coming journal your calls and comments live in the future of entitlement programs in light of recent statements by president biden and former president trump. a review of the current legal issues facing former president trump as he runs for a second term. hear from dwight davis from the article re washington journal, starts now. sec becerra: it is the washington journal for march 15 on capitol hill. a proposal from bernie sanders to shorten the federally mandated work week to 35 hours. the senator made the case that workers are overworked and able

to keep up productivity. republicans on the panel push back. we will show you portions of the hearing. if you want to comment on the week or if you approve of it or create new problems or opportunities you could call us on the lines and tell us what you think about a federally mandated 35 hour workweek. texas if you wish at (202) 748-8003 and post on facebook and on x. the lead up to that hearing which you can still see on their website at c-span.org and the apis c-span now taking aosal sag a press proposal saying workers

share in the massive increase driven by artificial intelligence, automation and new technology with lead to a 32 hour workweek. american workers are 400 percent more productive than they were in the 1940's and millions of americans are working more hours for lower wages. this has got to change. there are text available online but senator sanders deduced -- reduce the standard work we to 32 hours. lower the maximum hour old forovertime pay for work days longer than eight hours. that would increase double regular p for work days longer

than 12 hours. one aspect of the propal that would protect workers pay that a reduction in the workweek does not cost a lost and pay. what do you think about this idea about reducing the work week to 32 hours? should it be an act of congress if you want to call and let us know full-time workers (202) 74, for business owners (202) 748-8001 and all others (202) 748-8002 you can text us at (202) 748-8003. the opening statement came from senator sanders and cassidy commenting on this proposal. [video clip] >> while ceos are making 350 times as their employees workers are seeing their family life fall a as they are forced to spend more time at work. they are missing their kids

birthday parties, little league baseball games in the time they need with their family. what stresses them out further is that after spending all of this time at work, many of them still are working paycheck-to-paycheck. they can't take care of their basic needs. a in history when artificial intelligence there her buttocks and i hope we understand that the jobs people have a goingour economy will bed through a i and robotics. do we continue the trend that technology only benefits the people on top? we demand these transformational changes benefit working people? one of the benefits must be thas implemented it would threaten

small businesses operatingn razor thin margin because are unable to find workers. now they have the same workers but only for three quarters of the +mtime and they have to hire more. in fact, there is an incentive e full-time if they won't have to pay certain penalties required for full time. if a business wants to voluntarily try of 32 hour workweek the law allows it. i will note, the senator has not done it with his staff why? if a business needs to maintain a 40 hour workweek locally but

globally, a government mandated 32 hour workweek would be catastrophic. host: that was from yeonline ass c-span now. some of their testimony took place at the hearing making the testimony against the 32 hour workweek. for full-time workers the number is (202) 748-8000, for business owners (202) 748-8001 all others . you can feel free to text at (202) 748-8003 and post on social media sites at facebook.com/cspan or x cspanwj. richard, a full-time worker what do you think of this proposal? caller: i don't think anything

like that should be mandated. as far as thinking that's a requirement for businesses, a lot of businesses are more than 40 hours a week. they might be as seven days a week. i ended up working part-time at my regular job but i am also an entertainer. i needed time. it workeou every employer if yot the hours i was, 24 would still give you benefits. the way it is right now, we don't have enough workers to supply the jobs that are out there now. agriculture p anderiod would be struggling to get employees to cover your hours. i don't know why this is coming

up. if a business wants to do that and that is what you are hired to do but not having a band-aid, that's my opinion. host: senator sanders said yesterday it's hard to see it would pass the house and senate but the idea of the 32 hour workweek from the federal govern i think the gentleman in front of me said he had done the 32 hour i did too, i am retired. it was six years ago in west virginia. i apprectei really enjoyed workr days a week. it was nice because i still got benefits, i still got good pay.

i didn't watch any, to be honest i didn't want any of the stuff on, i guess you said bernie sanders got it forth. i just wanted to give my opinion that i really appreciated it and like i said, it was in west virginia. host: the four day work week, was thatcaller: yes, it was mos a day and i happen to work overnights. i was an overnight support manager and i do not think they do it anymore. i am not sure about that. i do not think they offer it anymore but i was just appreciative of . just like bernie said, you had more time with your family and you could get more done.

did see the little clip you showed. i just wanted to say that. host: did it change your attitude about going back to work on monday? caller: oh yes. i think it was refreshed. i just knew that the four days would be long hours but i don't know, me personally, i appreciated it. i really like the four day week. host: caroline making the case for the four day week. at 32 hour workweek case from senator sanders. you can support it or oppose it. we have a line for others. let's hear from george in st. louis. caer thank you for taking my call. it doesn't apply to me, i am retired.

when d work i was an outside salesman. my philosophy was i never thought i was that gwould outwo. i worked harder, more hours, 6, 7 days a week if that is what it took to make the amount of money i needed to make. as far as -- i don't believe it should be mandated. a lot of people are working less than 32 hours getting paid for a full week when they are workith. as far as congress, i would like to tell bernie sanders, i think you fellas need to work longer hours. you get nothing done no matter how many hours you work. when you have a bill that needs to be passed, the budget and

they go home over the weekends i get nothing done. or they go during this crisis on the border and they give vacations. they should stay in the room until they get the things done. host: let's hear from najiya in delaware. i hope i said your name correctly. caller: i work 4 10s, i work in the medical field. i find that after a three day weekend when i get back,■6 in my profession there is a lot of burnout. i would time, this was unheard of. i work in pathology, i working a lot. you had to be at work every day five days a week but because a lot of people are streaming away from that becae of burnout and

having to work five days a week. you are now becoming more creative with the time. host: go ahead i'm sorry. caller: i am a health care traveler. in every state they had adopted the 4 10s. host: is not a common thing in the health care field? caller: it is becoming common now but it was unheard of. i work as a pathologist and i fit in the field since 2005. i remember, years ago it was frowned upon. but nowity.

host: that is a health care worker in delaware giving us a ■za call period. that industry, another industry, maybe you have a traditional workweek or a shorter week. (202) 748-8000 for full-time workers of what you think about this mandated 32 hour workweek. for business owners if you want and all others (202) 748-8002. they recently did a poll about the four-day work week and this is what they found. it is becoming more popular among full-time with 84% of full-time workers saying they endorse that 32 hour workweek. 32% supporting hybrid work. the majit full-time

workers would sacrifice something for 32 hour workweek. they would sacrifice something at work, 54 percent saying they would work longer hours or change jobs or industries. 27% would work in the office more than 10% would take a pay cut in exchange for a shorter workweek. perhaps you are one of those who would makone of those sacrifices. paulette in alabama on the line for others. caller: say i worked in a grocery store and i worked the night shift and i was working full-time at the grocery store but also working part-time at the thrift store during the day. part-time was anywhere between 32-30 eight hours because i was part-time. they already have that established they don't have to wre it's

already been established and if you work part-time, you get 32, 34, 38 hours. i am retired now so i'm not working in the grocery store business like i was doing once upon a time. when you are full-time you get 40 hours when you work part-time, is somewhere between 32, 38 hours.host: the proposald caller: that would be nice if they could it. if you wanted that money you would work those hours. they wouldn't pay you full-time for 32 hours. if they can work it out so you can get paid the full pay for 32

hours, i would say oh boy. when i was working, it was considered part-time and you did not get a full 40 hours if you were part-time. host: that was probably giving her experience of the grocery field. let's hear from a full-time worker matt in new york. i'm definitely imposed the government trying to mandate to private businesses what kind of hours their employees work. as between the employees and businesses. for years they had 32 hours workweek. but it ended up not working out so well for france. up when they wanted to go back to 40 hours, they had strikes, riots, all kinds of things happening

over this stuff. everybody likes a free ride that's what were talking about here. host: when you say that what you mean by that? caller: the free ride? host: a 32 hour work week and i assume socialist bernie means you sti get paid host: that would be part of the proposal. caller: that sounds just like bernie. if he could get away with it everyone would get a check and would not have to work. host: that was met in new york about the senator's legislation. a country that engaged in a four day work week the website tech.com has a list of five countries with that idea. belgium is the first country to legislate a four day work way.

belgians can complete the hours of■y five days within four days. united arab immigrants put all government employees on a four day work week if they choose to. it doesn't cover every single worker, 90% of the workrce is employed by the government. in iceland, with 350 thousand people more workers are working a four dayork week. lithuania has a blanket wall that enacted legislation in 2021 so parents with young■ children can work 32 hours a week. as the caller mentioned, france saying that although they don't legally enforce a four day work week it has been common for businesses to offer that due in part to the fact that france tried■z to 35 hour work day and

it's unlikely to ever be overturned. 10,000 workers already work a four-day week. that is how other countries look at this idea of a shortened work week. you can add your thoughts about whether it will work in the united states. if you oppose or support a federally managed workweek or the idea of a shortened work week and whether it would work or not. justin in south dakota, a full-time worker. caller: good morning. i definitely support the proposal. studies conducted in one of the scandinaanfor 32 hours of work,d not lose any productivity.

they weren't milking the clock. people were more alert and attentive. i just want to say, if we had a genuine democracy o would end up with policies that benefit the worker over the employer because the employee is the fast maj■pority. globally it's 99%, may be in the united states is closer to 95. but almost everyone is a worker. host: justin in south dakota there. inew mexic the line for others. caller: good morning. i believe we should not mandate businesses or people's lives and their work hours.

worked 32 hours and i've worked many more hours, overtime. i think the 32 hour work week or the flexible work we can of that could be used as an incentive. if you are an employer and you want more people and people want to work 32, make that an option. it should be an incentive that employers could use. but to mandate, i'm not all for mandating that kind of thing. host: do you think a 32 hour work benefits some other than others? caller: yes, yes i do. there are people here -- if you make $15 an hour, you want to

work 40 hours to be able to take care of their families. if you$■= make 80 bucks an hourt 32 hour work week looks pretty good. mandating thats stacy in new m. one of the people the senators heard ■from yesterday, john lee lent the founder of a company called kickstarter in the co-chair of the four day work week campaign. he was asked about the idea of the four day work week of what he does for productivity and here's some of that exchange. [video clip] >> tell us a little bit about the impact it is sad, the transition of the four day work week, the impact his title of the workers there. >> it's been transformative for the workers. i have been told this one of the

most impactful thing they have experienced in their lives because they are able tñgo spend time with theiki they learn new skills, they can use ai and brought back into the workplace and more efficient as a result. are learning new skills that are not related to work. participating in the community. >> are workers more phuket is -- focus when they come back? >> they are better focused, and team stay together longer. the cohesiveness of the organization is more robust people out, churning through them in turnover costs. >> talk about turnover. e of the big cost is turnover. what with the impact of a 32 hour workweek be on them? >> it it

changed turnover and the effect on productivity. we have rarely lost an employee inpeople have longer tenure ande don't have to deal with hiring, the cost of hiring someone else. articles don't get disrupted by this sudden departure of an employee. people want to work. the notion that americans are lazy are inaccurate. people want to work but in no way that's balanced with the rest of their lives and they will stay in their jobs the jobe rest of their lives. host: that hearing was yesterday. you could come in on the idea of a federally mandated 32 hour workweek. if you think it would work (202) 748-8000 for full-time workers, business owners (202) 748-8001 all others (202) 748-8002. joseph from baltimore, texas a

32 hour benefits the employers and employeestime for general r. we have been overworked for too long. this is david from need a shortk need corporations to pay people fairly for the work they do. i should be paid a hundred thousand dollars more but my company doesn't provide a pension, makes me pay 15,000 for insurance but does not provide me any of their stock. this is tony from florida saying senator sanders is being unserious. 32 hours would drive us down to mediocrity like countries like france. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. post on social's you want to do that.

this is joe in north carolina on online for others on the idea of a 32 hour work week and whether it should be mandated. caller: i used to work for republic steel negotiated a 13 k vacation in the senior group, a 16 week vacation for the junior group. their thinking was we will give them 13 weeks bonus and they will go ahead and take the 13 weeks and we will be able to hire new people, more people and work. everyone took their bonus week and got paid for it and worked their regular weeks. you will not work on this. i don't know if they did it but that was the steelworkers union's. it is hilarious. the people side why should i

throw away all that money on a bonus week and i can go ahead and work and make double the money. host: what separated the senior and junior group? caller: if you worked there six years you moved into the junior group. if you work nine-ted group you worked into the senior group. it was based on how many years shwhen you got your page you got your tonnage and that was such a farce. some people would take their 13 weeks but young people and the old-timers, they did not take it. i didn't take it either and i own my own business when i got out of the mill. my people had to work what we had to work. i was a general contractor.

i build homes, docks. and young people don't want to work. host: in your line of work, 40 hours of work could not be done in 32 hours? caller: not in my own business and not in this deal mill. we had a the foreman would say 12 hours, 12 hours, 16 hours. host: let's hear from jack on our line from others, he is from pennsylvania. caller: bernie has promoted great ideas and i think he was also in favor of having a $25 and our minimum wage in the six week paid vacation, family leave for both parents and health care and daycare for everybody. my only question is, where can i

get an application to work with him because it sounds like utopia. host: you're not for the idea. caller: the guy is a hypocrite. he promotes up for everyone else why can he do it? all these people who want to promote these gifts that they want business owners to do why don't they get off their lazy rear end to do with themselves. they have the ability, the power and freedom to doant to proposer everyone propose it for everyone else and mandate it for everyone else, and that is the problem i have with people like bernie sanders. from the senator who made the legislation, what is wrong with 32 hours in your mind? caller: nothing. i've got no problem with that, but you cannot mandate an employer to do that. you can't do that, because they these politicians are sitting behind a desk forcing people to

do things they won't do themselves. host: rudy is a full-time worker in california. your next up on the idea of a mandated 32-hour workweek. hello. i am supporting working actually four days, 10 hours, three days off like they do in the health-care industry. i work in service industry where you are working 50, 60 hours five days a week and that is tiring on the body. i think the way that they are framing it as a 32-hour workweek is the wrong way to do it. i think it should be framed as four on, three off like an health care. host: what do you think the advantagesthe four-day week? caller: you are still giving to your employer what they need plus two hours more. instead them 10 hours so that they can use you more

efficiently, effectively, and longer if need be for those 10 hours. for us, the employees, that know that i'm going to grind it out for four days but i get three days off, the advantage is knowing that i have a longer break period or longer time off. host: rudy in california making the case for a 10 hour day four days a week. that you can support over a 32-hour week. let us know. the radio stationes a little bit of a historical aspect of the 40 hour workweek saying, let's rewind to the industrial revolution where workers were not uncommon to put in 12 hour days six days a week. workers were not in disagreement which led to the labor movement by the 1880's. the slogan on everyone's lips were eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, eight hours for what we will. henry ford shock the■+0 workweey shortening the week for his assembly line and please do 40 hours a week. when the great depression hit in

the 1930's the u.s. workweek saw the shorter workweek as a way to fight the massive unemployment crisis. that we need to hire more workers to get it done. they made the 40 hour workweek the norm in the 40's and it has been that waiver cents. the proposal from senator sanders, should it become law? it would shorten the 40 hour time frame to 32 hours with the same rate of pay for the week. let's hear from robert on the line for others in illinois. caller: hi. my answer is a little bit complicated, so i hope that you can bear with me. i did work a 32 hour workweek. it was out of necessity. my last employer was the federal government. i had a horrible manager. to deal with the stress and whatnot, i voluntarily went to being an 80 percenter. i work 48 hour days in a week.

i tell you how this worked out. it in some ways didn't work out well. i worked monday, tuesday, took wednesday off because i can only handle it in two-day doses. rsday and friday. my problem with this is because of the manager, again, he kept trying to take advantage of it. he gave me the equivalent of a five-day worker caseload expecting me to do it in four days. this is another aspect that people don't think about. i think of unions. we had a union and the union was always fighting him over what he kept trying to do to me. if the unions can negotiate a 32-hournk that that's great. i don't think that it works in the general economy very well. previously i taught college and was a business consultant. i had to work 60 hour, 70 hour

weeks in order to get the job done. it isn't■ like i'm lazy or did't want to work, but circumstances are person-to-person. the guy who called from pennsylvania a few minutes ago nailed it on the head. in one final comment, bernie sanders, thank god we have a guy like him in the senate. he points out a lot of issues that need to be discussed. most of the time, his solutions or horrible. the impact on the economy, the impact on what happens in the social structure and relations, and work relationships between employers and bosses, and some of his things that he advocates i think would be horrible. host: robert in illinois sharing his own personal experience. he mentioned the color from pennsylvania. another pennsylvania caller, a business owner from derry, pennsylvania. caller: morning. i think that the 32-hour

workweek is a thinly billed attempt to raise the minimum wage. if you're going to pay 40 hours for 32, just raise the minimumit would have that effec. host: how so? caller: if i making $1000 a week that is $25. still making $25 working 32, it is going to be $33 an hour? it is just a way to raise the wage. host: as a business owner, what do you think of the idea overall of shortening the workweek? caller: the previous caller mentioned working four 10's which i don't have an issue with, because we have a certain work load that needs to get done, we need to get product out the door. so i need to hire more people now to work on friday? is not like we are going to shut down. maybe we'll just hire a different crew working tuesday,

wednesday, thursday, friday, so il product. do you know what i'm saying? host: what kind of work do you do? caller: we manufacture packaging is your standard workweek 40? how does it work for your business? caller: yeah. five eight-hour days is what we have right now. host: sharing his experiences, ron sharing his experiences as a business owner. another business owner in texas. for business owners, (202) 748-8002 if you want to call in. cliff, hello. caller: we are talking about working and working hard. they're talking about it is something we love or don't love. i think a little levity sometimes can help. this is a little tongue-in-cheek, but maybe you will get a kick out of it.

i run a business and i had a person who looked for me to come in and said, i want my salary doubled and i want as good of a health plan as you have. the best that there is. i said, i'll tell you what. i will give you even more salary than you wanted and an even better health plan. he said, you've got to be kidding me? i said, you started it. host: inughts and a little levity to the idea of a 32 hour workweek. you can contribute the same if you wish. a couple of kids on the idea of shorter workweek. this one comes from forbes. this was in december of 2021, just so know. he said, at the torking only four days a week might not be attractive but the result can leave employees with less time a more stressful workaday packed the negative side of a four-day

workweek is employers will demand more dedication during the four dayng to force the out of date five-day workweek into a four-day model. it will create more stress, less time to take care of life as it happens. that was in forbes. a recent piece last year from the colorado sun, their columnist wrote about the idea of a four-day workweek. claim working less isr workweek fail to thrive and innovation lllow. there ile to suggest that these fears are bounded and improvementsthe work-life balance would help the work culture thrive. showing the 32 hour workweek, when they are implemented y workplace productivity doesn't decrease. given the productivity is not decreased, worker pay cuts should be off the table. you can add that to your opinion if you want to get one on the phone lines.

this is james, the line for full-time employees. caller: hello good morning. there are some angry callers. ■)i listened to a few of them earlier. i am a full-time employee. i work in the finance area of a local government in north texas. we had a 7:00 to 6:00 40 hour four-day workweek. if you don't know, there are a lot of organizations that require 40 hours -- 40 hours in our industry is not enough.#q rs in the local government and 32 hours will put in a lot of stress. i agree with the forbes article. working 7:00 to 6:00 means that you have to put off a lot of things that you need to do during the week. yet to put it off on friday. things that you need to dof t

during the week to your days off. you lose that time off. i know a lot of employees who work 7:00 to thursday and sleep all day on friday to try to recover. that is not a good quality of life. their healtditions have been severely impacted because of the four-day workweek. their quality of life is less. the cost -- the one guy earlier said that is a wage increase, that's correct. if you're being paid 40 hours at x amount and now you are working 32 hours, that is a price increase. the price increase of less hours gets passed on to the consumers, to people buying things. your cost will go up because the cost to create things is going up. one thing that has not been mentioned it's over time. if you are talking 32 hours, your overtime costs go up. host: ok.

e meeting the minimum threshold much sooner. now you have to hire more people. your health care benefits and all of the other costs go up. to me, it doesn't make sense. i know some employees can do it. especially if your industry is able to handle it. a lot of us who work, especially on the local government side, 40 hours isn't enough. d 50, 60 hours. host: gotcha. james in texas giving his thoughts. you can give your thoughts on x as part of response poll. at the time when i pulled it up, here's the question, do you support or oppose the federally mandated 32-hour workweek? 50% each saying support and oppose that idea. it maynge as the hour goes on, but you can add yours. you can find the poll at our x

site @cspanwj. caller: good morning. i support a 32-hour workweek and i'm tired of these businessmen coming on here and telling these lies that are very clearly see through. working less is ees quality-of-. give me a break. i had a company thatd vapes to adults. working less doesn't decrease productivity at all. thisas been said multiple times, more than once. giving a four day work week, 32 hours a week, doesn't show a noticeable decrease in productivity. regardless, i think that the whole debate is missing the forest for the trees. the reason is because, if you have ever looked at a chart that shows the productivity of a worker, their dollar value versus their wages over the past

-- pick a number, 20, 40, 100 years -- what you realize is that it has beeasing in terms oe amount of work that a person is doing and what they are being paid for it. yet the person is not a worker or laborer. this amount of hours that someone needs to work in a week, he generally feels like it -- but yes, we could obviously support it for these reasons. right? host: in california, giving his thoughts talking about statistics and research that has been done. that was a bit of pushback from one of the republican guests yesterday at the washington university talking about studies taking a look at 32 hour work weeks and whatned. here's a portion from yesterday's testimony. [video clip] >> given the types of companies

that are potentially capable of cutting their workweek, we could see a divide of the rich getting richer, having more time, and the poor needing to take on three part-time jobs in order to pay the bills. we also could potentially disadvantage older workers who cannot necessarily physically do the same aunthis happened to tht detriment of that population during the great depression. in terms of incread productivity, shortening the week the statistics aren't there. there are studies that show the opposite. as dr. cassidy said, from 1988 to 1996 the result was not a big u.s.. economic output by 20% -- was not ambiguous. economic output fell by 20%. cutting the workweek, the results were blasted over the headlines as an overwhelming success. what is not reported on is the icelandic government, or rather

taxpayers, now have to shell out almost $30 million extra per year to hire for health care workers because of this in spain where there is a pilot program the companies that participate get access to a multimillion dollar government fund to participate. microsoft also tested a four-day workweek by shutting down its japan office every friday for august. the statistical claim is that this resulted in a 40% increase in productivity. this is a statistical fallacy. ssarily causation. productivity increased over a very short time during a lope activity month when overall productivity was already at a 75-year low. there is no statistical evidence too$ merit a nationwide mandatef the 32 hour workweek.

host: the hearing yesterday in the senate looked at senator sanders' proposal for a 32 hour workweek. plaintiff testimony from a variety of people. you can find it online at c-span.org and follow along and see it on our app at c-span now. you can talk specifically about the proposal of a federally mandated workweek that is 32 hours and the idea as well on the line. (202) 748-8000 for full-time workers. business owners, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. joe in arizona on the line for others. caller: hello, how are you doing this morning? host: thanks, go ahead. caller: i'm kind of against it. i think that it's rich that bernie sanders is the one that's pushing this thing. you have to understand bernie sanders' history. when he moved to vermont he was he became a community activist. then he was elected to the burlington city council and from there he became mayor. from there, he became a

representative, u.s. house representative. then he became senator. this guy has never worked in the private sector, never had a real job. i found it rich that he is supporting this kind of a program that's controversial. host:do you think about the idea overall? caller: i think that it's nuts. you can't shrink someone's workweek and expect them to produce the same amount that they would have under a 40 hour wethat means that people are gog to have to -- companies will have to hire extra people. that's going to add to their i think it's crazy to expect employers to pay employees a full salary 32 hours work. based on a 40 hour week. that is just not feasible. host: marty is next in the

louisiana on the line for others. caller: good morning. good morning. i am a retired bus operator, but i did work in the aerospace industry at a mission site in we switched to a 10 hour four day work week. enjoyed it. it gave time for downtime for maintenance of that they could prepare alof times. for a vast plant and the amount of electricity that would shut down one day. the people enjoyed it. they knew when they were getting off. 32 hours, i am still trying to adjust in my head how it worked, but the four-day 40 hour workweek worked. we did shorten some of the break times and things of that nature,

but equaled out. the people were happy to be off on fridays. they got a weekend normally, not changed how they felt on monday? caller: yeah. they are ready to go to work. they are rested. host: marty in louisiana. thanks for the thoughts and input, marty. the recent column in the wall street journal looks at the shortened work week, but it also gives this aspect on something that mar b. they label this the third way saying, picture fridays when the offices are closed, texting is on hold, and emails can wait until monday. it isn't a day off by default. fridays become the day when employees tackle focused work since they will not be interrupted by email, text, or phone calls. if someone is so efficient that they complete their tasks by the

end of thursday they may take friday as personal time. you can get the benefit of clarity. we won't be expected to take meetings or calls and we won't be able to reach our colleagues. it is a nice perk and incentive to be extra efficient the rest of the week to have flexibility on friday. if you want to receive more, you can see that at the wall street journal. louisiana, the line for others, david, hello. caller: yes, i just want to make a comment on the workweek. is, 32 hours and then you have to find another job to just try to make the same amount of money you were making four or five years ago. you have to have two jobs to stay even with inflation. thank you. host: jay in syracuse, new york. a ll good morning, pedro.

i'm on 3.5 on, 3.5 auth per week and it's been that way for a long time. it's a union job in a hospital. the nutrition department. ■@i served 11 meals a week and i am out wednesdays at 1:00 and go back sunday at 7:00 a.m. every week. there is a little overtime coming union benefits, pension after five years. i am older, 60. it is chill with a lot of downtime. everyone wi couldn't imagine hod work with 32 hour weeks and mandatory overtime would be every day for us.with the union, you never know, but i see that really impacting the small guys and mom and pops big companies load -- won't worry. perhaps some com

minimum amount of employees for large companies only. by the way, companies can offer that right now if they want as a hiring incentive. so, there's that. host: in new york, a full-time worker in massachusetts. caller: hi. i think that this is really interesting. i am in my early 60's. i was a high school teacher for a long time. my husband passed away when he was 30, so i was struggling with kids trying to pay for after school care while i was still working away. and then outside of work there work. i think workforces are going to struggle with a 32 hour workweek, but i think in the medical field, for instance, residents are overworked.

i think that there are mistakes made in the hospital from people being overly tired. o remember is cultural anthropologists discovered the hunter gatherer populations onlyd approximately 28 hours a week to survive. at this point, i am working 24 hours full-time caregiving parents with cancer and parkinson's. s age the body starts to break down. i'm struggling financially because i can't afford to pay for someone else to care for my parents> maybe partly at home, partly at the office kind of situation and certain manufacturers -- are you

going to stop building a house one day a week in the middle of the fa when you're trying to get ahead of which are? i think that it's a case-by-case situation. it is hard to have a one size host: when you are a teacher, how many hours did you work per week? caller: my goodness. 60&4 pressure. -- 60 for sure. i also taught the kids who had problems with behavior or so, there was a lot of outside work. as many teachers do. host: elizabeth, sharing her experiences teaching and her other work experiences caring for her parents. teresa in florida the line for others. hello. caller: hello.

i would be for the 32 hour workweek, but in my profession it wouldn't work. profession. i have always worked with people. in small offices. the only way that that would work is for someone to come in -- my doctor would have to the productivity part, you can't do. we would have a 30 minute slot for a patient, we generally use 30 or 15 minute slots. we can't see as many patients and 32 hours. there is no way t■chat that can happen. the service industry, like grocery stores, they have to hire more people. if it is a small store, they still have to hire more people,

because the business has to run. it can't shut down. i worked in hospitals. i worked as a public safety officer in a facility. those kinds of jobs need people around the clock. it is different for when you have service people. say, for example, a factory job when i have this quota. my quota done in 32 hours, that's fine. but if i don't get my quota done, then what? 6w would love to only work 32 hours, but i don't see how that is feasiblin all aspects of the job as the previous caller said. i don't see how it works for everyone, you know what i mean? host: thank you for sharing that. that is teresa. a full-time worker. we have heard from others, we haveeard from business owners during the course of the

morning. in kentucky, business owner, hello. caller: bernie sanders, a full-blown communist. that is what he's talking about, to go full-blown communism to take over the means of productivity of businesses. i 24 hour workweek with businesses, for half a week without any production going through them, i cut back to 24 hours a week. i had another shift come on that does another 24 hours. if the first 24 hour group wants to work a second 24, that is fine too. that is what i would encourage because they are already experienced at the job. the government says, you can't do that, then i would just start the same business, another corporation, have those same employees work for a second

corporation. if the government says you can't do that, i'm just going into and lease someone else's site and do it there with them and have them buy half of my site. you cannot beat business. if you cut back and do what communists want to do everyone else will starve. >> a lot of employers like target and walmart already consider 32 hours a week to be full-time. if the stores operate seven days a week into the night. this is in oklahoma city, i work an office job and studies show that we cannot concentrate for even a concutive my boss only gets five hours of real productivity from me. i told her that. for the remaining three hours i just want to be at home. i'm stuck in the office, not producing anyway.

i support 32 hours. one more call. we will hear from a business owner in ohio. kelly, go ahead. caller: good morning. i am on the business end of it and i do daycare. some of these rents go to work at 7:00 and don't get home until 7:00 at night. 7:00 at night. so, i am thinking 40 hourss sufficient and we should not be concerned with 32 but concerned with everything over 40. right now the kids do notnothei. so, when i was a kid, 4:30 we now, if your parent is not getting home until 8:00 at night if they pulled a job for orporate. corporate is mandating that they have to work all these hours are they will lose their job. that ilet us fix that family fi.

host: kelly finishing off on the calls on the 32 hour workweek. and still take part on the twitter pole and follow the hearing. a by former president trump on social security and medicare have renewed the topic including essential themes for campaign 2024. joining usn adcock from the national security -- national committee to preserve social security and medicare. later on we will hear from my -- mike davis from the article iii project this is as president trump is back in court regarding his legal issues. we will talk about all of those things later on. washington journal comes your way after this. ♪

>> today, watch the 2024 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of c-span's campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discover what the candidates are saying to voters along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 camp trip -- campaign trail online at c-span.org or download it as a podcast on c-span now, our free your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> booktv every sunday on c-span2 featureleing authors discussing the latest nonfiction books. 5:00 p.m. eastern we are featinbooks on education beginning wh the author of "

school moms" which looks at the rise in parent activism and gaining control of schools at the public level. at 6:00 p.m. eastern, frederick and michael present their plan for a conservative alternative to the u.s. education system with their book "getting education right." on afterwards, jane marie orth are of "selling the dream" talk about how multilevel marketing businesses make their profits. she is interviewed by emily stewart. watch booktv every sunday on c-span two and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at tb.org. -- at booktv.org. >> the c-span book show podcast feed makes it easy for you to listen to all of the nonfiction books in one place so you can

see new authors and ideas. we are making it convenient with critical authors selling -- talking about biography, and history. you can also listen to afterwards, booknotes+ and q and a. you can find the podcast feed and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now mobile video app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work and citizens are truly informed. get informed straight from theu. on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nation's ■zcapital wherever you are. because the opinion that matters most is your own.

this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. washington journal continues. host: the first guest of the morning is dan adcock as the committee to preserve social security and medicare and he serves as government relations and policy director. the name of the organization is obvious. tell us about it and what is your missing -- your mission? guest: it is to focus like a laser beamn advocacy for medicare and social security to ensure that not only are these programs strong and good for the people to provide them economic and health security today but also for their kids and grandchildren. we were started by jimmy, a member of congress from california who happened to be the eldest son of franklin delano roosevelt. you might say that the roosevelts are in the in the dna. james roosevelt is on our board of directors and we are happy to

have him. we are uniquely devoted to william johnson's aid for older americans? host:■ how is f guest: membership dues. we are charging $12 a year so i pretty good deal. we do notney from outside groups, pharmaceutical or insurance companies or wall street. it allows us to be pure in terms of a■fdvocacy. host: we will talk about the politics in a moment but can you give an assessment of where physically as of today?icare guest: according to the most recent trustees reports on social security, the social security trust fund has $2.8 trillion of it and will continue to have reserves untilp 2034 and on those reserves will be depleted. but it never becomes bankrupt

because the payroll taxes flow into the program, which means people -- means that the trust fund will become depleted but there will still be money coming in. that means that if congress fails to act that will be a 20% cut. we do not want that to happen and we want to make sure the there is program to ensure it is there. medicare, until 2031, the part a trust fund responsible for caring for hospitalization is there. we think there are proposals that will extend that trust fund's life. it is more complicated because health care is complicated but we can get more into that. host: politics. statements earlier on from the former president. i want to tell you what he had to say a couple of days ago in get your comments on that. [video clip] >> one thing i think the

perception is is that there is not a whole lot of difference between what you thi w with entr nondiscretionary spending and what president biden is proposing. it is almost a third rail of politics. we have a 33 or $34 trillion total debt build up. and there is very little we can do in terms of cutting spending. discretionary will not help. have you changed your outlook on how to handle entitlement, social security, that a care or medicaid? it seems i cast -- something has to be done or we will be stuck at 120 percent of debt in the gdp forever. >> first of all there is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements and cutting and in terms of also the theft and bad management of entitlements. there is tremendous amounts of things and numbers of things you can do. so i do not necessarily agree

with the statement. [end video clip] host: that was a couple of days ago and followed up with an interview on right part saying and i will just pull you the quote saying " never do anything that would jeopardize or hurt social security and medicare." those are the statements as a stand and what is your response? guest: action speak larder -- larger than words. when he issued his budgets he urged that social security be cut. on one hand he is unlike many republicans in breaking the supportive of doing things like cutting the cost of living adjustment and raising the retirement age. in reality as pridt he suggested cuts to the social security programs. words do not necessarily mean anything but what you do does. but we know from past actions that he has been willing and listened able who support

cutting social security. host: do you think there is an appetite to make those changes that you are concerned about? guest: i think there is for those who support it. but they know that it is very unpopular to do that. never my organization or any news organization has done polling suggests that the program should be cut it is very unpopular and it does not matter whether you or democrat, very unpopular. that is why they are reluctant to do that. that is why ey have suggested things like a fiscal commission. where they can make it more bipartisan. they can do everybody jumping ce to a solution because that is the only way they can get away with making cuts to programs benefits earned and their money. host: the former president's

response team put out saying that the focus was more on waste and reducing that waste. is there something there as far as waste and fraud in the programs of both social security and medicare. guest: not to the extent suggested. if you talk about any program whether it is public or private there is always going to be waste and ways to try and reduce it. but when you look at the overhead of the social security program just on the program alone, it is only about .5% of the actual money paid out. $1.6 trillion paid out in benefits. that is pretty low. that does not mean it cannot be lower. we will get to that point especially with the nude commissioner mark o'malley, the former governor of maryland, he has got a lot of great administrative experience. we have talked to him and has thand we think that he will be - he will do a lot with what he

has and that is with the administration of the agency. host: if you want to ask about the politics behind social security and medarand the actual status of the programs itself, 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. . for those who received either social security or medicare and are a and want to give your thoughts you can call at 202-748-8003. you can use that same number if you want to text us. before we go since the president and former president have introduced it, does this become an issue going forward in campaign 2024? guest: i hope so. and i say that because when people go into the voting booth they need to think about the if you are in your 30's and 40's you might not be thinking about social security.

but if this program is cut, and medicare is cut and older people have less economic and health security, that means grandma will be living with you. and so even though you do not think you will be immediately affected you might be because it will force your elderly relatives to make decisions like that. that is why it is so important for people to think about. not only for current retirees at their own future and immediate future. host: let us take calls. robin. alabama. independent line. good morning ahead. caller: my question is would mass immigration help social , save social security. if so how, and if not why? pedro, you goto -- you guys often have a topic if so, what america except mass immigration

to save social security? i will take my call offline. host: thank you for the suggestion. guest: that is a great question. i guess i can answer it two ways. if people are entering the country undocumented workers, frequently they are getting social security numbers and pacing -- and paying the taxes. unless i get a green card or become a citizen they will never see a dime of the money contributed to the system. that actually helps the system. but itressional budget office a number of years ago, about 10, when the senate passed an immigration will -- an immigration bill saying the green card is not citizenship. they found of people became legal citizens or got green cards, they got out of the shadows and worked in jobs that paid more and they were paying payroll taxes. and so they found that the

congressional budget office found th the solvency of the trust fund would be extended by a year if you were to enact a pathway towards a green card or citizenship. host: margie. republican line. pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: good morning. i just want to say that 70 years ago, and i am now 86. 70 years ago i won a local contest and we were writing for the v.a. or something. about why social security was such a bad idea and now -- and i am living on it completely now. i still think it is a bad idea, and it was a terrible idea to begin with when it was just a minor thing. and now the monolith th is -- iw you can fix it.

but please show the pie chart so that people can see how much of the budget is consumed with social security. and also, please explain to people when they get all up in well i have been both management and labor, half of that is your money. your employer you said you weren social security, is that your sole source of income? caller: my full and only source of income. and i am going back to why it was such a bad idea. the minute you plant and someone's mind that the government will take care of them, that affects their whole life. if people understood as they are growing up and as they are being educated that they are responsible for themselves, then

we would not this. host: thank you very much for giving your input. guest: in terms of what i would sayank you for your question, i think it is important to realize that social security is financed through payroll taxes which is a dedicated tax which does not at a penny to the debt. -- add a penny to the debt and it is self-sustaining. in terms of employer contributions, that is part of your employer's compensation to you in the same way that your employer if you are lucky enough or your employer to provide separate retirement benefits, that is compensation as well. it is a greatnw program and you are not alone. there are -- 40% of social security beneficiaries depend on more of their income from social security. if you were to cut that, how may people would be in dire straits.

i expect a lot would shift into poverty. only 9% of seniors live in poverty. if you were to cut that that number would go up.that would b. host: in the 2025 budget president biden advocating a dixation system to make wealthier americans pay for these programs. guest: we think it would be a mistake to cut benefits to extend the solvency of the program. a better pathway is to make sure that the wealthy pay their fair share. the last time that we made major changes to the social security program was 1983. and when we tax a payroll income capturing 90% of the income. because of income inequality and because there is a great difference between the have and have-nots, we are not capturing 90% of that income, we are

capturing 81.4%. argument why that should be increased. by doing that we do not have to cut benefits. we can extenth and that is reale answer, to make the wealthy pay their fair share. host: that is the desire, but how realistic do you think it is? guest: if we have majorities in the house in the senate supportive of that idea it would happen tomorrow. unfortunately we do not. we hope that in the coming election to elect people to -- that feel that way to get to that direction. the s because these proposals like raising the payroll tax on income above $400,000 have more bang for the buck if they are done now instead of closer to the date of the projected insolvency of 2034. host: bruce from lexington, kentucky. independent line. caller: i couple of quick questions and i appreciate you

taking my call. w ho raided the social security fund in the 60's, and we are spending money on immigrants. what do we need to shore up social security and medicare. guest: thanks for your questn, p the program is to bring more revenue into it as we have been talking about. we would free up $400,000. the me something. if your income is $168,000 a year you are paying 6.2% of your income toward social security. but also your income is above that. let us say you are a wealthy ceo there is a good chance that you are paying a very smaller percentage of your income to support retirement. you are probably paying the payroll taxes in january and february because of that. that is important. in terms of raiding■í the progr,

it never has. that kind of notion comes from the way it is financed. it is a pay-as-you-go system. today's workers are paying for today's retirees. when you make youriately goes to the government. the government takes that money and buys a u.s. treasury security that earns interest, and then when it is time to pay benefits that treasury security is redeemed for cash and then it goes to pay benefits. in that transaction in which the treasury security -- when they take your money and they use it to buy a treasury security, that goes to every function that the government pays for. it is paying for firefighters, submarines and meals on wheels that eventually the money comes back. the same people put it in when the terms are redeeming that security for a benefit. host: there is a recent update from tara -- terrence keeley and

amy pods are proposed "the social securit system is headed has -- restricted itself in debt eqnts because bonds returned only half of what stocks return about 5% a year us 10%. social security expenses are g well ahead compared to the canadian pension plan which stems fromsset allegatio investing 57% in equities, 4% in bonds and realste -- real estate credit. the canada percentage and -- engine plan annualized a 10% return. guest: any retirement expert will say that your income needs to be diversified, especially at your age you need to make less risky assessments. a problem with investing part of social security trust fund man these assets are that they are

risk-based and we do not have to worry about that if they are invested in treasury securities which are considered to be the most widley way that people invest. that is le best way to do it to ensure that the program is there. there are enough people that remember the financial crisis of 2007 and because we ha %ve moved towards pensions and 401(k)s that they lost money during that period of time that caused a delay to retirements. we want to make sure that there is something rocksolid and social security will be there for people and we want to keep it that way. host: our guest is with the national committee to preserve social security and medicare. tim, new york state. democrat line. hello. caller: hello. i have been hearing some rumblings that medicare might be

on the chopping block and that republicans would like to eradicate medicare altogether and replace it with medicare advantage. could you give us some information about that. thank you. guest: that is a great question. there has been a lot of interest in terms of privatizing medicare and the direct way has been -- the direct assault has■' bn through this idea of creating vouchers where people would get out -- go out and buy medicare or a private plan. that was something that for instance tim ryan -- paul ryan, i am sorry, republican for wisconsin supported and then also we have what is less a direct response but equally growing problem is the medicare advantage plans. these are private plans. i know there are a lot of people who like them and they might be

but they are marketed in a way that you hear a lot about the pros of the plans and sometimes ditional benefits. but they do not have a lot of the cons. one of the biggest cons of medicare advantage plans is that they have a limited provider network. that means if you get a disease and you need to go to the mayo clbecause you're medicare advantage plan will not. what if you are in traditional medicare it does. the problem is let us say there are a lot of younger people who are persuaded to go to a medicare advantage plan when they first become eligible for the medicare program, but when they hit 70 or 75 they do have some serious health problems and they need to go to a hospital or in whatever their issue is. it is hard to go back to traditional medicare because it is hard for them to get

that wraps around traditional medicare. it can be very difficult in those situations. they are not told when they are sold on medicare advantage. host: how often do you hear from younger people that they are not interested and why should it concern me? how would you respond? guest: i think we find that from experience that i have learned is run into a lot of people who feel that way. but i think they appreciate the program once they get into it. a lot of people find especially withhe program that it provides better coverage than they had when they had employer-sponsored health insurance. host: george joining us from idaho. independent line. go ahead. caller: a couple of quick questions and i will take my answer off air. why do we keep the elderly under the poverty rate on social security and two, why isn't

there a means test for people who make $1 million a year? they obviously do not need social security or medicare. that is my question. host: thank you. guest: good question and let me there is something called the special minimum benefit that has not been updated and we think we need to so it captures more peop t make sure that they live above the poverty level and there is legislation that has been introduced by john larson that we do exactly that. and that is why we supported that. as far as means testing, we were concerned that if you were to lower benefits based ont would a welfare program. the important thing about means cost savings to extend theve solvency of the program it would not just be means testing millionaires you would have to do thatncome level

of $40,000 a year in order to raise enough revenue to extend solvency which is why we are opposed. what was the cost of increased -- the cost of living increase? guest: 3.2% which brings up an important issue. over the years, basically about a 14 year period, excluding the two years of high percent -- hion it has only been 1.4%. in those four years we had the zero quote. people who are in that situation thought they did not have zero inflation. we need a more accurate measure of inflation and something called the consumer price index for the elderly. especially it does a better job of measuring health care costs as they tend to rise faster than inflation. host: should that be tied to whatever increases, in the future? guest: we think so. would be more accurate, fair

and most are a result of a higher cost-of-living adjustment for seniors. host: what is the highest increase in recent history? guest: i cannot remember but it was over 8% on one of those years where we had vy high inflation. but now it is down to 3.2%. you can see how much lower the cpi has gone because inflation isow sharon. pennsylvania. democrat line. go ahead. caller: thank you. a previous caller was preaching self responsibility and so forth fithat is well and good. but, during the great recessiono forth i lost back to back full-time jobs with benefits and over time.

and i was doing fairly well. after that■r, at age 61 i put in 100 applications, who would hire 61-year-old so i subsisted on unemployment for a while plus low-paying temporary jobs and part-time jobs. and i was never able to get back to the level i had had. so, many of us work more than one job just to make ends meet, even as seniors. so, please don't preach at us. thank you. host: that is sharon in pennsylvania. guest: sharon, that is a great point. you are not alone in your situation. this is why the social security program and medicare are so important. because you don't know what your

lifers -- life is going to bring you. historically in the last 30 years m stagnant. that means there is a growing share of americans that depends on multiple security -- on social security.■b■ why it is important for the program to be there, for the program to be strong, and also improve benefits for individuals so they can live a decent quality of life. r host: this is steve in massachusetts saying, could you discuss the possibility of raisingsubject to social securiy taxes? you may have to explain that a little bit. guest: yeah. stephen, that is a great question, and it is one we support. right now the social security administration, when you are a worker you are paying payroll $168,600. any money you earn above that you are n p taxes. the example of a professional

basque ballplayer, for example. probably at noon on january 1 they alrea paid off their social security payroll taxes for the year because they make so much money. but everybody else, and probably most people listening to me right now, are paying 62% on all of their income. and they are paying at not just until the first of the year, but paying it in every single paycheck. we think it is a matter of equity that the wealthy pay their fair share of social security payroll taxes. that is whyort legislation introduced by senator bernie sanders and congressman john larson, and congresswoman jan schakowsky, and the senator from connecticut, that would increase that rate of payroll taxes so finally the wealthy pay their fair share. as i said previously, there is a reason for that. because of the fact we use to capture 90% of income to pay for social security and payroll taxes.

now we are only capturing 81% of that money. because of income and equality, it is time the wealthy pay their fair share. host: how much of an increase would you call for? guest: again, it would be on income above $400,000. you could continue to attack people up to the limit that increases every year by the amount that wages increase. right now it $160,600. any income above $400,000 you would pay the payroll taxes on. host: let's hear from mary. mary joins us from ohio. hello. caller: hello. over 40 years ago, graduate school class, looked at social security and said we should have an actuarial review. att 70 to receive social

security. i know now that they are doing a step process. but why didn't congress implement something for review to determine? because when it was instituted being age 65 was sort of a landmark that you can usually make. and now you can live to 100. an set up something for that review. thank you. take it off-line. guest: sure. thanks for your question. there has been a lot of work on that and a lot of action on that. the last time there were major changes to social security was 1983. the things that was done was to raise the social security normal retirement age to 67. that was raised over a number of years. today that is what it is for people who are born in the 1960's, age 67. here is the problem with doing

that. even if you live to 100 if you raise the retirement age it is a benefit cap. and you don't have to as i mentu can raise the cap on social security payroll taxes to do that. the other important thing to consider is also it depends on the blessing of longevity. some people are lucky enough to live to 100. some people are not. especially if they worked in jobs where they were manual laborers, that kind of thing. these proposals to raise the thatement age are espially don't have long longevity, that only live to age 70 or 80. that is another reason. even if you are lucky enough to live to 100 it is a benefit cut if you were to raise the retirement age. host: robert in florida. you caller: hi, how are you doing? i have a couple of questions. would you please explain to me that 75% of my taxes -- i pay social security. i'm retired.

i got a pretty good income, but i still have to pay 75% of my social security. please explain it to me. i will get off the line. thank you. guest: that is a very good question, robert. last time major changes were made to social security was in 1983. that was when some of your social security benefits were taxable. unfortunately the amount of money, the income levels at which you were taxed were not a growing share of americans had their benefits index. we think that is wrong. again, the social secitintroducy congressman john larson from connecticut and senater richard blumenthal are we change that. those thresholds would be indexed and it would mean callers like robert, that their social security payroll taxes would go down. right move, because we think it is especially hard for those

individuals when they don't have any other sources of income, to be taxed at that point in their life. host: aside from the legislators advocating the legislation you were talking about, what do you think of making changes to preserve the future of either of these programs, and what do you think the delay is? guest: the delay is because there is not agreement on the right way to do that. instance, in this congress i think it is doubtful, and that is unfortunate. i think you need to have majorities, at least■k■b in they we want to see the program extended, that would support revenue increases. that is part of the reason. what was the second question? host: if congress knows these deadlines are coming why are they doing something about it? guest: for the same reason. i think if they all agreed we could do we could raise the social security payroll taxes. but we don't have that agreement, especially with a divided congress. until we have majorities in both houses that agree on what a solution is it may unfortunately

go down to the 11th hour in 2034, of making that solution. we hope we don't get to that place. would be better to fix this problem now rather than later, because of these proposals t avd solvency, they are more effective if we do them now versus later. host: from cincinnati, ohio, john is on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. i'm 81 years old, and i think i started paying into social security when i was 16 years old, but, anyway, ty coming youa benefit. and we paid into it. but government workers, like socis, all of the government workers, you never hear of their pension systems or anything running out of money. congressional district one in ohio, we have, probably

they are paying for six different congressman, five of which are no longer in congress. but they get lifetime benefits and everything else, and you never hear about those people running out their funds -- their funds never running out. explain that to me. guest: well, i think that is a very good point to raise with your members of congress. they do have a fairly solid system that has been in place for a long time. and for government employees it is something that, you know, that is part of their compensation package that they get. think it is an important point to raise. if you're going to have this system for yourselves you need to make sure the system available to the general public for your social security is there for them. they earned these benefits. because of the fact they are so extremely popular, regardless of party affiliation or e, that they need to step up it -- step up to the plate and do it in a way that extends the program

without cutting benefits. host: susan in indiana. republican line. hello. caller: hello. he mentioned that trump wanted to cut $65 million, but i am wondering how much is there every year and maybe you are misunderstanding what he means by cuts, because anytime anybody tries to talk about privatization of social security or some other way to be able to save, you know save it for later years, they are totally demonized, and you see those democrat pictures of rolling the wheelchair of the grandma off the cliff, and how they are going to cut social security and take it away from you. and, you know, so, actually, you talk about fixing it, people coming together and fixing it. but anytime anybody tries to fix it, you know, you demonized them

and i'm talking abththey demonir question is, how much money has congress stolen from social security? you know, when you talk about trump wanting to cut it, maybe he didn't mean and cut by removing it all. maybe he means cut by trying to fix it, and the democrats are just twisting that to make it sound, again, like he is anti-social security, jerry really don't think he is. host: susan in indiana. the president responded to this afterword on breitbart and other forms. go ahead. guest: i think i'm counting four questions at least, or at least four points. in terms of fraud, it is one of the most efficient programs the government runs. it is remarkable. in terms of just social security and medicare, i mean, just in

terms of social security the overhead is, the administrative cost is about 5% of the cost of the benefits that are paid. so, it is pretty low. again, because of the fact that no program is perfect, whether it is private or public, there is fraud, waste, and abuse. we think that is an issue that should be addressed. we know the new commissioner, the former governor of maryland, that is the top of his agenda. in conversations we have had with him he is working very hard to do that. i would disagree with the characterization that there is a tremendous amount of fraud in the program. but i think more should be done and is being done to take care of the program. in terms of money being stolen from the program, that hasn't happened. there has not been a dime stolen from the program. 5 has gotten every penny of benefits that was promised to them that they earned.

and in terms of cutting the program, look, if you are somebody, you know, the president himself, if you look at the president's that he submitted that a public information, he suggested cutting social security by $64 billion. if you received less money in your social security check i think you are pretty clear to you that is a cut. i know just one small point is that some try to sell a cut and cost-of-living adjustments. it is not a cut, but -- because of cost-of-living adjustment your check goes up from your december check to your january check. they argue because your check has not, the amount of the check has not gone down that is not a cut. it certainly is a cut to you because next time you go to the grocery store or a restauranes . if you don't have enough money, if you have the same amount of

money in your pocket how are you going to pay for those things? for those people it is very clear to them in that situation that it is a cut. host: shelleyent line. hi. caller: i have a question regarding the survivor benefit for widows. the minimum age to start drawing on that his 60 years old. is that going to be discontinued? and then my second question is,t that is received? guest: thanks, shelley. that is a good question. nd terms of cutting survivor benefits. i think it is going the opposite direction. again, with the legislation we have been talking about that has been introduced by congressman larson and senator blumenthal. it does have survivor benefits.

usually it is limited by household amount of both spouses. that amount will be increased, so that is a great thing. for survive -- for is importante of the fact that if you do have one passed away and the other one still there, it will mean a significant drop in the income of your household. and you are going to need that, so that is why we support these provisions that would make survivor benefits enough so that people could live a quality life. that is a great question. host: our guest organization's website. dan adcock national committee to preserve social security and medicare. he serves as the policy director. thanks for your time. guest: thanks, pedro. host:ur from now we will face the -- we will address the issues facing former president trump. mike davis of article iii project will join us for that. but first we will have open form. if you want to participated is (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans.

and independents, (202) 748-8002 . you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. the associated press picks up a story that took place on the senate floor yesterday. it was the top democrat, the senate majority leader chuck schumer, calling for new elections in israel, saying benjamin netanyahu is an obstacle to peace. thede those elections, saying he believes the prime minister has lost his way. he was a portion of those statements from the senate yesterday. sen. schumer: israel is a democracy. five months into this conflict it is clear that israelis need to take stock of the situation and ask, must we change course? at this critical juncture i believe a new election is the only way to allow for a healthy

and open decision-making process about the future of israel. at a time when so many israelis have lost their confidence in the vision and direction of their government. i also believe a majority will recognize the need for change, anelection, once the war startso wind down, would give israelis an opportunity to express their vision for the postwar future. of course, the united states cannot dictate the outcome of an election. nor should we try. that is for the israeli public to decide. a public that i believe understands better than that israel cannot hope to succeed as a pariah, opposed by the rest of the world. as a democracy, israel has the right to choose its own leaders, and we should let the chips fall where they may.

but thethere needs to be a frese about the future of israel after october 7. 1vin my opinion, that is best accomplished by holding an election. now, if prime minister netanyahu's coalition remains in power after the war begins to wind down and continues to pursue dangerous and inflammatory policies that test existing u.s. standards for assistance, then the united states will have no choice but to play a more active role in shaping israeli policy by using our leverage to change the present course. aahost: those comments from the senate majority leader yesterday garnered a response from the senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell. there is a portion of what he had to say. sen. mcconnell: the jewish state

of israel deserves an ally that acts like one. the people of israel, at home and in ctivity, deserve america's support. israel's unity government and security cabinet deserve the deference befitting a sovereign, democratic country. the primary obstacles to p in israel's region are genocidal terrorists, like hamas and palestinian islamic jihad, who slaughter innocent people and corrupt leaders of the palestinian authority, who have repeatedly rejected peace deals from multiple israeli governments. and foreign observers who cannot keep these clear distinctions

ought to refrain from weighing in. it is grotesque and hypocritical for americans who hyperventilate about foreign interference in our g5n democracy to call for the removal of a democratically-elected leader of israel. host: again, that took place on the senate floor. no response from the prime minister, but the israeli ambassador to the united states, michael herzog, yesterday posted this. israel is a sovereign democracy. to comment on the domestic political scene of a democratic ally, it is counterproductive to our common goal. that is a statement from the israeli ambassador. you can comment on that or other things during this open form. for democrats it is (202) 748-8000.

for republicans it is (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . this is miaeblican line. ahead. caller: good morning. i totally agree with mitch mcconnell. i think it is time for him todno to his sunset and retire. i think chuck schumer is totally outspoken. he should have never made any comments in public about the prime minister of israel. that is the trouble with the democrats. they always want to flaunt it out on somebody else, but they don't want to take it. eyinterference, they cry about russia's interference, and i will be damned if we are not doine furthermore, i will be gln everyone of them are out of there. host: ok. let's hear from pat in th open

forum in maryland, democrats line. pat, hello. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: y awesome. i understand there are different parties, democrats, republicans. what confuses me is, if they are going to cut -- and they are saying exactly what they're going to do social security. if they are going to talk about the wars that will happen, how did they expect for one man to make a miracle happen? i'm talking about donald trump. he is supposed to come in because he was not a seasoned and change the world. what makes him any different? people, and we have to wake

up and understand for ourselves -- and this is not knocking whether you are republican or democrat -- we have to stop and think, people. we need a change. we want america to stay the way that it is. thank you. host: kathy in ohio. democrats line. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk to your previous guest, but if they got rid of medicare county -- our hospital is the largest employer in our county. i'm sure many other hospitals would go under too. i just don't understand the reasoning. that is all. thank you. host: again, open forum and you can call the lines t) 748-8000 . republicans, (202) 748-8001. as always, you can post on our02

sites during the day, even after the program is over. at■ facebook.com/c-span. if you want to text it is (202) 748-8003. this is pamela in chicago, independent line.caller: hi, go. i thought schumer's speech was utterly shameful, and it just reflects the disgraceful biden foreign policy, including his activities in afghanistan. i think all fair-minded christians and jews and your other listeners should all support israel. israel struggled to defend itself against a terrorist state, which is primarily most of the gazans, and not the the defeatist biden foreign policy. we need to remember that hamas is the enemy, not israel. it is a shame and disgraceful

policy. thank you so much for listening. host: chicago, illinois. this is where pamela is. this is coming across the wires regarding the former president trump's case in georgia on election interference, saying a georgia judge ruled that fulton county district attorney fani willis should not be disqualified from prosecuting the racketeering case against donald trump and several codefendants, with one major condition. fulton county superior court judge mcafee found the appearance of impropriety brought about by willis' romantic relationship with nathan wade should result in either willis and her office leaving the case, war waor wade. if willis were to remove herself the case would come to a halt. but having wade recuse himself toward ensure the case goes forward without delay.

finding that would have found willis to be disqualified "without evidence that the prosecutor required a stake in financial arrangements had any impact, claims of conflict must be denied. carol -- denied." that is where it stands as far as the case in georgia is concerned. it's hear from bill in pennsylvania. republican line. ahead. caller: yes, pedro. thanks for having me on. i'm calling about what mr. schumer said in the halls of the he spoke for president biden as well is anyone else, because the democrats are always on the same page. according to robert gates, the secretary of state, biden has been wrong on every major foreign policy issue ever. i guess he is consistent on that. as far as israel goes, we must support them.

they are not the villains here, hamas is the villains. they're the ones that committed genocide against the israeli people. they have the right to defend themselves. as far as the democracy, must defend it, i get that, because they have a duly elected government. pedro, thanks for having me on. host: alana, new york state. democrats line. caller: hello, pedro. when it is 7:00 in the morning and i turn on my tv i want to listen to "washington journal" for free.say good morning mornio john, good morning to mimi, good morning to america, and good morning to you and me. i want to win at c-span bingo, and i'm sorry if i yell at you, pedro. i don't want to hear from someone in■w idaho say why all e

mexicans have to go. from trump, to biden, to hunter, china balloons doing spying, obama, commie bots gonna rake this country' election spots, god help us every day, good morning, everybody, and free palestine. host: alana in new york. this is from david in tyler, texas. the public in line. hi. caller: yes, i was wanting to talk about the two-tiered justice system and all of the corruption. host: you are on, david. go ahead. but you are going to have to stop listening to your television, please. caller: yes, i was going to want to talk about the two-tiered justice system and all of the corruption. i wanted to say the criminal biden family is allowed to do what they want to do, but they

want to put president trump in prison the rest of his life. you got a biden family that is corrupted. rrupted. why did the democrats get away with it but republicans may go to jail for it? host: david in tyler, texas calling in. it was president biden himself yesterday commenting on a proposed sale of u.s. steel. this is from the ohio capital journal, writing that u.s. steel should remain a domestic company. the president implicitly rejecting an attempt by a japanese company to buy the manufacturer. as to biden issued a brief statement thursday morning. it is important that we maintain strong steel companies powered by american workers. i told my steelwork -- i told our steelworkers i have their backs, and i meant to. it is vital for it to remain an american steel company that is domestically owned and operated.

that is the statement from the white house on that. on another business-related front, it is former president trump's former secretary putting together an investor group to buy tiktok. this is being reported by cnbc,n investor group to acquire tiktok as a bipartisan piece of legislation, winding its way throughcongress. the house of representatives on wednesday passed a bipartisan bill tt if signed into law would force bytedance to divest its flagship global app or face an effective ban of tiktok in the united states. "i think the legislation should pass and i think it should be he said. dody in massachusetts, democrat (c should i talk?

host: go ahead. caller: i am 82 years old and i started working at 16 in a mill at my family were basically mill workers. i think social security is a great thing and i do not think it should be cut. guest: -- host: willie in louisiana. caller: i am 83-year-old vietnam veteran. wounde in 65 and 1966. i don't understand why nobody is talking about taking out this guy trump because he is a threat to our country and our democracy. caller: david in -- host: david in washington state. independent line. caller: i agree with mr. schumer

about the conflict in israel. two people wrong does not make it right. what hamas did is wrong. whatly genocide. 30,000 innocent people are dead and counting every day. this will be a stain on our foreign policy forever. we should have a cease fire right away and save what we can save out of those innocent people. thank you very much for taking my host: -- host: a beast -- host: abc news reporting assignment declined to dismiss -- as the chairman of the foreign relations committee. "the court finds none of the

allegations are protected by the speech and debate clause." that was judge cindy stein who wrote on thursday. senator menendez sought to dismiss charges on conspiracy to commit bribery and conspiracy to commit extortion and conspiracy for a public official to act as a foreign agent. this is gene in syracuse. republican line. caller: i appreciate that you play that sound from senator schumer. i would like to remind senator schumer, nancy pelosi, the person that is currently playing joe biden that you all will reap the whirlwind. we are coming for you. it will be lawful. throw people in jail for it.

you will be booted out. i think you get your things in order. host: what you mean by that? what are you saying? caller: i am saying chuck schumer has outdone his welcome in washington, d.c. when he went to the supreme court and made that statement so brazenly, that was a statement that should have had him in jail and they arrest all these peaceful pjanuary 6. they did not get the benefit of the doubt the senator got. nancy pelosi, double goes for her. she is the author of that day who perpetrated the false impression -- : have to leave it there. in rate new york. independent line. caller: i worked for bethlehem

steel and they gave us 410 hour days. we worked five or 610 hour days to build up our pension and then when the steel plant closed the government took over our pension and screwed everyone of us at bethlehem steel. the unions are just as crooked as our government. that is all i can tell you. pension because the government took over my pension and they took a lot of money out. something to do with the stock market. now the stock market is so big and they still will not come back to our pensions. i try to call so many people up and they do not ntnothing becaue little guys. thank you. host: the star tribune out of minnesota■" reports a visit by e vice president at planned parenthood's st. paul facility. an election year effort to underscore the commitment of president biden to reproductive care the visit marks the first

by a sitting president or vice president to a clinic that provides abortion. here is some of her comments from yesterday. >> many a fast light my here -- asked why i am here at this facility? it is because right now in our country we are facing a very serious health crisis and a crisis is affecting many people in our country, most of whom are silently suffering. after the united states supreme court took a constitutional right that had been recognized from the people of america, from the women of america. in states around our country extremists have proposed and passed laws that have denied access to reproductive health care.

stories abound. i have met women who were being denied emergency care because the health care providers there and in emergency room were afraid that because of the laws in their state they could be criminalized and sent to prison for providing health care. i am here at this health care clinic the uplift the work that is happening in example of what true leadership looks like, which is to understand it is only right and fair that people have access to the health care they need. caller: you can fight -- host: you can find more of the comments from the vice president on c-span and c-span now. let'ine. caller: my question is for the

democrats, we have a that is a child. i'm wondering if he is ok. i know he forgets everything he does and says. we need someone who knows wh they are talng about. we have a president who does not know what he is talking about. i am not talking about trump and that. i am talking about what is going on with our country. we have people coming through the wall killing people. relatives killed in texas. i cannot see what they are seeing is that people are coming here and killing are not a lot of people that are hispanic.

i understand we want more votes, but we want to vote for who we want to vote for. host: richard in chicago, independent line. caller: i want to talk about the border crisis. the united states has to reverse its antidrug policies toward south america, china, and push them to legalize marijuana up this would slow down the migrant flow from venezuela, china, mexico, colombia, central america. these countries need legal marijuana and if they cannot get it in their country they will come to cities like chicago and new york where it is legal and cause a lot of problems. we have break-ins at migrant

shelters in chicago. illegal -- legal drugs will slow down the influx of migrants. host: that is richard in chicago. "washington post" reporting the centrist group no labels announcing a committee of 12 people who should appear on the group's potential third-party president ticket. led by cochairs joseph lieberman will then take its choice to a second group of no labels who will nominate the ticket on 48 hours notice. to other matters of election, when it comes to the associated press, today presidential election taking place in russia. "russians voting in election holds little suspense." let's hear fro in

baltimore, maryland. republican line. caller: based on the evidence of the 1967 bombing, 1982olen and o the soviets at the height of the cold war, i feel like there should be a one state solution. all of the israelis can change their nationality and become palestinians. the israel zionist entity is a threat to world peace. i think it should be peacefully dismantled and i think all israeli people would be willing to do that for safety regions. host: chattanooga, tennessee. democrats line. caller: good morning. [indiscernible] united states has the best military in the world. period.

we have more destroyers, carriers, submarines than anybody. north korea is not a nuclear power. they cannot do nothing. he cannot make a bomb reach the united states. one more thing. the president ofael. he stood on a stage when obama was president and the senate and talked about obama and nobody complained about that. host: ok. it is open forum. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. and for independents (202) 748-8002.

texting is. posting on our social media sites as well. facebook and x. this is from kentucky. republican line. we will hear from mike. caller: i would like to comment on vice president harris little clip you just showed. did she not know that abortion was not a constitutional right? if they keep saying that over and over again does that make it a constitutional right? did she not know or did she want to make everyone else believe it? that is all i have to say. host: mike in kentucky. karen in pensacola, florida. republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i wa to addrs the medicare issue the gentleman was talking about that you just had on.

i am a 65-year-old retiree. i worked all my life. i am a former military spouse. i am paying $552 a month for my medicare. that■w is for traditiol medicare. it keeps going up. the reason i am paying so much is because there is a surcharge, the earned income whatever else the letters stand for that i am being because of my income. it keeps going up. i find that to be almost al they can raise my medicare costs on my income. i do not understand how they can get away with that. it is part of a medicare management act that passed into law in 2003 and was enacted when

they had the big medicare upgrade update trying to keep it solvent back then. when i hear people say or when the president says pay your fair share, i am paying plenty of my fair share. i don't even take social security yet i have to pay taxe. it will just increase my tax base. y talk about paying my fair share, i am paying for my medicare. i'm not getting anything more for it. host: jonathan in massachusetts. republican line. caller: good morning. i wanted to call in for a quick second and say over the years i've appreciated the work c-span does in covering politics and

covering world forums and giving people an actual academic outlet to view politics and prey to pap you see on other cable news networks. just wanted to call and share that thought. host: thank you for the compliment. leading up to st. patrick's day, the president, the house speaker , and the irish prime minister set to participate in the annual friendofsrael luncheon ahead of st. patrick's day. live coverage of that starts at 1:30 this aftnoon. you can see that on c-span, the app c-span now, and our website, c-span.org. marie in maryland. democrats line. caller: first of all i would like to say thank you to c-span

for giving voice to america. my reason for calling is i would like to make a suggestion to end the war in israel. i think the united nations, the united kingdom, and the united stes should go back and redraw those borders. draw the border from the east to the west on e northern side, israel can take that land. on the southern side, the palestinian people can take that land. in between, have a 20 mile buffer zone sne is living directly next to each other. i think that would end this war and i hope somebody in the government would consider that recommendation. thank you. host: cori joins us from florida

on our independent line. gos9 i agree with the previous caller. my subject, i will stay on the medicare social security subject. my father died when i was 12 years old. i am 74 rightowif it was not fol security survivor benefits that were instituted not many year 1d have really been hurt badly because my mother was a housewife, high school graduate. anyway, going forward on social security i think it is great. i just cracked the $2000 a month benefit with the new call up. it is kind of a milestone for

me. one other thing that i would like to say about medicare is i've been on medicare for nine years and going back to me choosing my plan, you will be inundated with advertisements from every company that sells i. i have no restrictions on my doctors. i can go anywhere for care. the plan that i chose happened to be a no deductible, no co-pay. if you keep the original plan for two years. i am now 74 years old. nothing to go to a doctor. i paid 35,000 -- i pay $35 in the hospital for a couple days.

host: arc in maryland. -- mark in maryland. call. caller: i want to remind all americans that planned parenthood was founded by a woman named margaret sanger who is a proponent of eugenics. in 1939 she wrote to a colleague of hers after she started the so-called negro project in harlem, she wrote to a colleague of hers that she did not want any in the negro race to figure out we are trying to exterminate them. it is that black americans are about 12% of the population but get 60% of the abortions. you cannot find a planned parenthood anywhere but a minority neighborhood. host: march finishing off this

round -- mark finishing off this round of open forums. our next joining us to talk about former president trump in court on his various legal cases , his perspective on those cases against the former president. that is mike davis, he is the head of the article iii project and he will join us next on "washington journal." >> as friedman's first major television series unfolds, the famous and influential men and women who occupy those seats will have a lot of you about -- a lot to say about the society in which friedman lives. >> american history tv will air the three part series free to choose featuring nobel prize-winning economist -- the

friedmans also wrote a best-selling companion book with the same name. the friedman's advocate free market principles and mited government intervention in the economy. other topics include welfare, education, equality, and inflation. watch free to choose saturday at 7:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span2. >> today watched c-span's 2024 campaign trail, providing a one-stop shop to find what cande country are saying to voters. a first-hand account from political reporters, fundraising data, and campaign ads. watched c-span's 2024 campaign trail today at 7:30 p.m. eastern, online at c-span.org,

or download as a podcast at c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markets -- markers that guide you to highlight. these markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on videos. this timeline makes it easier to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's point of interest. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. americans can see democracy at work. when citizens are truly informed our republic thrives.

get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are because the opinion that matters the most is your own. c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host:s is mike davis, the founder and president of the article iii project to talk about the cases against trump. find us -- remind us what the project is and how you are funded. guest: i started the project after i left the senate judiciary committee riser for the lead staffer for the confirmation of justice kavanaugh along with a record number of president trump's federal judges. as we talked about in one of my prior c-span interviews the reason i started the article iii

project is because i saw how vicious the left was on judicial nominees. right where we somebody with ir experience with an outsider mindset and an outsider willingness to fight. that is why a started the article iii project in 2019. we have been successful helping president trump support his effort to confirm justice amy coney barrett andsupreme court t constitutionalist majority in 90 years along with a record number of lower court judges. focused on this democrat warfare against president trump, his top aides, his attorneys, his january 6 supporters. parents outraged by gender chaos in schools and the resulting rapes in high school

christians praying outside abortion clinics while president biden and abide in justice department give biden, his family, antifa, hamas , the abortion industry activists. host: how are you funded so we can go on to other things? guest: we are funded by donations. you can go to articleiiip roject.org and donate online. host: there are four cases brought against the former president. they are all in various stages. to what extent would you argue about the cases and their legitimacy against the former president? guest: i think this is part of the democrats lawfare and election interference campaign against president trump. i think these are illegitimate

cases. whether it is the two bogus impeachments against trump. the four bogus indictments against trump. several unconstitutional gag orders against trump. g a gag order on a criminal defendant. if everyone on the planet needs this first amendment right to speak out against the prosecutor, the judge, the witnesses, the process, it is a criminal defendant going through the process, unless we are north korea and then they do not have those rights. see -- going through with bogus civil lawsuits like the civil fraud by the new york attorney general letitia james for the non-fraud of paying back a significant wall street back on time as agreed with interest.

the democratic judge imposed a half billion dollar unconstitutionally punitive fine with jean carol you have the new york legislature changing the law sshe can rump. under this law passed just to get trump. she cannot remember anything case except she knew it was trump like christine blowsy ford. another unconstitutionally punitive damage from a democratic judgment a democratic jury. our country is not going to survive if we will continue these tactics. this will not end with trump. if democrats -- it will use democrat lawyers and democrat prosecutors and democrat hellhoo

take out the leading presidential candidate instead of letting the american people ■vote on november 5 we will not have a country. host: let me roll the callers in. if we want to ask our guest es, democrats (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. test your -- text your comments. (202) 748-8003. the former president waits a decision on immunity. what you expect from the court? caller: i expect the court if they folw i expect the supreme court will establish that any president of the united states has immunity om criminal prosecution just like federal judges do, just like members of congress to. that is for their official acts. not for personal acts.

for official acts. judges and members of congress have civil and criminal immunity for their official acts. the president just has civil immunity from a case from 40 years ago, the nixon case from 40 years ago where the supreme court established the president is immune from civil prosecution. the court has not yet established the president is immune from criminal prosecution from his official acts because we have never seen a former president indicted until these fourindictments by these democrt prosecutors against president trump. i would say if the supreme court does not establish the president is immune from criminal prosecution for his official acts, you will see the destruction of the presidency, which will lead to the destruction of the country. let me give you an example. we have

in georgia. does that mean when president trump is back in office the trump 47 justice department can charge president biden for the consequences for his illegal release of dangerous illegal immigrants into our country who go on to rape and murder people? does that mean the biden justice department can charge biden? host:ack ith in his argument forehe court on immunity he is absolutely immune fromn is federal criminal prosecution based on any conduct that falls within the outer perimet his duties asdent he says that position finds no support in constitutional text or logic. what you think about t i would s getting used to getting reversed unanimously by the supreme court

like he did by the bogus prosecution of bob mcdonald. jack smith won a conviction. donald was a likely buys presidential contender in 2016 and that was reversed in 20164o eight-zero. jack smith is a political scud missile who sent in to take out presidential contenders like he did with bob mcdonald. on the presidential immunity argument there is president in the civilon. the president of the united states is a -- is immune from civil prosecution or the outer perimeter of his official acts under that nixon case we discussed 40 years ago. if federal judges are immune from criminal prosecutionnal prosecution, and so are members of congress, why wanted the president of the united states be criminally immune for his acts?

it would destroy our country. another example besides biden and riley is president obama and his legal advisor, now federal circuit judge david baron on the first circuit court of appeals in boston. david baron advised president obama it was lawful for obama to order an extra traditional drone strike on two american citizens including a minor. if obama is not immune from criminal prosecution for his official acts, does that mean the from 47 justice department can charge president obama and judge david baron with capital murder for their illegal drone strike on two american citizens? do we want to go down this path. host: this is tim in kentucky. democrats line. go ahead. caller: how are you doing. ry fast and

there is some lag. i think you be thrown off for spreading so much hateful propaganda. trump belongs in jail. period. put him in jail. host: go ahead. guest: i would say this to these people who hate trump. this is so much bigger than donald trump. he's a republic ending tactics and i would say to biden -- these are republic$e endin biden in these four democratic prosecutions trying to defeat president trump in the courtroom and put him in prison because they fear president trump on november 5, 2024, this is not our country is supposed to run. the people pretending they are saving democracy are actually destroying democracy with this unprecedented election interference. host: from new york city, re line.

peter is up next. caller: thank you for all you are doing for the former president.i wanted you to addres idea of lawfare going on where they are using prosecutorial discretion on who they prosecute and who they do not. both hillary clinton and joe biden violated the espionage act. hillary clinton by having in illegal private server and then destroying 33,000 emails, and joe biden for stealing documents out of a skiff for the last 40 years. both of those violate the espionage act and yet the justice department refuses to prosecute them but they are prosecuting president trump for the same offenses. i believe he will be vindicated in the long run but this is all

designed to convince the public that somehow president trump is a criminal and somehow hillary clinton and joe biden have been vindicated. i do believe the president will be vindicated in the long term. in the short term it is to hurt him politically. if you could address that i would appreciate it. host: we will let our guest address that. guest: i would say you have president trump, who had his presidential records in the office of the former president which is funded by congress, i has federally funded staff, it has secret service protection, 24/7, the staff had security clearances, itv2 is one of the most secure office spaces on the planet. president trump used mar-a-lago as one of his offices when he was president. he had■ his presidential recors in this office and they never

leaked, they never leaked the entire time president trump had them. they only leaked until joe biden's justice department went to a democrat judgead just recused from trump's civil lawsuit against hillary clinton six weeks prior because of judge reinhardt's facebook posts bashing trump. somehow that recusal issue disappeared and the biden justiceillegal unnecessary raide office of the former president using the espionage act and not even mentioning the presidential records act. host: you probably saw this happen this morning. when it comes to the georgia case. fani willis tends day and keep on with the case if she let's go of the prosecutor or vice versa. what you think of that decision? guest: it is a clearly legally

wrong decision but it does not surprise me.this is a young judt by governor brian kemp, who is certainly a trump hater. this judge is 33 or 34 years old and worked for brian kemp as the georgia state inspector general. he worked for fani willis and the fulton county da office and donated $150 to fani willis's campaign. there is very clear evidence that fani willis had in illegal financial stake in this criminal prosecution of president trump. she hired her secret unqualified boyfriend and gave him $250 an hour to bring an unprecedented rico charge against president trump and 18 co-defendants. he built $17,000 and counting. he billed for his time to

collude with the biden white house. faith and wait took his girlfriend -- nathan wade took his girlfriend,/boss on these trips to napa valley, the caribbean. that is bribery. those are violations. that is in illegal financial stake in a criminal prosecution that is illegal. she should have been disqualified. the entire office should have been disqualified if this judge mcafee followed the facts and the law as he should have. there is no question she shoulde office should have been disqualified. the case should have been dismissed without prejudice for a new prosecutor but doubt that judge mcafee faces a democrat judicial election challenger for this november and this overwhelmingly democratic county of fulton cnt, i think he caved to the political pressure.

you saw at this evidentiary hearing■] when let fani willis run the show. he was scared to look at her. he cannot keep her under control and i think he caved to fani willis. host: he did dismissed some of the charges against the former president. guest: that was windowdressing. that was political. he made it look like he was dismissing charges that do not matter that much. he was dismissing charges it looks like nathan wade wrote with a crayon. it was so incomprehensible they got dismissed and they can refile those charges. it is obvious this judge caved to political pressuran unfortun.

host: let's hear from the independent line. caller: a quick question for mr. davis. you are talking about cronyism and fani willis worked with this guy and this guy did this and it is all a democratic plot or whatever. at the same time yoseemingly wos project, you have something to do with mr. trump and his line. how do we differentiate that between what you are talking about, and separatelylegal stufa lot of precedent acting like this is a big smear campaign.

. if you believe in the law does the law not important when it is host: we will let our guest respond to that. guest: is a fair point. i am very pro-trump. we were instrumental in helping trump transform the supreme court and the lower federal rst constitutionalist majority in 90 years where judges would follow the law in these cases instead of make up the law and follow will and actually follow the law. i would say this. democrats thought they were going to disqualify trump from the ballot based upon a post civil war constitutional amdment, section iii of the 14th amendment passed after the

civil war to chase out of office after the civil war those who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the united states. there is persuasive case law from the then chief justice salmon chase from over 150 years ago saying if you want to disqualify under section iii of the 14th amendment congress has to pass a federal statute on insurrection and rebellion with the disqualification clause. a federal prosecutor has to bring federal charges. a federal grand jury has to -- unanimous guilt. a federal judge has to convict. that conviction has to be upheld . democrats were not going to follow the law, they were going to democratic judges and

democratic jurisdictions like colorado and just have the colorado supreme court in a 4-3 decision. all seven of the colorado justices are democrats. four of them are pretty far left and they just took president trump off the ballot in colorado. they would use that president nationwide. the supreme court reversed that 9-0. it is very hard to get the supreme court to rule 9-0 on these key cases. there is democrat lawfare and election interference is so over-the-top that even justices taken, sotomayor, and jackson, not exactly trump fans, joint in this nine to nothi decision to side with president trump. you are seeing president biden's hands on all four of these unprecedentedh criminal prosecutions against president trump for non-crimes. it is not a crime to object to a

presidential election in america. it is allowed by the electoral count act of 1887. democrats objected to republican wins in 1968, 2000, 2004, 2016. we do not see john kerry and hillary clinton in jail. it is also allowed by the first amendment to object to presidential elections. it is only illegal to object to a presidential election in third world marxist hellholes like zimbabwe and north korea and atlanta and washington, d.c. host: you talked about the three justices. they say they protest the ukrity's efforts to use the case to define the efforts of federal enforcement of the provision. what do you make of that? guest: it is silly. if the supreme court did not have a clear broad rule that if you want to disqualify it has to

be through legislation passed through congress and you g through due process and the ports, if the supreme court cannot actually rule we would have to play whack a mole with the democrats bogus disqualification efforts. we saw this with the colorado supreme court. you had this democrat maine secretary of state who just decreed i feelomehow on january 6 so i will just take him off the ballot. what the democratserg a dangeros anti-democratic game, pretending like they were saving democracy by destroying democracy and the supreme court wanted to make sure we do not have a train wreck before november 5, 2024. host: robert in connecticut. republican line.

caller: i like what you are doing, especially when you are on the radio with steve bannon. can you talk about the committee headed up by congressman loudermilk and his findings on the january 6 committee that president trump did authorize troops and how liz cheney would not interview witnesses that went against her narrative? thank you very much. host: -- guest: january 6 was a lawful protests permitted by the national park service that devolved into a riot. there is zero evidence that trump incited this riot. to the contrary he told his protesters to go peacefully. there is also evidence as this caller just cited that trump wanted to have 10,000 national

guard troops at this january 6 protest to ensure it did not get out oftrol and the evidence is the democratic leadership, the democrat d.c. mayor muriel bowser and the democratic speaker of the house nancy did not want these so-called stormtroopers at the capital. what the democrats did on january 6 is a politicized this riot, they tried to pretend it was somehow an insurrection. how is it in insurrection when they go unarmed to the capital and follow police directions, walk-through velvet ropes, get to the senate floor and they do not burn down the place and then national guard troops to put down his insurrection he was supposed to be organizing? this is disgraceful what the democrats have done with january 6. they have only weaponized the biden justice department with the biggest law enforcement operation in our history to destroy the lives of these january 6 protesters. there are three categories of

generate six protesters. there are people who were there peacefully. even if you think they are wrong or they are crazy, they have a first minute right to be there. there's a second category of people who trespassed on generate sixth and they should be charged with trespassing. there is a third category, people who are those people should be charged more harshly. to lump all of those people together and say they are insurrection after the democrats of the generate six committee have spent tens of millions of dollars in the biden justice department has spent tens of billions of dollars and there is zero evidence of insurrection. this is defamation what they are doing to these january 6 1defendants and to put them in prison and ruin their lives while they give amnesty to the much more dangerous and much more destructive and deadly■j bm and antifa and hamas supporters along with abortion activists who been obstructing justice by

politicizing -- by going outside of the supreme court justices and intimidating them. that is obstruction of justice. host: there were headlines leading away from january 6 about one supporter arrested for having a gun. you said there were no arms present. i wanted to know if you want to clarify? guest: they found one person with a weapon? how about the nt for supporters who attacked the white house, who burned the secret service guard station, who torched st. john's church, who attacked u.s. senator rand paul leaving the white house, who attacked the portland federal courthouse on a nightly ? how about the abortion industry activists who threatened and intimidated supreme court justices outside their homes while they werde decision, whico justices and their families being taken to a safe house.

even after attempt against justice kavanaugh and their two teenage daughters, the biden justice department allow this to continue to happen. we have people from the justice department, we have the white house press secretary jen psaki saying from the white house podium that these protesters were protected by the first amendment. they absolutely were not. do not have a first minute right to obstruct justice by intimidating federal judges outside their homes while cases are pending. host: got you there. state. democrats line. caller: i wanted to say we will unelected trump again in november and then we will hold him accountable. this guy rambling about this and that. host: on the several fronts the president has seen delays to his trial, do you think that will impact his efforts for reelection?

the president seen some delays and when these trials will take place? do you think that benefits his reelection effort? guest:yá of course. the democrats campaign strategy seems to be convicting president trump and for these democrat judges and democrac prosecutors in democratic juries in democratic hellholes like ■hd.c. or atlanta because biden and the democrats fear american voters on november 5, 2024. the democrats waited 30 months to bring these unprecedented indictments against a former president and then they try to stack up these criminal trials back to back to back this durine presidential election. they wanted president trump in a courtroom before thelection and in shackles and in prison after the election. the american people, not these democratic prosecutors get t

election. host: bill in kentucky. republican line. caller: thank you for taking my question. as far as i understand, the lawsuit brought against him in new york by the very smug d.a. james he was fined over $300 million. from wt i understand, nobody lost any money, nobody lost any property. if you could give us details on all of that, and also some of these democratic politicians --