i think it is a solid part of the history. but, you know, in the year 2009 obviously enlightened. [laughter] other questions or comments? i think there is, you know, i try to be as balanced as i can in this research. it makes it a lot more fun. to that answer your question? anybody else? ..

building bridges towards the future. and i think it is wonderful. i think that it is something that more schools should become involved in. because, i think that's-just

makes sense. and, you know, people talking to each other. that is why i like the fence line talks. you get people, even people who are, have inimical relations. if you get them to talk together on a regular basis they learn to understand each other and may even become friends. what is the harm in that? none. anybody else? ay. thank you for your attention. [applause] >> steven schwab is a former senior analyst for the cia south america division. he currently teaches history at the university of alabama. for more information visit

left-bank.com. >> we no historically dead markets often don't work but they forgot all that. >> in his book, "obamanomics" "washington examiner," editor timothy carney says president obama presents himself as a champion of the average american but is more on the side of big corporations than wall street. fuhrman university in greenville, south carolina is the host of this event. it is a half an hour. >> the book "obamanomics," the thesis is this. every time the government gets bigger, somebody is getting rich. and, the main idea that i'm going up against is what i called the big myth, the notion that what business wants is simply to be left alone. that big business wants the regulation and taxes and

regulations are the scourges of big business. this is true maybe half the time but when it is missed, when people don't see it going on they think, this is something that will clamp down on the excess is a big business when it did in fact does the opposite so free market advocates and the supporting siding with business when business has the opposite legislative agenda and people who distrust major concentrations of corporate power and up supporting greater regulations in that have the opposite effect. let me tell you one quick reading from "obamanomics." it says nike makes good shoes but its leadership in the u.s. sneaker market is largely a result of the company's image. michael jordan, tiger woods-- fibro this book a couple of months ago, the trademark swisher four nike image may not b everything but it is the biggest things so when nike gave up its seat on the u.s. chamber

of commerce in protests over the chambers opposition to waxman-markey it would have been easy to conclude the company was burnishing its image. after all the firm had already invested a small fortune to replace the hexafluoride, which is a very potent greenhouse gas in its nike are shoes with nitrogen esam inconvenient facts belie nike's green image namely nike emissions from its manufacturing logistics' according to an annual report went up 62% from 1998 to 2005. that is because nike is making its vast majority of its apparel overseas by asia and shipping it and their plants don't have the sort of environmental controls that american plants to. conveniently of these factories luby unaffected by legislation currently before congress, the waxman-markey bill was one of them come in the name of global warming. and contrares nike's competitor

new balance makes its shoes in england so waxman-markey would regulate new balance's emissions but not nike purse. in other words waxman-markey the bill would drive up new belland's cost but not nike's. nike may want to save the planet but its support for climate change looks like what i call for regulatory robbery. this is where you see a company lobbies for an environmental bill in a way that it won't affect its costs at all but affects its competitors' costs, hurting its competitors helping its own profits and getting good press for standing up for the environment. a lot of environmentalists say why should i care for this good for the planet and nike is making a profit, how does that affect me? i will bring up another example. ell coaccused to be called the aluminum company of america. it is also lobbying for these environmental restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions in the name of global warming.

alcoa happens to make aluminum car frames. aluminum car frames are just a strong but much lighter. high-quality performance cars you pay a lot for will have an aluminum frame. aluminum costs a lot more so the effect on u.s. consumers or automaker of environmental regulations whether it is fuel-efficient the standards for global warming regulations is to drive up the cost of buying a steel car which makes them more likely to buy in aluminum framed cars so it makes your life more expensive and helps a cappella but elko makes most of its aluminum and manufactures most of the car france and australia where it has just successfully lobbied to kill the global warming build them there and the making of aluminum is a much more energy intensive process in the manufacture of steel or steel framed cars. and their chemical processes

that necessarily produce greenhouse gas sophie take the whole process of making a car frame out of aluminum and see how much energy it saves by being lighter it might be worse for the environment in worse for co2 emissions than the steel frame was but the were governed-- government measures. it benefits alcoa so elko up profits, your costs go up in the informant is necessarily benefit it. this is what i call regulatory robbery. you use government regulations to hurt smaller competitors and but i argue in "obamanomics" is that this is something that is gone on for years. businesses always using government to its advantage but because obama has embraced the government control in so many corners of the economy, he ends up providing more opportunities for regulatory robbery and subsidizing big business and the nature of washington, the lobbying corridor editor of the

"washington examiner" and they see that when government is getting bigger that provides more opportunity for the big guys using their lobbying to gain unfair damages over smaller business. so, and i will get to the little bit later what i call the four laws of obamanomics. i call them the four laws not because obama invented this stuff. let me be clear. george bush by doing the bailouts on wall street sort of transformed our government and our economy, the relationship between them to say the government is going to prop up businesses we think are important and who does that in depth be? that ends up being the business's web access to the lawmakers, the businesses who have the best lobbyists so my book is about obama. he is the current president but as far as the tie relationship between corporations and big government george bush's bailouts was the biggest blow in that direction we have never

seen. but i want to tell you some facts about the 2000 election, the 2008 election so you can start to think about obama perhaps in a different light than he has presented himself in the mainstream media has presented him. goldman sachs exxonmobil microsoft boeing pfizer and general electric, these companies are the poster children for special-interest. their huge well-connected corporations that have something else in common. employees and executives of these companies gave more, much more to barack obama than to john mccain in 2008. a caveat here, obama raised over a much more than john mccain. he raced twice more. he didn't do the matching funds thing with, were you limit your fund-raising to get government money. sop raised a lot more but for these vigorous companies his overall margin was two-to-one in fund-raising over john mccain. that should tell you something about the accuracy of his

anti-corporate rhetoric but among the biggest corporations is ratio was much bigger than two-to-one. goldman sachs, perhaps most notorious special-interest gave obama $997,095. now no companies sins mccain-feingold, that was the campaign finance that made it illegal to give spigots, no company has donated $8 million to any one candidate ever. goldman sachs came close at 997,000 so that is the most. these are the employees and executives and political action committees. the companies themselves don't but it is the most in the campaign has raised from any single company in the history-- actually sins mccain-feingold change their campaign finance reforms. jill mccain race 230,000 so from goldman sachs obama raised zero-- four to one. you look down the line at the wall street industry, obama

raised more than any other candidate in history from microsoft it was 10-1 infirmed google it was something like ten to one that obama out raise mccain so why did they give this much money to barack obama? were they buying him off? that was the accusation that the republican president, at the time george bush would out raise someone they said he was being bought off and maybe later in the question period we can debate whether not that happened. i am a reporter. i have clear opinions. at ron paul amaya cover. i am very clear. i still believe in government intervention in the economy in any situation but i also the report on things that can substantiate. i don't know what barack obamas motives for. i'm not going to spend a lot of time guessing. i will assume for the sake of this book he really is trying to help the country but the net effect of his policies is to end up helping the biggest

businesses, the lobbyists, the most entrenched special interest in most importantly these policies and up hurting consumers, taxpayers, small businesses and consumers. so i guess i said consumers twice but i guess it hurts that not much. behind this and to put some context and to what i call before loss of obamanomics. number one, called the inside game for good during a legislative debate which ever business as the best lobbyists is most likely to win the most favorable small print. number two called the overhead smash. regulation ads to overhead. the cost of doing business. higher overhead crowds out smaller competitors, prevents dardas from entering industry. number three bigger companies are often settled by inertia maeneen robust competition is a threat. regulations that stultify the economy is like raising the basketball hoop to 20 feet protecting the lead of whichever team is ahead and number four i

called the, number three i call coming up the works and number four i called the confidence game. government regulation grants and air of legitimacy to businesses. so i have got examples of a lot of these. let me talk about the inside game. again the best lobbyists once. if you don't bring something into the realm of washington lobbyists doesn't help you. if washington is debating and all of a sudden you can afford a better lobbyist, so it's good example is the current health debate on capitol hill. who have right now the democrats trying to piece together 60 votes on this in different lawmakers are asking for this are asking for that. i promise you that at this moment there hundreds of lobbyists on capitol hill representing mostly industries that are directly affected by this inputting employers, drugmakers, hmos. if you listen to barack obama's

rhetoric what is happening is all the big businesses are saying no, please come up has nothing. that is not at all what is going on. the drugmakers have cut a deal and the "l.a. times" reported on this, the drugmakers cut a deal where drug lobbyists billy tozan sat down with rahm emanuel, the white house chief of staff and they said we promise to support your reform effort on health care if you will make sure the bill doesn't hurt us and that you want pursue these policies that will hurt us and sure enough the bill ends up subsidizing them. watch what happens in the last couple of days. the one thing insurance companies fear from this policy is something called the public option, a government insure to compete with private hmo's. that is going to get stripped from this bill. i put three-to-one odds on that and you were going to have the other subsidies for the insurers such as something called the individual mandate. when he go out there and if you

want to buy health care plan, 5,000-dollar deductible, i will pay for my insurance and if i get hit by a car that insurance will take my big expenses. something like that will become ineffective illegal because it will mandated by insurance at a certain level and if you want to buy insurance only for a catastrophe that is the sort of thing that could end up violating this individual mandate in you will have to pay a fine for it. they might allow the young people to buy catastrophic plans, but think about this. they are requiring everybody to buy the products that the hmos are selling and while they are doing this they are climbing stairs leading some crusade against the hmo's. the rhetoric does not match with the facts of all. that is the inside game. whatever the initial proposal was from barack obama, whatever he had initially proposed, what ends up coming up the other end and that he is going to sign in the oval office or the rose

garden, that bill will benefit whoever had the best lobbyist. that is the way it works on capitol hill. we also see this with the global warming stuff. my favorite example is monsanto. they are a company famous for making genetically modified if you ever use roundup to spray weeds, they make an industrial run the performers were they can kill the weeds that way. they also make genetically modified crown the pretty seeds so you plant the seed and sprayed with chemicals. what this allows you to do is kill the we so you don't have to till the fields as much. it turns out tilling fields, hoeing it and doing whatever releases carbon dioxide into the air and causes global warming and sea levels rise, etc., etc.. so under the global warming bill, waxman-markey, a farmer

can earn special greenhouse gas credits for not telling his fields which in short amounts to a few plant monsanto see them by their chemicals in use that to control your weeds the government is going to basically pay you for carbon offsets. carbinol sets themselves are a bit of a farce in themselves. basically it is the idea that you get paid to plant a tree or to do something that sex carbon dioxide that of the air. there is no way they found to what this. some time to be paid for carbon onset you are paying for somebody to plant a tree. my question is what that tree happens to burn down? are they going to come back and say your tree burned down and now you have to pay as that for that? that is probably not going to happen. that is another-- these guys are what you used to call snake oil, people dealing in carbon dioxide offsets.

i am all for conservation but offsetting carbon emissions has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. it is a make you feel good game. you are going to get carbon offsets hundred the bill because the people who stand to profit from them have the best lobbyist in the best connection. the second law i called the overhead smash. regulation makes it harder, more costly to do business. who suffers more from these regulations? mom and pop for the big guy? it is obviously mom-and-pop suffer more. my favorite story though is walmart. again on the health care bill walmart comes out in the spring or summer saying we are joining with the center for american progress. that is a liberal sort of activist group in washington and the service employees international union, a labor union that has been close to obama, the three of us are joining together and we are

supporting the employer mandate in health care. every employer of some certain small size has to buy insurance of a certain level for their employer. so, why is walmart the biggest private-sector employer doing this? they do something called selter insuring which means they actually act as the insurance company. when you pay your premiums if you are a walmart employee it goes to walmart and when you go to use your health insurance to fix your broken leg, it is walmart at not aetna who pays it back. they are so big that s.a.l.t insuring like that make sense. many big employers find it could to self-insure in that way. and what does walmart do best? they use their economies of scale to get good deals of they are getting very good health insurance deals. nobody else can do that to the degree walmart can so if you have a competitor such as target

was providing a local level of health insurance, you get the right regulation pass you raise target's cost. walmart lobbyed for the minimum wage. everybody complains about their wages. they pay $10 mort everywhere and more than $12 an hour and a high cost of living. i worked in a single screen 100-year-old movie theater honed by some guy who lived on the block when i was a kid. i earned $4.50 an hour. minimum wage earned by a high school kid after basketball college goes to the hardware store. home depot, i don't know about home depot but its minimum wage goes up from $5.50 to $7.15 that hurts smaller competitors. it helps walmart and gives walmart a good price and is the unions to back off of them a little bit more. mattel did another one of these overhead smash things where i

don't know if you guys remember back in 2007 there were an unprecedented number of toy recalls because mattel was making a bunch of toys in china. some of them have fled and then forgot the manufacturers might get it recalls too but these lead toys made your kids sickened etc so they were all recall then of course congress did what congress always does. we have to pass a law. barack obama behind the law called the consumer product safety improvement act and what this did was in addition to changing the local levels of lead and other chemicals in the toys its at every toy sold in america needs to get tested at a separate third-party testing facility. not every single toy but every line of toys. what is the line of toys? if you produce 1 million barbie's you have to get one of them tested produced by identical methods but what if you are a grandfather who works in your garage in your carving

out children's toys to sit down. are you using identical methods to make all of your children's toys? one of them by making for an 8-year-old in one of them i am making 43 row. you have to get third-party testing separate for each of those in each component tested for could depending on how complex the product is the testing could range from a couple hundred dollars to a couple thousand dollars. mattel paying $2,000 to test one farby for a line of 1 million is not a big deal but a smaller toy maker. there's something called handmade toys alliance and this is not the sort of group i normally run with. i am on all this now because i've written columns. i wrote this book that criticized consumer products safety improvement act because mattel insects benefitting but it is a great icing on the cake.

the law provided a provision that said if he can prove to the government that you have set up within your own factory a testing facility which is accurate in which is independent from the parent company, then you don't have to send it out to a third party place. you can test it within your own factory in one waiver has been given on this lot and that is to come out one company has gotten waivers. that is mattel who helped write the bill on the first place to react to a scare that they caused by putting lead in their toys over in china. this is a pattern of obama's policies. he backs these government policies that have the intention of trying to help consumers or help the small guy or curb the excesses of big business. the and up having the opposite effect. and what i call the third law of obamanomics, gumming up the works. wise america of the wealthiest country in the world?

i am sure lots of people have answers for that. my answer is because we have the freest economy in the world. lafree economy is a more vibrant economy. in more regulated economy is a less vibrant economy. if you are the top business you look around at how much you can go from rags to riches or from the top of the mountain down to the bottom in a free market. it is a scary place. it is really exciting if you are an entrepreneur scary if you are the guy sitting on the top. anything that slows down the economy is good for you if you were on the top. that may be why goldman sachs is backing many of obama's wall street regulations. they won't end up as a bomb is imposing them. >> adducent executive caps fonte or other wall street regulations, goldman sachs the number one investment bank is publicly express support and they are very close and working

with obama. they also have greater access to obama's west wing in the same way they had great access to bush's west wing and clinton's west wing and bush's west wing and probably reagan going back. these are the quintessential special interests and again this is a company barack obama raised more money from goldman sachs than anybody has raised from any corporation since the campaign finance laws were changed. and they have course for the number one beneficiary for the wall street bailout. the final block of obamanomics is the confidence game. this is the idea that government can give people a false confidence in what somebody else is selling. wall street is not a great example. why or reregulating the financial sector? we need to restore investor confidence. you hear republican talk about restoring investor confidence and half of the democrats talk about restoring investor confidence. i happen to believe it should be

the schaub of the company or the broker to restore your confidence. the government shouldn't be using your money to convince you that it is okay to invest in the stock market but that is a huge part of what government does. that is a huge part, george bush's ownership society but say look is much better to own stocks the not too. it is much better to on the home the not too so they said that these policies that drive people to own more stock than they would in the free market or to buy a house when they would necessarily. we saw exactly what that created. it was it bubble. bush did it. obama is continuing the policy. atilla, the story i told was another case of competency. now your toys are safe. they said that on the floor of the house. now you can rest assured that your toys are saved, because the federal government is making sure your toys are safe. but my favorite story on the confidence game comes from the

world of food. i am told that here in the dining hall for the cafeteria, the food places, whatever you call them here lots of talk about sustainable, local. i think that is great. with i had more time in more money i would do it. if i married the hippie girl we would probably be eating all the organic fair trade stuff. i support doing all that stuff perfectly voluntarily. and obama eustis talk about this. he would quote michael balton who wrote the on the four's dilemma is to make very important points about how government and big business and up hurting local food and hurting-- salote food is one of the terms they use now, but obama's food safety director at the health and human services, a guy named michael taylor whose previous job was a top lobbyist

for monsanto, a chemical company that also has genetically modified food. his top trade negotiator for agriculture is a man named-- the net man nominated is izzy sadiq we who is a top lobbyist for the head where chemicals lobby group in washington. and the pattern goes on about that, so obama has backed these new food safety laws. they are like a consumer product law for the toys. basically these are being proposed on food safety to require more testing for the one of the bills create something called, it regulates food production facilities which sounds like some kellogg's factory where they turnout corn chips, corn flakes from heaven knows what. but a food production facility, not like giant, the big farms

but if you have a fiman the grew something there and you sold the than the one of these bills you were a good production facility and at some of the same regulations as a giant factory. one grade article i read about this from the "san francisco chronicle" said, testifying to congress, drew mcdonald vice president for safety at taylor farms the world's largest salad producer explained he supported uniform government enforced food safety standards. this reargued would eliminate the hassle of customers insisting on their own safety audits. which was, the organic food co-op over here that said we want you to certify that this food is organic and over there you have the local food co-op. you are making salad. wersel what is coming from? and maybe there is a don't kill any rabbits to grow our carrots co-opts. there are lots of people who put

in or maybe parents or deathly afraid of any bacteria getting into their food and they have their own regulations. there were groups in stores setting up. giant, adc grocery store chain. one grocery store might want something and another vocal store might want another. this is what i call private sector regulation. they preserve more diversity. barack obama had said i don't think government can solve every problem but there are some things government can't do such as insuring our food is safe. so he was bidding in the face of these private sector regulators, all the organic food co-ops, of the grocery stores that take pride in the quality of their food. he was sitting in their face but he was backing legislation that could help preempt all of those and make it illegal. the federal government opposes x standard for gano bair is allowed-- no big industrial

bair, no group buyer is allowed to impose its own standards. that is with the salad king of san francisco was lobbying for. so you have the private sector buyers that obama, a private sector-- and he is wiping them out but he said on the government can ensure that your food is safe so that again is a confidence game. nobody can insure your food is safe and take a step back in time. who might you have bought your meat from back in the day? maybe it was a butcher in how would you trust that that boucher was giving is a food? probably because he sold to your father and his son would want to sell me to your son so they are not going to poison you but when you have more regulations that make it harder for independent businessmen to succeed you drive business towards more centralized industry and you end

up in the food situation especially, you had, you had one government report come out and say more centralization of food processing leads to foodborne diseases spreading more readily so this is a pattern of obama's policies. their big government which is what the promise that while the promise to battle the special-interest and well maybe he wanted to it hasn't worked out that way because in washington that lobbyists, the big businesses, they have the most say. they get their seats at the table both in congress and even an obama's white house and he has hired many of these lobbyists. so, this is what you have gotten from obama's big government policies, but they have ended up benefiting big business. this is bad for the american economy but i've not really like talking to much in terms of what is good for the american economy because that is an abstract

idea. this is bad for consumers, it is that for taxpayers, it is bad for small businesses and that for taxpayers obviously. we had to start with bush overspending in the baylock. we all especially under people, but will be paying the bills on these bailouts. they have gone to help wall street mostly. the stimulus bill, all borrowed money and a couple months and the bill, 80% of the money has gone to the top 2% of firms? why? not because the obama administration lows pay knapik companies but when the government is giving out money who has the apparatus to get the money? random, small joe with his corner storer are the guys selling fruitcakes does not have the ability to go and get the government money but the bigger corporations that have a lobbying establishment set up and go and get it and cash for

clunkers. if you read benefit from the deal you benefitted but everybody else. if you remember this was a program that required the car dealer who took the trading to destroy the trade and, and it had to be a trade and that could run so the idea was take old cars off the road, good for the inver emmit. there were lots of reasons to question whether it was good for the environment but its rights of the cost of dying-- driving bakar if you are destroying perfectly usable good cards. so if you didn't directly benefit, if you were a car dealer who may have done away but that he traded in and got the subsidy you did okay. if you made new cars sort you already have the big stock of these cars everybody else loses because it spent $3 billion in tax dollars a uri paid for it as a taxpayer can be paid for it because your car goes up but the most upsetting thing might be the way in which it hurts small

business. and it sounds hokey and everybody says that but it is true, small business is the heart of the american economy. it is little bit inaccurate when people say small businesses the number one creator of new jobs because there's a more precise way to break it down. as he 2007, the last year we had decent numbers, two-thirds of jobs were created by companies five years older younger maeneen new business is the most important thing. the job that will eventually hired you guys. you need their to be new business is being made. obamanomics it's in the way of new businesses being made for a few reasons. for one, the regulations that to overhead in keeping up. number two, increasingly becomes obvious need a lobbyist to get by nicki can't afford a lobbyist in setting up a business you are going to be crushed. number three, bailout.

bailouts and handouts, the prop up failing companies. that is good that he worked for the failing company. you have a job even though your work hasn't been producing things that consumers want to buy and i feel good for those people who get their jobs saved but do you know what? their job is probably being saved or created at your jobs expense because when the failing company is propped up that keeps setting new company in prevents another company from entering the economy and those new companies are exactly what is creating the new jobs. so, this the sort of then a depression toka if you share any of my concerns about saving small business are saving limited government. and it has been an upsetting talking you are a big obama fan, but for the first group of people who care about small business are limited government, i will say the least i have some coppola ideas looking forward.

the first one is simply the fact that there is clearly anchor. what bush is bailouts did was focus people's attention on the fact that there really is a situation where the people with political power and the people with money are getting together and they are taking our money. it is not an exaggeration to say they are taking your money. sure they are taking next door neighbor's money that they are taking our money more than 50-year-olds money it fiori student because it is all on borrowed money so your taxes are going to end up paying for this and where did the money go from the wall street bailout? it went to goldman sachs for code went to bank of america. the idea then is that it trickles down and this was an idea that was mocked when the first george bush talked about it but obama full force signed on to the bailouts and so people are angry that people with

economic power and political power are clearly on the same side and regular taxpayers and small businesses are getting left out. on the right you see this manifesting itself in a tea party movement, which has a lot of good elements. the media like to mock a lot of the bad elements. one of the things i would like to see more from the tea party types is not just reeling against a one party, because both parties are spending too much and not just to rail against the government but to real against big business which is lobbying for and pushing this big government. but another thing i think is hopeful, and again i am not a partisan republican. i voted for republican presidential candidate i think zero times. i did vote for bob dole of 1996 because i was a college freshman in did not know any better and i regret that the. sorry mr. dole if you are

watching. actually dole is in my book is one of those corporate lobbyists that obama has gotten to support health care. moving on. the idea here is that the republicans are so far in the wilderness they have lost their corporate supporters. this was a party where no matter how bad the bill was, like the wall street bailout, the limited government party pushes both of these things through? why? my theory is through the with the democrats say is true. republicans have listened to much to big business but now big business is not giving them any money so maybe that is an opportunity for republicans to start standing up for regular people and actually start standing up against the government. and on the democratic side, i have got lots of liberal-- they don't like being called liberal. progressive's the term. i've got lots of progressive firms-- france were ready to explode if what they predict is

going to happen happens and that is that the health care bill and up without a government auction and with all these subsidies and mandates that make you give money to insurers, they are ready to blow up and get angry and i think the global warming bill too will be passed and will be cleared has no effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions of people will say why did you do that and that they will see the nike's, alcoa's monsanto's profit against filing so on the left the think you are not a partisan republican and not a partisan democrat you are dedicated to an ideal and to causes such as sticking up for the little guy and the elector limits of government on the right. then the anger will be so clear that it will be focused and the last chapter of obamanomics hi layout in agenda that includes things like stopping the bailout. any money that does not gone out the door, don't send it out the door. put it straight into retiring debt or cutting taxes and any

money that is out the door, calling it back. i have some items with a left right synergy. one of the things that left his wanted to do on drugs, canada has price controls so if you go to candidate and by the same name brin drug theroux be a quarter of the price that it is here. why did drug makers let them get away with it? to make it telcos that penny. is the r&d and the testing that cost a billion dollars, so basically candidate just has to make up the cost of producing it and shipping it. kisela to us they are making up the cost for research and development so right now if i were a random drug store it is illegal for me to go to canada and buy it at the price control costs and come down here and sell it. when your importing price controls. the drug lobby spends more than any of their industry. they clearly do well no matter who is in power.

why can't the lobby canada? of the lawmakers that much more intimidating and strong than the american lawmakers? we are giving them a free ride. if it is your job to make sure you can still return a profit on your drugs id is not the federal government's job. we are already giving you your pat exclusivity were no one else to make a generic. we are giving you that in aftra you are on your on. and instead bailout constitutional amendment is one of my dreamier ideas. make it illegal for the government to on the portion of the company. try to ban corporate welfare. if anything is a direct transfer of wealth to a private business, you have to allow for government contracts but if it is not for a government contract-- i'm not exactly sure how to implement these things that the main problem i run into is where is the constituency?

all these ideas i am proposing, if we have abolished some corporate welfare agencies, boeing had might make $10 billion a year of the corporate welfare agency and the import-export bank but you divided among every taxpayer is $3. so where's the constituency to kill corporate welfare to smash the government big business solution? and that is a problem and a question. i do think the anger and the fact we are democracy can help channel that. if you are a republican party and you want to raise money in running an anti-corporate campaign ad might be difficult for you to raise money but that is where, what ron paul did. he ran for president in 2008 and whatever you think of his ideas and i like most of his ideas but whatever you think of his ideas you have to be impressed. he raised $6 million a day. donors gave him $6,000,000.1

day. he did not organize the donation. his supporters independently set up what they called a money-- and they raise money. the average donation was lethem $100 even barack obama even though he is raising record money from goldman sachs, that was under-reported, but it was the perception that, he was not hillary clinton and four of the coziness or common ground with big business here, hillary clinton with it than ten times more of that but he was not hillary clinton so people thought i am disenfranchised because they don't have the access that case treat people parting with their tin, 25, $50 to give to him. in a second time going to open it up for questions, but i just want to restate my initial thesis. everytime government gets bigger somebody's getting rich. so what i've done here is in

"obamanomics" try to name the names and they doubt any pattern that it is a pattern and the effect of bum is having on america is not what many people think it is. thank you very much for your time. [applause] i am happy to take questions. again i'm supposed to remind you to stand up. if i call on you, wait for the microphone to get to you before you ask your question. so, please. yes. >> woody talking little bit about what is called the revolving door in politics and big business, the idea that when people lose an election or retire from politics they tend to go into lobbying and the idea that once they come that they are going to come back into a

government position and i know ben bernanke and hank paulson are well-known for this. could you talk a little bit about that in any ideas on how that could be stopped through laws or voter action or anything? >> i'm glad you reminded me about the revolving door. i see this happening. i see my friends do this. they dress like me when they are working on capitol hill and i see them two years later and they have really nice suits with a french cuff and offer to buy lunch. the left the capitol to up working for congress and a lobbying firm hired them because they knew that when the friend then calls his old underling on capitol hill to say hey i just want to talk to you about the farm bill, that his old boss or his old bosses colleagues are going to take the call and that is the revolving door. barack obama's said literally, i'm going to stop the revolving door. is white house chief of staff, rahm emanuel-- there is not, as

the word for rahm emanuel because welby was working on the campaign is a chief fund-raiser he was getting paid by goldman sachs as a consultant at the same time for some nondescript worked so he might even being paid for bills-- goldman sachs. he worked at-- so investments, mergers lapook i.t. the listen the layout in the book callista bowls clients there were people and lead business before the clinton administration so what was emanuel's beil. for too smart, very hard-working and very effective but $1.62 million and half years is what he made. i have got to imagine his real skeel there was no wing who to call in the clinton white house in getting done what he wanted to get done. he makes $1.6 million by milking his former administration contact and uses that money to run for congress and now he's in

the obama white house. so the revolving door is still spinning. there is a lobbyist now pew is an ex-obama administration official. already, less than one year in somebody has gone into the obama administration, left in becoming a lobbyist so this is damaging because anything that strengthens, that gives more power to the guys that can afford lobbyists in effect takes political power away from us and also gives perverse incentives to the people in government and it particularly hurts republicans because they can say we are going to kill this government program or they can say i'm going to tinker with this government program and that when a gets passed someone needs me to help them figure out. that is very problematic. obama, some of his actions have helped where you can't become if you are at a certain senior level used were not to become a lobbyist for a little while after you leave or not to lobbyed the administration.

honestly and this is radical, i would say anybody who is an elected official who makes over $100,000 in government at any point should be prohibited from becoming a lobbyist. now, i don't think that but actually pass because the people who would be affected by that of the people who get to write the bills. on the other hand, that is the only lobbyings regulation i propose in in the end i wouldn't bet it because that lobbying is an expression of their first amendment rights of the real problem is not the lobbyist, where is it? the real problem is with government. the way to get rid of corruption in high places is to get rid of the high places. tim wheeler was a man who came up with that same and that is the lesson. you can't simultaneously increase the government's control over the economy and decrease the role of lobbyists. so, that is one place where my

only reform and this is obviously my bias, but have the government have less control over the economy. happy to take another question. yes. >> how do you think obama plans to pay for the new regulation programs that he is trying to do? do you think it is through the creation of money, new taxes or debt issuance? >> well, to start with the spending, the stimulus bill, we have issued the debt on that and then what are we going to do when it comes to-- a lot of that is not obama's problem so i could try to predict what is going to happen but it is like rotating credit cards, probably borrow again to pay off the dead again and who knows what is going to happen. but on the other hand, the health care stuff and the global warming stuff. the health care reform has much

more of a price tag and our history of predicting the expenditures in these new government programs like medicare and social security has been very bad and it does far outpaced it so whatever taxes he introduces in this new bill, and there are some of those, i don't think they are going to be adequate. i think-- i am not an economist. i would not be surprised if we see inflation because we print more money and the government prevents money out of thin there. so it will be a mixture of all of them. i don't think we are going to see spending cuts or least not significant ones especially because what is the republicans' number one objection to the health care bill? it is that the democrats are trying to cut health care aware republicans arguing against democrats spending money? part of it is insurance companies don't like medicare but most of it is republicans notice a good political issue. there is no good political for spending cuts. the answer is all of the above,

new money, more borrowing and more taxes. yes. hold on for this guy. >> alright, mr. connie i know you expressed your opinion on domestic legislation that is being passed to look at environment problems in the u.s., but there is the g8 summit that is coming up in december this year and there is proposed talk that there's going to be some legislation that would have international effect, were like you said with the nike example that that might cut down on carbon emissions in china where they have or other parts of asia where they have all of these manufacturing plants. i wonder if he could express your opinion on that legislation. >> you are talking about

copenhagen that actually started today, the copenhagen summit and this is sort of a global get together on what to do. talking to people who go to these types of the fence a lot, i don't think no proposed globaled regulation or anything is going to come out of that or even proposed global coordination for national regulation is going to come on but to answer your specific question, what with a global policy and carbon emissions do? he would break apart the u.s. business coalition for the screen now gas quds because some businesses, like caterpillar which manufactures in the u.s., if-- we already have the environmental regulation so keep it carbon regulations on top and carbon regulations on china than all of a sudden you could actually make the field more level between u.s. manufacturers and foreign manufacturers but then the others, the nike's the elko of's bajis wants-maxie see

some of the domestic manufacturers who supported cap-and-trade on global warming say we supported assuming we are then going to lobby china and india to restrain their emissions but these growing countries, imagine this. you were dirt-poor for years while the western europe and the u.s. is burning coal, getting rich, building their skyscrapers. it is just learning to trickle into you and all of a sudden the u.n. says by the way the cheap energy, the coal, the oil, you can do that anymore. you are not going to do that-- stand for that if you were the third world so i don't think, i think what we will get if there's anything more with the global agreement the rich countries will all go ahead and constrain their emissions and then they will pay for subsidizing clean energy in the third world. i think that is the most you are going to get as far as global

cooperation. one more question. there is one in the middle. i may have answered that. but i am going to follow up on the global warming stuff with you right now with one of my favorite stories. general electric is has formed a joint venture called greenhouse yes sir versus and this is a company that deals in carbon offsets and greenhouse gas credits. and what they have done is for example they set off, somehow they are on a trash heap of north carolina they are the methane out in methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, 23 times as powerful as carbon dioxide suthers the methane out and burning it. they are turning maathai into co2. google is paying them to do it because google gets out of this offsets for greenhouse gas credits because they are destroying methane that would otherwise be created.

right now what is google do with those greenhouse gas credits? they get to say we are carbon neutral in this way or that fight but that the government mandates you have the credit that, to run a factory or run a power plant than all of a sudden what google has and what general electric is making becomes worth a lot more. so again you say maybe that is capitalism and the environment. note, the partner in general electric's greenhouse guest vendors a company called aef, a global power company currently building coal-fired power plants in the third world. they have clean air power plants appear that benefit from a tax on coal but what else happens if you tackle effectively? the make your american companies by coal, more-is cheaper for the third world to buy calls other winning um both densford and other nuclear power plants are getting subsidized here and there coal-fired plants down

there getting cheaper coal but ge and acs did not invent this. this is the same scheme energy company tried in 1990 and that energy company was called enmund other not around anymore. i have a chapter in your call general electric, the for-profit, the obama administration. they have spent more in the past ten years on lobbying than anyone in the country and their number two as far as individual corporations. everywhere obama opens up a new policy plant, you see ge opening up the new business. high-speed rail and freight rail, g. e. rent of its business and hires a new lobby is. lended daschle, wife of the former u.s. senator who is close to obama. embryonic stem cell research, obama's going to fund that ngt starts adventure with one of the largest unsell companies in the world. you see it again and again and

the causality probably happens both ways. i don't think barack obama is trying to embrace ge. and not because they still own msnbc were keith olbermann and rachel madell sing dare hull lilia songs. i think that they just see that the way to make money in the world of obamanomics is to line up with government and what does that do? it really sacks entrepreneur ship. ended stultifies the economy and it means that you guys won't have jobs when you get out of college, and thus one of these chosen few that google, the microsoft, the general electric, the boeing that have the best lobbyists, they are going to increase in the control more of the economy but that has the net effect care of being back on the whole economy. if there are no other questions-- sorry.