CSPAN - Washington Journal 03/20/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 20, 2025 07:00-10:01 - CSPAN

03:00:36

Washington Journal 03/20/2025

Participants

Main

mimi geerges

cspan 23:52

Appearances

brian lamb

cspan 01:20

glenn ivey

rep/d 02:35

jerome powell

01:12

mike flood

rep/r 02:38

steve witkoff

00:57

Clips

mehmet oz

admin 00:25

ron wyden

sen/d 00:17

Callers

corona in ohio

callers 00:02

daniel in texas

callers 00:05

donna in west virginia

callers 00:23

james in south carolina

callers 00:06

kim in wisconsin

callers 00:19

swamp dinosaur in sting

callers 00:26

unity in texas

callers 00:17

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org.
		Coming up this morning on Washington Journal, Your Calls and Comments Live, we'll talk about the potential changes to Medicaid coverage under the Trump administration with the Century Foundation's Jaquita Brooks-Leshure and Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and Doug Klain, non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center on the war in Ukraine and Trump administration efforts to reach a ceasefire deal.
		Washington Journal is next.
		Join the conversation.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		It's Thursday, March 20th.
		Both Republican and Democratic voters have been expressing their frustration at town halls across the U.S.
		The lawmakers who are still holding in-person meetings are facing constituents angry about what Congress is or isn't doing in Washington.
		This morning, we want to hear what you would say to your senator or representative if you could talk to them directly.
		Here's how to reach us: Democrats, 202748-8000, Republicans, 202-748-8001, and Independents 202-748-8002.
		You can send a text to 202-748-8003, include your first name in your city-state, and you can post your comments on social media, facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and X at C-SPANWJ.
		Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
		We'll start with a town hall held by Maryland Democrat Glenn Ivey.
		The C-SPAN cameras went there, and we have that we have an exchange for you regarding the Democratic vote on the continuing resolution.
		So, here's a portion of that.
unidentified		It's not that you're in the minority, it's that you aren't even working together on a shared strategy, and that is failure.
		So, to be clear, Congressman, the message you should clearly take to your colleagues from your constituents is this: We are not interested in hearing that you are in the minority.
		We know that.
		We want you to show some of the backbone and strategic brilliance that Mitch McConnell would have in the minority.
		Right.
		We want you to show fight, and you are not fighting.
		We are on the front lines, and you are talking about 2026.
		Democrats should win in 2026, but those Democrats may need to be the people who beat incumbents in primaries for being too passive now.
		If you want airtime, be disruptive.
		And you voted correctly on the CR.
		Please take the message to your colleagues.
		We must primary those who are against us, and we feel that Democrats in Congress are against us.
		This must change, Congressman.
		This must change.
glenn ivey ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I agree.
		And I think your point about the vote on the CR is right.
		I mean, you know, as we said at the beginning of this, that was a devastating vote.
		It was a huge, not just a missed opportunity, but like really devastating to folks, especially after he said it initially, he was going to vote for it.
		And then flip.
		He just asked me about this.
		He just asked me about that.
		I'm going to answer his question, I'm going to answer his question, I'm going to answer his question, you'll get a turn.
		You will get a turn.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was on Tuesday.
		We've got the full event for you on C-SPAN.org.
		Also happening last night, U.S. Representative Harriet Hageman stops in Laramie for Town Hall State Tour.
		That's in Wyoming.
		This is the Wyoming News.
		We have a short clip for you that was posted on X by reporter for NBC News, Kate Santalis.
unidentified		here's social security so i would request that you actually watch action at some accurate tv and read valid news because that is untrue in terms of social security president trump has repeatedly stated that he is not cutting social security
		It is not part of the budget resolution.
		That is untrue.
		Social Security.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we will go to your calls now.
		We'll start with Susan on the Republican line in Worcester, Massachusetts.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
		I'm laughing at these women.
		I think Congress is doing the right thing.
		Keep doing it.
		My Republicans in the Senate and the House, these women are crazy.
		They all have Trump derangement.
		And one of the senators from Minnesota put that toward legislation and told them that the liberals are mentally ill.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Susan, who's your representative in Congress?
		I know you have two Democratic senators.
		Who's your representative?
unidentified		I know.
		I can't think of, I can see him.
		He's always on Suspan.
		And I don't even talk to him.
		I don't even talk to this guy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Why not, Susan?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Why don't you?
unidentified		He's a Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But you can talk to Democrats and share your opinion.
unidentified		Yeah, but I don't want to.
		I don't want to even look at them.
		These women, hey, can I ask you a question?
		These women are getting more ugly, more ferocious.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Come on.
		Sid in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, Independent Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		My congressman is Stenny Hoyer, and he has helped me in the past because I'm a disabled veteran.
		You know, I don't really have anything to say to them apart from rebuilding the Democratic Party from the base up right now.
		I think that's if they want to win this 2026 election, I think that's what they need to focus on.
		You really can't blame them because people voted for Donald Trump.
		And if you, and like I said, like even Glenn Ivey said yesterday, that elections are consequences.
		So yelling and screaming and being obstructionists is really not going to help because you voted Trump in, so face the consequences.
		But on the other hand, I feel my congressman, Chris Van Holland, I mean the senator and Constantine, they should really focus on rebuilding the Democratic Party from the base up.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		How do you think it needs to be rebuilt?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What needs to be done?
unidentified		Just like Glenn Ivey said, get out there and talk to the constituents, get to know what the voters are thinking, maybe come up with some new leadership.
		You know, that's what the Democratic Party is known for, knocking door to door, listening to voters' concerns, and coming up with a strategy to take back the House and the Senate.
		That's the only way at this point, really, and winning in the course that they've been doing, to the federal judges, thank God President Biden put in federal judges to have a system of checks and balances for the Trump administration.
		That's all I have to say.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Rob is in New York City, line for Democrats.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Rob.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		Thank you for C-SPAN.
		You know, all these cuts that we're watching happen with Doge are not slowing the national debt clock one iota.
		Here I am, a Democrat, but I hate our national debt and I hate the deficit.
		But there are, I think what we're seeing from Doge are just the small potatoes.
		The big potatoes, the big kahuna is things like oil subsidies where these oil companies get subsidies from the United States government.
		Removing the cap on Social Security, if I was going to advise my fellow Democrats, it would be to certainly complain about the meanness of these minor cuts to our budget.
		But to accentuate really the big potatoes, the big things in our budget that could be addressed, again, oil subsidies, the cap on Social Security, instead of talking about the Democrats, you know, the meanness of the idea of cutting Social Security, but give the solution about how to save Social Security.
		Listen, this has been, and there's so many other big ticket items that the Democrats should be hammering away on the way the Republicans do.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		You should be hammering away.
unidentified		Well, Rob, let's hammer away.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's take a look at Congressman Mike Flood.
		He's a Republican of Oklahoma.
		C-SPAN cameras were there for that, and he did talk about Doge's efforts specifically with the Treasury Department.
unidentified		You talk about national security, yet you have done nothing to stop Elon Musk and his little band of tech geeks.
		They went in and they had read-write access to the agencies, and that is a huge national security threat.
		I took enough computer classes to understand that it takes like 30 seconds of someone with an unsecured device in a building and connected to a mainframe to wreck everything.
		The fact that you have not done anything to stand up to him and this talk of I support Trump, I support Elon Musk, that's not enough.
		Okay, we need actual action.
		We need actual cybersecurity experts to go in and make sure that our government is secure because Trump is in the pocket of Putin and you are letting him continue.
mike flood ▲ ● ▼		Well, first and foremost, the premise of your question is going to be hard to answer because you've made your mind up about a number of things.
		But one of the things that you said one of the things that you said was that I've done nothing as it relates to access to our Treasury system.
		I have, on more than one occasion, had direct conversation with Treasury officials, including the Secretary of the Treasury.
		I'm on the Financial Services Committee.
		I have oversight jurisdiction over as a member of that committee over the U.S. Treasury system.
		And I have directly asked and gotten an answer from the Treasury Secretary as to the access that Doge and its employees have.
		I also have confirmed that the people working in that agency or in that Department of Government Efficiency have passed the security test.
		They have the appropriate clearances, and they are working under a president and a treasury secretary that has the president's been elected by the American people, and the Treasury Secretary has been confirmed by the United States Senate.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And if you would like to see that and all the town halls that we've got, we're going to be airing those this Saturday starting at 10 a.m.
		It's going to be a series of town halls.
		You can watch that here on C-SPAN.
		Again, that's Saturday starting at 10 a.m.
		And all those are on our website if you'd like to take a look.
		And this is Bradley in Clare Fork, West Virginia, Republican.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I've got about three or four policies there.
		You might not like this one that much, but I want to commend NBC for last night's 100th anniversary of the grand old Opry, the greatest show I think that was on earth.
		Okay, I switched politics September the 10th.
		I went Republican.
		I've been a Democrat all my life.
		They're in the dugout.
		They're in the dugout.
		Our new senator, Justice, is a Republican.
		Our other senator, I can't think Donald Hamm, but she is a Republican.
		They've all went Republican for some reason.
		So go get them elected officials.
		Back Donald Trump for what he's doing.
		You know, this country has went to the dogs so severely it is something pathetic.
		And, you know, we just need to do it.
		And all these people that's doing all this destruction, I'd like to be the security guard at those dealerships and anywhere they're at.
		That'd probably be the last time that they've done any kind of damage.
		That's just uncalled for.
		You know, there's no reason for none of this damage and all this stuff going on.
		That's just radical.
		That's why I switched.
		Thank you.
		And you have a very nice day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here's Mike, Massachusetts Independent Line.
		Mike, what do you think?
		What would you say to your representative or senator?
unidentified		Well, it goes back to when the Democrats helped the Republicans pass the budget about a week or so ago, Schumer and all.
		And in that budget, there were $6 billion added for defense.
		And I think it's time that both sides again get together and talk about that $6 billion.
		I think there's no reason why we can't at least take between $500 million and $1 billion out of that budget and find a way to get it to the people who need it the most, which is our veterans.
		You know, we have a suicide rate in America of veterans of almost 8,000 a year.
		These are figures that were on C-SPAN some time ago.
		That's almost one veteran an hour, practically.
unity in texas ▲ ● ▼		And how long can our military be, can we count on our veterans to defend, fight, and die in more wars that are never-ending, it seems like, that we're in.
unidentified		Even though I could spend a year talking on this show, what I'd like to see them do, at least that $6 billion, some of that money should be going to the veterans, and both sides should be fighting for it.
unidentified		And other than that, we got that, Mike.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here's Cliff, Henrietta, Oklahoma, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I would urge my congressmen and congressmen all across this nation to take a look at the wildlife department in these various states.
		They've done the State Department, Wildlife Departments have done wonderful jobs of protecting the wildlife and managing the wildlife estates.
		They derive their funding from the sale of hunting and fishing license and fines.
		The federal government has bought and purchased land and own land all across this nation.
		They hire and pay federal game wardens to patrol those, and those game wardens are paid by the taxpayers of this nation.
		And there would be a savings of paying these game wardens if they would just turn the control and the wildlife department laws over to the states so that that money,
		they could have more money coming in from people that actually hunt and fish in the states and cut out those federal game wardens that are being.
		being paid by the taxpayers.
		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Got that, Cliff.
		And here's Paul in New Albany, Indiana.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning to you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What would you say to your representative or senator?
unidentified		I would say, Republican or Democrat, just do your job because Congress has the power of the purse strings.
		And I don't want an unelected apartheid Nazi with six juvenile delinquents rummaging through files.
		Just do your job.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So what do you want them to do specifically?
unidentified		I mean, doing their job is they have the power of the purse strings.
unidentified		And if they think they're spending too much, then vote on.
daniel in texas ▲ ● ▼		Stand up and be heard and let the voters decide where you return to Congress.
unidentified		They're a bunch of what I call cowards.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here's Bertha in New Jersey, Independent Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hi.
		I just wanted to say that until we get the lobbyists out of our house and stop the insider trading, nothing is going to change.
		It'll be back to business as usual.
		And that's how we got Trump in the first place.
		We got him because the Democrats and the Republicans were not doing their job.
		And we need to put a policy called Pass the Torch.
		People that are 70 years old should not be running for president, especially the highest job.
		I'm sorry.
		I'm 70 years old and I'm seeing it myself.
		That should not be allowed.
		Even in Congress, in the Senate, and even in the Supreme Court, things have to change.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And we are taking your calls this hour about what you would say to your lawmaker.
		What would you say to your member of Congress if you were in a town hall and you were able to speak to them directly?
		The numbers are on your screen.
		Democrats 202-748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001 and Independents 202-748-8002.
		And we'll go back to that town hall with Representative Glenn Ivey, a Democrat of Maryland.
		He was asked about the fight against the Republican budget resolution.
unidentified		So what I'm asking of you now, don't talk to me about the courts.
		Don't talk to me about the next election.
		Talk to me about how you are working with your Democratic colleagues, with our regional colleagues in the Congress and in the Senate to oppose and make it difficult between now and September to do the kinds of things that we're all complaining about.
		I love to talk bad about Donald Trump and Chuck Schumer with my friends.
		I came here to understand what my congressman is specifically doing.
glenn ivey ▲ ● ▼		Okay, well, before we get to September, actually, we've got the budget resolution coming up.
		And so, and the budget resolution, as I mentioned, was the Medicaid vote.
		So, and I know you don't want to talk about 2026, but the only way we can win that vote is if we've got Republicans who are paying attention to 2026.
		And the only way they will pay attention to 2026 is if we create a situation where they think it could help them lose if they vote for it.
		So, for example, in my view, one of the things Democrats should do is have an alternative tax bill, because the budget resolution is really about Trump doing the $4 trillion tax cut, right?
		And the $4 trillion, as you know, most of that's going to go to Elon and his buddies.
		We've got to make sure we explain to regular folks in red districts, blue districts apparently, too, where some of these senators came from.
		So they understand that that's where that money is going to go.
		But the Democrats have a different approach.
		We're going to make sure that if there are going to be tax cuts, it's going to go to regular people.
		And to the extent there are cuts that go to businesses, it's not going to be Exxon and the offshore guys.
		It'll be small businesses in our neighborhoods that hire people locally.
		And I think that makes sense because it's really better for regular folks.
		To the extent we had trouble and we lost in 2024, in part, it was because we lost a lot of working class voters, mostly white voters, especially white males.
		But we started losing young black males and young Latino males too.
		Many of them voted for Trump in numbers we've never seen before.
		Now, it may be that that's just they like Trump and there aren't going to be coattails for other elections, but we've got to make sure we start reaching out to them too.
		We can't just assume that black voters are always going to turn up and save the Democratic Party in every election cycle.
		We've got to earn them too.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we have more town hall meetings for you for your schedule.
		Later tonight at 7.30 p.m., we'll have live coverage of Colorado Democratic Senator Michael Bennett.
		He'll take questions from his constituents at a town hall in Colorado Springs.
		So that's at 7.30 tonight on C-SPAN.
		Friday, Independent Senator Bernie Sanders and Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hosts a rally in Denver, part of Senator Sanders' tour of congressional districts that were narrowly won by Republicans.
		They're expected to discuss their economic policy agenda and what they say is the rise of authoritarianism in America.
		We'll cover that live at 7 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN on Friday.
		And then on Saturday at 10 a.m., New Jersey Freshman Senator Andy Kim hosts a town hall in Brick Township in Ocean County, New Jersey that will have live coverage of that Saturday, 10 a.m. Eastern.
		All of those you can find on our website, cspan.org, and on our app, C-SPAN Now.
		Eric in New Brunswick, New Jersey, Republican.
		Good morning, Eric.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Hello.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		Unfortunately, I can't make it to that town hall that's coming up with my senator, Senator Andy Kim, that you just mentioned.
		But my comment is for him.
		He's a Democrat, and I am hopeful that during the Trump administration, the Democrats can really take on an issue that is long overdue for Democrats to take on, and that's changing Richard Nixon's approach to the federal war on drugs.
		So there's a simple change that the Democrats can really spearhead that would save lives.
		We have over 100,000 people a year dying of fentanyl overdoses.
		So much violence domestically between gangs and in foreign countries where the cartels make those countries really difficult to live in.
		So we have a lot of asylum cases coming from those foreign countries.
		It's just a catastrophe.
		So my proposal for the Democrats under Trump, and this is addressed to my senator, Senator Andy Kim, is to make a simple change that there can continue to be federal prosecution of illegal drugs, but you just have an FDA labeling system for the current narcotics.
		So basically, you allow the states to decide whether or not someone can buy heroin cocaine from an FDA-registered outlet, and it has an FDA label, an FDA barcode on it.
		But the federal government will only prosecute people who are going outside of the FDA labeling system.
		So that would be going after the cartels and also allowing for, for example, Trump vodka never has fentanyl in it.
		You never have to worry about Trump vodka having fentanyl in it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Eric, got your point.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		William in McKees at Rocks, Pennsylvania, Independent Line.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes, I'm an independent, but I originally was a Democrat.
		And the last great Democrat president was Bill Clinton.
		And he was a middle-of-the-road Democrat.
		He put 100,000 more policemen on the streets.
		This party, taking people, taking policemen off the streets, they're doing everything that they shouldn't be doing as an old-time Democrat.
		And they have to have someone take charge of this party who knows what the hell they're doing and not be radical and be middle of the road.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So what do you think?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		William, what do you think of your senator Fetterman?
unidentified		I like him.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you think he could be like the next Democratic leader?
unidentified		You know what?
		I think that might be the man.
		Yes, indeed.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here's Miles in San Angelo, Texas, Democrat.
		Good morning, Miles.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
		Hey, I just got to tell you, I never call in unless it's you because you brighten my day so much when I see you.
		Listen, I would tell my representative His Majesty August Luger, who runs unopposed as a Republican here in Texas, and who basically is a, what would I call it, a drone for President Stinky Emperor.
		Anyway, I really wish that these Democrats are complaining about Democrats.
		They're saying, why are they tearing up these cars?
		I wish I could shoot that guy.
		But then they tear up the Capitol, and y'all change the Republican.
		I don't understand.
		And one more thing, no Republicans have changed to Democrat.
		So I would tell August, sir, Your Majesty, please change parties or resign today.
		In fact, I call him and tell him that all the time.
		But Mimi, you are the coolest.
		Fantastic today.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		John in Chicago, Illinois, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How you doing?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good.
unidentified		Okay.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		Now, what the Democrats got to do, we got to go out and select younger people because the Democratic Party, they're too old and they just ain't got enough fight in them.
		I mean, they let this man walk all over them and they don't do nothing about it.
		We have to go out and get some young black people that are going to fight.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you have anybody in mind, John?
unidentified		Oh, yeah, quite a few of them.
		You know, I can't just call them off here.
		Yeah, I have quite a few up here in Chicago.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And in other news, this is USA Today, Trump to sign order Thursday.
		That's today aimed at eliminating Education Department.
		Trump will direct his Education Secretary, Linda McMahon, to take, quote, all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.
		We're expecting that at about 4 p.m. Eastern time.
		And you can keep your eyes on the C-SPAN networks if you'd like to see that.
		Rex in Andover, Minnesota, Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Been really enjoying listening to the very intelligent comments that I've been hearing this morning.
		And in particular, one of the people called a name.
		I hate using the name coward, but it's true.
		I would ask my representative, why are you being such a coward?
		I mean, the thing is that, like the last gentleman just said, they're letting Trump walk all over them.
		And that is not the way the system of the United States is set up.
		There are systematic, methodical procedures that are supposed to be held in place as per the Constitution.
		And Trump is running roughshod over the Constitution.
		And my concern is, why isn't anybody saying, hey, you know what?
		Having Elon Musk going into these various departments and cutting them and then reversing the order after all the damage is done, right?
		I mean, you've got, you know, his minions going in there, storing all this very sensitive, valuable data.
		You know, what are they doing?
		Keeping that on their hard drives so that they can use that against us a little bit later and hold us hostage, you know, so that we can't threaten the kingdom that they're building anymore?
		I don't quite get it.
		But the bottom line for me is I would ask my representative, Tom Emmer, why aren't you spearheading an effort to sue President Trump to give them the power of the purse back again?
		Because right now, Trump Musk, Inc. has taken away the power of the purse, and Congress has that job.
		The Congress should be suing Trump and Musk to get their job back.
		You think that that's what they're supposed to do.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You think that's the most effective way to go about this, Rex?
unidentified		It's the only way.
		I mean, unless you want to resort to violence, and that's not going to accomplish anything except for starting a whole new civil war.
		We have started, Trump has started a civil war by creating the most chaotic environment in this administration and this government.
		Everybody's walking on eggshells.
		They don't know if they're going to have their Social Security.
		They don't know if they're going to have their Medicaid.
		They don't know if they're going to have their veterans' benefits.
		Trump needs to be sued and have the exact same game played on him as he plays on everybody else that wants to challenge him.
		He always says, oh, we'll just sue you, or we'll primary you, or all this other passive, aggressive crap that he is constantly pulling to threaten people and keep them in line for his in his own kingdom and to create his own kingdom.
		We need to sue him back.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Rex, here's Orlando, Independent, in Social Circle, Georgia.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Orlando.
unidentified		Good morning.
		How are you doing?
		Good.
		I love it.
		I love everything Trump's doing.
		I would tell Buddy Carter, keep up the good work.
		Stand on business.
		It's not fair that the farmers should have to go out and get it out of the mud and people should, and people get food stamps, don't do nothing, can just go in the store and get what the farmers work for.
		The school system is a circus.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		No, I was just going to say, has your Congress member, you said Buddy Carter, has he held a town hall?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Have you been able to talk to him?
unidentified		Well, I don't need to talk to him because he's doing a fine job.
		I love the way the economy is going right now.
		It looks like some correction is going to be done with Trump leading this thing.
		I am a BLK man, and I was a Democrat, but I love the way it's going because, you know, school has become a circus.
		The kids just go there for a fashion show, and any information you need is on the internet, you know.
		So I love everything Trump's doing.
		I just tell him, keep up the good work because nobody else was going to do this.
		Nobody else was going to stop all the freeloading.
		And Abraham Lincoln said, ask not what your country can do for you.
		Ask what you can do for your country.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that was JFK, Orlando.
		That was JFK.
		Here's William in Triangle, Virginia, Democrat.
		Good morning, William.
unidentified		Yes, I don't really know what the last guy was talking about, but Trump has been a terrible disaster.
		I'm a veteran, 20 years in the Marine Corps.
		I'm 100% really, I'm over 100% disabled.
		I get what you call aid and attendance because I need assistance in everyday living for just doing ordinary things.
		I haven't had a day without pain since 1984.
		And going through the disability process, matter of fact, I'm still doing some stuff.
		It took from 1994 to the present to get what I correctly deserved to get.
		And I can remember the days when you had to get on the phone, when you got on the phone just to try to get in touch with the VA on the 800 number.
		You could stay on the phone an hour.
		You know, now, because they got enough people, you can get a response right away.
		And the disability process is going a little bit better now because they got more people.
		This guy has never served this country in the military.
		He's just a total disaster.
		He's an idiot.
		He lies.
		And I don't understand the guy that says before.
		This guy lies to you every day and you believe it.
		And this is the thing, and I like to tell my congressman to grow backbone.
		Become like Jasmine Concrete.
		These young people that tell it the way it is.
		You know, I can't even raise my arms above my mid up above.
		I got both rotated cuffs in my shoulder torn and can't be repaired.
		I fell 40 feet.
		I have numbness in both of my feet, numbness in both my hands.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Is all that as a result of your service in the Marine Corps, William?
unidentified		Oh, this is Marine Corps.
		I fell 40 feet in 1984 while repelling in the Republic of Korea.
		And I got injuries all over my body.
		I got diagnosed with cancer from the Campbell June Water.
		I got muscle myeloma, B-cell muscle myeloma.
		I also have prostate cancer as a result of military service.
		And these guys want to come in and cut these services for these veterans.
		These guys, they got to live in these shoes of people that go through this every day.
		And you got people out there worse than I am.
		I need a wheelchair to get around a long distance.
		But I go shopping.
		I have to have a wheelchair because I can't walk long distance.
		Both of my feet are numb.
		I had hand surgery yesterday as a result of being numb.
		I'm going to say my service in the military.
		And when I've been my fingers, I get electric shock through my arm.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, you're dealing with that, William.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is Tommy in Adgar, Alabama, Republican?
unidentified		Yes, sir.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		Yes, ma'am.
		Go right ahead, Tommy.
unidentified		I was listening to what he was saying.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yep, go right ahead.
unidentified		I think they needed Trump leave Trump wrong.
		We don't have the funds to do that no more.
		Biting and she tore this country apart.
		The man's trying to keep us from going into a bad compression, a real bad compression.
		If they don't stop it, we're going to go in one hat compression.
		We ain't going to pull our air.
		I just pray to God everybody can get along in this war.
		We all make peace.
		That's all we want is peace, and everybody stopped crying and then let Trump do what he's supposed to.
		That's what everybody came in the office for, ma'am.
		And that's all I got to say about it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is Susie in Washington, D.C. Good morning, Susie.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Independent Line.
unidentified		Hey.
		Hey, thanks for taking my call.
		I mean, basically, my story is different, but the veteran that was called two calls ago, I mean, it's like we can, I was living in Illinois.
		I worked in the film industry, and I uncovered some serious fraud and abuse occurring in my left-wing labor union.
		And, you know, Dick Durbin Janchakowski, I know how to contact these people.
		I have a line to them, and they're just like, la, You know, these people sit on the committees in charge of labor, in charge of, you know, it was like they didn't want to see the evidence of a stalking rape, you know, whatever it was.
		Like, it was escalating for eight years during Trump, during Biden.
		Like, no one would help me.
		And, you know, it's like these veterans.
		It's a different story.
		But, you know, like, look, you know, they sit on the defense.
		They sit on the how is this going to change?
		Like, what percentage of the housing is owned by, you know, private equity?
		It's intractable.
		And we're not even talking about the real problems of that private equity situation or, you know, the powerlessness of a female, of a black man.
		Like, no one's really talking about it.
		It's the same, it's the same script.
		I'm not surprised we're in the SH show that is happening.
		It's like a direct result of the inaction of these like members in wheelchairs.
		You know what I mean?
		Like let's like the elderly ones, not any disabled person.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Susie.
		And regarding Veterans Affairs funding, Congressman Mike Flood was asked about that.
		He's a Republican.
		Here is what he said to his constituent.
unidentified		I am a constituent.
		I'm not a paid operative.
		I came here from Lincoln.
		And my issue today is veterans.
		My father, Norbert Arnold, served in the Marines during World War II.
		He survived Iwo Jima to return to the family homestead and help feed the nation and help my mother raise six unruly kids.
		When he needed a hip replacement and later in treatment for epilepsy, he relied on the Veterans Hospital in Grand Island.
		Now, millions of dollars in veteran services have been cut by an unelected billionaire and his whiz kids.
		None of them have shown the bravery that my father did or that the greatest generation has done.
		Meanwhile, veterans who continue to serve veterans in the federal services have been unceremoniously fired.
		And I want to hear your comments on providing our veterans with the services that they've earned and that they deserve.
		Thank you.
mike flood ▲ ● ▼		Something a lot of people don't know is that every day, members of Congress like me work with veterans to make sure they get the care they were promised and that they are owed.
		And when you serve in the military, we owe you and we want to provide the very best care that we can provide because your father, your relatives, they earned it with their bravery, with their service, and with their citizenship.
		So at the end of the day, we will keep our promises.
		Congressman Mike Bost is the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee.
		He is about seven doors down the hall from me.
		I walk to the House of Representatives floor with him several times a month.
		I know, he knows, that committee knows, your members of Congress know that that is a sacred obligation that we must follow through on.
		That does not mean there are not places to find efficiencies in the system.
		There has been no decree officially about what kind of cuts the veterans system could experience.
		But I do know that we have seen a significant increase of staffing in the Department of Veterans Affairs since 2019.
		It may be that we see staffing from 2019 levels.
		I don't know.
		But ultimately, any cuts that are made in our government have to keep the promises that we have made.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We have a few posts here on Facebook.
		This is Angela, who says, please act as though you care for your constituents instead of blindly following a cult leader.
		They put you in office and hopefully take you out.
		Henry says he would say, stay the course.
		This is why we voted for President Trump.
		And Yulia says that she would tell her congressmember, thank you for supporting the people's president.
		And Patrick says, simply support him.
		Here is Mike, Beaver, Pennsylvania, Democrat.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes.
		I just wanted to say that I have told my congressman, and I'm going to continue to tell him that Elon Musk needs to go just quickly.
		And then also there was a mention of the MSC.
		Fetterman, as far as him being the next big thing for Democrats, that's a bad idea.
		I've met him.
		No, that's.
		Now, Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania, yes.
		But Fetterman, no.
		That's all I wanted to say.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is Dennis in Laurel, Maryland, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Dennis.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Well, I'm just laughable at this point because, you know, when Biden was in office, we had problems.
		Now Trump's in office and people are complaining.
		It's like the far left and the far right.
		But no one is ever thinking about independence.
		You know, nobody's thinking for themselves.
		That's what I see lately.
		And it's laughable because you had a guy on there quoting said something Lincoln said, and it was JFK.
		And this guy was, he was dead serious.
		And then you worrying about getting rid of the educational system.
		You know, I don't want to go to the school or send my kids to the school where that guy went.
		But I mean, we're divided.
		We're a divided mess.
		And it's getting worse.
		And nobody's saying nothing about Congress.
		And, you know, you're yelling about the president, but you got Congress, and we keep voting the same people in over and over and over.
		These guys are old.
		They're old.
		And that's that.
		Like, we never, nothing's going to change if nothing changes.
		And I'm 60 years old, and I've watched presidents come and go, and it's the same thing.
		Now, we're going to blame Biden for the next couple years.
		And then when Trump's gone, we're going to blame Trump for the next couple years.
		And we're going to keep getting the same thing over and over.
		And it's just laughable.
		You know, I'm a working stiff.
		I've been working since I was 13 years old.
		And whatever president's in office, guess what?
		It's been the same for me.
		I go to work.
		I pay my bills.
		I do the best I can.
		You know, I don't depend on the government to take care of me.
		And, you know, and no president, nobody in office is my savior.
		Have a good day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Cliff on what Facebook says, he would say, read the Constitution and grow a spine because the people are fed up and you will be voted out country before party.
		Do the right thing.
		Let us have faith that right makes might.
		David in Flint, Michigan, Democrat.
		Hi, David.
unidentified		Hi.
		Good morning, C-SPAN.
		And I love the job that you do.
		You're fair in your work, and I really like that.
		First thing I think should be done is Elon Musk should be put out of everything.
		He's just recently became an American, and he's running everything.
		This is not right.
		President Trump is acting as a dictator.
		This is not right.
		The Republicans in the Senate and Congress are obeying everything this man said.
		They've not offering any resistance to anything Trump says.
		And the Democrats, we don't have any power.
		We don't have any power over none of the three branches.
		We don't even have any power in the Supreme Court.
		So now these people are running rugshot.
		And the guy that just got off said, all the presidents are the same.
		And that's a lie.
		The Democratic presidents have not did the things that Trump and the Republican presidents have done to take our economies down.
		That's not true.
		When Democrats are in the social networks like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are built up to be stronger and to help the poor and to help everybody.
		Now all this stuff, I'm 72 years old.
		I worked 35 years in General Motors and retired.
		And now I'm worried about if I'm going to even be getting Social Security, period.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		David, do you have, have you had a town hall out there where you are?
unidentified		Have your thoughts?
		No, the minute that we have, not in Flint, the minute that we have one in Flint, I'm just 60 miles from Detroit.
		If they have one that I can go to, I will be there.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here's Jim, NIAC, New York, Independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		So I live in a very, very liberal town in Rockland County.
		Probably 50 to 60% of the cars here at Tesla.
		And what's amazing to me is Elon Musk was held up as, you know, Mr. Green, Mr. Green.
		And now the whole country has turned against him because he's trying to get us out of a situation where the country is going to go bankrupt.
kim in wisconsin ▲ ● ▼		I agree with the 60-year-old gentleman, the independent before, who the working sniff.
kim in wisconsin ▲ ● ▼		Where has Congress been over the last 30 years to get us in a position where the government is so bloated that we could go bankrupt at any moment?
unidentified		And the foreign governments will stop buying our debt.
corona in ohio ▲ ● ▼		And then what happens?
unidentified		So everyone needs to get together.
		You could cut 50% of the federal government and not even feel it.
		So that's my comment.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here's Mark in Westwood, New Jersey, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Mark.
unidentified		Hi.
		Good morning.
		Happy first day of spring.
		Yes, my congressman is Josh Gottheimer, and there's really not much difference between him and a Republican.
		You know, he says the same things.
		He's now running for governor, and it's all about I'm going to cut your taxes, which I don't believe because I've had Republican governors and they never cut my taxes.
		My taxes went up.
		So it's all a con game.
		And the biggest con man is, of course, Trump, who has, you know, made the excuse of waste, fraud, and abuse, which we all agree must be cut.
		And he's just getting rid of stuff that he doesn't like.
		And Elon Musk is the same.
		He's a far-right-wing fascist.
		And, you know, they're going to get rid of the Department of Education today.
		I'm a retired senior.
		I'm worried about my Social Security and Medicare.
		And I have contacted Gottheimer.
		I wrote him a letter recently, and I said there is absolutely no excuse to cut any of our earned benefits.
		That means Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, whatever it is, they have no right to cut it.
		And the reason why is we have three co-equal parts of government.
		Anybody who studied the Constitution understands this.
		And Congress controls the purse.
		Yes, they've done a terrible job.
		I'm not denying that.
		But the point is, Trump can't just sign an executive order legally and just cut funds that Congress has appropriated.
		So he's breaking the law.
		My congressman is a lawyer.
		I said the Democrats have to sue him all the time because that's what the Republicans do.
		I mean, we on the left are not as violent as the MAGA people who stormed the Capitol on January 6th.
		Oh, those guys were all pardoned.
		But, you know, he wants to go after people.
		Trump wants to go after people who got funds.
		They got grants from the federal government to help the environment.
		I mean, he's a climate change denier.
		This is really serious people.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Mark, are you going to be able to go to that town hall with Senator Andy Kim in Brook Township?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I don't know how far that is from you.
unidentified		Oh, that's a long way from me.
		I'm actually near the last caller.
		I'm about 10 miles from NIAC.
		I'm right near the New York line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		But yeah, I live in a very blue area.
		And, you know, it's a great place where I live.
		And I don't want to see it damaged by, you know, the federal government cutting off everything.
		I mean, that doesn't make us great.
		That makes us weak.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here is a Republican in Brookshire, Texas.
		Tiny, you're next.
donna in west virginia ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I would tell my congressman to keep up and support my president for everything that he is putting on the table.
unidentified		And then they say the MAGA people is rude, but at least we're not the Democratic Party's running around trying to destroy Elon Musk.
donna in west virginia ▲ ● ▼		But when he was on their team, he was better than Apple Pie.
unidentified		The Democratic Party is the Hamas in the traffickers themselves.
		They are the one that is trafficking the children and selling them.
		And he did one man said that the Democratic presidents have always kept America.
		Look what he allowed Hamas, terrorists, to enter this nation.
		And that's what they want to do.
		That's why Maxine Garden wants to holler about, oh, yeah, we're going to have a civil war because they have allowed those people to come over here to have a civil war in this nation.
donna in west virginia ▲ ● ▼		So I will say to my congressmen in the state of Texas, stand by President Trump.
unidentified		He is doing the right thing.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Tiny Steve on Facebook agrees with you.
		He says, get behind him.
		The days of government business as usual are over.
		This is what real change looks like.
		And this is Charlie, White Salmon, Washington, Independent Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hi there.
		I would like it if this Doge group would get the social security numbers of all the federal employees who've been working remotely and to then have the IRS go and see if they have gotten second jobs when they were working remotely.
		And they would be able to do that by finding out whether or not the same social security number person had worked for somebody who sent in FICA payments or withholding.
		So if they double-dipped, then send that over to the U.S. attorney and have them prosecuted.
		And further, if they happen to have double-dipped for perhaps a federal contractor who then billed the government for their salary, then it would be triple-dipping and they should go after the contractor.
		I think this is why you have the federal employee unions who are yammering about personal information going to this Doge thing.
		Okay, I think you got a lot of scamming going on and they're very, very scared that it's going to get uncovered.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So Charlie, this is the Wall Street Journal.
		It says IRS retreats from some audits as agency slashes workforce.
		It says officials put faith in shift in technology, but others see dangers in cutting thousands of jobs.
		So how do you expect all those audits to take place that you're recommending given the cuts to the workforce at the IRS?
		What do you think of that?
unidentified		Well, I think, yeah, good question.
		And I think the answer is that you, this is easy.
		I mean, you get the databases, you know, these match the databases, and you really don't have to do a lot of automating.
		You know, you get this, you say, okay, you know, this person worked for the federal government remotely, and they worked for somebody else.
		There you go.
		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here's Frank Aberdeen, Maryland, Democrat.
		Good morning, Frank.
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
		I want to know what knowledge, skills, and ability Musk and his hacker gang has to do with the job they've been assigned.
		They don't have any of those to make the determinations.
		They keep on making mistakes.
		One of those mistakes is going to hurt us.
		Worse, he has a great conflict of interest in that half of his wealth is physically located in China, and Z could just say, I'm nationalizing your plants.
		Also, when the Ukrainians were about to take out the Russian Navy in Sevastopol, Musk got a phone call from Putin's deputy asking him to turn off Starlink.
		That saved the Soviet, I mean, the Russian fleet.
		It is unconscionable that we should be putting our hands, putting our government in the hands of Musk.
		He's not qualified.
		He's going to do to our government what he did to Twitter.
		He cut the value of Twitter in half because he just took a wrecking ball to it.
		And there's a difference between a business and the government.
		When you wreck a business, some person's going to lose financially.
james in south carolina ▲ ● ▼		When you wreck a government, the whole of all of us people are going to suffer.
unidentified		So please.
		And worse, he has all of our data now.
		I'm actually afraid that eventually individual Americans are going to be targeted for retribution just by accidental slip of the thing.
		You know, your social security check doesn't arrive on time, that type of thing.
		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here's Jack and Kent Washington, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		It's a pleasure to be on your show.
		I watch from time to time.
		Yeah, what I'd like to say, so specifically when you say a member of Congress, do you refer to just my representative or do you refer to all, I guess, my representative and my two federal voters?
		Okay.
		Yes, so what I'd like to call and say is this is, I would say it's a completely out-of-left field approach, out of left-field idea.
		I'm sorry, I've been up all night studying.
		In the Constitution, I don't know if you have a copy of it on you right now, Handy.
		Under, what is it, Article 1, Section 3?
		Yes.
		Section 3, the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each state shall have at least one representative.
		Until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire, okay, goat, blah, blah, blah, New Hampshire.
		But the point being is that initially, this was, I believe, was one of Washington's only contributions to the Constitution was adding this clause in the 1 in 30,000.
		Initially, it was going to be 1 in 40,000, but then he.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Jack, getting to what you would recommend, you would recommend more representatives in Congress?
unidentified		Well, yeah, and not only that, but I think it also goes on in this book I have here to mention if you were to take that number today, since it was capped at 435 number of representatives in 1929 by Congress, meaning today, according to May 2017, the resident population of the United States is approximately 326,200,000.
		Do the math.
		Each representative now has some 749,885 constituents.
		My point being is that we see these clips and we see, I guess, these townhouse town hall meetings that these representatives, Republican representatives, are holding, and you're only seeing a very small fraction of their constituency.
		I mean, I hate to say it.
		Well, I mean, I'm just saying that I don't think this is necessarily entirely reflective of America because of the fact that they represent nearly, I mean, 749,000 constituents.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Got it.
		And we'll get Robert in Lynchburg, Virginia, Independent, real quick.
		Robert, go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning, Meaning, I'll just tell my congressman that we need to put a clamp on the Trump administration because, and when the guy told you last week that you should have told a guy how many lies Trump have told, all you had to do is say he told one when he said he won the 20 election and also about who started the war, things of that nature.
unidentified		And he told you that, and you did a good job, and thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And that's all the time we've got for this segment, but there's more because next we're joined by a roundtable, Chiquita Brooks Leshore of the Century Foundation and Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute.
		They'll talk about Medicaid coverage in the U.S. and possible changes to it under the Trump administration.
		Later, Doug Klain, a non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, joins us to discuss the Trump administration's efforts to end the war in Ukraine and Presidents Trump's calls with both Russian and Ukrainian leaders this week.
unidentified		We'll be right back.
		Saturdays, watch American History TV's 10-week series, First 100 Days.
		We explore the early months of presidential administrations with historians and authors and through the C-SPAN archives.
		We learn about accomplishments and setbacks and how events impacted presidential terms and the nation up to present day.
		Saturday, the first 100 days of Jimmy Carter's presidency in 1977.
		After defeating President Gerald Ford in the 1976 election, he promised to move the country forward after the Watergate period.
		President Carter offered proposals on energy, taxes, welfare, and reform of government.
		Jimmy Carter passed away in December 2024 at the age of 100.
		Watch our American History TV series, First 100 Days, Saturday at 7 p.m. Eastern on American History TV on C-SPAN 2.
		Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 features leading authors discussing their latest non-fiction books.
		Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
		At 6.45 p.m. Eastern, Pakistani British author and activist Tariq Ali discusses his memoirs, You Can't Please All, which covers the years 1980 to 2024.
		He also talks about the war in Gaza and student protests in the United States.
		Then at 8 p.m. Eastern, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Hiltzig with his book Golden State, The Making of California, looks at the history of California from the 1840s gold rush era to the current tech boom.
		At 9 p.m. Eastern, Grove City College political science professor Paul Kengore, author of The Devil and Karl Marx, talks about the role of communists in the creation of International Women's Day and other progressive celebrations.
		And at 10 p.m. Eastern on Afterwards, best-selling author Michael Lewis poses the question, who works for the government and why does their work matter?
		He's interviewed by Harvard Kennedy School of Government Public Policy and Management professor Elizabeth Linos.
		Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		Stephen M. Gillen was a scholar in residence at the History Channel for more than 20 years.
		He has written 12 books on subjects including a history of the United States, the Kerner Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald, and the life of John F. Kennedy, Jr.
		His latest book is titled Presidents at War, How World War II Shaped a Generation of Presidents from Eisenhower and JFK through Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush.
		Steve Yellen closes his book saying, quote, ironically, the threats facing America in the third decade of the 21st century are very real and in many ways similar to the challenges the nation confronted in the 1930s.
unidentified		Author Stephen Gillen with his book Presidents at War, How World War II Shaped a Generation of Presidents, from Eisenhower and JFK through Reagan and Bush on this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host Brian Lamb.
		BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
		Democracy.
		It isn't just an idea.
		It's a process.
		A process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.
		It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted.
		Democracy in real time.
		This is your government at work.
		This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy unfiltered.
		There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
		Use our free C-SPAN Now app, or go online to c-SPAN.org slash radio on SiriusXM Radio on channel 455, the Tune-In app, and on your smart speaker by simply saying, play C-SPAN Radio.
		Hear our live call-in program, Washington Journal, daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		Listen to House and Senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events live throughout the day.
		And for the best way to hear what's happening in Washington with fast-paced reports, live interviews, and analysis of the day, catch Washington today, weekdays at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
		Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN Radio anytime, anywhere.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We are back with a roundtable to discuss Medicaid funding in the U.S. We're joined by Chiquita Brooks-Leshure, Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation.
		She's also administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid under the Biden administration.
		We're also joined by Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.
		Welcome to both of you.
unidentified		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Ms. LaShore, I'm going to start with you with if you could explain the Century Foundation's stance on Medicaid funding.
unidentified		Well, the Century Foundation and so many people who support Medicaid know that Medicaid is a lifeline for millions of families, people, and states and our economy.
		And we think it's critical that Medicaid funding be continue.
		This has really changed how our country is operating with making sure that the most vulnerable among us, as well as so many middle-class families, have health care when they need it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And what about you, Michael, with your organization?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What's your stance?
unidentified		So libertarians believe that the Medicaid program should not exist.
		It's not constitutional.
		And it is a source of the medical deprivation that the program itself tries to remedy.
		It makes health care more expensive.
		It makes it harder for people to afford medical care by increasing taxes, encouraging states to increase taxes on low-income people.
		It wastes hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars on improper payments, including fraud and abuse.
		And eliminating the Medicaid program is also very unpopular with voters.
		And eliminating the Medicaid program is an essential part of returning the government to its proper constitutional role, but also making health care more universal.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So you don't want just cuts to the program.
		You want it gone completely.
		How would those people that are being covered, it's about 72 million, how would they get health care?
unidentified		Well, first let's examine what would happen if the Congress cut Medicaid completely or just made tiny cuts in the Medicaid program.
		Medicaid supporters, I'm sure Chiquita agrees, that say that lots of people would lose their coverage.
		What does that mean about, what does that tell us about the Medicaid program?
		If the federal government cut a dollar of Medicaid spending, states could replace that dollar.
		They could increase taxes and they could keep their Medicaid programs humming along as they are.
		But supporters are telling us they wouldn't do that.
		That means that supporters know something.
		They know that states don't, that voters don't want to pay the taxes necessary to support this nearly $1 trillion program at current levels, anyway.
		And that tells us that the Medicaid program is not popular with voters.
		And governments should not, democracies should not fund programs that are unpopular with voters.
		And so that is among the reasons why the federal government, we shouldn't be trusting our health care to the government at all, much less the federal government, because we can end up in these situations where lots of people are dependent on government for their health care, but through a very popular program that puts them in a very vulnerable situation and an even more vulnerable situation because Medicaid is one of the main reasons the federal government is barreling toward a debt crisis right now.
		And when the federal government hits the wall and can't keep funding Medicaid by borrowing money, it's going to have to make dramatic cuts that make anything they're talking about in Congress right now look like child's play.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Lila, let's put a couple of statistics up on the screen to kind of set the stage here for Medicaid.
		72 million are enrolled as of October 2024.
		Medicaid enrollment is higher than pre-pandemic levels in all but eight states.
		Medicaid financing is shared by states and the federal government, and Medicaid represents nearly $1 out of every $5 spent on health care in the U.S. Ms. LaShore, do you agree that Medicaid is not popular with voters?
unidentified		Absolutely not.
		I would say so many important things about what we just heard.
		First of all, the federal government supports health care for everybody.
		So no matter how you get health care in this country, the federal government has a role in making sure that you get health care because employers who provide coverage, like if your job provides coverage, you get tax benefits from that.
		And that is one of the ways that the federal government supports health care in this country.
		Medicaid is extremely popular.
		That doesn't mean that it's perfect, but when Medicaid expansion, which was as part of the Affordable Care Act, where states were given the opportunity to expand Medicaid, most, many of the states that expanded, especially the ones that have expanded recently, expanded because voters put it on the ballot and made their states expand Medicaid.
		That's how important it is.
		And we had this debate in this country during the repeal of the, or the attempted repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
		And it was concern about what cutting Medicaid would be, what that would mean to the millions of families.
		And I really want to emphasize again that the federal government supports health care in a variety of ways.
		And you think about Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, but again, employer insurance, which most Americans get, is supported by the federal government.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So who are these 72 million people on Medicaid?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Like, what are the requirements for you to get Medicaid coverage?
unidentified		There are certain people who are mandatory who are covered.
		And those include people like children, particularly children with high needs.
		When you think about who's sitting in a children's hospital right now, a lot of times 50% of the kids that are lying in those beds are covered by the Medicaid program.
		So you have millions of children who are covered by Medicaid.
		You also have parents who are covered by Medicaid in many, many states.
		You have people who are in long-term care or in nursing home care or who need supports.
		So if you have disabilities, for example, Medicaid actually pays for the vast majority of mental health services in this country.
		And I want to really emphasize that it is important for all of these groups, but it's also important for our providers.
		So the hospitals in this country are very dependent on making sure they get care for, we call it uncompensated care if you're uninsured.
		I have, as CMS administrator, traveled the country, and there is a marked difference in how rural hospitals in states that did not expand Medicaid are doing versus those that do not.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And there's an income cutoff then for qualifying.
unidentified		That's right.
		So a mandatory level or an optional level for states under the Affordable Care Act was to cover everybody below 138% of the poverty level.
		Not all of the states have done that.
		There are 10 that have not expanded, but for the other states, if you are under 130% of the poverty level, you are covered in the Medicaid program.
		And then there are certain groups that are higher.
		So if you're a child in certain states, you're covered at a higher income level.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Michael Cannon, explain the financial responsibility between the federal government and the state government when it comes to Medicaid.
unidentified		Sure.
		This is a main reason why the program is so profligate, so wasteful.
		But on popularity, if we think Medicaid is popular, great, let's make it voluntary.
		Let's give workers the choice of whether they contribute to the Medicaid program or not.
		We'll see how popular it is.
		As for the funding system, whenever government is spending taxpayers' money, there's a moral hazard risk.
		They don't bear the cost of those decisions themselves, so they don't spend that money as carefully as consumers would if they're spending it on their own behalf.
		And Medicaid is even more dangerous than that because Medicaid isn't just politicians spending other people's money.
		It's really politicians spending other politicians' money.
		So they're extra unaccountable and extra careless when it comes to that spending.
		And the way that that works is for every dollar that a state spends on its Medicaid program, the federal government says we will match that with $1, maybe $4, and in some cases up to $9 so that states can get 10 times their initial investment.
		They can spend $10 of taxpayer money with only having to justify to voters a $1 tax increase.
		That encourages states not just to increase spending on Medicaid, but to increase taxes, including on low-income people.
		Like a lot of states have sales taxes, which hit low-income people the hardest.
		The Medicaid program says to those states, if you increase Increase your sales tax by one percentage point, the federal government, in order to pay for Medicaid, the federal government will give you more money.
		So, a 1% increase in the sales tax is like a 2% increase, a percentage point increase in the sales tax.
		That burdens low-income people more than it burdens high-income people.
		And that's if all goes according to plan.
		But what actually ends up happening then is states end up using what Brooks Leshour's boss, former President Joe Biden, called financing scams, which are essentially shell games where states pretend to put that dollar forward, but then they move the shells around so fast and make their dollar disappear that they pull down nine federal dollars without having to make that initial allocation.
		They call these scams provider taxes and so forth.
		And these have risen dramatically under, rose dramatically under the Biden administration, so that Medicaid spending grows at an unsustainable rate.
		It is one of the reasons why the federal government is barreling toward a debt crisis.
		It's because of the structure of how the federal government funds the program and the fact that because you have divided responsibility for Medicaid spending between states and the federal government, no one cares about that spending as much as they should.
		So the federal government doesn't monitor states or try to crack down on these scams, and states just spend and spend and spend.
		The biggest beneficiaries of the Medicaid program, it's not the enrollees, it's not the hospitals that Ms. Brooks Leshur mentioned.
		It's the state legislators who get to give out $10 of political goodies without having to raise taxes, in some cases, even by $1.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you do about that?
unidentified		We have to continue to always look in every program to make sure dollars are being spent wisely.
		That is a fact of all of our programs.
		But we have to also think about what are we, we have to cover health care in this country, and we need to make a decision about how we're going to make sure that is done.
		And we can see what a difference it makes.
		We saw this during COVID-19.
		What happens when the least among us do not have access to health care?
		We all suffer.
		And so it's a question for our country of making sure that people can get the care that they need.
		When you want people contributing to the economy, a lot of the people who work minimum wage jobs, who have multiple jobs, they are the people who are dependent on Medicaid.
		I remember talking to someone who just got out of graduate school.
		She was a mental health professional, but she hadn't gotten enough hours yet.
		She applied to get coverage.
		She qualified for Medicaid.
		This is who we're talking about if we don't cover people in this country.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And if you'd like to join our conversation about Medicaid, you can do so.
		Our lines are Democrats 202748-8000, Republicans 202748-8001, and Independents 202748-8002.
		We also have a line set aside.
		If you're a Medicaid recipient, you can call us on 202-748-8003.
		That's the same line you can use for texting.
		Ms. Lashur, I want to ask you about this article in Politico.
		Newsom's, so that's Gavin Newsom's office, seeks another $2.8 billion to plug Medicaid GAP.
		It says that the request comes on top of $3.44 billion loan proposed last week with costs for undocumented residents running higher than expected.
unidentified		I definitely agree that there are concerns about how we fund the Medicaid program.
		And that states, many states, it is either the first or the second budget line item for them.
		It is a significant source of spending.
		But we are going to, as a country, spend money on health care.
		It is almost a fifth of our economy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Should undocumented migrants be given Medicaid in this country?
unidentified		That's a choice for states about their coverage.
unidentified		But again, we need to think about what happens when people do not have health care in this country, when we have something like a pandemic, when we have health outcomes that are lagging the rest of the country, like maternal health and mental health services, and we do not cover some of the lowest income among us, it's a problem for all of us.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about Michael Cannon?
unidentified		So there's so much to say about that.
		About proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
		At the beginning of the Biden administration, the Congressional Budget Office said that in 26, that is next year, so this is in 2021.
		The Congressional Budget Office said that in 2026, the Medicaid program would cost less than $600 billion.
		But by the end of the Biden administration, their projection for 2026 had gone up by more than $100 billion because the Biden administration was not very good stewards of the taxpayers' money through the Medicaid program.
		It allowed a lot more of these scams.
		It allowed a lot more improper payments that included people who didn't even belong in the Medicaid program because they were ineligible.
		With regard to undocumented immigrants getting Medicaid money, there is a federal law that says they're not supposed to.
		There have been allegations, though, that as a result of programs like the one in California and the availability of these scams that states can run to pull down more federal dollars than the law says they should, they've been able to use some federal funds in order to fund that.
		So another reason why Congress needs to make not just dramatic cuts to the Medicaid program, but to restructure the program dramatically, is to avoid these sorts of scams that can not only increase projected Medicaid spending by $100 billion in one year and a trillion dollars over 10 years, which is what happened during the Biden administration, but prevent the abuse of federal dollars being used for purposes of federal law since it's not allowed.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So give us specifics as to how you would, let's say you're going to keep Medicaid.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		How would you propose cuts to Medicaid that would be the least painful to the people that are dependent on it?
unidentified		So you do what Congress did in 1996 with welfare reform.
		Congress said, look, we're going to eliminate the federal entitlement to subsidies.
		We are going to eliminate incentives for states to expand their programs.
		We're going to provide states money, but we're going to give it to them as a fixed amount.
		They called it a block grant.
		And then give states complete flexibility to run their programs, spend that money however they want.
		They will then be able to target that better toward needier people and away from the people who don't need assistance.
		There are a lot of people in Medicaid who don't need to be there.
		Medicaid crowds out private insurance to a dramatic extent.
		When Congress in 1996 eliminated welfare or Medicaid eligibility for documented immigrants, a lot of people projected that their coverage levels would go down.
		Instead, they went up because those Medicaid enrollees went out and got jobs that had health insurance, which means Medicaid was just crowding out coverage, private coverage, for a lot of people who could get it themselves.
		There's a lot of people in Medicaid's long-term care benefit who don't need to be there.
		Wealthy, well-to-do families who artificially impoverish themselves.
		So states would be able to focus, remove those people from the program who don't need to be there, focus the assistance on the people who need it.
		And this is not a radical idea.
		Congress actually passed this and sent it to President Clinton's desk in 1996.
		He vetoed welfare reform over the Medicaid block grants.
		But then once they removed those block grants, he signed welfare reform, and that approach proved a dramatic success in other areas of welfare.
		Congress needs to apply the same principles to the Medicaid program.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's talk to callers, and we'll start with Steve in Washington, D.C. Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Steve.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		That argument that Medicaid is not popular and let's make it voluntary to fund it, people are cheap.
		If you did that with the police or the Pentagon, anything, people wouldn't spend money on it.
		So that's a bogus argument.
		Here's another one.
		Economists have looked at the valuation that Medicaid enrollees place on Medicaid, and they said if you gave the enrollees cash, they wouldn't buy the Medicaid coverage.
		They might buy some coverage, but they're not going to buy the Medicaid program because it's so expensive and wasteful.
		And so there are lots of ways to measure popularity.
		But the most bogus way of measuring popularity is asking voters in a referendum: do you want the federal government to send tons of money to your state, but not asking them to weigh the cost against the benefits of all that extra money, which is what every state referendum that purportedly showed that the Medicaid expansion was popular did.
		They didn't ask about the cost.
		They only asked about the benefits.
		And there are going to be difficulties with every way of measuring popularity, but that is the absolute worst.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Shore, what would you see as the problem with making Medicaid voluntary, as Mr. Cannon says?
unidentified		Again, I think we have to go back to making sure that people have access to coverage when they need it.
		And a big part of why we have the health outcomes that we have in this country is that people don't get care until they are way too sick.
		So we should be spending more money on primary care, more money on preventive care.
		The only way you can do that is if people have coverage throughout the year, not just when they get cancer, not just when they are pregnant.
		You want to make sure people have care throughout their lives.
		And that's why it's so critical that everybody in this country have some kind of insurance, whether they buy it themselves, whether they have it through their employer.
		But there are many employers that do not provide full health insurance coverage.
		There are many working people who do not have access to employer-sponsored coverage, and they are people who need Medicaid.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Suzanne, a Republican in Burton, West Virginia.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Suzanne.
unidentified		Hello.
		I was wondering, and I live in West Virginia.
		West Virginia depends mostly federal.
		And my son, who is autistic, 26 years old, if you took his Medicaid away, he doesn't know, he doesn't know what health care is, how does he get insurance?
		How would he, what would he do if he was independent living, if he depended on that?
		How does he go about getting insurance?
		And if they took away the ACA, how could he afford it?
		And if they had to have, let's say, medical assistant with being in an institution, how are they going to keep him with insurance?
		Can you answer that question?
		Thank you.
		So I'm sorry that you're facing that struggle.
		That's a struggle that my family faces as well.
		We have relatives, at least one, on the Medicaid program.
		If the state cut the Medicaid program, then we would have to figure out what to do with care for that whose challenges are more pronounced than autism.
		And we're going to have to figure that out at some point, I'm afraid, because the way the Medicaid program is, as I said before, hurtling the federal government toward a debt crisis, there are going to be cuts.
		The national debt is already 100% of GDP.
		The Congress is adding another 6% of GDP to the federal debt every year.
		And the main driver of that debt, that looming debt crisis is health spending by the federal government.
		It is the largest category of programmatic spending, larger than Social Security, larger than the Defense Department.
		It is the only category of programmatic spending that is growing as a share of GDP.
		So it is the main driver of all of that debt the Congress is accumulating.
		And if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.
		And if you think that, you know, we're not, Congress isn't even talking about cuts right now.
		But if you think the idea of the cuts that I've been talking about today are harrowing, wait until you see the cuts that Congress enacts when it hits the wall of a debt crisis.
		Wait until you see the work requirements that are necessary to get medical care in that sort of environment.
		If Congress wants to head off that sort of crisis that would result in much worse dislocation, it needs to act now to implement block grants that give states a fixed amount of money and allow states to target those funds toward the neediest people.
		That might not include my family members.
		I don't know who it will include, but I trust states to make those decisions a lot better and a lot more carefully than I trust Congress to make those decisions with a Medicaid program that is enrolling lots of people in the long-term care benefit and elsewhere who don't need to be there and soaking up resources that could be going to needier people.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Shore, what do you think about block grants to the states and then letting the states decide how to use that funding?
unidentified		You know, there have been, we have a cyclical discussion often about the idea of block grants.
		And it sounds very appealing to say give states the flexibility to make these decisions.
		But the thing about health care is twofold.
		One, there just are times when there are blips.
		So something very innovative comes out of the drug market.
		We have the most innovative companies in the country.
		A couple of, about a decade ago, Savaldi came on the market and suddenly, which was a cure for hepatitis C, and state budgets saw a big blip.
		After a couple of years, it settled down.
		That happens all of the time in healthcare.
		And so if you have a fixed pot of money where you're not able to make an adjustment five years down the road when costs go up and then maybe they come down, you're putting people in jeopardy.
		And again, I'm not saying that there doesn't need to be any discussion about how we spend money in this country.
		We do.
		But the thing that we should take away coverage from the lowest income among us as the answer is not going to be good for our economy because it's the lives of people just like the caller, but it's also so many of our workforce.
		Our workforce, like our health care workers, a lot of them are dependent on the different streams of funding that come from Medicaid, that come from Medicare.
		And so we've got to have a more holistic look at what this program means to our economy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Ted in Buena Vista, Colorado, Independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Ted.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning, folks.
		Thanks for this program.
		My dad was 15 and a half years old in 1943 when he went to Guam in the Philippines to set up the power lines for the co-dockers.
		And when he came home, he suffered with a lot of mental illness.
		And the veterans took a lot, really good care of him in Menlo Park with his physical body, but they could not take care of his mental body.
		And through that, he suffered with diabetes and alcoholism.
		And, you know, our veterans need the best ever.
		And when Trump went to Australia in his first term, right on live TV, he said, Australia has the best medical system we have.
		And when he goes to these other countries, why don't he take the best parts of other countries and use them in ours?
		And we do have a lot of fraud.
		But when you shut down the Consumer Fraud Protection Agency and you shut down whistleblowers, then how can you really get to the real cause of where this fraud is happening?
		And, you know, why are we spending our tax dollars to billionaires to go to Mars that cannot even support life?
		And if you take everything we spend going out to space with the garbage we're sending out to space and putting that into our medical system, then everybody who lives in the United States, no matter who they are, if they're working and producing, then they will get the best food, the best housing, the best education.
		And we cannot just keep throwing money into space when our own country is suffering.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Ted.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Michael, go ahead and take that comment.
unidentified		I'm a huge fan of space travel and a huge fan of eliminating government support for space travel.
		So I'm with the caller on that.
		And when it comes to incorporating in this country ideas from other countries, I'm also totally on board with that idea.
		The caller mentioned the Veterans Health Administration and how it provided his father some good care and not good care in other areas.
		The Veterans Health Administration is an integrated health care delivery system.
		I think everybody in the country should have access or at least the choice of that sort of a system.
		But what has happened, and the reason that we don't, we don't have coordinated care and we don't have electronic health records, we don't have an emphasis on primary care and preventive care, is because of lots and lots of things that the government has done to cause the debt privation that the Medicaid program tries to cure.
		Ms. Brooks Leshore mentioned the tax preference for employer-sponsored health insurance in this country.
		That's why a majority of U.S. residents have coverage through an employer.
		That program has created enormous gaps in the health sector, throwing people out of their health insurance after they get sick for no good reason, driving up prices so that they face higher prices and higher health insurance premiums once they lose that coverage.
		The Medicare and Medicaid programs drove up the price of Sivaldi so that a lot of people could not afford that and taxpayers had to pay more than they should have for that miracle drug.
		There is a lot that we can learn from other places and a lot of ideas that we should allow to grow here in the United States.
		And those ideas and those innovations would make health care more universal, better, more affordable, more secure.
		But we have a lot of government barriers standing in the way of that.
		State regulatory barriers, federal regulatory barriers, tax penalties, and subsidies that are distorting the health sector in favor of the inefficient incumbent health care providers,
		hospitals and pharmaceutical companies and so forth that are overcharging people all the time and would not be able to survive in a market system because and so they are utterly reliant on the government subsidies that they get from Medicare and Medicaid to keep them afloat.
		If we want to take advantage of those innovations, we've got to let consumers control the money, the $5 trillion that we spend on healthcare in this country.
		And then we've got to remove those regulatory barriers to experimentation and innovation.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Tony in Syracuse, New York, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Tony, you're on.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I was just wondering if your guests could address the fact that a lot of providers and doctors don't take Medicaid.
		So the people who are most vulnerable won't even accept it, especially for mental health care.
		I know for a fact, Supreme Court Justice, Sotamayor's brother, who's an allergist up here, his office refuses to take Medicaid.
		You know, so there's providers that people need care.
		I think it's because the reimbursement is so poor that a lot of doctors refuse to even take it.
		Thank you.
		This is a really important question about making sure that people actually have access to care.
		And it is true that in some areas of the country that the reimbursement rate is really affecting whether providers will take coverage.
		One of the things that we did during the Biden administration is actually strengthen the requirements for states to make sure that when they are operating their Medicaid programs that they work hard to make sure the networks are adequate and part of that is by forcing them to really make sure that they are paying and reimbursing in a way that attracts the proper level of care that people need.
		And that's why, again, when we're thinking about the Medicaid program, it's not in a place where we need to be reducing funding.
		We actually need to be increasing funding in some of the areas to make sure that coverage is affordable.
		And I want to just go back and say there are so many things in our health care system that are incredibly complex.
		Drug pricing is one of the most complex issues in our country in terms of why we are spending way more than anybody else.
		And the federal government has some tools, but many of them are completely a responsibility of the private sector.
		Spent a lot of my time working on Medicare, drug pricing, and trying to make sure seniors in America have access to better care.
		It is extremely complicated.
		We have so much consolidation among hospitals and plans and it is pharmacies.
		It is leading to distortions in the market.
		Medicaid is only one piece of what is going on in healthcare in our country.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to play you a portion of the confirmation hearing of Dr. Mehmed Oz.
		This was for him to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, and he had an exchange with Ron Wyden of Oregon.
		Here's that portion.
ron wyden ▲ ● ▼		But what I want to know, yes or no, is since you cherish Medicaid, will you agree to oppose cuts in the Medicaid program?
mehmet oz ▲ ● ▼		I cherish Medicaid and I've worked within the Medicaid environment quite extensively as I highlighted practicing at Columbia University.
ron wyden ▲ ● ▼		That's not the question, Doctor.
		The question is, will you oppose cuts to this program you say you cherish?
		Time's short.
mehmet oz ▲ ● ▼		I want to make sure that patients today and in the future have resources to protect them if they get ill.
mehmet oz ▲ ● ▼		The way you protect Medicaid is by making sure that it's viable at every level, which includes having enough practitioners to afford the services, paying them enough to do what you request of them, and making sure that patients are able to actually use Medicaid.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Ms. Brooks, you're Brooks LaShore.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Sorry about that.
unidentified		No worries.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Your response to that.
unidentified		I think it's critical that we make sure that we continue to support the Medicaid program, as I said.
unidentified		And I hope, I really hope that Dr. Oz, if he is confirmed, really looks at the millions of people who are covered, how much of a lifeline it is, and works to strengthen the program, not to cause reductions to it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now, what many Republicans are saying is we're going to cut out the waste.
		Going to cut out.
		You know, we're just going to have more stringent requirements, so we're not really going to cut benefits.
		What do you make of that argument?
unidentified		I would say a couple of things.
		And again, waste is always something that you need to look at.
		I mean, there is a lot of work that continues to need to be done on issues like that, but that's not the size of the cuts that the House Republicans are talking about.
		That's not going to be eliminated by fraud and abuse.
		When it comes to eligibility and making sure people are on who should be on, we have so much red tape in our country on a variety of issues.
		And what we really found during our time of working through the process of getting people through coverage, that when you put up so many barriers, you eliminate people who really should be on coverage.
		So a lot of times, like in these discussions about work requirements, people are working, but filling out the paperwork is really challenging to understand what they need to do.
		Even people who are exempted, like people who have autism or have disabilities, often get thrown off of the program because of things like that.
		In Georgia, Georgia spent $5 million trying to implement work requirements.
		They only enrolled about 1% of the people who could have been eligible for Medicaid expansion because their work requirements caused many people, many of whom are working, not to be able to get through.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here is John in Brooklyn, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Good morning.
		How are you?
		I want to say that I'm a Democrat, but Democrats or Republicans, if you're going to be honest, when you come on and talk, there should be a program where you tell what you like about Republicans and what you like about Democrats, because I'm a Democrat and I like some of the things Republicans doing.
		I like some of the things that Democrats are doing.
		I don't like some of the things that Democrats do.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, John, bring us back to Medicaid funding.
unidentified		Medicaid funding and other funding, as when you say cut Medicaid, you should say cut the fraud in Medicaid.
		And that would help.
		And both of y'all should do y'all homework because Mrs. La Sewell, she was saying that some states have Medicare and some don't.
		Who are those states?
		Do your homework, pointing them out.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, well, let's get her to respond to that.
unidentified		Yes, there are, as I said, there are several states that have not expanded Medicaid.
		Most of them have.
		Most of the states that have not expanded are in the southern part of the country.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And your response to the idea that you can just cut the fraud or the waste out of Medicaid and that would be enough.
unidentified		First, I heard a lot of talk about how we should cherish the Medicaid program, how valuable we should protect the Medicaid program.
		That's weird to me.
		I cherish people, not government programs.
		And Medicaid has an interesting, ironic feat, which is the access to care is lousy, as one of the callers mentioned, but it's still overly expensive.
		Like we're not, it's not providing care to people because it pays so little, and yet it's still unsustainably expensive.
		As for cutting waste, there's no incentive.
		The way that Congress structures the Medicaid program, there's no incentive for them to, for anyone at the federal level or at the state level, to eliminate waste, to remove people from the Medicaid roles who don't belong there.
		That's why The Congressional Budget Office estimate of how much Medicaid would cost over the next decade increased from about $7 trillion to $8 trillion from the beginning of the Biden administration to the end because the Biden administration was not careful about making sure that only eligible people were enrolling in Medicaid.
		In fact, if you look at the 10 years into the past, the official estimate says that there was about a half a trillion dollars in improper payments.
		But those estimates didn't include so-called eligibility reviews.
		And if you include eligibility reviews, the number of improper payments might double.
		But there are a lot of people who support the Medicaid program who just want to enroll everybody and don't really care that much about making sure that the people who are enrolled are only the people who are eligible for the program.
		And so they don't want to do the eligibility reviews.
		They make it harder for states to do eligibility reviews.
		In some cases, Congress actually prohibits them.
		So as a result, there are a lot of people enrolled in the Medicaid program.
		And Medicaid spending, as I mentioned before, the projections from the beginning to the end of the Biden administration increased dramatically.
		So you could.
		Another funny thing that's come up a number of times here is the idea that Congress is contemplating cutting Medicaid.
		No one in Congress is talking about cutting Medicaid.
		If the worst Medicaid funding levels or the lowest Medicaid funding levels that anyone is talking about in Congress became law, Medicaid would still grow at an annual rate of about 3%.
		Federal Medicaid spending would still be growing after these so-called cuts.
		So no one is talking about cutting Medicaid.
		But if you did allow it to be a very good question, but let's clarify this.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So the House passed the budget resolution requiring House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is where Medicaid sits, to find $880 billion in cuts.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So are you saying?
unidentified		Cuts.
		Not cuts.
		That is spending below the CBO's projected baseline.
		The CBO projects that Medicaid, federal Medicaid spending will grow 6% next year, 6% the year after that, and then 4% or 5% per year for the following eight years.
		If the Energy and Commerce Committee found all of those savings, that $880 billion, solely in the Medicaid program, which they're not likely to do, but if they found those savings solely in the Medicaid program, Medicaid spending would still grow from year to year for the entirety of that 10-year window by an average rate of about 3%.
		So this is not a cut.
		And everyone's going to keep talking in Washington about how it is a cut when it isn't because the people who support the Medicaid program, the people who are on the extreme left in this country, if you support the Medicaid program as it currently exists, you're pretty extreme left because it is an unsustainable program with tremendous amounts of waste and fraud that's making health care in this country worse.
		Only that sort of ideological predisposition could lead you to keep supporting a program like this.
		And the people who are dependent on Medicaid, the inefficient providers who are dependent on Medicaid because market forces would send them out of business and free up those hospitals so that other people could run them more efficiently.
		Those people are just trying to scare everybody into thinking that Congress is cutting Medicaid.
		It is not cutting Medicaid.
		It needs to.
		I wish the accusations were true.
		But that's not what's happening here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think, Ms. Lashore?
unidentified		There's no way that if you reduced Medicaid spending by $880 billion, there would not be significant changes to the Medicaid program.
		It's just not possible to come up with that kind of slowing the growth and not have to reduce benefits or reduce the people who are currently covered in some way.
		That's just a fact.
		I mean, yes, we spend a lot on Medicaid.
		We also spend a lot on Medicare.
		We need to think about how we're going to cover the people in our country to make sure you can go to the doctor.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Ashley is a Medicaid recipient in Mount Holly, New Jersey.
unidentified		Hi, Ashley.
		Hi, how are you?
		Thanks for taking my call.
		I actually wanted to direct my question to Michael.
		I am a single mother of three, not by choice.
		I've always worked at least two jobs.
		I've worked at a community college nearby.
		I've also worked RBT of a registered behavior technician.
		And I have never received enough hours to be full time.
		And not, I mean, not that I'm complaining because that allows me to have more time for my kids as far as in between jobs.
		I'm out of the house 12 hours a day working, but in between there, I still have to take my kids to basketball and everything else.
		However, taking the jobs insurance would cut my check.
		Say I'm making $25 an hour at the college.
		It would cut my check from $1,200 a check to about $800 or more.
		$800 would be just for me, and I have three kids.
		So my question to Michael is, how do you expect parents who are single parents and the amount of money that it costs for insurance, what is the alternative to that?
		And not only that, my state does very well.
		I would say my county does very well with approving people for Medicaid.
		We don't get, you don't get approved right away.
		It takes at least six months.
		And not only that, any job changes or anything like that, they're able to tell.
		Like, I don't have to report.
		I should report, but I don't even have to because they already know if my job changes.
		They know the income and everything gets adjusted that way.
		I'm just wondering, when was this bill made?
		Because this happened very recently.
		I would say in the last two years where I would get a notice like, oh, we noticed you got a job change.
		You started working at this company.
		We're going to give you less and so many benefits or whatever.
		I feel like if everybody did it that way, what you're saying about the families that are well-to-do and they're like kind of like faking their income, it's pretty much impossible here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So let's get Michael Cannon to respond.
unidentified		I'm a parent of three and it's hard enough with an amazing spouse.
		I can only imagine what it's like on your own.
		So I'm feeling for you there.
		I'm also feeling for you when it comes to the cost of medical care.
		I don't fault anyone who's eligible and enrolled in the Medicaid program for doing that because it's hard doing what you're doing.
		What my career has been about is trying to eliminate all of the things that your government does to make every part of this problem worse.
		Everything from the state of New Jersey driving up the cost of a well-child visit with licensing regulations that protect physicians from competition from nurse practitioners that would make that well child visit more affordable to insurance regulations the state of New Jersey imposes.
		Some people refer to New Jersey as health insurance hell because the health insurance regulations in New Jersey do more to drive up the cost of private health insurance than in any other state.
		To the tax penalties that the federal government imposes on you if you want to get coverage from somewhere other than an employer that would stay with you between jobs so you don't have to worry about what's going to happen to your or your kids access to care when you lose a job or change jobs.
		On down the line, I could list a dozen more things that the government does to Health care and health insurance too expensive, prohibitively expensive, so that people feel like their only choice is to enroll in Medicaid.
		And another one of the problems with Medicaid is what you've identified.
		Medicaid is a program for, ostensibly, just for low-income people, still a lot of well-to-do people in the program, but ostensibly for low-income people, so that if you increase your earnings, your benefits disappear.
		And that's like a tax.
		That's a disincentive to climb the economic ladder.
		You know what helps the poor and doesn't impose that sort of an effective tax on work that creates work disincentives is a competitive health care market that constantly drives down prices.
		Your government is standing in the way of that, denying you that.
		The Medicaid program is actually part of the problem because it drives up the cost of private health care and increases your tax burden.
		And so a key part of helping people out of poverty, helping them get secure access to health care and climb the economic ladder is reforming the Medicaid program, eliminating the perverse incentives that it creates, eliminating the ways that it makes it harder for people to afford medical care and climb the economic ladder themselves.
		And I would just add that I think a number of states have come a long way in doing more automated checks, which is just what we're hearing about, of really making sure that they have adequate wage data so that they're getting real-time assessments of whether or not people still should be on Medicaid.
		These are the types of things that we should talk about in terms of modernizing the Medicaid program so that it's less cumbersome.
		And there is a continuum for people to go to the Affordable Care Act coverage when they're higher income.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Sean in Augusta, Georgia, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Morgan, I just wanted to point something out to Michael from the Cato Institute.
		The amount of fraud that is coming through Medicaid and Medicare is generally through the businesses and the doctors either overpricing their services or the medications that they're providing their patients, as well as just taking advantage of the system that's in place.
		It's not the people that are usually benefiting from the fraud.
		But I don't hear him talking about that component of Medicaid fraud.
		It's always about, well, we need to make sure that these quote-unquote more well-to-do people get off of the fraud or get off of Medicare and Medicaid.
		That just doesn't make sense because they're not the one that's draining the system.
		If you're wanting to make the system better, you need to look at funding the system more.
		And we have cut taxes in this country since Reagan era on higher income earners.
		We allow higher income earners to use their stocks to get loans that are untaxed.
		There are ways to fund this situation and benefit people and protect people as opposed to blaming it on the people.
		That's it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Michael Cannon.
unidentified		So there's certainly, you know, there are people who enroll in the Medicaid program who shouldn't be there.
		There are people who commit fraud to do that.
		There are lots of companies that do this as well, that commit fraud against the Medicare Medicaid program.
		So caller is absolutely right.
		Congress has little incentive to go after them either.
		There's also state officials who defraud the federal government out of money by pretending to spend money on Medicaid when they're actually not doing it.
		So this is a target-rich environment.
		What's most telling is that the federal government isn't going after any of these targets because nobody spends other people's money as carefully as they spend their own, which is, and state governments aren't either, which is why block grants are such an important reform.
		It would at least give state government a bigger incentive to go after the fraudsters, to To weed out ineligible enrollees who could be getting private health insurance or long-term care services elsewhere because they would get to see 100% of the savings that state officials would.
		Right now, in the Obamacare Medicaid expansion population, if they go after fraud in that part, they might reduce fraudulent spending by $10, but they would only get to see $1 of savings at most.
		$9 of that savings would go to the federal government.
		And similar problems in the rest of the Medicaid program.
		So, target-rich environment, yes, but I found a curious suggestion that we should spend more money on a program that is so replete with fraud.
		I think we need to spend less.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Shore, I do want to get your comment on that, but also the issue of providers overcharging and what you did as administrator to cut down on that.
unidentified		Absolutely.
		The federal government and state governments spend a great deal of time looking at fraud and abuse.
		One of the things that I spent a fair amount of my time on was home health, of looking at companies that were pretending to deliver benefits to people, and we would call the actual individuals and find out no one had come to see their to see them.
		We have fraud in so many areas of Medicare and Medicaid, and a lot of that is people not getting their services.
		I have seen so much of a rise in that with automated telephone calls.
		And to say that the federal government is not engaged, we spent a great deal of time, CMS, the DOJ, and the Inspector General's office working together to take down people using dollars incorrectly.
		It's an ongoing responsibility and a role of the government to do that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Charles in Bentonville, Arkansas, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Charles.
unidentified		Good morning.
		This is a wonderful discussion.
		I'm a retired physician whose practice and hospital depended very much on Medicare and Medicaid.
		And Michelle Shore is a great treasurer.
		She's been in the weeds and the nitty-gritty and completely understands the problem at her level.
		And Michael Cannon is watching the debt clock.
		And if you had the debt clock up there in the corner of the screen, $9 million a minute, that's how much the debt increases.
		He's completely correct that Medicare and Medicaid are not sustainable.
		So what you really need is a perfect marriage with compromise of the ideas of these two people.
		And, you know, yes, could we lock them on a desert, send it to Desert Island, work out the problem?
		Probably.
		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So how likely is compromise going to be?
unidentified		I can make this happen.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You think?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		I think so.
		I've got to go tell you about it.
		I think there are a lot of extra things that could be done to make Medicare medicine more affordable.
		Physical education in schools that would attack, address childhood obesity, which leads to diabetes.
		Are you laughing at me?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		No.
		Don't look at your screen, Charles.
		You'll get confused.
unidentified		But yeah, so I mean, we hear you about childhood obesity.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, what else?
unidentified		Simple, like, you know, a single woman calls in and is struggling.
		Well, there was an old-fashioned thing called marriage.
		One reason people got married was to survive and have kids.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Sandy in Stockton, California, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Sandy.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		This is a very interesting conversation.
		I think that a lot of the fraud that we are talking about in Medicaid comes about through protectors.
		It is not the recipients or it is they don't tax the system as much as the providers do.
		Example, one of the senators from Florida is actually was the head of a healthcare organization that was charged with the largest Medicare fraud in the system's history.
		His name would be Rick Scott from Florida.
		So it isn't the recipients that are taxing the system.
		The idea of the block grants, our system is so messed up.
		We really do need universal health care.
		It is insurance companies that do absolutely nothing.
		They add nothing to your health care, but they create a whole lot of expense within the health care system.
		Do the expenses for health care keep rising?
		Yes.
		Why?
		Because we have so many middlemen.
		Canada seems to provide all of its citizens.
		And I realize Canada doesn't have the population that we have, but they provide all of their citizens with extremely good health care services.
		And everybody's covered.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's get Michael Cannon to respond to.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		I would say Canada provides extremely good health care, adequate in many cases.
		I would agree with the caller about the need to make health care more universal.
		That's not the same as universal health insurance, which I oppose, but I want to make health care more universal.
		And I disagree with the caller about the role of private insurance.
		Private health insurance is a marvel.
		Private health insurance is a wonderful innovation that does tremendous amounts of good.
		It gets perfect strangers who might not, who will never meet each other, might not like each other if they ever met because they might speak different languages, different politics, different religions, and so forth.
		And they get to pay each other's medical bills voluntarily.
		And even if everyone is just doing it because they're in it for themselves, that just makes it all the more marvelous because it means that private health insurance is able to harness the self-interest of millions of people to produce an unquestionably compassionate outcome.
		So the murder of United Health CEO Brian Thompson and the public reaction to that condemning insurance companies and lauding his alleged murderer were a national embarrassment.
		Private health insurance is a marvel.
		The reason people have so many frustrations with private health insurance is because of things the government does that require private health insurance companies to say no when they don't want to say no.
		Would rather keep providing coverage to the single mother of three in New Jersey so that she doesn't lose coverage when she loses her job.
		But the government penalizes workers if they sign up for that sort of seamless cradle-to-grave coverage.
		And then we end up with a lot of people with uninsured and uninsurable pre-existing conditions.
		And who does everybody blame?
		They blame private insurance rather than the government that caused that problem.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that's Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.
		Also, we have Chiquita Brooks-Lashour, Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation and former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator during the Biden administration.
		Thank you both so much for being here.
unidentified		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		Coming up, Doug Clain, a non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, joins us to discuss the Trump administration's efforts to end the war in Ukraine.
		But first, more of your calls.
		It's Open Forum.
		Anything you want to talk about, as long as it's related to public policy, give us a call.
		Democrats 202-748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		This weekend, at 5:45 p.m. Eastern, Mississippi Republican Senator Roger Wicker gives the annual reading of George Washington's 1796 farewell address in observance of the first president's birthday.
		The Senate tradition began on Washington's birthday in 1896.
		Then at 7 p.m. Eastern, watch American History TV series First 100 Days as we look at the start of presidential terms.
		This week, we focus on the early months of President Jimmy Carter's term in 1977, including inflation, energy policy, and the pardoning of Vietnam War draft evaders.
		At 8 p.m. Eastern on Lectures and History, University of Texas History professor Bruce Hunt on the development of the atomic bomb during World War II and the role of the Army Corps of Engineers General Leslie Groves.
		And at 9:30 p.m. Eastern on the presidency, author John Shaw, with his book Rising Star, Setting Sun, recounts the presidential transition from World War II hero Dwight Eisenhower to John F. Kennedy's New Frontier in 1960 and 61, focusing on the 10-week period between the two administrations.
		Exploring the American story.
		Watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/slash history.
		There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
		Use our free C-SPAN Now app or go online to c-SPAN.org/slash radio on SiriusXM Radio on channel 455, the TuneIn app, and on your smart speaker by simply saying play C-SPAN Radio.
		Hear our live call-in program Washington Journal daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		Listen to House and Senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events live throughout the day.
		And for the best way to hear what's happening in Washington with fast-paced reports, live interviews, and analysis of the day.
		Catch Washington today, weekdays at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
		Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN Radio anytime, anywhere.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
		It is Open Forum.
		Forward to taking your calls.
		Some news, if you haven't heard, this is USA Today breaking the story that President Trump will sign an executive order today aimed at eliminating the Education Department.
		It says that Trump will direct his Education Secretary, Linda McMahon, to take, quote, all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.
		We will have that signing at 4 o'clock p.m. tonight Eastern or this afternoon Eastern time here on C-SPAN, so you can follow that on our network.
		And Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell was discussing why the Fed was not interested in reducing interest rates at this time.
		Here's a portion from yesterday.
jerome powell ▲ ● ▼		My colleagues and I remain squarely focused on achieving our dual mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices for the benefit of the American people.
		The economy is strong overall and has made significant progress toward our goals over the past two years.
		Labor market conditions are solid and inflation has moved closer to our 2% longer run goal, though it remains somewhat elevated.
		In support of our goals, today the Federal Open Market Committee decided to leave our policy interest rate unchanged.
		We also made the technical decision to slow the pace of decline in the size of our balance sheet.
		I'll have more to say about these decisions after briefly reviewing economic developments.
		Economic activity continued to expand at a solid pace in the fourth quarter of last year, with GDP rising at 2.3%.
		Recent indications, however, point to a moderation in consumer spending following the rapid growth seen over the second half of 2024.
		Surveys of households and businesses point to heightened uncertainty about the economic outlook.
		It remains to be seen how these developments might affect future spending and investment.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And President Trump responded on Truth Social about that.
		He says the Fed would be much better off cutting rates as U.S. tariffs start to transition, parentheses, ease their way into the economy, do the right thing.
		April 2nd is Liberation Day in America.
		And to the phones now, Joe, Cantonsville, Maryland, Independent Line.
		Hi, Joe.
		You're on the air.
unidentified		Hi.
		Just to piggyback off of the previous discussion, I've always been a pull-yourself up by the bootstraps kind of person.
		Historically, never took a government handout or anything like that until the passage of the $8 trillion of PPP loans, which were during COVID, $8 trillion were given to big companies like Bayer, Monsanto, and Unilever and BlackRock, and private individuals like Brett Barb and Kanye West, up to a million-dollar loan apiece.
		That's to the tune of about $50,000 per taxpayer.
		And, you know, that's your money, that's my money, $50,000 each.
		And so I decided, you know, when I fell on hard times a little after that, I took a government handout for the first time in my life, and I went on Medicaid.
		And I was astounded at how much better it was than my private insurance under my previous employer.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What made it better, Joe?
unidentified		I didn't have any deductibles after anything.
		There was nothing there.
		And Money is money in some ways, but when you already pay a bunch of money for insurance and then there are rather large deductibles, it disincentivizes you from going to get health care.
		I wasn't afraid to get health care.
		If I paid more upfront for my private insurance and everything was covered, then I wouldn't have been afraid to get care on my private insurance.
		But even then, the best plan I could get under my employer was that, you know, like 80% of large costs would be covered.
		And it always made me feel like, you know, if something bad happened, that I would still have to try really hard not to get anything if I could ever possibly avoid it.
		You know, I walked around with a twisted ankle without going to the hospital while I had insurance because I was afraid of whatever might come up.
		Just the mental freedom of being able to get health care.
		You know, you got my stomach checked out.
		I got my colon checked out.
		You know, it's stuff that I needed to do.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Joe.
		And here's John in New York, Democrat.
		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Hi.
		When they were talking about Medicaid and all that dumb junk, I mean, to me, it just certainly, like in the vet states, some of the people do not get Medicaid.
		They don't get anything.
		But it's there to help them out.
		But I just don't understand why people keep saying why people lie sometimes about Medicaid and Medicare and everything else.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think is a lie?
unidentified		Get Medicaid?
		Like you say, North Carolina do not get Medicaid or Medicare or South Carolina.
		Mostly in vet states that don't get Medicaid, those are the ones that need it the most.
		Because like California, New York, or something like that, well, we got it good, but those other states, mean the vet states, they're the ones that's hurting the most.
		And they're the one who needs it the best.
		One who needs it.
		Because it's all about tax cuts.
		If the Republicans got off their you know what and cut taxes on the rich, stop getting it.
		That's why Donald Trump is cutting everything.
		That's why Donald Trump is closing everything down just to pay last when he was in office his tax cuts and this tax cuts that's coming right now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And this is Mark, a Republican in Whitset, North Carolina.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Just as a refresh for the previous caller, is raw Medicaid, Medicare is here in North Carolina, South Carolina, and every state in the Union.
		My call is about the Department of Education that was begun under the Carter administration.
		And various administrations, Republican and Democrat alike, have wrangled around with it.
		No child left behind ended up being every child left behind.
		You know, as Einstein said, the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, expecting the same result, expecting a different result.
		That's not going to occur.
		The states will have a better chance.
		Just what bureaucrat there is in Washington, 50-some-odd,000 people, it doesn't make any difference as to whether Sammy or Johnny or Billy or Sandy Sue learns how to read and write.
		The money needs to go local.
		They know what they can do.
		Parents will get involved.
		And it just doesn't make sense to have a bureaucracy in the federal government that does nothing but spend money and issue directives that are more expensive than the money the states receive.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here is John, Sunbury, Pennsylvania, Independent Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, if Medicaid, Medicare, they want to save money.
		I have private insurance.
		I was supposed to have a surgery.
		It was a one-hour operation.
		They sent me a total bill of $62,000.
		And with me having my own insurance, I would have to pay $6,171.
		The operation itself is $3,500.
		The rest goes to the hospital.
		Why is Medicare so high?
		They pay the whole thing.
		That's all I have to say.
		There's something wrong.
		They're going the wrong direction.
		Look at the people.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Charles in Ohio, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Charles.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I believe we're going to change the subject since Russia started this little fiasco over there and Crimea and Ukraine.
		I believe that Trump ought to make Russia pay us back.
		And I believe that Russia should make pay for all the infrastructure that they've blown up in the Ukraine.
		So that's all I've got to say about it.
		Thank you very much.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Charles, we will have a conversation right after this about Ukraine.
		This is the latest from the Washington Post.
		Zelensky agrees to partial ceasefire after conversation with Trump.
		Ukrainian President Zelensky said, quote, we are ready to implement a halt on energy infrastructure attacks, a first step in what he hoped would be, quote, lasting peace.
		Here's Mark, Annapolis, Maryland, Republican.
		Hi, Mark.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Your call or two calls ago, you know, related to the bureaucracy in the Department of Education is pretty salient.
		And, you know, states have, again, control of their educational processes and they know what's best at the local level.
		The idea that phonics, as an example, was pretty much gutted out of the curriculum in the 90s, late 90s, and so many children left behind.
		We spend more per pupil than other OECD countries.
		I think we're at the top of the list on those rankings.
		We're at the bottom in the top 20.
		And the systems have just failed even today.
		The amount of line curriculum where children can't even get copies of their tests and their results, because the people designing curriculum have such a narrow test bank, they're concerned about test security, which is pretty ridiculous when students can't even get the answers of the questions they got wrong to have lessons learned.
		And teachers, a lot of times, do not really follow through because it's too much work for them to download actual tests for children's review.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Mark, do you have kids in the public schools?
unidentified		Sure do.
		I've probably had about 500 hours of volunteering in private and public schools in the last 10 or 12 years.
		And it's the 80-20 rule, right?
		80% of the teachers and folks are doing a great job, and 20% are just simply punching a ticket.
		And that mentality has to change.
		And the center of education needs to be orbiting around the student.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Mark, do you think that...
unidentified		It can't be orbiting around the institution.
unidentified		It can't be orbiting around the teacher.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that that would improve with the states being in control and there not being a Department of Education?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You think that that would, at least in your experience, that would improve the education there?
swamp dinosaur in sting ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think if you looked at relative benchmarking of students' results from 1946 to 1978, and if you looked at national standardized testing results compared to OECD countries from 1978 to current, I would imagine that the last 40 years has been a very slippery slope down, and that competitive ranking on a relative basis is definitely inferior.
unidentified		And again, I don't have the empirical numbers, but I'm sure there's lots of people that can back up what I'm saying.
unidentified		And the fact that, you know, yeah, so anyways, that's, you know, really here's Jack Ackworth, Georgia, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jack.
unidentified		Hello.
		I just want to say that, you know, the Trump folks are just so full of this kind of ridiculousness.
		Like, this guy just talked about education.
		Education is almost 100% state and local.
		So these people talking about that, the federal education, it's just ridiculous.
		Education is state and local.
		And, you know, we've had a great government.
		Here's another bunch of baloney from the Trump.
		We've had a great government for 100 years.
		The government and the private sector together has what made America great.
		Uh-oh.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Did we lose you?
		Here's David, Flemington, New Jersey, Independent Line.
		Good morning, David.
unidentified		Yes, thank you.
		The biggest destruction fiesto in the history of Medicaid was perpetrated by HIP Health Plan of New Jersey.
		What happened in New Jersey in the 1990s was that the state mandated Medicaid into managed care plans to try to control cost.
		And HIP Health Plan of New Jersey, which originated in New York and was a tremendous success with a health center model, rushed into it.
		What broke HIP for all the commercial people and the Medicaid people was that you could not stop Medicaid people from going to the emergency room.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And up next on the Washington Journal, Doug Klain, a non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, joins us to discuss the Trump administration's efforts to end the war in Ukraine and the partial ceasefire Russia and Ukraine agreed to this week.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
		Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
		At 6.45 p.m. Eastern, Pakistani British author and activist Tariq Ali discusses his memoirs, You Can't Please All, which covers the years 1980 to 2024.
		He also talks about the war in Gaza and student protests in the United States.
		Then at 8 p.m. Eastern, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Hiltzig, with his book Golden State, The Making of California, looks at the history of California from the 1840s gold rush era to the current tech boom.
		At 9 p.m. Eastern, Grove City College political science professor Paul Kengore, author of The Devil and Karl Marx, talks about the role of communists in the creation of International Women's Day and other progressive celebrations.
		And at 10 p.m. Eastern on Afterwards, best-selling author Michael Lewis poses the question, who works for the government and why does their work matter?
		He's interviewed by Harvard Kennedy School of Government Public Policy and Management professor Elizabeth Lenos.
		Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		Stephen M. Gillen was a scholar in residence at the History Channel for more than 20 years.
		He has written 12 books on subjects including a history of the United States, the Kerner Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald, and the life of John F. Kennedy, Jr.
		His latest book is titled Presidents at War, How World War II Shaped a Generation of Presidents from Eisenhower and JFK through Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush.
		Steve Gillen closes his book saying, quote, ironically, the threats facing America in the third decade of the 21st century are very real and in many ways similar to the challenges the nation confronted in the 1930s.
unidentified		Author Stephen Gillen with his book Presidents at War, How World War II Shaped a Generation of Presidents, from Eisenhower and JFK through Reagan and Bush on this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host Brian Lamb.
		BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We are discussing Russia-Ukraine ceasefire talks with Doug Klain, Eurasia Center non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council.
		Doug, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You are also part of an organization called RASM.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Can you tell us about that, what the mission is and the funding?
unidentified		Yeah, absolutely.
		So RASM for Ukraine is a nonprofit organization.
		It's been around in the U.S. for about 11 years now.
		It was founded in 2014 when Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity was happening.
		And it started really as an excellent but small humanitarian aid organization getting humanitarian aid, medical assistance over to Ukraine.
		After the full-scale invasion started, though, in 2022, it really ballooned up.
		And now we've delivered over $150 million worth of aid in Ukraine.
		We also have an advocacy team here in Washington, D.C., and that's where I work.
		I work as their policy analyst, kind of their in-house think tanker, figuring out what does the news mean about Ukraine?
		How does that impact policy?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that humanitarian support, does that come from private donations, foundations?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you get any U.S. government funding?
unidentified		Yes, so ROSM is entirely privately funded.
		We take no money from any government.
		We're completely independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So President Trump spoke with President Zelensky yesterday that followed his call on Tuesday with Russia's leader Putin.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Get us up to speed on the latest developments and what you make of them.
unidentified		Yeah, so I think that last week, of course, we had these big talks in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia between the U.S. and Ukraine, and Ukraine agreed to President Trump's proposal for an unconditional ceasefire.
		Secretary of State Rubio then said the ball is in Russia's court to accept this unconditional ceasefire.
		We waited about a week as there were some of these talks going on waiting for what Putin's response would be.
		And then, of course, this week we had this call between President Trump and Putin.
		And Putin essentially said, no, I'm not ready to accept your unconditional ceasefire, but maybe we can talk about a conditional ceasefire.
		And that's where this conversation about a partial energy ceasefire or an energy and infrastructure ceasefire comes from.
		There's been some lack of clarity over exactly what was agreed to, but Zelensky has said, we're ready for moving forward.
		We're ready for peace.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		No, President Zelensky has posted on X, it says that Russian strikes on Ukraine do not stop despite their propaganda claims.
		Every day, every night, nearly 100 or more drones are launched along with ongoing missiles.
		It says with each launch, the Russians expose to the world their true attitude towards peace.
		As far as you know, are those attacks on energy infrastructure continuing?
unidentified		So we have seen strikes on energy infrastructure since that call between Putin and Trump.
		I'm not sure about the strikes that happened last night.
		They were in Kirovihorod Oblast, south of Kiev.
		There were horrific casualties, though.
		One person suffered, according to Ukrainian authorities, over 90% burns across their body.
		It's unclear whether there were strikes on energy infrastructure last night, but since that call between Trump and Putin, there have been.
		Just a couple of hours after Putin said that we're ready for an energy ceasefire.
		Russian missiles then took out all of the power in one Ukrainian city.
		So Russia has not yet started implementing any kind of energy ceasefire.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you think there will be an energy ceasefire?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you take Putin at his word that he will abide by the ceasefire?
unidentified		I don't take Putin at his word.
		Russia has agreed to dozens and dozens of ceasefires, of agreements to have peace or to halt fighting, and they've continuously violated them.
		Maybe things will be different this time.
		I think that there is a lot of incentive for the Russians to try to avoid spurning Trump and trying to push him more towards Ukraine.
		We've seen that some of Trump's people, like General Keith Kellogg, have talked about, if Russia won't come to the table, maybe we need to start arming Ukraine more and giving Ukraine more leverage to then try to force Russia to the table to negotiate.
		I think that that is something that Russia is trying to avoid.
		But really what we're seeing with these kinds of talks and half steps from Putin is an attempt, I think, to drag out the process.
		Trump has shown that he's very eager to push for peace as soon as possible, trying very hard to get some kind of agreement.
		And it's in Putin's interest to drag that out.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		How is that in Putin's interest to drag things out?
unidentified		Yeah, so the key way that it's in Putin's interest to drag things out is that Russia's goals in this war have not fundamentally changed.
		And I think there's a bit of a mismatch between what the U.S. is expecting Russia wants and what Russia actually wants and says that it wants.
		Russia's goals for the last couple of years have still been to overthrow Ukraine's democratically elected government, to conquer Ukraine, and destroy anything it can't take.
		They've been very plain about these goals, even when Trump started these peace talks with the Russian government.
		Plenty of Kremlin officials like Dmitry Medvedev, the former president, have still talked about, our goals are still to destroy Ukraine.
		And so for Putin right now, dragging out these peace talks a bit, it allows Russia to regroup, to get a breath.
		They've been straining on the battlefield, taking very heavy losses, trying to take whatever territory they can.
		And if they can get some kind of a pause right now, regroup, rearm, then they can be in a better position to continue this war in the future.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We will take your calls for Doug Klain.
		We're talking about Ukraine, the war in Ukraine and the talks with Russia on a ceasefire.
		The lines are Democrats, 202748-8000.
		It's 202-748-8001 for Republicans and 202748-8002 for independents.
		I want to play for you an interview with Bloomberg TV.
		That White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff talked about those Russian attacks that we were just talking about against Ukraine and what he thinks of President Putin and his acting.
		This is, here he is.
steve witkoff ▲ ● ▼		With regard to your question on some of the reporting with regard to the Russian drones last night, I have it on good information from a telephone call I had before I went on this show that President Putin issued an order within 10 minutes of his call with the president directing Russian forces not to be attacking any Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
		And that was, and any attacks that happened last night would have happened before that order was given.
		In fact, the Russians tell me this morning that seven of their drones were on their way when President Putin issued his order and they were shot down by Russian forces.
		So I tend to believe that President Putin is operating in good faith.
		He said that he was going to be operating in good faith to the president yesterday and I take him at his word.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of that, Doc Lee?
unidentified		If Putin is operating in good faith, that would be a first.
		Now, this was an interesting case.
		I'm glad that you played that clip.
		Ms. Witkoff said that the Russians stopped firing after that agreement, that there was an order that was sent out.
		I was still getting texts from people in Kiev hours after this call, after this agreement, saying missiles are still coming.
		Drones are still coming.
		I think that it's verifiably false that the Russians just stopped attacking after this call.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to ask you about this article in the New York Post with the headline, Trump suggests U.S. help run Ukraine's nuclear power plants and that the White House has moved beyond the mineral deal.
		What do you make of that?
		Do you think that would be a good idea?
unidentified		It's something that I think we definitely need more details on.
		It's an odd and new proposal.
		And I think that one thing that people are trying to understand is what power plants first are we talking about.
		Trump has expressed some interest in the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's what this article says, which is the biggest one.
unidentified		Which is the biggest one.
		It's also under Russian occupation.
		There have been several times when, because of that Russian occupation, there have been fears of a nuclear accident at that power plant.
		And so if Trump is talking about U.S. ownership of Ukrainian power plants, well, this still seems to be a continuance, I would say, of this line of reasoning that the Trump administration has had, that if the U.S. is invested in Ukraine, if there is U.S. ownership of assets in Ukraine, then that is some kind of a security guarantee for Ukraine, because the U.S. will have a stake in what happens and whether there is fighting.
		I think that there would be a lot of questions on what would U.S. ownership of a power plant like this look like.
		Would that power still be sold and given back to Russian-occupied Ukraine, or would that power be going to Ukraine?
		Additionally, that power plant has been monitored and held by IAEA inspectors.
		They're international inspectors to prevent a nuclear accident from being there.
		But they have not acted as something of a security guarantee.
		So there are international, non-Ukrainian, non-Russian personnel that have been at that power plant, but that hasn't stopped fighting yet.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's talk to callers.
		We'll start with Andrew in Staten Island, New York, Independent.
		Hi, Andrew.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		My understanding was that as far as the agreement was concerned, the United States said it was supposed to be power plant and infrastructure.
		But the Russians said it was supposed to be power plant infrastructure.
		Therefore, they took that as leeway to strike other facilities like hospitals and churches and things of that nature.
		This seems to be similar to what Governor Abbott said when he started shipping out all of the so-called illegal immigrants to democratic or sanctuary cities.
		He said they say one thing, but they do something different.
		How can you trust an autocrat like Putin?
		And that's my concern.
		What does he have on Trump?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, Andrew, let's take that up.
		What do you think, Doug?
unidentified		So this is a good question, actually.
		There's a lack of precision in what exactly came out of that Trump-Putin call.
		The Kremlin put out a statement saying we've agreed to an energy ceasefire.
		President Trump posted on social media that we've agreed to an energy and infrastructure ceasefire.
		And of course, then the Ukrainian side said energy and infrastructure, that's excellent because everything is infrastructure.
		That means Russia can't keep destroying our hospitals.
		Russia can't keep destroying apartment buildings.
		And the Kremlin seems to say, no, that's not what we're talking about.
		So this is a lack of precision that seems to have been opened up by Trump.
		You know, it's unclear whether this was an unforced error in some way, but that has created an ambiguity to what exactly has been agreed to.
		And now I think this weekend we're expecting U.S. and Ukrainian officials to try to iron out the technicalities here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You know, yesterday on this program, we were talking about the order from the Pentagon that U.S. cyber command stand down from offensive cyber operations against Russia.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I wonder what you think of that and how Russia would respond to that and if that opens up any vulnerabilities to the United States.
unidentified		I think it absolutely opens up vulnerabilities.
		It's something of a free pass to Russia.
		For years, the Russians have been waging hybrid warfare against Europe, against the United States.
		There have been significant cyber attacks against the U.S.
		And by standing down and stopping efforts to counter that, that really is a big question mark.
		It seems like that move was part of this broader strategy of resetting relations with Russia that the Trump administration is pursuing.
		Even Special Envoy Keith Kellogg has used that phrase of it's a reset with Russia.
		And so it seems like an attempt to try to have nicer relations with Russia and hope that that de-escalates the conflict.
		But so far, we're really only seeing few tangibles coming out, like a hockey game between the U.S. and Russia that Trump and Putin may have agreed to.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Who would win that game, by the way?
unidentified		I have no idea.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Glenn, Madison, Illinois, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Glenn.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I got a question for him about this stuff that we sent them Ukraine.
		The short-range stuff that's 25 miles, that's all they go.
		Why didn't we give them some stuff to take some of theirs out?
		They had one thing, I think, that has hit the Kremlin.
		But so far, we're really on the same.
		It wasn't fair what they give them and what Russia's got.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		About U.S. weapons support for Ukraine.
unidentified		Yeah, so this has been one of the key elements of U.S. support for Ukraine over the years.
		One thing to be clear, nothing that the U.S. has provided to Ukraine has hit the Kremlin.
		There have been some incidents where it seems like perhaps Ukrainian long-range drones have hit the Kremlin or orbits at Moscow.
		U.S. weapons that have been provided to Ukraine, we have provided some long-range weapons such as ATACOMS missiles.
		And these are a really strong deep strike precision strike capability that the U.S. has given Ukraine to batter Russian supply lines and command and control nodes.
		But the Ukrainians have been working very hard to produce their own indigenous capabilities.
		We've seen these drones.
		We're also seeing the Ukrainians produce crews and anti-ship missiles.
		This is one of the key ways that Ukraine actually won this battle in the Black Sea and forced the Russian Black Sea Fleet out of Crimea for the first time in hundreds of years by using unmanned surface vehicles that they have produced themselves.
		But in terms of U.S. support for Ukraine, U.S. support is really key.
		There are things the U.S. provides to Ukraine that other countries really can't match.
		And that's things like these precision strike capabilities, as well as intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance assistance that Ukraine needs to conduct these kinds of strikes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now, are you saying that long-range missiles like ATACOMs that could hit Russia have not been used to hit in Russian territory?
unidentified		No, they have been used to hit in Russian territory.
		They haven't hit the Kremlin.
		This was actually a pretty significant policy fight last year.
		The Biden administration had a policy of preventing Ukraine from using U.S. supplied weapons to strike inside of Russia.
		And that gave a massive advantage to the Russians.
		Last April, we saw that the Russians were massing their forces just on the other side of the border from the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv.
		The Ukrainians saw the Russians massing troops there, but they couldn't use U.S. weapons like HIMARS to take those troops out and defend themselves.
		It was a massive advantage the Russians took advantage of.
		That policy was eventually changed.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Phil in Minnesota, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Phil.
unidentified		Independent line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Phil.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You got to put your TV down.
unidentified		You got to put your TV down because we can hear it.
		Maybe I'll speak up.
		Can you hear me now?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yes, go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, go ahead.
		Okay, young man, you got a lot of living to do and a lot to learn.
		There's only one solution long term for this problem.
		There's a river in Ukraine.
		It's the Dnipper.
		East of the river, Russian language and culture is dominant.
		West of the river, Ukrainian language and culture is dominated.
		You have to divide the country along these lines.
		Make Ukraine a protectorate of the United Nations for 10 years.
		And at the end of the 10-year period, you bring them together into the European Union.
		So you have to work with the Europeans because at the end of the USSR, these two countries should have been brought also into the European Union instead of isolating them and playing and being the victors.
		The only solution is you have to divide.
		You have to divide the two cultures and bring them into the European Union together over 10 years.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Phil, let's get a response.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about dividing Ukraine?
unidentified		So there's a key problem with that idea of dividing Ukraine between Ukrainian speakers and Russian speakers, and that is there are Ukrainians who speak Russian.
		Ukrainian President Zelensky's first language is Russian.
		He is from Ukraine's east.
		And people who speak Russian in Ukraine, that doesn't make them not Ukrainian.
		They are still fighting to be part of a sovereign Ukraine and for Ukraine to stay independent.
		We're also seeing that in that territory that Russia occupies in eastern Ukraine, where there are majority Russian speakers, the Russians do still commit horrific atrocities.
		That's why when Ukrainians liberated some of these territories in places like Izum, they found massive mass graves with people who were shot in the back with their hands tied.
		Russians have been exterminating anybody who asserts that they are Ukrainian.
		This is one of these elements of the war that I think goes to show this isn't just about this or that territory for Russia.
		It's about destroying the idea of Ukraine as an independent nation and Ukrainians as a real, unique, and legitimate people.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		There's a Gallup poll that has just come out, and I want to get your reaction to it.
		Support for greater U.S. role in Ukraine climbs to 46%.
		It says, so here are just the highlights.
		53% want the U.S. to help Ukraine reclaim territory, even if it prolongs the conflict.
		63% of Americans think neither side is winning the war.
		And there's more concern that Russia than Ukraine would violate the peace deal, 79% versus 26%.
		So I wonder what you make of those numbers, Doug Clain.
		So 53% wanting the U.S. to help reclaim Ukraine to reclaim territory, but 63% says it's had a stalemate.
unidentified		Yeah.
		So I think I saw this poll as well.
		And first, it's really interesting that in the last couple of weeks, that's when we've seen this massive increase in support among Americans for U.S. support for Ukraine.
		And I think part of that has probably been driven by President Trump's policies, his approach.
		I think when Americans have seen things like the U.S. cutting off military assistance to Ukraine, putting more pressure on Ukrainians than on Russians, that's something that I think Americans are quite uncomfortable with.
		In a lot of this polling, too, we've seen a lot of discomfort with trying to align more with Russia, voting with Russia at the United Nations, for example.
		These are things that Americans don't seem comfortable with.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Richard in Verona, Missouri, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Richard.
unidentified		Good morning.
		You know, I'm an older person, and it looks to me like Trump and Putin, like Hitler and Stalin agreed to divide that country up if they get a hold of it.
		Now, they kind of disappointed.
		In the old days, whenever the Japses were trying to take over China, we sent the flying tigers over there to help defeat that bunch.
		Well, we're got volunteers going over to Ukraine to fight that idiot over there.
		I don't know.
		The Ukrainians, they might lose, but they give it one hell of a fight.
		I'll get off here.
		Thank you.
		Well, I will say you mentioned Americans that are going over to fight in Ukraine.
		And while the United States has not sent troops to fight in Ukraine, we are not part of this conflict as a belligerent in that way.
		There are many Americans who I think courageously have gone over and volunteered to fight in Ukraine because they see that this is at its core a fight over democracy and what kind of a world that we want to live in.
		The Russians are trying to create a totalitarian state and overthrow a democratically elected government.
		And a lot of Americans and American veterans have said, this matters.
		This has a stake for us as Americans.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Independent Line in Lorton, Virginia.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Ali, you're on the air.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I am originally from Iraq and I know what wars do to people's society.
		And a ceasefire or the end of the war in Ukraine will not heal what happened.
		There will be hundreds of thousands of orphans, widows, and the whole society will change.
		And that and the peace and the end of war is really one of the things that make me in a way or other agree with the Trump.
		The second comment I have is I hope Ukraine don't end up like Afghanistan.
		I know Ukraine is in Europe and surrounded by suitrung nations and will not end up probably exactly like Afghanistan, but Afghanistan was used to manage the Soviet Union and deplete them and distract them.
		And I called before and I said that I believe there'll be war in Europe managed Putin.
		So I hope Ukraine will not end up like Afghanistan as the bad peoples.
		I always watch the video of the former prime minister of United Kingdom standing in the middle of Mujahideen shouting Allahu Akwar and then look what happened in Afghanistan later and I hope just all right Ali let's let's take that up.
		Yeah, let's start with your first point on this this question of what happens after a ceasefire and yes there has been tremendous suffering inflicted by this war and just stopping the fighting doesn't automatically lead to healing.
		One of these big wounds that I think we still don't have an answer on on how to how to heal for Ukraine is the abduction of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children by Russia.
		Ukrainian government has identified over 19,546 Ukrainian children that were in parts of occupied Ukraine that have been taken by the Russians and scattered across camps and detention centers in Russia and Belarus.
		The Russian state loosened up its adoption laws actually and has been indoctrinating and adopting illegally these Ukrainian children to raise them as Russians and to one day fight against their own country again.
		And that's one of these issues that there isn't a clear solution for.
		Ukraine isn't about to roll into Russia and bring its kids home.
		This is one of the issues that I think Trump has something of an opportunity to try to negotiate with Putin and make sure that Putin gives these kids back because there has to be some kind of a negotiated solution on that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Julian is a Republican in Georgia.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Julian.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes, ma'am.
		I believe this is the Russian missile Cuban crisis in reverse.
		We have pushed and prodded there.
		NATO is pushed and pushed and pushed.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Okay.
		Well, one point on that.
		You know, this is a common point of discussion on why is Russia fighting?
		Why is Russia doing what it's doing?
		Is it about NATO enlargement?
		Does Russia feel threatened?
		And I think that the last question is quite relevant here.
		If this war was just about Russia wanting a bit of land or wanting to feel more secure, then why does it destroy Ukrainian churches?
		Why does it abduct Ukrainian children and tell them, you're not Ukrainian.
		Ukraine isn't a real place.
		It's not a real identity.
		You know, the abduction of Ukrainian children is one of the clearest cases in this war of genocide, of cultural genocide under international law.
		And that's not something that has to do with security for a country.
		It has to do with identity.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here is Chris in Brookline, Massachusetts.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Democrat, good morning, Chris.
unidentified		Hi.
		To echo your last caller.
		To understand Putin, you have to go back to 1990, when then Secretary of State James Baker promised Gorbachev that in return for German reunification, NATO, quote, would not extend one inch eastward.
		Well, the Russians kept their part of the bargain, but when the Warsaw Pact countries failed, the United States actively recruited every Warsaw Pact country into NATO until NATO was standing on the borders of Russia.
		What the United States, what NATO wants to do is to do to Russia what it did to Yugoslavia, and that is to break it up into its component provinces.
		I would like the moderator to go to your computer and type in Record of conversation between Gorbachev and Baker.
		And that will take you to the National Security Archives website.
		And on pages six and on page nine are the references to the non-expansion of NATO.
		Apparently, your guest is unaware of that.
		Thanks and have a nice day.
		I appreciate the comment.
		You know, this is something, of course, that phrase of not one inch has come up quite a lot.
		But Gorbachev himself has said that there was no formal agreement over this.
		Russia even flirted with the idea of joining NATO itself.
		Putin in, I believe, 2000, 2001 had said some of these things of, you know, perhaps Russia's future is in NATO.
		And so, of course, things were quite different in that time.
		But I think a question that we want to ask here is, why do countries want to join NATO?
		NATO allows countries to join.
		It doesn't expand and conquer new territories.
		It enlarges and allows members to join the alliance.
		And so I think that we can step back and ask, after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Warsaw Pact, why did all of these newly independent states want to join the NATO alliance?
		And I think that many countries are watching what's happening in Ukraine right now and saying, this is why we want it to be in NATO to be protected by, to be protected from Moscow, which had occupied us previously.
		It's why after the beginning of the full-scale invasion, we saw some of these Nordic states work quite quickly to try to join the alliance because they worried that the same thing could happen to them.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here is what you were talking about for the caller is the National Security Archive.
		You can look at nsarchive.gwu.edu.
		And here is the record of that conversation you were talking about between Gorbachev and Baker from February 9th, 1990.
		And here is David, Lynchburg, Virginia.
		Democrat.
		Good morning, David.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm a veteran.
		And Russia was a treaty.
		They broke the treaty with Ukraine that they signed back in 2000, back in Trump's first term of office.
		And I wouldn't believe a word of what he said or Trump either on.
		The only interest that they were in is for the land and the mineral rights, uranium and stuff in the ground to make nuclear weapons.
		So the next war, the next war here is going to be a nuclear war between us, China, Russia, or North Korea.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, David.
unidentified		Well, David, first, thank you for your service.
		This is a good point that I think Ukraine has tried to highlight quite a lot recently as we talk about some kind of a ceasefire peace agreement with Russia.
		Russia has violated dozens of peace agreements and ceasefires.
		I think you were referencing the Minsk peace process that happened when Russia first started this war and invaded Crimea and the Donbass back in 2014.
		This is why I think Ukraine talks so much about the need for security guarantees.
		Ukraine has signed on to many agreements in the past about its security.
		I mentioned the Minsk agreements here.
		We can also think about the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 when Ukraine agreed to surrender its nuclear weapons in exchange for assurances from the United States and Russia that its security would be protected.
		And Ukraine has found out that these agreements were weak.
		They were not real guarantees.
		And what Ukraine believes it needs is a more ironclad guarantee, something like NATO membership or something else to make sure that even if Russia's goals of conquering Ukraine don't change, Russia will be deterred from trying to follow through on those goals.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Monty in Bend, Oregon, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Monty.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		So so much to talk about in so little time.
		Hey, I'm just kind of curious two points.
		We know that Putin is trying to delay as long as possible in this whole thing.
		And I've heard in reports in the past that there's $209 billion in Brussels that belongs to Putin.
		Whenever the Europeans bring that up, Putin's on the social media within seconds.
		If you touch that $209 billion, you better not touch it.
		Well, why don't we turn it around and say you can have your $209 billion if you begin pulling out of Ukraine within 24 hours or 48 hours?
		It's time to get the ball rolling.
		All the stalling only benefits Putin, and it's time to kind of get this thing solved instead of delaying.
		That's a great question, Monty.
		So this is the issue of Russian state assets.
		The Russian state has had hundreds of billions of assets that are stored in the West, in the United States, Canada, Europe.
		And when Russia first invaded, or started its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the West really froze these assets in place.
		Now, last year, actually, Congress passed legislation called the Repo Act, which authorized the president to seize the about 5 billion Russian state assets that are frozen in the United States, to seize those and transfer them to Ukraine to effectively make Putin pay for aid to Ukraine.
		And of course, there are about 5 billion of these assets in the U.S., but as you mentioned, hundreds of billions that are in Europe.
		You mentioned they're in Brussels there in a holding house called Euroclear.
		And this is a big point of debate.
		The question of why can't we just give them back to Putin and have him take these assets as a payoff almost to stop the war?
		Well, Russia has effectively written off these assets.
		It is not expecting to get them back.
		They've been frozen and Russia is not expecting to get these back in some kind of a way.
		They've also been used as collateral for about a $50 billion loan from the G7 countries to support Ukraine.
		Russia is not ultimately fighting this war for money, for resources.
		It's fighting this war because it wants Ukraine, because it wants to keep expanding out.
		And so just kind of trying to pay off the bandits at the gates is not a strategy that I think would be likely to succeed here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that Russia would invade another country if it was allowed to succeed in Ukraine?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I mean, do you think that what would be next?
unidentified		Well, the Baltic states are supremely concerned about their security.
		I was in Lithuania last fall and actually went to go and see some of the fortifications and military bases that are out there.
		The Lithuanians are, and the rest of the Baltic states are extremely concerned that Russia will try to capture them again.
		They have a very recent memory of occupation under Moscow under the Soviet Union.
		And this is something that they're trying to prepare.
		Can they create fortifications along their lines?
		How can they create strategies with the NATO alliance to deter Russia from trying to invade them, but also from defending them against an actual invasion?
		The Baltics are very clear that the best way to defend themselves is to make sure that Russia loses in Ukraine.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Lou, a Republican in Punta Gorda, Florida.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're on with Mr. Clain.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Hi, good morning.
		Thanks for taking my call here.
		I just like to put something in a little bit, something we passed over.
		These attacks that are currently going on, where Putin shot down his own drones, basically, I feel that they stopped the attack on the necessary items that they're going to need when they take over Ukraine.
		So I think that Putin did that intentionally to save himself the trouble of having to rebuild certain things that are necessary for what he needs.
		I don't think you're doing that through Ukraine.
		I don't think Zelensky is getting anywhere with Putin.
		I think this gentleman that's talking on the line right now has got it right on the head, hit it right on the nose.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		Appreciate it.
		Well, thanks for the compliment.
		It is a good point that there are tremendous resources in Ukraine that Russia, if it's successful in capturing Ukrainian territory, can take those resources, rearm, rebuild the Russian war machine, and prepare for what's next.
		This is one of the fundamental points that Ukrainians, I think, try to remind everybody.
		Russia's aims in this war have not changed.
		The only thing that can be impacted here is do they succeed or not in executing those aims.
		But on the question of does Russia try to protect things in Ukraine to take them on later, I think the city of Mariupol on the Black Sea coast is a good example here.
		The Russians destroyed this massive city.
		The scenes there were apocalyptic when Russia conquered it, laid siege, and destroyed everything back in 2022.
		We can see the mass graves there on satellite images.
		Russia has no qualms about destroying things in Ukraine if it means that either Ukraine can't have them anymore or Russia can conquer them then.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		One more call from Shea in Baltimore, Maryland, Independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I think your guest is very dishonest and manipulative.
		It is people like him are the reason why American credibility is such a low level at this day and age.
		Russia did not stop this war.
		This war is actually between Russia and America.
		America instigated this war, provoked Russia to attack Ukraine.
		We are sacrificing the Ukrainians for geopolitical gains.
		Essentially, what he's saying, everything he's saying is a propaganda, trying to manipulate people to go along.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Shea, explain why you think America started the war.
unidentified		Well, we had Minsk I and Minsk II prior to Russian invasion.
		This Minsk I and Minsk II was set up in order to settle the conflict that was going on in Ukraine.
		Half of Ukrainians did not want to be part of the Ukrainian that the West supported or the government that the West put in place.
		That part of Ukraine did not want to be part of that committee.
		So Minsk I and Minsk II was put in place so that they would have a federalization of Ukraine.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, and Shea, let's get a response.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We're running low on time.
unidentified		Yeah, so you mentioned Minsk and the Russians violated the Minsk peace agreements dozens of times.
		There were ceasefires and the Russians continuously violated them.
		You mentioned the referenda, I think you're referencing in Crimea and in Donbass, where the Russians basically sent troops in, occupied Crimea, and then said, all right, Crimeans will now have a vote on what they want their future to be.
		And I think that a vote at gunpoint is no free and fair vote at all.
		It has not been recognized as a free and fair election.
		I think another thing that's important to remember here is that the United States and Russia are not the only two actors here.
		The Ukrainians have agency.
		The Russians invaded Ukraine because Ukrainians decided that they don't want to live under Moscow's sphere of influence.
		They want to be a democracy.
		They want to have the rule of law.
		They want to have the freedom to choose who to associate with in the world and what the future of their country should be.
		And for the Russians, that was a step too far.
		They see Ukraine as their rightful property.
		And that, ultimately, I would say, is why this war has started.
		Why the Russians chose to send their troops in, why every day the Russians keep fighting.
		You know, it's important for us to remember that the Russians could stop fighting at any moment and the war would stop.
		But if Ukrainians stop fighting, then Ukraine will stop, will stop existing.
		The Russians will keep going and continue trying to conquer.
		So let's remember what Ukraine's agency is in all of this.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, that's Doug Klein, Eurasia Center non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council.
		They're on the web at atlanticcouncil.org.
		Doug, thanks so much for joining us today.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that's it for us today.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We will be back tomorrow at 7 a.m. Eastern, as usual.

▲