tv Washington Journal CSPAN June 9, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT
there will be a discussion on how states will prepare for the decision. host: good morning. the house meets at noon today before returning to legislative business at 2:00 p.m. the senate will be back at 10:00 a.m. before then we have a three-hour "washington journal" for you. we begin talking about student loan debt in the united states. borrowers are leaving school with on average $35,000. with spiraling college costs already becoming a major topic. this morning, we're asking our
viewers to tell us your stories about paying off student loans and how it impacted your career. if you're under 25 years old that number (202) 748-8000. if you are 25-40 (202) 748-8001. if you're 41, or older, (202) 748-8002. you can catch up on social media via twitter, or facebook or e-mail us at email@example.com. the combined student loan debt in this country as of the first quarter of this year is a little over $1.2 trillion. this morning we are talking with you about your experiences of paying off student loan debt. the recent graduating class considered -- contributed their
share, leading to headlines like this one from "the wall street journal." congratulations, class of 2015. you are the most indebted ever, for now. college graduates this year leaving school as the most indebted class ever, titled they will hold exclusively for 12 months. even adjusted for inflation it is more than twice the amount borrowers had to pay back two decades earlier. that story accompanied by several charts showing the rising student loan debt. this is the average debt. about $35,000. the average debt per borrower. going back to 1993, it was under $10,000. you can see that change increasing upward since 1983.
another chart from the wall street journal. the total education debt of students and parents from the graduating class contributing about $70 billion in total student loan debt. you can see that increasing since the 293 -- since 1993. we want to hear from you. if you are under 25 years old (202) 748-8000. 25-40, (202) 748-8001. if you are 41 and older, (202) 748-8002. we will be looking at your comments. including a few on facebook this morning. robert on facebook says paying off student loan debt is impossible, due to interest, raising the interest rates.
as a soon to be college student the thought of debt is already stressing me out. under that michael, no student loans ever. went to the military first. government, all of you, paid for two degrees. thank you. all high school graduates should have military experience, to know, to understand the significance. daniel calling in from new jersey, good morning. caller: how are you? host: what are your experiences with paying off student loans and, if you don't mind, how much do you have? i have around $35,000. possibly accumulating more. i attend rutgers. i was a liberal arts major. political science and economics.
i minored in economics. it didn't translate as well. i am pursuing a masters. in the crux of that, you are caught in the limbo. getting a job without a technical degree is difficult. i know that the market has opened up for engineering and more technical, mathematical degrees. as well as finance. as far as liberal arts degrees the job market is tough. especially entry. unless you happen to know somebody. there are a lot of qualified individuals, especially around my age. 25 to 24. it is hard to break into and obtain a position and service those loans. caller: going back to your 18-year-old self, would you
advise yourself to go into one of those stem fields to make more money earlier? caller: while i cannot disregard the skills that i have learned i think the college experience is vital and makes you a more well-rounded person, but i would recommend my 18-year-old self to go back to school, maybe into a more specific technical degree. leaning toward that way as opposed to liberal arts. you have to take the good with the bad. hopefully i can get my feet wet and someone will give me the opportunity to break into some career. host: daniel in new jersey this morning. we want to hear from our viewers. those under 25, maybe going to college now and still
accumulating that debt. let's go to the katrina, waiting in maryland. 36 years old. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is actually a very pressing issue. i have about $80,000 for a two-year degree that is -- a basic liberal arts degree. every seven years your interest turns into your principal. alone that started out -- a loan that started out as $20,000 will triple and double. i paid for my bachelors and my masters out of my pocket. i cannot incur any more student loan debt. caller: is it -- host: is it federal student loan debt or did you go to a private
borrower? caller: it is federal student loan debt. at 18 years old, these student loan companies are predatory lenders. i was from a low income family. i went to a small school, the university of akron. the tuition was not that high. so the fact that i received all of that lunney -- money, i was paying for my rent and i did not know what i was doing. i stopped two years later. but incurring that much debt in two years at 18, that is ridiculous. i have my entire lifetime to pay off that loan. host: senator al franken is one of several members of congress who has been pushing a bill to make it easier to refinance student loan debt. he had a recent piece in which he noticed that many are locked into loans with interest rates
as high as 10% which makes it all the more difficult to pay off. when interest rates are low, homeowners regularly refinance their debt. the federal government offers no refinancing option to student borrowers. once you graduate, you're stuck with that high interest rate forever. i am doing something to fix that problem, he writes, earlier this year i joined senator elizabeth warren in introducing the bank on student emergency loan refinancing act. our legislation will allow borrowers to take advantage of lower interest rates and refinance their student loans. members of congress were looking to address this problem. we want to hear your stories. joe is up next. what was your experience? caller: to me, there are three different issues.
the financing of student loans is ridiculous. the price of school is ridiculous. i am afraid the other side of the coin, i have first-hand experience at my age of friend's children using their money for car payments, expensive apartments, $2000 spring break trips. if they spend all their money on school it might not be as big an issue. when i graduated from high school, my parents were low middle student class -- middle-class. there were not student loans. if you did not get a sports scholarship, you were stuck. when i went to school, i had to pay for it. host: do you remember what the cost of school was? caller: you could have a
part-time job and live at home. go to a junior college to start close to home. it was affordable. it could be done. it wasn't unreasonable. that probably is not the case now. host: you think the community college system is picking up those kind of college positions and allowing people to do what you did or are even those getting too expensive? caller: at my age i don't know. i went to a school that was brand-new, i really wasn't too thrilled about. like i said, i could live at home and i could pay for it. i got good enough grades and saved money living at home, so i could go to the university of south florida. caller: joel in naples florida.
joel is 53. we have a line for those who are 41 and over. what you hear from those who are impacting retirement decisions. this from "market watch," retirees are carrying unprecedented amounts of student loan debt. in 1989, education those made up just 4% of debt for retirees and in 2013, it made up 30%. the amount of debt for free retirees and retirees, in 1989, free retirees held an average of 6% -- pre-retirees held an average of 6%, it increased from $400 in 1999 to $2300 in 2013.
can, thank you for calling. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to say that i was in the military and i got out after 12 years and i use my g.i. bill to go to college. i kept my gpa high enough to qualify for the yellow ribbon program. the subsidy that picks up what the g.i. bill does not cover. even with all of that, when i graduate i am $12,000 plus in debt. i cannot understand why it has to be this way. second thing today in the fiscal environment, a college degree is like a high school diploma 20 years ago. we have to get a college degree, just to get a job that pays enough to live comfortably. host: that is ken in fairfax
virginia. that it costs from $20,000 public to $50,000 private is a criminal state of poor education , planning and probably greet. -- greed. >> if weekend they'll out the banks, we can bail out students. students are main street. norman, good morning. caller: i put myself through college. my first semester, my grandmother helped me out. my parents went to college but they were lower middle class people. it was pretty difficult. right now, what i would say is to the youth of america, i feel sorry for them. nowadays the smart thing to do is get into a trade school. a lot of callers when to the military. that is fine, but you have to
know what you want to do. you have to know that you will have a job. the debt pays up and it took me forever to pay off community college loans. i eventually did it but it is rough. caller: bill is 52, also in new york. in your experience, how much loan debt did you graduate with? caller: i am not carrying any debt. i went to undergrad at the university of vermont and medical school. my entire debt from all of that was $25,000 and i paid it off. contrast that with my son who went to a second rate college. one year of college for him was $30,000. this whole thing is obscene. what it will do is create a class society. the rich will be the only to
have the money to go to college in the war won't. if you don't have -- and the poor won't. if you don't have an education you are in a poor position. it is obscene how much they charge for education. i have no idea why it costs so much. when you go to a large college you see fancy buildings but the government has to step in. we are the only industrialized country in the world that pays this much for education. host: when your son was getting ready to go, did he factor in how much debt he was going to have when he graduated? in terms of picking a college and possible career choices? what college would be most likely to help him get a job to pay off the debt? caller: we factored that in, he dropped out of that college and is now going to a community college. when i went to medical school,
it was only $8,000 per year. even though it is a lot cheaper the difference between the school in the 80's and now is astronomically different. i am a physician. i do have some money. but if you are middle-class, low middle class, i don't see how you can go to college. that will make us a class society. host: marco rubio has been talking about this on the campaign trail. students deserve to know how much the will help them earn before taking out a student loan. he sends a link to his plan. the students write to know before -- right to know before you go act. to make well-informed decisions about which institutions are likely to yield the best return on their investment. his legislation aims to give
students reliable data on that front. something he is pushing as part of his residential plan. to lower student loans and pay off those student loans or find jobs. hillary clinton is also talking about this issue on the campaign trail. on a recent stop in iowa, the former secretary of state suggested the country should be as debt-free as possible. her campaign manager described the concept is one that could appeal to young voters. clinton has rolled up a plan to address student debt later this year. june 13 she is expected to offer new details as to what proposals she would advocate for if elected president. they will be bringing that and looking for her thoughts on student loan debt. in fredericksburg, virginia,
what are your thoughts? caller: thank you for taking my call. i graduated in 2006, and i went to college in 2007. my first year. i took out a loan. it wasn't much because i had some grants. it was about $5,000. shortly after that, my mother went into the hospital and the bills added up. with the economy the way it was my parents ended up losing their house. i work full-time and went to school full-time. i ended up getting a job as a sales rep and i make about $70,000. if i can go back and tell myself -- it is funny because the first sales job i had they did not need a degree and now that i
work for a software company i am making $80,000 and they wanted a degree, but because i had the qualifications, i did not need the degree. it is crazy that -- they put so much emphasis on degrees when really, sometimes being in the field itself is more than a degree itself. host: when do you think you will pay off? your 28 years old now. how long will you pay student debt for? caller: right now, just because i have other debt that i accrued, from helping my parents and things like that, it will probably take me a while just because i had to get an apartment myself. it is taking me a while. when i left my parents house i
did not have a car or a place to live. luckily, some of the places around here have worked with me in getting cars and things like that. i have accrued so much debt, it would probably take me a while to pay it off. it wasn't like i just made $80,000 a year ago, i just got that this year. hopefully it will be paid off this year. it wasn't a consistent thing. host: we appreciate the call. gutierrez is up next and raleigh, north carolina on the line for those 41 and older. good morning. caller: i am calling in regards to the student loan situation. it is all fraud. there is no disclosure when you go to these banks to make these loans. then, when you go to school for four years and graduate, the job
market doesn't offer the graduates the jobs within whatever industry you're going into to be able to pay the loans off. that is why i defaulted. it is all fraud. no disclosure or anything. then they raise the interest rates's you cannot -- you are always indebted to the fed. the federal government and these banks are in cahoots with one another. they are all in cahoots. it is all fraud. host: how much was your loan when you defaulted? caller: the interest rates -- this is how they get you. the interest rates were set at a level in the mid-1990's. they had an interest rate between 3% and 5%.
since that time, those interest rates have gone up. it is dam near impossible to be able to pay these loans back. it is all fraud. i will take my question -- my comment off the air. it is fraudulent. host: patrick gutierrez in north carolina. defaulting on student loans. certainly an issue that has come up this week in light of an article over the weekend in "the new york times." the headline, why i defaulted on my student loans. he writes in the piece that defaulting was the only way i could survive without wasting my life in a job that had nothing to do with my particular usefulness to society. as difficult as it has been, i have never looked back. the millions today who oh over $1 trillion in loans -- who owe
more than $1 trillion and loans may want to consider. where joined later by lee siegel, this op-ed gaining a lot of attention this week. tell us about your experiences in defaulting on a student loan. we will come back to lee siegel in just a second, if we can get him back on the phone. let's go to jake and austin, texas. 24 years old. caller: one of the things that i think is interesting about student debt,, not only the volume of it, that it operates differently than other forms of debt. it is a form of debt that cannot be forgiven in bankruptcy, as well as between 2011 and 2013,
student debt increased at a time when debt overall seemed to be flat or less than inflation. between 2011 and 2013 student debt increased at a rate of 20% whereas other forms of debt only increased at a rate of 2.1%. caller: -- host: jake in austin, texas. marie, you are on the washington journal. caller: i just wanted to make a comment, when i was growing up, if you could afford to go to college, you went. if you couldn't, you didn't. it looks to me like everybody wants everything free and it is not that way. the american way is, if you have the money you do it and if you don't have the money, you can't. we will get back to lease eagle op-ed editor at the "new york
times." tell us your story and when did you make the decision to default and how much was it? guest: i will not get into the particulars, but i can say that i went to a small private college in the midwest and i transferred after my father's bankruptcy and parents divorce to a state college in new jersey. then i went to graduate school at columbia and i finished my undergraduate, with the intention of having an academic career. i got everything but my phd and the economy changed. english studies changed. i decided to turn myself into a writer. at that point i saw that i could not pay back my loans. i defaulted. i want to add that all through
columbia, i had my tuition paid in full, but i had to maintain full-time status to get that. which meant that i had to take out loans but i worked my way through every single semester and year of college and graduate school. host: talk about the reaction you have seen this week to the op-ed piece you wrote. link.com called you an unrepentant leech. box.com says siegel seems to believe that not paying back loans will be ushered in as a utopia of free education. it is much more likely that he will be cited by every means necessary by people who can't or won't pay for education. guest: i don't understand either of those. the slate writer requested why i got three degrees. i wanted to be an academic, why
shouldn't i? in the second case, i wasn't calling for a utopia and i don't see how people unable to pay for loans will make people pursue them more relentlessly. what i find so amazing about the debate is that, i am a writer, and i thank god, have access to a place like "the new york times." most people in our world journalists, they have a lot of family money and they do ok. they are not logged down, most of them, in student loans. they have these 10 minute conversations about everyone else's problems and they go on to the next thing. through happenstance, i happened to be in a situation like a lot of people who don't have access to the new york times. who do not have the level of articulation because they have been denied certain advantages,
to express what their economic situation is. i wrote a personal piece about not being able to pay back the exorbitant, extortionate sums of student loans. all the people who usually make their living going on about the plight of the middle class, they turn on me. i find it amazing. they called me a deadbeat. my point was that like health care, education should be a universal good. it should not be a commodity. since mobility is the keystone of american freedom everyone should have access to higher education. there is nothing that inflammatory. host: one question that comes up, do you make enough now that you could pay it back now after five books that you have sold and writing another memoir, or is this something that is more
of a principal at this point? guest: it is hardly a principal. i struggle, like ordinary people who call you up and talk to you that is all i'm going to say about it. but i find it very interesting that you can talk about anything in this country, sexual coupling with any person or anything, the editor of "the atlantic monthly," wrote a book about how he is so anxious that he has to defecate in public. this book should have been sent to a gastroenterologist to review. instead it gets reviewed and chin stroked by respected. literary critics. you can say that if you are the editor of a national magazine. if you say you struggle to pay your student loans and then default, everybody jumps on you as if you committed a crime. they all want the particulars of
your financial situation, and the more you tell them, the more they jump on you. it is topsy-turvy and that is part of the reason why this country is such a mess. host: the idea of saying that this is something that other college graduates should consider -- are you advocating for this as the approach? guest: what i am saying is, social change only occurs through crisis. it does not occur through pretty writing or bold writing or agitation. it occurs through crisis. in the best of all possible worlds if people were able to do that without suffering to put their collective foot down and say enough already i will not pay these exorbitant sums. i will not pay 9% interest, that's what my loans are at the moment. 9% interest. i will not do any of that.
in the best of all possible worlds, if students took to the streets and their campuses, made mass movements, pushed through a universal tax on certain financial transactions, which bernie sanders is calling for if they did that, then i have saying that yes, things might change. host: lee siegel, and author with "the new york times," his piece, "why i defaulted on my student loans." we went to hear from our viewers on your experience with your experience on paying off student loans. how much were they when you graduated? how much did it take to pay off or are you still paying them off? tim, good morning. caller: good morning. i have it relatively easy in virginia.
i borrowed money for two years of college $8,000. that was paid off in five years or 10 years and small payments. today, the cost of college is so prohibitive and access to student loans is so easy, it is almost like the banking institutions and in some part of the federal government, is working in cahoots to put our young people into debt. i think that this just a symptom of the broader problem with our economy. i call it the fallacy of capitalism. where the people at the top have done a good job and driving production costs down and raising profit margins but in
doing that they have undermined the essence of our economy. the middle class does not have the purchasing power or the ability to maintain a happy good life but we had in the 60's, 1970's and 1980's. the previous caller, the writer, it is a bad way to start your career. host: airborne ranger on our twitter page writes that airborne ranger is still paying. never ending story. they keep increasing what you oh. -- what you owe. john on the line for those 41 and over much debt did you graduate with? caller: i graduated with zero debt, but i started out of high school and i went to a large manufacturing company, i started
in the machine shop. i got into the apprenticeship program, and they sent me to a trade school and i ended up coming a tool and die maker for the company. i had people working under me that had four year college degrees. the point that i am trying to make is, high schools need to start teaching students a trade. there was a gentleman that was on cnbc that owned a machine shop in tennessee. he is screaming for machinists. he is willing to pay $30 an hour, and he cannot get him. the students are not going into
the industry. not everybody is going to be a doctor or a lawyer. we do need trade people. we do need student loan programs should be put to a stop because it is only making college is more expensive. host: we want to keep getting your thoughts and comments. some news on this front coming out of the obama administration. yesterday, more relief or student debt, the obama ministration said it would forgive several student loans owned by americans who can show they were lured to colleges by false recruiting. it is one of the most aggressive measures yet to ease student debt. the movement is designed to help former college students of corinthian colleges inc., a big
for-profit change that collapsed into bankruptcy reorganization this spring. federal officials accused the company in 2014 of line to students about it regulation rate. the government would consider forgiving any loans held by the government. so long as the borrower can demonstrate his school persuaded him or her to take out the loan under conditions that would violate state law. let's go to mike in kentucky. line for those who are 41 or over. caller: my comment is basically this. i owed about $40,000 in student loans. i went to grad school. i could not pay them back. the economy wasn't that great. they ended up garnishing all that i owed. i still owe $125,000, but it is
all penalties, fees and interest. at this point, i am unemployed. i will never be able to pay these things back. they want $1000 a month. for 10 years to rehabilitate the loans. like i said, the part that bothers me, they have already garnished what i owed initially. $125,000 -- $124,000 and change. host: what was the initial amount? caller: i think i borrowed $41,000. host: out of today's newspapers a few editorials, puppets and stories. secretary of state -- editorials, op ads and stories. secretary of state john kerry -- carter have a story on growing
trade to shore u.s. security. the transpacific partnership holds high-stakes beyond the obama administration is what the two cabinet members right. -- write. other news out of south carolina. a former police officer was indicted on monday by the grand jury on murder charges in connection with the shooting death of water scott which was recorded by a passerby and became a resignation -- resonating signal. michael slager has been jailed on murder charges since april 7 when the story became public. out of the washington post, some news about former speaker dennis pastored -- hastert. he is expected to appear in court today. his arraignment before the u.s.
district court judge, he is scheduled at 2:00 p.m. in chicago. he faces two felony charges. neither of which relate to the sexual misconduct from yorkville ohio. it is in several papers today. on the political front, the news coming out of vermont that governor peter shumlin, a democrat were nearly one his latest reelection said on monday that he will not seek a fourth term in office. the former state senator was first elected governor in 2010 and said he was announcing his decision now to allow time for potential successors to plan their campaigns. if you want to read more on that story, in several of the new england papers and a "reuters" story. but go to ginny's waiting in --
janice waiting in odenton maryland. caller: good morning. i was thinking you are going to call my age. host: on the line between -- for those between 25-40. caller: regarding the "new york times" article," i think it is ludicrous that he defaulted on his student loan debt. if you incur the debt, then you should pay your debt off. it didn't really make sense exactly what he was saying. he said he went to columbia for graduate school. but he had scholarships. i'm trying to figure out where did he get the loans? i guess he was trying to take out loans to live? he had have a full-time schedule? whatever the case is -- host: in his story, it talks
about a bankruptcy in his family while he was in college. but go ahead with your comment. caller: that is a very expensive school. and a very expensive area. in new york. the cost of living in new york is extremely high. i went to a state school and i got scholarships. if he couldn't afford to go to graduate school, he should have stopped after his bachelors degree. i don't understand people who don't pay their bills. it doesn't make sense. i think my mortgages too high. i should stop paying. it is ridiculous. take responsibility. host: i want to get in thomas who is waiting in fort myers florida. thank you for calling. what is your experience with student loan debt?
caller: i agree with the previous caller. it was outrageous to lump private colleges and public colleges in the same category. there is no comparison. anyone who chooses to go to a private college should pay for their own college period. $20,000 in college debt is more than the cost of a new car. half the students in california don't even have student debt. i think this is a faux issue. it was outrageous to allow that writer not to give specifics on what his debt was and what he owes now. he was an authentic and you should not have had him on without a challenge. the most important point is, to lump private college debt and public college debt in the same category is a total distortion of the issue. host: thank you for the call.
from fort myers florida. we should note that yesterday was a decision day for the supreme court here in washington dc. -- washington, d.c.. joining us now on the phone is "reuters" supreme court correspondent talking about the loan decision yesterday. explain the passport issue that was decided yesterday. guest: the court struck down a law that congress had enacted which allowed u.s. citizens born in jerusalem to say that they were born in israel. the law never went into effect, but there was a legal challenge. the people who wanted to enforce the law made a legal challenge and they lost yesterday. host: what are the implications
here for american mideast policy and the separation of powers here in washington, d.c.? caller: -- guest: the ruling was a win for the obama administration. it upheld the role of the white house and having a primary role in recognizing foreign governments. that has been established for some time, but this put a seal on that. in a way it avoided any major problems in the middle east. the u.s. has long remained neutral. this is a way to avoid getting into that. host: the biggest cases being watched for in this term our decisions on that gay marriage issue and king v. burwell that to do with the affordable care act.
what day are those decisions expected to come down? guest: the court is in the final days of issuing its big rulings. they will come out within the next three weeks or so. we don't know yet exactly when, but most likely the big cases will come toward the end of the month. host: the supreme court already looking ahead to its future cases. some being picked up and rejected yesterday. can you talk about the san francisco gun regulation case that was rejected yesterday? guest: the court declined to take up the challenge to a san francisco gun regulation, which at least two of the justices said they would have liked to have taken. they said in a dissenting statement, it is quite possible that regulation is not in compliance with the supreme court's previous rulings on gun
rights. host: what did the supreme court take up yesterday in that decision for cases down the road? guest: one of them is a business case. they took up a case involving tyson suits about worker pay at a processing facility in iowa. that is a big class-action lawsuit, that is something the business community is keen on. host: the group of hard-working reporters covering the supreme court. a busy time of year for you. we appreciate you. guest: thanks a lot. host: that will do it for the first 45 minutes. up next, the house and the senate are both back in session today, for the busy four days ahead on capitol hill. we will talk about what is on tap with derek wall bank.
later the subsidies at the heart of that supreme court case. we will be right back . >> this summer, book tv will cover book festivals from around the country. near the end of june, watch for the annual roosevelt reading festival from the presidential library. in the middle of july, we are live at the harlem book fair with author interviews and panel
discussions. at the beginning of september we're live from the nation's capital from the national book festival. that is a few of the events this summer. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every senator and house number, plus bio and contact information and twitter handles. also district maps, a foldout map of capitol hill, a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. it is $13.95 plus shipping and handling from c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a busy legislative week on capitol hill this week, kicked off last night with the defense authorization act.
here to break it down is bloomberg's derek wallbank. we saw some of the grueling debates over the ndaa last month in the house. similar tough debates in the senate this week? guest: i think there are tough debates coming up in the first is an issue of time. defense authorization is one of these bills that gets done every year. it is a major landmark bill. it covers an authorization for more than half a federal discretionary spending on the defense side, but it is not quite as time sensitive as other things, according to democrats harry reid is questioning why we are even on this at all. such as the import export do at the end of the month or highway funding, which he considers a more pressing need. you would imagine that if somebody question the need to do
the defense authorization bill, that republicans would come up and say things to the order of, why do you think it is not important to give up a race to our troops -- pay raise to our troops and sure enough, if you are on capitol hill your inbox has been flooded with that. now you're talking about a raft of things that come up from procurement spending, to planes the pentagon says it does not need to the question of what are we doing in iraq and syria the president's remarks yesterday about that strategy or lack thereof, this will be a barn burner. host: explain this bill for those who do not track the legislation as closely as you do this is the authorization bill for the military talking about $523 billion in the federal budget for defense
spending. guest: four people watching at home we have two things you will see. we have it in the house and the senate on the same week. the authorization basically tells somebody how to spend the money and the appropriation gives them the money to spend. so if you're making your household budget, if you are making the budget, that is the authorization. if you're cutting the check that is the appropriation. host: talk about sequestration in this debate of the ndaqaa. guest: we have locked in a budget deal from a long time back that says is spending cannot be kept under a certain level, there will be automatic spending reduction known as sequestration. the problem here is people do not want to cut defense
spending. you can see it in this bill. one of the things that we find is the folks just don't have a way to write this bill to the number they are supposed to. what you get instead is folks using this pocket of money called oko and it is war funding. overseas contingency operations. you take that money and you throw it over and you patch it. you increase the amount of money that is available to be spent. that prevents you from having to make some of the cuts you might have to make otherwise. if you were to join in we are talking about a busy week. and appropriations in the two houses on capital hill. if you are a republican it is
(202) 748-8000 if you're a democrat it is (202) 748-8002 if you are an independent -- where does the white house come down on this? is her a chance that the ndaa could be blocked by democrats or the white house? guest: the white house is not really a fan of using this amount of money. the white house would like for congress to come back and say let's craft another budget deal that replaces this. the white house has lank italy threaten -- blanketly threatened to veto any bill that comes across the desk that complies with these sequestration levels. your starting off with everybody on opposite footing. republicans face a slight math problem in the senate. they have the majority but do
not have 60 votes. somehow you have to get democrats over that line. it will be interesting to see if they can do it. the first thing they have to do is figure out how they will get through this bill. host: some of the debate also will be around the residence actions -- president's actions to help the is comic state -- the islamic state. comments about the u.s. efforts to work with the iraqis to fight isis. want to look at some of those comments and see how it is playing out. [video clip] president obama: one of the areas will have to improve is the speed that we are training iraqi forces. when we have trained them directly and equipped them, and have a train and assist posture they operate effectively. where we haven't, morale, lack
of equipment etc., may undermine the effectiveness. we want to get more iraqi security forces trained fresh well-equipped and focused. president a body -- abaadi once the same thing. we are reviewing a range of plans for how we might do that, essentially accelerating the forces that are properly trained and equipped have a focused strategy and good leadership. when a finalized plan is presented to me, i will share it with the american people. we do not yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the part of the iraqis as well. about how recruitment takes place and training takes place. the details are not worked out. host: derek wallbank of
bloomberg is our guest. we do not have a key strategy, the quote that has been pulled in all the newspapers. how will this play in the debate on capitol hill? guest: like a lead balloon. the reaction was somewhat bewilderment. i talked to one lawmaker yesterday whose response was really? could not believe that after how many months that that was the thing that came out. obama in context is more nuanced. he is saying, it has to be a partnership. you have to have iraqis on the ground doing things. there is questions when you talk about training about whether or not iraq is providing sufficient recruits to actually be trained. there have been open questions about the morale of troops.
their result to fight. the point that i think the president would have liked to have got across, which i don't think was picked up, was that this has to be a partnership. he does not want at all u.s. boots on the ground in a massive way. the phrase they would use, they don't want a re-invasion of iraq. but that is not the quote that appears in the headlines. host: we are talking about this week's legislative agenda on capitol hill. defense appropriation is on tap. trade is a key issue. tom is in fort wayne indiana on the line for independents. you are on with derek wallbank of bloomberg. caller: everybody complains
about how much we spend, as far as i'm concerned, that has to do with the way we spend the money. you need to stop spending money on job programs. we don't need these jets, tanks. there are plenty of jobs that can be done around the united states. like rebuilding infrastructure. they actually need to be done. it's a waste of money. it doesn't do anything. sometimes i wonder, i used to wonder why people in other countries when we were not at war, hated us. then i find out that it is because an unexploded weapon
lands there and says your say on it because we sold it to someone else who wanted to kill someone else with our weapons. host: pick up on some of the chopping programs. the caller complained about the programs. guest: this is one of the key debates. when you're talking about congress wanting to plus up programs you really are talking about some people who very much want to cut spending in the great state of ohio who do not want to get rid of -- because you have got production in lila. if you're talking about the warthog, there are military reasons for that and i will not risk the wrath of martha miceli
who used to fly them who says they are very much necessary and they are also very much, there are facilities as well. john mccain highlighted this the other day about jobs necessities. you have bases that support some of the programs. if you look at the map, some of the localized programs, you will think it is one spot on the map. production facilities support this in several states. each one of these states have an interest. unemployment lines monday morning if they were cut today. host: a profile piece in the new york times focusing on john mccain, his efforts in the pentagon authorization debate. noting mr. mccain has long been a critic of what he views as military acquisition systems
that take too long and cost too much. his bill targets things like the f 35 strike fighter, combat ship, and his pet issue the future version of the ford aircraft carrier which suffers a $2.4 billion run. we are with derek wallbank of bloomberg "first word." good morning. caller: good morning, united states care to let a want to say about the budget, the drug war should be ended. we spend tens of billions of dollars every year on the drug war and it does no good. we just keep building the presence up, building new prisons, and the probation of alcohol. before it that, there were no murders alcohol gangs. before the drug war, there were no murderous jug gangs.
the murdering crime rate went back down 70%. they passed a drug laws the murder rate doubled and went up 100%. host: the drug debate, is that something happening this week? guest: i wrote a story about this. there were two little noticed amendments in the signs bill -- hill, in the spend and's -- science b and in the spending billi,ll recreational marijuana p thing we reported on bloomberg that was really interesting about this, if you look at the medical marijuana vote, there are about two dozen more this year than last year. about three quarters of that was from republicans easing on their
opposition. three quarters of the support. you are seeing -- seeing, to this point, and evaluation of the u.s. war on drugs. you have also got people, cory booker, rand paul, who would like to see spending in the area diverted somewhere else. host: we're taking your questions. paul, north carolina, democrats. caller: good morning. i wanted to speak about what the last person brought up in regard to being sold and the economy built around that. throughout this nation, there are always different countries that manufacture different weapons grenades, all sorts of
exploding desires -- devices, and they have got hundreds of people working in factories. if they do not have places to japanese bonds, they have to send these workers home and then it cuts their money and then they do not have money for the third home and the golf course membership. the economy is very silent and hidden and controlled by the elite. you see the same sort of thing to do with drug rehab and everything else, where these elites have created an industry and feed off the taxpayers to make a product or sell a service and they are multimillionaires and multibillionaire's and they exist in the shadows. host: that was paul in morgantown, north carolina. the debate over the military-industrial complex. guest: a big debate.
every year, we put out a list of the top federal contractors, the top five of those, you will not be surprised at all, they are all defense contractors. last year to this year, they all stayed the same. there is a list online you can look at all 200 of them as well as some breakdowns of them there. you know, it is an interesting thing. you get back to a debate about jobs and actual people who will have actual harm, versus federal spending. there is, as i think most people would acknowledge it is very difficult to cut spending on a federal level in any meaning away if you do not take a look at the military in some way. you have the military more than
half of discretionary spending, you have entitlements, which are on the mandatory side. those two things are places that, people who really want to cut budgets, a say, we really have to look at this. they are hard to cut. host: the numbers out there for the 2016 fiscal year, congress authorized to spend five hundred $23 million for defense program, $493 billion for nondefense programs. if you want to call in republicans, democrats independents -- we have not even gotten to tpp yet, the fast track authority in the president buses bill. what is happening there? guest: i talked to one of the chief deputies yesterday and
they're trying to find out where the votes are. nancy pelosi, not a republican member, very helpfully suggested to john boehner the other day that he needs to come up with 200 votes. the team is being very guarded about where they are, but the one thing they will tell you is that they are not quite there yet. whatever that number is. we're seeing somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 to 25. i think the number was 23 last time i checked. that was yesterday so i could have moved a little. in terms of democrats coming out and saying, they will vote for the test track authority. host: explain the strange bedfellows and why that is happening. guest: a lot of people merge these two things. fast-track authority is a congressional process that would allow congress to consider these trade deals without amendments and in a streamlined fashion to get it through.
that is what they are looking at right now. the tpp, transpacific partnership, a possible future trade deal with europe, those would come later and be subject to this framework right now. in the house side, you're sitting there and looking at a lack of vote. you know, it is really simple. if you do not have the votes, it does not move. there is a question about whether it can hear you have a lot of democrats particularly in the industrial midwest, who feel they were earned with previous trade deals negotiated by a previous democratic president. people feel burned by the process and they do not want to go out and get scorched again. the president is in many ways relying on an argument.
we have learned it is going to be better. but this trade deal, if you are a member of congress, you can go see the tpp. i asked and they will not let you if you are me. for a lot of people out there they are wondering what is in it . it seems like every lobbying knows their session. people are worried about it. host: the secretary of state and secretary of and fence and the peace and look beyond this administration economically and strategically. the only across borders, but across decades to pass toward a more peaceful and -- this trade authority putting a lot into the vote in the house. guest: that language is really
key. you are seeing people on the democratic side make the case, and this is a covert way that if you do not trust president obama, it is ok because this goes beyond him. this is why you see people talk about for the next decades, this is why you see people stressing this is a six-year authorization very part of it is to try to win over the last couple of republicans who might be needed for the deal, because they're not there yet and do not necessarily trust the obama white house on much of any and. host: wisconsin, of next. good morning. caller: i'm glad i got on this money could i'm weary of being a taxpayer and where our money is going. every day, i hear something new. this is overrun on a carrier appeared everything is overrun. billions. tanks in the desert, over
thousands of them, never used airplanes are never used. the desert. if we go and unemployed these people, they will get unemployment. if you pay for employment, then you have a billion dollars going to these companies boeing, and us taxpayers. i have got about 40 people working for me, working hard every day. the government spending our money wisely. host: what kind of business are you in? caller: plastic. another thing, yesterday something that blew me away, a brand-new city, 20 miles from baghdad, 20 miles it thousand workers, builds a brand-new city
for hundreds of thousands of people. $17 billion. we are paying for it. absolutely criminal. obama wants to put $40 billion as a signing bonus to iran. i mean, we have to pay for this. host: that is harold in michigan. robert puts it this way -- dan, good morning. caller: we have been talking about defense a little bit. something that has to do with defense but a little more foreign policy the u.s. stance on israel. we hear a lot that israel is supposedly our greatest ally. i kind of disagree. you really just have to look at the history of the u.s.-israeli relationship to see why. we could go back to 1954 to the
affair where the israeli military intelligence service recruited several egyptian juice to bomb u.s. and u.k. owned assets in egypt. they were eventually found out but nothing really came of the situation. supposedly it was a hit to the u.s.-israeli relationship, but we do not hear much about it these days. host: derek wallbank, is that relationship issue going to be in debate in the coming months? guest: there will be an issue shortly and i think you're dressed it the supreme court case yesterday, about people in -- born in jewelers loan -- jerusalem and whether they can put israel on a passports instead of jerusalem. the supreme court said no.
that legislation passed with a lot of bipartisan support to you would have a hard time getting something that was not seen as flabby pro-israel through the congress right now. benjamin netanyahu, when he came and spoke to congress, was received with thunderous applause the likes of which you rarely hear. there will be a big reaction. consider the caller brought up iran, consider that a lot of the frame for how we are discussing this nuclear deal in the works with iran is how it will affect israel. israel is very much the framework by which a lot of these foreign-policy decisions will be taken. host: florida up next, ted is waning -- waiting on the line for democrats. caller: thanks for taking my call. my mind is going everywhere because the person on twitter saying the government is run by
a private company -- the government is run by a private company. i did not call about that. i called about the overspending of the pentagon, the department of defense come over $1 trillion. we are not at work here at i do not understand it or this is ridiculous. take the test their money and a lid out like it is candy. i do not believe it. it is unbelievable. we should be a chance ourselves and we need to do a whole lot of infrastructure throughout the country. host: are those comments happening in the debates this week? guest: yes, especially the spending hawks. you have some folks who make the case that the spending has gone up seen and they will say that afghanistan has wound down, we do not have a large, conventional army in iraq anymore and they will say
where is the dividend from this, where is the spending relief. instead, you're looking at taking were -- the war funding and tossing up defense so you do not really get the cuts people thought were coming. to the caller's point of view, you hear this a lot in the conversation here. why don't we spend more -- consider the inverse happening in congress. you have a defense authorization bill passing and one chamber a defense of appropriations bill poised to pass and another. you have a highway fund and nobody has any idea how the world to pass. if your thought is the u.s. congress should spend more on infrastructure and less on defense, that is the inverse of what the u.s. congress is prepared to do now. i would make this point.
to the callers who have been saying the u.s. needs to make -- spend more on infrastructure, we have not seen a plan for how to replace, how to plus up the trust fund funded through the gas tax. nobody appears to squat -- to want to spend more on the gas tax. there is not really a great idea on what to do their. the house will take up the transportation spending bill. it could have a final passage vote as early as tonight. we have seen people on the republican side, the more conservative side, heritage action came out and said they would t-boned against the bill because it assumes another highway authorization that will project to spend more than it takes in. host: on the highway issue, joni says --
you can follow along with those who follow us every day on "washington journal" and we appreciate that. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. we spend more on our military than all the other world militaries put together. if you think -- he just said all these republicans do not want to pass the highway bill. the president has been trying to pass a highway bill for infrastructure during his own ministration and they are always saying, how do we pay for and yet when george bush went to work, and spent all this money building highways overseas, i might say, and spending all of this money, they said nothing. it was nothing, nothing in there.
they passed it where congress did not even have to approve it. republicans now, and the democrats -- that is why i am not a democrat anymore. they are like they are brain dead. not all of them but most of them. they do not hold these guys foots to the fire. they are the cause of this big-budget. they created the homeland security department. it is one third the size of the military budget. that was created after 9/11. i hate to think it, but when you start looking at things, man, 9/11 opened a door for a lot of this spending. guest: you did see an increase in spending after september 11. you also saw an increase in spending after the economic recession as a way to stimulate the way out of it. to the caller's points about infrastructure, you keep seeing this,.
one thing i found striking about this debate is people are much more aligned with the policy. you are starting to see in a lot of states a difficulty in getting some of this through. it is not just the federal government level. it is sort of, you want a big fat tire so you can get off -- get all the craters in the middle of the road. i love the state of michigan. i met my wife there and got married there. but the roads are atrocious. they could not figure out what to do. so they kicked it to the voters and the voters kicked it back to them and said, no, chai again. it is astounding because really when you get to some much of congress and so much of lawmaking, the fundamental
point, the difficulty is how to pay for it. you see the struggle on the state level and in the federal level. host: the appropriations debate. the house is expected to consider urban development appropriations bill. a busy week. derek wall bank of first word is here. we will go to jerry in columbia city, indiana. the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to press derek's earlier station that -- statement that nasa was created by bill clinton. no it is not. it was created by danny bush.
he and reagan. derek was probably at michigan. guest: the reason i say that and thank you for your call, this is a deal when it went through and that is what we're talking about. i appreciate your call and i appreciate your point. it is one of those things where you see these things from president to president. we have a lot of policies you see a lot of the initial rescues were under bush but obama takes a lot of the responsibility and claims a lot of responsibility frankly.
host: the bill goat -- 22 effect in 1994. i should get my facts straight. tina on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: i have a question. it seems that a lot of money went to epa regulations. it was there but as far as the $18 trillion that we have that is there no accountability for this administration, no budget under harry reid everything is a mystery. could you do research for us instead of propagandizing for the the president and this administration? you look at a lot of the papers and you will see that people's republican -- in moscow, help us understand what is going on here. and good luck.
guest: i've no idea of us institutional caller mentioned directly to. i plead ignorance on that. i will talk about the debt. this will come up, maybe later this year and maybe early next year, but we will have a debt limit that will play out. the thing with the debt is it keeps going up because we keep having the deficit spending. it is bipartisan. it comes after appropriations bills were passed by republicans and democrats in multiple ministrations. people reference the debt figure with that comes as a result of lawful spending congress actually enacted. we came under the ryan murray agreement and that added to the
debt. under the obama budget, that would add to the debt. under the budget that congress passed in the next 10 years, it would still add to the debt over the first eight of those years before it projects the balance. this will be one of those things where, you know, people are a lot more agreed on how to's and the money than how to raise the money. that dissonance will show itself in the debate. a lot of people will look at it as a bill. the favorite analogy you will hear a lot, i promise you, is that people will talk about credit cards. it has got a point to it. if you spend a bunch of money and he said, where is the money
well now you have got the check for it. host: tom from new york, the line for independents. caller: i am thrilled to get in the line today because most people are not aware of the incredible waste and billions in the defense -- in the defense budget. hundreds of millions lost in afghanistan, the facilities we build their that are worthless. i looked at the statistic i got in 1994 and i wonder if the guest could shed light on this. in 1994, i understood the pentagon maintained 233 golf courses for the generals and high officials. they were the biggest employer of musicians on planet earth spending 10 times the amount that the government spends for all arts education for kindergarten all the way through k12.
it just seems a hell of a lot of waste. money spent there does not need to be spent -- is there ever a chance of this coming to light in congress? they keep insisting on building weapons the pentagon does not want. will this ever be addressed or will we always be focused on taking money from food stamps and for people who are too lazy? will there ever the equity on this? guest: i love this question because it gives us a chance to talk about the more arcane side of the budget. if we were to drive down to some of the bases in maryland virginia. the air force base, or things like that, you have got some golf courses their beautiful golf courses that the president loves and he goes out and plays them but they are on military facilities.
one of the things just recently is there was a debate going on. grocery store, or a walmart, but on base. and you can buy stuff there that is often tax-free. you get a bunch of stuff at a discount. when you have military communities with huge basis that are basically small cities, this is the focal point where the shopping mall is. i have been in the shopping mall on bowling. it is kind of nice. they have a neat little store. there is burger king in the food court and the whole deal. there is a question about whether or not that should be a business and bring in walmart or something like that. there is another one callers
should look at. john mccain was upset about defense contracts going to honor in part troops on the field. john mccain was mad about this. he thinks it should be done scot-free. the role the military has in terms of its relationships, it was always one that gets a little scrutiny. it will get more scrutiny this year. betty mccullen, who, when i was reporting in minnesota, she is a representative from st. paul, this has been one of her things for a long time. she went after the national sponsorship and openly questioning how many recruits still junior brought into the military. it is one of those things that crosses overpeer this is the
sort of thing where, you do not get a lot of congress stuff on espn. but that is one where you really might. host: you can also see this debate on c-span and you can read about it. derek wallbank is the congressional and white house editor for bloomberg "first word." up next, with the president set to speak today in washington d.c., about the health care law we will talk about the health care subsidies that are part of that much-anticipated supreme court decision expected later this month. later today, it has been almost 25 years since the americans with disabilities act fast. we will discuss with people with disabilities in the workplace barriers they encounter. we will be right back. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] ♪
>> this summer, booktv will cover book festivals and books. watch for the annual roosevelt reading festival from the roosevelt presidential library. we are alive at the harlem book fair, the flagship african-american literary event with reviews and panel discussions. at the beginning of september, we are live from the nation's capital celebrating the national book festival passes 15th year. that is a few events this summer on booktv. the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every senator and house member plus i/o and contact information and twitter handles, a full
doubt of capitol hill, and they look at congressional committees, federal agencies and state governments. order your copy today. it is 13 $.95 -- $13.95 plus shipping and handling. >> "washington journal" continues. host: alan weil's position and chief of "health affairs"." as the clock kicks down -- ticks down on the king v. burwell decision, subsidies under the health care law, about how many people could be impacted who use these federal subsidies if the case comes down and decided not to be that way? guest: the direct effects are the americans who receive subsidies, direct coverage on
the federal health exchange. they are getting that in a state exchange and are not at risk in this case. the ripple effects are potentially much larger and we may get into that. if you eliminate the subsidies, it destabilizes insurance market for millions more. host: remind us how one qualifies for these subsidies. guest: if your income is between 100 and 400% of the federal poverty levels for working families, your eligible for federal tax credit based on your income. it is a higher subsidy if you are close to 100%. you can only take that subsidy to an insurance exchange and we thought most states would set up their own but it turns out 34 states decided to let the federal government do the job. it is the subsidy for those federal exchanges that are at risk.
host: the tax rate comes out to $272 for -- according to the stats come tired but -- compiled by the family foundation or we can talk about what is happening. individual states, if you want to join this conversation. give us a call. host: president obama was asked about the king v. burwell case yesterday and he does that -- he expressed confidence that the administration would win the case. here is a bit from the press conference. president obama: it is not something that should be based on a twisted interpretation of four words and as we are reminded repeatedly, a couple thousand page piece of
legislation. what is more, the thing is working. part of what is his are about the whole thing is we have not had a lot of conversation about the horrors of obama care because none of them have come to pass. 16 million people have gotten health insurance. the overwhelming majority of them are satisfied with it. it has not had an adverse effect on people who have had health insurance. they will not be prevented from getting health insurance if they have a pre-existing condition and they have protections with the health insurance they do have. the costs have come in substantially lower than even our estimates of how much it will cost. health care inflation overall has continued to be at some of the lowest levels in 50 years. none of the predictions of how this wouldn't work have come to pass.
so i am optimistic the supreme court will play it straight when it comes to the interpretation. and i should mention that if it didn't, congress could fix this whole thing with a one sentence provision. host: the president expressing his optimism there. for the test for those who use the subsidies in the federal marketplaces, what is the white house doing to prepare if the case goes the wrong way? guest: the white house has been quiet about the preparation. i do not think they want to play into any sense that it would be ok if it went diverse. we have a decent blog posts some terrific work by david
jones and bagley and others who interviewed people at the state level asking them how they are preparing. similarly, they are tightlipped. politics, as everyone knows, are complex. it is hard to talk about what to do. it is better to plan and hope for the best and that is what we are seeing from both sides. host: we are taking your questions about federal subsidies. allen with health affairs is here to break those down and explain how they work and how the states are preparing if those challengers do win. that is the supreme court case. republicans -- -- host: we will be talking about this for the next half hour or so here on washington journal. give me an example of one of the states and how they are
preparing. guest: i cannot go too deep into any individual state. the blog refers to five different states. north carolina michigan, are a couple of ones. they're designed not to represent the whole country but look at the different politics around the country. utah is another. the copper kidding factor here is that no one really wants to be held politically accountable for people losing health insurance. they also do not want to be seen as taking steps to shore up a law that they oppose. remember the states that relied on the federal state tend to be the ones that were less enthusiastic about the law. you are sort of in a bind. you do not want to harm people but you do want to fix the law that you know is fundamentally flawed. host: the website where you can check out the work of alan weil editor in chief of "health affairs"."
tell us a little bit about "health affairs"." guest: we put peer-reviewed articles on a broad range of topics and we have an active blog or the issues of the day. host: up first, lafayette indiana, grace, line for democrats. good morning. caller: i think it is a terrible shame that mostly men and enjoy the very best of health care. our taxpayer dime's. but they do not want anyone to have health care if they think it comes out of their pocket. i think this is a terrible shame. it is america. what are we doing here? thank you. guest: i think it is important to note that although this lawsuit is about language in the federal law there is quite a dynamic between what the federal government is deciding here
since the caller referred to washington, and also what is happening at the state level. there are easy fixes if it were not for the politics of the issue. congress, as president obama said in the clip, could simply change the four words. similarly, although it is much more complicated, they could move their decision about an insurance exchange operating their own, where there is no question the subsidies would flow paired i do not think this is just a washington issue here it is about different opinions about what the health care system should look like and who should receive subsidies. host: the challenge, it is a pretty simple case as well. michael, who argued before the supreme court on behalf of david king, the main plaintiff in that case before the senate judiciary committee last week, about what his view on the case
is. >> the real issue is the rule of law. pursuant to constitutional prerogatives, or will it be governed by the policy preferences of unelected bureaucrats. i think that is exactly what happened in this case. this is an extraordinarily simple case. i think the iressa has not interpreted the law, but very dramatically revised the law. that is because the law simply says you receive subsidies established by the state under section 1311. the irs transformed that into something where we receive subsidies under hhs under 1321. anyone who speaks english knows that is not a reasonable interpretation of the language. proponents of the irs rule have argued they cannot dispute the plain language command the
opposite of what the rule says so they try to change the subject and say, you have rick that light which out of context. none underline crevice of the statute. but in reality neither is true. the context in which the words reside confirms in every way that the plain language means exactly what it says. following that plain language is really the only way to implement the broader purposes of the affordable care act. host: we are talking about the subsidies at the heart of the challenge at the supreme court. alan weil "health affairs" of "health affairs" --alan weil of "health affairs" here to take your questions. good morning. caller: i'm just calling to say no one ever mentioned it was joe
lieberman who was -- he voted negative. even though the democrats had 60 senators, they could not count because he had the gall to vote no. because he was sucking up to the insurance companies and what president obama wanted was the public auction, which would have been the wisest choice for america. so he had to go with what everybody voted on. host: alan weil your reading of that interpretation of what happened? guest: i will not get into the votes of what each individual member of congress voted. the process by which this bill became law was not what anyone expected. with the death of senator kennedy lost to the margin to
go back and do revisions. much of what the case is about and the clip you just showed is that there is not one person sitting down, logically constructing a law. there are pieces floating around, many people involved in drafting and there is an expectation that any ambiguities will be fixed either later in congress or afterwards with what are known as technical corrections. neither of those could happen because of the changing composition of the senate. so we are left with a law that is the law of the land. there was no question but not drafted and did not go through some of the editing and revision that would have been typical for a piece of legislation this complex. that leads to the kinds of challenges we are seeing. host: martinsville, virginia is up next. steve is on our line for democrats. caller: i am just chime to figure out the law.
the states to do something, especially financially. do this and we will not give the funny. if they interpret the health care subsidies provisions the way the republicans would like it, it seems to me, that would mean the law says make your own exchange or we will not give you the money. that is straight up coercion. how can they take it away for states that do not have an exchange and then leave it. it puts you in a legal kanji where, if they change it to what the republicans interpreted as, they are making coercion. guest: it is a long-standing understanding and the law that the government can encourage states to act in certain ways by offering the money if they do something and withholding the money if they do not.
they cannot force them to do it but financial incentives have long played a role in how the federal government gets states to act. the limits were tested in the prior supreme court case about the affordable care act and the case where the medicaid expansion was challenged as being coercive. i think it is important to remember there is a big difference between the medicaid provisions and what is at issue in king. king, the subsidies low to individuals who apply for coverage, it is a tax credit to the individual, the state is simply making a choice about whether or not to run the exchange and that herman's whether or not the individual gets the money. the medicaid program is a matching program where the money flows to the state. there is no coworker and of the state, even an argument of coercion of the state. a lot of other things might happen if the case goes certain ways but the federal government
is not forcing states to do anything. it is simply saying we will withhold benefits to the citizens of your stay if you do not set up an exchange. host: let's head to bloomington, illinois, a state that has some 230 2000 people making use of federal tax credit, some $49 million per month is the monthly tax credit federal dollars. that could be at risk in this king v. burwell case if it goes against the administration. george is waiting on that line for republicans in bloomington. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. mr. weil's organization is a policy organization as i understand his comment. it really promise my question which relates to the comments by president obama yesterday
implying clearly that if the administration does not prevail pending a u.s. supreme court case that it would be a twisted interpretation. of the law. of the four words that are key in the decision, the imminent decision. an attorney, whose comments on a senate judiciary committee last week or just played a few minutes ago, clearly indicated that any other interpretation than the one the president is not -- or is contending, pardon me, any interpretation that uh, the kind the president is contending for is not with the
english light was good knows english language understands that. i think that is clearly the case. the, so my question really boils down to whether or not the congress or the president should be making a health policy for the country because the constitution provides that congress makes the laws and the president executes them. we have had enormous rewriting of the law unilaterally by the president, and in many cases they have gone unchallenged. host: thanks to the call. guest: without getting too deep into the legalities here, there are two different ways of thinking about the question of what the administration has done. one is when a statute is unclear, we give thee
administrating agency discretion to interpret it. part of what the attorney's argument was was that this is too big a stretch. the law is clear and the interpretation is wrong. the other issue is whether the words, the four words, are as clear as the challengers suggest they are. it really depends on whether you are looking at the four words or the statute, and it depends on how you read things. host: what are the four words? guest: "established by the state ." the issue is it only flows to those have coverage in an exchange established by the stated you can clearly see the word state there. you can see the look at the structure of the law and see a number of reference to exchanges that have different takes on whether they include the federal fallback or not. this is a question of whether you look at the words in isolation or you look at them in context it if you look in context, how broadly do you look
at the contest. we will not resolve that here. that is what courts are for. i would just say with respect to the caller's comments, not just the legality, but it is commonplace that congress and ask laws that have a lot of ambiguity and administrations execute laws and are bound to it here to the law, but also have to solve ambiguities. congress also passes laws that cannot be implemented exactly the way they were written due to timelines that are impossible, or other impediments. the executive branch has the responsibility of doing the best it can with the statute. we can argue about whether or not the administration did the best it could or whether the various interpretations are right or wrong, but the notion that congress passes things that are so clear that it is obvious when administration is diverting from the exact words of the
language, i do not think that really fits with reality particularly when -- when we are dealing with something as complicated. host: we're talking with alan weil. you are twitter the national academy -- a nonprofit organization helping states achieve excellence in health care policy and also previously director of the colorado department of health care policy as well. you are our guest for the next my five minutes or so here on "washington journal." don is next on the line for democrats, massachusetts. caller: good morning. i am calling about the health care law whether the republicans try to take away the subsidies of millions of people that signed up for health care and i am not voting republican in 2016. i will put the democrats back in the majority of the house in the
senate representatives, and vote for hillary clinton for president in 2016. and i am going to get rid of all those republicans and all those tea partiers because the republicans are no good to help the people at all. they just lied to the people to get their vote and i am not voting for any republican. host: have you ever voted for a republican? caller: back in 1970, i did, but it did not turn out the way i wanted it. it had been changed and i am now registered as a democrat. i was registered as independent. that had also been changed, so i vote democratic and i am
registered as a loyal democrat. host: arkansas, line for republicans, elizabeth, good morning. caller: what i am calling about, my son is going to lose his insurance and they have given me until the end of the year per we called and asked for help and all they can say is, you will have to buy a more expensive one. i say, he cannot even afford this one. if he is working, he cannot get subsidies. the question is, i'm hearing those who have gotten subsidies for the last year or so, they are not even checking if the status has changed, so they keep getting it and they have to volunteer to say, my status has changed. i'm making more money now, but they keep getting subsidies.
it is the taxpayer who is paying this. someone has got to pay. this is a redistribution of the money from working people to those who sit around and when illegals get it, it makes me upset because american people are paying for everything for other people. and this needs to stop. it is the worst insurance idea i've ever seen ever. guest: there are a few things the caller said that i think need to be corrected. there are no subsidies available to people who are undocumented. none at all. actually, the subsidies are designed to target people who are working. the lowest income you can have at the poverty level. if you truly do not have any earnings you may be eligible for medicaid. that is another important part of the affordable care act. but the exchange covers, the marketplace coverage issue
squarely targeted at people who are working. it is true that when you apply for coverage, you present what your earnings are and there is a lot of data matching behind the scenes to try to figure out what you're earning. that is the basis of your subsidy. if you do not tell anyone it is changed, he will continue to get that. but when you file your taxes you have to true up. the irs knows how much you make. that is how it works in this country. when we just went through the recent tax season, we saw millions of americans who had to refund a portion of the credits they had gotten because they had underreported their income maybe not intentionally. people's income can be variable, but they had to make payments to true up. with respect to the caller's's son, if his income is within the right range it is not whether you got it before. you can go in at open enrollment
any year and obtain coverage. in a state where if the king cases decided against the government, there will be issues about how the subsidies flow. host: about 48,000 people use the federal subsidies in the federal marketplace in arkansas. the average tax credit for an rowley 284,000 dollars in arkansas. douglas waiting in gold hill oregon, line for republicans. you are up next. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i have a comment and a question and one correction. you stated illegals cannot get obamacare. they are getting health care. they just go to the emergency room and everyone pays for it. my comment is, this is probably our last chance for a do over on obamacare if the court rules the right way. there has not been one republican vote to my knowledge for this monstrosity.
a way to make this work and the way it is set up now, if the court rules the right way i'm betting with my republican congressman to my question is, isn't it true, the employer mandate in effect, the independent payment advisory board is in effect so the worst things about obama care still have not even started. guest: well, there are elements that have not been put into effect. the payment advisory board the caller mentioned is a provision designed to provide some decisions about how to contain medicare costs. if there are not any members, a cannot meet. there have been delays in the employer mandate and there is currently discussion of changing some of the rules about which employers can participate in the insurance marketplaces.
it is certainly the case there are still elements of the law that have not been put into place. i think it is fair to say the major elements are really there. remember, the employer mandate is an important provision, but once you get to firms of 100 or more, the vast majority already offer coverage to their employees. the practical effect host: as we talk about this subject of the impending king v. burwell decision coming up, we point to a story today in the " washington times" of what delaware and washington are doing. many are letting the deadline for subsea protection pass. if you want to read that, that is in this morning's "washington times." we have about half an hour left with alan wieil.
marshall, you are next. you have to turn to tv and go ahead. caller: yes. i have voted both ways. as the affordable health care act as a good thing. of course, it can be tweaked. i think there are some little things you can do to it, but i do not see anybody with a better program coming forward. i do think that everybody needs insurance, and everybody should be a little bit for those who can't afford it, we have subsidies. even that can between spirit the bottom line is that it is better than what we had before. if we ought to correct something, we can correctly the overcharges that are being made by the medical and insurance professionals. i happen to know this. i have used $1 million to try to cure headaches, and i have no results.
it has been 15 years and 51 different kinds of medication, just a waste of time. it is not just the people. if we are to have insurance for cars, we should do away with that. if we are going to do away with the medical insurance too. all of this goes together. either you're going to work together and try to do the right thing, and try to improve schools -- i am an ex schoolteacher bureau that would be a way to prevent building more prisons. but, back to insurance inc. is a good thing, and there are ways that we can treat. guest: let me bring those last two points together and then talk about the cost side. if the court dismantles the subsidies -- the prior caller talked about the last opportunity for a do over.
this country has tried for the last decade or two for many decades to help provide insurance to everyone, something that every other industrialized country does in the world. there is no easy way, and certainly no cheap way, to do it. as no obvious alternative -- there is no obvious alternative. it does not need the one we have in place now is the only option by any means. fighting political -- find a political consensus is the fight that we happen up against ferris injury. just a quick comment on the cost. we spend far more on health care in this country than any other country in the world. there is a need, and the discussion about coverage tends to be separate.
there is a tremendous need on improving the affordability of care. that would actually make, not only finding agreement on how to provide coverage easier, but it would free up money for things that education, which because talked about. host: tahoma, wisconsin is next. michelle is waiting on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm calling because i think the affordable cap is a good thing for everybody. everybody in this country needs to have insurance otherwise your premiums skyrocket and the cost for emergency room's will keep going up. i don't understand why republicans just can't work with the affordable care act to tweaking it so that it works for
everybody, rather than repeating it -- repeal it, and not have anything in its place. i also have a separate question. here in wisconsin, i have been on badger care plus. my husband got a raise so we ended up making eight dollars $.43 too much, so we kicked me off the insurance. i had to go into the marketplace and find out what was available. do i go to the healthcare.gov to do this? how do i go about getting this, since i am a stay-at-home mom? i think care of our son who is severe autistic. everything is so screwed up in wisconsin. i'm just not sure how to do this. if i could have input on that, that would be great. guest: first of all, part of the
provisions that the law is set up -- you can start at healthcare.gov. it should value appropriately when you put your zip code in. wisconsin has a unique history in expanding coverage. wisconsin's approach to coverage under the affordable care act is probably too complex to talk about in the segment. at the outset, we talked about how many people subsidies are at risk with the decision. i think it is worth spending and the moment to describe the disruption that happens in health care, not just for the potential sick people. in the affordable care act, we have a provision that is not being challenged in the lawsuit saying that there are no pre-existing condition conclu provisions.
people with modest income and healthy are unlikely to buy coverage. people who buy coverage are those who are say, because they know they need it. there is still losing -- and-a destabilizing affect. it is a very complicated provision. i do want people to understand. host: in wisconsin, with the caller is from, about 166,000 individuals are receiving subsidies, the average about $350. the numbers that we have been citing throughout this segment are from the kaiser family foundation. a report that i have been on the subsidies around this country. dan is in indianapolis, indiana line for independent spirit good morning. caller: good morning. i'm curious as to what the
provision might be from your guest on how the supreme court might rule. i am a supporter of aca, but really more of a supporter of medicare for all. i want to let his thoughts may be on medicare for all. abb cheaper, and you have younger, healthier people who are on medicare, and it would give doctors a larger reimbursement. this must've been interesting for the europeans sitting in the audience yesterday, when the president was speaking. they are probably incredulous as to what is going on here. the president try to enact a law , that was a republican idea and heritage foundation idea, but hates. the disdain for this presidency could probably find a cure for cancer himself, and the republicans would still be
against it. guest: to the first question, i have learned to not predict what the supreme court will do. almost everyone, including myself, who was watching the prior case that challenge the overall structure of the law were surprised by the decision, particularly the medicaid component. not a line of thought that i could have predicted. i will take my lesson from my own poor track record, and just leave it there for this go around. as for medicare for all, i think what is fair to say and we at health care at the journal have published many papers over the world, and people have proposed a broad range of proposals. there are many ways, if you look
around the world, with a blend of public and private. the medicare for all approach is heavily public, though the british system is even more public because there, the doctors work for the government. the hospitals are owned by the government. then, you move into continental europe, and other emerging economies where there is private insurance, but a superstructure of a budget that constrains what is spent. there are so many models around the world that we can learn from. i'm not really here to pick a favorite, but to say that we should not be daunted by the incensed that this is impossible because other countries around the world have done so. technically, this is not particularly difficult thing. host: we will try to get in as many calls as we can in our last few minutes. sandy is in north charleston,
south carolina. caller: in south carolina, my daughter had a job -- she just got out of high school -- and she only made $600. we were paying out-of-pocket for health care. unfortunately, she had a pre-existing condition that was not covered. we were so happy for obamacare, then we found out that our governor refused to take the subsidy for the poor. she was just left out completely. you know, had to get her own insurance. i would like to know if the supreme court makes a decision, not for obamacare, really go back to pre-existing conditions to?
guest: that is not an issue. the caller refers to another major issue at the state level which goes back to the prior quirkiness, which is that as design, the affordable care act expects that all states will expand medicaid coverage for those below 33% of poverty. the court said that is up to the states, they get to choose and as the caller states, their states that have said we will not provide coverage. here we are with the supreme court case on coverage over poverty, but there are many below poverty that do not have coverage. host: dan is waiting in hastings, michigan, line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my
call. all the people that colin complaining about obama health care, none of them look at the good things that are in it compared to the old system that we had to the previous caller mentioned the pre-existing conditions. that would go away if we got rid of obamacare. another big thing that i like about the law is that preventative health care is not part of your policy. it is covered. you do not have to pay a deductible, anything like that. that gives americans incentives to be healthy. you want to stay healthy? if you can manage to stay healthy, there is an incentive you don't have to pay the high deductibles. before, you wanted to go to the doctor, you were paying every b it. and about the employer mandate
under the plan, as soon as the costs got high, the employer would push off the cost to you. host: i will give you the last one minute or so. guest: i could not find a question in the last comment. it is always good to look at these laws with both the pluses and minuses. what i think i would do with the last moment is to say that if the decision is adverse to the government, the politics will dominate. as i said at the outset, no one wants to take coverage away from people, but a lot of people don't want to support and bolster a law that they think is fundamentally flawed. i would encourage reviewers to take a look at the information that we published. we have, as i mentioned, an active blog. i assure you, when the court can you -- court opinion comes down
we will summarize it. host: i will point to one story on that blog. the ongoing series that you have on what states are doing to prepare for king king v. burwell. part two published yesterday. thank you for your time. up next in a tuesday roundtable on "washington journal," it has been almost 25 years since the americans with disabilities act was passed. we will be right back. ♪
discussions. at the beginning of september, we are live from the nation's capital for the national book festival, celebrating its 15th year. those are a few of the events on c-span twos booktv the summer. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114 congress, with color photos of every senate and house member, plus bio information and twitter handles. plus, district maps, capitol hill, and a look at congressional committees, the presidential cabinet, and state governors. order yours today. it is $13.95 through the c-span store. , "washington journal" continues. host: this summer marks the 25th anniversary of the americans with disabilities act. a good indicator of how that act has worked for the last 15 years
might be a survey. roger derose is president of because the foundation which commissioned that survey. andrew houtenville is of the university of new hampshire. mr. derose, first of all what does the survey tell us about employment disability, and how far we have, in 25 years? guest: there is a continued issue of hiring of people with disabilities. most of the studies in the past have demonstrated that. but this study demonstrates is that for those individuals who are working with disabilities they have overcome many barriers . this shows the hopefulness in terms of what people with disabilities have achieved, in terms of the workplace. and, becoming taxpayers, earning income that allows them to
become valuable members to the family and society. it demonstrates the barriers that many people with disabilities in the workplace have faced, and what you have done to overcome those barriers. host: andrew houtenville is with the overseer new hampshire, take us through some of the topline numbers of the survey. guest: probably the biggest thing that we uncovered is that around 68%-60 9% of people with disabilities are striving for work in some way. they are actively looking for work working, and what more hours. they are working lots of hours over 35 hours per week on average. about 40% of them want more hours. this tells a very given story than what you hear a lot. it is telling a very different
story. we're asking slightly different c questions. host: we want to hear from our viewers in the segment. we want to hear your stories. if you are an american with disabilities or with a family member, we want to hear your stories this morning on the "washington journal." republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents. -- (202) 745-8002. andrew houtenville, i want to talk about this chart from the survey -- labor force participation rate with people without disabilities and with disabilities. guest: the chart you are talking about it from the labor of bureaus is the sixth -- labor of bureau statistics. this starts out in 2008, and shows the decline for people
both with and without disabilities. when we talk about the slowness of the recovery from the great recession, people with disabilities are actually lagging a bit behind. only in recent months have we see a little bit of progress. host: is in between about 30% compared to those without disabilities, about 76% is the labor force participation rate. talk about the barriers. mr. derose, i want you to talk about some of the barriers that came up in the survey. guest: there are many myths that exist in the marketplace. some of the barriers that the participants that were in the survey spoke about were the lack of training and education that has had, and how they
overcame that there in terms of being more relevant to the workplace. others have related to transportation related issues, and how they overcame those issues. one of the major issues that we always see is the myth that employers, as well as coworkers may have in terms of a worker with disabilities, that they may not be ready to take on a job or as equal and able-bodied. again, people who have disabilities that are working have demonstrated how to have overcome those barriers as well. host: talk about the work that he kessler foundation does. guest: it has a major research component. and, we have an employment center that gives grants to other nonprofits that are focused on employment initiatives for people with
disabilities. it demonstrates that people with disabilities can enter the workforce and be successful. host: for the purposes of this study, a person with disabilities, how is that defined? guest: we use the census bureau questions, and added a couple of questions from the canadian survey on disabilities. we asked those questions up front. host: what are those questions? guest: do you have hearing difficulty? do you have difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses? do you have serious difficulties going up and down stairs? walking on distances? do you have a mental condition that limits your ability to remember concentrate? those kinds of functioning questions. host: as we talk about the
survey, you can follow along and check it out from the kessler foundation. we want to hear from the viewers , specifically, there that you are family members may have faced and how you overcame them. rebecca is up first from california -- roberta is up first from california. caller: i'm calling about my son, a disabled young man. this month, he will be honored for 25 years of service on the military base, working for a contractor. since the affordable care act has come about, he has lost his health-care. they offered him something else, that when we got the information, it was terrible absolutely horrible health care. he has always taken health-care and then covered. he has kaiser.
they took him because the other one was so bad, he ended up on cobra, which cost him $90 more. since he lost cobra because of all of the stuff with the aca now he is under cover california. since he is on that, we get a letter just recently saying that because he is not under the bad coverage, he is losing $.90 per hour. this is what the affordable care act -- the impact it has had on this young man. his young man takes the bus, he cannot drive, he has epilepsy. he has never had an operation never been in an emergency room, has one prescription and see the doctor maybe five times in the last three years. he is paying now -- actually
the people california are paying , and still needing money out of the taxpayers pockets. the should have never passed like a day. host: thank you for telling you r story. guest: this is a common issue that we hear from people with disabilities that have entered the workforce, and for some reason have lost their job, and that have to go back into the public benefits program. the cycle to get into public benefits takes quite a long time, approximately two years. it is one of the major issues that people with disabilities face frequently. that is making the decision to leave the public benefits program to edge of the workforce, whether benefits may not be as robust as what they had.
on the outside, there any potential could be far greater for them and the asset creation could be far greater for them. this is a common issue that we hear frequently. i know andrew can address some of the benefits that accrue to people with disabilities from the affordable care act. you may want to talk about the pre-existing conditions. guest: one of the other things that the survey uncovered, and roberta's story is probably one that is not -- she is not alone probably in these things. transitions between health insurance can be very difficult. think about the paperwork that you have to fill out when you get a new job, switching carriers. it can be quite difficult. in the transition, the number one barrier, that was not reported, that was the least to be overcome were concerns
about health insurance. that was a barrier, the least likely to be overcome. that shows that is a lack of information, a potential lack of ability to transition from one employer to another. i think the lack of a pre-existing condition is the great benefit, but getting there will be the issue. host: we want to hear our viewer stories. kim is up next from richard, virginia. good morning. caller: i just wanted to call him because i have been on the will of low income, no matter how many hours we worked, and i raised the family, practically single. all that i worked and put into social security has been broken ever since medicare part d. i worked under high stress jobs
which does damage causes high cholesterol, clothes, all kinds of illnesses that people cannot see. the health care that they have given me, where they will diagnose me something, then put something in like obamacare, and i get to see a doctor again, and then they find something, and boom, i don't have anymore. the reason i got this way was when they stole my vote. it did not click upstairs that i never did anything wrong in life, but my vote was story. i had high anxiety, and i had to create construction. for a woman, building houses, that is a big income.
the republicans do not care if i die quickly or survive. host: that was kim calling in from virginia. can you talk a little bit about disabilities developed over the course of someone's working life? guest: sure. if you are fortunate enough to have worked in the workforce and then unfortunate in terms of having a condition or disability, those individuals -- in the late onset of disabilities, say 50 plus -- those individuals, we hear about frequently as going into the disability public benefits programs. that is what those benefits are therefore. they have paid into social security disability insurance. that should be a social safety net for them, if you have
encountered is severe enough disability that does not allow them to work. i think in regards to what kim is talking about, and the issue of it being republican or democrat, and andrew witty agree with me on this, this is not an issue -- it is the one issue disabilities is the one issue where we see people from both sides of the aisle come together. you have just seen in the able act. this allows people with disabilities to build increased assets for future catastrophes that they may encounter, which they do not have the ability to do before. when we are working on both sides of the aisle, we find that they are very receptive, whether it is the republicans, democrats, or independents. host: one more stat on median
annual wages. people without disabilities amounted to about $31,000, and people with disabilities about $10,000 lower. we are going through a kessler foundation survey on americans with disabilities and titled "striving to work." we are going through it with andrew derose -- roger derose and andrew houtenville. matt is up next. the money. caller: good morning. i'm very happy to be watching this morning and learned that new hampshire is doing research on this. i am 57 years old. i was electrocuted in an industrial accident. i am a high-end woodworking restoration. i rebuilt buildings -- i
rebuild old buildings. i cannot find a job. i have loads. i have been misdiagnosed most of the times -- multiple times. i have taken all kinds of medicines, i have implants in my body. no one can diagnose me because they little people have lived through what i have gone through. the one point you just brought up -- i've made a fantastic living doing what i do. once i became disabled, and you people are offering a $10 per hour. it would cost me more than that to have health care again because i would have to give up medicare and my benefits. i really truly want to work. i am only 57, i'm getting married. because of my disability, it has the late my wedding 17 years. host: andrew houtenville, i will
let you start with the gentleman from your home state. guest: i think one of the things that the caller mentioned was driving. one of the main issues that the survey found is having access to transportation is one of the keys to allowing people to get jobs. that is one of the things that people will work on. there are programs out there. what we have heard from the previous two colors is the complexity of managing health care, benefits, transitioning from one insurance program to another -- these are difficult thing for people to manage. what i would say to the caller is benefits planners -- pr across the country, social security and administration
funds them, the state of new hampshire funds them, and there are resources available that can help you manage. there are these little-known work incentives like keeping your health insurance while you go back to work. there is like expedited coverage when you go back to work. there are lots of programs that people might not know about. guest: this is a real issue. disparity and pay, and the issue that matt described. i know if we can look at our own organization internally at kessler foundation where we hire people with disabilities as well. it is one of the major issues that we look at to make sure that people with disabilities compared to able-bodied individuals, are being treated fairly from an income
fairness perspective. you really want to make sure that when you have individuals with disabilities working side-by-side with able-bodied individuals, that they are being treated fairly, and being treated with the same metrics. it is a major issue that we see frequently. host: if you are an individual with a disability or a family member of a person with a disability, we would like to hear your story. we will put the numbers on the screen for you. rebecca is waiting on the line in wisconsin, line for republicans. caller: good morning. i'm calling with the question. i am epileptic. i have been since age five. the jobs that i have had, either
the business close down, or they eliminated the department, or other stuff that i was not responsible for. i always lost these jobs. i am afraid to go back. i close to retirement. three more years. how do i go on working and get all the hours that i would like? now, minimum wage is going up, and that will cut you back to fewer hours, if you are keeping your benefits. how does a person get a good job? host: thank you for the call. guest: rebecca, you are from my home state of wisconsin, it is good to talk to you. you know, this is a common issue that we hear frequently.
one of the areas that there had been great examples and quiver america, where we still along way to go, but if you look at organizations that have been very disability friendly in terms of welcoming people with disabilities. they look at it from the perspective that not only are they just as creative, productive and conscientious about their work but those organizations are also looking at ways that they can produce services and products that meet the needs of people with disabilities. in turn, it allows those organizations to actually market to the 16 million target group that we have a united states. there are organizations like walgreens, lowe's, officemax, and office depot that just merged, that have a very
disability from a work environment. she look at -- she should look at organizations like that. she should also reach out to family and friends, who can help open to us for her. host: some more numbers from the university of new hampshire report on hours worked, the average for those who are currently employed those individuals with disabilities in america. we are joined by andrew houtenville, who helped conduct that steady. alvin is up next. caller: hello. i was wondering about how
disabilities such as adhd and autism are treated in the workplace. i know there is a better awareness of how it affects their work in different environments, accommodations they might need. i find it difficult to know whether to tell the person in the interview, or how to bring it up, advocate for yourself. i wonder if that is something that has been in the survey, or jus addressed. guest: you are not alone. one of the thing that the survey
reveals is that one of the most difficult things people have to navigate is disclosing to an employer, asking for accommodations. for many people, individuals like yourself with english tea, it is not apparently visible. you would have to disclose, and when is the appropriate time to do that, do you feel safe doing that? in terms of programs, there are support networks out there local and state, and to some degree federal, that will help you navigate, and get tips on how to do -- particularly, how to work through an interview process.
employers are very and finding new ways of doing tasks to sue people. as the baby boomers age, and want to maintain a place in the workplace, accommodations will develop on the fly. i think the american economy will find new ways of doing things to make the abilities and capacities that people have. guest: some of the leading organizations that are taking steps to move forward in hiring people with disabilities have also brought on advocacy groups within their organizations where people are disabilities kenexa come together in ways that other minority groups have come together and organizations. they have a voice. i would suggest alvin that in any organization where he is working, that he look and investigate whether there are advocacy groups focused on disabilities and those organizations. host: mike is waiting on a life
of democrats. good morning. caller: i just went to say that i was working at wells fargo and this was in 1995, when people were nice about everything. anyway, i was fired in 2001 for having a disability. i have been on social security disability before, and i got it from both ends. i got it from the government because they dropped me, at that time i was working, i was only getting all the other benefits like health care, eye care,
dental, and i was knocking paid. you know monthly paychecks. when i be applied -- reapplied, it took me like two years to get back on. basically, because i had to reapply, i lost all my benefits. even now i do not have medicaid or food stamps because they said i make too much on social security disability. host: i will let you start on that one, andrew houtenville. guest: is quite a long story and not unusual for the process
of getting reinstated, or in his case, reapplying for benefits, to take quite a while. it can end up in appeals processes that take years to clear. also, one thing that he mentioned is when you think about disability benefits, it is not that there is a huge benefit program out there. it is large in terms of numbers but in terms of value people are really living at poverty level wages -- poverty level income for decades. they are trapped, i think we heard from about the earlier -- as we heard from rebecca earlier. she is trapped. social security is try to find new ways to craft benefits so that you do not lose them
automatically, and such that you are supported as you transition through the workplace. there is a lot of effort in this area. guest: the real issue that andrew partially addressed is that it comes down to corporate america, small businesses, and even nonprofit organizations. having a welcoming mat if you will, for people with disabilities in their organization. as the baby boomers age out of the marketplace, we will have a huge gap in terms of individuals that can do the work. we have to find ways that we can bring the business and disability community together. host: your survey is part of the effort to do that. guest: it demonstrates that people with disabilities can do the work, do the job, and be just as productive as able-bodied individuals.
that is what we are trying to change. we demonstrate that corporate america and small businesses the people with disabilities can add value to any organization. host: again, it is kesslerfoundation.org. i will let you take antonia's call. caller: good morning. i'm calling because my daughter has a disability as a result of a car accident. she is afraid to list or disability on applications -- as you speak with into another caller earlier she looks fine, but mentally, she still has some challenges in her memory and functionality.
my question to your panel is -- are you validating the statement that you sign in your application if you wait to disclose the disability? is it says, are you signing and everything is truthful in the application, but you do not put down the disability? guest: i am not a lawyer, so do not know specifically. nondisclosure, as far as i am concerned, as far as i know, is not an issue, in terms of being truthful. you may not have disclose that issue. it cannot ask about disabilities at all. it is not until after you are hired that these kinds of conversations can start happening, that you can bring it up. during the hiring process the
influence of your daughter's disability should not come up in a conversation. guest: our vets are facing this all the time, that's coming back from the wars with ptsd. it is one of the most delicate issues to deal with, in terms of getting employees to feel comfortable with individuals that may have sustained something, and the long-term impact. there is evidence that people with injuries can become very valuable members of organizations. we have had great success in terms of working with patients and making sure that they feel a part of the organization that they are working in. host: let's go to gym in arlington heights, illinois. good morning. caller: the morning.
-- good morning. i have a question. i am 50 years old. i have been disabled for years. i worked for about 35 years until i became disabled. my wife is a schoolteacher. she worked all of her life. we have insurance now that we are barely beating you to pay through her work. my insurance, or our insurance is substandard as compared to other peoples health insurance on obamacare. i am a democrat. i'm really disappointed in what is happening because i have worked all my life. we have paid our share of taxes and more, and now, when we need the insurance the most, our insurance is really substandard. guest: i think this stresses the
importance of what was leading up to the passage of the aca. as health care costs have risen over time, the ability to cover lots of different things has been restricted. wenzhou was younger -- when jim was younger, i'm people having health insurance after retiring. the cost of health insurance really limited the ability for the government to cover health care costs. being able to manage on a slim health insurance plan, as you are reaching into your 50's and 60's, can be quite difficult for everyone. host: let's go to california where kerry is waiting period good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am disabled and also have a developmentally disabled son.
you have places here in california, or agencies, like the regional center, and committing fraud, taking government funds to buying their own homes, and then denying people like my son or myself from elevating -- opening a home. there is no accountability. i have looked for a lawyer to sue them, and i cannot even find a lawyer, because they have hired them all in the area. what can we do about the accountability act? host: is this something you have looked into? guest: it is not an area that we spent a great deal of our resources in. if you look at the four major areas that people with disabilities face, it is housing, health care transportation, and employment. those are the four major areas that people with disabilities face. with limited and finite
resources, you can only do so much. we focus our research -- our resources on research and employment. guest: looking at the capitol dome in the back of, i would say if you need some legal support get hold of your local representative. their office will point you in the right direction. there are groups like a national advocacy organization, specifically for people with disabilities. the advocacy system is a national system. host: felicia is in arlington tennessee. caller: good morning. listen, i would for the postal service from 1986 to 2004.
i was injured on the job in 1986 and again in 1989. then, i had a car accident the added to the chronic fatigue. but 2004, i have been so stressed -- i was an extremely good worker, and i kept working but i got so bad because of the stress of the job that i left. i am still a viable person. i went through my 401(k), waiting to get my social security and disability. i am capable. with post-traumatic stress i want to try to do something to be a viable human being, but i am so traumatized from experiences. there is nowhere to go because
every avenue you try to take, people look at you as if you are less than, once you go on social security. it is this backlash. will do you go you want to be a functioning person in society? host: roger derose, taking notes throughout the course of her story. guest: i think it is a common issue that we hear about frequently. again, there are -- there is state help with rehabilitation throughout the state. as a source of information, as well as the potential for leads on opportunities for our call it again, i think the other area that individual should look at is those individuals --
organizations that are disability friendly and welcome to hiring people with disabilities. while the number of small today, it is only going to grow. again, as baby boomers age out and we have to look for new individuals to be productive members of the workforce. it will grow. guest: i would add that one of the common themes from the callers is that they have tried. they have been held back by the fear of losing benefits, they have had a lack of resources available to them. it is really very consistent with what the survey has been saying. people with disabilities are striving for work, but there are barriers. the last caller worked from 1980 62 2004 with a disability in the postal service. that was a great story. as people get older, it becomes harder to management will conditions coming on.
one of the things that the survey points out is the need -- or the use of friends and family. for the last caller, one of the issues that people with disabilities face is not just going to work, but be active in the community, in church, in your neighborhood. many of the veterans activities have been being involved in sports. when you get involved in sports, you hear about jobs, you hear about corporations, and good stories. any out of the house and sometimes the very first step to getting a job. host: just one minute or two left. we want to get and roger from georgia, line for independents. good morning. are you with us? i think we lost roger. mr. derose, before we go, i want to ask you what is next for the survey.
are you going up to capitol hill to talk to members about the findings from the survey? guest: on june 3, last week, we shared the survey results with andrew and other members from unh with the disability community leaders, as well as staff members from congress. our hope is that this is going to influence researchers in terms of the future of programs for people with disabilities. it will influence grantmakers and other organizations coming on board to support grants that we provide. we hope it will influence policymakers as well. we are dealing with public benefits that are over 60 years old, and we really need a policymakers to take a fresh look at what has worked and what has not worked, and make the necessary changes going forward for this very large majority minority -- almost 60 million
americans that have disabilities. host: roger derose is president and ceo of the kessler foundation. andrew houtenville is with the university of new hampshire. i appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: that is our chauffeur today, tuesday. we will see you back here tomorrow. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> and the u.s. house of representatives returning today after a long weekend meeting for general speeches at noon and legislative work at 2:00 eastern time with a number of bills scheduled for debate
including ones dealing with state and local taxes for internet sales. also including the commodity futures trading commission and setting spending for transportation and housing. live coverage of the house here on c-span when members gavel back in. and this morning on c-span3, a hearing with firsthand and government watchdog accounts of problems at the t.s.a. with the department of homeland security inspector general and a former t.s.a. officer who's written what goes behind the doors at the t.s.a. calling "dear america, we saw you naked: confessions of a former t.s.a. agent." that hearing starts at 10:30 eastern time. and then the senate foreign relations committee would authorize state department operations for fiscal year 2006. they are looking to a report that