tv Washington Journal 12142021 CSPAN December 14, 2021 7:00am-10:07am EST
administration with hudson institute's bryan clark and center for american progress' max bergmann. then johns hopkins lecture kathleen day on the debt limit and how it is used as a political and economic tool. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: the waning days of the year in congress not only pose a challenge to senate democratic leader chuck schumer, who tried to pass the to trillion dollar social spending plan, but they further revealed the rough patches all congressional leaders will continue to navigate in 2022. speaker pelosi's efforts to hold her wing and support. kevin mccarthy's refereeing of infighting. and a request to retake the senate in 2022, republican leader mitch mcconnell's delicate balance between
himself, former president trump and his supporters, and the gop candidates they will vote for. good morning. tuesday, december 14, 20 21. welcome to "washington journal." we will ask you to rate your party's congressional leadership. for republicans, (202) 748-8000. for democrats, -- for republicans, (202) 748-8001. for democrats, (202) 748-8000. all others, (202) 748-8002. text (202) 748-8003. we are on facebook, twitter, and instagram, @cspanwj. both the house and senate in today with key items on both agendas. we will talk a bit about that, too. first, speaker pelosi, a piece from cnn with the headline, pelosi will stay around to lead
house democrats through the next election and perhaps beyond. speaker nancy pelosi rights, will stay through the midterm election, extending her nearly 20-year run, and after she turns 82 and perhaps beyond. she is planning to file and run for reelection next year in her san francisco district. after the elections, she will likely have won an 18th full term. sources familiar with her thinking says she is not ruling out the possibility of staying in leadership after 2022 after an actual vows to leave as a top democrat. she will devote much of next year to raising money for democrats as they tried to hold their narrow majority. over to the senate side, with the senate and house set to take up the debt ceiling legislation,
with a debt ceiling deadline set for tomorrow. this is the headline in the "new york post," trump lashes out at mcconnell for allowing that ceiling entries. the former president lashed out at mitch mcconnell friday night after the kentucky republican declined to take trump advice to use the federal debt spilling -- stealing. mcconnell brokered a bipartisan compromise were republican senators would get out of the way and allow democrats to raise the debt ceiling with a bare majority to ever to federal default around the summer 15. "mitch mcconnell, the broken old crow, has just conceded for absolutely nothing and for no reason. the powerful debt ceiling negotiating block was the republicans' first class ticket for victory over democrats," trump said. rate your party's congressional
leadership. (202) 748-8001. that is for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. for independents and others, (202) 748-8002. the status on president biden's build back better, this is reporting from political, manchin keeps dems guessing on their mega bill, mentioning joe manchin remains on the bargaining table despite deep concerns on the climate and social spending bill. after speaking with biden monday afternoon, manchin said he was still engaged in discussions. he made clear he was not ready to commit to voting for against a bill that is still coming together behind closed doors. listen, he said, let's at least see the bill. we need to see what they write in print. that tells you everything, he said. politico says that with senate
majority leader chuck schumer pressing for action by christmas , a phone call between biden and manchin came at a critical moment, when manchin has mentioned he is not yet sold on the $1.7 trillion social spending bill. this is what democratic leader chuck schumer set on the floor of the senate about passing that legislation before christmas. [video clip] >> the process requires a lot of precision and pieces moving together. i want to thank my colleagues and their staff and especially the parliamentarian and her team for their dedication and focus as we approach a vote on the floor. the work is not yet finished, but we're working hard to put the senate in a position to get the legislation across the finish line before christmas. host: senator chuck schumer on the floor of the senate yesterday asking you to rate your congressional leadership in this first hour of the program. the january 6 committee met
yesterday. here is the headline from roll call, january 6 committee requests meadows be held in contempt of congress. they are investigating the january 6 attack on the capitol, voting 9-0 that mark meadows be held in contempt of congress. they pursued contempt against meadows after weeks of back-and-forth negotiations after he was subpoenaed to the panel. on tuesday, today, the full house is expected to vote on contempt resolution, and then the justice department will decide whether to pursue an indictment. roll call writes it on monday evening before voting, a chairman noted that meadows served in congress for more than seven years, representing north carolina as a republican, and was briefly ranking member of the oversight and reform committee. one of the things that also came out of the committee, reported here, is the tweets by several
members of the media and members of congress. headline, top fox news host don , jr., frantically wrote to meadows, begging trump to act, he is destroying his legacy. the fox news host and donald trump, jr., sit messages to meadows before the riot. it is recommended that the department of justice charge meadows with criminal contempt for refusing to cooperate with the committee. fox did not air the hearing, though cnn and msnbc did, as did c-span, of course. that meeting last night of the january 6 committee available on our c-span now app and also
online at c-span.org. let's get to your calls, reading your party's leadership republican line first, (202) 748-8001. nick from delray beach, florida. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. a couple comments. first, as far as the republicans, -- not changed in roughly 11 months, then it turns and c-span, which i guess stands for china-span, are going to start to change. why doesn't c-span have anyone on about the hunter biden dealings in connection with russia? you have people like robert acosta, who writes these books,
third-party hearsay testimony against things about donald trump, but yet, when we have actual audiotape of hunter biden in his dealings with these foreign governments, c-span does nothing about that. along with that, you brought up the january 6 committee, why doesn't c-span ever investigate why congressmen like jim jordan were not permitted to sit on that committee. it is the republicans to get to choose -- when you have a select committee, republicans should be able to choose exactly who they want on that committee speaking for them. yet, for some reason, nancy pelosi was too afraid to allow that to happen, so she chose adam kinzinger and liz cheney, who are basically nothing but democrats. so i am wondering why c-span does not bring up things like that on this channel and ask those kind of questions or are
you too afraid to actually get to the truth? as far as january 6, which you brought up, i would say maybe people at c-span need a lesson in history. there is nothing new that this january 6 riot was conducted by the fbi, with the help of antifa and blm. look back in history. 60 years ago, the intelligence agencies in this country's rent operations, like operation chaos -- warren operations, like operation chaos, and fbi operation, and look at those from back in the 1960's and 1970's. host: ok. a couple comments on twitter. rating congressional leaders, you have the democrats are often portrayed as weak. but you have republicans who refuse to govern.
oakland congresswoman barbara lee was the lone representative that did not vote for the wars in afghanistan and iraq. on twitter, especially when your party wants to select their members on the corrupt january 6 committee and policy says no, republicans must see cheney and kinsinger, load of crap. a call on the independent line. good morning. caller: i rate the congress poor because of cdc. if you look at the history of cdc, you have heard of the tuskegee institute, the study of african males, but we did not hear that it was run by the cdc since the beginning in 1946. host: ok, we're focusing on congress, congressional leadership. vivian on the democrats line,
good morning. caller: good morning. how are you all doing? host: just fine. caller: i was calling to say joe biden is trying to do everything he said he was going to do. but we even have some members that are moderate progressive, joe manchin going against everything that man is trying to put out. it is not him, it is the democrats, the moderate democrats, and the republicans, and the so-called progressives not doing what they're supposed to. please don't cut me off. they cut that deal down from $6 trillion on down. right now, look what came through these states. they kill people.
now people are asking for help when they were against help. they need to wake up. there is one thing our republicans need to do. he is good at town hall meetings . they need to get together and get those moderates, those progressives, joe manchin, kyrsten sinema, and republicans to a town hall meeting and let the people see who is trying to help them. have a nice day. host: on facebook, this is what terry says about congressional leadership -- does any party have leadership? they all lost their credibility and through law and ethics out the window. there should not be parties in congress, he says, they should represent the will of the people. worchester, massachusetts, robert is next up. good morning. caller: when donald trump became president, if you will notice, he always had the police union behind him. he always had the police union's to do his game.
the campus police is the campus police, like the campus of a college. these campus cops cannot fight off this insurrection people. donald trump keeping the national guard away from washington, d.c. he knew that the mayor of washington could not call the national guard because they are not a state. then he took a general's brother from the -- he told a general's brother from the pentagon to make sure the national guard was not involved. they were going to kill nancy pelosi. they were going to kill mike pence. mike pence is the number two man in the country. nancy pelosi is number three. so you have the number two and the number three, he wanted to kill. he would have called a state of
emergency. you ever hear the emergency broadcast system, this is the emergency broadcast system? donald trump was going to -- the president has a right to take the whole tv station over, nbc, cbs, and abc, so this is what he was doing. and if you do not know about thompson, you republicans -- host: the national guard was mentioned. in a unanimous consent vote yesterday, our capitol hill producer points out this, the senate unanimously passed legislation to empower the chief of the united states capitol police to unilaterally request the assistance of the d.c. national guard or federal law enforcement agencies in emergencies without prior approval of the capitol police board. the speaker, nancy pelosi, talked about the impact of
january 6 on both political parties on capitol hill. [video clip] >> a lot of conversations among members and staff about the breakdown of diplomacy in congress and the tensions between the two parties, 400 staff members sent a letter to leadership today saying that they do not feel safe. forward-looking, how do you address that, and how do you fix it, and can it be fixed? >> well, i will never forgive former president of the united states and his lackeys and his bullies that he sent to the capitol for the trauma that was exerted on our staff. these are largely younger people who come with idealism to work in the capitol on either side of the aisle, whatever it is. and for us to sign up for this when we run for office, it is
bad enough for our families to see the danger we are in. but for these young people -- when i came back to the capitol to say we are going to open up government, in the capitol that night, we were going to honor our constitutional responsibility even though they had an assault on that january 6 date fraud with meaning from the constitution, when i saw -- that january 6 date fraud with meaning from the constitution, when i saw the way it traumatized the staff, it was frightening. that is something that you cannot just say, well, we will do legislation to make sure this or that does not happen again. you cannot erase that. so i had a lot of communication with staff, with capitol police, and the rest, so i know pretty much what people are thinking -- not everything. and we must always be -- it is like a horizon, you are always moving to make it better, to
make it better. it would be a good place to start if they did not start threatening members of congress, and their members say nothing about it. host: we're asking you to rake your party's congressional leadership. -- to rate your party''s congressional leadership. a text, mcconnell is a disappointment and he and pelosi both need to be replaced. on facebook, the maryland reps are terrific, a great representation. excellent schools, gun safety, accessible health care, strong support for renewable energy, virtually no idiotic culture wars, and a aaa bond rating. it is not complicated. vote blue, says steve. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002.
charles in virginia, independent line. caller: you do a good job. i do not know how you guys do it. the first caller, he did not even answer the question. i have voted towards democrat and have voted republican. i think democrats have done what they can with an obstructive republican party. i want to say to these trump lovers and constitution haters, you know, we do not want a dictator. we want a constitution. to you c-span staff, please stop being intimidated by these trump lovers and supporters. the majority of the country want a democratic country. we want to follow the constitution. we do not want and overthrow or attempt to overthrow like what happened on january 6. and stay strong. this country is going down
unless the republicans act like they want to govern. thank you. host: james is also on the independent line in tennessee, good morning. caller: good morning. you know, when it was said that trump wants to make the country great again, wants to take it back like it used to be, that was telling us something. then january 6 came off, because they want to take it back to the 1940's and 1950's, but we won't go back there. believe me, the young black -- i am an old man, i will be dead, but they are not go back there. try it and you will find out, the country will burn. host: to the republican line next, newark, ohio. hey there. caller: how you doing this morning? host: doing fine. caller: you know, i think
democrats and republicans both are doing just a horrible job, just pathetic what is going on today. across the board. there should be more term limits. they have thrown the constitution of the window. they will not let police police no more. it is just -- i never thought it would get this bad. host: do you think that the problem in congress is largely due to its leadership or is it because of the -- does the leadership reflect the rest of the country in that regard? caller: no, no. these people get in there and within a couple years, they are millionaires. you know. it is just a joke. you know, they write books, invest in the stock market, which there is nothing wrong with that, but they do not even
investigate insider trading. nancy's house, they don't look at that. and back to the january 6 thing. they had been riding all summer long, everybody knew something was going to happen -- they had been rioting all summer long. host: this is from businessinsider.com. headline, conflicted congress, key findings from a five-month investigation into lawmakers' personal finances. some of the highlights from that report, and this report is by dave leventhal. dozens of federal lawmakers and at least 182 top staffers have violated conflict of interest law, numerous members of congress presley invest in industries they oversee -- personally invest in industries they oversee and face few consequences, legally or otherwise. our caller mention this, and
dave leventhal, the author of the piece, will be our guest tomorrow morning here on "washington journal" at 9:15 eastern, so we will get further in-depth depth on his report on the finances from embers of congress. we're talking -- for members of congress we're talking about leadership. a tweet from senator o'connell on the horrific tornadoes that have touched down in his estate. thank you to the president for your rapid approval of kentucky's major disaster declaration. our entire congressional delegation came together to support governor andy beshear's request. i appreciate the administration's quick work to speed resources to help deal with this crisis. a tweet from litter mcconnell yesterday morning. president biden will be heading to -- a tweet from leader mcconnell yesterday morning. president biden will be heading to kentucky tomorrow.
this from the floor recently. [video clip] >> i am working to ensure every resource possible is deployed to the state. kentucky's congressional legislation has sent multiple letters, and in response, president biden cut through the red tape to improve our request at an accelerated pace, providing rapid support we need to recover. i am especially grateful to the work of the dhs secretary and the fema administrator, who visited kentucky yesterday to survey damage and help relief efforts. fema has already sent two incident management teams and --, an urban search and rescue team, and an army corps temporary power team. they have turned to fort campbell into a staging ground for relief and supplies. i cannot be more grateful for
their swift and decisive response to this crisis. even in the face of such tragedy, we can be confident that kentucky will bounce back. we are strong, we are united, and we will come back bigger and better than ever before. host: the leader on the floor of the senate yesterday. president biden heading to kentucky tomorrow. a capitol hill producer for fox news writing about today on the hill, policy and other congressional leaders to hold a moment of silence at the capitol tonight for 800,000 american lives lost to covid-19. asking you to rate your congressional leadership. larry in houston, texas, next up on the democratic line. caller: thanks for taking my call. really, the democrats, i am kind of disappointed.
joe manchin and kyrsten sinema need to change parties, period. i keep hearing people hollering about the debt, the debt. republicans that was in office are responsible for 62% of the national debt. and it is like the democrats do not know how to go ahead and let people understand. republicans will do anything to stay in power, which we have seen with the january 6 insurrection. you know, you get these people that make america great again -- when was america great? for who was a great for? because it was not great for everybody. you know. but as for nancy pelosi, they do need a term limit. the next thing is, keep that dark money out of politics come
out of congress. that is the whole problem. every time we try to pass a bill, republicans do not want that bill. they don't want that bill. because they finance all these little caucuses to put out all these crazy stuff that they want, how they want america to be. and the democrats just don't fight back. you got to fight fire with fire. we see with the republicans do. they will start a war to stay in power. host: to sean in lakeland, florida, independent line. caller: yes, sir, i am disappointed, as i have always been, with both of these parties . i have been listening you all for years. i have called in sometimes, too. and i seen it, i don't understand why nobody else sees it, but i do, because everybody wears jerseys.
if y'all take them jerseys off and listen to the people actually calling in here and what they say, the people that call in and talk about republicans, they are actually saying some true stuff. the people that call in and talk about democrats, they are actually saying some true stuff. then you is, people do not want to believe that both of these parties are playing off each other. only two. thing is, we need another party. the two-party system, all they have to do is deny what the other party puts up, and that is it. nothing gets done. they have this down so perfect, and they do not represent the people, they represent the corporations, the money. those are the people they getting their funds from. so as long as they keep getting funded, like the other guy was saying, with this dark money and these two parties just play off each other and never get anything done, it is the same party. it is not two parties, it is one party, they just have different faces they play off each other with. and when you are doing this and then you throw the money in
there, this will never be right. i am so not optimistic about what is going to go on. i have a guarantee that this is going to get way worse than it is. and i hate to see what happens when it actually ends. host: another story from inside her about the leadership on the republican side of the house -- from insider. kevin mccarthy does not have the votes for full support from the house to be gop speaker. the writer -- marjorie taylor greene also says kevin mccarthy -- kevin mccarthy called her out. this is leader mccarthy speaking about the democrats' agenda in the house. [video clip] >> in the last 12 months, what have they been able to do with one party rule? the $5 trillion socialist spending bill is unpopular with the american public, so
unpopular -- you do not have to take the republicans' words for it, just look to their own conference. the congresswoman from virginia admitted she even avoided bringing it up when she is back home. leadership said they just need to get out and explain it more, and she says she avoids even talking about it. how's democrats -- house democrats, very exciting action taking place this week, they scheduled the least number of voting days in modern history. you take next year and this year, 202 days, the least amount we have been able to do in the last decade. when republicans were in the majority come i think we were averaging about 250. should we be upset about that or should we be relieved? if they are here less, maybe they can do less damage. not sure. host: reaction on our topic on social media. this tweet says i would like to
see democrats advocate more strongly for popular proposals like student debt relief and also swifter action against representatives who incite violence and post threatening and inflammatory social media. a tweet from illinois, hard to rate the independent party, better than the republican and democratic put together, and still, we have nobody to represent us. and robert in michigan, i am satisfied with my representation, and in 2022, i will vote a straight democratic ticket. to answer your first call, the tempers are not getting enough kudos from c-span. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. to rate your congressional leadership. paul and charlotte, north
carolina, on the democrat line. good morning. caller: what a mess. i am a 50-year-old guy, and they grew up in upstate new york. my neighbor at the top of the hill used to pave driveways, and his name was terry mcauliffe. he was going to college. anyway, my family was raised republican. my point is, there is a word that is a dirty word on campus and the capitol, and it is called compromise. and two things are making compromise almost impossible. one is the decision by the supreme court, citizens united, which gave a funnel of money from all kinds of corporations into the pockets of super pac's and things that are not being regulated, so there is a ton of
money in there. also, eight years ago, nine years ago, the algorithm which has really polarized this country. there was a great article on the world on november 10, a piece on npr in the afternoon, and it talked about people getting trapped in these algorithms. hearing some of the previous callers, these are some of the things that resonate with people and create rage, and that was on both sides. so i filled we are going to continue to go down this path every do not address -- i feel we are going to continue to go down this path of we do not address citizens united and do not address the companies taking advantage of these algorithms and giving people all this misinformation. in the congress -- so i will
rate my democrats at a five, they are trying to legislate but there is obstruction and they have too many issues and do not speak with one voice. republicans are very, very good at staying on message, but their message is what is populous in these echo chambers, and it creates rage. unfortunately, a party of fear and then a party of everybody else. to the previous caller, a third party would be a beacon and wanted, but until citizens united and the social media comes under wraps, i feel like we will continue going down this hill. host: thanks for your call. to eddie in massachusetts, republican line. caller: in response to the democrat who set the republicans are just obstructionists, i want to say to him that republicans want to be fiscally responsible
and live within our means. this borrowing money constantly is awful. now they want to committee on the supreme court. they want to pack it again. these are checks and balances to make us safe and a healthy country. thank you. host: now to tennessee, vicki, on the republican line. caller: hi, you read something off a few minutes ago that stated something about insider trading. now i know the democrats want our jobs to go overseas. they can insider trade, and it is legal for them to do it there, but it is not here. did you hear what you said when you read off that? host: yeah, we read a piece by dave leventhal from insider, and
he will be a guest on the program tomorrow, so we will get a bit more in depth on his reporting on members' finances. caller: the thing is, everybody wants to know what the president makes, how much money they have made. everybody wants to know their finances. what about the republicans and democrats that are in congress? is there nothing that they can do to get their finances and know what they are spending their money on? host: tune in tomorrow. we will have more about that. here is an opinion piece from the "washington post" on leadership in the u.s. house. jayapal has made her case to be pelosi's successor. it says, the house's passage of the infrastructure bill and the build back better legislation is another example of nancy pelosi's legendary ability to
keep her caucus united. the difference was the emergence of a new force in the house, the progressive caucus. the cpc had its chair, representative pramila jayapal, forced conservatives in the house caucus to pass the expensive bbb, and got the prima donna joe manchin to embrace a framework that gives hope for surviving in the senate. he writes that progressives came out of the 2020 election with new confidence and new members with a clear agenda, largely defined by senator bernie sanders and elizabeth warren. to their surprise, president biden seemed open to much of that agenda. in cincinnati, tonya on our democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning, good morning. i do appreciate c-span.
and i just really want to talk about the damage that is being done to this country, to our very foundation, by lise -- by lies. lies have caused people to invade the capitol. lies have caused people to do all kinds of things. and donald trump is directly responsible for the truth in this country, and it is the worst thing i think that can happen, because now we don't know anything. host: marcy is next, independent line, north carolina. caller: yes, my opinion is they are all politicians. and mccarthy could have kept jim jordan and the other one, could have kept them on the committee. he was playing politics. and the democrats have joe
manchin, but we have got susan collins and lisa murkowski. we need to judge our own party's politicians by the same standard they hold for the president's party. it is like we are in a game. i have got richard burr and thom tillis, so i do not feel like i have anybody representing me. for four years, we heard trump -- never served in the military. we have got biden now evidently serving in the military is not that important. until all three of our branches get back in their lane, we are going to have chaos. and all the politicians, all the congressman and senators that are retiring this year, they are going to end up being lobbyists.
so they just move from one thing to the other. but the people do not need to be fighting between each other. the politicians are causing this. we are americans. we need to decide what we are for and hold our own party to that standard. host: appreciate the input this morning. a headline from the "wall street journal," fatalities from tornadoes rise to 88, 88 people confirmed dead on monday from this weekend's tornadoes that tore through six states, the vast majority in kentucky. 74 people died. in illinois, six people were confirmed dead at an amazon.com warehouse in the southwest part of that state. president biden will be touring kentucky tomorrow. he spoke yesterday about how the administration is responding so
far. [video clip] pres. biden: so we continue to pray for everyone in kentucky and the other states that are affected. particularly, my heart goes out to the governor of kentucky, who lost family himself. pretty rough stuff. but we're going to get this done. we are going -- we are going to get this done. we're going to be there as long as it takes to help. with the help of volunteer organizations, we will eventually clear the debris, provide the necessary means to move, get schools reopened, making sure homes are rebuilt, etc. so there is a lot that needs to be done. and mostly kentucky but not only kentucky. and i just want to let you know, that is what i have been doing. i have not decided where i will be going yet. i talked about this with the governor two days ago, that i do not want to be in the way.
there is a lot going on. when a president shows up, there is a long tail to follow of a lot of folks. but i want you to know that this administration has made it clear to every governor, whatever they need, when they need it, when they need it, make it known to me, and we will get it to them as rapidly as we can. host: here is a tweet follow-up to a caller's, the about the citizen united case. this is the packed supreme court will never end citizens united, the biggest factor in our shift from democracy. this one says, i have no use for establishment republican party and even less for the democrats. to our democrats line, our question, to rake your party's leadership. carl is in alabama. good morning.
caller: yes, good morning. i think, for the most part, of the democrats, they want to do what is right, try to do what is right, and they try to stick to norms. but the republicans, they do not have any rules, any guardrail. anything goes. it is just kind of sad. i think there are a lot of decent republicans, and it is sad to me that i think most of these people have allowed and that donald trump corrupt them. and that is my -- it is just sad. everybody that comes into contact with donald becomes corrupt. host: go ahead, carl. caller: there has always been
partisan, but everything, everybody that deals with donald trump, you are going to become corrupt. it is just a fact. host: to our independent line, aurora, colorado. this is bill. caller: i have one comment concerning the filibuster that i really would like some on to explain to me. how can they -- last night, i believe, they did the filibuster to pass the budget thing, and they also did something earlier in the week to change the vote where they only needed 50 votes, and they did it with mitch mcconnell to get the supreme court judges on. how does that work, and why is that they keep saying they do not want to change the filibuster when they change it when they need it? evidently, both the democrats and the republicans go for this when they need the 50 vote majority to win.
i don't understand, so if someone can explain that to me, i would really appreciate it. host: so you see both parties in the senate using the filibuster as a matter of convenience when they needed for their uses? caller: yes, they do not want to change it for voting rights, a lot of things. but that is my comment. thank you so much. host: ok, to tennessee on the democrats line. caller: i think that both parties are getting very wealthy from america. there is a lot of wheeling and dealing and a lot of crookedness going on both sides. i think that we have some very low down republican people in there.
and we have to put people in positions -- and we even have a corrupt supreme court now. and i think that, as a person that has been to war, what i see for america is very frightening, and it is going to happen to us unless we start taking the decent people in america and stand up not for party but for what is right for america. host: thanks for that. a headline from townhall.com on the bill but better plan. there headline, build back better has overwhelming public support. npr poll says they have convinced themselves it is good for the american people. questions include potential trade-offs like tax increases and growing deficits, which
yield far less enthusiasm. unsurprisingly, was senator's joe manchin and kyrsten sinema already blanching at the massive price tag, much higher than the manipulated score for cbo, inflation has now hit a nearly four-decade high. advocates for the new tax and spend binge continue to rise ably insist that it will cure what ails the economy and that people will cry out for it. i find it fascinating like -- that a socialist like sanders is excited about a bill that gives max -- massive tax breaks for millionaires and rises taxes for middle-class households. a poll shows most voters are skeptical for the proposals. 41% of the respondents said they support the build back better bill, the roughly $2 trillion currently being negotiated in congress. in dennis e -- tennessee, republican line, we hear from
debbie. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i called earlier this year about january 6. nancy pelosi, i was watching it when it happened, and she sat up there and said we do not leave the nation -- [indiscernible] had not heard anything else about it. i was just wondering if anybody else said anything about it. thank you. host: asking you to rate your party leadership in congress. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. and independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. about 10 minutes or so left on this topic. from cnn politics, mcconnell-macarthur divide rose as trump aims to keep his rift on the gop. they say that mitch mcconnell
and james comer were sitting near each other at cardinal stadium late last month watching kentucky and louisville's home state football rivalry turn into a one-sided affair. one topic came up, kevin mccarthy. the two lawmakers spoke at length about the house gop leader from california who has broken with mcconnell on a range of major issues over the last several months but who will be forced to work in tandem with him to govern if republicans take back congress next year. we talked a lot about mccarthy, comer said. mcconnell speaks highly of mccarthy. he says the control of both chambers at stake and next year's midterms, the two top republican leaders have increasingly taken sharp divergent positions on major issues dominated congress, reflecting the different institutions that they lead but also how they view the gop's posture heading into a hugely consequential election season.
next is susie on our republican line in greensboro, georgia. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to make a comment about the heatedness between the two parties. back some years ago, i heard charles krauthammer, a wonderful man, speak, and he made his statement that chilled me to the bone and still does today. he said republicans look at democrats as being wrong. of course, that has to do with policy, being wrong. however, democrats look at the republicans as being evil. and that is what i continue to hear from the democrats. they have to do away with anybody that supports trump. they have got to do something
with trump, do away, got to kill those people is my viewpoint. host: do you think that started with president trump? you are talking about charles krauthammer's views, his view that democrats view republicans as evil. do you think that predates president trump? did they hate george w. bush as much? caller: no, i do not believe that. it came -- and it is still running today. and even my own family, who are democrats, there is nothing but hate from them when they even speak of the republicans, and they have got to have trump out there to beat and to show us that that is how they are better than we are.
it is horrible. why can't it be policy? what biden did with policy when he came in was anything trump did, it has got to go away, and those things were good. i have had people in the democratic party say to me they supported 85% of the policies that trump did, but they hate him and they hate the republicans that voted for him. that is not good for the country. host: appreciate your call this morning. this is about leadership in congress, the headline from the hill. democrats itching for leadership role. you want my seed, come and get it. house majority leader james clyburn of south carolina responding to democrats wanting to replace older members in leadership roles, saying if you
want my seats, come get it. in an interview, he was asked when he things it will be time for the democratic party to create a path for the next generation, and president biden will be 82 in 2024, clyburn said the path is there for the next generation. he said, i never asked anybody to die for me, the 81-year-old said, and i do not know why people are saying you need to step aside for me. tell them, if you want my seats, come get it. thehill.com. a call on the democratic line, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i would like to know, do you pick which line to go to next? host: generally not we try to go in order. caller: well, ok. sometimes that is hard to believe. but as to the question today,
you include independents -- who is the leadership in the independent party? i am an independent and have been one since i came back from vietnam to pennsylvania. host: that is a fair point. caller: why include independents in the question today? do i think there should be a third party? yes, i am in support of that. include a question specifically about independents. so if you are an independent, you have to pick one of the two parties. if i had to pick, i would pick the leadership republicans. mitch mcconnell is the smartest politician in washington, d.c., smartest, by far. yesterday, listen to what he said about hunter's dad's administration.
when was the last time a democrat leader said anything, anything positive about a republican? why don't you ask that question? when is the last time a democrat leader praised a republican president? host: ok. to illinois, republican line. teresa, go ahead. caller: you know, a black mayor of washington, d.c., is torturing white people that participated in january 6. she is totally abusing them. this is about the most horrible thing that i have ever seen. i cannot believe that this is happening in the united states of america. i think that something should
definitely happen to overturn this. they have got a democratic kangaroo court trying to try these people. they do not allow them attorneys. they keep them in jail without any representation, without any medical aid, without getting them haircuts or shaves or anything. this is so appalling to me. i do not believe that this is the united states of america. host: this is from the "washington times" morning, company investments in central america, pepsi, cargill, and several other companies, they write, will make new investments in central america. the vice president announced on monday, saying it was the latest success in her efforts to try to create opportunities in those communities that might keep future would-be immigrants at
home. washingtontimes.com. on the independent line, mark in washington, d.c. caller: hi, thank you so much for having me. this is my second time calling in ever, and i am a frequent listener, so it is always great to be back speaking. so i want to kind of respond to a republican caller who talked about demonization of the republican party via democrats. so i think she kind of hit some great points. in my opinion, i think republicans, in general, have normative policies, fiscal conservatism, kind of just by the numbers. and democrats typically have positive policies, worried about social issues. so i am an independent because i think there is a real way to be concerned about both of those and not demonize individuals for
being concerned with social issues, maybe heavily, versus normative policy issues. so i think that is a great way to bring the country together. unfortunately, as some callers have mentioned, there is not really clear leadership from either party. host: what happens when those normative policy areas you talk about, so spending areas, they are often conflated with issues of social issues, and the spending directed at some of those social issues? caller: yeah, i listened yesterday and there was a discussion about democracy and i think there are some parallels with that question. look, i think we have programs such as welfare which is an automatic stabilizer for the economy, right?
and one can argue that that is a very democratic program. and one can also think about the level of spending and increasing the program or decreasing that program. so i think in america, those lines are blurred, but they are there. we have to have welfare. that is something that -- social welfare, i think that is just something that is there and kind of required. and we do not need to demonize people for something that is already there. host: thanks for your call this morning. it is "washington journal" for tuesday morning, we will talk foreign policy coming up on the program. the myriad of foreign policy challenges facing the biden administration. we will be joined by the hudson institute's bryan clark and the
center for american progress' max bergmann to talk about that. later, business journalists, author, and johns hopkins carey business school lecture kathleen day talk about the history of the debt limit, with that vote coming up today and congress. now the debt limit has been weaponized by both parties over the years.
>> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features authors discovering -- discussing their latest books. we talk with pamela paul about her latest book, 100 things we lost to the internet and several notable books of the year, plus the latest nonfiction releases and bestsellers list. then, at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, congressman jim jordan talks about his book " do as you said you would do" which looks at the investigations conducted by congress in his time in office and over the trump presidency. find the full schedule in the program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> weekends on c-span2 are an
intellectual feast. every saturday you will find events and people in our nation's past on american history tv. on sundays, book tv brings you the latest and nonfiction books and authors. it is television for serious readers. announcer: washington journal continues. host: we are going to talk about the foreign policy challenges facing the biden administration. to help us with that conversation, we are joined by two guests. max bergman is a senior fellow at the center for american progress. brian clark, a senior fellow at the hudson institute. gentlemen, welcome to washington journal. let me start by asking both of you -- we will start with you, max -- about your organizations and their general overall view on or in policy and your view
almost a year into the biden administration and how the biden administration foreign policy has differed from that of his predecessor. guest: the center for american progress as a centerleft organization that advocates progressive ideas or progressive values. i think when it comes to foreign policy, it once to see the united states have a strong leadership role in the world and stand up for its values abroad what we're seeing from the biden administration must far is an effort to do that, and effort to focus on rebuilding alliances, affirming support for nato. there has been a strong effort to also stand up to china. with seen this administration really want to implement something that the obama administration started and the focus on standing up to china and reaffirming its commitment to its allies in asia, japan, korea, australia.
and so i think what we've seen in the administration is trying to get the u.s. government also back up to speed. there was a lot of issues with trump administration and frankly just how it has approached the governing of the state department, the defense department. and a lot of issues, especially at the state department, the tried to get the u.s. government functioning again. i think we've seen some of that, there's been some issues obviously with the withdrawal in afghanistan, but i think part of that was simply to pivot back to what the united states really needs to prioritize and focus on, which, for the biden administration, is china and really sort of rebuilding ties to alliances and not getting bogged down in conflicts such as afghanistan. host: brian clark, your organization and your take on the biden administration foreign
policy so far in his term? >> the institute is more of a center-right organization but there are a diversity of opinions as you might expect. we stand for a lot of the same things. strong u.s. foreign policy, standing by our allies, standing by american values and interests. we see a lot of similar trends in that the new administration has been very confident in trying to restore foreign-policy and national security that has somewhat, done a bit under the trump administration. more of a coherent approach and pursuing a set of objectives that they have not yet defined because the strategies are not out yet, but they have let on in terms of their interest. you have seen the move to a more traditional, coherent view of word policy. the areas where we see is focusing on the national security, particularly the
military dimension. people complain about the militarization of or in policy, and that is correct, we put too much emphasis on the military. but with the biden administration, we see eight deemphasizing of the military to a point where i think we are losing some of its effectiveness. the pivot to asia has been enabled by a major force posture change as evidenced by the forced posture rang that just came out. we saw the effort in afghanistan , certainly the right thing to do, but the way it was done was obviously not the best. now we are seeing with the challenges from china and russia in unclear effort to be able to try to use the military tool to try to deter both of those aggressors. definitely an improvement in terms of a coherent approach in bringing diplomacy more effectively into the fold. maybe emphasizing the military dimension to get more effective approach. host: we have a plateful of issues to address, we will let
our callers laying here in just a bit. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. in terms of the most immediate threat or challenge, it may be the ongoing conflict between ukraine and russia with troops amassing on the border. max, you can follow on with this. the president meeting virtually with president putin last week. what is your view on the immediacy of that challenge? guest: it is certainly the most urgent charge -- challenge the u.s. faces. but the president did i thought was a pretty good approach to say sanctions are on the table, you are going to see economic cost associated with this. but it was important that the g7 come on board and show there is a multilateral dimension, a lot
of countries getting on board that have previously not been sanctioning russia. i think the other thing is that the military aid has not been provided. a couple hundred dollars are being delayed by the administration in terms of getting to ukraine which i think is something that needs to happen. host: max, your take on the situation? guest: i think it is incredibly serious and dangerous and when you see russia amassing more than hundred thousand versus along ukraine's border, a potential invasion force the same size with which we invaded iraq in 2003. and the rhetoric and writings of vladimir putin and from the kremlin over the last year i think indicate that this is a very real possibility. it's not one this administration really wanted. the administration didn't want us to get in a confrontation
with russia. they made it very clear that they wanted a stable relationship with the kremlin and wanted to focus on asia. i think russia shows in that. it is an incredible significant crisis. i think biden's call with putin was extremely important because the united states did a love sanctions with its european allies after russia invaded ukraine in 2014, but it also left a lot on the table. he didn't go with many options that would be extremely devastating to the russian economy, and anything to avoid a potential miscalculation from the kremlin, it was important for biden just to say, you know, we are going to go very far and it will be economically devastating to your economy if you do this. and i think also, i agree, rallying allies because u.s. sanctions only go so far. it is really important to do this with our european allies. when it comes to security,
united states has provided ukraine with more than $4 million of security since 2014. ukraine is now one of the largest recipients in the world. this is an account that i helped oversee when i was in government and the obama administration. sometimes it's not straightforward to get high-end military equipment to allies rapidly there's an adjustable constraints that come into play, this technology issues. i think ukraine's military is much stronger than what it was, but i don't think there is a kind of unicorn security system solution that ukraine is going to be able to miraculously deter russia. i think it is going to require strong commitments from the united states and europe and nato to sort of say that there will be extreme consequences on russia. especially in the economic sphere. and also that there will be implications for u.s. forced posture in europe which is something that always vials the
kremlin. host: as max bergman mentioned, part of his experience including a speechwriter for president obama. brian clark, let me ask you. you touched on briefly in terms of the withdrawal from afghanistan. do you think that the image that helped or hurt the u.s. image overseas? >> i think the withdrawal did affect the u.s. image overseas because it didn't show confidence. one can argue whether it was a good idea to pull out or not. clearly, we've shown there has been a good case to be made for why we should have withdrawn. but the way in which we did it didn't show a very confident administration, a very competent military when at the same time we with the instilling within
our allies a sense of credibility in terms of our assurances as well, the ability to deter adversaries. host: he didn't help when we did that. you talked about this shift to asia, some other issues that have somewhat delayed that. what does that look like long-term for the biden administration? what are they aiming to do? guest: they are looking to come up with what they call an integrated deterrence. a systematic, economic, military effort as well as some information operations efforts up around the idea of convincing china that their ability to invade or to act aggressively toward their neighbors is going to be responded with talks. there's going to be cost in terms of the operation as well as economic and diplomatic cost afterwards, and also trade uncertainty on the part of the chinese as to whether they will be able to be successful in terms of the chinese or find acceptable. i think integrated approach is
trying to be a whole of government effort which is something the u.s. government has pursued in the past. it has not gone very well usually because it is difficult to align and coordinate the various tools across the diplomatic and economic military realms. but that is the approach they're looking to take. it is not going to necessarily be increased posture in the pacific which is maybe the implication of the original pivot. it is expected to be this effort to create multilateral problem for china that creates cost to act aggressively for their neighbors. host: max bergman, you had a piece at center for american progress. after the democracy summit, the headline of the piece was "the summit for democracy is a good start, but what comes next?" what would you like to see come next from this administration? guest: when i would like to see come next is another summit. the larger question, and love questions were raised that one is the point.
to me, the larger question is why hasn't the united states been hosting these summits in the past? it makes eminent sense for the united states to want to convene democracies from all around the world together. rich democracies, poor democracies, developing democracies. i think part of what is needed is to recognize the democracy around the world faces a real challenge in that democracies should be partnered with each other. i think the summit was a really good start. i think the next summit should perhaps be not so much focus on just talking about democracy and rights, but also just talking about the global issues of the day. covid-19, economic recovery. because i think part of what is needed is that democracies around the world need to feel included, need to feel valued by the united states. when we talk about something like security systems, most u.s. security systems doesn't to democratic states. it goes to states that are
failing or autocratic that are in turmoil. i think trying to sort of put our money where our mouth is and start providing more resources in our democratic states. and allowing democracies to have a seat at the table with other bigot, developed, rich countries. that could have tremendous value to creates an incentive for countries to say on the democratic path and hopefully, over time, become useful for them or the united states and other democracies can get together to talk about major global issues such as the threat china poses or russian aggression. i think this is a process in a good first step. host: we got a call on this yesterday from critics saying some of the nations that were participating in that summit should not have been there. they really aren't democracies. did you hear that? guest: oh, yeah. one of the major reasons the
united states hasn't held more summits is because deciding a guest list is very difficult. you don't know which relatives you don't want to invite or have to invite. there were definitely some people that got in that probably some countries should not have been invited. but i think it makes sense to have a big tent approach initially and then once he sort of establish that this is actually a useful forum, a form that countries want to be part of, you can start making a bit more exclusive. what i would like to see going forward in the next year our questions over the tightening of the guest list. serbia doesn't hold a free and fair election, they shouldn't be invited. i think that that is where i sort of see this going. i think that is totally warranted, it is actually useful. it can put scrutiny on countries about are democratic processes and think the guest list should start to be tightened as we move over. >> we have because we will get
to in a moment. brian clark is with the hudson institute. also a senior fellow. we are talking about foreign policy. one quick issue before we get to calls, the meeting yesterday between the israeli prime minister, the first-ever official meeting between the israeli prime minister and the prince of the united arab emirates. and a meeting that was really because of the relationship, the people him accords as part of the trump administration policy with israel. out of the biden administration, how does the policy change or has it differed any from what we expected under the trump administration? guest: the biden administration largely follow the ways of the trump administration. the abraham accords were one of the success stories of the trump administration in bringing israel into the fault of its neighbor that are obviously era countries is a very important
meeting, obviously. we are seeing much more cooperation between israel and arab neighbors militarily, diplomatically. they are presenting a more united front against iran, which they perceive as being a potential threat to all of their stability and security in the region. i think this is really important. it will bring to be seen how far this goes in terms of their alignment. the biden administration has not been necessarily as aggressive in pushing these connections as may be the trump administration has been. they collected the local countries to work it out as opposed to working, but they are probably going to continue without necessarily hindering it. host: max, your thoughts? guest: i think the abraham accords overseen by the trump administration was one of the major foreign policy successes of the trump administration. it was sort of an open secret for a long time that the israelis and the emiraties had
secret back channels and intelligence communities, but they refused to do so publicly. very reticent. i think it was a major step to normalization of reality, that israel is a country that exists in the middle east and other middle eastern countries need to acknowledge it. i do think that part of the establishment of good relations is one of the major failures of the trump administration, the ripping up of the iran nuclear deal, which the biden administration has sort of tried to salvage. increasingly looks like it is not going to be successful in salvaging the iran deal, and i think security in the middle east without a verifiable new the agreement prevents iran from getting nuclear weapons is now
seriously in doubt. leaning to one side benefit is closer to the uae and israel but overall, security for the middle east with iran potentially heading toward a nuclear weapon is not a good situation and that is carrying up -- and the tearing up of a verifiable nuclear agreement was not a smart play by the trump administration. host: let's take your calls on the biden foreign nation policy. republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call, can you hear me ok? host: yes, we can. caller: i just want to point out that i am a combat vietnam veteran, i'm 73 years old and i've been voting regularly since the very early 70's. i've watched the united states of america abandon its friends for a long time, going back to
1961 at the bay of pigs in cuba. we have abandoned cuba, we've abandoned nicaragua, we've abandoned iran to the ayatollah. we have abandoned other friends. but mostly, we abandoned vietnam, of course. most of the regions that i have observed so far is what has happened to afghanistan recently , throwing our own half of the population, the women of afghanistan back to what is essentially nothing more than sexual slavery, and not even allowing them to do something as simple as being able to go to school and get an education. i understand that there are still people in the world that there are -- still want to trust
united states of america. based on this recent history, i listen to you gentlemen and i think to myself "why would anybody want to put their trust in us?" we are getting ready now to probably abandon ukraine and the question of taiwan is up in the air. with all due respect to the president of the united states, i believe that he is a sick man with dementia who really doesn't have the confidence to handle all of this. host: thanks for your call, thanks for your service. the issue of trust in the united states. guest: i will wade in first. we talked about afghanistan earlier. i would argue that we should have kept the air and some
forces to help assist with the counterterrorism mission and maybe facilitate the retention of some of the rights of women gained during the time the united date had been occupying and stand. i think the fact that we left so abruptly hurt our credibility as well as hurting the potential for the future lives of those women. on ukraine, i would argue that the u.s. has been very supportive, not to mention we have sent a lot of military aid. i think that we will stand up for ukraine. i think the question, are we going to send military troops to fight russia on ukrainian soil? probably not. but there are troops in ukraine already helping to bring in new equipment that we sent them up to speed. it's not like the u.s. is not involved in that country. similarly, in taiwan and the western pacific, we've got troops actively involved in helping those countries defend themselves.
guest: i think the caller hit on something that is very true, that it was a completely got wrenching experience watching what was happening, the collapse of the afghan government and the taliban successfully taking over the country so rapidly. i do think there's a larger question of whether the present situation in afghanistan, the situation that the biden administration came into was sustainable. u.s. force levels have been declining. the trump administration had negotiated a deal with the taliban is the u.s. would withdrawal. i think the biden administration was looking at a situation where the status quo wasn't actually sustainable. we served more u.s. forces into afghanistan, potentially going about 10,000 troops again.
if you were going to stay, you had to go bigger. if you're going to get out, you had to get out. the taliban had gained so much momentum over not just the trump administration, but over the last decade. the biden administration reasonable decision, but i think the execution was poor. the one thing i would say is i think there were two facet what happened in afghanistan. one with the decision to withdraw which created a vacuum, but i think we did see the best of america over the weekend where everything was collapsing. the u.s. senate forces back in for u.s. troops protecting the airport. more than 100,000 people got out. i think the u.s. used whatever its diplomatic actions it had for the taliban to tell them to stay away, to hold off. and i successfully completed a humanitarian mission. when it comes to the u.s. allies in u.s. credibility, i think the
one thing i would say is no doubt the situation in vietnam when the u.s. pulled out of the place, it was never a good situation. however, the extension of nato, when you look at the baltic states, when you look at eastern europe, countries that would no doubt fear a potential russian invasion do not fear that because of the united states. because of our solid bond to them to come to their aid. host: let's hear from alexander in brooklyn, democratic line. go ahead. caller: this is an interesting topic. i guess my question would be, you know, the united states can't even really handle what is happening here as far as the erosion of democracy. there is a real fear about russia creating chaos further and eastern europe by creating
instability, taking advantage of migration trends. so what do you really see the outlook as in the world when it is not really about how you bring democracy abroad, but really about countries being able to fight for their own democracies within? you have, in france, a very popular trump-like figure that might actually win the election there. all of these countries with massive power like the united states, and democracy is being eroded from within. where do you see this 20, 30 years from now when climate change will affect millions of people from northern africa, from the middle east going further to the west and popular figures rising and being able to have this nationalist tendency?
thank you. host: brian, you want to jump in there? guest: for one, military solutions are not always going to be able to fix these problems, especially when they are domestic. what we've been looking it up at the current administration, talking about a more integrated approach to defense. combating this information at home and helping our allies doing abroad. realigning defense military systems to be able to operate at different levels of escalations so we are not just able to fight the big war that may never come, but we can also fight in the gray zone that is happening every day. using diplomacy, the summit of democracy was a great opportunity to share best practices and figure out how adversaries like russia and china are employing information systems and populist rhetoric to be able to undermine their
neighbors and undermine the democracies promised to them. we got to broaden our approach instead of only thinking about fighting world war iii. we have to be able to fight on a lot of fronts that are much below that in terms of escalation. including thinking about doing this at home as well as abroad. guest: the caller brings up a great point and i think it is a real challenge. you can't just stand up for democracy abroad if your democracy is eroding at home. one of the things that russia and other autocratic states have seen is that kind of fear, the fear of popular uprisings. they want to weaken the image of democracy abroad. hence, russian political warfare and realizing it is quite easy especially in the age of social media, with money in politics, to insert money, to pollute or corrupt our political discourse,
and it can undermine our political community, our democracy. but i think we have to realize is that democracy is the best system. in russia, there is no real sense of who is going to follow vladimir putin. and the reason why we created democracy is that we want to have the people have a judgment on leaders and also it makes sense to change leadership. to have political transitions that are peaceful and popularly chosen. so i think we have to have space in our political system. we had a rough decade. it was the decade after a financial crisis. i think the hope is that we were kind of at a low point for democracy, but hopefully the global economy will begin to recover, the pandemic will subside, democracies will start showing that they can deliver the goods economically, and democracies can start working together to focus on their internal problems and strengthen themselves internally. i would lose faith in the ability of the united states to
have a strong foreign policy and it is important that the united states focus on improving itself and currently -- internally. host: a collar touched on in moments ago, giving kind of a snapshot version. how vulnerable is taiwan, and what signals it the biden administration sending taiwan? guest: i think on taiwan, the u.s. has always had a vague policy, intentionally ambiguous policy but our commitment to taiwan where we don't have a military alliance with taiwan to come to their aid, there is no treaty or agreement. it has been left unclear. basically china, which wants to read incorporate taiwan, is meant to be guessing over what u.s. intentions are. the biden administration has actually done a very good job at making that policy, keeping the
policy intact with president biden at times seeming to sort of commit to taiwan security and white house aides rolling it back. there is nothing more ambiguous than that for beijing. but what the united states has done is i think, diplomatically, really supported taiwan. there has been a lot of military attention on providing arms to taiwan and other assistance. and i think what the administration hopes to do is make taiwan essentially what is being called a national security community, a porcupine where it is just going to be too difficult for china to fully take over taiwan militarily. i think there is a way for taiwan to go to for the make itself strong enough to really deter china. the last point, i think the chinese are actually looking at what is going to happen in ukraine very closely. if russia can take over, invade
parts of ukraine if not the entire country or most of the country or half the country, and seemed to be getting away with it with only a slap on the wrist, i think that makes the potential invasion of taiwan much more likely. taiwan is a difficult challenge if the chinese want to invade it. max mentioned an attempt to make it more like a porcupine. that effort has not been very successful. the taiwanese are not interested in making the country into a fortress. they have been reticent to turn the country into this fortress. but it is a challenge because it is a 90 mile stretch you have to cross, a relatively large operation. so china has thus far been interred just because of the difficulty of actually invading taiwan. and the u.s. has been building capabilities to try to help taiwan from being successful.
the bigger challenges all the other way that china could get taiwan. blockades, aerial bombardments, cyber attacks, economic warfare, political warfare. those are all the tools china has been using to try to convince the taiwanese government to if not reunify with china, at least be less open about it. in hong kong, for example, china was able to beat down the democracy protests and bring hong kong under the aegis of china's laws. they might attempt a similar effort in taiwan. part of this is also empowering taiwan in these other ways and having a u.s. military and allied military. that is part of the challenge
the u.s. has is trying to realign its military capabilities to deal with these other opportunities that china has at lower levels of escalation. what we see in ukraine is going to be may be maybe a signal for china with their opportunities in taiwan for some of these smaller scale operations that can come over time, erode taiwan sovereignty. host: this is dave on the independent line in michigan. caller: yes, good morning to you. i hope this doesn't sway too much to what your theme is here, but the way i see it, is this some kind of a resource power grab with all this military stuff? there is stuff about re-industrializing america with the western world, and i think i can just point out that is that kind of circling back, sitting
down at the table, trying to figure out who was going to get what and where? thank you very much. host: thanks, dave. max, do you want to jump in on that? guest: maybe i will start with i think there are two different aspects of this. one, the u.s. defense budget that we just saw is extremely large, especially for aps line defense budget as we just withdrew from afghanistan. i think part of that is to maintain harassment of military-industrial lead, we need to invest in the next generation of technology and equipment. i do think that when we are spending more than $7 trillion over the next 10 years on defense yet we struggle to spend roughly $1 trillion-$2 trillion on social issues that there is a need to look at our priorities. sometimes we freak out about social spending but we don't do
the same on defense spending. it demonstrates i think that sometimes our priorities are out of whack. i think it is possible to do both. when it comes to the broader question of competition for resources, this is going to be a potential real issue over the next few years and as we transition hopefully away from a fossil fuel-based economy to one that is focused on the clean energy transition, i think that will make certain materials and other resources become increasingly valuable. this is where i think there needs to be some cooperation with europe, with china, where we don't want to get into a situation where the united states is losing access to certain materials and resources because we are in sort of a competitive environment that leads to something bad for the overall climate change effort.
i think that is where competition and cooperation need to go hand-in-hand. host: brian clark? guest: i think there is a good question as to whether the defense industrial base or the industrial base of the united states more broadly is holding back transition to new technologies because they want to keep building the things they build now. as max said, the defense budget this year that the biden administration is trying to divest to invest, which is stop buying the things they are currently buying to invest in new technologies that are going to be important for the future. an ideal world, you might not necessarily have to divest to make those future investments. given that they have capped defense spending at the level that is, you do have to make those trade-offs. the defense industrial base and others are maybe reticent to make that jump and congress is as well. i think that is one element of it. the other one as max brought up is the need for the u.s. and its
entire industrial base to transition to a new technology and diversify the supply chains for key components. things like semiconductors, try to bring more of that over to the united states. try to get more rare earth mineral processing being done in the united states. over time, globalization has caused some of these products to the made in a very small number of countries. now as a result, we got a situation where supply chains are somewhat fragile because they are dependent upon a single country or a couple of countries and shipping is increasingly problematic. so the need to diversify the industrial base means we need to start investing more at home and some of these industries. and the need to transition to a different way of military operations means we've got to start making some changes in what we invest in on the military side. both of those are going to be disruptive to industry. it is important to rally the commercial interests around
these changes as opposed to having them the adversaries to it. host: and that authorization bill this coming up in the u.s. senate then authorizes $740 billion in defense spending. 20 $7.8 billion for national security programs within the energy department. three and 78 million dollars for defense-related activities. 20 more minutes with our guests brian and max, talking about the biden administration foreign policy. who will hear from stand next in tucson, arizona, democrats line. caller:caller: good morning to you both, just wanted to say thank you for being on this morning and talking about these issues. my question comes almost as a piggyback to the other question that has been asked earlier, first on china and then on the collaboration more broadly with our allies in both asia and in europe.
max bergman, i have read a couple of your articles in politico about the share the burden need to hopefully alleviate some of the financial burdens of supporting the european mission. among nato allies and nato partners. my question is, as we talked about china and as we talked about russia independently, what are the issues that might arise coming from potentially these two flashpoints occurring, these two difficult areas for the u.s. both experiencing challenges simultaneously? is there a worry that in china by whatever russia does for their own interests in taiwan,
is there a worry that russia might extend? and what is the worry about collaboration between russia and china going forward in the church? i know there was a form of control in japan at least not long ago, at least north of japan. is that a major concern going forward, and how does the u.s. go about addressing both of those issues simultaneously? does the arrest -- does the u.s. have the capacity to address those issues simultaneously? host: before you respond, i'll show the headline that president xi and vladimir putin are set to meet virtually any summit in a meeting tomorrow. max bergman, if you would like to respond. guest: first of all, thanks for reading. i think when it comes to the challenge of china and russia, this is something that i think foreign policy experts have been monitoring here in the united states quite nervously, is that beijing and moscow are having an
increasingly close relationship and there is one school of thought that says that by talking about democracy, by talking about values, we are pushing them closer together and we don't want to talk about a competition between democracy and a talk or see because that puts russia and china in -- that pushes russia and china closer together and we should work to wedge them. i think that is good in theory, but impossible in practice. china is a growing competitor, becoming more powerful. russia sees the united states as it's made have rick perry -- main adversary, its main enemy, at least under vladimir putin as it has during the soviet union days. where we are is i think both china and russia see that the united states and his allies are a problem for them and are going to have close ties. i think one of the mistakes of the trump administration was not realizing that europe can be a
critical partner. one of the arguments i've been trying to make is that the european union, the rise of the european union over the last three decades, the e.u. had a lot of difficulties over the last 10 years, but it has really emerged as i think will be a potentially pivotal player in the world, at least economically. the european union economically the 50 million people has an economy the same size as the united states, the same size as china and what is happening at the chinese are increasingly looking to do business with europe, increasingly looking to divide europe, in the same is true with russia. regionally, the biden administration is really pressed to establish close ties with the european union, to talk to the e.u. about china, to try to work together to address the issues like technology, like trade, like climate change. the u.s. and the e.u., if we work together, can begin to right the wrongs of the economic low. on the other hand, i think that
will make the united states stronger, it will make democracy stronger. i think that needs to be a major push of our foreign policy, to really look at the european union and see how we can sort of strengthen our relationship and strengthen our ties because the e.u., when it has confidences in europe for trade and economic issues and the climate change challenge. host: brian, thoughts on that? guest: i agree with max, getting europe to be united is going to be more important. china and russia have both attempted to divide them and to some degree, that continues to be successful. the nord stream 2 pipeline is an area that russia was able to maybe pick off some of the european allies and other ones with the united states. i think there's going to be a continued effort to bring europe together and keep it together in the face of efforts like china and russia offering incentives to some and not to others.
we have another thing to think about. all of china and russia may trying to work together more, that may be more from an information standpoint and an effort to portray that of the rest of the world, but maybe not in practice. for example, the timing may be very different. china is not interested in invading taiwan in the next couple of years with the olympics, congress coming up. xi doesn't want the potential for disruption that could remain his chance -- ruin his chance of remaining in power going forward. vladimir putin has a number of needs that need to be addressed, you might want to pursue aggression -- aggression in ukraine. there may not be opportunities for them to always work simultaneously but i think they are trying to portray that to the rest of the world. host: on the olympics, few joined by for a of beijing, they secured china shows stripping
ties around the world was this the best of the worst possible options diplomatically for the administration? this diplomatic boycott of the olympics. guest: right. it ended up essentially showing the u.s. to be sort of weak in the end, i think, because it didn't really impact the chinese at all. it made the u.s. seem like they tried something and failed. i think you need to boycott them entirely or you need to continue to participate. i think it was an all or nothing proposition. i think they should probably boycott it entirely wanted to send that message. host: let's hear from chuck in clinton, south carolina, republican line. caller: yeah, i've been listening to this. i'm 70 years old and i can't remember a time in my life when a democrat has had a successful foreign policy.
i can't remember one of them. and that goes back to truman. this thing with -- i don't know what the talking points of the day are, but you know, we are in a mess because we have a president that obviously has a bad case of alzheimer's. this guy can't remember -- you know, i doubt that he even knows who tied his shoes. i don't know what we're going to do. i am not a globalist. host: next, max, usurping the obama administration state department. if you want to weigh in on his claim that there have not been successful democratic foreign policies. guest: i don't agree with the caller. judging foreign policy is difficult but there's also managing situations are beyond your control.
the arab spring erupted in 2011, the united states had nothing to do with that and suddenly the entire middle east is in flames. foreign policy is about responding to crises and events that the united states is reacting to but not necessarily shaping. i think the broader way to assess a president is whether they make good decisions, whether the policies are implemented effectively, and when the united states is leaving office with its head held high, i think that is true in the obama administration, i think after russia invaded ukraine and the united states stood up to russia. there was an effort to pivot to asia which i think was the right thing. and also, to focus on climate change and the iran deal, just sort of settling potential conflict in the middle east. there's always going to be failures in administration, and in some ways, we put too much
onus on a president to make everything perfect. sometimes we are too inclined to say everything is on fire and everything is terrible. i think the nature of our political discourse is that there always needs to be criticism of the other side. and i think there were some beneficial things that happened during the trump administration and some really good things happening in the biden administration. there were some other things that were not handled as effectively. i would disagree. where they had a fairly effective handling of foreign policy, the world prospered. i think you can look back at democratic presidents and say some good things happened. i think sometimes we put our partisan lens on foreign when that is not necessarily the right lens to put on it. host: next up is new york city, nolan on the democrats line. caller: hi.
i'm listening to you guys respond to other callers and i do believe that american foreign is reactive, but i'm wondering if when you have a crisis like with what putin is doing in the ukraine, why not look at it as an opportunity? i think that sometimes the american foreign-policy establishment thinks of this as a headache but there are a lot of other countries that have a bone to pick with russia. i would say poland, georgia, and japan. and it putin invades ukraine, the american establishment
should respond to it militarily as well as take back or use the opportunity to resolve some other issues that we have and other countries have with russia. so i was wondering, i understand that this may push china and russia together, we just really have no obligation to defend ukraine at all. they are not a nato ally, but i'm wondering about ideas like that. use it as an opportunity, putin is a chess player. a club and him. host: reinhardt? --ryan clark? -- brian clark? guest: interesting idea. certainly, the capabilities of the systems that have already been committed to the ukraine,
the advisors and the training, there's a lot a u.s. can do militarily that would not involve u.s. troops on the ground fighting russians that would help ukraine resist a russian invasion. also, ukraine has got a pretty capable military of its own. in terms of ukraine itself, there is an opportunity here to increase the price for russia. putin's experience in the past has shown asked if it looks like it is going to be too hard to digest or take over, he is not going to pursue it. georgia was relatively easy. i think when you present it being challenging, he is going to back off. more broadly, there is an opportunity to rally europe and asian allies around that fact and as max was saying earlier, unifying europe is a really important goal for the administration, as it should be. this may be an opportunity to promote that unification around the fact that russia has demonstrated its aggression. host: next?
-- max? guest: i agree with everything that was just said. this would be a good opportunity to push the anti-corrupt officer -- anti-corrupt-ocracy agenda. there are russian oligarchs that have pointed their money all across the western world, in the south of france, that have assets, have a luxury real estate. they are certain beneficiaries of the kremlin, and may have a lot of influence and corrupt our politics across europe and the united states. i think there is a real opportunity where american political difficulties move against a lot of this wealth in the absence of the conflict. i think that is all on the table and i think that is pretty beneficial both the united states and to europe and to democracy, that is corrupt money gets seized and we put a real squeeze on the kremlin and kleptocratic everywhere.
-- kleptocrats everywhere. and this and also be an opportunity to talk about nato membership with countries like sweden and finland that are not in nato. when you have a crisis, it becomes an inflection point. part of what is important is to seize the opportunities that emerge from the crisis, whether it is critical medic partnerships, to strengthen our military presence, or takes steps, economic and financial world. host: larry, republican line. caller: i think that as a country, we have a big problem.
the world sees a u.s. president who, every time he speaks, he reads from a teleprompter pretty obviously. i mean, it's like having a poodle guard the house when we had a pit bull guarding the house. then his cabinet and the people that surround him like general austin. these guys are weak. biden and xi -- i mean, prudent xi -- putin and xi are going against biden. i am hoping for the best but it doesn't look like it. host: thanks, larry. brian clark, you want to weigh in on the leadership, secretary blinken and secretary austin and the defense department? the biden administration leadership in the foreign policy realm. guest: they been very active. they have set all the right things about supporting our allies and defending them.
secretary blinken was just in indonesia talking about how the u.s. is going to put more effort into its asia-pacific structure as well as its diplomatic efforts. i think what we are waiting to see is the hard impact of those. we are not seeing anything more than the continued navigation operations out there. and china, the difficulties they're going to have in order to invade taiwan, are capable of preventing a lot of uncertainty to china at various levels of escalation, not just preparing for world war iii which the chinese may never give us. in europe, a similar thing were we have not the put forces out there able to operate at the levels that the russians are operating. we are not really competing at that level. particle we're seeing is the right words at the top but maybe
the actions are not medium reflected. host: i strongly -- max? guest: i strongly disagree with the caller. our allies are really comforted by the. the fact that when biden speaks, it is often times prepared, that we know the united states has thought through what is going to say, that is not foreign policy by tweet which was keeping our allies extremely nervous. they didn't know if trump was going to offer to buy green the door ever tornado. i think that what our allies enable the uncomfortable place especially when president trump praised american adversaries such as vladimir putin. just yesterday, i saw him praising vladimir putin and xi. i think what we have here is the return between normal relationship that the united states has with its allies with a certain amount of predictability, which i think was true when republican and democratic administrations quite
valued. when it comes to the cabinet, i think secretary austin exudes strength. i think having a military officer, which was very controversial, some thing i didn't necessarily support, but i think you can say that he exudes weakness. this is an incredible strong administration that is bringing back a degree of protect ability which at times can be boring, but i think is really valued by allies and partners. host: let me ask you about the financial crisis happening in turkey. the headline in the wall street journal, as turkey currency collapses, erdogan supports his own town. at what point does a financial crisis become a foreign policy crisis the united states and its allies? guest: i think the situation in turkey is really dire. i think it shows the downfall, the problems of having a leader with a certain engaging in areas that they don't know anything about, which is monetary policy.
turkey's economy is on the verge of collapsing. that is going to be extremely serious because turkey is a nato partner. hopefully, this crisis will lead to turkey going back on the democratic path. i think it is something the united states is definitely going to have to monitor very closely, and in europe as well because turkey, of course, is a very close partner to europe. guest: they will have to wait in an offer the ability to aid turkey that transitions it toward a more democratic approach to government. you have to walk a fine line between not making it seem like you are trying to undermine the existing government because they will react oddly but you have to coax them into maybe letting
loose of some of the reins and letting the monetary alice he be run by the experts instead of it being centralized. it's a great topic for the summit of democracy to address these autocratic regimes that have a poorly functioning state apparatus. host: let's go to loretto in hudson, florida, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to go back to the afghanistan thing. it was kind of a debacle getting the people out but at least that is done. how many presidents have tried or suggested that we get out of there and didn't do it? i also would like to know, we spend a lot of money in afghanistan and now we don't have to spend that so where does that money go? guest: i would argue that we could have sustained some presence in of kenaston like at
bagram air force base, allowing us to do some of the counterterrorism mission and keep the taliban from non-this is early taking the country down the path of the sharia law and bagram would've been important to deter china. in terms of money, it's several billion dollars per year that were spent on afghanistan military operations and more in terms of support to the local government. that money is being real -- relocated throughout the department of defense. guest: u.s. force presence in afghanistan had declined considerably over the last 5-10 years. i think the caller is right, we have spent a lot of money in afghanistan and that is part of the reason why the biden
administration also decided it couldn't continue. i am open to the argument that perhaps we could have left a force presence and of nana stan at bagram air force base. that is something that vice president biden pushed for when the obama administration talked about whether the surge in afghanistan or not, i think that was the right option back in but i'm not sure if it would've been sustainable now. part of the way we funded the war in afghanistan incorrect was through in overseas contingency fund off the books where we simply spent money, it wasn't necessarily budgeted and wasn't paid out of our tax dollars, it was added to the deficit. i think what we have seen is the pentagon budget has continued to rise and i think that's paying for important stuff but i think there is an opportunity now to invest in the united states which i think is part of the
reason why the president has pushed back -- pushed the build back better agenda and that's why we are seeing this debate over spending more money internally and at home. host: we could do in our more but we will wrap it up here. thanks to both of you for being with us this morning. there is more ahead here on "washington journal." up next, we will talk about the u.s. debt limit and the history and the impending debt limit deadline which is coming up tomorrow. we will be joined by kathleen day next on the program.
>> that tell the american story. at 2 p.m. eastern on the presidency, scholars examine a fundamental question about whether the united states needs a president. at 8 p.m. eastern on lectures of history, southern utah university professor talks about confederate guerrilla attacks on u.s. waterways during the civil war. she describes sabotaging union vessels. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span two oh stuff find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at www.c-span.org /history.
wednesday mean and why should we be concerned? guest: i would be surprised if congress let the deadline pass and not allow the united states to have enough authority to issue the debt it needs to pay. this is something that congress put in place in world war i. all that it was was a way for congress to say treasury can go and issued debt and you don't have to come to us every time. to that point, congress had to authorize every debt issue united states made. we were becoming bigger and it was cumbersome and time-consuming so they said the treasury can do it but only to a certain limit. it was a way for congress to keep control over the process. in the process of doing that over the years, it has been come
a political foot wall. i know lots of people advocate getting rid of it and i like to sometimes be the naysayer and say why get rid of it because what difference would it make? there is so much acrimony in congress and the united states that they would find another way to make the budget and their deficit and how much money we owe to others and how much -- and the way in which we finance what are do, they would find another way to make that political. host: you pointed out that the debt limit has been revised and congress has addressed it 100 times or more since world war ii? that's more than a couple of times per year? guest: it be come such a foot
ball and it's a way to try to make it like the other person is at fault. before we talk about it, may i remind everyone that this does not -- the debt ceiling has to do with what we already owe. it is not increasing what we owe. that is the purview of the budget committee and the appropriations committees in congress. the debt ceiling says what you owe and can we issued debt to pay it. it doesn't increase the debt but after decades of covering this, i think congress thinks the public doesn't understand that so it's a way of each side trying to say you are increasing the debt. i think that's what they think
is going on and they use this leverage to say we are not going to do this. that's not really the purpose of it. they are using it that way. host: the current argument from republicans not supporting the debt change are similar arguments used by democrats against republican congress is in the past, correct? guest: absolutely, and it's so arcane how they get around it -- it's so byzantine and complicated to get around doing it that i would have to have a cheat sheet to follow it. i'm sure they discuss how they will do this and they always found a way around it. if they did up the limit and we couldn't issue debt, it would raise the possibility the u.s. would default on its debt. this is the fear going back to the first treasury secretary
alexander hamilton. you can't do that in if you did it would be mayhem. i understand why the treasury secretary says get rid of the debt ceiling. i think it's not a bad way to remind the public that you have this in norma's debt but it doesn't raise the debt and not allowing it to be raised and allowing you to pay the bills would be so chaotic and would have so many dire repercussions. host: it seems politician argument should focus on the year-to-year spending. explain the difference between what the deficit is and what we are talking about the debt. guest: the deficit is the year-to-year short wall between what we spend. if you are going to spend two dollars and you only have a dollar, then you have to issue a dollar debt. that's the deficit each year, the debt is the accumulation of
all of the annual deficit. host: right now, the u.s. national debt is over $29 trillion and climbing. our guest is kathleen day and we are talking about the deadline for the debt limit coming up wednesday this week will step we welcome your calls and comments. there is real political economic consequences to this debt fight. take us back to the end of 2011 and what happened with the debt fight then. guest: i cannot tell you every nook and cranny because there is too much. they go back-and-forth. they have had to raise the debt ceiling dozens of times but it
wasn't always so acrimonious. what has been introduced in the toxicity we see around so many issues as now been firmly established and introduced into this. that is what is causing the brinksmanship. when you say 2011, there are so many turns in this where you could say this was the one where they became this way. it's a continuum. host: it must've affected the credit rating of the united states at some point will step guest: some people say the markets will shrug it off and the u.s. will never default and that's what they said about russia. there was a hedge fund called long-term capital management a while ago that nearly torpedoed the u.s. economy because it had
made similarly thinking that a sovereign government like russia would never default and they did. we are nowhere in the same ballpark economically or strategically in the markets as russia is. we still remain the benchmark of financial security in the world but that could be jeopardized if we really were to default. u.s. security still remain the best market as near to risk-free as you can get and if we did not pay our debt, all bets are off and it was significantly increase the cost of everything the government does and therefore the taxpayer. they are playing with fire. we are the benchmark of financial security and if we suddenly didn't pay our debt, it would further markets into chaos. or they might say we will not in
combat except some people say the u.s. would eventually make good. if there is a delay in getting your social security or medicare check, people don't like that. that will have financial repercussions. host: you mentioned the treasury secretary janet yellen is in favor of eliminating the debt limit and reiterated that point at a house hearing earlier this fall will stop here she is talking about it. [video clip] >> everybody on this call has voted to approve our spending. they voted to decide how much of the spending will be paid with tax spendings and we give ourselves the authority to decide how much of the residual of the debt we will pay for. it's political suicide and i may
cosponsor and supporter of mr. foster to end the default act and take that from congress because congress has proven we cannot be trusted with that responsibility. secretary yellen, would you support simply eliminating the debt ceiling so we don't have to deal with this and focus on real crises? >> yes i would because i believe when congress legislates the expenditures and puts in place text policy to determine taxes, those are the crucial decisions congress is making. if to finance the spending and tax decision it is necessary to issue additional debt, i believe it's very destructive to put the president and myself, the
treasury secretary in a situation where we might be unable to pay the bills we sold from those past decisions. host: what is your response to the secretary's reasoning for herschel orting that legislation ending the debt limit? guest: far be it from me to contradict a smart -- a smart person but she is right. in an ideal world, you would get rid of it and congress -- they decide how big the budget will be. my point is to say i think the people were fighting over the
debt limit would find a way to have the same fight and i'm not sure it would be any more or less per active. host: our guest is kathleen day. she is the author of a couple of books. let's get to calls for kathleen day. we will go to florida first on the republican line. i will try gordon in plant city florida. caller:caller: thank you for taking my call. i love rick scott but i have a mountain to pick with the guy. he says he wants to cut subsidies using my cash dollars. if he would do what he said, he would be looking at greatness but i have a theory he is not
cutting miss -- cutting the budget. the student loan bankruptcy bill forced the swamp to get back. the student loan bank -- bank robbing bill took a lot. the public service loan service as a 99.9% fail rate will step the lack of the forces from the bankruptcy in the same jury. when i call rick scott's office, i drive no name. host: we will let you go there. guest: he is talking about a
specific issue, student debt at -- debt and student loans which is an issue and is important. the debt ceiling is dish it obscures that in the sense it becomes its own crisis. there is so much congress is not dealing with. the real problem is the failure of politicians to get together and talk to each other and figure out some of these issues. there is a lot of pandering to the extremists on both sides of the party and there is a lot of difference of pinion, some of it is posturing and some of it is difference of opinion. the student debt and infrastructure, they get consumed under political acrimony. i go back to the debt at least
when you have the debt ceiling, people are thinking about the depth of the underlying issue is how to fix the debt, have to curb that and make sure what is too much debt. that's a complicated question. we can afford a lot of debt and there are times when you want to spend money in the response to the coronavirus was an appropriate way to spend money. it increase the debt that the gentleman caller is brought up the issue that congress isn't really dealing with the issues it needs to. i don't think getting rid of the debt ceiling are having it as a ceiling does away with that or causes that is my point. they need to start doing their job. host: let's hear from yolanda in louisiana.
go ahead, you are on the air. caller: this is what i'm calling for. you're talking about debt. personally, i believe that america is in debt to the black people in the united states of america built washington and built the white house literally which has never been repaired or given reparations for slavery and have been working for free for over 355 years. talk about that. thank you for taking my call. alabama is the poorest state in the union and the governor doesn't want to do anything for black people in alabama. host: any thoughts? guest: you are bringing up a
specific issue that is aside from the question of the debt ceiling. these are different issues. all of these are issues that need to be dealt with and get subsumed under the craziness of throwing the ball back and forth. it's more like a hot potato. let's remember the way in which the debt was most raise recently before covid was the tax cut in the last white house. they were supposed to pay for themselves and they didn't. it significantly raise the debt and the idea was we will do with so much and we will have to start talking about cutting
social security and medicare but then covid happened, no one expected that. when that came along, they couldn't cut those programs. if you had, all the problems of covid would have been amplified. even though they say the taxes will pay themselves when they get cut, it increases the debt and that's an excuse to start cutting some of the so-called entitlement programs and you could not do that. suddenly, you have to have the covid spending so the real issue for the debt ceiling is the underlying debt stop dealing with that responsibly and it really was the tax cut that wasn't done responsibly. it was done in the dead of night and there are tax cuts for
corporations and other things. it was crazy. we now have to live with that that we now have this jay norma's debt that is way bigger than it was and we have the debt ceiling. when we have this debate about the debt ceiling, it has one redeeming virtue and it reminds people we have a huge debt. i think there is some utility in that. the subject the callers are bringing up our great topics but they are not about the debt ceiling. host: the congressional research service says the u.s. debt held by private investors, 41% is held by foreign and private investors and 49% held by foreign investors. who are the biggest holders of u.s. debt?
host: it's going to be china, russia and the saudi's, the middle east and people want to have u.s. securities. in the last big crisis which listeners may be too young to remember, 2007, 2012, one of the jobs of the treasury secretary at the time was to reassure these foreign governments who held treasuries or mortgage-backed securities issued by freddie mac and fannie mae, one of the major jobs of the treasury secretary was to assure them that these were safe investments. it is all the big players around the world. at that time, there was an interesting incident. russia called china and said something like let's dump the
debt we have on the markets at once and it will amplify the crisis brewing in the united states. china declined and i think the chinese widely -- wisely saw that if the u.s. falls, so would they. they have a stake in us not defaulting. we are all in this together. if the bank lends you dollar -- thousand dollars, the bank owns you and of the bank lends you a million, you on the bank. our fate and their fate are tied when so many people hold our debt. host: next up is martha calling from georgia on the independent line stop caller: i have a question for you. have we ever been out of debt?
guest: that's a short question. we have had a debt probably -- i don't think there hasn't been a year since we haven't had debt since the founding of the country. there have been years where we didn't have a deficit step the deficit is the annual shortfall. you can have a surplus or a surplus or deficit in the last serve as was under clinton in 2001. i think it goes back four years. that's the last time we had a surplus. that's the annual shortfall .
host: there is no additional debt added? guest: that is correct. that's the last time we were adding yearly to the debt. it's the last couple of years that the addition to the debt has accelerated. host: question from twitter -- guest: people have tried to have that but congress would both an exception. it doesn't really make sense for us to have no debt step we are big and robust. if you on a factory come you don't want to have to save the
money to buy some equipment that will be revenue producing. you want to oro and buy it and let it everyone go to work and repay the debt. that can be a good thing if it's not too much debt. when debt becomes overwhelming and we have a lot of debts, how much is too much? that's another debate. the point is we have to get to how we spend our money and if you get rid of the debt ceiling and you have a balanced budget, they would suspend that temporarily because they will have an argument and you will need to break that. i'm not sure that would work and i'm not sure it's necessary. host: let's hear from teddy in louisiana. caller: it seems it is
politically popular now that the politicians cut spending and don't cut expenses, just borrow the difference. i think that's what's causing some of this. i understand the biden administration is trying to pass a tax where the corporations would pay a 15% minimum tax and i think that would help. it seems that all the major countries are in debt so it's a popular thing. could the government offer a negative interest rate on debt? maybe that would help. guest: negative interest rates is another complicated topic. i don't think people are
necessarily going to pay the government to borrow for the privilege of borrowing. i'm not quite sure. it sounds like you are saying that some debt sounds like it's ok and i re-stop most economists would agree that some is ok. too much is another question. right now, we had that huge tax cut and it was probably done irresponsibly. it did not pay for itself and you had covid on top of it will stop it has exacerbated the situation which is worse than it otherwise would be if congress had not done what it did. host: another question from twitter -- guest: a lot of people would
like to see us suffer economically. i'm sure mr. putin would be happy to see that. there would be pluses but the holders of the debt could also be hurt. maybe that's a political calculation where they say we are happy to have a delay in our repayments. the real problem for the economy is our democracy. people often say that capitalism helps democracy but democracy is what you need for free markets. the reason we are the benchmark of securities people trust us and trust the government. all of this questioning of the validity of elections and these things are undermining not only democracy but our economy and
they will eventually undermine our economy. we have a judicial system and military and all these things that work in the world looks to them. this is a system that works. investors know they have standing in court and investors know -- we are not perfect -- we have a pretty good system where people know they can go to court and get reasonably accurate information. we have institutions which police the markets. they don't do it perfectly and they could do better but if you undermine that and you have people start to undermine that, you are going to create long-term economic mayhem that will severely undercut the economy of the united states. it will raise the cost of doing everything. host: one more call for you from connecticut.
caller: the debt is now over $29 trillion. when truck came into office, it was only $20 trillion. in only five years, it's going up 45%. this is not sustainable. u.s. money is debt based. that means that the financial mechanism of wall street creates money and when big banks make loans, that's how money is created. that may be hard to understand because the media and the politicians never explain that stop the lost science of money is a book that will help you understand it. our debts will never be repaid.
when the world realizes that, there is going to be a gigantic crash. host: we will hear some final thoughts. guest: money is fungible so we are always repaying the debt and we always have new debt. the gentleman makes a new point -- makes a good point. in many ways, that is a complicated very esoteric and philosophical realm of what is money. in the day today, people don't think about it, they have a dollar in their pocket and they want to know what it will by step we do repay our debt and we keep making new debt and if we take on new debt faster than we pay the old debts, that's when you need to start saying is this an appropriate level of debt and how are we spending her money? are people paying their fair share of taxes.
there is an argument to be made that not everyone is paying their fair share. then they cry socialism. the fact is, we have to do something about the debt and many to be more rational about our budgets and how we spend our money and it would be nice if congress would stop trying to pander to the more extreme elements of our society and start rolling up their sleeves and doing the work. host: she is a lecturer at johns hopkins business school, thanks for being with us this morning. up next on the program, we will open it up for open forum and your thoughts on major public policy and news issues of the day. you can weigh in on the debt limit and u.s. foreign policy and the findings of the january 6 committee and the citation pending in the u.s. house. here are the phone lines.
go ahead and start dialing and we will get to you shortly. >> how did america get up to its neck in debt? >> we are striving to provide equal opportunity for all citizens. >> the documentary competition, students across the country are giving us behind the scenes looks at how they work on their entries. if you are a middle or high school student, you can join the conversation by entering the c-span student cam competition. create a six minute documentary using c-span video clip that answer the russian, how does the federal government impact your life? >> you can express your view no
matter how long you think the public will receive your bessette and know that this is the greatest country in the earth. >> remember the content is king. remember to be as neutral and impartial as possible in your portrayal of both sides of an issue. >> c-span awards $100,000 in total cash prices and you have a shot at winning the grand prize of $5,000, entries must be received before january 20, 2022. for more information, visit our website at cam.org. -- studentcam.org. host: it's open forum here on washington journal and we want to hear from you on major public housing or news items you are following.
we want to let you know about our coverage this morning on c-span. we will take you live to capitol hill in a few minutes the foreign relations committee is a nomination for the nominees to the u.s. ambassador to germany, pakistan and india and that testimony gets underway at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. on c-span three at 10:00 a.m., president binds nominee to the fda commissioner will testify before the senate health committee and on c-span, you can follow it on www.c-span.org and her free mobile app, c-span now. we will go to the new york times this morning.
let's go to your calls and hear first from birmingham, alabama. caller: thank you for c-span. considering the conditions in kentucky and alabama, the major banks and financial institutions of this country with the reinvestment act need to help these people. congress should step in with the money given to the american public for the covid virus. there's trillions of money out there still on the line. in the state of alabama, they have taken the money to
penitentiaries. host: that money is being used to build penitentiaries? caller: the governor of alabama, maybe a month ago, took the stimulus money to finance building penitentiaries because the federal government did not. if they can use the money for that, they can use for the people in kentucky. host: tallahassee, florida democrats line. caller: i would like to talk to the women of america. if the supreme court and all the men in america want to tell us what we can do with our bodies,
then let's also require them to take care of every seed they plant. that means they will pay for and at least help pay for the medical expenses of having a baby, they will take care of their kids when they are born. that includes keeping them out of jail, making sure they have food making sure they have a place to live they need to do their fair share. if they are not going to do their fair share, then don't tell us what to do with our bodies, thank you. host: we cover the hearing on this issue back in september and here is the headline --
i was listening to the person you had on earlier about the debt ceiling. is it possible to debt ceiling should be protecting the government from rising above its debt? when government creates debt, the use the money to kick -- two create economic conditions. then the government backs out. they let the economy do with thing and by doing that, more people would be able to pay taxes. the government can then pay back that debt. the last comment i wanted to make is about the 13 servicemen who died during the pullout out
of afghanistan. i think they -- i think it was a great success. it's sad enough to lose one service man stop all of america realized that stuff we don't like to lose any of our servicemen. my dad served in the military in the navy for 26 years. i have another family member who served in the military and it breaks your heart when you see the service members coming home covered with the flag stop but even sadder and more shameful is when you politicized the death of the servicemen for the purpose of winning an election. that's sad and that's what we witnessed during the last few months when the afghanistan withdrawal was going on. it was not the cleanest.
i think that's the best option he had. they used all of the mike the government had to pull out as many people as possible. host: george on the republican line in montana. caller: i was wondering how come somebody doesn't but that leadpipe deal to rest. there is no such thing as a lead by. it looks like one of them senators or congressmen should have worked or seen some pipe. another thing, google has pictures of galvanized pipe under houses in the even had a plumber showing you how to replace lead pipe and all it was was galvanized. the engineers in flint michigan, if they don't know the difference between leadpipe and
galvanized right, it's unbelievable. your water bills are at least twice as high as your electric bill and if they don't get rid of affirmative action, you'll be paying five times more for water. every job is 4-5 times higher because of affirmative action. that's why flint michigan doesn't have any water it never had the money to get the water supply to the population will step host: let's go to paul in yuma arizona on open forum. caller: good morning. i am loan away by the callers from the right talking about january 6 when they absolutely refuse to listen to the evidence coming out of the committee. they won't watch it because fox does not show it will stop they
absolutely will not show anything about it. the emails and the texts on january 6 coming into mark meadows proves it was an organized effort from the very first and trump was involved up to his neck. they just won't read the evidence. that's all i have to say. host: this is from the washington post about the debt limit.
ukraine. all the businesses that were destroyed and people had their livelihoods interrupted and turning around and saying let's defund law enforcement. the democrats were the ones in front of the capitol building. host: next up is david in clinton township michigan on our democrats line. caller: to the caller that said there are no leadpipe's, the use lead to join pipes together. they use lead to join pipes underground. host: thanks for weighing in and a couple of more minutes with a hearing coming up at 10:00 eastern and we will take you live to the senate foreign relations committee. from the wall street journal --
next to madison, illinois on our democrats line. caller: good morning. i have a few things to say about january 6. it's a shame that congress can't get together and get this thing cleared up. all they have to do -- they know who done it. let's start putting some of them in jail and that will take care
of a few of them. all of them that voted on this thing in the house and i think there are 40 of them there, they are going to get dragged in it as well, you just watch. that's about it, thank you. host: the house and senate are in session today and the washington times and we go to lisa in haymarket, virginia, republican line. caller: good morning. how are our leaders doing? the leaders on the republican side of which i've been a member for many years, pretty embarrassed to say that now. the leaders are not doing anything.
they are stonewalling everything. it's the difference between healthy opposition to an agenda and then flat out stonewalling everything from the picks for our homeland security and our ambassadors. i don't understand it. not come flying, we are trying to understand what happened january 6 and i think y'all all know what happened. there was an insurrection and trying to get to the bottom of it should be pretty straightforward and should be on everybody's forefront of their minds. if this can happen and it almost succeeded, than we are in serious trouble. i don't understand how leadership can just whitewash this or let it go.
we all watched it live as it was happening and it's really a terrible staying on our democracy and frankly could jeopardize it going forward. host: you're on the republican line so you are a republican, your state had a big election this year. did you vote for the republican nominees? caller: no i did not and i'll tell you why. the reason i didn't is i like the background of glenn youngkin and i liked his personality and the way he stayed away from the former president. but there was one thing he has said that was undercover where he said he could not press on abortion rights in virginia and
virginia has made huge strides. i've been in virginia 25 years and they have made huge strides and all manner of things. what i did not like about what he did was -- my neighborhood is filled with teachers. critical race theory is not taugh in virginia public schools. it makes me crazy. had he not gone there -- because we don't teach it. there is no reason for that. i would have voted for him. host: appreciate your call and thank you for your participation in today's program. we will be back tomorrow morning here on washington journal. of next, a couple of hearings. first, getting underway on c-span3 is the hearing for if the commissioner nominee, the