less than 30% lower than compared to the countries. but we can also use the same system for carbon crediting. for example, korea is already using the carbon print system but customers can get credit back on their bill as long as they use less energy so you can also quantify these carbon emissions and then credit back to either industry or customers than you can reduce the greenhouse emission in the long one so these are my comments. >> thank you. peter? ....

>> the chances of success are extremely low. with cooperation they're higher, but still, we're unlikely to see change anytime soon. but i think the only chance for making progress is a coordinated approach. if the it's just japan in isolation or countries in isolation trying to approach know, that's bound -- north korea, that's bound to fail. but working together could work. and i don't see -- and welcome you or the audience if you see areas where it could hurt the alliance. i don't see failing to make progress -- if nothing else because our expectations are so low -- as really hurting the alliance. in terms of examples over the last 50 years, i guess the one i briefly and directly referred to in my presentation was the soviet union and the helsinki

process, that youpressure, and d statesmen on both sides that were able to take advantage of that pressure and opening. the other case that i personally was a little involved in as a student at berkeley was south africa. and there were demonstrations at berkeley about divesting from south africa, getting the university's investments out of south aver ca, countries investing in south africa. just last weekend i taught my daughter the song we sang about nelson mandela. i didn't even know who he was, my 7-year-old knows more about him than i did at that time. again, enlightened leadership, a tremendous statesman in mandela and on the africaner side, but it was the pressure come can wined with individuals that were in a position to make change. unfortunately, i don't know who those individuals are in north korea. so it does make me pessimistic,

and it's too easy to think of burma and tibet and other seemingly hopeless cases. >> thanks. mike? >> this is a hard question, and there may be others in the room that are more versed in the post-conflict stability and reconstruction operations, but i think there's three things that come to the my mind that we know have worked or do work and one of them is that we know that the rock approach in iraq worked in that situation. their focus was in working with the local community building infrastructure, adding stability to the situation. and that worked very well. by also know from long experience, i think, that a whole of government approach is what works, that you have to look at this not from a military standpoint. in fact, that's what doesn't work, when you treat this as simply a military problem. you have to look at the economics of it, you have to

look at the basic infrastructure that needs to be built to provide that stability. and the third, third point i think that we are learning and have learned in afghanistan is resources. you have to put the right amount of resources against the problem to be successful. i think korea has understood that instead of trying to talk about sending a 50-man prt or something to the afghanistan, they're talking about a fairly robust prt element that would, that would be able to conduct the mission. but we have to the understand that in the case of afghanistan, and this is one of the things where i think we have to be very cautious, this is not post-conflict reconstruction and stability. this is in the middle of an insurgency. and you're -- there's many activities happening along that continuum of conflict. it's very different from what

korea experienced in iraq. korea was in a, let's face it, a fairly quiet corner of the country. so in iraq it's going to be a little bit -- >> we leave this recorded event to take you live, now, to connecticut and senator chris dodd with his expected retirement announcement. >> over the past three decades, i've invited you to join me at our home to share in my decision to seek election and re-election to the united states senate. on each of these occasions, i have begun my remarks by observing that every important journey in life begins and ends at home. today is no exception. what is different about today, however, is not to announce the beginning of yet another campaign for the united states senate, but rather to announce that after 35 years of representing the people of connecticut and the united states congress, i will not be a candidate for re-election this november. i want to begin these very brief remarks by expressing my deepest

gratitude to the wonderful people of connecticut for the remarkable privilege of being elected eight times over the past four decades to our national assembly. you have honored me beyond words with your confidence. let me quickly add that there have been times when my positions and actions have caused some of you to question that confidence. i regret that. but it is equally important that you know that i have never wavered in my determination to do the best job for our state and our nation. i love my job as your senator. i always have, still do. however, this past year has raised some challenges that insisted i take stock of my life. over the past 12 months, i've managed four major pieces of legislation through the united states congress, served as chair and acting chair of two major senate committees placing me at the center of the two most important issues of our time -- health care and reform of

financial services. i lost a beloved sister in july, and in august ted kennedy. i battled cancer over the summer, and in the midst of all of this found myself in the toughest political shape of my career. now, let me be clear, i'm very aware of my present political standing here at home in connecticut. but it is equally clear that any certain prediction about an election victory or defeat nearly a year from now would be absurd. strange as it may sound, i'm not confident that i would be standing here today making this announcement if these situations had not occur canned. occurred. none of these events or circumstances either individually or collectively is the cause of my decision not to seek re-election. yet together these challenges have given me pause to take stock and to ask questions that too few of us in elected public life ever do.

why am i running? on a cold morning two weeks ago tomorrow, i asked myself that very question. on the early frigid dawn of december 24th, christmas eve, with snow piled high along the streets of our nation's capital, i cast one of the most important if not the most important votes of my years in the united states senate. a bill to fundamentally reform the health care system of our nation. an hour later i was standing on the virginia hillside at arlington cemetery where ted kennedy rests along with his brothers in eternity as he is in history. wishing that i could have seen the look in teddy's eyes as the united states senate took that historic step an hour before. i thought about the dozens of fine public servants, democrat cans and republicans, who have joined me in serving connecticut over the course of my career at

the local, state, and national level. i thought about the countless connecticut families, ordinary people with extraordinary courage and spirit whose lives have touched me over the years and whose stories have profoundly affected my decisions in the united states senate. i thought about the dozens of patriotic senators with whom i have had the privilege of serving in an institution i dearly love. i have been a connecticut senator for 30 years. i'm very proud of the job i've done and the results delivered. but none of us is irreplaceable. none of us are indispensable. and those who think otherwise are dangerous. the work to make our nation a more perfect union began long before i was elected to the senate and it will go on long after i am gone. our country is a work in progress, and i am confident and always will be. that's why i thought about, that's what i thought about as i stood on that hillside in

arlington on christmas eve morning. that's what i've talked about with jackie over this holiday season, and that is how i came to the conclusion that in the long sweep of american history there are moments for each elected public official to step aside and let someone else step up. this is my moment to step aside. there'll be time to reflect in more detail on the years i've spent in public service. there'll be time to celebrate victories and mourn setbacks, share laughs and memories and to thank profusely the talented, tireless and numerous staffers -- many of whom are here today -- who have made my senate work possible. but that time is not now. my service isn't over. i still have one year left on my contract for the people of connecticut. one year from this week our state will have a new united states senator. in the meantime, we have important work to do. so a few closing thoughts.

i believe in bipartisan solutions, but i also believe you can only achieve those results with vibrant, robust and civil partisan debate. i'm a democrat and very, very proud of my party's contributions to the vitality and strength of america. i would never have had the opportunity to serve in the congress had i not had the support and packing of my political -- backing of my political party in connecticut over these years. i appreciate the passionate party activists who have never, ever faultered in their -- faltered in their support of my efforts. i want to say thank you to my family for their tolerance of yet another generation of our family in the the political arena, and i'm especially indebted to jackie for her fairness and unlimited capacity of empathy for the needs of others. she has truly been my anchor to windward this these stormy political waters.

now, there's nothing more pa thetic in my view than a politician who announces they're only leaving public life to spend more time with their family. i hope this will create the opportunity, but it's not the reason for my decision. i'm a very late arrival in fatherhood, as many of you know, and i'm told repeatedly by some of you here today that these young children of mine, grace who's 8 and christina who's 4, will grow up very fast. so while these young ladies are not the reason for my decision, they'll be an incredible benefit of the choice i make today. on this, the 6th of january, the epiphany, 2010, i'm still driven by the same passions that motivated me to try my hand at politics so many, many years ago. and just as i've encouraged the people of connecticut, i'm looking to the future with a spirit of optimism and confidence and finally once again, that those of you gathered here today and to the people across this great state of ours, i thank you immensely

for the opportunity you've given me to serve, and i thank you all very, very much. [applause] all set? [inaudible conversations] come on in here, gang. [inaudible conversations] >> that was senator chris dodd announcing his retirement from the u.s. senate, not seeking re-election this year. right now live on our companion network, c-span, it's a discussion on conflicts that arise due to water scarcity and efforts to develop water resources. members of the catholic relief services group participating in the event that's being held at the woodrow wilson center for international scholars. again, it's live right now on c-span. here on c-span2 at 1 p.m.

eastern new york governor david paterson delivers his state of the state address from albany. he's expected to talk about ethics issues including campaign finance law and term limits. see the governor's remarks live here on c-span2. in the meantime, it's a discussion on the new airline security measures that were announced by the president yesterday. from today's "washington journal." >> host: homeland security reporter for "the new york times" contributed with your colleagues to this point in the times this morning. obama says u.s. failed to understand intelligence on terror plot. he had a press conference yesterday after he met with his national security team. what did he say about going forward when it comes to combating terrorism? >> guest: yesterday he really didn't offer that many specifics about what's going to change other than that they continue to investigate the failures in two primary areas. one has to do with the process of creating watch lists and collecting intelligence about people that might present a threat, and the second has to do

with once the person gets through a checkpoint at an airport, improving the security systems at the airport so that if the person is carrying explosives that they can detect that explosive before the person gets on the plane. so the investigations are continue anything those two areas. some changes have already taken place, but essentially what he said is we're still waiting for final recommendations. >> host: what are you hearing about possible changes to the watch list, and explain what is the watch list? >> guest: so the federal government in the united states has at least four different lists of people that it's tracking with concerns about possible ties to terrorism. and one of the questions that is before the administration right now is, you know, where should people be in the four different lists? and should you only be doing additional screening on a person if they're in the worst of the two lists? or should you, perhaps, be doing additional screening if they're on any of the four lists?

in the case of the nigerian young man, he was on the list of 500,000 people, but he was not on the list of 14,000 people that automatically get additional screening or the even smaller list that are not allowed to fly at all. so there's a question as to, you know, should they redistribute who's where on what list and how hard is it to get from the biggest list to the most exclusive list? part of this goes back to some, you know, people felt as if there were too many people on the list in the last several years and that too many people were getting harassed at checkpoints. you heard all these stories about everyone from senator kennedy to others being stopped, so there was a lot of pressure on the government to reduce the pressure. the pendulum is, i think, now swinging the other way. so one thing i expect to occur and already has happened in recent days is there's going to be a shifting towards more people getting extra scrutiny at the airports, and secondly, i think the airport equipment, there's going to be some new equipment installed. right now there's only 40 machines in the entire united states that do what's called a

whole-body scanner. i think it's approximately 19 airports. there are already 150 additional machines on order, and i expect there to be another order for another 300 machines, so that's a total of about 500 that will be out there at the biggest airports in the united states that will essentially take a scan of your body to look for any weapon withs or explosives that you might have in your clothing. >> host: we'll talk about the technology a little bit later, but let's go back to the list because you said there's four lists. why are there four, and how did that come about, and you said that more people will be put on a more exclusive list, but what about the idea of consolidating these lists? do they talk to each other? >> guest: yeah, no, there's a reason there are four different lists. the first list which is the largest of approximately 500,000 people is really more of a place where they put a name as soon as they hear it and before they have determined con conclusively that this person is suspected, you know, tied to or is, in fact, a suspected terrorist, and

it's actually classified. although it's shared among federal agencies, it is not as easily accessible to the tsa when a person enters the airport. and so -- but once you get on to the next list with the 400,000 people, then you are considered to be someone that is actually likely a threat. so, you know, the reason there are four lists, it's not as if they exist in entirely different universes, but they have to categorize because they get different reports and they have to, you know, put people in different places based on just how serious the information is. and so, you know, it's essentially a ranking by severity, and i think that the standard by which you'll move from one to the other is going to change. >> host: president obama said yesterday in his press conference that his team missed connecting the dots. >> guest: right. >> host: and that's a phrase you heard after 9/11, and it continued the years after that. why is it that -- what does it mean to connect the dots, and why does that keep coming back

up? >> guest: right. getting back to the point about the list, okay, the guy was on the least serious list, okay? he clearly should have been on the most serious list. if they had put together all the information they had about him but they didn't connect, he would have been on that most serious list, and as soon as he got to the airport in amsterdam, there would have been a notice to not board the plane. so the problem that exists and that the president has now acknowledged twice is that, is that the system still is not able to collect information from a variety of sources quickly and to the, and to connect them. and it seems so simple, you know, to an outsider. you think, well, google can do that, i mean, how come the billions of dollars the federal government spends it doesn't have the capacity to the connect information? it's a bit of a mystery still as to why the two most important threads of information were something that came in in august of last year was that there was a nigerian man in yemen who was

to be participating in a plot, some type of a plot. and they had that one piece of information which they'd gotten from, you know, some intercepts of communications from folks in yemen, assumemy. and the second piece came in november when the father of this young man went to the u.s. embassy and said my son, i think, is in yemen, and he may have some bad ideas that, you know, is pointed at the u.s. the cia was at that meeting. so here we have young man in yemen, and we had his name, and then you had the second piece of information, you know, nigerian in yemen -- i'm sorry, the first one was a nigerian son, you know, going to yemen, but they didn't connect them. how is that possible? >> host: president obama has reacted, he held this meeting yesterday. what's going to happen up on capitol hill? >> guest: well, the republicans, you know, as soon as this happened immediately got this on his case and saw this as an opportunity to suggest that the

president has not been focused on combating terrorism. i think actually that's died down a bit because there was some, i think that there was some calculation that perhaps they'd gotten too aggressive and they themselves were going to be exposed to making this a political issue. so there are certainly already hearings that have been announced, and there will be investigations. the subject's not going to go can away. but i suspect that the politics have modestly declined a bit because the republicans don't want to be so aggressive that they'll be seen as exploiting this. >> host: in "the new york times" this morning in the op-ed section there's a piece here by thomas canadian and john farmer who served on the 9/11 commission, and they write in here we still haven't fixed the systemic flaws in u.s. intelligence. they also write, though, that there are turf battles persist among intelligence agencies, and power is sought while responsibility is deflected. the drift toward inertia continues. what are they saying here? >> guest: well, again, i mean,

it's sort of the joke that it's an acronym soup. you've got so many intelligence agencies that are involved in sort of collecting, analyzing, processing, acting on tips, and they're still, you know, one of the open questions is, okay, so the nsa, the agency that intercepts telephone calls and monitors things like that is the one that presumably had heard there was a young nigerian man in yemen that was potentially participating in a plot. but that information had to go to the national counterterrorism center which is essentially run by, you know, the directer of national intelligence and cia. the question is did it go from the nsa to the nctc as it's called, and did the cia share information it got from the meeting with the father with the national counterterrorism center as well? okay, there's too many agencies, too many participants, and it's unclear whether or not they are sharing and processing as fluidly as they need to be in order for this process to always work. that's the problem is that, you

know, it's this old saying, you know, the terrorists only have to be successful once, and can, of course, the united states government and other governments have to be successful every time. so there's no room for error here, and i think that so far the system while much improved is not working well enough to prevent incidents like this. >> host: you touched on the politics. let's go through some of the headlines in the paper. irate obama vows air security changes. that's the headline in the baltimore sun. here's the "philadelphia inquirer" this morning, president says u.s. agencies failed to connect the dots. and here is the financial times, obama rebukes security agencies. some have said he scolded his national team, others have said someone needs to get fired over this, but it appears from these headlines and what the president said yesterday that he doesn't plan on firing anyone. >> guest: it's unclear at the moment. and, you know, it's still --

because it hasn't yet become public and, of course, we're attempting to figure it out, but exactly where did the breakdown occur? which agency, which person, you know, which system? we don't yet fully understand it. we know the different tips, but who was it that failed to connect it successfully? whose fault is it? and then, you know, once you find out where that fault was, then who was the person in charge of it, you know, does there need to be a change there, that's an open question. >> host: all right. democrats you can dial in at 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-001, and independents 202-4280205. tennessee, paul on the republican line. good morning. >> caller: excuse me. good morning to you, leslie, thanks to c-span for taking my call. i'll try to make this as quick as i k. first, i've got a comment. this idiot we got in office

can't even keep his white house secure. i don't know what makes anybody think he can keep the united states secure. it's nothing but a gang of thugs up there. every one of them's a bunch of crooks, but i'll get to my question. maybe you can tell me because nobody else can answer the question. how come in eight years of a republican president in office, you know, i can't count the number of times that people tried to kill innocent people here that was thwarted, and this idiot gets in office here and we got two the, one right on a army base that kills our own, and this guy coming from yemen where his own father called in here and tried to give us a fair warning, and everybody knew. what's changed? >> host: eric lipton. >> guest: first of all, i think that the system in place today is basically a system that was set up by the last administration. i mean, you have new political appointees at the top, but really, basically, the security system is the bush security

system with some really modest changes. in terms of placing blame, you know, it's not really the current president or the last president, it's a system that has improved but is still not as strong as it should be. i think the fact that there have been two incidents recently, you know, it's not entirely coincidental, but they could have just as well happened -- i think really what's happening is actually increasingly in the united states there is radicalization that has occurred. previously, most of the plots were kind of aspirational. while the justice department at times tried to argue that they were, you know, serious threats and most of the time as you delve down into the cases it turns out they were really just guys talking big. in recent months, in fact, some of these plots that have been discovered in the united states and, in fact, the shooting that occurred at the military base are real. and i think that, you know, again, i don't know that you can plame the president for that. -- blame the president for that. there's something happening in

the united states that has taken a more serious turn. you could argue the bush administration, perhaps, as well did not focus enough on yemen and to continue into today the obama administration until recently perhaps did not focus enough. i think now it's a problem that is recognized, and there's a reaction going on. whether or not it's going to be successful is an open question. >> host: when you say the system, the national security system in place is the same one under, that president bush had, your colleague, peter baker, writes for "the new york times"es magazine that inside obama's war on terrorism that much of the personnel under the higher-profile people are also from president bush's administration. >> guest: right. when you have a turnover in administration the names we write about, you know, the top political appointees change but really, essentially, you know, there's hundreds of thousands of federal employees that work at these agencies, and basically they're civilians who go from one administration to the next. they're the ones who are really actively engaged every day in running the show, and there's a lot of continuity there.

there's some modest changes in the policies and the people at the top, but essentially the system that was built was built by the bush administration. obama in the process of modifying it in modest ways. >> host: willlas vegas, alberton the democratic line. good morning. >> caller: my question goes back with the other person that just called in, the fort hood incident that happened, was that person also a terrorist, number one. number two is there's a lot of sleepers, i believe, that are probably in the texas and also in the new jersey area, are they going to become active or are they doing anything to check and see what they're up to? because we're feeling that there has to be something going on, you know, for these things to be happening. thank you. >> guest: i mean, the fort hood situation is, you know, people have -- some people have been reluctant to call it a terrorist incident. what we do know is that the suspect in that case was in communication via e-mail with a radical cleric who is someone that has inspired others to pursue violent solutions.

and, you know, was he a terrorist, was he just inquisitive and became, you know, lost control and, i mean, you know, sort of -- it almost is moot. i mean, he used a weapon to kill over people. other people. and the whole notion of sleeper cells in the u.s., you know, i think, again, right after september 11th the justice department was attempting to argue through a number of investigations and arrests and for good reason. i mean, there was a lot of concern. there obviously were sleeper cells in the united states prior to the attacks in 2001. but, you know, there was an assertion that there, perhaps, were still many of them in the u.s. in fact, as i said, many of those cases sort of fell apart. these were young people who had imaginations of being potentially, you know, terrorists but, in fact, they were more just thinking big and bragging and then got themselves into trouble through informants that were talking to them about how i can get you weapons.

but the problem is now, in fact, that there does appear to be an increasing seriousness to some of these radical folks that are in the u.s., and i think that the justice department is actively, the fbi and authorities are concerned about that. and why is that happening? it's been happening in europe over the last eight or so years much more so than the united states, and we to some extent have been lucky that we didn't have the presence of active cells. are there some that now exist in the united states? it's an open question, and it's something of concern. new jersey, go ahead, on the independent line. caller: thank you. the president said there was a systemic failure in our security. that is a basic problem. i believe that mr. lipton said

-- at any rate, i cannot remember. in a systemic failure like that, where ever it leads, people should be accountable. if it is more the whole civil needs to be re -- revamped and reanalyzed the president came out with that admitting it was a basic failure. what is your opinion, mr. lipton. >> guest: i think it is true there really needs to be account in government and the public hastation if there is a failure that can be clearly identified the person in charge of that area should be responsible for it and appropriate action should be taken. so i'm not suggesting that someone shouldn't, there shouldn't be someone, shouldn't be fired, perhaps if that is appropriate. what i'm saying only at the moment, we don't yet know, for example did the nsa fail to sufficiently pass on the information to the national counter terrorism center?

or was it at the national counterterrorism center they to properly connect the dots? we can't, at moment, i don't know if the president figured this out but hasn't said it at the moment we don't know where to point our finger, say okay, that person needs to be held responsible. that's why we're in this pause period as to, where is the blame that should be placed as a result of that, what actions should be taken. and i presume, i know either through the presidential investigation or congress, as soon as hearings get the public will know and of course we as reporters are asking the same questions. we hope to answer them as soon as we find out the lid answer. >> host: when will hearings begin on capitol hill? >> guest: this month will be hearings. i don't know the dates. any time you have something like this there is almost competition among committees in congress to call witnesses. various committees will have hearings, house and senate. >> host: and what is the national counterterrorism center? >> guest: it is a facility out in northern virginia

where essentially there's, huge room filled with computers and, you know, big-screen tvs and basically like the brain of the united states intelligence system, and any tip, you know, any thread, you know, created after september 11th. this is the place that was supposed to answer the 9/11 commission report of the failure to connect the dots, failure of imagination. it was, that is the place. here is one of its first big tests. we don't know how many times it has been test because we often don't hear about these things. there is all the date that comes in here in northern virginia and not one agent runs show entirely. under the office of director of intelligence. not under fbi, nsa, homeland security. it is under direct tore of national security. not any single person's jurisdiction. and all the different agencies are there and they're all supposed to be participating and all supposed to see data and sharing and thinking making

sure they don't miss things. design it is supposed to do exactly what it should have done here but it didn't. why didn't it? i don't yet know that answer. >> host: tucson, arizona, jerry on the republican line. >> caller: good morning. in the regulatory world of fda is called root cause analysis when a problem is occurred. when you do to find out true systemic of the problem was. in my opinion, when i look what i know, this truly wasn't a system failure. this was a system failure because humans who followed the system, didn't carry through on their responsibilities. now, one then i think that all of us have and learned over the years is that the intensity of your boss, for a certain task or a certain priority sets your priority. and, when i learned that eric holder, his law firm did probone work for the

terrorists, to get them to tried in american courts, and when i see our president and homeland security agency call these overseas contingency operations, man-made whatever, it clearly filters down to the population of the intelligence agencies that these people aren't really that interested in it. >> guest: you know, again i don't see evidence of that so far. you know, i think root cause analysis is exactly right, that is what nasa does after the shuttle ex-most. i think that is underway. that kind of investigation, you have to understand exactly why the error occurred or else it is going to occur then. was it human error? i think president last week when still in hawaii he called it both a human error and systemic error. he suggested but hasn't backed up assertion with specifics it was both. you know, i mean so, for example, so the cia was

there in nigeria in the meeting in the state department father, when he came in and was warning the state department and the diplomats about his concern about his son and his son was radicalize and the son potentially has gone to yemen. the cia, you would have thought that the cia would have also heard about the intercept about, you know, a young nigerian man in yemen. okay. similarly the state department, state department, issues visas so the state department, is obviously there in the meeting in embassy in yemen when father was there and his father was warning about his son. they had an active visa for the young man to come to the united states which was not pulled. you would think, why not pull the visa? that would have stopped him from getting on the plane if he didn't have an active visa. there are human errors, potentially, are some human errors maybe systemic errors. maybe rules prohibited both of those things.

there will be i suspect accountability here. >> host: gail from river, maryland on the democratic line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i have a question about dick cheney that i'd like to lead into. i feel that our former vice president has made statements that have been, in a way, an absolute invitation for more vigorous attempts to attack our country. now, after the bush administration made a huge bureaucracy out of our counterterrorism effort, i think it is going to take some time for president obama to streamline them. but i'm wondering why more of our national security people aren't speaking out against the un-american, dangerous rhetoric of our former vice president, after he and george bush decided to completely ignore

unprecedented warnings of a coming attack on 9/11? >> host: mr. lipton. >> guest: obviously this is a topic people get emotional. i'm not suggests you're excessively emotional, interesting how politics and sort of domestic security get, and people's own, sense that of need federal government to protect us all get mixed up here. i think her point being, you know, do the comments by the former vice president almost invite more acts of terrorism and are they fair? john brennan, who is now the homeland security or, sort of national security, one of the national security advisors, counterterrorism advisors to the president himself said, essential i'm not a democrat but not a republican but those remarks are unfair. he has gone out to defend the president. he is part of his administration. that is not surprising. you know, i think it is unfortunate when, you know these issues of relative to

national security and homeland security when politics, they get messed up in politics. doesn't matter what party you're in. you don't want the united states to be attacked. focus needs to be on, why is the system not working right and, are the right people in charge of it and you know, the politics are irrelevant here. after september 11th, you know, i was reporter in new york city covering new york city and covering the giuliani administration and, in weeks and months after that, that i was a reporter and that they were, government, it was this weird period covering what had happened and we were, i was just, sharing information about what had happened. and i think that it's unfortunate when politics sort of interferes with really what's important, which is making sure that the are solid and that we prevent, the next attempt at being successful. >> host: jody in michigan on the independent line, good morning. >> caller: get morning, greta, good morning, eric.

thank you for c-span. i had just a few questions i wanted to ask and maybe a solution. we have all these things in place that eric talked about this morning and everybody seems to be having a hard time compiling one list. how come no one's called bill gates and asked him to provide us with software to tie all this together? and to take all the information, let the computer do what it to do and make two list, a high-profile list and low profile list. it apparent we need to look at low-profilers because that seems to what is coming through. the other question i wanted to ask if overseas countries don't allow marshals on flights from those countries to america, why don't we cut off all flights and businesses from those countries? maybe if we hit them in the wallet they will wake up and pay attention? i have one word for my countrymen, it is not up to our government to protect us. it is apparent they can not.

we all as citizens of the united states of america, united states of america, need to be vigilant. we need to pay attention to what's going on around us. we need to watch, and listen. >> host: mr. lipton, let's begin with air marshals not allowed on airplanes overseas. >> guest: air marshals are allowed and routinely do fly on, i think if i'm correct that they generally on american, you know, carriers. that may be only limitation. it is up to foreign governments to provide security on foreign carriers, i think. i'm not sure about because they don't speak publicly very much about their operations but air marshals are very much on flights coming to the u.s. from overseas. they recognize that is perhaps, a more severe threat right now, incoming flights and there is a lot of could have. not on every flight. but a lot more than they were right before christmas, i can tell you that. and there are, i don't know, since situations where

foreign governments said, i'm sorry, you can't put an air marshal on the flight leaving our country. the u.s. does have the authority to say to a carrier, you can't fly to the u.s., because, of concerns about security and for example, at a particular airport, if it is not sufficient, they can actually block flights from that country or from that city although doesn't almost ever occur but they do have the power. the fact they have the power allows them to enforce modest standards of security at airports. i mean the other question about, you know, why doesn't the intelligence system use software to connect the dots, i'm sure they do. but obviously is not working well enough. they must have credibly sophisticated software that takes threats and searches for links that a human would not otherwise see, and pulls them together and says, might this be a link? they must constantly, there is obviously all kinds of software, relational databases pulls huge things of information together.

why it didn't do it in this case is really good question. i think they obviously, they spend an enormous amount of money. they must have the best software out there. >> host: what about u.s. security officials checking passengers and cargo in foreign countries before they come into the united states? what sort of personnel resources do we have at foreign airports, as far as, security people checking passengers and cargo? >> we really that's not, basically, i think foreign governments wouldn't allow u.s. officials to actually do the checking because they would say it is our sovereign right to provide security. the u.s., there's international agreement, there's an association of essentially countries that sets international standards for airport security. essentially what the united states did this past weekend on sunday night to say, essentially we're notfied with that. and we're going to unilaterally impose globally a new requirement for anyone getting on a plane, the united states, that happens to be from 14 countries.

and we are going to require that those people from those countries or anyone, anyone else who happens to have taken a flight from those countries, originated or passed through, they be subject to another round of checks before they get on the plane. and they imposed that burden on the airlines, not on countries or airports because they don't have the authority to impose it on countries but the airlines need permission to fly to the u.s. so, that was in effect the u.s., although it didn't use its own people saying to the airlines, if you want to continue to fly here you must now meet a new and that went into effect sunday night. americans that fly into the u.s. likely could be subject to these additional measures but the rule is just for people from these 14 countries or taking place in those 14 countries. so the u.s. is in fact reaching out but not doing it through its own people. it essentially imposed that upon airlines which presumably must hire contractors to do pat downs at the gates or con convince countries to do them or say,

sorry, you can't fly here. >> host: on the republican line, sal san diego, our on the air with eric lipton. go ahead. >> caller: mr. lipton, this is two-part question, i could say a lot of history from '82 to 2001 i worked with the government dealing with the national security agency, and i used to notice a lot of things going on as far as human intelligence and how we the information and everything else. but that is separate issue itself. my question to you, do you feel that the, the department of homeland security is meeting its mission statement? because you're talking about like, inspecting of cargo in another country which we have treaties and everything else which they're using which is legal? as far as the director for national security, those are changes we talked about a long time ago, having somebody focused to control the information coming from the cia, nsa, from the army intelligence and everything else. do you feel that, director is, is left in the wind

flapping because the agencies they're so big, like you said there is lot of act crow i am ins being thrown around all over the place? my main concern homeland security, is it meeting its mission statement ased? have you seen those, the some of the problems that they're having you know, with all this new pieces equipment and so forth? >> host: mr. lipton? >> guest: the mission of the department of homeland security is almost ridiculous. i mean, it is, charged with doing so many things, and the expectations are so high. i cover homeland security, some extent from its birth. as was first set up it was really sort of dysfunctional, it was. it was wasting money left and right buying equipment at ridiculous prices with katrina, it just couldn't get up off its feet and respond to an incredible national disaster. i was down there covering that as well. and but, i think that, you know, it's, and expectations,

i know michael chertoff, former homeland security secretary used to talk notion of expectations of american public has of its ability to stop every threat and, the, the threshold that the united states has for expectations, for, what its government can accomplish. and in fact, it can't. the united states government can't stop every threat. but i mean, is homeland security set up to, effectively, block, you know all of the various types of threats? cargo, the thousands of ships that come in, the cargo that comes in airplanes? people coming across borders? you know, the various chemical plants in the united states? i mean there are so many ways, so many vulnerabilitis. anthrax, biological and chemical threats. the answer is no. it can't. it sort of essentially an impossible mission. is it getting better at it? probably. and, i think that, you know, was, i have to say i think

as obama administration got started, i mean, there has not been as much talk or focus on, you know, domestic, anti-terrorism at homeland security. it's been more, i think governor napolitano now homeland security secretary is someone with more background in immigration issues coming from arizona and i think this is moment where she is realizing the need to focus more on perhaps, on, the counter terrorism part of homeland security. and i think that is a message that been heard at the. >> host: when homeland security department was created in 2002, how many different agencies were folded into it? >> guest: i forget the number. like seven or so. everything from, immigration, to, the coast guard, to the secret service, to the air marshals, to transportation security. i mean, to cargo. it's an incredible mission. as a reporter, who covered homeland security i was amazed how frequently i

encountered the agency, traveling in my normal things across the country. everywhere you looked, you didn't realize actually homeland security, it's such, it's an enormous task that can never really truly be finished. >> host: rome, georgia, eric on democratic line, good morning. >> caller: thank you. let me bring this issue back to training and republicans. if this crash ever happened, basically this would have best thing for china and republicans. people at top of cia or people at top when george bush and dick cheney in office. obama must remove these people. not the political appointees, but people who are at the top. cia deliberately loud this to happen. this is what the republicans, and dick cheney have been talking about, they have been setting up planning. no one has been killed from outside attack on united states since obama was president. bush and cheney they failed at this. basically what the question

is this, who would benefit from this attack? thank you? >> guest: again, sort of political point on this is just something that, i try to stay away from and i, you know, it doesn't really what the central question is to me. i mean, sort of what the political implications are of a terrorist attack is sort of the irrelevant given the, real, the kind of trauma that would have occurred if the plane blown up for many families that would have lost someone, so. >> host: let's talk about tone, the difference in tone between president obama and president bush, something that your colleague peter baker writes about his piece, inside obama's war on terrorism. president obama's intentionally takes a different tone. and intentionally reacts differently, even to the christmas bomber than president bush did. >> guest: i think that was a shift that was occurring actually in the bush administration as well. if you look at ridge, who was homeland security

secretary, the first one, former governor pennsylvania when the department was set up. you look at michael chertoff, land security secretary before the administration ended. chertoff already, really shifted, the whole color asystem. remember all the, you know, the essentially, escalations of the color-coded system occurring under tom ridge. basically didn't happen under chertoff except for when liquid bomber threat from london. they escalated the color code for aviation in the united states after that. but, i mean, chertoff was already intent upon down, bring down the kind of hyper ventlations that -- ventilations that occurred. i think obama continued that. to some extent terrorists succeed if they get the united states into a frenzy even if they're not successful. terrorism is as much about the killing of people as it is the terror, and the disruption that it causes. and i think, wisely,

administration has to be careful to not overdo its response and to some extent if the president gotten on plane come back from washington on his vacation and made lots noise in washington, to some suggestion even though attack in detroit was not successful would have been successful. they're weighing appropriate reaction, how much should his schedule be disrupted? maybe it looks bad he was on vacation, maybe that is smartest thing to do. they are gauging appropriate response and i think to some respect public is served by that. >> host: alexander, virginia, daniel. >> caller: i understand the journalist would void political implications of all that, unfortunately impossible because it ends up shaping policy umt maltly. -- ultimately. the reason, cheney and karl rove and bush people and right-wing people call the show on republican line

because they say all these outrageous things, they know today, modern-day journalism will not call them out to avoid conflict. when in fact our society, our functioning, government, more specifically requires journalistic integrity and the ability to objectively call things out that are ridiculous, so that we can improve and progress. >> host: mr. lipton, take the comments about politics impacting policy of this. >> guest: first of all, why i say it is not something that i want to get engaged with, in fact that is not my job. we at washington bureau of "new york times" there a lo lot of reporters. there is political shop and national security, homeland security shop, and people have different tasks. i'm not a political reporter. i'm an investigative, enterprise reporter who used cover homeland security full time and now pulled back into it but we're certainly writing about the political aspects. not as if we as organization

are not. not what my job is. your question was? >> host: how politics impact the policy of homeland security? >> guest: i think that you look at the, you know, there is question as to okay, so the first response from the administration is this, sort of, half-ed the system worked thing. which of course they suggested that they meant the system worked after the attack, but in fact, napolitano, in one of ways she said that broadly asserted the system worked. president's remarks were pretty subdued. all of sudden last week while on vacation, he said there is systemic failure and guy should not have been allowed on plane if they connected the dots he wouldn't have been. there was huge shift from what the president and administration one day last week. how much of that was political? i think it is a valid question. how much was it that the president's people were sensing that he was, appearing to be too subdued and, and, that they weren't

being, sort of, aggressive and, critical enough? how much of it was really they learned more and concluded in fact it had been a huge failure? i think politics, there's a good chance politics played a part in change and tone of the president. president. it was at least a factor. yes, politics plays a part of everything in washington. it does not need to dominate discussions about protecting the united states against an attack. host: north carolina on the republican line. caller: what was said before that, the same policies are in effect between the bush administration and the current administration -- that is not true. they have changed the chain of command drastically when they took the cia and made it a role rather e rather than the than the primary role and the fbi has moved up to the primary role. do you have anything to say about that?

>> guest: well, i mean, again, there's a lot of changing of roles that occurred after september 11 where now there's the director of national intelligence. and that the cia reports to and the fbi, you know, plays a much bigger role in investigating domestic mostly terrorist plots. but again, i don't know -- i mean, there have been significant policy changes regarding the treatment of suspects, you know, by the obama administration. but i don't know that there's been a significant change in exactly who's in charge of investigating and trying to prevent terror plots in the united states. as far as i'm aware, there have been not been major changes in the distribution of responsibilities so far. >> next phone call, last phone call here for eric lipton, oakland, california, jamie on the democratic line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. first of all, i've sat here and

i've listened and i really believe that what mr. lipton is trying to say is good in terms of the fact that people need to understand the same individuals, whether their roles have changed or not. are the same individuals who worked under cheney. that's number one. number two, i'd like to say that president obama for a year now we've watched. he's not quick to jump to conclusions. he thinks things out. he processes things. he looks for answers before he gives -- he looks for what's going on before he comes out and gives an answer. it's a total change from what we had from the last eight years and for people to come out and to -- when 9/11 happened we were

already in a uproar on bush winning the presidency but the minute that happened, republicans, democrats, independents or nobody at all, we all came together as one nation. for the republicans to pounce on this when this is their dysfunctional system of government, obama hasn't even had a chance to see if that system even works. we now see that the system bush-cheney put into place does not work. >> host: caller, i want to say the usa editorial this morning is about the issue you and others have brought up the politics of homeland security. their view the "usa today"'s view in today's partisan world no opportunity is wasted. their view is that in today's partisan world, no opportunity is wasted. writing in opposition is former house speaker newt gingrich, who rofoundly wrong policy and t izing president

>> host: you can read more about that in usa's today editorial section. eric lipton, homeland security reporter for the "new york times," thank you so much for your time. >> guest: thank you so much. >> host: we appreciate it. >> in fed we trust, from "wall street journal" economics editor on ben bernanke and the economic role he played and he discuss with the first director of the congressional budget office. "after words" part of this weekend's book tv on book tv. >> i'm always concerned about the potential unforeseen consequences, unintended consequences of new regulations. new regulations, regulations of any kind act as a tax. and when you tax or regulate something, you tend to get less of it. you tend to diminish it. >> this weekend on the communicators, republican fcc commissioner robert mcdowell on

an efforts to create broadband, newtrality on c-span. >> in just a moment, the state of the state address from new york governor david paterson. that speech today expected to focus on ethics issues including campaign finance law and term limits. we take you now to the state house in albany, new york, for live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> looking live inside the state house in albany, new york, looking for the state of the state address for governor david paterson. he's expected to focus on ethics issues including campaign finance law and term limits. the speech scheduled to begin at 1:00 eastern time running a few minutes late here. we have an opportunity to give you a little bit of information on another state of the state address going on right now, in fact, california governor arnold schwarzenegger is delivering the california state of the state address right now and it's live on our website, c-span.org. we're also recording it and we'll show it to you later in our television program schedule. again, that's republican governor arnold schwarzenegger of california entering his final year in office in california. here we're in new york waiting for the state of the state address by david paterson. our live coverage on c-span2.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. everyone else who doesn't have a seat, please move to the sides or to the back. thank you. thank you.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations [ [inaudible conversationsñ] [gavel hitting] >> can we get some order? purposes of an announcement. [inaudible] >> and informed them that the assembly is organized and ready

to receive the governor's annual message and, in fact, they have joined us in the chamber. thank you. >> we welcome the members from the senate. senator stewart cousins. [inaudible] >> the senate is organized and ready for business. and we'll meet with you here in joint session today at 1:00 pm to receive the governor's annual state of the state message. >> message received.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the house will come to order.

>> quiet, please. >> mr. speaker, my colleagues and guests as you know, mr. speaker, mr. kolb and i have visited upon the governor and have informed that that the legislature is prepared to receive his annual state of the state message and i believe he has joined us in the chamber at this particular point in time. >> thank you. >> and, mr. speaker, my colleagues and guests, this is just an important announcement because this room is very much overcrowded, that as we prepare for the governor's annual address, just to outline for a moment in the event there is an

emergency, which we do not expect, but in such case, people should first and foremost follow the directions of mr. jackson, the sergeant at arms, and his staff, those in the rear of the chamber behind me should move in an expedition and orderly manner to the exits behind me. those in the front of the chamber please utilize the exits immediately behind the rostrum. once again while we do not expect anything to develop, guests and colleagues should realize that in case of an emergency, please follow these procedures to the front and the rear of the chamber and in particular, follow the order of the esteemed sergeant of arms, mr. jackson, and his staff. >> thank you. now it's my pleasure to announce that the lieutenant governor of the state of new york, the honorable richard ravage, who is the presiding officer of the senate who presided at this joint session, it is my honor

and privilege to present the gavel to mr. ravage for presiding at this session. thank you for joining us. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. [applause] >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. the joint session will come to order. i note the presence of our esteemed jurists from the court of appeals. and i would like to take this opportunity to introduce them. chief judge jonathan litman. [applause]

>> judge carmen kilpatrick. [applause] >> judge victoria rafael. [applause] judge susan lou reed. [applause] >> judge robert smith. [applause] >> judge eugene biggert. [applause] >> and judge thomas jones. [applause]

>> we are also pleased to have former governor george pataki. [applause] >> where is he? [applause] >> and former lieutenant governor albert delvillo. [applause] >> it's time to introduce the attorney general of the state of new york -- sorry. at this time i would like to introduce the attorney general of the state of new york, andrew cuomo. [applause]

>> i am also pleased to introduce the controller of the state of new york, mr. thomas p. danapoli. [applause] >> in addition, i would like to

thank you for joining us today. [applause] >> it is my pleasure to recognize the following members of our congressional delegation who are joining us today in the chamber. congressman jerry nadler. [applause] >> congressman gregory meets. [applause] >> congressman steve israel. [applause] >> congressman mike acuri. [applause] >> congressman paul tonkow.

[applause] >> congressman eric masep. [applause] >> and congressman michael mcmahon. [applause] >> now i'd like to introduce the majority leader of the -- or the conference leader of the new york state senate, new york state senator john sampson. [applause]

>> thanks. pursuant to a resolution duly adopted in each of the houses of the legislature, the senate and the assembly of the state of new york are met in joint session for the purpose of receiving the annual message to the legislature from the governor of the state of new york. i am proud and honored to present our governor, david a. paterson. [applause] [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. before we begin, i would like to thank speaker shellan silver and all of his staff members who arrange these wonderful accommodations for us and the cooperation of the staff of senator john sampson and leader sampson's cooperation as well. it has become customary on occasions of this significance to recognize each and every public official in the room with congratulatory pronouncements and self-reflected praise but,

my colleagues, the times are measured and i would ask with your understanding that we dispense with the flourishes and formalities and i would like to address all of you today just as fellow citizens of our great state, all equal under the eyes of god. all responsible to the people of the state of new york. whether our service be short-lived or long-remembered. this is a winter of reckoning. and i come before you today not just to talk of the state of the state but also of the state of our self-governance. a fragile instrument of popular will that has become the will to be popular. where it is easier to deny reality andch$ to demand that wh

we cannot afford than to accept that years of living on the margins of our means have had to end. look at history. cultures of addiction to spending, power, and approval have ruined empires and now they threaten the empire state. but i come here today not to replay old grievance or in any way to reclaim lost ground. but we come here to build, to build new york's economy to a national model of ingenuity and strength. to build our people's trust in the fiscal stability of our state. to build our manufacturing to meet the energy standards of this enlightened area. and most importantly, to build the trust that the people of new york once had in their state government.

the last two budget battles have left its toll on all of us in this chamber. and there are more deficits up ahead that will require an even greater sacrifice. but if acceptance really is the prelude to recovery, then we have to accept that the old way of doing budgets is unsustainable. and so do the special interests who intimidate, who badger, and who push when they don't get their way even when they are aware that the cupboard is bare. the time for that type of politics has to end. we have -- [applause] >> we have to take firm and decisive steps to rebuild new york.

we need fiscal reform. we need ethics reform. and we need an economic plan that will put new yorkers back to work. [applause] >> and so today i am not just speaking of the state of the state as it is. but what we are talking about is what the state of the state will be. the plan i have placed before you turns this crisis into an invitation for leadership. and the decision foremost in my mind every time i make one answers the question, are we doing what's right for the people of the state of new york? and so in times of greater prosperity, the reforms we are proposing were ignored. prosperity hides all manners of sin. but no longer. we have to rise to the highest expectation of our people and

bring them the lasting change they have long, long fought for and desired. there's no hierarchy in these reforms. they are all vital. our fiscal reforms will bring real and lasting change and by cutting our bureaucracy, by merging agencies that replicate services, public tracking of agency performance and a long term strategy for fiscal discipline and management. [applause] >> i have asked our new lieutenant governor, richard ravage, to take the lead in a four-year plan for fiscal recovery. it is the most reasonable way that we can actually bring state spending into line and government into the right size.

it is also the only way to eliminate, unnecessary, unfair and unexpected mandates on local governments, hospitals, school districts and mass transit. no longer are we going to run new york like a payday loan operation. and, yes, i am renewing my call for a spending cap. now, i know -- [applause] >> now i know that this will be met with a lot of resistance. but i fought 25 years to eradicate the rockefeller drug laws and i'll work to this becoming a law even if it has to be passed by constitutional amendment. whether it is this administration or the next or the one after that, we have got to find a procedure that cures the spending structure that has infected our budget process for the last 20 years.

and the sooner we do that, the more control we'll have over spending, not less. for as you may have observed in the past few weeks, the governor will exercise authority to prevent this state from going into default. you have left me and other governors no choice. so whether it be by vetos or delayed spending, i will not write bad checks and we will not mortgage our children's future. [applause] >> but the legislature is the body of the people. and the legislature should have an equal voice in front deciding to hold spending in line with the times. [applause] >> after we have uncovered the sins of finance, we must address

the chronic abuse of power. chronic and continuing experiences of outside influence and inside decay have bred cynicism and scorn of the people that we represent. this is why today i'm introducing comprehensive, ethics reform, not driven by the illegal acts of any one person but instead, by what's legal and rampant in our entire system of government. [applause] >> the reform albany act will have as its centerpiece an independent ethics commission that will have jurisdiction over state government. this commission will have the power to enforce campaign finance and pay to play and

finally bring jurisdiction and oversight to so-called good government groups who will hide their donors behind walls of sank moan. -- sanctomony. the reform albany agenda will ultimately drive down campaign contributions, call -- require openness of outside income, will strip public officials of their pensions who commit felonies, phase in gradually public campaign finance and it will impose term limits on state office-holders by constitutional amendment. [applause] >> now i recognize that there will be significant push-back to this legislation. however, when i step back and

just think about our role in government, my colleagues, how much more foresighted would it have been if we had instituted the right procedures to address unethical conduct and bad acts that have embarrassed us all? what has now happened is that the public wants bolder and more decisive initiatives in order to win back their trust. the inevitable goal of this legislation is to bring fairness and openness to government which has very little of either. the moneyed interests many of them here today as guests have got to understand that their days of influence in this capital are numbered. they have routinely demanded special treatment without any regard for others. well, no one person or group is above any others or more deserving of any more hardship and pain.

the reality is that there is no moral high ground on trampling on others to get there and there is nothing lower than engaging in the currency of influence to the detriment of other new yorkers that don't have the same representation. [applause] >> now, the third protocol in our desire to rebuild new york is that we bring our economy back to the greatness that it once held. with a focus on jobs for the new economy, for manufacturing meeting the energy standards that we will need. for the whole idea of putting people back to work and a commitment to helping new yorkers raise themselves up. the fiscal and ethical reforms

that i have just outlined are important to new york's comeback. we can attract businesses only if they believe in the integrity of state government. we can initiate job-creation as well as our credit rating is strong. we can be competitive on property taxes if and only if we can keep spending down. and we can restore money to school districts by alleviating the budget bubble that caused our economic problems in the first place. and so to pull this all together, we are going to need an economic -- we're going to need an economic plan that actually suits the issues of our times and provides the jobs that new yorkers see. no longer can we say all roads lead to new york. for in the end, we're going to need the invasion -- innovations

to be there as well. our enterprise zone is no longer working. and so as i said last year, we're going to put it where it belongs, in the past. we are no longer going to provide tax credits for businesses that do not provide the jobs that we were promised. [applause] >> instead, we will replace it with the jobs program which will focus on the clean energy and high tech growth jobs of tomorrow. this program will be sustainable. it will be -- it will one that we will all be proud of because it will be open and it will be transparent. to develop this program, we went

all around the state seeking out business leaders that would give us advice in all communities. we have come back with three aggressive initiatives targeted for growth industries such as clean energy, broadband, information systems, and biotechnology. this combined with our 45 by 415 plan and a $20 million investment in a new technological fund for entrepreneurs will create the kind of encouragement for capital investment. it will spur innovation and will create tens of thousands of jobs to go along with the 50,000 jobs that will be realized from our great 45 by 15 energy plan which converts looks like use to clean and renewable energy sources. and we could not have gotten there unless a previous governor

had already converted us to 20% three times the national average. and he joins us today, and it is governor george pataki. [applause] >> and so the jobs program will be the centerpiece of the most aggressive jobs creation agenda in our state's history. but it is only one piece. we are emerging in new york and all around the globe toward an economy, an emerging economy, one based on knowledge, technology, and innovation. we are poised to lead this economy and we shall lead. we will create and we will support the environments of investment, which is why our administration is working on a plan to bring first stage capital to first stage technological development.

the five largest companies, patent-holding companies, that exist right here in new york average about $11 billion worldwide in research and development. the research and development tax credits will incentivize them to put more resources into new york and have a better relationship with our universities, both public and private. there is one challenge, which is right now is holding us back from the leadership in the new economy, but we feel that we have an immediate solution. simply put, it is the transfer and sharing of information from research and development institutions along with the sources of investment. but for very little part of the public's money, very little taxpayer investment we will be

able to harness our government to marshall our command over technology, data, and our relationship with the university community to create a free and open exchange of ideas that will bring these ideas to market. there are many cutting-edge concepts on the table just waiting to be developed into the engine of our economic future. we will also go back to the historic manufacturing industry and make it whole again. with tax credits and also with retro-fits for small businesses, with the reformed power for jobs program and a cutting-edge and ground-breaking concept of buying up retro-fitting and reselling abandoned manufacturing sites. in addition -- [applause]

>> we will not forget the hundreds of thousands of trades and manufacturing and construction job-holders who will be vital to our revitalizing this process. now, we also have to address the decades in which upstate new york has suffered in recession long before the rest of new york and the country got there. and we will do it by extending the erie canal research and development corridor. also we want to make upstate the back office for corporate america, particularly, the franchises that are located downstairs. [applause] . >> this region is clearly one that has demonstrated that they have what the rest of the country doesn't have, which is available housing stock. close by schools, natural beauty

and the untouched small towns that families would cherish. we've got to go back to promoting it that way. and also the effort we're making for sustainable and -- sustainable communities, with thousands of housing stock laying a dormant in cities like buffalo, rochester and syracuse. we will develop that housing stock into affordable housing starting with buffalo, which right now has 23,000 vacant units. [applause] >> earlier today assemblyman wright and i attended the funeral of former assemblyman borough president entrepreneur, media mogul, civil rights lawyer and world war ii fighter pilot percy sutton. he was a friend and mentor to me

but one who was held in high esteem all around this state and this country. but nearly a half century ago, when no one else was talking about it, he was a lone voice that advocated for the power of economic opportunity as the key to advancement. new york state's economic development program has to make sure that it covers all corners of our boundaries. and it is known historically that women and minority-owned businesses have not had the opportunities or the resources from the state to flourish. but i was wondering if you knew how bad it actually was. when i was a candidate for state-wide office in 2006, i read a department of economic development report that noted that at that time, women and minority businesses in the areas of state procurement were

receiving only 5% in total of the contracts. to be specific, women who are 51.8% of the population and were 29.2% of the firms that were approved in advance got 2.64% of the contracts. but it gets worse. hispanic americans 8.5% of the threshold vendors meaning they had capital and they had been certified and they passed all the tests, received .74, three-quarters of 1% of the contracts. african-americans .66, two-thirds of 1% of the deals. african-american women, .13. i don't even know what percentage -- that fraction is of 1% but i knew to start a task force on minority and women's business enterprises in june, 2008. here are the results.

[applause] >> we have quadrupled the mwbe participation. and the minority firms that are investment banking and involve the issuance of debt went from 4.2% mwbe to where they stand now to 23.9%. [applause] >> since i've taken office, minority and women firms have yielded 162 million dollars of profit over what -- where they were at that particular time. and we do not want them to miss out on the new opportunities involving stimulus money and also our new economy programs.

which is why we will synchronize mwbe into any a action that the state takes. [applause] >> now, i was visiting some business leaders in long island in front 2007. and they were white business leaders and they said to me, how can we get into the mwbe program because the state ignores most of us as well. well, the reality is that businesses run by people of all colors have not been flourishing under new york state's government. so in july of 2009, we initiated the small business task force. they put their findings on my desk december 1st of last year and we are already starting to implement them. the biggest obstacles to small business are start-up costs. so we will try and tried and true remedy. we will inevitably create a revolving loan program so that these engines of our economy,

vital as they are, will have the capital that they need to thrive. [applause] >> and finally, there are a number of incentives, both large and small, that i have put in front of you you go which the people first incentive. it will allow vulnerable new citizens that come to new york the opportunity to be able to locate services for which they otherwise would not have been aware. and one of our administration's boldest endeavors, which would be to rebuild the new york insurance exchange. by bringing together the buyers and sellers of complex commercial insurance, the exchange will reaffirm our status as a the focal point of international trade and finance.

it will also curtail the -- the transactions -- the types of transactions that were unregulated that decimated the global economy. new york, being at the epicenter of so much that went terribly wrong in 2008, we as new yorkers have to take responsibility for america and around the world to take the lead in rebuilding and reform of these vital, global markets. [applause] >> so this is the state of the state as it will be. we will come full circle from the chaos of our own state budget to rebuilding our state and our country pursuant to the chaos of a national meltdown. the plan that i put before you is a plan that will make us stronger. it will grow our economy and put

new yorkers back to work. who would ever imagine that cold day in january, in 2007, that we would be faced with so much challenges trying to rebuild and restore faith. but here we are. with the scars to prove it. some say that we will not succeed. that the story has already been written and the ending is ordained. but story lines change. and people change. when i spoke on television to new yorkers in july, 2008, i warned that a withering economy would drive costs up and revenues down. that the faster we address this, the stronger and sooner we would recover from this crisis. there are those who said that there was not a crisis. and when it hit, there were others that still refused to act. but i say to all of you today,

there is still time to rebuild the empire state. [applause] >> i say to the elected members of the legislature, work with me. follow me. so that new york can turn the corner. i know a lot about adversity and mistakes can be made. but if you stand true to your principles and honestly accept reality for what it is, you can get to a better place. because there is always an opportunity to remake ourselves and our state. that is the promise of new york. new yorkers have arisen from economic perils before. new yorkers have rebuilt after disasters, natural and manmade. but every time the capacity of our hope has been questioned, every time our faith has been

challenged, every time we have come to a hill that seemed too steep, we have demonstrated an undeniable ability to achieve and a desire and a determination to endure. and so once again we have to rebuild. but we will reignite the engine of our economy. we will be able to win back the public trust of the people who we represent. and we will rebuild new york. but we have to work together. and in these times of struggle, i remember the enduring faith of a child who grew up in a world of darkness, who chooses to believe in something bigger than himself or herself and through the doubts of others, they can find strength and humility and

perseverance. and so can all of us. thank you so much for attending. thank you for listening. god bless all of you. and god bless the people of new york. [applause] [applause] >> i was advised that in addition of the members of congress whose names i read earlier, that we've also been joined by congressman scott murphy. having said that -- [applause]

>> i wish everyone a happy new year. this joint session is adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> live from the state capital in albany, new york, you've been watching the state of the state address delivered by democratic governor david paterson. who plans to run for re-election later this year. meanwhile, republican california governor arnold schwarzenegger also delivered his state of the state address today.

his remarks ended a short time ago. we recorded the speech and have it for you now on c-span2. [applause] .. >> please be seated. it is now my pleasure to introduce president pro tem of the california state senate my friend and partner the honorable darrell steinberg. senator steinberg. [applause] >>. >> thank you very much madam speaker for your great leadership, members and colleagues for all of the inevitable disagreements,

for all of the negative attention about california >> for all of the negative attention about california, much of it undeserved. i want to thank the governor much for working with his coequal branch of government, the legislature to not only avoid catastrophe last year, $62 billion, but to begin preparing california for the recovery and for the future. it is my high honor and distinct pleasure to introduce the of governor of the great state of california. the honorable arnold schwarzenegger. [applause]

governor schwarzenegger: thank you senate president pro tem steinberg, speaker bass, senato hollingsworth, assemblyman blakeslee, attorney general brown, treasurer lockyer, secretary of state bowen, controller chung, insurance commissioner poizner, superintendent of public instruction o'connell, members of the board of equalization, all my cabinet secretaries, my chief of staff susan kennedy, and members of the legislature. it's good to see everyone together again. guests in gallery -- maria, secretary

george shultz and his wife, charlotte, mayor willie brown, [applause]

alice huffman, president of the california naacp. [applause] hertzberg, community college chancellor jack scott. thank you. [applause] then we have a very, very special guest here, sara

granda. who overcame great obstacles to pass her bar exam. and in recent years we added a miniature pony and a pot-bellie it's not unusual for me to look up from working on the budget o something to find a pig and a pony standing there staring at now, the dog's food, which we keep in a canister with a screw-on lid, sits on the top o

the dog's kennel. the pony has learned to knock the canister off the top of the kennel, and then he and the pig wedge it into the corner. there's this ridge on the lid of the canister, and the pig with his snout pushes this ridge around and around until it loosens. and then they roll the canister around on the floor until the food spills out. i don't know how they ever figured all of that out. it's like humans figuring out how to create fire but it is the greatest example of teamwork. i love it. so one lesson to draw from the pig and the pony story is what we can accomplish when we work togethe and last year we here in this room did some great things working together. we had a pig and pony year. now before some reporter writes that i compared the legislature to a pig or a

pony, that is not the message a together, as a team -- as fractious, tentative and uncertain as it might have bee -- together, we got california through the front end of the worst financial crisis since th great depression. although not without pain, we closed a budget gap of $60 billion. these decisions were very hard for both sides of the aisle. on the republican side, we had leaders who sacrificed their careers or put them at risk. on the democratic side, we had legislators who were threatened by their own interest groups. to those on both sides of the aisle who took these risks for the good of the state, you have my deepest admiration. we did what we had to do. we made painful spending cuts. we passed temporary tax increases. we permanently eliminated colas for most state programs. we made major reforms in welfare and pa

and there are two accomplishments in particular i want to recognize. just last night the assembly passed major educational reform, reform that once seemed impossible, but now will become law as soon as it hits my desk. for too many years, too many children were trapped in low-performing schoo the exit doors may as well have been chained. now, for the first time, parents -- without the pr permission -- have the right to free their children from these destructive schools. that is a great freedom. also in the past, parents had no power to bring about change in their children' but that will now change. parents will now have the means to get rid of incompetent principals and take other necessary steps to improve thei children's education. to increase accountability, we broke down the firewall so that teacher performance can be linked to student performance.

there's a great, great accomplishment. [applause] another major accomplishment, for decades this state was in war over water. with old and deep divisions, northern california versus southern california, democrats versus republicans, farmers versus environment, and the list goes on and on. we we here in this room made history with the most comprehensive water package in nearly half a century. we brought all of the stakeholders together. by working together, we got it done. now we must work very hard so we pass $11 million that will be on the ballot in november. democrat and republicans will have to travel up and down the state to educate the people of california why it's so important.

some people say how we can afford those bonds in the current economic climate. i say how can we now? it is the law that you cannot build a school, factory, without identifying first the source of water. as a result, huge projects and thousands of job have been put on hold. our economy cannot grow without water. our population cannot live without water. it is our state's lifeblood. now is exactly the time to invest it. so that when californians turn on the facet, there's safe and reliable water. now just five years from now, but 30, 40, and 50 years from now. this is so important. now let's talk about the coming year. if i had to summarize in one word our focus from the coming year, it would be the word priority. we have to get them straight,

and we have to keep them straight. the first priority is to get the economy and jobs back. jobs, jobs, jobs. the people -- [applause] the people and businesses of california are an engine of self-betterment and progress. a government that keeps the engine oiled with policies. one importantedly does not pour sand in its gears. this state are persevere and prosper. there are four proposals to spur job growth. first, i will receive a $500 million jobs pact. the estimate can train up to 140,000 workers and help create 100,000 jobs. second, you will receive is a measure of streamline permitting

construction jobs that already have a completed environmental report. and third, to stimulate other constructions jobs, you will receive a proposal for home buyer tax credits of up to $1,000 for the purchase of new or existing homes. [applause] fourth, since we want california to be the new technology, i ask you accept the green manufacturing from the sales tax. that too makes jobs. [applause] >> to the jobs for the new economy. now while we still have a long way to go, the worst is over for california's economy. and the real good thing is we have the right mix going forward, hollywood tech, and so forth. we are well advantaged to take

the future. let me tell you the main thing that we in the chamber can do for the economy to help create jobs. we can be a better partner to the economy. because the state and government has a responsibility not to be a obstacle for success, but or a partner. to strengthen the economy which is the foundation of all jobs. we here in this chamber must reform california's budget system and we must reform our tax system. there would be a huge stimulus. the basic problem is that our tax system does not reflect our economy. in 2009, economic growth declined only 2.8%, but our tax revenues were down more than eight times that much. our economies are gross where as our tax system is not. 144,000 taxpayers pay 50% of all personal income taxes. now think about that.

38 million california have to rely on 144,000 people for the schools, their fire protection to health care, the public safety, and so many other services. that makes absolutely no sense. here's what we need to accept. our economy is 21st century, our tax system is 20th century. it is stuck in the wrong century. the tax reform commission did its work. it came up a plan to reform, a great reform that was praised by both willie brown and the "wall street journal." now how often does that happen? some people say they are too bold. and thus they will be too hard to enact. what do they mean by too bold. all this is what we do in california. what do you mean by too hard? if i had hesitated, every time i

had to made a move, because it was too hard. i would still be ideaing. states revenues are not expected to return where they were until 2013 and 2014. i sent you a tax reform commissions plan. i sent you the plan in late september. but it seems that it has somehow disappeared under the dome. where is it? maybe the pig and the pony has taken it. that's what it is. but you know something, i am looking forward to working with the legislature to get this done. budget reform is just as important. this is something that i've been talking about since i've become governor of this great state. the budget crisis is our katrina. we knew it was coming. we have known it for years. yet sacramento would not enforce the economic levies. in addition to taking action on the tax commissioner's plan, i

also you to also take action on the best practices budget accountability act which has been drafted by california forward under the leadership of bob hertzberg. i support his proposal in applying one-time spikes in revenues, to one-time users such as debt reduction, infrastructure, and creating a rainy day fund. the leaders of the party has said, and many times, that the legislature should be given the chance to enact reforms before reforms get directed to the people. well, here's the chance. i urge you to take it. as we struggle to overcome our differences, what i ask you to remember is that the current tax and budget system is cruel. i tell you why i say that. it is cruel because it is forcing us to make a selfish choice amongst our obligations. which child do we cut?

poor one or sick one? uneducated one or the one with with the special needs. this is cruel. we overcame the divisions in white. i know that we can also overcome our obstacle on divisions on tax reform. and the tax system and the budget system. let's do it. i will address the budget system for fully in a few days. let me just give you an overview. we face a $19.9 billion deficit, $6.6 billion for the rest of this budget year and $13.3 for the upcoming budget year. big picture? let me tell you what will be required here. first as bitter as the words are in my mouth, we face additional cuts. we know what that means. we know the pain it entails. what can we with say at this point expect the truth that we

have no noise? but i'm drawing this line. because our future economic well being is so dependent up on education, i will protect education funding in this budget. [applause] >> and we no longer can afford to cut higher education either. [applause] the priorities have become out of whack over the years. i mean think about it. 30 years ago, 10% of the general fund went to higher education. only 3% went to prisons. today almost 11% goes to prisons and only 7.5% goes to higher education. spending 45% more on prisons than universities is no way to proceed into the future. [applause]

what does it say about our state? what does it say about any state that focuses more on prison uniforms than on caps and gowns? it simply is not healthy. so i will submit to you a constitutional amendment, so that never again do we spent a greater percentage of our money on prisons than or higher education. [applause] and the way we get this done is to find more cost effective way to run our prisons and allows private prisons to compete with public prison. competition and choice are always good. i mean california spends $50,000 for prisoner. by comparison to the 10 largest state they spent $32,000. they spent less. yet, they do not see federal judges taking over the federal health care system.

why do we have to spend more than they do? if california's prisons were privately run, it would save us billions of dollars a year. that's billions of dollars that can go back into higher education where it belongs and better serve our future. [applause] choosing universities over prisons is a historic and transforming reassignment of california's priorities. if you have two states and one spends more on educating, and the other one spends more incarcerating, in which state's economy would you invest? so i ask you to make the right choices for california. another major item is this. federal funds have to be part of our solution, because the budget is part of our budget problem. when president clinton was in office, california got back 94 cent on the dollar.

today we only get 78 cents. but in the mean time, texas get 94 cents, alaska gets back 1.84 for every dollar. new mexico gets 2.03. this would be much more fair and equitable. we are not looking for federal bailouts. just for federal fairness. [applause] californians carry also special burden since we are a border state. the federal government controls policy and border security. while acknowledging its responsibility, the federal government is not even funding a 50/50 split of the cost of undocumented immigrants. we can't ignores what is owed to us, or what we are forced to spend on federal mandates.

we are currently owed millions of dollars from various programs from the federal government. we need to work with the feds to fix the formula that demands that the state spends money we don't have. now they are about to pile more on california with the new health care bill. as you know, i supported health care reform. it is not reform to push more cost on the state that are already struggling while other states are getting sweetheart deals. health care reforms which started as a noble and needed legislation has become a draft of bribes and deals. yet, you have heard of the bridge to nowhere. but this is health care to nowhere. california should either vote against this bill is that is disaster for california or get in there and fight for the same sweetheart deal of senator

nelson of nebraska got for the cornhusker state. [applause] because that's senator does for the cornhusker state, the corn, and we have the husk. another priority related to the budget is pension reform. the cost of state employees pension is up by 2,000% in the last 10 years. you heard me right, 2,000%. revenues have only increased by 24%. the pension fund will not have enough money to cover this amount. so the state that means of course the taxpayer has to come up with the rest of the money. we are already putting in there every year more than $3 billion for pensions. that amount will go up to $10 billion. this is money that is taken away from important government services. this is money that cannot go to our universities and our parks and other government functions. for the current employees, the

pension cannot be changed legally or morally. we cannot break the promotion that we already made. this is a done deal. but we are al about to get run over by a lock comotive. we can see the lights coming at all. we can see the lights coming. i ask the legislature to join me in finding the equivalent of a water deal or pensions. so that we can meet the current promises and yet reduce the burden going forward. this is serious issues that our state faces. every year inspite of what challenges, i stand up here i tell you how much i believe in california's future. i tell you how much i believe in the dream. how this is the greatest place in the work. some people say this is just arnold being optimistic. i am not alone believing those things. "time" magazine recently did an article about california that

sounded just like one of my speeches. i would like to read to you a few sentences that "time" wrote. california is still a dream state. in fact, the pioneering megastate. it is still the cutting edge of the america future economically, environmentally, demographically, cultural and maybe politically. it is the greenest and the most diverse state. it is also the leading in innovation in high-tech, biotech, and now clean tech. in 2008, california's wipeout economy attracted more capital than the rest of the nature combined. so now do you believe me? you see, this is the greatest place in the world. california has the means and the mind power to solve all of the problems. sometimes we have just too close to the problems to see the positives. we just need to step back.

a couple of months ago, i was in iraq, visiting our men and women in uniform. this is the second time that i've been over there. it was quite a great experience. we have so many californians over there serving. i had breakfast with them. we chattered. we worked out. i pumped them up. took pictures with them. and they told me all kinds of stories. they have seen experiences that we cannot even believe. many have served tour after tour after tour. some have lost homes, spouses, limbs, and even their lives. too often our soldiers bring back the enemy with them in their heads. we are seeing and hearing all of the about lot of the post-traumatic stress syndrome. the suicide rate is disturbing high. this country cannot live in denial about those things. those men and women need help.

california has more returning veterans than -- [applause] california has more returning veterans than any other state. so our state, as well as the federal government, has a special responsibility. you will see that in our agenda. we have a obligation to anyone who has shed or risked blood for this country. this is a priority. [applause] their sacrifice is extraordinary. and it never fails to inspire me. and if you look up to the gallery, you will see some californians wearing the uniform of our country that just came back from iraq and afghanistan. so to those men and women, to those brave men and women, i say

welcome home. welcome home. [applause] [applause] [applause] no matter how big the problems are that the state is facing, no matter how harsh things may seem to us in the months ahead, those californians in uniform will tell you that this is still the greatest place to come home to, and the greatest place to pursue a better life. just ask them how often they

dreamed of being back here at home in the golden state. so ladies and gentlemen, in closing, we in this chamber must full lil our sacred trust to keep california a great place to come home to for our men and women in uniform and for generations of californians yet to come. thank you very much. and god bless all of you. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> later today a look at this iconic photo of president nixon and elvis presley taking at the 1970 meeting. it was the most requested photo

in the national archives. we'll hear from two people who saw the photo being taken and behind the scenes. see it today at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> in fed we trust. from "wall street journal" david wessel on ben bernanke and the role he played in the economic collapse. he's discussion with alice, the congress no, ma'am budget office. this weekend on c-span two. >> i'm always concerned about the potential unforeseen consequences, unintended consequences. regulations of any kind act as a tax. and when you tax or regulate something, you tend to get less of it. you tend to diminish it. >> this weekend on the communicators, republican robert mcdowell on efforts to create a national broadband plan, net

neutrality, and the wireless industry. saturday on c-span. >> now available c-span's book, abram ha lincoln, great americans historians on our 16th president. from 56 scholars, journalist, and writers from his early years, to his life in the white house, and his relevance to today. now in digital audio to listen to any time. available where digital audio downloads are store. >> now a look at u.s. social safety net services. yet scholars from the world bank, brookings institution, talked about a new book on how to improve the work force and federal poverty programs. this is an hour and a half hosted by urban institute.

>> i want to welcome audiotape of you who are hear -- here today in washington as well as those who are joins us through our c-span to our first, first tuesday of 2010. these monthly forums showcase timely and relevant support, contributions by the staff, and offer an opportunity for outside experts to provide their perspectives on the issue as well as for the audience to ask questions. today forum is inspired by a new urban institute press book, "repairing the u.s. social safety net." the book grew out of a world bank course taught by the coauthors, -- the course was designed to learn ant the programs in the united states and consider how to achieve programs with similar objectives

in their countries. the book and today's discussion will focus on the conflicting beliefs and core values that have motivated and shapes the continually changing patchwork programs that we have in the united states. the severe economic downturn andsores unemployment that we are experiencing, the bursting of the realize bubble, and relevant and following waves of foreclosures, the collapse of equity markets, and the retirement nest eggs of many make these topics real sand and pressing. -- relevant and pressing. the fiscal adjust want the nation is going to have to go through the course of the next few years to bring the deficits under control are going to challenge the safety net as well. frayed and inadequate as many believe it is. the first speaker today will be

demetra nightingale where she teaches classes. for almost three decades until mid 2003, demetra was a senior research here specializing in man power, labor, and social welfare issues. next up will be e mill mill -- emil tesliuc. he joined in 1995 as an economic where he worked on monitoring, trade, agricultural, world development, finance, as well as poverty and social protection issues. next speaker is going to be ron haskins who is a senior fellow

who where he codirects the children and families. he's a former white house on welfare issues and was the staff director of an influential subcommittee of the house of representatives, which have jurisdiction over several key antipoverty programs. ron was a key player in the 1996 effort, successful effort, to overhaul the nation's welfare policy. finally, if the god's of transportation are benevolent, we will hear from marty berk. marty has been a senior scholar here for three decades and has focused his research on homelessness, welfare, social services, and hunger. the moderator today is jason

deparle. in the packet on your chair is an article that jason wrote of the american social safety net. his book published in 2003 "american dreams: three women, 10 kids, and a nation's drive to end welfare, the overhaul of the welfare system." with that, let me turn it over to you jason and -- >> thank you. about a year ago my editor approached me and said he'd been thinking about the recession and had one question. how strong is the safety net? it was a seemingly simple question, or at least he thought it was. of course, it has no simple answer. and there is no single safety net. there are instead multiple safety nets, a food safety net,

a housing safety net, a medical safety net, and income safety net. each has its own rules, it's own finances, incentives, history, it's own culture. food stamps brings the needy in. on top of that, there's great variation within programs by state or even by county. tennessee gets food stamps to something like 90% of the people who qualify for them, while california serving about 50%. and as anyone who's spent any time in public assistance officers knows, there's also a great element of caprice in the administration of programs. both in their rules and in the human interaction in applying them. beverly johnson, a women from an unemployed college librarian in mississippi could have gotten unemployment benefits had she been laid off from the university of mississippi or

delta state, but he worked from a bible college. and as a religious institution, does not have to unemployment taxes. therefore, she was left to face without an unemployment check. another women in baltimore made too much to qualify for food stamps. but the caseworker was in a generous mood and enlists her in prayer. if you think this is complicated, imagine how marty must feel. at the request of the world bank, they've been trying to explain this from audiences from spain and moscow. i was writing about people living on food stamps alone. i've been doing this for a while. i can't recall a set of stories so vivid and so unlikely. i met a women who with said she'd grown up in the bronx, you know, in the projects in the bronx to a mother who was a

single mother that was drug addict. she moved to the gulf coast and made $180,000 selling real estate only to lose her house in the bust. not too many people go from $1 $180,000 to food stamps. she had the pay stubs to prove it. another man answered the door in tattooist covered in the rights movement, the rkba, the right to keep and bear arms. he said he had post-traumatic stress disorder, and had been ever since he shot a would-be robber at a pharmacy. it's not your run-of-the-mill food stamps story. it checked out. there were a lot of survival strategies. one women, a cancer patient had lost her running water. she was running a house from the

outdoor into her kitchen and shower. the time's enthusiast was selling off his guns. he was also sharing his sister's prescription contact lenses. even though he had a different prescription. the photographer noted it was probably not a good thing for someone involved in shooting to do. after the story ran, there was a lot of reader commentary on who isn't worthy of government support, one reader wrote me to complain that the open-ended ability of women like the realtor from the bronx had made it hard for men like him to find wives. because they can get the government to support him instead. he wanted a 30 day time limit. after that they should be forced to find a man. i've been instruct by how often poor people themselves have raised the question of moral worthiness in my conversations with them recently.

perhaps, it's just there are so many people who are new to public assistance programs. one out of eight americans now on food stamps. but many are quick to reassure me that they are not like the way they imagine other people on food stamps to be. as i think about the panel this morning, the person that i thought of the most, kept pictureturing -- picturing no way of the innocent poor. i met him in the courtyard of the rescue mission. sad courtyard, right before christmas. there's a tall guy standing there with a flat cap and no front teeth. he introduced himself as william. he said he used to pitch for the chicago cubs in the mayor -- minor leagues. again, unlikely story. it was true. he had an era of .640.

he was good with numbers. he told me he went to prison or 8 $10 very -- 8/10/96. there were wasn't much place in the car industry for an aging excon. he met a guy who promised him on a shrimp boat. the guy never showed up. he didn't qualify for unemployment, medicaid, didn't quality for cash welfare program. he had about $200 on the food stamps and the rescue mission which is his own safety net. he turned up an odd job and bartered for cigarette money. if safety nets are for saints, he wouldn't qualify. some people have an el wants. he said food stamps let him buy

a hogie when he's out looking for work. and in doing so, allowed him to maintain, i guess, a trace of independence, here he is in prison and now reinstitutized at a rescue. when you have foot stamps, you get to browse. i don't know how to translate for people in europe. but i don't envy you the task. with that, you can have the floor. >> wow. thank you, jason. and thanks to all of you for coming. years ago when the world bank asked marty and me if we would develop a little courses that explains the social safety net for the u.s. for international audience of policymakers, together we had about 3/4 of a century of experience looking at all of these programs. we said, sure, we can do that. eight years later, that six

session course has now been translated into several languages and hundreds of administrators around the world have attended our lectures. and so the course and the book really emerged out of the world bank initiative. but the urban institute also asked us to turn it into a book. and so thanks to the world bank, the urban institute, and hundreds of students at john hopkins university over the years that have been in my course, we have forced it into a book. needless to say, we very quickly realized that there were some basic simple points that had to be clarified before we proceed. first, how does one 2009 define the social safety net? our book we offer a general. that if social safety net, that the society assured the members

have what they need to survive. but what is the net intended to save? and who decides what people need and how much? how is it that we have what we have here in the united states and why is it different from what exists in other countries? i'm not going to discuss all of these things. but certainly these issues and more are covered in the book. but a few more definitions and context are important to help guide what i know will be an interesting discussion today. first, what's in the safety net. the social safety net is not just about antipoverty. persons of all income levels, as jason explained, -- are at risk of harm and crisis and victim myization. but the most disadvantaged and the poorest in the society have the highest risks. so the disadvantaged and the poor are most directly touched by and often targeted by the social safety net policies in

any country. in your folders you'll see some charts. first one shows that the social safety net is comprised of social and economic policies, such as crisis intervention, welfare, food programs, income supports, social insurance, health, and pensions. but other policies are also important parts, energy, environmental poll sis, transportation, immigration, rules and policies, all effect the lives of individuals and families. and effect their ability to have survive and their well being. so in short, the social safety nets included all policies or actions that are supported by, encouraged bit government that directly or indirectly assure that members of society can obtain what they need to survive. so we take this concept in the book one step further to also include in the social safety net

policies that are designed to prevent hardship. this means educational and employment opportunity, civil rights protections and social justice are just as important to the safety net as crisis intervention services and welfare. so where did our social safety net come from? and how is the u.s. different from what exists in other countries? the second handout in your folder shows the simple but still complex framework that we use to help explain the u.s. system. at the most basic level, our nation's history, political culture, governance structure, and economic and fiscal conditions at different times, as well as the notions of societal need together interact with some fundamental shared national philosophies and beliefs in the nation. in our book, we draw upon david's elwood explanation of

several problems in our society. and the dilemmas that they present. the national psyche is constantly struggling, but shared values. values such as the supremacy of liberty and freedom and compassion, fair ness, and a sincere willingness to help those. these values also come in conflict with other equally powerful shared belief. the importance of work and work ethic, the sangty of family. they come from some long-standing european philosophies that were dominant in the 18th century reenlighten period and refire -- refined. just as the american nation was

develop, some of these were in vouge. kalvinism with the work ethic and value of work. they condemned nonwork and idolness. social darwinism and later supported the idea of individual strength and survival of the fittest was a virture. classical laid the ground for laissez faire and minimally intrusive government. but also fueled a diestrous of government. so the result in government structure in the u.s. that emerged at this time is a complex web of checks and balances, separation of powers at each level of government among the three branches of government, and strongly held beliefs in state's rights. it also means that the u.s. system of social support is built around employment and work. and the social safety net is based heavily on notions of

charity and deservedness. so the deserving poor and needy can and usually do receive some assistance. but usually at a minimum level to guard against dependency and idolness. so the current emotional debate around universal health insurance is just one example of how the values sometimes come in conflict. health insurance, historicalically, was primarily in the sphere of employment. workers earned the right to health care as workers. over time, the government's role has gradually expanded, first to the elderly and some veterans, poor children, and some very sick people. as the underlying nature of work in the u.s. and employment has changed so too must the assumptions about employment and health insurance. a smaller percentage of workers today have employer-sponsored health insurance than 20 or 30 year ago.

but policy changes in this area and others can't come easily, because of the shared notion and government limits that permeate our history. so the philosophic struggle makes policy resolutions difficult and to some extent nobody is satisfied with the results. and so the health example is just one of many that shows sort of the conflict of different values. marty, when she gets here, will talk more about some of the various programs and constitutional ramification of the these conflicting values. but i want to note that the current social safety net in the u.s. is really premised on long-held believes about first the centrality of work and the value of individual responsibility. support, mainly for people who are considered deserving of help and not for those who can or should be taking care of themselves. and in a general distrust of government that translates into

a more minimal role for national government. now then, what are the goals then of the u.s. social safety net. we lay out three types of goals that are shown in the framework in your folders. the first goal is to provide basic financial security, the second is to protect vulnerable populations and the third goal is to promote equality of opportunity to minimize or eliminate the first two goals. so there are literally, as jason said, hundreds of programs in the u.s. safety net which we organize according to which of these general goals each is intended to achieve. whether the benefit of the service is considered a right or whether it has to be earned, or whether it is considered charity. and whether it is targeted on particular population groups like the elderly on the homeless or the unemployed or whether it's available more universally. we also categorize the programs

according to which level of government is most responsible. before ending the general introduction, i wanted to make a note about the level in the support that we in the united states provide. while many might disagree on the adequacy of the benefits, in general, it seems that the more generous of the social safety nets as jason indicated. the most generous parts for groups considered the most deserving. often, because of their contribution to society, at some point in their lives. so elderly former workers. and veterans, for example, are sort of among the priority groups. perhaps, the most adequate social safety net programs in the u.s. are social security and veterans benefits and the earned-income tax credit for low-income workers. at other end of the continuum are those that might be undeserved, homeless, criminals, some of the chronically

unemployed, the safety nets of them is much less intact. with the possible major exception as jason mentioned of the food stamp program now renamed s.n.a.p., supplement nutrition assistance program. in fact, food stamp really is the correcting string in the current safety net. all those with low income are eligible. but the other strings that could or should connect to the afraid of fraying. the most vulnerable groups including children, poor families, undocumented immigrants, even some victims of crime and abuse and some workers are somewhere in the middle of the deserving and undeserving. and in some times in some places, they may be considered deserving enough to receive help, but not everywhere all the time. and for the vast majority in the u.s., the safety net is clearly

frayed. health care, financial support, quality education, safe environment, fair social justice and economic opportunity are available by not universally available. and finding help when one is in crisis is often a major challenge. both for the individuals who are in need and for the agencies and organizations that are trying to help them. so as a nation, i would say we have much to be proud of. and in the way that social protections are made available to members of our society. but to truly repair the safety net, we need to try up the frayed end, but to do it within and not outside the shared values that we have. respect for families and individuals, security for all workers, compassion for victims, and an opportunity structure that's accessible to all regardless of income. it's not easy. and it's not cheap. but as a nation, we should make it a high priority.

passage of comprehensive health insurance legislation would go along way to repairing the now frayed and sort of outdated social safety net. also expanding and reforming unemployment insurance and the earned income tax credit. so that those programs cover all workers and not just some workers would also help. but we have many other problems to also address. and we will get to some of those in a minute. hopefully marty will be here to join us. but for now, i hope that an introduction to some of the issues that we address in this book. >> thank you. >> it is a pleasure to be here with them, waiting for marty for the launch of their book. for me, this is much anticipated and waited event. so i managed to order back in 2003 where when the world bank approach, urban institute, and

scholars from western europe to develop a training course for practitioner and policymakers, especially from our middle-income country clients. training course that together with urban institute we put together. and we tried to teach how to protect their poored. and i'm here probably because i share most of the time work withing with marty and demetra on the training events. but the idea of having a training course on the u.s. safety net was coming from my colleague, kathleen. i work on this course with my colleague margaret. and it was a very, very nine experience for us. i will cover three things. i want to be brief. so why this partnership? why world bank with urban institute and the focus on u.s.

safety net. then i will share some stories, how we use the materials in this book and finally discuss what is the value added of this material for people outside the u.s. especially our colleagues and partners in middle-income countries around the world. so you may know that the world bank assists developing countries in setting up or reforming social assistance or welfare for social safety net programs. we use this terms interchangeably. in fact, depending on which area of the world we are, we call social safety net by different names. and why do you ask? well, our middle-income country clients wanted to learn how similar countries are designed and implemented in other countries. and hence, the idea of having

such a training event that will put face to face using video conference practitioners from the u.s. from western europe and from all client countries. among the developed country, u.s. experience in social safety net lent itself as a very interesting object of study for a number of reason. one has a long tradition with social safety nets. but more importantly, it underwent a number of reforms in the recent decades. the welfare reforms, the expansion in the same time span. and unlike many other developing countries, developed countries, in the u.s. there is a large volume of both academic and operational research devoted to social safety net programs. plus, the federal structure of

the united states safety net, the requirement to pilot and to experiment with new ways of serving the target groups. to monitor and evaluate those results, makes the u.s. a unique case from which other countries can learn. so with the world bank, we are simply there to transfer the knowledge. as demetra mentioned, we partnered with them. we basically used their 70 years, 3/4 a century of experience on advicing on how to do safety nets and embark on this and having a training course on safety net. :

and not surprisingly we had to focus our training, our course on how basically to protect the low income family against the effect of inclement weather. something like housing and heating subsidies, with the main step in that region and in

siberia. out of that safety net that we and the world lank paid for urban institute with me lending the hat to martí which came totally unprepared for the safety and whether. what is the value added of the united states safety net for the middle income countries? topics that were in high demand than generated high interest among our clients were first of all understanding the rationale behind the safety net in the united states, getting a sense of the design parameters, but also on the implementation where there was a little thirst of -- for information on how in this

country you implement safety net programs. and also topics like how to organize a safety net programs antifederalists setting are very important for brazil to russia for example. how programs are monitored on the issue of accountability, measuring and using the level of fraud. all these subjects were of high interest. while learning about the united states safety net programs, our clients would have to adapt ideas that they may borrow from the united states to their own country settings. in this process of adaptation brings a lot of excitement for us practitioner and the world bank when we accompany clients

government or client partner from a developing country in this process of feeding a principle to their own country settings. and i would do just an example to illustrate this point. so one of the principles that demetra mentioned. so for the low income households, which is one of the key principles in the united states safety net -- it is -- it is so ingrained in our culture and here is based on targeting on the basis of the income and assets of an applicant, identified low income households while many of our client countries and many of our client countries in which they inform effect your is very high.

this type of identifying low income household is not a possibility. so alternative to eat has to be developed. so inth informal fact there is large, low income households are identified using approximate instruments which is basically predicting the level of conception of income on the baseless as some observable characteristics of the household like the quality of the dwelling, the number of the assets, the education of the family members and so on. so is this adaptation that somehow makes this transfer of experience in the unsuccessful from the united states to the other countries. and i will end up saying that

having this book a sickly will facilitate further this transfer from experience from the united states to the other countries and i am very happy to be here with the authors up for the special moments. >> since marty's train is delayed, demetra is going to summarizer presentation for us. >> a couple of hours ago when the train had a disruption, i guess that's the right word, marty did call so she passed on her comments and i will now give them to you. the social safety net depends on an exceedingly complex structure of programs and policies. and in your folders i think it's called figure 6.1 it shows the many roots by which the funding comes down from the federal level and eventually gets to people in need. i'm not going to go through it

step by step amah but it's important to look at those different routes. each of which reflect a different value position that was dominant in different eras in the united states depending on when various programs were developed. so for example, when a goal of equality is high on the list, policies tend to be more federal and more uniform. and so social security, food stamps, and medicare are examples of those more federal uniform policies. if a program or policy is he developed at a time when there is a major goal to reduce the role of the federal government or the size of the federal government, which was true in the 1980's, the goal is to devolve decision-making and administration from the federal level down to lower levels. and then you wind up getting

policies like the current welfare system, the temporary assistance for needy families, and workforce development. if on the other hand, program or policies being developed by congress at the national level at a time when there's distrust of state and local government, but more trust in the federal government, perhaps like in the 60's during the war on poverty, then you may see more federal control of programs, but devolution down to the local level. community action agencies, public health centers are examples of those. the depending on when a policy or program is enacted in congress, the philosophies, the values that are dominant at that particular time heavily influence the structure of the programs. nevertheless, the things that affect people the most are largely local lake schools over which federal policy has almost no control.

the same complexity happens in terms of which sect errs should work with people, whether it should be the government, the public sector, or the nonprofit sect there or the business, the private sector. each of these has some good things about them and they have some difficulties. although usually the relative strengths of the public versus the private versus nonprofit sector are ignored and policymaking due to the dominance of ideology. so what's the government got? the government is good at standard setting and policy-setting. so the more standardized a policy is, the government is a very good place for those decisions. businesses are good at job training. most job training in the u.s. is done through private businesses. and if economy of scale is important or technology, then perhaps the business that are as

a good partner in the social safety net. nonprofit organizations are major players in the social safety net in the u.s. they are particularly good for us case management services, service delivery, and doing things and providing benefits and services that one might not expect to make a profit from. so dealing with the most difficult and troubled populations often nonprofits play a major role. for each of these sectors, there is some risks of abuses from excessive rigidity and some government programs to access the acidity excessive flexibility in some programs to examples, average they might be, about right bribery. and one of the stories that marty had in her notes was one of a judge who was being paid or

bribed to convict youth offenders and send them to institutions who would benefit from government contracts. too often values and ideology then drive the decisions about who does watch rather than what's the best way to go in a particular program. the fact is that in the u.s. policies do an embarrassingly bad job at the matcher goals of the social safety net. reducing poverty among poverty and children, the u.s. ranks 20th or 21st out of 23 industrial countries good as far as infant mortality we rank 21 out of 23 countries. only russia and mexico are worse. wi-fi% of youth don't get high school diploma in the u.s. and huge numbers of young men are in

prison. we can't waste these resources. we have to shift from the survival of the fittest mentality to one of surveying national interests, which provides sports to ensure that the entire population has the chance to reach its full potential. so what can we do to retrieve the supports to recapture the resources that are being wasted and to repair the social safety net lives marty has three areas here. one is focused on equality of opportunity. long-term investing in education and not just giving schools what they've always gotten, but insisting on real outcomes that children are learning to read, that have the mouse and science abilities that we need as a nation and that are prepared for their lives. investing in human capital, both for youth and for adults and

invest in neighborhoods. the second category is to focus on programs and policies for individuals and people who can work, the employable europe for they are to improve the social safety net we need health care insurance for all, childcare, tuition assistance expanded, food and housing subsidies greater than what we have today. provide eit see up to 200% of poverty and to expand from our comprehensive countercyclical policies during periods of recession like we have today. and the third category that she identifies is for policy -- to improve policies for people with vulnerabilities. this should absolutely be the main priority of any country's social safety net. here we need more investment in health and mental health care, housing, nutrition, and wraparound services to allow the

seamless integration of services for people who need them from one point to the next in their lives. the characteristics of the people who become homeless, for example, and living on the street is an indictment of the failure of the systems for people with former abilities. can we afford not to make these commitments in the 21st century? marty says no we can't as a nation and we need to make the commitment to invest, to improve the well-being for all members of our society. >> thank you, demetra. one quick correction before we turn to rhonda. bob introduced them as a key player in the 1996 welfare debate. he was the key player in the 1996 welfare debate. >> this is jason's attempt to get in deep do do with this audience. besides that the most thing i did was hold clay shaw's pen. i've had to thought since i walked in this room which is

really quite remarkable. some of you may remember that he pointed out that conservatives had no thoughts. there's something that he called in her murmurs. so i have to enter murmurs. the first one is that demetra and marty and jason are fortunate that we did not know the guy from florida that had the idea of a 30 day time limit. we got in a lot of trouble for five years. if we bought a 30 days we might not have done that. so that might've been even worse. a second inning is that demetra you need a new editor. no sane person would walk into his room under room and admit to having three quarters of a century of experience. you are old, demetra. glass mac will never be on twitter at this rate. three quarters of a century. i actually liked this writing a

lot. they're lots of interesting things in my very favorite is chapter seven which has lots of information about policy analysis and data. it has a section on national data sets that is absolutely exquisite of. is the best short name i've seen tell about cps and several other national data sets and when they begin how they collected the data, what information you could get. and then the other thing that i've been in that chapter that is even more useful is a series of examples i think 12 or 13 of how the data sets became the useful for policymakers. this is the ultimate meaning of concrete about what policy analysis means. and there's even a section there on the affects of welfare reform which is not too bad. all right. that's it i'm not going to say anything else good about the book. so now let me talk about some problems. the first one is i don't think the book gives anything like

inaccurate idea of how huge our safety net is and how much it has grown. as a wonderful series that crs puts out and haven't updated since 2004 but unfortunate lead they have been working on it for two years. but through 2004, they began in 1960, roughly 85 programs divided into eight different categories like medical aid, nutrition, education and so forth. and over that period in constant dollars spending on that program increased from 88.8 billion to 583.3 billion. that's a 650% increase in constant dollars. now the readers from foreign countries would not know that our system had grown that much. something must've been going on during that period that americans were decidedly better pay more attention to social issues and do something. i'm not making that argument but i'm just saying it's a huge growth. and even compare to the growth

of population and still on a per capita basis and increased by a dirt so that's a huge increase. any new and very good programs such as the tax credit, the child tax credit medicaid, major changes in medicaid to make it easier for virtual all kids under 200% of poverty have been entitled to health care. we've done a lot of good names with our system and have improved greatly. the second thing is that i'm not singling as the authors were about these programs. i think the evidence that our programs have the impact for which they were intended is extremely weak. for example, they say the impact program, the minnesota family investment program and increased work and even for a while seem to have been in contact which made a lot of sense turned out

in the long run this didn't turn out. but this was implemented by probably the best one of the two or three best social service programs in the country. the idea of implementing it in other states, someday may run for office are not going to mention the states but if i were mississippi would come to mind. there are too many workers there. they just could not implement a program that requires a lot of implementation. the new health program and the walk is a spectacular program that has a lot of affection on the kids but it's a very small program again implement it with lots of resources amateur menace local commitments. i think probably you can argue that new hope that more local commitment than any program in the country, certainly any program i knew about. they also mention success for all which again is a very impressive program a public school program but whether it can be replicated and whether it were evaluated by people who are now associated with the program maybe wouldn't come out quite

dashed so anyway there are problems with all of these -- all of these programs that they mentioned and i'm not sure our social safety net produces the impacts for which it was intended. the third inning far more serious from the previous two is there is not enough emphasis on responsibility in this book. but really we are just not going to solve poverty in this country most people behave more responsibly. if we had the same marriage rate today as we had in 1970 and you can determine this by selecting males and females at random based on race and education from the cps, our poverty rate would fall by almost 30% without any new government programs or any other changes. now why is our marriage rate falling? i don't think anybody understands but it ought to be a focus of public policy. the president is rectangular with his father's day speech and he said all the right things are never mentioned marriage.

how can that be? his whole point is that fathers need to be committed to their children to see their children and people don't work in this area including jason i think would be forced to admit that unless the father lives of the children and lives with the children's mother is very very difficult to compete because both the mother and the father want the relationships and so forth. so individual responsibility is a huge part of this and similarly with work. i think you're a message that we learned very clearly and and a given u2 figures that will show this and i'll talk about it just for one second. unless we have more work, we also will not solve poverty. there was no way in our lifetime or in god's lifetime for that matter that the united states congress and the president, republican, democrat, especially given our financial situation are going to double were for benefits the people can collect welfare and live on poverty. just reflect on that for a minute. it follows on that the liberals and conservatives who believe in

solving poverty and giving people equal opportunity have to teach responsibility. they have to tell people you must work. there's no way around it. you have to work and we have to focus on that. they make a very good point in this book that much of our system is focused on work, but i think the focus blurs quite a bit with a number of our programs. food stamps and housing for example have virtually no work requirements. we have very strong evidence at least equal evidence of the mentioned before that they cite from the jobs plus demonstration that you could really substantially increase work rates and reduce poverty by having work programs associated with our housing programs and yet we have a miserable, lousy virtually nonexistent work requirement in our housing program. we have to work requirements in the food stamp program that are completely observed in breach. so we allow all these people to get benefits without saying you absolutely have to work to do it. and now if you insert at this point the realization that without work they're never going to escape poverty, that looks like a serious flaw in our

social prod blown -- social safety net. the last point i want to make about things i wish were in the boat is that we have had a dramatic success that a lot of people are reluctant to admit i think with welfare reform. i give you a chart that showed the increase in work. this is not people looking for jobs here this is people that had work and especially on never married mothers a 44% increase over a five-year period in all never married mothers of the ruinous audience knows these are the most likely to be on welfare. and this 44% i realize correlation is not causation but this 44% increase was correlated with an actual decline over those years in collection of welfare benefits defined broadly as housing, food stamps and so forth. in a dramatic increase in earnings plus the earned income tax credit which led to about a

25% increase in total income for those households. simultaneously the child poverty rate fell more than it had fallen since the 60's and early 70's. and lack child poverty and poverty among female children reach the lowest level when they were declining. the work is really a key area of want to solve poverty, work has got to be a central part of it. but another part of it has got to be the work support system and the book does do a good job of talking about the work support system. these are programs that we have either created out of whole cloth or is modified so that working families can get benefits from the program. eitc is the most notable of these programs with the child tax credit. we made a lot of changes in medicaid. we made a whole bunch of changes in the farmingdale in 2004 to make food stamps easier to get for working families and it has worked very well if you want a taste for a graduate seminar and how public policy can work that

would be a textbook case. so we've done a lot to this is probably the single most successful than was done either didn't give increase social security benefits for the elderly to reduce poverty in the united states. and stelter 2008 the poverty rate even despite the recession was still lower among female headed families and black children than it was before welfare reform. so were doing some things right and obviously have focused on that more in the book and i think there's a lesson there for all countries, not just the united states. and finally, before closing i want to admit to a serious problem that we have but i think has its origin in 1966 welfare reform legislation and that is the performance in the current recession has been crummy. there is a chart that i included that shows you a romance in food stamps. the first application for benefits for the unemployment insurance program and the unemployment rate.

and as you see the unemployment goes up, food stamps go up here this is a perfect response of a safety net program in the recession should increase with an implant goes up in the same thing happened with unemployment insurance or perhaps even too much and some people's estimation. but look at the bottom graph. it hardly increase at all. in may of increase in the last year, we don't know for sure. this is not exactly the fault of the original bill. in the original bill we have several provisions we actually heard of recessions when we drafted legislation about a number of provisions to help states and a recession including a 2 billion-dollar contingency fund, but the state didn't use it very much. and even the democrats put in a 5 billion-dollar what amounts to a contingency fund. it's different than the one in the original bill but that the total pool of $7 billion for state to draw from and yet they didn't try very much from it. he may be doing better now. next year welfare will be we authorized my way of thinking

they should be number one or number two item on the agenda to figure out why it is not more responsive during a recession. it could have to do with the state that had to put up programs. but we need to look into this. we need a cash welfare program that does respond during a recession and is to be another important lesson i think that should have been covered in the book. so thank you. it's an excellent book and i'm glad i had a chance to read and highly recommend it to everybody in this audience. thanks. >> thanks. were running a little bit behind so i'm going to limit my moderators prerogative to just one question but i would like to know from either demetra or emil or perhaps both what strikes for and middle income audiences about the safety net in the united states? is there a common theme of something that surprisingly is either exceedingly generous, exceedingly stringent? what do the people in your life think of us?

>> one of -- a lot of the questions that we get have to do with how we evaluate programs, accountability and quality control. so they are very interested in our systems of accountability monitoring, that we have developed. and i think that a lot of administration and others countries are surprised that we are as technologically sophisticated -- assuming to get along the generous non-continuous that people are surprised there is as much support for education or that there is not more support for cash or medical safety net? >> they usually know that we don't have a full health safety net. because that is sort of known around the world. as a little surprise about the limited coverage of unemployment insurance for workers and that we usually do hear something

about. >> so i would just say that it is quite difficult in one week training course to get this idea of relative generosity investment in that country because you have to convert everything from dollars to their currency and wages and reporting benefits to wages. that doesn't come up. >> is there some element that they would g. we would never want that much risk in our country. we would never want or we would want that much opportunity? is there some set of values -- >> actually, my reaction in talking to people from other countries and i know there are some here from other countries as well is that i was struck by the similarities of rough countries. the similarities in values and social values. so for example, in many countries when we would say,

what's the biggest problem that you have in russia for example in the demonstrators said it was the serious concerns about kids aging out of their orphanages. that sounds familiar to one of the biggest problems that we have here with kids, high risk kids out of foster care. issues around women with children, around problems with the substance abuse and domestic violence. so a lot of the similarities are what struck me more than the differences. and we were not necessarily holding out the united states as a model, nor were we saying the united states has done everything wrong and you shouldn't do what we do. so that the implementation issues are what seem to be striking a lot of questions with them and they were very interested to learn more about how we in this country implement some of the programs and how we

adapt when problems are identified. .. >> in perceptions of the fairness and why are people poor. in the u.s. where you have a model of individual mobility and everyone believes in the individual effort, about two-thirds of the population,

according to the surverys, believe that the poor are poor because they are essentially lazy. they're not making the effort they need. that is from the world values survey. whereas in europe they believe the poor are poor because of the process of historical exclusion in the u.s. our welfare system does have a lot of emphasis on work. in latin america the emphasis is in trying to break the intergenerational transmission of poverty through linking to health and education conditions, trying to get the poor out of that process of exclusion and get more connected to social services for their children for the next generation through conditional cash transfers. or in western europe where the emphasis also is on work, trying

to get people included in the workforce through more work support, activation programs, training, job readiness, etc., and a bit less on the work requirements, if you don't work rearguard we're going to punish. so is a difference of philosophy coming from those different attitudes in society. two-thirds of the population believe the poor are poor due to a process exclusion. the u.s. laziness. resolutions coming out of this different values. another thing is this issue of implementation. one of the things is my colleagues in brazil were very surprised that the u.s. does not have a national registry. there is no way to track across states. there is individual stage registries. the brazilians were saying, how

come they don't have a national registry in the u.s.? the federal system. they definitely made an effort to have a national registry in brazil to track, and as people move that registry gets updated. we don't have that here. a lot of interest in this implementation details. for the better or worse some of the things the u.s. does do well is link some of the automated cross checks to get at the formal income. so from the welfare databases with the social security linking to other databases to try to cross check. that is quite interesting, some of the it solutions and registries, but there is no national registry. just some reflections from the world bankers. by the way, i was actually very keen on your point about the response in crisis because we are tracking that also in other countries. i'm really keen to track what is

happening. thanks for sharing that. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] in the front row. mic is coming. yes. >> this question is for ron. there is a view out there that the kind of downturn we are in right now is not the garden-variety downturn. a lot of excess capacity. too much debt. people can't borrow. with your emphasis on work when you have six people looking for every open position and people having a difficult time finding work, more difficult than a time during the postwar period, how do you feel about this extension of unemployment compensation that can go into a year, sometimes up to two years? and what are we spending on training for skilled positions

relative to unemployment and so forth across the country? >> if i had complete control i don't think i would have unemployment benefits for a year. for one thing, if you are an economist you would say it might have an impact recovery because the state is going to have to repay a huge amount of money that people here who follow unemployment insurance probably remember michigan, they took forever to pay off their debt. they had to keep, you know, keep emptying their trust fund. the trust fund was virtually empty. at some point someone has got to pay for it. there is no way the government can make recession payments. we have done a fairly good job, especially food stamps and unemployment insurance, plus the stimulus bill. so i think the government has arrested bonded appropriately. that is why i am concerned. it is so out of line. i don't think i would go so far as to have a year's worth of

unemployment benefits. i would rather have broader coverage and more people covered than cover people for a year. as for training, we have a long history of people here. you all know more about training programs that i do. my view after reading god knows how many reviews is that i am not as optimistic even as harry is. i think the training programs we have not gotten what we invested. it is had an impact. for males, not females. but also it has increased marriage rates. so most programs have not done that. if we have long-term follow-up the results are in fairly modest. of course, the critics say our spending has been fairly modest, but that is certainly not true of the job corps. training programs, i would keep trying. demonstration programs that

support. but i am not optimistic of the work. as for the long-term prospects for employment and jobs, i am worried about that. my parents raised during a recession. they used to tell me all kinds of colorful stories. i was born, admonished youth are talking about age. anyways, i was close enough to the great depression to understand and feel that when you face unemployment that is really, really a problem. i realize that if we don't have the jobs the strategy will not work. but then i comfort myself by thinking the american economy has always come back. there is no reason to think that it won't come back this time. let's watch it. let's keep an eye on it. let's have an open mind. clearly if we do not have an abundance of low-wage jobs in our economy the strategy of emphasizing work and requiring work has to be modified.

>> a response. >> if i could just add one point there. i agree with ron, and his comments were an eloquent example of the shared values of the u.s. about work and the centrality of work. so thank you for saying that. i agree that we should emphasize work more. one of the things, i don't know if james sterle is in here today. another urbanistic book that we wrote "the government we deserve" looked at the long-term trends in employment, to what extent is the current situation different than what we have historically had. and what many of the economists have identified is that the unusual but uniqueness of the u.s. economic trends was really the post-world war ii era where we had sort of unusually strong economic growth over a sustained

period time. and since the mid-1970s the trajectory, the trends have returned to the trends from before the world war ii era. so while i agree with ron that certainly the economy is going to have rebound, it is not likely to rebound to the way it was in the early post-world war ii era, and we still are in the middle of a major structural transformation in the economy. that said, i think we need, as a nation, a more serious discussion of the government as an employer of last resort in the new economy. so ron mentioned the great depression. i'm not saying we necessarily need a wpa-type work jobs program. but if, in fact, as a shared value the nation holds the importance of work and the currents or near-future

structure of the economy is such that not everybody will be allowed to find a job all the time, maybe we need to think more seriously about public employment as a guaranteed job to reinforce the value and the importance of work in the new economy. >> does the severity of the recession leave your open to the possibility of public jobs? >> yes. to me, work experience is essentially public jobs. they give you money through the welfare program in exchange for working. it was a kind of public employment. republicans have always supported that. that was really the vision for welfare reform. nobody had any idea. a lot of republicans thought they weren't all these jobs out there, low-wage jobs. there were. so people left welfare for low-wage jobs. so that would be a far better alternative than having people collect welfare checks year after year.

>> they are not collecting welfare checks either, according to your chart. >> i know. i'm not defending the current system. i am saying that if unemployment -- let's say we come out of this recession and 8% unemployment is typical. it's much harder for low-wage workers to find a job. we have two alternatives. we can either dip up some government jobs or some way of government paying a salary for doing some work or we can pay people. i prefer the latter. >> and i'm not suggesting that we need government jobs. we need government-subsidized jobs. to get to your other point about training, while we do know that a while a lot of training programs have not had a positive impact, the ones that have had the most positive impact of the ones that are work-related, occupationally specific, employer involved, and some of the subsidized employment programs that work experience

from the '70's. so the highest net return that we have are the ones that are real work, not make work. >> to some extent it strikes me that you are talking passed each other a little bit. >> really? >> ron said that he was confident that our programs met the goals that they were supposed to. i think part of the problem is there is not a clear definition of what the goal is. if you will permit me another brief. visited the apartment of a woman who had a disabled toddler, very disabled toddler. she had a housing subsidy. she had medicaid. she was living in a terrible squalor and destitution and roaches and clutter and stuff she had scavenged off the side of the road. you could look at her situation as an example of a terrible failure in that she was left in

great need and hardship and not a lot of dignity, or you could say that she at least had medical care and a place to live. since each of those programs was serving, meeting its limited need, if not satisfying a vision of mobility or uplift that we would all hope for. so is medicaid working in that situation? well, it depends on what you think the goal, what you would define as working. >> well, if she gets food stamps, certainly the child will be covered by medicaid. and she probably -- >> she was. she is an example of what you're saying. a very generous other programs. on the other hand you look at that and say, gee, look at what the government is doing. gee, look at how terrible the

situation is. >> i can see why she would say that. i'm not going to trash her for saying that. i'm coming to say the government is doing a lot. the community has responsibilities. the state has its possibilities. church, family. should not all fall on the government. the government is doing a tremendous amount. >> the social safety net. i said this at the beginning. it is more than just income. what ron is talking about is certainly an important part, and the income supports are important. but we need more than just income. >> her grandmother was helping. a very patient man in the second to last row. thank you for your patience. >> i am victor stone. this is related a little bit to the very last discussion you just had. that is whether or not any of you would want to opine whether the difference in the postwar period compared to what happened after the '70's had to do with a

unique kind of government employment that we don't see anymore, and that is a military draft. when young people got out of high school and were immature and had no job, many of them very much profited by two years in military service or learned some discipline. some of them learned a skill. some of them just stayed in the military because there was no alternative. they left certain communities. they grew up where there were no jobs. i wonder whether you think that instead of throwing money at job programs, many of which we have trouble figuring out if they're work, that possibly, you know, in large the corp of army engineers is affecting the way.

>> i should contextualize ron's response by noting i think he is the only ex-marine on our panel. [laughter] >> i could go for that. i have spent, the last two years i have spent a total of a month or something like that which makes me a great expert on israel. they have a national service that is not just military. that is a primary part of it. we talked about that in the united states and have expanded some of these programs. there also is a program we have, it is early, but the challenge program. it may not be exact. national guard youth challenge. that has an impact on the kids as well, at least on their ged acquisition and maybe a few other impacts. so i think discipline is a big part of this. if the military knows something that our public schools and now about how to discipline young men and women.

on the other hand, america's values are such that i think the possibility of a national draft, especially for the military, even in the republican congress i don't think it would pass. but a national service where you had choices, maybe that could pass. it would cost a lot of money. the concept of it is very solid. >> yes. >> back row. need a mic? >> hi, i am janet. i know, demetra, you have called for a commitment to international poverty. i am wondering how you define poverty and what your view is the longstanding and much-needed recommendations to improve how we measure poverty. >> we do have at least one chapter, more than one chapter on that in the book. and i think that emil touched on it a little bit.

we are, as a nation, primarily measuring poverty based on income quantitative measures. one thing that i think we could do is to expand that with some other kinds of well-being or consumption measures drawing from some of the analysis that other countries are doing as well. but certainly the base standard of poverty, and we now have many, many different measures of poverty that are there, are than just income. so at a minimum we should have a dialogue about incorporating in kind, non-income benefits, and also some consumption measures as well to raise, sort of, the floor of what we consider acceptable in the modern u.s. society. emil, did you want to say something? >> i want to go back to

something that kathy was saying earlier about the reactions of people. how often do you -- i have done a little bit of overseas reporting. typically i find they are surprised to learn that there are poor people in the united states and can't imagine why. many of them have spent years and years trying to figure out how to get into the united states and think of it as a land of opportunity. did you get that a lot from people >> we get the question what is to be poor in the united states. one can explain that poverty is relative across country, and there are people living which are relatively poor in the united states.

but in absolute terms probably they would not be considered poor in other countries. >> but our people puzzled that there are large numbers of people who are unable to access what opportunity structure exists in the united states? >> yes, there would be. >> i think there are some that are surprised, but a most of the people who are in positions where they are administering or programs are delivering services, the world is becoming a smaller place. it is not that the u.s. is such a big mysterious place that nobody knows anything that is happening here. i think that the word is out that we have problems. they know about gun violence. we hear discussions about urban violence and issues of that tide. i think there is a bit of surprise that the federal government and the u.s. is not as a bald and education.

there is so much local control of the schools. i think that is what often a surprise even so to our educated and aware of u.s. policies and culture. >> to you think the u.s. safety net would be more generous if the united states was less multi-cultural? if there was less racial and ethnic diversity? have more generous provision? >> there are books written on that. [laughter] >> you probably wrote them. >> i'm going to let emil handle that because some of their writings at the world bank have addressed that. >> i will respond by just deflecting it. there is a comparative study done by professors at mit.

looking at not the social safety net as defined in this book, but at the whole world and the united states and western europe. one of the elements, one of the correlations that they find in the higher generosity in western europe. so it matters. >> the data says that it does make a difference. should we look at states, states with high minority populations have lower benefits in general. it is a factor. i would point out it is one of many factors. i don't think it is determinative. it is unfortunate. there could be other explanations. to the extent, obviously we don't want to base our social policy at a federal or state level on ethnic preferences. >> one of the controversial issues with that thesis is that

some of the scholars conclude that because of both the diversity and the historic discrimination that there isn't much hope for the future and the u.s. i think there many of us would disagree with that. it seems that each generation is changing in terms of the openness for acceptance of some of that diversity. and certainly the current administration led by president obama will have a major affect, i think, changing some of the underlying cultural parameters that have defined us as a nation. so while emil correctly, sort

of, summarized i think that the conclusions are not as conclusive. i am more optimistic. >> need a mic up in the front row. here in the green sweater. front row. thanks. >> hi. my name is robert gordon. i am case manager. i was just wondering if any of you can touch on prevention. there has been a lot of talk about people who are in crisis. to what extent do your policies focus on prevention of homelessness? >> prevention of homelessness or poverty more generally?

>> poverty more in general than anything else. >> marty is the nation's experts in that, maybe the world expert now in that, and she is not here. she would do a much better job at it than i would, but let me take a crack at answering. i think that one of the points that marty makes is that much of the problem that arises today in the area of homelessness are problems that could have been minimized with more of an investment up front or at younger ages around health, mental health, counseling, and investment in developing integrated services for continuum of care, both throughout a lifetime and across the different services that might be needed. so by more investment up front

you could minimize, sort of, the damaging effects of long-term homelessness, chronic mental illness, and drug abuse. and around that, sort of, investing in populations that are at high-risk at young ages. investing in children at high risk of difficulties related to criminal activity, criminal engagement, and risk of the substance abuse at young ages and affording them educational and employment preparation and opportunities at young ages would minimize the need. so i think marty's answer to that would be more early investment and prevention would minimize the severity of the crisis of homelessness to begin with. and certainly more investment

for the neighborhood revitalization and environmental issues and the brick-and-mortar need for housing and housing assistance along with that. >> ron has a quick question as we wait for the microphone to migrate over to the woman. that is our last question. ron has a quick comment. excuse me. >> prevention in a magnificent new book called "creating opportunity in society." there is an analysis, a very complex set of rules. here is what they are. graduate from high school. get a job full-time. get married. have children. if you follow that sequence, you will have a 2% chance of being in poverty and a 70% chance of being in a middle-class. if you don't follow any of those rules you will have a 74% chance of being in poverty and a 7%

chance of being in the middle class. >> ma'am. >> i am ann crittendon, a writer here in washington. this leads right to my question. the investment in early childhood, not just in the policy of population, but in just simply basic, good, early education leads to the kinds of life choices that you're, you know that we want to see people make. what as always amazed me though is that when we talk about this current crisis, investing in infrastructure, i hear much more about roads and bridges than i do about kids. and i have never heard, i would love to get your reaction on why not, the amount of jobs that it would create to have a comprehensive early-education system in this country. i can't imagine a better job program in a worthwhile way. why is that link not being made?

>> we spend about $26 billion on preschool children. the amount until very recently was going up pretty nicely. it is still going up at the state level. so we are moving in that direction. i agree with you it would be a good investment, but there is a very big problem, which is the small-scale programs that produce spectacular results. the large-scale programs, the results are much more controversial. there is no denying the results are much smaller and some reason to think they are really small. >> i would also take it one step further and say that that kind of an investment in those occupations also should be accompanied by increasing the wages to the workers in those sectors. [applauding] >> thank you all for coming. thank you for hosting. thank you. [applauding]

[inaudible conversations] >> two more senators announced they will not seek reelection this year. david hockings joins us to talk about the announcements by democrats chris dodd and byron dorgan. first chris dodd of connecticut, why did he said that he will be retiring from the senate? >> well, what he said is actually less important than what is really true about chris dodd's political future. it was fading fast. chris dodd had one of the most

remarkable declines in popularity of many senior democrat in modern american history. he had gone from a virtual institution in connecticut to probably the most absolutely endangered democrat on the ballot among all the senate democrats. he had had a remarkable decline that paradoxically began when he decided to run for president in 2008 and actually thought he was politically safe in moving his family from connecticut to iowa. that started the voters of connecticut getting a bit annoyed with him. his sticking up for the insurance agency has been perceived fairly or unfairly and sticking up for big bonuses. all of these things have combined to really put his career very much on the line.

the republicans at this hour have two viable candidates that were running against chris dodd. one is rob simmons who lost narrowly a few years ago. the other is lynne mcmahon and a former executive of the world wrestling federation, soared above by the bootstraps executive who said she's willing to spend $30 million of her own money on the race. there's also an open governor's race in connecticut however so one of those two might decide that they'd rather run for

governor. the connecticut politics are as mixed up as they've ever been. >> to north dakota byron dorgan said he will step down at the end of his terms. what were his reasons? >> as was much more surprised than chris dodd. are starting to see the handwriting on the wall for the life of a month. byron dorgan was giving every indication that he wanted to run again for a fourth term. with a profile of him in our magazine just a few weeks ago in which he expressed however some frustration with the way things were going in washington and not only the nature of partisanship but the set of whole combative nature of how things have become the core that if he is somewhat a critic of the obama administration so they're focused on health and climate change was misplaced weird they should be focused entirely on jobs. he is a classic sort of populist. he is a young enough man but if he retires now he can have another career. he's written some books. he likes to lecture. he would be obviously well

courted for lobbying soviet lots of different options of one of them. >> so it's north dakota a possible republican pickup? >> it absolutely is. in a sense the two that were talking about today one has gone from leaning for public into likely democrat and this other one from harper lee favored democrat in north dakota to probably republican. the very very popular governor of north dakota a little bit like richard blumenthal has been talked about a senator for candidates for many years. he has never decide to run. he won his own term was 75% of the vote. he was reluctant to take on byron dorgan, but now if the now if the seat opens he will be talked into doing it. >> are you expecting any more surprise announcements, senate retirements? >> i am not but i guess that's a make some surprises. it's getting a little bit late in the political calendar for senators to pull these kind of surprises because it doesn't do your own party any favors if they have to start recruiting

candidates and raising money at this relatively late stage in the calendar. >> and out of the 60 votes for the democrats shape up in 2010? >> i think it is a lover totally safe bet that you reread or his successor or majority leader back in nevada this fall will not have 60 votes to work with. it seems a pretty good prediction that one where the other republicans will pick up at least a couple seats this fall. >> david hawkings, managing editor of cq weekly. thank you for being with us. >> pleasure. >> american icons. three original documentaries from c-span. now available on dvd. a unique journey through the iconic homes of the three branches of american government. see the exquisite detail of the supreme court. go beyond the developer wrote the public tours of the white house, america's most famous home and explore the history, arts, and architecture of the capital. american icon, a three disc dvd

set. it's $24.95 plus shipping and handling. one of the many items available at c-span.org/store. c-span earlier this morning british prime minister gordon brown outlined air security measures following the attempted christmas day airline bombing. conservative leader david cameron questioned a government effort on controlling public debt and finances. from london, this is 35 minutes. >> questions to the prime minister? mr. prime donahue. >> mr. speaker, before listing my engagements i'm sure that the whole house will wish to join me in paying tribute to the soldiers who have lost their lives in afghanistan since the house last night. there are from three engineer regiment disposal of the david's. from second battalion of the lancaster regiment captain

simon. from first battalion the royal angrily private robert hays. from the parachute regiment lance corporal tommy brown. and third battalion, the rifles lance corporal christopher bruni, riflemen ate and how. and from fourth regiment military police lance corporal michael pressured. our thoughts are with the families and friends who can't be rightly proud of the courage and dedication and bravery of the sacrifice that has been shown by these men and that sacrifice will never be forgotten. we have been reminded once again for the house last night that there are those who seek to harmonize with terrorist incidents. we must remain vigilant and ever grateful to all those serving in afghanistan and around the world, working for the safety of the british people. mr. speaker, i know the house will also want me to join in sending our condolences to the wife and children of david taylor was suddenly died.

he was a tremendous constituency member of parliament who thoroughly deserved accolade of back adventure of his tireless work and the people of north west leicestershire. he will be greatly missed, not only by his family who are here in the house today but my colleagues here at westminster and by all his constituents. mr. speaker, this morning i meet with colleagues and others in addition to my duties in the house i've further duties later today. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i would of course endorse all of my honorable offensive and those with given their sacrifice of dying for the country fading in afghanistan. i'd also want to see something of of those who have died as a result of taking haraway and in the of scotland all harvested in afghanistan and also we're going to pay tribute to my honorable friend and comrade david taylor

who said in the house assiduously and gave his all in the constituency as well. if i may, mr. speaker, my great honorable friend give us an update on the association regarding the terrorist incident on the plane traveling between people in amsterdam and detroit. >> i think the whole house will echo what he says about the damage that is done in our country by joss from afghanistan. i would be happy to talk about these issues. since the christmas day incident in detroit we have the home secretary ported to the south yesterday taken a number of factions in key areas. on aviation security the first to redo generation of whole body scanners will be within a few weeks and then over time in airports across the united kingdom. while the person who is involved in the detroit incident was refused a visa and was not on a watchlist, it was our watch list

we are nevertheless reviewing and enhancing our watchlist arrangements and given the changing security nature i've asked the cabinet secretary to ensure that any lessons learned from recent events should be considered and whether we can further and better coordinate and integrate the work of the intelligence services and the service that is available to us from them. >> david cameron. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i join the prime minister in paying tribute to the seven servicemen lost their license the last questions. private robert hayes, watson, riflemen adan howell, lance corporal tommy brown on a lance corporal cristal raley, lance corporal michael prichard and corporal simon homing. they died serving our country and we must always honor them and look after their families. i also join the prime minister in paying tribute to david taylor and his contribution to public service. we too send our condolences to his wife and children.

he was diligent, defense, and determined. as one of the jury put it at that billy only he was that rare thing amongst politicians, someone who was lights tenderhearted equally by his constituents, parliamentary colleagues and his political opponents. and he will be sadly missed. this year the government will have to borrow 178 elegant pounds. yesterday one of the largest holders of debt warned that british debt is likely to be downgraded to the oecd, the cbi and the bank of england has all warned there is no proper plan to deal with this deficit. why does the prime minister think that all these people take that view? >> first of all, mr. speaker, let us put this in context. the debts of every country has risen as a result of a global financial recession. and that in britain is actually lower as a percentage of national income than america is

more than france and germany, in japan, more than the average for the euro area. so every country faces the difficulty of taking its country out of recession, while at the same time having to develop a deficit reduction plan. i tell at first of all we will not stop the fiscal stimulus before we are out of recession. [cheers and applause] and we will not take his advice and lead the economy without the support that is necessary. and if we had taken his advice, many thousands more would be unemployed and many thousand businesses would be lost. but what we have published as a deficit reduction plan. [booing] and includes raising the top-rated tax. i assume we have our supports. it raises national insurance or that we can find our health and public services are at i assume that he is about to consider that as well. it does not include cutting inheritance tax and costing

1.5 billion for the 3000 richest families in the country. in includes some of the major department but it includes defending the front line service is upheld, of education, and policing. and i must say mr. speaker for interethnic questions about public spending this week when he said it was the year of change. he changed his policy in the morning. he changed his policy in the afternoon and he changed his policy in the evening. >> the prime minister talks about the context, the context is the biggest budget deficit of any advanced economy in the world. let us be clear about what these people say about the government's plans. the cbi said the government's plans are too little too late. the governor of the bank of england that there is no credible plan. the oecd say more ambitious plans would strengthen the recovery. howard davis, demand the prime minister appointed as the head of the financial services

authority said this, the loss of confidence in the government's ability to get the public finances back under control is the major risk facing this country. and he said that after the utterly feeble budget report. the let me ask him again, why does he think all of these people think his plans are so feeble? >> mr. speaker, the government of the bank of england, the very significant policy actions taken in recent months will stimulate a recovery in demand outward and employment. the ins, the uk has shown a lot of leadership -- that is the managing her of the imf. the uk authority to the deep recession has been bold and wide ranging. the aggressive actions for the authorities have been successful in containing the prices and of urging a systemic breakdown. i can go through the oecd in the fiscal stimulus. mr. speaker, comes out of this. if we had taken his advice there

would be no action of unemployment would risen much faster. if we taken his advice to 200,000 small businesses and the benefit would not have benefited. if we had taken his advice would be back to the 90's mortgage misery with repossession. every decision of recession and recovery. that party got robbed. >> the fact days this chancellor is not taken our advice. he said you could only get growth when you deal with the deficit. the prime minister -- the prime minister tells about his fiscal responsibility act. it is completely futile. what is required is not an act of parliament but an act of political will. an act of courage. the man of the prime minister appointed to the bank of england said this about fiscal responsibility act. they are, he said, acts of the fiscally irresponsible to con the public good the prime

minister is so incapable of admitting what everyone knows to be true that there is a need for cuts to be made. on sunday, on sunday he said that the public spending will rise by 9.8% in real terms each year, given that everybody knows the cuts in departmental spending. wasn't that completely disingenuous? >> mr. speaker, the person leading the republic on monday with talking about married couples alone. we set a monday morning one thing amongst the afternoon something different and then the member who floated the policy, the filed leader of the consecutive party said he either the private assurance of 4.9 billion. prime minister speaker if he wishes to reduce the deficit presumably he doesn't want to spend 4.9 billion pounds on married couples alone. he wishes to reduce the deficit

presumably he will go ahead with the tax license were proposing. if he wishes to go with the deficit will go at the proposal which he announces us his only plan. we are reducing the deficit with a plan that includes tax rises, departmental cut and protecting the frontline services. the conservatives would be cutting education services that will be cutting police services, there would be cutting the main services in the country. their policies are a change back to the 1980's. >> cannot just say to members on both sides, we are not on the hustings now. mr. david cameron. >> i wish we were. i wish this prime minister had the courage. i have to say, mr. speaker, what a lot of desperate rubbish.

i thought he might mention marriage. so let me say this to him. the difference between me and the prime minister is this. when i've been across an say i love you, darling. i really mean it. [laughter] the only divorce that's taken place is between this prime minister and reality. let's take his claim. let's take his claim that the spending is going up by 9.8%. isn't the only way he's able to make that is to include into his exquisite capital spending which he is actually cutting in half. isn't that completely disingenuous? >> for him to talk about love and marriage debate when he is the person who cannot give a straight answer on the merits alone.

he can't say i do or i don't. as for the public, would he give us an answer or a straight answer. it's his deficit reduction plan including 4.9 billion to be spent on the married couples alone, 1.5 billion to be spent on inherent tax acts. that's why everybody says there is a 34 billion dollar capitalist proposal. he cannot go around the country promising everything to everyone. he's got to face up to the fact his policies are only fit for opposition, not for government. >> if he wants to turn this around and make a prime minister's questions get on and call the election. that would be all the time in the world to kiss and make up because the fact is this

government is now deeply divided grade ever knows the chancellor wanted to reduce the deficit more quickly. everyone knows the business secretary goes around privately attacking the pvr is a complete failure and perhaps the prime minister could name one backbencher on the labor side which stood up and spoke for his bill last night. not a single one. not one. doesn't he understand that a divided party without a proper plan is putting britain's recovery of risk here it isn't that the height of irresponsibility and why is he always incapable of doing the right thing? [inaudible shouting] >> mr. speaker, let me give another example. last night he was asked, are you committed to educational maintenance allowances. what was his answer? let's just say i am not uncommitted to it. [inaudible shouting] he then said well we are in a state of quite severe flunks on this whole area so i can't give you a straight answer.

now it says on the opposition party ready for government. they should go back to the drawing board and think again. [inaudible shouting] >> the appalling state of the public finances in that prime ministers complete inability to have a proper plan showed the greater the credit policies. he is said to years to demonstrate some leadership and he completely failed to do so. he commences business on the financial markets that he can't commences on chancellor. it's no wonder he eats all times and unelected leader completely incapable of convincing the country. [inaudible shouting] >> is going to have to do better than that. he's going to have to answer some questions on policy sometime. we've got it wrong on the nationalization. he got it wrong in the fiscal stimulus for the recovery. he got it wrong on helping the unemployed. he got it wrong in helping homeowners. he got it wrong on small businesses. he got it wrong on every issue of the recession. nobody will trust them, not just

on mirrored couples alone. no one will trust them in the economy at all. [inaudible shouting] >> order a. >> which left 1400 palestinians dead, this siege continues. humanitarian relief is hardly combined and light shatters although there is undoubtedly more columns on both sides. doesn't that agree with me that what is now happening is the collective punishment of a million people. and willie now make representations to siege on gaza as a critical step towards a peace settlement. >> my friend is absolutely right and she speaks for many people on this. we must not forget the people of gaza. i've raised with ryan minister netanyahu to speed up which agent who marries a can get into gaza. we are pressing the government to do more date can and i will

look at exactly the point and see what's more we can do in this new year. in the end, this will require the political settlement between israel and the palestinian state which gives israel security and palestine a viable economic statement it can manage. but in the meantime they must avoid unnecessary suffering. >> mr. nick knight. >> i would select that man into the internals of the family and friends of the brave british soldiers who lost their lives serving afghanistan since the house who lost captain lance corporal michael pritchard, lance corporal christopher rony, lance corporal tommy brown, rifleman aidan, david watson, and private robert hayes. and also i would like to david taylor who sadly died during the christmas weeks. i was once one of the nep service area aiming area and he had a reputation that nos has an outstanding constituency as

someone who always spoke his own vine. my heart goes out to his wife, pam, and his four daughters. mr. speaker, last week in the prime minister said he was all in favor of aspiration. could he explain to us exactly what is aspiration about a tax system which he has created were the poorest 20% pay more from their income in tax than the richest 20%? >> it's because of all the things that we can reduce the tax credit system. the tax credit system is a means by which we take people out of poverty. we reward work for people who are in work and for people who pay income tax it removes their liability by giving them tax credits instead. it is the means by which we bring greater justice, take people out of poverty and i hope he would continue to support the tax credit system which is an essential part of our tax and benefit system in this country.

>> nick clegg hasn't delivered any as it is rules which allow a city banker to pay less tax on their capital gains. he's about to hit millions of average earners with national insurance bills. what is the finance? where is the aspiration in any of that? >> the aspiration is helping people into jobs, giving people the chance to earn a decent living and making sure that the tax system is fair. so presumably he will now support our 50% tax policies of the bank spreadable support reason the top-rated tax to 50%. he will support remiss in the pension tax relief that we are doing as very much part of the deficit reduction plan. what we have tried to do is to say that in these difficult times, as we make changes then the burden has got to be shared fairly and that means those put the broader shoulders are going to pay more. i hope you will agree with that good >> joan wooley.

>> can i bring to the attention the concern i have about a parenthesis age 26 who are in urgent for the young funding they need. in light of the recent national [inaudible] will he do all he can for the system to make sure that the learning and skills the business invasion of skills department and the agency who worked closely with this call is defined in urgent urgent decision so that all apprentices are for fronting? >> it is our intention that even in these difficult times when companies may not be in a position to keep on apprentices that we will find alternative resources of employment for them and make sure that the colleges continue to train them. i will look precisely at the

very issue that you raise. as far as the regeneration program is concerned, the national audit recommendations have been acted on, funding from the regeneration program has always been indicated. they have received 3 million pounds and over half a billion of that has been committed to projects that will train in individuals. so i hope that she will find that some of the amp or is found in the decision of the already made. i will specifically look at the apprentice question. there is 70,000 apprentices in 1977. a quarter million now. no government has done more to revive the apprenticeship and we're not going to let apprenticeships falter this reception. >> with 29% of jobs in the public sector i'm worried about government plans to move public jobs out to the southeast. the chance to respond to a question very kindly said there might be compensator steps. does the prime minister have any positive views about what such steps may be?

>> i do understand the immigration department and its constituency what we are looking at how we can relocate some jobs out of the southeast in a way that will save money and spread employment across the country. the line trivia suggested 20,000 jobs be relocated. that authority happened and were looking out what more we can do. but i think you also understand the work of the london davila agency the work done in london as a means by which we ensure the inspiration of jobs and we are always looking at what we can do to create more jobs in this capital city. >> the cancer treatment weights have been effectively eliminated from our constituency to try to get doctors and nurses to talk. [inaudible] because of the excellent use of more people surviving patients are more prone to health problems any practical advice. what can our friend do to ensure they get this advice and help?

>> the macmillan work is something that is very special in our country and very much appreciated. i believe that the advances we are making in cancer care particularly if people are detected early and protect too early if they can go through the screening process means a lot to plays that would otherwise be lost are being saved. i appreciate there is aftercare and there is considerable aftercare necessary even after many years and i determined that we continue to support it. i would have to say that the best way we can deal with the problems in our country is make sure we do not leave to be guaranteed a you can see a specialist in majorly and move to what is and one we guaranteed you will be diagnosed and given the answers within only seven days. that requires money, determination to spend the money in the right place. we are determined to do it. i hope nobody seeks to abolish them. >> ben wallace. >> given the technologies is vital in allowing us to stay one step ahead of the terrorist threat, why is the government spending our defense research by

22% over the last three years? haven't there been a couple scanners in yet another review a little too little too late? >> ester speaker, we've increased our spending security from a billion in 2001 to more than 3 billion we have increased counterterrorism capability massively in this country as a result of making the right decisions. we've doubled the number of security staff. would've doubled the number of police that are associated with counterterrorism work. we are introducing the keyboard system which is a means by which we can catch those people who are coming into this country here that i don't think anybody has done more to increase the counterterrorism capability in this country and it's right because our first duty as a security of our citizens. [inaudible] what action can my humble friends say he'll be taking in order to keep the momentum up on this absolutely vital task of attacking climate change?

they were able to agree that we should not hand feed the climate change policy that didn't address the problems of rising at temperatures. in the 2% was agreed by all countries. we also have agreement that they will do by 2020 and i generate the 31st. we are pressing for countries to be in a position where they can reduce the amount of gas emissions from the mid 50's in 2022 the mid-40's and there has been greater transparency achieved with every country that we have not yet done the international duty and we have not yet got the announcement from all countries that they support the 50% reduction by 2050. that is what is still to be done and we must now talks while those countries that were rebuffed and to come into these talks with a view of getting a treaty so the treaty is necessary. i think the announcement the

next few days about what we're going to do. >> mr. speaker, during in mind the failure of copenhagen and the current weather cycle which clearly educate a cooling trend [laughter] [crowd shouting] while the prime minister -- will the prime minister -- >> order. the more noise the less progress made. >> will the prime minister reconsider the proposed wasteful expenditure of 100 alien pounds on offshore wind which will be delivering sufficient energy and result in excessively exorbitant charges for electricity users area >> mr. speaker, the idea to take a lead on climate change when they can't even convince their

own backbench what is necessary. mr. speaker, they can't make up their mind about nuclear. now i'm not sure when we are the leading power in the world for offshore wind. we will soon be making announcements that will make it clear that massive numbers of jobs will come as a result of offshore wind. it is a right policy of were going to have 15 renewable by 2020. i cannot understand well the conservative energy policy comes from if they take out nuclear and they take out offshore wind and every conservative local authority is opposing onshore wind as well. they have no policy whatsoever. [crowd shouting] >> thank you mr. speaker. it's now 27 months since people suffered. will the compensation bring in the house of lords. i asked the prime minister what will they do across the hall of governments to address this and when can we expect some progress? >> as he knows they're a meeting of legal advisers to take place in the last few weeks. i think he is part of it in the

next week. i hope to get a broad resolution to what is a very dreadful disease and what we can do about it and also to do with the -- what arises. >> now we face stagflation. what is he going to do about it? >> mr. speaker, if he is suggesting that we are going to have the levels of inflation we have in the conservative years he is completely wrong. inflation is lower in this country. we have kept it low for the last 12 years. the idea that the conservative party are not going to run a campaign thing that inflation is going to be the highest in the world is something quite ridiculous. [crowd shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. given the announcement yesterday to particularly welcome to the field really my constituency and possibly welcome companies like xanax who are at the cutting edge of this technology. can my friend confirm that what

we promote is excellent but also encourage retrofitting which companies like xanax can do and do well? to change that carbon footprint. >> mr. speaker she's absolutely right. it will help 125,000 households and is already showing it is popular and well cut carbon emissions. the retrofitting measures such as installation will play an increasingly important role and i must draw peoples attention also to the fact that cold-weather payments are being made to those people who are affected by the cold weather right across the country in many areas including london from january the fourth and 6.9 billion payments are to be made of 25 pounds a week good we are doing our best to help people through the difficult winter weather and we will continue to do what we can to ensure the elderly people and particularly will turn up their eating and not allow themselves to suffer from the cold. >> with the severe weather that's predicted to continue for the next five days, which is particularly my constituency. what action is the government

taking now to make sure this applies of salt are going to get to where they need it most, including the stockpiles held by the highways agency? >> she's absolutely right. i think the whole house wants to be assured that in this difficult period of whether were some areas are being more hits than others than those areas that need to greet the roads will have the salt that is necessary to do so and all the support that other local authorities who are not so effective and central governments can give them. and i can assure her first all this while supplies have been built up as a result of what we discovered and what we did last year. at the same time i can announce that there will be greater coordination of the distribution of salt so that those areas who need that salt will not be denied it and i hope i will be able to reassure her constituents that they would get the salt that is necessary. >> mr. speaker. the leader of the house is

written as a representative of the other party on this issue the government is going to proceed on a consensual basis. >> paid politics is ever more the playground of governments and media and displaced parliament and a more tatty backlog was little dependence. will the prime minister take the powers that he has do bring forward to our own agenda not for debates but for decision that proposals to reform the house? will he please do that in the next few weeks? >> i think it's a noller interest to say that both the standard of debate in this house and what is discussed in this house should reflect what our reviews and values would eat for the sole country. in all but in the new year need to make sure that the houses discussing the issues that matter to people as far as the issue of the select duty report we welcome. i know he's a long-standing particularly long-standing interest in these institutional reforms in the creation of a

committee of a business committee and party ballots. all these have to be looked at in detail in the leader of the house has made clear that we will have an opportunity to make a debate of these in due course and discuss these recommendations. >> david keith. >> in due course would be waiting there for weeks. it is typical of this government and this prime minister. he makes a big announcement on june 10 last year that we're going to have the house of commons when it comes to action the government acts we are all in dispatch with the political slug to its own funeral. is he still -- is he still committed to urging that on reforming his innovative reform or are there people in his own bench who were happening? [crowd shouting] >> it gives me great deal of hope that it is going to work. mr. speaker, i think is part of the talks. the part under and talks are taking place in the issues about the creation of a business committee party by its select

committee membership, balance of the whole house for select committee chairmanship. these are issues that are recommended by the chairman of the public administration. these are administrations we are now discussing. >> antipolitical note from london, prime minister brown is currently facing a leadership challenge from within his own party just months before a national election. two former members of the cabinets have her into labor party lawmakers calling for a secret ballot on the prime minister's leadership. they claimed gordon brown's leadership is dividing their party, britain must hold an election by june.

next a discussion on the possible impact of korean unification. we'll hear from peter beck research fellow at stanford university's asia-pacific research center. he sets up a real must begin preparing for reunification.

in the south korean embassy here in washington, this is an hour ten minutes. >> let me introduce myself briefly. my name is adam part of the public affairs section here and also the coordinator of our guest speaker program to course for him. at a couple things to mention before we get started today. thank you for your patience as we pull everything together first of all. for those of you who may be due to the courthouse we are officially the korean culture and information service that basically serves as the public affairs section for the embassy, but we also do a lot of public outreach including cultural events, policy events such as today's event. and pretty much anything we can do to bring the public of korea and u.s. closer together. you may have seen when you walked in we have a sign in sheet if you'd like to get e-mails about other events here at the courthouse include your e-mail. we watch about to sign in before you leave. also a few things to mention down by the front door and you'll see some materials they

are, magazines, brochures, books. it is all free and complementary so feel free to take some before you go. also a quick disclaimer for today's event is always the views expressed here in the chorus of foreign are not necessarily those of the embassy or the government of korea. but nonetheless we do encourage a free and open discussion and we look forward to a fruitful dialogue and will have plenty of time for your questions after the presentation. and will be breaking for lunch in little that afternoon and will be served right across the hall. also today's presentation will be recorded and there will be recording available on our website and that is located at www.dynamic -- korea. dynamic -- korea.com. and you could find other news about course house and korea in the u.s. also on our website. the article will be posted probably in the next day. i should also mention we also have a c-span recording the event today so hopefully that will be broadcast.

i'm told later this evening or possibly tomorrow but you can check the website for their schedule and you'll be on the main c-span channel. if everything holds up. so before we get started, a few other events that we have coming up. you may have noticed we have a gallery which is in the process of the constructed at the moment. the opening reception will be next monday, january 11. it's entitled the amount of free of copy today. it's a type of painting that involve calligraphy and the symbolism of painting. you can have a look at it here. the opening reception will be at 5:30 p.m. next monday. all are events are free and open to the public so you're welcome to come. there will be a presentation and demonstration and free t-shirts. so you can't say no to that. also, if during today's presentation you should be inspired to devote your studies even more so to the korean peninsula you'll be happy to

know we have korean language classes starting next month. they're starting february 1 and there's a flyer right down the front door which has a little bit of basic information about that or just let me know if you'd like to find out more. that being said, let me introduce our speaker today. he's a well known among korea followers for a long time he was the executive director of the u.s. committee for human rights in north korea in based here in washington. he's also known or still is a columnist for the weekly chosen in the korea herald and also a professor and instructor at american university in your university in seoul. he is the 2010 and tech research fellow at stanford university at the asia-pacific research center. so, with that being said, please welcome our guest today, peter beck. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you, adam. i'd really like to think the korean embassy for putting this wonderful gathering together. i'm really happy to see so many old friends. i know you came for the food but i'll pretend it was for me. and i also thank you for the nice cold weather today i did not miss this place too much, but with a little cold weather. i also wanted to thank the korean embassy because of this event i suddenly was contacted late last week by "the wall street journal." they were interested in the topic and they asked me to write a story, an op-ed for them. and i was happy to do so. i've written a lot of articles that i've never had one goes through so many revisions before and suggested changes. and in fact they are so many changes i hardly recognize the article that resulted and i sent

some friends, both versions of publisher versions of the original version to give them a sense of the sausage making of the bad writing. and i'd be happy to share that with you. so simply didn't make the article i of all i give them two different leads and they cut both of them. and made their own. so i'll start with my lead. a few years ago when i was in indiana we were taken up to the international friendship hall which is days to cavernous buildings that were built into the hillside that had the tens of thousands of gift of the great leader in the dear leader received from the gears from around the world including jimmy carter's silver bowl and madeleine albright michael jordan autographed basketball. and really go task plays but very kitschy as well. there are alligators serving

drinks and all kinds of strange things. and we had our own personal guide. i was leading a group of. with the singsong voice and the brainwashed boys telling us about all the gifts. and she stopped in front of the display for the gifts that was organized geographically and she stopped in front of the display with the gifts from romania and the great leader's dear friend. and i asked her, by the way, could you tell me what happened to him? and she professed not to have any idea what it happened to them. so i whispered to my god, i really liked her she was very normal and very curious about the world. and i whispered to her he was shot by his own people. and she looked at me with wide eyes and whispered back, which once?

[laughter] and the other leads that i gave them was incurring a basic tie your story to a news event. i will try to be event that just happened in north korea. i wasn't sure what to make of it at first but it very clear the central bank, one of the central bankers said explicitly to the japanese mouthpiece for the regime that this is the plain and simple design of the wipeout market. and it's pretty clear that in the short term it will do that by basically bankrupting anyone that is holding large amounts of cash. but that didn't stop some commentators in korea and american in "the new york times" correspondent that is this the last gasp of a dying regime to have this reform it had to make continual adjustments. it's clear they didn't know what they were doing or what the repercussions would be.

actually they knew what they returned they just weren't quite sure what the repercussions would be. and so they've had to have reports of people being confused and upset. it wasn't a region nomination. the denomination did not change. in fact, the paper looks almost identical. the paper print looks him is identical to the old currencies onshore there was confusion. but my assessment is that in a short term this will strengthen the iron fist and weekends the visible hand. at least in the short term. but in the long-term, they really still means that this is a bankrupt regime that has no intention of really reforming its economy and this can't be sustained indefinitely. and of course we just add the 20th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. and that sort of helped stimulate me to think about what could happen in north korea in the future. and this is part of a project of her conference that will be held

in stanford in march and is one of three projects. the second one i presented yesterday on north korea human rights and coordination between u.s. and the south korea. and i am also looking at the impact of radio and media into north korea to what extent they are changing north korea. the bottom line, i guess the bottom line for me is that this is unification will happen. i certainly don't know when. later rather than sooner but because it will be so expensive and in the chileans of dollars, the time to prepare is now. and goldman sachs issued a report a couple of months ago. i thought it was a ridiculous report saying that north korea was going to follow the hong kong model of absorption by china. i find that just totally implausible. that we could have this line

negotiated unification. i think it was exactly what the south korean government would like to hear some of that is not what is even close to being realistic. and so unification is unlikely to be gradual or smooth. and if we're lucky we'll get the german style unification of quick and relatively bloodless but still very, very expensive. if we're unlucky with it again and or vietnam and we could face war. more likely, i think we'll have a situation that greg witnessed, our classmate from solvay kragen romania witnessed a very sudden and messy fall as we saw in romania and albania. so i'll talk today -- if you could i only have a few slides. the next slide gives me -- so what i'll do is talk a bit about

the scope of the challenge we face, some lessons i think we should take from the german experience. no question for the german experience is very very different than what we will face in korea but i think there still is useful lessons. looking at the cost of unification and the consequences of a unified korea. so the first section of my paper is looking at the scope of the challenge. when the berlin wall in 1989 cell most south koreans said we are next. in fact, being a philatelist and inflicting korean stamps every korean president gets his own stamp upon an adoration and a stamp issued in early 1993 has a picture of him next to the symbol of korean and he really had the expectation that during his term korea would he unified. that south korea and north korea would be next. but this anticipation gateway to

apprehension and actually an allergy unification allergy even though no korean public leader is supposed to say they are opposed to unification. the reality is that almost no one wants to happen soon because it will be so expensive than likely be very germanic. so that was put on the back earner. and we've seen in the case of germany that it cost them at least $2 trillion. the east germany is still only at 70% of the income level of west germany come east germany still has massive unemployment it's not safe. i would not take my family to the eastern part of germany. i've only gotten to see a little bit myself, but not safe. for people who different, people who might be asian or middle eastern and appearance. it's not a safe place. berlin has relatively well integrated other parts of east germany are not. so even after 20 years it's an expensive ongoing process and i think it's going to take that

much longer and be more expensive actually when it finally happens is north korea. and east germany only had a quarter of the population of west germany so it was relatively easier to absorb them. north korea has half the population. actually if you can show the next slide -- will give you just a few of the indicators that proportionally more north koreans then there were east germans. the east germany was at a much higher level of economic development. so basically the economically speaking the process of unification with north korea is going to be much more germanic than it was. north korea is only one 20th the size economically as south korea. south korea is growing every year. the cost is only going to go up.

the differential is going to widen and also i think it's very ironic, but the population of north korea's growing faster than you population of south korea. and so, that will also make the process more expensive over time. and also if we look at the level of integration we had ten years of unconditional engagement with north korea of trying, turning the other cheek and trying to try and engage in north korea heerden if you could show the next slide. you'll see that i've done a comparison of inter- korean trade and cross strait trade and you can say how can you compare china and korea given how large china as? while taiwan has a population of the best less than north korea. taiwan is comparable, p. you can see this is the differential has basically ranged from four to almost 80 times 21.

so in 2008 inter- korean trade was a little under 2 billion. cross strait was over 150 million. so taiwan and china was economically integrating north and south korea are not with the exception of enclave. so narrowing the income divide between north korea and south korea is going to be difficult if not impossible to accomplish before unification actually happens. and again this is the dream of the south korean government but i think it's going to be very, very difficult for them to accomplish. so i'd like to also now turn to lessons from the german experience. and i think there are several lessons that we should learn.

certainly there will be more differences than similarities, but i think we need to ask, what did germany get right? the doubling of east german incomes within five years helped stabilize east germany and kept the floods that east germans to relative trickle after two or three years. west germany very aggressively helped raise incomes in east germany. they created price stability and east germany by 94. this also minimized immigration pressures which peaked at about 400,009 to 90. the downside is income ketchup has not really happened. east germany has plateaued at about 70% of the western level. and there is not only high unemployment but there's little or no economic growth in the eastern part of germany in recent years. and so, i think there are three

policy areas that koreans have tried to learn lessons from and pay close attention to and learning from the german experience. one is the exchange rate policy, that the west germany what was an exchange rate of one less german mark for two east germany marks even though it was five times that. the black market went with the official exchange rate and that was very beneficial to east germans, but it created problems. they made their currency to strong and made them less competitive. also privatization that when they privatize public firms in east germany many of them fell into the hands of western speculators. so it didn't lead to the kind of development that we were expect dean. and finally, wage equalization again stopped east german

migration but it led to massive unemployment. so i think these are some of the lessons. and so, the dilemma for south korea is if you keep wages low that would give north korea a competitive in the world market and make worker be an attractive place to invest but also make it attractive for north koreans to