who wants to apply the campaign finance law to the internet, to political speech on the internet. they want to shut down conservatives from speaking. it is a new world for liberals. it used to be they had pretty much 100% control of all information dissemination in america. now you have these tiny little breaches in the wall of sound with talk radio and the internet so what they want to do? shut them down. >> host: early one morning just been published you were being interviewed by howard smith on pbs and he said you talk about victims and dictum put in america but the more i listen to you i think that you are the one claiming victimhood, that you are the victim of the left-wing conspiracy and he held out his arms and said you should have across. what is howard smith struggling with? [laughter] ..

how is chris werner going to get out there and heather macdonald? we have so many fantastic writers in new york, some and fantastic right wing writers and you are buying your head against the wall just to get attention for a book in even a best-selling book, even your seventh best-selling book when it's that hard for me to get on tv what does that say about the

conservatives people love norma? >> host: others have said you try to be funny and he called a sophomoric sort of simplistic view of things and keep people from taking you seriously according to him. what you say to people who criticize your humor? >> guest: i mean, often in these are said in front of audiences and i suppose you could bring in a humor analysts to determine whether and how something is funny. i just know when and how some people in the audience laugh that means it's funny. and somebody asked me this on radio yesterday, i will standing in the airport and there was a man standing next to me and asked me about a line in my book. i was describing how the democrats compete for victimhood and barack obama -- hillary was a victim of the republicans,

barack obama was the victim of hillary of republicans and of white racists 71 because he was the biggest victim and in describing how they play a game where of who is the biggest victim in order to win these democratic nominations i concluded i think that's where it was the statement from elizabeth edwards talking about john edwards running against hillary and obama in saying we can make john black in a woman and i said in my follow-up line mechanic and black. the woman was asking me if that is funny and i said to her there is a man sitting next to me coming here over that and he just burst out laughing, that's how i know it's funny. [laughter] >> host: your audience tells you what is funny but beneath that you hold a deep commitment to the founding principles of this country. talk about what you think makes america such an exceptional company -- country? guess my there are so many

things. a lot of it does, from a christian world view, a christian founding. part of that is freedom of choice of course, all religions prosper in america but it was just disproportionately christians with a christian world be a founding in part of in part of a what is interesting about that too, christ was really upsetting the customs of his day by using some of the women for his parables. by ministering to women so often. that was very unusual so as i've said before and the press -- a first feminist was jesus christ and that was the freedom of choice, literally choice not killing babies choice and also the idea that all men are created by god and therefore no

man has the right to rule over you except by your consent, it's not perfect consent but that isn't the idea of a federalist democracy that a king does not rule over your by divine right because the king has no genetic authority over you. there isn't a sun god in worth some genetic power to roll over how other people and as we have to set up a system not where republicans are to fans of the old perot and we will have a poll question for every issue and take the numbers -- you do want to be as the federalist describes you wanted to be here action against vashon, the more intelligent people to be choosing their leaders but it is in a sense, is the rule by consent. >> host: that is true. >> guest: it has carried america through until now and we will see what happens this

maggot will be an interesting test. in chapter one i love the title call the speak loudly and carry a smaller victim. you tell about some incredible victim hoaxes. can you share a couple of them priced at like margaret jones, j.t. their roy and then the one about the anti muslim pliers that were distributed at george washington and a conservative group was blamed. >> guest: that is a long string of hate crimes. i only listed in a small portion of them in my book. for 20 years i think the only -- all these hate crimes usually on college campuses have turned out to be hoaxes. i can think of a real one -- the only surprise showing up on a college campus is at an actual races but there, it's always someone tried to bring anti-semitism narcissism to attention and when it is thought to been a burgeoning class and

the movement at columbia university then the entire nation, there was a professor at columbia about two years ago who is in the middle of the plagiarism investigation for her graduates is and then suddenly lo and behold mines a news on her door and purveys the entire nation was fixated on this case and if you have been calling the hate crimes you are suspicious would have been raised in your antenna would have gone up. i think they finally abandoned the investigation from the beginning police force and we do not consider her a suspect. that's funny that to say that, when somebody is my view don't normally lead to say we don't consider this a self inflicted wounded. but even if it had been something that hadn't been for in these 20 years and maybe lager in actual races taking into manhattan to put a noose on a professor store to have a

whole nation transfixed by this is a little bit strange. you have on cnn now these claims hysterical claims about growing hate groups in america. there are ways to measure these things like on the various web sites, denominators that telling how many visitors are going to the web sites in a fabulous blog and link to have a hate crime, his club membership groups, there website for are about 10 people and they could you on these websites and yet in the media lies and says it is going up. far about 2,000 members of the klan in america right now and 10 percent are fbi agents watching the klan. there are 5,000 people in america approximately men who are aroused by watching videos of women in stiletto heels crushing frogs with estalella

feel all speaking erotically to the frog. so that is a bigger issue than the klan in america and yet we have to act as if we are constantly under attack. why is that? lacks for the original victim group and there were authentic victim of like all the johnny-come-latelies victim groups. at the time during slavery and jim crow laws that democrats are on the wrong side. so the democrats want to do over when there's no one in america in defending racism fess when democrats finally our billing to come: the stand up and no one is standing up for racism. >> host: you wrote about some real victims and how they are treated in. >> guest: like duke lacrosse players. that is fairly well known now, for about a. a half the is duke lacrosse players being falsely accused of gang raping a black stripper the professors adds duke signed a

letter him completely accusatory letter in the administration did not stand by them at all. on the mountain shrine in "the new york times" ran a article and then that really was disappointing. which may sound funny coming from a bed and then your time's most loyal reader. i'd always want to cut and an essay is america's greatest newspaper as long as you don't read anything on page one, and you think even with the internet somewhat laugh in one of them ought to be "the new york times" and that's usually which account them for for good average. for example, they had this to be a fantastic article and people who have the chimpanzee's as pets. that's the in-depth coverage i really enjoy but race was involved, sex was involved, and so they lose their minds and lied about the case and even toward the end when in the black stripper in turn out to be lying making up the story and the

evidence was preposterous and the prosecutor pushing the case, of course, was disbarred and went to prison so justice was done in the end of all this time you have the mainstream times or newsweek pretty the initial defendants mug shots on their cover your ticket was on and on and liberals revel in racism in america and i think it's because they were on the wrong side when it mattered. >> host: and the college boys lives were never the same. >> guest: in the end of justice was done in it's an eyesore in everyone moves on and pretend like it never happened but what if it hadn't -- what if their parents had not been in you can always tell when a victim is if they talk about them being a frat boys the guy standing. whenever your daddy or 5 billion of this is miss wixom and local seen a number supposing he this person. and the parents were middle-class, what if they couldn't afford lawyers.

>> host: another thing you wrote about and people commented on was that rush limbaugh and sean hannity and george bush are at greater risk of assassination van barack obama. >> guest: as a fun part of the book. in the last chapter i point out i wouldn't have mentioned it if they haven't brought it up so much other ad campaign you keep hearing about this unique rest of, is that being assassinated because he is black in and this is unlike any other president or any other presidential candidate in the call in for a special secret service protection and article about i'm so worried review it and there was some liberal in britain sank in the is elected he will be assassinated so i wouldn't have mentioned if they haven't been dangling the big red tape in front of me but in point of fact pretty much every presidential assassination or attempted assassination in the history of america was committed by a

liberal. some version have entered his communist palestinian extremists and there are a couple who didn't particularly have politics someone include john wilkes booth in that and john hinckley, but envelopes with casey was an actor. he was being hit a piece maugre in and that was his reason for shooting lincoln. he said i love peace month and life itself. what does that sound like? and in the case of hinckley the jury did find him guilty by reason of insanity so i think we could use that on over into the liberal category and the rest are open at less crazy we're. >> host: a . i haven't heard anyone else make. >> guest: tried to emigrate to the soviet union, he had taken a shot at the united states general. he was trying to emigrate to cuba. a lot of these was sent off, one

was sent off after reading a socialist pamphlet by emma goldman. one after another so if anybody takes a shot at obama is going to be his base. >> host: one of the things we're doing as clare booth luce policy institute and this new era of economic planning is as a staff and with our leaders we are reading the road to serfdom. in that but he said that the socialist need to have a scapegoat to rally a majority for common cause. the question is has the american businessman become the liberal scapegoat to rally the nation for this new socialist welfare state with welfare and socialized health care in force unionization? >> guest: yes though i must say i don't have a lot of love lost between me and wall street, they all donated to obama and where are the party of the small businessmen and they are the party of the financial manipulators like the dead were

a box of the democratic party george sorus who i write about in the book. it's curious that these three unofficial spokesman of the democratic party george soros, arianna huffington and that marcos moley fess of the daily cause speak in the accent's other native of bringing san forelands. and a means could you wait a few generations like you're grandchildren to the america bashing. the they get off at ellis island and i know of this country needs. could you let your grandchildren to it? at least as i say with sean hannity, speak decipherable english and i don't even know if that is what they are saying. i can barely understand them, they can talk about closing or in the azores or something but i think there are america bashing fess mack i think maybe they are. you also write in the book about david gergen is quote, it was during a cnn debate about the

election campaign and he was discussing a presidential debate in he said the mitt romney tried to argue less five about some liberal establishment which doesn't exist anymore if there's been a liberal establishment in shrunk and does not arrive in washington. that is a seven this concept. how can a christian who has been around for so long in such a remarkable assertion? >> guest: the greatest part about the quote was he was talking to alex and said you know that, and every they give you the you know that all sensible people agree you know liberals are lying and this is what we use to get all the time of the left before there was any alternative at all. it was just to have five people were crazy for talking about the fact that the information industries or slightly to the left of london and suddenly fox news camel on and liberals

discovered it was possible to present the news in the agenda pushing way. i'm not saying fox news says that but they sure got a fusion of it in for 30 years we've heard we are just reporting the news. use is not have a political content and suddenly they discovered in could and then the answer was two have talks use a shot up about it. look at how fox news is treated in addition to the orwellian name of fairness doctrine try to shut down talk radio for but not any of the other news outlets because they are so rare. and the clinton judge tried to apply the campaign finance laws to the internet, how about looking at how fox news is treated and people are used to getting the propaganda. i think most people weren't even alarmed were shocked or disturbed by the fact that all of the candidates for president on the democrats had refused to participate on fox news. they would take questions from a

talking snowman on cnn but it was beneath them to go on fox news which has higher ratings than cnn and msnbc combined and i don't work for fox news, i never have, i let go in there because i like their hair and makeup. and you are allowed to finish you're point as long as allen isn't there. just kidding, i love you alan. i miss him so much. i tell shot all the time. and go to hillary clinton and ed rendell a governor of pennsylvania said that there is an election coverage came out of fox news. and yet the democrats want to shoot like the klan page if they pull the power, they would. what is unique about fox news is a conservative from it is not equivalent of msnbc as i point out repeatedly steered it was the equivalent to the liberal left fox news host geraldo rivera, greta van susteren, who is that on msnbc. what's unique about fox news and

i think in general makes for more interesting viewing is it's a debate station that you have a liberal and a conservative not just a bunch of liberals are doing or eight liberals and one conservative. >> host: which is why cox news is rated number one fess mack i don't think this is just because of my legal background, that's the easiest way to get at the jews, because you hear things on other stations fannie you wonder why it a second, what would a republican say to that. is well, you get the full story from the left and right on fox news and i feel like i'm doing a commercial for fox news. i have no vested interest. >> host: in such a change racially i was in greece and the only news that we had with cnn international and there was no fox or talk radio, it was a long wait and the husband and i decided it all i looked at with cnn international i would hate america to because almost every piece about america is negative.

>> guest: cnn international is something to behold. they make cnn look like pat robertson station. christian broadcasting network. that is something to behold. >> host: you write a fair amount about sevilla in here who i am a great fan of your you write about the way the media covered her in making of a face like people were saying after rally killed obama and the way they cover of her firing at the alaska public safety commissioner because she let him go off and didn't remove his trooper who was . >> guest: if i could talk about fast, no one has asked me what i love about that is this was sarah palin sister's ex-husband who had taser derrin matthew, made death threats against sarah palin and her sisters' father, and then in addition to in crashes on the

job trading on the job and so on and so forth. normally what with a little perspective be on this, normally i feel that would be a lifetime tv for women made-for-tv movie. you have and the ex-husband to taser the sun and made death threats against the father. if i think normally liberals would take the women decide on that. but here suddenly for the first time ever that left position was always trust the copper. we never believed cops. but in this case the guy who tasted is the undisputed and by the way liberals will say i will be my own left here, the 10 year-old son asked to be tasted but what if the sunset and vine to know what it's like to be shot in the leg? >> host: and the death threats to the father nobody said that did not happen. this man should be a state trooper? >> guest: is the hypocrisy of the last that is so setting in that a smack in the coverage of this was amazing to me.

>> guest: in my position is sometimes called santa on the issues and sometimes they aren't but i need to know the facts. >> host: you also wrote in here about how when sarah peale and daughter came under attack right after she was chosen by mccain for vice president. obama the candidate seems so magnanimous and send it people's families are off-limits especially the children and his surrogates continue this will force attack guess my this is what democrats to come and they can sit back and be magnanimous and say i want to raise this issue or that issue and they don't have to because they are creations of the media. the media does have with them and in the case of all, it's amazing this didn't come out during the campaign, how is he in a position to run for president. the media and knocked out his

two opponents both of which probably would have beaten him when running for senate. first in the primary democratic a very wealthy investment banker was a way ahead in the polls and then a couple months before the primary election the media and sealed the divorce records. as a lawyer i am wondering was the appointment of a ceiling something of the media can say this would be interesting, but it happens routinely in the case of a proponent to a liberal democrat so clear the worst records or unsealed and, of course, divorce records as i say in the book this is why noam says is true when someone said by an angry divorce filing. there are not known as a report is involved in never know what the truth is, that's not the purpose of the worst carbon to get the doors down and people know that there are routine lies in divorce cases but to get the blair holland divorce and

suddenly he falls behind in obama cells to the top and wins the primary and then obama is facing an incredibly attractive republican candidates. jack ryan stanley goodman thing went to dartmouth, harvard law school and refer goldman sachs and made millions and then left it all to teach at an inner-city school in chicago. rock-solid catholic, fantastic and even though this is illinois he was running to replace a seat vacated by peter fitzgerald a republican so ryan probably would have been obama but, once again, that luckily for obama his opponent was divorced from a hollywood actress and she claimed to get this sealed off -- it was the custody records because their son is autistic and that is why jack ryan wanted the records sealed to protect his son. no, we will unseal this and take

out with the republican candidate in the filings jack ryan accuses five of having an affair and her response was i was driven into the arms of another man because you took me to sex clubs in new york and paris and propositioning. and this became big news in the republicans being prophetic as they usually are turned on jack ryan in four days after the records or unsealed people out so who does obama and up running against, god bless them, alan keyes staff in and he is a brilliant man but he lost. >> host: jack ryan's family wasn't off limits. >> guest: because the media satin insets the dirty work for a democrat which is why it makes you want to wring their necks when they stand up in this magnanimous way and say family is off the record. >> host: must take a break and will be right back.

it is michelle easton with the clare booth luce policy institute talking to ann coulter about her new book "guilty: liberal "victims" and their assault on america". and one of your chapters you read about how during this past presidential primary season the media and tags machine turn it on their beloved bill clinton and said that journalists acted as if clinton change rather than they were finally telling the truth. what happened? >> guest: that is the chapter on a nonexistent republican attack machine, the imaginary phenomenons as scarce liberals more than any other than global warming. and that is i didn't intend for

this point to be as much about the many and politics as it was, i wanted to be more on the victim culture and how victims are attacking. but as i was writing the book tour in the 30 years' war democratic primary every time i walk through a room with the tv on i hear some democrats fretting what are the democrats find to do and that the republican attack machine in wait until the machine gets a hold of this and you sit there like a dog listening to a high-pitched noise. i wish we had an attack machine. and i looked up on nexus how often they attack machine have been mentioned in a one-year coming in was 22007 and i think it was a hundred times. and then tried both the democratic attack machine for the same one year it was mentioned a handful of times by republican or conservative columnists saying there is a democrat attack machine. but as i point out that is absurd, the republican national

committee and the democratic national committee are like mesquita as iran at the king kong of the media trampling on cars and it frightening japanese access. and is in the media thank you is the marching orders to the democratic party, though i do have that many people think is the other way around and i have an example of "the new york times" reprinting obama campaign talking points. basically verbatim after one of the debates between obama and mccain and listening as an objective news article. in so sometimes they get their talking points when the campaign's but usually it is the media that is calling the shots in the democratic party in the one example of that you mentioned earlier and we didn't talk about and that was the story about a sarah palin rally which was much bigger than the obama rally, they would be the same venue a week apart and sarah palin would get twice as

many people. as a great orator. the story went around and everything three annunciations and crazy right-wingers that never should mention of, someone would yell out kill him in with little known to liberals and you're going to make up a hoax you probably shouldn't to one that will set off the secret service. they take that kind of thing very seriously and so needless to say the secret service officers spread throughout the speech, they into view of them and there are lots of people with tape recordings and they spend at least a week investigating this claim that someone in the crowd was yelling at kill him and decided it was a hoax. to make up that story? democrats by someone from the obama campaign. it was the media and who came up with a story of george bush shirking his national guard duty based on dr. documents in a crazy man who literally thrown at the mouth when being interviewed by the press, that

was dan rather and cbs news. .. @@@@@@ when the government has computerized records of all of our medical forms. and they will be confidential, will play? because i think joe the plumer's

records were supposed to confidential yet those came out and let the trip's confidential records came out and what was it, 800 republican files were supposed to be confidential, the fbi data. remember there was a cry when someone at the state department looked at the visa record of obama and the story faded when it turned out they also access to the records of mccain and kerry as republicans. it was just some nosy person at the department looking at the records. so don't tell me a were medical records are going to be safe and secure after what was done with surprising frequency to republicans or conservatives under dangerous to the left. the only good news about getting all of our computer records on file is we can finally find out whether or not bill clinton had syphilis because he would never release his medical records you may recall. >> host: i do recall. >> guest: i've wondered about that, get it all on file. >> host: now, another thing you wrote about wonderfully is when sarah palin was at the convention and she said what's the difference between a pit

bull and a hockey mom and pointed to her lipstick and in a few days after that, candidate obama said you can put lipstick on a pig and it's still paid. this is just an expression we have in illinois, it has nothing to do with sarah palin and the media seemed to buy that. >> guest: yeah, we lost that. my editor at one point wanted me to cut back because he said this has been hashed out but i said we'd lost in lysol alleged conservatives say yes, sure he didn't mean that. well, you know that's how the audience ticket. you can see them in the background talking and whispering -- was still laughing. >> guest: , one on related to politics is from doctor strange love, that movie was being made after kennedy was shot in

dallas. they had a very funny line with slim pickens, they are going through the emergency supply and it's a candy bar, bubble gum, whatever it all a's and slim pickens says if or something to that effect. his lips if you look closely he was still saying doubtless because of an antecedent event. what if right after, you know, cheney shot his friend in the face somebody says that dog don't haunt or after we found out about the john edwards suspected of child talking about edwards singing don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, get it? we know, the most watched political speech i would say and at least 20 years and that was the most famous line from the

most famous political speech in 20 years, sarah palin pointing to her lips and say lipstick and also i run through various headlines and there were a lot of jokes about sarah palin's lipstick you know, sarah palin and i think it was a muslim extremist, lipstick. all of these headline after headline, dozens of headlines in the days between her speech and obama saying how you can't put lipstick on a pig. >> host: and you wrote about kathleen parker in "guilty" and some of these conservatives turn viciously on sarah palin. what do you think of that? >> guest: suddenly conservatives we have never heard of become the spokesman on, that's right all the tv shows that won't have me on. i can't be a conservative spokesman but you attack right wing and your phyllis schlafly, ronald reagan reincarnate.

i kept checking with lots of conservatives. have you ever heard of this kathleen parker? nobody heard of her before. >> host: but she became a media favorite. we know how that works. >> guest: yes, we do. >> host: you turn on your own and suddenly are loved by all. >> guest: or an embarrassment like the example i brought up in the context the total media blackout on the john edwards having an affair of his cancer stricken wife for months i had to get my news from the national enquirer. >> host: the only people that covered it, at the same time "the new york times" was running front-page stories about the suppose it affairs of mccain which were bogus. >> guest: they finally pulled list for. >> host: but despite edwards. >> guest: i had to get my news from the national enquirer. finally it comes true and i have a memo from one of the editors at the la times instructed his

lawyers apparently there was interest in this, the boulders should not mention did john edwards story. and the "washington post" had an editor there that said well, he dropped out a month or two earlier well, he's not running for public office so i don't think you're going to see coverage. is that the standard now if you're not running for office because i don't think rush limbaugh was running for anything when the drug story broke and most preposterous lie, and again, and elevation of someone -- rush limbaugh at least is the most important conservative in america. okay, but how about ted haggard, evangelical minister i never heard of who suddenly becomes the pope of the protestants, and by the way we don't have a pope, we have a lot -- in fact we don't even need a minister but we do go to them because it's fun. i know a lot of ministers -- i give speeches at churches all the time. i've never heard of this guy. i sure he is really big in his area. that's another one, cnn is doing

a profile i guess on him. >> host: he wasn't for president, was he? >> guest: he wasn't running for office and wasn't even a conservative. here we have don edwards last candidate for vice president, very likely possibility for, you know, attorney general, some cabinet position, total media blackout. the only way you knew he was caught in a terribly embarrassing six scandal is that suddenly he was white washed out of the news. if somebody brought him up the cut to a commercial break. >> host: it's unbelievable. now you are a lawyer by training, of barack obama as impact on the supreme court? >> guest: judging by the rest of his domestic policy, probably try to pack the court. i think it will be a disaster. we don't -- we don't have any indication yet. we don't have any resignations yet. but i mean, he has tried to continue the policy, which i so love of george bush and the war

on terror, ha, liberals. >> host: keeping secretary gates was interesting. >> guest: he is cautioning down guantanamo, we are not pulling out of iraq any sooner. he is doing gigs of political correctness moving the war from iraq where we were winning to afghanistan, where we will probably lose. that is the stupidest thing unmatchable and he did that purely out of political correct reasons because the left-wing base demanded that he -- the democrats say i brac but we do need to engage them some place as george bush and many people keep saying rather than on the streets of new york we want the terrorist flypaper some place over there and by moving it from iraq to afghanistan he could be treating the next vietnam. i shouldn't say that, i hope it doesn't turn out that way but peter the great had trouble in afghanistan. the russians lost in afghanistan

that is not a good front for us. we should have left it in iraq. he had to please the democratic crazies. >> host: i sort of wondered if the first couple of mornings of the briefing just scared the jesus out of them. because we don't know how bad it probably is but those are the real figures on the truth about who is where and what you're doing. >> guest: that is what cheney said, and i don't know if it was because i do have some democrat friends. [laughter] and during the campaign i kept going to them saying are you crazy? were going to vote for this guy? he's going to pull troops out of iraq, saddam guantanamo and they would say to me he's not going to do that. so normal, serious democrats just assumed he's just doing that for the crazy days and by the way i can think of a circumstance in which a republican president would say something simply to please the base that he didn't really mean. there may be some things he didn't get to or something see double crossed on and he will lose like george bush raising

taxes or reagan didn't get around to abolishing the department of education and given the choice between the department of education and the soviet union i will admit its close. [laughter] >> host: but he did the right thing. now you started your career as a lawyer and graduated from the law school and did the law review. do worked for senate judiciary committee, he practiced law, but it did for center for individual rights. i have heard you when you go before smart young people you say don't go to law school. [laughter] why not and what should smart young people be doing? >> guest: there are too many lawyers. i mean, as a practical matter, it's not -- it's not a particularly good way to make a living. it's based on billable hours and unless you are going to be a scum that trial lawyer and make america a much worse place and take one-third recovery from these sleazy personal injury

lawsuits -- >> host:. >> guest: channeling babies before the jury or go corporate counsel or be a prosecutor and not make much money there are too many lawyers and it's a hard way to make a living. you are working weekends and at night. one thing i say is if you want to do tedious work and make xerox's 20 hours a day if this is your life ambition and you love the footnotes, actually i kind of like the footnotes -- >> host: i know you do. you've got a lot of them in there. they are great. >> guest: walls always fun, working for a judge is fun, being many forms of government lawyer, senate judiciary, prosecutor, a lot of those can be fun. they don't pay well but if you want to practice law okay fine, go to law school but what i find with a lot of students is nobody knows what he wants to do graduating from college and i asked my most successful friends in their 30's a few years ago

did you notice is when you were going to be doing when you graduated college and they said i had no idea this job existed. i think a lot of college kids don't know what they want to do. they think will school is a way of expanding their options. no, once you're on the treadmill you will get sucked

they did have to have some restrictions. why is that? it's because liberals show up and start screaming their heads off. that's the problem is, crazy liberals disrupting things. you do not have college republicans disrupting speeches by michael moore i promise you. but you do have liberals. by the way i write this in my last book, "how to talk to a liberal (if you must)," the college lecture circuit and one interesting fact is at harvard at the good schools, basically in the ivy league school and the equivalent they are not standing up screaming, they are not throwing food. they are smart enough and want to challenge you and i will take

questions until collapsed exhaustion. in the southern schools they are to chivalrous and bright i might add, the best region of the country. ever happens in the southern schools, it tends to be the bush league schools in the middle of america where there's some smart students, all republicans but you also have students that should not be at college per charles murray, too many people are going to college and they are joined up by lunatics like bill aerts, a college professor, port churchill, college professor. 82% of the underground is now teaching on a college campus. those people are animals and so if anything a conservative speaker on a college campus would have a reason for restricting the audience. we don't. but i won't even know why a liberal would need to restrict the audience. in hillary's case she probably needed to restrict as i was saying about possible assassination threats they come from the left and hillary was

getting crazy protests from code. >> host: regret of cornell, university of michigan law. i can't imagine they have many alumni who have seven and york times best-seller. to the administrators at cornell and michigan bring you into speed and mant were students who might aspire to have careers like you? >> guest: did write ups in the notes, once a year i say. i think they're going over the curriculum and what my course curriculum wallace to make sure this doesn't happen again. how did she get out of here like that? cornell past me off to the university of michigan law. you can take care of it, we didn't solve this problem. >> host: unbelievable. the left on campus, they think they are so brilliant and claim victimhood. they are against hate, for tolerance. when you spoke at the university in st. paul minnesota the college president condemned your

speech even though she hadn't been there and couldn't mention one specific and the students it was a mixed view audience a standing ovation and at the university of arizona a few years ago some of the leftist ways through apply at you. >> guest: and missed. they threw like girls. >> host: dave roy like girls. why don't these tolerance and antihate campaigns sweep in these liberals who are obviously so intolerant of you? >> guest: that's right and the idea of a college campus what they are always bragging about, while explaining why they only need to work two hours a week is that it would be, you know, freedom to investigate different areas, and they don't want their freedom of speech and freedom to engage in research and would be wide open, free challenging debate so the fact college tuition is way outpaced inflation and they are paid more

and more to teach two hours a week and get every other year off entirely would be able bit more viable if college campuses were all the reverse of that. they are the most intolerant. the least freedom to research. they are closed minded, they are angry at any dissent from the prevailing. you have more open debate on a subway platform the and on a college campus. >> host: the liberals seem to have a stereotype of you where they almost try to convince people want to listen even though you've written seven "new york times" bestsellers but there's other intriguing parts of your life i suspect some of the audience doesn't know about you are one of john kennedy's as receipts at the magazine, editor you grieve over his loss that might surprise listeners and i wanted to ask you what other different kinds of people like that have you worked with through the years? >> guest: i wouldn't want to ruin reputations but i think

that is a tribute to john kennedy jr.. i think george magazine was a terrific magazine and a bus because he did have lots of different views and he was interested in sponsoring debates and he was a magnificent man and not a doctrinaire liberal at all. it paid off jackie o. keeping her kids away from the rest of the kennedys. >> host: it seemed that way -- >> guest: it was a great loss. that would have been one of the most fun political magazines now but it couldn't survive his loss. he was george magazine. >> host: early in your career you can to washington and applied to the internet the national journalism center and i have a little inside information about your application because i have some relations involved. >> guest: can we get back to the book? [laughter] i don't know what you're going to say, i just note i get uncomfortable when the subject is ann coulter and not all

ideas. >> host: you said tugging cheek hillary clinton. what you think of her secretary of state? >> guest: better than william errors which i considered a possibility under obama. i will say one thing that surprised me since the election that john mccain oddly enough seems to have been won over to tax-cutting because he voted against both of bush's tax cuts. he was a big proponent of amnesty. he wanted to shut down gitmo if we are going to get the democratic party i would rather than and it is just something about republicans they go for the next guy in line. it's been a disaster there will not learn. i think michael steele needs to punish the early primary states or any states that allow democrats and independents to vote in the primaries but with john mccain as a nominee and this was before he chose sarah palin who was the one i ended up voting for, but that was for

sarah -- between hillary clinton and john mccain i will take hillary. they would be about the same and we wouldn't get blamed for it and also republicans would notify back. that is something a lot of us learned during the bush administration like with amnesty you want to support your president, your party is in the white house and a lot of the spending goes up, a lot of the things that hurt republicans and to think george bush was an act as it president in many ways particularly protecting this country from terror, but he was a liberal in some ways and that's better than the fact the country is going to be a third world country on the basis of this stimulus bill, other than that little detail i am enjoying being in the insurgency, the angry insurgency instead of the governing majority. >> host: the money being spent though, just it almost makes you nam, doesn't it? >> guest: yep. >> host: and i think people

are starting to awaken to that. >> guest: and it's only been a month. >> host: all of your books have been "new york times" bestsellers. in your heart is there a book on a topic that you would kind of like to do even knowing it might not be a best seller may be one on clare boothe luce or something like that? >> guest: no, nothing in the nonfiction realm. there or nonfiction books i want to write but i would not say they are in tataris and topics. the only unusual thing i would like to write someday is an awful lot generally your agents when it's when you say that because everyone wants to write a novel. >> host: you are due. some liberals are overtly hostile from katie couric the other day -- >> guest: i liked that. she's a fine gal.

she doesn't buy into the political correctness so i like that. >> host: is there any question from these liberals that you wish they had asked you? >> guest: there are a few items priced i haven't been asked. one person asked me and i don't think it was a liberal on a radio station it seems like an obvious question on chapter two that's gotten the most attention on single mothers it seems like such an obvious question you'd think i would get it everywhere what about barack obama, and the answer is he was basically the equivalent of being -- and i think everyone knows what is in that chapter but quickly is that single motherhood is -- single mothers are held personifications of victims and how will this policy or that policy affect single mothers when they're the biggest victimizers of all and of their children and their children victimized society when they become criminals and go on welfare and there's a lot of data in that chapter by talked a

lot about that, and one of the interesting things i found in researching that chapter is adopted children turn out better than on adopted children so am on wed children has two choices, the best possible life or the worst possible life chances obviously some overcoming but your body and your child the worst lottery ticket by raising a child without a father. barack obama was essentially the equivalent of about it, he was raised by his grandparents and that does turn out fine and he does seem to be the most well adjusted, the least victimized. curiously he had the most street crowd of the presidential candidates he is probably the least victimized. hillary victimized by her own husband, mccain of course, barack obama has had a charmed life he had the victim street. >> host: last question what is your next project? >> guest: top-secret. i think it is quite to the wild because as long as more than half white durham will be going to pay for people who don't work

for a living i think i'm going to stop writing for a while. >> host: what a pleasure it's been to talk about your new book, "guilty: liberal victims and their assault on america." thank you so much, ann. >> guest: thank you. now a look and state budgets since the passage of the stimulus bill. from washington journal, this is 25 minutes. >> host: joining now is christopher from the council of state governments. thank you for joining. >> guest: thank you. >> host: can you explain what is the council of state governments and what do you do? >> guest: it is the oldest and largest association of state elected officials in the u.s.

we've been around 75 years and our main function is helping states learn from each other through our national and regional offices and states can implement best practices, but we also spend a lot of time tracking what is going on on capitol hill and communicating major legislative changes and rulemakings actions that affect the states. >> host: how much of the state budget's been dependent on stimulus money recently? >> guest: the recovery act has been a godsend for state budgets. most estimates say that the state budget crisis, which is still a crisis. it hasn't gone away, would be at least 40% worse if it were offered the recovery act dollars which are now flowing through the veins of state budget. >> host: how much of the overall stimulus package has been sent out to the states? >> guest: well, the amount that the states are alternately eligible for in the recovery act, the approach is about $300 billion, which there's 500 billion in appropriation in this huge piece of legislation so the states ultimately are

eligible to receive or will receive the majority of that appropriation. in terms of what is actually out there and being spent so far it is closer to around 70 billion or so at this point. you're going to see a huge uptick in the amount of money that is actually spent out by the states. some of the biggest chunks of money that will go to the states have just arrived within the last four weeks or so much of that in education spending. >> host: we are talking about stimulus with christopher whatley. if you have the council please call the republican line, 202-737-0001, democrats, 202-737-0002, independent, 202-628-0205. attwell what point do the stimulus funds -- when will they be fully realized to the states? >> guest: the peak year in terms of spending is the fiscal year that we are in right now. the state's chronic fiscal year

july 1st to june 30th, so it is this fiscal year, state fiscal year 2010 where you are going to see the majority of funding appear on the books and the majority of contract actions on energy efficiency programs on transportation and highway programs so we are really moving into the peak period where you are going to see the largest impact on stimulus dollars on a state level. >> host: when happens -- dustin of this money was intended to be temporary support of states have benefited. what happens when the money isn't there anymore? >> guest: that's the big question. there's this so-called fiscal cliff states could fall off that the key flexible money that they are using to help balance their budgets, that runs out by about the end of 2010, the calendar year 2010, and as a result we don't expect state revenues to restore at that week. there's still going to be hurting, and states are going to have to make tough calls.

so certainly the recovery act dollars or helping out a moment when the economy is at its weakest. but looking forward we hope the economy begins to recover but it's going to be a tough time for states particularly in the 20112012 per go. >> host: can you offer examples of the stimulus dollars have helped when the budget shortfalls? >> guest: if you look across the board in each of the 50 states, all of the oil rich states will multiply speaking north dakota, louisiana, texas, who have some specifics did revenues that come off of their natural resources, all of them were in donner your budget difficulties so in each and every one of those cases the stimulus dollars prevented them from having to introduce tax increases or make very, very deep program cuts. and it's important to remember what states do. de author david osborn says to the states educate, medicate and

incarcerate and i think it is true in the end of states have to cut and they do have to balance their budgets what do they do? lee of teachers, reduce benefits to the poorest americans receiving health care through medicaid and a fellow prisoners and lay off prison guards. >> host: isn't that what happened in california? >> guest: yes indeed. those cuts would have been far worse had they not had a large amount of stimulus money the state of california is qualified for that that gives a great example how bad it could have been because you can see proportionately even with the flexible money they receive from the act there in these extreme cuts. were it not for the 27 billion in stimulus money the state of california is eligible for those cuts would have been buyer. >> host: let's take some calls first from virgin on the democratic line we have michael. >> caller: yes, good morning. i'm just waking up and listening to the conversation.

i just want to know what did they do? why do they wait until the last minute to decide okay, the budget is crazy, we need help. eight years ago where were you at? e crises for a long time. in goodyear's states like california do great. they get revenues from income taxes, largely which is investment in come, but when thethey hit those bums, it is ag crash. one of the silver linings that may come from this current economic crisis is that even when the@@@@$

it does upon to enforce you to look kind it and you were revenue structures, makes you look a share programs to make sure that you're only one of those that are really attractive and it could lead to some states putting in some practices in place that will allow them to be a little more stable in future downturns. i think the caller raises a good point. >> host: we have a comment on twitter and the wrightwood will stimulus money starts to create jobs? >> guest: i think the money is already beginning to create jobs but it is a modest way. one of the elements of the stimulus that has not received as much public attention or the tax benefits side of the stimulus, americans earning under 75,000 eligible for $400 tax credits but unlike the tax credits that we saw in 2008 in the bush administration where it was backdated and everyone got a check for $300 in that case and out rich in that moment but unfortunately felt poor pretty quick because the gas prices

went up so fast and the dollars in your pocket quickly ended up in your gas tank. in the case of the stimulus you're getting this $400 tax benefits but is showing up in your paychecks as an extra $18 or so every two weeks so it doesn't make you feel rich and therefore there hasn't been that kind of political moment where people are appreciative of that check they just received but i do think that you are saying that americans across the country have a little bit more money at the end of every month and that that's showing up in some of the positive economic indicators or less bad economic indicators we've seen over the last couple weeks or so sell is having a modest impact and in research spending being done is bring people on-line and getting them to work but one of the disappointing things there is what we are discussing the suicide in january if you go back to those months he really thought that the recovery act was all about infrastructure and

would have thought there was $800 billion worth of asphalt and the stimulus in the and it was 5%. 40 billion transportation, water infrastructure, other infrastructure elements was the total and a $787 billion historic piece of legislation. so although those interests are germany's are putting people to work since they were a modest part of the total is having a modest impact. i think the bigger impact we have seen so far particularly on the state level are more in that job the same category. where the teachers are still in the classroom and your kids are still able to go to a kindergarten or there is maybe 25 kids to the class instead of 35 or 40. i think those are important benefits but i certainly sympathize with the caller and people across america who would have liked to have seen a lot more direct quickly.

>> host: on our republican we have the patsy. >> caller: good morning. let me, on and on which you just said, the stimulus money is not putting anybody back to work at least not in our area. also some other parts of the country. the stimulus money is being sent overseas. in the question came up that was questioning i can't remember the guy's name, i can't remember his name but there was $700 million or a billion dollars that went overseas. he could not kill anybody specifically for that money went but were you watching after that money? >> guest: i think the caller is making a good point that there are concerns that on some

stimulus dollars -- is not that the $787 billion worth of the recovery act is somehow being spent directly oversees. these are moneys designed to circulate to your local economies and create activity and put people back to work and i think that they are having a modest impact so far and having a greater impact in the future by the caller is onto something that the little extra amount of money that you have a the end of the day as a result of the tax benefits in particular which pretty much everyone is receiving the tax benefits. the eshoo to dollars or $40 you might have as a family at the end of the month of what are going down and buying clothing and other products at retail stores and many of those come from overseas so some of those that are rattling iran in the pockets of americans modest amounts as a result of the stimulus are, indeed, being used

to purchase products from overseas and will ultimately benefit audiences overseas, but i think that the core purpose of the recovery act very much as about creating activity at the local level and i think the caller is understandably concerned that you haven't seen enough of the activity and hopefully as the infrastructure projects ramp up and as the economy begins to balance at the bottom and began two slowly climb up again that we will see some of the direct evidence in the form of school modernization and renovation in your area putting contractors back to work and the kind of repaving projects the state of mississippi has invested resources in it and others but until people see that i can understand why the caller would have her concern. >> host: from massachusetts on the independent line we have jim. >> caller: i'm glad i called, can you hear me? >> guest: guess i can.

>> caller: the woman that just spoke before actually referring to the federal reserve chairman i think, ben bernanke, and i was wondering if i could speak for a minute and then you could comment on what i have to say. as far as the deficits go i think it is basically a symptom of our overall federal government and until we get control of inflation and i don't think that we are going to never mind the states we are not going to get a country finances under control and then i wish more people would have call their congressman and ask them to support which is a bill to audit the federal reserve and alice wondering what she thought how that bill -- excuse me, i wonder how that would affect the

discussion of today's discussion? thank you. >> guest: i'm not prepared to comment directly on a chartwell of seven. what i can say is when i'm out in state capitals around the country that inflation is a topic that is brought up. certainly there is a lot of concern at the same level about the death blow that the federal government is carrying an even these days to have depended on a recovery act dollars to help balance their budgets and within those there is a lot of debate and a lot of the state leaders who ultimately are spending stimulus dollars might not have voted for them if they were in congress. the same kind of partisan debate that played out in washington as the recovery act was passed are apparent at the same level so certainly there are a wide variety of opinions on a mother we should be entering the amount of debt at the federal level that we have for things like the

other pieces of legislation under consideration it so inflation is at the state level. how that translates into a dialogue between the states and the federal government over our monetary policy that has not been on the reader screen that i'm working with some good because that are so consumed with the challenge of the moment of deploying this stimulus dollars getting them out there to get positive economic activity but i think the concerns that you have our share of bad a lot of people around the country. >> host: we have another comment from twitter, tuesday's create new centers to manage stimulus funds? >> guest: of the most part and i have created in the offices and positions. there has been talk in papers and the news about stimulus czars and most states have a central person who is in charge of overseeing the stimulus spending but it tends to be a

modest structure of one key official and maybe five or 10 people beneath them for a medium-size day and the main thing they are doing is acting like a traffic cop. the stimulus to the states translates into about 44 major program accounts. money that is flowing into education department into a highway department and state energy office. in all the separate accounts and the stimulus are, that administrative structure is managed and to insure that every single account the state is receiving is spent according to the law. that the recovery and includes the most rigid accountability requirements have any piece of legislation enacted by congress and just in showing that to meet the legislation is a huge challenge some of those administrative structures are focused on that challenge and with them a the big day to watch is october 10th. that is the first deadline for

them to do comprehensive reporting on exactly what they have spent and how many jobs is crated and the rationale was for why they spend their money and where. and after that point within a week or so all the information is going to be on recovery.gov, is finding a huge opportunity for the public two really dive into the priorities their own leaders have set out there and critique them. in some states are really sprinting to ensure that they get the data that they are collecting at all comprehensively and the contracts they put out on the highway projects and other things are fully compliant with the stipulations in the recovery act. there are doing it with fairly modest administrative structures. but it has required addition of a few more staff with the state level. >> host: of the state's adults spend the money it does it go back into the federal kiddy or do they have to spend as the deadline? is my for the most part on

almost all recovery and to accounts you have a court deadline of the end of september in 2010 and instead place of the white in the actual legislation and in some of those accounts there were deadlines to get in your applications and certifications showing how to spend money and if you didn't meet the deadline those would be reallocated to other states, and one of them was on transportation funding which was on the state level and on the highway spending are the most harsh controversial and emotionally chairman of the same level because people care a lot about what roads are built and what are improved. all of this is meant their deadlines and it got their allocations for before the deadline. so there are a number of city on the sidelines saying we hope that a number of states decided not to go with the funds of that they miss the deadline and will get a little bit more.

but states are consistently hitting the targets and it is because they're in this difficult fiscal crisis and need every dollar they can get. >> host: have many states have public spending money so fast? >> guest: is too early to tell. there are particular programs that will be difficult for states to spend down effectively. weatherization program which weatherization provides energy efficiency improvements and audits to a whole host of different agencies and individuals in states. it's a program that's been around for a long time but was very modestly funded by the federal government up until the recovery act and recovery act hits and you have a 70 will it increase in funding. that's the single largest program uptick in the entire complicated stimulus package. so if you've got a weatherization office that 18 months ago had three people in it and now they're trying to spend 70 fold increase amounts of money that's going to be

challenged. that's an account that the white house his recovery board is going to be watching real carefully to ensure that they spend that money effectively and to see what needs to be done in case those moneys are allocated the. >> host: our next call from new york, on the republican line. >> caller: i was in a movie but i have a question, are you more likely to receive money for state benefits if you're in a smaller city or a bigger city? >> guest: if you are talking about some of the benefits that individuals received whether the tax benefits or whether the extra $25 a week that people on unemployment insurance are receiving as result of this stimulus, those elements of the recovery act as a matter with your are the big city or in a small town or unincorporated rural area. in fact, individuals equally but there has been a lot of concern and particularly in metropolitan areas that the metropolitan

areas that have a majority of the population where much of the nation's economic activity is located have perhaps received the short end of the stick and the main reason for that is the recovery and fuses these existing federal formulas that we have for allocating highway money, for allocating education dollars and a lot of those allegations have structures in place that benefit largest aids that have small populations at the same time the benefits the major the metropolitan areas as a result when you look at it in total might find a state like north dakota that has a large then area but not a lot of people is receiving more money per capita than the northeast is where you have a very large populations and a small land area so there is some concern in terms of equity between a rural areas in metropolitan areas as a result of the formulas. >> host: our next call from

michigan, on the democratic line. >> caller: the morning. tim mcbride think it has worked as far as putting please back to work in keeping teachers and their jobs and you're right about the road work in michigan. winters are awful on the roads. after a complete winter the roads are dissolved with potholes and everything. so i guess we're going to have to see in october for the money is being spent one and that's all i've got to say about getting other people back to work, more things should be made in the u.s.a. and i stand behind that. it places like wal-mart, you buy things made cheaply in the fall apart and by the same thing in a couple months period i've never walked into a wal-mart ever in my life. prime rate is up 12% in all the mom and pop shops go out so the corporate american ceo's are still making their money but as people are still struggling and that is what i think health care does need an overhaul and we won't kill the elderly. give me a break, america, wake

up people because i thank you for your comment. >> host: our next call from georgia, an independent line. >> caller: i have a question and for mr. whatley. and i am just curious, have this day is done any kind of research on how much money the state by state we have lost my living these jobs go overseas because i know when i go by shearson and pants and whenever, they are always made in indonesia, china, vietnam. so i am curious, how this is done research on how much we've lost by letting the jobs go overseas? >> guest: i think it is a good question. i don't believe the states have done a specific research in terms of the economic impact of the shift of jobs overseas and what i can say is that states are investing considerable resources in trying to attract

investment from overseas to the states to try to win it at the global economic competitiveness damon. so certainly there are making those decisions in terms of opening up offices overseas that are designed to bring foreign companies to the united states to set up factories like the hon dave factor is that have come to the southeast as a result of the concerns but that they see their own jobs often as a result of an open and competitive global economy and some of them shifting overseas and realize they need to run the next round of jobs by fostering innovative companies in their own states in helping the companies find opportunities to sell their own products overseas and one of the good news stories over the last couple weeks has been that american exporters are actually doing better than i have a long time. at least in key sectors. so stay spend a lot of time and looking at economic climate in

their states and certainly there are deeply concerned when you see a textile factory move overseas and suddenly in a town like annapolis, north carolina, it's like a bomb going off the main street and jobs that people depend on are gone. the state's attention has focused primarily on making the investments in their economies necessary to ensure their competitive in this global arena of rather than collecting that data one that has been collected to some extent on the literal level and my research organization but it is a very good points. >> host: michigan on the republican line. >> caller: i had a few quick questions -- i was wondering is there is pacific bank the government is using to hold our stimulus funds first day because i think it would be a good idea to create a state banks borer creating money for each individual state economy and then allow state workers to put

their money in that bank so that the money stays in the economy and people are interested in and they see that the state's working with them and want to help out so you would get an overall growth and everyone working together rather than giving to the people have billions of dollars of bailout for this to begin with. >> host: it's a creative idea and i think one reason that you don't see an innovative idea like that plank out is for the most part the with the stimulus works is is money flowing to existing state federal partnerships so it isn't necessarily a big huge check that the state gets and is able to deposit anywhere and in the case of the largest chunk of stimulus money benefiting the state's business the federal government committing to take up in larger percentage of the costs of medicaid program that funds health care for the poor. in that case of the federal government is writing a check, it is just saying we will pick

up an extra 6 percent are a percent of the cost of this program over the life of the recovery after the next couple of years or so so the federal government is paying those bills themselves and isn't a big check that's gone to the states and in most program pecans and runs that way. that you have existing funding relationships with pretty there's federal funds of flowing into the state's general fund was that the federal government is agreeing to pay for things that otherwise would be paid for by the state. >> host: we will have to leave it there, thank you for coming in. >> guest: thank you very much

arthur laffer joyce economist stephen moore of "the wall street journal" and investment advisor peter tanou to discuss tax policy and the economy. they co-wrote the book the end -- "the end of prosperity". this is an hour.

>> being the least famous of the three authors is my privilege to serve first. if you all know steve, he is the ubiquitous presence on tv every time i turn the tv on a matter what channel he seems to be on in that are two, of course, better known economist in the united states. my field is in the investment feels on when to leave the tax part to my distinguished, offers some of what two make a couple of comments about the investment climate and a little bit about the stock market. to me the good news is that the free fall in the economy seems to have been contained. we can debate about whether we like the actions that have been taken and whether we like birds don't like the stimulus bill but at least something was done and for now the free-fall appears to have stopped it doesn't mean we're in recovery mode or not

but if we are looking for some good news that may qualify. what concerns me, of course, i am sure concerns you is the cost of all of the bailout's and recovery measures and all the other thing is taking place. in and i noted before to others that i have been in the investment business for over 40 years and until this. never recall using the word in trillion. now i use the word trillionaire every day. and it's interesting because when they think of the concept of a chilean, when would we ever have a chance to use the word trillionaire. i don't think about trillions of anything but now i think about trillions of dollars we are spending and unfortunately we don't have it so we are

basically running printing presses and if that isn't a source of concern and where you from an economic and stock market pointed view i don't know with what could be. but let's put this in some sort of context. what are we going to do these trillions of dollars we are printing and we don't seem to have? well, we are going to borrow money, of course. we are going to sell treasury bonds which is what the treasury does. this. last year is estimated that the treasury will issue roughly three and a half trillion dollars of securities. to put that into context, historical context, that amount is nominally greater than the total amount of treasury, a securities issued in the last 27 years. combined. so this gives you a sense of the

scale and the worry. what does all this money mean going into circulation to me? it is pretty clear economics 101 and the professor hopefully will agree to that means inflation. somewhere down the road in. how far down the road? you can speculate and i'm fine to say 12 to 18 months. so from an investment point of view i have to tell you that we are looking at the things like goals, it tips, treasury inflation protected securities, energy and other commodities that we think should be part of portfolios and, indeed, we have a chapter in "the end of prosperity" that the talks about that. so given that the name of the book is "the end of prosperity" i am going to turn it over to my fellow co offers for some more cheerful news. [laughter] in keeping with the title of the book, thank you for your

attention. [applause] >> good afternoon, and stephen moore, it's great to see some many frontier and thank you to my friend the christian and for helping set this up here and i appreciate your hospitality and it's great to see so many supply-siders here. we are a dwindling group these days so it's great to see mark bloomfield the people call mr. capital gains who has been responsible for some money upgrade policy changes. if you were back there in 1978. he is responsible for the 1923 delegation. [laughter] and jimmy from u.s. news this is a good friend and is one of the top leading writers on economics these days. i'm not going to try him to a

say his last name. i'm going to talk for a few minutes about how the book came into being and my good friend and is one of the great biographers of ronald reagan. what is your new book coming out on ronald reagan? he wrote a great book on the 76 reagan campaign and now has a book coming out that i can't wait to read about 1980 and, of course, reagan is a central figure to our book so i am a big fan of. it is so funny you mention the issue about a trillion dollars because i was thinking about back in 1987 when i briefly worked for ronald reagan, remember when jim miller was the head of the budget office. we did something art in 1987, this was after the second term but we did something we were a proud of and actually pass the first trillion dollar budget under ronald reagan, that was a big thing back then and i remember the first time i ever

was on national television was the today show when we came out with that budget and jim miller couldn't appear so somebody working for him to ask me to go in. i was very nervous because it was the first time i've been on tv and katie couric, a million fewer so i was nervous and spent the entire weekend because they called us on a friday and we were going on there monday, and spent the entire weekend cramming to know every single detail of the budget so i knew i was ready for every question and that katie couric i asked. i knew with the budget was for the peace corps and everything, and with the dead was come to six decimal points and so on so we started the interview and katie says mr. more, i see that ronald reagan is introducing america's first million-dollar budget today and i only have one question -- how many zeros are there and a trillion? [laughter] it was the worse interview i ever had. in it was all downhill from

there. the .. 12. i know that now. the real question we have to start asking ourselves is what comes after 100 trillion? i think you make a good point that the numbers we are talking about now are so large, dear unfathomable and i think maybe this is the sinister part of me but i think when the obama administration was talking about the silly economic stimulus package, that they introduced and passed back in january or february i think, we could ask for $100 billion or ask for a trillion dollars and most of the people don't have any-- and then our friend arlen specter said, not a trillion dollars, only $800 billion. and t only $800 billion they got the package through. when we started writing this book, which was what, about a

year and a half ago the three of us got together and could see the economic storm coming. we looked at before policy variables arthur talked so many of us about, what are the fourth things that have an impact on the economy i want to make sure i get these right, free trade over protectionism, low tax rates over high tax rates, a sound currency and keeping control of government spending and debt, and when the three of us got together and looked at these variables and by the way this was george bush's last year in office so we were trying to be tall partisan about this -- we were convinced these variables roughly the last 25 years have pointed in the right direction all of a sudden looked like they were going to be planted in the wrong direction so it looked like tax rates were likely to be going up for the first time, not down, and that was a very scary prospect to us. it looked like the consensus that had emerged over the last 25 years to move towards free trade and reduced trade barriers

it looked by the way right in the midst of writing the book is when hillary clinton, remember, and barack obama were during the pennsylvania and michigan and ohio primaries going around the state saying we are going to get rid of nafta and the ski trade nonsense and that scared us because obviously the political consensus for free trade has always been very fragile. then we looked at what was happening with currency and the explosion and the amount of money that has been created and arthur has a wonderful graf in one of his most recent economic analysis that shows what this money supply increase -- >> [inaudible] >> how much? >> over 100%. >> this is more money creation in the last six months than in the last 60 years or something. that is because the old milton idea of inflation is too many million dollars chasing too few goods and i think money creation

is a scary thing and i am worried about inflation, too and then we could see what is happening to the spending and the debt and again this does start with barack obama this started under george bush if you look at what happened in the bush presidency within one of the reasons he will be regarded as a failure with respect to his handling of the economy the federal budget when george bush entered office was $1.9 trillion, when he left office it was close to $4 trillion so we saw a doubling in spending over the last eight years. one of the themes of the book is simply the policy does matter, and it's interesting last night i was on the larry kudlow show on cnbc and i was debating someone on the other side and he said the reason the economy has collapsed and we are in this free fall recession is the republicans listen to people like art laffer and you and

larry kudlow and i smiled and said i wish which they listen to us because i don't think we would be in the trouble we are in. i think over the last six months, and i am speaking for myself now, i think everything we have done on the economy, every single measure congress and the president have taken has been exactly the wrong thing to do. it's amazing. they've done exactly the wrong thing. again, that starts with bailouts of their stearns and the auto companies and aig and freddie mac and fannie mae and the 700 billion-dollar bailout of the banks and then i think my opinion is the $800 billion spending stimulus bill is simply not going to work and one of the things arthur and i have talked a lot about is for the price of that 800 to $0 trillion spending bill that we did we could have suspended the income tax for a year and i would make the case to everyone in this room that if we simply had gotten rid of the income tax for your we would see more jobs than you could imagine

and i think the tragedy by the way of what we have done the last six months especially with the stimulus bill isn't so much we're taking on debt, i have never been one overly concerned about debt. the issue is what do you buy for the debt and the tragedy is we are not getting anything for this debt. we are putting solar panel in and buying a car for every bureaucrat and things like that but those are not going to have much of a return. we talk a lot in the book about what happened in the 70's, 80's and 90's and the kind of promise of the book is that the 1970's was a lousy decade and one of the worst decades in american history. arthur knows all the statistics on this, i learned them from him but if you look at the stock chart for any measure of the economy in the 1970's under nixon, ford and carter the economy was a disaster. the stock lost in real terms something like 50%?

>> it went from a thousand to 35 in real terms -- [inaudible] >> that is a pretty bear market. one of the things that annoys me to no end in the current economic discussion is when people say barack obama has inherited the worst economic crisis since the great depression. that is false. ronald reagan inherited in '81 was substantially worse than what we are in now and the reason for that is -- i am not trying to discount -- we are in a big economic cold right now but what obama has inherited is a nine months recession. reagan inherited a 14 year recession essentially where the economy kept going down and down. we talk a lot about how the supply-side ideas reagan brought in to the white house in 1981 helped turn the economy around. the two pivotal things that happened in the 1980's were arthur laffer's ideas about

reduction, the tax rate fell from 70% in 1980 to 15% in 28 by 86. that is increase sycophant reduction in tax reductions to go from 70 to 28 means the after tax rate on investment increased 30%, which shouldn't be a big surprise we saw a big stock market boom once the tax rates were reduced. the other thing that happened which i don't think reagan gets enough credit was the disinflation that happened in the early 1980's. if you look at a chart on inflation there's the chart in the book inflation hit 14.5% in jimmy carter's last year in office in 1980. i always tell the story when i was working in 1980 as a gross restore clerk after school i was 19-years-old at the time we used to have -- this is before they had the bar codes on the cans of vegetables and things so you had these will stickers you put on

the canned vegetables and the boxes and so on and so my challenge, arthur, when my would come to work is to get the higher price on before someone could take away he saw that the lower price because prices were rising so quickly people kind of forget about that era of raging inflation. the inflation rate in the 1980's came down 14.5% in 1980 by the end of 1982 the inflation was down to 3% and that is something almost no economist thought was possible and over that whole next 25 year period inflation was and what we call this week zone of 24% range where the dollar retains its value as reagan talked about so often his goal was to make the dollar as good as gold again and that certainly happened in the 80s and 90s and in 2000 and by the way one of the things on the site we think the whole period 1982 to 2007 was the greatest prosperity in the history of the world in terms of what happened

with asset values in 1980 were valued by the federal reserve board at $18 trillion, by 2007 they were telling you that 58 trillion so we saw $40 trillion increase in wealth over that period which is pretty amazing. we have lost 10 trillion of that the last six months but still we are way ahead of the game especially if we turn things are now. the jobs, it is a pretty amazing story what happened to the jobs in the united states from the period of 82 to 2007. united states created 46 million new jobs over that period which is three times as many jobs as all of europe and japan created at the same time. if you look at -- people say it was a good poem but only the rich prospered during this period the most amazing thing is we look at just household wealth increased it more than doubled over this period if you look at the range of things people have

today that they didn't have as recently as 1980 and one of the things that makes me angry is the idea the middle class doesn't have a high living standard the made no games the last 25 years which is nonsense if you look at the kind of things people have today versus what they had in 1980 everything from self loans -- cell phones and bipods. in fact i love to tell the story i was watching this movie, wall street, remember that movie with michael douglas and there is a famous scene michael douglas plays the part of gordon gecko and that was made and i think 1986 and there is a famous scene where he picks up the cell phone and it's like a brick. [laughter] with little antennas coming out of it and the amazing thing about that, so we went back and looked at the prices of these and 1987 the price of a cell phone was $4,600, the only things rich people have, now the near give them away for free so

this was a prosperity and it wasn't just reagan, it was reagan, paul volcker, bill gates and yes bill clinton. we were big fans of what bill clinton did on the economy. he was a genuine democrat for free trade, welfare reform, capital gains tax cut, we balanced the budget by 2000. i would like to see more bill clinton in barack obama policies. one of the things that concerns us is the democratic party is not a new democratic party any longer it is a kind of old democratic party in fact the democrats talk over and over again how this is a new new deal we are facing right now. if you look -- this is the last thing i. we have a chapter in the book about the great depression and this is one of the things so troubling to me we can't even agree what happened in the past let alone what we should do in the future and if you look at the new deal, just look at the objective evidence and i have

debated, arthur and i do it all the time debate our friend, robert reich, clinton's labor secretary and good guy we both enjoyed being with him he keeps talking about what a great success the new deal is and we talk in the book about what really happened during the 1930's and in fact if you look at by 1940, the only statistics i will give about the great depression in 19408 years after the new deals launched the on in prime rate in the united states was 15.1%. it's hard to believe anybody could say this was a successful program when one out of seven or one out of eight americans was unemployed after eight years of this program get this is still held up as a model for the u.s. in 2009 and beyond. i'm going to end by saying this, people ask me what this could happen with the economy. i think this program will fail.

i would like to see it succeed but the whole premise of the book and prosperity's is policies do matter. we've moved the policies in the wrong direction but the good news is americans have an attention span if a year from now the economy isn't substantially better i think americans will say what comes next and we will get back to the kind of pro-growth policies that will cause greater prosperity and if we do that america is well poised for another 25 to 30 year ron of increases in wealth and prosperity so arthur i will turn over to you but i want to say it was so much fun writing this book with you and peter and we've got to do another one again soon. [applause] the one thing i always like milton friedman and robert reich is i could raise the microphone after they spoke. [laughter] it's not that funny, cool it. [laughter] if i can i want to remind you of a story i was the first chief

economist when the omb was formed in 1970, george shultz right-hand person back then and these numbers work to the coup were big back then and i wrote my mom any number that's 49 million or less we around to see roe. [laughter] 100 million was .1 which gist gives you the flavor. now what is that? and bill safire back then had the greatest praise, he called them mego numbers which stood for my eyes glaze over. i want to do too quick things. i want to make sure, steve and peter mentioned this but let me mention it seriously it's not about personalities or people, it's not about any of that stuff, it's not partisan. it's very political but it is not partisan but we do. we all love bill clinton as president. i voted for him twice and want to to make sure you understand i

felt he was a disgusting person but a great president and my view is if he hadn't any but he still would have been discussed in person but we would have lost the benefits of his leadership as president of the united states and i mean that seriously. it's not about people and i want to go especially on this administration this man barack obama is one of the most impressive human beings i have seen in my life in politics. i am all struck. he's an awesome man and represents so much that is wonderful about the country. the black african father, white american mother, if that isn't the melting pot i don't know what is. raised in a nurturing a wonderful environment, mom and grandmother raised him in a loving support and nurturing environment, to columbia university and did extraordinarily well, then went to harvard. you don't get that by affirmative action. you've got to really be good. he then went and taught at the university of chicago where i taught most of my life at the

university of chicago and i can assure you only geniuses or on the faculty. [laughter] just having fun. but this man is really cool. not only that if you look at his family, look at michelle obama she is not only gorgeous she is a professional, the of the two cutest loveliest family, this is ozzie and harriet on steroids. if he went to central casting to find an american hero barack obama would be right at the top of the list. this has nothing to do with barack obama as a person. i am literally very impressed by this man. my view is and i share it with my coauthors i think that he is wrong with every single issue and it's not because he is not a good guy, he is a good guy but my view is ultimately economics will take over and i'm going to give one example today and only one, there's lots of examples but the one i want to do is very simply look at the appointment on the energy environment

issued. fox asked me to be their correspondent to respond to the appointments that obama was making to energy environment so i was the guy sitting there the president can up and announced them and of course as you know the chu was elected for this and his portfolio was beyond amazing. professor at stanford university, not only a professor but the chairman of the department of physics at stanford where i got my ph.d.. not only that he has a nobel prize in physics. this guy has credentials to the end of the earth. he introduced chu and then he was followed by carol browner, the environment person for clinton, and then followed by i think it was lisa jackson, one of the governors, schwarzenegger's people on this. it is and auguste team. he announced them, went through there is a may, it was

beautiful. he announced the policies this administration is going to go on on science and when he hesitated on that word, science, there was an application no one else heard of it but he was going to go along with science and then said we wanted to have energy independence, we were worried about the environment and the research and he went on on this and then chu came up and he too mentioned science many times and hesitating, the words came out and hit the table and crawled towards you. let me if i can go on the energy policies. one of the goals of this administration as energy independence and of course i'm just an old journeyman. i'm an economist. i worry how things get put together, capital labor and resources to make goods and how they are distributed so incomes -- i'm worried about mundane boring stuff and i just an old journeyman economist but when i hear someone talk about energy

independence that's almost a rope mistake and let me if i can describe this because this is david ricardo. at any of you heard about the gains from trade, david ricardo? if i look at the world to see the middle east has tons of oil and they don't know what to do with it, and i look at the u.s. and we know what to do with it and could always use more. the simple thing is we and they are both better off by them selling less oil and we using it. energy independence is one of the dumbest things i've heard in my life. it denies all of the gain from trade. it is plain on economic terms stupid. and if i look at this think every president since eisenhower, so it's not just obama, every president since eisenhower espoused the idea of energy independence and every year we become more and more dependent on foreign energy which is a negative thing in these people's eyes but a wonderful thing in my eyes. i think it's the silliest thing

in the world to imagine minnesota growing bananas. they should buy bananas from coast rica and sell costa rica on your door. that is the game from trade. a look at this comparative advantage david ricardo and that is basic stuff. i will get this thing and i sort of imagine a world where the u.s. is independent. today we import about 52% of the oil we use. can any of you imagine what the united states economy would look like if we were denied the use of 52% of the oil we use? what the price of a gallon of gas look like? it is crazy, silly -- these guys don't know straight up from second when it comes to basic economics. it just -- it is a catastrophic set of policies. now if you look at this stuff and look at this gains from trade and all the arguments they respond arthur, do don't understand. the people that own and the wheel and that have it are bad guys and i will stipulate that,

they are bad guys. i stopped going to beach parties with the hugo months ago. [laughter] i have not played doubles in tennis with mahmoud ahmadinejad in all weigel and am no longer share in my seat with vladimir putin. i'm sick and tired of these guys, i don't like them either but do they not understand the baghwati theorem is? you always want a direct your, not an indirect to work. you never use trade as a political weapon. the plan don't. if in margot's worked, north korea years ago would become a space free-market pro-growth capitalist nation. it doesn't work. if anbar goes work, cuba would have been the free market pro-growth, they would have seen the beauty of the american way. they didn't. zimbabwe didn't either. in our coastal work but what

they do is create your country as much damage as the country you embargo. what these people are proposing with trying to punish these countries what they are proposing is we don't want to rely on these bad people because they might cause off so would we do in exchange for the threat they might cut costs of? because our self soft it does that make sense to you? it is like a guy at 24 realizing some day he squinted die and it was so upset he shot himself. it is the dumbest solution guaranteeing the solution is worse than the actual problem. using the baghwati thir rim's we have ways of dealing with bad government. we do. very simply we have the bully pulpit. the president can go out there and if that doesn't work we have another department that deals with a little heavier it's called the state department, at a shays and these sorts of things. if that doesn't work we have a big one called the defense

department, we just should come. that is what the defense department is four to deal with that government. you never use trade as a weapon and these are -- and these are basic, simple mistakes of enormous consequence. and i don't mean to belittle this administration. it's not just these guys. they don't know economics 101. by the way if you think i'm a long as any economist about the gains from trade, ask an economist about the baghwati theory. its basic simple economics. then they talk about the environment and you know, i was a member of the world wildlife fund when one of my classmates was executive director and i was a founding member of the society. i have of the best private tree collections in the country. i am on the national sue board. i really a tree hugger and i really in a tree hugger. i love the environment and i take oil spills really seriously. they are something to be avoided

like the plague and i mean that. i'm not joking when five weeks ago they had this bill in all australia and the beach was polluted that is a sin, that is a tragedy. remember the exxon valdez and all that happened these are things you must focus on and you must make sure these things don't happen. my country is one of the leading countries in trying to solve and protect against these types of problems. what these people don't understand is if we don't do offshore drilling, indonesia will. and if you think we are sloppy about oil spills and what happens to the environment, you can't believe how sloppy indonesia is. the disaster in indonesia is a thousand times worse than and will happen far more frequently. you get one of these animals covered in all their wealth with

a match and watch how long it can run. what they don't understand is the world as dynamic if we stop offshore drilling it doesn't mean everyone else will, they won't. they will increase. you've got to understand basic economics in this stuff. when i look at this as well and i see from a nuclear issue and i will stop with this one but i was on the board for years and years which is the old general and i used to go to france. i was the only american on the board. i love them dearly by the way. i go to every board meeting, six a year until my wife told me she no longer wanted to go to paris she was bored silly so i resigned. but i noticed in paris works pretty well. france works pretty well. do you know how much of their energy is nuclear? it's over 70, 80, a huge

percentages. i want to tell you i don't understand anything about nuclear power. i don't know any of the physics or that stuff i really don't but i know how to make a safe nuclear power plant. and it's simple. if you have a nuclear power facility you make sure the board of directors and officers of the corporation live on the promise and send their kids to school on promised. i will assure you it is safe. what you want to do is online incentives and make sure pilots of airplanes don't have parachutes. you don't want them getting off and you on the plan for the rest of the trip and i mean this is the lining incentives and people don't understand and i just thought if you tax people who work and pay people who don't work, do i need to say the next sentence? you're going to get lots of people not working. if you tax rich people and give the money to poor people you're going to have lots and lots of poor people and know rich

people. the last 1i did i moved from southern california from san diego to national tennessee for one simple reason, california has a 10.5% income tax rate and natural hazards evo. i hope i am not going over your heads today but if you have two locations, a and b, if you raise taxes in a and low were then producers and manufacturers are going to move from, to? that is all of this book is about. unfortunately this administration is going the opposite way and peter r. fink was the guy that fought the title but unfortunately it is coming true but this book what we try to do is lay out the examples in the data in a usable form. this is not in an academic form it is just trying to lay off the stories of many examples when people did the right things and when they did the wrong things. i want to stress again it's not about negative people or bad people or about partisanship.

this is politics but it's not republican or democrat or left-wing or right-wing, it's not liberal it's not conservative, its basic math and economics. thank you. [applause] >> we can take some questions -- [inaudible] >> on the middle east energy issue i know you are a big fan of efficiency in all but isn't the political instability a threat to the efficiency -- [inaudible] isn't that something that can help deal with the inefficiencies of political instability? >> no, it's not. if anything it works the other way. the gains from trade or such a make these places more tolerable, more user friendly. i have never thought not trading with the country makes the country like you more. let me use the example i used to

use. we tried a lot with china. china is a huge investor putting it remember how hillary was talking about this that they owned so much? my view is if they have a lot of investments it will make them think twice about bombing loss. if we have a huge into could stake through economics my view is this will make them much less likely to do politically disruptive defense and plus the whole history of embargoes and independence has been fraught with failure. the only thing that is clear every time you use protectionism is that you suffered enormously. protectionism hurts the protector as well as the country against which they are protecting and that is what is happening and i think you will find almost all of the literature and economics to support exactly what i'm describing here. it is a failure tool, protectionism and not only a field tool it hurts the political process. it doesn't make north korea like

a spider or cuba like us better or zimbabwe work better. rbrbrbrb@ úrbrb@ @ @ @ rbrb>s@ b nuclear power because it is using a false argument for the right policy. and, yeah, go ahead, steve. steve, this thing is falling. >> the related point on this is with respect to what is going on with this with solar and wind in renewable energy. i find this to be one of the

most massive mound investments as a nation. many of the dance solar and wind it is interesting most americans have no idea where they get their electricity from and when you ask they say you it sticks something in the sock it. 52 percent comes from coal and we are the saudi arabia of coal. we have a helluva lot of it and we get summer between 15 and 20% of our electricity from nuclear power. in some from hydro. anybody want to take a guess how much electricity in the u.s. comes from wind and solar power? 1.5%. so let's think this through. let's say that and by the way we spend tens of billion since 1980 on subsidizing solar and wind power but let's say this is a fabulously successful investment beyond our wildest dreams that all of this research we will do leads to a massive explosion in solar and wind power. it so that let's say we have quadrupled the amount of energy

and electricity we get from solar and wind and so now we're at 6% and the question is where are we going to get the other 90% of our energy from. the fact that we are not doing nuclear power and not trailing in this budget is economically suicidal. one of the things i have become convinced about is we're just not serious in this country about economic competitiveness. we are raising taxes when every other country is lowering taxes and basically going to do this global warming tax when everyone in this room knows that china and india and the others are doing it, how will we have a manufacturing sector if we put an extra tenor 15% tax on american manufacturers and the rest of the world doesn't. i don't know about you but i think it is like economic harry carey to move forward with these and we party got our manufacturing sector fought on its back in now seems almost done page data to be talking about this global warming tax.

other work -- other questions? >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> let me say one thing about that, just one thing. the question about why is it that we look at the data and we come to polar opposites conclusions and the answer is i don't really know. every time i give talks about

the book the first question is this stuff seems so obvious, and the fact that you just said the lower taxes is pretty obvious you get more of economics and there. we don't think these are radical ideas and we think the evidence is pretty solid and so i don't have a good explanation for how the other side comes up with the opsin collusions and i do think that conservatives are paying a pretty high price for letting the left read the history books of what has happened in this country and as i mentioned in the new deal. most kids are taught the new deal was a success and most reporters -- i worked at "the wall street journal" and i bet and i asked some of the soreness best reporters in the country if they think the new deal helped the depression and the vast majority would say yes so i think part of it is we don't have a good understanding of economic history which is what this book tries to do.

>> and good to disagree, i have been involved and political policies for a long time and washington and the first chief economist at the omb in 1970 and then stayed on as consultants of the secretary of treasury and defense for the rest of the board and chief of staff by the way and it back to some may remember the score and to the curve with dick cheney and donald rumsfeld at the washington hotel next door and then, of course, my role with the real president. let me tell you. it this way cool. it is way cool been involved with the president. in just his way cool. and it's a job that he would die for and i can tell you some of the coolest things i ever did that make you laugh but they are like having my secretary calming a dinner at the white house and having the professor laffer the white house is calling and i go into the room, and then i say thank you glad us and i comeback is a what is up and i say i'm

really not at liberty to talk about budget will probably read about it. [laughter] i have more fun. going up to camp david in helicopter one, it is to die for. in you got a role to play in the political process and all of them do. and if the president says this you figure the argument that makes it cracked and that is when a political team test and we didn't hear the let me tell you that these people revived arguments, they know of them to be true. in order to curry favors with their political benefactors. and they do. and so did we. i would have lied to my teeth every day of the week and twice on sunday to hang with reagan. and the one thing is that reagan and thatcher never ask me to do

that. but it's a very different process when you get into a political process it becomes much more of an advocacy than a dozen scientific analysis. i just ask you to read the academic papers and then hear what she talks about now with regard to the stimulus go to her academic work and see where she says about the incentive of tax and taxes and now look at what she says when she does the paper with your brain. i understand it and i'm watching one of them is geisel ever me to and he's tried to defend the solution of firing wagoner. he would disservice as i went been defending that silly thing. but you've got to do it so when you understand politics is not academic. it is not in a better research for you come up with. it is where you go on the political line and i took a large extent is whether some much of a debate. >> i would say the huge percentage of economists who

don't have a relationship with obama are saying -- >> you think universities are independent events they are not. there are very political organizations and even when i wasn't officially with the white house there were always the groups that came together and it is us versus them and become severe political process for economists and that is what happens. and whether hinn should or shouldn't it does. and that is how it gets along so what we do is we see each other as being parts of a different team and there are not many things you can say honestly that i would not want to defend. because you are my friends and we're on the same team and it goes the same with economists and the white house in the other side as well. >> [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> peter and i should do that. >> i am almost 78 and my dad retired when he was 65 and when he was 65 he was a lot older than that i am out 70. it's a different world and a different age and given time it and that pig in the python and as you say, i don't think is as serious as you make it out to be. what we haven't done is adjusted to a lot of our government programs to the pig and the python. we did under reagan and a little

bit. if you remember we reduce benefits of social security by taxing social security benefits 50%, that was reducing the benefits and that's all we did it. we also extended the age of retirement from 65 to 67 is reducing benefits to make it more. if you look at these programs, if we have social security kick in as 71 years old there would be no on the liabilities whatsoever. and it would just recognize the increasing longevity that has occurred in the population and the changes seven ciro vs 65 marolt and the same thing we can do with medicated. they are not doing it yet and basically is a do only when forced to by the events that occurred, but they're really easy to solve these problems.

>> [inaudible] >> i would just add it is not so much the demographics and as the problem which i thank you are a just saying of of the massive deficits, the social security problem and the others of how we are born to find them and it is a problem. arthur's point about raising the social security age of 65 to 70 is the obvious solution. you know the average male life expectancy was in this country the year 1900 was 48 and things have changed a lot and when social security was started in the third days the average life

expectancy was a helluva lot lower than it is now so obviously now it is enough in the upper '70's so clearly some of these things are going to be done. they are politically difficult to do that when we are faced with bankruptcy they will get better. >> one quick thing on this, if you look at the statistics what happened to social security this year is in the obama budget, for the first time in in my 25 years social security actually when --. we spend more money on l.a.'s. there are some adjustments that are made to the thing that technically is not running --, is running a slight surplus but if you look at the amount of money that was paid out in benefits and the the the amount of money that can imperil taxes the rich -- this. that's the scary thing because it is something like a 210 years

ahead of schedule. the system isn't supposed to turn negative until sometimes run to 17 and the point i am making is i agree with you guys that raising the retirement age is a no-brainer, but growth is everything. growth is absolutely everything to solving the social security long-term problems and if you put in a slightly higher economic growth rate over the next projections of the next 5275 years because of the effect of compounding the most powerful force in the universe is compound interest, if you would put up to and have economic economic growth but 3 percent, those huge trillion dollars of deficits when angela become very much manifest so this comes to our book. we better come back to economic policies with these deficits will get bigger and bigger.

>> [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i sure hope so i just rode, about the chevy camaro. a beautiful red camaro convertible which is my midlife rice prices car. but i want america -- i want

those jobs to disappear and it is important i think that we have a -- is not final but it would be good two have an american manufacturing industry and one thing going on right now, we are now at the present this and basically having three groups running the auto industry. the u.s. government, united auto workers and the sierra club and that is a prescription of for a disaster. the problem is if washington is running the company's it is going to be politically driven and we want grain cars in the plus a car and a scar or that car. i don't see that model turning the possibility but i don't know if either of you have -- >> all his speculating and will add that i think there will be in model industry in the straits. it will be smaller. gm will go bankrupt in a package bankruptcy because it is now no

longer the unions that are the problem, it is the bond holders and the bondholders are going to suffer and they're going to suffer in bankruptcy. but there will be a new automobile industry in detroit that is more nimble, that is smaller in that we know will no longer have many of the name brands of the past. the oldsmobile is gone and as we heard yesterday pontiac is gone too. >> another question? we have time for a couple more. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] >> you're point is completely correct, the higher the taxes on the more likely we will lose revenues and lower taxes on a

more likely increase in revenue tax rates will raise revenues and and there are both sides of the curve and it depends on what tax you're talking about, depends upon how high they are and how broad the tax base is. let me give you one that is really focused on politics today. it is a higher tax rates. and i will go on that one if i can. i want to take you back to john f. kennedy and we go to that heavily in the book. when jack kennedy took office the highest marginal income tax was 91% and the lowest tax rates other than zero was 20%. it that is when he came into office. when you look at this kennedy cut the highest rate from 91% to 70% and he cut the lowest rate from 20% 214%. those with the two states. if you look at the percentage cut in the tax rate on the highest bracket it went from 91

to 70 so that is a 21 percentage point cut. you divide 21 by 91 and you get a 23 percent cut in the rate. and by cutting the lowest rate to 14 percent that is a six percentage point cut/20% is a 30 percent cut in the rate so we cut the highest rate by 20 percent and the lowest rates by 30 percent. in the one thing you to understand on economics is people don't or to pay taxes. people could give a damn what the taxes are and they worry about what they receive net after tax. it is that a rate that is the incentives of the tax rates not important, is the after-tax return that is important and that we take you in the after-tax return of the beginning of the kennedy administration. if you is in the top bracket for every dollar that i made a $0.91 in taxes was allowed to take 9 percent news that $0.9 per dollar that was his or her incentive for earning income in the tax brackets.

when kennedy cut that rate from 91% to 70% that person's incentive for jerry's tax inactivity he earned a but instead of keeping $0.9 of the dollar he kept $0.30 on the dollar. that is a 233% increase in incentives, for a 23 percent cut in tax rate. that is a 10 to one benefit cost ratio. you follow me on that? please. and the lowest bracket, a guy and a balk and before kennedy's tax cut paid $0.20 in taxes and allowed to keep $0.80. that is the guys incentive for working at that bracket. after kennedy's tax cut he went from a dollar in the $0.14 in taxes and allowed to keep $0.86. there was an increase in his incentives of $0.6 at 80. that is a seven and a half percent increase incentives and 30 percent cut in tax rates. that is a benefit cost ratio of

one to four. that is why from an economist's standpoint in time of kennedy is 40 times more powerful. to cut tax rates and the highest bracket than the lowest bracket. it is much more than that we get down to the real numbers. if you look of the real numbers rich people know how to get around the taxes. they know how to do. and they can change the timing of their production and have all sorts of deferred income plans and it contains the location of their production and then got offshore corporation in business is moving and they can change the compositions of their income and, for example, lemming give an example of the richest guy in america warren buffett. and by the way i don't mean this as a slur against warren buffett, i think he's a very impressive man but if you look at his wealth when this is wealth? i haven't done the new numbers

but he's worth $66 billion. he owns stock in what company? berkshire hathaway. what is the basis for his valuation in berkshire hathaway? pretty close to zero. and then you take the market capital of berkshire hathaway and that is what his wealth is in what we call on realized capital gains. do any of you know what the tax rate is on unrealized capital gains? [laughter] is zero. they think it won't help that one. jazeera it is said to the bill and melinda gates foundation it will never see a tax. but when you look at this world when he says i.p. less taxes than my secretary is telling you the truth. it is a bad tax and i'm not blaming him for finding a tax-free way of pulling and having his wealth here the last thing is a rich people can change the volume of their income. cellular the tax code over the

last 25 or 30 years the top 1%, i forget what the number is but the top 1% in 1980i think kids 17 and a half percent and the top 1 percent today pay 42 percent of all the income taxes and not only that is true but also the only group, the only group in the tax groups that have increased their taxes as a share of gdp is the top 1 percent during our revolution. the rich have gone from paying one 1/2% of gdp in 1981 to 3.2% of gdp today and every other single tax category, every single one including the two to represent and the rest of the third quintile, the first and every other group had an effect as a share of gdp and tax rates were cut. rich people are aware of the the laffer curve kicks in because of these people can change the

decisions. when you see a guy hanging with a politician don't think it is some mystery person tried to explain what it is like to be poor. it is a lobbyist time to get a favor out of the government. these people can buy more congressmen and senators and presidents than any of us can and you know how the system works. i've been there a lot and that's what they do appear in a and so i just want you to understand that the curve is a very subtle device and i developed that thing so i could give my students a pedagogic advice of they can understand the math whenever doing the equation. but politicians understand as well. >> women asking this question. [inaudible] >> we say the and the prosperity but that is a marvelous way of saying something and to probably die before the next bull market. that was supposed to be funny.

[laughter] i don't think it is funny because i am old but is not the end of prosperity, these guys will be here and there will be here for a eight, 12, 60 or 20 years but we will be back and we will be able to reverse a just as quick as they put a ban on we got down in chile back there we denationalize every company is called onofre we can and when we got in with thatcher talking about what 2i do with a rare roads and the coal industry and all the iron. just sell them. but the u.s. government now owns the auto industry. it owns the mortgage industry in the health care industry, and owns the banking industry and homes insurance industry. it issues a trillion dollars worth of debt in the capital market observers of the private savings that is crowded out of the private capital markets and then takes the money and claims it's taxpayer money goes to these industries and nationalizes them and us with they've done. this just as easy to sell the other way.

and you like the post office and if you like the department of motor vehicles you are going to love this administration's running of all these industries. if you really think that somebody knows how to fire chairman of a company go for it. i don't wanna look a party for a controlling the banks in the financial industry it doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence. i don't know about you guys but this is an experiment and i've been two this barbeque so many times. and each time it collapses right before your very eyes and the question is how long does it take and that people deserve the chairman's they've got and it is their problem, not mine. and frankly i think the guy is a one-woman as i tried to lead off but he is wrong in these issues and i think it is just before the time issue. before the time that you see the consequences. >> thank you very much. [applause]

[applause] thank you and welcome to this session. whew i think this is a great way to look at black women in the academy achievements and challenges not just because of a the editing telling histories, but because i think it is really just a wonderful way of dealing with this object. as many of the non i'm professor deborah grey white and i am from rutgers university in new brunswick new jersey and an

attendant this volume of autobiography is written by black women historians. this is a roundtable discussion and we would like to have maximum participation from the audience and so we are going to proceed this way. i'm going to introduce the book by explaining what "telling histories" is about and also by summarizing some of the points i made in the introduction. in. i will then introduce our panelists, doctors rosalyn terborg-penn, sharon harley and crystal feimster and before each one of them space i will give a much more lengthy introduction some that you will all know who im, who is speaking another contribution has been. all of our panelists american shares to the volume "telling histories" here that i asked

them each to speak about one aspect of their contribution to the volume and there are also some others in the audience and other on a buyer for riss contributors to telling this jury is and was there are finished of them have something to add the i would certainly give them a chance to speak to you as well. and then we will take some questions from the audience. in 1905 than the williams, a black woman graduate of the state normal school at rockport company york and the first black member of the prestigious chicago women's club that wrote the following: i know of more than a score of girls who are holding positions of high responsibility which were at first denied to them and and be on their reach. these positions so one and helen were never intended for them.

to seek them was considered an important and to hope for them was an absurdity. nothing daunted that these young women, conscious of their own deserving they would not admit or act upon the the presumptions that they were not as good and capable as other girls who were really not superior to them. she wrote this in 1905 and she wasn't talking about historians. [laughter] but about professional black women in chicago who she knew. telling histories begins with this quote because the black women historians to tell their stories of that how they came to be professional historians and how they survived in the academy are like these women that william speaks about.

the academy, the ivory tower, was and is not always a welcoming place for black women professors. as you know, students are accustomed to walking into university classrooms and seeing a white male. any mail. as the head of their class. there are much less accustomed to seeing a black woman and our have to immediately judge her unqualified and bias. americans, ordinary americans and professional historians for that matter personally accustomed to receiving their history from whites and men in her lacy black women as authorities in this field. our on a biographer's explain what motivated them to persist in their quest to research, write and teach history. even though the occupation a professional historian was never intended for them.

and even though to seek such a position was considered a concerted team and an impertinence. by students and colleagues alike. and before we hear from these three his stories to tell their stories, i think it is fair to say a little something about their foremothers, those few black female trailblazers who became historians early in the 20th century before black people it in any number went to college much less pursued a phd. that way we will have the foundation on which two build our knowledge about black women in the academy and understand the significance of our contributors accomplishments. alice j. cooper was the first black cooper -- woman to rein ph.d. in history in 1925. the first white american woman to do so was kate ernest lashley

in 1893. and the press african-american male w.e.b. du bois to in the history of ph.d. earned it two years later in 1895. the introduction to telling history tells and middle of coopers history because her experience says some much about how black women keen to the historical profession and why they came behind white and black men in white women. in also coopers life and quest for a ph.d. exemplifies so much of what black women in the historical profession in any profession for that matter into word today. cooper received her ph.d. in history at the tender age of 66. getting a degree was no small matter. a widow, she had to work and go

to school of the same time. although she had no children of her own she raised her nephews, five children, ages six months to 12. she raised them on her own, she took care of her brother's life when he fell ill and she became his mouthpiece when she was unable to fight for his pension. sounds familiar? particularly for women having competing familiar -- familial and to reduce. what cooper came to understand was that no one was going to give for the benefit of the doubt. no one was going to give her a break. she had no mentors and a sound familiar? someone who is who things out and show the ropes, show her how to do this thing we call history. this became apparent when she found that all of her familial responsibility is prevented her from fulfilling the residency requirements of columbia university.

and tenaciously she decided that if she could not get the degree from columbia where she started out she would get it at the sorbonne in paris. new york, paris. a native new yorker i prefer new york. [laughter] believe me, every obstacle was put in her way by her employer dunbar high school in washington d.c. and by her colleagues. after receiving a ph.d. cooper lamented the fact that as we would say today she could not catch a break. quote, official recognition still seems finally and grudgingly a corner of it, she said sadly and money and salary increases as she maintains were stubbornly withheld. by those two rather than give her congratulations to sought to impugn her personality appear in

her perseverance was enabling and it is one of the reasons that telling history is written in tribute to her. for in the early part of the 20th century she had all the obstacles that black men and white women had to deal with and more. and as i mentioned that she had no mentor hear this on to show her how to get that degree and do research and get it published. and even had she had a mentor she could have had a hard time getting the job since a few schools hired black women. white women had to of vicinities as well but they stood a better chance of being hired as the two black women's colleges in the nation in spellman and bennett then did black women. like black men of the few black women who are professional historians could not attend conferences when they were held in segregated cities and they could not do research in

segregated archives. if they wrote papers, it would not be able to get them published a death knell in a field where one really does paris if one does not publish. because the white journalists did not publish articles by blacks and at the black journal did not until relatively late published articles by women. in and when it came to professional organizations the same was true. black women were virtually excluded from white organizations including by the way the perks because they were black. and they were excluded from by professional organizations because they were women. in to add insult to injury per most of the 20th century it was history itself that oppressed black women. the conventional historical wisdom history written by

professional white male historians represented african-american women as ignorant, immoral, and even wantonly sexual. and this history, of course, grew at of slavery and the inherent sexual exploitation the slavery made possible in. simply put, because of the majority of historians took this stereotype is true they would not admit black women into their profession. for a black woman to be admitted into the profession they would have to rewrite history. to do so however, the be to violate one of a cardinal rules of the the early profession which maintaining that one cannot be historian if one road about oneself. historians high-definition were supposed to be objective. they were in many still believe they still are. the poll is to write history

this passionately. and it was there for virtually impossible and is before the civil rights movement for black women to enter the historical profession and in order to enter into they had to escape their history but the only way to do that was to become and historian. the rights movement of the 1960 open college doors to women and blacks and thus mr. professional open up as well. this is where telling history is really began. with the women who went to college in the '60s and received a ph.d. in the '70s. despite the increased number of blacks and women in the university, it was still not a hospitable place to rent a ph.d. in part because of the storm surrounding the entry of black students in particular into the academy. for with the civil-rights

movement the black power movement in the women's rights movement came the demand for black studies and women's studies and those who lament in this development did not make the ivory tower a welcoming place particularly since so many façade the phd's did so in this burgeoning fields of the black and women's studies. the as suggested by the 1969 atlantic monthly article, black studies, trouble ahead was the title of the article, for the black scholar academia was an intellectual and political minefield. the title of another article black studies and intellectual crisis with similarly foreboding. in short the ivory tower in the history profession had been forced to change the neither was particularly welcoming. some old issues able to put new ones creating a virtual storm of

iran and 1970's black graduates students and black historian. but blacks and is a permit legitimate, with blacks and is itself a legitimate area of study. was the role of the -- what was the role of the historian and black studies. how culpable for white historians of the stereotyping of african americans and the discrimination and racism that blacks regularly faced? , a white historians had to black history? could black historians do anything but black history? [laughter] the black historians achieved legitimacy as historians writing black history or did we have to prove our mettle i first researching and writing some other subjects. white historians lose their jobs? in order to make a place for black historians. could black historians be impartial, could we be as neutral as a white historians

begin with university's wind up lorain their standards adopting black studies programs and with these programs because the centers of mayhem disrupting the academy and every turn. we forget what it was like in the early 1970's and luckily for many of you in this room you don't know and you did not have to live to that. and for black historians the age-old issue of objectivity in took center stage. for some was still the assumption that african-american historians could not be objective or write history dispassionately. indeed, in the rights movements made access to the university easier for black women historians for surviving just as difficult as ever. and both black and women's studies the permits were established african-american female scholars were caught in the political and intellectual crossfire is.

with women's studies appeal the resources and the attention that rightfully belong to a black studies. since women weren't really minorities and didn't have a similar history of oppression many black scholars protested the creation of women's studies departments and expected black women scholars to join in that protest. many demanded that black women scholars choose one or the other. in others questioned the wisdom of further fragmenting history afraid that the big picture of the american nation would be lost and not wish to sicily. the question was asked what about white men, shouldn't they have their own apartment? and how much fragmentation could the field take and how marginal did anyone really want to be. with a black female scholars hutus to research african-american women it was possible to find oneself so far

in the outer circle that the center was not even visible. but teeseventeen on zero virus and sas in telling history have maneuvered to the outer circle. and made it to the center. in the process they changed history departments and some held introduce a brand is subject. the history of african-american women as well as the methodology is made necessary because of the problems inherent in doing african-american women's history. the earliest of the on a biographer is in selling history is dr. nell painter who is last year's president of the southern historical association received a ph.d. from harvard in 1974. the latest to you will hear from today received her ph.d. in

2000, crystal feimster, from princeton. the significance of having black women in the academy is more than underscore that by the fact that prof. painter, the americas and words professor of history at princeton, and historian who originally mentored herself, served as professor crystal feimster the mentor and helped us successfully complete the degree in 2000. this in itself is a story of triumph as are all of the stories about how the 17 black women fema into the historical profession. and on this note out like to say that one of the fears that three viewers of this book and is that it would be filled with one complaint after another. and that it would be in that in the of sad stories about racism and sexism. make no mistake is a lot of

pecos' here. and we do see how difficult it was for individuals who suffer from racism and sexes of to enter a domain where more than the tower is ivory. we do see how difficult it was with the gatekeepers of the profession but at its heart this book is a composite picture of women who like those chicago women c spoke up more conscious of their own deserving and would not admit that they were not as good and capable as others who more easily admitted into the upper echelons of the ivory tower. and to get the teeseventeen on a buyer reviews tell us how black women broke the glass ceiling of the academy and how they maneuvered through the pressures that be sent them when

african-americans were telling them to do one kind of history and women were insisting that they do another kind of history and many wished they would do no history at all. it and use the gatekeepers who did everything to keep them out of the academy but it also celebrates the whites and men who helped them soar. and explain some of the unique pressures felt by black women in the academy this so-called to first. bunning doing some showing how they manage the academy in their careers teeseventeen on virus give us a how to survival manual. not just for young historians and for those in any profession the struggle against entrenched power struggle. thank you. [applause]

>> let me just end that what i have says some may times about editing this book that and every moment it was to the labor of love. i would like to introduce our first panelists who is a contributor to "telling histories". dr. rosalyn terborg-penn, professor emeritus of history. i say that because you know how hard and does for us to retire. if you retire and come back so i guess she is professor emeritus of history. and the former coordinator of the graduate program in history at morgan state university. or she helped develop the university's history pt programs. she earned her ph.d. in african-american history from howard university in 1970.

widely published she has driven over five authors, this known for her award winning steny african-american women in the struggle for the vote to and she was one of the coeditors of black women in america than historical encyclopedia and co and a term of the 2005 volume the comment i to african-american history since 1939. she is the co-founder of the association of black women historians and a former chair of the american historical association committee on women historians. [applause]

>> good afternoon this room is filled and i am very honored. to thank you for coming to hear us. the as i look back on my brooklyn the yorktown hinn learning about black life in history was a part of my family upbringing. in my family sent book cases where we could pick up books by w.e.b. du bois, and ja rogers, then i reared all and others. i took this reality for granted. until i was at queens college as an undergraduate in the 1960's when there was no black history. there isn't now but there was then. fortunately the '60s witnessed a radical student movement at queens college and as unlikely as it is now those of us who are in the naacp were considered

radical. [laughter] one semester of the so-called radical student association because there were about three or four of us come in groups, pulled our resources and invited malcolm x and herbert s. becker to give lectures on campus. their impact was unforgettable upon my growing black consciousness. if i discovered black history as a legitimate field of study not just a narrow discourse that i heard from my father. in and as in developing intellectual i began to probe and ask questions. but only one of my professors responded. saw a man who taught early 19th century united states history in a traditional way that did not include the role of blacks. yet he did know a quote negro historian john hope franklin.

it will have shared that the history department at brooklyn college in the 1950's. the doctor assured me there were others the researched and wrote about so-called negro history. our discussion was very informal in the hallway approaching the staircase in our classroom building. and years later i realized that my white male fellow history majors discussed their academic futures with professors formally in their offices. in and i was never encouraged by my profession to do so. nonetheless the document behalf when an interest me to look further. in my research led me to the additional mail historians as i was drawn into the field i found it was not a new one as i had presumed. just one hit in from my view one to which i have been introduced

as a child at home. and after commencement i went on to graduate school as my parents expected me to do. i wanted to go to howard university in the district of columbia of but i apply to all the universities in washington d.c.. disappointed because i have not heard from howard in time to apply for my guaranteed student loan. i enrolled at george washington university known as gw. not knowing that because of my surname by graduation from queen's college, the admissions officers assumed that i was a white student. [laughter] i won't go into that. my thesis adviser was woodgrain the specialty was 19th century united states social history. dr. gray was the first professional to teach me that no historian is truly objective

because we all bring our prejudices to the table. so i was grateful for that. if i also learned that he had a difficult time excepting me as a black student. of love he had had black historian elsie louis s.a. posted into with him at the department of history and university of chicago, but he still had a difficult time seeing black people. eschewing historian. llc lewis was the chair at howard university at the time. in greece still wanted me to be something other than the ethnically black and refuse to use the term live in my thesis in. nevertheless he allowed me to take out to louis negro history course and howard university. she became an first by professor. but lewis taught at howard and i

returned to chee debbie. and grey agreed to be my thesis adviser. but provided little mentoring. unfortunately i had a taste of it in the one course that i had handed with lewis. she encouraged me to work on my term paper so that i could submit it for publication. and dr. louis was the first person who even suggested that my work was worthy of publication. during my m.a. degree denominated job in the profession and, would agree without wrecking recommendations for me to teach at any college in the washington d.c. area. and finally i heard of an opening at morgan state which is in historically black college atc you as a coffin in baltimore. if i applied in began a mine over a three-year college teaching career in the fall of

1969. the year 1978 was a transitional one to me. i had graduated from howard university with my ph.d. degree of with a concentration in afro-american history. my pt was in u.s. history but the concentration was african-american. i was promoted to a soviet professor at morgan and because by that time sharon and i had a publication. soon there after i was invited to become a member of the american historical association's committee on women's historians and that was the first time. allosteric years later that this was my first association will and they have mandated that you have a woman of color so i was a woman of color selected on the committee for that term and as the first member of the c. w. h. from the historic black university i came to the a.d. to

a as an outsider. then then plus membership on the c. w. h. allowed me entry to the mainstream profession. including the program committee of the berkshire conference on women historians where i replaced a thing out going member of color on the committee. shortly after i was invited to integrate the editorial board of the journey feminist tenace. propel the outside of black economic, the black economic world i soon realized that maris of the mainstream profession sunlight and i is primarily about african-american history. when i insisted that my degree was in u.s. history and that to know african-american history one had to study u.s. history. many of my new colleagues dismissed me politely. and they ignored the fact that i

could evaluate proposals, in his cups and other academic projects involving united states history. furthermore several of my white feminists colleagues in women's history challenge my argument put forth in my dissertation that white women in the 19th century women's movement discriminated against black women seeking to join the movement. and they argued that patriarchy united all women and that sex's some trumped racism. in their view white women were powerless while white men were the ages of discrimination. we debated this position for several years. and would by september 1984i have revised my dissertation in and it became african-american women in the struggle for the votes. i sent it to the university of michigan press the senators wer