♪ host: good morning. it is sunday, arch nine, 2025. as the trump administration continues his effort to reduce the size of the federal government, what impact is having on veterans? veterans make up 30% of the overall federal workforce and the ministration is planning cuts to staffing levels at the

v.a.. want -- we want to know if you support or oppose cuts to the veteran affairs department. for veterans, please call in at (202) 748-8000. for family members of veterans, (202) 748-8001. everyone else can call in at (202) 748-8002. if you would like to text us, that number is (202) 748-8003. please be sure to include your name, where you are writing in from, and if you are a veteran. we are on social media at facebook.com/cspan and on x at @cspanwj. veterans do make up about 30% of the nation's federal workforce, including 643,000 veterans who work for the federal government in 2024. most of those veterans are employed by the veterans affairs department, the defense

department, branches of the military, or the department of homeland security. the associated press reported this week -- last week that the trump administration plans to cut 80,000 employees from veterans affairs, according to an internal memo, going on to say the department veterans affairs is planning a reorganization that includes cutting over 80,000 jobs from the agency that provides health care and other services for the millions of veterans, according to an internal memo obtained wednesday by the associated press. the v.a. chief of staff told top level officials at the agency it had an objective to cut enough employees to return to 2019 levels of just under 400 thousand. that would require terminating tens of thousands of employees after the v.a. expended during the biden administration as well as to cover veterans impacted

under the 2022 pact act. the veterans affairs secretary in a video on social media last week addressed some of the proposed v.a. cuts. >> in response to the department of government efficiency initiative, the v.a. is conducting a departmentwide review of his organization, operations, and structure. central to these efforts is an approach to eliminating waste and bureaucracy, increasing efficiency and improving health care benefits and services to veterans. this will be a thorough and thoughtful review based on input from career employees as well as top v.a. leaders. our goal is to reduce v.a. employment levels by roughly 398,000 employees from our current level of approximately 470,000 employees. that is a 15% decrease. we will accomplish this without making cuts to health care or benefits to veterans and v.a.

beneficiaries. v.a. will always fulfill his duty to provide veterans among caregivers, and survivors health care and benefits. while we conduct a review, v.a. will hire from more than 300,000 mission-critical positions to ensure health care and benefits are not impacted. there are many complaining about the change we are making at the v.a., but what most of them are really saying is let's keep doing the same thing the v.a. has always done. not going to happen. the days of kicking the can down the road and measuring v.a. progress by how much money it spends rather than how any veterans it helps are over. >> veterans around the country who work at the v.a. joined house democrats in a news conference warning about further cuts. here is a portion. in the meantime, more of

secretary collins's comments. he had an op-ed saying we owe america's veterans real solutions. the department of veterans affairs has been a punching bag among veterans, congress, and the media for decades. things need to change. we owe veterans and v.a. employees solutions. for many years, veterans have been asking for a more efficient, accountable, and transparent v.a.. the administration is finally going to give veterans what they want. president trump has a mandate to bring generational change to washington. that is what we are going to deliver. we are going to make the department work better for veterans, families, caregivers, and survivors we are charged with serving. now back to those comments made when some of the veterans around the country at the v.a. were in a press conference last week with house democrats. here is a v.a. employee and veteran.

>> i am a disabled iraq war veteran. a v.a. worker, a proud -- representing illinois. i proudly serve my country and now i proudly serve my fellow veterans. right now, the trump administration is trying to cut the v.a. and let billionaires steal are health care. veterans, we are under attack. last week, 1400 workers got fired illegally. 22 of them were my colleagues. some of them did not even get a real notice. all they got was this, and email with no name. that is how little they think of

people that are veterans in this country and that serve our country. they are crushing unions and selling at the v.a. for what? so billionaires can make more money will veterans sit on a waitlist or worse get no treatment. host: there's an article with a headline veterans feel scared and disrespected by mass firings throughout the federal government. veterans service organizations castigated the administration of president donald trump for sweeping cuts of federal jobs that are hitting veterans who represent nearly one third of the civilian government workforce and receive medical care at the department veterans affairs. the trump administration move to freeze aid to nonprofits impacts hundreds of v.a. contracts with community nonprofits and fire

thousands of federal workers, jeopardizing services to some of the most vulnerable veteran populations, including paralyzed veterans and homeless veterans. advocates said tuesday at a joint hearing of the house and senate veterans affairs committee is. let's get to your calls on whether you support or oppose the v.a. cuts. thomas is in new york and is a veteran. good morning. go ahead. caller: i oppose the cuts. i am a disabled veteran. i rely heavily on the v.a. and they need more staffing, not less. they need -- donald trump is a coward and he does not understand veterans at all. he calls us weak, stupid people and i am sorry but he should not be president.

he does not even know how to act like one. i am against all his cuts, especially with everything he is doing to this country. he is screwing it all up and it was a good running machine. that is it. i am done. host: calvin is in maryland and is also a veteran. caller: thank you for taking my call. thank you for your service to c-span. i am a disabled veteran also, served in the persian gulf war, and i oppose it. here's the reason why. if you can keep funding the industrial combat machine, called the defense department, and not cut it, how can you cut the veterans department where we need assistance? especially mental health

services. you have one psychiatrist in maryland. you have one psychiatrist dealing with all the mental health services in that area and that is too much for one person to deal with and now they are cutting more. you have drug rehabilitation physical therapy for veterans, and you cut these programs but what you are doing is putting veterans into the street where you will have more homelessness, more drugs, more alcoholism. thank god i had my psychiatrist who helped me when i was almost ready to harm myself. so i oppose this and thank you, veterans, for calling in this morning. thank you also, c-span. host: paul is in idaho and is a

military family member. caller: thanks for taking my call. i think i see the need for more service. they are running short on -- host: what you mean by pas? physician assistants? caller: yes. i see the need for them. as long as they are vetted properly and hired properly and paid properly to the point where it is not going to be so expensive to hire them and utilize them, that it is going to be detrimental actually and my uncle served in world war ii.

he did not have mental health issues, per se, but he ended up passing away from alzheimer's. he served his country well and i got to spend some time with him and he was beloved to the family. he was also working in the v.a. locally in idaho. and he was responsible for getting veterans there do t --heir d -- their due in court. he was almost like a judge to make sure the people that served got not their severance but the housing. he was in the housing section and we talk frequently before he passed. it took him a number of years to pass and he served his country

well and i loved him very much. i still love him in a lot of ways, but he is not with us physically but still mentally. host: it sounds like her uncle not only served with the v.a. but also received services from the v.a.. caller: i believe he probably did, but at the end he had tricare, which is an insurance basically, the best you can get on the planet, and i have a number of friends that are -- they utilize the v.a. and by that i mean whatever services they need they receive here. i'm not saying that they do not have problems here or in idaho as far as that is concerned, but i ask people that are serving, i

asked if they serve or are serving and how they would rate the care they received here and they give it glowing terms and i do not know what the ratio is between patient and doctor's so i cannot answer that one. host: like your uncle, about one and five of the people who work for the federal government, about 483,000 federal workers were employed by the v.a. and that is more than two times the number who work for the department of homeland security, the next largest federal employer and about two thirds of v.a. employees are women and about 46% of v.a. employees are nurses, medical facility support staff, or medical officers. and the v.a. is the biggest

agency employer for most states according to the office of personnel management. let's hear from joe in oklahoma city, who is a veteran. caller: good morning. i have a sobering kind of perspective on this. i voted for trump in 2016 for the main reason that i thought he brought to the table, his business abilities. and i had reservations about voting for him in 2016 because i knew he had really basically dodged the draft. he got four college deferments. when he ran out of college deferments, his dad pretty much paid off a doctor to get -- that he had bone spurs. in his feet, which never seemed to affect him.

but i know people who serve their country so i gave him a pass on that. then i watched what him and some of the republicans did when it came time to vote to protect veterans who had served in these wars and got exposed to chemicals and i thought, how could they say they want to thank you for your service over here and not support people getting cancer from serving their country? so that is when i said no more and i started realizing trump is basically a deceiver. i think he is an atheist. i do not think he loves anything but money. so that is why i do not support him since 2016, because i watched what he did in office and the thing that got me is these cuts to the v.a. are terrible for service but people do not even know -- i have a

friend who has problems with having flashbacks from having served and they have turned off the suicide hotline for veterans. so if you're a veteran and you are on the edge and you need help, you cannot call that number anymore. if people want to vote for someone who is a deceiver, we all better wake up very soon. host: so there is the number 988, which is the suicide and crisis lifeline that is nationwide. that number is still functioning and available. for people who do need help and are in distress. what number specifically are you talking about? because 988 is still available. caller: that number was turned off for a while, so it may be the case -- what they have been doing is turning things off and if the outcry gets loud enough

-- that number was not functional for a while. there are other organizations that do the same kind of outreach, but they receive grants. some of those have been turned off, so anyone who would do that , they are not doing things by thinking about them. one of my friends who still and trump, i said, if george soros had marched into the white house with joe biden and drug in a bunch of hackers and data miners and started stealing your banking information, would you have a problem with that? and then he had to think about it. he had to go, of george soros -- because that is kind of a right wing bogeyman -- you have to think about -- put yourself in a different perspective and then realize trump is bad for veterans. he has never supported them. host: i haven't seen the

reporting about the 988 line being unavailable. i should say that right now it is functioning and available for people in distress. the veterans crisis line in particular is to dial 988 and then press one and that offers 24/7, confidential crisis support for people in need. let's hear from colton in nevada on our line for others. caller: i believe the policies have had detrimental impact on veterans and families. one thing i fear is -- host: in new jersey on our line for veterans. caller: i hope everyone out there as well. i would like to know where the cuts are going to go. as far as i have noticed, medical staff -- are good and

dedicated. clerical staff i believe will shoot me in the garbage, like a welfare organization. they ignore you and they are inept. we are talking trump and biden and everything. you have to be over 35 to run for election. you should not be over 65 to run for election. and i thank you very largely. host: let's hear more from veterans affairs secretary doug collins in that social media video last week about some of the changes that are coming to the v.a.. [video clip] >> improving services to veterans is why they v.a. exists. that is what everyone -- what everyone should be focused on there's a lot of news coverage regarding recent layoffs at the v.a.. we regret anyone who loses their job. it is difficult for me

especially as a v.a. leader to make these decisions, but the federal government does not exist to employ people. it exists to serve people. we are focused on serving veterans better than ever before and doing so requires changing and improving the organization. the v.a. was never perfect. it will never be perfect. but we can and will make it better. when we find problems, we will fix them. we will communicate what we are doing to the public, but we will make major changes, so get used to it. host: back to your calls on whether you support or oppose v.a. cuts. italy is in florida and is a veteran. -- billy is in florida and is a veteran. caller: i support donald trump cutting the fat from the v.a.. i know here in florida i know veterans who get great service and i know the

ministration of all these veterans -- administration of all these veterans groups, they are double dippers. they want to cut the fat. the taxpayers of this country, and i'm a veteran of over 20 years in the army, and i see it. the veterans administration in florida is doing a great job. i have no complaints from my friends that go there, but they are creating jobs for veterans just to create a job, then we need to cut the fat, so that is all i have to say. host: if you do not mind, i have follow-up questions because you are the first two called in and support of these cuts. i wonder if there are particular sectors where you think the v.a. could use trimming. caller: i think the v.a. has turned into creating jobs. you go in and you see people

sitting around but the service is good but you see people are there that are not really doing anything and if they can cut and streamline and keep the same service for these people that would be great. but if you cannot blame donald trump. our country is broke. we cannot employ people just to make a job for them. and a lot of these v.a. people are retired and working again. fine. but let's employ people that need a job, that really need a position and can do the work in that facility. host: the white house counselor -- there is a story saying she suggests some of the veterans,

including those working in the v.a. and veterans throughout the federal government, may not be fit for government jobs. a white house counselor suggested some veterans are perhaps not fit for government jobs. let's listen to that moment when she was outside the white house with reporters tuesday. [video clip] >> is the president starting to think about veterans who worked for the federal government and what the ministration can do? >> we care about veterans tremendously. anyone who serves this country. at the same time, we have fiscal responsibility to use taxpayer dollars for people who actually work. that does not mean we forget our veterans. perhaps they are not fit to have a drop at this moment or not willing to come to work and we cannot -- i would not take money from you and pay somebody and say they are not going to come to work. it is not acceptable.

host: tony is in connecticut and is a veteran. caller: good morning. i do not think no services from the v.a. should be cut because when i was in the military i got out in 1995. if it was not for the mental health department at the v.a. i think i probably would have been dead because i would have committed suicide because i really wanted to be in the navy for 20 years and i did not get to go in and then a couple years later i lost my kids. host: i am so sorry. caller: when i lost my kids, i did not want to live. it was suffer a lady at the veterans center for veterans who have ptsd like i have who helped me get back in touch with my kids in my family that made me want to live today.

i still have these moments where i feel abandoned by everybody, especially the v.a., and right now i am having anxiety about how he is cutting the v.a. and doing veterans wrong. last time, i was in the psych ward there was a young man who had just started as a peer specialist and he was an army veteran so all these people calling like the last young man saying they should cut jobs at the v.a. -- don't cut no job at the v.a. because these are the people getting the services now and people who are going to need the services in the future -- a bureaucracy of a person in charge who never served. he never served but is saying we will cut it anyway. while you have been in congress getting richer by the day, stealing from all people who work, and all the ones you are hurting are ones who served the

country when the country needed it most, so we need you now and don't cut nothing. when he was running for office he did not say he was going to cut nothing. have a good day. host: james is in virginia and is also a veteran. good morning, james. caller: i am a veteran. i started from 1968 to 1970 to 1996. cutting the v.a. is always going to be a tough issue for those of us who serve. it is going to be emotional. however, medical staff are wonderful. but the support staff are so bloated. i used the v.a. in washington, d.c. and whenever i walk in the front door the ladies are wonderful but why do they need five of them behind the desk with two more sitting having a chit chat?

and there are all kinds of staff that are not doing anything. they are mostly upfront smoking. just a lot of things you do not see in a regular hospital. when you go to a regular hospital, there is efficiency. you do not see four or five people that are supposed to be checking in patients but only one of them is there and the other one is kind of walking around and i am not sure what they are doing but they do not seem very engaged in patient care. there needs to be efficiency and a comparison between private industry and what happens in the v.a. -- it is not a jobs program. it is not there -- it is there to provide services for people who have left something behind on the battlefield and it is certainly emotional no matter where you are on the spectrum. i want them to cut it. but i do not want to use a butcher knife and start whacking

like crazy. they need to go through and there needs to be input from the v.a. but there also needs to be people coming in as they do with any private corporation to see where is the bloat and waste and there is a lot of it. host: what do you think of the way they have been moving about these cuts so far and the strategy behind it? caller: i think it is early. it is difficult. if our working at the v.a., i would not want to hear anybody talking about making cuts that may affect my family and myself. if i were a patient, particularly our brothers and sisters who have life-threatening things like ptsd -- i have had my own challenges as well. we do not want to hear it. but there needs to be an adult

in the room on this. and right now i can tell you just go to the front door today and walk in and as you go around you will see there's a difference in what you may experience with the number of people in the line at the coffee shop and it is a constant -- it looks like people go to work to socialize in many cases. however, the ladies at the audiology clinic are fantastic. they work so hard. and my primary care physician is wonderful. i could not take anything away from that at all. the support staff -- it does not look good. partially this is becoming an emotional issue for the public who only hears we have the

suicide rates, which is very real, but it is necessary. we cannot afford to keep going. it is not an employment agency. maybe the unemployable can get a job. i will leave it at that. host: james was talking about the spending. the peterson foundation has numbers on spending on veterans in the budget. federal spending for veterans has increased sharply in the past two decades as veterans return home from extended wars in iraq and afghanistan, with many with significant needs resulting from service. in 2020 three, spending for programs that support veterans totaled $302 billion, or about 5% of all federal spending. lawmakers enacted the pact act to enhance health and disability benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances during active

duty, which will boost spending. let's look at how they depart in allocates resources. about 50% goes to v.a. income security, 42% to va hospital and medical care, 4.2% to v.a. education training and rehabilitation, and then another 4% to v.a. benefits and services. back to your calls on whether you support or oppose v.a. cuts. let's hear from kyle in nevada, who is a veteran. caller: i do support the cuts. i agree with the previous three callers -- the two callers that say the problem is not the medical doctors. it has to do with the secretaries that make appointments and answer the phones. they are rude. they are inconsiderate. they may or may not return your

voicemail and in my case i have had quite a few skin cancers removed in the past year and they would not leave a message on the dr.'s voicemail. what cuts need to be made are for the people that are not there to complete lee serve my experience as a patient. i actually go to the doctor in san francisco when i lived in reno so if i get a dental cleaning i am driving 400 miles. that ought to tell you how badly i think the woman in reno is. as far as the san francisco doctors, they are extremely educated but the staff is extremely rude. have a great day. host: mike is in alaska on our line for others. caller: good morning to a new america just north of the gulf of america and congratulations

to the return of the space force top-secret mission and i think we need satellite care centers for veterans. they have been dumped on for many years, especially since the fundamental change that this country went through in 2008, but i think president trump and elon's drive to rid our country of corruption is 100% patriotic americana. we have to do this. every agency is corrupt and they need to be eliminated or changed and reformed. we have heard horror stories of veterans left on gurneys, suffering because they cannot get care and the abuse and if you go to the veteran center in santa monica off the freeway, it

is a better -- it is a nightmare . it is so depressing and dark. they need to level that place and get places closer to our veterans and the goal should be an empty veterans hospital. we need volunteers and quality care comes from quality health care workers that put emphasis on veteran care over their paycheck and careers. how about just straight up volunteers that love our veterans that are young and old and have given up their lives and do not paint our veterans that have no limbs. do not make a hobby out of painting our veterans that are handicapped and disabled over terrible, illegal wars. that is the goal. empty our veterans hospital out and that is why i support three

or four trump terms for president trump and we need to stop every war. that will empty out our veterans center. i have spoken enough. thank you. host: another veteran, democratic senator mark kelly, was on the senate floor tuesday and criticizing the v.a. cuts, in particular the manner in which workers were fired. [video clip] >> mr. president, we made a sacred promise to our veterans that after their service they would get the care and support that they earned. that promise did not come with an expiration date. as a combat veteran myself, i take this responsibility personally on behalf of arizona's more than 500,000 veterans and veterans across the

country. but with these mass firings of staff at the v.a., president trump and elon musk are breaking that promise. in the last month, thousands of v.a. employees, people who care for our nation's veterans, or fired with no warning. no phone call. no meeting. just an email. telling them that they no longer had a job. that they were no longer wanted. mr. president, these are not just nameless, faceless bureaucrats. these are americans who signed up to serve our country by taking care veterans. they deserve to be treated with

respect. these are the people on the front lines of veterans care and services and they were fired without even a thought. we can all agree the v.a. can do a better job. but aimlessly firing thousands of people will do nothing to help speed up veteran health care. nothing. it will just make accessing care more difficult. host: back to your calls on whether you support or oppose v.a. cuts. let's hear from donna, who is a veteran. caller: i am enraged at people calling up, mostly white males, saying cut, cut, cut. i am a veteran, marine corps.

i need the v.a.. i go there now. they give me the best of care. they really care, from the receptionists and scheduling to the doctors i see to the department i go to. i can barely breathe sometimes and they are always there for me. they are always there. i love the service and camaraderie. i go to the va hospital to get car -- care. everybody sticks together. everybody helps each other. the place is packed all the time . people need those services.

this cutting -- r-value is not right. it is not right and it is mostly these white males calling up saying cut, cut, cut. something is wrong with them. ms. kimberly, they cannot keep doing this to people. we served our country. they cannot keep doing this to people, saying you do not deserve. i will tell you if i just saw people standing around and not doing anything here they are not. people are just taking breaks. just because they are standing around does not mean that they do not have jobs. they even give us free parking. it is so many of them.

host: do you think there are any areas in which there could be reductions in the idea that the administration is trying to reduce spending overall? is there anyplace you could think of where there could be cuts of the v.a.? host: -- caller: no. even when i call into get scheduled, they returned my calls. within 24 hours to get an appointment. when i went to the private sector medical units, they do not do that. it takes a long time. host: let's go to joy in chicago, who is also a veteran. >> my brother is a naval vet. my father was in the air force in south korea. here's my question.

my mother worked for 11 years at a va hospital. why is it that trump is always looking at services? why aren't we focusing on cutting the ultrarich, the billionaires? why don't we take a fine tooth comb and go through how may tax bricks they are getting? you're always cutting the bottom half. we are never focusing on what rich people are doing. why can't we put that under a microscope? and the guy called about people sitting around smoking cigarettes. what is wrong with having people taking a break? we always look at the negative aspects of everything, but the

va hospital's, these hospitals are safe havens for veterans. they create a middle class. we are always focusing on one another. but i want to see c-span for wants talk about the tax cuts and the different tax cuts these people are getting. god bless america. host: sean is in florida and is a veteran. caller: i do not support the cuts they are making to the v.a.. i'm a veteran as well. i have been lucky that i have never been seriously injured or wounded. i do not take advantage of a lot of the services the v.a. provides, but i know they are there for a lot of people that are in rough shape. i have in the past volunteer to the v.a., so in these

non-consequence understanding cuts are made, that was people in a position where they are going to lose things that are vital to survival. host: do you think there are any areas of the v.a. that could be trimmed down? caller: not necessarily appear every area is different. every person that goes in is different. i do not see a lot of costs for things like transportation because the drivers are volunteers. i do not see a lot of costs for other services outside of medical because most of those people are volunteers. i used to work with a counselor and we did an art therapy program and i paid the whole thing out of my pocket. people need to step in and take a look before they start

slashing these programs. host: tony is in indiana and is a military family member. caller: my dad was in the military. he did not go overseas for korea, but he was fortunate enough that he had insurance and he never really took advantage of what the v.a. had to offer. but when he passed away january 1 the funeral home director said i want to make sure that he gets all of his -- everything he should get from the v.a. and the honor guard and everyone came to his funeral and we were so proud to have them there and so fortunate to have them there and i do not think they should be doing any cuts and if they do have to do cuts i think it

should be someone that has an enter working knowledge of the v.a., not elon musk and not donald trump. who has no concern, no care, no respect whatsoever for a veteran and never has or will. i am just thankful my father passed away before he had to see all of this and the way they are treating veterans because they do not deserve to be treated like this. they fought for our country. they stood up for our freedoms when others did not and said they had bone spurs. i just do not think the people they have doing these cuts are the people to do it. if it has to be done, it should be someone with a real working knowledge.

host: let's look at posts on social media related to the v.a. and proposed cuts the administration is making, but first edison research did pulling and looked at how veterans voted, from exit polling in the 2024 election showing 65% of veterans voted for trump, 34% voted for harris. moving onto some other -- this is a response to the op-ed by the secretary of veterans affairs that was in the hill. he says is a sun and brother of veterans, the father of a soldier and veteran myself, i know the sacrifices our veterans make. i appreciate secretary collins's commitment to rooting out need this bureaucracy and inefficiency in the v.a.. then we have a senator who gave a statement on potential workforce reductions, saying the department of must provide

veterans, family members, and survivors the health care and benefits they have earned. the v.a. is in need of reform, but current efforts to downsize the department and increase efficiency must be done in a more responsible manner. i expect the v.a. to work with congress to right size the v.a. workforce and allow us to legislate necessary changes. rep. m. thompson: says, since congress expended veterans benefits, new veterans needing health care have enrolled in the v.a.. now doge plans to fire 83,000 v.a. employees. senator peter welch saying he has made fun of soldiers captured in war. he has set american service members who died are losers and suckers. and now president is planning to fire 80,000 veterans affairs workers to help care for our

veterans after their service is finished. it is despicable. tammy duckworth, another veteran. v.a. secretary collins fired the veteran crisis line workers and lied about it. the complete lack of transparency around these mass layoffs at the v.a. is outrageous. it is time trump and collins show us the receipts and reveal the true extent of the damage done to our veterans. back to your calls on whether you support or oppose v.a. cuts. james is in missouri and is a veteran. caller: yes. i am -- i served in the military in the early 1980's. i do not support mascots of jobs in the v.a. at all. i do support that they need to look into the v.a. for more -- being more efficient in terms of

service offered. i do support that. but i do not think anyone that has no -- no experience in terms of understanding what types of service v.a. is doing or what type of service needed -- we already know a while back and even up to today that there are areas we can improve in v.a. services to veterans, so i think the method is to go through to determine how to look into how -- to work with the people you have on staff to make it better in terms of support and service that everyone gets and long-term

that veterans get the service that they need or the medical attention or whatever they need, find out a way to streamline the services and if that means cutting some areas you're not going to go with that, but you need to do analysis to determine what needs to be cut and what needs more support. even though you are saying -- but you need more support in another area or any to increase people working in those areas. so that is where i am at with that. host: in mississippi, a family member. caller: yes. i would like to speak about the veterans and even their medicine

right now. you cannot call v.a. and get a number i have to call for transportation for my husband, a three-time vietnam veteran. trump should not tell him or anyone else would they can do or cannot do. now we cannot call in. we cannot get medicine. it is already an issue. i work for the v.a.. so do my daughters. so there is nothing they need to do but improve v.a. because you will have more soldiers coming home and trump and elon musk are not the ones to run v.a.. so i would like to say that. we are having problems right now. host: what do you think will be the consequences if there are additional cuts? caller: there should not be no cuts. they should be adding on to it. i worked there for 20 years. they should be improving it because these soldiers should not be having to sit down and wait and they cannot even get

what they need. my husband needs things right now and they turned him down. everybody is turned down. this should be fixed. it is not by elon musk or trump. they did not serve. he needs to go get the spurs out of his foot and leave the v.a. alone. host: ted is in oregon and is a veteran. caller: i am an air force veteran from the 1970's and 1980's into the 1990's. i went to my v.a. clinic for my yearly physical and i am going to start by saying v.a. health care is better than anything you will get out of the civilian side. i used the air force to gain entrance into a school that had

tighter enrollment than any ivy league college. i attended that school for five years, graduated, became what i became, used it for 25 years, and walked away the day i turned 57. now i am very happy. i have been out of my job for 10 years. i went to the v.a. clinic friday and i noticed in the picture frames in my clinic they were blank. both of the potus and the v.a. secretary. i went to the receptionist and i said, i love those black picture frames. thank you. then q. so i just think that they do not need to cut anything. they need to add to it. it is the best health care anywhere. all my veteran friends that i see, they are young and old,

older than me cut younger than me, and we all have a good time. mr. trump and leon musk need to go away. thank you. host: just some numbers on veterans in united states, there are 15.8 million veterans in the united states as of 2023, which are the most recent statistics available, representing about 6.1% of the total civilian population aged 18 and over. jim is in new york and is a military family member. >> i do not understand how any veteran can support trump. he is a draft dodger who made fun of john mccain, called veterans suckers and losers over and over. i don't understand how 65% of veterans can support him.

he has no care for them at all. host: during the campaign and election, did you talk to your fellow veterans about who they were supporting for president? or other members -- veterans that you may know? caller: yes. some of them do support him. i do not understand how they can vote for this guy. he is a liar. every time he opens his mouth, he lies. and for some reason they vote for him. i do not understand. thank you. host: carl is in georgia and is a veteran. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am a vietnam era veteran and i am calling in to rebut those guys talking about people standing around, nobody doing

their job. every time i go to the v.a., there are people doing their jobs. there are volunteers at the desks when you come in and they do need to stand around at the desk. they do not have just one person up there. they have several people and so my v.a. to a very good job here in georgia. i think they do an excellent job. i believe without all this nonsense about donald trump and elon musk -- i don't know what they want from the v.a.. they should not be allowed to be talking about the v.a.. especially donald trump. thank you you and have a great day.

host: thomas is from virginia and is a veteran. caller: first, i am a vietnam era veteran. when donald trump was getting -- bone spurs. so now mr. commander-in-chief bone spurs cutting v.a. benefits. i could excellent care and my v.a. center. yes, they have staff that sometimes -- but that is with any organization. i have great care and i get my appointments and yet you have white males coming in complaining because most of the people you see behind the counter are gs to -- gs twos and

threes. they talk about people standing around and doing nothing -- that is a lie. also, you have two people, one from an apartheid country, elon musk, donald trump who is white and rich, that is why he never served. he talks about john mccain, a decorated hero who spent five years in a pow camp and donald trump is not believe what a pow camp is. my fellow veterans, how can 65% of you people vote for a coward like donald trump? my message to donald trump and elon musk, leave our veteran benefits alone. thank you. host: kevin is in massachusetts

and is a veteran. caller: good morning. i would like to get it out to all the veterans that encourage your friends even if they do not use the v.a. health care. if you are a veteran, register that will get you in the numbers of the people that are serve in your area. that are served in your area. and i go through northampton, massachusetts, they treat me very well. there are clinics that they don't have that i get sent out into the community and get treated very well by them quickly and everything. at one point, i work for the albany va medical center. they had a pilot program for radiation therapy to treat cancer. they didn't drop the program because it was a multimillion

dollar center that treated 6-8 patients a day. it wasn't worth the money. it was a great job. the pay did not start out good, but if you did 20, 30 years there, the end result was much better than the private sector. but once again, tell all your bodies you aren't going to the va, register. that will get them on the books. and have a great day. host: that is all the time we have for the segment for now. want to take a moment to point out that c-span wants you, the viewers, to have a voice in the white house briefing room. so if you have a question for press secretary caroline levitt, please send us an email to w hquestions@c-span.org. be sure to include your first name and your city and state,

and you might hear your question asked at the next briefing. now then, up next we are going to do a deep dive into the trump administration trade and tariff policies with joshua matz or of the brookings institution and tj antonio of the heritage foundation. then later on we are going to talk more about those proposed cuts to the va with military times deputy editor leo shane. we will be right back. ♪ >> tonight, kentucky republic and congressman james comer, house oversight committee chair and author of "all the presidents money" talks about his committee's 15 month investigation into the business practices of then-president joe biden and members of the biden

family. he argues that the bidens have benefited financially from corrupt financial dealings involving ukraine, china, and other countries. >> six different aids had filed 170 five suspicious activity reports against the bidens, most of which were why joe biden was vice president of the united states, and then they were subject to another 50 reports. let me put that in perspective. no banquet file a suspicious activity report against the son of a prominent politician unless they were darn sure that a financial crime had been committed because when you file one of those, the bank examiners role in your bank and it causes a lot of problems. so the banks knew that they were bad things going on here, and that is when the investigation really took off. >> james comer tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to all of our podcasts on air free c-span now mobile app.

>> nearly 3500 students participated in this year's studentcam documentary competition where we ask students to craft a message to the new president explore issues important to them or their communities. this wednesday, tune in to washington journal where we will announce the grand prize winner of this year's competition. >> weekends bring your book tv. here a look at what is coming up this weekend. brian doherty talks about the modern libertarian movement led by thinkers like -- in his book "modern libertarianism." sally pipes, author of "the world's medicine chest" talks about the rise of the american pharmaceutical industry, warns against enacting european-style prescription drug controls.

then, journalist omar el akkad questions if the u.s. is forsaking its core values after 20 years of covering war around the globe. he's interviewed by eugene rogan. watch book tv every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime. washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are going to be discussing the trump administration policies on trade and tariffs and for that, we are joined by joshua meltzer of the brookings institution, where he is a global economy at development program senior fellow. good morning. and we also have here in studio tj antonio, a research fellow

and public finance economist at the heritage foundation. there have been so many movements in the timeline of what has been happening with trade and tariff policy. abc news has an article sort of breaking down some of the dates and things that have happened recently. let's go through a few of them. february 1, president trump announced tariffs on imports from mexico and canada. february 3, he delayed those tariffs on mexico and canada. march 4, imposed a 25 percent tariff on all imports from canada and mexico plus an additional 10% tariff on all imports from china in addition to 10% that were already in place for china. march 5, delayed the tariffs on cars from canada for a month, that on march 6, delayed the tariffs on most goods from mexico and canada for a month.

tj, let's start with you. with this month of on-again, off-again tariffs and reprieves, amid the uncertainty, what did you take away from the week in terms of what the president is thinking, what is trade policy is and where it is headed? guest: great questions. one of things to remember is that amidst what looks like chaos is actually active negotiations. much of what the president is going to do one tariffs is dependent on what his counterparts in other nations decide to do. this is the whole point of reciprocity for example. if we want to be able to export our products into other countries markets, then we are going to have to see other nations essentially giving out the exact same grace. so if canada, for example, wants to be able to send their products to the united states, that's fine. then there markets need to be

open to us. our dairy farmers need to be able to send cheese to canada. our auto manufacturers need to be able to send car parts to canada without the massive tariff and nontariff barriers that are in place. so as these negotiations proceed and as president trump and his counterparts negotiate what the tariff and nontariff rates are going to be, we should expect to continue to see these different news headlines that look like they are going back and forth but i think that is really just a reflection of what is happening behind those doors. host: joshua, what is your take on the policy strategy so far, and what the risks of this kind of uncertainty are for businesses and investors? guest: great to be here. i think uncertainty is certainly the keyword at the moment. it would be great to think about these actions broadly as well as specifically to canada and mexico.

obviously, that's been the focus of the president since he came into office. and the important thing obviously is that trade and investment relationships with canada and mexico, president trump negotiated during his first term in office, the north american free trade agreement, he was proud of the justifiably, described as the most fair and balanced trade agreement ever when it was signed during his first term in office, and under that agreement, all those tariffs between all three countries. poses on mexico, the u.s. imports, mexican imports. the u.s. imposes tariffs on canadian and mexican imports.

so these tariffs on mexico and canada are particularly confounding. it's not to say that there may not be a need for some tariffs in some areas because one of the issues has been that free-trade agreements between countries generally have these things and then called rules of origin. so you want to make sure that goods coming in from canada and the united states are actually largely made in canada, that the countries are taking advantage in order to get to the united states market. and when you have zero tariffs it becomes very costly not to use products from third countries and you may just say we will export to the u.s. so this technical issues that need to be addressed potentially, but broadly speaking there's free-trade. i think the back-and-forth that

we seen has essentially reflected a couple of things read it may be in negotiated strategy but ultimately what we're are seeing the impact of these tariffs, they are going to be so costly for businesses and consumers that the president ultimately, i think you heard that. back-and-forth has reflected that dynamic gradually. there is a question now of reciprocity which has been discussed here, and we can get into that because i think that is going to be an extremely complicated process. but the net result is we are in very uncertain times, and one of the things we learned about uncertainty, because this sort of happened across north america during the first trump administration when there was sort of the threat of the united states withdrawing from the nafta agreement and the outcome

was also uncertainty, and we saw investment across the united states, canada and mexico drop host: speaking of businesses in particular because you mentioned the response from the business sector, i want to read the statement from the u.s. chamber of commerce which set american families and businesses are struggling with high cost. it is one of the top issues they want policymakers to address. the chamber support the administration's efforts to advance progrowth policies like fewer regulations and less taxation that will grow our economy and expand opportunity and expand problems like our broken border and stopping the flow of fentanyl into the country. we also want to work together to keep costs down, but tariffs will only raise prices and increase the economic pain being felt by everyday americans across the country. we urge reconsideration of this policy and a swift end to these tariffs. even though some of these are on

hold, what will this mean for consumers of typical american households in terms of when people might start seeing the impact in their pocketbooks? guest: great question. one of the things we have to remember is that we are dealing with tariffs in the real world right now. we are not in an academic setting where we are saying ok, everything is already copacetic and now what happens if we impose tariffs? we have real-world conditions into which we are imposing these tariffs. so that means for example that you are not dealing with free-trade already, that's correct the record here. there are plenty of american exports that don't go to nations like canada or mexico right now because this countries already impose very steep tariffs or they have restricted nontariff barriers that prevent our exporters from being able to compete in those countries. we also have things like the

fentanyl crisis. there are a lot of other considerations at play here and those are the real world conditions into which we are imposing these tariffs. that being said, another important consideration is the fact that tariffs are never passed entirely on to consumers. some of that is always eaten by the producer. how much of that depends on a lot of different factors. you have different elasticities in play, you have to consider things like the changes in exchange rates that are going to happen. in a lot of different things. host: we heard from some major retailers like target saying directly that consumers were going to be feeling the impact of these tariffs with prices going up. guest: but we've heard that before. how much of these tariffs are actually going to be passed on to consumers? in the first trump administration after tariffs were imposed, the price indexes that we used to measure the cost of imports coming into this country actually fell, they didn't rise. so other factors overrode, or

the magnitude of those other factors was greater than the increase from tariffs. it depends on a lot of different factors. whether or not we actually see prices rise or fall. i do think one of the things that is interesting is a lot of the same outlets right now that are all of a sudden saying that tariffs are going to cause prices to go through the roof were completely silent for the first four years in previous ministration imposed tariffs, and where was the outcry then? host: joshua, you mentioned reciprocity or sometimes retaliation. there is reporting here as we saw throughout bloomberg saying canada delays most of the tariffs after trump eases the trade war. the washington post reporting and president sheinbaum to hold a festival today is trump causes tariffs. what is your take on how these other countries are reacting and what that means for how this potential trade war is going to move forward? guest: there's a lot there.

i think the point about not thinking about this purely academically is a good one, looking at real-world effects. i just want to tie it together quickly. one of the themes is that we have a real-world example of the impact from the first trump administration. it's important to know a couple of things. firstly, that the tariffs are certainly going to be proposed at the moment and if they do go ahead, plus the additional 20% we are now seeing on china, we've had very high inflation, but it is a very different economy in the economy, we've got high interest rates, low interest rates and so forth. a lot of studies looked at the actual impact of the tariffs from china and the u.s. economy.

concluded that the tariffs essentially decrease manufacturing in the u.s. and raise prices. and the point is that there are obviously other things going on that we need to look at and it's very hard to speculate how tax cuts might have an impact on exchange rates and so forth, but if you just look at what tariffs do to prices and jobs, we know that they decrease them and you may have offsetting policies but certainly given the size of these tariffs, it would be significantly more impactful on the u.s. economy. it's interesting to look at what has been happening in canada and mexico in response. the canadians in particular i think have been completely and utterly floored, and that is to say deeply saddened by the u.s. response.

canada has either very close allies with united states, we share a culture, who share a similar government system, neighbor systems. there's been essentially open trade for decades. the canadians have been booing the united states and hockey games, boycotting u.s. products on shelves and deciding not to travel or visit the united states. a level of anger in canada is very real at the moment. i think that's just unfortunate in and of itself. mexico has been a lot calmer, i would say. they are pretty used to sum up being a punching gang for the united states at various points over many decades so they response has been more measured than the canadians, but it is really underscored for both

countries by the cost to everything so dependent on the u.s. market. they talk about diversifying, i think that is long-term strategy for them. they've all made a bet on an integrated trade relationship which is sort of been in place for 30, 40 years now. and hopefully we returned to something like that. the removal of tariffs for canada and mexico suggests we may have a deal. the economic cost of not doing that are going to be fine. but i think it has been a real blow particularly to canada to its collective sense of how its american rivals are settling out. host: democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. and again, you can text us at

(202) 748-8003, just be sure to include your name and where you are writing in from. but let's start with a question we received on x. do you believe the potential revenue justifies the risk to economic growth against retaliatory measures? and a follow-up question, esther meltzer, howard global supply chains reshaping especially with allies already moving toward alternative trade locks? ej, do you believe the potential revenue justifies the risk to economic growth? guest: i would say that is one of many considerations that are in the mix right now. and i frankly do think it is really good to see our nation moving away from income tax revenue and two tariff revenue. we forget because we are so used to having an income tax that for most of our nation's it didn't exist. in fact it had been ruled

unconstitutional. we had to change the constitution in order to have a federal income tax. so when we actually had our longest highest levels of economic growth, we got almost all federal revenue from tariffs, not from the income tax. so i really like to see a reduction on reliance in the federal income tax and more of a reliance on taxing international trade. i think that's a good thing, especially when it is our navy policing the world's ceilings. i think it is good to have some of the revenue collected from the rest of the world benefiting from how that revenue is being used. host: so the risk to economic growth from the retaliation of the tariffs is worth it. >> i would say that is just one of many different benefits that we stand to see from these tariffs being put into place. host: joshua, how are global supply chains reshaping especially with allies already moving toward alternative trade locks? guest: just one quick comment on

the revenue piece, it is worth noting that there is no feasible scenario where tariffs replace the income tax. the base for income taxes 23. there is no comparable revenue stream for tariffs. it's also important that remember that tariffs are deeply regressive. that means that a poor household that spends more on consumption essentially spends more on clothing and food, those prices go up. there income taxes can be progressive with higher taxes as incomes go up, tariffs are doing exactly the opposite. on the tray block piece, it's really important to factor in this political environment. one of the surprises has been that it's absolutely clear, that the biggest threat to the united states is china. it's an economic threat, a

national security threat. this is clearly what trump is focused on in his first term, what biden was very focused on. part of responding to that threat has been this imperative to essentially reshape global supply chains to the more secure, more resilient, less dependent on critical imports from china. and that is going to require greater, deeper cooperation with friends and allies like canada, like mexico so you can actually bring production and development closer to home to more reliable sources. so this sort of flies in the face of that because ultimately tariffs on canada and mexico blowing up the diplomatic and other relations really makes it hard to do the cooperation, reduce prices to actually make that. so this sort of thing i think has been confusing and seems to fly in the face of what seems to be the united states concerns, and it underscores kind of your point that the world is really moving toward a focus on trade.

a lot of southeast asia is very dependent on china and will continue to be. europe is its own trading space and has been for a long time. it is one of the most competitive regions in the world because of the trade agreement. if we do go ahead with the tariffs, we are actively on doing that. host: north carolina, lifer democrats, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: good, thank you. caller: i have a comment and a question. president trump was the one that got into the contract during his first term with u.s. -- host: usmca. caller: usmca. and he made like it was such a great deal, but now he wants to put a tariff and have a tariff

war and it doesn't make sense. it seems more like greed. and that is just going to run our prices at the grocery stores and everywhere else above. if you have a contract why are you breaking your contract? host: ej, perhaps you could respond. guest: there's a couple difficult opponents. one is the fact that the usmca was an improvement over what we had, so it was a step in the right direction. however, and one of the things michael panelist touched on earlier is that there were plenty of abuses to the usmca. those things are still going on especially with regards to those country of origin provisions. so as a result of that, trump wants nations like canada to really crackdown on china dumping goods into canada but are essentially just repackaged and then shipped into the united states under the guise of the usmca.

so he wants better compliance with the things that are already on the books. and if a nation like canada refuses to comply with the rules that are already on the books, that is why trump is threatening these tariffs. i should say it is one of the many reasons why. again, the usmca was a step in the right direction, but i think the president wants to go even further. there are a lot of tariff and nontariff barriers that canada currently has in place despite the usmca, and i think it would be good to remove all of those barriers to trade. host: jim, indiana, line for independents. caller: good morning, everybody. i have a comment and a question. i agree that there was a time when our government was run without income taxes and we were able to make it without problems

. however, since the income taxes now the main revenue source for us, what i don't hear is the current tariffs, what percentage of our -- what percentage of our revenue does it currently provide us, and then what is the reduction in taxes if we were to keep these tariffs on? so people should be able to work . tell me how much my taxes are, how much the tariffs are going to generate and how much my taxes are going to be lowered. let's consider a hard $100,000 income. host: ok. so i'm looking up that number right now but in the meantime, joshua, do you want to respond to any of those points? guest: i actually don't have this data. essentially about 50% of revenue in the u.s. comes from income

taxes each year. so you can never replace income taxes. i think we need to be very clear about that. the import base is small. and as we are discussing before, as you raise tariffs, you basically reduce imports. that is kind of the point, your tax base falls down to zero 10 tariff rate gets high enough. so there's no replacing it in any meaningful way. so that is the first thing. the second thing which i made before but it is worth underscoring, tariffs are regressive. they had lower income people first and hardest rather than higher income people.

they spend more of their income on consumption goods and clothing, on food. products with prices that save less. income taxes are generally progressive so that there is lower tax rates on lower income and higher tax rates on higher income. host: so i was able to find that number. this is an article from the congressional research service in january of this year which does acknowledge that historically, we generated quite a bit of revenue from tariffs, but over the past 70 years, tariffs have never accounted for much more than 2% of federal revenue. in fy 2024, for example, cpb collected $77 billion in tariffs , accounting for approximately 1.57 percent of total federal revenue. instead the united states has generally used its tariff policy

to encourage global trade liberalization and pursue broader foreign policy goals. since 1934 the united states has reduced or eliminated tariffs as part of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. did you have any points to make on that before we move onto the next question? guest: one is this idea that we can never use tariffs to get enough revenue to fund the government, that makes a few assumptions not the least of which is that we are going to continue to have government spending at least currently very elevated. historically, we've never had budget deficits like this outside of the national emergency, so that would be something that a severe recession or even covid, you could say. the other thing is there are a lot of dynamic effects to consider here. so as you put these tariffs in place, you may get some temporary changes in the economy. but what ends up happening is you will have more domestic

production, and some more and more of the goods that were previously subject to these tariffs that might be hitting low income folks, let's say, are increasingly going to be made here in the united states and at that point, they are no longer subject to these tariffs anyway. host: let's hear from band in atlanta, line for democrats. are you there? let's go to cliff in easton, maryland, line for democrats. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i'd like to ask the speakers their opinion of how long it will take the trump tariffs effect on our allies to dissipate if and when trump leaves office. host: joshua, why don't you take that first. assuming that tariffs as proposed go into effect, how long would it take them to dissipate as our caller asked? guest: i guess maybe a couple of

observations. if the u.s. does go ahead with certainly 25% tariff on canada and mexico, we are seeing china retaliate, have more tariffs on europe. but the u.s. is certainly going to see a lot of retaliation. they were the higher taxes on u.s. exports. often the united states most innovative manufacturing firms are exporters, so we are going to see that. in terms of the longer-term impact, i think a couple of things are worth observing here. one is that i think this is not purely a trump phenomenon, but i think the question was asked earlier about the speed with which trump who negotiated this trade agreement and kind of in the process of putting 25% tariffs on canada and mexico is in effect ripping up that agreement.

these are deeply consistent with what is being negotiated. that has really sent a signal globally that you can kind of bank on the agreements that the united states signs. the speed of which ethan prepared to go against the ukrainian which he himself negotiated has been troubling globally for u.s. reliability. i think the other piece here is that we will see how they sort of turnout over the next four years, but the u.s. has been the leader of the free world, underscore security globally, kind of counted on a steadfast commitment to that. all that comes of the u.s. backs away from these commitments. so i think the longer-term impacts are going to continue well past the trump administration because when you're designing a policy for a government in terms of what is

outcome going to look like, where do we want to reorient our economic lands, how do we think the reliability of the u.s. in terms of its alliance commitments, you really need a lot of certainty because you can't depend on it. mexico and canada have said they are going to -- to diversify exports at they realize how this agreement is actually no longer almost worth the paper that it was written on. four years later, they can't pivot quickly. you can't pivot the economy overnight. this is going to take many years. but i think they're going to have to continue down that path where trump leaves office because they just don't know what future it ministrations are going to look like. that there's going to be this consistency and reliability that has really characterized the u.s.. host: what about you, what is your assessment of the longer-term effect and whether or not they will be a lasting

consequence of these tariffs if they go into effect? guest: i think we would see lasting effects especially when we consider this in a broader context. that means you are also likely talking about cuts to taxes and regulations. host: domestically, you mean. guest: yes. you are looking at a carrot and stick approach. tariffs are obviously the stick telling companies if you don't produce here you're going to have to pay a tariff to import your products here. but then the caret's look, we are going to create the most business friendly environment here in the united states for you so that is your incentive to produce here. you will face a lower regulatory. you will face a lower tax burden. so you have both the incentive not to produce a broad and the incentive to produce here. that means you will see more factories, more capital investment here in the united states, more employment here in the united states, and all of those things i think i going to have a very long tails.

it takes time to have that capital investment, to build that plant and equipment here in the united states and likewise they are not simply going to evaporate overnight. the rust belt not become the rust belt simply by someone snapping their fingers. that took decades for that area of that country to be hollowed out. so once you have a kind of investment in the united states, i think you will have the effects of for quite some time. host: you mentioned the rust belt being hollowed out. the united auto workers union issue the statement related to the ongoing back and forth on trade, saying for 40 years, we've seen the devastating effects of so-called free trade on the working class. corporations have been driving a nonstop race to the bottom by killing good blue-collar jobs in america to go exploit se poor worker in another country by paying poverty wages. tariffs are a powerful tool in the toolbox for undoing the

injustice of anti-worker trade deals. we are glad to see an american president take aggressive action on ending the free-trade disaster that has dropped like a bomb on the working class. that was a statement from the united auto workers on march 4. the two to your calls. jay is in florida on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, everybody. i'd like to hear more of the discussion about how our country was originally based on tariffs. that is how we made our money, we didn't have a federal income tax, we didn't tax are people like that, we taxed goods. but we didn't tax the people. so trying to go back to that in this day and age of the economy, it is disruptive and very difficult to do. but it has to be done, there's no other way for the united states of america to survive while all the other countries outside of the united states are

able to pull all of its businesses away. which interrupts the supply chain. so now we are depending upon everybody else for everything that we need. that didn't make any sense to me at all, and we did this over the last 35 years. i understand that other countries have a lower income level than we do and have a lower ability to make more income, so we want to subsidize that. do you see how europe is? europe is freaking out because we are getting ready to cut them off and all the they have this money for military. what have they been doing all this time? i don't understand what these other countries have been doing other than taking our business and our profits. i'd like to hear a little bit more about that discussion. host: josh, would you like to get us going? guest: it's a great question.

there's a few things here. the u.s. government had a different way of collecting on taxes. there was also spending, it wasn't social security, it wasn't medicare, it wasn't medicaid. so you've got to compare apples to apples. we can drastically reduce income taxes. that is what a tax base basically goes to pay for, essentially, these sort of programs that have been commended by the federal government for decades. i think that it's also obviously we are not in the economy of the

1800s with the 1960's. the united states essentially is the world's wealthiest, most innovative, productive economy. i think we need to be clear that the u.s. is an absolute success story globally. the global economy that we see was largely after world war ii. the reciprocity of tariffs, the open investment regime and so forth. which is largely led to the benefit of the united states, the creation of the world's most productive and innovative global companies that are dominant around the world. and it's not to say that it is not without flaws and can't be improved. i think the impact on blue-collar, rust belt workers, apart from competition

particularly from china, there is a story about the speed at which technology has asserted essentially led to declines in employment as well as being real, and it requires real, wholesome responses. and the final thing i think is really worth focusing on is china. china has upended the global trade system, there's no doubt about it. a genuine, tough, focused response. we saw that beginning with trump and continuing with biden, and we need to see that continuing with trump again. i think it sort of means the disruption being caused is ultimately unfortunate for many reasons, but one is china. host: before you talk more about the historical aspect of tariffs, i want to go back to back congressional research service article i pulled up earlier with a couple of key dates in u.s. tariffs history.

in 1913, the underwood tariff act reimposed the federal income tax and lowered the tariff rate. federal revenue now comes primarily from income taxes. that was in 1913. joshua mentioned that it was after world war ii that we kind of got the modern trading system. that was when the united states in 1947 and 23 other countries entered to lower tariffs and other trade barriers. just a couple of dates there. guest: one of the things i think is really important to note in terms of lowering those trade barriers, that was not reciprocal. other nations, particularly one that had been absolutely devastated during world war ii imposed very stiff tariffs on american exports, goods that were coming from the united states and going to their countries. and the reason for that was to protect their very own

industries. we still have some of those provisions in place today. it makes absolutely no sense that now in 2025 we are disadvantaging so many american producers like car manufacturers so they can no longer be competitive with the rest of the world. that may have made sense in the 1940's or the 1950's, trying to reconstruct the rest of the world after all that destruction -- or excuse me, that postwar period. but whatever the case, a lot of those provisions just don't make any sense today. host: joe is in minnesota on the line for independence. good morning, joe. caller: i wanted to ask a question. what is the long-term goal or result you are going for here? you said that tariffs will raise prices until manufacturers make them, but then what? do you think other countries will buy our goods from us?

we have the highest cost of labor in the world, the highest living standards in the world as well. and i think the globalist world trade order has benefited the u.s. the most of the last 80 years. all you have to do is look at gdp growth. are you negotiating large rates, and you can look at the labels on your clothes and see what cheap labor in the world is coming from. we make everything here. costs will go way up and nobody will be buying things made in the u.s. when it is the most expensive place to produce goods. so we will have a closed economy and the rest of the world will benefit from global trade. host: so your question is what? caller: what is the plan long-term to make everything here and just to buy from ourselves? guest: good question. i assume when you say my plan you are not talking about me since i'm not proposing any of these policies, i assume were talking about the white house. but whatever the case may be,

there are a lot of dynamics at play here. we have to look at dynamic effects, not simply static effects. and we are not something talking about tariffs. we are talking about tariffs at the same time that we are talking about reducing tax rates and burdensome regulations, getting rid of all that bureaucratic red tape. so at the same time you're telling companies you're going to face steep tariffs if you produce things overseas and shipped here to the united states, you are also telling them look, we are giving you tremendous incentives to make things here. we are going to reduce your cost for making things here and those are cost savings but you can ultimately pass on to the consumer. we forget that while a typical manufacturing worker make $50,000 or $60,000 a year, it's very common for the manufacturer to face a regulatory burden of another $50,000 were $60,000 per year. those are just regulatory costs. that's not compensation that the

employee actually receives. and on top of that the employer is paying another $50 or $60,000 for the benefits package that goes to that employee. so if you just look at things like salary for an employer, you are not looking at a total cost. it could easily be three times that. so getting those regulatory costs down, inducing the tax burden for companies that make things here provides tremendous incentive than to move here because it reduces their costs, and those are cost savings that can be passed on ultimately to the consumer. so you don't want to look at things simply static and say all of the cost currently imposed are going to be reflected eventually down the road. in fact there are a lot of moving parts and a lot of things that we need to consider here. host: henry is in maryland, a for democrats. caller: mr. antoni, just two

quick questions and then one for joshua. and soon it was such a great deal, why did donald trump say that it was a very calm deal and who would sign such a deal? why would he act as though he was not the author? number two, are you a project 2025 advocate and supporter? and did you miss speak, or would you like to try to correct your assertion that president biden raised tariffs when actually all he did was leave donald trump's in place? joshua, our economy has gone from a positive of 2% or 3% gdp growth and now we are at -2.4% gdp growth. what do you think the bank with hollowing out arab governments

cdc and other disease control areas and the impending bird flu and the measles epidemics, how would that adversely affect our economy with these tariff wars going on with our closest trading partners? host: ok henry, that's a law. let's start withe.j. why did trump say that the usmca was a done deal if he is the one who signed it, what involvement if any do you have in project 2025, and can you give more clarity when you said that president biden raised tariffs when henry was saying that president biden only extended trump tariffs. guest: the fact of the matter is that biden not only left all of trump's tariffs in place after he had railed against them on the campaign trail, but for whatever reason he decided to

keep them in place, that he did also impose additional tariffs on china. that is just a matter for the historical record, anybody can look that up. also a matter of the historical record, i've never seen or heard of president trump saying the usmca was a terrible or a stupid trade deal. i believe he was referring to nafta when he made comments like that. as far as project 2025 goes, one of the interesting things about that is you can't support the entire thing because the entire thing actually does not impose a single policy prescription. in other words, the entire thing is not simply a playbook with only one idea in it. there are several chapters in the book that proposed multiple possible solutions for different problems that it identifies. so the idea that anybody can simply support literally anything and everything, that would be kind of difficult to do when literally multiple options

are presented in some of the chapters. host: did you participate at all in the development in any way? guest: i believe some of the statistics that i produced my research were used in the project, absolutely. host: ok, those were all three of those questions. let's go to joshua. henry asked given the move from positive to negative gdp growth, how do you think things like the cbc layoffs and other cuts to federal workers in health care given the rise of the bird flew in the measles outbreak, what kind of economic consequences may have? guest: president biden absolutely correctly cap the trump tariffs. he raised tariffs on some additional chinese imports with the couple of other things, but

largely the status quo from the trump years. this is an important question. think we slash and burn a lot of expertise, you're going to see impacts. how the government is able to respond whether it is to a pandemic or other challenges, i think has got to undermine that capacity. host: guest: tim is in detroit on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call, i didn't know we were at a negative gdp. but anyway, tariffs, at one point in their history because of tariffs, we were the

wealthiest at the time. i'm not sure of the years, but tariffs made this country very wealthy. we brought millions and millions of people out of poverty, especially in china. the tariffs we allowed was to help countries build themselves economically. i believe that the world is doing pretty well and like your guest said, a lot of these policies are so outdated. and i think the whole purpose of these tariffs is to get free trade. everybody drop the tariffs and let's compete in a free, open market. you want to bring a lot of people out of poverty, that would be the way to do it. but i just believe what trump is doing is to drop all these tariffs. what do your guests think about that? host: before we get the guest response, i was wondering about

that gdp number as well, and just a moment ago i had an article about it. he the atlanta fed predicts a -1.5% gdp growth in the first quarter. the atlanta federal reserve is projecting a contraction of the nation's gross semester product of 1.5% on the first quarter, flashing and warning sign for the u.s. economy that projection is a significant shift for the atlanta fed over the last few weeks that comes a little more than a month after president trump took office. the atlanta fed was predicting a 2.3 percent positive growth for the first quarter. a month ago a registry 3.9% growth. the atlanta fed gdp now measure is not an official forecast, but rather a running estimate of real gdp growth based on the data as it comes in. guest: i'd like to address the

reason why we saw that huge reduction in the atlanta fed now cast, and it all had to do with the change in international trade. exports add to gdp, but imports subtract. and we saw a huge increase in imports during the first quarter, at least the first month of the first quarter, and the result of that was a big subtraction to gdp to count for something like 3.5% taken off the total, which is pushing into the negative. ended a portion of that has to do with a tremendous event of gold that has been flowing into the united states. as that is imported is reducing the total figure for gdp. host: and tim, could you repeat your question, please? caller: do you believe that the reason trump is putting these tariffs on is to basically eliminate them around the world

so we have a free, open, fair -- he just wants a trade, that is it. guest: it is certainly one of several different goals that the president has. that is what he is saying to them of these countries look, if you are willing to stop subsidizing your different domestic industries, if you're willing to stop taxing american imports that are coming to your country, then yes, we will reduce our tariffs as well. so long as those barriers are in place on american goods, then it's impossible essentially for the american worker to compete on the world stage. that is certainly one of the goals of the president is looking at. he's also trying to stop the flow of fentanyl into the country that has become the number one killer of young people. he's trying to raise additional revenue. he's trying to get that level playing field for the american workers. so there are a lot of different things of the president is looking at right now and goals which is trying to achieve, but

that is certainly one of them. he's trying to get other nations to reduce the barriers to trade that are blocking american exports from those markets. host: joshua, your assessment? guest: the bottom line is we don't know ultimately what president trump is trying to do because there's a lot of goals. if you want tariffs to raise revenue, the tariffs remain and influence. if you want to do that, other countries are going to have tariffs on u.s. exports and we are heading to that world where u.s. businesses are going to face costs on export. if you want to ultimately globalize fair trade, that has been the goal of u.s. administrations since 1947. you do this for trade negotiations, and then ultimately to agree to tariffs

from other countries. we had usmca which really continued, but whether we get a deal where trump agrees to lower tariffs in return for other countries lowering their tariffs , you are not going to be raising revenues these tariffs and that they ultimately it is up to president trump. host: arkansas asks a question via text. i'm just the average american on average income. put them tariffs into place and i stop spending. that's it, that's what you get, that's where the rubber meets the road. guest: i would love to know if he stops spending over the last eight years when both president trump and biden put different tariffs in place. we've seen this throughout history, both economic theory

and economic history are very clear that you don't have consumers simply stop spending anytime tariffs are imposed. that's not to say tariffs are always good, they are not. tariffs have sometimes been done very well in american history and sometimes very poorly. perhaps the best example of when they were done poorly is when president hoover signed the bipartisan tariff act in the early 1930's which exacerbated the downturn that we now know as the great depression. so tariffs can be done right, they can certainly be done wrong. there is a right and the wrong way, a right-handed ivanka time that this idea that simply anytime any tariff anywhere is putting the base that is going to devastate consumers or that consumers will set the stop spending, net economic history nor economic theory says that is the case. host: clara is in virginia, line for democrats. caller: good morning. ok, i would like to ask two things. one is first of all, breaking

our word. we've already negotiated these trade agreements with our closest friends. and trump says we are having these tariffs because of fentanyl which canada believed doesn't bring over at all. border crossings which are now down, and trade deficits. at least the one with canada is mostly energy and with mexico frequently they are supplying us with goods that we then resell. and finally these tariffs last week over 3.7 trillion dollars market value. and i just want to ask why didn't we have more forethought, why haven't we set up the infrastructure for manufacturing to succeed. why didn't we give u.s. corporations and car corporations the opportunity to create their architecture for billions of dollars of factories? re-creating our infrastructure for manufacturing rather than just tariffs before anyone has a

chance to calculate their cost or how to do business going forward? host: before i let them respond, president trump did indicate on the campaign trailtrail throughn that he had planned to implement tariffs, was that not enough warning for businesses? caller: i don't know how long it takes to build a factory for car parts. and they did not know if he was actually going to win the election and certainly did not know if he would be implementing them immediately. host: joshua would you like to start with a response. >> i think tariffs on mexico and canada frankly are a terrible idea. for all the reasons the caller outlined. super costly. 65, 70% of foot the u.s. imports from canada are things that go

into other products that the u.s. uses to manufacture. it's very complementary energy, imports from canada which goes into the refiners in the midwest. so it's very complementary it means we can use u.s. light crude in the u.s. which means we have more to export. we don't have as much reliance on producers of light crude. it's a very complementary relationship if the president imposing 10% tariffs on that if you take the auto market in north america, it is the second largest automaker -- auto market. extremely efficient supply chain's that have been built out and it is also very saturated market. just to take one example, invest heavily across north america and the export from the u.s. to 40 other countries.

the u.s. is a key manufacturer for autos. in part because it relies on access to other markets in order to generate and justify the level of fracking. if you raise tariffs you make that more costly and retaliation which reduces the market. host: i want to give ej a chance to respond before we wind down the segment braided >> a lot of different questions and assumptions made as part of those questions. i want to address a couple of issues with canada. one of which is the fentanyl coming across the border. while it may not seem like a lot in terms of volume, an analyst on tv saying all the fentanyl the comes across the canadian border in a year could fit into a carry-on suitcase. that's enough to kill millions of americans. you've seen pictures where they show a tiny dime and a tiny

grain of fentanyl much smaller than that and it's enough to kill a person. the idea just because it's not a huge volume that is not a big issue, that's just not the case. like we mentioned earlier, china -- excuse me canada is allowing china to abuse various portions within the usmca and allow china backdoor door to get around tariffs by dumping things into canada that are then repackaged and brought here into the united states. part of what we are seeing now is an attempt to get canada to abide by the rules that they've agreed to play by. >> that's all the time we have for this segment this morning thank you so much joshua meltzer, of the global economy and development program senior fellow at the brookings institution and ej, a research fellow and public finance economist at the heritage foundation thank you for coming this morning. up next, military times.

deputy editor leo shane will join us to discuss what he learned from his interview with the v.a. secretary doug collins about those cuts coming to that agency and the potential impact it could have on veterans care. we will be right back. ♪ >> mr. speaker, on this historic day the house of representatives opens its proceedings for the first time with televised coverage. >> since march of 1979 c-span has been your unfiltered window into american democracy bringing you direct no spin coverage of congress, the supreme court in white house. >> is this mr. brian lamb. >> yes it is. >> hold one moment for the president. >> c-span founder brian lamb's vision and the cable company

support. in honor of founder's day, your support is more important than ever. you can keep democracy unfiltered today and for future generations. >> now is the time to tune into c-span. >> your gift preserves open access to government and ensures the public stays informed. donate now at c-span.org/donate or scan the qr code on your screen. thank you. >> in the years right before world war ii started in 1939, winston churchill had been out of government. even though he was far from power, his country home became his headquarters of his campaign against nazi germany. catherine carter is a curator and historian who has managed the house and collections. her new book is called churchill's citadel.

catherine carter reveals how churchill used chartwell as his base during the prewar years to collect key intelligence about germany's preparation for the war. >> author catherine carter with her book churchill's citadel. on this episode of book notes plus with our host brian lamb. book notes plus is available on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get podcasts. washington journal continues. >> welcome back we are joined by leo shane, the deputy editor of military times. here to discuss those proposed cuts to the v.a. paid welcome to the program. you had an interview with the v.a. sec. doug collins last week on those proposed cuts and to his department, let's first listen to a portion of that interview.

[video clip] >> there is a leaked memo out that there could be up to 80,000 cuts and really fundamental reorganization coming in the next few months. is that the plan here? are we looking at cuts of that size in a real complete rethinking of how the v.a. is organized braided -- organized. >> we are also responding to the new administration has stated that we will have a total wipe of government budget looking at that. v.a. has a large footprint to go there. if you look at the numbers we are looking at now. the question will come and have shared this with some other people as well is if the answer was money and people then we should have solved our problem is a long time ago. it's a question of are we utilizing that function the best way we possibly can. both of us long on the tooth here. the question is not sometimes

are we just putting money. there's a game being played and it's been here for years and it's called let's give money to the v.a. and then let's beat up on the v.a.. when they are not doing what they think they should be. that's just going to stop here. we won't do that anymore. who or with funds and resources we have to make a better product with some of the best employees around who want to take care of veterans. >> what did you make of his answer? >> it was really interesting. it was a day after the memo had leaked so this was confirmation they were looking to go under 400,000 employees at some point this year. this is not immediate cuts like we've seen in the last few weeks. this is more developing a plan to scale back with the v.a. footprint will be. they are saying over the next few months they want to have some more concrete plans. a mix of some folks they rehire, some folks who move on and possibly some dismissals as

well. it is a fundamental change to what the v.a. is and has done over the last few years during the biden administration there was a push to keep hiring to get more people in to react to what is an increase in services at the v.a.. secretary collins saying he thinks he can do a lot more efficiently, that's what we will see here. it is interesting to hear talk there is a view within this administration within the leadership that the v.a. is broken, that they are doing things not right and they could be more efficient and handling wait times better, you know, when we saw the biden administration leave we saw sec. leave it really was a feeling that they were on the right path. they had been processing more benefits than ever before. this is the amount of folks who believe that confidence in getting medical care at v.a.. that was up to 92%.

they left office with a sense that v.a. was on the right track. it wasn't perfect but heading in the right direction. the administration is saying they are headed in the wrong direction. >> you were talking about the v.a.'s footprint, let's take a step back and remind viewers how big the department of veterans affairs is and how many people it employs. guest: it's about 480,000. $350 billion agency in terms of not just the programs it provides but the benefits and health care and everything else. so the largest by some measures. in the number of folks employed. these are not folks who all located in washington dc. we have 160 some medical center spread out throughout the united states. we have benefits offices that are mainly on the east coast but a few other places here. a lot of this money goes to things like homeless services or

suicide prevention programs that are spread out from the country. these cuts more than likely will not come in mostly from d.c.. these will come from committees all over the nation. host: let's get a few more numbers on the v.a.. one in five of the people who work for the government were employed by the v.a. and more than two times the number working at the next largest employer which is that apartment of homeland security. nearly two thirds of the v.a. employees are women and about 46% of those are nurses, medical facility support staff or medical officers and the v.a. is the biggest agency employer for most states and many of the people working in the v.a. are also veterans. >> some measures it's even higher. a lot of these contracts the government is talking about cutting about 500 some contracts they've cut. a lot of these are service disabled veterans which the v.a. has done a good job trying to work with those businesses to get services.

those are not direct cuts v.a. is making but indirectly a lot of veterans businesses hurt by that. >> can you give us a sense of how many v.a. employees have been laid off so far and where those are happening. >> right now it's about 2500. there were two rounds of probationary employees. about one 400 individuals. some of those have been clawed back a few with support staff of the veterans places were initially let go and then brought back. these were folks providing some and ministry of assistance. so there's still some flux there and court orders that those might be caught up and there was a number -- another 67 employees involved in diversity equity and inclusion programs. those were dismissed in the first few days of the trump administration. host: our numbers, special phone lines for this. for veterans, you can call in at 202-748-8000.

veterans famous can reach us at 202-748-8001 and everyone else can call in at 202-748-8002. with your questions for leo shane, the deputy editor of the military times. what are you hearing from veterans groups and even on capitol hill about these changes? guest: from veterans groups and veterans it is panic right now. a lot of concern about how deep these cuts will be, how well they are thought out. we have seen some of the veterans groups pull back from their concerns. we heard from the administration and from secretary collins that they will do less of a chainsaw approach and more of a scalpel approach trying to really look for wasteful positions, things that might not be needed. we've heard some optimism for veterans groups saying if they're looking at making v.a. more efficient over the long-term of course they support that. they are worried about are those friday night 5000 6000 people

laid off or dismissed for questionable reasons without really any context of what they provide and what they are doing. on capitol hill it's been interesting. democrats have been furious over this, they say the administration is eviscerating the department and crippling them for years to come. we are hearing concerns from republicans. not so much over the plans and the moves but how it is being communicated. those 80,000 positions this didn't come from the v.a. staff, they gave me your full to elon musk. we don't want to be seen as attacking a veterans program. i think senator collins in the last few days has tried and that up. whether or not that will mean

the next time, we will see. this is an administration that tends to move fast and not give the proper communications of capitol hill, worried about cleaning up the mess later rather than forming it ahead of time. senator collins and some of the other secretaries trying to take charge in the lead of this rather than the department of government efficiency. host: let's go to a call. kelly is in alexandria, virginia and is a veteran. caller: i just want to say that the v.a. asked the employees to respond, you've to apply for a benefit and then turn around and they will tell you you did not apply the right way. they know who the veterans are and what they qualify for. why are we having to beg them to give us the benefits that we qualify for? it seems that the operation of the v.a. is out of sync. my husband died as a veteran

waiting on benefits to be applied before he even received the benefits. so it's like, you know, it's like the operation is just backwards. you the veteran call them after you serve, you write and apply and then they turn around and deny your application and then they tell you this wasn't qualified for a benefits. they know who is qualify for benefits from the very beginning because they see your military service. host: kelly, what do you thing about these proposed cuts that the trump administration is proposing? caller: it's overdue. they have to cut it. they have attorneys say sit back and deny how many veterans are sleeping on the street but qualify for benefits that they can get because they don't want to deal with the v.a.. so we have to reach out to those veterans and consider them

instead of the employees that are only paid to denied benefits. host: secretary collins in your interview and in the video on social media referenced the v.a. being a punching bag for politicians and the media, they also have these experiences like what kelly describes her you've been covering the v.a. for a long time. how does kelly's experienced track with what you've seen and heard from veterans? guest: it's a very common frustration and complaint for the benefits process is a complicated process. one of things kelly mentioned is they know what we deserve. it is actually not true and it's been an ongoing problem. the communication between the defense department and v.a. has been fractured for a long time. they do not have a common medical record. v.a. does not have all of your military records. they do not know what you went through or were exposed to. the defense department might and there are some issues there with some of their bookkeeping as

well. that is something the v.a. has been trying to fix for the last 20 years and with their new electronic medical records they try to fix for the last eight years or so. there are a lot of folks who wish this would be a more automated process that you could just come in and drop your information and then automatically get the payment. there's a lot of complication with that and issues that show up later in life and until v.a. is not informed about them, you might have other problems. until those develop but also v.a. in recent years has been trying to do a better job to find a way to simple find the process. it means more people and checks and balances. and more outreach especially with the act passed in 2022 which was a major expansion of

the veterans toxic exposure benefits and health care options there. one of the contract that is come up recently as an indirect contract because it does not provide direct benefits to veterans but it is paying for a group who were trying to ease that process tried to work with veterans to make it a simpler process to get through. now that money is gone and those employees are gone. it is a gated process. there are certainly some places and some democrats see. that have to be improved. to feel like you'll get better and more benefits out there. if you are fewer people to look at these things. host: celeste is in pennsylvania on the line for others. caller: thank you. i was just wondering who was going to sign up to support our country. who is going to join our armed

services with this type of thing going on. we have all these veterans on the street with mental illnesses. i cannot believe that we are in a situation today we are selective service. who will protect us. thank you. guest: we actually have the issue of military recruiting is a really important one. it's one that folks have struggled with, the defense department for the last few years it's what the defense to pharma struggling with now try to find ways. there's a lot of concerns. who wants to sign up of that fighting force. a number of homeless veterans have come down significant of the last 20 years rate is still

about 40,000, a number that everyone says is too high. but we've seen improvements in that even as we've seen some of the homeless numbers in the general population take back up. i do feel like it's important and i feel like we in the media we focus on some of the problems and challenges that we've seen with veterans but for the most part veterans are not struggling with mental health, veterans are not -- there quite a few that have served honorably that go on and have great careers and lives after that. it's the ones that do struggle but need health care that we want to make sure are being taken care of and i think that's what the general public wants to do as well. i think v.a. in recent years has worked on the narrative of we are trying to help the folks and we are improving that. our veterans aren't fundamentally broken or damaged, this is an important part of the backbone of america and if you would like to join you can be

part of that. it is a complicated mix. certainly a tough balance to make sure you are highlighting the needs and shortfalls while at the same time finding ways to tell the good stories of veterans in the community as well paid -- as well. host: devon is in west virginia and military family member. caller: i wondered if anyone had posed the idea there's a lot of homeless veterans and a lot of unemployed veterans. father is a veteran, if the two thirds of the veterans administration. if it's not running efficiently why don't we hire veterans to run the veterans administration and take care of their fellow soldiers. they would be employed and would probably do a more efficient job? guest: the v.a. has done a very

good job of hiring veterans. about 30%, a third of the v.a. is made up of veterans right now and they have made a conscious decision to give veterans preference. unfortunately a lot of jobs within v.a. the require more than just dedication and veteran service. especially when you look at the medical care jobs. that's one of the biggest employers of the veterans health administration. if you talk about nursing skills, talking about mental health specialist those are folks that go through so giving schooling or training before they take over those jobs. it's not just a simple as taking those 40,000 veterans are homeless or at risk of homelessness and sliding them into jobs there will be places that they can do. but as we look at reducing the numbers one of the concerns is are we going to see a spike in that. right now i think last friday came out it was 4.1% which was

right around the same level as the general population. it has been the same level or lower than the general population for the last 10 years or so with the exception of a month or two here. so generally, programs to help with veterans unemployment have been fairly effective. it doesn't mean everyone gets a job but they've at least seen some success there. a lot of lawmakers have talked about improving those or adding to those. we help that group, that would again require some more hiring, some folks within v.a. or the department of labor at a time of administration is cutting back on positions it's not clear if they will have the appetite to add those on. host: dennis is in oregon and is a veteran, good morning. caller: i would like to ask leo if he could ask the military --

we have the uniform code of military justice that applies to everybody from commander-in-chief down to the lowest newest privates. the military has not stepped up when trump has committed many crimes. here is my question to leo. can you ask and find out why the military hasn't arrested him and put him on trial. he's unbecoming of an officer. can you find out, i asked the american legion, they won't step up. the cuts are awful -- unlawful and shameful. the staff of the veteran facilities are understaffed.

and underpaid and have been for a long time. it took me years to get my pension with my injuries. could you please ask and get an answer and give it to the american people. thank you for your time. host: before i let leo respond i want to point out that c-span has options for you as our viewers to submit questions that can be asked in the white house briefing. if you have a question like that that you want to be asked to press secretary caroline levitt you can send us in email to wh questions at c-span.org. you can include your name and city and state and we are collecting questions for consideration to asking the white house press briefing. i will let leo respond now as well. caller: i did text braden host: you've got to send an email for that one. guest: i understand the

frustration and i'm sorry that it took so long to get your pension sorted out. we get reports things are generally going well there's always exceptions and we don't like to hear that it takes 35 years, something like that that should be settled. in terms of the military stepping in and acting as the judicial system, that's something they're not going to do. this is -- there's a lot of frustration but the military is run by civilians and has civilian leadership and respects that civilian leadership even in tumultuous times like this. i think the concerns what will trump is doing are being handled by democrats to the extent they can as well as outside groups challenging these cuts. there are a lot of legal and ethical questions and all of this that are getting wound up. but i don't hear anybody saying the solution is for the military

to step in and try and take over civilian leaders. that is an area we have not seen. we have seen it in other countries where it ends disastrously. host: nikki -- vicki is a veteran. good morning. guest: -- caller: i would like to say thank you 12 veterans for their service. i guess from my perspective being a veteran, being the spouse of a disabled veteran and working at a v.a., i think there can be more efficiencies in some areas just from our experience, you seen there has been some excess and a lot of nepotism. i think there should be more common sense about benefits. for example, i was in the army and what you find out is

culturally you intend to go to sick call so a lot of times when it comes to benefits the v.a. would say we don't have a record in particular because you didn't have something in your record. so there used to be a commercial we do more before nine the most you all day. but then as you get older and you apply for the benefit it's denied. so it's frustrating. but, the military i would say it is like society at large. you have different people, everybody doesn't have the same work ethic. i guess that's my take on it. should it be more compassionate about the way it's being done with cuts, yes absolutely it should. but i don't know if giving the -- the main thing is giving

benefits to veterans pretty she called earlier saying she struggled. one last point with regards where you're supposed to be able to get things for presumptive conditions. my mentor, her husband never in life. any benefit paid he did not apply. what he tried to do was to trying get care. and she has like five letters of the same thing with her saying he's not in the system. and he was 80 at the time he passed so talking about computers and databases, how many vietnam veterans are in their 80's, folks not using computers. when i tried to work with her on her discharge paper, it says overseas. so we are being told because it does not say vietnam, that they can get services. those types of things they should do a better job. guest: i appreciate the call.

there's a lot of frustration. we hear that from a lot of folks especially on things that should be easier, the transition from paper records to electronic records. the hope is some point in the near future those things will be in the system, it will be obvious where someone like that serves and they won't have to go back and prove it is not just overseas but was in vietnam, there are certain service-connected issues with agent orange certain presumptions that would give both him and the family eligible for that. when you are hearing from folks on capitol hill, both are republicans and democrats year the veteran service organizations talk none of them are saying v.a. is perfect and can do a better job with being compassionate especially on the benefit side spread a lot of the service group saying you need to give the benefit of the doubt, that there needs to be a fundamental more compassionate thinking that is lest -- less

adversarial. we need to show why you might not qualify for this. but the concern now is if the approach of the trump administration is to make quick massive cuts. if they take 80,000 off in the next few months will that have a cascading effect where it's even less compassionate. you have folks more interested in making sure they are ok with their own jobs where they have fewer resources and less contact with the defense department and they just can't get that work done. what we've heard from a lot of folks is a lot of politicians and advocates witches we are not opposed to finding ways to make it more efficient bread we are not opposed to even cutting back on the amount of growth. the v.a. went up in terms of employees during the biden administration. went up about 11% during the first trump administration. we have seen a dramatic growth in the number of federal workers

in the v.a.. the question isn't whether or not some of that can be pulled back it's how quickly do you pull it back and do you make a 15% cut in just six months and not damage the services there. host: linda is in new york and is also a veteran. caller: my husband is a vietnam vet and he has been getting a small compensation from the v.a. for agent orange from being in vietnam. and he has been getting that 20, 25 years. is this proposed cut going to eliminate that? guest: so, it shouldn't. if he is receiving benefits they should still be ok. they're not talking about cutting back on any direct benefits or direct care so the checks that are going out now, the medical care available the secretary and the white house

have not talked about trimming any of that. the question becomes if your husband were to apply for additional benefits if there were another complication they felt he was owed some more, with the new benefits claim he put in how long would that take process. would it be more complicated. and then if he does use v.a. for medical care, they are promising they will try to keep those levels up. but if we start to see these cuts will there be as many, will we be able to get into that. those of the concerns. i brought these up with secretary collins he said there's a lot of hypotheticals and fear mongering on capitol hill. they will find efficiencies. they are hoping that they can save money with these cuts without hurting any of that. they are saying don't -- democratic lawmakers saying if you cut them back of course there will be effects. host: if you want to hear more

on leo's interview with secretary collins it's at military times.com. let's get back to more calls. good morning rose. caller: my husband is a former marine. he was at camp lejeune during that terrible time of contamination. that case is been going on for 1953 to 1985. halliburton paid hampson -- handsomely didn't they. why aren't the veterans getting paid for their suffering. five cancers we had removed from his body. morgan and morgan has at the files for two and a half years. why should anyone join the military at this point given they care so little for veterans impacted. and are you really waiting for them to all -- before they pay out. everyone was there that drink

that water deserves to have compensation for the fact that they may now have problems or may have problems in the future. we are tired of waiting. guest: the issue of the camp lejeune water contamination has been really frustrating one for decades and is one the lawmakers on capitol hill have said they are frustrated with braided that was included in the pact act. there were some provisions to get money to families. but some of those issues have been tied up in court cases. there been a couple of pieces of legislation to move that quicker. senator tillis or senator sullivan introduce something to try and move that along faster. it has been a point of frustration and these are the stories pray most of the folks that have come out of the military have positive experiences or feel like they contributed to their future and future careers, to their life. there are a lot of folks who

have gotten injuries from this. the folks who serve their house long-term health situations that the country has a responsibility to take care of now and the question is what is the way forward. is it a new administration coming in and declaring that this is something that has to be addressed more forcefully or more directly, more quickly or is it something where you've got to let the courts play out and frustrate more families who have all been waiting for a long time. i wish we had a solution for that one. host: jim is in texas, a veteran. good morning. caller: i just want to say a few things about the lack of efficiency. it's very surprising, maybe not surprising that it's taken decades for electronic records to be able to communicate between dod and the electronic

records. it's taken decades to get this. and they're not very well organized. they are not easy for the doctors to read or for patients to review. another thing, when doctors have a treatment that they recognize it has to go through multiple levels to get approval. it's hard for patients to understand why their primary care provider can -- they are qualified doctors if they see the need for something it's difficult for them to understand why it needs to be approved through multiple levels maybe this is an attempt to make sure. lastly it's impossible to communicate with administrative staff. they no longer have suggestions.

you cannot communicate with them electronically with the clinical staff they have secured messaging but you cannot -- there is no way to email. you have to call or go in directly and speak with anybody. those of the things i would mention. guest: the electronic health records, you are not the only one surprised and frustrated with this. 15 years ago we were talking about a billion dollars being spent on a project to trying get them on the same system. it fell apart and it was a major failure. a major scandal. now we are in year six or seven of a $10 billion project that's already gone up to a $16 billion project that is only put a new electron health record system in six v.a. sites, one joint and five v.a. sites alone. secretary collins in our interview said he wants to

accelerate the process. the last administration said they would be ready for a few new deployments in 2026. he said he wants 13 new ones next year. we've got to get court data. but it has been a real problem. part of that is they have very different medical needs and medical populations. you are talking about generally one healthy individuals -- unhealthy individuals. d -- they're dealing with those who might have agent orange exposure, burn pit exposure, folks were dealing with geriatric care. as a lot of different needs, pharmacy needs. a lot of different logistical needs in terms of the tests they have to take and things they have to review. it isn't as simple as saying get on the same software system and move ahead. there's a lot of folks on capitol hill who have been saying the same thing as our caller. how is this still 20 years later

how have you not gotten on any system and how was it so frustrating braided one other point on the doctor approval. that is a common thing we hear within v.a.. it's a common thing in the medical system throughout the country is these are not issues unique to v.a.. it's a point of frustration with the american health care system and same thing with shortages. they don't have enough mental health care professionals because the country does not have it for the demand. some of those issues v.a. could do a different -- a better job but they won't be fun to mentally fixed until those are fixed throughout the country. we don't get more mental health professionals we won't get more in v.a.. if we don't get enough nurses in the country there won't be enough nurses in the v.a. system. >> that is all the time we have for the segment. thank you so much leo shane, deputy editor of military times and did that interview with the v.a. secretary last week which you can find on military

times.com. coming up next we will be an open forum ready for more of your phone calls. you can start calling in now. 202-748-8000 free democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents 202-748-8002. we will be right back. ♪ >> we will announce the grand prize winner of this year's competition. >> how much has the city of chicago spent on illegal immigration? >> if you're referring to the 2022 to 2024 of the buses from texas, roughly the same

percentage of the state of texas about 1% of our overall budget. >> i don't have the budget in front of me. >> it's 1% and if we want the actual calculation. >> you don't have the >> dalglish in front of you. it is 1%. i already asked you if you don't have a hard number you are not running your city right. mayor out of summits of the city of new york spent on illegal immigration. >> 6.9 billion of taxpayers print >> 6.9 billion dollars of taxpayer money on a problem fostered on the american people. in the city of boston how much did you spend. >> we don't ask about immigration status. >> you don't ask how much they spent on illegal immigration? >> we don't ask between immigration status. that's how we manage it. we have numbers to prove it. >> democratic mayors of new york

city boston, chicago and denver easily testified on century city policies and their impact on cooperation with immigration authorities. watch the full hearing from the house oversight and government reform committee later today starting at 2:30 eastern on c-span. also available on c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: we are in open form ready to hear your thoughts and comments about public affairs news that you've been watching. we will start with dave in pennsylvania on her line for independence. good morning. caller: i called from the last segment so i'm very pro v.a.. in one of, you can always do some pruning. there's some redundancy but the v.a. is a great institution. i'm a 20 plus year veteran. me and all my buddies who are

all combat veterans in iraq, afghanistan, we all almost all of us either use the v.a. for medical care and get some compensation. so there's always problems that have to be resolved. >> another comment from our previous segment. lance fort lauderdale said via text the main problem with the v.a. is that there's no penalty for poor work and no reward for good work. i dealt with this is a disabled man. kevin is in bayville new york on her line for democrats. you are an open forum. go ahead.

caller: i'm a vietnam veteran. i love the v.a.. although i do know these cutbacks will be like. i just feel that trump is once again attacking veterans and i think he was with bone spurs. you know they told me, get in line. you are next. i pulled 63 out of the lottery in 1971. i was gone the next day. it's just i think another lady said in the previous segment whose goodness show up for the next war print nobody. i was dragged off the streets at 19 years old. and sent halfway across the

world. to serve my country. and now this is what we get. it's a disgrace. host: kathy is in waynesboro, georgia. good morning kathy. >> i think the recruitment is tough for people to serve our country right now. they want to serve under president trump. and president trump is for our veterans. he's for all of america. he loves america, he took a bullet for goodness gracious, he took a bullet for this country. when are you people going to wake up about that? biden was checking his watch when the 13 servicemen came back in coffins from the -- in afghanistan. hillary clinton let ambassador

stevens die. she said stand down. i want to urge -- everyone to watch tonight on c-span at 8:00 representative comber's report on how the biden family is corrupt with all of their money from overseas and all that. i urge everyone -- host: i'm not sure which program you are talking about this evening at 8:00. what exactly on c-span? >> i think it's book tv. host: it's a q&a on book tv, got it. what do you think of these proposed cuts to the v.a. that the trump administration is talking about? caller: they are just talking about it, they haven't made them. i don't think they would do anything to harm our veterans preyed it's only common sense. host: ok. dennis is in janesville,

wisconsin on our line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. my father was a first lieutenant in korea. and got a bronze star, 80% of the attrition in korea was from starvation exposure. and he brought back a significantly number of the men back alive for which he received a bronze star. i was eight years old when kennedy was shot. and my father was home already and at the tv on when i got home . i walked in the door to see johnson taking his oath of office. the words that came out of my mouth because my father for public first and only time to threaten to strike me saying i couldn't say these things about our president. health care. mike -- michael moore's

documentary sicko should have change this world preyed look at what england does with their health care. we have people after making an appointment need find some to drive them miles away to go to the va hospital. national single-payer health care. we are the only country in the world that allows private paid health care insurance. numeral soy -- if they tried this they would be arrested for extortion. our health care system needs single-payer yesterday. in madison when scott walker -- 100,000 people are supposed to be educating didn't know enough to put their feet down and start screaming single-payer their own private health care insurance is. we need health care in this country. we need to put doctors, there

are people who know how to cure things and we've got a disingenuous system that is nothing but fraud. host: a previous caller referenced representative james comber on the biden family business. that will be a she mentioned airing on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern tonight. the house oversight committee chairman represented james comber, a republican from kentucky who is author of all the presidents money talks about his committee's 15 month investigation it into the business practices of then president joe biden and member of dutch members are present biden's family. this was originally a q&a that aired on february 24 and will be re-airing tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. next up, john is in syracuse on

our line for democrats. >> you have to remember as far as those issues are concerned, trump was a draft dodger. it's been brought up before. remember the comments he made about john mccain, a hero, a true hero. i just don't understand how this guy has any support from veterans but he does. veterans kind of like him but i don't know if they will continue to like him with these cuts. these cuts are going to be very harmful for people trying to get information and phone calls. you try to make a phone call now nobody answers it. it is you know -- human beings i don't know why he's cutting these jobs especially veterans. but the cuts from some one who

dodged the draft and did not respect john mccain. what do you expect. thank you. host: nick is in new york on our line for republicans, good morning. caller: how are you doing for it, veteran. i'm recently retired from a veterans administration hospital as an employee. and -- i just wanted to say that i'm glad that they are getting rid of the waste, fraud and abuse hopefully they will focus on the veterans administration's , especially the one in new york. long island, i was just very unhappy with all the management there. i feel like they really did not care and i felt like they were only in it for themselves.

there was no cooperation between management and employees. and -- i'm just glad they're looking into all of this stuff because they have to remember these people they are hiring are not veterans and they have to remember that they are working for us. we don't work for them. host: doreen is in massachusetts on our line for independents. caller: one of the things i was wondering is i don't know all the details behind how the veteran administration works in terms of health care but what i will say is i'm wondering if there's a possibility for instance private insurance i know my insurance basically has a special hotline, for routine kinds of issues that can be

taken care of over the phone. i'm wondering if the v.a. could actually take advantage of the situation where they would actually let veterans go directly to private or public hospitals and kind of offload some of the effort in the event that they do cut some of the medical staff and things like that and be able to take care of a hotline that would be able to be with it. obviously there issues associated with specific things like agent orange and things like that. but maybe we can kind of help them because from a standpoint of all the hospitals there hospital shutting down because they're not getting any service because of some of the issues they are running into with other things. this could help to support the hospitals and supplement what was going for the v.a.. >> i believe what you're referencing is telehealth. they do have a telehealth

program that's noted in a november 11 press release that the v.a. was planning at the time to limit co-pays for telehealth and expand access data telehealth. and this was part of an ongoing effort and so the v.a. at least at the moment has a telehealth program that was in the process of being expanded towards the end of the last administration. let's hear from darren in mississippi on our line for independence. good morning. >> good morning. i'd like to think -- i'd like to thank every veteran who served this great nation in times of needs and risk their health based on the service. i was just listening to the gentleman from military times. and i wanted to try to get in and speak with him regarding all

of the laws and all the v.a. regulations that our congress and senators passed like the 38 usc 5107. the benefit of that in favor of the veterans. you've got the 38 cfr 3.303 that deals with new and material evidence that's relevant and the bill, the veteran in service medical records and a lot of us whether you're a democrat or republican we have to realize that you hear all the time when you go to the v.a. that these people in positions considered to be veterans that is a conflict of interest. because they are the ones who are denying veteran benefits. that is what president trump is

trying to eliminate. president trump is doing a great job and i want to say on a professional level when you have veterans in positions who are not helping other veterans who work for the department of veteran affairs, the motto is veterans helping veterans. that's the motto. i'm a 1991 gulf war veteran. i'm 100% disabled. but i've had many problems from senator trent lott's office to roger welk or. i'm an independent voter and my problem with the system is its a lot of red tape. and we need to do better as veterans when it comes to helping other veterans. the v.a. is a broken system and

i appreciate what president trump is trying to do to fix it. thank you. host: william in west point, mississippi on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: i would like to say thank you for giving me a chance to speak. i don't have no problem with the v.a.. and everything you go through, ain't nothing perfect. and you will have some good, some bad but overall i feel that the v.a. is doing an excellent job. now, i am or republican and i must say that i'm highly disappointed in president trump, especially when he talked about john mccain and what i am appalled about is 53% of the veterans voted for donald trump. now, since he's trying to cut

different benefits and things and when i say military we're talking about service. host: 65% of veterans who voted for trump. caller: thank you for correcting me. six to 5% of them voted for donald trump and now they heard him when he dissed john mccain, he saw how they did the brigadier general. they see all of this and now they are complaining and talking but it is too late. this is what you voted for. i've seen it coming down the pike but i would like to say this. my hat goes off to the v.a. and the reason they are so hard on making sure because they have to make sure that your services connected. i get 100% but i had to prove, i served in two wars and 28 years. operation iraqi freedom and desert storm, 1990 desert storm, 2003 operation iraqi freedom.

and that's when i hung up my boots. but my hat goes off to the v.a.. i don't have no problem with them. the problem is 63% of veterans voted this man in. now he is taking federal jobs. host: that's all the time we have for calls today and for washington journal. we will be back with another edition of washington journal tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we hope you join us and have a great rest of your day. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025]