Washington Journal on March 13, 2026, examines the Iran conflict's $11.3 billion cost and Strait of Hormuz closure, while debating Trump's proposed universal retirement accounts with a $1,000 annual match. Guests Benjamin Glassner and Elise Labitt analyze how these economic measures aim to support 55 million workers lacking savings without replacing Social Security, which currently aids half of seniors. Amid rising gas prices and partisan gridlock over the Save America Act, the episode concludes that stabilizing markets and expanding retirement access are critical for national security and long-term financial dignity. [Automatically generated summary]
And then global affairs journalist Elise Labbitt will talk about the latest on U.S.-Israeli combat operations against Iran and other news of the day.
Also, Benjamin Glasner of the Economic Innovation Group on President Trump's proposal to create private sector retirement accounts.
Washington Journal is next.
Join the conversation.
Good morning, everyone.
On this Friday, March the 13th.
This morning, we will focus on the economy with the price of gasoline rising due to the conflict in the Middle East, grocery prices remaining high, and the midterm elections heating up.
This morning, our question for you, which party do you trust on the economy?
We are about 230-some days away from the midterm elections.
Democrats, dial in at 202-748-8000.
Republicans, 202-748-8001.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can text if you don't want to call at 202-748-8003 or post on facebook.com slash C-SPAN and on X with the handle at C-SPANWJ.
Morning, everyone.
We'll begin with the Washington Post.
This news happening late last night, late yesterday, I should say.
The Trump administration is now allowing for Russian oil sales as energy prices soar.
From the Treasury Secretary Scott Besson, on X, he posted, to increase the global reach of existing supply, the U.S. Treasury is providing a temporary authorization to permit countries to purchase Russian oil currently stranded at sea.
This narrowly tailored, short-term measure applies only to oil already in transit.
It will not provide significant and will not provide significant benefit to the Russian government, which derives the majority of its energy revenue from taxes assessed at the point of extraction.
That's the Treasury Secretary with that announcement.
The price of gasoline is going up at the pump.
We've seen a barrel of oil going over $100.
Again, according to the average gas price, it's around $3.60 across the country.
And so this morning, we want to know from you, which party do you trust on the economy?
There it is on your screen from AAA, the latest on fuel prices.
Also, want to share with you this morning from the New York Times that the Iranian leader yesterday, the newly appointed Ayatollah, made his first public statement.
And in that, he vowed to keep the Strait of Hormuz blocked as oil shock grips the globe.
That's the New York Times this morning.
And in that, they report this.
On the 13th day of a war that has put on display the overwhelming military power of the United States and Israel, Mr. Khamenei's address appeared to underline that the Iranian leadership believes it has found an effective pressure point, choking off oil and gas to the rest of the world.
Iran's military has warned that no ships can transit the Strait of Hormuz, the portal to the Gulf through which one-fifth of the world's oil supply passes without Iran's permission.
From the New York Times this morning on that.
The Washington Post also reporting this morning on oil prices and what the U.S. is considering.
They're looking at the Jones Act this morning, which is a restriction on What type of ships can take U.S. imports, exports?
Here's the Washington Post this morning.
White House considers lifting shipping law in an effort to ease energy prices.
And this is what they report.
The White House is now considering waiving the Jones Act, a 1920 law that requires goods transported between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-owned ships.
So that is also what the White House is considering in order to help ease prices.
I also want to show you one other headline related to Iran and the economy.
USA Today front page, war costs topped at $11 billion in six days of this fighting, the first six days is what they report.
The USA Today says that at least $11.3 billion in munitions alone, according to the Pentagon's estimates.
That total does not include the cost of operating and maintaining the military force engaged in war or the battle damage sustained from Iran's attacks.
The military used about $5.6 billion in munitions in the first two days of this conflict.
So that is from USA Today.
War Costs Top $11 Billion in Six Days00:12:43
This morning we're asking you, when it comes to the economy and how it's impacting your wallet, which party do you trust to steer this economy?
We are just 200-some days away from the midterm election, so we're checking in to see how you plan to vote when it comes to the economy.
And there are the lines on your screen.
Take a look at this NBC poll that was recently done.
Which party do you prefer control of Congress?
When they asked those that they polled on this question, 50% said Democrats, 44% said Republicans, and 6% said that they were not sure.
Republicans gathered for their annual retreat this week.
They were not in session in the House, House Republicans, that is.
Here's Majority Leader Steve Scalise talking to reporters at this week's retreat in Florida on the GOP's midterm strategy on affordability.
We had a lot of mess to mop up from four years of Joe Biden.
Let's not forget the record high inflation, record high interest rates, costs through the roof.
Democrats never wanted to talk about affordability when they were jacking up costs on all families, making housing unaffordable for families, opening up our border and letting violent criminals come into this country.
And President Trump ran to fix that, and we as House Republicans ran to work with him to fix those problems for working families, and we've been delivering.
And make no mistake, this work is far from finished.
We're just getting started, and we're delivering real results for families.
They're finally starting to see costs start coming down.
Not to the level they were before Joe Biden started racking up those costs, but they're finally coming down.
When people file their tax returns this year, four in ten American families are getting real money back, over $1,000 back for most working families.
And every Democrat voted against that money being put back in the pockets of working families.
Think about this for senior citizens.
Senior citizens are seeing a $6,000 tax credit, which for 85% of seniors means they're not going to pay any taxes on Social Security.
That was Steve Scalise, the House Republican Majority Leader, talking about their party's strategy for the midterm elections and how they plan to address affordability.
Before we get to your calls on this question, which party do you trust in the economy?
Listen to the Democratic leader in the House, Hakeem Jeffries.
This is what he had to say Democrats will do to try to win back the majority in November.
Well, our top line focus clearly has to be to drive down the high cost of living.
One, with respect to housing, I think we need to build more housing in order to make sure that we can drop costs so that everyday Americans can afford to both pay their rent.
We can bring down the cost of rent by increasing the supply dramatically.
We also need to make home ownership, particularly for first-time homebuyers, more affordable.
So we want to focus on that.
We certainly need to bring down the high cost of health care.
And one of the ways in which we can do it is to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits.
Now, we've managed to do that in the House, but right now, John Thune and Senate Republicans are playing games and have refused to do what the American people are demanding, which will bring down housing, excuse me, health care costs and make it more affordable for more than 20 million Americans instantaneously and also have a positive impact on others.
Third thing that I would mention, of course, is that we've got to ensure that we stop the Trump tariffs.
They are increasing costs by thousands of dollars per year on everyday Americans.
And Congress needs to reclaim that power as opposed to what Republicans have done in the House, which is to continue to bury their heads in the sand and be a reckless rubber stamp for Donald Trump's extreme agenda.
The Democratic leader in the House, Hakeem Jeffries, on Tuesday.
Now, the Senate yesterday did take action on housing.
This is the headline from the New York Times in a rare, bipartisan move as the Senate passes a housing reform bill.
And this is what they report, that the Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly passed the largest piece of housing legislation in 36 years as Republicans and Democrats banded together to tackle a major cost of living issue.
But the bill still faces major hurdles as Republicans feud over what should be included.
And President Trump, who backs the measure, signals that is not a priority.
The package, which passed by a vote of 89 to 10, aims to boost the supply of new housing, a critical step toward bringing down housing costs by removing regulatory barriers, providing incentives, and preserving the existing supply.
And it would also set new limits on the role institutional investors play in the single-family housing market, a top goal of the president when signed, who signed an executive order on the issue in January.
So the Senate taking action yesterday on passing a housing bill.
However, look at the Washington Times headline.
Senate passes bipartisan housing package, but the House wants changes.
Now, from Punch Bull's reporting, they scooped earlier this week.
Speaker Mike Johnson informed House GOP leaders this week that the president told him no one gives a bleep about housing.
A message intended to convey that President Trump made the Safe America Act his top legislative priority.
This is on voter ID instead of housing from Punch Bull News.
They go on to write that that is a top priority instead.
And of all of this, and all of this is far in the background of the Iran war, which is dominating everything in Washington.
Without clear marching orders from Trump, Republicans are descending into a pitched bicameral standoff.
Rank-and-file House Republicans and their leaders are threatening to force a formal negotiation, potentially unraveling the carefully crafted Senate package.
And Senator John Kennedy, a Republican of Louisiana, told Punch Bull he'd spoken to the House colleagues on Wednesday about potential tweaks to their Senate housing bill.
But the Louisiana Republican also warned that if the House rips the bill apart, Congress's chance to pass a housing bill this year will fail.
So this morning, with all of that on the table, which party do you trust on the economy?
David's in New York, an independent.
Good morning to you, David.
Hi, yes.
Good morning, America, and good morning, Chris.
This is my first time calling your program.
Normally, I vote on issues instead of party, but I'm sorry to say this.
I want to ask one question.
Why said that?
All the wars that have started in the last 10 years or 15 years have all been started by Republican administrations.
I do not trust the Republican Party when it comes to the economy.
They only opt for the big friends and big multi-corporations and the big welfare corporate giants who are called to be corporate welfare sponsors.
And this economy is going to go down the dream with this war going on.
We are not spending $11 billion a day.
That's just for equipment alone.
That's not even included for costs and for other things.
As a result, the economy is going down the tube.
And one last thing I will say: the Democrats are going to take over the House of Representatives and the Senate come September.
And this man is going to stop dead in his tracks.
And then the rest of these Republicans are going to see who are they going to cartel behind or where is that tail going to fall off.
Thank you very much.
America, watch out and listen and see which party takes you into war and which party does not take you into war.
Thank you very much.
America, have a pleasant day.
All right.
David, an independent in New York, predicting Democrats take back the majority in the House and the Senate.
Howard in New London, Ohio, Republican.
Howard, which party do you trust on the economy and why?
Republicans, as far as the gas prices, oil going up and everything, this has been going on for what, 20, 30, 40 years.
Every time Iran wants to get mad or something and they shut down the strait, the prices all go up or the shipping's got to go all the way around and they charge you more there too.
So this has happened, I don't know how many times.
It needs to be done.
It needs to be fixed.
And it needs to be done all the way, not like it usually does go.
Yeah, Howard, what needs to be done specifically?
You can't do that.
Howard, what specifically needs to be done and all the way?
Well, people don't need laws.
They need morals.
And most of the people in this world don't have morals.
So you got to have rules and laws.
Iran does not go by any, they hate all of our rules and laws.
They think we're the Satan.
You can't fix that.
I heard, as far as the economy goes, on C-SPAN, I heard yesterday or the day before about how America one time put in a law to where all American oil can only be sold in America.
I understand the oil companies own the oil because they get the oil rights when they buy the property.
I assume that's how that works.
So they have the rights to sell it to whoever they want, you know, and make whatever money they want.
But when it comes to the world economy, not just a person making a buck, making a living, when it comes to the whole world, no, that needs to be taken away.
Needs to be stopped.
They need to, if that's true, that they had a law to where oil, American oil, could only be sold in America.
They need to go back to that.
Okay.
And let's hash it out ourselves.
Why is our oil and the oil that he's going to release?
Now, is that oil just staying here?
You're talking about the oil reserves.
Yeah.
Okay.
Or is it going to get shipped everywhere else for everybody else when it was ours and we paid for it?
And it's crazy.
All right, Howard, let me read from the New York Times this morning on the oil reserves.
Why oil costs aren't falling despite the release of the reserves?
Oil futures have again topped $100 a barrel.
The latest surge after days of wild price swings in the market since the United States and Israel first struck Iran.
But this uptick came after the International Energy Agency, that's in the U.S., on Wednesday announced that more than 30 countries would release a record amount of oil from their emergency reserves.
So it's not just the U.S., but other countries as well.
Instead of reassuring jittery markets, the news seemed to further spook traders by underscoring how far the world is from reopening trade in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway and vital trading route that separates Middle Eastern oil producers from their customers.
This concern was further reinforced when three ships were attacked in the channel on Wednesday.
Before the war, the strait carried more than 20 million barrels a day, roughly one-fifth of the world's supply.
That traffic is virtually halted.
While world leaders agreed to release a record 400 million barrels of oil from the strategic reserves, that is only about 20 days worth of oil that would normally flow through the strait.
So that's from the New York Times reporting this morning to answer your question about who's releasing the reserves.
It's not just the United States, 30 other countries, and why you're not seeing the price go down quite yet.
We're asking all of you this morning ahead of campaign 2026, which party do you trust on the economy?
Roberts in Arkansas, Democratic caller, good morning.
Let's hear from you.
Good morning.
Republicans Seek Consensus on Economy Bill00:07:00
I said the Democrats do a better job with the economy.
Now, here I'm always bashing Joe Biden, but they got to remember when Joe Biden came into office, it was behind President Trump, and it was a pandemic, and everything was going downhill.
And Biden fought and tried his best to bring everything back to normal.
He was succeeding.
Now we got President Trump in there.
Everything now started off.
He was bragging how good it was because he came in.
But now things are going down.
And he's going to still start blaming everything on Joe Biden.
And it's one more thing.
Donald Trump has got the Republican Party like trained SEALs.
Scalise, Johnson, and Thunton.
He got them all acting like trained SEALs.
They have no backbone.
They scared of the man.
They don't want to think about their jobs and their jobs on it.
And I listened to him yesterday on TV.
He said that we're going to make a whole lot of money behind these oil prices going up.
So that tells you right there that he's not even seeing what America happened to the American people.
And on top of that, you finna hang up.
No, we're listening.
On top of that, what?
Okay, on top of that, him and his family is making all kinds of money behind these different things.
Everything he do.
And this war, I heard that this family is going to open up a drone factory.
So that means that they're going to be making money from now on and get a contract with a contract with them drones that they're going to be making.
So now put it in money.
Okay.
Robert, I'm going to leave it there and pick up on what you said about House Republican leaders because they held a retreat in Florida this year, this week, with rank and file Republicans.
And joining us this morning is Katie Santalese, Kate Santalese who's a congressional reporter with Axios.
And why were Republicans meeting in Florida?
What were they doing there?
Thank you for having me.
Yeah, so House Republicans met earlier this week in Dural, Florida for their annual policy retreat.
And the goal here was really to map out their legislative agenda for the rest of the year.
Now, we did learn that there was some of that happening.
There were definitely discussions around that.
But the path forward for doing another mega bill, which some members would like to see, turns out to be a little bit more complicated than they had previously thought.
House Speaker Mike Johnson would really like to see another Reconciliation 2.0.
He told reporters that it may not be as big, but it'll be just as beautiful.
But the issue here is going to be finding consensus around what will actually go into that bill for Republicans.
What we've learned is that there seems to be the most consensus around cutting fraud and abuse and waste in social safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP.
And then there are also some smaller items around health care and housing.
But you need to find 200 plus members to get on board with all the same topics.
And with Ross Johnson's razor-thin majorities, he's going to need nearly everyone.
So that's why there are a lot of members who were open about being skeptical about getting this done, including House Ways Immune Chair Jason Smith.
He was central to the last round of reconciliation.
And then there are really two more major hurdles here, and that's timing and the president.
Timing-wise, they really only have the spring to get this done with a real deadline of probably Labor Day before campaign season really goes into full swing.
The last reconciliation that we saw, that took several months, lots of late nights, and a lot of work.
So some members are skeptical that they have the time and the energy to get that done.
And then the second hurdle is President Trump.
He had addressed House Republicans on Monday night of their retreat.
And notably, he did not urge them to pass another reconciliation bill.
Instead, he made clear that his number one legislative priority for this Congress for the rest of the year is passing the Save America Act, that voter ID legislation that has not been able to get through the Senate.
So yes, there were lots of discussions about the legislative path forward for the rest of the year, but they don't have the consensus that they need right now.
Are they torn, the Republican Party and the House Republicans specifically, on addressing affordability versus the president's priority of this voter ID law?
Yes.
Something that you hear from House Republicans is that we need to be talking about affordability.
We need to do something on housing, on health care, on more tax cuts.
But the president, as we've heard him say, has called affordability a hoax.
But Republicans need that affordability messaging in their midterm elections.
Running on the economy is something that they've done in the past.
It's been a successful topic for them.
But the president instead would like them to focus on the Save America Act, which has really riled up the base here.
But the issue is that it can't get through the Senate, that 60-vote threshold.
We're going to see Majority Leader John Thune take up the bill this upcoming week where it's unlikely to fail.
It's not going to meet that 60-vote threshold.
So there does seem to be a split here on Republicans saying we need to talk about affordability.
And they also want to do the SAVE Act, but that's what President Trump wants the most.
And how, if it doesn't have the votes in the Senate, what are they contemplating there on the SAVE Act in order to push it through?
Right.
So there's been a lot of talk around the talking filibuster, instituting that again.
And that's something that Majority Leader John Thune has consistently poured cold water on.
And that has not satisfied the demands of conservative House Republicans and the MAGA online right, who have been attacking the majority leader for a couple weeks now over not over non-stituting this talking filibuster.
So now we're going to see some more pressure from House Conservatives, like Representative Ana Paulina Luna, for example.
She would like to attach the SAVE Act to FISA, the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Service Act.
That is a must-pass bill that's always complicated and always messy, always falls along varying ideological lines.
And if they attach the SAVE Act to that, it's likely that we could see FISA lapse.
And then also, if they don't attach the SAVE Act, then House Republicans are going to withhold their votes from FISA, and then it's going to be really difficult to get that through the chamber.
So we're going to continue to see conservatives hammer on getting the SAVE Act through the Senate, but it's unlikely that it's going to get through without blowing up that 60-vote threshold.
And who's for blowing it up on the Republican side?
Well, in the Senate, we've definitely seen some outspoken members saying, like Senators Lee, Senators Rick Scott, saying it's time to get rid of this.
We saw Senator John Cornyn, who's in a contested runoff with Attorney General Ken Paxton right now, trying to get the president's endorsement flip-flop on the filibuster this week.
He had previously said we need to uphold this, and now he's saying, well, maybe I'm open to some changes.
But there are some senators that are in the Senate, like Susan Collins, Senator Lisa Murkowski, who are not willing to change the rules around the filibuster.
And Senate Majority Leader John Thune knows he has the votes.
And House member doesn't have the votes.
And House members can complain about this all they want, urge the Senate to get rid of this filibuster, but it's unlikely that that pressure will actually result in that happening.
Kate Santalis is a congressional reporter with Axios.
Wealthier Americans Handle Tariffs Better00:11:24
Thank you for your time this morning.
Thank you.
Picking up on what Kate said about Senator John Cornyn flip-flopping on the talking filibuster, this is related, as she said, to his primary fight against State Attorney General Ken Paxton.
New York Times reporting just a week ago, Ken Paxton had seemed on the verge of endorsement, President Trump had seemed to be on the verge of endorsing Mr. Cornyn after Republicans spent more than $70 million on pro-Corn and ads in the first round of the Texas primary, which ended with him and Mr. Paxton heading to a May runoff.
Mr. Trump said on social media that he would make an endorsement soon and that the candidates who did not get his nod should drop out.
Then Mr. Paxton made a bold play.
In a post on X, he said he would consider dropping out, but only if Senate Republicans circumvented the filibuster to pass Mr. Trump's top legislative priority, a bill that would impose strict voter ID requirements, the SAFE Act that Kate was just talking about.
Campaign 2026 is our conversation this morning.
Which party do you trust on the economy?
Ivy in Fergus Falls, Minnesota and Independent.
Ivy, you're next.
Hi.
Thanks, Greta, for taking my call.
And I just had to call in after I heard Steve Scalise talk about the tax credit for seniors because I went to my local library, grabbed the 1040, and I looked because I just thought, is this for real?
And if it was a tax credit, is it a refundable tax credit?
Because there's a difference.
But it is not a tax credit.
It is a deduction from your income.
And so there's a big difference there.
And before I go on, I want to just say hi to Sharon out there in rural Minnesota.
I was so touched by your call.
And I have actually written to my representative about the federal poverty level and senior citizens needing extra help because I know several ladies in my hometown that are in the same shoes as her.
All right.
And Ivy, so which party do you trust on the economy?
Oh, sorry.
Okay, I was just getting to that.
I do trust the Democrats more just because they seem to care more about people.
And the Republican Party has always seemed to be just doing things for rich people.
And that just goes, you know, like the tariffs, Trump, you know, people that are wealthier can handle that.
But, you know, the tariffs, the coffee went up.
It's still up.
Gas is now up because of the war.
And the last time I got to feel one time at Sam's, and the only reason I joined Sam's was because they offered a $15 a year membership.
But the one time.
Ivy, before we let you go, have you ever voted for Republicans?
You're calling on the independent line.
Oh, yes, I did.
And I have because I'm pro-life, too.
But I'm pro-life for everybody.
And you can't have people starving and homeless.
And that poverty level has so much to do with it.
Okay.
And Ivy had a thing.
Did you ever vote for President Trump?
No, because I saw the Access Hollywood tape.
And he, you know, I actually had a friend say she was going to vote for Trump because he was a gentleman.
And we all know that is not true.
All right.
I've got to leave it there, Ivy, because we've got other folks waiting.
Virginia in Waldorf, Maryland, Republican.
Your turn.
Yes, good morning.
I don't really like either party.
The Republicans are putting us deeper and deeper in debt with the war.
The Democrats just don't seem to be able to accomplish anything.
So I really have no faith left in the federal government as far as the economy.
Housing is bad.
Food cost is phenomenal.
As a senior citizen, I can honestly tell you, I don't see a whole lot of breaks on a limited income.
So I don't know who they're looking at or who they're trying to address as far as income.
Okay.
Robin, North Carolina Democratic caller.
Hi, Robin.
Hi.
Good morning.
I called in because I heard a gentleman mention how the straits of Hormuz are closed constantly, this and that and the other thing.
Well, they were closed in the 80s and they're closed today.
Any other thing must have been just a small incursion.
But as far as our presidents go, when Reagan left office, well, let me just say that there is better job growth under Democrats than there is Republicans.
And the U.S. economy performs better under Democrats.
So, you know, the proof is in the what data do you point to?
Oh, I'm sorry.
This is jec.senate.gov.
This is a.
The Joint Economic Committee.
Yes, this is a government website.
And I see that it says the U.S. economy performs better under Democratic presidents.
All right, Robin, Democratic caller.
We're at the bottom of the hour this morning.
Campaign 2026 is on our minds.
And we want to know this morning, which party do you trust on the economy?
Listen to President Trump this week.
He touted his handling of the economy at an event in Kentucky earlier this week.
A short time ago under Biden and his allies in Congress, we had a dead, we were dead as a door now.
We were a dead country, I'll tell you, and it looked like we weren't going to come back.
Now we have the hottest country anywhere in the world.
This is the hottest country anywhere in the world.
Most powerful military.
The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election, all-time.
And the typical American 401k is up by almost $35,000 since I took office.
And in four years, Joe Biden got less than $1 trillion of new investment into the United States.
So think of this.
$1 trillion over a period of much less.
Over a period of four years, we got $18 trillion.
And Jake Paul knows what that means.
$18 trillion in 11 months because they haven't calculated the 12th.
So we have 18 trillion in 11 months.
Say in a year, what difference does it make?
Compared to less than substantially less than $1 trillion in four years, you would say they're not doing, they didn't do a good job.
President Trump, earlier this week on the economy, we're asking, is it Republicans or Democrats that you trust when it comes to the economy?
Bill and Mark, Texas, an independent.
Good morning.
Yes, ma'am.
I definitely trust the Republicans because the Democrats are, well, the old Democrats, the good ones, like Harry Truman and JFK and Martin Luther King, they were good Americans.
The radical left that we got now are nothing but traitors.
And they're showing it right now.
It's just like Obama.
Obama gives these murdering killers up from Iran billions and billions of dollars, give it to them and freed up money before they could have it.
I mean, to me, he's nothing but a traitor.
And Biden's nothing but a traitor.
Okay.
So, Bill, when it comes to the economy, though, what do you like from what you've seen by the Republican president and the Republican-controlled Congress in the second term of President Trump and this Congress?
They've had all the power in Washington.
They have a trifecta.
So what have you liked?
What have they done in the economy that you've liked?
Well, I like the big, beautiful bill.
And it takes 60 votes to pass something like this in the Senate.
And we don't have that big a majority.
You do have to, you know, you have to have 60 votes unless you want to do the filibuster thing, which is probably what they need to do.
Because if you allow these radical lunatic left get in there and these traitors like Biden and Obama and give billions of dollars to these murdering killers from Iran, and Trump, he's giving them what they need six feet under.
That's something that should have been done a long time ago.
All right.
Bill's thoughts there.
And Mark, Texas.
Dan's a Republican, Concord, New Hampshire.
Hi, Dan.
Hey, good morning.
Yeah, this is very, very simple.
Give people just a brief history lesson.
Joe Biden comes into office.
What's the first thing he does?
Cuts oil production, okay, drives up the price of gasoline, okay?
You know, impacts the supply chains, which were already impacted by the pandemic.
Then they spend trillions and trillions of dollars and, you know, over what money we don't have, flood the economy with cash.
We get the highest inflation we've had on record, 9%.
Inflation was 1.5% when Biden came into office.
And with Connelly Harris and Joe Biden were telling us the biggest problem was white supremacy.
That was a big problem.
It wasn't the economy.
It was white supremacy.
That was the big issue.
And then I remember the House tried to pass a vote to allow 16-year-olds to vote, which, you know, I mean, you know, they didn't care about the economy.
I mean, the economy was not an issue when Biden came in office.
So they broke and everything.
And then the illegal immigrants, they drove up housing, all the illegal immigrants coming into the country.
So it's like a grocery store with a mess on aisle one, two, three, four, five, and six.
Not to mention the wars.
So, I mean, I don't know.
I mean, Democrats, what it's about is give us power.
We'll make promises.
And then we don't do it.
We do something else.
We just get into power.
We don't do it.
They are never held accountable by the legacy media.
On and on and on.
Republicans, vote Republican.
Okay.
Give this country a chance.
All right.
That's Dan in Concord, New Hampshire.
Republican caller.
We're asking you this morning, which party do you trust on the economy?
Taking your pulse this morning ahead of the midterm elections.
We'll get back to your calls in just a minute.
Democrats Fail to Deliver Economic Promises00:02:01
I want to share some other headlines with you related to the conflict in Iran.
Here is the Associated Press this morning.
Iran war disrupts energy supplies as Iran's new leader resolves to keep fighting.
That's his first message from the newly appointed Ayatollah yesterday.
And then you also have this from the Associated Press.
U.S. military refueling plane crashes in Iraq and rescue is underway.
It wasn't enemy fire and it wasn't friendly fire either.
That's from the Associated Press this morning.
From the New York Times, here's an update for you.
Israel targets Hezbollah in Beirut as strikes hit a city center there.
And you also have this morning from the Wall Street Journal, FBI investigating the Michigan synagogue attack that happened yesterday as targeted act of violence.
The armed suspect who died at the scene breached the temple doors with his vehicle.
So they're investigating that as possibly ISIS-related.
And then you also have from NBC News, suspect in Old Dominion University shooting was convicted ISIS supporter.
So that is the latest on the conflict with Iran.
Want to note that coming up next week, those headlines are likely turning into questions from lawmakers as on Tuesday, the FBI Director Kash Patel, the Director of the National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe testify on global threats facing the United States.
The hearing comes as the tensions escalate amid this ongoing conflict with Iran.
Watch the House intelligence hearing live at 2 p.m. Eastern Time on C-SPAN 3, C-SPAN Now, our free video mobile app, and online at c-span.org.
That happening on Tuesday next week.
Chase, in Germantown, Maryland, a Democratic caller.
Military Spending Leaves Populace Behind00:03:23
We are talking about the economy.
Which party do you trust?
Hi, thanks, C-SPAN.
I can't say I like the binary nature of the question.
Which party do I trust?
Okay.
I can easily say I trust the Democratic Party more, but that doesn't mean that I have my full trust in them or either of them.
And I'll tell you why.
First and foremost, we all see the wealth gap between the top 1% and the rest of the public.
That still continues to go up exponentially.
And I don't see it changing with either party in charge.
The next thing I will say is, as a veteran, we have to consider the amount of military spending that we have.
You know, you played that Trump clip, and he mentioned we have the most powerful military in the world.
That's part of the problem for the rest of the Americans.
We're spending now almost a trillion dollars a year, and we have well over 700 military installations worldwide.
Each of those requires manning, security, resourcing, and that costs a ton of money.
The amount of money that's being spent on the military and then the amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that's occurring.
We take, for example, the $93 billion that was left over back in September and which HagSet may or may not have spent on lobsters or other fine dining things is a testament to that issue.
And as long as we continue to increase our military and defense spending, unfortunately, much of the American populace is going to be left behind.
And Chase, did you see the headline at the top of the hour this morning when we started from USA Today about how much has been spent in this conflict so far?
I did.
I did.
And for anyone who missed, yeah, go ahead.
$11 billion?
Was that the number, right?
Yeah.
So, yeah, I will say that's just in munitions.
We also have to talk about freight and rail and transport of munitions and people and resources.
So it goes up exponentially, not just from a resource perspective, but military spending overall.
It's not just about men or boots on the ground.
It's moving equipment.
It's putting up T-walls and 18-foot concrete reinforced barriers and security systems in countries that we have no business in.
And as long as we're continuing to police the world and not helping ourselves out, then I think it's a moot point to ask, which party do we trust or which party do we trust more?
Because I don't see anything changing otherwise.
Okay, Chase, from those that missed it, the USA Today is reporting the first six days of war in Iran cost U.S. taxpayers at least $11.3 billion in munitions alone, according to a Pentagon estimate reviewed by lawmakers.
And experts say the final cost will only increase.
That total does not include the cost of operating and maintaining the military force engaged in the war or battle damage sustained from Iran's attacks.
Housing Shortage Persists Under Both Parties00:15:31
Ronald in Coleman, Alabama, an independent.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Go ahead, Ronald.
We're listening to you.
First thing I want to say is you were talking about housing, this housing bill.
Well, this town I live in has got about 22,000 people in it.
They are building houses on every corner.
I mean, they're filling this place up with houses, but they're not affordable houses.
They're worth $250,000 to $450,000 houses.
And if they're selling these houses, you know, you can't afford that on incomes around this area.
Also, if they don't sell them, then they're renting them.
And the rent on them is going to be so high that you can't afford them to rent them in this area because of the income level.
I mean, people don't pay you enough to live in this area.
So, Ronald, which party are you voting for in November?
In November?
Well, in the primary that's coming up, I'm going to vote Democrat because I want Cumberville to be my governor because President Trump is just putting him in here and as governor is the way I feel.
Now, when it comes to the general election, I'm going to split my ticket.
I mean, I'm going to vote for a Democrat.
If I think that Democrat's going to do a good job, I'm going to vote for that Republican.
I think they're doing a good job.
And what issues drive your decision?
Is it the economy?
It's the economy and the things they do in this state and in this country.
They're not for the people in this country.
They're for themselves.
They do for themselves and for their big, rich buddies, Democrat or Republican.
When you say they, are you referring to people in both parties, lawmakers in both parties?
Both parties, both parties.
They don't work for us.
They work for themselves and their big rich buddies.
All right, so are you anti-incumbent, Ronald?
Are you going to vote people out of office?
Yes, ma'am.
I advocate real hard on this line for people to vote against the sitting person in any government elected office every two years.
You vote them out.
Okay.
Ronald, I'll leave it there.
He started out talking about housing.
I want to share with Ronald and others.
New York Times, in the U.S., the cost of mortgage rising again.
The average 30-year fixed rate mortgage rate in the United States rose to 6.31%.
The mortgage finance giant Freddie Mac said Thursday, the second week in a row, that rates have risen.
The average had slipped below 6% for the first time in years in late February, raising confidence among buyers and sellers that the long frozen market might finally begin to loosen.
That's from the New York Times this morning.
At the Pentagon today, 8 a.m. Eastern Time, this Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, along with the Joint Chiefs Chair, General Dan Kane, will be briefing reporters and the American public on the conflict in Iran.
We will have live coverage on C-SPAN 2, C-SPAN Now, our free video mobile app, and online at c-span.org.
We will also show you, if we can, right here the top of that briefing during today's Washington Journal.
Happening next week in Washington on Wednesday, mark your calendars.
Oklahoma Senator Mark Wayne Mullen will testify at a confirmation hearing to be the next Secretary of Homeland Security.
The president, as all of you know, picked Senator Mullen to lead the department after announcing that Christy Noam would be reassigned to serve in a special envoy role.
Watch the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs hearing live at 9.30 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 3, C-SPAN Now, that free video mobile app, or online on demand at c-span.org.
Also happening next week on interest rates, Jerome Powell will be addressing reporters and taking their questions after the board meeting that happens next week, the quarterly board meeting.
And that will take place at 2.30 p.m. Eastern Time.
And we will have live coverage on C-SPAN 3, C-SPANNOW, and c-SPAN.org.
Back to our calls, Shirley, Stratford, Connecticut, Democratic caller.
Shirley, who do you trust?
Which party, Democrats or Republicans on the economy?
Democrats have proven over and over.
Good morning, Greta.
Good morning.
They have proven over and over that they can balance a budget.
Republicans have never balanced anything.
They can't even balance themselves right now.
And it seems very important for America to know that Republicans are always going outside the country for something, to do something, to spend our money.
But when we require money to be spent here in America, it's only the Democrats that say, let's do something for an American.
Let's do something for the people who need help here in America.
Not in Iran, not in Israel, not in Russia, not anywhere.
And here we are now with Republicans talking about how they want to use an enemy, Russia, to supply oil to everywhere else that they have caused a problem that now they don't know how to solve.
And this is another thing about how we as Americans have to see how the parties work for an American.
There's nothing in Iran that we have to worry about.
Let Iran take care of Iran and let America take care of America.
And it seems to me that the Democrats, like I said, are the only ones who have balanced the budget.
Republicans never did.
Okay, surely.
Mike, you're next.
Houston, Texas.
Good morning.
Morning.
I don't know what balanced budget the Democrats have balanced, but I will say that when Joe Biden took office in 2021, the dollar bill in one's wallet, just a dollar bill, by the time he left office, that dollar bill was worth 79 cents.
There's nothing that strips prosperity away from the poor more than inflation.
It is a worse tax on the poorest Americans than anything because it just is it hits them everywhere.
Groceries and gasoline and interest rates on credit cards, all those things strip the least, the disposable income from them.
So that's one element that you're not accounting for here.
Yeah, have you seen inflation go down enough under President Trump?
Well, how do you create deflation?
What president has a policy for deflation?
Now, with eggs, there have been some things with chickens and so on.
So there are some things there.
So good news there.
Gas, oil, energy, energy costs, a lot of those things are actually controlled at the local level and utility bills and so on.
So that's a complicated policy for any president.
But yes, yes, policies are in a place to push prices down to the extent that you can buy of energy, oil and gas, for example, and also deregulation.
When the cost of producing goods is lower, that helps on the shelves.
96% of goods on the shelves at the grocery store are delivered by fossil fuels.
So that does reduce the cost.
Also, look at the states.
Look at the states.
But Mike, won't that price go up now that the cost of oil has gone up over $100 a barrel again?
So won't the cost of groceries go up?
And how long will that last?
And how long will that last?
It's been two weeks.
We've been fighting the Ukrainian war and money and supplies.
I remember distinctly hearing Joe Biden say over and over again, as long as it takes, as long as it takes.
Well, that's a lot different than what's your policy in Iran.
What's the deal here?
Two weeks into the war.
Okay.
I mean, it's like, come on, you know, and then final, final point, if I may.
Look at California versus Texas.
Texas has a balanced budget.
California doesn't.
California is losing people.
They have the most beautiful weather in the world.
And then Texas doesn't have it.
I mean, the diet comedy, the highest illiteracy rate is in California.
The homelessness rate in California, way high.
Mike, I'm going to jump in and pick up on what you said on inflation and show you and others a recent poll that was done by NBC, the most important issue facing the country, and inflation and cost of living tops the list at 26%.
Another 26% said it's threats to the democracy, while 13% said it's immigration and border security.
11% said jobs in the economy.
And 7% said it's the cost of health care.
We're asking all of you this morning, which party do you trust on the economy when it comes to voting in the midterm elections?
Listen to House Speaker Mike Johnson earlier this week at the House Republican retreat, brushing off rising gas prices, potentially hurting GOP candidates this fall.
But I think that this current operation was by design limited in scope and in mission.
I think the mission is being achieved, it is nearly completed.
And the commander-in-chief himself said in the last 24 hours it will come to a close.
So gas prices will readjust after that.
You know, most of this is because the Strait of the Hormuz, the Strait of Hormuz has been closed by the regime down there, but it will be reopened and it will take a couple of weeks, but gas prices will come back down.
Remember, they were down almost $2.50 a gallon on a national average under President Trump, when under Biden, they were at almost $5 a gallon.
So this is a temporary blip in an extraordinary trend of a return to American energy dominance.
The evidence speaks for itself and it will continue to.
Olivia.
Speaker Mike Johnson talking about the conflict in Iran and he believes it's a short-term impact on oil and gas prices.
Steve in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Independent.
Steve, good morning.
Welcome to the conversation.
Which party do you trust?
Basically, neither.
And I will be voting green.
In the early 70s, I worked at a gas station during college, and we got a letter from the Texaco, it was Texaco, from the Texaco head division that said, you'll get no more gas ever than you've gotten now.
And then they took all the filling stations.
Basically, the gas companies are running them now, and they have the services such as food, et cetera, there.
So this is a big change, and it's been designed to help make sure that there's a gas shortage.
All right.
Liz in Marlton, New Jersey, Democratic caller.
Good morning.
Compared to the Republicans, if you're an ordinary American citizen, it's always been the Democrats who are less likely to run up a big deficit debt bill.
The debt got run away when the Republicans under Ronald Reagan added to the national debt in a huge way.
So I would say that the Democrats have consistently, I think it was under Nancy Pelosi, she had a pay-go situation where they would pay for new projects if they wanted to pass it through her house.
Then immediately, whenever a Republican becomes president, George Bush, George Bush Sr., Trump, for God's sake, they constantly have a giveaway program to the top 1%.
Yet, working class people, and you hear them every day here, call in and haven't seemed to figure out that they don't get representation from the Republicans.
So I wish that people would wake up.
But I think we're in big trouble with this oil shortage.
It'll be an oil shortage if the Iranians are able to successfully block the oil from coming.
And I was alive in 1973 and 1974.
It's not going to be the price that is bothersome.
It's going to be the availability of oil that will disappear.
So I think it's time that Trump be considered for the 25th Amendment.
And he needs to be out of that office because he clearly is a danger to our economic and our democracy at the same time.
Thank you.
Liz, a Democrat in New Jersey.
Nancy is an independent in Houston.
Hi, Nancy.
Hi.
Yeah, I agree with the man that called a couple of calls ago about the dollar when Biden was in office.
But one thing I want to say is nobody's talking about the billions in fraud that is going on in our country.
Michigan.
What is that?
Michigan or whatever that state was.
Were they billions?
Minnesota, that's right.
Nobody is referring to that.
All the fraud in Medicaid, children, the autistic children, the money that was supposed to go to them.
What is going on?
Maybe if we get rid of the fraud, the cost of living would go down.
Sending billions of dollars or talking about all these Democrats sending billions of dollars to the war.
What about the billions of fraud that happened in these states?
California, what did you say, Minnesota?
Nobody's talking about that.
Billions, not thousands, billions of dollars that went God knows where to Iran and they funded ISIS.
This is disgusting.
You're talking about the cost of living.
The cost of living would go down if we take care of the fraud and get on top of that.
And as far as the economy, when Joe Biden was in office, I went broke paying $5 for gas.
Fraud Allegations Fuel Cost of Living Debate00:06:42
Groceries were off the wall.
And the Democrats are talking about the war right now, a two-week war.
We're in a five-year war with Ukraine, which started with Biden.
Don't these people have memory of what was going on?
They sent billions of dollars over to Ukraine.
Every two weeks they were sending money.
The guy from Ukraine would come over and ask for more money.
They give him more money.
What is going on?
Do these people not know what is happening?
What happened two years ago?
All right.
Nancy with her thoughts there in Houston, Texas.
Margie in Meadville, Pennsylvania, Republican caller.
Margie, who do you trust on the economy?
Is it Democrats or is it Republicans?
Well, I do trust the Republicans more because I'm a Republican and I believe in small government.
I don't believe in giving everything to everybody, but I don't think they're getting their message across.
They pick on a couple items like gas or something.
And I think the Democrats are pulling our leg and the Republicans aren't getting their message across.
I have a loved one in the hospitality industry, works in a thousand-room hotel, nothing under $500 a night, and it's full.
And it has been full.
And the cruise ships are full.
The highways are full.
The planes are full.
Now, these can't be all one percenters.
These are middle-income people.
So I just don't think they're getting their message across as well as they could.
So, what do they need to say, Margie, instead?
Well, I think they need to actually say, you know, don't just pick one item and say, oh, well, the gas is up, but it'll be going down.
They have to do the whole thing.
I live alone.
I spend $175 a month on groceries.
It has very seldom changed.
And this month, I even treated myself to a bag of scallops.
So my grocery bill hasn't changed.
So I just think they're just not getting the message across.
And I'm afraid Michael Johnson isn't make the facts powerful enough.
Okay.
So, Margie, there in Pennsylvania, Republican caller.
Barbara in Tennessee, independent.
Hi, Barbara.
Hello.
How are you this morning?
Doing well.
Which party do you trust on the economy?
Well, right now, I'm independent, so you know, it's really neither.
But right now, I would trust the Democrats more.
I would trust the Republicans if they weren't under Trump, but I'm going to tell you what.
I don't know if it's his administration or him and his administration or what, but this has gone crazy.
What's gone crazy?
Which part?
Well, we're going to war over what?
Okay, what?
Yeah, Rand's always been a threat to us, and we've always handled it.
This whole, I don't know what it's doing to the ecology around here.
I don't know what's doing to the climate, the earth, the people itself.
I mean, people are never the same when they go through war.
I've had three family members in war, and they're not the same when they come out.
So it's changed a lot.
And as far as the prices and economy here, well, it's been up for so long.
Once things go up, they don't ever go back down.
They might come down a little, but they don't ever go back down.
So, yeah, I'm for the Democrats right now.
Okay.
Barbara in Tennessee, Independent.
Frank, Silver Creek, Georgia, Republican.
Frank.
Hey.
Yeah.
Morning.
Yeah.
There's a, I'd like to focus on Bill Clinton.
Yeah.
Uh-huh.
Everybody thinks that he balanced the budget.
Well, there were 12 years of Republican leadership before he ever got elected.
And he did not balance that budget in two years, people.
You know, right now, we're in.
And another thing about him, he didn't address the trade deficit.
He legalized the NAFTA agreement.
Thousands of jobs left.
Industry closed.
He said, oh, we're going to have a peace dividend.
Pull 200,000 troops out of Europe.
Europe never anteed up to NATO.
We would not have a war in Ukraine right now if it were not for Bill Clinton, the darling Democrat.
So, Frank, were you ever a Democrat?
No, I've never voted Democrat.
I like less government, and at least Reagan kept the government small.
He did build that army up, that military, and I was part of that.
And we didn't have to send 800,000 troops to Kuwait, though.
Okay.
Frank, let me ask you about Republicans today.
What have you seen from the president in his second term and the Republicans who control Congress that you like when it comes to the economy?
I like the fact that he has vision and he leads.
The Democrats don't lead, and they don't think ahead.
They're in the now thinkers.
They don't think of where they came from.
They don't care about their past.
And they don't care about where they're going.
All they care about is what makes people feel good.
And they'll vote for me.
I'll make the women feel good, and I'll get their vote.
And the women are not smart enough to realize that.
The Democrats are the reason we're in the situation we're in now.
All right.
We'll go to Brent, who's in Washington.
Democratic caller.
Hi, thanks for taking my call.
If people would actually remember history, every time Republicans have had control of the government, the debt and the deficit goes up.
That's just a fact.
When Democrats are in charge, the debt and the deficit has always gone down and the economy has grown.
That's just another fact.
Now, as far as for the woman from Texas whining about the fraud in Minnesota, well, if you would actually check some facts yourself, you would find that most of the fraud as far as food stamps and stuff like that came from Mississippi.
And then you got Ron Johnson, or Scott, whatever his name is, was from Florida.
Media Misinformation Widens Political Divide00:06:52
He committed the most outrageous Medicare fraud in history, to the tune of like $300 and some million dollars.
He should still be, he should be in prison today.
But of course he's not.
All right, I have to leave it there.
We're going to take our viewers to the Pentagon, the Defense Secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Dan Kaine about to brief.
I'll start as we often do here at the Department of War with the bottom line up front for the world to hear and the press to actually admit that the United States is decimating the radical Iranian regime's military in a way the world has never seen before.
Never before has a modern, capable military, which Iran used to have, been so quickly destroyed and made combat ineffective, devastated.
We said it would not be a fair fight, and it has not been.
As I stated during our first press conference on day two, that was 10 short days ago, the combination of the world's two most powerful air forces is unprecedented and unbeatable.
Between our air force and that of the Israelis, over 15,000 enemy targets have been struck.
That's well over 1,000 a day.
No other combination of countries in the world can do that.
So today, as we speak, we fly over the top of Iran and Tehran, fighters and bombers all day picking targets as they choose.
As our intelligence gets better and better and more refined, looking up, the IRGC and Iranian regime sees only two things on the side of aircraft, the stars and stripes and the star of David.
The evil regime's worst nightmare.
Iran has no air defenses.
Iran has no air force.
Iran has no navy.
Their missiles, their missile launchers and drones being destroyed or shot out of the sky.
Their missile volume is down 90%.
Their one-way attack drones yesterday, down 95%.
And as the world is seeing, they are exercising sheer desperation in the Straits of Harmuz.
Something we're dealing with.
We have been dealing with it.
Don't need to worry about it.
We're on plan to defeat, destroy, disable all of their meaningful military capabilities at a pace the world has never seen before.
But it's not just that Iran doesn't have a functioning air force, or that their entire navy is at the bottom of the Persian Gulf, or their missile force is shrinking daily.
Even more importantly, they also don't have the ability to build more.
That's the most important component I'd like to emphasize today.
Soon and very soon, all of Iran's defense companies will be destroyed.
For example, as of two days ago, Iran's entire ballistic missile production capacity.
Every company that builds every component of those missiles has been functionally defeated, destroyed.
Buildings, complexes, and factory lines all across Iran destroyed.
So we're shooting down and destroying what missiles they still have in stock, but more importantly, ensuring that they have no ability to make more.
Their production lines, their military plants, their defense innovation centers, defeated.
Iran's leadership is in no better shape.
Desperate and hiding, they've gone underground, cowering.
That's what rats do.
We know the new so-called not-so-supreme leader is wounded and likely disfigured.
He put out a statement yesterday, a weak one actually, but there was no voice and there was no video.
It was a written statement.
He called for unity.
Apparently, killing tens of thousands of protesters is his kind of unity.
Iran has plenty of cameras and plenty of voice recorders.
Why a written statement?
I think you know why.
His father, dead.
He's scared, he's injured, he's on the run, and he lacks legitimacy.
It's a mess for them.
Who's in charge?
Iran may not even know.
With every passing hour, we know, and we know they know that the military capabilities of their evil regime are crumbling.
They can barely communicate, let alone coordinate.
They're confused, and we know it.
Our response, we will keep pressing.
We will keep pushing, keep advancing.
No quarter, no mercy for our enemies.
Yet some in this crew, in the press, just can't stop.
Allow me to make a few suggestions.
People look up at the TV and they see banners, they see headlines.
I used to be in that business, and I know that everything is written intentionally.
For example, a banner or a headline, Mideast war intensifies, splashing on the screen the last couple of days, alongside visuals of civilian or energy targets that Iran has hit because that's what they do.
What should the banner read instead?
How about Iran increasingly desperate?
Because they are.
They know it, and so do you, if it can be admitted.
Or more fake news from CNN.
Reports that the Trump administration underestimated the Iran war's impact on the Strait of Hormuz.
Patently ridiculous, of course.
For decades, Iran has threatened shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
This is always what they do, hold the strait hostage.
CNN doesn't think we thought of that.
It's a fundamentally unserious report.
The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better.
Another example of a fake headline that I saw yesterday, war widening.
Here's a real headline for you for an actual patriotic press.
How about Iran shrinking, going underground?
You see, Iran's leaders are hiding in bunkers and moving into civilian areas.
The only thing that is widening is our advantage.
Not to mention our Gulf partners stepping up even more, now going on the offense, and have always been with us on the defense with collective and integrated air defenses.
Our will, it is unshakable.
Iran Threatens Commercial Shipping Routes00:14:57
Our options maximized, and our capabilities still building.
We're going up, they're going down.
As I said from the start, President Trump holds the cards.
He'll determine the pace, the tempo, and the timing of this conflict.
His hand firmly on the wheel, as well as on the throttle setting.
America first, peace through strength.
in action.
From day one, as our nation expects and the president demands, our warriors have fought with lethality, precision, and rapid innovation.
In fact, today will be yet again the highest volume of strikes that America has put over the skies of Iran and Tehran.
The number of sorties and number of bomber pulses, the highest yet, ramping up and only up.
And quantity has a quality of its own as we continue to ramp up.
Every tool of AI, of cyber, of space, EW, counter-UAS, you name it, we're employing it.
Blinding, confusing, and deceiving our enemy.
Because we know who the good guys are here, and the American people do too.
And that makes my job simple.
I serve God, the troops, the country, the Constitution, and the President of the United States, and answer only to those.
All in service of victory on the battlefield and the military objectives that we've laid out from day one.
Defeat the missiles, missile launchers, and defense industrial base, which I laid out today.
Defeat the Navy and deny Iran the ability to have a nuclear weapon.
Clear, decisive, achievable.
And Admiral Cooper knows, the CEMPCOM commander who we spent a couple of hours with last night, that in pursuit of those objectives, we have his back in every way.
His commanders know that, and so do the troops in harm's way.
Admiral Cooper gets what he needs, the assets, the authorities, the munitions, you name it.
We will stop at nothing to win.
War is hell.
War is chaos.
And as we saw yesterday with the tragic crash of our KC-135 tanker, bad things can happen.
American heroes, all of them.
And as I have with all of them, as we have, we will greet those heroes at Dover, and their sacrifice will only recommit us to the resolve of this mission.
But war in this context and in pursuit of peace is necessary, which is why each day on bended knee we continue to appeal to heaven, to Almighty God's providence, to watch over and give special skill and confidence to our leaders and to our warriors.
To those warriors who this nation prays for every single day, I hear from all of you out there who pray for them every day.
Stay on bended knee and pray for them.
I continue to say to them, Godspeed.
May the Lord bless you and keep you and keep going.
Mr. Chairman, over to you.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for joining us today.
Before I start with an update, I also want to address the tragic loss of our KC-135 refueling aircraft yesterday.
The incident occurred over friendly territory in western Iraq while the crew was on a combat mission, and again, was not the result, as CENTCOM has said, was not the result of hostile or friendly fire.
We're still treating this as an active rescue and recovery operation.
As CENTCOM announced this morning, four airmen have been recovered, and the Air Force and U.S. Central Command will provide updates as information becomes available.
Please keep these brave airmen, their families, friends, and units in your thoughts in the coming hours and days.
Our service members make an incredible sacrifice to go forward and do the things that the nation asks of them.
It's a reminder of the true cost of the dedication and commitment of the joint force.
We're also aware of a fire on board the USS Gerald R. Ford.
We're thinking about the crew there who were injured in the fire.
We believe and hope that everyone will be okay, and we're grateful for that.
And for any further questions on that, we'd refer you to NAVCENT or to the Navy.
This morning we enter the 13th day of Operation Epic Fury, and we continue to make progress towards our military objectives.
As the Secretary said, today will be our heaviest day of kinetic fires across the operating area.
CENTCOM continues to attack ballistic missile and drone capabilities so that they are no longer a threat to U.S. forces, our bases, or our partners.
They're continuing to destroy the Iranian Navy to ensure freedom of navigation, and this means going after Iran's mine-laying capability and destroying their ability to attack commercial vessels.
And we're targeting their defense industrial base so they cannot rebuild the capabilities that can harm America's interests or our partners in the future.
As Admiral Cooper said in his update on Wednesday, Iranian combat power continues to decline as a result of the continued strikes, as the Secretary talked about.
We've attacked over 6,000 targets, and our strike packages continue to launch every hour, and we've maintained an unprecedented number of sorties up over ahead of Iran.
CENTCOM is now persistently over the enemy, and a result, we've seen a reduction in missile and one-way attack fires, as the Secretary said.
In less than two weeks, we've rendered the Iranian Navy combat ineffective and continue to attack naval vessels, including all of their Soleimani-class warships, which were armed with anti-ship missiles and anti-aircraft weapons.
We've made progress, but Iran still has the capability to harm friendly forces and commercial shipping.
And our work on this effort continues.
But I want to make something clear.
The only thing preventing commercial traffic can flow through the straits right now, which there is some through the straits, is Iran.
They are the belligerents here holding the straits closed, although there is some traffic moving through there.
We've made it a priority to target Iran's mine-laying enterprise, their mine layers, the naval bases and depots, in addition to the missiles that could influence the straits.
And CENTCOM continues to attack those efforts.
And we continue to make progress on the industrial base to include factories, weapons, warehouses that are stored in.
And we will continue to do so in the coming days, especially today.
Now, as I often do, I want to share a little bit about our incredible joint force.
Today, I'm going to talk about our incredible artillery force comprised of American soldiers and Marines who've been sinking ships, destroying depots, and launching Army tactical missile systems or ATACMs, precision strike missiles or PRISMs, and high-mobility rocket systems or HIMARS.
From outside Iran, our Army and Marine artillerymen are hitting sites that Iran relies on to project power beyond their borders and protect our deployed.
All right, that's Pentagon briefing this morning, and it continues over on C-SPAN 2.
You can listen to the Defense Secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Kaine, there.
They'll continue to brief the reporters in the room, and up next, they'll be taking questions.
Watch it in its entirety over on C-SPAN 2 online at c-span.org or our free video mobile app, C-SPAN Now.
Joining us at the table this morning, Elise Labbitt, who is the Substack founder and global affairs journalist of Cosmo Politics, and she's also an American University School of International Services professor.
Thank you for being here.
I want to pick up on the Strait of Hormuz.
Right.
Because you heard the Defense Secretary say this is sheer desperation.
Nothing to worry about.
Nothing to worry about from this new Iranian leader.
And the message that was sent, this was from Iranian Press TV yesterday, where they said we will continue to control the Strait of Hormuz.
Then you heard General Dan Kaine say they still have the capacity to harm commercial ships.
That's right.
Is that a contradiction?
I think I listened to the Defense Secretary as more of a kind of political statement.
And then I look to Chairman Kaine to give a more kind of sober and realistic assessment of where they are.
And look, 13 days in the war, they have made a lot of progress.
It's pretty clear.
6,000 targets.
They are making a lot of progress against Iran's Navy, against, and I think what's really important here, Greta, is the defense industrial base, you know, the ability to continue to produce more.
So as this continues, they'll continue to strike targets.
They're going after their missiles.
They're going after their interceptors to defend from missiles.
They've gone after their Air Force.
90% of the missile capability has been destroyed.
What Iran does have, which is much harder to find, are these mobile launchers.
And I think that's one of the things that's going on in the Strait of Hormuz.
They're moving them all around and it's really hard to find.
But I think the chairman, I mean, you know, the Defense Secretary was more of not only a political statement, but also a kind of advice to the press to cover it the way that the administration would like to say.
Both things can be true.
You know, it's not really a contradiction.
He just chose to focus on the positive.
While I think Chairman Kane gave us a more comprehensive picture of where they are.
Made a lot of progress, still a ways to go.
The Defense Secretary said that they don't have the ability to build anymore when he's talking about their military resources.
The ability to build anymore, what is he referring to?
Missiles?
They're talking about missiles right now.
I mean, we haven't really heard that much about the nuclear program.
The main thing that everybody's concerned about is this kind of large quantity, 900 kilotons of enriched uranium.
And we don't know where that is.
Is it buried underground?
Is it secure?
And that's what they'll have to get after to make sure that Iran can't go to build a nuclear weapon.
They would have to start from scratch on enriched uranium.
And if you go after the equipment and the centrifuges and the facilities that they take to enrich uranium, that's when Iran wouldn't be able to.
But, you know, they still have the know-how, they still have the capability, and they still have the desire.
And so when you, you know, we can talk about the new supreme leader.
I mean, he made it pretty clear they're not seeking a ceasefire.
It hasn't exacted enough, in its idea, a price for not only the killing of his father, the supreme leader, but a price on the U.S. allies and the global economy.
The global economy is really the target here to get the U.S. to shorten this war.
Let's talk about the new leader coming up.
First, I want to give phone numbers for our viewers.
We want you to join us for this conversation this morning.
The latest on the conflict in Iran will also talk about other national security issues as well.
Our guest, Elise Labitt, is with us.
Republicans, Democrats, excuse me, dial in at 202-748-8000.
Republicans, 202-748-8001.
And independence, 202-748-8002.
You can text if you don't want to call at 202-748-8003.
Include your first name, city, and state.
Let's talk about the statement by the new Iranian leader.
The Defense Secretary called it a weak one.
He noted that this was not video of the newly appointed Ayatollah.
It was not his voice.
It was a statement allegedly read by Iranian press TV.
Notably, it was a picture.
Not even a picture.
A picture, but we don't know that that was a current picture from while he was giving the statement.
It was what we call a file, a file photo.
Yeah, and interestingly, it was a female voice in Farsi and then translated in English by a male voice.
So what do you make of that?
Because he said, we know why.
Right.
Well, that's one.
Again, that's certainly one possibility.
There are some reports that he was lightly injured, not necessarily severely injured.
Maybe he had an injured leg.
We don't know.
You know, the Iranians aren't saying.
There are some anonymous reports.
We don't know.
Do we know, as the Secretary said, that he's disfigured and that's why?
We don't know that either.
It's possible, but we just don't know.
He's trying to create, again, an image for us.
It could also be because it's for security reasons.
Everyone knows that the Israelis want to kill him.
The president has said he's not going to last long if I don't approve of him.
And so it's very possible that they don't want to show any indication of where he is and he will make himself seen to the Iranian people at a time and place of his choosing.
New York Times reporting this morning, on the 13th day of war, that has put on display the overwhelming military power of the United States and Israel.
Mr. Khamenei's address appeared to undermine that the Iranian leadership believes it has underlined, excuse me, underline that the Iranian leadership believes it has found an effective pressure point, choking off oil and gas to the rest of the world.
Iran's military has warned that no ships can transit the Strait of Hormuz, the portal to the Gulf through which one-fifth of the world's oil supply passes without Iran's permission.
Right.
The Defense Secretary said it's nothing to worry about.
Nothing to worry about.
But have they been effective in doing that?
Of course they've been effective.
I mean, what are we mostly talking about over the last couple of days?
We're talking about the Strait of Hormuz, which a lot of people probably before this war didn't know much about the Strait of Hormuz, unless you were interested in oil and how it flows and where it comes from.
And they don't even have to blow up every ship.
Right now, no ship is going to want to go through the Strait of Hormuz because they think it's a suicidal mission.
So now the president is talking about possible insurance.
They're talking about possibly U.S. ships escorting them through.
But even if they're not actually shooting them down, they're creating the fear in the mind of the commercial shipping industry, in the mind of the oil industry, that they don't want to use the Strait right now.
Strait of Hormuz Fears for Oil Trade00:15:16
And so that's very dangerous.
And we haven't even talked about the Red Sea.
And if you remember, the Houthis, which are an Iranian proxy, were attacking ships in the Red Sea.
It's a fraction of what goes through the Strait of Hormuz.
But once they've closed the Strait of Hormuz, we haven't really heard much from the Houthis yet.
Are the Houthis going to pick up and are they going to choke off the Strait of Hormuz?
There's a lot more damage and even I'd say more importantly, a lot more fear that really has the same result.
As they continue to use this lever, what type of pressure is that putting on our allies?
It's putting a lot of pressure on them because they have oil that they need to get through.
And so if they can't get their oil through, they're going to stop production or curb production significantly.
And so that's, I mean, for them, it's going to bring the price of oil up, but it's also going to affect their oil industries.
And it takes a long time once you stop the production of oil.
I'm not sure exactly how much it takes, but it would take several months and maybe weeks at best, but months probably more likely to be able to start that production again.
So even if the straight, if you're cutting your oil production, that's going to affect the price of oils for some time.
I think also the Allies, even more than the oil itself, the fear and the violence and the strikes.
You know, Dubai got maybe 160 times in the United Arab Emirates was struck by the Iranians.
Dubai, the Gulf, they have created this whole kind of oasis of safety, of business, of commerce that people can go.
That view of safety, that oasis for business people around the world is really shaken now.
And I think this is the main problem for the Gulf is that it's not the safe and secure place that it was.
The Treasury Secretary announcing last night to increase the global reach of existing supply, the U.S. Treasury Department is providing a temporary authorization to permit countries to purchase Russian oil currently stranded at sea.
This narrowly tailored short-term measure applies only to oil already in transit and will not provide significant financial benefit to the Russian government.
I'm not sure about the dollars, right?
Okay, it's only till April.
However, it's a significant turning point because, you know, the president wanted to end the war in Russia.
And we were trying to squeeze the Russia through these oil sanctions.
He had put sanctions on tariffs on India not to buy oil.
He lifted them a few days ago.
And those were punishing sanctions.
And so now it's also, look, even if it's temporary, it's going to be very hard to re-impose those sanctions.
The Russians, this is a clear benefit for the Russians.
And also, I think it could really divide the U.S. and Europe here.
I mean, on one hand, they are concerned about oil prices, but the question is how much it's really going to lower oil prices.
Experts are divided on whether it will lower oil prices.
And the move to India didn't seem to move, the decision to let India buy Russian oil didn't seem to move the prices that much.
And I think experts are afraid that once the sanctions relief is extended, it'll be extended indefinitely.
And the whole oil sanctions regime on Russia will be over and it'll be even harder to stop that war.
And the New York Times reporting also why oil costs aren't falling despite release of the reserves.
And this is what they report in the New York Times this morning about this decision by 30 different countries to release oil reserves.
They said before the war, the Strait carried more than 20 million barrels a day, roughly one-fifth of the world's supply.
That traffic is virtually halted.
While world leaders agreed to release a record 400 million barrels of oil from strategic reserves, that is only about 20 days worth of oil that would normally flow through the strait.
And originally the oil, you know, oil is a global commodity.
So even if the president says we're the biggest oil producers, it shouldn't affect us.
It's a global market.
So the global supply of oil.
I'm learning, we're all learning a lot more about oil supplies and all, but it affects the global market.
And originally the markets, they're not sure of President Trump because he's so unpredictable.
And at first they didn't really move.
But now they're moving because they think this could go on a while.
So the longer this goes on, the smaller oil supply you have.
The demand is coming.
You know, we're still in winter right now.
People want to.
It's not just at the pump.
It's about heating your home.
And now we're seeing it's not just about oil.
It's about the food supply because we're seeing a lot of shortages of fertilizer coming through.
That the strait is where a lot of the components for fertilizer come through.
And farmers are, you know, not just oil for their tractors, but also this material.
There's talk now about the food supply.
And we're seeing a little bit like we saw two things.
During the war in Ukraine, when you had things coming through Ukraine, Ukraine was kind of the breadbasket of Europe.
You saw that that was choked off.
We also saw it during COVID, that global supply chain.
And we could be seeing some of that again if this goes on for a while.
Yeah, I'll just note that MS Now reported this morning also the components for semiconductors also, helium, flowing through the Strait of Hermuz.
Is South Korea feeling the impact of this right now?
And certainly the semiconductor companies in this country could as well.
And Japan too.
And these are the things that President Trump really wanted to tackle in this term.
Diversifying the supply chain, semiconductors, the price of oil.
And that's why Americans are saying, listen, this is cross-purposes to what we elected you to do.
Yes, the threat by Iran was still there, but I think Americans, and we're going to take some calls and we'll hear, they're making their own cost-benefit analysis.
Was the threat by Iran as important as me feeding my family or me heating my home?
So I'll be interested to see what the callers have to say.
Yeah, let's get to them.
Tom, in Clinton, Massachusetts, Democratic Caller.
Yes, hello.
I wanted to ask your guest what she knows about Abu Musa Island, which it was in dispute.
It was seized by Iran in the early days of the revolution.
It's in the western end of the choke point to the Strait of Hormuz, and it really is very close to the UAE and by right should belong to the UAE.
It's been militarized by Iran.
And I'm wondering this island, if we were to put a threat on these islands and the other islands owned by Iran that are close by, if that might motivate some further discussion.
I know trying to take these islands militarily might cost too many lives.
But I also want to ask these islands are using Chinese-made silkworm missiles to attack the ships.
That's my understanding.
And some of the other islands that are closer to Iran are far offshore, but they're vulnerable to isolation.
And the thought of Iran losing their island territories might motivate more serious discussions.
I'd like to know what you think.
All right, Tom.
Thank you.
Thanks, Tom.
I don't know about each individual island, but I do know that the Iranians and the UAE have been kind of disputing these islands for a long time.
And, you know, I think when you're going after the Navy, that's part of the issue is their defense of these islands.
And I mean, it does make, Tom does make a good point in terms of this is important to Iran, and they wouldn't want that to be choked off.
Again, they have these missile launchers, Tom, that they use to patrol these islands.
And those are very hard to go after.
We've seen the UAE get pummeled.
I mean, I would think more than any country, the United Arab Emirates has really some of their most vaulted buildings have been destroyed.
You know, airport, one of the main airports in the area, thousands of flights have been canceled, trade through the biggest port.
But we haven't seen the UAE really get involved in the campaign.
And so I would be interested to see, as Tom asks, whether, in particular, on these islands, if they seek to work with the United States to choke them off.
And don't forget, the UAE has this peace treaty with the Israelis through the Abraham Accords.
I'll be interested to see if the Israelis want to help.
We'll go to New Haven, Connecticut.
Pete, Independent, you're up next.
Okay.
There doesn't seem to be any cure for collateral damage.
Innocent people that are getting killed is what I'm talking about.
Are you talking about the strike on the are you talking about the strike on the school in Iran?
I'm talking about the people, yes, in Iran.
I'm talking about the innocent people in Iran who are getting killed, who have nothing to do with this war in the first place.
All collateral damages are caused by innocent people getting killed.
Now, with the buildings so close together in Iran, it's almost impossible to try to avoid innocent people.
And fighting in Trontoch created a real mess.
I don't think this war is going to end soon.
And I feel sorry for the people who are here, who are victims of this terrible debt.
One more question.
Pete, I want to pick up on two things that you said.
Collateral damage, the innocent lives, but then that's one thing.
And then the timeline.
He doesn't think this is going to end anytime soon.
Right.
Well, Pete brings up the idea of collateral damage not only is a tragedy for anybody, but also the Iranian people have just suffered so much at the hands of their own government.
And now to potentially have collateral damage in this war is really just horrible.
And we saw that strike on the school.
There's been a lot of debate of whether what was the U.S. or not.
The president has been trying to say that the U.S. was not involved.
It does seem a preliminary Pentagon report has said that this was the result.
It was the U.S.
And again, it's preliminary, but it's the result of a targeting strike by the U.S. military, which was a targeting error, and that the building used to be part of a military target.
It isn't anymore.
But it doesn't really matter.
This is horrible.
And collateral damage, not only, we saw in Afghanistan, we saw in Iraq that collateral damage is really what destroys the U.S. credibility here.
And so we need to, in talking about this war, we can't only talk about the victory and the success, but also the empathy and regret that innocent lives are being killed.
Because as the Secretary said, war is hell.
And it's hell right now for the Iranian people.
And the Secretary is saying it's war.
There is some debate.
We've heard some Republicans say this isn't war.
But now it seems, you know, here we are on the 13th day.
Yeah.
And the Defense Secretary is coming out and saying war is hell, war is hell.
I think these are things that they say.
And I mean, it just doesn't have any, it's strange cruelty to think that we're not in a war when your president calls it a war and your secretary calls it a war.
On Peach thing that the war is not going to go on.
I'm ambivalent here because on one hand, we see that Iran still has this capability, but they are making a lot of progress.
And I do think that the president, there is a lot of experts do think that the president might look at what's happening to the global economy, look at what's happening to the Allies.
He's going to China at the end of the month.
I think he wanted to wrap it up before he went.
And he might just kind of say, okay, we're done.
We claim we can declare victory.
We did enough damage.
We're going home.
You know, the Israelis are not going to do that.
And so that's also something we need to discuss, whether the U.S. and Israel have diverging objectives here.
He would say, could the president say it's complete without regime change?
Well, he said it was very complete, very complete the other day.
Yes, he could.
He could say that he's already saying that there are no leaders left.
You know, there's nobody that can make decisions.
We've gotten everybody.
He could say, and he did say in the beginning of the war, it's up to the Iranian people.
So we talk about the suffering that the Iranian people has had.
This supreme leader was the candidate of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the IRGC as we call them.
And they are a police military security organization.
This means that the regime is clearly still in firm control of the country.
It's going to be very, very hard, if not impossible.
If the Iranians couldn't do it before, this guy is even more hardlined than his father was, more entrenched in the military and security apparatus.
And unless the U.S. is going to provide training, arming, covert resources, that's not going to happen.
The Israelis do want a complete topple of the regime, but even then, I don't think it's possible right now.
We'll go to D.C., stay in D.C. Kevin's watching us.
Democratic caller.
Go ahead, Kevin.
Biological Weapons Concerns Rise Amid War00:08:58
I was wondering, are they going to look at North Korea and say they might need WMD, either nuclear or biological?
Like Emily Kopp from your fellow substack Racket News has been saying de-golf is really dangerous because it's cheap to make dual use bioweapons or for research like they did with COVID.
And she rarely gets, Emily Kopp rarely gets invited to big forms like C-SPEN, but she's been bringing young reporters on the Racket News since she became editor-in-chief.
So the Iranians said they didn't want nukes.
They're really hard to make and they take a long time.
But biological weapons are easy to make.
You saw COVID was made and it was kept secret.
Okay, let's pick up on the nuclear versus biological.
Well, I mean, a biological weapon is much easier to spread.
I'm not an expert on how it is to make, but I think he said in the beginning, North Korea, North Korea does have nuclear weapons.
So it is an interesting question of why we haven't gone after North Korea when we're going after Iran that doesn't have nuclear weapons.
But some say the message is you need nukes to not get struck by a big power like the United States.
And Libya gave up its nuclear weapons and then it was attacked.
So, you know, look, biological weapon is certainly a concern.
I haven't heard a lot of talk about the Iranians having a biological weapon.
But look, if the U.S. is going to destroy its nuclear program and missile program, that is certainly a concern.
And when you talk about terrorism, biological weapons is certainly a concern.
Elise Labbitt is at our table this morning.
She's the sub-stack newsletter author of Cosmo Politics, a global affairs journalist and professor at American University School of International Service.
Let's go to New Kensington, Pennsylvania.
Michael, Republican, go ahead.
Yes, thank you for taking my call and thank you for your guest.
I heard her many times on your program and I think she's very fair-minded and very well-informed.
Thank you.
And I have a concern.
I had one caller who was commenting on the Chinese silkworm missiles that the Iranians have.
And I also was watching a program last night and basically they were saying that none of these things would have happened, including the nuclear capabilities that Iran has if it weren't for China.
They have done so many things belligerently to our country.
And it's a little frightening that President Trump is going there now.
Both people on the both of the hosts and the guests on this program said they're very fearful of Trump going to China at this particular time because he is, that's my main question.
But I also wanted to make a comment about the Democratic Party, who has simply become un-American at this point.
I really don't think there's any reason that they should have closed Homeland Security.
This is irresponsible, especially at a time where we have domestic threats going on in this country from terrorists.
Okay, Michael, two points there that we'll pick up on.
Go ahead.
Okay.
On the Chinese silkworm missile, look, proliferation of these missiles and weapons is a very big concern.
And I'm sure that's something that the President is going to talk to China about when he goes there.
China has been very critical of this war.
China's most, what is China mostly concerned about?
Global stability, the global economy, its oil supply.
China takes, I think, like 80% of its oil from the Strait of Hormuz.
It has reserves, but China's freaking out right now.
So it wants this war to end.
So I'm sure that's going to be a discussion when he goes to China.
But the truth is, Michael, the U.S. and China have to have a good relationship.
There's not one issue, domestic or international, today, that the U.S. and China are not intertwined, whether it's the economy, whether it's the, well, the president doesn't really talk much about the environment, but the environment, terrorism, so many things that the U.S. and China really need cooperation.
China is more of an adversary, but they still need, especially on the global economy and having a trade, I think trade is obviously going to be very important in this discussion.
So I think it is good that the president is going.
Maybe now isn't the greatest time, but this, you know, for months.
That's on China.
Look, on the homeland security, there are a lot of concerns.
We're at war.
Iran is the greatest state sponsor of terrorism.
There are believed to have Iranian cells here in the United States, the homeland, protecting the homeland.
And we saw from some of these attacks here this week that aren't necessarily related to Iran, but we're in a heightened state of alert.
It's very concerning.
And then you look to the DHS funding and you say, look, we're in the middle of a war.
Why shouldn't we just open it up?
Especially since ICE is really already funded.
The Democrats aren't really having a demonstrable effect on ICE by this shutdown.
But there are concerns about the way DHS is operating.
I hope that they'll be able to, I think a funding bill failed the other day, yesterday.
Yesterday.
But I really do hope that they can come to some type of agreement because securing the homeland, as Michael said, is number one importance.
And the U.S. Senate yesterday attempting to fund the Homeland Security Department again, Democrats blocked that.
They wanted Republicans to agree to a number of narrower bills that would cover specific agencies, but they want to see changes in ICE enforcement tactics before they agree to open up the Homeland Security Department.
Which is also reasonable.
But right now, in the middle of a war, I think that could be a discussion for later.
We are talking with Elise Labitt this morning about the conflict with Iran.
I also want to show our viewers from USA Today's front page this morning the headline about the cost.
And they report the first six days of war in Iran cost U.S. taxpayers at least $11.3 billion in munitions alone.
This is according to Pentagon estimates and review by lawmakers and experts to say the final cost will only increase.
That total does not include, USA Today reports, the other aspects of war.
So the cost of operating and maintaining the military force engaged in the war or battle damage sustained from Iran's attacks.
Elise Labbitt, take that number and add to it General Kaine saying, today's the heaviest fire day.
So we're talking about more money.
Right.
And as that article said, when they say it doesn't, it's only about munitions and keeping the military in theater.
Once the military leaves theater, once they start bringing them home, once the veterans are, we had these casualties.
We have veterans that are coming back.
They could need medical care.
We've had about 140 so far injured.
That cost doesn't include all those costs and the cost to society.
And it doesn't put in the cost that we're talking about with the global economy, the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping.
So that's just the cost for the guns and the ammo.
So it's monumental.
And again, as we were talking about in the beginning of the segment, this is not what the American people, the president was primarily elected on the economy.
And so, you know, we haven't heard a lot about it with the callers, but I do read a lot about Americans saying, you know, is this war worth it to me?
You know, some officials, a lot of people think, yeah, Iran was a threat.
Officials Warn Against Unbalanced Media Diet00:06:24
But was it so much of an imminent threat that we need to have this global economy and our particular economy be affected like this?
Sims, North Carolina, Kent is watching there.
Democrat, good morning to you.
Good morning.
How are you?
I'm going to change my topic a little bit because y'all switched over at the 8 o'clock hour, but I think it's all intertwined.
You know, we haven't heard anybody say anything about Trump tearing up the Iran nuclear deal when he was in his first term.
And, you know, it seems that one of the problems we have is we don't know who to trust.
I've been a lifelong Republican and have just switched to being a Democrat because, you know, I don't know what the fake news is.
People talk about the fake news all the time.
Well, I see it on TV.
Yesterday we see tankers engulfed in flames, and Trump tells them two days ago to show a little guts and go through the strait and whatever.
And so who do you trust when you get your information?
Everything's supposed to be fake news except what the Republicans tell you are the facts.
And as far as the Homeland Security goes, we have taken, as far as our security, there have been over 300, if you believe the news, there have been over 300 FBI agents that do Homeland Security or do things like checking on this gentleman that was just released from prison that was convicted of being of helping ISIS.
And, you know, of course, the FBI is not going to catch everybody, but the FBI has had a good record of foiling these kinds of things.
Okay.
I'll jump in, Kent.
Go ahead.
Okay, so a lot to unpack there.
On the nuclear deal, Kent, you're right.
I mean, the president did pull out of the nuclear deal.
Then he was trying to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran.
They said his envoys, Jared Kushner and Steve Wyckoff, said he wasn't.
They weren't serious enough.
I don't know if that's true.
They said that they weren't serious.
It's probably true that the Iranians were not willing to do enough to make the U.S. satisfied, and certainly not the Israelis satisfied.
Again, the question is, was the threat as imminent that required what we see now.
But eventually we're going to have to go back to the table and try and get some conditions put on Iran's nuclear program.
It's not, the nuclear program is not going to be solved through a military, through a military action.
On the FBI agents, it is true that Kash Patel, the head of the FBI, has let go, and they were, you know, during the whole Doge era, but especially in the lead up to the war, he did let a lot of FBI agents, specifically that were dealing with counterterrorism on issues like Iran, were let go.
I can't explain why.
It's unfortunate.
And then, Kent, on the media and misinformation, all I would say is you just have to really get your media, get a really balanced media diet from a lot of sources so that you can make your own decision.
You don't believe one source or another source.
And that's what we try to do here at C-SPAN, which is, you know, give a balanced perspective and get a lot of diverse views.
And then you see what's happening.
You hear the officials speaking.
You do your, you got to do your due diligence and you make your own decision as to what the truth is.
Elise Labbin, what are you watching for in the coming days on this conflict?
I'm very concerned that the Israelis will still continue on this idea of regime change.
I think we need to wrap the war up because we see what's happening not just to the global economy, but to the Middle East, to the president's priorities on so many other, like the whole country and the world is seized by this.
And the regime is entrenched.
It's not going anywhere right now.
And so I think we need to find some kind of, I'm not saying cave.
I'm not saying we stop right away.
But the idea that this is going to be a regime change war, as we spoke about, I think is probably wishful thinking.
I also think that I'm worried about terrorist attacks here at home around the world.
We've seen the Iranian proxies go, they've attacked an Israeli bus of tourists in Bulgaria.
Has nothing to do with.
So Americans, Israelis, we've seen all these anti-Semitic attacks.
It's not unrelated.
Jews around the world are under threat.
And Iran has a very long tail as they speak.
And then I was speaking to a former, very senior former official yesterday.
And they said they're concerned that the Iranians might try to kill President Trump, which they have in the past, or President Netanyahu, or Prime Minister Netanyahu.
That's a concern.
And then lastly, the spread.
We're seeing the Israelis in Lebanon go after Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is a threat, but if we see another Gaza in Hezbollah, if we see this spreading across the region and sectarian tensions growing and everything, that's not going to be good for the global economy either.
Our viewers can follow Elise Labitt's reporting, learn more analysis from her.
Founders Day Support for Democracy Coverage00:02:57
If you go to Substack, she's the founder of Cosmo Politics Substack.
She's also a global affairs journalist.
Thank you very much for the conversation this morning.
We're going to take a break.
Coming up, Benjamin Glassner of the Economic Innovation Group joins us to talk about some of the retirement crisis in the United States.
Some 55 million workers without access to retirement accounts and President Trump's proposal to expand access.
We'll dig into that.
But first, after the break, more of your phone calls will turn to news of the day and get your thoughts on that.
Start dialing in now.
Here are the lines.
Democrats, 202-748-8,000.
Republicans, 202, 748-8001.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
We'll be right back.
Sunday on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. Former Columbia University President Lee Bollinger on his book, University, A Reckoning About the Purpose and Future of Universities in the United States.
He also talks about protests and free speech on college campuses and the targeting of Columbia, Harvard, and other institutions of higher learning by the Trump administration.
You have to unpack what it is that is being said about universities.
Let me say again, none of it, in my view, even if credible, does not justify the authoritarian undermining of the autonomy and independence of thought within universities.
Author Lee Bullinger with his book, University, A Reckoning, Sunday night at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. You can listen to Q ⁇ A and all of our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts.
You're watching democracy happen in real time for 47 years.
Since March 19th, 1979, C-SPAN has made that possible.
No commentary, no spin, no government funding.
Just democracy unfiltered as we celebrate our Founders Day.
Join viewers like you who are helping C-SPAN carry this mission forward.
Visit c-span.org slash donate or scan the QR code.
Make your contribution today.
Preserve the legacy.
Power of the present.
Shape the future.
Support C-SPAN with a Founders Day gift.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
We are opening up the phone lines here, getting your reaction to news of the day.
You can continue talking about the conflict with Iran, the economy as we started it this morning, affordability issues like the price of gasoline, housing, health care, the cost of living in general, all of that on the table this morning.
Will in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, Democratic Caller, what's on your mind?
Listener Reactions to Iran Conflict News00:14:50
A question I had for our last guest here was outside of hunting down drones and some missiles, what are we blowing up that needs to be blown up still?
We've spent close to 3,000 bombs and missiles, these very expensive missiles.
What are we blowing up still outside the two main things?
What is left of military value that we're going to keep dropping bombs and missiles on?
Well, did you, it sounds like you stuck with us here this morning on C-SPAN over on C-SPAN 2.
We brought you live coverage in its entirety of the Pentagon briefing from the Defense Secretary and General Dan Kane.
So if you'd like, you can go to our website, c-span.org, or download our free video mobile app.
Perhaps that question was asked of those two gentlemen at the briefing this morning.
We'll go to Lou in Richmond, Virginia, Independent.
Hi, Lou.
Hi, how are you doing?
God bless you guys.
Thank you for taking my call.
I think that Israel did a good job and it has worked against them.
They have the world believing that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic.
And now the Jews throughout the world are getting attacked because the government of Israel wants the world to believe that anti-Semitism is anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, which is completely wrong.
Anti-Zionism is completely against the Jewish faith and the Jewish writings and anti-Semitism is a racist view.
So they have tried to convince the world that if you're anti-Zionist, you automatically are anti-Semitic.
Well, now it's coming back to bite them on the butt.
In what way?
In a way, what way where Jews throughout the world, as you mentioned, are getting attacked.
Okay.
When those Jews have nothing to do with Israel, you know, the Jews throughout the world do not have anything to do with the Zionism that's going on in Israel.
Understood.
Okay, Lou, his thoughts there in Richmond, Virginia, Independent Caller.
Listen to what the president had to say.
Yesterday afternoon, he and along with the First Lady held an event to mark Women's History Month.
He had this to say about the conflict in Iran.
And today is very special because we celebrate Women's History Month.
That's what it's about every year.
And before we begin, I want to send our love to the Michigan Jewish community and all of the people in Detroit, the Detroit area following the attack on the Jewish synagogue early today.
And I've been briefed, fully briefed.
And it's a terrible thing, but it goes on.
We're going to be right down to the bottom of it.
It's absolutely incredible that things like this happen on another front, an entirely different front.
The situation with Iran is moving along very rapidly.
It's doing very well.
Our military is unsurpassed.
There's never been anything like it.
Nobody's ever seen anything like it.
And we're doing what has to be done.
Should have been done during a 47-year period.
Could have been done by a lot of different people.
They chose not to do it.
But they really are a nation of terror and hate.
And they're paying a big price right now.
The president on that attack on the Michigan synagogue and the conflict in Iran.
We are getting your reaction to news of the day this morning.
Also, want to let you know, coming up on C-SPAN at 11 a.m. Eastern Time, we will have coverage of retired General Stanley Crystal.
He's going to be talking about his book at the New Orleans Book Festival.
The book is on character choices that define a life he's likely to get asked, as well about the conflict with Iran.
So tune in here on C-SPAN, 11 a.m. Eastern Time, online on demand at c-span.org, or our free video mobile app, C-SPAN now.
Marilyn in Cottage Grove, Wisconsin, Democratic Caller.
Let's hear from you.
Go ahead.
Yes.
What I would like to say is first that there has been so he has Trump has fired so many people from the CIA, the FBI, and then he went into a war that he had, there was nobody there to tell him what was going on, how to do it, what to do.
Nobody should have gone in.
He should never have gone into that war because there was nobody there to tell him what to do.
He went on, he went in and he said he went in on feelings that he could do something.
You can't do anything in that country.
Those are terrorists.
And he doesn't even know that yet.
And he can't even say it's a war.
It's a war against, you know, what the woman just said.
It could be against him.
Now that is serious.
But did he take that into account?
Because he doesn't have anybody there to tell him what those people can do.
All right.
Marilyn's thoughts there in Wisconsin.
Bob is in New Jersey, Democratic caller.
Bob in New Jersey, it's your turn.
Yes.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I just wanted a couple comments about, you know, it was sad to see Trump there when they would bring back the bodies or service men when he's the biggest coward in this country, the man dodged the draft five times, and then he goes to war with everybody's money, and he don't know what he's doing.
He's a coward.
He's a traitor to this country.
He should be dealt with as such.
All right.
Bob there with his opinion, Democratic caller.
We are getting your reaction to news of the day Iran is dominating the headlines.
There is also news coming out of the Senate from Politico.
For the fourth time in so many weeks, senators voted down a bill Thursday to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, then left town for the weekend, ensuring the agency remains shuttered past the one-month mark come today.
The Senate voted 51 to 46 against moving ahead with the House passed measure to fund all of the Department of Homeland Security, failing to meet the 60-vote threshold necessary to move forward.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune voted no for procedural reasons, allowing him to bring the motion back up at a later date.
Before that vote took place, Republicans objected to multiple requests from Senate Democrats to pass a series of narrower bills that would cover specific agencies, including TSA and FEMA and other agencies other than ICE, because they want to see reforms to ICE tactics.
That prompted this exchange between party leaders Chuck Schumer and John Thune on the Senate floor yesterday.
So we're going to offer these bills one at a time and see where our Republican colleagues go.
We know the American people are on our side.
We know that the only thing Republicans need to do is stay out of the way, and these programs will be funded today, and problems at the airports will go away.
Democrat leader.
You yield?
I will.
So I assume the Democrat leader is aware of the fact that we have tried repeatedly to fund everything temporarily to allow the negotiations over the ICE budget to continue.
I am well aware, but that hasn't worked.
What can work, and the reason stops not yielding back, is because the Democrats have blocked it.
Yeah, the bottom line is Democrats are ready today.
America, watch.
We will have members on the floor saying, let's fund TSA with no other preconditions.
What will Republicans do?
They're going to see Republicans get up and block it.
It's that simple.
Now, my friend, sometimes, much of the time, my friend, the Republican leader, says, well, you'll only do it if you go along with what we want on ICE and what we want on Border Patrol, highly unpopular and wrong.
So who's standing in the way?
America, look at it.
We're not putting any preconditions on funding TSA.
The Republicans are.
And why, Mr. President?
Because the Democrats will yield for a question in a minute.
Why?
Because Republicans are in obese to Donald Trump's insistence on having these marauding forces of ICE go through our cities.
We saw what they did in Minneapolis.
We saw what they did in Los Angeles.
We saw what they did in other places.
Americans don't like it.
Trump's numbers have suffered.
And so it's simple.
Don't attach preconditions.
Fund TSA.
Fund CISA.
You'll have that opportunity in a few hours.
And if you get up and block it and say, we'll only do it unless Americans will know who's to blame.
I yield.
Well, I would just say again to the Democrat leader that the Democrats have had multiple opportunities, and we'll have another one today, to provide funding for all of the agencies that he just mentioned to allow us to consider, under a continuing resolution, to allow us to consider how we're going to resolve the DHS issues that the Democrat leader has raised, which are being negotiated, I might add, at the moment between Democrats and Republicans in the White House.
So there will be an attempt.
The Democrats will have an opportunity to block, as they have now repeatedly.
The latest from the Senate floor, a back and forth yesterday between the two party leaders, Senator John Thune, Republican, and Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat.
Liz in Pennsylvania, Democratic caller, what is on your mind this morning?
Liz?
Yes, we can.
Go ahead.
Good morning.
I'm really upset about the Iran thing.
And one thing I haven't heard, well, I have a child in the Air Force.
So I'm really upset about the Iran conflict.
People have talked, and the Trump administration has given multiple reasons of why they had to go in at this moment.
But what I haven't heard anybody say is that Jared Kushner and the Trump family is going around the Middle East making all these business deals of what they're going to build.
And Trump has also been told by his intelligence that Iran was trying to assassinate him.
And we know how he retaliates against people.
And I think that's one of the reasons he wants to go in now and destroy ballistic missiles and everything else so that the Trump family could go in there around the Middle East and start building golf courses and Trump towers.
And nobody has even mentioned that about the time of this war.
And not only that, it's kind of a wag the dog situation, not only from the Epstein files, but his failed ICE policy that is killing American citizens.
And I mean, we haven't had 30,000 killed, but he's still out there, and ICE is killing American citizens and shooting at American citizens and detaining American citizens.
And now he's all fun and concerned about the citizens of Iran.
All right, Liz's thoughts there in Pennsylvania.
We'll go to Illinois.
Rose, a Republican, let's hear from you.
Hi.
I just wanted to mention for the guy that called about Trump and other people before him over the years.
Didn't wasn't in the service, that he, you know, did everything to get out.
Well, so did Clinton.
So did Obama.
So did Biden.
And when I was young in the 60s, all those liberals were out there screwing and smoking pot, and they did everything not to go in the service.
They got their girlfriends pregnant and they went to college so they can get deferred and not go to war and serve in Vietnam and be real men.
So the liberals are the losers.
They've always been the weakest servers and they haven't given up their lives for this country like real Americans on the right have.
And so I'd get mad listening to them.
You know, if the glass is broken, don't pick it up because all you're going to do is cut yourself with your lies.
Rose in Illinois.
Greg Harrison, Ohio, an independent.
Greg, what's on your mind this morning?
I just got a question.
With the government shutdown, why doesn't Congress lose their pay?
Well, it's a partial shutdown, first of all, Greg.
It's a partial shutdown within the Homeland Security Department.
Not every agency within the Homeland Security Department is shut down, just some of them.
But with the other shutdown, I don't understand why Congress always gets paid to shut stuff down.
Yeah.
Right.
Yep.
Some members of Congress have said they shouldn't.
And some members of Congress during shutdowns have not taken their pay.
And there's legislation being pushed by some that would make that a reality: that when you have a government shutdown, lawmakers would not get paid.
Congress Pay Disputes During Shutdowns00:05:10
Mark in Poughkeepsie, New York, Democratic caller.
Yeah, hi.
The real reason is because the system's rigged.
That's why Congress people still get paid.
Okay.
Now, my point I want to make is for the non-voters out there.
I used to be a non-voter until this year.
And I recommend that you all just abstain from voting Republican for as long as you can, because this is the problem.
It's Republican voters.
It's not necessarily Trump.
You could have any idiot sitting up there doing the self-centered stuff that not Trump.
Trump's not going to change.
You can be mad all you want.
He's going to continue to kill people.
He feels the whole world hates him.
So just stop voting Republican.
I vote Democrat just to vote against Republicans, not to vote for Democrats, because a lot of Democrats are not doing a good job neither, right?
So, Mark, you want to put Democrats in power in the midterm elections in November so that they're a check on President Trump.
Just to vote against Republicans.
You can't understood.
Teresa, Bloomington, Illinois, Republican.
Hi.
I just got a quick question.
I wonder where the parents were for all these young children to go into Epstein without the parents knowing.
Okay.
No one's ever mentioned about these younger, underage children being with a pedophile.
All right, Teresa's thoughts.
Lori's a Democrat in Hamburg, Pennsylvania.
Lori?
Yeah, I think the problem is it's not a Republican or Democrat thing anymore.
It's a thing about democracy or not a democracy.
We've always had a way to correct something when we did something wrong.
And we identified it, we corrected it, admitted it, and fixed it.
And there's no identifying anything that's going wrong anymore.
He went into Venezuela, took its oil, took its leader.
He shot down boats in the Pacific Ocean, and nobody stopped him.
It was unconstitutional, but nobody stopped him.
So now he went into Iran and attacked them, and he thinks he's going to come out of it real easy.
But I don't think he considered exactly what is going to start.
And I think that this midterm election is going to be the last chance that the people get to take to keep our democracy because if somebody doesn't start correcting and identifying it and moving us forward, we're not going to have a choice.
We're not going to have a chance to fix it anymore.
Laura's in Pennsylvania, calling on a line for Democrats.
Daniel's a Republican in Georgia.
Let's hear from you.
Hi.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Initially, hey, I was going to make comments about Chuck Schumer's comments and point to some YouTube videos, different videos anybody can find online from him in the 90s, maybe even the 80s.
Well, I don't know.
He's been there forever, and he's a great example of why we need term limits, which is really something I wanted to mention also in my short time here.
But what changed?
What changed with him?
There are comments he made publicly that are recorded for anybody that can see that, where he says that we need to take a harder stance against illegal immigrants.
And he said it over and over again.
So why is it different now?
I say possibly we should consider it's about votes.
We know millions of people came across the southern border during the Biden administration.
We know that those people, a lot of them from those reports, were given social security numbers.
So this is all about votes.
These people that came across the border illegally given social security numbers, who are they going to vote for?
They're going to vote for the Democrats that allowed them to get the Social Security numbers.
But term limits, like if everybody would look to Article 5 of the Constitution, which is a safety net the founding fathers put into place to avoid this very situation we're in now, where if we get a convention of states as two delegates at every single state and they vote or they propose an amendment to the Constitution for term limits, then as long as three-quarters of the state ratify the amendment, it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court says,
doesn't matter what executive says, doesn't matter what legislative says.
All it matters is term limits could be passed and he could have two six-year terms, three four-year terms, whatever they propose.
All right, Danny, you might be interested then in this headline.
Representative Jim Clybert, 85-year-old South Carolina Democrat, is running for re-election.
Term Limits Debate Continues in Congress00:03:35
He announced that yesterday.
That is CBS's headline this morning.
We're going to take a break.
When we come back, Benjamin Glassner of the Economic Innovation Group joins us to talk about what some call a retirement crisis in the United States.
Some 55 million workers without access to retirement accounts.
President Trump has a proposal to expand the access.
We'll talk about all of that coming up after this break.
Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series, this Sunday with our guest, The Chronicler of Adventures, award-winning, best-selling author David Graham, whose books include The Lost City of Z, Killers of the Flower Moon, and The Wager.
He joins our host, renowned author and civic leader, David Rubinstein.
So what about this fact, about this occurrence, made you think this could be something worth your time?
And I started to realize that this odd little old manuscript contained, you know, the seeds of one of the most extraordinary stories of survival and mayhem I had ever come across.
watch America's Book Club with David Graham this Sunday at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
On this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
London-based writer Josh Ireland is the author of three books and ghostwriter of five others.
His latest is titled The Death of Trotsky, the true story of the plot to kill Stalin's greatest enemy.
According to Josh Ireland, Trotsky led two revolutions and a civil war in Russia in the first half of the 20th century.
Leon Trotsky died on August the 21st, 1940.
The day before, in Trotsky's house near Mexico City, a man named Ramon Mercator sunk an ice axe into Trotsky's skull.
He lived for 26 hours.
Mercator, who had several names, was a Soviet agent and had befriended Trotsky.
This was all the work of Stalin, Trotsky's arch enemy.
Josh Ireland's first sentence of chapter one asks this question.
When did Joseph Stalin decide to crush or destroy or kill Leon Trotsky?
His book tells the complicated story.
A new interview with author Josh Ireland about his book, The Death of Trotsky, the true story of the plot to kill Stalin's greatest enemy.
Book Notes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb, is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
America marks 250 years, and C-SPAN is there to commemorate every moment.
From the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future, we bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sites, and the spirit that make up America.
Join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can, and proudly supported by our television partners.
America 250, over a year of historic moments.
C-SPAN, official media partner of America 250.
Washington Journal continues.
At our table this morning is Benjamin Glasner.
Retirement Savings Act Expands Access Gap00:15:07
He is a senior economist at the Economic Innovation Group here to talk about retirement and savings by the American people.
How would you describe the current state of retirement for Americans?
Well, I think most Americans will come to the conclusion that it's not in the state that we'd like it to be.
I think the number one story or the number one thing that we should be thinking about is the access gap, particularly in the U.S., and particularly when we think about where retirement is today and where it could be going.
According to your group, 42% of full-time working Americans do not have access to a retirement plan.
50.5% do not receive an employer match.
Lower income workers are disproportionately left out of the current system.
And 78.7% of full-time workers earning less than $27,400 a year lack access to a retirement plan.
Explain the problem here.
I mean, what is preventing those numbers from being higher in some cases?
Yeah, so I think you saved me a bunch by being able to actually list the numbers so I didn't have to go through that whole process myself.
But when we think about what's kind of led us to this point, it's all about the infrastructure of how retirement is built today, where we think about people finding plans, how they can access those plans, and the general environment of it.
So today, we think that lots of defined contribution plans really motivate retirement savings, how you have low-friction mechanisms to save quickly, easily through paychecks, particularly employer-provided retirement plans.
Those plans really come down to where you work and what that means for you and your retirement future.
Right now, there is a huge access gap in who has access to those plans and what it means for their long-run savings.
And it's not equitably distributed.
So we think low-income individuals generally have a harder time accessing these plans.
Rural workers have a harder time.
Younger workers have a harder time.
All of these kind of disproportionate burdens fall on some of the most vulnerable workers in our system.
It's not a requirement for a company to have a retirement plan.
Correct.
And is that the issue?
Well, it's not so much that them not having a retirement plan being a requirement is the issue.
I mean, when you're a small business, it costs money to host a retirement plan.
Different plans vary across different types of employers.
We don't want to think about it as how can we make all employers provide these plans at a high level for the long run.
We want to think about how can we resolve the retirement issue as a whole and what's the best solution for everyone, both employers and employees.
What's the recommendation from your group?
Our recommendation is we should be expanding access in any way that we can, first and foremost.
But we also have some legislation on the books that is bipartisan and bicameral that's already available for Congress to start debating about and thinking through and working towards, which is that expanding access for everyone who doesn't currently have a plan, lowering the frictions into accessing retirement savings, and building a really beneficial matching structure for all workers, regardless of where they work.
So how does that compare to President Trump's thrift saving plan?
This, according to the Kiplinger website, they found that the president is modeling this plan after the federal thrift savings plan offered to civilian federal employees and uniformed military personnel.
It would provide a universal savings account to workers, would be portable if workers switch jobs, and includes a $1,000 annual match and index-based investment choices.
Yeah.
So the current proposal from President Trump and the White House is a really interesting topic and it's something that ends up fitting into a mixture of policies.
What President Trump and the White House is potentially able to do is through Treasury build small-scale retirement plans or accounts that they can leverage these types of retirement assets into, but they don't need congressional approval to make those accounts.
Obama did something very similar with MIRA back in 2014, 2015.
That's something they can just do through Treasury and make those accounts exist.
What they need congressional approval for is things like matching scales, auto enrollment, the amount that can be going in via any type of matching.
But we have a kind of combination of bipartisan things on the table.
The savers match is already on the books from 2022 via the Biden administration and Congress then.
That creates a scenario where individuals, particularly low-income individuals, will receive up to a 50% match on savings up to $1,000.
That's where that $1,000 is coming from right now, on the books.
Trump's accounts or the Trump administration can build out the accounts that can then take up some of the savers match or take advantage of it, and that can expand access to workers broadly, improving the state of retirement savings, but it's still very focused.
It's smaller-scale matching and smaller number of workers based off of income criteria.
This can pair well with actually a policy that Kevin Hassett, who's been working with the White House, as well as a policy that we were trying to help facilitate through some bipartisan agenda called the Retirement Savings for Americans Act, which expands the matching structure to more people at a higher level, includes auto enrollment, and it's something that's reportable and working.
So what we're seeing right now across the White House's proposal and what we've kind of got so far, because there's still a little bit of uncertainty of exactly what shape this will take, is a bit of a mixture of Trump accounts, the Savers Match, and the Retirement Savings for Americans Act.
I want to show our viewers the savers match because this is from Pew.org.
This was created by the Secure Act of 2.0 Act of 2022, and it went into effect January, it goes into effect January 1st, 2027, provides a 50% matching contribution of up to $1,000 annually for low to moderate income workers, as you were just saying.
Replaces the current savers credit, depositing funds directly into qualified retirement accounts.
Those are IRAs and 401ks for eligible individuals.
Talk about that last point.
So when we think about expanding savings for those types of people who are qualifying, the savers match as it's built right now, there's no access expansion.
So if you already have an account on hand, it allows you to be able to start saving and get some benefits to that savings right now.
But it doesn't create more accounts for individuals who don't have them currently.
So when we think about where the savers match is lacking, it's that access side.
We think about the 54 million American workers today who don't have access.
They're not currently going to have a good chance of being able to take advantage of that legislation on the books.
And we need to ensure that people have those accounts to be able to take advantage of those matchings right now.
I want to invite our viewers to join us in this conversation this morning.
We're talking with Benjamin Glasner.
He is a senior economist at the Economic Innovation Group.
And he's here to talk about, take your questions and your comments on retirement.
Democrats, dial in at 202-748-8000.
Republicans, 202-748-8001.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
And you can text with your question or comment as well.
Just include your first name, city, and state at 202-748-8003.
While we wait for your calls to come in, here's the president last month at the State of the Union announcing his new federal private sector retirement plan.
We're also working to make it easier for Americans to save for retirement.
And under this administration, we will always protect Social Security and Medicare.
They are not protecting it for our seniors.
will always protect Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
Since I took office, the typical 401k balance is up by at least $30,000.
It's a lot of money.
We have millions and millions of people because the stock market has done so well setting all those records.
Your 401ks are way up.
Yet half of all of working Americans still do not have access to a retirement plan with matching contributions from an employer.
To remedy this gross disparity, I'm announcing that next year my administration will give these oft-forgotten American workers, great people, the people that built our country, access to the same type of retirement plan offered to every federal worker.
We will match your contribution with up to $1,000 each year as we ensure that all Americans can profit from a rising stock market.
President Trump at the State of the Union announcing this plan for retirement accounts.
We want to get to your questions and your comments about the state of retirement today.
Clarification on how we're dividing the lines.
Here's how we're going to do it this morning for this conversation.
If you're under the age of 50, dial in at 202-748-8000.
Between ages between 30 and 49, 202-748-8001.
And if you're age 50 through 64, you can dial in this morning at 202-748-8002.
Age 65 and older, your line is 202-748-8003.
Steve is up first in Wisconsin.
Go ahead, Steve.
Good morning to you.
Yeah, I'm your basic elderly curmudgeon.
I don't believe a word that comes out of that lying president that we've got.
He keeps saying how great the stock market is doing.
Has he gone out and tried to buy groceries?
Has he gone out and bought gasoline?
Has anybody in Congress done the same thing?
I don't think so.
And Steve, how difficult is it to, or how are you doing?
Because you're calling on the age 65 and older.
Are you doing okay with what you have saved in your retirement accounts while also trying to live on high prices at the grocery store and gas prices?
Okay, what I've got going right now is my wife and I, we inherited from our parents a little bit, not a whole lot.
We managed to save a little bit during when we were working, but it gets awfully tough.
Gas prices are crazy, and part of it on the gas prices at least is due to the war in Iran.
My question would be, has anyone ever asked the leadership in Iran why they feel a need to have a thermonuclear device?
All right, Steve.
We'll take your points about the cost of living.
This is for a retiree dipping into his retirement accounts.
But for folks who are younger, who are trying to save for future retirement, what are the numbers showing about how much they're saving given the cost of living?
Yeah, I think when we think about the future of saving and how young workers are today thinking about that cost of living crunch that's going to come in the future, we want to think about how can we expand the general nest egg that people have access to in those coming years.
Right now, we think that young workers generally have a harder time accessing retirement accounts and defined contribution plans in particular through employers.
And so they miss out on huge years for compounding interest and building that nest egg in the future.
If we look at what that effect has been today, we can look at the state of seniors right now, people above the age of 65 or beyond, who are heavily reliant on Social Security, for example.
Social Security accounts for about 50% of income for people aged 65 and above.
Retirement accounts generally account for about 20%.
So if we can do things to expand the amount of savings that people have available to themselves today and what that nest egg can build into, we can help reduce some of that cost of living crisis in later years.
Robert is also on our line for those 65 and older, calling from Nebraska.
Good morning.
Good morning.
My question is, who's overseeing this whole retirement savings plan?
So, Benjamin Glassner?
Yeah, when we're looking at what the current plan is today, we've seen some proposals from the Trump White House that would build accounts via Treasury, and those would then be managed in a similar way to the Thrift Savings Plan, which is currently built around, or the Trump accounts would be managed through Treasury, and there is bipartisan legislation right now that would look to build something similar to the Thrift Savings Account Plans.
But right now, it's more of a discussion, and we're thinking we need to get a little more clarity on exactly what the retirement shape would be as it comes into focus.
So there's a lot of stuff that's on the books.
Savers Match is already legislation.
We know where that would operate and how it would work.
We don't have a full picture yet about what the Trump accounts of Trump's proposal for universal coverage for private sector workers would be yet.
Dee in Dayton, Ohio.
Good morning to you.
Dee, how old are you?
I am 55.
55.
56.
Okay.
And how are you doing?
How are you doing saving for retirement?
Or are you already retired?
No, I'm close to retirement.
I'm a federal worker.
I do use the TSP.
And what I'm curious about is if it will be similar to how our structure is, in which TSP is just three parts of our retirement.
So we have a smaller pension than the previous retirement system in the civilian sector.
Then we have TSP in which we have our match, which I know that the match sounds different.
And we also can count on Social Security as a third leg of our retirement.
Do you know if the plan is to eventually move away from Social Security?
I heard what was said in the State of the Union, but that's an important third leg of our retirement system.
KZ.
Yeah, so on the first point, we believe from the legislation that's on the books right now, via the Retirement Savings for Americans Act, it would be trying to model very similar to the thrift savings plan.
So we can have a lot of confidence that if they're able to successfully move forward with that legislation, that expansion on the retirement system would look very similar to that.
On the point about Social Security and do we think they're moving away or towards or how it kind of pairs with it, I believe right now the White House and Congress have been very clear in general that there's no point of this that's touching Social Security any variety.
It's much better to think about this as we have a very strong baseline for what Social Security can do and has been able to do.
That support to seniors and retirement living is very clear.
Again, about 50% of seniors' income relies on Social Security.
It reduces the poverty rate among elderly from about 37% down to 10% using the federal poverty line.
It's a hugely important program.
Anything that we do to expand retirement savings should be thought about as a way to help ensure and support a dignified retirement for workers who are able to save, and it reduces the gap that individuals face in that savings.
I just wondered about the new retirement plan, the thrift savings, and the $1,000 matching.
If you could tell me about that.
Yeah, I'd be happy to.
So when we think about the current plan as proposed, what's being offered right now, or what's being looked to offer right now via the Trump White House and the plan there is to expand coverage, ensuring that everyone has access to a retirement account.
Right now, there's a huge gap in who does and doesn't have access to an employer-supplied retirement plan.
And we want to reduce, or rather, the Trump White House is looking to reduce the frictions for workers to be able to access retirement savings plans and take advantage of it.
That, once it's done and put in place, if it's successful, and we put in place via Treasury, most likely, would then be able to take advantage of the Savers Match, which is a 50% federal match on savings up to $1,000 in qualifying accounts.
So it's two tiers in what's proposed right now and what we think the likely easy path is.
Build the accounts so workers can save and then allow those workers to take advantage of legislation that's already on the books.
Where it goes from there would be if we can continue to see a push towards bipartisan legislation to not only expand access but expand the quality of those accounts and that requires congressional work.
We're dividing the lines this morning by age.
So what age group would this benefit the most?
Yeah, so when we think about defined contribution plans, generally the biggest impact is going to be on younger workers who have the chance to save and earn and build that nest egg from contributions and take advantage of compounding interest.
So we want to think about building retirement programs for the future while still ensuring stability for retirees today and finding the long-run path that's going to give us the most bang for our buck.
When we think about the benefit to young workers, there's a ton of great research on this.
Some of our team has done it.
We've seen other benefits from other workers, other researchers.
One of the initial findings would be that for every dollar of public investment in a program like RSA, you see $2.40 of personal wealth generated off of it in the long run.
If we looked at the effect of a program like RSA on young workers aged 25 to 29, it would result in about $159 billion more dollars in personal wealth in today's dollars.
So net present value, that's a huge benefit for young workers today if we can get them access to programs.
That's the number overall.
That's the number overall for just 25 and 29 year olds.
So just for that young cohort today, you would see billions of dollars of additional wealth savings just because of that.
Hector's in San Diego.
Good morning.
Hi, good morning.
Yeah, you know, my question is because I noticed my check that Social Security already got, you know, about in January, I guess taking $45 because he said I don't pay of January, February.
That's why my check has got short.
Because now I'm 69 and I work part-time.
And I heard now, I guess I work only 24 hours in order to spend on my EDT because they told me I made too much money.
How can I make too much money when he told me I work only 24 hours for two weeks?
And I pay, you know, I work for, like I said, part-time.
And I don't understand, you know, Social Security is just, I don't know what's going to happen to us.
You know, I'm 69 right now.
What's going to happen is God give me a little more gift to live.
I live in a smaller apartment because they don't get I can afford it.
You know, this is bad, bad addition for the president.
You know, this is supposed to be a dollar way.
Help seniors people, not hurts people.
All right, Hector there in San Diego.
So Hector, working part-time, only 24 hours, tapping into Social Security, but it's not enough because he's working part-time.
What about the senior deduction for people?
He said he's 69 years old.
Now, under recent legislation, seniors can deduct per person to lower their income and what they are actually charged in taxes every year.
Yeah, I think that there's going to be a lot of actions trying to address cost of living.
And there's plenty of things that need to be done to try and do that.
And I think working to try and support seniors, particularly lower-income seniors, to try and find a way to cover these costs in the short run is crucial.
One of the big things that I would kind of point to, especially around the idea of looking at tax policy legislation for reducing tax burdens, is that that might not always help someone in the month-to-month cost scenario.
So from what I can understand from the way you're describing it, while that would certainly be helpful in the long run, thinking about, well, come tax time, I can get a tax deduction.
That might be harder to actually apply in the month-to-month scenario of how you deal with those costs, those grocery bills, those mortgage payments, or rent payments.
So it's tough to think about where the exact middle ground is.
The proposal from the Trump White House right now and in the legislation in Congress that we're thinking through isn't going to have as big of an effect today in the short run for seniors as much as it's going to be a long-run support for workers.
Jermaine is in South Carolina.
Jermaine, how old are you?
I'm 45.
Okay, question or comment?
Yeah, so I'm kind of looking for a little bit of education on this subject.
I've been blessed to have a job that participate in the 401k, I-7 TSP.
From my understanding, anyone who can afford it and knows anything about it can purchase a 401k plan from different companies.
So when you say you're trying to expand access, what do you mean?
What do you mean access and why don't people have access to these accounts?
It's a great question.
You tee it up perfectly.
So thank you for that.
When we think about access, it's not just about do people have the ability to set up, say, an IRA or work to try and access a 401k for themselves.
It's about the frictions in the system that make it more difficult for workers to access those things.
Now, when you enter into an employment arrangement and your employer offers a plan, it's very easy usually for you to be able to participate in that, save automatic deductions, donate to it, work with it, build that wealth egg, and just kind of see it move forward.
If you don't have that at your employer, then it's on you and the onus is on you to find the time to learn about the system, to build a plan, and then go through the process of doing those things.
And each of those things might be small frictions to some people, but they build.
And what we end up seeing is a momentum of building that if there isn't something like a plan that's easy to adopt and work through, more people find themselves kind of missing out on those plans.
They miss out on the ability to save and they miss out on the benefits of that.
The other aspect of this is it's not just about having access to a plan, it's the employer match.
When we think about how do we induce more savings, particularly among our lowest income workers, that match is huge.
We have good research showing that when thrift savings plans introduced a match, participation jumped about 22%.
We want to find ways to ensure that the lowest income workers, those people right on the edge of the cost of living crisis, are able to not just save with low frictions, but to see the benefits of that savings compound through matching structures.
So we want to do both of those things.
We'll go to Spruce Pine, North Carolina.
Mike, you are on the line.
Go ahead.
I've got a question about people that have to work under the table, so to speak.
I worked for general contractors in Mitchell County.
All of our plants shut down, and I was forced to have to go to work and do carpentry work, masonry.
But the contractors I worked for did not 1099 as people.
But they still paid taxes on the money that we made.
And we are the ones suffering now.
Is there any type of benefit or something if we can prove that we worked for these people where we can get help?
Because it's the only jobs we had here in North Carolina at the time.
Like I say, three, four of our factories shut down and left.
So you were working, but you didn't get a 1099 from these general contractors?
Yes, ma'am.
I worked 14 years for one individual specifically.
And how did that hurt you in the end?
What happened?
I've got no retirement.
I've got nothing.
He's getting a big right now.
He's got a big retirement plan and all this and daddy going.
But I'm not paid taxes and I'm not even eligible for disability.
I'm sitting here in the past LPD rheumatoid offer I had a static nerve issues from where I've worked all my life, but now I'm not eligible for nothing.
Okay.
Mike there in Spruce Pine, North Carolina.
Yeah, so I think there's a wide range of things that should be addressed in that type of a situation.
I'm going to focus just on the retirement side for the sake of clarity in the discourse that we're on right now, but there's obviously lots to be discussed about the state of American workers and how people interact both between W-2 work and 1099 work, as well as being paid under the table.
With regards to expanding retirement, one of the key benefits of looking at a program like RSAA or thinking about how we can expand accounts is worker-oriented versus employer-oriented plans.
So one of the big barriers to 401ks today is the fact that many people find the administrative burden of managing multiple plans across multiple employers as you transition through your career in life very burdensome.
Instead, looking for a plan that builds out retirement at the worker level for you particularly or anyone else where it is your plan and it follows you wherever you go and however you work is really important.
This plays into a lot of the gig economy today, for example.
More 1099 work in platform work or spot market works as well.
And those are scenarios where you want to be able to find ways to induce saving, encourage it, reward it, without thinking that it helps to be in one type of employment, all just W-2 formal work.
So right now, RSA is built to be accommodating to that.
And it looks like the Trump proposal is also going to be looking for that same type of solution.
RSA, for people who are just joining us, stands for, and what is it?
Retirement Savings for Americans Act.
So it's currently a bicameral bipartisan legislation in Congress that seems to model very similar off of the Trump proposal as a whole, and seems like it might be the inspiration or at least a clear-through way for a lot of these goals.
And when could it get a vote in the House and the Senate?
I'm not sure exactly when they're going to be.
I believe it's already been introduced, so I think it'd be a matter of bringing it to the floor, but I would have to check in with some of the policy folks to confirm on that one.
Linda, Woodbridge, Virginia.
Hi, Linda.
Hi, good morning.
Good morning.
I guess I just have a couple of comments, and then I have a question.
And I just think that this savings plan is a great opportunity, but for Wall Street, you've got people struggling out here.
We still live with a lady who called in two weeks ago, I think, and she had almost nothing to eat for days before her next check would come in, her next disability check.
You've got kids who are crushed under student loan repayment.
You've got people now who are going to have to pay even higher tuition rates while they are in school because their jobs are suddenly not considered professional jobs.
Incomes, it's known that incomes haven't been rising for the last 30 or 40 years.
Certainly not to keep pace with inflation.
So you've got folks struggling out here.
You've got people who want to start a family.
They have enormous daycare costs.
They want to buy a house.
Housing is almost unaffordable.
And now you're talking about a savings plan where they would put money in.
Where are these savings supposed to come from?
All right, Linda, Ben Glessner.
Yeah, so I think you raise a really important point, which is that when we think about savings for the future, there is absolutely an income story within it, that it's harder to save when you have less income, and it's harder to save when those cost of living crises really start to hit, particularly at the bottom.
One thing that I want to emphasize is that we already subsidize retirement savings within the U.S.
We spent, as according to a CBO analysis back in 2019, about $276 billion on payroll and income tax exemptions, specifically for retirement plans.
That's a lot of money.
But when we look at where that money went, 60% of it went towards the top 20% of households.
5% went to the bottom 40%.
If we look just at the $200 billion that came from income tax exemptions, 1% went to the bottom 20% of income households.
We spend a lot of money supporting retirement already.
We already have a ton of systems trying to design it, but we miss out on supporting the very bottom of the system.
Lowest income workers have a harder time accessing these savings, accessing matching in savings, and taking advantage of the subsidizing retirement supports that we already do.
We gain in the long run by having people save more and have more to be able to do a dignified retirement with.
We need to build the tools out to help the lowest income workers, those hit by those cost of living crises, save and build the nest egg that they need to have a dignified retirement.
We'll go to Kentucky.
Good morning to Bill there and on our line for ages 50 to 64.
Hi, Bill.
How are you doing today?
Morning.
Yes, I in the last year of the Bidens, I had to pull money out of my retirement account or I wouldn't have survived.
Yet, I paid $20,000 in taxes on it.
Hi, Bill.
And when I went to do my taxes, I didn't get to use it to use my taxes.
They just took every bit of it, over $20,000.
So you had to pay a penalty because of early withdrawal, Bill.
I'm 64 past 59, and it had been in this account long enough.
Okay, but you still have to pay an early withdrawal cost.
Yeah, so within different retirement accounts and different structures, there's early withdrawal fees in general, and there's some costs depending on it.
So it depends a ton on the plan that's in place.
I think what you're getting at as well, though, is the fact that different plans have different requirements.
There's different structures across different savings, and not everyone's retirement experience is going to be the same based off their savings.
Especially if you hit an income shock or something that requires you to pull money out early or earlier than you planned.
Finding ways where we can build retirement supports that help people be flexible is really important to think about, particularly as so many people are so reliant on retirement savings as one of many vehicles to try and build out savings.
Can you, under what circumstances, can you tap your traditional retirement account if you're under the age of 59, but you're older than 55?
Have to remember on that for the specific ones.
I mean, is it possible that you can do this in some circumstances?
In some circumstances, there are ways to do it.
I think that within the exact legislation that's being proposed right now, particularly through RSA, there are a number of components of it that are built around trying to do early withdrawals or emergency fund withdrawals.
But I think it's still a little bit of a live exercise, particularly around the Trump accounts.
We don't have clarity on what it is that's being proposed in that space, how it would deal with something like an early withdrawal.
So it's worth keeping our eyes on that.
It's complicated.
Okay, Eddie in Illinois.
Go ahead, Eddie.
Pension Plans Push for Universal 401k00:05:43
Yeah, good morning.
And thanks for taking my call.
I'm been retired several years now.
And the company I work for, they allow a pension plan, and they also allow you to take stock in the company.
And I thought that was an excellent program.
And then in 2006, things start changing.
The government allowed corporations to do whatever.
And seemingly, to me, it's becoming full circle.
Everything they did years before, they're trying to do again.
And the pension plan, now they want everybody to do the 401.
The 401 crashed years ago.
And now they want everybody to do the 401.
Whatever happened to the pension plans that they allow companies to set up, was the company.
My question: was the company giving a tax break if we have pension plans set up and insurance plans set up for the employees?
That's my question.
Mr. Glassner?
Yeah.
So 401ks actually do derive from tax legislation.
It's been around for a while, but it wasn't something that was truly intended to be a replacement of all types of retirement savings or all types of savings for the long run.
It's just one way by which we can support savings.
It is a tax-advantaged support.
So similar to employer-provided health insurance, employer-provided retirement plans receive tax advantage for those savings rates and obviously differ between Roths, IRAs versus 401ks.
There's lots of different mechanisms by which you can save, and they have different components of them that are all worth understanding for what your best personal plan is.
But when we think about kind of what happened to the pension, it's less about an intentional removal of it.
There are still pensions out there, but more that 401ks have offered individuals and companies a way to build compounding interest in the long run in a sustainable way while building a diversified retirement portfolio.
So I think the correct way to view these things these days is how can we build multiple assets of supporting retirement in a volatile world in a way where we can say we have multiple eggs in the basket and we're confident that we'll be able to have a comfortable retirement because we've diversified.
Donna, St. Louis, Missouri.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Three things.
Number one, you can't trust anything, Trump says.
What we need for the young to be able to save for retirement are decent paying jobs.
But Congress and Bush Jr. and Clinton shipped most of those to Mexico and China.
Secondly, the Republicans did fight Medicare, Social Security, and now Obamacare every step of the way.
Their new plan is to bankrupt Social Security.
But with a $2 billion a day war, billions in tax cuts to the rich, and they're bailing out Argentina.
Third, young people, they're just trying to bankrupt the one thing that has proven to be there for the old, and that is Social Security.
And this is just going to bankrupt us more with these nitwitty ideas you got.
All right, Donna.
Some fear there that this proposal by the president and those who want to increase access to retirement plans is just a way to get rid of Social Security.
Yeah, so I think it's worth reiterating that this operates alongside Social Security.
When we think about access to these plans, it's not about trying to find something to replace Social Security as it is today, but rather find support to ensure that there is more income available to individuals as they enter retirement and that it's on a long-run sustainable path for this leg of it.
50% of income for seniors right now is derived from Social Security.
I don't think that anything about expanding access, particularly to lower-income individuals, more rural workers, younger workers, workers in the service industry, food services, expanding access to them is not about reducing the ability to support Social Security.
It's just about ensuring a longer-run savings portfolio for individuals to be able to compound savings and go into retirement with more available to them.
One last call here.
Tony in Daytona Beach, Florida.
Hi, Tony.
Hi, good morning.
I heard the magic word, and that was eggs in the basket.
I just want to call and encourage younger people to save, no matter if it's $5 a week or $5 a month, because I've never heard anybody yet who complained that they only wish they had saved and invested less.
Let's pick up on that point, the importance of saving.
Yeah, saving is obviously a hugely important factor as we think about the long-run sustainability of retirement and achieving those retirement goals.
I think there's been a general sentiment as well about economic uncertainty, how do we plan for it?
And I think the key lesson from this policy proposal and what we're looking to see expand in retirement is getting people more access to saving mechanisms that are valuable and return compounding benefits over time.
So finding ways to encourage more savings and reward that savings, particularly among people who currently don't have access to the retirement system, would be a huge benefit.
Benjamin Glossner is a senior economist at the Economic Innovation Group.
You can learn more if you go to eig.org or on X at innovate Economy.
Encouraging Savings for Long-Term Sustainability00:00:42
Thank you for the conversation.
Thank you so much for having me.
And that does it for today's Washington Journal.
Thank you all for watching and participating in the conversation.
We'll be back for another one tomorrow morning, 7 a.m. Eastern Time.
Enjoy your day.
Today we'll be live from Louisiana for the fifth annual New Orleans Book Festival.