yeah. me, too. how sick is the web browsing ? all the apps, gps, video... yeah... you didn't get your blackberry with the verizon network, did you ? no. sorry. so it doesn't work here, does it ? no, but... paperweight mode. all right. now get a blackberry at our lowest prices ever, like the storm, for just $49.99, plus get another free. blackberry runs better on america's largest 3g network. verizon wireless.  >> bob: nats extra on masn

brought to you by verdictson. over 100 hd channels. nationals win their 50th game on a long rainy weekend. bob carpenter and rob dibble. when you get there they have some big boppers you never know what is going to happen. the mod everyone day bully is what they call them especially against us. chase utley has just been a killer all year and tons of homerun and a very tough out. this guy, we're not walking ryan howard he is lunching stuff. he is even more deadly. he will not face martis in the series.

he made a living and done a great job. >> bob: utley look at that average. and the homers. r.b.i.s. then everything put together for ibanez who is having a good year against the nats he hads been devastating. that's it for florida. the final the nats with init 7- 2. join us tuesday masn when the nats play the phillies. masn sports.com for all the latest news on the nationals. this has been a presentation of masn. a well fought for win. see you tuesday night! 

coach ditka, it's hot up here... and we're out of cold coors light. - what do we do? - go get it! great idea but we've only got ten bucks. what do you want, eleven? what do you want, eleven? - we need more than that. - ditka's wallet! and we got it. we just found your wallet. we'll just use a credit card for the cold coors light. hey! hey! hey! hey! frost-brewed coors light. official beer sponsor of the nfl. coach, i just bought a coors light t-shirt. what do you think? ain't no stretch there, baby. no stretch there. it's a little snug. so, that was a positive. we did a little better in the red zone. however, we've got opportunities with the football, we've got to get touchdowns in there and

score. no. that's not safe to say. >> what's the initial feed back you got from him, how he's feeling? >> well, he's sore right now, yeah. he has a broken rib. we'll see how he does. [ inaudible question ] >> that's why he was out there. i probably would have done everything not to do that. that's why we took his pads off at the end there. >> all right. once again here's donovan mcnabb. don't know how long he will be out. got a fractured rib. happened in the third quarter on this three-yard touchdown run. you can see mcnabb walking off in pain. here's sal pal with more. >> already up 31-10 donovan mcnabb had the ball on the panthers 3 yard line and decided to take it in himself. went into the end zone cleanly and safely a a a a two panthers defensive linemen, weighing about 580 pounds total, landed right on top of him and cracked

his rib. andy reed was asked whether mcnabb could start against the saints in the home opener next week. he said, quote, there's a chance. if not, kevin cobb gets the job. you may be asking yourself what about michael vick? he's not available until week three. so this team which had too many quarterbacks a week ago may be looking for one real soon. sal pal ks espn. >> mcnabb very healthy last year. 16 of 16 games he played in. don't know if he will be able to play. i don't know if you ever played with a cracked rib. but as a quarterback, i guess, sit a pain tolerance thing? do you think he will be able to come back? >> that's the key. the pain tolerance. because it's the lower rib. lot of the twisting movements you have to do as a quarterback. throwing the football. that's where it will be the difficult thing for him. you can talk about the pain management, but also you want to make sure that that fracture

doesn't become something more serious. as far as your game itself, you know, cause you to injure yourself even further and do further damage to that rib. >> all right. the other quarterback is jake delhomme. he had a different kind of pain. it was more a mental pain. still going through counseling from last year what happened in the playoff game against the arizona cardinals. led to a lot of mental anguish for carolina panthers fans. delhomme, five turnovers today, four interceptions, one fumble that led to an eagles touchdown. and that don't really have options at backup. look at what he had to say. 7 of 17, four interceptions right there, passer rating of 14.7. that's not good. >> that's -- no, not good at all. and again, i think a lot of it is his own undoing because of the fact that he's a gun slinger. he's kind of a guy that likes to live off his emotions. what is hurting him, there are times when he stares down his

receivers. times where his foot work and fundamentals aren't there and he's throwing behind his receivers. it's putting hip and his team in harms way as far as the turnovers. this is a team that's strongly built to go into the playoffs but it's about your quarterback not getting in the way. he's getting in the way. >> we move on. cowboys trying to bounce back before that lost t. o. tony romo has to step up. he certainly did today against the bucks who are pretty much a brand new team. got rid of a lot of veterans in the off season. romo to roy williams who also had to step up and be the number one guy. >> lot of pressure on him. didn't look good in the first half. came out in the second half, showed a lot of poise. took advantage of a lot of the bucs' miscommunication because of the new aggressive style defense they've been implementing. >> threw three touchdown passes, all over 40 yards. 80 yard touchdown, which was his longest pass completion of his career as the cowboys win 34-21.

matthew stafford making his nfl debut today. 16 of 37, 205 yards a rushing touchdown. six touchdown passes, 358 yards for drew brees. even jeremy shockey had two touchdown receptions today for the saints. all right. we got to get some other sports in here. red sox trying to hang on to their lead in the wild card. taking on tampa bay. trying to end a long losing streak. can't hurt. look at that block at the plate right there. martinez. pe dry ya last year's mvp coming through in the bottom of the eighth. red sox getting the job done in the first game of the double dip against the rays. rangers 3 1/2 games out of that

wild card hunt. only got -- we got texas rangers still waiting to play their games today. it's raining in texas so that haven't gotten their game in. still 3 1/2 games out. meanwhile, nfc east rivals. giants and redskins. how was eli without receivers? how was eli without receivers? hi i'm racing cross country in this small sidecar,

but i've still got room for the internet. with my new netbook from at&t. with its built-in 3g network, it's fast and small, so it goes places other laptops can't. i'm bill kurtis, and i've got plenty of room for the internet. and the nation's fastest 3g network. gun it, mick. (announcer) sign up today and get a netbook for $199.99 after mail-in rebate. with built-in access to the nation's fastest 3g network. only from at&t. but put a ring of cheese in the crust and...jackpot! (anouncer) introducing pizza hut's new stuff crust pan pizza. your favorite pan piz with a jackpot of melted cheese in the crut. a large one toppinis just $10.99.

we are continuing to get blitzed right here on espnews. mike hill, qadry ismail breaking down week one of the national football league season. do you know what? talking about the new york giants. how would that respond without plaxico burress? >> big question. how would eli step up in what would the wide receiver doss? that did their thing. pretty much got a really good defense. >> that needed it today against the washington redskins. we got highlights here on espnews. game just went final moments ago. strong game. >> oc is back after missing last season with an acl tear. had the strip, the recovery and

yet the man is rehabed and is back. >> 37 yard touchdown. giants up. redskins setting up for the field goal. oh it's a fake! hunter smith, the punter. got a little athleticism. >> very athletic punter, holder. made it show that you cannot underestimate the power of special teams. >> redskins down late. needed the on side kick. giants recover. giants get the first win of the season. let's check out eli without plaxico. mario manningham stepped up. 58 yards and a touchdown. giants get the win. tom coughlin, let's hear from him after the game. >> exciting to win at home and win in the division. they're never easy. every game that we have with

them seems to be right down to the wire. obviously we have a lot of work to do. we're very happy to win. i thought that mario manningham made a very nice play. i thought that -- i was a little disappointed two for two turnover deal. but oc came back, came back strong. made a big play in the game, obviously. with the run. and, you know, the disappointing things, obviously, were how quickly that scored at the end. the fact that we had the ball most of the first half, that had it seemed like all of the third quarter. and so it kind of swayed back and forth like that. the drive at the end for us using up the clock ended up to be big. the penalties, you know, you have trouble now. penalties lose games. that's all there is to it. we have to eliminate that. we have to eliminate the turnovers. but, you know, divisional game, a tough hard-fought game, there's no question that the red skins are a good football team.

and we are very happy to win. well, you know, very frustrating, obviously. got to give them some credit. at that point in the game, going for that. obviously, if we stop them, there's nothing to be gained. that got momentum out of it with the score. we talked about that at the half with the players. the fact that that had some gas in their tank after that play. and rightfully so. so we gave them life. that was obviously a huge factor in the game. our defense came out after a turnover. did a nice job of shutting them down, keeping them out of the end zone. and to have that happen, we were in an all-out block. we are one of the better teams in the league. we had three blocks last year. got to give them some credit. i really don't know what it is. i do know it's a foot. i don't know how serious it is. he'll have all the tests etc. but he couldn't go back in.

we got a big play out of him. and we did have opportunities. you know, we really did. i really don't know what our percentage will be, but i'm thinking it will be pretty good. we did spread the ball around. kevin boss had a nice play. steve smith had, you know, really, really nice play to get us out of the hole there on the long drive that we occupied over six minutes there in the fourth quarter. so, the ball was spread around. guys seemed to come through against a good secondary. and we'll take a look at the tape and see. this will be a great teaching tool for us because obviously, you know, all three phases played lengthy, long football. made mistakes, did some good things. so it will be a nice way for us to teach tomorrow. [ inaudible question ] we're still talking about it. obviously, we're still talking about it. one of the things that i figured one of you would ask right away, fourth and one.

you know, with our offensive line and our back and our fullback, you've got to go for that in my opinion. that would have been a huge factor in the game, and i thought it was worth the risk. that did a good job. i'll take a look at this tape. that got up underneath us on a lot of our runs, particularly the runs to the perimeter. we had a few decent plays that had substantial gains with the running game. the consistency certainly wasn't what we were looking for. [ inaudible question ] no doubt. and we are well aware of that. plus, you know, we're just getting started with our rotation and i'm looking forward to seeing how the pitch count went, so to speak, and, you know, both with the tackle position and the end position. you know, it's kind of the way the game went.

it was -- we didn't have a lot of rushes for awhile and then we got some pressure. got around the edge a lot of times. that did step up and get the ball off. but you saw his quickness off the ball. and what a big play he made. knocking the ball off, picking it up, getting it in the end zone. >> are you happy your defense was able to respond? >> that's another thing about the sudden change aspect of it and, you know, the power of the will. our guys weren't feeling sorry for themselves. didn't hang their heads. went out there and did a great job of stopping any kind of momentum that washington could have taken out of that particular drive. and you always will think when something like that happens. we had balls in that area of the field that have come out there as well. i feel badly about the ball that got tipped. that did a nice job being real close to whatever tipped balls there were. that's a good lesson for us as

well. but, yes, to answer your question, that could have been a huge factor in the game right there. >> how seem very comfortable with mario. how big a leap has he made since last year? >> he's been very steady in terms of the progress he's made. and he's -- you know, there's been some times when little slight set backs in training camp. he comes right back. and you saw the ability that he has to maneuver his feet. as he really stepped in and out of the tackle, stepped in and out of the side line and was able to accelerate to top speed to get it into the end zone. [ inaudible question ] you know what? i better be careful what i say'cause there was some real questionable things that i have got -- i want to look at the tape and discuss it further. i don't know. you know. he didn't dislocate the elbow. doctor put it right back in.

soon as we can obviously we're going to be -- [ inaudible question ] yes, there was, no doubt about it. i'm real happy to win the game. and that was a good point there 17-0. on wish it would have stayed there. i think for us to be able to be the kind of offensive team that we need to be, we have to have the balance. for awhile there in the second half we didn't. and the runs weren't very successful. fortunately the passes were. as i say, there's a lot to learn from this game. we'll learn from that. i don't know what it is. i don't have any -- we talked about it on the top of the foot. talked about it in the arch. i can't tell you what it is until i see the medical people.

[ inaudible question ] i think it will be vital, because it all shows that he has confidence in any number of people. i was glad to see kevin boss with that ball. he was probably one step away from taking that ball into the end zone. as i said, steve smith made a couple great catches. dominic it's just a shame. he laid out for that ball down the sideline. just couldn't quite bring it in. we were able to spread it around. backs got involved. and so it's a good thing. he saw the secondary. he really did an excellent job especially in the first half when we had more continuity and more plays, getting us in and out of plays. actually checked to the go screen that was a touchdown with mario. [ inaudible question ]

no, new yorks i think it's that we won the game. everybody is aware of the fact that, you know, we got a long way to go to be the kind of team we want to be. there's positive teams we can build on. i think everybody ought to notice that the game that bruce johnson played for us today. he did -- i was really proud of that young man. >> all right. tom coughlin, as happy as he is ever gonna be, i guess. he's happy with the effort of the team. go to 1-0 on the season. eli manning did a good job spreading the ball around to his wide receivers. but the defense also stepped up. lot of questions whether that could do that without steve spagnola being the coordinator. on gave up 272 yards total offense to the washington redskins. the architect, the leader of that defense, middle linebacker antonio pierce was at the podium moments ago. >> new season, 2009 season just got kicked off.

great that we played very well as a team. all areas played well. i don't know how many goals we reached until after we look at the stats and meet with the coaches. go out there, get a win. our first win. one step toward what we want. i don't know how many sacks we ended up with. felt like we was getting to him. he made some great throws. everybody knows what the new york giants defense is about. getting after the quarterback and applying pressure throughout the game. thought we did a pretty good job doing that. [ inaudible question ] yeah. that decision got made, i believe nshg january. bill's been here, all the coaches been together, put the defense together, minicamp, training camp, first week of regular season. guys are comfortable. we're very similar to what we ran last year.

different coach calling it, but he did a great job today. we gave him a gatorade bath afterwards. it wasn't a big one, but what was left in the bucket. [ inaudible question ] yeah. that was our whole key all day. we were disappointed that we gave up a touchdown at the end of the game. wanted to finish without giving up any offensive points. don't matter where that put the ball. our job is make sure that don't score, get in that end zone. keep it to a field goal or less. our guys responded very well. guys, that's what we got here. going to be some games where the defense not playing welsh offense got to hold them up. tell you what our team is all about. [ inaudible question ] huge. i mean, it wasn't hard to come out with the intenty the way our crowd was today. it's very electric out there. crowd behind us the whole way

into the end of the game. getting that lead, it was all about maintaining it, feeding off our crowd. [ inaudible question ] you know, i'll leave that to everybody el, how deep we are. i will say all 25 guys on our roster defensively feel they're starters. everybody talked about our defensive line, their depth. that consider themselves starters. that's how that approach the game. same thing with our linebackers. same thing with our defensive back. you get that production when the guys come in. today was another product of that. [ inaudible question ] i thought our receivers did a great job today against some great corners over there. those guys played man to man. obviously seeing eight or nine in the box. guys one on one. thought manningham played great.

thought steve smith played great. obviously didn't make a big deal out of it. those guys are, quote, all stars so far. eventually that will be pro bowl players. [ inaudible question ] new york giants always been about the defense. that's not no secret. that's what we are. but at the same time we are a balanced team. like i said, there can be games where offense and defense strulging, offense scores, let eli do the no huddle thing and we'll score 30 points. at the end of the day, it's all about winning. as long as we get that w and we go out there and play well. [ inaudible question ] i don't think we struggled last

year. just what we do every week. first two preseason games i think plus two in reach turnover game. we had two turnovers. last two preseason games we didn't have any turnovers. all week coach was emphasizing getting turnovers, breaking the ball out. we didn't get one of them. oc, webster had one. we had two, three turnovers which is obviously the big difference in the game. oc, he's the only guy that can get a strip, fumble, turn it in without nobody ever touching him. i don't know what he does. magic trick he's got. houdini, i guess. [ inaudible question ] yeah. i almost passed out out there. i got two more super bowls left, hopefully. got excited. got a little excited out there. it's personal.

don't read too much into that. [ inaudible question ] i mean, definitely. you want to make every year special. last year giants stadium, great history. 30 plus years of an organization playing here, playing great ball. hosting world champion teams. hopefully get a fourth one. [ inaudible question ] i seen them throughout the whole game. i don't need to see them before and after ward. especially after the loss for them. >> all right. that's giants middle linebacker antonio pierce talking about the giants win. hey, redskins offense are the juggernaut. giants defense, which was good last year, can be better. how far can that take them, q? >> it's about the giants defense. that's the strength of your football team. again, if you remember their

super bowl year, that went to the super bowl and beat a very potent offense by the fact that that were just able to rotate their defensive front. that replenished it with some free agents. again, oc is back. i think we're seeing his presence. >> oc is back, eli manning is there. time for him to step up, make that money. signed that big extension in the off season. 256 yards. lot of questions on whether he could step up without that quality receiver toomer and no plaxico burress. but he did the job today. giants win. he had this to say moments ago at the podium. >> yeah, mario did some really good things today. started the drive, hit him on an end cut. that was good. he's got a lot of talent, lot of ability. really the touchdown pass. that was all him. the play didn't work as planned but he imimprovised and got the touchdown. that's something that it's good

to see some of these receivers do. kind of make some plays after the catch. make some guys miss. that was great to see that. but thought all the receivers played really well. everybody on the same page. we had one, third down kind of late. i tried, had a curl to mario. ended up being off sides on the defense. it would have been a touch catch. guy was trying to sit on it. besides that, i thought the receivers played really well. we'll have to build from this. [ inaudible question ] just a chat. that came with an all-out blitz. really a play where it wasn't in the game plan. went into the check. kind of improvised. it popped in my head. he did a good job seeing that. it's good that these young receivers are really in tune of what's going on. it wasn't something we had talked about in the past. something we did in training camp. we have in our package. got the call and made it work.

yeah. i mean, playing washington the first game of the season is always tough. we know their defense is gonna be -- they're gonna be tough to play against. they're great at stopping the run. they're gonna play a lot of man to man and mick up different coverages and get the different pass rush. i think it's important. i like playing a good team to start the season. know you got to play great football from the get go. don't have time to mess around. we did a great job of starting fast. and really, the first two drives were almost perfect. and got down there close. we had two third and shorts. we couldn't convert. that's frustrating. that's something we got to fix. you convert those hopefully you're gonna score touchdowns. that's keeping us from getting in the end zone. did a lot of things well. i thought the drive at the end of the game was clutch. we need to run off some clock. we needed to get some points on the board. would have liked to get a

touchdown. we had a penalty. that stopped us from getting a touchdown. we all ran off about five or six minutes. that was nice. [ inaudible question ] yeah. i knew that wanted to come out and play well. and that see what's being said in the paper. that see what all the reporters are talking about and what's on tv. that don't like hearing that. that want something to prove. i thought they've done a great job all training camp making plays. that did the same thing today. some guys really made some clutch plays. steve smith up the seam on that last drive with the huge catch. taking the hit. kevin boss on a scramble, catch and go on the last drive. so, you know, i was excited for them to come out and play well. there's some things we can improve on. we got to keep getting better. [ inaudible question ]

are you happy to -- not get it out of the way. >> yeah. i think it was good to get off to a fast start throwing the ball. and first play hit mario for a few yards. then had a third down. hit mario on an end cut. made a guy miss. got up the field. did some good things. very crisp. very sharp to start the game which is good to see. great game plan. we started seeing what the washington defense was doing. that's something. when they're throwing different looks at us. we were able to adjust and get good plays. guys were recognizing what was going on. [ inaudible question ] i think that's something we can build on. we can't start thinking we're

invincible or anything. so we got to keep working. there's things we can definitely get better. and we got to look at the film and go from here. definitely did some really good things today. got to keep trying to get better. you know, it was just tough. i can't roll right and then try and throw it. if i could have stepped up in the pocket and really got something on the ball, i maybe could have gotten there in time. just dangerous rolling right, throwing an end cut. i know landry likes to sit on things. i was going to the right place. it was kind of the way it worked out. i got to throw the ball away there or run. can't afford -- when you got things going welsh can't afford to give a turnover right there. defense stepped up holding them to only three points. that was huge. [ inaudible question ]

well, i mean, i think every season you look at things you want to improve on. i knew i had to get better as a player and work on things and find completions and be more accurate and get some more -- be better at the deep ball and different things. make better decisions. there were things i wanted to work on. i was excited about the receive corps that we had. not just throwing it deep. throwing short stuff. making things happen. breaking tackles. guys doing a good job. again, we got things we can improve on different areas. but it was a good start. no. you know, honestly, sometime i didn't really feel the face mask. sometimes -- i was disapoind just because i had a touchdown to mario on that. i saw it happen. we had a perfect play called. one of those deals where i was ready to throw it. i just couldn't step up into the

throw. just'cause someone grabs your face mask, no excuse to let go of the ball. i got to hold on to the ball. can't turn the ball over. >> you called a time-out. was there a problem with how the guys lined up? >> i'm not quite sure on that one. >> it was like you and the tying end. >> mario was being a little tighter alignment. just so he could block the safety on run play. then we had the tight end in motion. so just -- we were having bad play. i ran it, i didn't have an outlet. way. george shultz didn't want reagan to give the speech. mr. gorbachev to tear down that wall and reagan did n want reagan to go and so on. there is also a formulation tha

they were a reactn to the iran contra scandal and his diplomacy with gorbachev was a reaction to the iran contra and the problem with that is it simply doesn't even fit the chronoly that the most important single moment of the policy which was the summit where ray yan and gorbachev talked about eliminating nuclear weapons was before the iran contra scandal so that 1i think is easy to dismiss. now, the third and most important problem to address in possible to know the answer is how much -- and reagan's

policies what was the result of a long-term strategy from the beginning and how much with a ry savvy response to events. so one theory that postulate skill long-term strategy is that reagan tookffice planning to bring the soviet uniono collapse. i do hear this from time to time. i am not sure i find it a particular book and in fact caspar weinberger his own defense secretary it rejects the idea that there was a strategy to bring the soviet union to collapse. their oil picieand challenging the soviets i thi fkr sure bill casey as cia director was passing -- pushing

away but i can't see in the beginnings of reagan strategy over eightears to bring the soviet union to collapse. steven hayward's book fers to me more sounder version of a lo-term strategy which is riggs's early policies were meant to strengthen american's hand in negotiations with you didn't enter into smitry until you have to strengthen ameca's defenses and so on. and that strikes me as something that makes some sense. e othe-- to me that reagan was, again, skillful the responding that he dade that

gorbachev had the potential to be an agent of change in the et union whe many others in the united states did not. and reagan was certainly a very skillful negotiator. , to me part of this may be a stragy on negotiation and part of it is a very skillful response to events. then we come to the question, this i where i am happto plead guiy where a steven hayward complains that some people separate reagan's foreign and domestic policy what is the relatiship between these events and reaga foreign policy d domestic picy, and i think

he argues it is all of one piece and makes no sense to separate them out, and on her that i plame disagree. to me this is a funny version of the pherae the united states and the soviet union have become or are becoming white each other. to me the problem some more than prlems of a one-party state are differe from anything that we face on the role of the state and our multi-party system and so to me those are two fundentally different issues. so i will say teasingly i may be more of al anti-communist than

you are. [laughter] and with that, let me open to discussion. thanks. [applause] >> thanks ve much. our last discussion will be the man i know for some years now simply as our chairman. bill is the chairman emerus an distinguish senior economist here at the cat institute betwee1985 and 2008 he was the chairn of the cato institute following service as a member and acting chairman of president reagan council of economic advisers. he also served as director of economics at ford motor company. professor of economics at the university of california berkeley and los angeles. assistant direct of the federal office of management and budget. a defense analyst at the rand corporation, director of special studies in office of secretary defense and director of program analysis division of the

institute of defense analysis. someone with that background is indeed well plad to tell a great deal about what is happening in amecan history during the break in here now and before. bill has written many public policy issues. 1971 book bureaucracy and representative government is considered a classic. his most recent book is reections of a political economist select articles on a government policies and political process east. please welcome bill reaganomics which i summarize the development and the effects of the reagan economic program over its to terms. steve's book is simply the best comprehensive history of the reag administration. no other comprehensive is nearly

as good or paral history, no good section is as comprehensive as what steve has come up with. let me first quickly summarize what i regard as reagan's the five major achievements. and foreign picy, the end of the cold war, the breakup of the pack, the breakup of the soviet union, the latter two prominent predominant were in the early 1990'sut they werclearly a consequence of the development during the reagan adminiration. and iill develop on that later. one of the living in which i don't have a sufficient appreciation, and may be coming to an end is reagan packed the quotes. i think that affect of his administration is the first republican to serve the full eight years since coolidge or somethg like that.

.. 83 and 1989 and the convention of the fact that the tax rate was reduced from 70% in 1980 to 28% in 1986. let them now address the

inflation and tax issue. as late as 1980 or 1981 when the left had an opportunity to testify in congress on the reagan's economic policies, the neral position of the left was th reduction of the budget deficit and maintain energy price controls was necessary to control inflation. inflation you remember had gone up at the time when nixon imposed his wage and price controls in 1971 the inflation rate was4.4%. in 1980 the inflation rate was 12.5%. but as a consequence without doing the sorts of this that are really necessary to control inflation. but as lates 1981 the left w saying that in order to control inflation you have t have -- you have to reduce the budget deficit and you have to maintain

whatever controls over particular prices and particular segments that are necessary. now, the left's explanation of inflation was that prices are going up in some sector and that's causing inflation. now, pricesid go up rather subsntially in energy in the 1970s but that was t, of course, the reason why we had inflation. now, what happened -- what did reagan do? by the end o january of 198 warmp, he had eliminated price controls and oil and that eliminated the cues in gastation -- gas station. it took you an hour to get to th pump. it eliminated theues in the gas stations overnight. and in 1981, it was going to increase the budget deficit. we knew that at the time. the consequence of an increase in the rate of defense spending and a significt reduction of tax rates.

now, so at perspective of the left should ve been rejected by that particul exrience. in sense that we did just the opposite of what they recommended and still bught inflation down more an twthirds within two years. as a consequence of really very tight monetary policy. i think the single most important action by reagan in that period of time on inflation is that he gave paul volcker who had been appoinded by jimmy carter very strong support to use monetary policy to control -- to bring the inflation rate down. carter had appointed volcker thout know who he really was. he had appointed volcker consequence from tony solomon in the treasury department. volcker came in and started tightening the money supply in

the fall of 1979. cart reversed volcker on that matter because 1980 was a presidtial election year and so volcker did not have the support of the president to maintain the tight monetary policy that head started in the fall of 1979. but when reagan came in, he gave volckerery strong support to impose a tight enough monetary policy to substantially reduce inflation and it worked within two years much more quickly than most people anticipated. more than the inflation rate was brought down by more than two-thirds. on taxes, the prospective of us reaganots is that taxes have a very different effect on the economy than was from the conventional -- than the perspective of the conventional left.

is that the left typically interpreted the effects of taxes on the enomy in terms of its effects on the demand for goods and services and labor. we interpreted the effects of the taxes from the economy primarily in terms of its effects on the incentive to work, save, invest and increase your productivity and for that reason we recall supply siders. focused on the effect o taxes on the supply of output and not on the demand for output. so what did we do? taxes were reduced -- top marginal tax rate was reded from 70% to 50% in the first year in 1981. and then ithe 1986 tax bill thearginal tax rate was reduced further to 28%. the top marnal tax rate was reduced furtr to 28%. at the same ti, most people

below the median income were taken off the federal income tax ros. right now something like 96% of the del income taxes paid by the top -- top half of the income distribution. but there's some lessons to be learned fm that. and this -- thise have learned sometimes -- we've learned some wrong lessons. the residual supply ciders - sideers about the effective tax rate cuts. one is the assertion the tax rates the taxuts are self-financing. that's been an interpretatio of the laugherurve but it's not all interpretation.

this is a point of view that dick cheney apparentl still holds. you don't needo worry about tax cuts because they don't increase the deficit they're self-financing. there's another perspective that is entirely incompatible with the first perspective is the start of the beast hypothesis. there are too many people who call themselves supply seiders who one time or another articulate both of these positions and, of cour, they're inconsistent. it turns out the empirical evidence particularly since 1980 is that both o these are wrong. tax cuts are not self-financing. there are some tax cutshat have increased revenueshere you have a higher elasticity of e t base with respect to the tax rate and capital gains or where the absolute tax rate is

so very high. and when the top marginal tax rate was 70% it's very likely at reducing that rate by some amount with selfinancing but not necessarily all the way down to 28%. and even the capital gns tax cuts by george w. bush in 2003 looked like they might have been self-financing but that is not the general case with respect to tax cuts. and the evidence to starve the beast hypothesis ahough it had been -- although this hypothesis had been strongl supported in the press by among other people melton friedman and gary becker it's just inconsistent with the facts. the longer hisry suggests is that if you cut taxes, the demand for government services goes up. you cut the price of most anytng, good or service, the amount of that good or serce that is demanded goes up.

-- demand goes up. and what is now confirmed bthe evidce is that reducing the tax -- relativeax burden on the united states, reducing the tax shares of total g.d.p. in the united states has been strongly associated with increasen government spending, t a starving t beast, not a reduction of the governmt spending. now, another tng that is important to recognize is that although reagan is remembered for his tax cuts in 1981 and in 1986, in both other years particarly 1982, 1983, 1984 he increased tax so he did not have -- he did not have a tax cut under all circumstanes perspective. now, the 1982 tax increase had a history of an analysis within the council of economic advisors by a young staff memberho's a professor at boston that when given e 1981 tax cuts, if u bring inflation rate down as

rapidly as was, in fact, happening, it actually led to a negative tax rate on certain kinds of business investment. it was just -- the 1981 did not take into account the interaction between the effect of the tax cuts, theax rate cuts and the inflation itself and sohat was the primary correct reason, i think, for the 1982ax increase. the 1983 tax increase was a consequence of the fact that reagan's 2001 -- 1981 proposal on social security did not get a single vote in the senate. and so he appointed a commissio to addss social security headed by alan greenspan but the recommendations basicallyame om dick darman, who was greenspan's chief of staff on that particular committee.

a long story among many of us i the reagan administrationúare -- many of us in the reagan administration aed each other, why did -- why have people come to hate dick darman so quickly? [laughter] >> the answer is it ves time. [laughter] >> but in any case, dick darman was a very bright guy, and he was an aid to baker. and so he was involved in any mber of important decisions. let them now turn to some cases of very discriminating judgment on similar issues in which reagan's judgment oved to be right in both cases. one is in the summer of 1981, the professional air trafficker controllers feral employees

went on strike. they thought they could get away with it for two reasons -- or three reasons. second, reagan himself had been a union president. president of the screen actors guild and third is that it's a monopoly. they are the only ones who are allowed at the time t be professional air traffic controllers. reagan within hours went on television and said this is an illegal strike. we are going to do whatever we can to maintain air traffic in part by using military air traffic controlls. and the strike was -- and the strike was broken. that, however, was misinterpreted by a lot of the press as somehow reagan's antiunion positi. it's not really true. we did not intervene atll in a

very much larger and extended strike in at&t. two years later. so there was -- we had scrupulously neutral pition with respect to e at&t strike. in 1983. reagan appointed a man named bill baxter to be the antitrust assistt attorneyener in the department of justice. bill baxter was a dynamo. withinonths of being in the job, he dmissed a 15-year-old antitrust suit against ibm on the basis that the technology in that area had gone way beyond what was the justice department's concern 15 years before that. but at the same time, not long after that, baxter was involved in the breakup of at&into two or three different organizations.

so these were discriminating judgments and i think the judgments in which case was really correct in both cases. another one that i think is quite interesting -- rean after some controversy within thedministration authorized an invasi of the tiny caribbean island called grenada. that followed situation in which the hezbollah had bombed the barracks -- marine barracks in lebanon, beirut. reagan had -- rean had authorized the invasion of grenada primarily t rede the cuban influence an the caribbean because the grenada political system hadeen basically taken over by the bans. and that given the -- given t

marine -- given the bombing of the marine barracks in beirut gave people the iression that we were inor a number of round of military activities. one of the more iortant things that i think reagan ever did on foreign policy is pulling the marines out of beirut. that kept us from getting involved in a mide eastern war and pulling marines out of beirut basically under the argument that the political developments in lebanon did not represent a national security threat to the united states. that is a principle that i wish that george h.w. bush and george w. bush had followed. discriminating judgment is that reagan's plicnd private views about most of the soviet

leaders were absolutely devastatingly critical. at th same time, ts man went with gorbachev and that plus the rapi defense buildup in the earlier part of the 1980s which was i think was the primary thing that led to the cd war and ultimately the breakup of the warsaw pact and of the -- the breakup of the soviet union itself. therhad been a lesson learned in the meantime. a lesson that we were slowly learning but i think it was more widely understood in russia itself in the soviet union. in the 1970s, our cia, the central intelligence agency, finally recognized that the soviet defense budget was a lot larger share of their g.d.p.

than what they had been telling us for a long time. their earlier -- their earlier position is that the soviet defense budget could be maintained more or less indefinitely because it was not that much of a bigger share of g.d.p. than ours. what happened in the --n the 1970shen grge h.w. bush was actually director of the cia is the cia recognized that they had grossly overestimated the size of the soviet g.d.p. they had more or less correctly estimated the size of the soviet defense budget but they substantiall overestimated the sovietense budget -- overestimated the size of the soviet g.d.p. and that gaven increasing number of people in the united states but a large -- but a recognition of what the soviet leaders had knownfer a long time that the soviet defense budget

was a much bigger burden on them than whahad previously been thought about in the united states. that plus -- you know, that recognition plus the u.s. defense buildup, the most which spooked them was the sdi program. and the reagan's opening to gorbachev at the end of the period ihink the primary reason for these really dramatic developments in foreign policy. reagan's judgment on people was really surprisingly good. i ink he made extraordinary judgments on peopl the two most conspicuous misjudgments, i think, were t appointment of al haig in 1981. we came close to becoming president afper president reagan was st and that was reay a

bad judgment and i think also the appointment of john regan s the secd chief of staff waq a bad judgnt. n regan i thought was a good secretary of the treasury but he was a terrible chief o sff in his second term but as a rule, i thought tt reagan's judgment about people was very good. he was correct in his judgment about most of the soviet leaders. also i think he was correct in his judgment about gorbachev. that this was a man with whom he could talk about big issues like tting rid of nuclear weapons, a substantial reduction of nuclear weapons on both of our s and of coming to a peaceful relationship over a period of time. major mistakes. steve has mentioned trade policy was, i think,ne f the worst recordof the reagan administration particularly with respect to japan. we were very depende on

japan -- we have been very independent on japan for any number of reasons. but we forced the japanese to imposeoluntary export restraints. instead of imposg a quote on oupart, we forced them to impose a voluntary export -- resaints on cars. was the budget deficit a mistake? i must acknowledge that i was more conrned about these budget defics in the 80s than i am now. the budget deficits was a rapid increase in the defense budget. so the question is whether the budget deficits were a mistake, i think, was a consequence of -- was a decision about whether the defense budup was a mistake. now, you ought to know that weinberger's proposals had very little support in the cabinet and in the white house with the exception of the president.

i had worked for 13 years in defense at high positns and served for a couple of years as an associate director of omb. weinberger's proposals were on the defensebudget. were demeaning in the sense that they were treating us like ignorant people. but he got away with it. and, unfortunately -- fortunately or unfortunately i think that it may very well be the big increase of the defense budget, which was not financed by taxes in other words financed by borrowing, in retrospect may have been a very good decision because i think it was one o the key elements in bringing about the end the cold war and the other relationships. so there were mistakes. trade policy w a mistake. i have come to a rather differt view about the budget defits thai had at the time.

and about the defensecz buildupt the time. let them just give you one little story. weinberg came over to make a presentation on his defense budget to the cabinet. and he brought some cardboard cutouts with sort of a 6-foot marine aseingúl his budget and sort of a 3-foot tiny soldiers being the budget that sockman wanted. this was the quality and the character of the presentation that he made on the defense budget before the reagan cabinet. so he treated his like idiots but i thi that the decision on the defense budget and to fince it by borrowing it than by taxes was probably a good idea. thank you. [applause] >> what bill doesn't mention in

david stockman's book he recounts this exact same ory. first of all, having worked on the budget for the calculat, stockman could not believe it. weinberger shod u a little cutouts and point at -- one of them was the jimmy carter mpy dense. stockm lost that battle, you ow, that's the one name actually maybe we'll get into the q & a and david rtockman continues to play a great role but his book is important on the domestic issues here. and we would like to go to question and answers. we've run a little bit over our planned time but we still have ample time for someuestions from the audience. and please -- you're going to have to speak in a fairly loud voice to hear from you because of the sound problem but please ask us is question and also if you want to direct it to one particular person on the panel, please indicate that and

finally, please indicate who you are and any institutional affiliation you might have. >> and speak up. >> you're going to have to speak up.ç the gentleman in the back, i believe, was first. >> patrick harvey. i'm an attorney here in the city. m curious -- when weiscussed the difference between the reagan first ter andhe reaga second term in terms of the foreign policy with the soviet union i believe the operation was the key event and then there was a genuine -- on both sides, both on the side of the siet union and on the side of the united states -- that this was the key event that started the reagan detente, if you will, and that's just a comment - if the panel would like to to comment on that, i'll appreciate it. >> i'llave a first g and we talk about -- wt the estioner is referring to is a large nato exercise in november of 1983 that coincided with the installation of the intermediate

range missiles which was so controversia and there's some evidence -- i go through the mixed character of this mind. the soviet union generally thought it possible that wwere preping a preemptivetrike against them. d that they in response pondered their own preemptive strike back and this ultimately bubbles up to reagan who's alarmed when he's told. how could the soviet unio think weould attac them. i tell the story atreat length my book. i tell a lot of storiest great length iny book. that's part of the problem. yeah, i thi that is probly a factor in things although i will add -- i was thinkin when jim was talking. ere's quite a lot of evidence -- and i was not the first to find it. reagan wasilling to have mmits early as 1982 or io 83. he was ehanging private messages wit andropov in 83. and before able archer happens and you have the korean airliners shot down. there was sort of a thaw

beginning just a little bit in the summer of '83nd then the even of the fall sputtered out in the other direction culminating with able aher and it contributed to reagan saying now it's time to change my approach. i asked him what the evil eire remark. he said i wouldn't make that statemennow. one of my theories is that he realized now it' time for me to pivot. and, you know, we got the missr&es in place. that was a big deal. the defense build is going well. there's been this war scare and maybe it's time toack off a lá(rá and so forth but i talk aot about that. and jim may want to weigh in on that. >>et them -- i don't have too much difrent to say on that. the fact that it wasn't mentioned here is really sort of a random, i think, what we chose to talk about. but in the book, i do give a l of weight to that -- this

episode where actually the british have an intelligent agent reporting to them who soviets thought that nato was on the verge of a strike against them. and their agent says, you know, what are you doing? i tught i was working for you all in the interest of world peace. and th produces a considerable debate both in london and then in washington abmuthetherhe soviets really thought that the reagan administration was capable of strikg againsthe soviet union. and there is -- you know, there are ierviews with people like bud mcfarland who was a national security advisor seemed to make clear that reagan was really genuinely puzzled about that. and really his -- he gives a speech at the beginning of 1984 which has a remarkably dferent

tone and i think you know, abel archer and other events in '83 have caused him some concern about the possibility of misunderstanding. it's certainly also worth mentioning that the beginning of 1984 it's a presidential year. and thdemocrats are complaining that reagan hasn't had a smit with the soviet union so he's -- the ambassador writes about this episode a he interprets reagan's speech as the new sort of conciliatory tone as a matter of domestic politics. and thinit was both. and when you look back, it certainly was a resnse to abel amper and to other events between thu.s. and the soviets in '83. >> steve, you didn't mention a lot about reagan's influence on the climate of ideas. and it seems to m that's a very

important aect of his administration. you remember in the '70s we had the convergence thesis and the morally equivalency thesis. i was in the state deparent during the second reagan term and remember -- because i was bureau of human rights h the reaucrats over there in the state department resisted from day one agan's human rights agenda and how we used to have fight to get that cross. he did and it worked magnific t magnificently in e end about changing the climate of ideas. could you say about what your research showed in that. >> o of the things i do in the book is constantly talk about -- i call it the instinct for argument that reagan had, and that the mor reaganite members of his administration -- they liked to pickhts about stuff. this is one things thatakes them different from the last republican administration anso thonly arguments i make is that -- is that, you know, you can keep the initiative in

politics even if you lose partular policy fights. so by the way, what i thought you mit ask mebout and something i make a bigeal in the book is theighting that ed meese picks over the constitution. it may have been a contributor factor in the defeat of bork's nomination by the way because you raise thisp a factor and not the factor. i think that was enormsly important and useful argument to start and lo and hold i noticed today even a guy like -- who's the guy at yale, lamar, people now will try to claim to be originalists in one form or another even when they're not. th's an emple of picking a fight about something. in that case it's not connected -- well, there were some connections. mees had some ideas about federalism and reagan had some ideas about federalism. they had an instinct about argument that pervaded that was a large part of reagan's presidency and when you're losing you can maintain

presidential initiative. you can pick individual initiatives. they like to fight about stuff. it was great. >> i think that these proposals in the second term were pructive. >> pull your mic up. >> although i think meese got the originalist argument wrong. he talked aut original intent, not original meaning. and innt is somehow you have to infer the intent of the people who rote the language which i think is a mistake because people can support nguage from very different reasons. and i think that the fact -- meese didn't have the originalist argument correct and i think that consequence didn't go very far. >> well, i actually agree with you an i include in the book a couple of references to the defects of the meese argument. this was an argument that liberals thought was dead and gone and was never coming back and that's why ty were so shocked and outraged by it.

>> bill's argument is also justice scalia whom we have a president to talk about today. chris? >> republicans in congress and reagan keep talking about waste, fraud and abuse in the budget in th government. and my problem witthat is eventually you have to talk about cutting programs. and it seems to me that reagan and maybe i have some memory of that period -- i don't know if reagan ever talked about that. i mean, i think when he was -- before he ran for president, i wonderhen he was president did he really understand that entually sometimes programs have to be cut? >> bill will have maybe more

insight to this as i would. argue in myook and other people have made this argumt for me that reagan made a mistake in 1981 when his political clout was highest and when the sense that we really got to cut spending was at its broadest here in this town in not proposing some fundamentad reforms in social security, medicare and some other entitlement programs. instead, they changed eligibility rules to try and, you know, limit spending that way. we had the fúmous ketch up is a vegetable. jay leno was joking about it for 15 years. they try to make a virtue out of the fact they weren't cutting a social safety net. the other things, you know, he had run on was abolishing the department of energy and the department of education and that was a nonstarter from the beginning with republicans in the senate let alone, you know, democrats. and thenyou know, the momentum for serious spending restraint disappeared very quickly. here i accept stockman's account that the cuts were passed were

you got to fall of '91 you had lost control of áhe budget process essentially and yeah, they never returned to making a fundamental argument that, you know, government needso be smaller and reagan -- @lthough did talk about the new federalism he never went back to what had been a mistakeor him inhe 76ampaign. remeer there he proposed a ecific number we'reoing to send $90 milon of federal responsibilities back to the ates and that ended up being hung around his neck as a problem. and he didn't make that mistake again in the '80 campaign and he never sioly tried it as present so i think that was something that was a defec or a mistake >> you're entirel right. you can't cut the budget without cutting prrams. reagan only made one serious prram proposal in 81, and that was the proposal to cut social security by a good bit. because stockman thought it was possible and he wanted a lot of ney right off the bat. it went to the senate.

did not get a single -- not one vote in the senate. that was a discouraging event. it was -- iwas a badly conceived proposal and the mood was not right for . it is important to recognize that for the whole of the reagan period he faced a democratic control of the house. but in this particular case he didn't get a vote in the senate. >> please. >> peter whitney at duke univsity. you talk about reagan's influence in relation to the question on ideas on the creation o nafta. he did mention a nafta-like ornization as i recall in the '79 speeches. and he ignored his advirs and went right ahead on his free trade mantra and those who made the chges tmake nafta 4ejut)q) i believe at some of

the meetings and that reagan's statements had a big influence on him and the mexicans reform. >> i talk about my first volume of the north american free trade zone which i think was in 1979 80. i don't talk much about nafta in this book bause it really does cover the eight yrs in the presidency and although i do talk a lot bause i'd forgotten about it and it was kind of below eradar. a lot of the time in the secd term although i'm with bill in sayinghat they're record on trade was equivocal at best, reagan is constantly trying to beat backhe threat of protectionist legislaon dráz congressven tougher sanctions against japan and other trade -- he's always threatening to veto trade bills and so i mean, i give him props so to speak for sentiment that s strong in both parties and so i don't tk about nafta and i probly could

have but there's a lot of tngs i could leave out even with the length that i wrote out. >> i would have to take a posion even left of mr. mann. my feeling was -- i was very active watching mr. reagan when he got elected. all his rhetoric during the election we have no race problem in america, we have no environmental problem in americ e sweeping stements were very, very strange. however, he did not become as bad a presint has george bush the last eight years that we had. rtainly, he s very, very restrained in a lot of his -- evenis rhetoric about the evil empire and i in trouble that mr. president haveou watched yourself in the mirror to see what empire you're presiding over. probably the great satan. so -- i mean, if you consider

the soviets they're crooks you do lot of thing which are bad and, in fact, during his period, our prison system budged. none of you really talked a lot about it si would say human rights in the country he was a really bad influence. >> would you aee with that statement. well, let them ask -- let them ask a folw-up here since bush was --e have to ask the what would reagan do question, don't we? in the aftermath of septeer 11, 2001, would ronald reagan have led the country into an invasion of iraq, in your judgment. >> well, let them take the first general part of your question first. the first answer i if i have when people what would reagan do, my first answer he would ban powerpoint at the white house. [laughter] >> i think he would have seen e defects of powerpoint. on the more serious question, they, i think -- actually it

gets a little bit to an aspect of the previous question which is too sawling to take on in a sensible wayut this one part i can take on. one of my conclusions, this is my opinion ,- i think reagan might have made a very poor war leader if we actuall had a large war. i think he would not have undertaken the iraq invasion. it's just my opinion about the matter. and this comes from a couple reasons. he was very reluctant to use force tespite his cowboy talk from the '60s about paving over vietnam and putting parking stripe down the middle. he really didn'tave the stomach for it and on the particular case of latin americ this is interesting. you know, liberals used to charge -- i remember tip o'neill would say reagan won't be happy until we have marines in nicaragua and we know from reagan's tiry and private conversaons reagan said over and over from early on i'm nev sendg troops to centr america. we're going to support the contras and put pressure on them and all that was coroversial.

was a peripheral theater for one thing. he didn't need to. the contras would work and second there w a distaste of using force that we saw about the man andhird the emergence of his diary he became sensiti in traveling to latin america which he had not been aware of there really is a lot of resentment of big brother yankee up north. this is the reason why he was pressured to take out noriega in panama which the first are president bush di it was the aversn of the use of force andart of it he became very sensitive of your aspect that you're suggesting about the legacy of american power in our neighborhood. which i think suggest somewhat more equivocalortrait of the than maybe you have and we can fight later. >> let them jt amplify that on first of all on iraq. there's a strong component with reagan and certaly of his defense secretary casper weinberger of you save the use of ground troops, save the u.s.

army for e, hopefully not -- but you save it for a major war against a major power forhe soviet union. t for smaller wars. in 2003 there was much tal about the powell doctrine and how that that might apply to iraq. the powl doctrine was originally theeinberger ctrine. as you know, you don't send troops into battle unless you've got several this but cluding an endgame and so then. think reagan would have -- the comparison between bush and reagan is- false flat. bush's own identification because i don'think reagan would have done iraqand, i fact, after reagan leaves office in 1989, george bush senior sends 20,000 troops to panama in december of 1989. thatas by far the biggest

american military operation since vietnam. reagan had done nothing comparable to that. so, you know, i think -- for george bush, jr. to compare himself to reagan i think the comparison just doesn't work. >> remember, it was 18 months from 9/11 to the time that w actually went to war in iraq. war in irastarted in march of 2003. and not on 9/11, 2001. during that period it's become clear that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. almost all the people -- almost all theeople on those airplanes were saudis. and the cia wasn't even very clear about whether iraq had any dangerous weapons. once we got over there it became quite clear that they didn't have any dangerous weapons. theyad nothing tdo -- they were not a threat to us and the arguments of the bush

administration were, well, we got to use iraq as preserving the basis for democracy in the middle east. that is a kind of argument that reagan would ner have accepted for the basis of maintaining a war. >> the gentleman on the aisle here >> the aspect that has not been covered was that reagan's habit incompetent of running agencies whose mission despite to take an th of office to preserve to protect the -- see that the laws are faithfully adminerd. there were peopleike james watts, earl butz who had not had a slightest qualification -- >> lep them ph back this way. i would make a distinct -- i agree with you that was a train

wreck appointment. i know the whole story about that. i'll tell one aspect she went as all new epa people to meet the environment groups of town. she gets out of her limo and sashays into t mayflower wearing a fur coat and a cigarette and a cigarette holder. great w to break bread. i disagree wit watt. you may not agree with what he did. he was very popar with the career emploes of the interio personally for the simply rean they used to go around and talk to them. so i don'think t employe shared your view of him of his coetence. this will actually allow me to sort of give a second order reason for what jim mann ended on i don't agree with your unity between reagan's statecraft. how can you put a two-party system where one group of bums throws out the other group of bums with a one party systemnd e second analysis which i have a little bit in the book but i

don't want to go t long you get in the abstract political science and how government -- and administrative agencies who seem to be unaccountable to elected brafrmz of government and to leaders. and the point is i not asking jim to change his mind is simply to understand why a person like me and i think roger palan has been doing a lot of work for years we have administrative units of power of ming power of law that essentially one party goternment and theyon't change even if you don't want to change th. the premise is -- in fact'll actually put it th way. modern bureauctic rule is the partisan of the democtic party. very controversial tng to say. you can disagree witit fine but there's a point of view that sa it isonstitutionally dubious the way we are now ghd in important ways in our life. reagan understood that pretty well. and so the premise o your

argument was that it is somehow either wrong or i legitimate or, you know, i'm not quite sure what the right word is for a president to appoint someone with the mission of the agency. maybe. maybe in the case of say paxter -- i tal about baxter of the justice department. he overthrows a generationf transfer theory. and someone said baxter -- it was as if he hung up a sign on the wall and said no more nonsense or you could have jim mier. goes in and he dsses a antitrust suit that the federal trade suit had against the cereal make. what was the basis of the complaint? the cereal makers were giving us too many choices. well, this is crazy. by the way, the carter pple and all the old liberal antitrust folks reagan is shredding antitrust, it's terrible. that is along t vein of what you saw. in other words, i think it's quite conteable the way you set all tt up and it opens up

some deep and serious problems that, you ow, it seems to me are not well understood by a lot of conservatives or not articulated by conseatives and reagan did articulate more than anybody else other than calvin coolidge. >> i think tt the influen of reagan on policy perspectives is about over in two areas. one is the idea that fiscal policy should not be used for unter-cyclical purposes. in other words, the supply side perspective as it disappeared at least in congress. and it is very tempting for congss to use fiscal policy in the name of counter-cyclical purposes bause they get to choose how the money ispent and that's how we got a $800 billion stimulus program and cash for clunkers and things like that. and i think that perspective,

unfortunately -- the perspective of the reagan administration and the monitors perspective on what causes aggregate demand has to be revive because it is at the moment gen the advances of this lasyear almost dead. second, is that at least for a period of time i think that the changes the courts have ended. we're goine to get a ver different set of peoe appointed to the courts in the future than we did for 20 years. even clinton did not appoint the kind of people we're going to see in the future. so i think t perspectives that led to the perspectives on maopoly and on the courts, that -- those perspectives have died for aoment and have to be revive. >> well, befe i bring this to an end let them mention that if

you want more, steve is going to record a podcast here in a few minutes, which will appear at www.cato.org and indeed you can get pastsnd videocasts from all of our events after you leave today. you can go upstairs, meet with steve and buy his book and have him sign it. i uld like to thank steve for writing the book a coming today. and i would like to thank mr. mann and dr. niskanen for being here let's go have lunch. [inaudle conversations]

>> steven hayward is the auphor of severalooks includinghe two-volumeolitical biography of ronald reagan, the age of reagan, and churchill on leadership. he's a senior fellow at the pacific research institutend fellow at the american enterprise institute. the cato institute hosted this event. for more information, visit cato.org. >> we areebe at the oregon council for social secity -- social studies speaking with robert miller author of "native america, discovered and conquered." thomas jefferson, lewis and clark and manife destiny. mr. miller, your book talks a lot about the doctrine of discovery. why don' you tell us a little bit about that. >> the doctrine of discovery is a legal principle that describes how europeans came to this continent and claimedhe lands from the nativepeople. the doctrine was literally

developed by the church and portugal and spain. and the european countries used this legal principle to claim lands in africa, asia, and, of course, in the americas. the classic painting or the classic example of explorers coming ashor and sticking their flag and their cross in the soil -- usually the caption for that in various paintings they were thanking god for a safe voyage across the ocean. well, that might be true but europeans were also engaged in a legal procedure when they were putting their flags and crosses in the soil. they literally were claiming the land for their own king and their own country. >> and does the doctrine of discovery still impact any government decisions day? >> absolutely, the united states supreme court adopted this doctrine of discovery in an 1823 supreme court case called johnson v. macintosh and the court decid to borrow this

international law that the european countries had developed how thewould divide up and claim the wod. and so as part of american law, we adopted that in this case, johnson v macintosh to decid what rights tribes held in their own lands and even though that's an 1823 supreme court case and even though the doctrine of discovery itself is 500 years old, that is still the law in america today for indian tribes and for some indian people. the lands that tris ow for ample, thenited statess considered to be the legal owner ofhose rprlands,ixq reservation cetera and the tribe is called the beneficial owner. and this doctrine and discovery stillppli in indian country. guess what russia did on august the second of 2007 it, of course, planted a flag 2 miles below t surface of the artic ocean plain russia is using this charade if we want to call it that as a claim for the resources that russia claims is

there or that we all kw is there,xcuse me, 10 billion tons of oil and gas. in the forward of your book, history i an illusive and misleading discipline and it's impossible to find unbiased history in one that's not filtered through preconceived notions and that'shy this book is s important. how is your bookifferent from other histoy books on this bject? >> well, i am a native person. i'm a citizen of the eastern shawnee ibe of oklahoma and i teach indian law and have for over 15 years. so i do look at historical events through a different eye perhs than someone else. i am also a lawyer and a law professor so i see events that happen in american history through their legal meaning and the doctrine of discovery is something that i'm very familiar with and so when my tribe appointed me to be involved with the lewis and clark icentennial i immediately thought well, i would write about the doctrine of discovery, what did thomas jefferson think about it? what did lewis and clark do that

looked lik the doctrine of discovery when they were out in the oregon country? literally, claiming the lands for e united states. so history then -- it depends -- it is important who writes hiory because we wonder why minorities and females, for example, and, of course, indian people are left out of history. well, that's because a whole lot of european males wrote the history books and then, of course, here in america again it depends on who writes the history as to what they might emphasize or what they think is most important. oneeviewer of my book said that it was a revisionist history but he said revisnism in the best way possible. because it gave a new slant on american historyq9 on thomas jefferson's ideas about the louisiana purchase and about the lewis an cla expedition and then about mifest destiny itlf. so what i hope my book does is approaches history from a different slant and give us another viewpoint one that has been mostly ignored.

>> what do you think the u.s. government needs to do to right some of their earlier wrongs? >> the doctrine of discovery has been amecan lawor ovr 500 years. in the conclusion of my book, i really don't have some fabulous suggestion on what we n do about the doctrine of discovery today. but i do give a couple of simple suggestions that maybe congress could appoint a blue rbon commirsion that tribes are involved in or maybe some coressional committee could examine theemnas of doctre of discovery that exist today. why are we using this eurocentric, ethnocentric law to limit the rights of iian tribes and indian people in their own properties? so what we can do - it can't be something too radical because we don't like to change property law too radically and it has been the propert law in the westn world for the past 5 or

600 years. >> and you write in the end of your book that you're confident there's no evidence that the government uses doctrine of discovery and since you finished writing you've been able to have more evidence. are u still conductg research on this? >> yes. in fact, i just signed a contract to write another book with australian woman who's a professor in sydney and a woman who's a professor in new zealand and a first nations woman who's a professor i canad and the for of u are going to write a book about how england used the during this period of scovery in our four countries. what sort of prompted us to do this is that our four countries are the only four in the entire united nations who voted against the declaration on the rights of indigenous people in september of 2007. we found it very unique that only four nations in the united nations voted ainst the rigs of indigenous people.

and so we talked about what do those four nations have in comm? well, obviously, it's english colonization using these doctri of discovery principles against the native people. and so that's my next project in the further research in the doctrine of discovery. >> we've been speaking with robert miller, author "of native america, discovered and conquered: thomas jefferson, lewis and clark and manifest destiny." . thank yo ♪