he is an alcoholic.

i think he is an exemplary guy and i'm hoping he gets in there. and he's going to do a good job and get our army back up to snuff. host: ok. guest: these are all things that will need to come out in a confirmation hearing. he seen over the past few weeks, he has been kind of vetted publicly in the media with reports of serious drinking, about his questions about his drinking at fox news, whether or not he has been able to successfully manage the two veterans groups he's worked for probably one of the most pointed is his 2017 report out of california where an alleged sexual assault took place between him and a female who had been attending the republic and conference out there. he paid a cash settlement to that woman who has not been named yet, who may be part of the confirmation hearings. that story may come out.

this has been one of the big points of contention for senator ernst and others. how do you deal with if you are going to have a change whom i question whether we need all this education about preventing sexual assault in the military but there is this alleged event that has taken place, that needs to be vetted out thoroughly and we saw senator ernst get at that. she spoke to those directly this weekend where she told a group of men and women at the reagan forum. i'm a sexual assault survivor. she had to sit across from pete hegseth who was charged with one and really understand the gravity of that situation of victims need to be heard if this happens it needs to be vetted. and for women who are serving in the military there needs to be a fair and private and just wafer them to be able to seek help. host: again, republicans 202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000.

independents 202-748-8002 and if you are formal or active military, 202-748-8003. we are focusing on the top position but what other positions should people pay attention to particularly if the president-elect makes these choices when it comes to the overall operation. guest: his number two pick is basically like the mayor of the pentagon and if that person would be looking at where does the pentagon need to invest in weapons systems, what kind of big policy changes is a need to make and so you see someone come from the tech sector who is highly experienced because the pentagon needs to move in that direction. depending on where we go with the service secretary we have two or three nominated so far, both have military exposure, but you just have to watch where they are going, what their

industry ties and looking forward to a senate confirmation process what we not know about them. >> when it comes to the overall philosophy is it more interventionist, more isolationist and how does that affect how the dod operates. guest: i would think during the campaign there was more of an isolationist bend, getting the u.s. out of these wars, but we have a very critical data coming up during the trump administration, 2027 and that's china's data deadline for when it sees to self be ready and able to invade taiwan. that will be a big push for the administration, how do you respond, do you continue to arm taiwan to the point where it will be a deterrent. can use downed up to the commitment and the defense of taiwan if that comes up. host: i suppose ukraine becomes

part of the conversation. guest: definitely part of the conversation. you've seen kind of these ideas flow maybe it's time to get to a settlement may after the trump administration there won't be these massive weapons packages, these billions of dollars worth of ammunition and air defense missiles that will go towards ukraine and may that pushes ukraine to say we have to negotiate now. >> we've seen this week the house take up the policy bill spending at the pentagon. what was the general approach to spending with the pentagon in his first term. >> it was an increase in spending. there was an argument that they made the biggest pay increase for service members as to whether that was the biggest. but the general idea was it's time to raise pay and it was time to increase the budget so the pentagon can modernize like it needs to. >> there is a debate going on even as all this about

efficiency within the government. is the dod concerned about these efforts particularly if it gets pointed at them. >> i'm sure it will get pointed at them. the pentagon is getting close to having almost a trillion dollar annual budget. it's all about 850 right now if you count in the doe spending. we are already over a trillion. that's a big number. somewhere in there there's got to be some. in previous years they taken it out of and strengthen because some of the most expensive elements of national defense or your personnel because of the lifelong benefits you can have and for weapons systems. and the training and maintenance for that. so much of that has been taken out of those two areas that there is no more fat. that's a lot of tougher choices possibly in retirement.

you've seen this incoming administration float the idea of maybe benefits. what do you do with these big procurement programs that elon musk definitely has in his target. >> let's get to duffy in tennessee. you're on with our guest. >> good morning. i'm calling about this nominee. i've been a major for over 23 years and one of the biggest problems we've had is the army shop issue -- the sexual harassment and assault and response program. i think it's going to tarnish the whole effort of that program is we have someone who has been accused of sexual harassment or assault on women. i'm a father right now of two daughters.

it is my greatest courage or hope that they can be treated fairly as women. so allowing a guy like pete hegseth who has a record of abusing women i don't think is fit to be the next secretary of defense. we've had this fight for so long. it's time to dial back into our efforts. >> thank you. >> this is a big deal for senator ernst and too many -- in the confirmation hearing if we get to that point. how the military handles sexual assault is important for not only just the culture of the military, but the military's future. the fastest growing area for recruitment is females. so you can really have an organization that makes it so hostile to women that they can

-- they do not want to serve because they are finding their next generation of leaders in women. >> what did you make or what was inside the dod. how did resonate from those comments the nominee made about women in combat specifically. >> so that's really rattled people too. it's been about 20 years since the first areas where women were able to break through such as when women were able to fly combat missions in 1994 and then in 2015 finally getting through that last hurdle which was your infantry and your combat positions so that all positions were open to women to be able to serve. since then we have had 100 50 women finish the army ranger course. you've got two serving in naval special warfare, or than a 5000 serving in artillery, armor and

so that pretty much just putting that genie back in the bottle will be difficult and on top of the sexual assault and harassment, what are you telling these women who have raised their hand to serve. >> covering the pentagon for the associated press, let's hear from gary, a former military in cleveland, you are on. caller: good morning. i wanted to check in with regards to the hoop law and regards to pete hegseth. he has been accused, but was never prosecuted. i do not believe they have anything on this guy. host: you are still on, go ahead. caller: yeah, he is x military and i think he will do an excellent job. i'm looking at the current administration and lloyd austin and the way he's conducted himself and i'm awfully disappointed in that man. host: how so?

caller: how so? he took a week off and never notified nobody when he was in the hospital. host: ok. guest: that's one week in a 41 year career for lloyd austin who served 41 years, retired a four-star general and came back to be secretary of defense has multiple combats, has led into combat. that was probably one of his biggest mistakes during the 10 year, to not inform not only the public but the president and the press that he had been diagnosed with cancer and was seeking treatment and then when he got into those complications and was hospitalized and still didn't tell anyone, that's when it really got bad. that also shows a lot of different ways the military should pentagon civilian leadership informs it's going to be out. that line of communication was

broken between secretary austen and his deputy, that has been addressed. any time any of the secretaries are having anything done now leaning further away letting everyone know. guest: operationally a seachange. let's hear from the democrats line, hello. you are on. caller: yes, i have a problem with pete hegseth. he has an alcohol problem. my husband was in the military for 18 years, drinking and driving, went through detox. and then we heard pete hegseth saying he stopped drinking, but has he been to rehab or done anything to help him with his alcohol problem with this in

ministries and dealing with all of our active duty? knowing that he has a problem and just to take his word to say he will stop drinking? host: ok. thanks. guest: that was one of the more surprising things to come out in the last week or so is you have a nominee for the secretary of defense saying that if you pick and go through confirmation process you want of a drop of alcohol, that seems a lot of pressure to add to yourself right is your becoming secretary of defense and maybe that something needs to be considered beforehand. this is for the senators to weigh and dig into and the background check. the fbi's doing a deep background check on the nominee and if there are deeper issues they will come out. >> if i'm a defense contractor how my looking at the upcoming administration. guest: you will likely see a big shift to drones.

elon musk definitely has the president's ear and some of the top defense firms really pushing towards a different type of warfare that doesn't depend on these fighter jets and really instead on these swarming smaller cheaper drones that could perhaps instead of taking 30 years to build a trillion dollar warplane, take a year and put out thousands of them. >> bob is in kansas, former military, you are on. caller: thank you. i served in the marine corps from 1966 to 1987. 22 months in nam from december 66 to august 68 and as far as these bronze stars go, i hate to say this, but the army gives them out like they are candy. the main thing is hegseth, he

might have two bronze stars but he does not have combat bronze stars. he did not get those in combat. he got those probably for trying to be a good old boy and writing himself up for one. i would never support that because of the way he treats women and i have two daughters, two granddaughters. i would not support him. my one daughter she could out beat him in a minute, he has no leadership and as the lady stated, the marine corps is the only one that their audit came in the way it should have. he's the marine corps -- marines know how to lead and they know how to lead forward and with hegseth we will get just the opposite. we will get trump leadership and we don't need that in america.

that's all i've got to say. host: bob in kansas. guest: you can see there is a pretty divided population on hegseth whether or not he is gung ho about the change agent he could possibly be. their arguments to be made a completely fresh set of eyes. you could argue the way has happen for the past 20 years we still don't have a pentagon that passes an audit. we still of weapons programs that are running way behind schedule and vastly over cost. but does he have what it takes to actually address that in one of the things as i talk to officers and contractors you kind of have to have that inside of building experience a little bit to know what levers to push in order to bring that change. host: what did you make the caller's characterization of the bronze star. guest: that is something we should get into.

a lot of bronze stars are given out. a lot of medals are given out because you served during that campaign. the one for valor is in a combat situation paired there are different medals and awards given out for service in combat versus you were there, it was a dangerous place, you got the job done. host: one more call from david. hi there. caller: good morning, c-span. i was just thinking this diversity and we've been putting up with this for the last four years. hegseth is a good-looking guy, apparently, and women seem to fraught themselves around good-looking men.

and the truth is women flock around good-looking men and it's probably not all his faulted if something might have happened, he probably wouldn't have liked to happen too. i think he would be a great guy for it and now it's just like the democrats to go ahead and want to fight everybody that trump wants to put in there and i think people are wearing thin on that. host: ok. got your point. what should viewers watch ahead when it comes to this defense department under the trump administration? guest: a lot of quick changes. one in particular, space command. senator tuberville has been pushing for it to be in alabama. it was award to colorado springs. tuberville has been championing hexa throughout this entire process.

that's probably one of the quick decisions that they will revert and send it back to alabama. i think the transgender decision will probably also be reversed fairly quickly. i think that the defense department under whoever is picked for the secretary of defense and under trump will quickly undo secretary austin's reproductive care act where after jobs, he decided that whim who are assigned to states where there is no choice on reproductive care can get their travel and their expenses for the travel reimbursed so that they can have the time off and they can go get the care that they need. i think those are three very quick ones that will happen. you will probably see as a deployment of truth on the border and what does that mean for the country and whether or not they might be used to round up migrants. that's going to be a big one because it will challenge how federal troops are used on federal soil the women in combat decision may stay because

there's a there's a lot of pushback on that one. that seems to be a cultural issue that energized a lot of people that turns a few heads on hexa's way but ultimately, we've had women serving for years now. host: our special guest, tara copp, thanks for giving us your time. if you want to call, 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. we'll take those calls when "washington journal" continues. >> and one of the things i did yesterday was play basketball due to the influence of my bald headed chief of staff and my legislative director. so i have no comment -- who i have no comments for. so if i shed a tear while i'm here here today, it won't be because i'm emotional, it's because my back is killing me

right now, ok? [laughter] i see a number of these exit speeches. to be honest with you, they remind me of a betterment of obituary. and the truth is this is the end of this moment in time. and the press, my god, the press. [laughter] your job toys hold accountable. do it and if any of those folks don't like it, just remember that mock and i accountability go hand-in-hand. you need to be able to do your job. and thank you for doing the job you're doing. as i close, i would say this this democracy has resulted in the greatest country that's ever existed. it is because of our forefathers, the ability to compromise and think clearly about the challenges ahead, and set the rules that would address these challenges. u.s.a. exists as the greatest country ever to exist because of previous generations, of

senators and public officials. exhibiting the ability to make sound decisions based on facts and reality, not decisions promoting political power, but realistic decisions promoting a strong future for our country and for future generations. to say that i'm worried about this country's ability to maintain the strongest economy and the most powerful military in the world would be an understatement. however, i know that a majority of people that serve in this u.s. senate today are real legislatures who want to do real legitimating. you -- leg slating. god bless you all and tally hoo. [applause]

>> this is open forum. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. and independents, 202-748-8002. you can always text at 202-748-8003 and post on our social media site to c-span.org and on x at c-span.org. the new york times reports that laura trump stepping down. this is saying that ms. trump who is president elect president trump's daughter-in-law have

lobbied for her as the next senator from florida should senator marco rubio's seat becomes open. several republicans have publicly supported ms. trump in an interview with the associated press. she would consider taking up the position -- that's the "new york times" taking a look at the future of the senate. tulsi gabbard on the halls of capitol hill making the round in her bid to become part of he trump administration and pass that process. the "post" picks up with after meeting, the told reporters that she supported the comments the president made when it comes to syria. she goes on to say this, my own

crews and experiences have been shaped by my multiple deployment and the threat of islamic terrorism. -- so look for that to play out in the weeks ahead as the confirmation process begins with the incoming trump administration. democrats line, this is rick in washington, d.c. in open forum. go ahead. caller: i want to follow-up on that marine that called back earlier. this is tougher to get your license plates renewed at dmv than it is to get a bronze star in the army that's number one. number two, i like somebody to question on thoroughly on why he was asked to stand down when he was deployed and the unit turned him down and told him to go

down. and thirdly, you look at pete hegseth, they're just yes boys and that's all i've got to say. yes boys, income together -- incompetent. if trump says trump, that's what we're going to do. caller: it seems like this is an election that a lot of people voted for change and i would hope that c-span could do its job of bringing on guests that talk about the need for change and the problems as opposed to people who are interested in basically digging dirt on the nominees because there are big problems. i used to work in the department of defense. a lot of people who work in the

area and the system is badly broken and when you bring on the people like the last a.p. reporter who just talked about digging dirt and then saying all of the stuff, it comes off as highly partisan and i hope that she'll understand that and understand that the job is not to carry water for one side and it is not to do what the a.p. does. it's to help the american people get what they want out of the government and in this case, it is change. if you don't talk about the problem that these nominees are being made, you're miss the vast story and the problem there -- host: so problems such as what? caller: what? host: problems such as what? give me an example. caller: well, the trillion dollars that were headed towards the defense budget which will be the largest spending item and the fact that it hasn't correlated of winning any wars

and it correlated with the rise of china. hasn't correlated with americans being safer and it's going to wreck the country because of the debt, for instance. host. let's hear from sandra in mississippi, democrats line. caller: yes. i'm calling because i just feel sick and tired to have the news media and all of y'all -- host: caller, you'll have to watch the language if you're going to call in the program after couple of rules when you call in, ladies and gentlemen. if you pick a line that best represents you, that's the best starting place. that's how we've divided it. if you called the last 30 days, if you can hold on in doing so, we appreciate that and as always, watch the language. this is the front page of "u.s.a. today" this morning. and their analysis of saying trump front and center as stark contrast to 2016 saying the

world isn't waiting for president trump's inauguration. joe biden is still president. the responsibility for the world's problems is -- for the man who moved into the oval office in six weeks -- that's the front page of "u.s.a. today." you can find it online. let's hear from troy in new jersey, republican line. caller: hi. how are you doing? i was just calling in new mexico for the past two weeks -- new

jersey for the past who weeks, they've had unidentified drones flying all over the place. and this ties into pete hegseth being potential head of d.o.d. we're fat getting any answers now. nobody knows what's going on. i want to get the message out there a little bit from new jersey. host: ok. darrel is in ohio, democrats line. caller: well, hello. i find it interesting. i watched the chicago news this morning even though heisman in ohio. -- i'm in ohio. the secretary who's in charge -- the incoming secretary who will be in charge of the border is supposed to do the -- he's going

to start in chicago and do the mass deor traditions -- deportations starting in chicago. i just had to smile to myself because i figured that the incoming president trump would target states and cities who did not vote for him. so he's going to target those cities and he will harm them. population, absolutely harm those cities. and i think the cities that trump does not like will be targeted. host: ok. caller: that was my comment. host: this is the front page or the online version of the "chicago sun-times" this morning. this is the headline. chicago to be ground zero for

mass deportation. -- host: linda in iowa, republican line. caller: yes, good morning. i want to talk about the subway incident. he should have never been charged. and where was his immediate family when he was going through the crisis? you need to care about people when they're alive, no when they're dead. you have to show that love to the people when they're alive so that they know that they're cared for. you can't keep kicking them down the road and call, it mental health. he was very involved with drugs. he had a very troubled life. and his family wasn't there for him. the family has to take responsibility.

you can't expect to sue that man for money when it was your fault. you didn't love him when he was alive. put your brains in your head and start caring for each other. host: that's linda in iowa here's the story from "u.s.a. today" saying a jury on monday finding daniel penning not debate of criminally negligent homicide in the death of a homeless man who was placed on chokehold on board a new york city subway car last year the jury told the judge they reached a unanimous verdict on the second count. -- here is david. david in baltimore. independent line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. someone earlier in the show mentioned the founding fathers and they are largely responsible for the mission that we have today.

i seem to look back and examined how they got their education and their main textbook was the holy bible. america has really, really a need to give credit where credit is due and if anyone cannot give credit to god for his own life he is not the judge of any other life. we need to read the bible and leave it's not the person the bible speaks of, at least believe the moral code that the bible gives and particularly in the new testament. we are far, far, far away from the time the people we could be simply because we do not to the what the bible says. host: ok, lawrence in new york state, democrats line. hello. hello? caller: yes.

i have two comments. and one of those is all these illegal immigrants supposedly coming in. you know, our family came to the united states after world war ii. in other words, we were war refugees. and it still took us four years to get permission to come to this great country. today, everybody just walks right in and does nothing -- they're so ignorant of this country they don't even want to speak the language. that's one thing. and so i think all these people should be deported tomorrow. and another thing is, you know, i'm a democrat. been a democrat all my life, basically. but lately, i've been losing the fact that i'm not democrat anymore because my mind reading ability has stopped. all these people that call in, they got to be beautiful mind readers because i can't read all these politicians' minds and

what they say and what they actually do because all these people make comments about all these politicians, how they read their minds. and nobody as far as i know can read their minds. so i guess i'm turning from a democrat to a republican. host: that's lawrence there in new york state. axios reporting at the start of the prime minister's corruption trial on tuesday, his testimony which he tried to postpone and is expected to be a pivotal moment in the prime minister's fight for political survival and his personal freedom he was indicted for bribery, fraud and breach of trust in november of 2019. he has pleaded not guilty in case 4,000. he was charged with allegedly giving money to regulatory benefits to -- let's hear from

allen. he joins us from tennessee, republican line. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. just a couple of, this. -- things. i'm aggrieved on the hegseth describing womanizer or alcoholic. i'm surprised that my marine buddies semper fi, by the way, would make a statement that the army hands out bronze stars.

if hegseth was such a loose cannon, how did he not have a history of sexually assaulting? and finally, just let the process work. let's stop character assassinating. he went through a divorce and at the time, i would expect any self-respecting christian mother to chastise him regarding ended what you might call is a perfectly good marriage. i don't think acrimony or -- i wonder the source of the letter was. there are studies at places like public health command and other places will show you that they did find that women without floor structural injuries carrying weight ammunition and combat i don't think anybody doubts they could do the job

from israelis to russian females. some specific combat jobs may or may not be overly stressful. host: president biden expected to make remarks this afternoon and making the case that it has been more effective and the kind of tax cuts be implemented by president trump. he will deliver what the white house officials describe as a major address on his economic legacy at the brookings institute in d.c. he is expected to boast about legislative investment and infrastructure, manufacturing and local community as well as job creation during his four years in office. the white house highlighted economic data to argue that biden's leading office was stronger than he herded in january of 2020 when the country was in the midst of the pandemic. -- mary rose in alexandria,

virginia, democrats line. caller: hi. i want to talk about the subway murder. first of all, i'm a woman and i've been in new york city back in the 1970's and you just have to learn how to have some self-control. [indiscernible] if you're used to being on the city streets, i've lived in d.c. for many years you reach into your back pocket and give him a water or couple of bucks. social services are not adequate. they need to provide better services. i was in the navy, described as a marine who was not in new york

city. he was not familiar with the environment. he got frightened. he was scared. and he took his training. his training from being a marine. and he murdered this man. and people were afraid. and i think it's a law of attraction. this man should have gotten to court and the woman who called in and said his family should have been helping him. if you're a family member of who has medicine abuse, they tell you to abandon that person. they tell you. let them hit rock bottom. do nothing for them. so everybody is responsible for this man's death. it's a tragedy overall. and this man who murdered that man etc., does not belong in new york city. host: ok. ok. that's mary rose there in

alexandria, virginia. matt dietz has a new job. the former lawmaker will soon host his own political talk show on oan who heavily supports donald trump. trenton in georgia. go ahead. caller: i'm just calling to go about the mass deportations and the spending of money that people are talking about say for immigrants. i wonder do people know if you come from cuba and you step foot on the united states soil, you

receive benefits for eight months and then once you here for one year and one day, you become a citizen and you automatically qualify for social security and all benefits. so if you're a 65-year-old woman and you come here and you are here for a year, you get full social security and medicare and you have only been here for one year. and nobody really knows about that. host: trenton in georgia there. this is from roll call this morning. lawmakers who are back touted by president-elect trump and his transition team have started plotting how to use unified goals -- as part of an initial bill for budget initiation --

if you want to see part of those immigration plans. irwin in los angeles, republican line. caller: yeah. this should view a.i. and go through the process of -- [indiscernible] and also i'd like to give a shoutout to -- for all the procedures that have been denied by the united health care insurance. host: ok.

when it comes to activity on capitol hill and oversight by the federal government, particularly congress, t united states postal service is under the ew of the hse oversight and accountability community today. will feature a hearing with the postmaster general talking about the service of the postal service and you can see that hearing on variety of ways if yo wish on c-span3 is our main network there, starting at 10:00. you can also follow along at c-span now and c-sn.org if you wish as we follow along and s what the postal service doing, part of the oversight process as we know if you go to our website at c-span.org at last, variety of ways to follow along on what goes on with capitol hill and washington. we keep archives and stories there. and this program and other things that we take in during the week and days as far as the coverage of washington and if you're interested in searching

those things at last, search box at the top when it comes to activities of capitol hill and the white house. the journalist who vanished in syria is part of the scope of the biden situation and what happens next when it comes to his recovery saying syria ises in the loss to the of a regime collapse. he is an american freelance journalist abducted several years ago. they do not know if he is still alive. a special envoy has been dispatched to by a rue. -- he's in beirut. talked to parties and people in that region and to collect information