CSPAN - Washington Journal 08/04/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 4, 2025 06:59-10:07 - CSPAN

03:07:54

Washington Journal 08/04/2025

Participants

Main

ej antoni

18:29

pedro echevarria

cspan 42:57

Appearances

brian lamb

cspan 00:59

byron donalds

rep/r 00:56

donald j trump

admin 01:52

hakeem jeffries

rep/d 00:47

ron wyden

sen/d 00:46

Clips

ellen brown

00:17

glenn spencer

00:07

ken martin

d 00:24

lauren chen

00:24

manu raju

cnn 00:04

melanne verveer

00:11

rob finnerty

newsmax 00:08

sean hannity

fox 00:08

willie nelson

00:04

Callers

lewis in fema region 7

callers 00:10

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		He's been working on for Nebraska's first congressional district.
		That's live from Lincoln, Nebraska at 6 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Cox.
		When connection is needed most, Cox is there to help.
		Bringing affordable internet to families in need, new tech to boys and girls clubs, and support to veterans.
		Whenever and wherever it matters most, we'll be there.
		Cox supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		Coming up this morning on Washington Journal, we'll take your calls and comments live.
		Then the Economic Security Project's Mike Konzel and the Heritage Foundation's E.J. Antonio discuss the current state of the U.S. economy and Trump administration economic policy.
		And Bloomberg White House reporter Schuyler Woodhouse reports on the week ahead in Washington.
		Also, investigative journalist David Leventhal discusses efforts to ban U.S. lawmakers from engaging in stock trading.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal is next.
		Join the conversation.
		This is the Washington Journal for August the 4th.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Brand new polling.
		Ask Republicans and Democrats to give an assessment of their respective parties.
		Democrats generally were less enthusiastic about their own party than Republicans.
		We're generally upbeat about the state of their party.
		To start the program today, we'll ask you to give an assessment of your political party.
		We'll start with Republicans in the first half hour, and then ask Democrats the same in the second half hour.
		Starting with Republicans only in this first half hour, are you satisfied with your party's direction?
		And here's how you can let us know your thoughts.
		If you want to call us, 202-748-8000, for those of you in the Eastern and Central time zones and Republicans in the Mountain and Pacific time zones, it's 202-748-8001.
		If you want to text us your thoughts on your satisfaction level with the Republican Party, 202-748-8003 is how you can do that.
		You can also post on Facebook at facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and on X at C-SPANWJ.
		This poll came out yesterday.
		It was from the Associated Press along with NORK, and it asks Republicans and Democrats alike to give an assessment of their party.
		You can find it online at the AP Nork website.
		But here's one of the findings that came out of it as far as the overall assessment, saying that when it came to the Republican Party and Republicans talking about the state of their party, it said relatively few Republicans express dissatisfaction with their party.
		Only 19% mention a negative aspect, while 41% use a positive word or phrase in describing their own party.
		The poll takes a look at some of the specifics and under the question of the first word or phrase that you think of when you think of the Republican Party, when it comes to that general positive tone and those responding generally positive, 16% of those, 12% of those asked that question of Republicans saying they view their party as conservative that way.
		9% saying that it was pro-American, highlighting the American dream, also describing themselves as patriotic and for those aspects of freedom.
		6% saying they had a negative view of the party.
		6% only saying that the party, when it comes to their own assessment, was for the rich generally.
		And then 6% saying that when it comes to the Republican Party that expressed common sense, it was honest and normal.
		There's more there when it comes to the poll, but for the first half hour, kind of taking the spirit of the poll in mind, again, we're splitting it into two half hours.
		Republicans only, you can start us off.
		You can tell us about your level of satisfaction with your party's direction, and you can bring up any aspect of it.
		It's 202-748-8000 for the Eastern and Central time zones.
		It's 202-748-8001 for the Mountain and Pacific time zones.
		If you want to text us your thoughts, you can do that too at 202-748-8002.
		When it comes to other aspects, asking Republicans of their party, 5% of those who participated in polls said that they thought that the Republican Party was for the people, is for the middle class and the working class.
		5% described their party as united, also using words like strong and powerful and fixing things, and then 8% others.
		That was the poll that was released yesterday asking Republicans that.
		By the way, it was not too long ago that the folks at YouGov put out their own assessment of the Republican Party, asking Republicans the same kind of question.
		They highlighted it this way.
		What do Republicans think the Republican Party focuses too little and too much on?
		Amongst people who said that, as far as the too little category, 43% of those saying that they focus too little on the addressing the cost of living concerns.
		39% said it was focused too little on recruiting qualified candidates to run for office.
		Countering the Democratic messaging, 38% of those saying that, 36% saying that developing the great nation of party leaders, and then 34% saying that when it comes to the Republican Party, they focus too little on this idea of managing party unity there.
		So you can pick one of those categories if you like to highlight or others when it comes to Republicans only, giving the assessment of your party.
		John Wilson from Facebook, and you can post there too at facebook.com slash C-SPAN.
		He offers this assessment saying that they need to be tougher on Democrats, change the rules in the Senate, saying that they can pass the president's agenda.
		This also comes from the call from the president himself for more of his nominations to be passed.
		Mike from Facebook saying that he has a general positive assessment of the party, saying except some of the Republicans still on board or get out.
		If you call us, you can elaborate on those things as well.
		Kevin in New York starts us off.
		Republicans only, again, your assessment of the party's direction.
		Kevin, hello.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How are you, sir?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine, sir.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		I'm very satisfied with the direction of what Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance has taken.
		And in fact, I use a statement of we advance with JD Vance and Donald Trump.
		I believe the direction of going after these individuals in the past administration is correct.
		And the right for the U.S. citizens to know that they committed treason and action sedition in the past is present.
		And even with the cover-up of the administration's use of COINTELPRO and Project M and the Federal Bureau of Prisons illegally lengthening people's sentences must be addressed also.
		And I only heard that in the news only once, We're proud that the individual that Donald Trump has picked for Attorney General is doing a great job.
		Kash Patel is doing a great job.
		And I'm very proud.
		I'm an ex-Navy veteran, served two tours overseas.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And if I may ask, did you always feel so upbeat about the party before President Trump, or was it him coming into office that changed that for you?
unidentified		I was always a Republican with farmers originally from South Jersey.
		I do farm across the country.
		And when Donald Trump came on board, it most definitely really gave rebirth to the party, gave an energetic stance.
		And it shows that there are Americans out there.
		And Donald Trump is a great businessman who, you know, unfortunately failed twice and came back up on his feet, which shows the American dream can be obtained if you have conviction.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Kevin there in New York.
		Again, Republicans only giving your satisfaction level of the party's direction.
		In North Carolina, Scott joins us.
		Scott, hello.
unidentified		Hello.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		I would say that I am definitely behind what the Republican Party is doing.
		I think that a lot of what's going on now is the Democratic side is taking and choosing things to get mad about, whether it's tariffs.
		They say that the tariffs are exploding the debt and the inflation.
		However, their speaking point is: well, Trump keeps going back on all the tariffs, but yet he is putting a flat 10% tariff, which is well above the average back four years ago by, I think it's, what, 8%?
		I am totally blind, so I don't have all the statistics in front of me, nor can I read them.
		But after hearing the Democrats ran in rage over these tariffs, which they were in favor of many years ago, I do like what Trump is doing.
		I think that some of the spokespeople for the administration are saying the things wrongly.
		And I think that overall, I think that in the end, Donald Trump will be correct, as he has been multiple times when it comes to the economics of our government and how we used to look at things and how we should be looking at things.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Again, another Republican giving an assessment of the state of his party.
		You can do the same on the phone line.
		Some of you are putting on Facebook and you can text us too at 202-748-8003.
		This is from Facebook, Ron Victor, saying no when it comes to satisfaction levels and explaining why.
		Too many rhinos, which if you watch this program, that stands for Republicans in name only, still trying to sabotage the president.
		Then Brad Ralph saying it's the only party that puts Americans first and fights for the American way.
		No party is perfect, but at least the Republican Party is putting forth an effort for America.
		Again, Facebook available to you.
		Many of you posting on X. Text us if you wish.
		Call us on the lines if you want.
		202-748-8000.
		For those of you in the Eastern and Central time zones, Republicans, 202748-8001 in the Mountain and Pacific time zones.
		If you want to tell us about your satisfaction level with your party's direction, there's more from this YouGov poll when it comes to the things of focus saying when asked about the Republican Party, what it focuses too much or too little on.
		29% saying that it focused too little on appointing judges.
		30% winning the control of Congress.
		26% promoting civility when it comes to politics, adapting to changing public opinion.
		25% saying that the Republican Party focuses too little on that.
		And also that same amount, 25% saying that it focuses too little on crafting a positive vision for the future.
		Again, that was from the YouGov poll.
		This YouGov poll, by the way, took place in May.
		You can use some of those categories if you want and talk about the state of the party.
		It was yesterday or over the weekend that in Florida, an event focusing on Florida Republicans talking about the state of their party too.
		This is the headline: Republicans cautioned against complacency at the Florida Freedom Forum.
		That took place in Orlando, Florida.
		One of the speakers there, Florida Representative Byron Donald, talking about the state of his party, giving his own assessment of it, comparing and contrasting to the Democratic Party.
		Here's Byron Donald's from over the weekend.
byron donalds ▲ ● ▼		What has separated us from the Democrats is despite all the political machinations that have gone on over the last several decades in the United States, we have been committed to our core philosophy.
		We are a party that is a believer in the United States Constitution, making sure that the Constitution is actually followed.
		We protect individual liberties.
		We protect individual rights.
		We protect your economic liberty.
		And we will always make sure we protect your freedom of speech.
		We are not going to be people who are going to try to shout you down or shut you up or shadow ban you or use the government, whether it's Operation Choke Point 1.0 or 2.0 to sideline you.
		We believe in the freedom and the merit and the ability of all people.
		That is what our party is.
		If the Democrats want to continue down the road they're going to continue down, then they're going to look like, as a national party, they're going to look like the Florida Democrat Party, which means they will be nowhere fast.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, we showed you the poll from the Associated Press about the Republican and Democrats asking about those in the party giving their own assessment of it, asking you, the same Republicans, to start us in this first half hour.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ronald from North Carolina, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I've been watching this a little bit.
		I've been watching my opinion about the Democrats, what they've done to their party.
		They've lost their common sense.
		And when Schumer said the Democrat Party was God in the House when they done that, that rinch party right there when they're trying to turn little girls and boys, boys, and girls, that's my opinion.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, before you go, what about your own party?
		Are you satisfied with the direction of the party?
		And if that's the case, why is that?
unidentified		Trump's on the way to go.
		He's the only one to believe.
		All the rest of them just tells lies, want to witchman all the time.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Is it only President Trump that you think is making the success of the Republican Party?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Are there other factors there too?
unidentified		Well, all the rest of them is working with Trump, and they all work together.
unidentified		It makes the party.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Ronald there in North Carolina giving us his assessment.
		This is Kelly Sobiana saying that when it comes to her assessment of the party, saying that we are united is how she starts it off.
		We have a vision and a plan for the people.
		And then when it comes to adding that, going on, she's saying it's being implemented.
		She follows up by saying America first.
		And then Steve, Steve Fox, saying that for the most part, I would like to see some of them reigned in.
		He goes on to say, Thomas Massey, the representative for one.
		So you can, again, Facebook is where you can post thoughts there.
		If you want to give your assessment, you can also post on X2.
		Phone lines, 202-748-8000 for the Eastern and Central time zones, 202748-8001 for the Mountain and Pacific time zones.
		It was the president himself over the weekend taking a look at the future when it comes to the 2026 midterm elections, his role in talking about the state of the party and how he hopes that will influence the outcome of the midterm elections in 2026.
		We'll hear from him in a bit.
		Let's hear from Rory.
		Rory is in California.
		Rory, thanks for calling.
		Go ahead.
		You're on.
unidentified		Yes, I think the party could do better.
		I wouldn't be pushing to pay everything down, just slow down the upward moment, momentum of payment.
		The other thing is with fuel.
		Between Republicans and Democrats, you've got to have both gasoline, you've got to have solar power and all that.
		Another 100 years, we're not going to have any gasoline, so slowly develop it.
		But for our lifetime, we need to live side by side with that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So energy policy being one thing, you talked about, if I understood you correctly, correct me if I'm wrong, payment of debt, I think you were talking about.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Can you elaborate on that?
unidentified		Very simple.
		First, we got too much.
		However, by paying some of it, we'll slow the increase of debt.
		I doubt very seriously if we're ever going to lower it.
		Maybe we can stop it sometime in the future, but it's going to keep going up.
		Democrats make it worse than Republicans when they spend.
		Republicans do spend up, but at least they do it at a slower rate.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that the president's tariff policy and part of that wanting to pay down debt and take care of things, do you think that's a good strategy?
unidentified		For the country, not for the docks.
		I worked on the docks, and I tell you, 35% of them are empty.
		You don't need long sharm in security or anybody else.
		They're laying people off there until finally that's done.
		It's good for the country overall long term.
		We'll get good deals.
		The other countries will suffer for it, but we won't.
		We'll prosper.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Rory, they're giving us a different take on the Republican Party from California there, energy policy, paying down debt, those kind of topics.
		Let's go to Beth.
		Beth in Florida.
		Thanks for calling.
		You're next up.
		Go ahead.
		Beth in Florida.
		Hello.
unidentified		Yes, can you hear me?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yep, you're on.
		Go ahead.
		We can.
unidentified		Okay.
		I have been calling in for at least six years of the last eight years and complaining about the Republican Party.
		You, in particular, have asked me more than half the time that you have been the host when I've called whether I am a Republican or not.
		I went into a voting booth with my father at the age of five because he was teaching me to read from the Washington Star newspaper before I ever went to elementary school.
		We lived right outside of D.C.
		And he taught me to read.
		And the first 10-letter word that I could spell was Eisenhower.
		And I actually pulled the lever for him and all the people that he had told me he wanted to vote for.
		And when I had finally picked, read all the names and picked the ones that he wanted to vote for, he said yes, and he pulled the lever for the curtain to lock those votes in.
		I have called in and told you that I have worked on two other presidential campaigns.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So, Beth, don't mean to interrupt, but since you've identified yourself as a Republican.
unidentified		Let me move on to why I'm calling.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, are you satisfied with your party's direction?
unidentified		No, I am not.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why is that?
unidentified		Republicans are Republicans because they're supposed to stand up for the Republic.
		Because this nation was created through our Constitution to be a republic.
		That meant that the people voted for a representative and sent them to Congress to vote the way we wanted them to, the way the people, their constituents wanted them to vote.
		The Republicans are going to Congress now and given Donald Trump whatever Donald Trump wants, even though they know I have seen one person after the next in the Republican Party over the last eight years that I, eight years ago, I would have considered elder statesmen for the Republican Party.
		And they have either been run out of office by Donald Trump or they have given in.
		And they have learned to give in, give him everything.
		This is no longer a Republican Party.
		It is a Trump party.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		I have been trying to call my senators since January.
		I finally did get through to Rick Scott's office, and I asked them two questions over two months ago.
		And one was, who is the 360-year-old person that Elon Musk talked about in the Oval Office that was receiving Social Security?
		I wanted a name for that person because at 350 years old, they're not going to be alive.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Let's go to John.
		John in Georgia.
		Again, your view or satisfaction with the Republican Party's direction.
		John, hello.
unidentified		Hello.
		I'm satisfied in the sense that I've seen a transformation since Trump, who used to be a Democrat, you know, Trump could run whatever he could, you know, pick to run, he would go with to win.
		And he ended up being a Republican.
		And I see more of the Democrats who have become Republicans like Trump.
		For example, General Mike Flynn used to be a Democrat, became a Trump Republican, let's say, or a Trump general as an NSA.
		You know, he got fired on the first term.
		Tulsi Gabbard, former Democrat, turned the Republican.
		I don't see that on the I don't see a Republican becoming a Democrat the same way.
		If they had kind of a Trump figure on their side, they would win too.
		Maybe Thomas Massey will be the next Republican to become a Democrat who will be winning something for Democrats.
		But I'm satisfied in the sense that I'm glad you played Byron Donalds, who I called Donald's Byron, and it's like a better version of Ron DeSantis.
		So he's like getting the best of both Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump.
		You get Byron Donalds for the next president.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So John, that transformation you talk about, do you think the Republican Party will be the same once President Trump leaves office?
unidentified		They could default to their old ways, the uni-party ways.
		That's the trend.
		They tend to align themselves with Democrats a lot with spending, debt, these big bills which are not beautiful at all.
		You know, Trump has to go along with that.
		I mean, a lot of pork, a lot of stuff, a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse.
		Yeah, Trump has set a new precedent, and hopefully Mike Johnson learns the lesson.
		And he's young, and we need people like Mike Johnson.
		I mean, Trump has to work with them too, with the Republicans.
		I don't know if I can have the question.
		I don't know if the Republicans will default back to the unit party ways.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Okay.
		That's John there in Georgia.
		Let's hear from George in Buffalo, New York.
		George, hello.
unidentified		Hi, how are you?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I'm well, thank you.
unidentified		Thanks for taking my call.
		I just don't know how you can't be happy with Trump.
		I mean, first, he finally closed our border, which for the last four years, in my opinion, was a crime by the Democrats.
		Second, I firmly believe that his tariff strategy and the big beautiful bill will wind up keeping allowing Americans to have more money in their pockets rather than the government.
		And that's what I think is two big points for him.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's President Trump himself.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about the party overall as far as its direction?
unidentified		I think the party's, I think I'm happy with the party.
		I mean, they're fighting for things that I believe in.
		And I don't see, and I think they have a good relationship with Trump, and I think they'll move things forward.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And do you think it's the president himself that's animating all this?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And this goes back to the previous question I asked the previous caller as far as when President Trump is no longer in office, will the party stay that way, in your opinion, do you think?
unidentified		Yes, I believe it will.
		Yeah, I believe they're going to stick to their conservative values and fight for many of the things that are common sense, which is a big reason why he got in office, right?
		I mean, people want to know who they're letting in the country.
		They want more money in their pockets.
		And these are things that's important to Americans.
		I think that's why he got in office.
		I think that's what the Republican Party stands for, as well as Trump.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		And they worked together.
unidentified		That's my opinion.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's George there.
		In New York, you can still call in and give your thoughts, Republicans.
		202748-8000 for the Eastern and Central time zones.
		202748-8001 for the Mountain and Pacific time zones.
		Again, we're asking you in a general sense if you're satisfied with the Republican Party's direction.
		Many of you focusing on the president himself, some of you focusing on policy matters, all that up for the mix.
		If you want to talk about that, you can also post on our various sites when it comes to the question.
		This is Marie Amadola from Facebook saying, we so desperately need someone like Trump to fight for America.
		I also like the rest of his cabinet that were hired for their worth, not because they would be for we would be the first whatever.
		They finish up the thoughts.
		Karen Earwood saying a return to normalcy, secure border, having a leader who is competent and awake, 100% happy.
		Adding that food and gas prices still need to come down, but then making the clarification, it's only been six months.
		One of those things coming up in the coming months when it comes to those midterm elections we were talking about.
		The president over in an interview with Newsmax asked about the role he thinks he's going to have moving that and the party forward when it comes to 2026.
		Here's some of that interview that took place over the weekend.
rob finnerty ▲ ● ▼		You're not on the ballot this cycle, 2026.
unidentified		Historically, Republicans have struggled when Donald Trump's name's not on the ballot.
rob finnerty ▲ ● ▼		How are you going to make sure Republican voters turn out in 2026, just 15 months away?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		It's a great compliment, right?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		When I'm not on the ballot, we don't do that.
unidentified		Well, that's true.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		But I'm going to be out campaigning and working very hard.
		We have great candidates.
		And, you know, they're saying we had the greatest six months in the history of the presidency.
		We have done so much.
		The big, beautiful bill, the whole thing.
		I mean, everything.
		And that's the biggest tax cuts ever.
		The biggest regulation cuts ever.
		When do you see the boom that this country goes through in five or six months from now with all of the things that are happening?
		Car plants are getting ready to start built.
		They're going to be built by record numbers.
		The AI stuff is crazy what's going on there.
		Billions and billions, trillions of dollars is being.
		And it's all going to start very shortly now.
		It's amazing.
		We've taken in 17, almost $17 trillion of investments in this country.
		And when you see what happens, we're going to have a successful country like I think we've never had before.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, that was the president from his Newsmax interview.
		This is Mark from Texas.
		As always, you can text at 202748-8003.
		He adds this to the mix, saying, disappointed that the party has morphed into a populist party, willing to overlook the obvious moral failings of President Trump.
		The most important issue facing the nation is the debt.
		And the leaders of the party are not putting forth policies to address this.
		However, the alternative party supports relentless nonsense like open borders.
		Again, you can text us your thoughts at 202748-8003, some of the YouGov poll that showed some of the things that the Republican Party does too little of.
		21% both saying when it comes to the categories of building a social media presence and energizing its supporters, 20% says that the Republican Party does too little raising money and resources, adding that to the mix.
		Rallies and public events after that.
		And then some other things as well.
		That was from YouGov.
		The poll that we're focusing on came out yesterday.
		It was from the Associated Press along with the acronym of the organization is NORC, talking about the current state of the Republicans.
		There's a headline that dealt with the Republicans aspect, many remaining positive about that party, and many of you, Republicans calling in, suggesting that as well.
		It also took a look at Democrats saying that overall, when it comes to that, they were more self-critical of the assessment.
		And as promised in the second half hour, for Democrats only, we want to get your same question to you.
		Are you satisfied with your party's direction?
		So Democrats only, if you want to call in and let us know your thoughts, it's 202-748-8000 for the mountain, or the Eastern and Central time zones and the mountain and Pacific time zones.
		It's 202-748-8001.
		For Democrats, and you want to call us on the lines, if you want to text us, it's 202-748-8003 is how you do that.
		And as always, you can post on the social media sites too.
		We've been showing you plenty of those over the last half hour.
		We'll try to get as many of those in.
		Facebook.com slash C-SPAN and at X at C-SPANWJ.
		Overall, when it came to the Democratic Party, this is what the poll showed about Democrats and what they said about their own party.
		35% of Democrats ascribing a negative attribute to their party generally when it comes to the poll.
		14% describing it as weak and tepid.
		9% saying it is broken or ineffective.
		Again, that's Democrats giving their own assessment of the party.
		Here's some other categories, again, from the Associated Press.
		11% of those Democrats asked about what's the first word or phrase that comes to mind when you think of the Democratic Party.
		11% of those saying that, for Democrats, saying it was overall generally positive that they said.
		Again, we saw that 9% saying it was broken.
		6% of those asked and used the category of liberal and progressive when it comes to the state of the Democratic Party.
		5% giving that general negative overview.
		And 11%, by the way, should saying that when it comes to the party itself, describe the party as empathetic, caring, and inclusive.
		Again, that's Democrats giving their own assessment of the party.
		We'll ask you to do the same, Democrats, in the second half hour.
		Again, 2027 for eight-8000 for those of you in the Eastern and Central time zones.
		202748-8001 in the Mountain and Pacific time zones.
		For Democrats, it was over the weekend that New Jersey Democratic Senator Corey Booker, you may remember that on the Senate floor recently, he took his own party to task over things when it comes to Donald Trump.
		It was in an interview over the weekend he highlighted that, also talked about the current state of his party.
		Here's part of that conversation.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		You've seen public opinion polls.
unidentified		The Democratic brand is worse than the Republican brand and several polls.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		One, how much does that concern you?
manu raju ▲ ● ▼		And two, what do you have to do to regain credibility as Democrats with voters?
unidentified		So Democrats will lose credibility if they're concerned about the Democratic Party.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		Democrats will gain credibility when we're concerned about the American people.
unidentified		I love this about my caucus.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		When the doors are closed and the 47 of us are in a room, the conversation isn't about the party.
unidentified		It's about how are we going to fight for health care?
unidentified		How are we going to fight against all the firings of veterans?
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		How are we going to fight against these tariffs that are raising costs to focus on people and let the politics take care of itself?
unidentified		Because this is a time where there's declining trust in all of elected leadership.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		And I think the way you earn trust and build trust is to show that you're willing to stand and you're willing to fight.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		Are you right that is not enough that's happening right now in your party?
unidentified		I'm going to continue to do what leadership is.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		Leadership is not a title or a position.
unidentified		It is action and example.
unidentified		And what I want to see more people doing is not doing what some law firms have done, bend the knee to Donald Trump.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		Not doing what some universities have done, bend the knee to Donald Trump.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		We see major corporations who want some merger approval, not standing up on principle, but bending the knee to Donald Trump.
unidentified		That to me is outrageous.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		History, you're going to remember these people for their complicity in what is a guy that's going to severely try to undermine our government, who already incited a riot on our capital.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		This is a moment in history where people are going to ask, where did you stand?
unidentified		Did you bow to an authoritarian leader or did you stand strong in sight?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That was New Jersey Democrat Corey Booker assessing his own party.
		Let's hear from Will in Maryland giving an assessment of the party as well, at least the party's direction.
		Will, hello.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		I can't claim to be any kind of an expert, but I've been a Democrat for a few years now.
		Used to be a Republican back when George W. Bush was president, but he basically showed me that I wasn't going to be able to stick with that party.
		I think the Democrats almost need to stop bashing against Trump so much and start focusing really on some of those things that Corey Booker was talking about about health care and about the way the immigrants have been treated.
		And I do like also some of the things Rahm Emmanuel has said, and I like his approach as well.
		But a lot of the Democrats, some of that is all their own fault.
		I think Joe Biden is at fault for the state of the party.
		It would have been a lot different if he had had a different frame of mind and said, yes, it's time for me to step away, step aside back maybe two years into his term and let the party decide on a new standard-bearer.
		So they've solved a lot of the problems are self-inflicted.
		And they need to step back, look at themselves.
		And I don't even think that really continually bashing Trump is most effective.
		Focus on all the other issues.
		The tariffs are not really done intelligently.
		The other issues that are, you know, turning our back on good allies like Canada, Mexico.
		Why are we treating them so poorly with tariffs when they've been friends and neighbors and such good partners over the years?
		Other countries who have not been good to the U.S., such as China, are more likely to work the greater problem.
		That's all I can say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, they're in Maryland.
		Thank you, Will.
		Frank is in Staten Island.
		Again, if you're Democrats only in this half hour, are you satisfied with your party's direction?
		Frank, hello.
unidentified		How are you doing?
		My name's Frank from Staten Island.
		I'm a registered Democrat, but I hate my party.
		I haven't voted for a Democrat really in the elections in quite a while.
		Yes, I voted a Republican many times because I like the policies better.
		Democrats have had terrible policies, and now we have the rise of the so-called progressives.
		They're really regressives.
		People like the squad and Ocasio-Cortez and Nel Mandami, who might become the mayor of New York City, the proven socialist and Marxist as well as an anti-Semite.
		This is just really terrible.
		The things that they actually believe in do not really help the people at all.
		They don't understand markets.
		I believe in capitalism.
		I am the type of Democrat that I guess someone like Cuomo or Mayor Adams has to try to get to vote for them.
		I wish I could continue to vote Democrat.
		I guess I became a Democrat years ago in the 1980s because it had to do with free speech.
		And I felt at the time that the Democrats back then were more into defending free speech than Republicans did.
		And now it's many years later, and I'm not happy with my party at all.
		And they lost me.
		But I'm not going to change.
		I like the primaries.
		I voted for Biden against Sanders.
		Sanders is terrible.
		Another one who wants to bring socialism to the United States.
		So no.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Who's an ideal Democrat in your mind currently?
unidentified		Frank Kelly is very good.
		I like him.
		I like Josh Shapiro.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Frank there in Staten Island giving us his assessment.
		Bruce is in Oklahoma.
		Bruce, you're next.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello, Pedro.
		Good morning.
		How are you?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
unidentified		I was calling because I wanted to, first of all, say that I'm very satisfied with the Democratic Party and the current leadership.
		I also wanted to make sure that everyone knew that this is President Obama's 64th birthday.
		And I'm hoping that the rumors are true that they are planning on launching a third unprecedented campaign for former President Barack Hussein Obama.
		I think that it would be a great idea, and maybe we could pair him with Wes Moore, the governor out of Maryland.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's start with the first part, your satisfaction.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why are you satisfied with the party currently?
unidentified		Well, I'm satisfied with the party currently because they are countering all of the measures that seem to be coming forth from what I call the RIP or the Republican Insanity Party.
		They seem to have nothing more to present to the American people other than chaos, confusion, and conflict.
		The Democrats, on the other hand, are offering solutions.
		The only thing that I'm really a little bit still upset about, and that is the fact that we have yet to move forward the federal minimum wage, which hasn't been raised since 2009 of April.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And you think if Democrats focused on those kind of issues, they would change the image of their party, or at least the perception, even within the party?
unidentified		Absolutely, because the core of the middle class is not someone who's making, you know, the triple or at least the six-figure salaries.
		Most of the middle-class people who are Democrats are in the, you know, maybe $50,000, $60,000 a year range.
		They don't have salaries that are the socially elite, like what the Republicans cater to.
		If you don't make over $250,000, you really don't have any business being in the Republican Party.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Bruce there in Oklahoma.
		Let's go to Bill.
		Bill joins us from Pennsylvania.
		Bill, hello.
unidentified		Hello.
ron wyden ▲ ● ▼		I'm a registered Democrat, but very disillusioned with the Democratic Party.
unidentified		I'm registered with Democrats because I can't vote in the primaries if I'm not.
unidentified		The reason I'm disappointed with the Democratic Party is they're not showing enough strength.
ron wyden ▲ ● ▼		When Elon Musk's people kind of took over the Treasury building some months ago, and some senators went to see the situation there, when they were escorted out by the security people, they should have sat down.
unidentified		If they got arrested, too bad.
unidentified		They should have taken a stand.
ron wyden ▲ ● ▼		Now, there are Democrats right now in Texas who have left Texas because Texas is trying to redistrict as ordered by Trump.
unidentified		So Democrats need to show more of a spine.
ron wyden ▲ ● ▼		They need to show more interest in working people instead of saying they're for working people.
unidentified		And if they would listen to what AOC and Bernie Sanders are saying, this is what many people want, more progressive ideas.
unidentified		And this is especially what young people want.
glenn spencer ▲ ● ▼		Young people don't want the statements by Chuck Schumer who should, it's just too old.
unidentified		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Bill there giving us his view of the Democratic Party.
		He talked about those Texas Democrats who have fled the state to keep from that vote happening when it comes to redistricting.
		They're going to Chicago.
		When they went to Chicago yesterday, they held a press conference talking about their actions, why they did it, and making those comments was the Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair, Gene Wu.
unidentified		We're not here to have fun.
		We're not here because this is easy.
		And we did not make the decision to come here today.
		We did not make a decision lightly.
		But we come here today with absolute moral clarity that this is the absolutely the right thing to do to protect the people of the state of Texas.
		For the last few weeks, Texas families have been burying their loved ones who were killed in the very preventable tragedy that occurred in central Texas.
		Over 100 Texans died, many of them very young souls.
		And all Texans across the state have asked for is that the legislature focus and spend its time taking care of the families who are grieving and helping the communities who are recovering to accomplish their goals.
		Instead, Governor Abbott has used this tragedy, taken these families who are grieving, taken these communities who are struggling to recover, and used them as hostages in a political game.
		It's been two weeks.
		They don't even have a bill filed to deal with what they promised to deal with.
		And instead, they have spent their entire time playing dirty political games that only help themselves.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Democrats, we're asking you to give your own assessment of your satisfaction with the party's direction, 202748-8000 for the Eastern and Central time zones and 2027488001 for the Mountain and Pacific time zones.
		Let's hear, I think, did I take Bill from Pennsylvania?
		Bill from Pennsylvania, you there?
		Did I already talk to you?
unidentified		Yes, thank you.
		You already talked with me.
		Thank you very much.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Gotcha.
		Let's go to Slim, Slim in Virginia.
		Hello, you're on.
unidentified		Yes, this is Slim in Virginia.
		I got a complaint about all of them.
		All the parties to serve themselves.
		I thank you for taking my call to start with.
		But I've been watching TV and I watched Trump a lot and I've seen where he says he won so many golf tournaments this year and I can't understand how he can say he won so many golf courses, I mean so many tournaments, when he win one a month.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me focus you on the Democratic Party.
		What do you think and your level of satisfaction with the party itself?
		What do you think?
unidentified		Well, the Republican Party has got theirselves set up.
		It took so many years to set this thing up.
		And so the Democrats haven't had a chance, really.
		So I think our chance is coming up.
		And I think Donald Trump is toast because Jeffrey Epstein and all this other stuff that he's talking about.
		I mean, my opinion of him, I think he could blow up a cabbage stack.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Thank you.
		This is from Donald Spaulding off of Facebook saying that in the assessment that he offers, Democrats are useless except for a handful, like Texas Democrat Jasmine Crockett, Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin, former California Representative Katie Porter is among those he lists.
		This is Rudy Miller from Facebook saying Democrats need someone with moderate views that can verbally bury Donald J. Trump like a stand-up comedian to a heckler, someone that surrounds himself with qualified people that can get the job done as that.
		And then Kristen Portland from Maine texts us this morning with this.
		We have our faults, but at least we're a party of moral responsibility, not defenders of pedophiles and porn stars.
		Again, that's Kristen from Maine.
		You can offer your thoughts via text if you wish at 202748-8003.
		Joan is in Phoenix.
		Your level of satisfaction with your party's direction.
		Joan, hello.
unidentified		Hello.
		Yes.
		I have a complaint about both parties.
		I'm very unhappy with both because of the fact that quite a few years ago now, none of them are building any new apartments for the low-income workers and retired seniors.
		I live in a senior retirement apartment.
		And anyway, we've had broken pipes.
		We've had, we only have one elevator in the building.
		And it's been down for a week at a time, sometimes a few days at a time.
		And while they wait for new parts, and even when the new parts come, sometimes they're the wrong ones, and they have to reorder.
melanne verveer ▲ ● ▼		And the people on the fourth floor, third floor, second floor, the ones in these scooters type things, they have to set in their apartments.
unidentified		They cannot get out of and come downstairs to get their mail or anything.
unidentified		And then the main door, that stopped working.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me ask you this.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		For all the problems you list, why do you think Democrats or a party could fix that, particularly the Democratic Party?
unidentified		Well, I think they should, because they're always building new affordable homes for the middle class, why can't they do something for the lower income people?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Joan there in Phoenix giving us her thoughts when it comes to that YouGov poll asking, this was from May again, what do Democrats think the Democratic Focus Party focuses too little on?
		By a considerable margin, on the top of that list, they say focusing too little on the countering of the Republican messaging is on the top of that list, followed by winning control of Congress, developing the next generation of party leaders, attracting new members to the party, touting its accomplishments among that list, also among the list, winning the presidency and energizing its supporters.
		Again, to that idea, that was the poll that came out yesterday that took a self-assessment from Democrats and Republicans and Democrats showing more criticism about their own party than Republicans theirs.
		Again, the poll is online if you want to read that.
		We're using that to talk to you about satisfaction levels of your party.
		We talked to Republicans the first half hour, talking to Democrats in the second half hour, 202748, 8,000 for the Eastern and Central time zones, 202748, 8001 for the Mountain and Pacific time zones.
		Thomas in New York, you're next up.
		Hello.
unidentified		Good morning, sir.
unidentified		How are you?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I'm well, thank you.
unidentified		I'm very dissatisfied with the, I call it, I call it the Demeratic Party now because they're like a bunch of vermin.
		We've been Democrats since I was a kid, and I feel so out there, it's not funny.
		I'm an ex-Navy veteran served overseas, injured in the line of duty, and believe in the United States Constitution wholeheartedly, which these individuals who pose themselves as Democrats more likely are supporting the Communist National Party.
		They supported Black Lives Matter Incorporated, which individuals attacked our economy.
		They not only got $1.25 billion reparation and Black Farmers Asset Litigation Act awarded by Barack Hussein Obama, which did not go before Congress, but they still today maintain that they are helping the United States of America grow.
		That is the biggest hoax in the world, starting with Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let me step in.
		I want to assure that you're a Democrat, Thomas.
		And if that's the case, which Democrats do you mostly align with?
unidentified		I'll tell you the truth.
		I can't wait to see the mayor of the election come about.
		I like Cuomo.
		I'm voting Cuomo.
		I worked to polls.
		Excuse me, sir?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		No, no, you're still on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		I worked to polls in New York.
		And the way they have it structured, you can come in, give your name, you check your name and your address, and we're not allowed to ask for identification.
		There were so many aliens that I believe that came in that weren't even old enough to vote, and they came in at 8.30 at night, a half hour before the polls closed, and all by the busload.
		And this Zoran, who's running for mayor, is anti-Semitic.
		He's anti-Christian.
		This country was founded by Christians.
		And you want to run on the Democratic ticket?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why support former Governor Cuomo, if I may ask?
unidentified		Well, I mean, listen, he is proven to be in the know.
		He has the ability to run the situation at hand and to recoup it.
		I mean, he succumbed to peer pressure.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Thomas there in New York giving us his assessment of the Democratic Party.
		You can do the same.
		Johan Johan Gamble Putty from Facebook says this, saying they need to stop catering to the billionaires and corporations.
		We don't need two parties with the same funding base to corrupt them.
		Again, assessment there off Facebook.
		You can call us on the lines too from Ohio.
		We'll hear next from Bill.
		Bill, hello.
unidentified		How are you doing?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Yeah, I've been a Democrat since 76 when I first voted.
		But they've basically just left me.
		I mean, there's a couple that I really like.
		And Fedderman, I like the way what he's all about there in Pennsylvania.
		And even the governor there in Kentucky.
		But most of them have went hard to the left there.
		And they're basically socialists now.
		And I mean, my family, we fought against socialists in the last, you know, in World War II, and we don't want to see no more socialists.
		And so Bill, Bill, you said that the party left you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And were there specifics or was there a specific time or was there a series of things that led to that?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How would you describe that?
unidentified		Well, basically, I voted for Reagan, and then they called us the Blue Dog Democrats because I voted for Reagan.
		But he was the best man at the time to vote for, and that's who I voted for.
		And then I did vote for Barack Obama, but I couldn't see myself voting for Hillary.
		There's nothing that, I mean, by the time that Barack Obama was out there, there was nothing for me left to vote for.
		I mean, they'd all went, like I said, they call themselves progressives.
		But if you look, if you read Karl Marx, he said from the very beginning that Americans would never take to the word socialist or communist, but they would take the word progressive.
		And that's what you hear all of them say.
		They're progressive now.
		And to me, I'm more of a moderate.
		And all this stupid stuff that they're doing, they're just running people out of the party.
		And, I mean, that's all I got to say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Would you say that there's no place for moderates among the current Democratic Party?
unidentified		I haven't seen any spot form nowhere.
		Every time you see one, the next thing you know, they're being kicked in the head and run out of the party.
		So, yeah, there's nowhere for me to vote for them now.
lewis in fema region 7 ▲ ● ▼		I mean, there's a few here locally that I'll vote for, but I'd say I've probably my last Democratic vote nationally was probably over with.
unidentified		I'll probably vote independent from now on, or I might even vote Republican.
unidentified		I don't know.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Bill there in Ohio giving an assessment of the Democratic Party.
		We're asking Democrats in the second half hour to do that.
		You can still call in and make your thoughts known.
		202-748-8000.
		If you live in the Eastern and Central time zones, 202-748-8001.
		If you live in the Mountain and Pacific time zones, and text us to, some of you have been doing that this morning, 202-748-8003.
		Over the weekend out of a television station in Los Angeles, they conducted an interview with the Democratic National Committee Chair, Ken Martin.
		One of the questions to him was about the current state of the Democratic Party, what course corrections he felt was needed within the party itself.
		Here's some of that conversation from over the weekend.
unidentified		What is the Democratic brand?
		If you had to say it in a sentence, what is the Democratic Party for?
		Here's what I would say.
		Our party believes this.
ken martin ▲ ● ▼		No matter where you're from, where you live, who you love, or who you are, you deserve a chance and an opportunity to get ahead in life.
unidentified		It's the American dream.
ken martin ▲ ● ▼		So for us as a Democratic Party, we have to get back to giving people a sense that we are committed to them, their families, and their success.
unidentified		And what does that look like?
ken martin ▲ ● ▼		Well, focusing on affordability, making sure people can afford the cost of their lives, like child care and groceries and their rent and mortgage and their car payment, right?
unidentified		Making sure that people have access to health care.
		These cuts right now and this big, ugly bill that just passed to health care, first time ever in American history, we're taking health care away from people, are not going to just impact people on Medicaid.
		There are over 300 hospitals that are likely to close, a quarter of nursing homes that might be shuttered as a result.
		And the last thing is we're going to be talking about this broken system, this corrupt, broken, and rigged system that favors the wealthiest people in our communities at the expense of hardworking Americans.
		And you know what?
		And our tagline is going to be this.
		You deserve better.
		Americans deserve better than what they're getting right now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That was Ken Martin, the chair of the DNC.
		Let's go to Rick in Delaware.
		Hello, you're next.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		Good morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		I am a lifelong Democrat.
		I mean, I worked for God George McGovern and Jerry Brown and Allard Lowenstein back in the day.
		And I think the direction of the party was severely affected by the, I think Maureen Dowd put it correctly, by Joe Biden and his group of advisors who acted out of selfishness and ego and just arrogance.
		And this is a Biden, what the Democrats are experiencing right now, in my opinion, is a Biden hangover.
		And we have to get back to what we really know how to do.
		Talk about people's pocketbook issues, quality of life, just all the issues that really impact people every single day.
		And I'm amazed because, excuse me, I look at the media, and time and time again I see Republicans giving speeches or pontificating about economics when, and I've seen them on your air, Pedro.
		Kevin Hassett, the last time that man had any responsibility for governmental financial decisions was the Great Recession, which was he was one of the architects of it.
		And it just, it's amazing to me.
		I think the Democrats are not aware of the problem.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Rick, for the go ahead, for the issues that you brought up amongst the party itself, do you think they're self-aware of those things?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Do you think the party itself is aware of those things that you think?
unidentified		Absolutely.
		Absolutely.
		But we have to get through this miasma of what Joe Biden, you had two years of a president who was never there.
		The only Biden we heard about for years was Hunter, which was ridiculous.
		We have to get back to the basic Democratic principles, fairness, equality, good economic sense, and the fact that everybody should be on a level playing field.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Rick Bear in Delaware.
		Let's hear from Pennsylvania.
		This is Gary.
		Hello.
unidentified		Well, good morning.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		I just want to say that I was a Republican until Donald Trump was voted for the presidency back in 2015, and I had to get out of it, and I became a Democrat.
		I feel that the Democrats' problem at this time is that they want to please everybody.
		They want to give you money for buying a house.
		They want to pay your college off.
		They want to try to please everyone, and you're not going to do it.
		I think you need to stick to your guns, keep a secure border.
		I think that was one of the biggest things that they failed on, is get the border secure and stand up for the rights and the helping of people, but not please everybody.
		Nobody's believing that you're going to get money for a loan and you're going to get money to pay your college off and every other thing.
		You just can't do it.
		We're in debt the way it is.
		You have to just try to make things better.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Gary Bear in Pennsylvania, let's hear from another New Yorker.
		This is John.
		Hello, you're next up.
unidentified		Hi.
		I'm saying that, how can I say, I do this to Democrats and Republicans on C-SPAN sometimes.
		And sometimes, Republicans sounds like Democrats and Democrats sounds like Republicans.
		This year, the election, half of the Democrats did not vote.
		They never vote for a woman.
		Some do, some don't.
		And they're all complaining about it.
		I'm a Democrat.
		I love being a Democrat.
		But they just got us.
		The Democrats right now that's complaining are the ones that did not vote.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When it comes to besides the voting, when it comes to the general direction of the Democratic Party, what do you think?
		Do you think it's on the right track, wrong track?
		How would you describe it?
unidentified		It's on the right track.
		They get in there.
		But the Democrats cannot do anything.
		They don't own, they don't run the House.
		They don't run the Senate.
		If Democrats put, if Democrats, if Donald Trump, regardless of anything, if Donald Trump would have won, they could have just put a little more Democrats in the House.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So do you think they're making Right direction, then, say, for the midterms coming up in 2026 or the next presidential election in 2028.
unidentified		First, they got to do with the 2026.
		They cannot do with 2028 yet.
		They got to do with 2026.
		That's the first and more important thing to do.
		Because if they don't win the House, if they don't win the Senate on 2026, they can complain.
		A lot of people complaining, but they ain't going to do it.
		I'm being honest.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		John, there in New York, finishing off this hour.
		Heard from Republicans, heard from Democrats.
		To all, thanks for giving us your time in this first hour plus.
		For the next hour, we'll take a look at where the economy is.
		Two guests joining us for that assessment and also how the decisions of the Trump administration factor into that.
		We'll hear from the Economic Security Project's Mike Konzel and Heritage Foundation's E.J. Antonio.
		That conversation coming up on Washington Journal.
		Why are you doing this?
unidentified		This is outrageous.
		This is a kangaroo class.
		This fall, C-SPAN presents a rare moment of unity, ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
		Join political playbook chief correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns as host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue to find common ground.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		ceasefire this fall on the network that doesn't take sides only on c-span the patriarch cf seabrook was hailed as the henry ford of agriculture His son, Jack, a keen businessman, was poised to take over what Life magazine called the biggest vegetable factory on earth.
		His son, John Seabrook, has written about his grandfather and father in his book called The Spinach King.
		It's subtitled The Rise and Fall of an American Dynasty.
		Work on the spinach king started in the early 1980s when John Seabrook was with the New Yorker magazine.
		John Seabrook says, I had a grandfather who was a champion of white supremacy, a true believer in the superiority of the Nordic Christian male.
unidentified		Author John Seabrook with his book, The Spinach King: The Rise and Fall of an American Dynasty.
		On this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
		BookNotes Plus is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
		C-SPAN Shop.org is C-SPAN's online store.
		Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
		There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
		Shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		A conversation on the state of the economy and two guests joining us for that conversation.
		Joining us in studio, E.J. Antoni.
		He's the chief economist for the Heritage Foundation.
		Joining us from New York, Michael Konzel, the Economic Security Project.
		He's their senior director of policy and research.
		To both of you gentlemen, thanks for giving us your time.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for having me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So before we go dive into specifics, let's talk 30,000 foot.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How would you paint the economy as of today, EJ Antonio?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		It's a mixed bag.
		We're still dealing with a lot of the effects, a lot of the policy that we've had for the last several years.
		It took a while to get us here.
		It's going to take a while to get us out.
		The cost of living crisis that we're in today did not pop up instantly in six months.
		It took several years.
		And so, again, it took several years to get us in.
		It's going to take several years to get us out.
		Fortunately, I think we're course correcting on most issues.
		So that's been good on the regulatory front, on the taxation front, as well as government spending as well.
		If we look at the last couple of GDP reports, government purchases haven't even increased over the last six-month period.
		So that's been welcome news.
		And again, it's all about course correcting so that we can start to reverse the cost of living crisis that we're in today.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mike Konzel, same question to you.
unidentified		Yeah, absolutely.
		I think we've seen a pretty serious deceleration in 2025.
		If you look at GDP, if you look at the jobs numbers, you see numbers that were a pretty rapid clip in 2023 and 2024 after we've gotten through the worst of the reopening and the worst of the consequences of all the things that had happened.
		Numbers that were pretty solid then are looking much weaker now.
		We've had about 70,000 jobs on average, 50,000 jobs on average over the last few months.
		That number was about 150,000 last year.
		GDP growth was almost 3%, like 2.8%, depending on what you want to measure.
		Now it's closer to about 1%, 1.5%.
		There's obviously a lot of things happening around the tariffs.
		So a lot of inventories, a lot of imports that throw off the numbers.
		But in general, economists, Wall Street, and forecasters are seeing a deceleration.
		That's to be expected.
		The Trump administration is making things more expensive.
		The affordability crisis, the cost of living crisis will get much worse in the tail end of this year as more tariffs come online, as the cost of necessities come online.
		If you're a business, the cost of inputs continue to go up.
		If you're a regular family, the cost of groceries, of strollers, of cars continue to go up as a result of the widespread blanket tariffs.
		So in the last month or two, I think the sense that there was a question about when this was going to start to happen, but I think with the numbers last week, we're finally starting to see it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I was going to say, specifically, do you tie this to policy?
		Do you tie this to typically how economies work generally without policy?
		Is there like a one-stop shop when it comes to an explanation?
unidentified		Well, I mean, you know, they were trying to raise the cost of things in the country by increasing tariffs.
		That's an explicit goal.
		They're trying to slow the labor force by their unprecedented attacks on legal immigration, the normal process of nonviolent immigrants.
		You know, those things impact the economy.
		They slow the economy.
		The question is whether or not you can slow the economy just a little bit.
		And we're going to find that out in the second half of this year.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Antonio, specific, he mentions tariffs.
		He mentions job issues.
		How would you relate to that?
		Are there specific things slowing the economy in your mind?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Oh, certainly there are.
		Although I would love just one example of attacks on legal immigrants.
		I mean, those kinds of nonsensical allegations help no one when we make that.
		Let's talk about what's actually going on.
		We are deporting illegal aliens, but again, I would love an example of where we're deporting legal residents of this country.
		That's just silly.
		In terms of those jobs numbers, yes, we got disappointing jobs numbers last week, and there were huge downward revisions for the previous two months.
		But what was just left out in that discussion is the fact that earlier last week, we got additional data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that said that for the last quarter of 2024, the job growth was wildly overestimated by hundreds of thousands for that three-month period.
		So this idea that somehow the slowdown in the labor market is just happening this year or that the labor, the jobs numbers are only disappointing this year is a complete fiction.
		And anyone who's actually familiar with the data can tell you that.
		Regarding tariffs, you know, look, we haven't seen the disruptions from tariffs that we were told we were going to see in terms of the widespread price increases, in terms of the wild inflation.
		In fact, if we look at not only the headline inflation numbers, but core inflation, if we look at the median and the trimmed mean price indices, what we see is that you have mild inflation and it is throughout the economy and it is not coming from import markets.
		Now, as tariffs continue to get piled on and as time goes on, maybe you'll see that in the future.
		But as of right now, you are not seeing the devastating impact in terms of consumer price increases from these tariffs.
		Again, that's not to say you won't get it a year from now or two years from now, but it's not there right now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Konzo, to the idea that tariff policy is relatively new in the United States, and maybe there's not a determining real factor as far as how they're going to impact economy, how would you respond to that?
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, I agree that you haven't caused a recession six months in, so congratulations on that.
		But, you know, in terms of, you know, what's actually happening in the economy, it's, you know, we're seeing a genuine slowdown.
		I mean, you know, under the Biden economy, people hated the economy but still kept on spending.
		So far, under the Trump economy, people still say they hate the economy and now they're starting to pull back spending.
		So if you look at PC, if you look at consumer spending growth, it has slowed dramatically.
		If you look at any of the numbers of GDP that came out last week, if you average it for the first half of the year, numbers that were generally 2.5% to 3% in the last couple of years of the Biden administration are now closer to 1%, 1.5%.
		So economists are seeing a genuine slowdown here.
		In terms of what's going to happen, I think we'll continue to see the impacts of tariffs.
		I think we'll see the impacts on health care as a result of the tax bill, which is going to take a trillion dollars out of health care spending.
		It's going to devastate rural hospitals.
		It's going to devastate people's ability to access Medicaid.
		People who had premium tax credits, they're going to see their premiums go up this year.
		I think that's going to be a real headwind against consumer spending.
		And in general, I see a case for genuine weakness across the board.
		I don't think this is a time to be particularly optimistic about the American economy.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, I just want to roll in our viewers into this conversation.
		And if you want to ask our guests questions, here's how you can do so.
		Republicans 202-748, sorry, Republicans 202-748-8001.
		Democrats 202-748-8000.
		Independents 202-748-8002.
		Text us your questions or comments if you want at 202-748-8003.
		Mr. Konzo, I interrupt you.
		I apologize.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		No, I was just going to say, like, that's generally how economists are looking at it right now.
		You know, they're seeing slowdown.
		There's a question of how much and how, to the extent it will happen.
		You know, when you actually look at what economists are saying during the height of Liberation Day tariffs, you know, they were predicting a slowdown, the question whether or not it would technically be a recession or whether or not how high unemployment might increase.
		But people are more worried now than they were two months ago.
		In addition, I think this is really important to emphasize the fundamental uncertainty that this administration, the Trump administration, has introduced in the economy.
		And it's not just the 40% of Americans who will be worse off as a result of the tax bill.
		It's not the people who are going to lose their Medicaid because they can't keep up with paperwork and their kids can't go see a doctor.
		Between threatening central bank independence, between firing the unprecedented, real banana republic stuff, the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Commissioner, who oversees our data because Trump thought it was rigged and because he didn't like a specific jobs number, something that's been condemned by economists of all stripes.
		I mean, one of the former BLS commissioners, who is a long-standing economist at Heritage, where my co-panelist works for 15 years, denounced it as being irresponsible.
		A lot of businesses, a lot of financial markets are very worried about this stuff because administrations come and go, taxes, jobs numbers, they all come and go.
		And partisans will be fighting about it forever.
		But when you attack collection process, when you attack central bank independence, when you attack the fundamental institutions of economic policymaking like this administration has done in an unprecedented way, that's banana republic stuff and that will stay with us for decades.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, Mr. Antonio comment on these things.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Well, those were a lot of allegations, and I would love to see the evidence that actually backs them up.
		For example, the idea that people are more worried now than they were two months ago, not according to the Consumer Sentiment Survey, which, by the way, oversamples Democrats, and yet that has improved over the last two months, consumer expectations as well.
		You can look at any kind of data, whether it's from the University of Michigan, whether it's from the conference board, whether it's from the New York Fed, all of those different surveys that all measure how consumers are feeling about the economy have actually improved over the last two months.
		So that's just one example.
		But again, virtually everything that was just stated is completely false.
unidentified		As far as the firing of the- This is an unprecedented action.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hold on, Mr. Consequently, we'll get back to you.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		As far as the firing of the BLS commissioner goes, that person has overseen problems in the data for three years now.
		I and many others, not just me, many folks have been pointing out that since the spring of 2022, there have been serious problems with the BLS data.
		And that has been confirmed by the fact that the BLS will publish one series of numbers and then later publish another series of numbers that contradicts it.
		And sure enough, that latter series is actually used to adjust those monthly jobs numbers.
		And that's why we had, for example, in the last year, we had this massive annual revision where we had to subtract hundreds of thousands of jobs from the figures that we thought we had.
		And so that problem is continuing to this day.
		Again, just last week, we got data from the BLS, more accurate data, that shows that in the last quarter of 2024, the jobs numbers were overestimated by hundreds of thousands.
		So there are clearly problems with the numbers.
		You can look at, for example, the survey response rate for those monthly jobs numbers.
		It has plummeted.
		It's down to only 42 percent.
		So more than half of the businesses that we're surveying every month to ask about the jobs numbers, we don't even get responses from.
		Of course, you're going to have problems with that kind of data.
		And clearly, if this person was not able to correct those issues, then we should give somebody else a chance.
unidentified		Mr. Conzel.
		So first of all, the fact that the data is updated is a strength of our data sources.
		We'd expect that, and we've been doing that for decades, almost a century now.
		You know, nobody was complaining about this before a bad jobs number.
		I just want to make sure that's very clear.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		I was.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		I complained about it for three years.
unidentified		Sure.
		So to go back a couple of things.
		One is like the consumer sentiment numbers have increased because they got so abysmal in April and May.
		So yes, there's been some mean reversion on that, but they are far worse than they were in, say, December, November of last year.
		But on this commissioner, I really want to emphasize this is Banana Republic stuff.
		And we know what happens when countries go down this rate, whether it's Soviet Russia, whether it's China, whether it's South American countries.
		And I will just say that I have noted the number of conservative economists, including the former BLS commissioner who was appointed under Trump, who was your former colleague at Heritage for 15 years.
		And I'm curious what you would make of his statement, which said that this was completely uncalled for and an irresponsible act.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Antonio.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Again, there have been problems with the data for literally years now.
		And the fact that we still have those problems and that it doesn't seem like anything has been done to address those issues, that's pretty serious.
		And again, if this person was not capable or able or decided not to for whatever reason to address those concerns, to try to increase the survey response rates, to try to make the initial numbers more accurate, then that's a problem.
		And somebody else should have a fair shot at getting the job done.
		And yes, the revision process is perfectly normal.
		And we do expect as time goes on and we get the more accurate data that the figures themselves become more accurate.
		What is not normal and what was just left out of that comment is the fact that you do not normally have these massive revisions and all going in the same direction.
		So usually, if it's what we call a random walk, you'll have one month is up a little, next month is down a little, et cetera.
		But it averages out over time.
		When you consistently have the revisions always going in the same direction, and it doesn't matter if it's up or down, either one, as long as they're always going in the same direction, it tells you there's something wrong with your models, with your methodology.
		Something needs to be addressed.
		And again, we're going on three years, and the fact that the problem still hasn't been fixed, that's cause for alarm.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's roll in some callers.
		This is from Teresa in Tennessee, Republican line.
		Teresa, go ahead.
		You're on with our guests.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Good morning.
		They, in my opinion, Obama and Joe Biden started cooking the books on jobs numbers when Obama took office.
		They were always higher.
		The unemployment rate was always higher than it was supposed to be when Joe Biden was in office.
		They had to revise the numbers at the end, and it turned out to be almost a million jobs numbers that really did not exist at the BLM or said it was.
		Joe Biden would plan the speech.
		He would come out and do this great speech saying how great the jobs number was.
		He created 250,000 jobs.
		And then quietly, behind closed doors, the next month, it would be 120,000 jobs that was really created.
		And the media keeps saying Donald Trump fired this person with no evidence, no evidence.
		Incompetence is enough evidence that we need to have this person fired.
		Obama, I mean, a Joe Biden appointee needed to be fired the day Donald Trump walked into office anyway.
		And you say this is, can I, yeah, go ahead.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead and finish your thought, please.
unidentified		You say this is Soviet, you know, Russia and everything if he does it.
unidentified		Well, cooking the books is Soviet banana republic, in my opinion.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Teresa from Tennessee.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Conzel, if you want to start.
unidentified		Yeah, so I'd say two things.
		One is that, so like, as a matter of the numbers, the revisions have a strong cyclical component.
		They're tied to the business cycle.
		So when there's a recession, they tend to understate job gains.
		And, you know, the numbers tend to get revised one direction.
		And when the economy cools off, or when, you know, when things are on the other side of a recession, they tend to have a cyclical component the other way.
		So the fact that the economy came out of this, you know, when the reopening happened, there was huge job gains, you know, like 400,000, 500,000 jobs a month.
		That cooled to 250.
		That then cooled to 125 last year.
		Now it's cooling to 50.
		That's going to have a very specific cyclical component.
		You can try to correct it one way, but that introduces other problems.
		And the fact that, you know, President Trump did not put in a new BLS commissioner day one, which is something you could argue that maybe he could do or not do, but just fired the person when there was a bad number.
		And that's the stuff that's really scary.
		And again, a really specific question, my co-panelist.
		You know, your former colleague at the Heritage Foundation, a very conservative institution, the former BLS commissioner was appointed by Trump, a very well-respected person, has been out there saying that this is irresponsible.
		And I'm curious if you could address his specific allegations because this is not a liberal.
		This is not a person who is associated with Democrats.
		And many other conservatives, including Oren Cass of American Compass, Doug Holtz Eek, and people who are like very established conservative credentials are very nervous about what just happened.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Antonio, you want to address the question?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Well, first of all, I'm not any of those people.
		So if you want their opinions, ask them.
		I'm not here to give their opinions.
		I'm here to do it.
		Do you agree with them?
		Again, I'm here to give my opinion.
		I'll tell you what it is.
		My opinion is simply the fact that what has been happening at the BLS is producing inaccurate numbers.
		And that's not good enough in this country.
		We have major decision makers on Wall Street here in D.C. who are looking at these figures and trying to make policy and trying to make financial decisions that are going to impact Americans throughout the country and, frankly, the broader world.
		When the Fed adjusts interest rates, for example, that doesn't just impact Americans, although it certainly does.
		It literally impacts the global economy because of the size of our economy and the size of our central bank.
		So we have to have accurate numbers.
		And again, the fact that this problem has been going on for so many years means that we probably do need leadership change at the BLS because the current leadership, or the former leadership, I should say, was not able to get the job done.
		And I find it interesting, the comment about the figures can oftentimes be revised down, for example, when we're going into a recession, let's say.
		Have we been going into a recession for three years now?
		Because again, we've been having problems for years with these numbers.
		And it's not just the non-farm payroll numbers.
		There are lots of other figures that just haven't been really lining up in the data.
		That's just the symptom of the moment, I guess you could say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From Edward in Battle Creek, Michigan, Democrats line hi.
unidentified		Yes, I have a question about the tariffs.
		So tariffs are necessarily the prices will go up for consumer goods, right?
		Prices will go up in general with the new tariffs, with any tariff, right?
		And tariffs are inflationary.
		So I'm guessing, and then I guess the question would be, the consumers pay for the increase in price, right?
		It's not the exporting country pays for it.
		Trump keeps thinking, at least in his statements, he keeps thinking that China is going to pay the tariffs or Japan is going to pay the tariffs or Canada is going to pay the tariffs.
		So, no, it's the consumer, right?
		Prices will go up.
		They're inflationary.
		And then the consumer will pay for the increased price of the tariffs, correct?
		I mean, is that correct or not?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Antonio.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		The short answer is it depends.
		It depends on a lot of different factors.
		For example, if you go to the store and there's five or six different products on the shelf for you to buy, all the same product but different manufacturers, and two or three are domestically made and two or three are foreign made, only some of those are going to go up in price from tariffs.
		And because those companies want to maintain market share, they will typically eat some or all of that cost.
		And we observe this not just in economic theory, but in the real world, where the short answer is it depends.
		It depends on a lot of different factors, not the least of which is whether or not consumers have alternatives.
		And so you end up, on average, you end up with some of the costs getting eaten by consumers and some of the cost getting eaten by the foreign producer.
unidentified		Mr. Conzel, you're going to be worse off.
		Like you're going to pay them.
		So, you know, if it was a few tariffs on a few select key items that particularly had very strategic or national security components, as was done in the first Trump administration, arguably, and then certainly under Joe Biden, we can argue that.
		We're seeing a wholesale increase in tariffs.
		The effective tariff rate is going to go from something like 1% to 2% to something more like 15% to 20%.
		The massive amount of uncertainty businesses are facing when it comes to these tariffs, which are changing not even day by day, but like hour by hour, means that a lot of businesses cannot plan, they cannot invest, they cannot hire.
		And that's one reason we're seeing a slowdown that we're seeing.
		Now, in terms of inflationary impact, on one hand, you could argue that tariffs are like essentially like a sales tax.
		You know, there is a one-level cost shift, and then it kind of goes away.
		The thing that freaks me out and freaks out a lot of other economists is that there's so many tariffs on intermediate inputs.
		It's a technical term, but like if you're a business, if you're a small business owner, if you're a big business owner, you're buying steel, you're buying inputs, you're buying raw materials that you convert into things that people want to buy.
		And the fact that it's not a tariff just on final goods, but that so many of the imports and so many of the inputs that businesses use to make things that make America so great, that they're getting this tax increase on them.
		Economists generally think those are quite bad, and crucially, they're counterproductive.
		They're not going to make it easier to build in America.
		They're going to make it more expensive to build in America.
		And the unstrategic and chaotic and haphazardous way so many of these tariffs have been done means that for a lot of things like cars, you know, like the supply chains are going to be disrupted for things that are ultimately made in the United States, where other countries can just, you know, pay a quick fee and then still import to us, or still export to us.
		So I'm generally concerned that it's not going to even do the thing that they hope it will do.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I want to ask both of you: there's a story in the New York Times today talking about tariff, the income coming in from tariffs, hopefully to use to pay for other things as a strategy.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of that strategy depending on tariff revenue to pay for other things, Mr. Konzil?
unidentified		It's being used to pay for high-scale or high-end tax cuts that just happened, right?
		So you should understand the tariffs that's happening alongside in this part and parcel of the tax bill that just paid, which again, nonpartisan estimates say 40% of people are going to be worse off.
		If you are a parent who uses Medicaid to take your kid to go see the doctor, if you screw up one piece of paperwork, you are going to lose your Medicaid.
		You know, we have seen what the ways that they're trying to structure these cuts do to people who are working, who are eligible, they lose their coverage, and it's really devastating.
		And if you're a caller who gets 199A income, if you are a rich person, if you make over $400,000 a year, if you make, if you run your own business, if you are in the top 1%, you're pretty solid.
		You're pretty happy with what just happened.
		If you're basically half of Americans, you're worse off from the tax bill.
		And then because of these tariffs, you're going to be worse off from that as well.
		So more revenue is a good idea.
		I don't think this is a good way at all to do it.
		I would not try to raise revenue from inputs that businesses use in America to build the things that make us productive and innovative.
		In addition, the fact that these tariffs are going to cover over large-scale tax cuts for very rich people who do not need them, I think is pretty awful.
		I think it's a really bad policy.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The idea to have these tariffs pay for other things, including tax cuts, what do you think of that as a strategy?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		I love the idea of tariffs bringing in revenue to the Treasury.
		It's actually helping us to shift some of our tax burden overseas, which is actually correcting an externality, what we call in economics, because you have a situation where our Navy is out there patrolling the world's sea lanes, right?
		And keeping the ocean safe for international trade, which benefits not just us, but everybody.
		And so you essentially have other nations benefiting from an expense on the American taxpayer, our military budget.
		And so helping to shift some of that tax burden overseas means some of the people overseas who are benefiting from that are now helping to pay for it.
		So that's a really good thing.
		Regarding the tax bill, I would love to know what rich people are getting this massive tax cut.
		I would love to know how I can get in on it, by the way.
		But the reality is the rates are staying the same.
		In terms of Medicaid, I don't understand all this talk about how it's going to cut Medicaid.
		The math is very clear here.
		Spending on Medicaid actually goes up under this legislation, not down.
		So again, the numbers just don't speak to that narrative.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Conzel, you want to respond?
unidentified		I mean, we can play games with this, but like, they want to cut a trillion dollars from healthcare.
		They have talked about this on Medicaid.
		We've seen the state experiments.
		You know, yes, like the economy is always growing.
		So yes, some numbers will go up.
		But in terms of like your viewers who may like half of parents who use Medicaid to make sure their young children can go see the doctor, they're going to be in worse shape.
		We are already seeing rural hospitals close as a result of this bill, which barely has gone into effect because they know the cuts are coming.
		So actors in the economy who are trying to manage hospital chains and other kinds of medical access are already understanding there's going to be a pullback here.
		So I think it's pretty clear what they're going to do.
		And I think the consequences will be bad for people.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Two guests joining us for this discussion.
		Joining us from New York, Mike Konzel of the Economic Security Project.
		A little bit about your organization, Sarah, and your perspective when it comes to economics.
unidentified		Yeah, so we fight for economic policy that empowers all Americans.
		We really focus on ways to make markets work better and make sure people have the resources they need to lead free lives.
		We're very concerned about some of the stuff that's happening in this tax bill, the rollbacks in SNAP, the rollbacks in Medicaid.
		The tax law that was just enacted, I think, is really worrisome.
		I think the real uncertainty that's been injected in this economy this year, you see it in the economic, you know, you see it in uncertainty indexes, but you also see it in just like business calls or surveys of businesses who of manufacturers and other people just don't know what to do because tariff policy is changing hour by hour.
		Our economic institutions are under attack.
		Again, they are starting to put real partisan politics in the data collection process, which has not been done for a century and is generally associated with banana republics.
		Again, I really want to emphasize as a partisan matter.
		Some of these things will come and go.
		People will fight about GDP numbers and jobs numbers.
		But if you compromise central bank independence, if you make up conspiracies about the data collection process, that stuff is really hard to reverse.
		Financial markets won't trust us.
		The world economy won't trust us.
		And I think that's going to have devastating consequences far beyond whatever our talking points are for this morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And joining us in studio, E.J. Antonio of the Heritage Foundation.
		He's their chief economist.
		Again, your perspective when it comes to economic matters in relation to what we're discussing today.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		I'm an empiricist, so I just kind of let the numbers guide me, essentially, whichever way.
		I guess some people call me a libertarian, some people call me a conservative.
		Again, I just think of myself as an empiricist.
		Whatever the data tell me is, that's reality, right?
		And we should conform our ideologies to reality and not the other way around.
		In terms of some of those economic numbers, yeah, we're seeing a lot of disruptions today.
		And frankly, that's a good thing, I think, because the status quo that we had was pretty lousy.
		For example, we had four years from the beginning of 2021 until the very beginning of 2025, January to January there, where the average American's weekly paycheck exploded.
		It got way bigger, almost 20% bigger.
		That's great.
		It bought about 4% less at the end.
		That's terrible.
		People got demonstrably poorer during those four years.
		But GDP looked great because the government kept spending money.
		And government purchases directly add to GDP.
		Likewise, the jobs numbers look great, in part, not having to do with any of the data revision stuff, but just in part because the government kept hiring people.
		That makes your jobs numbers look better.
		Right before the election last year, actually, we had a month where the government, if you look at the household survey, which is different from the survey of businesses, but the household survey, which is where we get the unemployment rate number, that showed an explosion in the number of people working for government of 700,000 in a single month.
		So instead of the unemployment rate going up, it went down.
		Again, you can make these figures look really good if the government is willing to go into enough debt to do it and burden future generations with that debt.
		So as we start to reverse all of those things, some of the official numbers are going to go through some turbulence.
		There's no doubt about it.
		But that's actually a good thing.
		It's a sign of the economy sobering up and not continuing on its drinking spree.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From William in North Carolina, Independent Line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hi there, you're next.
unidentified		Good morning.
		One, thank you for just giving the answer to the argument about the jobs numbers.
		Because if the government, the jobs numbers look better when you hire more people, then of course the jobs numbers are going to look worse when you fire more people from the government.
		100,000 people were fired, so that makes sense the jobs numbers didn't look as good.
		Two, on your economic policy.
		Clearly, you guys keep trying to spend this tariff thing where, oh, it's better for the people, but it's not better for the people.
		Trump is just an idiot.
		He really is trying to sell the fact that other countries are going to pay the cost of tariffs.
		And it's not true.
		You tell me where the Heritage Foundation has their coffee bean plantation, for instance, and I'd love to go visit it.
		Because even with manufacturing coming back, if it does come back to this country and products are made in this country, they still have to buy supplies from other countries.
		So there's still going to be a cost that's going to be higher than you're giving these people the answers to.
		As far as healthcare, I don't know when you guys thought it was great to start killing Americans and other people across the world, but okay, I guess that's the Heritage Foundation.
		I hope that things get better, and I hope that somewhere down the line, the Heritage Foundation gets broken up because you're going to be able to do that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, William, we invited both guests to come on our program to talk about these issues, Mr. Antonio, if you wanted to respond to any of that.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		I don't know where to start when you're, you know, people make allegations that you're killing people and such nonsense with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
		So yeah, again, if you look at the actual data, instead of making these crazy allegations, what we find is that people are healthiest and people get not just health coverage but health care under a more free market system.
		And we have seen people who are technically covered under Obamacare who can't actually get care even though they have coverage.
		So it's not, you know, the numbers, again, are pretty clear.
		Things like central planning, whether it's the health market or anything else, don't work.
		Free market principles are what end up delivering the best outcome for the most people possible.
		And then you couple that with a relatively mild social safety net, and that has historically been the best outcome.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When it comes to tariffs itself, when it comes to the strategy of a firm deadline being placed, should more time have been allowed for other countries to come and negotiate deals before that deadline and a flat rate been applied to the countries in question?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think we did see exactly that.
		We did see, for example, with Mexico, they have, I think, pretty clearly been negotiating in good faith.
		And sure enough, they were one of the nations that got another extension.
		And so I do appreciate how there has been a marked change in the administration since April 2nd, where this does seem to be, the tariff strategy seems to be becoming more orderly and more, it's being done on a more case-by-case basis.
		That's been a welcome change.
		I think that's bringing some stability back to market.
		And it's also making clearer what the administration's goals are with each individual nation.
		And I think it's also what has helped to get us these agreements with Japan, with the EU, et cetera.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Kanzo, that idea of a deadline, it did produce results in some cases.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that was a good strategy?
unidentified		No, I mean, they're doing this thing just completely made up.
		No one knows what the effective tariff rate is going to be at the end of this year.
		And no one can really explain the whole process or the thinking behind it.
		I think the caller was really right to mention coffee because coffee is not a strategic element.
		It's not something we can grow.
		It's something that globalization has brought to more people.
		The same way we export a lot of things that are really important as well.
		You know, if you want to argue tariffs for national security reasons, I think that's very important.
		If you want to argue tariffs to ensure that we have an edge on things like green energy or semiconductors or things to make sure that we have an important edge in the leading technologies of the 21st century, I think that's a really important argument.
		I think blanket tariffs on everything, tariff rates that come and go.
		These treaties are functionally nonsense.
		They're not actually going to do anything, and I think everyone pretty much knows that.
		I think those are really bad for everyday people, and I don't think they will make us more competitive or make us more innovative in the things we really need to be doing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to Texas.
		This is where Bill is.
		Republican line, you're on with our guest, Bill.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
		Hey, I could have called on any phone line.
		It's a question for both, please, or just an observation and a request for explain.
		Man, we're painting the handrails while the ship is taking on all this debt.
		We all like to, all Americans like to have stuff.
		We like wars, we like safety nets, we like tax cuts, we like defense industries.
		Where we fall down is paying for this stuff.
		The last time the federal budget was balanced was 1997.
		If we raised enough taxes to pay down the debt, we wouldn't have that new car in the driveway because you only got so much money.
		I'm going to buy a new car or I'm going to pay my fair share of taxes.
		You wouldn't have 100% Social Security because you know what?
		I mean, Social Security is expensive.
		So is Medicare.
		So are the Defense Department, and so is tax cuts.
		You know, the Social Security rate hasn't gone up since when.
		If the books that I read, and I wish I could remember the name of them, that what works best is where everybody thinks, oh man, I'm pissed off just about as much as the next guy in the subway car.
		If everybody's equally pissed off, isn't that about where you got it right?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So, Bill, then what's the question for the guests specifically?
unidentified		Just that.
unidentified		How do we get everybody just about equally pissed off so that we don't all think that the rich are getting to us or that the poor are getting?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, you're breaking it and out, so we'll leave it there, Mr. Conzel, if you wanted to start it off.
unidentified		Yeah, so first, I would say I do know harm process is important for managing the debt and deficit.
		You know, the tax bill, the tax law that was just passed, which will increase the deficit $3 trillion.
		You don't have to listen to me.
		You can listen to Elon Musk, who was in the government and left the government in part at how atrocious this bill was for the long-term debt and deficit.
		You can talk to any number of conservative or independent or centrist tax experts who think this tax bill really did blow out the deficit in a way that was fundamentally irresponsible, especially with unemployment generally low and the economy feeling like something close to where it should be in terms of full employment.
		You know, when it was passed, now it's slowing down, obviously, quite dramatically.
		You know, in general, and then also right now, the attacks on the central bank, the attacks on data collection, I really want to emphasize that this is stuff that will stick with us for a decade, independent of any tax law or specific deficit for a year.
		You are going to pay a higher mortgage because of the fact that President Trump is attacking the central bank.
		We see this in other countries.
		We see this across the world.
		We've seen this over the past generation or two.
		You are going to pay more in interest.
		You are going to pay more for a mortgage or an auto loan because while the Federal Reserve controls the short-term interest rate, financial markets determine the rates that people borrow at.
		And the irresponsibleness and the erraticness and the way that this administration is attacking economic institutions and economic policymaking, I think will raise costs for every single person listening to this.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Antonio.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		The idea that somehow Trump is attacking the independence of the Fed is frankly a fiction.
		The person really attacking the independence of the Fed is the Fed chairman, who is clearly not acting independently.
		He is neither politically independent nor is he data dependent.
		If he were a data dependent, then you have to ask yourself, why is it that if today's economic conditions, just going by the numbers, are more favorable for a rate cut than they were in the fall of last year, right before the election, then why did he give us 100 basis points of cuts then and is doing nothing now?
		Why has he been sitting on his hands?
		The only data I can see is different is whether there's a D or an R after the name of the president.
		But again, all of the Keynesian models, which I personally don't agree with, but it's what the Fed uses, all of the Keynesian models that the Fed uses say that conditions are more favorable today for a rate cut than they were then.
		Except again, the Fed is sitting on their hands.
		So if the data are all very, very clear, then there must be some other rationale for why the Fed is doing what it's doing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The Federal Reserve Chair has constantly talked about this 2% inflation figure or to decide whether he's going to rate cuts.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about that as a guideline or a standard if rates come or rate cuts come?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Oh, do you mean like using 2% as the measure?
		I see no reason why we should have a 2% inflation rate.
		The mandate of the Fed is price stability, not a measured devaluation of the dollar, which is what a 2% inflation rate consistently year after year would be.
		The actual target of the Fed, according to its mandate, is zero, and that's where it should be.
		Unfortunately, the 2% was adopted based on a theory from essentially the central bank down in New Zealand, and it has really stuck in large part because that is how much inflation the central banks around the world can typically get away with without people getting too mad.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Conzo, same thing, this 2% is a metric to reducing rates.
unidentified		So if you want to know why the Fed's not cutting rates, it's because unemployment, the unemployment rate, which is a proxy for how much activity there is in the economy, is basically where the Fed wants it, and inflation is higher than they want it.
		And so that's the reason that they're steady on rates.
		And if you plug in a Taylor rule, which is like the technical thing for what was just discussed, basically rates are kind of where they're at.
		You can argue at the margins.
		And I think this is really important, right?
		So people always disagree about whether or not the Fed should cut or hike, you know, 20, you know, a quarter of a percent or half a percentage point.
		President Trump has called for three percentage points of cuts.
		He wants interest rates at 1% instead of the 4.5% they're at.
		So what the president in the White House is exerting pressure on the central bank for is way outside the normal disagreement about whether or not the Fed is a little too tight or a little too loose, right?
		So, you know, just that baseline, that's one of the reasons that people are very nervous about this situation.
		You know, the reason the Fed cut last year is because unemployment increased from 3.5% to 4% in a way that was pretty fast.
		It made them a little extra worried about a potential for more unemployment, but that did not pan out in part because they cut.
		They're also pretty restrictive given that inflation came down quite dramatically in 2023 and 2024.
		Now they're basically in line.
		And again, if you know, people can debate this.
		We could spend the whole day debating this about whether or not the Fed should cut once or raise rates once.
		I've heard really good arguments for both sides of that.
		What the White House is exerting pressure to do is to cut rates three percentage points, way outside what anyone would reasonably say.
		It's way outside what would give you a 0% inflation target if that's something you were interested in.
		It would be way looser than that.
		And something that's ultimately going to cause more financial instability for people because financial markets notice this and they're going to raise their mortgage rate as a result.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From Houston, this is Larry, Democrats line high.
unidentified		Hey, Pedro, thanks for taking my call.
		Man, these people, it needs to start with the partisan stuff.
		And this guy, Mr. Dan Tony, from the Heritage, you must need to get a job on the Trump administration.
		Let's be real.
		After pandemic, the pandemic, a lot of people lost their jobs.
		So of course, after coming out of the pandemic, job numbers are going to go up.
		At some point in time, it's going to level off.
		Let's be real.
		Now, this stuff you're talking about, tariffs, that the other companies, we don't pay the tariffs.
		That's BS, man.
		I drive trucks and I was hauling produce from California, pick something up in Nogales, Arizona, that come out of Mexico.
		And you just go in the store.
		It'll tell you all for three, it used to be three bell peppers for a dollar.
		You're getting three bell peppers now for $2.
		Coming from Mexico.
		People, we do not grow everything that we eat.
		Let's make that known first of all.
		And this is BS that we don't pay the tariffs.
		I thought that Republicans wouldn't put taxes because that's all it is is another tax.
		And we are paying the tax.
		Look up beef.
		Beef is sky high right now.
		I got friends that go, I tell you what, just go to your nearest cell barn.
		Just go to your nearest cell barn and see if you can find cattle.
		People not even selling their cattle, which is good.
		We're getting rain because you know it got hay and stuff like that.
		And the other stuff about the automobiles.
		I got a 2021 Dodge Ram 3500 Laramie.
		I went to the dealership the other day because I had to go get put some mud flaps on it.
		Mind you, at the time, I paid 82, talking down to 78.
		I look at a Dodge Ram 1500 Bighorn.
		This is like probably like the little bottom of the pole of the trucks.
		The price was $89,000.
		So you telling me for a truck that's three, four years old in a bigger truck, a dually, which is a work truck, I got it less four years ago than right now.
		And then back then, they made all kinds of money.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Larry, thank you.
		Put a lot out there, but ultimately, he's saying that if you look at the prices for some things, he talked about groceries, he talks about cars, he relates that the tariff policy ultimately that people pay more because of tariffs.
		Is there an equation there?
		Is there an equality there?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Again, like I said before, the short answer is it depends.
		On certain things, you will have more costs passed through to the consumer, and then in other things, you won't.
		And some of that, again, the easiest, I think the easiest example to understand is probably alternatives.
		Does the consumer have an alternative to this import?
		If not, then most of that cost is going to get passed on.
		But if the consumer does have alternatives, then typically very little or none of the cost gets passed on.
		In the case of beef, though, that really has nothing to do with international trade.
		That's solely a domestic problem.
		If you look at the number of heads of cattle and our current herds, they are way, way down from where they were just a few years ago.
		And as a consequence of that, you're not bringing as many heads of cattle to the slaughterhouse constantly.
		And so as that supply is dropping, again, this is strictly a domestic problem.
		It has nothing to do with international trade.
		You're seeing the supply down, which puts upward pressure on prices.
		So just like in the previous four years, we had price increases all over the place because we had a huge inflation problem from the government spending and borrowing too much money and printing too much money.
		That had nothing to do with international trade either.
		So just because you're seeing a price increase does not mean it has anything to do with tariff policy.
		And within tariff policy, again, some things will be passed on to the consumer and others will not.
		It depends on each individual item.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Conzel.
unidentified		Yeah, so I think bell peppers is a great example here, right?
		Because if we were talking about semiconductors, if we were talking about AI, if we were talking about the leading industries of the 21st century, which provide really good jobs, make us very productive and innovative, and make sure America has a lead in the global economy, you know, like maybe we should have some disruptions to make sure we maintain that frontier.
		And there's a really big debate about that.
		They are raising prices on bell peppers.
		Another caller brought up coffee.
		These are not the industries of the 21st century.
		They're really important.
		Food is a major item for families.
		And they have raised taxes on them that people will pay in part to some degree.
		You can argue whether it's half or 100%, but you're paying for it.
		And they're doing it so they don't have to raise taxes on rich people.
		They can cut taxes on rich people and make you and your family pay more for your groceries, pay more for your car, pay more for your stroller, pay more for every goods and services or every goods that you can buy.
		And so I think that that's a really conscious strategy by them.
		And I think it's not going to make us innovative.
		I think the way that they're doing these tariffs are basically the worst way you can possibly do them by increasing uncertainty, by really leaning on intermediate inputs and the other things businesses use to make themselves productive.
		And ultimately, your callers are right.
		When you go to the grocery store today or this week, look at the price, and you are paying more as a result of this administration's policies.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		In California, we'll hear from John on our independent line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hi, John.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		Thanks for C-SPAN.
		So financial health, financial stability is a moving target, and you both know that.
		And as financial people, as people in the know, you understand that you have to have the science of economics to guide your approach to this moving target.
		And the one man from a Heritage Foundation calls himself an empirical, but you're sitting across from somebody that's empirical.
		And the goal of the 2025 thing, you can talk about all of that.
		But the problem is, and I've heard the word banana republic.
		We need a new name for what's going on here.
		We're already a banana republic.
		It's just we're going through the motions of firing this independent data collector, and then the Fed is either going to get fired or they're not going to get fired.
		It's just insanity.
		It's maddening.
		If I ran my home this way, I would certainly go off of a cliff.
		You have to make changes and you have to have people that are not partisan, but are making independent.
		And if you truly look at the history of how it's gone up and down, how they changed the numbers, it goes both ways.
		Sometimes they increase the numbers, sometimes they lower.
		It's imperfect.
		It's imperfect.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, we get the point, John.
		Mr. Conzel, let me ask you this then.
		We've been talking about numbers and statistics and things we've seen over the last week.
		What do you look for as in the future to determine where the economy is headed aside from everything we've seen in the last week or so?
unidentified		You know, I'm watching the job numbers.
		We're going to get the update, the QECW, and I think part of the reason they're attacking administrative data collection process because that number is not going to be good for the first quarter.
		You're probably going to see Golden Sachs and other nonpartisan people who want to get the numbers right are expecting more revisions downward.
		You're going to see the economy slow.
		You're going to see the economy slow because they want to slow it, right?
		They're decreasing immigration.
		They're increasing the price of inputs.
		They're doing tariffs.
		They're doing things that we know slow the economy in the short term.
		Whether or not that's a good idea in the long term, we can all debate, but the economy is slowing in part because they want to make it slow down.
		One thing I'd flag is, we talked a little bit about the Fed cuts, but Fed cuts can't fix bad policy.
		The Fed will probably cut two times this year.
		Financial markets are kind of all over the place on this, but there'll be a few cuts at the tail end this year.
		But one is that they may not translate into the prices that you and people listening and watching will face because they're read through financial markets and financial markets are really worried about, you know, we need a new term for Banana Republic, as someone brought up.
		The attack on all the different institutions that we have right now.
		So it's very possible that the cuts don't even matter very much.
		We saw cuts last year, but they didn't really translate in the mortgage rate because they were cuts that were more or less expected given on how much inflation had come down.
		So I do think, so one is I'm watching the jobs numbers.
		I'm watching other, you know, there's going to be a big revision next month.
		I'm sure the conservatives are going to line up and say that that was hackery and they got to fire more people, but they're going to run out of people to fire because you can only shoot the messenger so many times before the bad news eventually shows up at your door.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Antonio, things you're watching for as far as numbers and information that kind of will help you determine where the economy is headed?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		One of the big indicators that I mentioned earlier is not just the size of the average American's weekly paycheck, but what it can actually buy.
		And not just the average paycheck, but the median as well, since obviously the average can get skewed if you have things at the far end of the distribution.
		That's really, really important because it helps tell us, again, not just what's happening in terms of paychecks being inflated by the dollar losing value, but it helps point us to people's actual standard of living, what they can afford.
		That really dropped pretty dramatically in a way that hadn't been seen for decades over the last four years, and it has now started picking back up.
		In fact, just in the last six months, for example, half a year, we've seen it go up by about 1% again.
		Not just the size of the paycheck, but what it can buy.
		That's a welcome change, and we're hoping to see that continue.
		It's also really good when we look at the jobs numbers to not just see the headline, but to drill down into some of the details of the report.
		For example, over the last 12 months, we've seen literally all of the job growth in this country go to native-born Americans, which is a stark contrast to what was happening before.
		So at the end of 2024, all of the job growth since the start of the pandemic, on net at least, had gone to foreign-born workers, a category which the BLS actually admits includes an unknown number of illegal aliens.
		And today we're seeing that completely reversed.
		So we're seeing more Americans with jobs, which is, I think, a great thing in America.
		And again, we're also seeing what those Americans can buy with their weekly paycheck go up and not down.
		So we're looking for those things to continue to see if we are indeed on the right track.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If other data comes out, what are you looking for as far as red flags saying that there could be concerns about where the economy is headed?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Well, both of those things going down, certainly, would be red flags.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		And in terms of looking at the broader economy, if we see some of the positive trends reverse, like if we see government purchases explode in the GDP report, or if within the jobs report we see the number of government workers starting to go back up instead of going down, those would be things that I would consider red flags since, again, in the previous four years, those were a big part of the problem.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Conzo, aside from the things we've talked about, other red flags that you would look for?
unidentified		Yeah, so I'm watching for how inflation gets impacted in the second half of this year, in part because of real wages, which went down last month.
		We talk about native-born workers, but like the unemployment rate for native-born workers this past month, in this past jobs numbers that caused the White House to go ballistic was the highest it's been since the pandemic.
		And so the idea that the labor market is getting better for certain groups of people, I just don't think it's panning out.
		It's decelerating across the board.
		It's being kept afloat essentially by AI spending and by healthcare spending this year, which are both important things for the economy but are not a broader base.
		The percentage of industries that are adding jobs is basically recessionary at this point.
		Basically half of industries aren't even adding jobs on net in 2025.
		So there's been a pretty serious slowdown.
		So this jobs number had me pretty worried in a way I wasn't three or four months ago before the Liberation Day tariffs, before economic policy under this administration really kicked into gear.
		In the second half, I'm just watching to see how much.
		I mean, what everyone, this isn't just me, this is like Wall Street Economist.
		What we're watching for is how much will unemployment go up if it goes up.
		You know, is this something that's just a temporary slowdown?
		I don't think there will be a technical recession by the way economists define it.
		But tell that to your, you know, if you're listening, if you're watching this, you know, whether or not, you know, a bunch of bureaucrats think it's a technical recession won't matter when the cost of your coffee, bell peppers, cars, strollers, and everything else are going up and your paychecks are struggling.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why not a recession, do you think?
unidentified		In part because tariffs are only so much of the economy, imports and exports are only so much of the economy.
		In part because they inherited a pretty good economy.
		I mean, 2021 and 2022 were really devastating.
		Inflation was quite high.
		Real wages did fall.
		But by 23, and especially 2024, that had more or less turned around and the economy had kind of gotten to a basically decent place in terms of those numbers.
		Now, so many things were still unaffordable.
		People's paychecks did not go far enough.
		But in terms of the gears underneath it, they had gotten a lot better from the worst times.
		Now, of course, it's all slowed down quite dramatically.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So your thoughts on.
		Oh, sorry.
		I want to ask Mr. Antonio your thoughts on a potential recession or the possibility there.
		What do you think?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Again, I just don't see it in the data.
		The traditional indicators certainly aren't there.
		I do think it's interesting, though, this idea that, well, if the bureaucrats may not say it's a recession, but people feel like it's a recession.
		That's interesting because we had that for about two years starting in 2022, where people could, again, they could buy less even though their incomes were going up.
		We saw the monthly mortgage payment on a median price home actually double in the course of just four years.
		That's insane.
		For the exact same house, you're paying twice as much a month, but that was the result of the policies we had.
		And then, just one other thing is that if we're going to believe the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that shows that real wages actually went up last month, not down.
		So I'm not sure where that number's coming from.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Discussion on economics with two guests at the Heritage Foundation.
		Heritage.org is the website.
		EJ Antoni is their chief economist, also joining us from New York, Mike Konzel from the Economic Security Project.
		He's the senior director of policy and research.
		And to both, gentlemen, thanks for the conversation.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We are going to spend the next hour until 10 o'clock with Open Forum.
		So here's how you can call in and talk about matters of politics: 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8,000 for Democrats.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		If you want to participate in Open Forum, go ahead and call.
		We'll take those calls when Washington Journal continues.
unidentified		America marks 250 years, and C-SPAN is there to commemorate every moment.
		From the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future, we bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sights, and spirit that make up America.
		Join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can.
		America 250.
		Over a year of historic moments, only on the C-SPAN networks.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And pass precedent nominal.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why are you doing this?
unidentified		This is outrageous.
		This is a candle root cause.
		This fall, C-SPAN presents a rare moment of unity, ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
		Join political playbook chief correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns as host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue to find common ground.
		ceasefire this fall on the network that doesn't take sides only on c-span 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.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Open Forum, and once more, the numbers, if you want to participate over the next hour, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		So far, we know that as part of the president's agenda today, he will have lunch with the Vice President, JD Vance, at the White House.
		There's a shot of the White House, and also joining us from there is Skylar Woodhouse, who reports for Bloomberg.
		She's their White House reporter.
		Ms. Woodhouse, good morning.
		Thanks for giving us your time.
unidentified		Good morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We heard last week about the president letting go of the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
		We're hearing about another person being put into place.
		What do we know at this point about the future of that position?
unidentified		The president over the weekend just yesterday said that he would be announcing a new head to that position in the coming days.
unidentified		And this is a moment for the president really to sort of take the next step in sort of crafting his economic agenda.
lauren chen ▲ ● ▼		And on top of the BLS vacancy, we also have room now for a new Fed governor to be appointed.
lauren chen ▲ ● ▼		So these are two open spots for the president to put someone in who's in his corner and sort of that is going to follow his lead.
unidentified		And he says that within the next couple of days, he plans to announce both positions.
unidentified		So that is, you know, the question of the moment in terms of who are going to get those two coveted spots right now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Can you elaborate how this helps in the crafting of that policy, economic policy, those two incidents that you talk about?
unidentified		Totally.
		I mean, what we've seen from the president, obviously, you know, he campaigned on, you know, bringing inflation down, getting the economy back in order from his tariffs to his bill.
		And, you know, but obviously what we've seen over the past couple of months is a lot of whiplash across the financial markets.
		Obviously, the jobs numbers from last week were not so great, which sort of led to the firing of the BLS director.
lauren chen ▲ ● ▼		So, you know, it's definitely a time where he can get his team together and strategize, okay, how can we use these two vacancies to maybe move our agenda forward.
unidentified		But, you know, only time will tell is see, you know, obviously what data looks like now going forward.
		Questions have been raised on, you know, what kind of trust can be tied to the data now, given the president fired someone after seeing poor jobs numbers.
		So there's lots of questions right now that continue on, you know, obviously how they're going to do the data going forward.
		And then obviously, the president has made the Fed a big part of his second administration and is not too pleased with Fed Chair Powell.
		But maybe, you know, if the president can get someone in to a governor's seat who he is comfortable with, maybe we could see a difference in terms of how he plans to move forward with the Fed and getting interest rates lowered.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ms. Woodhouse, we saw the trade deadline or the tariff deadline come and go.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What are the next steps for the White House in not only negotiating deals, but now putting these actual tariffs into place?
unidentified		Totally.
		I mean, look, the administration, the president is still in his trade team are still working out deals.
		I think a country that I'm paying attention to right now is Switzerland, which came in at a particularly higher rate when compared to other European nations.
		So, you know, we're watching to see how Switzerland and the White House continue to have those conversations.
		I think just before coming on air, I saw that Switzerland was looking to sort of remake a deal with the White House.
		So we'll see how that all plays out this week.
		But then also, there is a big legal case going on right now around the tariffs with the U.S. Trade Court.
		So we're going to have to continue to see how that court case plays out and what that means for those tariffs that were announced last week.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When it comes to foreign policy, Scarlett Woodhouse, the president spoke upon coming back from New Jersey about the status report of where his team is in when it comes to Gaza.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Can you update us on that?
unidentified		Yeah, so I mean, the president, I would say, over the past week or so, has really been leaning in to talking about Gaza a little bit more openly.
		He's, you know, he said that he would, you know, like to see food centers be opened.
		He's been talking about how the hunger is not, it's awful.
		And he's been really leaning into, I think, a different tone lately around Gaza.
		So this week, I think it'll be interesting to sort of pay attention to see what progress is made there, what conversations he's having with Israel.
		Obviously, you know, there's still a lot going on with Hamas and the hostages.
		So there's a lot going on there, but it is something that the president is talking about a little bit more openly as it pertains to Gaza and the hunger crisis.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And what do you think suggests the change of tone for the president on this issue?
unidentified		I mean, look, I think what we've been seeing coming out of Gaza from obviously there's been lots of reports, food, sorry, reports, photos.
		You know, there's a lot going on in terms of, I think, sort of bringing light to what is going on in Gaza.
		So, you know, it could have just naturally sort of grasped the president's attention as it is becoming more and more front and center across various news outlets.
		So, you know, I think it's something that's definitely out there that he is paying attention to, that his team is paying attention to, and something that he is starting to have more conversations with Israel about.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Before we let you go, Scarlett Woodhouse, a lot talking about the Rose Garden, or at least the future of the Rose Garden.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Exactly what's happened and what's the President envisioning, and what's the response that you've heard amongst those you work with there?
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, they're doing a lot of renovations to the White House right now.
		I believe it was just Friday I was able to get a glimpse of sort of the developments with the Rose Garden.
		And from what I observed, for the most part, it was a white, you know, concrete base from what I saw, just totally different from, obviously, the way the Rose Garden has looked in the past.
		But so that has been now transitioned to like a more concrete, white cement base.
		And so we'll continue to see those, you know, see what those renovations look like.
		It's something that I think everyone here at the White House, among the reporters, are paying attention to every time we go outside for a departure.
		So we'll just have to see what the final project looks like.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Our guest is the White House reporter for Bloomberg, Scarlett Woodhouse.
		You can find her work at bloomberg.com.
		Ms. Woodhouse, thank you so much for your time.
		On this open forum, Charlie starts us off in Washington State Independent Line.
		Charlie, thanks for waiting.
unidentified		Ahead.
unidentified		Hi, can you hear me?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yep, you're on.
unidentified		Okay, I wanted to talk about coffee because they were talking about coffee in the program that I called in on, and it's relevant now, too.
		I got a long history with coffee, and for whatever reason, nothing in particular, I've been roasting my own coffee for 20 years.
		And I also go to Starbucks from time to time.
		time.
		And so if you go to Starbucks and you get a grande, whatever, around where I am, you pay, including the tip, you pay five bucks for that cup of coffee, big one, you know, 16 ounces.
		Well, I make 16 ounces of coffee, you know, cross my own.
		I make it for 26 cents.
		Okay, so Starbucks is marking that up by 20 times.
		So you put a tariff on it, all right?
		I'm not sure what they're going to tariff.
		I get use it from Central America and Brazil or Colombia and Indonesia.
		So let's call it 15%.
		That tariff gets applied at the wholesale level.
		I pay retail.
		So, you know, these tariffs, at least for coffee, you know, you want to compare a tariff to what Starbucks does to you.
		I have to have a chuckle when these economists talk about coffee without ever getting down into the weeds.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to Sam.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Sam in Pennsylvania, Republican line.
unidentified		Yeah, can you hear me?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yes.
		Yeah, I've taken my political hat off.
		I really have here for a minute.
		And I want to tell you, both of your gentlemen on are very good at making their points.
		I just think it's very, very difficult for people to remove their biases whenever they're doing anything.
		And my bigger point is I'd be interested in knowing what the American public thinks about politicians whenever they spew statistics, what they actually think, if they actually think they're accurate, whether it's Democrat or Republican.
		And I just think it's very difficult for a person who has a bias to not use it.
		That's all.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Danny up next in North Carolina on this open forum.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi.
		Good morning.
		I just want to say that both the guys are speaking well.
		Of course, I am a Democrat, but this year I actually voted with my wife, who is a Republican, so that's interesting in itself.
		But the tax on the rich, my rich, I drove a garbage truck for 33 years, and I would consider the man that owned my company as rich for a day-to-day person.
		And if he gets tax breaks, they can keep me employed.
		You know, I'm kind of fine with that.
		You know, interest rates, if they have to stay a little high to keep people from making mistakes with the economies and all and getting out here and getting over their head, that's probably a good thing, you know, in some instances, is I pay a lot of taxes.
		And as a veteran, I'm 60 years old, and I'm finally out there taking not advantage, but being able to use the VA.
		And it's been a great thing because I went through all the years of work and paying the taxes and helping out with the social programs that they're saying they're going to get cut.
		But, you know, now I'm just appreciative that they're helping us out now as veterans.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Danny in North Carolina, again, calling in from the previous segment, you can comment on the previous segment or other matters of politics on this open forum.
		Again, we'll go till 10 o'clock, 2027-8000.
		One for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Independent Line, this is from Wisconsin.
		We'll hear from Paul.
unidentified		Good morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		What I have to say is on economy.
		I know seven people for about two good two months.
		They have been laid off.
		And four of them worked for a manufacturing company.
		Also, they were down to a 35-hour work week, and they cannot find jobs.
		Also, in Wisconsin here, the Kroger Company, which is a big grocery chain, announced two or three months ago that they're closing five grocery stores because nobody's really coming in and spending that much money.
		So that's what's happening here.
		And everybody I've talked to, which is a bunch of people, because I belong to a social club, said they will not vote Republican in 26 or 28.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Mark is next.
		Mark is in Maryland, Democrats Line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Yes, good morning.
		Thank you for the opportunity.
		Quickly, it really is, we have a trifecta of disasters.
		First off, it seems like the arsonist is complaining about the fires.
		What do I mean?
		The president has fired slews of statisticians, slews of data processors, and has compromised and made it much harder for those remaining to do an honest day's work.
		There are at least three four areas where this has happened.
		Department of Education, NOAA, the CDC, and the BLS.
		In terms of the BLS, they've had to shut down three sections, three areas in the country where they collect the data for the CPI.
		Again, the arsonist is complaining, but there are fires all over the place in terms of health care.
		So in stats, I would invite a representative from the American Statistical Association, person like Steve Pearson.
		In terms of health care, I'd invite a person like Larry Levitt, who's quite personable and can explain what's going to happen, unlike what the conservative statistician was, I hate to say, spewing.
		And in terms of waste, fraud, and abuse, there was a conjob going on.
		The House and Senate are a mere three to four blocks from the IG's office from the Department of Health and Human Services.
		They could have sent over staff and they would have seen all the work the IG has done to get rid of waste within DHS by going after what are called SNFs, short-term facilities for care, nursing homes, and MDEs, medical disability equipment.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Mark there in Maryland.
		We'll hear from another resident of Maryland.
		This is Luis, Independent Line.
unidentified		Yes, my name is Maurice, and I'm calling from Booty, Maryland.
		And I happened to turn on to C-SPAN and happened to hear the gentleman, I believe his name was Mr. Antononi.
		And I couldn't believe E.J. Antonio, yeah.
		Yes, I could not believe what he was saying.
		And I could not believe what if he believed that he think what he was saying is absolutely true or even halfway true or even 1% true.
		Why do people continue to just lie?
		And I believe that he is just simply lying.
		I believe he knows what he's saying, and he is just lying, gaslighting the American community.
		And it's just plain wrong.
		It is just plain wrong.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What specifically did you take issue with?
unidentified		Oh, I can't even remember.
		The truth is everything, because everything he says did not make sense to me.
		I have a degree in economics, and it just did not make any sense to me what he was saying about the American-born, natural-born shows, the statistics shows that the employment is flowing, and immigrants' unemployment rate now is now down.
		That doesn't make any sense.
		Okay.
		That does not make any sense to me at all.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Luis there in Maryland, a resident of Illinois.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Stephen, Independent Line.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Morning.
unidentified		Allow me to refresh everyone's memory.
		Six months ago, Donald Trump announced he was going to nominate disgraced Florida Congressman Matt Gates as United States Attorney General.
		Gates had been accused of paying a high school girl to have sex with him while he was a congressman and was under an investigation by the House of Representatives Ethics Commission.
		Trump finally withdrew the nomination after he became president after a handful of Republican senators, in my opinion, developed a backbone and told Trump they would vote against Gates.
		Even though Trump continued to offer support for Gates, say kind words about him, say he was a friend and great American and all of that.
		I have a question, and this relates kind of to the Epstein imbrolio that is taking up a lot of the oxygen in the news.
		Why would Trump want to become involved with an alleged with a person who was an alleged sex offender?
		I can't understand that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Please explain it to me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Stephen in Illinois on our Independent Line.
		This is Ron up next.
		Ron is line online for Democrats.
		He's from South Carolina.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello, Pedro.
		The two guys you had on before, is this going to be like ceasefire or is it going to be different?
		Because I didn't see nothing positive between the two of them at all.
		Working together, trying to figure out things to make things better is always one against the other.
		And the next thing is I think C-SPAN ought to have an AI algorithm made up for these data like jobs and stuff like that.
		Take those numbers and see what they come up with.
		If they're realistic, come up with the rest of them.
		And I appreciate you, and thank you a lot.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ron, there in South Carolina.
		Again, one of the many who've called us so far in this open forum.
		You can continue to do the same on the phone lines.
		If you want to pick the line that best represents you, we invite you to do so.
		The only thing we ask is if you called in the last 30 days, you hold off today and make sure you pick the line that best represents you.
		The last caller was from South Carolina, a new effort by Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina.
		She posted on X that she's running to be the governor of South Carolina.
		She adds this, saying, God's not done with South Carolina, and neither am I. You and me, our mission begins now.
		South Carolina first, Nancy Mates for governor, along with this ex post that was put out, a video.
		Here it is.
unidentified		The House Republican has drawn the ire of both Democrats and members of her own party.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		She has a way of getting into their skin.
unidentified		Representative Nancy Mace, Nancy Mace, firebrand Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		She's a fighter.
		I know about that.
		She's a fighter.
unidentified		She learned resilience early on.
unidentified		Mace became the first woman to graduate from South Carolina's famed military colleges.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		You've taken a lot of abuse for standing up for the rights of women.
unidentified		But what they forget is that, Laura, I'm the first woman to graduate from the Citadel.
		I will not be bullied into silence.
		Nancy Mace scores a huge victory in her fight to keep biological men out of women's bathrooms.
		We will be courageous.
		We will be resilient.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		When she sets her sight on something, she's tough.
unidentified		And we will be prepared to take on the challenges of this historic moment.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, that was put out earlier today.
		More news developing as the day progresses.
		This is from Danny Danny in Indiana, Republican line on this open forum.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
unidentified		Well, good morning.
		I was calling about the 25 million illegal aliens that was put in our country the last four years.
		Don't you think that that could cause our economy to get busted?
		Because we're paying for their food, their clothing, their housing, all that.
		And that hurts our economy.
		That's why we have shortages on our grocery shelves because 25 million people in our country added to what we had before.
		And I think the tariffs, all that, sure, we may feel it later, but in the long run, we'll feel better later.
		And another four years ago, the Democrats were in charge.
		Why didn't they investigate the Esteen case when they had control of everything?
		That's all I need to say.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From Chicago Democrats line, we'll hear next from Willie.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello, sir.
		The first thing I want to talk about is immigration.
		I do believe that the Democrats failed on the issue of immigration.
		By letting too many people into the country, they gave political fodder to the Demagogues in the Republican Party.
		But nevertheless, the Republican Party under Donald Trump is not fit to rule this country.
		President Trump should have been arrested right after he left the White House in 2021 because he has, by getting re-elected, he has reduced this country to nothing but a disgrace.
		This is shameful.
		The Republican Party is legally taking this country apart brick by brick.
		And it's just a shame what they are doing to this country now.
		They're lawless.
		The president is just, his behavior is just outrageous.
		It's lawless.
		And I hear these people calling in, talking about and supporting this man and what he's doing.
		These people are out of their mind.
		This country is in bad shape.
		We are now in a right-wing nightmare.
		That's what we are facing in this country.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Willie there in Chicago there.
		We showed you earlier the Texas House members who have left Texas to go to Chicago to keep from that vote on redistricting happening.
		Hakeem Jeffries on X posting something this morning on support of that, saying the statement in support of this, saying the Democrats in the Texas state legislature have righteously refused to vote on a gerrymandered congressional map that is designed to rig the midterm elections for House Republicans.
		The courage, conviction, and character Texas Democrats are displaying is the embodiment of good trouble as we collectively push back against the extremism Donald Trump has unleashed on the American people.
		He finishes the statement by saying we have their backs.
		It was the Texas governor, Greg Abbott, putting out his own statement about the actions of the Texas House Democrats.
		You can find it online at gov.texas.gov saying this, the truancy ends now.
		The derelict Democrat House members must return to Texas and be in attendance when the House reconvenes at 3 p.m. Monday.
		For any member who fails to do so, I will invoke Texas Attorney General opinion number KP-0382 to remove the missing Democrats from membership in the Texas House.
		In that opinion, the Attorney General considered, quote, whether Texas law allows for a determination that the legislator has vacated office if they intentionally break quorum.
		The Attorney General concluded that, quote, whether a specific legislator abandoned his or her office such that a vacancy occurred will be a fact question for a court.
		He further concluded that, quote, through a, quote, warranto action, a district court may determine that a legislator has forfeited his or her office due to abandonment and can remove the legislator from office, thereby creating a vacancy.
		There's more there as this plays out today.
		This is from the statement from Governor Abbott.
		Let's go to James.
		James in Alabama into Republican line.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hello, Pedro.
		I just want to say a couple of statements and I'll let everybody else have the floor back.
		It's disgusting to hear the poor Democrat minority housing and crying and whining about what's going on.
		But that's the situation.
		Donald Trump is not anti-Constitution, anti-anything.
		Everything he's done has been upheld and withheld within the laws of the United States.
		The other party is the one that should be listed as breaking the laws and trying to run this with mob rule.
		Thank God Donald Trump got elected.
		Let's shut up and let him do his job.
		C-SPAN used to be a place where multiple opinions can be held.
		It's not that anymore.
		Every host on C-SPAN is a Democrat and a liberal.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's not the point.
		And you got your opinion out.
		Thanks for calling in and being part of the conversation.
		Pat in West Virginia, Democrats line.
		Hello.
		You're next.
unidentified		Morning.
		I want to read something for the Christians, that's the gentleman that just spoke who's faking God.
		Here's what God, Jesus, said in Matthew 8, 18, 6.
		He said, but whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe in me to fall, it were better for him that a millstone were hung about his neck and that he were drowned in the depths of the sea.
		Now, throughout history, every time that Donald Trump is introduced or steps into a room of dignitaries or there is a thumbnail history written about him and his legacy, the number one story and memory that will come to mind of everyone will be that he is a child molester.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hold on, hold on, hold on.
		I'm going to let it stop you right there.
		Alfred in Ohio, Independent Line.
		Hello.
unidentified		Good morning.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		I want a paper ballot.
		No more computers.
		I want stock trading banned for Congress, the Senate.
		I mean, that's ridiculous.
		Nancy Klosey should be indicted.
		I mean, it's just a joke what they're getting by with.
		Term limits should have been done 20 years ago.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So Alfred, back to the stock trading ban.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why necessarily do you want to see that happen?
unidentified		Like Kelsey's the, you know, look at her record.
		I mean, it's a joke.
		She should be indicted.
		I mean, can you explain it?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Is it just Nancy Pelosi, or do you think that stock or members across the board should not be able to do that?
unidentified		Members across the board, unless they was a big stock trader before they come in, you don't want to knock somebody off their game.
		But, you know, I mean, it's just a joke.
		Tell me Nancy Kelozy has not been doing insider trading.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Alfred there in Ohio.
		Again, if you want to participate in Open Forum, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		Independents.
		202-748-8002.
		Stock trading and efforts in Congress is the reason our next guest is here, Dave Leventhal Investigative Journalist.
unidentified		Hello.
unidentified		Hey, great to be with you, Peter.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You have been following this whole thing.
		The Senate is the latest to take up this issue.
		Explain what's going on.
unidentified		Absolutely.
		And there have been a number of bills introduced not only this year, but the past several years to do exactly this.
		Ban lawmakers and their spouses and dependent children in some cases from buying and selling stocks, which I should note sometimes conflict with the official duties that members have.
		For example, people serving on the House Armed Services or Senate Armed Services Committee, trading stocks in Boeing and RTX and other defense contractors, healthcare, technology, the list goes on and on.
		But this latest bill, it's called the Honest Act.
		Had to write this down because Congress loves its acronyms.
		It's the Halting Ownership and Non-Ethical Stock Transactions Act.
		And this was a piece of legislation that was supported by Democrats primarily, but Josh Hawley, a Republican, was the real instigator.
		He joined with Democrats last week to advance this bill over the objections of some key Republican senators, including Rick Scott from Florida and Bernie Moreno from Ohio.
		But I should note, too, that this is a weird bipartisan coalition on this particular topic, which makes it fascinating.
		And even Donald Trump, although he was pretty angry at Josh Hawley for teaming with Democrats, has said in principle that he's open to a bill like this passing along with Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader in the House, and wait for this, Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, too.
		So there is possibility.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Bipartisanship.
		Who had a thunk?
		Honest Act, there's three elements.
		It would first ban members of Congress, the president, the vice president, from buying covered assets immediately after enactment and selling covered assets 90 days after.
		Let's start with the covered assets.
unidentified		What's that?
		Yeah, covered assets would be stocks ostensibly that members could buy and sell.
		And I should note, too, that the presidential aspect of this highly controversial.
		You have some of these bills, including the Honest Act, that were focused on Congress alone, but there was language inserted into this bill that would apply to the president and apply to the vice president, although in a compromise, going forward, at least at this point, it wouldn't apply to the president and the vice president until Donald Trump and JD Vance have finished their current term.
		So it would be basically kicked down the road a little bit, 2029, although all of this is open to amendment.
		And should also note, too, Pedro, that John Thune, the Senate Majority Leader, may or may not decide to even bring this for a vote on the House floor.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I was going to say, how did all those parties involved agree on that, though, when it comes to letting the president, the vice president at least off a little bit on this?
unidentified		Yeah, and this is part of the negotiation and the controversy that hit there.
		Donald Trump, obviously, not happy with the idea that he would be limited in any way, shape, or form in this current legislation.
		So expect as this goes forward, or for that matter, any bill that might come up in the House, as that goes forward, that Donald Trump, shocking here, will be playing a front and center role in the debate over the extent of this legislation and ultimately law were it to come to pass.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One other element required elected officials, their spouses, dependent children to divest covered assets beginning at the start of the next term in office, and then it would increase penalties for violations of the Stock Act disclosure requirement.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Can you expand on those?
unidentified		Yeah, and that's been a huge issue of all of this.
		Much of the reporting that I've focused on in the past several years has come on the violation front.
		There's an existing law.
		It's called the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act.
		It was passed by Congress for Congress in 2012, and it was supposed to be an elixir to these potential conflicts of interest, be them real or perceived, and also to insider trading or the specter of insider trading that comes when you're a member of Congress, you are privy to a lot of information and knowledge that the general public might not be.
		And whether indirectly or directly, you're using that information to inform your stock trades or maybe your stockbroker or financial advisor making trades on your behalf.
		But so many members, Republicans and Democrats, have violated this, literally dozens, including many this year, more than 10 so far that we've had.
		And it ranges from Neil Dunn, a Republican of Florida, to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, also a Democrat from Florida, and many, many in between.
		So people continue to violate this.
		And in fact, as this debate was happening last week about the Honest Act, Mark Wayne Mullen, the senator from Oklahoma, Republican, I reported in Notice, the nonprofit news organization, that he had violated the STOCK Act by failing to disclose.
		He was two years late a series of bond and stock trades that when he added all up was into the hundreds of hundreds of thousands of dollars in value.
		So this is something that a lot of people always say, hey, this is a false equivalency between Republicans and Democrats.
		I am here to say that this is a true equivalency in the way that they're violating it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The caller that previously brought this up before you came on talked about Nancy Pelosi.
		If I read it correctly, Nancy Pelosi was the full, it was focused on this Honest Act.
		In fact, it was named after her in some cases, but that changed.
		Can you explain that?
unidentified		Yeah, I had to write this one down too.
		This was the Pelosi Act, the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act.
		This was brought forward by Josh Hawley himself as standalone legislation.
		It was superseded by the Honest Act.
		But Nancy Pelosi has been sort of the avatar for stock trading, at least on the right.
		And on the Republican side, her husband trades tens of millions of dollars, Pedro, every year in stocks and stock options.
		Nancy Pelosi has long said, hey, I'm not the one doing the stock trading.
		I don't tell my husband to do this or that.
		But that has not washed with many Republicans.
		Also worth noting, too, that Nancy Pelosi was a strong, strong voice, at least initially back in 2021 when she was asked about this after a major project that Business Insider did that I was part of.
		And that was something where she basically said to paraphrase, hey, look, this is a free market economy.
		Anyone should be able to trade and participate in that economy as they see fit.
		She caught a lot of heat, both from the far left and the far right.
		And that in a way was sort of the impetus for this ongoing debate that we have had ever since.
		She has since come around to support the Honest Act, but she also too kind of blocked a bill and almost torpedoed a bill in 2022 that Democrats had offered up.
		So Republicans have an opportunity here in a way to say, hey, look, we're going to do something with this that Democrats weren't either able to do or willing to do when they had power in either the House or the Senate.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Has there ever been a specific instance where a legislator had inside information, made trades on it, and could be proved definitely that they benefited from it?
unidentified		No, in short.
		And this is one of the hardest things to do because in essence, you have a situation where you might think that a lawmaker is using inside information, but how do you prove it?
		And do you have enough evidence for, for example, the Department of Justice to get involved and prosecute such a crime?
		There were some investigations that happened, and this was particularly the case at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic when you had several senators, the late Dianne Feinstein, Kelly Loffler, who's now the administrator of the Small Business Administration, and a couple of others who had made some very curiously timed trades with highly pandemic-sensitive stocks and were investigated for using information about the COVID pandemic to inform those stock trades that they made, in some cases,
		into the hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars.
		They were all cleared.
		The investigations were dropped.
		But that was kind of part and parcel of that point that it is incredibly difficult to truly move and get a conviction on something, although we can see from data and available information that there are some conflicts of interest, even if they do not rise to the level of current illegality that are, at least at their face, problematic in the eyes of many, many Americans who, when you poll people and many polls have been done, there's sometimes three out of four Americans who say this should be banned.
		It's crazy that it's even legal at this point.
		So that's coming from Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all at the same time, almost across the board.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The Honest Act passing out of committee, what are the next steps from here?
unidentified		Well, again, John Thune is going to be front and center as to whether he wants to bring this to the floor for a vote.
		And at that point, the prospects are curious as to whether there are going to be enough Republicans to go forward and basically team with Josh Hawley and what would probably be most Democrats in passing this.
		So expect that there could be a pretty strange bipartisan coalition that would be coalescing around this bill.
		We've also seen this in the U.S. House of Representatives where you have, for example, Chip Roy, one of the most conservative Republicans in the U.S. House, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, one of the most liberal, basically singing from the same songbook when it comes to a stock ban bill.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		With those Republicans that may hesitate on supporting it, what would be the justification if they express concerns about the legislation specifically?
unidentified		Yeah, well, some of them, and Rick Scott was a good example.
		He talked about this in committee last week saying, hey, it should not be illegal to be wealthy.
		And he's one of the most wealthy senators or members of Congress writ large who is just basically saying this is not, this is not American.
		And this is not something that we should limit members of Congress from doing.
		Others may have particular concerns with details.
		How far this goes.
		Does this involve the entire executive branch?
		There has been talk about involving the judiciary, the Supreme Court specifically.
		So you may have some writers and some amendments that are kind of floating around and flying around and being debated as this debate goes forward.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		DaveLeventhal.com is your website.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What kind of reporting can people find?
unidentified		A lot of investigative reporting, very much at the intersection of business and money and politics and policy.
unidentified		And you can find my work at Notice, where I'm now a contributing editor.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Dave Leventhal, thanks for the time.
unidentified		My pleasure.
unidentified		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We'll continue on with Open Forum.
		And again, if you want to participate, 202748-8001 for Republicans, 202748-8000 for Democrats, 202748-8002 for Independents.
		Jermaine in South Carolina, Democrats line.
		Thank you so much for waiting.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hey, how are you doing?
		Good morning.
		I just want to say real quickly that with I just want the American people to pay attention to what Donald Trump is doing.
		I believe that he's not going to leave office with this new announcement of this new building he's building at the White House and his talks about taking over DC and just a whole slew of other things.
		I just don't believe that he's going to leave office.
		I think he's going to stay in the White House or in D.C. forever.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Jermaine in South Carolina.
		Elizabeth is in Florida, Winter Park, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Good morning.
		With all the discourse over financial conflicts of interest in elected officials, I saw a very unusual solution proposed on Substack this morning.
		I didn't even think this would be possible.
		I wanted to get your feedback on it.
		But this Substack is advocating for making the American Pope the American president in 2028.
		Now, I will grant, I'll grant them that he has lived by a vow of poverty, but wouldn't there be a constitutional barrier to something like that?
		I mean, assuming His Holiness would even be interested in taking on the job.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What was the case that the Substack author made to make that happen?
unidentified		Well, they're saying, I mean, you know, the constitutional requirements, they said you got to be 35.
		Obviously, he is.
		He has to be an American citizen.
		He was born, what, in Chicago, I guess?
		And he has to live in the United States for at least 14 years.
		And he spent the first 30 years of his life in the United States.
		So they said he meets all the requirements.
		But still, it just seemed, it just didn't seem like it'd be possible.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Elizabeth, there in Florida, about things you read on Substack.
		You can bring that into the mix.
		Massachusetts Democrats line.
		Mike, hello, you're next up.
unidentified		Hello.
		Yeah, not too long ago, our president wanted to make Canada a state, and then he wanted to make Greenland a state.
		Neither went over too well with their populations.
		But I have an idea, and it's not that much different, is why don't we offer, consider there's less than 6 million Palestinians, why don't we offer Palestinian people statehood here in America to come here so they would be part, they would be covered under the U.S. umbrella.
		But if we couldn't offer statehood, what about citizenship after we screen each person to come here?
		And another idea I have that I think is a possibility is why don't we offer Mexico statehood and see, let the people of Mexico, Vanna, vote on it to see if they would like it.
		And that was my idea because at the rate we're going in the Middle East, there's never, you're not going to have any peace over there with the issue the way it is.
		And I think it's the only way out of the quagmire we're being drawn into over there.
		And that's what I wanted to comment on.
		Nothing's impossible.
		If we were to build a state here in America, I mean, it could be somewhere in the Midwest where there's a lot of open spaces.
		And I know the chances of it happen aren't good, but I don't know why the chances aren't good of it happen.
		People of Palestine need a state or a country.
		They have neither.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I mean, got your point, Mike, there in Massachusetts.
		Thanks.
		The former head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erica McAntarfar, posted this on Blue Sky about the actions that happened to her, saying it has been the honor of my life to serve as commissioner of BLS alongside the many dedicated civil servants tasked with measuring a vast and dynamic economy.
		It is vital and important work, and I thank them for their service to this nation.
		That was the post on August 1st.
		It was the president returning from New Jersey yesterday talking about the future BLS commissioner and the expectations there.
unidentified		Here's President Trump from yesterday.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We're seeing phenomenal numbers in terms of the business we do with other countries and the business we do within our own country.
		I mean, really phenomenal numbers.
		We'll be announcing a new statistician sometime over the next three, four days.
		We had no confidence.
		I mean, the numbers were ridiculous, what she announced, but that was just one negative number.
		All of the numbers seem to be great.
		And so we'll see how that comes out.
		And if you remember, just before the election, this woman came out with these phenomenal numbers on Biden's economy.
		Phenomenal numbers.
		And then right after the election, they announced that those numbers were wrong.
		And that's what they did the other day.
unidentified		So it's a scam, in my opinion.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That was from yesterday, the president returning to the White House today as of this morning.
		The event, the only event, unless some have been added, I'm not aware of, is that lunch with the vice president later on today.
		But watch as it plays out this week, events at the White House.
		This is from Janice.
		Before we go to Janice, though, a couple of things I want to let you know about.
		At 10 o'clock today, just about 15 minutes from now, an expected press conference with Texas House Democrats.
		This features Governor Kathy Hochul, Democratic Governor of New York.
		This will take place out of Albany.
		You've heard about what's happening in Chicago, but this also extends to New York State now.
		You can see those comments at 10 o'clock on our main channel, C-SPAN.
		You can follow along on our app at C-SPANNOW and also our website at c-span.org if you want to see that event this instance as it plays out.
		Let's hear from Janice in Baltimore, Republican line.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Don't just want to say that Donald Trump, you need to lay off him.
		He's one of the greatest presidents this country has ever had.
		He's trying to turn this country back to morality and Christianity.
		And that's why he's meeting such resistance.
		He's trying to do things the right way.
		These women need to get out of the workplace and stay at home with their children.
		These grandmothers could take care of those children.
		They don't need daycare if they stop getting Botox and trying to look like they're 16.
		This man is trying to bring morality back to the country, and they're trying to resist him.
		And he is making America great again.
		History will record him as one of the greatest presidents this country has ever had, one of the greatest men, and he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
		He's doing everything he can.
		And that previous caller must have had the brain of a bunny rabbit.
		That is a ridiculous ideas he had.
		This man is great.
		This is a very great man.
		We're dealing with Donald Trump.
		And he is so great.
		You don't realize his greatness because his thinking is far above the average person.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Janice, there in Baltimore.
		A couple of other events to let you know about besides the one we just told you about.
		There is going to be a forum taking a look at the topic of Africa, soft power, as it's known as use in Africa.
		This is from the Public Diplomacy Council of America.
		It will be at noon today.
		Talks about the efforts to the United States retreat from soft power, particularly with the dismantling of USAID and other things.
		If you're interested in that topic, noon is where it has at the time it happens.
		C-SPAN is where you can watch it, as well as the app and the .org.
		Also, later on tonight, sometimes when congressional people go on break, they have town halls.
		One of those taking place in Lincoln, Nebraska, with Representative Mike Flood, Republican from Nebraska.
		Again, all those platforms are where you can watch the town hall happen as he engages with his constituents on topics of importance to them.
		The main channel, the app, the.org.
		You can watch it there.
		Diane in Iowa, Independent Line.
		Hi there.
		You're next up.
unidentified		Hi.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I want to just say something about the elderly man that tried to quote scripture against Donald Trump.
		First of all, he was speaking out of turn, out of tongue, out of whatever.
		He was changing the whole thought of that scripture that he read.
		He needs to go to Revelations and read about changing the Bible.
		And that in itself is a sin.
		So he needs to worry about himself and nobody else.
		He's not his brother's keeper.
		And the rest of the world that's worried about what they do know or what they don't know about Trump or anybody else, they weren't there.
		So until something's proven, they're not their brother's keeper either.
		Thank you very much.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Jimmy up next.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		He's in Georgia, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hello, Pedro.
		Good morning.
		Gosh, it's great to be in America today.
		I guess I want to start by saying I haven't watched your show in about a month now because I'm addicted to Tour de France.
willie nelson ▲ ● ▼		And I watch Tour de France every morning in July, but it's over now.
unidentified		One by a man named Tajay Pagacha.
		Tajay Pagacha is from Slovenia.
		And what other famous person is from Slovenia?
		Of course, it's Melania Trump, Donald's wife.
		I am an independent.
		I am an American.
		I am a Christian.
		I am a communist.
		I am a liberal and a conservative.
		And a lot of people think those are contradictory, but they are not.
		This is a great country.
		I just want to say that the two most hated groups in America right now are the Christians and the communists.
		And I consider myself to be a Christian and a communist.
		And there's another great American Christian communist, and his name was Woody Guthrie.
		And Woody Guthrie taught us that this land was made for you and me.
		So I guess my one pleading for America is for Christians and communists to quit hating each other and to try to get along better with each other so you can work together to make this country a better place.
		There's no reason for all this hatred between the Christians and the communists.
		Now, I do.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Jimmy, let's hear from Tabitha.
		Tabitha in Colorado, Democrats line.
		Hello.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
unidentified		How are you this morning?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
unidentified		I'm calling.
		The lady before the last caller said that Trump is great because he is bringing America back to Christ and trying to make all of us act like Christians again.
		But I do not understand how taking food from the poor or Medicaid from the sick or Medicare from the elderly is Christian.
		I was brought up in a Christian family and we were taught to help everyone.
		If anybody could explain to me how what he is doing is Christian in a way that I could understand it, I would appreciate that.
		Thank you and have a great day.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The Wall Street Journal reports this morning that an executive branch ethics watchdog has opened an investigation to Jack Smith.
		He's the former Justice Department special counsel who investigated President Trump before he returned to the White House.
		The Office of Special Counsel confirmed Saturday that it opened the probe into Smith for possible violations of the Hatch Act, a federal law that bans partisan political activity by certain government employees.
		The agency has no criminal enforcement power but can impose fines and other sanctions.
		The inquiry comes at the request of Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, who Wednesday asked the agency to scrutinize whether Smith's actions were designed to skew the 2024 election in favor of then President Joe Biden and then Vice President and his then Vice President Kamala Harris, both Democrats.
		Cotton accused Smith of trying to influence the elected by Russian criminal proceedings.
		A law firm representing Smith did not respond to a request for comment.
		Debbie, up next in Missouri, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi.
		I'd just like to say that I've noticed that prices are coming down in the grocery stores.
ellen brown ▲ ● ▼		And I just think Trump's doing a pretty good job.
ellen brown ▲ ● ▼		Things seem to be just rolling along, that there's plenty of jobs out there, and morality seems to be coming back in the country.
unidentified		So that's all I wanted to say.
unidentified		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Eric, up next in North Carolina, Independent Line.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		Go ahead.
		Yes, I'd like to just say that, you know, I've been listening for weeks now, and it would do all of us as a country great if we police people in our own party before we criticize and condemn others in the other party.
		There's too much going on on both sides of the aisle.
		People to ignore, blatantly look and ignore the hypocrisy before they go.
		You know, the Bible talks about Before you can get the moat, the small thing out, your brother's eye.
		First, get the big thing out of your own.
		And maybe then you can see clearly how to get that moat out of your.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, specifically, what do you think has to be policed by these people?
unidentified		First of all, truth.
		Come with facts, not your opinions, because everybody got an opinion.
		But when you come and you want to criticize, first do it with facts, but take them same facts and look at your own party before you go and criticize the other party.
		Too much of that is going on, and we will never come together.
		We're the divided states of America right now.
		Not that we've ever been united as we should, but we're more divided than ever.
		And we are not representing Christ as a nation.
		Neither is our president representing that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Deborah is from California, Democrats line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Deborah, good morning.
unidentified		Yes, good morning, Pedro.
unidentified		How are you?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I'm fine, thank you.
unidentified		You know, I want to answer that woman's question that she was asking about how this is being Christian and you're not feeding the people and things like that.
		She said, I'm going to answer it for her.
		It is not Christian.
		All this stuff that is happening, it is just blatant ignorance.
		It is running roughshod over the America that we all loved and should still be loving.
		You know, I'm a woman of color.
		Pedro, you are too.
		If we don't speak up for what is wrong, and we know it's wrong, we're just sitting there like pawns, sitting in a seat, going along with the crowd.
		I know without a shadow of a doubt that this is nothing happening, taking people's jobs, health care, you name it.
		It's not of God.
		That's nothing Jesus Christ would ever do to this country.
		But he's giving space for people to reckon with their own minds that have been cultified.
		And they need to come out and pray to Jesus that they come back, that their minds come back.
		Because they got to know that they're wrong.
		Some of them do.
		Some of them don't want to.
		Okay.
		That's all I have to say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Deborah in California there.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from David in New York, Republican line.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello, Pedro.
		I'm just concerned.
		I haven't heard anyone talking about how the news is coming out where for the last 10 years, how they were complaining about the Russian hoax and Trump was supposedly working with the Russians.
		And now that it's all coming out, that that was all a big lie, I haven't heard anybody on this show talking about it.
		And I'm really glad that after 10 years of this, I mean, we used to get behind the president every time there was a new one elected, no matter if it was your side or not.
		And with Trump, they went after him right off the rep and lied and lie and lie.
		And they've tried every way to bring him down.
		Thank God he's tough enough to take it.
		And right now, I think their Justice Department is going after all these people who lied.
		There's the spies that lied.
		There's so many involved in this.
		It's really going to destroy.
		You know, this is bigger than Benedict Arnold.
		You know.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to Vincent in Houston, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hey, Pedro, what's going on?
		I've got a couple of things.
		I'm all over the place.
		I'll try to make it quick about people that call in with everything we're complaining about.
		I'm tired of hearing about the billionaires are going to get all these breaks.
sean hannity ▲ ● ▼		Well, there's 800 roughly billionaires in this country who employ 40 million people.
unidentified		What if they all closed shopping one day?
		Where would these 40 million people go to work?
		That's number one.
		Number two, we're never going to be a United Nation with everybody disagreeing on everything.
		Everybody says, and I don't agree with everything Trump does.
		Everybody says that when we have these Senate votes, that everybody votes the way Trump wants them to.
		Well, there has been some Republicans that voted against this policies, but not one Democratic vote has ever crossed the line in the proceedings we've been seeing.
		Who are they listening to?
		Number three, on this jail they built, Alcatraz, that these politicians have gone down there and said it was inhumane and all this kind of stuff.
		I live in Texas.
		I know some prison guards.
		There's not one air condition in any jail in the state of Texas, and it gets hot down here.
		And the conditions are filthy, and nobody's saying anything.
		And the last thing I want to hear about we're going to take away all the labors from Mexico as far as agriculture goes.
		These guards have told me that if you get our prisoners who sit around and do nothing and there's no form of rehabilitation and pay them $20 a day to put on their books to go out there and pick the produce, they would have a list of volunteers a mile long.
		So people, come on, let's think for ourselves.
		I know we all vote.
		I'm 66 the way our parents did.
		Start thinking for yourselves and just listen.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's go to Steve.
		Stephen, Florida, Democrats line.
		Hello.
unidentified		Yeah.
		Hi, Pedra.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		I'm a decorated combat veteran before they get on my butt about anything.
		But I was calling.
		There was a preview.
		I don't know if it was the guy from Texas or before that.
		Are you with me?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you're still on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Okay.
		All right, but there was a caller that said something about the Russia hoax and whatever and blah, blah, blah.
		He's hearing about it on the news.
		I watched C-SPAN.
		I've always watched C-SPAN.
		I love your show.
		I enjoy seeing what I see.
		And I watched the hearing, the Senate hearing on Russia collusion or Russian interference in the 2016 election on C-SPAN.
		And they clearly said that Russia did interfere in the 2016 election.
		They just wasn't sure who they had helped.
		And the investigation was closed because at the time, Donald Trump was the president.
		But Hillary Clinton ran her whole campaign on tightening sanctions on Russia for their invasion of Crimea.
		And Trump, after he was elected for four years, did nothing to Russia or anything.
		In fact, when he was asked about them interfering in our election, he said that he took Vladimir Putin's word over American agencies' words.
		And I find it, I mean, that you can't tell them people, hey, back check and look at this thing.
		Okay.
		That would be very helpful.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's hear from Michelle in Philadelphia, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi, Pedro.
		I just have one thing to say, and that is that when people are wondering why we can't get, why everybody in the country can't get behind our president, our current president, well, it might be because our current president has never been a convicted criminal before.
		And right now, that's who's running our office, a convicted criminal.
		And of course, when you have a convicted criminal running the office of the presidency, I think there's going to be a lot of things wrong and a lot of things criminal going on.
		That's all I have to say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Michelle there in Philadelphia, just a few minutes away from this event that we're talking about.
		You can watch on C-SPAN with Governor Hokul, Democratic governor of New York, talking about the events of Texas with the Texas House Democrats.
		We'll show you that when it happens.
		Billy in Texas, Democrats line.
		Hello.
unidentified		How you doing?
		I just want to say I commend C-SPAN because you all are doing a great job.
		But around here in Texas, we got some of these people acting crazy like they are going back into the past.
		But we are a nation of God and we're a state of God, Texas.
		We got more great people.
		We got a lot of people in the Republican Party that's acting crazy now.
		But at the end of the day, we're going to win because we're a nation of God.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about those Texas Democrats leaving the state in order to keep this redistricting vote from happening?
unidentified		Well, I commend them because they're standing up to opposition.
		We're not going to live under a communist mentality.
		We're not going to live where dictators come in.
		These people are just doing the rules that are on the board.
		And I appreciate that.
		And the people out here, and it's more good Democrat people than it is Republicans, even though it may seem like it's a Republican state, but the average people in Texas are not crazy like a lot of the Republicans are.
		And even the way our governor is acting now, he's kind of weird.
		But at the end of the day, we're going to win because we're a nation of God.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Billy in Texas, finishing off this round of open forum.
		Thanks to all who participated.
		Again, that event with Governor Hokul just was set to start at 10 o'clock.
		It's set to start soon.
		We don't know exactly when, but however, if you want to see the governor's comments, you can follow along on our main channel, C-SPAN.
		Just stay here.
		You can also follow along, C-SPANNow and c-span.org.
		You can watch there too.
		That's it for our program today.
		Another edition of Washington Journal comes your way at 7 o'clock tomorrow morning.
		We'll see you then.
		Why are you doing this?
unidentified		This is outrageous.
		This is a tangoro.
		This fall, C-SPAN presents a rare moment of unity, ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
		Join Politico Playbook, Chief Correspondent, and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns as host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue to find common ground.
		ceasefire this fall on the network that doesn't take sides only on c-span c-span democracy unfiltered We're funded by these television companies and more, including Comcast.

▲