tv Washington Journal 05242022 CSPAN May 24, 2022 6:59am-10:00am EDT
communication networks in the house select climate crisis committee examines the effect of climate change on the food supply chain. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. fronted by these television companies and more including buckeye broadband. buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> on this morning's washington journal, kyle kondik from the university of virginia has center for politics talks about
the 2022 primary elections and what the results could mean for the november midterms. later, npr's roben farzad joins us to discuss recent market losses and the state of the u.s. economy. ♪ host: good morning. it is tuesday, may 24, 2022. the senate convenes at 10:00 eastern. we will begin overseas this morning where president biden yesterday said during his trip to japan that the united states would intervene militarily if china were to invade taiwan. white house officials later tried to walk back that statement but it immediately became the latest twist on the u.s. stance on taiwan. do you think u.s. forces should be used to invade taiwan if china were to attack the island?
if you say yes, there is a number, if you say no, there is a number. you can also send us a text this morning. if you do, please include your name and where you are from otherwise catch up with us on twitter and facebook. a very good tuesday morning to you. you can go ahead and start calling and now. president biden will return from his first trip to asia as president later this evening. it was the answer to this question that immediately became the focal point. [video clip] >> you didn't want to get involved in the ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons. are you willing to get involved militarily to defend taiwan if it comes to that? >> yes. >> you are? >> that is the commitment we made. we are not -- here's the situation. we agree with the one china
policy. we signed on to it and all of the attendant agreements made from their. but the idea it can be taken by force is just not appropriate. it will dislocate the entire region and be another action similar to what happened in ukraine. it is a burden that is even stronger. host: president biden yesterday in japan. this is the reporting from the front page of "the new york times" from this morning. the white house quickly tried to deny the president denied what he seemed to be saying. as the president said, our policy has not changed, the white house said in a statement, he reiterated the one china policy and our commitment to peace and stability across the taiwan strait and also reiterated our commitment to the taiwan relations act to provide taiwan with military means to defend itself.
and it was yesterday during a press conference with the defense secretary lloyd austin, the military joint chiefs of staff who also echoed that line that the white house put out. this is what they had to say. [video clip] >> as the president said, our one china policy has not changed. he reiterated that policy in our commitment to peace and stability across the taiwan straight. he also highlighted our commitment under the taiwan relations act to help provide taiwan the means to defend itself. again, our policy has not changed. >> i think the u.s. is committed to ensure taiwan has resources it needs to defend itself, but does not require u.s. military intervention. is the u.s. making a commitment
by saying they are willing to defend them militarily, for u.s. troops to be involved in that military response? >> again, i think the president was clear on the fact of the policy has not changed. >> talking about the risk of ukraine, can you walk us through what you see the potential risk that would be part of a u.s. military defense of taiwan should china invade? >> i actually won't do that. i appreciate the opportunity to not answer a question. [laughter] there is a variety of contingency plans that we hold. all of them highly classified and it would be very highly inappropriate for me to discuss the plans with respect to taiwan or anywhere else in the pacific. >> would you support sending u.s. troops to taiwan? >> i will render my advice at the moment in time to the president. and the secretary of defense. host: in light of those
statements and in light of that statement from the white house after president biden made his remarks, this is the headline on the front page of the washington times. white house backs off its biden promise saying the president riles china with its pledge to taiwan quoting chinese foreign ministries saying that china expressed strong the satisfaction and from opposition to the remarks by the u.s. side. there is but one china in the world. he said china will take from actions to safeguard its sovereignties and security interests. we mean what we say. china has no room for compromise on national sovereignty and territorial.action in light of the focus that those comments have received, we are simply putting the same question to you.
should the u.s. military intervene if china were to attack taiwan? one number if you say yes. one number if you say no. one more note before we get to your phone calls. the president getting a few more questions about this yesterday. this is from the travel pool report. the president ending his trip he will be back in washington later tonight, he is flying overseas throughout the day. the events that took place earlier today japanese time about the quad fellowship economic group at the white house is putting together. mr. biden standing alongside other leaders was asked if the strategic ambiguity towards taiwan was dead. he responded no. he was and he said no.
another reporter asked if he would send troops to taiwan if china invaded. mr. biden responded the policy has not changed at all. i stated that when i made my statement yesterday. that from the travel pool report. those reporters who have been following the president across this trip over the past several days, starting this weekend in south korea, ending in japan. the president set to return to washington later this evening. taking your phone calls. one number if you think the u.s. military should intervene. one if you answer no to that question. todd is up first out of california. good morning. caller: good morning. we need to stop trying to be the world's policeman. we should not even be dealing with the whole ukraine thing much less china. the only reason the united states is concerned about the china taiwan thing is i think
the economy -- we need to start making stuff here, and the stuff that we don't make here, other friendly nations, places like that, and all of this money that we spend militarily to keep doing these things when we don't even want to secure our own southern border, that does not make any sense. host: that is todd out of california. some of the reaction from the news media and capitol hill as well, chris murphy, the democrat from connecticut tweeting this out. the important thing to remember when analyzing what presidents say about going to war to defend taiwan is that the president actually does not get to make that decision. congress does, reminded the senator. a conservative media personality saying the biggest story over the weekend, even the next few years is that joe biden publicly
committed the u.s. to the military defense of taiwan. bravo. it needed saying without ambiguity. a couple of republican senators, lindsey graham with a series of tweets yesterday. our military must be enhanced along with partners. abandoning taiwan to communist china would be abandoning democracy and would give or take generations to recover from. president biden's statement was the right thing to say and the right thing to do. one more from arkansas senator tom cotton saying it is essential that president biden declare the united states will come to taiwan's defense in the event of a chinese attack. it continued ambiguity will provoke the chinese communists without deterring them. it is the worst of both worlds. some confusion.
again, the white house rushing out that statement in the wa ke of what president biden told reporters. a white house memo saying that speaking his mind and letting his aides cleanup afterwards is what president biden had been doing offhand remarks that vary from the official talking points have become a feature, not a bug, as he demonstrated again on monday when he dispensed decades of strategic ambiguity and indicated the u.s. military would defend taiwan against attack on china. his remarks were the latest in a president speaking his mind. in march, he called vladimir putin a war criminal. days later, he remained that vladimir putin cannot remain in power. this is not even the first time since he became president that he said he would come to the
defense of taiwan militarily. that is that strategic ambiguity term. want to hear your thoughts. giving you the question that president biden got yesterday. if china were to attack taiwan, should the u.s. intervene militarily? mark in michigan, good morning. on the line for those who say yes. caller: yes. i do agree. if this were the case that we probably should, but i think we need to take a step back. and even think about this question, why are we even talking about this right now? this is actually the problem with the media is they are creating problems, creating issues where we don't need to have them. they are foreshadowing things that are not necessary. we have so many issues in our country that we need to do.
they are making up hypothetical situations. what if this happens? with the president should have said is why are we talking about this? why are we even entertaining this right now? it is not happening so let's move on to other things that are happening that are important. that is a bigger situation is we are being fed into and pushed into scenarios. that is wrong. and the media, these reporters are doing that and it is not appropriate. they are kind of forcing us into a line of discussion and that is not right. there are so many other things that these reporters should be bringing up. this is the last thing. i think biden's response was horrible. i think he should have been like, why we talking about this right now? host: this is tom in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning.
please bear with me. this is the first time i have ever called. i will be 78 later this year and this is the first time in my life i have ever called anything like this. i have read a lot about china and i have seen programming on china. it seems to me russia is not our greatest nab but china is our greatest enemy. i don't think we are prepared for any kind of war with china. they are so far ahead of us technically and economically, it seems like. we have sent all of our industry to china -- well, a lot of them. i don't want to exaggerate. i just don't think we are prepared for a war with china. i am afraid that we would really come out quite terribly in the losing end of that. that is really all i have to
say. host: what are your thoughts about taiwan? caller: i sympathize with those people. they want to be free. i don't want taiwan to end up like hong kong, but it has happened in hong kong. it is heartbreaking, really. i don't want to see that happen to taiwan. maybe we could supply, give supplies to taiwan to defend itself better. i'm so sick of war. i will be 78 and i'm so sick of wars. they always end up badly for america. i am probably wrong, but i think this could also be really bad. thank you. host: that is tom in pennsylvania. he talked about supplying taiwan.
a couple of u.s. commitments you have heard it about already this morning, two of them specifically, the 1979 taiwan relations act and the china one policy. the taiwan relations act which has governed u.s. relations with the island does not require the u.s. to step in militarily to defend taiwan if china invades, but it makes american policy to ensure -- it makes it american policy to ensure taiwan has the resources to defend itself and to prevent any unilateral change of status in taiwan by beijing. and then there is the one china policy. the u.s. recognizes beijing as the government of china and does not have diplomatic relations with taiwan, however, the u.s. maintains unofficial contacts including a de facto embassy. again, asking you the same
question president biden got yesterday, should the u.s. military intervene if china were to it attack -- where to attack taiwan? those comments played at the top were not the only comments made by president biden yesterday. [video clip] >> we remain committed to supporting the peace and stability across the taiwan straight to ensure there is no unilateral change in their status quo. i would add that one of the reasons why it is so important that putin pay a dear price for his barbarism in ukraine, the idea that on your station today and every other station in america, they are showing bombings of a school, no military purpose, schools, hospitals, daycare centers,
museums, blowing up all of the museums, i believe what putin's intent to do is eliminate the identity of ukraine. he cannot occupy it, but he can try to destroy its identity. the reason i bother mentioning that is because he has to pay. russia has to pay a long-term price for that in terms of the sanctions that have been imposed. the reason i say this is it is not just about ukraine. if after all he has done, if there is a rapprochement met between the ukrainians in russia and these sanctions are not continuing to be sustained in many ways, then what signal does that send to china about the cost of attempting to take taiwan by force? they are already flirting with danger right now by flying so close and all of the maneuvers they are undertaking, but the united states is committed, we
have made a commitment and we support the one china policy. that does not mean that china has the ability -- excuse me, the jurisdiction to go in and use force to take over taiwan. so we stand firmly with japan and with other nations not to let that happen. my expectation is it will not happen. it will not be attempted. my expectation is a lot of it depends on just how strong the world makes clear that that kind of action is going to result in long-term disapprobation by the rest of the community. host: that was president biden yesterday in japan. he is traveling back from the first overseas visit to asia as resident of the united states today and will be back in washington later this evening. asking you should the u.s. military intervene if china were to attack taiwan. here are a few of your comments.
tj saying it follow these countries expect our help, they are going to have to start paying us back with interest. the usa is broke and living on borrowed money and sinking more every day. another saying is he still fit to lead? he has now got us lined up for a two front war against enemies with nukes. taiwan is not part of nato and we are not required to do so in our relations act. however, the u.s. president cannot unilaterally decide to do so. another saying the u.s. military can all come home now. stop wasting billions on perpetual wars nobody wins. huge waste of time and money. you can join us on twitter and facebook or call in like chris did out of florida on the line for those who say yes, the u.s. should intervene. why? caller: i think the question was
kind of wrong. should the u.s. be the police of the world? should we control that area to make her piracy and everything else does not happen? if china attacks taiwan, we will end up losing all of the area we controlled along with everybody else, and then we need to think about the suez canal and all up into turkey. all of that area is where all commerce goes. that is the reason the united states is all around the world. i know a lot of people get upset and call as the policeman of the world and we are. we make sure commerce runs smoothly. this is not really about taiwan. this is about china deciding they want to be the policeman of their area. we can let them do that. i just think the question is wrong. the other guy that talked earlier, they asked the wrong
questions. they don't sit down for three or four hours and think about what questions to ask. i want people to think about this question and what questions should be asked and what is actually going on. host: what question would you have asked the president yesterday if you had the chance? caller: i personally have not had a lot of time to think about it. what i would want to know is do we need to succeed our power of controlling what they call the pacific waters over there. are we going to be controlling that or not? because we control it all now. we control the suez canal, panama canal. we control the oceans. we control the commerce and make sure things don't happen. china wants to do different. they want what they call the new silk road. going down into crimea.
crimea is not even about the ukraine. it is about the seaport. russia is a landlocked country. they need a seaport. they have to have it. you are not going to let anybody take it from you. host: this is brooklyn, maryland. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call this morning. just a couple of quick comments. i think he is pretty much on target. the u.s. has over 700 military bases around the planet. the supply of the military bases it what keeps this country in national debt and than the, about taking on another place like taiwan, nha spells it out
clearly. i guess china's feeling about the united states, it is nothing more than a paper tiger that likes to stay out in front of the media. you really need to get outside the u.s. media in order to better understand how the rest of the planet feels about us as a country. a country imploding with a $30 trillion national debt. our cost and direction really needs to go inside and rethink the military bases we have around the planet. taiwan is not going to happen. i think we can sit back and watch it go the way of hong kong. host: this is don in misery. what do you think? caller: taiwan has been an independent nation just like japan has since world war ii or
right there after. we must stick up for our allies in south korea, japan, taiwan and all of the other islands out there, the philippines. go ahead and hold some high-powered missiles. get them installed on every corner of taiwan. if russia comes by -- i mean if china comes by their and wants to act like they are trying to assault the island of taiwan, let them rip, just aim them over there, fly them over there to beijing. atomic missiles. host: got your point.
mobile, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to start off saying that two experts would be great to have. one is a professor that has written a book called "unrestricted warfare," he is an authority on the modern chinese military. and a captain in switzerland working with policy creators on this whole china militarisitc problem -- militaristic problem. absolutely we should intervene. it is the first thing joe biden has stumbled across and gotten right. it is amazing. he was apparently speaking off script. however, he did it, he spoke exactly the truth. this is an extraordinarily serious moment. taiwan is the domino, is the
czechoslovakia. this is poland going back to the nazi era in which people like came berlin, known as the great -- chamberlain, known as the great appeaser until we saw what happened. hitler essentially ran the cable and controlled much of europe. the chinese military is waging unrestricted warfare, it is something american people are not accustomed to. they have been fighting us since the 1980's in a multidimensional way. legally with our legal system, with extraordinary effective propaganda and fighting us with an extreme buildup of their military over the last 20 years. taiwan is 24 million -- it
represents an extremely important geostrategic location. if the people's republic of china and the chinese military, people's liberation army, as they call it, if they get hold of taiwan, they are going to be able to shut off one third of the world's shipping lanes japan, korea. they are going to have a huge priceless gem whereby they can control much of the world's shipping. we are up against an adversary this time that is the real bogeyman. host: that his jd in mobile, alabama. asking this question that president biden got yesterday. should the u.s. military intervene if china were to attack taiwan? president biden getting that question as china and taiwan, japan, south korea, north korea, all countries that were a focus during this five day trip overseas. president biden is coming back tonight.
if you say the u.s. should intervene if china were to attack taiwan, there is a number. if you say no, the united states should not intervene militarily if china were to attack taiwan, another number. also looking for your comments on social media. steve saying you cannot roll over to superpower bullies. if you do, when will they stop rolling over you? the world is effectively dead anyway. this from larry in illinois saying, i don't understand why we would want to defend taiwan. we spend all of our money and lives protecting other people's borders while our borders are open. this from ted in new york city. yes, for the sake of the entire free world. yes. glenn is in texas, corpus christi. what do you think? caller: i don't think we need to invade taiwan.
we need to give the military aid. i'm not against that. we need to give them air missiles. but we have the wrong president in the white house. he is poking china with a stick in hopes of a conflict. democrats always like to have a war going. this president is no different from the last democrat presidents. host: do you think what we are seeing play out in ukraine is a workable model in taiwan? mass sanctions, massive amounts of money and military aid? but president biden has made it clear in ukraine that there won't be u.s. troops, u.s. boots on the ground in ukraine. caller: we have not given ukraine the white weapons -- right weapons. we have not given them any kind of ground missiles to combat. russia is ground air missiles. that is why russia is trying to destroy ukraine with missiles.
we are not helping ukraine combat that. we are not giving them airplanes to fly sordis. we are going to do the same thing in china. china is going to whip u.s.'s buttbutt because we are not militarily able to combat china. when you cut military spending, military arms and stuff like that, we are not capable of combating china. we can tell you that right out front. host: this is alan in lutherville, maryland. caller: retired army lieutenant colonel in my background one point in special forces. i want to be clear as much as i can. i concur with what president biden is saying. china is one of the most -- china probably represents the greatest threat to our country in the world and we don't do
what we need to do to give them the disincentives. i personally believe we should probably arm taiwan was short range nuclear -- nukes. i know how it sounds. but there has to be a response. i'm also behavioral psychotherapist and there has to be a cost for your behavior. for instance, fentanyl. if we were to tell china if you want one more graduate student to operate in this country, get the fentanyl under control. you'd be surprised quickly they would back down on fentanyl. we don't use what we have behaviorally as a consequence for this nation. my wife is japanese in japan has virtually been neutered following the second world war. same thing with north korea. has to be a response cost. host: this idea of strategic ambiguity, saying we don't -- we
want to ensure there isn't a unilateral change essentially china deciding they will take over taiwan but not spelling out exactly what the united states would do, is strategic ambiguity the idea it gives us options without pinning in the united states to one response to china. has that worked? caller: why don't you try that in marriage. on the marriage counselor. i don't really know what i may do. it's important to know what you would do. there needs to be a point. i think the idea we might be drawn into war, nobody wants to be drawn in the idea you are willing to is the ultimate disincentive. to that earlier person who made the point about czechoslovakia. do we need taiwan strategically? not particularly. have they been a straightforward democracy since 47 to eight?
yes. at some point enough is enough and i agree with the caller that said domino's bread vietnam was an indefensible country. unbelievably indefensible because of the board -- border. taiwan represents a domino for us. if you listen to what their military advisers have said, they said we mean to take china. and of course the british dropped the ball. if you look at their ambiguity, taiwan is a critical country, south korea, australia and all the other countries could go the way taiwan goes. we don't need to fund every defense. i originally volunteered for ukraine. i didn't get a chance to go. my point is we cannot fund everybody. countries excel japan have to move up to host: host: have the
defense. you volunteered for ukraine? what does that mean? caller: i tried to go. i'm 60 now and for whatever reason things got gummed up a little bit. i have a former special forces background. i felt a moral obligation to go. that was the alamo, so will be taiwan. i saw an article somebody wrote that said stay home to some kid who was 17 want to go and i wrote back and said this guys trying to show some virtue. don't try to give him a disincentive. is trying to do what it been impressive during the alamo. that's all i have to say. host: [indiscernible] --202-748-8000 if you say yes to the questions of the u.s. military intervene in china --
if china were to attack taiwan. if you say no, 202-748-8001. this is mary, missouri. good morning. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: my theory is do not let china have anything to do with taiwan militarily. china is getting out of hand as russia has. and so eyes say i am -- i say, i am totally beyond president biden. if they want to mess with taiwan , i think we should mess with them. host: that's marian missouri.
we talked about the idea of strategic ambiguity. a topic we talked about on this program over the weekend on saturday we were joined by the wilson center's asia program scholar in this topic was one that was brought up. here's what they had to say. [video clip] >> when it comes to the issue, should china take military action against taiwan, will the united states, to its defense? how will it comes to its defense? what kind of expectations will united states have in coordination with its partners. japan has a pacifist constitution. but will it actually work together with the united states in defense of taiwan. these are some of the questions that will be very much in the minds of the leadership this
weekend and it will be discussed in great detail. to what extent we will actually get any public statements about it, i don't know. but i do know there will be a mention of taiwan and there will certainly always be this verbal commitment to protect taiwan's economy and prosperity. what they are trying to do is to be able to ensure support for taiwan. whilst also not upsetting the apple card. -- apple card. -- cart. there's a great call for strategic clarity so that there is a better understanding of what exactly is the expectations and what u.s. commitments to taiwan may be. host: joining us on saturday on this program. if you want to watch that interview in its entirety you can do so on our website.
about 15 minutes left in the segment asking you should the u.s. military intervene in china -- if china were to attack taiwan. the question that president biden got yesterday and it's gotten a attention over the past 24 hours. eric, good morning. what do you say? caller: i have a rather unusual situation in that my wife is from taiwan and i lived there for two years. she has family back there and we are in contact with them quite often. what i've learned is over the years since the 1970's, increasingly taiwan -- the taiwanese people have become less and less willing to become
militarily prepared. by that i mean service in the military has gone down. the amount of training time that the taiwanese military has for its troops has been reduced over a period of years. it's at the slowest point in the present time. it's a little more than six months or may be a year. he used to be mandatory for all taiwanese men. host: what does that tell you? if this were to become something china wanted to do, what do you think happens? caller: i think the taiwanese
have too much to lose and they would prefer to have some kind of negotiated settlement if that prospect were to come up. i think american support for taiwan militarily could actually backfire. i'm not sure that's the best way of approaching this. strategically -- host: that's eric and virginia. this is robert in maryland. caller: good morning.
i believe that the book of revelation in the bible says the destruction of the world is coming to an end. you've nine countries with nuclear missiles and you have conflict all over planet earth. this is crazy what's going on. i honestly believe it began -- destroying this country and destroying the world. host: ken in lancaster. good morning. caller: i've got a book called china, the gathering threat.
it's a slippery slope. it's in the united states best interest. the united states built china. in the 1980's they were broke. barring anybody who give them money. we built china up. we sold high-powered semiconductors to china. so now we build up a problem that in the long run we will have to face in russia and ukraine it's all about the petrodollar for them. russia has more -- going back to taiwan.
it's not our economy and -- if not our economy depends on taiwan. so it's a slippery slope. host: michael in georgia, you are next. caller: i just want to let your viewers know how serious the situation is with china and the night states. can you imagine, a look at the chaos right now with the formula problem with children. do your viewers know how much of our medicines, talking about medicine that can keep people alive or allow them to die. the amount of medicines we get from china on a regular basis? and if china were to shut that off, could you imagine the chaos that would occur in the united states, not only here but around the world. we will need to understand how serious this is. we can just go out and talk about things like this without understanding the consequences.
this is no longer a military issue. this is about destroying the united states in a different way and this is so serious, people need to understand. it is not about wars anymore. it's about so many of the things , a financial wars. it's about epidemic wars. it's a serious situation and people need to understand it's so serious. thank you. host: on the medical front, stepping away from taiwan and china for a second, some news is something we focused on quite a bit, pfizer announcing yesterday its vaccine is safe for kids five and under saying that that was going to a new study by the company, study of nearly 1700 kids showing vaccines were safe and more than 80% protective from the omicron outbreak. that on the front page of usa
today this morning. the fda has promised to rapidly review the effectiveness of that data and plans to have an advisory panel meeting as soon as june 8 to discuss authorizing shots and that youngest age group. parents very much waiting for that news. one other story on the medical front, on the issue of monkeypox. the new york times reporting more than a dozen countries grapple with outbreaks. health officials are looking for reserves and treatments that may be needed to contain the spread, of u.s. emergency stockpile holds two vaccines approved by the fda that could be used contain monkeypox accorded to officials from the cdc, the stockpile containing more than 100 million doses of the original smallpox vaccine, that vaccine has some side effects and isn't expected to be given to certain patients including those who are immuno compromised.
the issue is gotten a lot of attention, so much so it was another issue president biden was asked about when he had that press conference in japan yesterday. [video clip] >> we are already dealing with one global pandemic and you said yesterday monkeypox is something everyone should be concerned about. there are a few confirmed cases in the u.s. and some countries are imposing 21 day quarantines for people infected or even in some cases just exposed. should americans inspect some thing similar? >> i don't think so. we have had this monkeypox in larger numbers in the past. we have vaccines that can take care of it. number three, there is thus far it doesn't seem to be a need for any kind of extra efforts beyond what's going on and so i just
don't think it rises to the level of the kind of concern that's existed with covid-19 or -- the smallpox vaccine works for this. i think people should be careful. >> do you think the u.s. has enough smallpox vaccine stockpiled? >> i think we do have enough to deal with the likelihood -- the likely problem. host: president biden japan yesterday. you will be back in the white house after dinnertime this evening expected to land some time in the 8:00 p.m. eastern hour. back to your phone calls asking you about one question the got a lot of attention. the president was asked to the u.s. military intervene in china -- if china attacks taiwan. if you say yes, 202-748-8000. if you say no, 202-748-8001. gary in connecticut, good morning. caller: good morning, nice to speak with you again.
i am absolutely in favor of making it clear that we would defend taiwan. we built a huge navy and air force to be able to project strength there. it is time that we say we have this and we will use it if we have to. more important thing is the notion of strategic ambiguity. strategic ambiguity to me is an oxymoron. tactical ambiguity is one thing braid strategic ambiguity in our day is a very dangerous thing. it was pointed out in the book from the beginnings of world war i and many other wars have taken place because one side of the other or both sides were ambiguous about their intentions. certainly even in world war ii the germans didn't think the english in france would come to war over poland.
it's just a very dangerous -- we should feel very clear. justice kennedy was in the commute missile crisis. host: red lines are helpful to avoid countries stepping into conflict in the future. >> not always, but where it is absolute necessary and taiwan is one of those places. certainly ukraine, marginally is one of those places. we have to be very clear about what our policy is. given it's just foolish not to be invite someone to misunderstand what your reaction will be and what your intentions are. >> this is iranian tennessee, good morning. caller: i have been listening to these people about invading taiwan.
there's one simple thing nobody has said. we cannot invade taiwan because china will call our debt in. host: it's not invading taiwan per se, it's if china were to attack taiwan, should u.s. forces, to taiwan's aid. should there be boots on the ground to help defend taiwan. host: we can -- caller: we cannot go in there because they will call their debt in and we are in bankruptcy. china has control of us. host: ok. a few more comments from twitter , a thoughtful processing the u.s. should intervene to enhance democracy when it's in the -- within its own borders and protect the safety and security and well-being of all of its own citizens first. this from david saying china is as feckless as russia when it comes to developing u.s. strata -- when it comes to developing strategy.
time to stop fearing these ungrateful tyrants. this is gabriel and durham, north carolina. good morning. >> good morning. i would just say when i look back at what china has been doing for many years, obviously they have been extrapolating resources slowly. as a result of their own race to the bottom in america which is the reason we don't produce anything that's any good anymore. but in terms of taiwan and its relationship with china, make no mistake if we do not intervene, if we do not become involved in that situation, china really will assert its dominance beyond taiwan and continue to push out and we've already seen the economic capacity in order to pressure other countries, the
philippines. it's multiple industries and countries in that area and if we don't do something about that, they will continue to dominate -- try to dominate the south china sea which will backfire on us and cut us off from the relationships we had when you think about australia having its nukes or submarines. can i say one last thing. i want people to really think about this. that is if we were to go to war with china over taiwan, or at least if it becomes to intervene in that situation, what would happen to her medical drug supply? this is just massive. 90% of our active pharmaceutical ingredients are made with key starting materials for medicines.
i used to treat patients in the emergency room, those medicines will go on shortage and that will be an economic tool they will use against us and i would really like to see c-span bring up the topic of economic leverage within the pharmaceutical industry based upon or off shoring of manufacturing and race to the bottom. host: what kind of doctor are you? do you work at one of the universities down there in the research triangle? caller: emergency medicine. i'm trained in -- i just graduated duke law school so i'm jd candidate. i focus on all things regulatory and medical overlap, but i love to practice emergency medicine. this medicine shortage that we potentially have seen, we have seen. there's been 200 shortages of
these medicines in china -- in america, from china. it's a huge deal and we have to do something about it. it's a most bigger than the chips if you ask me, the microchips component. i'd love to see you sit down and talk about that try to figure out what you can bring in an expert. host: appreciate the suggestion. a medical degree and jd has well-paid what are your thoughts on forgiving student loans? caller: i could rattle on about that. host: give me 30 seconds. caller: people used to give up their time in service and today a lot of millenials need help because they're getting crushed by student debt need that help.
they need to enlist in the military or get commissioned, do some type of public service. i served 10 years in the navy and can look that up and i can tell you right now the g.i. bill was there to get me through. the whole reason i could do this. but i earned it, i deployed overseas, i served this country first and that's what i think today's millenials don't do enough of their they want to get help with student loans, serve your country. host: kate in michigan, good morning. caller: i felt like i had to call in and speak for the other half of the population. i'm just can say no and the reason seems pretty obvious, we have way too many things happening in this country and our education system, health system seems to be broken and
everything i've heard today is pretty terrifying so i'm just can essay no. host: another mary, this time in walnut cove. caller: good morning. i'll say no. it's a huge mistake, a horrible mistake. it's like he spoke without even thinking before reacting to the question. we can attack china. host: syracuse, new york. this is bill. caller: good morning. i think this whole thing to a certain extent goes back to ukraine and we allow russia to take an attack on a smaller country. china will look at that and say we've always wanted taiwan, let's get it while we can. economically if we cut off china
economically we will be doing as much damage to ourselves as we what to china. we simply could not afford doing without a good chinese goods. the thing we have to do is simply get the fleet in their and then some time if we don't call people we will drop a nuclear bomb on you. we are going to continually lose because the threat, everyone backs off. >> on this issue of the u.s. relying on china for various goods include pharmaceuticals.
this is from twitter. if we are going to remain foolish enough to allow pharmaceutical supplies to be remain -- made in china, we are playing roulette with citizens lives. it benefits wall street, it does not benefit main street. time for one or two calls but did want to note the somewhat unusual occurrence of the editorial boards of the wall street journal and the washington post today making somewhat of the same points when it comes to the issue of china and taiwan and the wall street journal of the tory aboard. saying president biden blundered monday and committing the u.s. to defend taiwan after three similar statements in the last year maybe he means it. there's an argument is and are deeply much bigger mistake is his decision not to include taiwan in the new indo pacific economic framework that the administration launched on monday. it is odd taiwan was not
included in the framework. the new platform clearly intended to counter china's rising economic influence. from the washington post saying if there's a flaw in the approach, it's the vagueness of the plan for regional, offering the indo pacific economic framework. it's no substitute for the market opening trans-pacific partnership negotiated and then abandoned. mr. biden had china guessing. maximizing beijing's worries would require much more robust economic engagement with east asia, india and australia. going for less ambiguity and more strategy. caller: good morning how are you. from this perspective, i think
america needs to do its best to protect the homeland and we are in the last year or two getting to a point of stretching ourselves thin in protecting our homeland, economically, militarily, it's pub with right step for us rather than jumping in to new conflicts and it really boils down to a lot of people say we should get involved with when you think about it you are sending off our sons and daughters to war and i guess if you're not directly affected by that, it's kind of an easy decision to make. take it from someone who was there for the invasion 2003 and it has a long-lasting effect on the individual, of the family and the entire ecosystem that that individual is supported by.
we need to protect america first. our economy, our borders, everything around us rather than helping other countries who are already in terms of economic and we can cut those things often damage. >> ralph in north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for having me. very briefly what i will say is we need to go back to making more things in america. especially -- were depending on foreign communist countries and is a veteran and retired soldier , nato should have been on the line. with a look a lot of different things.
you have to look at all aspects, look at the fuel he controls. there has to be a stopping point. taiwan is a key area. other things we need to have and protect our allies. host: our last caller in that first segment. stick around, plenty more to talk about including tuesday in may and therefore it's a primary day. we will focus on today's primaries and look ahead to june as well. we will be joined by kyle condit for that conversation. will be joined by robin to discuss recent market losses and the state of the u.s. economy. ♪
>> after month of closed-door investigations, the house january 6 committee is said to go public. starting june 9, tune in this committee members question key witnesses about what transpired and why during the assault on the u.s. capitol. what are live coverage be getting thursday, june 9 on c-span. c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. >> the up to date in the latest publishing with book tv's podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases.
plus bestseller lists as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now. or wherever you get your podcast. >> c-span brings you unfiltered view of government, our newsletter recaps the day for you from the laws of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code at the right bottom to sign up and stay up to date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today using the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe any time. host: another tuesday in may, another slate of midterm primary spread joining us to break down the primaries.
first, this just starting to turn into the midterm elections, which they know about the race that is happening. guest: i'd say the main race most people are watching as the georgia gubernatorial primary. the goudreau candidate who donald trump does not like. trump opposes brian kemp because of -- he didn't go along with what trump was saying about the 2020 election and the integrity of that election. so david purdue, u.s. senator who lost in 2020 is challenging brian kemp in the primaries. most polls suggest brian kemp will finish first tonight and get over the 50% he needs to avoid a runoff. the one that everyone's watching because the former president put so much of a personal stake it doesn't seem like it's turning out the way they wanted to. >> is 50% plus one vote in
georgia. if that does happen and if brian kemp wins by significant margin, what does that say about donald trump endorsement, especially in light of president trump's perhaps mixed record in endorsements. host: caller: in goop -- guest: it's not mr. lee the same juicy had and other races. many times he's endorsing in races where there is no doubt and so it sort of fair to where the intervening or competitive. there have been some successes. j.d. vance in ohio, the endorsement was helpful. i certainly think the republican party remains broadly supportive of donald trump per republican candidates want his endorsement. trump is taking some hits here and there but has a ton of influence in the party. he is active for a defeated former president which leads
people to wonder whether he will run in 2024 and he certainly coded this point. the senate primary tonight for the republican senate nomination. you got a handful of candidates. trump intervened there on behalf of mo brooks, member of the u.s. house but then brooks was not doing so well paid he was trailing to other candidates and so trump rescinded his endorsement. but he might make a runoff, there are three major candidates. so it's kind of a question may be of those candidates, an interesting way to look at those. someone he endorsed but then rescinded the endorsement but maybe he will make the runoff anyway. host: is it something abut how the calendar has fallen in this cycle or what democrats are doing in primaries, there seems to be a lot more high profile republican primaries this cycle
than democrats. there is the fetterman race in pennsylvania that got a lot of attention. but we seem to be talking a lot more about republican primaries. guest: part of it is that republicans for the center they're just more open seats. you have more competitive primaries like pennsylvania and ohio. you're public and senators who retired would led to competitive primaries. in the competitive senate races on most all of the democratic incumbents are running again. raphael warnock in georgia, mark kelly in arizona. you also have a lot of incumbent governors running on both sides. to the extent their primary challenges. you have had donald trump endorsing against sitting republican governors. trump has necessarily had success in that bid to kick out incumbent republican governors in primaries. the race tonight is the most how
prop -- the most high profile. there's been much more action on the republican side. there's also been a lot more republican participation in the primaries on their public and side compared to the democrat side. i don't necessarily know if primary turnout is predictive of november outcomes but if your belief going into the primaries is that the public and more engaged, nothing above the primary turnout would turn you off of that idea. host: arkansas, primary and then the texas runoff tonight. guest: you have a member of the bush family, george p. bush any for state attorney general in texas. an underdog to ken paxton who is the sitting republican attorney general in that state. there's also a primary in texas 28th which is the south texas seat. those of been trending towards republicans particularly in
2020. so you've got one of the probably most conservative house democrats or one of the most house democrats. he's running against a much more progressive candidate. that's a very competitive democratic primary which will tell us something about the future track of the democratic party. host: allowing you to call in to talk about what races you want to talk about this midterm election cycle. 202-748-8000202-748-8000 edie's -- it is 202-748-8000 for democrats, for republicans 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. as folks are calling in, want to show folks what georgia voters are seeing. here is one ad from david purdue. [video clip] >> brian kemp is a turncoat, a
coward and a complete and total disaster. a vote for david purdue is a vote to save georgia and a vote for this country because we have to have honest elections. the choice is clear. host: david purdue pointing that out not too long after getting president trump's endorsement. brian kemp with his own set of ads has a very expensive race. >> insider david purdue, his out-of-control spending, governor brian kemp has valent -- balance the state budget every year. he suspended the gas tax to help with prices of the pump and delivered historic income tax cuts. washington failure david purdue called these tax cuts disgusting. governor brian kemp gets things done. >> on the end of that ad turning
to the general election before the primary is done focusing on stacey abrams and a bit of a closing message. guest: abrams will be the democratic nominee for governor. she lost in a pretty competitive race in 2018. for whatever division in the republican party following the primary, i think the specter of abrams potential being governor will be a way to unify the republicans following this fairly divisive primary. i think one problem you start to see with the purdue add is purdue has made his entire pitch about donald trump and the 2020 election the sort of backwards looking. one thing you hear about that is purdue hasn't made a compelling case from a positive case for his own candidacy and wide camp -- brian kemp should be thrown out of office. host: the former vice president
mike pence was at uva not too long ago. he has been involved in this georgia gubernatorial race. guest: the former vice president came in and supported brian kemp in this, going against his former boss. i think it was also an opportunity for him to go in and support an otherwise pretty loyal republican and frankly pretty pro-trump publican despite the break between the two. but pence is waiting waiting back into the waters a bit and i think leaving open the possibility in 2024. host: let us know what you want -- which race you want to talk about. plenty to talk about with us for the next 35 minutes or so. this is care a lot of new york. line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning.
i hate to rain on your discussion but i would like to ask about new york state generally in terms of the congressional races. our lines are about three days old as we speak, candidates are still running around for districts. i am particularly interested in the new york 19th, the new 19 which is an open seat. i believe josh riley has expressed an interest in it and a woman, jamie cheney on the democratic side, i think it would've been -- i think delgado would have had -- would've been a very competitive race with delgado. so anything you can talk about in the 19th specifically or new
york state generally i would be very interested in. thank you. host: you are not raining on our parade. guest: a lot going on in new york. they have a new congressional map. the state courts throughout the map. the new map finally emerged on friday evening, it was basically saturday morning. i did not stay up for but a lot of people dead. so in new york, you've got there at six districts. 21 of the 26 will be reduced -- district one by less than 10 points. and one of those you mentioned new york 19 which is antonio delgado's district. delgado will be running for lieutenant governor now. there'll be a special election in current new york 19.
there is a republican there who ran for governor in 2018 and is fairly prominent and based on our meetings we see them as a slight favorite in the old district in the regular election the new district. does a lot of jostling going on. host: are we done with redistricting? guest: not quite. new hampshire is a holdout. two district per new hampshire has seen congressional map since the 1880's, a very basic division of the state. republicans and state legislature there want to make one district easier for them to win it easier for the democrats and the other one. the democrats currently hold both district. governor chris sununu doesn't want to change the map that much so that's the one holdout we have. but overall we can start to be able to say things but the overall map, of the current districts, the ones in place, if
you look at the median house districts, all of those districts, the median house seat was won by about 2.5 points. about two points to the right of the nation. under the new probably get a b by about two points so the overall map is a little bit better for republicans if you look at it by that measure, it still has a little bit of a republican bias built into it. >> what about the measure deciding who can be speaker of the house. to gain seats in lost seats overall. guest: it's been kind of a wash. some of that you can determine until the actual election. what ended up happening with a lot of places you saw republicans see some of their seats eliminated like a new york state one of their seats was eliminated. but they thought they would be able to make up for that by winning current democratic seats in those states. so if you just look at the seats
eliminated and added, democrats with a little bit of an advantage but that might get washed away by the overall results. republicans are still in a very good position in november. caller: good morning. i like your program. i get the call and talk. host: thanks for calling in. go ahead. caller: i was wondering about the pennsylvania election. it looks like the 2020 election all over again in pennsylvania and the gentleman there just mentioned their republicans look good, but unfortunately their voting again just like they did in 2020. it looks like democrats are going to pull off the same shenanigans they did last time. especially in pennsylvania anyway. i don't know about the voting georgia was suppressed when they more people vote in the primary than they did in 2020. guest: i appreciate the call.
i disagree with the characterization of the pennsylvania elections in that what we had in 2020 was a lot of people voting by mail who hadn't voted by mail in the past. there was a change that the republican state legislature and the democratic governor agreed to in pennsylvania in 20 before the pandemic. more people took advantage of that because the pandemic for obvious reasons and a lot of the ballots weren't allowed to be processed in advance which is why the count took so long. i think part of the reason why the primary between mamet oz and david mccormick for republican senate nomination, a part of the reason that's taking so long as it's really close. host: under 1000 votes. caller: it takes a long -- guest: it takes a long time to figure out and there will be recount. these things happen. i don't get means there's something wrong with the election in pennsylvania. that's just the process we have. host: what does that mean for
democrats at, too they try to take advantage of that time? guest: to me it's still fairly early in the calendar. some states have historically really late primaries like florida is happily one of last states to vote. at that point you're getting pretty close to the general election, is a some sort of delay might be an issue there. i think is plenty of time for the republicans get their act together and unify. oz looking in a slightly better position than mccormick. host: staying in the keystone state. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you. host: doing well. caller: i'm looking at all of the issues and listening to all of the issues and it was awesome hearing that woman on the other
channel the real problems on the top is looking at because they are not financially strained. host: how is that going to relate to the midterm elections. caller: we are electing more sharks into the tank that is eating the working society. host: that is michael in pennsylvania. let me try to relate this to the tweet who asks can you talk about anyone running who has vowed not to take corporate donations. guest: that has been something that's emerged on the democratic side although i can't necessarily think of folks. some people more on the left have talked about that. host: it's an issue that's come up in the past. guest: pack money, is something
that comes up. if you can sort of generate a national audience in national fundraising network, sometimes you don't need that money because are just raising small dollars from all over the country or getting small dollar donations. host: what about that pennsylvania democratic primary. was where they were getting their money and issue? >> i don't recall it necessarily being an issue. fetterman was a much better fundraiser and that race anyway and has become kind of a national figure, at least a statewide figure in pennsylvania. particularly in the aftermath of the pennsylvania 2020 election he was on tv a lot defending the integrity of the vote and i think he's also a charismatic guy, kind of a character in american politics. i think he was just able to get a bigger statewide and national profile. to the caller's point about his
question made me think about the inflation problem which is the worst it's been in 40 years and it's really a politically potent issue because inflation affects everyone and particularly impacts those who don't have as much of an income and aren't doing quite as well and they are the ones who really feel the price increases a lot. i think if trump were president we would still have this inflation problem. we are seeing it in a lot of other similar countries across the world. for the incumbent party it's been a big political problem. host: staying in pennsylvania, good morning. are you with us? you've got to stick by your phone. 202-748-8000 for democrats to call in. republicans 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002
talking midterm elections. our guest from the university of virginia center for politics. also seeing on your screen the title of your book, the long red thread. a democrat dominance gave way to republican advantage in u.s. house elections. how. guest: a lot of different factors over the years. political real ellen men particular in the south. in the 1960's the south is him is entirely democratic at that time. republicans also lost some strength on the west coast and northeast over the last five or six decades, the trade-offs of generally benefited republicans. also the control of the redistricting process. democrats used to have much more control of that in the 70's and 80's use republicans complaining about gerrymandering back then, using redistricting for gain. over time the advantage passed to the republicans and so democrats are the ones more concerned with gerrymandering. if you look at the median house
seat under the old maps and new map there's a little bit of publican bias there of a couple of points. we are also at a time where incumbency is not his valuables used to be. democrats used to be successful at winning district that otherwise didn't favor their party. you saw conservative and moderate democrats winning in districts that voted republican. the incumbency doesn't matter as much as it used to. voting is determined in a lot of ways by presidential preference. district of a for one party for president and the other party for congress. so all these things have happened and i think generally speaking republicans benefited. if you look at prior to 1994, when their public and one the house for the first time in decades, democrats it held the house for years before 1994. since 94 it's been 20 of 28 of democrats with a house --
democrats have the majority now. so you can look at that is sort of a key moment where the house goes from being overwhelmingly democratic basically all the time to competitive with republicans are likelier and not to win the majority. >> you said incumbency doesn't matter as much as it you stupid we of them lose. david mckinley after being put in a race in west virginia read madison cawthorn losing his bid to a republican challenger. as you look ahead, who is the next most vulnerable incumbent in a primary? >> one of them is for an election that already happened. it isn't tabulated yet. another more moderate democrat. there was a ballot printing error in one of the counties in the district and so we are still waiting for that race to be called. the indications are he will lose
to a more progressive challenger. he could end up losing tonight. that race being close and competitive. >> good morning. i think i'm missing something here. you all keep talking about republicans gaining seats in the house and senate. i haven't heard any republican say what they are going to do for their constituents. that goes both ways. democrats. it's getting kind of old that they're running on this fake election --. water these politicians going to do for the working person. that's what i want to know. because i don't see the republicans gaining any seats at all when they are running on air.
>> one of the subplots of the election so far has been rick scott, a u.s. senator, republican from florida who chairs the committee, i think he has presidential ambitions. he denies that, but i think at the least he wants to become more prominent national figure. scott has put out his own central plan for what he wants to do with the republican majority. it has some things in there democrats attacked him for particularly suggesting as her public and seven the past that americans, a fair number of americans don't pay income tax and that every american should pay some level of income tax which would amount to a tax increase on essentially the poorest americans. the reason i bring that up is to say mitch mcconnell is the center republican leader was critical of scott for doing that because mcconnell realizes this
is a referendum election and it's fair to say the republicans are not talking a lot about what they want to do. they are more running as a referendum. the democrats did the same thing in 2018, you keep the focus on that person and on the party. you don't talk as much about what you want to do and that gets into more of a choice which is often what the president's party wants to do in a midterm. host: kay ivey facing a republican primary, the ad that got the most attention was this ad in which she focused on joe biden. [video clip]
>> growing up, my mom and dad taught us, if you cannot say anything nice, do not say anything at all. here is what i have to say about joe biden. alabama's one and only kay ivey. poor joe. bless his heart. guest: you talk about the rock -- election being the referendum, iv is the sitting governor and has a primary of her own. it looks like she is going to finish ahead of her competitors, but may not get above the 50% required for the runoff. host: ron, dover, pennsylvania. line for democrats. are you there? caller: my question is, how can
these republicans run for office if they were involved in the insurrection? that is the edge of treason or something, i do not understand. host: happening as the january 6 elect committee is going to be set to be holding hearings this summer. guest: there have been legal cases about whether folks adjacent or participated on january 6, 20 21 could be on the ballot. those cases have not been successful. that has been an issue that has come up in the courts. host: pennsylvania voters calling in a bit this morning. republican, go ahead. caller: good morning. i am in southwestern pennsylvania. 50 years ago, 80% share of the population.
now, it might be 50-50. a friend of mine told me, it might be 60-40, the other way around. the lifelong democrat took a toll on them, fentanyl and crime has taken a toll on them. i am thinking locally that the democrat party, they need their own faith, if you will. that is my comment. guest: southwest pennsylvania is where you have seen a lot of political realignment in the years. some of the places -- eastern ohio, a lot of those places have fallen away from democrats, the state of west virginia is a great example. west virginia voted for the caucus in 1988.
h w bush. in 2000, west virginia had voted for's -- bush's son. democrats have had this problem in appalachia, appalachia touches a lot of competitive states, whether it be pennsylvania, ohio, north carolina is another one. the democrats have been gaining in affluent, diverse, highly educated, suburban areas. they have been losing in white her -- whiter, rural grounds. you go back historically and look at, hooted franklin roosevelt bring into the democratic party win -- when he created the democratic -- modern democratic party, the modern
welfare state, the conception of government being a bigger force of people's lives. you look where roosevelt improved on past democratic performance, places where -- very working-class, very ethnic, a lot of new immigration, you find a lot of those places in steel towns, a lot of heavy industry. until trump in 2016, flipped. an interesting thing where you have these working-class places that i think are struggling now who historically were linked to the working class party, that has changed. there is the opportunity for soul-searching on both sides of the aisle. i think i'm have to think about, why did those places move away? there are a lot of places like that in competitive states, it makes a difference in close
elections. host: is somebody going to go back and say, that is how donald trump made the modern republican party? guest: roosevelt one those landslides nationally, trump won the electoral college 2016. you can look at some places where obama won by 30 points, mahone county. mahoning county went to three points in clinton, trump won it in 2020. her are similar places dotted across the midwest. there is this political science thing about critical elections, realigning elections. there have been holes poked in that scholarship. there are elections you can look at historically and say things have changed for a long time. i think voting patterns that changed in 2016 are going to be with us for a long time.
host: colorado, julie, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a bachelors degree in political science. i used to be an instructor at the university here. i would have loved to have taken a class under -- a political science class. second, my question is, i live in lauren boebert's district. if you follow her, she ran the first time for congress, she refused to debate the democratic candidate because she couldn't get the questions ahead of time. i'm wondering, what -- is for ms. boebert, she is in the republican primary. last i saw, five candidates running against her. if he has any idea of ms. scholl
will win the democratic primary, or somebody else. this is a swing district. i have lived here all my life. we have elected democrats and republicans. i do not vote a straight party ticket, i am independent. i wonder what your thoughts are. host: thanks for the shout out of larry sabado. guest: colorado three is a district by didn't won -- trump one buying -- won by nine points. it is a district -- not a district republicans have one in recent years. also, medicine call thorn -- madison cawthorn has had more problems, it seemed like there
would be a new story that would come out every day in advance of his primary. boebert hasn't had those problems. i think boebert is in decent shape for the primary and neural election. when boebert won in 20 elect -- in her primary, -- you never know. i think she is in good shape. host: or uruk, illinois, independent. you are next. mr. kishida: i am -- caller: i'm calling about the dirty party that has run this country. the dirty little white boys were anxious to praise putin. they want to do it with russia and tucker carlsen. pathetic. guest: the war in ukraine --
host: whether you think it is going to have impact on the elections here. guest: it is getting attention from the public, not as much as it was, but a lot attention from official washington. if you look at, there was not a lot of rally around the flag effect for biden, publix opinion on handling it has been fairly negative. widens approval rating has been negative. i do not think ukraine will have a bearing on the midterm. host: at least important enough to spend money on. j.d. vance over the acid about ukraine, here is -- i do not care about what happens to ukraine one way or another.
>> ♪ i do not care about what happens to ukraine one way or another. guest: this has come up in the primary for u.s. senate in ohio, ended up winning. i guess you could say, it didn't hurt him all that much in the primary, it was a splintered field. the late trump endorsement, important in vance winning. i think -- there is a lot of eastern european enclaves in eastern ohio, one of them, there
are a lot of people with ukrainian descent. some of those places are places where trump did well or better than republicans had in the past. if tim ryan is going to win, he needs to clawback ancestral democrats, if he sees the ukraine issue as being one piece of that. if he is -- host: if he is going to win, how do you rate that race? guest: likely republican. tossup is the most competitive, we see vance as a considerable favorite. we leave open the possibility that ryan could swing and upset, depending on the race. host: politics.org is where you can check those race ratings, you do them for the house, senate, and gubernatorial elections.
illinois, nikki, democrat. good morning. caller: i want to ask a three-part question. why do the democrats keep winning the popular vote if you say that they are losing in popularity? i want to ask another part to that question, if that is the case, why aren't the republicans continuing to create this voter suppression if they have the votes? i was always taught, you go by behavior, not by what people say. behavior shows you they must not be getting the votes they need to win if they have to engage in that. thirdly, you mentioned western pennsylvania. i used to live there. i noticed, when you talk about the vote the democrats are losing, could that be because
the unions, the steel mills are gone, the demographics have changed? guest: let me start with the final question about the decline of labor. that is definitely an issue for democrats in some places that have been struggling and have lost heavy industry. as a social organization, unions helped deliver the message for democrats. i think there are a lot of voters in those kinds of places, be it western pa or ohio, where you have voters who are socially conservative or economically liberal, or were in the union, and the union help those people to the democratic party. now, the unions are gone. those voters are maybe more open to voting republican and voting
on their social and cultural leanings, as opposed to their economic leanings. as for the popular vote, the democrats have won the popular vote in every election except one since 1988, h w bush won the popular vote in 1988. george w. bush wanted in 2004, democrats have wanted ever since. the margin is narrow. as i said, the democrats have lost a lot of voters, but they are picking up a lot of voters to, you see these changes going on in the various party coalitions. i think structural problem for the democrats is, if you look at the decisive media and electoral college state, the median seat in the senate and median house seat, they are more republican than the nation as a whole. there are structural advantages
for republicans. i guess you could blame the house on gerrymandering in favor of the republicans to some degree, but the sin and electoral college is based on the states. i guess you could say the states are gerrymandered, but they are not drawn every 10 years. host: time for one more call, this is jerry in albuquerque, republican. good morning. caller: wanted to make some comments. the chinese have a system, so to the russians. i'm surprised didn't use it against the ukraine. he way wars are going to be fought is through -- host: that is a topic for another time. final thoughts as we head into
another primary day, and as we look ahead to the june primary, what are you watching for? guest: it is favorable to republicans in the past primaries we have had. an overall point, midterms usually break against the president's popularity. there are going to be developments that happen every day you think, is this going to change the political calculus? the potential roe v. wade decision coming up could be one of those things. it is possible that the cake is baked, the republicans are ahead and are going to stay ahead until the election, and then it is the question of how well did they do. that is often how it goes in midterms. don't necessarily assume that big blockbuster developments are going to move ne-yo politically, we are unaware if the
president's approval doesn't move that much, the midterm effect has been strong. host: when do we know if the cake is baked? guest: one of the metrics you take, second-quarter gdp, which we will not know until the summer. it does suggest, it is not third-quarter gdp, it is in the summertime. whatever peoples perceptions are, they may not be fully updated by the time the election happens. even if things get better for the economy, and gas prices and inflation, when people are thinking about it now, it might inform your choices later in the fall. it is hard to know, but the trajectory of these things is that if it is looking bad for one party in a midterm environment, that generally doesn't change by the time we get to the election. host: his book, the long red
thread. appreciate the time. a little while, in about 30 minutes, we have more of your phone calls. with robin farzad, public radio's full disclosure appeared we will be talking about market losses, the state of the economy. next, we have time for an open form. any public policy issue you want to talk about. call on democratic lines, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will get to your calls after the break. ♪ >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to
russia's invasion of ukraine, bringing you the latest from the president and other white house officials. we have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders, all on the c-span networks, the c-span now free mobile app, and c-span.org/okraine. follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. clocks there are a lot of places to get political opinion. only from c-span, do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, or here, or here, or anywhere that matters.
america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. ♪ >> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books, with current, nonfiction book releases. plus, bestseller lists, insider interviews. you can find out about books on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: 8:50 on the east coast. setting up time for an open form. any public policy issue, any state issue that you want to talk about, you can do so. phone lines split up as usual by political party. democrats, (202) 748-8000.
republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. as you are calling in this morning, a couple news and notes from the recent days, including the lead story in front page of usa today, pfizer vaccine is safe for kids. pfizer's covid-19 vaccine appears to be safe and effective for children ages six months to five years, according to a company study. the study of nearly 1007 hundred children showed the vaccine more than safe as a placebo, more than 80% protected during the omicron outbreak. no new safety concerns identified during that trial. it gets turned over to federal agencies to take a look at that data, they promised to do so in the coming days and weeks. the fda saying their advisory panel meeting could happen as soon as june 8 to discuss
authorizing the shots in that youngest age group for those parents who have been waiting for news on that. the other story we talked about, president biden saying he would use force to defend taiwan from a chinese attack. it is the story on most front pages today, getting a lot of attention. the president speaking while he was on that trip to japan, saying he would be in favor of using force to defend taiwan from a chinese attack. the president is traveling back to the united states, expected to arrive back here around 8:00 p.m. eastern time, after dinner. he has been traveling since the weekend. it was late last week he left for this trip. these remarks yesterday about taiwan, about china, became the focal point of his trip.
here is the president getting that question. [video clip] >> you didn't want to get involved in ukraine for militarily reasons. are you willing to get involved with taiwan? >> yes. >> you are? >> it is the commitment we made. here is the situation. we agree with a one china policy, we signed on to it. all the frameworks made there. the idea it can be taken by force is -- it will dislocate the region and be another action similar to what happened in ukraine. it is a burden that is stronger. host: president biden yesterday morning, getting attention on those comments. we can talk about it and any public policy, any political
issue. it is our open forum. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. the phone lines are yours. elizabeth, butler, pennsylvania. democratic. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm from butler, pennsylvania. i'm calling from the democratic line. i had a question on the living wage. i know it is such a small subject. i was raised getting on welfare. it was disgraceful. it meant you couldn't work, or you wouldn't work. i question comes in, full time has got to be a living wage. 40 hours a week, overtime cannot you an apartment in pennsylvania. how will this be fixed? this economy is going crazy. i need answers. host: a lot of people peg a
living wage at $15 an hour, and a mom. that is a fight that has been happening the past couple of years. in this time of higher inflation and gas prices, is $15 an hour going to do it? caller: you've got to do the taxes. myself, i am a caregiver. i make $11 an hour. that will not be a living wage. everything is skyrocketing. my question comes into, what do we have to to do to not have to be on welfare. i have been doing this for all of these years. i am forced to get on welfare.
i do not have a choice. why do i not have a choice? host: democrat, good morning. caller: i was calling to talk about biden's comments on domestically, people will not share that as the lightning bolt that is internationally from. he tries to clean up the statements, saying he supports the one china policy. host: it wasn't just the president, it was the white house aides. here is how it was described in the new york times today, they cried -- tried to deny the president was saying, the white house said in a statement, they hurriedly put out to reporters he -- he reiterated our
commitments under the taiwan relations act to -- we saw the secretary of defense and the chairman joint chief of staff repeat that line about, our policy has not changed. caller: i am in agreement. in live time, the president corrects or is immediately -- or says immediately he is supporting a one china policy. that is why this is an important job. a very brief phrase will be all that korean, japanese and chinese media will be talking about, i would imagine. even though, in conversation, he went from a statement and then to a statement that is consistent with our foreign policy for decades.
that is not as smooth as it could have been. host: peter baker with his column today, speaking his mind and letting his aides clean up afterwards. about the president's latest comments and response from his own white house. dwight, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i am doing well. caller: i do not know how you do it. you need to give me a tutorial. i could never get it right. what is on my mind, with the election season coming around, and all the states changing the voting laws, there are going to be a lot of unintended consequences to these changes. politicians never get it right. the people they are targeting, there is going to be traffic
hitting other voters, not being able to vote. whenever politicians -- whatever politicians hand down to the county, the county has to implement a lot of stuff. it is going to be interesting after this election season is over, how many states are going to go back and redraft these laws they put into place. i am waiting to see that. nothing is ever 100%. it is going to be jacked up. that is all i have to say. host: it is primary day in three states. runoff day in texas. a couple of races in taxes that need to be decided. including one big one, texas attorney general race. democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. again, it's all about words. i just listened to president
biden's statement. he said yes and then clarified -- you had a question just a minute ago saying he would put boots on the ground. he never said that. let me leave it there. this is what i want america to understand. you'll see the democratic voter, white, black, hispanic, all kinds, come out in groves in this midterm election. because as a 66-year-old father, watching how the politicians are maneuvering and this racial hatred, it reminds me of growing up in the 1960's. it's only going to last as long as the snake head is there and you all know who that is and he's going down. one other question.
i'm here in houston, texas. one thing i know for sure. the true price of gasoline and it's not $4. it's called speculation. oil companies have rules that have been in place for years to allow us to say, what if this happened, what if this happened and what if that happened. this is what we can raise it to and they're raising it to the maximum limit because all of the vessels and rigs and everything since the pandemic, it takes months to get them back on. host: all right. that's william. this is bill, quincy, michigan. republican. good morning. caller: good morning, john. i'm wondering when they're going to finally bring up the senior citizens not making any money, the politicians give themselves a 20% raise. everybody's screaming about got to have $20, $30 an hour. senior citizens, all we hear is
social security will be cut. we're going to lose. we're going to lose. i think it's time that seniors start getting a little bit of money so we can afford to live also. and that's all i got to say. thank you. host: shelby, north carolina. this is william, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm doing well go. ahead. caller: good. as i was telling y'all, before obama got in office, the bush was burning us. they changed the laws. host: who are you talking about? caller: anybody that is not me and the chosen ones, the elect ones, that was kept for this end day. host: all right. we'll go to don in ohio.
republican, good morning. caller: good morning. just wanted to say i'm 66. republican. and i watched that clip that you showed of president biden and he has two ear buds in his ear. i'm sure one could be possibly for translation or whatever. host: it was a bilateral with the japanese prime minister. so they were going back and forth, getting questions from reporters from both sides. caller: i see that. but he also has an ear bud in the other ear. when he was asked a question, it just sounded to me like he was waiting for someone to give him the answer to tell. the answer that we're looking for. i just don't understand that. thank you. bye. host: new york city. this is paul. republican. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. just like to talk about president biden's remarks to
defend taiwan. regardless of what he said, i think he's exactly right. that should be our policy. i'm glad he said it openly. whether he meant to say it or not, i'm not sure about that. but the aide struggling to pretend he didn't say it, i'm for him for having said it. thank you. host: president biden getting praise from the republican side of the aisle for some of those statements. just a few tweets on that front. lindsey graham with his series of tweets yesterday.
host: just after 9:00 on the east coast. we're continuing to take your phone calls. it's our open forum section. as you keep calling in, though, did want to focus once again on it being primary day and specifically want to focus on the key races in the peach state of georgia. to do that we're joined by a political reporter with the atlanta journal institution, joining us via zoom. good morning to you. going to make sure we can hear you. as we get your sound taken care of, the article in today's "atlanta journal constitution" with your biline, georgia voters will decide some key questions in today's primaries. greg, what are some of the key questions? guest: well, first of all, we're going to decide here in georgia the value of donald trump's
endorsement. not only has he endorsed former senator purdue in his campaign for governor against the incumbent, but he's also endorsed 12 other candidates down the ballot. some are shoe-ins. but others are facing uphill battles. we're talking about down ticket statewide candidates going against entrenched incumbents and candidates who are in open races. donald trump has been trying to reshape georgia's republican party after his 2020 defeat and we're going to find out if republican voters go along with it. host: one other headline i wanted to ask you about and it focuses on the gubernatorial race. g.o.p. jumps on stacey abrams' comment, calling georgia the worst state to live in. where and why did she do that? guest: this was on friday at a democratic gala. a big fundraising dinner for local democrats. stacey abrams usually talks about some of georgia's lapses, some issues she feels like georgia should be working on. including mental health woes and maternal mortality rates that
are high and incarceration rates. in this version of her stump speech, she said georgia's the worst place to live. and then she kind of paused and then shifted back to her overall message. republicans clipped that part out and are going to make sure they weaponize that. not just right now but through the end of the november election. and already, just last night, i was at a major republican rally, i was at several republican events, david purdue and kemp both evoked these comments. so they will try to make sure that she regrets saying those words. host: from the governor's race to the senate race. you do a lot of this in looking at the messaging and how each is trying to frame the debate. set us up in the senate race, that closely watched race. guest: yeah. this is a six-candidate republican race for u.s. senate. and hershel walker, the former
football star, the legislated, who had -- legend, who had almost universal name recognition before he even entered the race, he's the frontrunner. he's such a front runner in this contest that he's -- i've never heard him utter another rival's name unless he's specifically asked about them. he has skipped debates and forums. he hasn't gone to conventional campaign events, hasn't downtown halls. the trappings of your normal campaign in georgia. because he feels like he doesn't have to. he's a celebrity candidate. he's so well known. but beyond that, he's also been the rare candidate who can sort of bridge the divide between the old guard establishment republican party and the maga world. he has donald trump's endorsement and mitch mcconnell's endorsement. he has other washington figures backing his campaign. host: greg bluestein.
how should viewers watch a georgia election night in georgia? where do results usually come in first and how does the night develop? when do we usually know these things? guest: that's a great question. the election laws have been rewritten. the earlier counting of absentee ballots, so we don't wait days like we did in 2020. i mean, if you recall from 2020, we knew the dynamics pretty early on. we knew that it would be very close race and that joe biden would likely come out on top after a few hours of vote counting. but it took days until those dynamics kind of took place because of slow vote counting in places like clayton county. so right now we always expect the biggest counties, particularly fulton county, which is the most populous county in georgia, encompasses most of the city of atlanta and a bunch of other cities, we can usually expect those to be among the last results to come in and
they're also -- of course some of the biggest results that come in, whether it be republican or democratic primaries, usually that makes for somewhat later night. but in georgia we haven't had close races until recently. so it didn't matter as much, we wouldn't get all the fulton or other returns until late at night or the next morning or even days later. but now we're in the most politically divided state in the nation. just 11,000 or so votes divided biden and trump in 2020. so we'll see how long it takes. but with the polls showing such big leads for both kemp and walker in the governor, senator race, they could call these races very early. host: if there is an upset tonight, where should we be looking? anywhere on the ballot. guest: it's very likely that the kemp or walker get pulled into a runoff. what i'm watching very closely, one is the seventh district democratic congressional race.
the republicans redid georgia's political maps and made the north atlanta suburban district unwinnable. it's so conservative that a democratic really can't win that. so she hopped over next door to challenge an incumbent -- a fellow democratic representative. both of them are very popular in their own right. both have national brands to a degree. both are really bitter battle to see who can represent that suburban democratic district the other race i'm really closely watching that i think the nation is as well is the secretary of state race. he was on the other end of the phone call from donald trump urging him to find the votes to reverse the election. now he's facing hice, real republican territory, who a year ago you would have thought he was kind of a shoe-in. he had trump's endorsement. you'd think that jodie hic --
jody hi ce would have had a cake walk. but it's a close race. and the other campaign feels like it has an outright shot. host: great political reporting team covering it all tonight at ajc.com. greg one of the political reporters there. thanks so much for starting a very long and busy day with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: two minutes left in our open forumful we'll get back to your phone calls. any political issue you want to talk about in this segment of the "washington journal." this is ali in hope, arkansas. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing, c-span? host: i'm doing well. caller: y'all look out for the man running for governor, anybody in arkansas. come on in, let's get this man into office. doing his thing. i thank you for your time. i appreciate y'all's support.
working with everybody, let them speak their mind and get it out to the people, man. we salute y'all down there in d.c. host: that's ali. this is john in florida. independent. good morning. caller: good morning, hi. thank you for taking my call. couple of things that i want to mention. i agree with the prior caller from michigan about the senior citizens getting more money. i'm one myself, retired, down here in florida. two, i'm a military veteran. i need to -- the importance of the freedoms that all of the veterans have given us over the years in this great country of ours needs really to be appreciated during memorial day weekend. and number three, i wanted to say, make america great again. thank you.
host: that's john in florida. this is glen, lancaster, california. good morning. republican. guest: god bless you, sir. and thank you for your service. i'd like to talk about joe biden's china one policy. through our paris climate accord agreement, through his executive fiat, our gas prices went up astronomically and, john, why aren't you guys talking about how much natural gas is costing? $8 a gallon. not one person is talking about that green energy or green energy power plants for natural gas. why is it $8? why isn't anybody talking about it? that's our clean energy. that's hitting us right in our kitchen table. that's through arbitrators,
through this dictator that's sitting in the white house who is enforcing the paris climate accord and china one policy over the constitution. of the unitedstates. and conspiracy theory, same word. democracy? no, we're a constitutional republic. host: all right. that's glen. our last caller in this segment of the "washington journal." stick around. 45 minutes left this morning. and in that time, we'll be joined by public radio's roben farzad to take a look at the recent market losses and the state of the u.s. economy. stick around for that discussion. we'll be right back. ♪ announcer: there are a lot of places to get political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you're from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for
word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. announcer: at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you'll hear about the 1964 civil rights act, the 1964 presidential campaign, the march on selma and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open
door between his office and theirs. >> you'll also hear some blunt talk. announcer: presidential recordings, find it on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. announcer: c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine. bringing you the latest from the president and other white house officials, the pentagon and the state department. as well as congress. we also have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders. all on the c-span networks, the c-span now free mobile app, and
c-span.org/ukraine. our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on-demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: it's been a wild ride recently in the markets and there to help break it down, roben farzad. the host of public radio's full disclosure program. former long-time writer at bloomberg business and it was at a press conference yesterday in japan where the president got a question, asked if he thought a recession was inevitable in this country. in the weeks and months to come. he answered no to that question. how would you answer that question? guest: it's a philosophical question, isn't it? aren't recessions tphefbgtable? the -- inevitable? the business cycle. i'm not an economist or a businessist, but you have
expansions and kra*bgss. in kr*bgs -- contractions. in contractions ex -- in expansions, you get various things like what is happening right now. what's unusual is you have this idea of inflation. this late 1970's, early 1980's show, where we get persistently higher prices and weakening economic activity. that's really hard for the federal reserve to solve and it's very hard in a scenario where you don't have unanimity over fiscal policy. it's just you're asking people like biden to kind of stick with you and let's wait it out together. host: what is the official definition of a recession? how do we know? guest: if you have two consecutive contracting quarters of economic activity where the economy pulls back. this stuff is routine. we've had mild recessions in the past, we've had recessions prompted obviously by the covid lockdown, where the economy fell off a cliff over days.
tankers were idled, you had suddenly 15% unemployment. really short-lived though, because you're talking about something closer to 4% unemployment right now. various recessions coming out of the dot-com boom. obviously the 2008 financial crisis and the wall street recession and the housing crisis. we came out of that roaring out of it. these are just the fact of the business cycle. so whether you have it later this year or if they pumped it into 2023, i believe it is inevitable. host: the president yesterday again answered no to that question. here's why he said he was optimistic. reporter: is a recession in the united states inevitable? president biden: no. reporter: why not? president biden: look, you're talking about the significant progress we've made and making sure we don't have supply chain backups, about the 8,000 jobs that honda is going to be
bringing to georgia. 3,000 jobs in texas from samsung. $17 billion investment. toyota 1700 jobs in north carolina on battery technology. the situation where we've created over eight million new jobs, where unemployment's down 3.6%, so on and so forth. imagine where we'd be with putin's attacks and the war in ukraine if we had not made that enormous progress. our g.d.p. is goinggoing to grow faster than china's for the first time in 40 years. does that mean we don't have problems? we do. we have problems that the rest of the world has. but less consequential than the rest of the world has because of our internal growth and strength. host: roben farzad on the president's comments. he repeatedly said jobs, jobs, jobs there.
guest: yeah, jobs, jobs, jobs. but inflation persists like this and you get reports out of various companies, the stock market you saw target fall 25%. it's not for lack of demand. you're seeing supply chain issues and pricing pressures. it's a very peculiar slowdown or fear of slowdown. so i don't blame him for trying to accentuate the positives. hyundai expanding in georgia. the jobless rate where it is right now. but it's still a vexingly difficult problem to solve, inflation above 8%. host: if you want to talk about the economy, the markets, and jobs, this would be a great time to do so. roben farzad joining us until the end of our program today at 10:00 a.m. eastern. phone lines split as usual. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. roben farzad with public radio's full disclosure program. folks are tuning in to full
disclosure, what are they going to learn? guest: it's a business of culture, the culture of business, the meaning of life. this week we had an episode on dear graduate, there's a lot of stress and consternation. i remember as a 22-year-old going out into the work force. and you think that it's the be all, end all. but in fact you talk to accomplished people out there, executives and you realize when they say it's commencement, you're truly commencing. this is a chance for you to go out and learn and make mistakes and fail and put those lessons to use later in life in your career and build a reputation. host: the meaning of life might be an easier one than the meaning of the swings on the stock market recently. this is a headline from "the washington post" today. dow up more than 600 points. as wall street carves a path out of bear terrain. these ups and downs? guest: you see this volatility happen when you're and at inflexion point for the stock market. we're come outing of a prolong period of easy money. zero interest rate policy.
the p.p.p. loans and everything we had and the fiscal stimulus that congress threw at this unprecedented shock, at this pandemic, this once in a hundred-year plague if you're the federal reserve, at this time last kpwraoer you're talking about transitory inflation. we can take our time on rate hikes. well, they just did a half a point rate hike, which is very uncommon, and the market is pricing in many more this year, and if you're the stock market, what are you going to do? what's your process can tal? what's your reference point if you're anvester? i can park money in a treasury for this much. on to havetop of that, -- on top of, that $4.50 gasoline. it brings back memories of 2008. there are many people who are trying to buy the old fell in may and go away thing. there's a lot of volatility ahead. there's the federal reserve that's going to have to figure out how to do this. and do you hike so much that you snuff out the economy hopefully
temporarily to spare it from inflation? that's a really hard plane to land. also that metaphor -- host: i remember seeing a headline. half point rate hikes are the new quarter point rate hikes after the most recent one. are we going to get to three-quarter point rate hikes or more? guest: there's part of me that wonders how the market would react if you came out and was like, listen, this is a big spoonful of medicine but you need it and you're going to have to take it. everything is so premeditated and intensely tell graphed. the most important metric in the world is the united states' main interest rates set by the federal reserve. it's pegged to everything. currencies, termy, dollar denominated debt, the price of oil, the price of commodities. and so it used to be that there was some mystery or burlesque to this back in the day of alan greenspan. people would look at size of his brief case and try to figure out what was going to happen.
the last time we approximate mated a blind-siding was 1984. the bond market really took a hit. some wall street firms failed that year we don't have an constitutional memory of what it was like -- institutional memory for what it was like for the federal reserve to have a hike that hurts everybody. host: a call for you. an independent from texas. caller: good morning. first-time caller. my question is, yesterday president biden announced that we were in a transition period and that the high fuel prices are a result of that and when we come out on the other end, hopefully we will be less dependent on fossil fuels. so it says to me that it's not the greedy companies. i'd like your comments on my question. thank you. guest: this economy is still
energy-intensive. not as energy-intensive as it was in 2008 when we saw oil go above $140 a barrel. not as energy-intensive as it was during the iran an hostage crisis or 50-plus years ago. 50 years ago in the oil shock. having said, that it's painful, right? you thought that 2008 and that era of $4-plus gasoline would have disabused us of this need to be kind of co-dependent with fuel and it did spike a surge i think in buying of hybrid vehicles. you saw a fracking and schaal revolution, a drilling renaissance in the united states oil patch. we became one of the leading producers on the planet. but consumption has gone up tremendously. the developing markets are still drinking this stuff. you have to contend with china, with india. and then the pressure of decarbization and you stop and think, 2008 was 14 years ago and how much have we progressed? you look at something like a tesla and i don't think that's
really being sold on the m.p.g. merits. it's not like the old geometro or the hugo that you'd have to fuel with austerity. it's very much an aspirational vehicle. the other automakers are looking to follow suit. and wean themselves from gasoline at the same time they're selling enormous gasoline pickup trucks. that's a profit center for them. you had an earlier guest talk about natural gas. natural gas is less carbon-intensive than burning coal, high sulfur coal, but it's still a fossil fuel. and it's preferable to have renewables over natural gas. at a time when you see oil prices and gasoline prices shoot up like this, you see natural gas follow suit. municipals buts are natural gas fired. there are factories that are natural gas fired. the worry is that that in combination with rising interest rates will push the economy into kind of a cry uncle thing. it sews of seed -- sows of seeds
of its own demise. you can only stay above these prices for fossil fuels until the economy falls apart. host: tony, republican, good morning, iowa. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? host: how are you? what's your question or comment for roben farzad? caller: my question is, do you think the jobs that they're getting now come from the trump era or the biden era? guest: i mean, do you want me to say it's coming from the covid era. again, we're coming from 15% unemployment and then a tremendous amount of stimulus. i think the fed's balance sheet, the trillions of dollars of assets it bought on top of bringing rates to zero, on top of payroll forgiveness program and people being at home and not vacationing and husbanding cash and coming out of that, there's a tremendous excess of cash in
this economy. of money on the sidelines. that's still restive. it's looking for returns, looking for investment. there are more and more people staying at home, bidding up wages, you're seeing it with literally every restaurant owner i know, that you can't even -- how much can you pay people to even show up to-to-an interview? can you reasonably say that one president created that job over another? no. it was a peculiar set of circumstances, global supply chain shut down, inflationary pressures right now. it is -- on balance it's hard to get many subsets of workers back. many people, as you know, when we follow are insisting on remote work for ever and the companies said they spend millions of dollars on office space. apple was having a hard time getting engineers to come back so this is a prolonged
negotiation and everyone else is involved. host: the interest rate hike is tied to so much but can you explain how it reduces the federal reserve balance sheet and what that means and why that is announced at the same time and it's an important thing as well? guest: since the financial crisis, you can only take rates down to zero. after that you are pushing on a script -- string but the fed can go out and buy assets to keep rates down. in japan, the situation has become so dire that the central bank is buying equities to help the market. at least in the united states, these things would have been taboo years ago, the idea that the the federal reserve is pulling a couple of levers will go out there and conjure up money and buy bonds. it's not taboo anymore.
when you have the economy absolutely fall off the cliff, think back to the fall -- the fog of spring-2020 stuff you briefly had price of zero because nobody was driving. bizarre times many people -- you didn't know the end of it. was it 25% unemployment? you had corporations go in and refinance debt at record low-interest rates and that freed up money for hiring and it was really stimulative. 0% interest with billions of dollars in cash. then they romanced the stock market and crypto. the fed is worried that maybe
too many people are holding onto real estate. that's the second guessing. did you do too much for too long and will it hurt on the way down? host: glen echo, marilyn, this is deborah. caller: i am concerned that they will raise interest rates and we need to destroy the village in order to pave it. everyone is talking about the rising interest rates. interest on the national debt, somewhat cheaper gas. a better solution would be fiscal policy if you want to
take money out, those making over $400,000, it would have the same effect but it would also beneficially reduce the national and/or provide money to preparing to pay on credit cards. you listen to prime minister's question prime in english, the power -- the party that's in power is creating crisis. this i did that where is the interplay? i'm 72 and i was in my 20's and the 1970's and now in my 70's.
it's just not a good solution. guest: i spent some time a few days ago with my father in miami and he took me as a kindergartner to the american savings bank. you walk and and it had lenders and toasters. i remember sent posters. my father was so proud, iranian immigrants to walk in their and say this is my first passbook savings account. at the time, everybody's worried that inflation would destroy the stock market and the late paul volcker was making up rates. the fruits that came out of that
was the longest stockmarket bull bull run in history. if you killed inflation, than you can reap the rewards of lower borrowing costs and everything else that happened stop had my dad been educated enough to put that money in the s&p 500 incident of a 14% cd which the government wanted to do to prop up extra cash, i would have made 15 times more money. you are living in the moment and living in the fear. the planters and toasters they use to give outward better than anything made today. i'm a young guy but i'm an old guy. they used to give out toasters and blenders for your business and there would be a penny arcade. now you walk into the bank, you are not doing them a favor giving them your craft -- your cash. you saw the treasury department
is advertising its inflation protected bonds. this is a time of disruption. inflation generally is not in the broad institutional memory of people on wall street. host: jack from the east coast of florida. caller: i am not an expert and i'm not well educated but we look at everything so finite. it's the u.s. economy in the u.s. market when in reality, we are all serving the g20. everybody has a rating of g-1-2 0. our problems are not just americans, they are global.
in history you are seeing it now with russia. the oil please these different international things. why are we always talking about a hard blue program please pie in the bigger part of the spectrum is, if i cannot get food out of ukraine, why is it they are farming in africa that's replacing that acreage? why is it in south america, it seems to me where all our economies are lead, we are focused on this happening. to me, this is been going on since the economy. the british sterling was the u.s. dollar of its time. the doctor ran things step history shows is where the power is in finance.
guest: it's so true, look at brazil. that's a big part of the breadbasket of south america. it has disproportionate sway over channel prices. argentino over soybeans in the peruvians with copper. it's a former globalized world that it was years ago. our economy today remember -- resembles nothing of what it was 15 years ago. you saw joe biden try to lean on these other opec economies when russia was putting the squeeze on the west after the ukraine invasion. saudi arabia is no mood to do this way has any favors after the khashoggi investigation four years ago and that is a pariah king.
venezuela asks the u.s. to drill deeper and i ran wants to use it as leverage. you have your patch in the united states were prayers are high should invite everyone to be drilling horizontally the deep-sea horizon disaster in 2010, it was never thought to end but it should be an impetus about supply chains. you have to have second and third and fourth options. you can't be overly dependent on one or two countries. from a green perspective, is job to see how much the grain shock coming from the fields of eastern europe and russia is hurting poor economies where
their governments don't have silos to fill up with backup reserves stop there is a cover on this crisis last week. the poorest countries it hurt soon through the perfect partnership. host: what about president biden's trip he's promoting? guest: imagine if we had played out this exercise of you ring with china annexing taiwan? it's the implicit threat of the united states break -- getting taiwan back but how does that play out in capital markets? how would it play out by the chinese dumping u.s. treasuries? they could exert far more damage on the u.s. economy than russia did. there might be an appetite to isolate china with these other
countries but if you are to do something, china wants to be a part of it. they help when you factor solar panels. the rare earths. once we get past opec and get into the race for batteries and minerals, that the next conversation. i don't think the united states can do it alone and you have to search for strategic friends and enemies to keep close and far. host: just about 15 minutes left. you can keep calling in on the phone lines until 10:00 a.m. eastern. one programming note for later today, on c-span, hearing taking a look at the financial burden that people with disabilities
are experiencing especially those with long covid. that hearing for the house financial services committee begins at noon eastern here on c-span. you can also watch at c-span.org and are free free spin -- c-span now video app. back to your phone calls, brenda in fort lee, new jersey. ♪ caller: good morning. in re guards to maybe you can answer me -- i am a retired senior and all i get a social security. i find it's a difficult going shopping and putting gas in my car. i don't go very far or do many things. i really hope president biden would help the seniors as well as everybody else to bring down the cost of these items. waiting for your social security
check and then it's gone right away, please, if you have an answer to help me, i'm hoping at the end of the year that the social security check will be increase and i would be able along with other people get social security and live on it, that we do better. a little more money in her checks, thank you for listening and have a wonderful day. guest: there are cost-of-living adjustments for various entitlements including social security. it is cold comfort when inflation is what these coal adjustments are set at postop there is a witches brew that goes into the pot of the various bureaus that calculate inflation and you go to the store and there's chicken prices or it's not available or very basic things like bread are not available.
when you see the likes of the mta or metro-north or metro in d.c. hike prices not because of fuel prices and electricity but labor. it's harder and harder to staff these places. host: d.c. metro also has a zoning problem. guest: also the ridership on how much we should subsidize public transportation. these are general relationship -- general asian shiflett this is what comes out of the great resignation and supply shock. hugo chavez had a show where people would call in. someone would say my daughter is about to get married and i would love to have two goats for her wedding so we can send her off. i am ashamed.
hugo chavez would point to an aide and say sends this girl five goats and three sacks of rice. that's his cult of personality and biden cannot do that for every american. he can exhort congress to do more talking about the putin tax so there's only so much you can do. if you think back to jimmy carter and gerald ford, it's a terrible position to be in. host: if everybody -- is everybody suffering these inflation conditions? guest: the stock market had an
epic -- epic bull run but there are many that argued that stocks in companies that have price power such as coke cola, the very companies are pushing to do a price hike, procter & gamble with tide, apparel and i bring up should probably so many times because my brothers are to my -- took to might just took me to my first trip only -- chip coakley - chipotle. every week. you get sticker shock so do i not go? we like it and i'm forced to the senate what point will i say i
will do this at home that is a company with pricing power so you want to be invested in companies that have pricing power and the stock market over the long run has been a hedge against inflation to provide real returns. bonds are getting hit. we are having a bad year for the stock market and the bond market simultaneously which is rare. crypto is not the redoubt of safety as it was thought. oil has eggs jim is shocked to deal with so there are sophisticated investors that have lost last. you are hedging against these variants shocks that everybody needs to get hit. i wish i could understand crypto and we are more than a decade into this phenomenon and i still
can't understand it. nobody can explain it to me in less than 30 seconds so items see the ultimate need for it and i don't know which pain it is solving for but the world is headed out of centralize currency and there is a need for fungibility and other things. i don't know if we should have in romancing the run up the way we did. talk about orwellian, stable going loses 90% of its value? that's not really stability. host: dan, democrat, thanks for waiting. caller: guess who is still the mayor of independence? it's your name. host: a guy named john mcardle? caller: it is. i hope he is a good mayor. i don't understand how anybody
could ask us to trust big business because i was a young man in the 70's and i heard big business say we will go automated but we will lower your work hours and raise your day and do all the stuff for you and then i didn't see any of it. this was big business. they will not help us at all, thank you very much. guest: it's an open debate. walmart pays a dividend effectively for indulging itself , taking advantage of supply chains. you as an american consumer are able to buy a t-shirt and walmart for three or four dollars. you can buy back when it marries.
as opposed one in the united states. it's cold comfort for those who have lost their job to enable that off shoring but the most cold-blooded economists is the loss of these jobs are inevitable stop if you now have nafta and china is deep in the wto, that's the bargain stop if you want cheap products, you have to give market share to foreign manufacturers. we have call centers in the far east. there are tougher answers as far as retooling and retraining and computer coding and the tougher things that polished this that politicians are not being honest with people about3+ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] host: what is the easy answer? guest: bring back the jobs?
president trump had an argument with an air conditioning company not to move. this value proposition of what you can do to supply chain, the day the environmental and labor expert -- ask garage have a great ripple across the economy. it's compelling for shareholder driven fortune 1000 companies that they get such a discount on labor such a discount on materials that they cannot get in the united states especially with the workforce the way it is now step host: if you like what he is saying, is twitter handle is right there. this is peter in east hanover, new jersey,
good morning, i want to thank c-span for all you're doing caller: farzad. how are you? what he just said is exactly what i was going to ask about and that's how do we bring back jobs to the united states? especially the critical jobs that we need for infrastructure and their chips and for getting this economy in the u.s. to be's just a little bit less dependent on china stop how can we do it? guest: infrastructure was to be determined in the extent was the white house wanting the support of a paperthin majority in the senate.
the green new deal which is still radioactive too many politicians out there, you had, my high school history fetzer talked of the leveling tendencies of the great depression. this was such a calamity for everyone and get the lower middle class americans got hit disproportionately worse. it gave the unanimity to fdr and capitol hill to push through extraordinary deals. we are still enjoying the fruits of these tough investments made that our grandfathers tell us about stop it's very hard to sell right now when gas prices are high and you have the deficit where it is. you already have people. mitch mcconnell says there is too much stimulation.
how are you going to get the swing contingent to do that? it's easier said than done but it sounds great. i drove from richmond this morning but i'd love to get on a bullet train to come into union station. that will take years and it will take unanimity and a national sense of purpose and if there ever was going to be a global sense of purpose, maybe it should be around decarbonization. it's not just up to one country to curtail its carbon admissions. it's going to require all of us to hold hands. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] host:host: explain what stagflation is. guest: the economy is weak and pulling back and you have inflation at the same time so you're getting hit from both sides. the fed has a mandate for full employment and to keep risa stable.
if prices are spiraling higher, employment seems to be slipping, you don't know which ones really address wholeheartedly if you are more worried about unemployment in a week economy, you throw stimulus added the net days, the money would still be an inflation board. that's the bind for jerome powell by dan the democrats would appreciate it if the democrats went on vacation. would going on hold allow gas prices and general fear in the stock market pullback to do their own work on inflation by itself or do you have to take things up another two points? that's the question that has everyone up at night. host: gilmer, texas, republican, good morning. caller: good morning.
my name is not in the obituary so i'm doing pretty good. i've been watching these gas prices since trump left office. i noticed at three left office met. but and nobody was going to profit off the pipeline except oil companies. they are watching the prices go up all this time but a lot of it i think was the coronavirus where the company did not show much profit in that time but after everything opened up again, gas prices started jumping high and that slowed down again and showed a notice that and chevron, they showed eight-$10 billion profit in the last quarter.
this is a quarter. the reason the economy is high because there's charging so much in you'll truck companies can afford it. a lot of them are going out of business because of it. they are doubting these things because they can stop they are hurting everybody. especially delivery of food, delivery of merchandise, the whole nine yours. when you have to pay six dollars a gallon for diesel, that's outrageous. guest: that's fair but who is holding the hand of the multi-run national oil companies when oil collapsed? in march of 2020, you couldn't get the stuff away and it got so dire for exxon and others, they were kicked out of the dow jones industrial average". that is a contract indicator
annex on was selling off art and taking on debt just to pay his dividend stop the unthinkable that exxon would cut its dividend and they are saying that nobody knew that was happening and when the airlines were not buying fuel and no one was driving was that it's hard to shed a deer for big oil put in a free market, they should be able to reap the rewards and they are cutting capital investments and other things that the unfair thing with the volatility of oil prices. it holds an economy hostage. the free-market multinationals did the rational thing and cut back investment and drilling. they are now reaping the rewards of that austerity. unfortunately, boyle raises remain high, they will reap the rewards of oil prices tanking step host: the house is coming in for a