CSPAN - Washington This Week

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 14, 2025 10:03-13:11 - CSPAN

03:07:58

Washington This Week

Participants

Main

kimberly adams

cspan 30:51

oren cass

25:33

thom hartmann

25:42

Appearances

ann butler

00:36

donald j trump

admin 00:34

howard lutnick

admin 00:45

vivek ramaswamy

r 01:12

Clips

john perkins

00:22

jonathan fahey

00:26

robert gaylon ross

00:07

Callers

brad in kentucky

callers 00:11

corona in ohio

callers 00:11

paul in north dakota

callers 00:08

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Morning.
		We'll talk with Bloomberg News Capitol Hill reporter Eric Wasson about the week ahead in Congress, including efforts to avert a government shutdown at the end of the month.
		And then Spectrum News national political reporter Taylor Popolars on White House News of the Day.
		And Navy Federal Credit Union Chief Economist Heather Long will talk about economic news of the day, C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join the conversation live at 7 Eastern Monday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
		California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom started a new podcast in March.
		His first guest was conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
		The two political leaders debated their differences, but also sought out common ground in areas of agreement.
		We'll show you that conversation in its entirety later tonight at 9:40 Eastern here on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Comcast.
		The flag replacement program got started by a good friend of mine, a Navy vet, who saw the flag at the office that needed to be replaced and said, wouldn't this be great if this was going to be something that we did for anyone?
		Comcast has always been a community-driven company.
		This is one of those great examples of the way we're getting out there.
		Comcast supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		This week, on the C-SPAN networks, the House and Senate are in session.
		The House will consider several bills to reform D.C.'s policing and criminal sentencing laws.
		The Senate will vote to confirm the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, Stephen Myron, to serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
		Prior to the Fed's Open Market Committee meeting, they'll also continue to work on the 2026 defense programs and policy legislation.
		On Tuesday, FBI Director Kash Patel appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, conducting oversight on the agency.
		Then, on Wednesday, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Susan Menares, who was recently terminated from the position, and Deborah Howry, former CDC Chief Medical Officer, testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, reviewing the recent events at the CDC and the implications for children's health.
		Also, on Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will hold a press conference following the Federal Open Market Committee meeting, possibly announcing an interest rate cut.
		And on Thursday, the Mayor of Washington, D.C., Muriel Bowser, testifies before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the city's crime policies and general oversight.
		Watch live this week on the C-SPAN networks or on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app.
		Also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on-demand anytime.
		C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		It's Sunday, September 14th, 2025.
		Recent data shows America's economy is slowing down and the American people have mixed feelings about the system underpinning it all, capitalism.
		That's the topic of our question this morning.
		What's your view of capitalism?
		Our line for Democrats is 202-748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
		You can text us at 202-748-8003, but please be sure to include your name and where you're writing in from.
		We're also on social media at facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and on X at C-SPANWJ.
		Now, some of the details about America's views on capitalism come from recent polling from Gallup, which found that the image of capitalism has slipped to 54% in the United States, and the perceptions of socialism remain steady at 39% positive.
		Americans are more positive towards capitalism than socialism, but the 54% viewing capitalism favorably is down from 60% in 2021 and near that level in most prior years.
		Americans remain more negative than positive towards socialism with little movement in these attitudes over time.
		Now, if you break that down by party, if you look at the positive views towards capitalism, when all Americans have a view of about 54% positive towards capitalism, but Republicans have a 74% positive view of capitalism compared to 51% of independents and 42% of Democrats.
		If you break it down by the negative views towards capitalism, all Americans have a 42% negative view towards capitalism, according to that Gallup polling from earlier this month.
		Republicans have a 24% negative view towards capitalism.
		Independents have a 45% negative view.
		And Democrats have a 55% negative view.
		Now, at a recent House Financial Services hearing, California Democrat Brad Sherman spoke out in defense of capitalism, but with an emphasis on the shareholder rather than corporate leaders.
		Here is a portion from last week.
unidentified		Under capitalism, if by the sweat of your brow and the frugality of your spending, you accumulate capital.
		If you have the courage to invest, you become a shareholder, and shareholders should be in control, not managers.
		Once again, the Democratic Party rises to the defense of capitalism against its greatest enemies, crony capitalism and their handmaidens in Washington.
		The chair points out that corporate managers have said, these damn shareholders have gotten out of hand, and we've got to stop them.
		And that's what the bills in front of us are designed to do.
		This is not just theoretical.
		We know which side of capitalism the Chinese Communist Party is on.
		They are going to want to buy the technology behind artificial intelligence.
		They're going to want to control it.
		They're going to offer corporations huge amounts of money.
		And when those transactions close, the board gets huge bonuses.
		And they don't want shareholders to have a vote.
		And we will be told: shareholders, get out of the way.
		It's a big payday.
		That's shareholder value.
		No, that's selling out America to the communist.
		I yield back.
		Gentlemen yields back.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, Democrats have a slightly more positive view of socialism than other parties.
		And some of that Gallup polling gives some details as to why, with the information that Democrats' more positive views of socialism occur at a time when many high-profile Democratic officials,
		most notably Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as well as New York City mayoral candidate Zoram Mamdani, have identified themselves as Democratic socialists and advocated for policies calling for a significantly expanded government role in economic matters.
		Now, for more context on this polling and what it tells us about the American economy and the American people right now, we're joined by Sam Sutton, who is the Morning Money newsletter author for Politico.
		Good morning, Sam.
unidentified		Morning.
unidentified		Thank you so much for having me.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What was your reaction to the Gallup poll on capitalism and what it said about America's views about it?
unidentified		You know, I think it's kind of a function of what we've seen in economic polling more broadly over the last couple of years.
		Even when folks have said that they're generally positive about their own personal finances, their outlook on the economy, their views on the economy have generally been quite negative.
		And since we are a capitalist economy, it's not so surprising to me that folks might have a dimmer view of that system than they might have a few years ago.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of America's Americans understanding of the terms capitalism and socialism, particularly and how those terms are evolving in terms of America's understanding of them?
unidentified		I think that that's a great question.
		I think that capitalism is just a little bit, not totally, but a little bit in the eye of the beholder.
		And I think that political leaders have taken different approaches to how they treat capitalism over the last several years.
		You brought up Zora Mamdani and Bernie Sanders, but even on the Republican Party, the relationship with traditional notions of free markets, free enterprise are starting to shift a bit.
		We've seen that with some of the president's initiatives taking stakes in private businesses like Intel, exerting a bit more control over how and where folks invest, and where companies invest.
		That's a sign of a political appetite for a government that's taking a greater role in the economy.
		And that is traditionally not something that true blue capitalists have loved.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Why do you think the positive views of capitalism are just over 50% and not any higher than that?
unidentified		Again, I think it goes back to where we are in terms of the economic polling.
		And I think it probably has something to do with the fact that a lot of Americans feel like they can't get ahead.
		CBRE, which is a big brokerage, they had a report out last month saying that the amount of income necessary to buy a single-family home has roughly doubled since 2019.
		And good luck getting that home insured if you actually do purchase a home because the cost of home insurance is up something in the ballpark of 75% since the recession.
		College tuition is more expensive.
		Healthcare premiums are going up and have been going up for the last several years.
		Inflation coming out of the pandemic has had a tremendous dent on folks feeling like they can get ahead.
		That's probably going to feed into not just the economic polling, but also notions or understandings of and appreciation for capitalism.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about maybe any generational differences here?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		How do you think younger Americans might compare to older Americans in their views of capitalism?
unidentified		I think that younger Americans generally always have a little bit of like the Tony Soprano thing in them, where they feel like they, you know, they miss the best part of whatever they're a part of.
		I think that that's certainly a component of it, but it goes back to the affordability stuff too.
		Like if you know that your parents were able to purchase a home on a middle income salary and you're making a middle income salary or more than a middle income salary and you can't afford to do the same, that's not going to feel like a system that's working for you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, Gallup also asked the opinion of the sentiment towards big business and found that all Americans, if you look at their positive views towards big business, all Americans have about a 37% positive view broken down by party.
		60% of Republicans have a positive view of big business.
		36% of Independents have a positive view.
		17% of Democrats have a positive view of big business.
		What do you think is the best way to understand why Americans feel that way and why that party breaks down the way it does?
unidentified		I'm a little surprised at how high the numbers are within the Republican Party, frankly, given the populist strain of Trump's candidacy last year and also to a certain extent some of his policies so far.
		I think it seems to mirror to a certain extent the perspectives on capitalism as well, right?
		Like something in the ballpark of 70% of Republicans said that they had a favorable view of capitalism.
		Big businesses are entities that seem to have benefited the most from capitalism in its current state.
		So if you already have a favorable view of the system as it's working, you're likely to have a favorable view of the players that have grown during that time.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Given the policies of the Trump administration and what the president is trying to do with the U.S. economy, how do you imagine Americans' views of capitalism changing as the administration progresses?
unidentified		I think it's going to depend entirely on what happens with inflation moving forward and what happens with the labor market moving forward.
		We're seeing some signs of trouble coming out of both.
		Last week, consumer price index went up a couple of bits, and the unemployment rate is more or less flat, but iron has basically stalled.
		If folks are feeling like they can't afford as much as they could before and are having a much harder time finding a new job, then their views on the system itself and the economy overall are likely to deteriorate.
		If that goes in the opposite direction, if we see progress on inflation, if the labor market does start to pick up, then I would anticipate pulling move in the opposite direction.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you so much for your time this morning.
		Sam Sutton is the author of the Morning Money newsletter for Politico.
		Thank you very much.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And we're taking your calls on your view of capitalism.
		Once again, our phone lines for Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
		We'll start with Frank in Baltimore, Maryland on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Frank.
unidentified		Still digesting Mr. Sutton's very intelligent analysis of what's going on, maybe beyond me.
		But in terms of the, I think it's important what he said about the way people view the word capitalism in terms of how they define it and in terms of being for or against it.
		Capitalism is marvelous.
		It's what stimulates, I mean, gosh, they tried socialism.
		You know, everybody knows history.
		Capitalism is good.
		But the kind of capitalism that existed when John F. Kennedy was able to say in 1962, the rising tide lifts all boats.
		I don't think that that's happening anymore.
		And I think that's what's coming across to the younger people today and why they're turning to like inscribing little words on their bullets when they go crazy.
		But, you know, I personally believe that capitalism is a good thing.
		And big business is not a bad thing.
		I wouldn't be alive right now if it weren't for big business, you know, in terms of the products that they make and especially medical advances that are made.
		You can't do that without big things.
		So what I think we need to do is have fewer homeless and less Emphasis on what capitalism isn't compared to what real capitalism is, which is essentially just doing business with each other in an honest way.
		Thank you.
		I hope I'm not been too simplistic, and you have a good morning.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		You as well.
unidentified		Unless you have a question.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, I want to read you a bit more from the scallop pulling, Frank, because you did call in the Democratic line, which is a group that seems to have slightly different views than you do on capitalism.
		And I'll read a bit.
		And it says: Democrats are the only partisan group of the three that views socialism more positively than capitalism, 66% to 42%, respectively.
		Independents are modestly more pro-capitalism than pro-socialism, while Republicans are overwhelmingly so.
		Why do you think that other Democrats have less positive views of capitalism than you do, Frank?
unidentified		Well, again, I think it's the way the word is defined by the individual being asked the question.
		Some people think of socialism as getting what they don't presently have and desperately need, like housing, food, clothing.
		Other people think of socialism as from a business standpoint as a very bad idea.
		Central planning didn't work well for Russia, you know, during the Soviet Union days of five-year plans and whatnot.
		And China is piggybacking off the creativity of our entrepreneurs.
		So, you know, capitalism is great.
		I think, I mean, people need to be able to benefit from their own ideas if they're going to be motivated to have those ideas, you know, and the best ideas are the ones that benefit us all.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Let's hear from Nate in Franklin, Indiana, on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Nate.
unidentified		Yes, I truly believe in capitalism.
		But, you know, democracy is like a pendulum that swings back and forth.
		And what moves that pendulum is the power of people to vote and also the power of the purse.
		That's what makes this economy move.
		And let me give you an example.
		You know, a lot of times people's opinion is based on their standard of living.
		You know, you can talk numbers all day long, but what people feel is their standard of living.
		And let me give you an example.
		My granddaughter, she manages a small coffee shop.
		And their coffee is going up 400%, where they buy from Brazil.
jonathan fahey ▲ ● ▼		And basically, what we have is we're punishing every coffee drinker in the United States because we're not happy with how they're doing their trying a previous president for staging a coup.
unidentified		So when you go to the coffee shop and that coffee, that cup of coffee goes up to 10 or 12 bucks, people get angry.
		And we are repeating history.
		In the late 1800s, we were in this very position where McKinley applied tariffs.
		And it took a while, but people realized that those tariffs were benefiting the wealthy, the ultra-wealthy.
		And it was lowering their standard of living.
		And we are exactly where we are today.
		People were rioting.
		There were assassinations.
		Let me tell you something else that happened.
		McKinley lost his seat in the Senate.
		The Republicans lost half of their seats in Congress.
		And people do not know their history.
		As they say, if you don't know your history, you are bound to repeat it.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Do you think the president should remove the tariffs on either Brazil or other countries?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		This has been a pretty central part of his foreign policy.
unidentified		No one person should have that much power.
		And right now, you know, he's been a popular president, but when it affects people's standard of living, they get angry and they vote.
		And you can't buy enough votes to overcome the anger of the American people.
		When you mess with people's cup of coffee, you'll see.
		And this Christmas, if this president turns Black Friday red because of these tariffs, people will get angry.
		And when they go to spend their Christmas money and they can no longer buy that Christmas for that granddaughter that they normally buy, they're going to be very angry.
		So the pendulum can swing very quickly, but it will swing.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let's hear from Joseph in Worcester, Massachusetts, on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Joseph.
unidentified		Good morning, C-Spans.
		Capitalism versus communism.
		I consider myself a self-prescribed communist.
		I studied everything.
		Mausi Tom, Vineman, Silver Salad for the El Casso.
		You name it, Paul Robinson, WEB Divorce.
		The moral of the story is the best thing to do is support President Trump of all Americans coming together because we need a terrible time.
		I was there for 9-11 in Manhattan.
		Now, if you call a couple while back talking about Russia, it didn't work out.
		Well, look at China.
		China lives 600 million people out of poverty in 25 years.
		It lives 300 million people out of poverty in 10 years.
		We in the U.S. have over 40 million people living in poverty.
		So President Trump, nobody has the right form of father war.
		Let's talk about democracy.
		Vidamputena, Bolswar Revolution, 1917, China, Red Movement, 1947.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		It's a little bit hard to understand you.
		Let's hear from Lynn in Palmfret, Connecticut, on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Lynn.
unidentified		Yes, I think the question is a little simplistic.
		There are many forms of socialism, and the type of capitalism we have now is a result of deregulated, unfettered crony capitalism, which allows the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.
		The proof is in the pudding.
		The places where people are the happiest is generally where they have socialism, such as Finland, which consistently year after year polls as the happiest place on earth.
		So I think people need to think about that and not be afraid of the word socialism.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, the Gallup also looked at people's positive views towards socialism in particular and found that among all Americans, about 39% of people had a positive view of socialism, but that varies widely based on party.
		Republicans, only 14% have a positive view of socialism.
		Independents, 38% have a positive view.
		Among Democrats, 66% have a positive view of socialism.
		Let's hear now from Paul in Plantation, Florida, on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Paul.
unidentified		Hello.
		I think the big problem with the view of capitalism is it's been just a victim of success.
		Back in the 20s and 30s, the big billionaire was a house on the hill, and you weren't even allowed to look at that house, and there was only one big house on the hill.
		And it evolved.
		We had so much success with ideas.
		A fella started selling books out of his garage, and it became the richest man in the world.
		Three guys got together and changed the world with free money given by venture capitalists, and it became Microsoft.
		Capitalism is the most successful form of economy that the world has ever known.
robert gaylon ross ▲ ● ▼		But now it's a victim of its own success because now people aren't just looking at the one person on the hill.
unidentified		They're surrounded by successful people.
		And they're asking themselves, well, why am I not feeling like all the people around me?
		And it's a problem that I think Donald Trump is trying to solve.
		No tax on tips.
		He's looking for ways to raise up the people who are out there working and taking advantage of what the capitalist system has to offer.
		But I think the root cause of everything in this country, besides the success of capitalism being its own victim, is education.
		The United States is rated between 17 and 57, depending on what poll you make.
		Our education system is a horrendous failure, and something's got to be done.
		These unions, I don't know if that's it.
		I don't know if it's socialism creeping into the classroom.
		I don't know what it is.
		But the basis for our society cannot advance without an efficient and great educational system.
		We ain't got it, and we better get it because no matter what we say about socialism or capitalism, without a top-rated education system, this country is going to go downhill.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Paul, what do you think of the president's moves to reduce the power of the Department of Education as well as initiatives all over the country to enact more school choice?
unidentified		Well, you know, people, school choice wouldn't be a success unless people were looking for answers to a failed educational system.
		Think about that.
		Why would that even be a good idea, an idea that catches on with people?
		You have people in New York that try to get into the private schools and they cry because there's only a limited number of spaces available outside the public education system that they can put their children in.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Let's hear from Ted in Buena Vista, Colorado on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Ted.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I am 75 years old, and I have studied capitalism and socialism all my life.
		And those two programs go together, and they need to, you know, my family, even though I'm from Colorado now, I was born and raised in Santa Clara County, where we had fruit orchards and the cannery industry and people working.
		Socialism helped people with capitalists, and capitalists helped socialists.
		They worked together.
		And my family helped build the infrastructure, which is now called Silicon Valley.
		And Silicon Valley has created all these billionaire CEOs that absolutely have no respect and care for the working class people that need a roof over their head.
		My mom was given a lot.
		She had $5,000.
		They built a house for $22,000.
		And now that house is worth $2 million, and I can't even afford to live in Santa Clara County where I was raised.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's look at some comments we've received from social media on Facebook.
		Lainey Craig says, corporations have access to advanced technology that can help identify areas where sustainability for workers can be improved.
		It's important to ensure that financial stability is prioritized so that individuals and families can meet their basic needs, provide for their households, and manage the rising costs of health care.
		Capitalism can be very effective when it creates opportunities for everyone to thrive and maintain a decent quality of life.
		Next up, we have James, who says on Facebook as well, the least bad system to encourage growth and human flourishing.
		But it requires some government intervention to prevent abuse and a strong supported Christian culture to ensure profit is not pursued above more important concerns like family, nation, and God.
		Going on to Steve Baker and his thoughts on capitalism, capitalism freedom is a necessary foundation for political freedom.
		Putting business in the hands of government is not only a guarantee of corruption, think Doge, but it also has a name, communism.
		And let's not forget that capitalism is singularly responsible for individual growth in history.
		So there's that.
		Back to your calls with your views on capitalism.
		Robin is in Los Angeles, California on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Robin.
unidentified		Good morning.
		All right.
		So capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned, and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
		The problem is, and I came to the United States, I only had $300.
		I'm very successful.
		I ran a business.
		I own a home.
		However, the problem is that there used to be unions.
		There used to be means by which you can control corporate greed.
		And the fact that there are not many unions anymore and that nobody is protecting the rights of workers means that you just can't start with anything.
		We have an economy in which probably over half is owned by a very few people.
		Half of the wealth of this country is owned and controlled by very few people.
		And so because we're living in a corporate, it's not fair.
		And so it's not like you can say, oh, I can come to America and start again.
		Houses are too expensive.
		People can barely feed their families.
		There's no unions to protect them.
		Let's look at that.
		Let's when you talk about, you know, everybody tells of communism and that word.
		Let's look at a socialist program.
		A socialist program is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
		There are programs that are actually socialist programs that protect people.
		And again, those are being cut and those are being undermined.
		So when you look at today, at today's economy, I think it'll be very difficult, especially if you throw in artificial intelligence so that it's going to be difficult for people to find jobs.
		I think that capitalism does not work for the people anymore because they don't have control of the means of production or money.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Robin mentioned artificial intelligence.
		There's a story here in NPR that AI could widen the wealth gap and wipe out entry-level jobs, experts say.
		And this is a story saying that artificial intelligence continues to grow, forcing companies to find a way to close the gap between innovation and preparation.
		Companies have begun integrating AI into their day-to-day operations, and some employers are concerned that this will lead to a complete elimination of their roles within companies.
		In a previous morning edition interview, former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg raised concerns that America is not prepared for the economic downsides of artificial intelligence.
		And then, skimming ahead in that article, it later says that most industries are leaning towards the direction of automation, but there are things that artificial intelligence cannot do.
		Therefore, future jobs may rely more on human skills like communication and creativity, areas where AI can assist but not replace.
		Garland is in Decatur, Georgia, on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Garland.
unidentified		Thank you, Kimberly.
		A great topic.
		First thing I like to say: capitalism is profits over the betterment of the human family.
		The average American is three paychecks from being homeless.
		Okay, socialism, we arose a socialism.
		I mean, all these very wealthy people, most of this research and development has been done by we, the people, the government.
		I mean, who put the rockets up in the sky to get the cell phone technology and AI technology?
		The taxpayers.
		And then after the taxpayers put all the energy into it, then they give it to a few people and they call them billionaires.
		I mean, let's get honest.
		54 billion unpaid hours by African Americans built this economy.
		54 billion unpaid hours.
		And that's what we need to do: get more honest.
		The library is socialism.
		I mean, we have a lot of socialism in our economy, but capitalism is about profits over the betterment of the human family.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Another comment from Facebook from Al Handy, who says, history has shown that it takes the exploitation of the poor and working class in order for capitalism to succeed and thrive.
		And Steve Baker says, capitalism freedom is a necessary foundation for political freedom.
		Let's hear from Elizabeth in Randallstown, Maryland, on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Elizabeth.
unidentified		Thank you very much.
		I want to talk about, I'm a Marxist-Leninist.
		I live in Maryland.
		I got my training at UMass Damers under the teachings of two wonderful professors and wonderful people at UMass Amherst.
		I have done political work in many different places, but the important thing I want to talk about is Trump.
		He is the penultimate capitalist, reaping profits and sporting poor working people and sporting everyone except the richest.
		And he had Elon Musk in his government, the richest man in the world.
		And he went through and fired thousands of people in the government and is sporting government Medicaid and cut back food stamps.
		I'm a disabled senior living in Maryland.
		I rely on food stamps.
		I lost my Medicaid.
		My food stands for cut by three quarters more than that because of Elon Musk and Trump.
		The people of America are suffering under Trump, but people are protesting, not just socialists.
		The regular American people are protesting against Trump and capitalism.
		There's going to be a turnaround in this country because Trump and Elon Musk and everyone else in the government that Trump has who are capitalists and who are sporting poor working people.
		It's incredible because Republicans who are in Mike Johnson's Congress and Republicans in the Senate have constituents who were on Medicaid and food stamps.
		And it's incredible that they were elected again.
		They will be elected again and again.
		And they are, and their representatives in Congress and the Senate are not helping them.
		I oppose Trump.
		Elon Musk is the worst thing that Trump could ever do for the American people.
		But people in America are fighting back against Trump, and there will be a change in this government.
		There will be a change.
		It will come.
		Bernie Sanders is a Democratic socialist.
		He's in the government.
		He's a great senator.
		He's leading a tour all over the country to get people worked up in the fight against Trump.
		There will be a change in this country.
		Thank you very much.
		That's all I want to say.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Elizabeth was talking about President Trump as the kind of ultimate capitalist, but there have been some moves that the Trump administration has made that have engendered calls of socialism.
		Here's a story about it in the Associated Press.
		Trump's Intel stakes sparks cries of socialism from his party, but he vows more deals are coming.
		Donald Trump has a message for critics who think turning the U.S. government into a major stockholder of Intel is a socialist move.
		More is coming.
		I will make deals like that for our country all day long, the president posted on Truth Social after critics piled on, adding later about future ownership stakes.
		I want to try to get as much as I can.
		Free market conservatives were wary of Trump's tendency to interfere in corporate decision-making by, for example, telling Apple where it should make iPhones or even demanding a cut of NVIDIA sales of chips to China.
		But the Intel move is a startling defiance of Republican orthodoxy that says governments shouldn't try to pick corporate winners and losers and risk messing things up as owners by rewarding executives for politically smart but financially stupid decisions.
		At the most recent cabinet meeting, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick spoke about what he saw as the virtue of the federal government's deal with Intel.
		Here's a portion from last month.
howard lutnick ▲ ● ▼		In one week, Intel came in, right?
		The Biden administration had given $11 billion to Intel, given it to them.
		Done.
		Corporate just gift.
		And you turn that into really, you know, it was like less than five minutes of conversation.
		And Intel agreed to give us 10% of their company, which of course was worth $11 billion.
		So it's not socialism.
		This is capitalism.
		If you give someone $11 billion who's just building in America, they're not doing something special.
		They're building in America.
		And their CEO told the president he didn't need the grant.
		And you said, well, then why don't we get something for it?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Back to your calls with your view on capitalism.
		Jerry is in Overton, Nebraska on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Jerry.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I watched on a series, it's called Apocalypse Stalin on the AHC channel, where Stalin claimed to be a Democratic socialist.
		That's what he said he was, a democratic socialist.
		And he would go out in the rural areas and confiscate the grains and the food from the rural areas to keep the cities happy because that's where the population was.
		If there was an uprising, the city populations would control it.
		When they say they're democratic socialists, that's the same thing that Stalin said he was.
corona in ohio ▲ ● ▼		I think that AHC documentary about Apocalypse Stalin should be mandatory in schools so they can see what socialism really does.
unidentified		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		James is in Pennsylvania on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, James.
unidentified		Hi, how are you?
		This is my view.
		I definitely am a democratic socialist in the tradition of Western Europe.
		America went from being number one in education and everything else.
		So now Europe has got a better quality of life, a better health care system, maybe not at the top.
		And I do not believe that we should have a profit motive in health care delivery.
		Now, in research, you can do all the competition you want, but in healthcare delivery, it's failing miserably.
		So I think the profit motive should be taken out completely from that.
		And just to let people know, Stalin referred to himself as the devil.
		And Pope John Paul, one of his last messages was, and he was a very anti-communist, was if we're not careful, capitalism can become just as bad or even worse than communism.
		And look at China.
		China has a capitalist economy and a communist dictatorship government, the worst of both worlds.
		That's all I have to say.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Dwayne is in Anacortez, Washington on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Dwayne.
unidentified		Good morning.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What's your view of capitalism?
unidentified		Well, people talk about where the rubber hits the road, but I want to tell you where capitalism is.
		The rubber kisses the road.
		And only well-rounded and well-grounded in the word of God capitalism can put pay to misguided criticisms of antagonistic ideologies, which view capitalism as cold, manipulative, or exploitative, and fail to see or willfully ignore that the heart of capitalism is linked to the loving heart of God.
		And far from being oblivious to or ignoring individual or general needs in the local organ and international context, the Judeo-Christian Foundation, or Republic under God, has done more to minister to human need than any other ideology.
		And one of the most vital foundation aspects is embraced with joy rather than being felt as an obligation or chore in the response to implications of the Apostle Paul's admonition in Ephesians 4.28.
		He says, let him labor, working with his hands, the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
		Without boasting or sensationalism, capitalism can, with humility, wisdom, discernment, and sensitivity of the spirit give ongoing and increasing evidence of God's matchless love and caring for mankind.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, last week on CNBC, Vivek Ramaswamy, the GOP candidate for Ohio governor, discussed this recent Gallup poll that we've been talking about on capitalism.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And here he explains how he thinks capitalism can work for Americans and counter socialism.
vivek ramaswamy ▲ ● ▼		I do think it's a fact of the matter.
		My parents came to this country as legal immigrants four plus decades ago.
		They never imagined I'd go on to found multi-billion dollar companies, now running to be the governor of the very state where I was born and raised.
		And the extraordinary thing about our country is that Rick Scott's story, my story, are actually not that extraordinary in the United States, that this is the country on God's green earth where that's possible.
		Now, beyond just talking about it, I think we have to put some more meat on the bone as well when it comes to participating in equity ownership.
		And I think this is the big difference between the wealthy and everybody else, is do you participate in the uncapped upside that capitalism creates?
		And I think the left with baby bonds and universal basic income, they have a shred of an intuition that they channel in totally the wrong way.
		What I want to focus on, and what we're going to do in Ohio, is incorporate financial literacy starting at a young age.
		Engage in what Albert Einstein called the most powerful force in the universe, compound interest, starting young.
		Where I want to build a state where every kid who's born, raised, living, and working in Ohio grows up to be a millionaire in our state.
		The best way to combat the popularity of socialism, Andrew, is actually to make everyone a capitalist by making them an owner in those uncapped upside equity creating.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Back to your calls with your view on capitalism.
		Susan is in Beachwood, Ohio, on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Susan.
unidentified		Hello.
		I just wanted to comment that I always thought it was capitalism plus socialism equals democracy.
		And that capitalism was our economic engine, and socialism was the driving force behind that.
		And that's the importance of educating.
		Hello?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes, we can hear you, Susan.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Please go ahead.
unidentified		Oh.
		And the importance of educating and making sure that that social part of that fabric was healthy and educated properly to really to help drive that engine at capitalism.
		And that's really all I have to say.
		All right.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Then let's hear from Virgil in Independence, Virginia on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Virgil.
unidentified		Good morning and good morning, America.
		I'd like to speak about socialism and capitalism.
		I've lived both.
		I didn't just study it.
		Socialism, everybody gets to starve to death equally.
		If it's such a great idea, why is Elizabeth from Maryland not calling from Cuba or Venezuela, telling us how wonderful it is?
		Yet she's enjoying the freedoms that capitalism brings.
		Folks, don't get lied to.
		People aren't running to go to Venezuela or Cuba.
		They're running to come here.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Virgil, can I ask you where you experienced socialism?
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
		The island of Cuba, where my parents for dinner would get a spoon, dip it in a bowl of milk, and whatever milk was attached to that spoon, they put it in a cup of water.
		And that was their dinner.
		When they tell you that everything is free, there's a price to pay for it.
		I used to be a high school teacher.
		I used to tell my students, the day you allow someone to feed you, that's the day you lose control, because then you allow someone to dictate what you eat and when you eat.
		And I, for one, live that life, and I don't wish it on anyone.
		Once again, if Marxism, Lenism, communism, socialism is so wonderful, please explain to me why people are leaving those countries in thousands, if not millions.
		That's all I have to say.
		I've experienced it.
		I didn't study it.
		It is.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		The majority of Americans seem to agree with Virgil when it comes to their views on socialism, according to that Gallup polling, with 57% of Americans having a negative view of socialism.
		It's particularly pronounced amongst Republicans, where 86% of Republicans have a negative view of socialism.
		57% of Independents have a negative view of that system.
		But just 30% of Democrats have a negative view of socialism.
		Once again, we're looking for your opinion on capitalism.
		Our line again for Democrats is 202748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202748-8001.
		And for Independents, 2027-8002.
		Let's hear from Andrew in Alexandria, Virginia on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Andrew.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Free market capitalism is the best economic and political system out there.
		And we need to get as close to that as possible.
		The problem is crony capitalism, where big business influences our government for an unfair playing field where they can route regulations and other things, which leads to duopolies.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Andrew, your line is breaking up.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I wonder if you can move someplace with better reception, perhaps, and continue your comment.
unidentified		Oh, hello.
		Do you hear me?
		Is it better?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		No, unfortunately not.
		Let's hear from Alan in Old Saybrook, Connecticut, on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Alan.
unidentified		Good morning to you.
unidentified		Nice to make your acquaintance.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Likewise.
unidentified		I wanted to say that I'm a physically challenged person, and my ancestors worked in farming and other things for many years.
		From financial ambition, I had to saw it after 97 years in the family.
		But I wanted to say that I now have a wealth manager, an investment strategist.
		And because of capitalism, like Mr. Ramasami says, they invite us into a merit-based system.
		Market capitalization comes because people see what is successful.
		I go by Amazon and they have football fields and football fields of the stream to buildings.
		So that's what I say.
		But I will say this.
		According to NEED, the government did pay us to preserve the farm, not to make it into building lots.
		So it depends upon the need a lot of times.
		Socialism can work, but on a limited basis.
		But I really am for a merit-based system.
		It incentivizes people to be excellent.
		That's all I have to say.
		Thank you for the opportunity, and good day.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Angela is in Sylmar, California on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Angela.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		You know, my mom was born on a plantation down in Louisiana, and she's 85 years old.
		She had four kids and was not married.
		1967, I call that socialism in Louisiana because they worked on plantations, then they moved off.
		My mom came to California in 1967, and they put her on welfare.
		Is that socialism?
		My mom told her four kids she did not want us on welfare, so we went through LA Unified School District.
		1978, I graduated.
		Pest stores, if you talk about Department of Education now, pest scores are down versus in 1978.
		I've been working in the insurance industry since 1978.
		Is that capitalism?
		You all talk all this big talk, big talk.
		Let's put it down in perspective.
		People migrated to the United States for capitalism.
		Illegal immigration has taken over.
		Where is the blacks?
		If you sit and look, I don't see that many blacks anymore in the capitalism industry.
		So are we talking King George here?
		We have a king and we have peasants.
		Let's talk sense here.
		People came here for capitalism.
		But people who was born here, like the Indians, the slaves, where are we?
		Are you going to try to keep us in socialism?
		Are you going to let us in capitalism?
		We pay taxes.
		Before we get our paycheck, IRS federal government take money.
		April 17th, we're trying to get that money back.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Mario in White Plains, New York on our lines for Democrats.
		Good morning, Mario.
		Mario, what's your view of capitalism?
		I think we may have lost Mario.
		Let's hear from Alexis in Detroit, Michigan on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Alexis.
unidentified		Yes, I believe in democratic socialism, as many of the callers have said, particularly exemplified by the Scandinavian countries.
		It's a good mix of those who want to be entrepreneurs and, you know, make a lot of money.
		We have Norwegian billionaires and Swedish billionaires.
		So don't tell me that socialism doesn't allow billionaires.
		But for the most part, those populations live a good life, a good quality of life.
		What prompted me to call specifically was the clip you played by Rob, I don't know how to pronounce his name, Rob.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Ramney.
unidentified		Yeah, in Ohio.
		This is the problem I have as a white American who has lived in majority black communities my life, Detroit.
		These folks were let in in the 70s, his parents, mostly as doctors, and they accumulated wealth as doctors.
		What I'd like journalists to do, this to me would be a good example of a real journalist.
		I want folks to dig deep into Nikki Haley's past, also child of an Indian doctor, and all these other folks, because it's the East Indians that I think I see as the problem in this country right now as far as because I'm getting to that point.
		The point is, is who invested in him as a young man and where did he get his education?
		Did his doctor parents allow him to slide right into the Ivy League where he met people who had family members who would invest in his companies?
		People don't just become start, as he said, billionaire companies.
		They have connections through money.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		How do you differentiate Indian American immigrants who come in on, say, to be doctors compared to immigrants from any other country that come in to be doctors?
unidentified		I'll tell you why.
		Because as we saw with the British, that the racist Americans, white Americans who were in the power structure in the 60s and 70s, who opened up the floodgates to India, they saw what happened with Gandhi.
		And they thought, well, we prefer East Indians.
		We prefer Hispanics over blacks.
		That's how it started.
		And people need to dig deep into how these Indians got the money to start their companies.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Matt in Wilmington, North Carolina, on our Line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Matt.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		My name's Matt, and I do really appreciate this benefit.
		And sometimes I get in here and go crazy, but I'm just going to say that I'm all for capitalism.
		I'm all for people working to make money and to have a better life.
		And I do believe the harder I've ever worked, the luckier I got.
		But that being said, if capitalism is so great, why are we $38 trillion in debt?
		What's happening to me, I would like to see capitalism go as it goes, but I'd like to see the rich people that write the tax codes start paying their fair share.
		And me, as somebody who's 63 years old and is about to retire at 65, I would like to see people that make over $175,000 pay the same percentage that I'm paying in Social Security into Social Security paying that.
		So if you imagine somebody like Elon Musk paying the same percentage of Social Security as I paid, we could go ahead and take care of that.
		So there has to be that balance where we do have good social programs that protect our people and don't just say, oh, you should have started saving when you were 10.
		I think that's BS.
		I think that the measure of a country is how it takes care of its poor.
		And it can't just be about money and about the stock market and about how stocks are doing and how the big guys are doing.
		Who cares how the big guys are doing?
		How are the poor people doing is what I want to know.
		And when I retire, I don't want to know that in eight years, and this is something I'm thinking about, that in eight years we're going to run out of Social Security, you know.
		And because the people that are making the money, they're not paying into it the same as us poor people are paying into it.
		And we're the same people that are paying the tax for gasoline so we can keep the roads up.
		I mean, we're the same people that are, I mean, we're putting the money in.
		Why aren't the big guys putting the money?
		You can't accumulate that much wealth.
		The only way you can do that when you're accumulating that kind of wealth is because you're not paying the same amount of tax that us poor people are paying.
		And as long as rich people are paying the tax or making the tax codes, the rich people are going to get richer and those poor people are going to get poor, I promise you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		On X, BC Venice says in response to our question on the view of capitalism, I've seen both good and bad versions of capitalism, starting with the good.
		The government was responsible for the conversion to bad capitalism when Reaganomics was installed, the intentional fleecing of workers and consumers to facilitate wealth transfers.
		That's all we do now.
		And then Dwayne Robertson says, I favor capitalism over socialism because capitalism rewards hard work and sacrifice.
		We do not have capitalism in the USA.
		Sadly, we have corporate cronyism where politicians pick winners and losers.
		Our U.S. government is bought and paid for by banks, big pharma, and military contractors.
		Mike is in Roanoke, Virginia, on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Mike.
unidentified		Well, good morning.
		My view of capitalism is this: as simple: it's the haves living off the expense of the have-nots.
		And secondly, what my parents used to tell me years ago: that the rich get richer and the poor get poor.
		That's all I have to say.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Back in March, in a rally in Denver as part of the Fighting Inequality Tour, Senator Bernie Sanders described what he sees as massive wealth inequality in the U.S. today and the creation of an oligarchy of billionaires.
		Now, Senator Sanders is a self-described socialist.
		Let's listen.
unidentified		And what this moment is about, why we're here today, is we will not allow America to become an oligarchy.
		This nation was built by working people.
		And we're not going to let a handful of billionaires run the government.
		You know, a few years ago, when I used the word oligarchy, people didn't know what I was talking about.
		Well, they know what I'm talking about now.
		You ought to be dumb, blind, and deaf not to see what's going on.
		Trump gets inaugurated, and I have the unusual position.
		I don't know how it happened, but I got right on the front row.
		So there I was watching this scene.
		Right behind Trump were the three wealthiest people in the country.
		Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg.
		But that's not enough.
		Behind them were 13 other billionaires who Trump had nominated to run major government agencies.
		So any working person in this country who thinks that these billionaires are simply trying to make government more efficient, you don't know what you're seeing.
		Fuck Moss!
		Now, you know, in Colorado and Vermont alone, we have a serious problem with people who are addicted, right?
		We got a serious drug problem.
		We got an alcohol problem.
		We got tobacco problems.
		We have people who are addicted to one thing or another.
		But I will tell you what I think the worst addiction in this country is the most dangerous.
		And that is the greed of the auto-darks.
		You know, everybody wants to do well.
		We all want to make money.
		We all want to live comfortably.
		That's natural.
		That's right.
		But these guys already have billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions.
		How much money do you need?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		A couple more calls on your view of capitalism.
		Lucretia is in Coco, Florida on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Lucretia.
unidentified		Hi.
		I'm calling in because of this capitalism and socialism.
		And we need a little bit of socialism with capitalism.
		But I'm wondering if anybody remembers in the early 60s when they broke up the Sinclair gas company for a monopoly because we couldn't have anything be a monopoly back in the 60s.
		Now Sinclair's back together.
		There's other monopolies.
		Remember, we couldn't let the banks fall?
		I think we need to go back and break up these monopolies and give the other people a chance to get into the businesses.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you, and thank you to all of our callers this hour.
		Now, later on Washington Journal, we're going to have Progressive Talk Show host Tom Hartman joining us to discuss the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the Trump administration policies, as well as Democrats' agendas.
		But up next, we'll have American Compass founder and chief economist Oren Cass to discuss the impact of President Trump's economic agenda on American workers and family, along with more on that Gallup polling showing declining support for capitalism.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		This fall, C-SPAN invites you on a powerful journey through the stories that define a nation.
		From the halls of our nation's most iconic libraries comes America's Book Club, a bold, original series where ideas, history, and democracy meet.
		Hosted by renowned author and civic leader David Rubinstein, each week features in-depth conversations with the thinkers shaping our national story.
		Among this season's remarkable guests, John Grisham, master storyteller of the American justice system.
		Justice Amy Coney Barrett, exploring the Constitution, the court, and the role of law in American life.
		Famed chef and global relief entrepreneur Jose Andres, reimagining food.
		Henry Louis Gates, chronicler of race, identity, and the American experience.
		The books, the voices, the places that preserve our past and spark the ideas that will shape our future.
		America's Book Club, premiering this fall, Sundays at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
		Weekends bring you BookTV, featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
		Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
		Justice Amy Coney Barrett discusses her book, Listening to the Law, about her journey to the Supreme Court and her views on the Constitution.
		Then, blogger Lee Tillman, author of If You Don't Like This, I Will Die, an influencer memoir, describes the impact of making a career on social media.
		Fox News contributor Joe Concha, with his book, The Greatest Comeback Ever, sharing his take on President Donald Trump's return to the White House for a second non-consecutive term.
		Author and researcher Matthew Facciani and his book, Misguided, Where Misinformation Starts, How It Spreads, and What to Do About It.
		Watch book TV every weekend on C-SPAN2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We're joined now by the founder and chief economist of the group American Compass, Orrin Cass.
		Welcome to Washington Journal.
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Well, good morning.
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for having me.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Can you tell us a little bit about American Compass first?
unidentified		Sure.
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		We're a nonprofit organization founded back at the start of 2020.
		Our mission is to restore an economic consensus that emphasizes the importance of family, community, and industry to the nation's liberty and prosperity.
		And so we publish a lot of research, write a lot of commentary, hold lots of events, work with folks on Capitol Hill and the administration to try to shape an economic agenda that's going to serve the needs of the nation.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, while I know we want to talk about economics, of course, we have to discuss the killing of Charlie Kirk this past week.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What's your reaction to that incident?
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Well, obviously, it's an extraordinary tragedy, first and foremost, for his family and ultimately for the nation.
		I think, you know, Mr. Kirk was somebody who did politics the right way, and especially for younger conservatives, he was extraordinarily influential in showing that at a time when I think, especially places like college campuses, a lot of conservatives felt almost besieged by a sort of progressive ideology and thinking that you had to think a certain way, you had to talk a certain way.
		He showed that if you show up, if you're willing to engage politely, if you're prepared to debate, you can actually win arguments in good faith.
		And I think that has to be the core of what happens in our politics.
		I think that's a legacy that everybody has to carry forward from him now.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So I guess that leads to the question of what you think this shooting will mean for the conservative movement moving forward.
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Well, my hope is that it will serve as something of a galvanizing moment to focus people on what his approach was, what his work was, and to see that the right way to win and succeed in American politics is to show up, to have arguments in good faith, and to win those arguments.
		And I think, you know, that is very much the ethos that you see, especially with younger conservatives coming up now.
		And so that's something I think we have to carry on.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Switching over to our topic from the last hour, which is this Gallup polling on America's views, American's view of capitalism, we found that American support for capitalism has declined to the lowest Gallup has measured to date.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What do you take away from this about how people are experiencing the economy?
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think we're seeing, as you said, this long-term trend.
		You know, I think the problem isn't what happened last year, what happens this year.
		It's what's been happening over the last 40 or 50 years, really, where capitalism, as it has been promoted, as it has been sold, the promises that have been made have just not been fulfilled.
		And certainly you see on some measures, if you're looking at GDP, if you're looking at the stock market, things look fantastic.
		But we've seen that become almost completely disconnected from the experience of the typical worker where wages are rising much more slowly, if at all, where inequality is rising, where the ability to make ends meet and raise a family and achieve middle-class security has gotten much harder.
		And so I think it's very reasonable for people to say we are not getting what was promised.
		This is not working out.
		I think the important thing is to recognize, though, that the problem isn't with capitalism.
		The problem is with how we've been doing it.
		And so one of our main projects at American Compass is what we call rebuilding American capitalism, which is focused on understanding, okay, why did this go wrong?
		Because we also know capitalism can be an incredible success.
		Certainly it is the greatest system anyone has ever come up with for managing a market economy and economy at all.
		And so I think the important thing is to understand why it has gone wrong and what we can do to get it back on track.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Many Americans blame businesses, particularly big businesses, for some of the flaws of capitalism in that Gallup polling.
		Only 37% of Americans had a positive view of big business.
		Republicans had a more positive view, 60%.
		Independents, just 36%.
		And Democrats, 17%, had a positive view of big business.
		Why do you think these views, particularly towards larger businesses, are changing and going in this direction?
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, I think the criticism of big business is sort of half fair.
		I think it's very fair to look at how big business has behaved, to look at what they have done in pursuing profit and say it has not been constructive, right?
		If the way to make profit is to shut down factories of the United States and move them to China, that's what big business is doing.
		And so, you know, I think it's very fair to be frustrated with big business.
		I also think it's important to note, though, that in a sense, big business is doing what it was asked to do, which is try to make money.
		And what we did was change the rules.
		And we said, you know, instead of big businesses having to make money in this country by employing American workers, we said, actually, go ahead and if you can make more money laying off American workers and moving to China, then do that.
		And so at the end of the day, I think we all have to take responsibility.
		Policymakers, economists have to take responsibility for the ways that we just got it wrong, that we set up the wrong set of rules.
		And big business, for the most part, playing by those rules, went and made a lot of money in ways that didn't work out for the American people.
		So rather than kind of, you know, saying we have to attack or destroy big business or, you know, big business can't be good for America, I think we have to ask, what are the rules that we need in place so that big business can be good for America?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		The Trump administration is in some ways changing the rules of engagement with big businesses.
		They've made several key moves, including securing that 10% stake in Intel after converting some existing federal grants into equity.
		They also cut a deal with chipmakers NVIDIA and AMD to pay the U.S. government 15% of their China sales in exchange for a lift on the export ban and then acquired a quote-unquote golden share in U.S. steel as part of a deal to approve a takeover by the Japan-based Nepal and Steel.
		I wonder to what extent you think President Trump's recent investments respond to some of these concerns about corporate America.
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think there are two kinds of things that the Trump administration is doing.
		One is really changing the rules broadly, right?
		So if you look at their trade policy, obviously we've blown up that old consensus that says if you want to just go make more money in China, that's great.
		And so the administration is really taking a very different approach to trade with China, taking a different approach to trade globally, even with our allies, and really trying to put a finger on the scale for producing things in this country.
		So I think that's exactly the right approach.
		You know, when it comes to the sort of specific case-by-case deals, I think there are times when that can be necessary or appropriate, but I don't think we want to get into a situation where the government's policy is to just go business by business and decide what to do with each of them one by one.
		Because in general, I don't think that's something government is very good at.
		In general, I don't think that creates very good incentives for companies.
		It creates the incentive to be as nice as you can to the president.
		And I think we've seen some bad outcomes there.
		So the chip export example is a perfect one where, you know, yes, NVIDIA is literally the world's most valuable company.
		They want to sell chips to China.
		I understand that.
		I don't agree with it.
		But if they just want to make money, then sure, they want to sell chips to China.
		That doesn't mean it's in the national interest.
		That doesn't mean it's good for the United States to have our top technology companies giving China, our main adversary, the technology that's going to allow it to compete, not just economically, but really going to help it build up its military.
		And so, you know, in that sort of situation, I think it's very important to have a U.S. government have policymakers that aren't saying, you know, great, let's make a deal with NVIDIA.
		The question is, what's the right policy for the United States?
		And the right policy for the United States is to say, no, no, you sell your chips to the companies here in the United States that are desperate to get access to them and use them to develop technology that's going to be good for Americans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We will be taking questions for Oren Cass, who is the editor of the new conservatives, but also the founder and chief economist of American Compass.
		Our phone lines, again, for Democrats, 202748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202748-8001.
		And for Independents, 202748-8002.
		Before we go to calls, I want to ask you about tariffs in particular.
		And despite the president's claims that tariffs will bolster the American manufacturing, the latest economic data tells a different story according to an analysis from the Center for American Progress.
		And among their commentary, they say manufacturing employment has been falling since April and job growth is slower than it was between January 2024 and August 2024.
		The timing of the manufacturing declines corresponds with the Trump administration's disastrous tariff policies, which are projected to cost American households $2,400 annually.
		Since President Donald Trump's tariff announcement in April of 2025, overall manufacturing employment has declined by 42,000, while job openings and hires have fallen by 76,000 and 18,000, respectively.
		Despite Trump's claims that his policies will reignite the manufacturing industry in the United States, his policies have achieved the opposite.
		How do you make, what do you make of these numbers?
		And do you think these types of losses are worth the tariff policy that the president has implemented?
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think unfortunately it's a very disingenuous way of analyzing the policy because if you think about what the Trump administration is trying to do, what everybody is trying to do on both sides of the aisle who support bringing back manufacturing to this country, it's not like you can just snap your fingers and people will start hiring a bunch of manufacturing workers, right?
		We've spent the last 25 or 30 years saying, you know, we don't care, let all the manufacturing jobs leave.
		We've had individual months where we lost more than 50,000 manufacturing jobs as a result.
		And to reverse that damage is going to be a long-term process.
		So the first thing that's going to happen is you're going to have to start seeing companies change their strategy and realize, oh, we actually do need to invest in the United States.
		The second thing you'll see happening is the investment.
		You'll start to see shovels in the ground.
		You'll start to see equipment being purchased and so forth.
		And then finally, after people actually have the chance to, and companies have the chance to build that new capacity, that's when you would expect to see the manufacturing employment actually come back.
		So the numbers to be looking at right now are not manufacturing jobs.
		The numbers to be looking at are actually what's happening with corporate strategy, where I think you see a lot of companies, especially in sectors like pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, saying, yes, we are going to have to plan to invest more in the United States.
		And then we have to watch that investment data and see over the next year or two which way it goes.
		But I think it's really important to notice this, what I would call an asymmetry, where on one hand, when everybody was promoting globalization and saying, oh, that's fine, let all the jobs leave, we lost a lot of jobs very quickly.
		And everybody said, no, no, that's okay.
		You just have to wait.
		In the long run, things will work out well.
		Now, they were wrong because they had the wrong theory.
		But they certainly didn't think we should just use one month's data or five months' data and draw long-term conclusions.
		So it's just very irresponsible and not really in good faith, I think, to be looking at this sort of long-term change in how we want the American economy to operate and saying, well, if jobs didn't go up in the second month, then the thing is a failure.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We'll take your questions for Oren Cass of American Compass.
		We'll start with Debbie in Ohio on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Debbie.
unidentified		Hello, thank you.
		I feel like the fault lies with both parties of Congress.
		It seems to me, even back in the 60s and 70s, there was still some bit of regulation.
		I agree with you that capitalism isn't a bad system.
		I don't think it needs to be replaced with socialism or any extreme communism.
		But I do think that our Congresspeople need to start regulating big business.
		It's a privilege to be here in the United States and operate your company.
		And what I've seen for the last 40, 50 years is the reverse.
		The Congress seemed to just placate these global corporations, let them do what they want.
		There's no price caps on pharmaceuticals, utilities.
		Nothing has to be nationalized, but it could be regulated.
		And I'm just appalled that our politicians are afraid to do that.
		I'll listen up there.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Cass, your thoughts?
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mostly agree with Debbie, and I think she made an especially important point there about this being an issue in both parties, because I think, you know, there are obviously specific things that everybody's always fighting about, but there does tend to be a sort of underlying consensus in the way we think about the economy and the way we think about the role of government.
		That's why, you know, when I mentioned my organization, American Compass, our mission is about restoring this economic consensus, exactly that she described, that in the past in the United States, there was a view that it's making sure that we're supporting strong families, strong communities, strong industry.
		Those are the things that are going to lead to a free and prosperous nation.
		And what happened in the past few decades is we shifted this mindset.
		Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, everybody got in their head, this idea that all that mattered was consumption.
		Economists will tell you this.
		The goal of the market is just to maximize how much we can consume.
		And if we can consume more and work less and get stuff cheaper from somewhere else, then that's always better.
		And that has led to the bad trade policy.
		That's led, I think, to very bad immigration policy where we said if you can find a cheaper worker to bring in and do it, then that's always good.
		It led to this deregulation that said, you know, the fewer rules we have for businesses, the more profitable they'll be, and that will always be good.
		And those things just aren't true.
		And now they've been proven untrue.
		And so getting back to that mindset that says, yes, capitalism is what works.
		Yes, we want free markets.
		But companies operating in the American market are privileged to do so.
		They do have an obligation to be serving the American people.
		And our laws should recognize that.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Keith is in Boulder, Colorado, on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Keith.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Shockingly, I agree with your last response, but you are indicating in the last few decades.
		I'm 65, so 1940 was, 1980 was the major shift, and it was for egonomics.
		And we're still in chickle-down economics.
		It's obscene to have the concept of a trillionaire, an individual owning more than a state or a nation.
		That is unfettered capitalism, and unfettered capitalism is greed, and it's not good.
john perkins ▲ ● ▼		Just a reminder: all our Western allies with better outcomes in major areas of quality of life and happiness are indeed democratic socialists.
unidentified		So they are not pure socialists.
		They are like Canada, like Sweden, like most countries in the EU.
		So it's us against the world like it's the metric system or something.
		But I'm just saying we're in a new gilded age.
john perkins ▲ ● ▼		And because Americans don't understand U.S. history, they don't know what robber barons were.
unidentified		But we're right back there today.
unidentified		Can you speak to that, please?
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think it's important to distinguish between sort of how well the very richest people in the country are doing and what is happening in the economy generally.
		You know, as you said, we had robber barons 100 years ago.
		We also had very rich people in the era when we would probably have said capitalism was working quite well.
		I think one of the mistakes that folks more on the left tend to make is to really focus on those very richest people, right?
		The Occupy Wall Street 1% kind of, you know, top 1% kind of mentality.
		You know, look, you could have very rich people behaving very badly.
		And if they're behaving badly and distorting our politics and so forth, then that's a problem.
		But something we find both in our economic research and in our survey research is that for the most part, the problem isn't, and people don't see the problem as, oh, there's somebody out there who has too much money.
		They see the problem much more in terms of in the broad middle what's going on.
		And that's where I think the more concerning problem we have is that we sort of have an upper middle class that has pulled away from the middle class.
		We have roughly 20% of the population who are the people who are not just earning college degrees, but then going into careers that require college degrees.
		They've seen good growth in their incomes in recent decades.
		And then you have your sort of broader middle class.
		A lot of cases, we have to remember most people still don't even earn a college degree.
		They're trying to make ends meet.
		They're trying to raise a family.
		A lot of times it's very important to them to be able to stay where they grew up and raise their family in the same community.
		And that is what's been lost.
		And so, while we certainly have to keep an eye on what are the very richest people doing and is it good for the country or not, I think it's much more productive to focus most of our energy on this question of, okay, but how is the economy working for the typical American?
		And are we building out a broad, prosperous middle class?
		Or are we seeing a sort of divide into a group of haves and a group of have-nots?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Gabriel is in Boston, Massachusetts on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Gabriel.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		Good morning.
		So, Orin, you bring up some really good points, and it's refreshing.
		I just want to say I'm actually, I'm a graduate student, and so a lot of things that were talked about from the Charlie Kirk perspective and then just sort of the movement and elements and undertones that are within the college campuses really needed to kind of course correct in some ways.
		And I think we're starting to see that to a degree.
		But, you know, part of it goes back to the larger, broader argument that you brought up, and I think rightly raised, which is that there was a time in which capitalism exuded sort of the golden principle.
		And there was a time, I think it's kind of right after World War II.
paul in north dakota ▲ ● ▼		And please, you know, I'd love your opinion on, you know, sort of what manifests that good sort of principle of capitalism from that time.
unidentified		But I look specifically at like GE, for instance.
		And I think when you see how GE was in the post-World War II era and the focus that was kind of like given to the workers and the people and the quality of the manufacturing, it was really the craftsmanship that the workers and the engineers put into what GE was to then be turned upside down by people like Jack Welsh, which came in and, you know,
		he famously was called Neutron Jack and would destroy towns without, you know, all the buildings would remain, but the people would be gone, which is where he got that terrible name from.
		So can you put your finger on it for us, the difference between capitalism in the golden era and maybe define like a principle and then relate that to today and what needs to be course corrected so that young people like myself can kind of understand the importance of capitalism and the larger good that it can do if done right.
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, sure.
		I think that was really well put.
		And what I would say is that capitalism has had multiple sort of golden ages and multiple periods when it struggled.
		I think it's really helpful to go all the way back to the beginning and Adam Smith and his book, The Wealth of Nations, where he introduces this concept of the invisible hand, right?
		Everybody's heard of the invisible hand.
		I think unfortunately it's not a very good metaphor because the invisible hand sort of sounds magical and people have come to think like, oh, this just means in capitalism everything magically works out.
		If you actually go back and read what Adam Smith said, he actually talks about the conditions under which the invisible hand will work.
		One of the most important assumptions he makes is that people will prefer investing domestically to investing overseas.
		Another assumption he makes is that the things they will invest in, they will be trying to maximize the produce and value of their output.
		And he says, if those things are true, so if the way to make a lot of money is to invest domestically and maximize your output, then yes, people pursuing profit will also serve the common good.
		And so the question for us, I think, should always be, okay, do we have those things in alignment?
		And when they are, I think we're in a golden age and we see capitalism really working.
		But then over different periods of time, we also see people, and again, it's not really their fault.
		It's what we tell them to do.
		Go just find the best way to make money.
		And they find ways to make money that don't serve the common good.
		And so, you know, going back to the robber baron era is actually a great example.
		Around the turn of the 20th century, you had, for the first time, these huge trusts developing.
		It's what they were called at the time.
		They were giant monopolies.
		And you could make a lot of money by building a giant monopoly, but that wasn't good for the economy.
		That wasn't good for the country.
		And so then we had Teddy Roosevelt and the trust-busting era, where we said, wait a minute, we have to break this back down if it's going to work.
		And then we had another very prosperous era.
		Then we had the Great Depression.
		And we had FDR come in and say, wait a minute, what else do we need if this is going to work?
		And then we had another golden era.
		And I think if you take a company like a GE as an example, I always point to like a Boeing in aerospace, Intel in technology.
		These were companies that saw that innovating and building in the United States was the best way to earn a lot of money.
		So that's what they did.
		They earned a lot of money and it worked out well for workers, for the nation.
		Now we have a situation where in a lot of cases, the best way to make money is, no, no, move your production offshore or go to Wall Street and start a hedge fund or run a private equity fund that's going to buy these companies up and break them up and sell them off for parts.
		And so that's what people are doing.
		And I think we have to ask, what do we need to change?
		What rules do we need to change so that we bring these things back into alignment?
		So that once again, the most ambitious people, the brilliant entrepreneurs, the people who want to make a lot of money, the things they go and do are things that work out well for American workers.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Mary is in Columbus, Ohio on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Mary.
unidentified		Good morning.
		My question was about industries that have pretty much gone away.
		I'm here in Ohio.
		We have a paper plant that's going to go under.
		I kind of worked in the printing industry, which is pretty well gone due to digital.
		So I guess my question for you is what is happening for all of these jobs that are just no longer exist?
		And what are these people who had their livelihoods invested in industries that are just gone?
		So I will just take my answer offline.
		So thank you.
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		I think it's a really important point that even in an economy that's working well, that is serving workers generally, you're still going to have disruption.
		You're still going to have some industries going away.
		You're going to have new industries popping up.
		And ultimately, that's a good thing.
		It causes a lot of pain for people along the way, but I don't think we'd want to be in a world where we said, wait a minute, stop.
		Don't innovate, don't change.
		I think the difference is that when you see new technology, when you see innovation, when you see change like that, it does cause disruption, but it also creates opportunity.
		And the speed at which it happens tends to be a speed at which people can also adapt to.
		So if you think about the great technological changes we've had over time, whether it was all the way back to the Industrial Revolution or the introduction of electricity, the introduction, mechanizing farms or bringing on computers, these things happen over decades.
		If you go look at the checkout counter at the grocery store now, you'll still see a lot of times what they're running on their computer is from the 1980s or 1990s.
		And so that sort of slow process of change is a good one.
		We do need to have policies in place to help the people who are affected by it.
		But I think we can have a lot of confidence that that kind of process over time is going to lead to more prosperity and better outcomes.
		It's very different when either you just say, okay, let's shut down the paper industry in the United States and make it all in China instead.
		That doesn't lead to new investment.
		That doesn't lead to new opportunities.
		And it happens so quickly that it can, and it really did devastate entire regions.
		And so I think we have to keep both those ideas in our head at the same time: that change and evolution and disruption can be good, but it has to be the kind that comes with new investment and new opportunities and happens in a way that people can adapt to.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Jerry is in Kentucky on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jerry.
unidentified		Good morning.
		If I may, I'd like to ask a question before I make my comment.
		Sir, how much wealth does the top 20% have in this country?
		Do you know?
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Do you mean as a share of wealth or in dollar amount?
unidentified		I don't know what you mean by share of wealth.
unidentified		I'm just asking you, how much wealth does the top 20% have in this country?
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		It's certainly in the tens of trillions of dollars.
unidentified		No, I mean percentage-wise, sir.
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Ah, okay, that's the share.
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		So virtually all of the wealth is held by the top 20%.
unidentified		Well, actually, the top 20% holds roughly 70% of the wealth, which leads 30% to be spread out with 80% of the populace.
		It's like taking three pats of butter trying to spread over eight pieces of bread.
		So our people ain't mittening under.
		Now, that number's up from 61% in 1990.
		So ask yourself, what happened in the 90s that would have made a change of 9% since then?
		Thank you, sir.
		Thank you, C-SPAN.
		Hope everybody has a great day.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, Mr. Cass, I wonder if you want to expand on this idea of the shifting balance of wealth in this country, that more of it is concentrating towards the top income levels.
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think, again, the thing that I would focus on is what's happening to the wealth in the middle.
		Are the folks in the middle seeing their wealth increase, or are they seeing it, in many cases, we've in fact seen it decrease, particularly as they've had to take on more debt?
		And I think that's very concerning.
		I think what we want to have is a world in which the typical household is able to make ends meet, is able to achieve middle-class security.
		Very importantly, that they can do that with one income.
		I think if they want to have two parents working, that's a choice they can make too.
		But it has to be an actual choice.
		They shouldn't be in a situation where they need to have both parents working in order to make ends meet.
		And then they also need to have some room for saving so that they are building wealth of their own.
		And so if we are in a healthy economy, that's what we should be seeing.
		And if we are in an economy where we really are seeing this divergence in outcomes, where some people's wealth is increasing, they have plenty of disposable income, lots of saving, everything looks good for them, but another group is going in the opposite direction, that's when I think people rightly say, wait a minute, this isn't how capitalism is supposed to look, and this isn't something we're going to support.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		The St. Louis Fed does some surveys looking at wealth and wealth distribution in the United States.
		And among their findings, they found that the top 10% of households by wealth had $8.1 million on average.
		As a group, they held 67.2% of total household wealth, though that's the top 10%.
		The bottom 50% of households by wealth had $60,000 on average.
		As a group, they held 2.5% of total household wealth.
		And the top 20% of households, which was the group that our last caller was referencing, by income had $4.3 million of wealth on average.
		As a group, they held 71.1% of total household wealth.
		The bottom 20% of households by income had $180,000 in wealth on average.
		As a group, they held 3% of total household wealth.
		Back to your calls.
		John is in Johnstown, Johnston, Pennsylvania on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		You're talking about people who really don't like socialism.
		It's a political and economic theory of social organization, which advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
		In other words, it's people helping people.
		And many of the things we have in our country are socialistic.
		For example, you know, Salvation Army, FEMA, the military, GI Bill, federal disaster spending, farm subsidies, the post office system, the public schools.
		I could go on and on and on, but that's, you know, the airline subsidies, railroad subsidies, highway subsidies, handouts, bailouts for banks.
		That's all socialistic.
		So, you know, people who knock socialism should really learn a little bit about what they're knocking about.
		That's my comment for today.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		I do think it's important to be careful with our definitions here.
		I think the definition the caller started with of socialism as the community owning the means of production is exactly right.
		The basic idea of socialism is that you don't have a private market economy.
		You don't have private property even in a lot of cases.
		And that you will have a better outcome if everything is truly owned and managed collectively.
		And I think it's very important to say that that is a horrible way to organize a society.
		And essentially, every time it has been tried, it has failed.
		And generally, it leads to authoritarianism, totalitarianism.
		It doesn't just lead to low economic growth.
		It leads to hundreds of millions of deaths.
		And so that is not something that anybody should support anywhere.
		The things he then listed that he called as socialistic, I think are quite different.
		He's identifying that even in a capitalist system, even with a market economy, there are all sorts of things that markets aren't going to do well.
		And I think it's very important and constructive to recognize what markets won't do well and therefore what things within our society we do want to have government take care of.
		We do want to have collective action handling.
		And so as he said, whether it is something like public education, whether it is the military, there's a wide range of things that you do want to handle through public policy, through the government.
		But that doesn't make you a socialist economy.
		That makes you a capitalist economy, right?
		If you said you weren't going to have the government do anything, then that's just anarchy.
		And so it's very important to recognize we've always had a mixed economy.
		We've always had capitalism at the core of it, but then in this country.
		But then we've also always had a role for government, in some cases in the economy, in some cases handling things that markets aren't going to take care of.
		And what we have to get right, what this debate should be about, and I think mostly is about, is, okay, what is that role for the government?
		What are the places where we need government to do something?
		And then in those cases, what is it that government should do?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Tim is in Syracuse, New York on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Tim.
unidentified		Hi, Orrin.
		How are you?
		Good things.
		My concern is over the last 30 years, going to work every day and keeping my head in the sand, kicking down and doing my job, I've realized that over the last 30 years, we've lost pretty much almost 80,000 manufacturing to China or other countries across the globe.
		Now the next thing that we're going to lose is the service industry.
		You know, I think it's a two-edged sword, a dual-edged sword.
		One is we're offshoring more and more service.
		And when I say service, I'm talking, you know, name any company.
		You know, we can go big or we can go small.
		You know, for example, to make a point, I go to my podiatrist.
		I call to make an appointment.
		She's calling from, she's taking my call from Costa Rica.
		Now, if we lose those service jobs, the ones they Googles, the Yahoos, the Intels, Intel, we lost 17,000 people last October.
		All the major manufacturers, you know, Fortune safe 500 companies, everyone's offshoring service.
		They're shoring up their numbers because they're taking someone who was a living wage, $60,000 to say $100,000.
		And now we're offshoring in India, China, Pakistan, the Philippines, Honduras, Costa Rica.
		I can list them all.
		The young lady that called from Ohio about the printing business and industry, we could talk about Ohio.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Tim, we are running out of time for the segment.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What was your question for Mr. Cass?
unidentified		My question is, how is the president, how are we going to adjust and address tariffs on manufacturing products?
		How is the president going to handle the offshoring of service jobs and keeping the economy and tax base coming into our country?
		How do you think that's going to work or does he even feel that's an issue?
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's definitely an issue.
		So I'm really glad you raised this.
		And we're even starting to see some people in Congress start to think about proposals for targeting services the way that we've already talked about goods.
		I think the really important thing to kind of keep in our heads as we think about offshoring and trade is that, you know, trade can be a great thing as long as it's balanced.
		And what I mean by that is if you think about the economic models, whether it's goods or whether it's services, if there are things people in other parts of the world can do for us, and in return there are things that we can do for people in other parts of the world, that can be a very good thing for U.S. workers.
		So, you know, let's say that there was offshoring of one of those categories that the caller mentioned, like call centers to Costa Rica.
		If that were happening, but also there was something that Costa Rica was buying from the United States instead, then in the long run, we would have very good outcomes in the U.S. economy.
		What has happened that has been so disastrous is that we lost that balance.
		We said lots of stuff that American workers used to do, now it's going to be done elsewhere, but there is going to be no offsetting new opportunity.
		There's nothing else that we're going to do here that the rest of the world is going to buy from us instead.
		And so what you've seen the Trump administration really focus on, and I think is exactly right, is this idea of balance.
		This idea that big trade deficits, us buying lots from the rest of the world and them not buying anything from us, that is the source of the problem.
		And what we should do is say we are happy to have trade.
		We are happy to be doing things across borders if it's balanced so that opportunities elsewhere are matched with new opportunities for American workers.
		But if it's not balanced, we're not going to tolerate it anymore.
		And I think that is a massive change in the way the global economy runs.
		It's going to take time to shake out, but it is at the core of what the Trump administration is trying to do.
		And I think it should be embraced as exactly the right approach.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Mary is in Richland, Washington on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Mary.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		I was going to ask you, what is your name, ma'am?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Kimberly, Kimberly Adams.
unidentified		Kimberly, I'm sorry.
		I see you every time.
		And hi, Mr. Cass.
		And your name reminds me.
		I'm from St. Louis originally.
		I was born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri in the Midwest.
		And the one thing I was, I got on, I was talking to your screener.
		And the man that was on, oh gosh, that brought up before the man in Kentucky.
		I don't know.
		I don't pay attention to the Republican or whatever.
		I say I'm an independent because I'm an American.
		But I'll be 68 at the end of this month.
		And the one thing that people have been brought up, and the man did before the man from Kentucky did, he, you know, it's so different because the one, I don't like putting labels on things, but the one thing that I remember is as a child, I can remember when they had the missile crisis and all the other stuff.
		But I don't know, you guys might can help me.
		Mary, did you have a question about the economy for Mr. Cass?
		Yeah, because I don't know.
		I mean, I have a strong faith.
		And I, you know, and I was, what I'm trying to say is we didn't have all this tech.
		All the people that you mentioned are all in tech when you said Musk, I think, when I first started watching.
		And some other people, but they were all in technology.
		And then we have every, you know, we have all the lights, I mean, the cameras and all the other things.
		But what the thing is, is it's like, and the word I'm going to use is communism.
		It takes, it does, it's gradually.
		It's just like cancer.
		It doesn't hit you all at once.
		But I can remember 20 years ago when I moved here to Washington State after I buried my whole family.
		The thing is, is people were really happy about it.
		And the other thing is the really wealthy people, you don't need to take, they know who they are.
		The blue blood.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Mary, unfortunately, we're out of time segment.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		But I do want to ask Mr. Cass, before we let you go, for you to tell us about this new book that you have edited that was out this summer, The New Conservatives.
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, sure.
		So the New Conservatives is sort of a compilation of work we've done at American Compass, some of our organization, a lot of wonderful other leading thinkers, political figures, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, who is the U.S. trade representative, all trying to give shape to these ideas we've been talking about today that you're now hearing much more from the right-of-center, from the Republican Party.
		It really is a new conservatism that is much more focused on workers and their interests and trying to figure out how to rebuild American capitalism.
		And so I think, you know, for anybody who's interested both in the substance of these ideas, where do they come from?
		What's the data?
		What are the arguments?
		It's a wonderful resource.
		But then also if you just want to understand what's going on in American politics, why are we hearing Republicans working with labor unions, attacking Wall Street, caring about trade the way they do?
		I think this is the explanation for why.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you so much.
		Orin Cass is the founder and chief economist of American Compass.
		We appreciate your time this morning.
oren cass ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for having me.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, later on, Washington Journal, we'll take more of your calls and comments in open forum.
		But joining us next is Progressive Talk Show host Tom Hartman, who will discuss the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump administration policies, as well as Democrats' agenda.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		High school students join C-SPAN as we celebrate America's 250th anniversary
		during our 2026 C-SPAN Student Cam Video Documentary Competition.
		This year's theme is Exploring the American Story through the Declaration of Independence.
		We're asking students to create a five- to six-minute documentary that answers one of two questions.
		What's the Declaration's influence on a key moment from America's 250-year history?
		Or how have its values touched on a contemporary issue that's impacting you or your community?
		We encourage all students to participate, regardless of prior filmmaking experience.
		Consider interviewing topical experts and explore a variety of viewpoints around your chosen issue.
		Students should also include clips of related C-SPAN footage, which are easy to download on our website, studentcam.org.
		C-SPAN's Student Cam competition awards $100,000 in total cash prizes to students and teachers and $5,000 for the grand prize winner.
		Entries must be received before January 20th, 2026.
		For competition rules, tips, or just how to get started, visit our website at studentcam.org.
		It's 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 historic moments.
		Only on the C-SPAN Networks.
		This week on the C-SPAN Networks, the House and Senate are in session.
		The House will consider several bills to reform DC's policing and criminal sentencing laws.
		The Senate will vote to confirm the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, Stephen Myron, to serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors prior to the Fed's Open Market Committee meeting.
		They'll also continue to work on the 2026 defense programs and policy legislation.
		On Tuesday, FBI Director Kash Patel appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, conducting oversight on the agency.
		Then on Wednesday, former Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Susan Menares, who was recently terminated from the position, and Deborah Howry, former CDC Chief Medical Officer, testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, reviewing the recent events at the CDC and the implications for children's health.
		Also on Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will hold a press conference following the Federal Open Market Committee meeting, possibly announcing an interest rate cut.
		And on Thursday, the Mayor of Washington, D.C., Muriel Bowser, testifies before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the city's crime policies and general oversight.
		Watch live this week on the C-SPAN networks or on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app.
		Also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on-demand anytime.
		C-SPAN Democracy Unfiltered Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We're joined now by Tom Hartman, who is host of the Sirius XM show, The Tom Hartman Program.
		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Thanks, Kimberly.
unidentified		Great to be here.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for inviting me.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		For those who aren't familiar, can you tell us about your radio show, when it airs, the topics that you cover?
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		We started the program in 2003.
		We've been on the air for 22 years, I think that is.
		And we're on commercial radio stations around the country, nonprofit stations, Pacific stations around the country, and SiriusXM.
		It's also carried live as television on FreeSpeech TV, Freespeech.org and Ondish and Direct.
		And we're on the air from noon to 3 Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
		And, you know, it's your basic political talk show.
		You know, I do my rants and people call in and we have a fine old time.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And you have a new book out this week, The Last American President, A Broken Man, a Corrupt Party, and a World on the Brink.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What is the book about?
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's about exactly that.
		You know, the first third of it is, you know, kind of Donald Trump and who he is and how he got here and the kind of damage that his father and Roy Cohn did to him, frankly.
		The middle part of the book is what the Republican Party has been doing for the last 44 years since the Reagan Revolution.
		You know, we've gone from two-thirds of us being in the middle class in 1980 when Ronald Reagan was elected, and roughly two-thirds of us having the equivalent of a union job.
		A third of us had union jobs, and those set the wage floor for the other third of us, which created the two-thirds of the middle class.
		Reagan declared war on labor unions, and now we're down to about 7-8% unionization, and only 47 to 45 to 47% of us are in the middle class.
		The GOP has consistently opposed any efforts to expand public education.
		In fact, they've contracted it dramatically.
		Reagan cut federal funding for public education in his first year, as I recall, by 18%.
		We've seen, you know, back when Reagan was elected, you could go to college with a part-time job.
		I went to college.
		I didn't graduate, but I went to college and paid for it by pumping gas at an SO station and washing dishes at Bob's Big Boy in East Lansing.
		You can't do that anymore, thanks to Republican policies.
		We had reasonably priced health care.
		Back in the 70s, I owned a small company.
		We had 18 employees.
		We provided health care, comprehensive health care for all of them.
		It was quite inexpensive because at that time, all health insurance companies, at least these are state laws, but it was the case in most states in the United States.
		This was in Michigan.
		All the companies had to be nonprofits, and all of the hospitals had to be nonprofits.
		The Reagan Revolution changed all that.
		And so now health care is just insanely expensive.
		We spend twice as much as any other country in the world on health care, and we get worse results.
		We have a shorter lifespan than any other developed country.
		So, you know, and I could get into trade policies, banking, deregulation, all those things.
		But anyhow, that's the third, middle third of the book.
		And then the last third of the book is, you know, how the GOP is trying to hang on to power.
		There's this major, well-funded effort across multiple states to engage in voter suppression.
		4.2 million people wanted to vote in the 2024 election and were denied that because they got purged from, excuse me, purged from voting rolls.
		Or when they showed up, they were given provisional ballots, which were never counted.
		Or their signatures were challenged on mailing ballots.
		And Greg Palace, the BBC reporter, did the math on this using nothing but official government statistics and found that had those 4.2 million people who wanted to vote, registered voters who wanted to vote, been able to vote, that Kamala Harris would be president and you'd have a Democratic House and Senate.
		And now the GOP is doubling down on this with their gerrymandering efforts so that even if more Democrats win seats, you know, that you won't have more Democrats in the House of Representatives.
		They want to maintain control of it.
		It's pretty pernicious.
		It's not the way a democracy is supposed to work.
		So that's the essence of the book.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		I want to get your thoughts on the events from this past week with the killing of Charlie Kirk.
		And we are learning new things about the suspect, Tyler Robinson.
		But I wanted to get your thoughts on this incident and the reaction to it.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Well, political violence is never a good thing.
		I mean, you know, I've on and off gotten death threats throughout the 20-plus years I've been doing my show.
		It's no fun.
		You know, you turn them over to the FBI occasionally.
		Somebody gets in trouble.
		But it's just wrong.
		And I'm with the Republican governor of Utah.
		You know, it's time to turn down the temperature.
		I realize our president is refusing to do that.
		He's continuing to say this is the radical left.
		And as if there were really a meaningful radical left in America.
		And, you know, it's looking increasingly like this kid might, this might be the Groyper Wars.
		Although really at this moment, I don't think that we really know what his motivation was.
		But whatever his motivation was, doesn't matter.
		And whatever Charlie Kirk's politics were, just like with Melissa Hortman and her husband, who were murdered three months ago in Minnesota, the state, the House Speaker, the Democrat, it's wrong.
		It's just wrong.
		And that's the message that I think we all need to be putting out.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What do you think is Charlie Kirk's legacy, both politically and in terms of the impact he had on the Gen Z group in particular?
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, he was promoting a lot of positions that, in my opinion, are rather toxic.
		You know, he said that basically that black women don't have the mental bandwidth to do jobs.
		He said that if he got on an airplane and there was a black pilot, he would be worried.
		When Taylor Swift got engaged, he tweeted words to the effect of submit to your man.
		He was an advocate for economic policies that help the rich.
		I realize he had several right-wing billionaires who helped fund Turning Point USA and kind of turn him into a star.
		He was a very talented guy.
		And I'm guessing that they'll do everything they can to reinvent his image and his legacy as some kind of a martyr.
		That seems to be already ongoing.
		Now we even have the federal government telling employees, you know, if you say something bad about Charlie on social media, you're going to get fired.
		And people have been.
		There have been teachers in five states now fired and other employees.
		So I think there's going to be a real effort around this, which we didn't see, you know, when the Democrats got assassinated.
		But, you know, what can you do?
		This is just, that's politics in America, sadly.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		You mentioned the killing of Democratic lawmakers.
		There was also, of course, the shooting of President Trump back in 2024, the attack on Paul Pelosi, the burning at Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro's residence, quite a few incidents of very distinct political violence.
		What do you make of this moment in America and where we're headed?
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		I think it's really problematic and that we really need to be turning down the volume.
		When Sharon Engel was talking about when she was running in Arizona, I believe it was, and talking about Second Amendment solutions, or when Donald Trump in 2016 said that he hoped that the Second Amendment people would take care of Hillary Clinton.
		This kind of rhetoric is just not useful.
		It's not helpful.
		It's not a good thing for America.
		We are saturated in guns.
		I mean, there are more guns than people in America.
		As the result of a couple of all-Republican Supreme Court decisions, Heller and McDonald in particular in the last two decades, we've seen just an explosion of guns on the American scene.
		And we're literally the only country in the world, not just the only developed country, but the only country in the world where the leading cause of death for children is bullets.
		So, you know, between the need for reasonable gun control and just the saturation of our country in guns and this ongoing political rhetoric that now even President Trump is adopting, I think it's a tough time for this country.
		I think we'll get through it.
		We're a resilient country.
		We have a long and noble tradition of aspirations to high values.
		And so I'm not particularly freaked out, but it's really saddening to see people attacked and assaulted and killed for their political views.
		It's completely antithetical to the First Amendment and to the founding principles of this country.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		You mentioned some of the comments that President Trump has made in the wake of the killing.
		And initially, President Trump blamed the radical left for Kirk's death and then repeated that charge the next day.
		And in that moment, he was asked how he wanted his supporters to respond to the violence.
		Here's what he said.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Not really.
		I'm really concerned for our country.
		We have a great country.
		We have a radical left group of lunatics out there, just absolute lunatics.
		And we're going to get that problem solved.
		I'm only concerned for the country.
unidentified		Yeah.
		How do you want to see your supporters respond to this?
		Charlie Kirk was a big advocate of nonviolence and free speech on campus.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		How do you want your supporters to respond to that?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I think that way.
		He was.
		He was an advocate of nonviolence.
		That's the way I'd like to see people respond to.
unidentified		What about all the elections?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Did you say it?
unidentified		Did you speak with his family?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I did.
		I spoke to Erica, his wife, and we had a long talk, and she's devastated.
		She is absolutely devastated, as you can imagine.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of the president's comments and particularly his characterization of Kirk as an advocate for nonviolence?
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't recall Charlie Kirk ever having called for violence.
		I may be wrong, but I'm no Charlie Kirk scholar.
		What troubles me, you know, I'm old enough to remember when Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan, Tip O'Neill was the Democratic Speaker of the House when Reagan was president, regularly had dinners together.
		They were good friends.
		They worked stuff out.
		George Herbert Walker Bush worked with Democrats when he went into Iraq and on a number of other programs.
		George W. Bush even worked with Democrats.
		this idea that Democrats are the radical loony left is it's a slur, it's a slander.
		And that sort of rhetoric does not help anybody.
		We need to be particularly in this time of crisis.
		I mean, we've got an active war going on in Europe in Ukraine.
		You've got the possibility of war in the Pacific theater with Taiwan.
		You've got an economy that looks like it's starting to slide back down again.
		You've got domestic politics are a mess.
		And to have the president, or frankly, anybody in a position of power just demonizing one side and using over-the-top language, using superlative language, is not going to help.
		That's the best I can say.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We'll be taking your calls with questions for Tom Hartman, who's the host of the Tom Hartman program on Sirius XM.
		Our line for Democrats is 202-748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202748-8001.
		And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Before we get to calls, I want to ask you, Mr. Hartman, about the Democratic Party.
		And polls show that feelings and perceptions of the Democratic Party are at all time lows.
		What do you think is behind that?
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		It's a good question, Kimberly.
		Please call me Tom.
		I'm not really certain.
		The Democratic Party went through a big change in the early 1990s.
		Prior to that, from 1933 right up until the 90s, the Democratic Party was solidly the party of working class people and unions and local neighborhoods and high quality local public schools and a strong social safety net.
		The Democratic Party invented Social Security over Republican opposition, created Medicare over Republican opposition, created Medicaid over Republican opposition, food stamps, aid, I could go on, unemployment insurance.
		All these things were things that the Democrats promoted and Republicans opposed.
		But in the late 1970s, in 76 and 78, there were two Supreme Court decisions, Bilati and Buckley, Buckley in 76, Bilati in 78, where Republicans on the Supreme Court concluded that money was the same thing as speech.
		And therefore, if a billionaire wanted to flood a politician with money, that was fine.
		That was the Buckley decision.
		And then the Bilatti decision was that, and in 78, that corporations are the same thing as persons.
		And therefore, if they want to give money to a politician or political cause, then that's protected by the First Amendment as well.
		The result of that was that Reagan floated into office in 1980 on a small tsunami of mostly oil industry money.
		And it's been off to the races ever since money-wise.
		The Supreme Court then tripled down on this in 2010 with Citizens United and 2013 with McCutcheon.
		And so in 1992, when Bill Clinton was running for president and the unions had been decimated, I mean, when Reagan came into office, a third of America was unionized.
		By the time Clinton was running for office in 92, just almost two decades later, we were down to about 12% unionization in the United States.
		So the unions weren't there to help out the Democrat.
		And so Clinton reached out to the rich people and to the corporations, like the Republicans had been doing, and created this thing he called the New Democrats and the Third Way and all this stuff.
		And the Democratic Party became much more kind of friendly to neoliberalism, to the Reagan Revolution, and kind of left behind the ideals of FDR and the New Deal and LBJ and the Great Society.
		And Obama largely continued that.
		I mean, Obamacare, his signature achievement, was written by the Heritage Foundation.
		It was a Republican plan.
		And so I think that the Democratic Party largely lost its way during that period, that roughly 20-year period.
		Now it's coming back.
		About two-thirds of the Democrats are now solidly on the progressive side.
		In other words, they want to reclaim the mantle of the New Deal and the Great Society, rebuild our schools, strengthen our unions.
		Joe Biden was the first president in history to walk a union picket line, bring back industry in the United States.
		Biden got $3.5 trillion in money spent to rebuild infrastructure.
		And ironically, Trump is putting his name on the signs now all over the country.
		And things like the CHIPS Act and reducing student debt, which Republicans have now reversed.
		So I think the Democratic Party is finding its way back, but Biden was a pretty incompetent communicator.
		He was a very good president, in my mind, but he did not communicate to people all the cool stuff he was doing.
		Between his stuttering and his natural shyness, I guess I don't know what it is.
		But in this day and age of media and social media and everything, you really need somebody in the White House who can do what Trump is doing, which is just get out there every single day and tell people what's going on.
		And, you know, I think that has hurt the Democratic Party.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's get to our callers.
		John is in Absecon, New Jersey on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Hi, good morning, Tom.
		How are you?
		I'm really kind of disappointed to hear your apologetic tone for Kirk.
		I really feel like he did nothing other than spread hate.
		He advocated for his own demise with his views on American society and gun ownership.
		And I want to know why it's okay for others to be killed by the guns on our street, but Charlie Kirk gets a pass.
		Why are we mourning the death of this hate monger who wanted someone to die almost every day in defense of the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, rather?
		I think it's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.
		That is a prudent deal.
		That is Charlie's quote.
		Why does Charlie not get to live by the sword that he died by?
		I don't understand it.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's let Commissioner Hartman respond.
unidentified		Yeah.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		I'm with John Don, you know, who wrote No Man is an Island.
		Any man's death diminishes me, for I am part of mankind.
		I just, I think it's a bad thing when anybody is assassinated in America over politics.
		I get it that Charlie Kirk was peddling hate.
		I mean, I'm not challenging that.
		You know, he had some reasonable ideas and he had some that were just way out there.
		I think I listed some of those when we started.
		But none of that is the justification for somebody to go out with a rifle and kill somebody.
		I just, you know, and that's not, I'm not being apologetic.
		You know, that's just a simple reality.
		I challenged Charlie Kirk's positions on situation, you know, on things for years and on my program, and I continue to.
		But there is no justification for killing people for politics.
		It's just that simple.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Robert is in St. Petersburg, Florida on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Robert.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Hey, Robert.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Robert, you can go on.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		Can you hear me?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I was just calling.
		I was just trying to correct this man and trying.
		He was saying that Charlie Kirk said that he would be worried if the pilot was a black man.
		And that's not what he said at all.
		He said he would be worried to get on a plane with the black man who wasn't qualified if he was hired under DEI practices.
		Excuse me.
		And getting passed over by more qualified individuals for that.
		He's not being racist or trying to say that he didn't want to get on a plane with a black man.
		He would get on a plane with a black man if he was qualified.
		I mean, as would anybody.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Except the DEI practices never suggested that unqualified black people should be elevated over qualified white people.
		What they said was equally qualified black people should be considered along with equally qualified white people.
		And Charlie Kirk was in that statement was just horribly distorting what DEI teaches.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Some coverage of this particular quote from the New York Times and his general positions on race.
		Mr. Kirk was also a staunch opponent of affirmative action and was highly critical of Supreme Court Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, calling her a diversity hire who wasn't qualified to serve on the highest court.
		His repudiation of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives known as DEI stretched to comments many denounced as racist.
		In 2024, he said, quote, if I see a black pilot, I'm going to be like, boy, I hope he's qualified.
		In 2021, while delivering a speech in Mankato, Minnesota, Mr. Kirk called George Floyd, the black man whose murder by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020 provoked a broad racial justice movement, a scumbag who wasn't worthy of the attention.
		Jay is in Anniston, Alabama on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Jay.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Morning, Jay.
unidentified		Did I just hear a caller before condone Charlie's death?
		Because he works for the Second Amendment.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		Just want to say Charlie Kirk was killed for one reason, and that's because he preached the name of Jesus Christ on college campuses to disaffected youth that are disaffected by the system that Tom has been pushing for how long now, Tom?
		30 years, dude.
		I just heard the most ridiculous fluff from you.
		You make no sense.
		You're talking way past under people.
		And these kids that he was talking to were told about Jesus Christ.
		Who hates Jesus Christ?
		Who hates him?
		Who runs the colleges?
		Who funds their loans that they can't even discharge?
		A 17-year-old kid gets a college loan for a future there's no future.
		So they're seeing right through you, Tom.
		Thanks for taking my toll.
		And the Groipers are the disaffected youth.
		That's who he's talking to.
		You're making propaganda statements with no sources.
		So you make statements about these Groiper kids.
		They're youth, Tom.
		They're young kids, man.
		You are the most toxic I've heard so far.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's let Tom respond to that.
unidentified		Sure.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Well, with regard to the Groipers, I'd suggest that you look at the Wikipedia entry about the Groyper Wars.
		Nick Fuentes and Charlie Kirk have been at each other for years.
		And the engravings on the bullet casings are all, it appears, Griper sayings.
		This is a group that's to the right of Charlie Kirk.
		Again, we don't know if this kid actually is a Groiper, you know, a follower of Fuentes or not, but it's increasingly looking like that may be the case.
		But again, it doesn't matter what his motivation was.
		It's wrong to kill people.
		With regard to Jesus, there is only one place in the New Testament.
		And I was an ordained minister years ago and the pastor of a church in Detroit for two years.
		There's only one place in the New Testament where the disciples actually came to Jesus and said, how do we get into heaven?
		How do we, you know, we want to hang out with you for eternity?
		And he said, you know, in the last days, I'll be gathering the sheep and the goats, and the sheep are going to go to heaven with me, and the goats are going to go to hell.
		And I'll say to the sheep, you know, when I was thirsty, you gave me water.
		When I was hungry, you fed me.
		When I was homeless, or when I was naked, you clothed me, the equivalent of homeless.
		When I was a stranger, you welcomed me.
		And when I was sick, you healed me.
		And the disciples just freaked out because they said, oh my God, you know, we're not going to go to heaven because we've never seen you thirsty or hungry or sick or homeless.
		And Jesus said, don't worry, as you do to the least among these, you have done unto me.
		Every one of those things are the things that the Republican Party fights against.
		They fight against a national health care program so that we can heal the sick.
		They fight against housing subsidies so that we can house the homeless.
		They fight against clean water programs.
		I mean, the Trump administration now has rolled back multiple clean water programs and food safety programs.
		It's just, I can't think of a single thing in that list that Jesus gave of his instructions to us.
		And by the way, he said, in that day, the nations of the world will be judged, right?
		I mean, this is Matthew 25.
		You can look it up.
		It's the parable of the sheep and the goats.
		And so to claim that the Republican Party is somehow the party of Jesus, I get it.
		It's the party of some Jesus hustlers, some guys who are out there with their prosperity gospel saying, give enough money to my church and you'll get rich, you know, spiritually or spiritually, you know, you'll be blessed and therefore you'll get physical riches and you'll, I'm not buying it.
		And, you know, it's kind of weird to hear that pitch from somebody.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from Jack in Davenport, Iowa on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Jack.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Hey, Jack.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Insurance company executives are paid $25 million or $100 million a year.
		One who was assassinated.
		Some 25-year-old is paid $250 million by corporate dictator Zuckerberg.
		A few top sports superstars get hundreds of millions of dollar contracts, almost as a booby prize, and they all get to keep it.
		Do you think people are underestimating the amount of anger that's out in this country?
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		Yeah.
		And, you know, right now, the GOP is pushing nostalgia, right?
		Make America great again.
		Let's go back to when America was great.
		And, you know, I'm an old guy.
		I grew up during that period that Trump and the Republicans are talking about.
		And what was it that made America great?
		We had a 90% top income tax bracket that started back in the 1917s, you know, with World War I. FDR picked it up again.
		It stood until LBJ lowered it to 74%, but he closed so many loopholes that he actually raised taxes on the morbidly rich.
		So we had a 74% top income tax bracket.
		We had a 50%, in some cases, a 70% top corporate income tax bracket.
		What these things did, what these top tax brackets did is they incentivized appropriate behavior.
		The average CEO only took 30 times at a maximum what the average worker took when Ronald Reagan was brought into office.
		Reagan, of course, collapsed that tax structure.
		And now you've got CEOs taking 500, 600, 1,000, in some cases, 5,000 or 10,000 times what their workers take.
		You mentioned the insurance industry, Dollar Bill McGuire, the guy who was the first CEO of United Healthcare, walked away with $1.6 billion.
		He had to give back a couple hundred billion because it looked like it was fraudulently obtained.
		So, yeah, there's the massive amounts of money floating around in these industries that the Republican Party has embraced.
		And I think people are pissed.
		I'm not sure that they know why America has gone from, as productivity went up historically, wages went up.
		Well, that's all stopped with the Reagan Revolution.
		Wages have been relatively flat for 44 years.
		Productivity is right through the roof, which means that you've got this bumper crop of billionaires who are the people who are the benefits of, you know, beneficiaries of productivity of what their workers do.
		But you don't have a parallel increase in, as I mentioned earlier, we've seen the middle class collapse from 65% of us down to 45% of us.
		So in large part, this is the result of tax policy.
		And so what did Trump do when he came back into office?
		He passed the largest tax gift to the morbidly rich in the history of the country.
		And, you know, it's a $3.5 trillion subsidy of rich people.
		We've got massive subsidies for the oil industry.
		We've stopped all of our, you know, Trump has stopped all of our investments or as many as he could in any kind of green power while China is leapfrogging us.
		I mean, China is becoming the green power center of the world.
		This is largely free electricity in many parts of the world.
		And we're just rejecting it.
		Why?
		Because Trump gave a speech to a bunch of fossil fuel executives and said, you know, pour enough money into my campaign, I can become president, and I'll do anything you want.
		And now he's doing it.
		He's keeping his promise to them.
		But I'm not hearing any promises to the American people that he's keeping.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Dan is in Palm Bay, Florida on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Dan.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Hey, Dan.
unidentified		Hello.
		Yeah, hi.
		I just wanted to say a couple of things.
		Number one, yeah, Charlie Kirk was not racist.
		I don't understand why the left is continuing to spew that he has spread hate.
		The fact that he was talking about black pilots being qualified is because they were lowering test standards.
		Airline announces it will prioritize racial quotas over qualifications and pilot hirings.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		It's simply not true.
unidentified		It is true.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		No, it's simply not true.
		This is the kind of propaganda that racists spread.
		Diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and standards were pretty straightforward.
		It's not we're going to hire unqualified black people to replace qualified white people.
		That's what the right has been telling you.
		But talk to somebody who's actually in that business, somebody who actually was running DEI programs.
		There are lots and lots of qualified black people out there, lots and lots of qualified white people, but for a whole bunch of reasons, the biggest one being that most of our business systems in this country are run by white people because of 250 years of the history of this country.
		And they tend to hire people who look like them.
		They tend to hire people who they know, people who are friends of friends.
		And so you get a lot of white people being hired.
		And what DEI was about was: let's look for equally qualified black people, Hispanic people, Muslim people, women.
		In fact, white women were the principal beneficiaries of DEI programs, far more than black people or Hispanic people.
		So, you know, what you're pitching is the racist BS that has been, you know, pumped out from many of my colleagues, sadly.
		But it's simply not true.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's hear from Anthony in Ann Arbor, Michigan on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Anthony.
unidentified		Yeah, you know, I was just calling about, you know, Charlie Kirk assassination.
		And, you know, I really didn't know who this guy was, you know.
		And I hear that Mike Johnson wants to put a statue up of him in the Capitol.
		And Donald Trump said he's going to give him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
		And, you know, so I'm trying to figure out who this guy is and why he's so special.
		And I can't find anything online about him doing any charitable work or working for Habitat for Humanity or helping the homeless or doing anything like that.
		I mean, what did this guy do besides enrich himself as a, what he claimed to be a Christian, I guess, and he enriched himself to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
		And what else has he done?
		That's it.
		Thanks.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I really don't know.
		I'm not a Charlie Kirk scholar.
		He may well have been, you know, a very generous guy in his private life.
		I just, I have no idea.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Lonnie is in Salisbury, North Carolina on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Lonnie.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Hey, Lonnie.
unidentified		Top of the morning.
		How you doing, Tom?
		I used to listen to you, man, before I switched my cable.
		I'm trying to get spectrum to get you on board, freak TV.
		But, yeah, man, I missed you.
		But look, you got a lot of people calling in.
		And don't get me wrong, I'm just going to say white people, you know, because you're not going to catch a lot of black people talking about Kirk was a Christian.
		You could tell a Christian by the fruit that they bear on that tree.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		As Jesus said.
unidentified		Come on now.
		Come on now.
		And at the same time, you know, Jesus also told the people by food.
		So I'm looking at this.
		There are a lot of people that agree to Charlie, but they keep saying it was the left.
		Why they keep saying it was the left when it was a little young white boy who shot him.
		And at the same time, this guy was well provided for with his family.
		They had money, most likely conservative.
		But I'm trying to figure out how they switch that from a white boy killing him and making it as though the liberals or Democrats did it.
		Could you please respond on that?
		Because I'm confused.
		They keep saying it was black people.
		They try to bump threat to all HBUs.
		And it was a white boy who killed him.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, Lonnie, I want to read some commentary from the Nation magazine before we have Tom respond.
		This is a commentary by Jeet Here, who said, in earlier decades, political violence could spur a productive unity and a search for solutions.
		After the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981, there emerged a bipartisan coalition in support for the 1993 Brady Bill, a gun control measure named after Reagan's press secretary, James Brady, who had been paralyzed in the shooting.
		But the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan and James Brady was of a different orientation.
		If, as expected, the Kirk shooting is used as a pretext for more repression, Trump's political opponents have to hold the line.
		The killing of Kirk was an atrocity that should be condemned without reservation, but Democrats have to be prepared to resist any onslaught against civil liberties, not least because a crackdown will only increase the likelihood of far worse violence.
		This ties into what our caller was just saying, that there has been a lot of rhetoric blaming this on the Democrats or liberals, and we're obviously learning more about the alleged shooter.
		But what do you think this rhetoric is doing to our political discourse?
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		I think it's, Kimberly, I think it's extremely destructive.
		And this has been going on for at least the better part of 20 years, but in particular since Trump came on the scene in 2015, let's blame people, let's tear people apart, let's all point fingers, it's us versus them.
		And it ties back to the comment I made earlier about Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill.
		I think it's bad.
		I think it's dangerous.
		I think it's destructive.
		The search for a villain, the constant search for a villain.
		And that, you know, I would love to see us get back to debating what should the tax rate be?
		How much should it cost to go to college?
		Do we really want to be the only developed country in the world where half a million families lose their homes and go bankrupt every year because somebody got sick?
		I mean, there's real issues here.
		Charlie Kirk is not one of them.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Bruce is in Chicago, Illinois on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Bruce.
unidentified		Good morning, Bruce.
		Good morning.
		You know, I hear all this stuff about the Republicans, this Republicans, and I just wonder how many buildings got burned down when Charlie Kirk got assassinated.
		And also, you kind of pick on the Republicans.
		I just want to know where you fed George Soros, Maxine Waters, talking about get in your face.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Well, typically when, number one, what I recall is that the first windows that were smashed in Minnesota after Charlie Kirk was assassinated turned out to be a Republican.
		Turned out to be, in fact, an ex-cop.
		You know, I just think these efforts to constantly say, oh, it's all this side that is doing violence when it was a Trump supporter who went after Nancy Pelosi's husband.
		It was Trump supporters who attacked our Capitol, killed three police officers, smeared feces on the walls, trashed people's offices.
		It was a Trump supporter who sent bombs to Obama and Clinton.
		It was a Trump supporter who murdered and had a list of 40 other Democrats who murdered Melissa Holtman and Horman and her husband, the Minnesota folks.
		This idea that there's violence coming out of the left.
		I mean, I remember the Democratic, you know, excuse me, the Weather Underground, the Weathermen.
		I knew a couple of them back in the 60s and had nothing to do with them.
		I was in SDS.
		And there was violence on the left at that time.
		There hasn't been for the better part of 40, 50 years in any meaningful way.
		It's not the left that is calling for violence.
		It's not the left that is calling for more guns.
		It's not the left that's talking about Second Amendment solutions.
		And I think that just needs to be said over and over again.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, we're going to end it there.
		Thank you very much.
		Tom Hartman, who is the host of the Tom Hartman program on SiriusXM and also the author of the new book, The Last American President.
		Thank you so much.
thom hartmann ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Kimberly.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Now, coming up, we're going to take more of your calls and comments in open forum.
		Our phone lines again for Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And for Independents, 202-748-8002.
		You can start calling in now.
unidentified		We'll be right back.
		Tonight on C-SPAN's Q&A.
		Ann Butler was a CIA spy for 25 years.
		She donned disguises, used false names, and learned how to evade surveillance.
		She did this clandestine work while simultaneously raising five children.
		As she says, no one suspected a pregnant woman was a spy.
		In her book, Wife Mother Spy, Ann Butler talks about her work and some of the methods she used to extract information from targets.
ann butler ▲ ● ▼		I know also, because we have our ways of determining all kinds of information, that you're going to be on a particular flight at a particular time in a particular seat.
		So I will either use other contacts that we have and I will get a seat coincidentally right next to you.
		We're sitting together on the plane.
		I start up a conversation with you, Peter.
		Oh, we know your name.
		Oh, I know a lot about you already.
		But I'm not going to let that on.
		I'm going to ask you where you're going, what you're doing.
		I'm going to show all kinds of interest in you.
		And I guarantee that you're going to tell me a lot about yourself.
unidentified		Author Ann Butler, tonight at 8 Eastern on C-SPAN's QA.
		You can listen to QA in all of our podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts or on our free C-SPAN Now app.
		This week, on the C-SPAN networks, the House and Senate are in session.
		The House will consider several bills to reform DC's policing and criminal sentencing laws.
		The Senate will vote to confirm the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, Stephen Myron, to serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
		Prior to the Fed's open market committee meeting, they'll also continue to work on the 2026 defense programs and policy legislation.
		On Tuesday, FBI Director Kash Patel appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, conducting oversight on the agency.
		Then on Wednesday, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Susan Menares, who was recently terminated from the position, and Deborah Howry, former CDC Chief Medical Officer, testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, reviewing the recent events at the CDC and the implications for children's health.
		Also on Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will hold a press conference following the Federal Open Market Committee meeting, possibly announcing an interest rate cut.
		And on Thursday, the Mayor of Washington, D.C., Muriel Bowser, testifies before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the city's crime policies and general oversight.
		Watch live this week on the C-SPAN networks or on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app.
		Also, head over to C-SPAN.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on demand anytime.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We're in open forum, ready to hear your comments.
		We'll start with Jerry in Sewell, New Jersey on our line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Jerry.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning, everybody.
		You know, I was listening to Mr. Hartman, and my fear is, you know, when he tries to deny that, you know, you're looking at the death of Charlie Kirk, there hasn't been nothing but civil, You know, they're praying, they're getting together as a group.
		They're not burning down buildings.
		And also, when he says there's not a difference between what's happening with the Democrats versus Republicans, that's absolutely not true.
		I'm a Democrat.
		I see it for myself.
		And I just, I'm not understanding how he just wants to out and out and then call it propaganda.
		The other thing is the more you learn about, I didn't know Charlie Kirk.
		I really didn't watch him.
		I wasn't really familiar with him.
		But the more you see with him, the more you see how peaceful of a man he really was.
		So this violence is so horrendous, and it really comes around the same time that the Polish, the Ukrainian girl was killed on the subway.
		The violence is so outrageous that I think it just has everybody in a turmoil.
		But, you know, I just, I can handle the fact that when they say that people are defending the fact that Charlie Kirk, the death, and by the way, when you walk up, you're not quite truthful on C-SPAN because the bullets that he had in the gun said fascist, everything that the news media has been saying about Charlie Kirk and Trump, fascist, Nazi, all this.
		And on the gun, you don't have to be a genius or a scientist to put it together that he was radicalized and he was on the left.
		It really doesn't take a genius.
		Now, the other thing, too, today you had a segment on money.
		Now, you know, the richest people, some of the richest people are Obama, Bernie Sanders, a lot of the Democrats in the House.
		And what I can't get over is they're downing being millionaires who billionaires, but they're living that lifestyle.
		Bernie Sanders has three houses.
		He literally is a millionaire.
		I don't know how he got there.
		So, you know, when they're downing millionaires and billionaires, and I don't see them giving up their money.
		I don't see Obama giving it away.
		I don't see Bernie Sanders giving it away.
		So I'm really confused on what the argument is about the millionaires.
		I just can't, I can't get it.
		And he's standing there downing them, and yet he is a millionaire.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's hear from Ricky in South Carolina on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Ricky.
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
unidentified		I would like to take it what that lady just said right there.
brad in kentucky ▲ ● ▼		And that fellow, you should have asked him why it's all right for the Democrats to call Republicans the scum of the earth, fascists, dictators, Nazis.
unidentified		That's what should have been asked, okay?
unidentified		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Lonnie is in Sturgis, South Dakota on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Lonnie.
unidentified		Yes, say, I'm a disabled veteran, Vietnam.
		I served two tours over there.
		And over there, there wasn't a black and white line.
		You know, we all fought together.
		We stuck together.
		And that's the way America should be right now.
		We don't have all that garbage out here in South Dakota.
		There's very few black people here.
		When I see a black person, I just want to hug them.
		So that's all I got to say.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Harlan is in Little Falls, Minnesota on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Harlan.
unidentified		Thank you for accepting my telephone call.
		If I may, I would like to present a reasoning of facts and knowledge, not opinion, that the God of the Catholic Bible is pro-abortion by the fact that God initiated the abortion of millions of fetuses and full-term babies in God's great flood of Genesis 7.
		And my reasoning is that it is stated that God of the Catholic Bible is spirit, is omniscient, and is without gender.
		At Christianity.com, it stated that God is omniscient, that God's knowledge is unlimited, and God knows all the potentialities of any situation.
		And though we do not know all the answers, God does.
		The God of the Catholic Bible in Genesis 2 created Adam and Eve by deductive logic.
		After 1,656 years, from the creation of Adam and Eve to God's great flood, it can be calculated that the earth's human population to be 10.9 million.
		And in Genesis 6, God, seeing the wickedness of men was great, said, I will destroy man.
		I will bring the waters of a great flood upon the earth.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		All right, thank you very much.
		Let's hear from Bill in Connecticut on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Bill.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		You know, Tom Hartman was on it.
		Typically, what they do, all liberals, is they quote these talking points.
		He said that three police officers died that day on January 6, 2021.
		That's just not true.
		The only person killed that day was Ashley Babbitt, and she was unarmed.
		So that's simply a fact.
		And he talked about Paul Pelosi being attacked by a Trump supporter.
		Well, that's the first I've ever heard that.
		That's just simply ridiculous as well.
		But the people that were attacked by guns were Steve Scalise, a congressman, playing baseball at the baseball field, the attempted assassination of Trump twice, not just once, and then the assassination of Charlie Kirk carried out the other day.
		So the fact that he implies that the Democrats are nonviolent is absolutely absurd.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Nikki is in Rockaway Park, New York, on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Nikki.
unidentified		Well, good morning.
		I didn't think I'd get here this quickly, but okay.
		My word for the day is perversion.
		Perversion.
		Perversion of the Constitution.
		Perversion of the message of Christ.
		How people use it, they say that the bigger the cross you wear and the bigger the flag you fly, the more you love Christ, the more you love America.
		The message of Christ has been blasphemed.
		When Charlie Kirk could speak as a Christian and speak the words that he speaks, he's a martyr.
		He's a martyr for the satanic side of society.
		Christ preachs one mission.
		Love one another as you would love yourself.
		Don't love anybody else, but somebody who looks like yourself.
		Perversion of the truth began when Donald Trump said there are alternate facts.
		There are alternate.
		The truth is the truth.
		It will remain the truth.
		It takes a longer time for the truth to be discovered.
		The lie can go around the world quicker than the truth will be discovered.
		But I have faith.
		I have faith, and I hope somebody else does that read the words of Christ.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Elizabeth is in Franklin, Michigan on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Elizabeth.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm enjoying your show very much.
		Until people begin to see what's happening from the White House on down and change our ways of thinking, we're not going to make it.
		United States is being destroyed within.
		And it's so sad.
		It's so sad.
		Charlie Kirk was spewing out hate.
		They're making a martyr out of him.
		Why do they call it an assassination?
		He was murdered.
		He's not a big political person, but he was spewing out so much hate.
		And Trump is part of the problem.
		From the White House on down, and all this illegal firing and confusion and creating problems by the president and them trying to solve, showing people that he solved them.
		The people are just mixed up and confused and unhappy.
		The United States is being destroyed within.
		Within.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Israel is in Crystal River, Florida, on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Israel.
unidentified		Yes, thank you.
		Thank you for putting me on.
		Well, there's a lot of distortion going on, and it goes way back, real way back, since the first president that they called George Washington and the Masonic group.
		They, before the White House was built, they had a satanic star foundation all across that land, the land that you're sitting on and showing the show to the audience.
		And it all has to do with Lucifer because he caused divide in heaven, and God has to cast him out.
		So he has distorted a lot of ways people think because that's his plan to keep people away from the ways of Christ, the ways of the true ways of the Bible.
		The satanic land, which is the land that you're working on, and you're in the office right now, they have saturated with so much of Luciferian nature there.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Judy is in Miami, Florida, on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Judy.
unidentified		Hey, hi, how are you?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good, but can you turn down the volume on your TV, please, Judy?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		And then you can go ahead with your comments.
unidentified		Sure, sure.
		I want to talk about the murder on the Ukrainian girl and how that has just been pushed away.
		And we're talking about everything else but that.
		And I was on video, and you talk about a person that's mentally incapacitated that has been doing this not just once, but a number of times.
		You know, why is this a governor or of Charlotte?
		Why is she pushing it away?
		As he's insane and letting him lose what?
		So he can commit and do the same thing all over again to one of our daughters or girls.
		It hurts the public.
		It hurts everybody.
		The only thing I have to say is stop pointing the freaking finger to everybody, Republican, Democrat.
		Stop calling Trump a Hitler.
		You know, I mean, once you have it where it's just about money, and it doesn't matter.
		It's based on just money, and politicians are—politics is disgusting.
		And, you know, they all are.
		So.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Max is in California on our line for independence.
		Good morning, Max.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning.
		I hope everybody is well.
		First of all, first point being that there's so many times that I have to hear you and the host tell other people to turn down their television or radio in the background.
		First of all, that cues me in that a lot of people are mixed up and aren't paying any attention to what's really going on.
		It seems more that they just want to talk than to listen.
		I mean, I think it's probably around four out of ten that you have to tell to turn their radio down.
		Come on, people.
		Stop wasting other people's time.
		First of all, or second of all, Christians.
		Christians right now are preaching hate.
		I grew up in a Christian home, Southern California.
		Mom, sister, both Christian.
		They pretty much in their heart had hate for gay people back in the 70s and 80s.
		And this is kind of a good point that they didn't succeed in keeping gay people out of society.
		They don't seem to realize, or they didn't seem to realize that gay people, if they pay their taxes, they're entitled to everything that straight people would be entitled to.
		So that was one of my second points.
		But it didn't succeed.
		Gay people are in all parts of society now.
		The trans will be the same also.
		They will eventually be accepted.
		And that's another point, 2A.
		That's why everyone is against Fauci.
		The Christians hate Fauci because Fauci found a cure or health with medications for AIDS during the 70s and 80s.
		So this whole thing is a repercussion from that, that they hate Dr. Fauci, even though he's a hero, because of what he did for the gay community back in the 70s and 80s.
		Now, back to Christianity.
		Number two, number three.
		A lot of people say that the flood happened because of what man did.
		And if that's what your Bible says, you're wrong.
		It's not because of what man did.
		It's because the angels of heaven that were sent to earth, the giants, I think they were called the Nephilim, were having sex with humans.
		And that is why God calls the flood.
		If you were to read the book of Enoch, which was taken out of the King James Bible, I believe, and most Christians are scared to read that book because they've been told not to read that book.
		But that book describes exactly why the flood happened.
		And it wasn't because of what man was doing.
		It's because of what the angels that rebelled against God did when they came to earth.
		So that's already a whole, they're wrong about that already.
		Now, the third thing is, yeah, this would be number four.
		When Trump got elected, in my mind, I realized how Hitler accomplished the things that he did accomplish.
		None of them good.
		But the reason and what gave him the ability was the population being mixed up and making bad decisions.
		That's what's happening right here in America now.
		So a lot of people don't realize that we're writing history every day.
		Their decisions each day are history.
		And they think, well, Hitler was history long ago.
		Well, you're making history now.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's hear from Rodney in Minden, Louisiana on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Rodney.
unidentified		Thank you.
		My opinion of Charlie Kirk is that he was just a Klanman without a role.
		And I want some Christian to call in and tell me they seem to love the Lord so much, which they've never seen.
		But yet my opinion of Charlie Kirk is that he was just a Klanman without a role.
		And I want some Christian to call in and tell me, how can they claim that they love God, which they've never seen, but they have so much hate in their heart for black and brown people that they live with every day.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Craig is in Tulsa, Oklahoma on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Craig.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I wanted to address the political violence question.
		I take a bit of an issue with your previous guest.
		He pointed out like three instances, and a couple of them were faulty, claiming these are Trump supporters and there's act of violence.
		Now, I have to concede, and psychologists and sociologists will tell you, in any group of people, one in 100 are psychopathic potentially and can do terrible things.
		So that goes for Democrats or Republican whenever they get a bunch of people together.
		But the real question is this.
		Which party is saying things that most sets off those weaker minds?
		That's the question.
		Now, let's go after the Republicans first.
		And let's say this.
		They use the word communist and socialist, but in the minds of Americans, communist and socialist is an economic argument saying that doesn't work, you know, in a society.
		It's not a way to prosper.
		Okay, but on the Democratic side, they use the terms fascist and Nazi.
		Well, in the American mind, previously, the only way we dealt with them was with bullets in World War II.
		So what's going on with the Democrats is they are saying highly incendiary words to set off the weaker minds to do terrible things, and they need to stop.
		It is dominantly on the Democratic side that violence is being inspired, and they need to quit doing it.
		Now, that's my view on that.
		As far as the people talking about Christianity, I'm a Christian.
		We love all people of all races, all colors.
		No, we're not Klansmen.
		And number two, I have a friend who's gay, who's a Christian, and I don't say that people who are gay are going to hell.
		She's going to heaven.
		She's a Christian.
		What sends you to hell is rejecting Christ.
		It's not any of the other infirmities of humanity.
		Like, you know, if somebody's a kleptomaniac, a thief, a this or that, even a murderer can be forgiven.
		So that's what sends you to heaven, is putting your trust in Christ and receiving him.
		That's not your actions.
		Just in the same way, you can't earn heaven by good actions.
		It's all about receiving Christ and forgiveness.
		So I wanted to palm the gentleman who said, you know, Christians hate these or those.
		They don't hate.
		And Charlie Kirk did not hate.
		He loved people.
		But the truth is difficult.
		And when you speak the truth, it does sometimes offend people.
		And it's a hard truth to say that it's through Christ and putting your trust in him that you go to heaven.
		That's very exclusive.
		It's not overly inclusive.
		But if I give you a roadmap and I give you a thousand different ways to get somewhere and all of the other ones don't get you there, I'm lying to you.
		I need to give you the one that gets you to your destiny, and that's Christ.
		Anyway, just wanted to address the violence.
		Let's calm it down.
		Let's not use fascists or Nazi.
		You know, we can debate logically and not set off the weaker minds.
		Well, take care, C-SPAN.
		I appreciate what you all do.
		Thanks.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Heather is in Memphis, Tennessee on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Heather.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I just wanted to say, you know, I can't say I agreed with everything that Charlie Kirk said, but I didn't disagree with the majority of what he said.
		I believe he was a good Christian man.
		He was trying to bring debate back to people when people used to be able to sit down and actually have a discussion without all the cursing, without all of the judgment, without all of the hate and everything.
		He was not a hateful man, I don't believe.
		It's all in how everybody wants to interpret what he was saying and what he was doing.
		And that's the problem today.
		Everybody has their own agenda.
		Everybody has their own thoughts and all that.
		And that's fine.
		That's protected by the Constitution.
		But if you're going to twist what everybody or somebody says and make it to fit your agenda, then yes, you're going to see hate.
		Yes, you're going to see bigotry.
		You're going to see racism and all that kind of stuff.
		I personally, you know, I live by the golden rules.
		I treat people as I want to be treated.
		I take everything with a grain of salt.
		I do my own research.
		And I don't agree with everything that most things I hear.
		I do my own research and I come up with my own conclusion.
		That doesn't give anybody the right to go out there and kill somebody just because you don't agree with the way they feel.
		Don't listen to him.
		If you're on Facebook, scroll past him.
		Don't listen to his podcast.
		Nothing.
		That doesn't give anybody the right to kill a man just because you don't believe the same way he does.
		And just like that young lady on the bus that got stabbed in the neck, she did nothing.
		She was looking at her phone going home and everybody's like, oh, that guy, it's not racism.
		But if you listen to the tape as he's walking off, he says three times, I got that white girl.
		I got that white girl.
		Yes, he may have some mental issues, but I'm sorry.
		He should not have been let out 13, 14 times to keep doing the same crime he was already doing.
		And that's just wrong.
		And people are like, oh, I've heard people say, well, she shouldn't have been on the bus.
		Well, why couldn't she ride the bus home?
		She went to work.
		She did her job.
		She was going home to her family.
		She did nothing to anybody.
		And I'm tired of people.
		It hurts my soul is what it does for them people to sit there and turn every agenda around to make it like the victims are the ones that are doing wrong.
		No, we have a choice.
		We know right from wrong.
		We know that killing is wrong.
		But people do it and then they go, yay, good job.
		You did good.
		No, that's not good.
		That's wrong on every level.
		You don't have to agree with everybody, but it doesn't give you the right to go out and take their lives either.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Florence is in Oceanside, California on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Florence.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes, I was calling because I didn't really listen or know that much about Charlie Kirk.
		And probably the only sound bites I got were not really the best or the type that people are saying of his Christianity and that.
		But I want to go back to the source of where we're at today.
		And I really have to put it in Donald Trump's ballpark.
		He came in in 2015, went on to the campaign stage and just started putting people down, mean things, horrible talk, carried it into rallies where he riled up people.
		And the more hate and the more names he called Hillary Clinton and people, the more people got riled up.
		And, you know, and here we are, Democrats, and no, nobody is perfect.
		I know I'm not perfect.
		You know, no one is.
		We're all upset.
		We're all mad.
		But we can't go jumping to conclusions that because somebody like even the assassination in Pennsylvania, do we really know the person that killed was going to kill Donald Trump that day?
		There's not been much that's been put out, but it's all been blamed on radical Democrats.
		And I'm just getting really tired of it.
		And a lot of us are.
		It's like we're constantly being bombarded, saying we're violent while we watch our congresswoman getting assassinated and people getting shot.
		And it just seems to not go in really even focus.
		The Republicans don't even acknowledge that.
		But this Charlie Kirk and it's like gets murdered.
		And it's like all of a sudden everything has turned on the Democrats.
		And as far as I can see, we don't really even know who shot this guy, where he stood.
		People are just putting words on bullets and things like that.
		You know, I've been called fascist by Republicans a lot.
		It's name-calling, and we need to stop it.
		And I don't know how we're going to stop this violence, but we need a president who needs to go and be a president for everybody in America.
		And he needs to keep calling us names, telling people that we're awful people, and be a president for all of America.
		And that's what I want to say.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Frank is in Birmingham, Alabama on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We're just about out of time, Frank, but go ahead.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my call.
		You know, it's just pre-assumption how people can get things so wrong, even like Russia.
		If it wasn't for Russia and Stalingrad, stopping the Nazis and Hitler and all that kind of crap, you know, but to see how Americans criticize Russia and they say them, they were allies.
		And now Trump is running around saying they part at this and that.
		But just wanted to always put that in there because people just know the history.
		But let me say this in speaking to Charlie Kirk and all that.
		One thing for me, it took too much time neglecting 911, the real 911, where we had real races, where we had people come in to bomb airplanes and drop them on people holistically.
		And we found the way for about a week, I won't say a month, how we were so collectively gathered.
		We loved everybody.
		The racist looking white man could not walk by a black man and not speak and vice versa.
		That was his unity.
		But unity shouldn't always come for Americans out of death who lost their life and who didn't lose their life.
		Let me end on this.
		Benjamin Crump was a great friend of mine.
		He was just here a couple of weeks ago where we had a promising young man.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We're about out of time, Frank.
		Sorry about that.
		But thank you to everyone who called in today for Washington Journal.
unidentified		C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum, inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
		Coming up Monday morning.
		We'll talk with Bloomberg News Capitol Hill reporter Eric Wasson about the week ahead in Congress, including efforts to avert a government shutdown at the end of the month.
		And then Spectrum News national political reporter Taylor Popolars on White House News of the Day.
		And Navy Federal Credit Union Chief Economist Heather Long will talk about economic news of the day, C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join the conversation live at 7 Eastern Monday morning 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 Charter Communications.
		Charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers.
		And we're just getting started.
		Building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most.
		Charter Communications supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		It's Sunday, September 14th.
		Here's a look at what's ahead over the next couple of hours.
		Michigan Senator Alyssa Slotkin and House members Seth Moulton and Michael McCall discuss the way space has evolved into a critical part of the national defense strategy.
		And later, Air Force and Navy active duty personnel and veterans talk about their experiences with unidentified anomalous phenomena, formerly called UFOs.
		And past president nominees.
		Why are you doing this?
		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.
		Ceasefire, this fall, on the network that doesn't take sides, only on C-SPAN.
		Michigan Senator Alyssa Slotkin and House members Seth Moulton and Michael McCall discuss the ways space has evolved into a critical part of the national defense strategy.
		They also review the threats the U.S. faces from Russia and China in maintaining military dominance in space.
		The discussion was hosted by Axios.
		I'd like to start off with something that's in the news, but not getting that much attention, but sometimes on the periphery it is, and that is Venezuela and the president's strike on a suspected drug-carrying boat.
		You've served in senior positions at the Defense Department when I first got to know you, although it's unclear if we knew each other as undergraduates, but we don't really delve into that.
		You've served in senior positions defense, CIA.
		Tell me what you think of this as a CIA analyst as a Defense Department.
		Is this a strike that should require congressional authorization?
		And have you been briefed and should Congressman be briefed on it?

▲