tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 23, 2016 12:00am-2:01am EST
since 1988 which is an election year and the last year of the presidency the senate confirmed a supreme court nominee, more than one. that your democratic senate confirmed president reagan wanted justice anthony kennedy in the final year of his administration. i voted to confirm his nomination. i would hope the junior senator from iowa would listen to what is being said time and again. charles grassley had no problem supporting the nomination then during reagan's last year in office. since that time senator grassley has defended the presidents right. in 2008 senator grassley said and i quote, the senate has never stop can firming nominees
during the presidential term. the reality is that the senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees in the last few months of a presidential term. i agree with senator grassley or at least i agreed with him. frankly, now i'm not sure where the senior senator from iowa stance. he issues contradictory statements every day on this one issue. another person willing to confirm was the first term center from kentucky, senator mccamley. in fact, 40 years ago the republican leader said it had a duty for the supreme court presidential nominations. he wrote in 1970 and i quote, even though the senate could
make the decisions regarding nominees, certainly cannot be successfully argued that it is an acceptable practice. he continued, political matters were relevant to consideration and might suggest that a constitutional amendment be introduce given the senate rather than the president a right to nominate. my friend, carry that belief into public service. he said, under the constitutional duties to provide judicial nominations who have reasonable views. again in 1990, senator from kentucky said it is clear from our want of government that the role of the senate judicial nomination should not be politicized. in 2005 senator from kentucky reaffirmed his stance stating, our job is to act for that nomination and respectful and dignified way.
to give that person an up or down vote as nominees have the majority of support has gotten throughout the history of the country. it is not our job to determine who ought to be picked. and finally, just six years ago to put in the simplest terms possible. americans expect politics to end at the courtroom door. these are just a few examples but their pages and pages of quotes from republican leaders spanning for decades on the subject. unfortunately he no longer believes that politics under the courtroom door. he and his party want to undermine the presidency of this president, barack obama. senate republicans would upend our nation system of checks and balances. madam president, throughout the
news today is said by all the republican think tanks or most of them, a lot of them, that is more important for the republicans to make sure obama does not get a supreme court nominee on the floor of the senate than it is for them to maintain the majority of the senate. think about that. that is not what i'm saying, that is what they are saying. a few minutes ago a senator from georgia was here, he did a remarkable job he was national debate champion twice, he did a really good job. in his address he warned of the partisan politics. that the republicans are employed. he warned of their negative influence of the government and he said, this, this is george washington i'm quoting, all obstruction to the
is constitution, and whatever whatever possible character with a real design to direct control, counteract all the regular action or destructive and have a fatal tendency. they served organized faction to give it in artificial force. to put it in the will of a party. the american people are watching, they're watching republican obstruction on this issue and direct controversy. the vast majority of americans are wondering how a republican can say this. while the same time denying the vote on a nominee who has not been named yet. i say to my friends across the out, for for the good of the country don't do this. i hope my republican colleagues will he, and he said and another
quote by senator charles grassley a supreme court nomination isn't it is a time to form our most important constitutional duties to decide if they are qualified to serve other nations highest court. elections, go, but the senate piece of the democracy should remain our centerpiece. >> i rise today to pay tribute to associate justice kolea of the supreme court. his recent death is a tremendous loss to the court and the nation. he was a defender of the constitution. since his death a wide range of
accommodate is, even many who disagreed with him on judicial philosophy have hailed him as one of the greatest supreme court justices of our history. justice scalia was a tireless defender of constitutional freedom. in so many cases when the court was divided he sided with litigants who raise claims under the bill of rights. this was a man, the constitution should be interpreted according to the text and as it was originally understood. the framers believed the constitution was adopted to protect individual liberty. of course so did justice kolea. he was a strong believer in free speech and freedom of religion. he upheld many claims of constitutional rights by
criminal defendants including search and seizure, jury trials, and the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against them. justice scalia's opinions also recognized the importance of the frame placed on the constitution, checks and balances to safeguard individuality. their preferred protection of freedom was not through litigation in the courts, imperfect after the fact regress, for liberty deprived. justice scalia zealously protected the prerogatives of each branch of government and the division of powers between federal and state authorities so that none would be so strong as to pose a danger to freedom. so at this point i will ask consent to place a more extensive remark honoring justice scalia in the record. madam president i would like like to use the rest of my time on another subject. >> without objection.
>> madam president, we find ourselves in a very unusual situation. we are in a presidential election year, the campaign for the next commander-in-chief is in full swing. voting has begun. some candidates for president have dropped out of the race after disappointing finishes in the primaries. republicans hold the gavels in the united states senate. a term limited democrat in the twilight of his presidency, occupies the white house. it is within this context that our nation has lost one of the greatest legal minds ever to serve the court. justice scalia's death marks marks the first time a sitting supreme court justice has passed away in a presidential election
year in 100 years. it is the first time a sitting supreme court justice passed away in a presidential election year during divided government since 1888. as my colleagues and i grapple with how the senate judiciary committee should approach this set of circumstances we seek guidance and wisdom from a number of sources. these include history, practice, and common sense. and yes, we look to what former committee chairman have had to say on the subject. in reviewing this history i am reminded of remarks of former chairman delivered during an election year. that former chairman tackled this problem and he described what should happen if a supreme
court vacancy arises during a presidential election year. in fact, this chairman's guidance is guidance is particularly instructive because he delivered his remarks in a presidential election year during a time of divided governments. the presidential election year was 1992. we had no supreme court vacancy, no justice had passed away unexpectedly, no justice had announced his or her intention to retire. rather, it was the fear of a non-expected resignation that drove this former chairman of the senate to the senate floor, one day before the end of the courts term. term. no the beginning of his lengthy remarks this chairman, who was and remains my friend, noted
another speech he delivered several years prior on the advice and consent clause. that speech from july 1987 was titled, the right and duty of the senate to protect the integrity of the supreme court. this chairman delivered those remarks in 1987 as of the senate embarked on one of its status episodes. the ugly treatment of an exceptional jurists, judge robert -- i don't reference that up is so to old wounds. only to provide context. it was in that speech, during the debate that this former chairman defended the senate's constitutional role in the appointments process. it was there, and that speech, during that debate, in 1987 that
this former chairman reached back to an early debate from an especially warm summer in philadelphia 200 years prior. he reached back to the constitutional convention because it was then and there that individuals like rutledge in south carolina, wilson of pennsylvania, gorman of massachusetts, and of course the father of the constitution, madison of virginia. they debated how our young nations judges were going to be appointed. it was his examination of the debate in 1787 that led to the this former chairman to declare 200 years later, nearly to the day, article 2, section two of the constitution clearly states that the president shall
nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint judges to the supreme court. i will argue that the framers intended the center to take the broadest view of its constitutional responsibility. i will argue argue that the senate historically has taken such a view. now, that discussion on the advice and consent clause transpired in 1987. as i said it was during a presidential election year in 1992 that my friends, my friends, this former chairman, took to this very floor. why did he begin his remarks in 1992 by reference to an early speech on the advice and consent laws? i will say it wasn't only because the senator sometime like to quote wise words they once spoke, my friend referenced his own remarks on the advice
and consent clause because he wanted to remind his colleagues, in the senate, of the senate's constitutional authority to provide, or withhold consent as circumstances might require. he wanted to remind his colleagues of the senate's constitutional authority before he addressed the real reason he rose to speak in 1992. the prospects over supreme court vacancy in a presidential election year, after discussing the confirmation debates that have not occurred in presidential election years, my friend turned to some of those that had occurred. "some of our nation's most bitter, heated confrontations
have come in presidential years, the confirmation fight for larger tony's and 1886. the senate's refusal to former nominations of president tyler in 1844. and the narrow approval of justices lamarr in 1888 are just are just some of the examples of these fights in the 19th century" now, this former chairman continues, overall while only one of four supreme court nominations have been the subject of some significant opposition, the figure rises to one out of two research nominations or acted on in a
presidential election year. this former chairman then outline some additional history of supreme court nominations in presidential election years. he emphasized that in four vacancies that arose during a presidential election year the president exercised restraint and withheld from making a nomination until after the election. one of those presidents was abraham lincoln. ironically, like president obama, our our 16th president he was a lawyer and he called illinois home. but unlike our current president, abraham lincoln did not feel compelled to submit a nomination before the people had spoken in november of 1864. eventually my friend got to the heart of the matter during
talking about launching your 1992. should the justice resign this summer, and the president moved to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the democratic convention and weeks before the republican convention, beats a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the the nominee, and to the senate itself. my friend went on to say it is my view for supreme court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, president bush should
not consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors -- no, i said that wrong. let me start the quote over. it is my view that if the supreme court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, president bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the november election is completed. what is the senate to do if a president ignores history? ignores ignores good sense and ignores the people? and submit the nominee under the circumstances? here again, my, my good friend the former chairman had an answer. "it is is my view that if the president goes away of fillmore
and johnson and presses and election-year nomination, the senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over". what is the likely criticism that will be lobbed at the judiciary committee and that the entire senate they'll hold this task of not holding a hearing. my friend, the former chairman continued i am sure mr. president having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seed on the court in hopes that the democrat will be fillet but that would not be our
intention if that were the course to choose to not consider holding until after the election. continuing to quote, instead it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway action on the supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process, otherwise it seems to me we will be in deep trouble as an institution. what that impact the court? can it function for sometime? want to create crisis?
not remotely, my friend consider this issue as well and appropriately dismissed it. so i quote again, others may threat that this may leave the court with only eight members for some time, but as i see it mr. president, the costs of such a result and to reargue three or four cases that will divide the justices four-four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the president, the senate, and the nation would have to pay for what assuredly would be a bitter fight no matter how good a person is nominated, no matter how good a person is nominated by the president if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.
and that refers to sometime between june and november of 1992. i want to read this part again. "others may fret this up production will leave the court with only eight members for some time, but the cost of such a result are quite minor. compared to the cost that a nominee the president, the senate and the nation would have to pay for what assuredly would be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the president. "now that is very well said. this former chairman and i have to be very plainspoken. i put it this way, it is the principle that matters not the
person. my frank included the section of his remarks this way, in the end to this may be the only course of action that historical practice and practical realism can sustain. i think probably everybody knows that these are the rules, the biden rules recognize the framers intended the senate to take the broadest view of its constitutional responsibility. the biden rules recognize the wisdom of those presidents including other lawyer and former state lawmaker from illinois, who exercised restraint by not submitting a supreme court nomination before the people had spoken. the biden rules recognize the
court can operate smoothly with eight members for some time. cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the justices four-four, are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the president, the senate, and the nation would have to pay for what sure would be a better fight. the biden rules recognize that under these circumstances the president should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the november election is completed. the president that he is referring to there is president george hw bush. the biden rules recognize that under these circumstances it does not matter how good a
person is nominated by the president. the biden rules recognize that once the political season is underway, action on the supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. the biden rules recognize that "senate consideration of the nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the senate itself". the biden rules recognize under these circumstances "the senate, judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after
the political campaign season is over". madam president, vice president biden is a friend as i have said three or four times during my remarks. i say with the utmost sincerity. i served with him in this body and other judiciary committee committee for nearly the 30 years that he served. i served with him in this body and on the judiciary committee for nearly 30 years. his honorable, he is sincere, he is loyal to the president he now serves. because i know these things about him i can say with confidence that he will enthusiastically support the president to an nominee he submits to the senate. but i also know this about vice
president biden, he may serve as the vice president but he remains a united states senator. that is why when he rose to speak in the senate chamber for the last time he shared this with his colleagues "i may be resigning from the senate today but i will always be a senate man, except for the title of father, there is no title including vice president that i am more proud to wear than that of the united states senator. if the president of the united states some of the nominee, senator senator biden, my friend from delaware, the man who set at a desk across the aisle in the back of this chamber from her than 35 years knows what the senate should do. i believe in his heart of hearts
he understands why the senate must do what he said they must do in 1992. i yield the floor and give back the balance of my time. >> democratic presidential candidate and hillary clinton holds a farm in columbia south carolina. >> .. c-span two. >> washington journal continues. norquist is a familiar face. -- americans for tax reform
he joins us to discuss the budget and we will also be talking about the tax plans that the candidates are talking about on the campaign trail. trillionint -- a $4.4 budget. up 3.4this brings taxes trillion dollars over the next decade and it increases spending over projections 2.5 trillion dollars over the next decade. that is a bernie sanders wish list of more money for the government and more spending for the government. what's interesting is -- none of this is going to happen. the budget has gone to the hill and collectively there are two votes from the republicans and democrats. the republicans ask the democrats if they want to vote for it and traditionally, they don't. they have traditionally been two guys who have voted for an obama budget.
it is an exercise in something. or to to make a point make friends happy. we saw $.25 on one gallon of gas . that would be doubling the federal gas tax. all of that money goes to not roads. so if you want a sense of where obama thinks the democratic party is, it is not roads, more high-speed trains. it is a very interesting thing to take the thing that people do say they want from the government, roads that work, rose that are wide enough to get the traffic through and take the gas tax money away from roads and put it into something else. budget, the
president says it appears to last year's bipartisan budget agreement. i want you to help work that through. it also drives down the deficit and includes smart savings from health care and immigration and includes tax reform. tax reform is something you have been advocating for. guest: yes, his definition of tax reform is to give the irs money. since -- oversaw the failure to discipline people for going after people for political reasons. based on political purposes. i served on the committee to restructure the irs during the clinton years. and i asked the commissioner and head of the irs then, i said, none of my groups are being audited. and i was wondering if you could explain to us how you decide who to audit? oh, we have a scientific,
nonpolitical way of doing it. it is a secret, you have to trust us. theust has been broken by clinton administration and by the obama administration. we shouldn't be giving more money to the irs to reward the people who are supposed to be checking. they have been targeting people politically. host: is there a tax reform plan that is being talked about on the campaign trail that you have endorsed or you could get behind? guest: each of the republican candidates -- what's interesting is that while the democrats -- hillary clinton is being marched hard left with obama at one elbow and the vermont senator at the other elbow. and obama's governance over the last eight years, and the new tax budget drive her to the left because she can't turn to him and say, hey, this is crazy. i don't want to go where you
want to go. and bernie sanders has moved her to the left. she did not want to run very left, she wanted to run the way her husband did. as a moderate. but she is so far off the moderate pass -- these two men carried her off. it is not necessarily a political decision. side, -- sheican has agreed to the tax increases. on the republican side, what is interesting is that they yell at each other and they call each other names and low energy and this and that. taxes, i share with all the taxpayer protection pledge and we asked them to make a commitment, in writing, i won't raise taxes. we have a strong support in the house and senate that can and will stop tax increase, even the democrats.
which is why obama's tax increases are dead on arrival. it on the republican side, they all dramatically reduce rates. we have an international -- international competitiveness problem. the french and chinese are at at 25%. half of europe is below 25%. we are at 35% and we wonder why our companies can't compete? an american company that is international is worth more because belgian tax policy is less than american tax policy. they will continue as long as of rate is at 35% instead 25% or 15%. get into thato but i also want to bring in the callers. if you want to talk to grover
norquist, republicans, (202) 748-8001, democrats, (202) .48-8000 we start on the line for democrats. from ohio, james you are on. james, go ahead. caller: first of all, you talk about the tax problems with companies. one problem we have in the we pay too much money for health care. outside of the united states, these companies are not paying for health care. if our companies were not paying for health care, the ground would be level. and the other thing that happens
to us in this country is that our minimum wage and their minimum wage -- our people suffer. black-white thing, it is a poor people thing. if you look at who is getting food stamps and who is getting all of the things that you need , lookvive in this country at the red states. all, that they are more of the giveaways then in the blue states. host: grover norquist? guest: you have made several important points. health care is too expensive in the united states. as we know, obamacare promised it would reduce the cost of health care but obamacare has had a series of tax increases on health care. middley hitting the
income american. something the promised -- heething he promised wouldn't do. the president of the united states promised repeatedly that no one in the united states to make less than $250,000 a year would ever pay a penny of higher tax on sales taxes, he went through the list. it was his most repeated commitment to the american people. that is why we recommend that frome demand it in writing the politicians. president promised he wouldn't, it took him two weeks before he raised taxes on cigarettes muggers. the average income, $40,000 a year. he has gone on to put a new tax increase on gasoline, $.25 a gallon -- that hits all americans and is particularly damaging to lower income americans who spend more money
and their income on gasoline. you mention the pain that people are in. have we grown? as we did policies under the reagan administration and grown as we did during the reagan administration, there would be 13 million more people with jobs in the united states. i don't know if you can show this chart, but this chart compares what actually happened, to 21 million americans working today. had we grown at the rate that we did since the bottom of the recession, measuring apples and apples and oranges and oranges, the bottom is the obama recession. the growth that followed, 13 million more people got jobs. imagine how much more helpful it would be? there are 30 million people with zero income who would have one if we had progrowth policies
with lower taxes and less regulation and less government. 13 million families. host: where is this chart from? guest: from the congressional budget office numbers. let us go to gary in sterling, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning, earlier on you were talking about infrastructure and i have said before that we need to use satellite computer technology to design our infrastructure. ,he last time i talked to you grover norquist, you said the problem with infrastructure is unions, specifically, the davis-bacon act. let me finish. of the 100 public input sessions i have been to, i have never seen any union representation there. i have seen corporations and politicians.
we are suffering around here because there is a refusal i the far right to use common sense and logic. to analyze, prioritize and subsidize and design our infrastructure. by not using satellite computer technology. satellite sure using computer technology would be a great idea. if ask and many people ask, the government is spending all of this money at the state and local level and at the national level, why are the roads not wide enough? why do we have traffic jams? why do we have potholes in the cities? there are a couple of reasons. one of them is the davis-bacon act, a law packed in the early 1930's designed to keep african-americans out of impeding the unionized white labor at the time. they are clear about that on the floor of the house and the
senate. it is not a happy chapter in american history but the law is still there. it raises the cost of building -- the federal government spends a penny on a road or a building, the whole project falls under thesenate. davis-bacon law. south africa has a similar law. for the same reason. that raises the cost of everything that the federal soernment touches, roads and on, but maybe 30%. many states passed many davis-bacon laws under the pressure of organized labor. the good news is that west virginia has repealed their prevailing wage law. wisconsin just dramatically reduced their state davis-bacon law. they are not waiting for washington. we are focused today on who is going to be the next president last eight years,
there have been a lot of changes at the state level to real progress in some states. we see states going in the wrong direction but many states are doing real reforms, if ackley would washington has not been able to do because the president vetoed the republican reforms. it on infrastructure, politicians know that people will vote for an improved gasoline tax. they put the roads last. the governor in california didn't even include roads in his last budget. host: so you agree that there needs to be improved infrastructure spending? guest: you should take away all of the special interest requirements like davis-bacon and mineral wage so that we are not spending more than we need to to build roads. if you want to expand a road you have to look and see if it is irritate -- if there is already a road there. so a lot of those restrictions and regulations, which make it
-- why should you wait years to have an epa study to have an additional lane? running a road 3/4 that never had a road before and you might want to take a look at that. so you're saying less red tape but not more spending? guest: you shouldn't consider the dollars spent until you have spent the dollars. one of the things in wisconsin was a constitutional amendment. the democrats took a billion dollars in 10 years out of roads and spent it on other stuff. politicians have been looting the money that is supposed to go to roads and infrastructure and spending it on other stuff and then they have to raise taxes. so step 1 -- there was an effort in maryland to stop polluting
the money for roads. if you promise people you will spend the gas tax on roads, don't steal it. don't spend it. are here with grover norquist for another half hour. timothy is waiting in north carolina on the line for independents. caller: good morning. i am glad i got in this morning. like for you to let me, if you can, respond because this man has a way of steering the comments in his favor. you continue to have him on. was on one time. but grover norquist is on all the time. host: go ahead with your question. caller: i want to explain something to him. the american market is the biggest market. 25% of the world wealth and only 4% of the population.
this is a very big market. if you go to new york on 34th street and you pay rent their, you are going to pay very high for that store. why? because you are in a big market. what we are doing here in clinton --der bill like the other guy said, because of the monica lewinsky thing, when to what -- went with the free trade to make a global market. andre taking our big market competing with the small markets. america is a really big market. we have a lot of money here. and people should pay to come here to do business. people get filthy rich off the american people. they should pay for that. they shouldn't be able to keep all of that money. bush gotr bush, when in, he made it worse. he gave companies tax benefits
to take the company overseas. george bush's and father, when they ran for president, he told us everything that would happen with this free trade and all of this stuff. host: you are covering a lot of ground there. a couple of things. you talk about trade. part of that is a question about whether america is the richest country in the world but whether it is the most productive. the answer is, we largely are and we can do even better. our government handicaps .merican jobs obama has allowed no reform to be passed. at the state level, a lot of passing reform. you see doctors moved to texas because the laws are not as stupid as they are in other states. manufacturing is leaving those states. they make it easy to sue people
for no reason. court reform is very important. most countries don't have court reform, it is instructive. usually when we talk about the united states and comparing it to other countries, we do things right and they do things wrong. but court law is not something we do right. our business taxes are higher than the rest of the world. we should make them competitive. we do need to be more competitive and politicians are talking about that. but you have it backwards on bill clinton and free trade. bill clinton was supportive of free trade but when he got in trouble because of his personal lewinsky,with monica the labor unions came in and said, we will protect you but -- and that is when he flipped on issues and he was under the control of organized labor. he did come out against free trade and some of the progress that might have been made. that was political pressure. host: we have talked about the
taxpayer protection pledge which candidates and elected officials promise not to raise taxes. you are certainly in favor of cutting taxes. tax cuts only help the wealthy, every time the working people get one, the wealthy raise the cost of living. guest: one of the things that our friends on the left like to argue is that tax money is free. every tax increase is a pay cut to the american people. when the politicians raise taxes pay cut on, it is a you. when they raise taxes on your bill, whenr phone you look at the taxes on if you rent a car, travel and your car gets broken and you need to rent a car, take a look. only a fraction of that money goes to the rental car company. a lot of it goes to taxes.
those taxes are destructive destructive -- taxes are destructive. every tax hike is a pay cut to the american people. down ando keep taxes create more jobs and opportunities. again, i showed the chart. if we had grown during the obama years as well as we had grown during the reagan years, there would be 13 million americans with jobs. who don't have them today. in a country of 330 million people, that is 13 million families to our damaged because of bad economic policy. knox tax cuts. -- not tax cuts. gary in georgia is up next. i am one for doing away with the outsourcing of jobs to china and other countries. i want to see the jobs come back
here but we have to give tax corporations these to come back. i want to see a flat tax, more income for people in this country. so that more people want to graduate from high school and college and they will have jobs waiting for them in america. i want to see our military be stronger to prevent the things that are happening in sanctuary cities. there shouldn't be a thing as a century city. guest: a good set of points. we can become more competitive if we stop government from damaging existing businesses. as important, if our government and this is true if all government -- and this is true with all governments -- i am not picking on the american government, we are less destructive with liberty and job creation and opportunity but in the 50 states, you can see some governments do much better and others not as well. there is an interesting chart
here which gives you some sense of the direction of the country at the state level. at the federal level, nothing is moving in a tears. level, you seee that 23 states have republican governors, house and senate. .he red states eight yellow states have both republican house and senate but a democratic governor. seven states are completely democrat. california and six others. and then there are a number of states, four states in green because illinois, maryland, massachusetts -- they all have democratic legislation is but a republican governor. so at the state level, people are voting for elected officials taxese going to lower with less spending. in tennessee they are about to vote on making that state income tax-free. it is mostly income tax-free.
they will vote in tennessee to become a no income tax state at the state level. that will make nine states without any income tax at all. and that is very helpful to growth. florida has been growing very strongly. california has been losing people. americans leaving california to move to other state. new yorkers leaving new york. illinois people moving out of illinois. moving out of big spending states to low tax states. you see people voting with the seat. do people want more taxes or less government and be left alone? people are moving from the states with the big government approach and moving towards those states that take less of your money and push you around less when it makes decisions. uber. forward -- it has created hundreds of
thousands of jobs in the united states and millions of customers are happy. had to go around organized labor and the government taxing commissions. another clinton has announced that she has an approach that the labor unions want to ban independent contractors. uber would be against the law if hillary clinton was able to impose her vision. she has declared war on the or on the newy high-tech economy where you have airbnb. all the politicians want to do is figure out how to tax them in set of realizing it makes everybody with a house somebody who could rent part of their house to somebody for a day or a week or longer. opportunities for people to do better and when government gets in the way, we need to not let labor union rules, government laws and politicians kill uber. they want to tax internet sales across state lines.
the republicans all oppose that. it would damage everybody who trades on ebay. everybody who buys or sells on craigslist. these guys are at war with internet businesses and at war with new businesses starting. and i think they really threaten what is most important. our dynamism and our entrepreneurship. our young people want to get in the workforce but don't want to drive to work every day, a lot of work can be done with more flexibility. host: lots of calls. leonard in asian, ohio. good morning. grover norquist, i have been listening to you for several years. my first question is, without taxes, who pays the president and the elected officials? my second question is, after the civil war, resident lincoln it all of these states welfare
states. you know who the states are and all the slave states. with the welfare states, tell the people how much money do the welfare states sent to washington, d.c. and what do they get back? guest: two questions. how do we pay be politicians? i'm not arguing for no taxes. doctors aren't against cells. they are against cells that replicate quickly that threaten to kill you. i am against a government that when it gets so large, it becomes destructive of liberty. to limit the government as the constitution is designed, it makes people freer. it allows people to interact freely and to protect people from criminals. you have the army to keep the canadians on their side of the border. we need a strong national defense. we need prisons for bad guys who
we want to be protected from but you don't want the government to go into things that the government ought not to be doing. governments, local governments and the federal governments do is taking money and giving money to their friends. it is instructive of the human liberty. is instructive of the human liberty. is destructive of the human liberty. host: george is next. -- michael is next. weler: my opinion about why have the largest taxes in the world is because two of the three largest expenditures. health care and the military.
there is so much in those two industries. lower taxes on the top in a globalized economy, they can invest in emerging markets. there is no capitalism and no patriotism. so how you expect them to pay for the infrastructure if you give lower taxes? the goal is not just to lower taxes. the purpose of the taxpayer protection pledge is that unless you take tax increases off the table as all of the republicans running for president have and 95% of the republicans in the senate have made that commitment, then and only then do you have a conversation about reforming government. if taxes are an option, you never reform government. what is the new idea? raise taxes to pay for the new idea.
barnicle after barnicle and all that is, it may have made cents 100 years ago or 50 years ago or 10 years ago, we keep paying for it whether it doesn't make any sense or whether it becomes destructive rather than productive. don't raise taxes. and then you can have reform in government. one thataxes is step step two is to perform government so that it costs less and it is less intrusive in people's lives and it gives people more opportunities. it provides the things the government should do competently. tax plans of the republican candidates, your thoughts on what donald trump has talked about on the campaign trail? now as the frontrunner? guest: he came out with a 15% business tax instead of 35%. that would make the united states one of the most competitive nations in the world in terms of international competition.
4.8% state corporate tax, so is, in manyax states, 20% and then you have to compete with the rest of the world. all the republicans have gone to full expensing for business investments. some of your earlier callers who were democrats, it is a tax that democrats who are willing to support. of the things that obama did was a small expensing for some businesses. we should have expensing for all businesses. new piece ofa equipment, you don't pay taxes on that. we want to make our workers the most productive in the world. i want us to be an emerging market. we should be the fastest-growing and not just the richest because we used to be the fastest. we want to get back to being the fastest-growing. it is not too late. obama has new piece of
equipment, you don't pay taxes on that. 2%. france is at 2%, that is not where we want to be. we want to be at 4%. all the republicans go to expensing and a territorial tax system. they are all good. news is that there is a consensus within republicans about where to go on tax reform. on the line for republicans, brick is waiting. rick is waiting. caller: we had a tax increase that sanders and clinton are still saying is unfair. overall, federal taxation is effectively progressive. withnyone can google that
cpl distribution of taxes. secondly, grover, would you consider hosting a forum where unaffiliated researchers can present information directly to the public? it is hard for an individual to get that kind of thing off the ground. guest: i would be very interested in highlighting serious independent research. you are cried right. we -- you are quite right. we do have a progressive tax. i'm a resident of massachusetts, and they have flat tax as does illinois and other states that have no income tax. host:we do have a progressive t. can you define that? guest: a flat tax is where everybody pays 2% or 4%. you think that massachusetts would have a higher state tax like maryland or d.c. or new york. in because the politicians
massachusetts have to look everybody in the eye when they ant to raise taxes, i have idea and you are all paying for it, they can't divide people into different groups. number one thing this does is to divide people into different groups and then the politicians smoke them at one of politicians smoke them one at a time. i think they should have to face us all at the same time. katie is up on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: i have a question. spoken about how u.s. corporations pay more than in other countries. corporate tax is between 35%-30 9%, but according to the government accountability office, corporations pay less than half of that rate with an 12.6%. effective of
so wouldn't it save everyone they do find the tax code and make sure people are paying what is on the books, legally? guest: there are parts of the tax code that were put in, and we should eliminate those seductions. secondly, when a company or an individual makes the decisions you can drowne, in a river with an average one foot. people tend to focus on marginal tax increase. host: bob is up next on the line independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have this around in my head, it is about the minimum wage. why don't they make minimum wage offan hour to give people
welfare. you could make him stand on their feet and then the amount of money that the government could save on the welfare, they would give a tax break to the man who has to pay the $15 an hour? that is a win-win, both ways. i was like to know what he thinks about it. guest: one of the challenges is that a lot of our politicians are very old. not only in the years they have been alive but in their thinking. the minimum wage is an idea that when you look at it, in the 1930's, there was significant unemployment with african-american -- there was significant unemployment, specifically with african-americans. people don't have skills the first time they show up to work. you get them through working.
hillary look at clinton's entire campaign, she is running into problems with the vermont senator, partially because her approach -- she came out for a 25% tax on guns in 1993 and she still supports that. when she wasat getting her ideas, when you attack gun owners, you are attacking guys who hunt in wyoming. we now have 13 million americans with concealed carry permits. we are looking at a situation where underneath the still waters, the country has been changing. it is different than when she started running. there are 2 million americans who are homeschooled. and hillary clinton promised teachers unions to make that more difficult. there are 3 million who are in charge or schools. -- in charter schools.
when you go after gun owners, it is now 13 million people with concealed carry permits, 1.5 million joined last year and half of those were women. a third of the people with concealed carry permits are women. hillary clinton is attacking gun without realizing that the economy has changed. going after uber, there are .housands of drivers people make a living on ebay. all of these issues have changed over time. and bringing up the minimum wage, an idea from 1930's and hillary clinton's idea of the electorate is old. these are freedom issues. they run up against old laws that don't make sense anymore. and each of these expanding
freedoms has changed the nature of the electorate. -- 10 yearsto that ago when hillary clinton was a senator, there was no vape t ing. i'm talking about behavior and questioning of liberty. .0 million people vape they quit tobacco. has less than 99% of the problems than tobacco. people feel good about it but the liberal friends want to tax it. they want to have a prohibition on it. the fda is moving towards that. so as we go forward, there are people -- a woman with a concealed carry permit who carries a gun in her purse to be
a differentt is human being than somebody who never had that right. are you still a member of the nra board? guest: yes. you get elected to the nra and then you run for office. i have been elected six times to the nra board. the interesting issue is that there are 5 million members of the nra. 12 million more people who have a gun are hunters. so the people who care about the second amendment is higher than the people in washington recognize. how big is the board? guest: 76, a small legislature. collectionteresting of people from all 50 states. and of course, there are people who are black and who hunt and to have concealed carry. it is a diverse population. host: how often do you meet?
guest: three times a year, twice in washington, d.c. and once at the national convention. we meet in september and january each year. erwin has been waiting in florida on the line for democrats. caller: can you hear me? guest: i can hear you. caller: he mentioned in the beginning that conservative been targeted by the irs but they have not been targeted. i will tell you when there was real targeting of people. in the late 1940's and 1950's, people were communists and socialists, they wanted to make america a socialist country, the would go in front of activities committee. they lost jobs and families and they were kicked out of here.
they were threatened to be exposed as communists when they were socialists. use toe words that they control the republican party. one of those is grover norquist. don't think anybody should be discriminated against by the irs for political purposes. i don't know why anyone would want to be a stalinist or a socialist or a communist. i think that is not the way to one of the great things that has happened in the last 20 or 30 years, a number of people used to live under socialist dictatorships. millions and millions of people underurdered, now not socialist dictatorships. i think that is great progress. people with funny ideas defined by the government, a lot of people think different religions have funny ideas or politics
have funny ideas. the government should never discriminate against people based on their faith, their ideas. that is what the united states is all about, freedom. , you goave a good idea out and sell it in win in the free market of ideas where the sell socks or salvation or your political ideas. we should all be able to compete on a free and open basis and say i have a great idea. people could look at it and go that is not a good idea. nobody has to buy your idea or join a religion or sign up for your political movement. but the conversation, the first amendment is big on this. you should be able to talk freely and make it clear whether it is about your faith, ideas, literature, whatever it is you want to talk about. the point of the government is .o protect a free society when government steps out of that and goes after people's second amendment rights, goes after freedom of religion, or
the ability to have a job. in the 1950's only 5% of americans needed a license from the government to have a job. today it is 30%. people should not have to have licenses to become hair braid or's or beauticians or whatever. we need the government to back off and let us have more liberty, take less of our money, run less of our lives and do the things it is supposed to do like fill the potholes confidently -- competently. host: grover norquist. we will see you again on the washington journal down the line. guest: high tax hillary.com is the list of hillary's tax
"washington journal" continues. host: karine jean pierre joins us with five days to go until saturday's south carolina primary. strategist who has worked on three democratic presidential campaigns in three different cycles. what are the conversations that are taking place in the hillary clinton and bernie sanders camps this morning? guest: first of all, this has been a crazy unpredictable cycle on both sides of the aisle. this saturday, what happened in nevada was a huge important win for the hillary clinton campaign. they had a great ground game. nevada is the first racially diverse state of the four contests. it was 40% latino but there is a 9.1% african-american voters there. she was able to get over 70% of
the african-american voters to come out and vote for her which i think is very important as we head into south carolina. is a getight now it out the vote, really focus on what is going on in super tuesday states. what is coming up in south carolina. it was a great win for hillary .linton slowing down momentum for bernie sanders unfortunately for him. he did well with latinos. he did better than she did with latinos. he just did not get the turnout he needed. he needs a big turnout in order to do well against her. host: that is something we want to talk about. first time guest on the washington journal. karine jean pierre served as martin o'malley's political enfield director this cycle. in 2012, served as a battleground state director for president obama -- deputy battleground state director for president obama.
game,ou say ground hillary clinton did a great job with turnout, what is ground game? guest: your team that you have on the ground who is working with volunteers, really pushing people to get to the polls. it is a simple as that. core ofe a really great field operatives out there. it is like, who do you have on the ground, who is your demographic? who are the democrats were the likely voters that will go out and vote? also getting a sense of swing voters. the swing voters who will vote for you, undecided, and working that first. you have to do persuadable messaging. you have to convince folks. this is why i am running. and then you get to the get out the vote operations areas host: what is the effective way of doing that? they hear the phone calls, the knocks on the door.
of those, what is the most effective? guest: i don't think one is more effective than the other. you need to have a full field operation. i think the most important thing , you need to understand the demographic of the state. south carolina, it is -- the majority of the electorate is african-american. in the democratic primary. the clinton campaign and sanders campaign have to figure out how to we get out that core group of people of the electorate to come out and vote. what are the interesting programs you can put in? what can you do to engage folks? one of the things barack obama 2008, in south carolina they had the barbershop and beauty salon program. you went out into the barbershops and beauty salons and got to talk to the people in the african-american community which is a big deal. you have to be creative in figure out how do you really touch that base.
your really building ground game in the sense of finding out what who are the -- finding out who are the likely voters, who do you need to persuade. host: we talked about the role of minority voters in our first segment today. one caller said bernie sanders needs to get on black radio in south carolina. he is not doing a good enough job. why is that such an important him to occupy? how would you assess his campaign in that state? guest: they have spent more money in south carolina. they had been on the air, had more ads than hillary clinton. on the air a lot more than she has and has a big ground operation. african-american radio is really important in the effort in american community. one source that we get our information. i have no idea if he is doing african american radio or not but that is an important tool if you are trying to commute with
working day people who are most likely going to vote. host: we are talking with political strategist karine jean pierre. with us for about the next 40 minutes or so. we are looking ahead to the south carolina primary and looking back to nevada and the lessons from nevada for the campaigns. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. middleton is calling in. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been a democrat for 55 years. when starting out neutral we started this campaign for who is going to run for president. , notore hillary talks really coming out and telling the truth about her money she is getting from everybody, she is
turning me off. i am really discouraged in the whole party. .ven my state senators and all i don't like them anymore. they are not for me. she is not for me. you can tell she is for the big business through it all these people get up in -- you put them online and stuff. they brag about these people. i spent 55 years a democrat. host: who was the last candidate that was for you? now.r: nobody host: who in the past has been for you? /who is some of you that you trusted? rahal wrote me a personal letter. host: former congressman from west virginia. caller: now he is gone because we have republicans in their. host: karine jean pierre, the
caller was talking about the lack of trust especially with hillary clinton and her funding sources is where his concern was. how big of an issue is it for her heading into these major primaries coming up? guest: it is an issue. she needs to deal with it. especially going into the general election if she gets the nomination which i think she will especially with the delicate process as it's got -- the delicate process as a going to be. she has a really smart team around her and they are going to work through that. andave seen in polling time again she loses out to bernie sanders all the time when it comes to trust. it is an important issue. host: you have seen the field strategies from your perspective list. do bernie sanders and hillary clinton represent two different strategies of running a field operation or are they doing the same things? how many phone calls, how me offices. guest: in any field operation it
is phone calls, doors knocked and being creative. figuring out how you connect with voters. this year, technology is playing a big role. 2016, the apps have been in voter id and giving them a sense where they need to caucus and primary. just connecting with them and collecting information. technology has been an important tool. it continues to be so. 2008, obama took that data tracking and social media and revolutionized that and it has continued since then. 2016 has been technology-based as well. host: let's go to james in fort worth, texas. line for republicans. good morning. caller: i would like to ask the lady you have on the program today, what is hillary go to do for the black voters that obama
has not done? apparently obama has not done much. i think hillary is very trusted amongst the african-american community. they know her. she has 25 years of being out there. the first lady of arkansas, also she has a long- track record that i think -- the-americans president has done a lot for the african-american community and will continue to do so as he finishes up the last seven or eight months. i disagree with that point. i think there is a relationship there, and understanding, a reputation that she has with the community that people respect. she is going to have to work for it, most definitely. host: what is that built on? what are the examples she points
to on the campaign trail and says this is where this relationship came from? guest: i think it is basically senator inrk as u.s. really focusing on what she did for the community in new york when it came to african-americans. her support behind bill clinton when he was president. you have seen her go out getting unfortunatelyrom the young people who were killed in illinois and also in florida. clearly she is resonating with folks. they see her as someone who can help fix the criminal justice system and move that forward. host: so the headlines from some of the newspapers in south carolina ahead and saturday possible try merry -- saturday possible primary.
sanders holds a rally in greenville ahead of saturday's primary as clinton campaign host events in north charleston. we are talking about the democratic primary coming up. taking questions and comments with democratic strategist karine jean pierre. kathleen is in california. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. martin luther king talked about two america's, black america and white america. we are still two america's. the question is -- lack of americans have been voting democrat consistently for 60 years. what do we have to show for it? we all must than one half of 1% ,f the wealth in the country which is what we owned 150 years ago. democrats want to make 12 million illegals legal. that adversely impacts
economically black america. why would it be to black america's interest to have 12 million illegals legal? , you say obama has done something for black america. i don't see it. i know gays got gay marriage. act andgot the dreamers driver's licenses. toma made an executive order give 5 million illegals legal status. jewish americans get israeli protection. tell me exactly what do black americans get? t. host: before you jump in, more on your background. served as the regional political director for the white house office of political affairs. served in the obama administration, not just on those campaigns. guest: on the question of the 11
million new americans that are here, i think it is important to bring them into the fold. it is important to bring them out of the shadows. it does help the economy as a whole. it helps everyone. i think it is really important. this is why this election is tremendously important when you have someone on the republican side who is talking about building a wall, getting rid of all the 11 million people who other --and saying making other vile comments. you.'t convince it sounds like you have pretty much made up your decision on what has happened in the last eight years and where we are. clearly the history of african-american voters in the united states. it is important to go out and vote. at the end of the day it is important to exercise our right to vote. we have two candidates in the
race. it is not just senator clinton -- secretary clinton. we have senator sanders. if you are on the other side you have an option as well. it is important to get out there. host: what does the obama administration think its legacy is going to be specifically with the black community 20 years from now? guest: i think that the president and the administration has tried very hard to really bring back the black community in different ways whether it is helping small businesses, getting them on their feet and making sure there is representational that level. also bringing and services that help the community that is in need. host: from the washington post, looking at demographics ahead of the primaries that are coming up, black voters will take center stage in south carolina were history suggests they will make up a majority of democrats
voting on saturday. for super tuesday, black voters are excited to be a majority in the georgia primary and approaching a third of voters in virginia and tennessee. tennessee. line for republicans. philip, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i know there are millions and millions of people on government assistance in our country. the you think that these people that are on any type of government assistance should get a drugs screen every month if they are getting government assistance? i believe if we did do this a lot of people would not get government assistance anymore because a lot of them are on drugs and that we get our country out of deficit i believe and keep a lot of the money that should be given back to our country. what do you think? host: as you are answering, talk about how this issue is playing in the democratic primaries as
something the candidates are talking to. guest: they are talking about criminal justice reform which is really important in the community of african-americans as we go into south carolina. people are talking about the economy and worried about jobs and taking care of their families for sure. that has been addressed by both candidates. inequality has been a major talking point for both sides, both candidates. that has been something that is really important and talk about. robert, line for democrats. good morning. karine.good morning, guest: good morning. caller: i would like to ask a question. if bernie sanders does not win and hillary clinton wins the
nomination, doesn't that mean wall street wins again? guest: i don't believe that is true, robert. i don't think so. host: is that the image hillary clinton as the fight? guest: it is the image she has to fight. when she first started out, her messaging was different in the sense that it was much more moderate, more general election speak and bernie sanders, one of the things that he did, he talked to the base, the liberal progressive base. he also had 30 years of experience of being that independent speaking against the establishment. what ended up happening is, by him really being on message for the last couple of months and sticking through it, you saw him rise and you saw what happened in iowa and new hampshire. leftas been forced to her and has been talking much more
about the issues that the base , otherbout, big banks progressive liberal issues that are out there. it is something she needs to deal with anything she has. her messaging has been great especially after the very last debate where she hit sanders hard for being -- calling him a single issue candidate. i think she is getting there. i think she has a message that is starting to coalesce and i think it is going to resonate as she moves forward. i believe she is going to win south carolina and super tuesday states. a couple of southern states that i think she will do well. host: what is the must win for bernie sanders looking at the calendar? iest: i think south carolina think she is going to win but i think will be interesting for him will be to see how close he gets to her. there is something there to look at the numbers. that will be interesting to see.
you have oklahoma. that was a state hillary won last time. vermont, massachusetts our states that he is doing well in. there are states out there that he will probably do well in. i do not know if it is enough. he would have to do so well because it is going to be about the delegates. democrats have to get 2383 delegates. hillary has about 500 to. bernie has about 70. at this point it is going to be about the delegate game and he would have to blow it out of the water in states in order to catch up to her. -- to me, thato is what is to watch. --t: the 502 number includes exley what a superdelegate is an respond to boring file clerk on
twitter. isn't the primary essentially rigged? guest: the superdelegates are small percentage of the overall delegate number. a little over super -- a little over 700 superdelegates. they are unpledged delegates because the delegates they are getting in the states are pledged. these are unpledged delegates and they can decide if they want to stay with one person or move over in 2008. hillary clinton won the popular vote. over one million people came out to vote for her in the primary. was008, obama, his team very smart and they knew about the delegates and they played that game very well. it was phenomenal to watch. superdelegates,
also pledged party leaders and elected officials. he is going to have to do well in these primaries. it is a small percentage of the overall. up on59 delegates saturday at the south carolina primary. and then we get into super tuesday were georgia, massachusetts, minnesota, vermont, virginia, and wyoming all vote. four days later on saturday, it goes to kentucky, kansas, brassica louisiana for the democrats. maine is having its republican primary as well. the calendar getting very busy in the road ahead. we are looking down the road on the democratic path in this segment with karine jean pierre, a democratic strategist. greg is in arizona, line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. all i want to say is, the reallycans seem to be dealing with illegal immigrants
and the problems of that. the democrats are not really addressing that. i just want to say, i have "illegalth several immigrants." good people, hard workers. that is all i want to say. just really good people. that is my overall experience. host: do you know who you are going to be voting for any election? caller: i'm still deciding. libertarian but right now i am thinking about sanders. i am an immigrant. my parents came from haiti. we came over about 30 or so years ago. so that resonates with me, new americans. both clinton and sanders
has been really pushed to talk about new americans, the 11 million we keep talking about. they have to because just like we just talked about in nevada, 40% of that population were latino hispanics. we are about to go into texas and other states across the border in the primary. you have to talk about that issue. , -- youalk immigration have to talk about immigration and i think they both have. it is an important issue in the democratic party. it should be and it is going to be in the forefront. host: where are the lines that separate sanders and clinton on that issue? guest: they go back and forth on it. one person did not vote for a bill in 2007. i actually don't know the specifics and details of that
but i know they tend to go back-and-forth on that issue. i wanted to say in march we will and 56% of those delegates will be out there. 56%6% of the delegates -- of the delegates in march alone. host: by march toward a second -- by march 22, 56%. guest: this is why everyone keeps talking about super tuesday in march. the delegate race, the 56% that you have. host: let's go to linda. stanley, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. who areaised children finally in their 40's are moving up into the middle class. now you have sanders that wants to take what they have worked for and spread it out around the country. this is a guy who has leeched off of taxpayers for 40 years.
now he wants to take from my kids who have worked hard and just give it to everybody else. the worst thing that's going to happen is if one of those democrats gets into office. thank you. host: if you were advising the sanders campaign, what is the response? guest: that is the critique they have gotten. a lot of their issues are impossible. impossible to do -- if he does become president, both chambers are republican as we know. it would be really impossible to get done. i think if i were them i would work on, what would it cost to do these different things that he wants to do. how much would it cost the american people to subside the angst around what you are proposing is impossible? really lay out how do you perceive to get this done.
he has been on message and it has been great. it has resonated with progressives, independents. there is going to be the question of, he looks to betinue, he has to really able to talk through that as well. host: we said you work for the o'malley campaign. understood in getting back out in the campaign trail? \ guest: not at all. in the general election i will be a good democrat and help out whoever is the nominee. host: what are you doing now? guest: right now i have a 20 month old that i was away from for about nine months. i teach at columbia university, campaign management so i am continuing to do that. so just take it easy, enjoy my life. it is pretty difficult to teach campaign management because in order to get the experience i say to my students all of time,
you have to do it. in turn, do whatever you need to and work on a campaign and get the basics. in my class it is basically talking about messaging and polling. kind of the fundamental components of the campaign and what you need in raising money. it is very much the basics. host: can one get a bachelors and campaign management these days? guest: you may be able to get some sort of masters. i think after 2008 there has been an influx of folks having interest in campaign management. american politics as a whole. host: karine jean pierre. paul has been waiting from international falls, minnesota. line for democrats good morning. inler: paul bennett international falls. i want to say one thing. i am proud that you are working for the democratic party and i
will vote democrat, which everyone gets it. the officials that give all the we shouldillary -- see who wins the popular vote. the: are you talking about superdelegates who should not advertise who they are supporting? caller: they should not advertise until the people vote and they can support whichever one they want. the thing of it is, i pray to to -- they say they want take our country back. this president has done a wonderful job. i am so proud of him. i hope we get another democrat to carry on what he has done. i think bernie sanders, if you really listen to him, you will find out he says if he cannot take a revolution with him he cannot do what he wants. i really love this party and i thank you for your time. host: does that superdelegates
system need to be revamped after all the criticism it received? especially after bernie sander'' big win in new hampshire. guest: that is a really good question. you can argue both sides and say, it is time that we revisit. but it is time we revisit a lot of things in american politics. maybe it is time to revisit the superdelegate program. you can argue both. i'm curious to see how it all turns out. sanders has an uphill climb. pennsylvaniaurg, is up next on the line for republicans. alicia, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question that has been bugging me for a year. evening and i did
not want to go to bed. was flicking the tv and i came across the history channel or discovery channel. it was a documentary about bill clinton. horrifiedusted and when i heard what they said about him contacting the drug cartel in south america to bring them up to keep control of the black people. you, as a black woman and a black person, how can you tell me you can vote for somebody that is related to that person that was in the white house with that person? how can you vote for that person? host: do you want to jump in here with the history she's talking about? guest: that is unclear to me. i'm not sure what she was talking about. i have not said who i am voting for.
a goodi would be democrat and help in the general election. i go back to say, this is the opportunity to pick your candidate and make sure they get a win. i cannot speak to what the caller was talking about. host: headlines looking ahead to south carolina. here is one from "usa today." clinton turns the south carolina black youth. let's go down to south carolina. billy is waiting, line for independents. caller: i would like to know something. --hillary has the american the african-americans who understand her and if black lies matter how can she support -- black lives matter, how can she --port land parenthood support planned parenthood?
guest: i do not know if that is true. i do not think that is true. i think the hillary clinton campaign is doing what they need to do. i think supporting planned parenthood does not affect her .ote with african-americans if anything planned parenthood has done a great job in helping -- women thats are in need across the board. i do not agree with that statement at all. i think she is doing what she needs to do. you read the article that has her focusing on the black youth. that will be important. that is a tough core of people to get involved. youth in general. we know she will have the 50 and older crowd in the african-american community because they have a history with her. they know the clintons. they know her.
that is going to be a slamdunk for her i think. the black youth will be a challenge. host: you mentioned technology being a key part of the process of putting together a good ground game three at politico had a story about bernie sanders, army of coders. inside the do-it-yourself volunteer tech movement helping to drive the insurgent campaign. the story notes that 2016 could go down as the year of the app and no one has been able bigger beneficiary than sanders. legions of code savvy unpaid helpers. assess that aspect of the sanders campaign. guest: you very much see that. in that same article they talk about bernie sanders.org that has 2 million unique viewers. that is amazing. probably over -- in that story he has over 1000 techies who are giving up time for free.
average?t is an guest: certainly not 2 million. i'm trying to think what would be the average. i don't know what the average would be but 2 million is a high number. that is an impressive number. on the donor side he actually has 2 million grassroots donors as well. he only accepts no more than $1000 and he has this amazing base of grassroots money coming in. the tech world has been tremendously great for him. ec it in his campaign. in these different apps that have come out in support of sanders. it remains to be seen if that helps them or will hurt him. they are all doing it independently of each other. there is a lot of interesting, tech savvy folks out there who are putting together some great apps on behalf of bernie sanders on their own dime. host: in terms of return on
investment, how much should the campaigns be moving their budgets toward these apps that out?oming are these really driving up the numbers or is it the old-school knock on a door and have a conversation? guest: it is great way to help capture everything and move things faster. we are just talking about the technology like data-driven components. there is a social media component as well. in 2008, twitter had just started and no one was really using that. now it has exploded. the social media facebook. .napchat all of these interesting social media components that go into the data-driven piece as well. when it comes to technology, silicon valley and having access to that, money is power so you need to have the money in order to get the technology. looking at 2008 and what obama 2012, if youdid in
you would want to put money towards that because it has been successful. host: let's go out to california . line for democrats. mary lou is waiting. caller: good morning. country.t a socialist republicans want sanders to win because they can beat him. he is not a democrat. as far as the immigrants hired by corporation companies. hard work and the backbreaking work is not done by americans. they don't want to do backbreaking work. they came with visas and a lot of them from around the world are here with visas and the largest population is not latinos, it is asians that are here.
people do not know all of this information and they blame everything on the poor latinos that work so hard. they love this country and help this country and the economy a lot and people need to get educated and no the facts -- and know the facts. we are not a socialist country. that is what i wanted to say. is the socialist label going to play if bernie sanders does become the presidential nominee for democrats in the general election? ,uest: interestingly for him being a socialist has helped him because he is getting a core group of people who are independents who don't normally vote or are not as engaged. notoup of people who are engaged normally who are now looking at bernie sanders and are very excited. that has been tremendous for him. if he makes it to the general elections, will that hurt him,
most definitely. host: howard, line for republicans. good morning. caller: i cannot see how anybody could vote for hillary clinton. if you look into her past, first of all, about the five black that supposedly killed a snitch. they boiled his hands. he would not admit he was a snitch and they shot him in the head. and only one of them got six months in jail and she was on the defense. about the rape case with the 12-year-old girl and about her
daughter and her husband being on the big hedge funds. she is so corrupt it is pathetic. host: karine jean pierre come are you familiar with those cases? guest: i'm not unfortunately. morning.da, good caller: good morning. i want to post something i have not heard anyone call in and say. i'm trying to figure out, why would lack people be interested in hillary or brace -- why would black people be interested in hillary or bernie sanders? you have two old people. if the democratic party cannot throw somebody out there that is young, vibrant, possibly a black female -- look at what you are presented with. i am so disappointed in the young people.
my hope is they would come up with -- we want someone to come hillary and bernie and half the republicans have garbage on their backs and they play us like a fiddle. guys -- i doow you not know what is wrong with everybody. guest: linda makes a really good point. i think the democratic party needs to have -- needs to build a base that is diverse and we do not have that. when you have republicans who have a more diverse cycle of candidates i think that resonates. therek there is something . we need to do a better job as a invest money in young people and make sure they get out there and become -- and want to represent their community and elevate them. she mexico point.
was also discussed at the european council. we agreed we needed to press ahead with strengthening the e.u.'s external borders to back we agreed we needed to process until show that the refugees are returned promptly and then live mission for putting so many people's lives at risk. britain will stepped-up contributions in all of these areas. spending the last nine months suspended wary we need reform for all heads of state and government to reach an agreement and all four areas and first british
business depends on being able to trade with europe so we will have new protections for our economy including the vigil services industry to protect taxpayers for problems in the ozone to make sure we have the rules of the market we have egest permanently done this but to ensure that we cannot be discriminated against. with the freddie adjustability of the u.k. into the date of the glint to be sure the u.s. alone cannot undermine the integrity of the bank's and it they will never face discrimination.
the number wine services export to be forced to relocate inside the just because they're based in the u.k.. . . protections for the u.k. as an economy that is inside the e.u. but outside the eurozone. we also agreed a new mechanism to enable non-eurozone countries to raise issues of concern, and we won the battle to insure this can be triggered by one country alone. of course, mr. speaker, none of these protections would be available if we were to leave the e.u. second, we wanted commitments to make europe more competitive, creating jobs and making british families more financially secure. again, we got them. europe will complete the single market in key areas that will really help britain. in services, making it easier for thousands of u.k. service-based companies like i.t. firms to trade in europe,