what you hear by candidates saying. they won't want to be known as a gender than of substance. >> thanks so much. >> thank you so much.

>>nvi former comptroller gener david walker argues that we must put controls on government spending and take action to lower the national debt.

he says failing to do so by 2030 could lead to a doubling of our taxes and lowering of our economic standing in the world. the aspen institute in washington, d.c., host this hour-long event. [applause] >> well, thank you all for coming. we're here to talk about a splendid new book by david walker, "comeback america." i'm going to say a little bit more about david and the book in a moment. but first of all, i just wanted to declare a bias in this. i mean, i will make no bones about it. i am a tremendous fan of david and have been for years. i followed his work. i find it very difficult to disagree with much of what he says. i gave up on that when i started reading the book. that wasn't going to happen. so some of the dissent might have to come with you. and the way we're going to organize this is that david and i will talk about the book for perhaps a half hour or so.

and then we'll leave plenty of time for questions and quarrelsome interventions from the audience. so if i see you vibrating during the course of the discussion, you're thinking why don't you ask him this, why don't you ask him that, that will be your job in due course. i promise to give you plenty of time to do it. with that, i would say a word of welcome to our c-span viewers who are avidly tuning into this event. good to have them with us as well. david is a former comptroller general of the united states. a former head of the government accountability office. and is currently the president and the ceo of the peterson foundation which has a variety of aims. one of the most important is to lead the country back to a greater sense of fiscal responsibility. and this book, "comeback america," is about that issue. david explains in the book that the country's fiscal position is

unsustainable. and he explained why. and sets out an agenda for putting the problem right. now, i want to say right at the outset before i get david to tell us more about this that although this book is about fiscal sustainability, it's extremely entertaining. don't let that subject put you off. i think one of the best things about the book is the voice. david has written this in a sort of informal and extremely engaging style so i do seriously urge you -- urge you to read the book. well, david, to begin, we're right here on the morning after the state of the union speech. many of the topics in the book relate very closely to the speech. so i can't resist asking you right off the bat, what you made of it? >> well, first the president obviously is a very articulate speaker. on the economic issues, he reinforced something that i talk about in the book. there's a fundamental difference

between short term deficits and structural deficits. that the current short-term deficits largely were inherited by barack obama. and that we need to recognize that some level of short-term deficits are understandable because we're in a recession. we've got two undeclared wars. we've had a number of bailouts and other extraordinary actions. and unemployment is very high. and so he made it very clear that he wants to try to take some steps to try to get the economy growing on a consistent basis and to try to bring unemployment down. and he's going to propose a number of tax cuts or tax preferences as well as spending increases to try to do that. that may exacerbate the short-term deficit. but then he pivoted which i think is important to talk about the structural deficit. and that's what threatens our ship of state. it's not the ice that's above the water. it's the ice that's below the water. it's not what's the -- the debt that's on the balance sheet. it's what's off the balance

sheet that represents our -- the threat to the future. and he talked about three things. he talked about freezing a portion of discretionary spending, less than 20% of the federal budget for three years. you know, one year -- three years are better than one. but, you know, frankly, it's a modest first step especially since discretionary spending has increased 20% plus over the last two years. secondly, he talked about supporting a paygo rule which i think the senate may be voting on right now. there's lots of holes in that paygo rule big enough to drive a truck through. on the other hand, it does provide some constraints that otherwise wouldn't be there and so i think it's a modest step forward. but thirdly and most importantly, he came out for a fiscal future commission to try to make -- set the table to make the tough choices for tougher statutory budget controls, social insurance reforms, other spending constraint and tax

reform and it's critical we do it after recommendations from the midterm and to act before our foreign lenders lose patience. >> right. the book actually makes a strong case for creating a commission. >> right. >> but is the kind of commission obama is proposing, the kind of commission you had in mind? i mean, there's an issue as to whether we need a statutory commission and the powers and so forth. >> i have a strong preference for a statutory commission. and the reason the strong preference for a statutory commission. you get buy-in. only via statutory commission can you guarantee a vote. the fact is the senate passed -- well, pardon me. had a majority vote for the conrad-gregg statutory commission. under the senate rule we had to get 60 and it doesn't pass. while i prefer a statutory commission i prefer a presidential commission to nothing. >> right. now, one of the arguments you

make in the book which i think is particularly interesting in advancing the case of the commission is that this is the way to create a consensus in the country for action on fiscal policy. and i think the book -- to my mind it regards it as the most important thing. stepping back from the details we have a bigger appetite for public services in this country than we have a willingness to pay the taxes that are required. you know, how do we bridge that gap? i just wanted to pressure you on how much a commission might make to that -- it's an issue of national attitudes can can people be made to change their minds about this? >> well, first i believe there are two critical elements that have to be present for a commission to be successful. in addition to having capable, credible and committed people on it and having everything on the table, there are two other things. this commission has to go outside of washington, d.c.

it has to engage representative groups of americans with the facts, the truth, the tough choices. the pursuedence of acting sooner rather than later, the potential adverse consequences to our country and our family if we don't. in addition, it needs to receive a vote on its recommendations. and only through a statutory is that guaranteed. but the president has the commitment of the speaker and the majority leader that they will do everything within their power to assure that there will be a vote. on the commission's recommendations. and so i think we have to make the best of that. look, people have a big government appetite and a small government taxation policy, all right? >> yes. >> and you want to keep taxes as low as possible for a variety of reasons. but in the end the math has got to work. and the truth is -- and we can come back to this if you want. the far right and the far left are delusionary. and they also would get an f in math. we're not top 25 in the country. they're delusionary and they

would flunk math. >> well, let's not come back to that. let's stay with that. >> okay. >> you wouldn't let me get away with that. i do get the sense myself, that there is a kind of a political disconnect here. the politicians understand that they need to express concern about long-term budget. you hear that all the time. we must grapple with this problem, you know, our national prosperity is at stake. but that has to mean at the end of the day either lower public and voters don't want either of those things. do you have a sense that politicians are even ready to think about grasping this nettle. i myself don't see it. on either side. in either party. >> sure. well, first there's no party of fiscal responsibility. there are individuals who are fiscally responsible but there's no party of fiscal responsibility.

secondly, statistically valid public opinion research that we conduct at the peterson foundation and that others conduct show that the number two issue that americans are concerned about are escalating deficits and debt. right after the economy and jobs. >> uh-huh. >> way ahead of healthcare, way ahead of climate change and other important issues but way ahead. they believe that congress and the washington is out of touch and out of control. not making this a high enough priority. and 70% of americans support some type of special commission. the election in massachusetts was not a victory for republicans. it was a rise of independents like you and i. i've seen it coming. i've been in 46 states in the last four years. i think i got a very good sense where the american people are. they are in the sensible center. they're representatives on the polls. that's why we not only have partisanship. we have an ideological divide which creates a stalemate. and a stalemate means you're going nowhere fast.

and when things aren't going well and getting worse with the patches of time, you know, that's a disaster scenario. i think washington is a lag indicator and the people have to put the pressure for this thing to happen. and a commission has to set the table for a tough vote because let me tell you. taxes are going up. and they're going up on a lot more than people making $250,000 a year. a why? a very simple four letter word, math. the social insurance contract is going to get renegotiated. to make sure that when the government makes a promise, it actually can deliver on its promises. you know, the government has got tens of trillions of promises it doesn't know how to pay for it and it's going to make more promises and we can go back on that on healthcare if you want it. and we have to have tough statutory budget controls. i don't think we should send

washington one dime without tough budgetary reform and round one of social reform, round one of repowerization and round one of tax reform. >> right. well, let's start on health reform for a second. it's kind of -- it is a kind of microcosm of the issue in many ways. and it kind of underlines the issue here. why is healthcare reform in such trouble? you know, there are many reasons why it's in such trouble. but a couple of the leading ones is a somewhat self-contradictory. they go to the heart of what you're saying. on the one hand, i think people are concerned that this reform is going to significantly increase public spending. and so they're worried about the deficit. they're worried about long-term borrowing. and they're worried about their taxes and the future, all of which is valid. the other thing they are worried about is cuts in medicare.

that's what we require in order to balance the budget. in order to make the existing healthcare system affordable. let alone expand it to make it better. where is the opening for the politician. i mean, you aren't a politician. and if you were advising a politician, how would these guys to grapple with this thing? how do you pitch fiscally responsible expansion of healthcare coverage? your book is in favor of expanding healthcare coverage. you take a somewhat liberal line on that. explain how you think we can make it affordable? >> well, first, i think we have to focus on four things on comprehensive healthcare reform. number one, cost. if there's one thing that will bankrupt america, it's out of control healthcare cost. we've already made $38 trillion more promises for medicare than we know how we're going to pay for them. and my view is, you can't reduce

healthcare costs by expanding coverage. it's an oxymoron. in addition to that, you have to recognize that our current healthcare system, if it was a house, it's structurally unsound. it's mortgaged for more than its worth and it's headed to foreclosure. you can't say it's progress by adding a new wing built out of the same flawed materials attached to the structure that's headed for foreclosure. it's another example of how government wants to have -- to give people their dessert before we eat the spinach. we already made tens of trillions of promises that we don't know how we're going to keep but let's make some more and all we got to do is pay for it. the fact is that there's four tests for fiscal healthcare. you got to pay itself over in 10, result in a significant deduction in the promises that we have and result in lower

healthcare costs after the reform than before. the bills don't pass that test. and on the other hand, i do believe in some form of universal coverage. i believe we ought to have universal coverage for what i call preventive, wellness and catastrophic. those. i think we have to change payment systems. we need a cap. we need a budget on what the federal government will spend on healthcare. we need to relook at tax preferences for healthcare. we need to relook at subs disfor medicare. because we have subsidies for billionaires. in medicare. and there's not that many billionaires. my boss is a billionaire, okay? he doesn't take it, all right? because of that fact. the voluntary program. >> right. that sounds a little bit tear this thing up and start all over again. >> well, let's talk about that for a second. there are two systems we have in this country which i talk about in the book. healthcare more than the second. that we spend double per capita and we get below average results.

number one is healthcare. it isn't about money. we spend money of money. number two k-12 education. all right? we're not top 25 on healthcare outcomes. we're not top 25 in k-12 education outcomes. and so it's not a matter of money. you need to re-engineer the system. and i have a number of ideas about how to do that. >>ology. -- okay. maybe we'll come back to that. but there are a couple of other bases i want to touch before i turn it over. under this property handing of entitlement reform, medicare is critical as you say. we also have social security. you have a very interesting chapter, i think, on what we should do to fix the social security system. say a little bit about that. >> well, first social security in the scheme of things should be easy. and a basketball analogy -- it should be a lay-up. you can miss a lay-up but the odds are pretty high that you're

going to hit it. on the other hand, with medicare and healthcare reform, it's a 3-point play from underneath the potent's basket. -- opponent's basket. so with social security, look, we would have had comprehensive social security reform in 1999 but for the blue dress incident. and it's not just a matter of what the reform ought to be but the process that you employ to get it. and one of the reasons that george w. bush wasn't successful with social security and one of the reasons that barack obama is not going to be successful with comprehensive healthcare reform is the process was fundamentally flawed. fundamentally flawed, all right? and we saw the result of that in reaction from the public. so what we need to do is for people that are retired or close to retirement, little to no changes because, a, it wouldn't be fair and, b, it's not politically feasible. we might want to look at the cost of living index and modest

changes so everybody is contributing in some way. for people who are close to the poverty level. we will want to strengthened the benefits somewhat. people in middle and upincome, less of a replacement rate. we could reform social security and exceed the expectation of generations without any tax increases but realistically some might say let's raise the taxable wage base cap from 107 to 150 which is below what it would have been if we would have kept the same ratio back when we started indexing it. and very, very importantly, in addition to having a solvent, sustainable and secure base-defined benefit program because after all that's what the security means in social security, that we need to have a supplemental add-on automatic payroll deduction 2 to 3% savings account that goes into real trust fund with real investments with real fiduciary responsibility and responsibilities where you go to jail if you pick the lock box. and in a circumstance where we can have a preretirement death

benefit and a supplemental post-retirement benefit. that is a win, win -- all we need is leadership. >> right. and some courage because one way of characterizing that proposal -- i don't need to tell you you know i agree with that proposal. but one way to characterize this partial privatization of social security. >> well, here's the key. the base in my view should remain defined benefit. >> right. >> because it is the base of retirement income security. only 50% of americans have a private pension plan. we have an ams. mellally low savings rate. it's coming up at least from the standpoint of individuals because they now know what a rainey day is. but the government is dissavings than individuals are saving. that's a different story. so my point is that we have to keep in mind that social security is the foundation of income security. the base ought to be defined benefit but we should have a supplemental savings arrangement, a defined

contribution to add on and not carve out because, frankly, tax preferences haven't worked. we have the lowest savings rate of any major industrialized nation. the people who save are the people who have the ability to save. they get the tax benefits. the only way you're really going to get the savings rate up is if we employ the proposal that my mama taught me. don't let people touch the money because once they touch it, it will burn a hole in their pocket. and they'll spend it more than once in america. >> right. okay. let's talk a little bit about your tax proposals because that's the other side of this. we touched briefly on the entitlement issue, medicare, social security. but as you said it's a simple matter of math. that's a five letter word in my mind vocab. what we need -- we're going to have to raise taxes. we are going to have to raise taxes.

now, on your proposal -- i mean, the book looks at this in some detail. just give people a sense of how you think this can be -- should be done and how it could be made politically palatable? >> well, first i think you have to recognize that where taxes are headed without doing anything. >> right. >> and what percentage of g.d.p. are we headed to on that basis, right? that's above historical tax levels of 18.3% of g.d.p., okay? secondly, i think you have to recognize as to what would end up happening if -- if we didn't end up making reforms sooner or later, how high might taxes have to go in order to stop the bleeding? in the book we talk about they would have to double between 20, 30, and 20, 40, double. i think you have to recognize political reality. in my view the longer we wait to try to reimpose tough statutory

budget controls, reform the social insurance contract and constrain spending the higher taxes will go. one, math, the miracle of compounding. number two, demographics. more people are going to be enfranchised in existing entitlement programs. they are the toughest thing to change. number three political activism. no not all segments of society are equally politically active. and for those reasons, just for simple logic it says we need to do something sooner rather than later. now, taxes, you know, i think we're going to need more revenues than historical levels. revenues are not necessarily taxes. you can get user fees. you can get premiums more -- means-related premiums for medicare. there's a number of things you could do that aren't necessarily taxes because there's an exchange for it. but i think realistically taxes are going to have to go up. how you do it matters? when you do it matters.

what forms it takes matters. and, you know, we can go further if you want because there's several different approaches you could take. some of which are better for a matter of economic theory than others. but others are more likely from a political feasibility standpoint. >> one of the things i particularly like in the way you discuss the issue is that you cast, you know, the defects of the present opportunity. it's so inefficient. the base is so narrow and hollowed out with exemptions which are very difficult to defend in principle. that there's a lot of scope for increasing the amount of revenues we collect without raising marginal rates. without -- you know, you can have a simpler more efficient tax cut. >> i'm a certified public accountant and in most years i prepare my own tax return by hand without software. not because i'm a masochist but

because i want to be able to challenge members of congress to do the same because if they had to, we'd have tax reform real quick, all right? [applause] >> tax day is not a pleasant day around the walker household. i don't think we're alone in that. and one of the things that really chaps me, that's a sophisticated southern term, is that, you know, i spend all this time filling out all these forms and schedules, right, and i'm in the not-for-profit sector and i was in, you know, the public sector for 15 years, right? and just when i think i'm done i got to fill out this a.m.t. sheet, you know. and i thought i was going to get all these deductions. but it turns out i don't get any of them so i pay a 15 to 20% surtax on top of the regular tax. that is a bait-and-switch surtax. it's something that's going to go away, right? i would rather have less

deductions, less exemptions, and get rid of a.m.t. and build it into rates so at least i know when i thought i was going to get a deduction, i really get it. you have to keep in mind that this country spends 3.5 trillion a year on spending, roughly. and that it foregoes revenues about a trillion a year because of exemptions, exclusions and credits. that's back-door spending. just when we need to end up looking at all major spending programs we need to look at all major tax preferences and see whether or not they're working, whether or not they are properly targeted, whether or not they should be as high a priority in the future as they have been in the past and we need to do the same thing on spending programs, too. because, frankly, we've got a lot of things that aren't working and wasting a lot of money. they're adding to our current fiscal problems and constraining our future. >> one of the things i had in my

mind as i was reading the book -- you know, it's something i've written about from time to time is the -- this question of how far, you know, the u.s. social contract is evolving and is likely to evolve in a more european direction. i mean, one way of characterizing the obama agenda is that there are certain aspects of the european model that democrats want to introduce. i'm not accusing the administration of socialism either overt or covert. but nonetheless, you know, universal healthcare, that is something europe takes more granted and something the administration wants to achieve in the u.s. now, the question is, if america chooses to move in that direction, it also has to move in the direction of the european levels of taxation. now, where in your mind, david, or as it were the country to end

up -- i mean, is the process of convergence here, you know, and do we end up with european-like benefits, european-like economic security, european-like redistribution and european taxes? or does america want to stop short of that? >> i think america will stop short of that. and one of the things that i talk about in the book is the country has strayed from the values that have made us great and we need to come back to those values. that's the first part of "comeback america." the second part of "comeback america" is we need to make tough choices with regard to a range of sustainability challenges so we can have a comeback and our future can be better than our past. as you talk about this issue, look, it's one thing to have a social safety net. but this country has tried to go much beyond that. it's one thing to have a sound, secure safety net. it's another thing to have

middle and upper class welfare. and that's what we've done in many cases. you know, whether it's through the tax system or whether it's through medicare or whatever else. and so i think over time what's going to end up happening is we're going to have to have a sound and secure social safety net and it's going to be much better targeted to societal needs that are affordable and sustainable over time rather than unlimited wants which aren't, all right? and i think americans won't stand for european tax levels, all right? plus, for economic growth reasons and, you know, personal choice reasons, it's not desirable there. but they're going to be higher. our tax levels are going to be higher than they have been historically. because in addition to the federal government having a major fiscal challenge, which is going to be solved primarily through spending constraint and should be and reprioritization, there's going to have to be more revenues. the state and local governments have big problems, too. they have big problems with medicaid. big problems with underfunded

retiree -- unfunded retiree health plans. underfunded plans. critical infrastructure and education costs and they have huge legacy costs that they're going to have to come to grips with. ultimately we're going to have restructure the federal government, state and local is going to have to do the same thing. and so our national fiscal challenge is greater than our federal fiscal challenge but the federal is the biggest. >> okay. well, let me invite some questions or comments from the audience. we have a roving microphone. let me just say some moderators frown on comments as opposed to questions. we welcome comments. that's fine. but just keep them brief so that we can get plenty in. so we'll start with you. maybe you could identify yourself. say who you are. >> good day. i'm bradley rosenberg. i work with a small macroconsulting firm. traditionally in our wonderful

country the only way we've gotten the types of changes and with our back is against the wall. if you look back to world war ii, there was a huge growing consensus of what needed to be done but until we were attacked we couldn't move the populace. what will be the spark to force this transition to happen before the pain is too late? >> well, first i think it's important to note we can't wait for a crisis because it would be a crisis that would be much worse than the recession. and the other thing i talk about in the book is, the four factors that contributed to the mortgage-related subprime crisis exists for the federal government's finances. there are two big differences. one the size, scale, risk, and potential adverse consequences are much greater for a super subprime crisis which would be a loss of the confidence for the federal government to get its act together and secondly, nobody is going to bail us out. so i think we're making progress with the american people.

you know, vis-a-vis those public opinion polls and what's happening, you know, at the ballot box recently. we're making progress with the american people. the lag indicator is here. and, you know, and i think that frankly the bubble bursting in the last 18 months served to wake americans up. that this too big to fail concept is a fallacy. you've seen financial institution, insurance companies, automobile manufacturers who were once viewed to be too big to fail or failed or required a bailout. the last thing i would say is what's on my tie. we the people. we the people get it and we're starting to wake up. and hopefully we'll continue to so that we won't wait for a crisis because we don't want to see what that crisis will look like. >> i think it's a great question and what i meant to ask myself. you know, frank. what's your prediction here? you think we can solve this

problem without a crisis. if you ask me that question i would say on balance no. i would say just as the premise of the question. it takes a crisis to get these problems fixed. i'm not sure, david, even though you're a terrific spokesman for the solution, why you -- why are you more optimistic? >> let me tell you what our greatest risk is and i can tell you some things what gives evidence of it. our greatest risk is our foreign lenders lose confidence in our ability to put our financial house in order and when the economy turns around that we have to pay a lot more higher interest rates to pay our debt. what's important to know, even without an increase in interest rates, the single largest line item in the federal budget within 12 years according to the gao will interest on the federal debt and that's without an increase in interest rate. that's more than defense, more than social security, much more medicare, more than medicaid and we get nothing for that. interest rates are going up. the question is, how much and how fast. you know, once we turn the corner on the economy.

and so i think that's the greatest risk. look at at least one of the credit rating agencies, maybe more than one have downgraded the outlook for aaa status for the u.k. look at our ratios versus theirs. we benefit from home team bias. and we benefit from the fact that we have 64% of the global -- of the world's reserve currency which give us more rope but not unlimited rope. look at what the chinese are already doing. they're diversifying into commodities. they are diversifying into corporate instruments. they're going shorter on their maturity and duration. they're pushing for more inflation indexed treasury instruments. so there are things that are happening that are leading indicators right now. look at how much the fed bought of our debt last year which to me is self-dealing. okay. we had self-dealing going on for

a long time with the so-called trust funds, the trust the government funds. you know, we have the fed doing self-dealing. you can delay market forces. you can't eliminate market forces. it's a time difference. >> right, but we may have to get more scared than we are. i mean, that's really i think -- >> you want to make people scared but you also want to give them hope, okay? you want -- and what's happening right now is people are frustrated. some are getting angry but you want that anger to be put to a constructive purpose, you know, rather than a destructive purpose. >> next question. let me move further back in the room. there's a microphone. yeah. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate your comments. just a bit of background. talking about tax reform -- >> forgive me could you say who you are? >> mark silbermann. >> okay. and you're with?

>> a law firm in town. >> that's fine. there's no need to be embarrassed. >> if anybody wants a card, i'm happy to give it to you. [laughter] >> talking about tax reform, as you know, president reagan and bradley gephardt got together in 1986 and flattened the rates and reduced deductions, et cetera. we see where we are right now. that has changed rather dramatically and it always will. as a result we discussed through our government agencies switching systems from an income tax to of a consumption tax. that we determined couldn't -- you couldn't do that cold turkey. it's just too much disruption. professor michael gratz now at columbia has written a book and doing if you will a incremental vat.

raise the rate as income tax rates come down. i'm sort of curious as to your views of doing a vat consumption-type system as a way to raise more revenue and intergrate it solely down -- >> thanks. i believe from an intellectual standpoint that a progressive consumption tax which gives appropriate consideration to the less well off is vastly preferable to our current tax system. but then you have to ask yourself, how politically feasible is it to go from what we currently have now to like a fair tax, which is what the concept is. the fair tax is you eliminate the corporate income tax. you eliminate the personal income tax. you eliminate the payroll taxes and you go to a progressive consumption tax, all right? my view is the most likely approach that we're going to take is to streamline, simplify,

broaden the rates and keep the rates as low as possible income tax. some type of a supplemental value-added tax. probably earmarked to healthcare, again, must have statutory budget controls and other things before you end up to allow something like that. because there's a risk of people can just keep on raising it. and i think it is worth -- i think it does have intellectual merit to consider, you know, a phased approach to move more towards a consumption tax approach as a means to, you know, improve efficiency, you know, enhance compliance, you know, and achieve a number of other objectives. so i think it's something, you know, that should be given serious consideration. >> in my business they call that burying the lead. you want to v.a.t. as well as the existing income tax? >> i think realistically that's where we're headed. that's where we're headed. you know, understand this about taxes. the wealthy bear a -- a large

burden for taxes. especially income taxes. but here's one of the concerns that i have. and a lot of people think about. today, over 40% of americans don't pay any income taxes. and some get rebates. through earned income tax credit. that's headed to 50% plus under the current advocated policies. of the administration. now, what does that mean? well, they do pay payroll taxes but the payroll taxes aren't adequate to fund those programs. and those programs provide greater relevant benefits for the less well off, all right? income taxes fund all or substantially all of all the constitutional roles of the federal government. national defense, homeland security federal judicial system, foreign policy, congress, executive office of the president, all right? so 40 to 50% of americans get a free ride on the constitutional role of the federal government. i got a problem with that. i think that creates a very big

disconnect that could have serious adverse consequences over time. and so i think we need dramatic reform but we're going to have to do it in installments. this country doesn't do dramatic reform all at once, all right? we have too many checks and balances in our system to get that done. it's not just the 60 votes in the senate, okay? but -- i mean, that's one of them. >> but any kind of national v.a.t., even if it came in 1 percentage point, that would be a dramatic reform right there. >> we're going to get it. i believe we're going to get it. we're not going to get it standing alone. it's going to have to be part of a, quote-unquote, grand bargain. >> yep. >> which would include tough statutory budget controls, round one of social insurance reform, you know, round one of spending reprioritization constraint and round one of tax reform. >> so you can imagine this coming out of a budget commission. this is the kind of thing that would -- >> yeah. >> next question, sir.

okay. you're next, sorry. >> charles clarkson. i'm an entrepreneur. following up on the pearl harbor thing, we passed the draft of one vote one week before pearl harbor. what's your thought about -- if ever there was an argument of the fiscal commission being subject to budget reconciliation needing 51 votes, can that help. >> the fiscal commission or healthcare reform? >> well, either one. of i'm more focused on the fiscal -- >> you raise an interesting point. i think you could raise it in the fiscal commission in budget reform with a straight phrase. that's an interesting concept. the purpose of it would be to provide more fiscal discipline, all right? on the other hand, if you tried to do healthcare reform, via the budget reconciliation process, i think that would be tactical nuclear weapon. no, that's a very intriguing idea. i knew you were a bright guy.

but what about a bit of both? i mean, some people urge -- i mean, it seems very unlikely now to happen. there's some people who have been urging the house to pass the senate bill and at the same time reconciliation side car with budget two weeks that could go back to the senate for majority vote. >> yeah, i think we need to explore all options. but i think, you know, the key is that if you're going to use budget reconciliation, you know, it's supposed to be to try to make our fiscal -- >> it's about -- >> it's about fiscal discipline, fiscal responsibility. remember the harry and louise ads, you know? we're headed for a thelma and louise. and so we need to make sure change course. >> that's good. >> we're over here now. >> thank you. i'm not identifying myself because it's not all about me. it's all about you, david walker, thank you very much for

coming here today. >> thank you. >> i was just wondering -- >> she's not related. >> the air of mystery is irresistible. >> do you believe tort reform deserves a relook. and also since we're cheaply bound by the decisions of our elected leaders and you're, unfortunately, not one of them, i wish you were, could you give us an idea of who you could be willing to support as a horizon leader? >> yeah. so you want an endorsement, okay? >> no, i just love your advice. >> okay. well, first -- he's a little seasoned. he's a great guy but he's a little seasoned. [laughter] >> in any event -- >> we'll tell him you said that. >> he is a case study of the american dream come true and a model statesman. there's no question about that.

the answer to your question is, first tort reform. yes, we need tort reform but we need something more fundamental than that. one of the things i talk about we need alternative courts like healthcare, i believe, like we have for bankruptcy. in addition to that, we need national evidence-based practice standards that would help physicians decide how to allocate but they would make the decision how to allocate limited resources under a federal budget but would also serve as a safe harbor against malpractice claims which the biggest cost of malpractice is not awards. it's defensive medicine. and so we need to recognize that reality. on the second, i mention in the book a dozen of people who are sincere who are trying to championing trying for put our fiscal house in order, page 32. >> have any of them embarrassed you yet or do you still stand by this list?

>> let's just say this -- you have to understand that members wear two hats. they wear a hat with regard to their committee assignments. and in some cases they can be leadership. and they wear a hat to represent their state. basically what happens is, is that their macro hat is their committee hat or their leadership hat. and for that on the fiscal standpoint they should be helping to assure that the pie is reasonable and responsible from a fiscal standpoint. however, with regard to their state, they want as much of that pie as they can get. and so that's how -- sometimes you can look at this and look like -- well, there's a dichotomy here or a contradiction. you know, they wear two hats. >> right. >> and they have jobs to do. >> okay. still over here, please. >> if in your opinion neither is

the party of fiscal responsibility, who would you suggest would be on this statutory budget commission? >> yeah. >> or do i just look on page 34? [laughter] >> david, you yourself would volunteer? >> we'll see. here's the key, my view is ideally the commission should be comprised of three kinds of people. elected officials from both sides of the aisle and both ends of capitol hill. secondly, administration representatives, probably a couple, and thirdly, several capable, credible people who are not government officials. who would bear a disproportionate share of the burden to state the facts and state the truth to the american people outside the beltway

because, quite frankly, if you have a hard r or hard d on your sleeve or if you're a current elected or administration official, a very large percentage of the population will discount you no matter what you have to say, all right? i think as far as the individuals that are appointed, whichever one of those three, you know, places they come from. they should be capable, credible and committed to try to come up with a package of reforms that can achieve broad agreement. and that achieves certain specific objectives from a fiscal standpoint, for example, stabilizing debt to g.d.p., not just over 10 years but over time. achieving an expressed reduction in the amount of unfunded obligations that we have. i mean, some specific quantifiable things. and, frankly, i think it's okay to allow amendments to the

proposals as long as they are bottom line neutral. in other words, if you don't want to restructure benefits as much or you don't want to raise taxes as much, then you got to pay for it. such that on the bottom line it's neutral. because in the end, we've got to get our bottom line in shape. and we've got to get debt to g.d.p. at a level that we can sustain over time. >> just on a point of information and something we touched on earlier. i'd love it if you could clarify for me. a commission created by executive order which looks like what we'll get because the senate just voted down the attempt to create a statutory commission, could a commission created by executive order have that property you just mentioned that it would bind the congress in certain ways, you know, that would be an extra -- an expedited legislative process? is that something that congress itself would separately have to bind itself to is what i'm

saying? >> it would have to be something they would have to separately bind themselves to. right now what president obama has done he secured a commitment from speaker pelosi and majority leader reid that they would do everything within their power to help ensure that a commission's recommendations would get a vote. that's easier for speaker pelosi to make that commitment because the speaker controls what goes to the house floor. >> right. >> and, therefore, you know, it's easier for her to do that. it's more difficult for leader reid to do that. >> okay. >> because he doesn't control 60 votes. >> right. >> all right. ? buck mentioned an interesting concept of reconciliation. and is there a way to do something through reconciliation. whether it's the commission or to guarantee that it get a vote, you got to keep in mind, to guarantee that something is going to get a vote you got to be comfortable with the composition of the commission. and you got to be -- you got to be comfortable with, you know, what's on the table.

and so it's hard to imagine that the congress would end up guaranteeing a vote unless they directly were involved in deciding who was on the commission and what -- what it was going to consider. my concern is is that people may try to politic this. and i think it would be a huge mistake for the republicans to try to politic this. and i think it would be a huge mistake for elected members to cave to the fringes on the right and the fringes on the left. by the way, we had some profiles in coweres this week of sponsors of the bill didn't vote for it. all right? we ought to ask a few questions about that, all right? that was caving to the extremes. and that's what's wrong. all right? the country is in the sensible center. that's where the solutions are. >> okay. another question. i'm just trying to get a sense where i ought to go next.

thanks. >> stefan rector with the globalist magazine. david, all these issues make it complex in any industrial society. the united states is probably the most complex of these societies. other countries made a pact 100 years ago to introduce a parliamentary democracy so that something called the finance ministry is in charge of sorting these things out. because what you say -- >> i understand. >> what you say about we the people is absolutely correct but we the people is very busy. it's over our pay grade is over the next phrase. washington has never died because there are not enough good ideas but even this conversation among two of the bright people on this issue focuses very much on people and process. in the end it comes all to decision-making. do you ever wonder whether -- with all these commissions we've had 20 years, 25 years and some of them have worked a little bit and so then -- at the end of the

day, whether we even have the right constitutional setup to make any decisions in america? and i know it's a bad question but needy remind you the french these days have the same union structure as the united states, and they reinvented several republics. at the end of the day -- >> hopefully we can do it nonviolently. >> the book goes there. the book -- >> i touch on that. >> it does not flifrm -- >> there's a chapter called dysfunctional democracy. and it talks about what's wrong in your current society. the fact we have a republic that's not represented by the republic and it's not the partisanship. it's the ideological divide. it does talk about the need for redistricting, campaign finance reform, term limits, among other things. some of which would require constitutional amendments. i don't raise the specter of going to a parliamentary system, you know, i think there are

things that can be done incrementally that are short of that to try to make the current system work better. but i wouldn't eliminate the possibility a number of years from now. but i wouldn't put it on the table now. and i don't in the book. >> okay. i'm tempted -- but i won't ask -- >> you have some experience in that. >> hi. susan levine capital keys. i had a question about the voting process. i know washington was done on a deal thanks to alexander hamilton, our location. so that's nothing new. but i have trouble with 300, 500, $600 million for votes. >> the american people do too, especially when it's their money. >> right. i'm curious how -- since voting

is a part of all that's political in this town, what do you say about that? and how does that affect our budget? >> yeah, well, first i definitely think we need -- we need more transparency in a number of areas. especially in connection with earmarks as an example. i think one of the reasons many americans were outraged recently was because of the special deals that were done on healthcare for nebraska and louisiana. and especially the special deal that was done for unions. i think they were outraged by that. and so one of the things i do talk about in the book is some areas that we need more reforms and additional transparency, if you will, but it's got to be meaning transparency. right now we got something on the weapon that you can see every contract that the government issues. but it's like a file dump. it's like what you give the irs. you know, you can't make anything out of it, okay?

it's got -- i mean, you can have -- you could have information overload, okay, such that you don't really have meaningful transparency. we need meaningful and timely transparency so it can make a difference. and i think we need to employ name and shame a lot more. now, part of the problem with that is it's hard to shame people nowadays. [laughter] >> have you ever noticed that? the bar has gotten so low. people got to do the limbo to do the thing, you know. [laughter] >> that's true. so can we get the microphone over here and then you next. thanks. >> apropro of name and shame, wall street and the banks, and my real direct question is, do you think the president's notion of a tax on the big banks is simply a politically populist fig leaf or not? >> it's clearly populist. it clearly doesn't go to the

source of the problem, i think. you know, my view is that for any system to work, a banking system, a compensation system, a healthcare system, a tax system, whatever, you got to have three things. properly aligned and integrated incentives that encourage people to do the right thing. adequate transparency. that's nature and timeliness in. in order to provide reasonable assurance they will because a variety of parties were looking. and thirdly, appropriate accountability of people doing the wrong things. we were zero tore three. -- for three. that's called a strikeout. by the way we are zero for 3 for healthcare, too. and we're zero for 3 with regard to a you been in of areas that i talk about in the book where we're dysfunctional and we need transformational reform. you know, i'd rather go direct than indirect. that's an indirect way. to deal with something rather than a direct way. i always think direct is better. >> okay. please.

>> thank you. my name is amy baker. i'm here with an organization called lift. we train hundreds of college students to provide services to low-incomed people. part of it is personal budgeting on the microlevel. i'm also here as a young person. who's a future bearer of a lot of this weight. what is my role in all of this? and what can i do to organize some of my age cohort here? [laughter] >> well, a couple of things. first, young people should be very, very, very involved in this debate. because they will pay the price. and they will bear the burden disproportionately if others fail to act. there are three things that are happening that affect young people. their futures are being money order. -- mortgaged. relative investments in their

futures because of mandatory spending growing which constrains discretionary like basic research, critical infrastructure being squeezed at a time where we will face increasing competition in the global economy. in the south we call that a triple win. that's not good. all right? and the sad thing is that young people have not been as engaged in this. the other thing i think that's going on right now is that we have massive taxation without representation going on right now. you know, there's two kinds of taxes, current taxes and deferred taxes. and large deficits absent structural reform represent deferred taxes with interest. and it's easy to tax -- it's easy to spend somebody else's money. it's even easier to spend their money when they're too young to vote or not born yet. and to a great extent that's what's going on. young people need to become informed and involved. they need to make sure they're

part of the solution. they need to encourage actions sooner rather than later. and as an individual a better plan save, and invest and preserve their savings for retirement especially if they want to retire nay reasonably early age 'cause they're going to need it. government is going to do less. government has overpromised and underdelivered. it's going to have to target its efforts more. and it's going to have to get more revenues. that's in reality. it's going to primarily do spending constraint but it's going to get more revenues, too. >> okay. we have another question. in the back. >> yes. excluding the $2 trillion wars that you mentioned, we are still spending more on defense than the rest of the world put together. i wonder if you could talk a little bit about defense in the context of your book? >> well, there's the chapter dedicated to defense. and let me just give a few statutes.

the percentage of the federal budget dedicated to defense is about 20%. it was 43% in -- 40 years ago. 1969. it was about 43%. but you are correct in saying that we spend about as much as the rest of the world combined on defense. now, there's a couple of footnotes on that. or at least three footnotes. one, the dollar doesn't go as far here as it does elsewhere. labor costs, material costs and especially in china, it goes a lot further. secondly, we're a lot more transparent about what we spend on defense than certain other countries are. and thirdly, we are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden for global security. we're doing too much. others aren't doing enough. all right? there's a lot of waste in defense. including how we go about planning and executing our

weapons systems development, budget strategy. there's also a lot of waste through our acquisition and contracting practices. and in addition to that, i question the sustainability of the all-volunteer model, force model. and i get into it. it is very, very, very expensive. much more expensive than, frankly, even members of congress knew. >> hmmm, interesting. sir? yes, you and then -- and then you, sir. thanks. >> my name is steve hayes. you mentioned earlier that there is no fiscally responsible political party. and i think the evidence is overwhelming that that's the case. my question is, do you think that we could get one -- either one of the major parties or a third-party? >> well, there's always hope. ...

>> i think the other thing to keep in mind is, depending upon which poll you go by, or survey you go by, a plurality of americans are now independent. and it is going up. now part of the problem with that is in the house of

representatives, there's only about 60 competitive seats. absent some major national referendum, which means that the independent really don't play a major force except in those 60 seats. which means that the democrats tend to be more liberal in the country than the republicans more conservative because everything is decided in a primary. that's what you get the ideological divide, the stalemate, and that's why we need redistricting reform. >> tom-tom and from parents magazine. yesterday treasury secretary geithner and former secretary paulson said it was necessary to bail out aig at that moment and 2008 in order to avert a great depression and 25% unemployment, respectively. my question is, first question is, do you believe that

yourself? my second question is, for the sake of argument that it is true, would it -- would not a great depression be one of the signal result of putting our house in order? and if that is true, would you say it's better to do it now been due in 25 years? >> well first, i don't know what their bases of great depression and 25% unemployment was. i'd love to see their modeling, you know, to be able to do that. it's out of the left side of the keister. [laughter] >> that's another sophisticated southern term. but the fact of the matter is you can't prove a negative. all right? were there good reasons to do it? i'm sure there were. i wasn't there. the question is, what are we doing to try to make sure it doesn't happen again?

and did we do at the right way? i think we had failures in the private sector and government that cause these conditions to exist, and then when the crisis occurred, we didn't have clearly defined -- lily defined objectives, criteria and conditions. and so we wasted a lot of money, we need to learn from that. i would not want a great depression. and i do not recommend one, in my book. at the same point in time i will tell you, that if we don't start addressing our structural imbalance, we may well get a great depression. and i think it's important that we recognize that a super subprime crisis, which would be what would happen if there was a loss of confidence in the federal government ability to put its own financial house in order, a dramatic increase in

interest rates. that would be a global depression. we don't want it. we don't have to have it. and the key is, what do we need to do to avoid it. and that's what the book is about, solutions. and solutions not just from the standpoint of policy, operation and political, but the kind of processes it will make to make those solutions a reality. one thing i learned a long time ago, including entrance from gao. it's not what you want to do but how you have to go about it to get it done. you have to have solid proposals and processes that have integrity, because if you don't, you will fail. because we'll have to fight a two front war. and it's very hard to win. , a two front went. >> i could naturally better summoning up. we've come to the end of our time. that is a splendid note on which to him. thank you all for coming. thank you for asking her questions.

[applause] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> it gives me great pleasure, and i know you all sure my pride, i welcome your tonight the administrator of the environmental protection agency, and a champion of our lands, lisa jackson. [applause] >> wow. thanks, bob. what an intro. you can and show me anytime. [laughter] >> anytime. well, i'm not going to take a long time here this evening.

i just want to do a couple of things. the first is to thank you, bob, and thank you frances for the honor of addressing this crowd. so many friends, so many people have been working on these issues for such a long time on clean energy, on climate. but not just on clean energy and climate. the range of issues on which we agreed and thankfully sometimes don't agree because we need you to continue to push us and make sure that we are thinking of all the angles. and considering all the health and environmental impacts of our work. are so brought at this time, and so it's just lovely to have a few minutes to address you here. i would be remiss if i did remind everyone of a couple of things. there are a bunch of people watching lisa. one of them is clearly frances. and i'm afraid, too. she is not to be trifled with. [laughter] >> i also know that i have some epa employee. i saw gina mccarthy. the extraordinary head of our office of air in radiation.

[applause] >> for whom i am grateful for every day. and i'm sure after a drink she is grateful, too. [laughter] >> any other epa folks? i know we have lots of -- high. >> i am with the research office. >> banks are coming. nice to see you. so listen, the second thing want to talk to you tonight for just a second his clean energy. and to say listen, thanks allowing an opportunity to talk about why clean energy is simple common sense. we need to get the word out. so this is very timely messaging indeed, that clean energy, commonsense for our economy commonsense for national security, commonsense for our environment for the future of our planet, for our children, and for our grandchildren. when you see north carolina, growing clean energy jobs at twice the rate of overall jobs, or tennessee, or iowa, growing

clean jobs at seven times the rate of the average. or south dakota, who managed to beat them all with 19 times the job growth in the clean energy sector, that an overall job growth, we know that it's common sense and good for our economy. when we see billions of dollars going to other countries, many of whom might not have our security interest at heart, and every year to see ourselves despite rhetoric after rhetoric watching our increasing reliance on fossil fuels and on oil that comes from offshore, leave us vulnerable. we know that energy -- independence is a commonsense solution for our country and for our national security. but for me most important, when we see polluted air, when i see water that is literally in parts of our nation today making people sick, when we experience historic droughts, or in my beloved hometown, horrendous historic flooding.

we know that clean energy is just pure commonsense for our environment, for reducing climate pollution, reducing other pollutions and confronting once and for all threat of climate change to our planet. some people might think it makes sense to stick with the status quo, and i bet frances will have something to say to us about that. there's a lot of talk about simply ramping up our existing supplies. but we have been down that path before, and i ask us all to remember it. in 2001, we saw an energy plan focused on fossil fuels. supporters of that plan said it would lower cost for consumers, it would lower cost for businesses, and it would, too, reduce our growing dependence on foreign oil. but here today we know that plan didn't work. it didn't work for our security. it didn't work for our businesses. it didn't work for our environment, and it certainly hasn't worked from the standpoint of jobs. my 2006 crude oil prices were up

143%. gas prices had gone 71%. natural gas was 46% more expensive, and dependence on foreign oil has increased to 65%. and that's not counting the 4-dollar a gallon gasoline we saw just over a year ago. and simply increasing our domestic fuels does nothing to reduce air pollution. it won't help the millions of american children like my own, who suffer from asthma. it won't allow our smoke clogged cities to finally breathe easy. nor will it do anything to reduce the prevalence of cancer and other diseases that are increasingly linked to a burning fossil fuels. so i ask you all to please compare the two options that we have. on the one hand, the dirty burning fuel supply we use today has gotten more expensive, it's damaged the health of our kids, it's damage our communities, is resulted in billions of american dollars going overseas each year

rather than keeping that money here in our own economy. on the other hand, clean energy has created jobs. as market share has grown, as technology has progressed, the cost of clean energy has and will continue to decrease. and it is put us on a strong course towards improving our national security, our sustainability environmentally, and our economic competitiveness. and broad terms, clean energy jobs are up. clean energy costs are down. while fossil fuels costs are up, and the money we pay for the fuel is increasingly sent to other countries. the question for me, i think the outcome is which of these to pass, that so clearly lie before us, do we want to follow? i thank each of you for all the work you've done in illuminating those paths. and also in helping us make that choice. we have much work yet to do, and i know you will be pushing us on. thanks so much. [applause]

>> they didn't tell me that i would have the honor of introducing a woman who i now can call friend. there are many things you do when you find that you might actually be named as the next administrator of the epa. and one of them you do is called the head of the in our d.c. you would be crazy not to. but what i found when i spoke to her, it wasn't my first time, was not only a personal warmth and a professional level of support, as a sister and as a friend, but a voice that i could turn to just force him commonsense ideas, and a constant supply of support and energy. so, ladies and gentlemen, i give you offer frances beinecke. [applause] >> thank you so much, lisa, and i just want to say that we are

so privileged that nrdc and in the nation to have been epa administrator who is so committed to protecting the environment to ensuring that citizens all across the country are fairly treated to help the error, water, food, and those who have suffered particularly from disproportionate impact over the years from lack of environmental quality are so high on her agenda. so i am a huge admirer of lisa jackson. also a friend, but so grateful that the president has appointed somebody for whom environmental protection is the mission of her life, who will do everything in her power to ensure that the future of this country and the wielding of our citizens are protected going forward. so she is a total champ and we are so lucky to have her as part of the environmental future of this country, and also here with us tonight.

i also want to thank all of my colleagues and friends from nrdc, and from the environmental community, from the hill, from all the agencies who are here. because of this book, "clean energy common sense," is really an endeavor for all of us. this is a product of my career, but the career of everybody in this room because we are linked in our efforts to advance environmental protection, advanced solutions to climate change, and ensure that we do have a clean energy future that does make commonsense for the country. one that does create jobs in this country, that addresses security issues, that assure us that our carbon emissions declined. that's the purpose of the book that the reason, and i have to thank bob, because he told you the schedule, there would be no book without that partnership. he is an amazing goalie to work with on this. but what we wanted to do was really go out and have a book

that could talk to the american public. and here in this room, i am with people who work on this issue every day who are passionate about it and who have studied it in great detail and great depth, and no more than anyone. i can assure you of that. but the fact is, that isn't true across the country. and i travel across the country and our people each and every day who continue to be unsure. they are skeptics. just last week i was in chicago speaking at the economics club with john. 250 people there. the first question was i don't believe you. i don't believe that the science is there. it wasn't the only question either. and i was at a dinner party in the bronx just yet and i. same question, is this really true? so it is true. we know that. the science is in, and people need to know what the science case is from a authoritative sources. the purpose of the book was really to present, it's sure, you can read it on the plane, put it in your pocket, and get

the full story. that the science case is in but there are serious impacts already occurring, that they're a big logical impacts impact that their serious humanitarian impact. is a humanitarian crisis as well as an environmental crisis. that the security authorities from the cia to the pentagon have this very high on the agenda. that these are issues that we must address and we must address them now. and any other part of the book which is really important if they get through that park, is there really are solutions. and that is what we are all about. that's the we're working on here in washington every single day. we know what the solutions are. they are available now. we need to put them in place, and we need the help actually across america to do it. so in end it is a call to action. we want people across the country to participate with us. we want them to feel that they understand the issue. so by picking up the book, reading through it we are holding that they will take action. and really call on their

senators on their elected officials, to finally get us on a trajectory that reduces carbon emissions, and that creates a clean energy economy for this country that unleashes tremendous opportunity for american workers across the country. lees and i were in gary, indiana, with the steelworkers at our rally. i went to cleveland. when you go to that part of the country you really feel the loss of jobs. you want to be sure. you want to do everything in your power to make sure that these jobs are real, that they are available and that we unleash them as quickly as possible. and so that gets us to the competitiveness issue, because it's not only in the united states where there is a lot eagerness to unleash a clean energy economy their camper those who have been to china recently, you can see it is happening there. and i want it to happen here. so that we are the leaders around the world and we really set the pace for how we move to a low carbon economy that takes us down a very different road, and that protects the planet.

and all the planet systems and all the planets peoples in the process. so i want to thank you all for being here. i'm happy to sign any books if anybody wants me to, but more than anything, i want to thank all of you for the work that you are doing on behalf of the planet here because the point about this issue is, it is so broad, it crosses all sectors, and it will take all of us. and we we are going down the right path. so thank you all very much. enjoyed eating, and thank you for being here. [applause] >> thank you so much. you are my hero. look at this. we're already way up on the chart. >> isn't that great to see? >> isn't that fantastic? how did you know? >> no work was done in our office today. >> i don't even know quite how to find, but that's really fun,

rice because it's a lot of fun. >> then we will do more projects together. >> i don't know how you did it so quickly. >> this is our publisher, marcus. >> thank you so much. this is a great partnership. >> yes, it is indeed. >> let's do some more. you know, we want to get out there and talk more broadly. to actual have it published and out in the marketplace and not just the our product, you know, puts enormous credibility on it. the fact that it becomes marketable and moving up the charts, you know, that gives an endorsement of what the topic is. you guys guessed right. thank you. >> well, thank you. spoke i don't know if we can do anything quite so quickly again. >> , and take a picture. these are our publishers. get the publishers. this is their product.

>> without them there would be no book. >> the head of manufacturing. is the one who got the print scheduled. >> great. i appreciate that very much. you really went on overdrive. i'm sure you did. how often do you do things that quickly? >> not often. not often. >> occasionally. >> it's fun when we do. it's fun to see at all come together and. >> it looks so good. thank you. it looks great. did you guys do the design? >> yes. >> bob talked about the concept. >> it's a great concept. >> her name is on the back. she did the cover design. >> and house the. >> nice. >> that's fabulous. thank you.

>> this was a portion of a booktv program. you can view the entire program, and many other booktv programs, online. go to booktv.org. type the name of the author or book into the search area in the upper left hand corner of the page. select the watch link. now you can view the entire program. you might also explore the recently on booktv box, or the featured video box to find recent and featured brogue rams. >> these are some of the best selling books

>> we are at frostburg state university speaking with robert in more the third about his book the always said i would marry a white girl. to start off with, -- who action said that you would always marry a white girl? and why did they say that? >> i think that was more of an internal feeling on my part. i grew up and i think a very passing type it in the suburbs of philadelphia during the 1960s. we were one of the through african-american families, perhaps the only african-american family to ride the wave of millions of whites who left the urban american at that time period to go to the suburbs. at the same time many african-americans were coming off the land of rural america

and going to the cities. so i thought very neat, i felt caught between i think two groups. almost like two sides. and it was a time period that was pre-multiculturalism. and so i felt internally perhaps i was destined to marry someone who was white. rather than african-american. >> one of the first part of your book is, you have a couple of different sections. the first one called straddling the fence. how did you come to grips with your identity as an african-american male growing up in a predominantly white area of suburban philadelphia? >> it was tough. i don't think i did. i think i still wrestle with that. the impact of that time period. i grew up with people who, very good friends of mine. i still have great friends from that time period, but who held

many stereotypes about african-americans. i was fortunate, both my parents were, which was unusual for the time period. i came from a dual income family. 10th grade rolled around and i opted out of the public school system, went to a private school. and i had my first contact with african-americans actually. my first girlfriend was in 10th grade and she was african-american. so i had to leave that situation and go someplace else, i think to really work on my identity. >> what do you think it means to be -- what is an african-american identity? >> today or -- >> either today or what you felt growing up, what it would mean to be. >> you know, that is an interesting question. big question. i think we have stereotypes of each other, and i subscribe to something called group position three.

i kind of look at groups of people in our society and i look at their overall place in society. and i think we hold stereotypes about groups, and we utilize those stereotypes. i was socialized as a middle-class person growing up in the city, the suburbs of philadelphia. i'm not sure there's anyone identity that african-americans have or that whites have, but i think we do feel a sense of cultural difference, whether it is real cultural difference or not is up for debate. but i think there is an in group a versus outgrew. and one day i hope we get over that in this country, that we come to some sense of oneness. >> why did you do side to write the book in the first place? >> i felt i had a light to get off my chest. and i really think my expenses are quite unique.

i have three kids at the moment, and i started having kids late in life. i did marry a white female. and we now have, for the first time in this history, a mixed-race movement, a biracial movement. and a lot of my thoughts today center around racial identity. i'm fascinated by people with a mixed-race day, whereas up until the past 30 years, the past 25 years if you have any african-american ancestry within your background you would consider african-american. racial identity questions are still with us. i think they are absolutely fascinating. and so i really want to just dive into, write a book about how race has changed over the past 35, four years. >> how has it changed? what's the biggest thing that you have seen today versus growing up in the '60s? >> well, it' q