Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20150913 : comparem

down or be replaced. that is where we will begin this morning. should john boehner remain the speaker? (202) 748-8000 is the line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. if you are an independent, the number to call is (202) 745-8002 . join us on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. or send us a tweet at @cspanwj. morning to you. thank you for being with us. this is a headline from this past wednesday on the speaker of john boehner as speaker of the house. from north carolina, there is the story as mark meadows is expected to appear today on "meet the press" to talk about his efforts to remove john boehner. boehner has kept too much power to himself. congressman meadows, who has links to tea party groups, has generally taken more conservative positions on issues then speaker john boehner. by the way, "meet the press" is one of five programs you can listen to on c-span radio. it airs at noon eastern time. our thanks by the way to nbc and all the networks that allow us to carry the program on c-span radio. what is next for speaker john boehner? phone, us, live on the .olly o'toole we have seen this before, how real is it this time? good point.is a we have seen this before. there is a lot of tension between speaker boehner and his caucus, particularly some of the more conservative tea party waiting, for some time. we have seen many insurrections flareup. in the end, the mainstream rally is behind him. the political report is interesting. people seem to go further than they had before, suggesting on the record that perhaps he should go. i think they did not make -- the dynamic that is important to know is the 2016 election. it has to be a fairly thankless job to be speaker of the house with republican president in the white house. i think boehner himself is taking a close look at 2016, and that might be one of the more decisive factors whether he sticks around. saw with whate happened in the house with the iran deal is very telling for his potential future as speaker. a correct may be analogy, it may be a little different. the front page of "the washington post," a story about jeremy corbin who surprised a lot of people being elected the party.der of the labour host: we saw a 79 when margaret thatcher marked a start of a new after british politics and some say help significantly with reagan's election in 1980. is that fair parallel? guest: i don't know if i would call it a fair parallel. that thehe hypothesis left is just as no loanable to as the as vulnerable right, i think that is apt. as far as how it applies to the situation here, we are seeing a lot of enthusiasm. people are drawing parallels between bernie sanders and the attention he is getting, the challenge he is giving to hillary clinton who is supposed .o be the front runner also, donald trump, the populist antiestablishment anger and frustration that he seems to be generating, and enthusiasm for his campaign. in its it is limited application here to u.s. politics. i think we are going to see, as more people drop out of the race -- we just saw rick perry, former texas governor, drop out last week -- as more people jiabao, we will see how limited that is, in terms of sustainability. it is true that they have to get enough of a base and have that party establishment support to really get through to the nomination. i think it is a limited comparison. host: let's follow up on a few points on john boehner. a quote from a congressman, tom saying, he has no visible challenges that i know of. a senior fellow at brookings saying, it is not enough to this dispose the king, there must be someone to take the throne. guest: that's right. from thebout his anger voters, and where places in itself. when we talk about speaker boehner, it is one thing to have this anger and seek to depose boehner, but you would have to find a viable alternative, someone with enough support to rally all the disparate forces within the republicans in the house. i think that would be the real challenge. those are points well taken. host: we are talking with molly o'toole, politics reporter for "defense one." here is what speaker weiner said last thursday, when asked about of this. [video clip] thean you respond to resolution yesterday. republicans came yesterday, and you were prepared to go to the floor with a resolution of disapproval. that got amended. there is an impression with the meadows resolution that you are not in control right now. boehner: you probably read about the fact that yesterday afternoon there was a large standing ovation amongst our members for the fact that i have this job and what i have to put up with. host: that last line, "what i have to put up with," you hear frustration in his words. anst: i think that has been attitude he has held for some time. he has struggled to get his caucus on the same page. particularly what we saw this week with the iran deal, which they were referencing, his plans were shaken up, and forced to adopt this strategy that in the end was not affected -- effective. back to my point, this being more of a personal decision, it has to be somewhat of a thankless job to be hurting rding cats -- he these cats. that is frustration he is expressing, i think it is long-held, and personally why i believe it is more of a personal decision for john boehner that it will be a caucus decision as to whether he wants to continue .o be speaker i think the iran deal negotiations were really telling in that regard. also, the next few weeks will not be any fun for john boehner either. he has a growing number in his party, i think about 30 house republicans now, who are insisting that they want the funding planned parenthood to be efundingthe -- d planned parenthood to be part of the budget negotiations. speaker boehner and mitch mcconnell have said they don't want that to be part of the budget negotiations, that it would lead to a shutdown, and not be helpful for the party or for the antiabortion movement .hat they support i think the next couple weeks will be difficult ones for speaker boehner. host: of course, and 10 days, the pope will be coming. maybe that will be a highlight over the next couple of weeks in washington. guest: that is very important to his boehner, by think it could also force complications on the issue. , theople are using this pope's visit, as a peg to push that strategy. host: thanks very much for being with us. we appreciate it. guest: thanks for having me. host: let's hear from you, our phone lines are open. should john boehner remain as the house speaker? (202) 748-8000 is the line for democrats. for republicans. shared his first up from illinois on the republican line. good morning. caller: john boehner is doing better from a republican point of view. .e did stand up for paul ryan they were bashing paul ryan on the floor. boehner did stand up when they were hassling paul ryan. he is doing better from a republican standpoint. he is right, it is a bad deal. people don't like iran deal. when he said it was the worst deal he could possibly imagine, he was right. he has been sticking up for the republicans, and is probably right about the iran deal. most people don't like it. they are probably going to keep him in the house. that is my prediction. tweet, itl has this may be time for boehner to go, he is a realist and has to work with what is possible, many think that is not enough, try a new person. glenn beck said, it is over for boehner and mcconnell. ," spoke to the "daily caller and said, from what he is observing, america seems to be at a fork in the road. "f"'s quick to issue saying, it's over. jennifer is up next on the republican line, plano, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i believe speaker boehner should step down. he is an effective -- ineffective. host: why do you think he is an tackleve -- ineffective callere? think should replace them? well, i have not thought about that. i don't know who is going for the position. host: ok. thanks for a much for the call. from tweeter, republicans in congress only have a 12% approval rating, rainer -- replacing boehner can't make things much worse. surely is up next -- shirley is up next. caller: i believe john boehner is doing the best job he can do because you have to remember that the tea party bunch is the one causing all the trouble. they absolutely will not work with this man. we have the shutdown last time. i think they need to come together and work together for the people of the united states. host: how do they do that? how does that occur? tea partyknow the people have one way of thinking. in a lot ofgood cases, and maybe it's not. they have to understand that when they get to washington, d.c., it is a whole different ballgame, everyone has to work together. they don't want to see it that way. they want to keep this continuous arguing going on, and it will not work with that man. host: you know what some conservatives would say is that that point of view is a rino point of view -- republican in name only. caller: you do have that problem too. here, we had a republican who was our chairman, but he was a democrat dressed up in republican clothing. you have a problem everywhere. for the most part, if they would work with john boehner, i think we could get a lot done. the weight is now, they get to washington, and they want their way. it does not matter who is house speaker, they will have a tough road ahead. ust: thank you for joining from pennsylvania. we appreciate it. "the hill" newspaper also writing about this, the headline, "boehner brushes off ."sults from gop candidates a lot of presents a candidates out there are saying a lot of instead, i am focused on doing my job here and the .arties of the american people some telling reporters that .oehner lacks energy speaker boehner has been disappointing in terms of his figure and stopping obamacare, that according to an interview with donald trump. that full story available com.ne at thehill. let's hear from a democrat, andrew in ohio. should he remain as house speaker? caller: absolutely not. host: why? caller: why should he? he has no qualifications other -- the whole fact he is there is ,ecause he is black mailable and basically can be prodded to do what he is needed to do. anything foren real values or culture, or anything. he has not stood up. he has let this president basically run amok. host: thank you ray much for the call. karen buchanan has this point, how has boehner been effective, hasn't the gop in the house voted as a block for anything they wanted? next up is david. caller: hey, thanks for having me on. goes, as mitch mcconnell i live in the second largest city in kentucky, lexington. we all want mitch mcconnell to go away. go get you an island somewhere and get out of our state. get out of our politics. leave us alone. as far as boehner goes, boehner is a joke. he is worse than mitch. yet, he needs to go. he's got to go. , my boy donaldng ,rump will win this presidency and some of this stuff will get straightened out. host: why do you like donald trump, and who did you vote for in 2008 or 2012? caller: i voted for bush. host: in 2004? caller: yeah. host: why do you like donald trump? caller: he has testicular fortitude. host: thank you for the call. by the way, tomorrow morning, we will have live coverage from liberty university where bernie sanders will give a speech. also, we are covering carly fiorina in new hampshire. berlin as the efforts continue to deal with refugees, many00 from syria. airport in berlin, used in the 1960's, getting a new humanitarian mission. by the end of august, containers which can be seen in southwest berlin, already housing more than 2000 people. seeing about 1000 new arrivals each day. joining us from said tornier, texas. john boehner as speaker, what do you think? caller: i don't take it matters whether john boehner is there or not. i don't think any republican can be that caucus. what they do is they tell their constituents that everything is like armageddon. obamacare, loss of freedom. iran nuclear deal, like a nuclear holocaust is going to happen. when you keep tell your constituents that, then those things happen anyway, and they are not able to stop it -- mitch mcconnell or john boehner, they get angry. one is why some of them donald trump or ben carson, or anybody that is not in government. figure has this point on our twitter page, many of these regular, a don't even know the principal players to replace boehner. good morning, tom. caller: i think mr. boehner has done all he can do in congress. he has lost the respect of most of the american people. we need somebody like louie gohmert, a real outspoken go-getter whose integrity is beyond reproach. i believe he could straighten up the congress. another thing, we do not need to be bringing any more muslims into the country. they need to stay and fight it out for themselves. the: what about humanitarian effort of these people trying to flee with their families because of the situation in syria? caller: they need to settle their own country. they need to settle it out for themselves. host: you are dealing with a dictator, many call a bloody, ruthless dictator. here ande had problems the civil war. and the revolutionary war. that's what they're doing over there. host: i'm curious, if you lived today, and this is off-topic, and you had a family and solve the bloodshed going on in your neighborhood, and you had the chance to flee, would you stay or flee? caller: we had that going on in our cities, in chicago and l.a.. host: you can't compare the two . what is going on in syria is leaders. by the walks theve you streets of chicago lately? you can't go anywhere at night without a gun. we are not running to other countries. they need to fight it out for themselves. that's how they are going to have to survive. host: tom from vermont. as we said at the top of the program, a story inside "the new tok times," despite the plea corbyn, a new leader for the leftist party. host: and this available from the british "telegraph." jim jordan is a republican from congress, and also our guest on "newsmakers" program. we asked him about the threat to speaker boehner. or is more from -- here is more from our conversation. [video clip] >> if there was a motion to vacate the chair, to replace boehner, would you vote for that? jim jordan: look, that is not the question, that may be the question some point down the road, but the focus now is on the big issues we have in front of us. people what the american want to do, adjust the concerns, wecus on the things that got elected to do. if we do that, then i think we are actually for filling the promise we made to them when we gave them the privilege of serving in the house of representatives in the united states congress. >> how would you rate boehner as a speaker? jim jordan: i have set this for 4.5 years, it is a tough job. you have to deal with barack obama, harry reid, nephi pelosi, and frankly, guys like me. it is not an easy thing. it is a very difficult job. i would have done something different, but every member of congress would have done some things different. the test is coming up. let's see how we all do. i say, "we." i represent the same number of people as john boehner and everybody else in the congress. it is we. we have to do what we told the voters we would focus on doing. that has to be our mission. certainly, there is a heightened focus on it this fall. host: congressman jim jordan is joining us on our "newsmakers" program. he was asked about john boehner, representative. miriam is joining us from johnson, south carolina, republican line. the question, should john boehner remain as speaker? good morning. caller: good morning. conversation just then -- you were beautiful in what you have to say. i hope everybody is safe where you are. i think john boehner has done the best at what he could possibly do. i'm so worried about what is going on in washington. placeraid the whole bowing down to him, i'm afraid he will not protect israel, which will be a terrible movement that may go on. as far as boehner, i think he would be a much happier person to lead what is going -- leave what is going on in congress. i'm a 78-year-old recovering cancer patient. my husband was a farmer. it broke my heart the way he talked about the mexicans. cardsys had to have green for 32 years. husband -- my , who he does not see that, he talks about them badly. i think washington is a beautiful place, there are beautiful people there that really love god, and really praise the people who work hard for the people of the united states like yourself, sir. i thank you so very much for your time. beatingngratulations on cancer, good luck to you. this is the headline from "the des moines register," as many of the candidates are in iowa over the weekend. online.y is available marianne is joining his next from mooresville, pennsylvania. .aller: hi yes, i think john boehner should remain as house speaker. whenember him saying that problem was going down, he made the remark that some people, that is all they have as their homes. and chris coxank were threatening the bank, when obama was the lawyer for acorn, ing the race card to threaten the banks about being prejudice. that is what caused this whole problem. the semesters in, i can't wait until they are all out of there. it will be better for the country. i think it is a shame what happened. host: a self-described oklahoma liberal has this point of view on our twitter page, john boehner needs to be replaced with a democratic speaker in 2017. a caricature of donald trump .air and a helicopter it is 70 years of "cq weekly." and, "the new york times" sunday magazine out this morning, "collegeland." and, from "politico" 50 ideas and the politics behind them. next up from arkansas, good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, how are you? caller: [laughter] host: what is so funny? caller: i think you are really great for putting up with all the stupid republicans. i think boehner is just as good as anyone else. i think we should have a democrat, that would mean a whole and more. more.hole lot just a couple of things that need to be addressed, i know it is whether john boehner should be replaced or not -- i don't think so. barack every with now and then. they played once, i think, according to the speaker's office. caller: a couple of things, like term limits. it ought to just be to terms for congress -- two terms for congress. the same thing for the electoral college. my goodness, we are not even electing our own representatives anymore. the president goes. some back to the people type of stuff. host: do you think term limits are realistic? we have heard this debate time and again. some argue that what that does is put more influence on the lobbyists and congressional staffers. caller: i don't know how to .ddress the lobbyists we have the reputation of being run by the rich guys through the lobbies. i think we need to get a little .loser to the people on weapons, i think we ought to arm the united states -- everybody, just for a while. maybe we can stop some of these things. the nation in distress? i don't think we are in distress. i think we need a clinton, for sure. we were set up by bill clinton in 1984, and have somehow existed since then, and just been bounced around. there has never really been an oil shortage. we have enough oil for the next 150 years. even if the population in the .nited states were to double i salute you for putting up with there are so made deceptions. i will be nice about it. i'm a marine. deceptions going on by the republicans, then they blame somebody else. democrats are doing that. hillary told everybody about the e-mails over and over. ,ll i see on the whole internet that's all they can do. she has given and talked about classified information over a normal non-protected phone .ystem -- give me a break she has been in politics or whole life. she has bill. you.e for host: thank you for the call, we will move on. it is not a question of putting up with you, this is what we do. take care. bill has this point, saying, the thethe speaker joined democrats put the slam on the tea party, the very day he was finished with me. ben carson is featured this morning inside "the washington carson has surged ahead in race. a debate is happening this week. you can watch it on cnn. a reference to holy clinton, she will be featured in new hampshire. we will have live coverage getting underway at about 9:30 on saturday. the as of . we are asking you about john boehner, should he remain speaker? how do you answer that? i don't even know why we are talking about it. i think after the next election, boehner won't be speaker. a democratic congress -- two things that i think we all need to look at. get somebodyo and back from texas, and go back even further to win teddy president, canon was in the chair. that's how was brought. i'm not for term limits. do theirhat people representatives, and if they don't like them, they pulled vote them out. boehner is all right. host: ok. changes at united airlines, which has a major operation in ofcago, is on the front page "the chicago tribune." turbulent exit for united's ceo." these headlines, by the way, courtesy of the newseum. we will go to carl and west virginia. john boehner, should he remain speaker? caller: i would just like to say to my fellow marines i do not agree with your politics. i would like to see gaddy, theressman gaudi become speaker of the house and eventually the president of the united states. i would just like to say one thing. if hillary clinton is not petraeusthan general should get a pardon an apology from the president of the united states and all the money he was fined should be returned. to execute the law on one side, you have to do on both sides. i think hillary clinton should be in jail. thank you. host: carl from west virginia. "the sundayge of free press," this story from bridgess, "politics, and dinner for boehner." thomas burke has the street , theg, -- this tweet longer in the take no accordingr hours to jay bush. good morning. caller: i am a political science major, and i would like to say, , iting from the outside in is amazing the things that boehner is allowed. first thing, he allowed obamacare. he allowed the administration to go behind his back to buy bullets for domestic purposes when those bullets are illegal and need congressional approval. , he allowedest something else that needed congressional approval, and he about it without publicizing it or bringing it to the attention of, i would say, uneducated, for the most part, floating block. he allowed illegal amnesty when he promised not to. they have given the democrats every budget and spending bill they wanted. they have not put up, under boehner, any resistance at all. it basically said they will not shut the government down. he has been awful. he could not have been better for this administration then nancy pelosi. there is no difference. host: dana has this point, why are we asking democrats is boehner should remain speaker? ray from massachusetts, good morning. caller: good morning. that is a hard call to follow. that man gave a brilliant analogy. i picked up the phone after the man from vermont, because i would like to reiterate what he said. i think boehner should go unequivocally. also, the massive wave of immigrants, refugees, my question to them, no matter where they are going, what is your allegiance? we will save your life, feed youe, what will your allegiance be -- to all ah, islam, or the united states of america? it is a question that no one wants to ask. "politico," boehner's future as speaker and doubt. on the republican line, mark. caller: good morning. i have three points, i guess. number one, it strikes me that the tea party and true intorvatives got boehner the majority in 2010 and two dozen 14. then, boehner turned around, and they don't do anything to follow up the agenda that they said they would do if they got elected, which is frustrating. number two, i think it is interesting and telling that i hear at least some democrats calling get an saying that they like i said, is telling. number three, kind of a rhetorical question, i guess, how do you know that john boehner is done? his skin has turned a delicious golden brown. stick a fork in it. host: in case you missed it, jimmy fallon with donald trump on friday, and e the skit that went viral. "variety" saying the show got a highest marks for friday broadcast since february 2 dozen 14, shortly after his desk.at the tonight show we will go next to zach, joining us from ohio. caller: thank you for c-span. my thing is -- i don't have an .ssue with boehner i guess i have this cognitive dissonance where i have an issue with the career politicians. boehner has been in there for 30 odd years. it is not so much an issue of term limits because once you are in there for so long, the term limits, well, they will do to get forthey can themselves once they get out. with the term limits, you don't so much of that. on the other side of that, you have institutional knowledge of the house, the senate, the white house. these are institutions. we are supposed to, as a country, learn from them. part of me wants to say, kick them all out, boehner included. other part of me says that for lack of a better term, crazy, boehner has been leading this circus. we will have someone who goes far right and bows down to not only the conservative ideals, which are not necessarily bad beng, because i try to middle of the road, but somebody -- likear right wing nding planned parenthood or more laws restricting same-sex marriage and the like. you have a speaker now who has done a fairly decent job of .rying to get something done when anything gets done or there's any compromise, what you always hear from the far right is we are going back on her principles. no, we are governing. that is what they are supposed to be doing. i don't think the house is anything more than a soapbox. you see how many times they have voted to repeal this or that. the senate is a place where it is important to keep the institutional knowledge, but there's something to be said about the house and somebody able to govern a very divided caucus. host: pete has this point -- again, share your thoughts at @cspanwj -- the speaker has sound conservative goals, he felt articulate than good enough to bring the republicans together. good morning, independent line. go ahead, harvey. caller: i had a comment. i think boehner is doing the best he can. he is elected by, hello? host: you are on the air, go ahead. caller: oh, yeah. i believe he belongs where he is. they put him in that position. all these people calling in most oferm limits -- these people who favored term limits are people who don't vote. the big problem in this country is we only have 25%-30% of the people who are active voting. only about half the people that are registered actually vote. host: thank you for the call. this from jaden who says that republicans have colts invaded the anger caucus, and the anger has turned on them. thinvicki from florida, you get the last word. caller: my first word is steve's goalie for speaker of the house skully for speaker of the house. host: i'm not in congress, but thank you. caller: i have a question and to comments. the question is what are the actual responsibilities of the speaker. it says he is bigger of the house, not just bigger of the republicans. i'm wondering what his responsibilities are. secondly, the republicans are doing something about repealing part of obamacare. i read in "the wall street journal" the other day that republicans, or congress, has filed a lawsuit against obama administration because it has taken funds that were not authorized for the subsidies they are offering for obamacare. apparently congress had not funded that. obama administration has used them anyway, so they are think he is usurping his power for not going to congress. host: clearly the biggest role the speaker has is a good drawing the agenda, what comes to the house floor, which is huge and deciding what bills make it. caller: how does he do that? host: he is speaker, he has majority vote. caller: the republicans do not have this super majority, like they had when obamacare was passed. congress is really split. it is very difficult to get people from the other side to cooperate because their ideology is different. it's not that they hate each other, i don't think. it is that we are truly split in this country. whoree with other speaker said most people are not well informed, most people don't vote. i'm a c-span junkie, so i think i know what is going on. most people are not involved. they can't even recognize photos on tv of the members of the house and senate. host: i have an idea then -- what about vicki for house speaker? go for it. caller: i would love to. i love this country. the congress is not failing us, they just reflect what is going on in this country right now. thank you, steve. host: we will send your comments to peter as well. we will take a short break and when we come back, we will turn our attention to kim davis and rowan county, kentucky. later, we will take a look at state efforts to boost retirement savings. how are you doing with your retirement program, and if your state doesn't offer a retirement program, should they? coming up later, c-span's "newsmakers" program. we will be back in a moment. ♪ >> all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states, give their attention. number 759. proe will hear arguments versus wade. marbury versus madison is probably the most famous case that this court decided. existed when slavery was not recognized. >> putting the brown decision into effect would take presidential orders, the presence of federal troops and marshals, and the courage of children. >> we wanted to pick cases that changed the direction of the court, and also changed society. >> so she told them that they would have to have a search warrant. she demanded to see the paper were, and read it, which they refused to do, so she grabbed it out of his hand. then, the police officer handcuffed her. , i can't think of a better way to bring the constitution to life than telling the great story behind great supreme court cases. he formally oppose the fourth internment of japanese soldiers and world war ii. after being convicted to failing to report, he took his case all the way to the supreme court. often, our most famous decisions are ones that were quite unpopular. , if you had to pick one freedom that was most essential to the functioning of the democracy, it has to be freedom of speech. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very whattically and visually it means to live and the society of 310 million different people who help stay together because they believe in the rule of law. >> landmark cases, an explanation of 12 historic supreme court decisions of the human stories behind them. a new series on c-span, produced in cooperation with the national constitution center, debuting monday, october 5 at 9:00 p.m. >> "washington journal" continues. host: for the next 45 minutes or so, we want to focus on the case in rowing county, kentucky and the larger issue of religious freedom and gay marriage. joining us here is sarah warbelow. and joining us from florida, mathew staver. let's go back to this past week, kim davis in rowing county, kentucky with these remarks. [video clip] kim davis: we are not issuing marriage licenses. i would ask you all to go ahead and -- >> why not? under what authority? usdid god tell you to treat like this? kim davis: i have asked you to leave. the police.all i pay your salary. i pay you to discriminate against me right now. that is what i am paying for. withpaying for this memory my partner that i've been with for 13 years. what is the longest you have been with someone? host: the scene in rowan county, kentucky. said to issue a marriage license which conflicts with god's definition of marriage with my name affixed to it would violate my conscience. guest: she is operating from a place where she does have religiously held beliefs. i don't think anyone is questioning her sincerity. however, she has a job and her job at this point is issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, regardless of how she feels about the marriage itself. we have to assume that she has issued licenses to many couples whose marriage she did not agree with or ha were she to me and get to know them, would think that they were terrible prospects for marriage. her job is to determine whether the couple is legally able to marry, and that is it. host: this is a piece from why notmagazine -- simply resign if she disagreed with the ruling? guest: she has tried to avoid this particular situation for a number of months. in fact, it generally of this year, after she was elected in 2014, after serving there for 27 years already, she answered andn clerks approach -- she 57 clerks approach the governor to accommodate the issue. there is a simple way to persondate a conviction, simply remove her name. that could be done very easily. the governor could issue an executive order and change that, pending the legislator coming back in session in january. laster, in fact in 2014, when the attorney general was defending the laws of kentucky was asked to defend the marriage law, she said that -- he said that he could not doing because his conscience conflicted with it. the governor accommodated him and said, we will hire an outside counsel to do it see do not have to offend your conscience. he paid several hundred thousands of dollars to pay that outside counsel. not dothis case, he will an executive order the costs the taxpayers nothing. it is a very civil situation. you don't just resign after being there for nearly three decades, when especially there are reasonable ways to .ccommodate her convictions finally, the president of the senate recently issued a brief to the judge in this case and said, let the general summary come back into session because he says the laws in kentucky are shredded by this court decision. if you issue a license to someone not authorize in the statute, it is a criminal penalty. she is being careful not to do that because the statute at thisy is in chaos point and needs to be addressed by the family. courier-journal" in louisville announcing that kim davis is scheduled to return to work tomorrow. why has she been the focal point, and has your organization but part of that? guest: we have represented her. ae fact that she has been focal point has been a surprise. realizedthink any bus how quickly would happen, but she is certainly not the only one having the same conflict. we have seen it in the private sector with bankers and photographers and florists. this is the first visible one we have seen in the public sector, but by no means the only one. 's in other kim davis other states. north carolina was one. the legislator to the right thing. they came together and passed legislation to accommodate them. the governor vetoed it, and they overrode the veto. now the magistrates are able to carry on their daily top, and those who want accommodations are able to have those accommodations that can davis is also -- kim davis is also seeking. host: rick santorum has said that what kim davis did was heroic. donald trump saying, this was not the right job for her. guest: look, i think ms. davis has garnered so much public attention, including from presidential candidates because of the over 10,000 public officials who are tasked with inuing marriage licenses this country. there are only a small handful refusing to do their jobs. she is notable because she is an outlier, not because this is a nationwide problem. that is why the presence of candidates are really focusing on her. believe thatdates she is in the right. several others have called on her, including lindsey graham, to simply do her job. host: should she stay on the job? guest: she should either operate i within the law and make sure that the protections for same-sex couples are carried out an issue licenses, or she should consider making alternative arrangements. host: mathew staver, your response? guest: kim davis, like a set, she has been there for 27 years. people want her to stay there. she feels she has a duty to them. on the other hand, she feels conflicted by her conscience. we came here because of conscience it can't accommodate everyone passes religious freedom but the real issue is, does she have a sincere religious belief? everyone admits she does. is there a collision with the law? that is obvious. there a way to reasonably accommodate her belief and yet carry on a function? there are many ways. the answer is no, that there is no way to accommodate at all, then you are done with the inquiry. if there are alternative ways, they -- we ought to be big enough to say, you can have an accommodation or your beliefs. we will do something different here. allow the government insurance to -- because there are several options. host: if there is no way to accommodate that special situation, should a public official who has sworn to uphold the constitution then leave that -- leave that position? allt: if there is no way at , absolute no options at all, and you will have some rare situations where you have no ation, then i think that is serious situation where someone has to consider stepping down. take the attorney general. he is not one of 120 people who does that. he is a single individual. he had a conscience conflict. cost cap -- taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars to combat his conflict because he did not want to defend the marriage law passed by 75% of the people. the governor accommodated him and he did not have to choose between his conscious and his job. his conscious was accommodated. he could do his job as attorney general. he does not have to violate his conscious pair the same principle even in a greater way of fries here for kim davis and the other clerks. think there is it a station between the scenarios. you do not want an attorney general arguing a case in which they do not have ice and see her belief in. thedo not ever want to risk attorney general might undermine the case. he did the right thing by recusing himself rather than, even if he attempted his best, giving a poor defense of the law, ms. davis was only asked to issue a license pair she is not asked to weigh in on the marriage, speak to the value of the marriage, in any way stand up and say, look, i am attesting that thisrican public is a solid, good marriage. that is what ministers do. priests, rabbis. that is why they remain as figures from whom individuals have the option to go to to perform the marriage. but the function is very different than a public official. the religious freedom restoration act says the government cannot substantially burden a person possibility -- guest: that only applies to the federal government, not to actions of the state. is one of several states that have their own state version of this particular law. but i want to be clear. a lot of people think it applies to these actions. she does have a sincere belief that this is violating her conscience. government has a compelling interest making sure they are abiding by the u.s. constitution, which the supreme court very recently has includes the right of same-sex couples to marry. the state government has a compelling interest in making get their couples marriage licenses. these couples were turned away repeatedly, humiliated when they ,ame down to the clerk's office just to be able to exercise their constitutional rights. host: the first amendment reads as follows. -- guest: the kentucky religious freedom restoration act is the mainnd i think issue there is, yes, sincerity and yes, the burden. whether or not there is a least restrictive means being used, that is the problem. there are a lot of options to pursue the government's interest. it is not just a piece of paper in this case. do with autoely registration. comes under the authority of the commonwealth of kentucky. the clerk's processes those but it is not under name or authority. she is asked for a simple accommodation. under theissued authority, the commonwealth of kentucky. so on the certificate, it says commonwealth of kentucky. it does not come under her name and she is not authorizing. issuing a paper. it is coming under the name or andauthority of kim davis, that is what conflicts. of she is just a processor it like the commonwealth of kentucky. for example, the kentucky religious freedom restoration that theres government has a duty to do so. multiple ones.ed just one of many that we have presented, all of which are easy and none of which really cause any money at all to the taxpayers. host: our callers and listeners are eager to talk to both of you. the phone lines are open. we will go to bill in florida. good morning. republican line. good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have been watching this continuously since president authorized same-sex marriages. and the supreme court voted on this and of course they 15-4. won 5-4. without president obama, the supreme court would never have gone along with them. he is the one literally responsible for all the trouble we are having right now. the president did not authorize marriages for same-sex couples. he did not have the authority to do that and was not in a position to do so. unlike the governor of some states, signed into law legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry, the president weighed in in his personal and political capacity, saying he thought same-sex couples should married, as have many other public officials. he did not influence the supreme court and does not have that power. there is a separation of government there. this is a tweet from stand -- guest: it is going to be hard to get the government out of licensing marriages. what kimainly not davis is asking for. it is not with the case is about. the reason why government got into the issue is because family and marriage is so central in terms of who we are, creating children and the next generation, the strength of the family dictates the strength of our communities and the society. when these controversies about , how do you deal with that? the government got involved to put laws around marriage to protect and strengthen to we will not go back and unring that. now that we are here, we are two months and just a few days over from this 5-4 decision from the supreme court knowing that we will have these kinds of conflicts. the centers clearly indicated this would happen. need to be civil on this discussion. it is unbelievable the violent rhetoric we have seen. i hope we address this in a civil and respectful manner. secondly, we need to be able to accommodate not just kim davis, but there are millions and millions of people like her that need to have their conscience accommodated. imagine we just want to trample over their conscience and literally trample over core convictions, especially when in most cases, there are reasonable alternatives to accommodate people like kim davis. host: let me get your reaction to a usa today story that points out a billboard is now showing up in rome, kentucky, a nonprofit organization that advocates lesbian, gay, by, and transgender rights. "dear kim davis, the fact that you cannot sell your cow means goat and a marriage has already changed." it is not the choice i would necessarily have made. lot value educating the american public that we have made many changes over time, important changes to marriage to accommodate our changing world's and views. longerwner -- are no property. couples toterracial get married. many things that were not tolerated under classic marriage traditions. host: a comment -- joining us from maryland, good morning. independent line. caller: good morning. this is the problem with fundamentalists. they pick and choose what they want to adhere to in the bible. kim davis obviously missed the part of, god hates divorce in the bible. she has issuede marriage licenses to people who have been divorced and want to get remarried. that is also, you want to talk about the bible, religious freedom. she is picking and choosing what she wants to follow in the bible. the supreme court has already ruled. law,e cannot follow the then she should step down from her position. i do not particularly like same-sex marriage. it does not matter. that is the law. period. host: thank you. we will go to orlando. i think in response to , she stopped issuing all licenses until the governor issues an executive order or something like that. there is a penalty under kentucky law issuing licenses. even when a supreme court decision comes in and strength down something, another piece of statute or legislation does not automatically come back into existence. back inure has to come and frankly address this issue. that is what the senate actually told the judge about a week ago before the court. that will likely happen when the general assembly comes back into session. as it relates to the issue of divorce, obviously what we're talking about here is not whether someone had been divorced or not divorced, but a fundamental redefinition of , that has never frankly through the millennia of history. you can debate whether someone rightfully or wrongfully but as itnd so forth, relates to a fundamental redefinition of marriage am it has always been between a man and a woman throughout the millennia of human history. conflicts whenus that changes. kim davis is by no means the first to have that conflict and she will not be the last. to adjust this and not just say to resign. the message that sensitive -- sends is if you have these believes, if you believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman, he better not run from -- for public office, you better step out and get out of private business. that is not, i think, the kind of america we want to move toward. the america we want is the america that respects people's consciences and works through the situations to see if there are reasonable accommodations. becauset me follow up it has come up as we learn more about kim davis. this is a tweet from rick who says the following. -- does her own background complicated the debate in the issue? guest: her own background is really the story of the grace and forgiveness of jesus christ -- 4.5is a democrat years ago, there was a different kim davis than she is now. she has done a lot of things she is not proud of. she has made a lot of mistakes in her life. had a godlyo, she mother-in-law and her dying wish was to get your life together. she went to church and heard the pastor preaching out of the book of galatians and she heard for the first time that there was a god who loves her and for gave her for her since. she is the picture of the grace she has experienced. that is really what makes kim davis tech. it is because of the change life and her love for jesus. she just not one to be .nfaithful she has this significant conflict with the conscience to not do something with her name and authority to authorize something that conflicts with cheetos definition of marriage. tim -- what is causing kim davis to be in the situation. this not rather happen. she is a private and humble woman. by howliterally stunned this has taken off on national attention. she and heartbeat would love to go back to the quiet, rural life that she lived. host: you are a legal director. who funds your organization? guest: i have been with the human rights campaign from allstate years now. the organization is almost solely funded by individuals, and their donations range in size. million members and supporters who engage with us on a regular basis. the liberty counsel is an international policy organization. we deal with three primary areas of religious freedom, of life, marriage, and family. also do a lot of educational outreach is an major outreach with regards to israel. organizationofit and funded by different kinds of perspectives around the country. and wepport what we do have a lot of different outreaches in addition to the legal defense. we do a lot of educational. to have a national human relief organization for christians, we have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for persecuted christians who in the middle east, while we're having these conjurers is in the united states about having to accommodate someone, people are losing their lives and they are displaced. we have liberty international trying to help people around the world, not just in the middle east, who are in much more dire situations than we are. morning.sas, good for having meyou on your program. i appreciate c-span. you are a great host. is, public officials seem to pick and choose the laws a want to enforce. the obama administration does not enforce marijuana laws across the nation. an example would be colorado and washington. why are we persecuting somebody for standing up for something as important as this? that would be my comment. thank you. i cannot speak to the marijuana laws. it is not my area of expertise and it is not something i know much about. this is not a situation in which there is not a conflict with someone else. she is not going to the government and saying, look, i would rather wear a different type of shoe or i don't want regulation around the clothing i am asked to wear. her actions have consequences for other people. multiple couples were denied licenses and humiliated when they went down to obtain their licenses, was there constitutionally entitled to. her actions have negative consequences for other individuals and that is why this has become the issue it has. upon her release from jail, kim davis had this to say. i want your reaction because you are on stage with her. god the glory.ve the people have rallied and you are a strong people. god who knowsing exactly where each and every one of us is at. keep on pressing, don't let down . because he is here. he is worthy. he is worthy. i love you guys. thank you so much. guest: cam is someone who does not like to speak of the play. it is not something she enjoys doing. she just got released. she was actually stunned because we do not have prior notice. this crowd had gathered and there were several thousand people there. front of several thousand people just to say thank you for them coming and praying. gotten so many letters of support from people who literally just say, we are praying for you, that is overwhelming that people would take some time to pray for her. she is just a clerk. she is just no one. people could really get a chance to know cam as i have. when i went to visit her the first day she was in jail, i went in there to encourage kim. she hugged me and she said, all is well. kim davis is a lovely individual. i think she has a lot of courage. a last thing she wants is to be in the situation. no one would want to be in this situation, frankly, if you knew the kinds of pressure she is under and the kinds of threats she has received. at the same time, she has seen a lot of people who are supporting of her and praying for her. that is what the message was for her. many of you listening on channel 124 every sunday morning. our guest here at the table, sarah warbelow from the human rights campaign and mathew liberty counsel. also, the larger issue of religious freedom and same-sex marriage laws after that supreme -- ruling.g area our line for democrats, good morning. thank you for waiting. everybody has the freedom to practice their religion but this is different. , a statetate official employee, who should do her job. lady who has been married four times, committed adultery because she had a child by someone else other than her husband. she should practice what she preaches and not hold it against people who are the same-sex and want to get married. haveieve everybody should the right of her -- their own civil and human rights issues. if that were the case, black people would continue to be slaves or never have the right to marry who they choose to. the lady should either do her job or step down, because it is for civil duty to do her job. she is a government employee. if anyone else in any other workplace had done what she had done, it would be insubordination and she would be fired immediately. i would like your response. host: thank you. jan says, i am sure -- to that point, your response? guest: she is doing her job very well. she will have saved the taxpayers one point $5 million in her first year as the elected official since 2014. that is substantial to do that. secondly, if we told abraham lincoln should just along with dred scott, because that is what ,he racist chief justice wrote yet lincoln advocated something different from that. because of that decision, unfortunately, we had to fight a civil war. it was a terrible time in our history and i am not sure we fully recovered from the issues we had dealt with with regards to slavery. dreads got was a horrible time in our history and abraham lincoln was bold and strong tough when he ran for senate openly argue even though he was the chief executive officer of united states of america. thomas jefferson, he also with regards to the act of 1789, got into an argument with abigail as to the fact that he was not going to enforce that particular legislation because he felt it was unconstitutional. sided with since thomas jefferson and obviously with abraham lincoln. when we are talking about she is like kim davis, simply saying she wants to do her job, she does it well, just give her a reasonable accommodation. certificates can still come through the clerk's office. just have the authority in name changed on it so it is not her name that goes down into the annals of history forever. as the one who authorized something that is in direct conflict with her conviction. that is all she is asking for. it is a simple fix. she should not be in jail. she should have this accommodation and there are easy ways to do it. if you want to pick up a copy of the weekly standard, he makes reference to the option may not be in the federal but the state courts under kentucky, religious freedom restoration act. let's go to tom in harrisburg, pennsylvania, democrats line. good morning. i hate when they bring of dred scott. those were times of war and lincoln can was trying to preserve the union. 1964, brown versus the board of education. in kentucky -- theoretically come in the 1980's, the school board never turned over that law. someone could have said, it is against my beliefs because they never change that law. that is why this argument, the liberty county's -- liberty counsel says they did not have a law on the books. they do not have it in the 1950's when they passed segregation. my point is, what is happening now in which the deputies are giving it out, isn't that a workable accommodation? lynette save a whole lot of trouble and time? guest: that is one of the big questions. as part of her condition for being released from dell -- from jail, she was told not to interfere with deputy clerks who are issuing marriage licenses and that is a big question, what will happen when she returns to work tomorrow morning? will she attempt to interfere and stop those clerks from operating within the law? i want to take up the issue that somehow because of the kentucky legislature has not changed state law, that somehow these marriage licenses are not valid or she cannot be issuing marriage licenses anyway, the suggestion that the 50 other clerks issuing marriages across the state are violent -- violating the law, once the supreme court has spoken, those loving and committed couples who is often spent decades together, have the right to get married immediately. they do not need to wait for any state law to change. often part of our history includes a refusal to change laws on behalf of state government. it was into the 2000 and four some states took laws off the books that prohibited interracial couples from marrying. host: about $80,000 per year. is liberty counsel paying for all or part of her legal fees? guest: we are handling all of the legal fees. there is not any cost to kim davis or the taxpayers. we are providing that. host: republican line, good morning. good morning? you are on the air. caller: thank you. to youri want to speak viewing audience as anything and i want to challenge sees them. i think it is a wonderful show you are having this morning but i would like to challenge all to do a similar show about cities that ignore the laws, century cities. we are either a country of laws or we are not. if we are going to have someone here follow the law or resign her job, then i think we need to look at sanctuary cities where laws are not being followed. frankly, you can go to the white house and barack obama goes i do not want to go to go too far here, go around the law, he certainly skirts the law, i hope joe will have a show similar to this about it is. for putting that on the table. your response? guest: again, government officials should be doing their jobs. if people are unhappy with the way the law is operating, they should advocate for changes to those lost. no one is interfering with her right to petition the state government, to petition the governor. in the meantime, until the law changes, she absolutely needs to be doing her job. at a minimum, needs to be allowing the deputies to do their job. host: there have been a number of references to george wallace. one thing, kim davis is the george wallace of marriage equality. -- using that analogy in the 1960's. imo always cautious about comparisons. but certainly, in terms of how she is operating. she is standing in the way of a supreme court decision, standing in the way of allowing committed, loving same-sex couples to marry. the duration of the marriage matters. predicated laws are on the amount of time a couple has been married, from social security benefits to veterans benefits. interfering with the ability to access marriage is a really big deal. it is not just a simple, they will get to it in a couple of months. 's legalrah warbelow ofector and mathew staver liberty counsel. democrats line, good morning. say if i would like to kim davis is so religious, she should have religious tolerance for other evil. she does have religious tolerance for other people. i think we have a different standard in this country. in 2004, when the law was very , begann california issuing same-sex marriage licenses. rather than being vilified, he is now the lieutenant governor and will likely run for governor of california. he did something really illegal. now, we have kim davis who is doing something in which she is simply asking for an accommodation. with regards to george wallace, we have fought a revolution, for heaven sakes. and pastone through the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment clearly designed with people saying, our constitution clearly will end racism. to continue to inject racism into the segregation schools and have white and black schools is fundamentally different than what we have here. to compare kim davis to george youace, and i appreciate not going down the road of different comparisons like that, but for anyone to do that, they just do not know kim davis. we need to look at this issue here let's focus on this issue. we can talk about all these other things taking place, sanctuary cities, or george wallace and so forth. but let's look at kim davis. who hass is a person represented a lot of different people and the fundamental nature of marriage has been changed, that it had never been in the history of the or america or in the millennia of human history. that is a direct conflict. it is not some tangential, i prefer not to follow this law. it is a direct, absolute collision of two trains on the same track going in apps a direction. ae question now is, is there way to avoid this conflict? if there is not, there is not. in this case, there clearly is there there are a lot of options. rather than say kim davis just violates your cautious and work through the legislature, issuing an executive order. on the governor, help kim davis like you helped the attorney general just a year ago. the executive order. that could be a contemporary -- a temporary fix between now and january. when the general assembly comes back in the discussion because the governor will not call them into special session, but they have this temporary fix and come back to the session in january, they will adjust the issue in a way where there is a reasonable accommodation. in a similar way that the north carolina legislature judges in that state. many other states are considering other reasonable force of -- forms of accommodation. host: out of boston, saying, part of my -- ahead, mathew staver. guest: they must not have been back recently because people were passing out literature at the intersection and they said 95 verse 10 of the people supported them. there is huge, overwhelming just in grayson, kentucky, but throughout kentucky for kim davis. host: independent line, good morning. caller: thank you. a marriage license is nothing more than a tax to gain illegal status. then you have to hire another official to validate it. it has nothing to do with anybody's christianity. i would agree with you in terms of the vehicle registration license. processed through the commonwealth of kentucky and managed and handled and filed at the local county clerk. there is no problem that. davis does not authorize the vehicle registration. it does not come under her authority. she is an administrator of that particular record. not under her name or authority, but she files and records it. it is therefore official reasons. she has no problem doing the same thing with marriage licenses. that is why she has asked to have her name and authority removed off of it. then it becomes just a certificate for her, under the authority of someone other than kim davis. just like these other judgments or vehicle registration forms. that is what she is asking for, as one of many options to, and it hurt. it would solve the problem not just for kim davis. there were 57 clerks out of the 120 who quickly got a letter together asking for the same accommodation. the clerks association represents all clerks throughout all of kentucky. they have also recently publicly asked for the same accommodation she was asking for. does not happen, then what? do not know what will happen. it is an easy fix and we are still asking for that to happen. i do not know what will ultimately happen. but i think it would be a to not pursue reasonable alternatives and instead just ignore someone's religious freedom and trampled upon their conscience. problem heref the is that a government official wants to pick and choose. which parts of her job that she performs. she has clearly issued marriage licenses in the past two couple whose marriage is she does not agree with. there is no doubt about it here she can have approved of every single marriage that has come to her office. all of a sudden, when it is a group that has been historically discriminated against, same-sex couples have faced for decades in this country, all of a sudden, she wants to claim an exemption from the law. individual paid for by the taxpayers, she needs to do her job. and ensure that others constitutional rights are not being trampled. is thearah warbelow legal director for the human rights campaign. is the chair of liberty counsel joining us from orlando. you both for what has been an interesting and thoughtful conversation. we appreciate it. we will take a short break. newsmaker comes up after washington journal and our guest this week is a republican congressman from ohio, jim jordan, the chair of the freedom caucus. lawmakers return to debate over planned parenthood, all of this under the umbrella of the federal budget. what to expect. >> on video where this organization was engaged in the most repulsive activity you can think about and what may be criminal activity to her they should did not get another penny dollars.x part -- tax if we just make the argument that clear, we are going to take the money that is going to this organization, engaged in what we now know they are doing, terrible activity and may be criminal activity, take the money and put it over here, the same level of funding, and if the resident harry reid say we cannot pass that, we insist upon this organization continuing to get your test dollars. if they say that is more important than funding our troops and our veterans and frankly funding women's health issues, they will have to defend that decision with the american people. andink it is a common sense logical position to we just need to make the case in a compelling and repetitive way over and over so the american people clearly understand what is at stake. >> the house passes ac are with deposition -- barring planned parenthood as you want, and the senate strips it out and send it that what happens at point? what would you like to see the leadership do at that point? happens not know what than because we have got 20 more days of debate. a lot of things change in politics in a few days. you saw what changed this week when we decided to go a different way on the iranian nuclear resolution here in the house. things can change. even bella check does not script out the whole game. this is a dynamic pass. i do know that organizations -- that organization should not get another dime of taxpayer money. i think anyone watching agrees with that. some do -- some understand that even though they do not have the same position, they do not want a test -- their tax money go to doing the things planned parenthood is doing. jim jordan.g us is diana oakley welcome diana oakley, the executive director of the national institute on retirement security. thank you for being with us. on average, how much does the typical american have in retirement? thet: when you look at andcal american household, you look at all american that only 20e know $500 is the average account balance for the typical family. that is the balance, not how much they contribute annually. guest: then if you look at individuals within 10 years of retirement, they have an average account balance of $14,500. that is about one year of what they would get from social security. if you look at data from people you hear from financial service firms, you will hear better numbers because if you just limit it to people who are saving, 10 years away from retirement have 100 $4000 in their retirement account. still not enough, but we also the -- the40% of households that have saved nothing for retirement. then if you look at all the households again, you look at how many people have less than one times their salary put away, eight out of 10 of us have less than one saved. it clearly varies if you live in new york and san francisco. or deathe the analysis in outage or comparison, on average, how much does a typical american need for retirement if he or she is retiring at 65? guest: fidelity and other groups have done analyses and they tried to make the numbers easy because most americans do not have a lot of time to plan let alone save, when you look at the numbers, for the typical household, you probably ought to have by the time your age 60 seven, according to fidelity investment, about eight times your salary saved. if you think about that and we look at people in their 40's, it and they are 55, 10 years away from retirement and over, only about 10% of those households have more than four times their salary saved. -- two thirdsers of households in america are in a situation where they do not have adequate -- do not have that situation. fidelity actually goes through and gives you a measure every so many years how much you need to have to be on target. ofare saving like a country 35-year-olds and yet a lot of us are over 35 and some of us are getting ready to retire and we still only have 2035-year-old should have in retirement. and living a lot longer. let's share some of the best states when it comes to retirement security. next 45to spend the minutes on how states are trying to boost savings. among the states doing a good job, north dakota, washington, iowa, new hampshire, south dakota, and virginia. states with the weakest retirement security, arizona, maine, nuven -- nevada, south carolina, california, michigan, new jersey, north carolina, and here in washington, d.c. a lot of are cut -- retirees live there. guest: they're moving from another state perhaps there to the sunbelt and california is the same way. we think about these places where individuals might go and think it would be nice to live in that warm climate, when we look at the workers who are saving, what we see in almost every state is when we look over where people have been since in 2000, on average, we have 54% of workers in some type of retirement plan. today, we are down to only about 46% on the national basis. most states have an average lower than that. california, roughly 35% of the individuals had a retirement savings account available to them through work. one thing we are starting to see is states, for example california, to go ahead and say, maybe we need to do something more than just rely on the federal government setting the agenda. in california several years ago, they passed a law that says every employer will have to have an opportunity for an employee to save through their payroll. that is the best way for individuals to safe. when you put money away for retirement, and you can do it before you pay your taxes -- it comes out of your payroll, but and have it before that money in your account, you're much more likely to have the money saved, as opposed to too many of us get the end of the month and nothing is left in our paycheck. you can get more information online at the national institute on retirement security. our guest is diana lee. -- diana oakley. whatever happened to pensions? are for babyns boomers. 55 and older. the majority of the households have either one of the spouses or the individual is signal, has a benefit plan from some type of point in your career. what has really happened is, in the private sector, nasa much the public sector, employers have looked at the rules, congress has passed for having attention, and they decided the rules have made it to unaffordable to have a pension and offer a pension. the county rules in terms of having it on your balance sheet impacts your stock value. we just saw u.s. steel this last week announced it would freeze its benefit plan. he will who were in that plan would get a benefit but new employees who have the option of having a defined benefit plan, we are seeing that more and more so when we look at millennial's they are half as likely to have a pension as baby boomers. oft: phone lines for those you under the age of 30 -- if you are between 31 and 50 -- for those 55 and older -- colleen, good morning. caller: this is a great topic. i have three points i would like to make. in first part is i live massachusetts but my husband and i had a home in new hampshire. the local taxes are not as high but everything else is the same as the city. it is not much cheaper to live in a rural area where the second is ini would like to say my family alone, different age groups, you know, i have got 30-year-olds, a great percentage are just being able to make ends meet, have nothing for pensions, and will have nothing when they retire. is 91 whoother who has plenty in her retirement was 91.live until she now, as she is getting close to 24/7 care, she still probably has a couple of years to go. this is a very important topic to be discussing today. thank you. you made so many important points. i think one of the key points is the one you raise about your mom and how much it is costing her for long-term care. an interesting thing we do when we survey to get people's thoughts on retirement security, we have been asking consistently, how does this impact your retirement security? is it something that keeps you from saving? how do you feel about it? this year, for the first time when we did the survey, we added the cost of long-term care. what totally surprised us is it surged to the top. i think as individuals like you and others around the country, you see your parents in those situations where they need that type of care, they realize how quickly that type of care will and maybeur funds even take all of your money out of your 401(k) plan. at that point, your only choice is to rely on medicaid if you can qualify for medicaid. it means you end out your assets to only about $2500. that is all you are allowed to have. important thing, especially if you have got young kids working and living with you, you want to encourage your start saving for retirement. this is an issue especially for millennial's. a lot of them are facing high levels of college debt. they should at least, if they're lucky enough to be with an employer who has a 401(k) plan, to make sure they make the contribution to get as much as they can. it is so important. illinois, california, connecticut, either have or are putting in place desire a reductions. how does that work and what is the role? guest: the role is something we will still be working through. are lookingstates and saying, ultimately, if we have people who get to retirement and do not have the state level financial support, things like costs, aredicaid going to be burdened by individuals not prepared. the state is saying we have some requirements that maybe we can through payroll deduction. we can require employees to make sure they have disability coverage or short-term disability coverage. the states are saying we want to have the same level of requiring that an employer of a certain size, maybe 10 employees or so, would offer some type of payroll convenience. some states are looking at creating a center fund they can then invest and have the money going to. one of the things the state took the lead on was helping families save for college. states with al 50 states 529 plan for the are saying, you're able to do it for tuition. the next important thing when we what most americans want, they want to be not a burden on their kids when they retire. it is really important to make sure people have the resources to save. host: our guest is the executive director of the national institute on retirement security. kathy is next, joining us from florida. she is 51 and older. good morning. >> good morning. the problem i have is i worked for 35 years, and i put into your you're putting money into the market. the market goes up and down. you maximize how much money you are putting into your markets dropped -- at one time, i was doing very well. then the market dropped and i lost $35,000 at one point. it has gone up and down, up and down. ceo putting 10% in with a high percentage, if you're only making $25,000, even if you're putting 6% or 10% in, you're not putting a lot of money in. some of these people, when it is time to retire, even if they if you are $200,000, doing it with no taxes taken out, if you take the money out, 40% is taxed before you take it out. then, with what you have got when it is tax ase, then you have to pay income, so you get taxed again on it. a couple of good points you brought up, first of all and whatket volatility is interesting is we have been about americans since 2000 eight, what about the volatility of the stock market? it is interesting. coming out of 2000 eight when a lot of people, one of the prevalent jokes a lot of people would say was, my 401(k) became a 201(k). lost value inet the crisis. americans realized if you put in, you gainck back an awful lot and you did that return. there is that risk in the 401(k) plan, that we're asking who, we're asking those individuals to take on that risk, and sometimes, for people, i think especially at lower income levels, the ability to do what you said, to take that loss of $35,000 when you have been doing all the right things, it seems really hard. thereing we found, and are a lot of economic studies about this, individuals tend to make some wrong choices someone a market goes down, they get out at the bottom. and then they do not think about , what i really need to do is go back into the market. when they finally get comfortable to go back into the market, they go back into the market when it is near its. individuals performance in the 401(k) plans are not even as good as the market overall. it is a key issue we have to face. a lot of things have been done about having plans that will gradually adjust the risk in the fund you are using. they are being used when you get closer to cap the's age, they might make it so you only have 40% of your assets in the stock markets. your other money will be in on -- in bonds and there is a news about interest rates and there are pluses and minuses on the side which many people want to theire conservative with retirement investments. the last 10 years have been a really tough place to be because interest rates have been so low. you really cannot get the kind of returns you need to generate a good income unless you are willing to take risks. host: we are talking about retirement savings and state efforts to boost savings. our guest is daine oakley. lou is next. how old are you? caller: i am 65 and will be 66 in a few months. host: are you still working a retired? caller: i'm still working. background information -- at the age of 28, after serving during the vietnam era, i resigned from the va administration in washington, d.c. because i decided that i worked way too hard to work for someone else. thatwas before i realized retirement was in fact going to at 28, iity at 65, and was not thinking anything close to retirement. to find out now that had i put $10,000 in an account in my 20's , that would probably be worth something around $400,000. so i have learned and i have been educated over 40 years, 50 years of working and i still feel very lucky because i used to have employees. i had about six employees and i had a pension plan. i did not know about all of the and i cannots imagine why my money was not growing. why am i supposed to be saving and all i see is stagnation? 1970's,alking 70's -- as a point of reference to how the economy was running. because a had employees, 25% of what i put in my account i also had to put in their name because i was self-employed. pay their social security entitlements, plus, % federal taxes for myself because i was self-employed. i even wrote to jimmy carter -- i mean to bill clinton once. got a very nice letter that really said nothing stating that -- oh, that would be great if you could take that 7.4% and put it in your own retirement account, but that would not be realistic or the nation. here i am at 65. i am going to claim social security next year and i'm going to continue work and like i say, i feel very lucky because i can still work and have an income plus my social security and i have worked over 50 years. is an education process and i think you are giving people the united of the states way too much credit to know just to be that smart. host: thank you. how would you respond? guest: lou, an interesting story and kudos for setting up a and actually,n west virginia is one of the states where we have not seen a decline in people having some type of retirement plan, so that is one of the reasons why west virginia was one of those states that looked pretty good in terms of a state for retirees. the keep an eye think -- the key things i think is the point you made about mating -- putting the yourt money early in career, that is one of the most important things because one of the things you get this compound interest working on your behalf. if individuals could save 5% when they first start working, maybe each year, and after that put a little bit more when you get a raise and take half of the race and pay yourself first, to make sure you increase your contribution to your pension and then maybe get to 10 to 12% of pay coming out. that is really what people need addition to in social security. social security is there to be a foundation. is doing one important thing, too, he is working to his normal retirement age of 66, the current retirement age. in the next couple of beers, it will go up gradually to 67. -- in the next couple of years, it will go gradually up to 67. a lot of americans take the benefits at 62. one of the most important and to do to increase retirement income when they retire is to differ taking social security. social security is a really powerful incentive if you delay starting retirement beyond the normal retirement age and do a get an increase for each year you wait to start taking social security of 8%. if you think of the markets today, where could you go to get a percent more on your benefits in terms of the market? you can't go to a bank. you might get it in a stock market but there is a lot of risk, so if you can delay or social security, that becomes a key issue. security benefits are protected from inflation because they increase each year with the cost of living for retirees. those are some key components to think about and make sure you use. the other piece i would say is that self-employed individuals do have to pay not only the employee share but the employer's chair because they are the employer for those of you who work -- employer. for those of you who work for a company, your company is always matching your social security contribution, so those are some of the things i would take away. host: let's go to jerry next. how old are you? caller: i am 25. i just went to say how hard it is in florida to save for retirement when you have a state that has very low income jobs. i, myself, worked in a call center for two years with over 700 people and i was one of the few to enroll in the company's 401(k) plan because the job was so low pain that really others could afford to eat let alone save for retirement. host: how much did you make if i may ask? caller: absolutely no retirement savings. host: how much did you make at the call center? an hour.bout $10 the point you make is so important. americans tell us that not having seen their salaries go up over the last three or four decades has made it really hard for them to save. in fact, when we ask people, will it be easier to save in the future or harder? will be harder to save in the future and only 1% of americans think it will be easier. host: to your point about social security, didi fredericks says social security is a supplemental program and intended to be approximately 25% of retirement assets. let's go to greg and virginia. in morning. caller: good morning. to our particular call. host: you are calling on our 31 to 50 line. how old are you? caller: i am 34 years old but i'm calling on my father's half. he is turning 65 next year and but he hasn'te, hit a rough patch with his retirement income because my father used to invest heavily in stocks, particularly airline stocks. the couple of days before 9/11, a couple of the airline stocks plunge dramatically, so my father -- paul int's move on to eastlake, ohio. good morning. paulr: yes, this is dearden. years old and retired at the age of 66. at the time i was working, when they increased the amount of social security taken out of their paychecks, i was glad to see that because in the way it guaranteed me more money in retirement and other people complained. wanted toublicans say, let them keep the money and let them invested themselves, but believe it or not, the people would not invest it. it would go to the bar and blow it. [laughter] when i retired at 66, i had company retirement and i had social security and i did have my own ira. financially, my ira kept up with what i was taking out but not anymore. they are a is going down but i still don't spend that amount and i put it in the bank. retired, at the time i my retirement was worth a lot but in america, we had this type during up everybody should get -- pipe dream of everybody should get a raise every year and that devaluates the people on retirement. host: your response. palm, number one, you are so lucky because quite often in retirement, people talk about something they call of three like it stole and some people may not know what of the lake it still is these days, but -- stool, but that is really the best way for individuals to be prepared. i know we had that earlier comment about social security 20 5% of income. as much as social security was thought to be there -- it is not meant to be a supplement but the foundation and individuals were designed to build on social security because almost everybody has social security. there are some people in public employment, like police and firefighters, who are typically not covered by social security are quite often they have to retire sooner because of the demands of their job, usually sometime in their 50's. have socialn security foundations and only look at income from other individuals like paul, we are seeing that it is not until you get to the top quarter of retirees by income that you see individuals with reasonably equal components of social security. maybe a company pension and and ira or 401(k) plan. for most retirees, 75% of them, social security is 50% or more of their retirement income and of roughly 25% to 30% retirees, people over 65 who are no longer working, social security is 90% no more of their income. what we have done is we had this social security meant to be a foundation for many people and a lot of people have the foundation as a roof over their heads and we have some individuals at the top and to have extra income. the one of the things we know about retirees is that when y from a get mone paycheck or ira, they spend it on the limited resources because they need to. we have looked at what happens in retirees spend money. one of the things we know is that when a retiree expense money, they often go out to dinner on occasion, they will spend it for health care, housing. all of those dollars going into our economy generates more economic growth, so we have seen the people who just that pensions, old spansion -- old fashion cb plan, they actually generate almost $1 trillion with economic activity in the u.s. over six support hundred thousand jobs across our country with just their retirement spending. i get really concerned when one of the most important strategies people tell us -- after they tell us there is a retirement crisis -- what are we going to do about it? is i'm goingonse to spend when i retire. this baby-boom generation getting ready to retire, what does that mean in terms of our economic growth in the u.s.? things toimportant think about. these do not happen in isolation. host: the topic is also state plans to increase or boost your retirement savings. daine oakley is our guest and lawrence is joining us from nashville, indiana? caller: indiana. host: where's that located? caller: new bloomington, indiana. host: welcome. how old are you? caller: i got on the wrong call because i did it for memory and i'm actually on 64. line.you are on the right are you close to retirement or have you retired? have in the process of retiring, but i want to take one step back. one thing i think is a more cautious element in the discussion and that is that lack of education. when i was in high school, we had civics and accounting, island of -- i learned to balance a checkbook. you will notice over the last 30 years or 40 years, and this is what is odd, very few things are more important in life then a person economics or money in a physical sense, and this most important thing is conspicuously left out that the education of our children. it has been replaced with assuming -- i'm assuming minors and a position of debt rather than explaining to them in school that money management how to deal with money, and more important, the environment of money -- what are banks? what are brokers? what are these terminologies? theme foster this thing on that you are supposed to go into debt and the american way is that. -- we haveension attention to want to go in debt and keep children uneducated. on the backend, we look at the backend that the custodians of our money, the banks of our money, they treat us as prey and i think senate bank and regulation hearings for the checkbooks and the way they generate overdraft fees from just putting unsuspecting people's 401(k)s in stock markets. of cash, huge pools hedge funds and everything else just circling the pile. host: you put a lot of issues on the table and i will give our guest a chance to respond but thank you for adding your voice. guest: a lot of great issues that you raised. financial education is such a key issue. when we go back to the time when most people, and you almost have got to go back to the early 1980's when most individuals who had a pension or retirement plan at work were covered by a traditional pension, individuals do not have to worry about investing because it was done by professionals who managed those dollars and understood markets and understood risk and could balance the risk out. we even see that in the public sector today. that is a big plus and it helps more benefits get for individuals when you can do it with professionals doing that investing management. in terms of the issues about financing, having people understand compound interest when it comes to retirement is so critical. i always remember one of my bosses telling me that he came home one day and his son said, what do you do? and his started explaining about compound interest and all of a sudden, his son's eyes lit up and he said, i got to go out and get me a job. his father was flabbergasted. my son is going to get a job? why do need to get a job? get compoundnt to interest working for me. the key point is can we find ways to help kids understand that when they are in school and can we help them in the workforce? they are trying to do things in 401(k) plans by using these target date plans that helps people invest a little bit. in the invest more like a professional what do or if you went to a financial planner, they tell you when you are 30, put more money in risky assets, you don't have that much to lose, it is a good time to get extra growth. as you get closer to retirement, you have to move away from that so you have stability in your income and your returns. there is a lot of that stuff that is not easy for the average person to understand. there are a lot of good programs around the country trying to do financial education in schools. .umpstart is one a lot of other organizations are trying to come in and help. i think the key thing gets compound interest is imported. we need to think about understanding that but people also have to understand that if you think about what you get in a savings accounts and most or .2%it might be .1% interest. when i was a kid growing up, everybody had 4%, so you had some aspect -- we have deregulated or created this environment where 1% interest will only take 720 years for that dollar you put into double. host: if the fed does not act on interest rates now, likely it will be delayed until after the elections in 2016. guest: probably, yes. host: we have about 10 minutes left as a focus on retirement security and state efforts to improve that. brought from tennessee. -- brad from tennessee. how old are you? caller: i am 54. host: have you saved for retirement? caller: i have about $100,000 of my 41 ok. -- my 41 ok. host: how much do you make? caller: about $60,000. guest: you are doing pretty good. obviously, the next 10 years of the really important as you get ready to look toward retirement. what are you thinking about? caller: my concern is that the people who are administrators of social security have told us it will be bankrupt by the time i am retirement age. concerned about my 401(k) being in the stock market because we have such massive and i think probably there is going to be a huge crash within the next 10 years and everything in my 401(k) will be valueless as well. issues youink the raise are very interesting. social security is a foundational think and what we look at what has happened with retirees, many of them rely on we look atuch, when workers today getting ready to get social security, politically social security reform is a tough thing for congress to do. the last time it was done in the 1980's, social security was within six months of what they called running out of money. social security and verrilli runs out of money because it always takes of money from it nevernd -- because runs out of money because it always takes money from workers and payback retirees. in 1984, we prepared for the baby boom and created the social security trust fund. the trust fund will run out of money and at that point in time, social security will still be 75 percent toout 80% of the benefits that are currently being paid out of social security, so social security going bankrupt is not really happen. you still have some social security benefits but social security cannot pay benefits whatthan one -- more than it takes in and we have to do stuff about fixing social security because that is the real crux. some of those axis made putting more money and -- some of those fixes may mean putting more money while we were, so maybe more contributions. wage base for social security which i believe is $118,000 today, that used to be about 90% of the average wages and it is actually less than that, so people have been talking about raising the wage base and for most americans, raising the wage base is not a concern personally because they don't own over $118,000. americansmething usually pretty strongly support. social security has a phenomenal amount of support within the american people. 75% or more tell us that we cannot cut social security benefits. retirees, and for existing retirees, so we have to find a way to get them to fix the system. the sooner we fix social security and get it on a secure tab, the less it will cost us in terms of having to increase contributions for the level that we pay them at. host: some crazy aimed at you from michael and wiser who says you have been a fountain of information and if you would like to get more information, online.org. is nris we have about five minutes and welcome our listeners on xm and nationwide listening to c-span radio. from louisiana. how old are you? i know, never asked the woman her age. caller: 71. host: happy retired? caller: yes. the primary thing is my husband. we have suffered from some of the changes that were made and how my husband was able -- speaking of fixing social security, this is one of the primary issues -- we relocated from california to louisiana and my husband worked for the federal government and he also worked for private industries. be together. would everything has tripled in price. to $700omething close for utilities, auto insurance is higher and now my husband is only drawing 40% of the social security. i think it is so unfair that the president and that everybody in our lives is telling federal employees to double dip and he was triple dipping and every other kind of look and it has hurt us so bad. he only gets $400 a month social security when he worked for a private industry over 20 something years. host: how old is your husband? caller: he is 73. host: when did he retire? heler: he is suffering and developed cancer and we are struggling to maintain. he had a good retirement, but it is eaten up. host: i am sorry about his illness and that obviously complicates retirement savings. what would you say to her? guest: i think what you are talking about, joyce, is the situation where the federal government recognizes that especiallyloyees, like your husband who probably worked for them before he went into the private sector, they do the old civil service system did not participate in social security, so there is something called the government offset because social security is designed to provide income for people at low incomes. when they go in and have all those years of zero, it makes it tough to balance it out. there has been legislation that has been introduced repeatedly. in has a strong level of support. i think that is one of the fixes that has to happen as you look at social security and making sure it can be there for all americans. is other key point you raise these type of economic shocks. yourur case, it is having husband be sick and having to face those medical bills. some households, the economic shock can be a symbol of my car breaks down and 94 new tires and made fourave -- and i new tires and i do not have $1000 to spend on getting my car repaired, and how will i get to see my grandkids? how i shop?go to -- it is important when you see economic shocks if individuals are on a fixed income or someone just getting social security -- if you think about normal social security average benefits, it is $1200 to $1300 a month, so if it turns out you need for new tires, that is your social security check for that month if you don't have at their savings, so it is important we find ways. i think that is what the states are trying to do. they are starting to recognize that even if we can find a way so that all americans can have hopefully,000, $32,000 put away because they say from the first time they had their first job, maybe not a lot able to have been accumulate dollars, when the economic shocks occur, they will have resources to go to and they will not have to borrow the money or use their whole social security check that month to pay for getting the car up and running. host: again, how likely is that with all the interest, especially for those between 30 and 60 who have kids going to college. guest: i think if it is done before you pay taxes and this is where this concept comes from, and theyhas done it have it in their 401(k) plans and they find that if you take money out, people are used to it from their first paycheck. they accept that and continue and they get about 80% to 90% of the employees and rolling and if they actively make that decision and choose it,. if we can take advantage of inertia, and that is really what these auto enrollment or secure choice things are going on say thate are going to everybody gets automatically enrolled in the program. mainly only 3% initially and we can increase that over time, but everybody should have some retirement savings. in california, if you look at it, the average person is earning less than $25,000. by the time they got to rick time, they had $100,000 or more in a retirement account, even with the percent contribution. the: our guest is a national institute on retirement security. you can get more information online. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: it is the start up the nfl season although there was a game last thursday between pittsburgh and the new england patriots. coming up, we talk about that judge and the reversal of the four-game suspension of tom brady, the quarterback for the new england patriots and what this means for the nfl. andare watching listening to "washington journal ." we are back in two moment. stay with us. ♪ >> monday night on "the communicators," chair of the fcc's incentive option task the upcomingiscuss broadcast spectrum auction and will allow wireless companies to bid on airwave space. >> a congressional determination made in the spectrum act and one thing i want to emphasize, we fromot taking the spectrum broadcasters, it is a voluntary action on behalf of the broadcasters. broadcasters continue to be an extremely invaluable service of the congress passed the one-time only basis will be able to relinquish their respective rights and return for a share of the proceeds at the auction. what it is is congress' det ermination and fcc implementation to use market forces to make available though planned spectrum to meet broadband needs. in other words, the need for broadband spectrum is burgeoning fight the polls and exponentially -- by exponentials and exponentially. there is not a lot left. this is a new and novel method. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. nazi, he was a concentration camp commandant and he was responsible for the murder of thousands of jews. jennifert on "q&a," teege on her life altering discovery that her father was the nazi camp commandant or the butcher. >> you would see a tremendously cool person, the person -- cruel -- in, a person who was mean, he was capable -- he had dogs, he had two dogs and he called them ralph and rolled and he trained them to tear human the parts. i think this sums it up pretty good. he was a person -- there was a --asure that he felt when he when they killed people and this is something that when you are normal, if you do not have this aspect in your personality, it is difficult to grasp. andonight at 8:00 eastern pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: among the areas of expertise for our next guest is sports law. we want to welcome brad snyder who teaches at the university of wisconsin, thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me, steve. host: let's talk about tom brady and the nfl and i want to share with nfl commissioner said following the ruling which allowed top brady to play last thursday. he said -- "we are grateful to judge for curing this matter but respectfully disagree with today's decision. we will appeal today's ruling in order to uphold the collectively bargained responsibility to protect the integrity of the game. the commissioners spots ability competitivee fairness of our game is a paramount principle and the leak and are 32 clubs will continue to pursue a path to that end. while the legal base of this process continues, we look for to focusing operable and opening of the regular season." guest: i think the commissioner thinks he will win on appeal which he might because it is rare when a federal judge overturns an arbitrator decision. the problem in this case, unlike other sports leagues, was a commissioner acting as the final arbitrator. in other sports leagues, they are independent, so the commissioner used his power to act as the final arbitrator to roll of the brady case and i think the federal judge did not like that so much and thought brady got enough due process. host: explain how i got to the courts and wine. reallyall of this started in collective bargaining. the players agreed the collective bargaining to get commissioner roger goodell the power to punish the players for conduct detrimental to the confidencend public in the game of football, but they also gave him the power on appeals, to either choose the final arbitrator or act as the final arbitrator himself. he did not hear the initial discipline. of what toys and said good, but troyssioner goodell -- vincent suspended tom brady for four games for allegedly deflating footballs in the nfl playoff game. or knowing about the deflation of footballs in the nfl playoff game, a little tricky based on the evidence. host: something that tom brady continues to deny. guest: continues to deny, but they might add that on the day of the hearing went pretty elected to destroy his cell phone which might have had either instant messages or phone messages or messages -- or cell phone messages or other messages between him and clubhouse attendants about the matter, so brady detractors would say that but it did not seem like something an innocent man would do. the issue is not whether he was innocent or guilty because on appeal, the appeal internally went commissioner goodell and he upheld rabies four-game suspension. -- brady's four-game suspension. in your to block him from going to enough from the court, then it went to the southern district of new york, in manhattan, and they tried -- they filed a petition basically to say, you confirmed this arbitration award because they felt that in new york they would get a friendlier hearing than in minnesota for the players have got recently to federal court and achieve their fair share of victories over commissioner goodell and the owners. host: we want to hear from you on this issue. our phone lines are divided regionally. eastern half of the country -- (202)-784-8000. in the mountain of pacific time zones -- (202)-784-8001. we should have one line set aside for new england patriot fans. talk about nfl and the players league established in 1956. it is the union for the nfl football players. the993, they negotiated current collective bargaining agreement which means what? guest: i taught sports law last segment -- last semester and in my class, i had the head of the players association and a longtime outside counsel for the nfl. they told something interesting they negotiated the labor agreement between players and owners, the biggest sticking point was over this issue which was who would cap the last word about disciplinary matters leading to the integrity of the game? commissioner goodell consisted that he wanted the last word, not only the punishment on the front end but to be the final arbitrator in the case. commissioner goodell would not budge on that issue, so that was really a big sticking point into labor negotiations. the flipside is layers agreed to that system. that is -- the players agree to that system and that is why we are where we are because players agree to have the commissioner have the last word. host: let's go to lewis from michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. the first press conference sealed it for me that he knew what was going on when he said what is everybody getting excited about? here's a quarterback, playing the big game, and if somebody must with my footballs, i would be pretty upset. guest: it's an interesting comment. one thing people misinterpret from judge permits, -- the judge's decision, is that the exonerated. he did no such thing. he just said that brady lacked due process and did not get the fair hearing that he deserved on the issue from the commissioner on appeal. judge berman did not say that tom brady was innocent of this not think thato tom brady was innocent and a lot of people agree. i think the patriot fans who call them will take the other point of view. host: let me go back to what the judge said in the cushion suspensions. it reads as follows -- award is premised upon several legal deficiencies, including -- host: -- guest: the place i would take with tomh on judge brady, you are only entitled to basic due process. wells wered the poor, he was allowed to cross examine some of the witnesses. least one witness, vice president of the nfl, that he did not get to cross examine and that was one of the things that the judge found to be deficient. i think the issue is did tom brady had enough due process? to the a basic due process? you certainly do not get the same type of due process in a civil action or us tom brady would have been compelled to turn over his phone. host: let's go to randy from her junior. good morning. -- from virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. this is why i do not watch the nfl anymore. i think these guys are underpaid brats -- are under the table paid brats. what is the use in having the commissioner and all the organizations if you take it to the federal courts? childish and so stupid. host: thank you, randy. but about roger goodell since he brought his name up? guest: i agree with randy's sentiments that aren't there more important things in the world for the federal district court in manhattan, a busy court, to deal with other than inflated -- deflated football's? it seems both sides are guilty of problems. commissioner goodell want to tightly to protect the integrity of the game that the nfl finds itself in court and they lose, but the players agreed to this pretty messed up system. both sides are partly to blame. host: paul is next from st. louis. and hiswith brad snyder expertise is sports law and we are talking about nfl and the courts. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question. there are three cities in the nfl that are vying to try and retain their chain, and one of the i am concerned about. let thefl decides to team relocate to the other city and i know they have a process they have to go through, with that process be subject to judicial review or could it be subject to judicial review? if the state decides to let the team leave their current cities? guest: possibly. there have been cities in the past that have tried to sue to prevent teams from leaving towns . most of the lawsuits have been unsuccessful. on the flipside, out of davis, the late owner of the oakland raiders, sued the nfl to allow him to move the raiders from oakland to los angeles. i think the nfl would be more afraid of a lawsuit if it prevents the team for moving along the lines of an al davis lost it. football, unlike baseball, is not exempt from antitrust laws, so the owner of an nfl team is not allowed to move and could conceivably move -- sue the leak in court and i think that is the big fear, not the miss polity turning around and suing the nfl. it will be interesting. host: not only an expert on football but baseball. the author of the book "well-paid slave: the fight for refresh -- four free agents in professional sports." let's hear from riding in montana. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: good, to lie. caller: just want to ask why he did not turn over his own? was he cheating on his wife? guest: good question. i think that is what everyone wants to know. why did tom brady happened to destroy his cell phone on the day of the hearing with commissioner goodell? flipside, i think tom brady would say that the commissioner sort of acted as judge and jury when every other professional sports league cap -- had ant arbitrator independent arbitrator that was partial to the players and owners. here, commissioner goodell to not give him a fair hearing. there was no way he was going to win, so i understand the sentiment but i think tom brady would say i had no chance in arbitration and i deserve more due process than that. host: one of our viewers say that doping in baseball, cheating in football, crime in the nba, six nascar races -- fixed nascar races -- enough said. guest: they expect $95 billion to be gambled on professionals in college football and this is why commissioner goodell is really concerned protecting the integrity of the game. people might want to know what the big deal is, well, $95 billion. there is a lot of gambling on the nfl. host: from georgia, harry is next. caller: good morning. i would like to know if the new england patriots were found guilty of cheating, and if they were found guilty of cheating, why would they not stripped of their super bowl championship? host: thank you. guest: the new england patriots were punished. i do not know if they were technically found guilty of cheating, but they were punished for allowing this to happen. they were fined i think $1 million and lost the first round draft pick and fourth-round draft pick and the owner of the new england patriots elected not to challenge both penalties for the good of the league. he later regretted that, but i think that the patriots had decided to challenge this in federal court along with tom brady, that they would have seen those things reversed by judge berman as well. but i think bob cap try to put this controversy behind him and elected to take the punishment. i do not think there is anyone who would say that those deflated football's mean that somehow the patriots would not have been the seahawks in the super bowl. host: the irony was that it was not even close. guest: but i think that the things are not on the up and up and that commissioner goodell is really concerned about because of spy gate where the patriots were accused of filming other teams coaches signals way back in 2007. things areance that not on the up and up and that patriots are cheaters. i don't think in reality the patriots cheated. they want the super bowl there and square. host: there are changes in the way they handle footballs, correct? guest: correct. it is in the league and not up to the teams and the team ball boys will not handle footballs anymore. host: you are listening to c-span and we are focusing on the nfl and court. we welcome our listeners on xm potus channel 124 and c-span radio on 24/7 on xm and streamed on the web at www.c-span.org. case from liberty, texas. good morning. caller: i don't understand why courtney to come to play in football. it is three hours that folks do not have to think about the crazy stuff in the world. it is ridiculous. if we can somehow muster the fervor and the passion as far as fixing this country, fixing our infrastructure and getting people back to work and not having to go to war, we could turn this world around, but we care more about football and all that. that's fine, i love football. i'm in football country and i've watching the houston texans. i'm not going to freak out and lose my mind it a football deflated or whatever because it does not affect my life. i love football, but i love this country more [laughter] . you all have a host: good day and go texans. thank you. guest: i think a lot of people feel that way. don't we have better things to do with our courts? had the cases on this issue, so i think a lot of people feel the way he does. host: our next caller is a massachusetts. are you a patriots fan? caller: yes, sir, i am. first of all, i cannot believe the direct attack against the new england patriots per se, not against tom brady. it is a fact that some players could actually hit to their wives and knock them out of notators and have been punished as severely as tom brady. tom brady is an incredible athlete. he has incredible integrity. he has uplifted the sport to a point where people need to have people like tom brady around. the nfl and whoever else was out attack toberate deflate the new england patriots, bob craft, tom brady, and they said, we are just a good football team and be like playing football. brady, these guys are pros and they are really good people. host: thank you. we appreciate it. guest: pretty shocked to got defense for england patriots, i'm not. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about -- hello? host: go ahead, calvin. caller: i would like to talk about the latest nfl do players like vince young when he got and they sent him to a different team in the middle of the season and you know he ain't going to do good and they pass them to another team and they kick him out the league and they don't do that to hundreds of players over the course of the nfl. i would like to say something about jeff disher because what he did was a disgrace. he called the show's grandmother -- vince's grandmother, he said that he was sick and might try to hurt himself. at the same time, he hung up with his grandmother and called the police and tells him that vince young has got a gun and he might try to hurt someone and that you need to send the swat team to find me because he might try to hurt someone. and then they just blurt that story. and then baseball, when they kicked off african-american players out of the league in the 1980's under reagan, and they investigation and aaa,they got to the aa and and the closest down there and telling black players they can play football or basketball, i suggest you leave because all the black players are being held back. host: calvin, thank you for the call. guest: i think the caller made a good point by putting -- by mentioning putting the vince young case the side. the contracts are not guaranteed and commissioner goodell and the and the players are putting their livelihoods and little or no money guaranteed going to that player. have a lot of money, more than mlb and i think that is part of what is going on. between -- host: netsuite -- is tom brady and incredible athlete, yes. when you say he has integrity, you lost all credibility. that is a treat. from "the usa today" -- they are saying they know people will watch. guest: one of the students in my said that people were talking about the nfl off-season and that was a good thing for the league. i'm not so sure about that, but people can't stop watching and they cannot stop talking about tom brady and the nfl. host: washington. thank you. caller: hi, how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: being that i am a seahawks fan, what happened, regardless of whether or not we did or did not lose the game because of what happened with the football, it should come down to the fact that they were still trying to do something wrong and for that fact alone, they should be punished here. incident say, why are they getting the super bowl when they did that they had that intention. i think because sorry, but there are millions and millions of children that are watching these games and learning from the players and so forth, and i have all girls and they all of football and they can tell you more about football than most men can, but at the same time, and i'mch the arguments thinking, i would not let my daughter date one of these guys, so where does it come down to saying, granted the only try to deflate a football, but that teaches the younger generation. they will say, all i did was put the air out of this person's tires, what is the big deal? host: do you agree or disagree with this tweet to an earlier point about the patriots who game,have still won the the game's outcome has zero relevant to the importance of maintaining integrity in the sports. your response. caller: zero relevant? to theero relevant importance of maintaining integrity to the game. caller: i think there is a lot of integrity. on site, i misunderstood that. host: that's ok. we will get a response. guest: it's a shocking to get response from seattle as much as new england, but to roger goodell's credit, he did suspend tom brady for what amounts to one quarter of the season and goodell analogized his two uses performance-enhancing drugs. the analogyjected to performance-enhancing drugs, but i'll give you another, sort of like a pitcher in baseball throwing spitballs are trying to dr. the baseball. i think that is what commissioner goodell was thinking when he gave tom brady a four-game suspension. that four-game suspension has been overturned by a federal judge. host: a lot of attention was the north used -- northwestern university football players who wanted to form a union that failed. guest: a courageous move by some of the players, cain coulter, he tried to unionize that team over the opposition of the opposition -- of the university and former coach. they went through the process and the nfl of all of the -- and elected to not let them they rejected that attempt, but i really deeply admire those players who tried to organize college athletes because if there is a last ration of sports, it is college sports. more than the ncaa, they are exploiting a lot of the players, most of whom never stepped on the professional football field or court and the ncaa and coaches are making millions and millions and millions of dollars. host: our guest teaches at the university of wisconsin. eduardo is our next caller from virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. wellsoblem i have is the report itself. there was no evidence, there was no evidence or support for have brady wasts guilty. he was essentially convicted on circumstantial assumption, and that is the whole problem. then strip guilty, him of whenever, do whatever, but don't task these assumptions that he might have, should have, could have no based on circumstantial evidence. that is the huge problem of tom , by then,e has won the super bowl's, and to do this and ruin his career on circumstantial evidence is a real problem. host: thank you for making that point. we will get a response. guest: my first response of the a lot of cases turn on circumstantial evidence. evidence could be considered circumstantial and it all depends on the reliability of circumstantial evidence. the well's report said that it was more likely than not that thebrady you about deflating of footballs. not that tom brady was guilty amongst deflating footballs, so the ball's report was pretty careful. i would say that in a civil case, if this was a civil lawsuit between the nfl and tom brady, that tom brady would have been compelled to turn over the text messages on his phone and if this had been a civil case and tom brady had destroyed his phone, then there could have been some adverse inference for destroyingdy potentially relevant evidence in that case. process.s need to tom brady deserves a fair hearing, but the nfl did not really get access all the evidence that it couldn't have had in another type of proceeding. host: bottom line, tom brady will play the entire season. guest: the entire season. i can't see the second court of appeals jumping in and taking this case before the season is over, so i am guessing that it is more likely than not that tom brady will be playing all season long, leading the patriots to the playoffs and this controversy will persist until after the season. i could see him sitting out for games at the beginning of next season at the second court disagrees with the judge. of the wendell holmes, walter lippman, another book you are working on with nothing to do with sports. guest: this is about law and politics in the early 20th century and it is a political has a house of truth and at this house of truth, walter lippman lived there, and he began inviting people over to , oliver wendell holmes junior, and he became a center of the presidential campaign and 1912 and just a side of liberal activism from 1912 to 1919. host: we look forward to the book. brad snyder, professor of sports like the university of wisconsin. we appreciate it. 7:00e back everyone at p.m. eastern time. congress will be debating the budget in the next couple of weeks and that is one of our topics. the senior dp of the bipartisan policy center and matthew rojanksy will join us from the wilson center to talk about russia's military buildup in syria, how that is happening and implications in a troubled part martin,orld, and david former homeland security deputy and professor at the university of virginia, on the assistance for the refugees coming to the u.s. now numbering in the tens of thousands. that is tomorrow morning on "washington journal." "newsmakers" is up next. you >> paper sheet you being with us on this sunday. enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great week ahead. ♪ >> here on c-span this morning, newsmakers is next with republican congressman jim jordan of ohio. get a look at the debate this past week in congress between the a run nuclear -- of the around nuclear agreement between senate leaders in the house. host:

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Arkansas , United States , Montana , Louisiana , Bloomington , Indiana , Vermont , Minnesota , California , Syria , Russia , Liberty County , Florida , Washington , District Of Columbia , Des Moines , Iowa , Connecticut , West Virginia , San Francisco , Mexico , Rome , Lazio , Italy , South Carolina , Massachusetts , Southern District , Virginia , Chicago , Illinois , New York , Japan , New Hampshire , North Carolina , Oakland , Texas , Iran , Kentucky , Boston , Georgia , Wisconsin , Michigan , Seattle , Jordan , United Kingdom , Oklahoma , Tennessee , New Jersey , South Dakota , Israel , Colorado , Pennsylvania , Maryland , Ohio , Kansas , North Dakota , Orlando , Berlin , Germany , Texans , Americans , Mexicans , America , Britain , Iranian , British , Japanese , American , Karen Buchanan , Ben Carson , Roger Goodell , David Martin , Nancy Pelosi , Cain Coulter , Tom Brady , Jay Bush , Rick Perry , George Wallace , Jimmy Fallon , Louie Gohmert , Margaret Thatcher , Rick Santorum , John Boehner , Walter Lippman , Goodell Troy Vincent , Paul Ryan , Bernie Sanders , Mathew Staver , Diana Oakley Jim , Oliver Wendell Holmes , Diana Lee , Diana Oakley , Tim Kim Davis , Los Angeles , Kim Davis , Wendell Holmes Walter Lippman , Nephi Pelosi , Thomas Jefferson , Barney Frank , Al Davis , Abraham Lincoln , Harry Reid , Boehner Thomas Burke , Jimmy Carter , Chris Cox , Barack Obama , Carly Fiorina , Lindsey Graham , Jesus Christ , Paul Dearden , Mitch Mcconnell , Brad Snyder , Glenn Beck , Hillary Clinton , Tom Cole ,