saturday, caron butler was traded away. this was the scene before the game with minnesota. the captain, antawn jamison getting in his car and riding off. jamison traded away to the cleveland cavaliers. ending his five and a half years with the wizards. the big three down to one, gilbert arenas, suspended for the rest of the season. it's a three-team deal. jayjay misson is gone. the wizards get the aspiring contract of al thorton and the calves' first round pick. not traded as of yet, but the clark is running.

michael jenkins and chic hernandez. coming up, tiger woods is a ready to speak to the media kind of. one-sided. the heart and soul of the wizards head to the cavaliers. chris miller is live. i don't think it's exaggerating to call antawn the heart and soul. any time there was a controversy, he was the rock and the guy everyone leaded on. >> reporter: all i can remember is antawn jamison at the beginning of the middle the first half was the one paraded out in goods times and bad. hence the reason you said he's the heart and soul of the organization. as of 7:15 as you showed, antawn pulled out of the verizon center and headed to his new position. the trade is complete with the cavaliers and the clippers,

ending antawn jamison's tennier here. heart and soul is only one way of describing what he has been for the organization no. more. i asked flip saunders, how does the team try to move forward? >> no question it will be different. i said to him he's been one of the most professional players i have ever been around. sometimes players can also use it as a crutch. go talk to antawn because he's the mature guy. now what has to happen, all the other players have to ma sure. >> i will miss him a lot. he's a very positive person. he show med the way. he tried to help me get into my routines and things like that. it's going to be different. i have to step up, you know, do all the things he taught me and help out my teammates. >> we just came together before the game and i said to them guys, you have to go out there

and play as hard as you can. we played hard and we know what happened. you see we won tonight. >> it's like extreme makeover team edition. you know, but it is what it is. we are going to be professional about it. i don't think anything is finalize. if it goes through, we will definitely miss the guys who are leaving. we didn't get to see drew long but antawn is a big part of the organization and a part of the wins. there's no question how much he will be missed and what a great guy in the lockerroom he is and player as well. >> reporter: in one of the more surreal moments, literally before they went out for the opening layup line, antawn jamison had his jersey on, ready to go out with his form mate when is they informed him he was traded to the cavaliers. to the bitter end, antawn jamison was a fighting hard

washington wiz wizzard. >> have you gotten a feel of how flip feels? >> reporter: if there's anyone that could lead the organization as pertaining to the head coach, i think flip saunders is the guy. i can tell you this, in the arena, you knew fans knew something was going to happen before the opening tip. as the team played harder, they rallied around them. make no mistake about it, i think everyone in the city and the organization will remember the efforts and contributions aj left. we will definitely miss him. he was one of the class acts in 24 organization. >> constant professional for sure. thank you very much. chris miller live with the wizards in washington. to the highlights now. josh howard and the wizards with a look against the t birds. flynn over the shoulder to ryan

holland for this stuff. on top by as many as 12. here's the washington wizards. with plenty of opportunity, they take advantage in the 3rd. the first lead of the game. mcgee's turn. looking for the lop from randy foy. getting it right. there the wizards -- right there. the wizards back in front by one. the six-year veteran from wake forest scoring 7 of his 14 points points in the 4th quarter, and washington with the 11-point lead after 3. minnesota going on a 16-point run to start it. the timber wolves are on top by 4. they respond with their 15-1 of their own. mike miller with the 3-ball to give the wizards back the lead. later in the fourth quarter,

blatche again. this time from the corner, and filling in for jamison. he has the career high 33 points to go along with it. the wizards amazingly get the win. 108-99. it was a solid performance by a trio of wizards. howard scored 24 points in 8 minutes. singleton gets 8 points to go with 7 rebounds. >> they played great. they played great. i love the new guys. they are hungry. they play hard, aggressive, and they hit the boards. our chemistry is there for one game. it was a great game for us. we have fun. >> totally understanding the opportunity. if they can't understand the opportunity here, i don't think they ever will. they played well and played with energy. the key is to stay in the next 30 games. you know they will have the opportunity to have the opportunity they have always wanted to go out there and play

and get minutes, and hopefully they make the most of it. >> it's all a -- all just about the same age. with the age we have today, they said they have seen that a lot. we could be a great team. >> it means a lot a whole lot. just coming into the relationship to show i want to be here, and plus going back to the mound. >> reporter: satisfaction? >> yeah. don't worry about me saying that no more. later in the show, chris miller going one on one with josh howard as the latest wizard makes the transition from dallas to dc. it was hard initially when you heard you were

him to. he has rushed for over 1,000 yards in his career. still to come, it's been a suck easesful day for the united states on the slopes of vancouver. the result from the women's downhill on the way. duke on a roll after blasting it on saturday. see how they did in south beach tonight. this is geico sports night.

anncr vo: ...you can get help gwith a flat tire.... anncr vo: ...find a nearby tow truck or gas station... anncr vo: ...call emergency services... anncr vo: ...collect accident information. anncr vo: or just watch some fun videos. anncr vo: or just watch some fun videos. anncr vo: or just watch some fun videos. anncr vo: or just watch some fun videos.

this never gets old. >> no. can we play it again? >> no. >> all right. one of the overwhelming american favorites lived up to expectations. lindsey von who severely bruised her shin two weeks ago did not let anyone down. she said this is everything i hoped for, and i gave up everything for this. shawny davis was the first african american athlete to win an individual gold in the winter olympics. he won his repeat gold medal.

his teammate also won the bronze. back to college hoops, duke on the road at miami. >> i love duke. >> just 1,000th first game. >> what? >> 1001, you see. cain psyched up. leading by 12 at the break. >> john shire launching the game at three. kyle with the alley-oop to mason plumly. evans. nolan smith going to seal the deal. duke up by 9. smith at 21. the blue devils with their fifth straight. 81-74. a look at the acc standings. duke on top. virginia tech and maryland tied in second place, and you can see the rest there, virginia at 5 5th, 6th and 7th. virginia tech. guess what, as luck would have it on comcast sportsnet, the

sunday hoakies are battling it out. you wonder how randy poy spent the all star break? go to our blog and read it. don't forget to leave randy a comment. we are still getting to know many of the washington wizards. could one player be the stabilizing force for the rest of the season? josh howard. and have the nationals harded to make plans for their top pick? the latest on wphen strawsburg m he gn. you!of te! exc... what grndwithan ♪ yout habe so nice ♪

grndwithan we americans are always at our best when we hear and heed the cries of others. when confronted with massive human suffering, americans have always stepped up and answered the call to help. but there's never been anything on the scale of human tragedy in our own hemisphere like what we're now witnessing in haiti. y president clinton and i are joining together to appeal to you with real urgency. give now, and lives will be saved. thank you. thank you.

welcome back. the patriot league, navy holding to beat holy cross. the mens' chris harris has scored in all 26 games in the season and led the way with 21 tonight. the american holding off army 57-54. now don't expect the nats's top draft pick to begin the season with the big club. the single-a affiliate is marketing the five-game $15 million plan based on his starts. our nationals' coverage in case you're wondering begins this sunday. kelly johnson covering ryan zimmerman. yes, and everyone else, newses and exclusive interviews starting saturday on geico sportsnite. before the season, the

wizards' fans were talking about the big three. today not a single one of the players is on the roster. you could count gilbert arenas. but who knows if he will play in washington again. now it's time to focus on the new guys like josh howard. he spoke with josh miller. >> reporter: it's a unique situation when someone is traded and they go from somewhere they are comfortable to a new environment. what your reaction when you found out you were traded to dc? >> opportunity to play more. another great organization. they have great history. just trying to get a player they want, and fortunately it was me. feel good about it all the way around. >> reporter: you're a former all star. what do the wizard -- what will the wizard fans see? coming in night in and night out to lead my teammates and

stay positive. that's all i can do. >> reporter: you talked about staying positive during the process, was it hard initially when you heard you were going as far as a strong push. antawn jamison and the other guys. >> reporter: how weird was it for the first day back to practice after the all star break, you're in a new stadium with a new team and get ready for a game the next day. >> a lot thrown out you. i try to take it in tried. there's already a lot. you have to pick up and move and see your family.

just staying calm to do the things i need to do. >> reporter: you're coming off the ankeny and will wrist surgery, how are you feeling? how close are you to being 100%? >> probably won't be 100% until the season is over. probably 75% to 85%. >> reporter: how would you describe your game? i see a smile on your face when you say that. >> a little bit of everything. that's what i made my name off of. in dallas, just being able to be aggressive at everything i have done, and that's it i can't say i'm the best shooter or the best passer, but i'm a good shooter and good passer. i really take that to be good at one thing. >> reporter: i find it interesting, the first thing you said coming in here, you looked up and saw that you're only six games out -- >> uh-uh. >> reporter: and the possibilities of making the playoffs is important to you? >> like i said a lot of teams don't make the playoffs

throughout their whole career. come in october and leave in april april, may, june, it doesn't hurt. but t whe p. >>t boutaew loo wizayou an ee thew thnver big trade and what it means down the stretch. ñññññññ/

en aecia risk theflu

soyourinat fn moflu. tor, we can all fight the flu. ian:e's

welcome back. college hoops, number 8 west virginia taking on providence. the mount nears coming out flying. dennis with the jumper to go on the 23-0 run. putting west virginia ahead, 23- 4. second half, the flyers with a run. full court pressure to force the turnover, and then council with the layin. providence cutting the lead to only 6. too much west virginia in this one, deshawn butler, driving to get the scoop shot to go. west virginia winning going away. 88-74. in the meantime, number 25 richmond causing tonight.

the spiders topping it 85-66. george washington taking down umass. recapping the top story, the wizards with another trade with three teams. the bottom line, the heart of the wizards' team is on his way out, antawn jamison. and on his way to the cavaliers to join lebron for a chance at the tight until the nba. you lost two of the big three, and gilbert arenas watches the rest of the season. the cavaliers got the denver nuggets tomorrow night. the first time i guess we will see antawn jamison, strange enough in the cavalier uniform. >> no cavalier fans around here, but i'm glad he has this chance. he earned that. >> y he has. that's it -- yes, he has. that's it for this edition of geico sportsnite. >> i have jusbe'm ded. havto . havto . . ttp:ever>[t:ve

situations and i am surprised that there isn't more anchor, there is a lot of anger but it's not manifesting itself in any sort of organized political effort to. i take that as meaning people are very frustrated but clearly there is invalid people are looking at wall street, the banks getting record profits, record bonuses, the people basically brought this mess and got the bailout and now they are happy and tossing around millions of dollars at each other and accrediting themselves and putting themselves on the back for being so smart. maybe they are because they ripped us off but we just don't see the political movement. i wish they were there but they are not. >> host: you reference congress in an earlier answer with this new commissions being appointed to you think our political leaders are advocating the budget responsibilities? >> guest: no we don't think there is a budget responsibly.

i see this as a huge distraction. we have a huge deficit because the economy fell for the floor other than talking about getting the economy on its feet we're talking with the deficit and it's kind of silly. it's like our house is on fire and we are using a lot of water to try to put it out and we get these guys that run over and say you are using a lot of water. it's close to crazy. the immediate concern should be getting people back to work and again the longer-term issue is somewhere down the road we have to fix the health care system. better sooner than later and i give you 20 ideas and a second how to fix the system they will get the doctors screaming, the pharmaceutical industry's screaming, the insurance industry screening. we know how to do it but the politicians don't want to tackle the was powerful interest groups they would rather go about the deficit. >> host: the next call for the guest comes from west cliff coloradan. dennis, please go ahead. >> caller: hi how are you both doing? >> caller: i would like to know if there could be a systematic financial collapse

worldwide and the reason i say that is there has been talk of a bold global bank and the banking system right now is talking about a global tax for the central bank's, and my concern is there's no involvement of the world bank or the imf in any of these problems as financial issues, and my concern was if there is a global bank is there going to be possibly a world currency and the financial collapse of each individual country so that we have a one world order. >> host: amity shlaes. >> guest: one of the things we've been talking about at the council on foreign relations where i work is and to get the argument it's going to be a global currency. a dollar plus or instead of the dollar. but we also talked about the

possibility that a global currency might come from the private sector because technology makes it possible and to see now in the ads and credit card companies they like to treat themselves as money, gold, credit card, currency credit card. you will see those phrases in the campaigns of the big names. i think the threat to the dollar will come not just from the chinese currency or the euro but also the private sector somehow or other if you interview a 20-year-old in india and is a which do you trust more yourself phone company or the u.s. dollar you might hear the cell phone company and it's very interesting. i would add finally that's not necessarily horrible to have private money or free money. it's good to have competition among the money so that the more virtuous money has an opportunity to show its virtue and prevail. >> host: another call from colorado. this one for mayor in on it denver. please go ahead. >> caller: good evening to you

both. keep up the good work, c-span. mr. baker, you mentioned earlier economic mismanagement and ms. shlaes mentioned in thomas programs are the reasons why we have a negative effect on the economy right now. i am actually in master's student studying international security. i have a very keen interest -- excuse me i'm feeling under the weather. in foreign policy and in particular the affect of the foreign policy on us domestically. the dod recently requested a budget in excess of $1 trillion. how is this going to affect our economy and if we slim this down how will this policy affect us? thank you very much. cresco >> host: amity shlaes? >> guest: if you look over time and the buck to the korean war and world war ii you will see we are nowhere near that and the defense pentagon always asks for lots of money that you want

to see what they get and where it fits and the size of the economy and it's a surprisingly small amount. i remember writing a few years ago about defense ec 3%, 4%, 5% like that. you don't see 20 or 30 or 40% in world war ii the defense was over just about one-third of the whole economy and we are nowhere near that so this idea that the defense is what ails us, that's wrong. it is housing, banking, too big to fail, it is policy that ails us, domestic policy and markets policy. >> guest: i would say defense spending didn't put us into this but it's a drain on our economy and one of the things fascinating if you go back to 2000 a look at projections for how much we would be spending today project we would be spending half as much relative to the size of the economy. the project today it would be, 2010 would be 2.4% gdp instead it's about 53 the difference comes to the order of three

eckert 50 billion a year so that isn't chump change and in terms of its impact on the economy we are curious about this so weak contract with global insights one of the largest and the oldest forecasting economic forecasting firms in the country and we set up and show us what does your models of the impact to be of prolonged increase of defense spending? we are more modest we didn't say to .5% gdp we just said 1% of gdp and the model showed in the long run that will work in planet by 600,000 jobs. 600,000 jobs. now, given that we are talking to .5 times as much as we asked them to model we are talking about a loss on the order of perhaps one would five, 136 million jobs because we are looking at a higher level of defense spending. so it is a big impact. what i just say apart from what we might think of the war in afghanistan and the war in iraq let's talk about the cost and we haven't had that debate. we start to say okay you want to fight the war in afghanistan and iraq, let's talk about the cost

and be clear to people are you willing to fight that and then people run and scream we can't talk about that. if these are good and are worth it then we should be willing to pay for it. and if for whatever reason our politicians in washington are reluctant to have that conversation. >> host: this is book tv in prime time while congress is in recess for the week we are bringing this to you live and we will be live from eight to 9 p.m. eastern all week. last night we talked about adam smith and wealth of nations tonight we are talking about the current economic situation. tomorrow night we will be discussing the afghanistan war with two authors and then friday night we will be discussing silent spring and rachel carson's book from the early 60's. ditty in washington, you are on with dean baker and amity shlaes. >> caller: thank you for your program. appreciative of people in our country that are addressing the concerns we all have.

the current topic is the economic situation, and i've got kind of to question comments. sorry. one has to do with tea parties. i think that when amity brings up with a problem in politics and the united states in general one of the things that upsets me so much is the idea that no taxes, agreed and copping out citizens in terms of the responsibility contributing to and managing the cost seems to be rising especially with the two-party and right-wing republicans side and i think

that is pretty shameful. i wanted to hear a comment about that because i know that relative to other western countries again the tax base per capita tax base is pretty low and i think it is time we started having leaders that could address the fact that we need to pay for the benefits of the social program that people need and want and that copping out of that responsibility is just not community minded and good hearted. >> host: we are going to have to leave it there and let's start with dean baker. >> guest: certainly debbie is right that our tax rates are among the the share of the tax take i should say what portion goes to taxes is among the lowest of the wealthy countries are close with japan. i have to check to see the data

with a we are above or below but we are below germany, france, england, well below those countries and there is a smith ology that somehow those economies are suffering enormously because the tax burden and it's not true so if you look at the most important measure of the vitality, productivity, you know, what do you produce in an hour of work they are close and in some cases many estimates show that france for the simple has higher output for belgium also so this idea somehow europe's economy is stagnant, they are just easing into it. it doesn't show up in the data and i will go crazy about taxes but i think we do at the end of the they need more revenue. my favorite way of getting more revenue is tax and financial transactions if we had a very modest tax cut england actually has this if you tax say stock trades, 0.25%, quarter of 1% on each side of the stock traded in a small taxes say tax credit of default swaps 1100 tough 1% or two or hundredths of 1% you could raise well over

$100 billion a year. that won't necessarily solve of the budget problems forever but that would be a pretty good to stand would have little impact on the vast majority of people. it will affect some of the very wealthy and people who are engaged in speculation which my attitude towards that is if you want to place a bet in the state lottery and go to the casino we tax you if you to place bets on wall street derivatives that's fine but we are going to tax you. >> host: amity shlaes three >> guest: was interested the caller said no tax. you want to remember what the original tea party was about in the harbor. it wasn't about no tax it was about no taxation without representation so there is a feeling now that politics is broken and you're compelled to pay taxes, entitlement for things you are not sure are a good deal or you believe need fixed so it is and no taxes it is a change in the tax

relationship with government. we all believe even those of us that right a lot about how taxes are bad we believe there should be some taxes, some tax relationship with government indeed one sort of creepy thing about the u.s. now is that the bottom half of the earners pay almost no income tax at all, the top earners pay a greater share than they used to pay so you the top 5% pay i don't know dena is an expert, one-third of the taxes. it is skewed enough already. what i think is interesting about the tea parties is it's broken, not that they are saying no taxes at fer, they say that it's broken and that is what the original people don't think the t in the harbor or sinking. our relationship with the throne is broken. maybe we would be better doing more local governments. >> host: virginia, good evening. >> caller: thank you, for taking my call and the country for doing a great service. i think that the federal grumet

is and has been setting a bad example for the american people with this deficit that keeps occurring. for example when bill clinton was in office they publicized a $200 billion surplus with this budget which isn't true. the same thing with george bush and his last year in office. he publicized and proximate 500 million-dollar deficit which wasn't true and it's the same thing with obama now he's publicized approximately $1.3 trillion deficit, and that's not true either. if you take the surplus from social security and medicare away from the general fund which in george bush's last year in office, with his $500 billion projection deficit, there was 300 some billion dollars in surplus from social security and medicare, which made his troop

protection $860 billion, and i don't know how much it is now one per obama but i know that it is probably approximately 200 billion plus. >> host: mr. baker? >> guest: there are different measures of the budget surplus or deficit as the case may be. if you want to blame someone hear you really should blame the media because every single budget document that i know what includes the deficit both with and without the social security surplus. so, you know, if anyone wants to find a new can look at the economic report of the president, the congressional budget office reports, the official budget, every document i know includes the budget both with and without the social security surplus. i'm happy to use either, you know, it depends on the purpose i would use one or the other. there's some occasions you would want to use it with counting the surplus and other occasions you wouldn't. but there's not any great mystery here and if we think that the better number to report is the number that doesn't include the surplus and in fact

the gross government debt. that's fine and that is all available. you can get it on the web, it's not a hidden think anyone who wants it can get it and if we think reporters or the media, you know, fox news or whoever it might be should we be reporting the budget not a big surplus, then complained to them because they are the ones who control what you hear, not president obama. he can't prevent them from reporting the correct budget number. it's all there. >> host: paul new york city comedy thanks. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate it and i love c-span. i just want to say one thing. they talk of the stimulus package and i've sort of glad obama did that because the banks are okay now and are becoming healthy and that is one thing that shlaes never set about the speech of the stimulus not working. it's not the 1930's where the banks completely collapsed but i have another thing i want to asked amity.

she worked for bloomberg financial lead "wall street journal." where was she when all of this was getting ready to happen and everything was going down the tubes? what we heard is things are great and rosy in 2008 and in 2007 and if you figure will be a financial collapse your crazy. >> host: amity shlaes? >> guest: thank you. none of us profits. i wrote more than once about fannie and freddie but i didn't write enough about over leveraging. so, yes that's where we are. also in that period i was focusing on "forgotten man" book which is the possibility of a downturn, so that is -- and for getting the second question. what was the second question? >> host: i think you addressed what he was talking about. are you working on a book currently?

>> guest: i am. the three books, but to which are approximate. one is the graphic version of the forgotten man. it's 140 to 180 pages. it will be the forgotten man graphic like with comex and i'm very excited about that and i am working with to artists, and adapter, chaka dixon and actual illustrator whose and canada to make the forgotten man graphic because though the forgotten man has been translated into other languages there are many people that have said all like the story so much can you spell out more and the economics gets too boring. why don't you just tell the story, and so for home schoolers and adults who like a graphic novels and especially places like mexico we are doing this. in mexico they don't need explanations with inflation and deflation are. they read that before in textbooks and experienced it personally but they want to hear the stories and the other is i'm

writing a biography of calvin coolidge and have been working with the calvin coolidge memorial foundation in vermont. they've been a great help and we have a blog. we invite you to go to it. i'm doing that with joe for a bike just about finishing a book about taxes in the roosevelt era. >> host: mr. baker what about you? what's next? >> guest: what's next. well, i got caught up in the debate today about financial reform, financial transactions tax but i have another book taking economics seriously, which is to my mind sort of beating up the conservative set their own game because i try to point out in this book that in fact the conservatives are people who saw themselves as conservative three much want government intervention they just don't hold up to it so to get a couple examples bill gates is a very wealthy man not because the free-market but he's a wealthy man because the government will addressed me if i start distributing copies of

windows without bill gates permission copyright, he has a copyright this government intervention economy. drugs, prescription drugs, they are expensive. we are projected to spend 260 billion a year on prescription drugs this year. if we didn't have the patent protection for the drugs we go to wal-mart and buy them for four or $5 spend about one-tenth that much. the government intervenes in the economy and all sorts of ways we don't typically talk about and this book is trying to call attention to that and i think we have to rethink this so there's this conventional stereotypical view that you have conservatives that what the free market every person for themselves, and then you have the liberals who say they want the government to do everything and what i argue in this book is that actually what goes on is the conservatives have the government essentially rigging the rules to redistribute income elbe word and the liberals are not smart enough to recognize that so they mix of the arguments about what the government rather then the market when interest we both

want the government and the market but the question is what we want the government to do and what the market to do. >> host: washington, d.c. war on with amity shlaes and dean baker. >> caller: thank you for taking my call spirit kind of my question was addressed while i was on the line but let me ask anyway. my question is about bank regulations like for example the state run the bank and most of the banks in india are doing very well these in the financial crisis run by government. do you think we need to see more of that in the united states? >> host: mr. baker? >> guest: that's a good question. the bank of north dakota is a legacy the dates back to the progressive era about 80 years ago now. and it's quite a success for all. it makes money for the state and help support its economy. you have exhibit and other

countries. i was in brazil i guess i should say last year they have a number of state banks that have helped foster the development. china has extensive system of state banks that helped them stimulate their economies of china rather than going into a downturn the head over 8% growth last year and a lot of that was because you had state-run banks they could tell them make loans to keep things going to redesign intrigued by that. what i would like to see is something along we could do more experience along the north dakota model where you could have state-run banks that compete. i don't want to just hand big wads of money to state-run banks and tell them do whatever you feel like the north dakota bank that's not what they do. that the turnout successfully. so i think you could explore whether there is market niches that are going. we already knew this to some extent. we have the small business administration the dustin the like that so there are routes like that that could be pursued. we have to cautiously you don't want to do it foolishly but i

think there can be more room for state banks that compete with the private-sector and in effect give additional competition and keep them honest and if it turns out they can do it that's great. if the private sector is more efficient, but i don't see a lot of harm in trying. >> host: amity shlaes? >> guest: the question you want to ask is does the state-run bank make capital available to the person who will create the jobs and in india there was a long history of government in the financial sector and the capitol wasn't available. they even had this idea that the rate of growth could never be strong in india and only changed when and yet he regulated and capital from elsewhere became available to india through capital markets, as a state-run banks can put a clamp on an economy and say you can grow a little bit but not a lot and when you get then is growth way below where you want it to be, larger on employment and sorrow.

you look at a country like germany and there's a lot of good ideas in germany, a lot of people who would create jobs if they could get the money for their ideas and for a long time they didn't because the dominance of the cousin of the whole state structure or japan, the postal banks. they were not written for all to the worst who chose to come to the united states so the rest of the world was a free rider on our banking system for a long time. sure it had floss and the policy now was wrong. too big to fail this wrong. we are going to have more trouble because of that doctrine but i wouldn't say private banks are bad. they create growth and i want to mention also someone like bill gates bought something from government but also created quite a number of jobs and i don't agree with dena class in that with medicare is the government and seniors lie to themselves about medicare and medicare is from the government

but property is important. it's the number-one thing for getting our economy back, for getting past that extremely pessimistic the tragic plan the government is putting forward a on an plan is going to go down slowly until 2015. we don't have to follow that pattern and its property rights are respected more strongly you will get the private sector jobs. >> host: ted, sunni del california. you are on c-span booktv. >> caller: i am a fan of dean baker. i was at the conference in baltimore in early 2004 and mr. baker gave a presentation and called the housing bubble right on almost to the percentage and i wish he would have gone into the obama administration and maybe have larry summers job. but my question has to do with the manufacturing. in june of 2000 we started losing about 100,000 manufacturing jobs a month which seemed to come out of nowhere and six months later george bush

got into office and alan greenspan started to lower interest rates and i remember a quote at the time that alan greenspan wanted to let george bush's economic policies work which were basically the taxes, deregulation laissez-faire government so i think that you've argued that the housing bubbles are a response to the low interest rates of the greenspan era and this whole decade of i guess someone called the decade from hell. i wonder if this decade is really in the factoring crisis and whether what we have is a free-market economists covering up for their free trade policies. >> host: mr. baker? >> guest: i think the loss of manufacturing jobs as a result of the main imbalances in the economy. we have a badly overvalued dollar which leads to the trade deficit that we have and the

story, at least my story of what happened in the 90's and in this decade we get strong growth at the end of the 90's driven by stock bubbles so if you look what was going on in the economy, the clinton people will tell you this investment boom is simply not true. investment didn't increase very much to compare the investment share of the economy at the end of the 90's to the peak of the business cycle and 80's and 70's it's not particularly impressive to read would increase was consumption and the reason was because we created trillions of dollars about $10 trillion to stock bubble wealth. that collapsed 2000 and 2002 indicate the recession and 01 and then to keep the economy going greenspan had to lower the rates to boost the economy. eventually what got the economy going was the housing bills we went from one bubble to the other. what we would have liked to see or would have liked to see in my view is the dollar fall so our goods became more competitive international. when you have an older relative currency and i will see the dollar is overvalued under 20 or 30% is the exact same thing as

if we had a subsidy of 20 or 30% of all the imports that come into the united states and we put a terrorist attacks on all of our experts to read what you think happens if we subsidize the imports and put tax and tariff on exports? we have a big trade deficit. well, rather than deal with the overvalued currency we have the stock with a strong dollar and what that meant was we lost millions of manufacturing jobs and that really set up the situation where one, we are losing in the scheme of things relatively good paying jobs but also we are sustaining a the economy with this double that of course was going to burst, and this is why i get mad at people like alan greenspan and ben bernanke and most economists because god knows what on earth was going through their heads in the year 2003 to those of four cardinals five, 2006, to dozens of as the bubble could growing and growing and the savitt is okay and now they are surprised who could have known that is the joke we have or not washington they run around saying who could

have known? anyone doing their job should have known. >> host: amity shlaes, anything you want to address? >> guest: i think it's important of the interplay and the war and domestic policy because when you have -- it's true the government can't think about two things at once. it can't walk and chew gum at the same time and when you have a distraction whether you believe it's something we should invest in, afghanistan, iraq or not the government doesn't think well what is going on at home so if he would have called on our various leaders at the fed or the white house over time under -- in this purpose it would be under president bush postsecondary 11th he would say are you concerned about fannie mae would say absolutely here is the data. they are going out of control, these gics, fannie and freddie, and we will have legislation about it. did the right of legislation come to pass? no, and i think a lot of that had to do with concern about

international and concern about the format. it's one of the casualties of the war is it is hard to do domestic reform serious domestic reform during the the war. what we all knew that fannie and freddie were a problem. the problem was we were only paying episodic attention to them instead of sustained attention. and that is a matter of political will. >> host: i used to say something to be the worst loans were not finished and ready they were coming from goldman sachs, citigroup, merrill lynch, private insurers, to any and freddie were relatively elite to the game in terms of the worst loans. i've been very critical, was critical of that at the time but in terms of, you know, the worst actors in the story, they were the private issuers in the mortgage-backed securities, not fannie and freddie. >> host: is shlaes? >> guest: i would dispute that. i think the notion of housing and owning a house and to own a house is a privilege but it's more often to an entitlement in

the u.s.. we speak of ownership in a general sense and we don't take property seriously and that contributed first to people being willing to take those subprimal loans, 40 year mortgage is assuming they would always be able to the -- assuming they could throw the keys in the mailbox for the garbage and leave and start over it's a different notion of property than that with which we grew up and it was central to the two-story combining with ratings agencies, combining with international fund capital, the pool of money flowing in. but ownership and the concept of property when it became flawed that contributed to the crisis. >> host: as long as they are being issued by countrywide and been packaged in mortgage securities like goldman sachs -- >> guest: this is also about our decision as individuals, what do we sign? are we an offense debate to infants or adults? we signed things that have to mix it with our financial future. we are not such fools we can just be duped and assign blame

to individuals. this is a lot about individual responsibility. .. and fannie and freddie. it was goldman sachs and-- >> guest: fannie and freddie through their web site and culture promulgated the data leak diary of the american dream that the idea-- >> guest: if you want to blame them for promoting the dream that is fine. >> host: i think we are going to have to leave the discussion for a later time. very quickly to both of you, did you know each other before tonight and have you read each other's books are materials? >> guest: i have read some of them in the's books. i think we have been on radio shows. >> guest: i have read much of being's work and i admire his perseverance and his center. >> her most recent book is the forgotten man and dean baker's most recent book is false profits in recovering

from the bubble economy joining us from our new york studio and a both working on new books. american prospect to doric is the website. thank you very much. we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> we have two more hours of book tb to night. coming up we have the book obamanomics and it is it a book just released yesterday and it was called death of american virtue is a book interviewed in this afterwards by a great craig president clinton's former lawyer and it talks about that period of history during the clinton impeachment era. those of the next two hours a booktv coming up to night. if you want to follow updates twitter.com/book tb

is our address and we send up updates throughout the week and over the weekend when booktv airs on air. of the afghanistan war is tomorrow night per our discussion will be on the afghanistan war. now here is timothy carney. >> this thesis is every time government gets bigger, somebody is getting rich. the main idea i am going up against is the big with the notion that big business wants is simply to be left alone it wants the regulation that taxes and deregulation of discourage a big business. this is true half of the time. but when people do not see it going on, they think this will clamp down on the access of big business but it does the opposite. free-market advocates and the support siding with

business when it had the opposite legislative agenda and those who distrust major corporate power and end up supporting greater regulation of that had the opposite effect. one quick reading from "obamanomics", nike makes good shoes but the leadership in the west eaker market as a result of the company's image. michael jordan, a tiger woods, i wrote the book a couple months ago. [laughter] and a trademark swoosh may not be everything but the biggest. when nike gave up the seats on the u.s. chamber of commerce in protest over the opposition to the waxman/markey it would be easy to conclude the company was burnishing that image the firm had already invested a small fortune to reduce the greenhouse guest in the issues with nitrogen. but some blacks be like the

image emissions from a manufacturing and logistics report went up 62% from 1998 through 2005. because nike is making a vast majority of apparel overseas in asia and shipping and but they do not have the controls like american plants. >> these factories will be affected by legislation before congress and the waxman/markey bill is one of them in the name of coby -- global warming. new balance makes the best running shoes in doing good so waxman/markey would regulate new balance but not nike. in other words, waxman/markey would drive up the new balance cost but not nike. nike may want to save the plan nablus support for climate change looks like regulatory robbery produce

the a company lobbying for an environmental bill in the way it will not affect the cost but the competitor cost " end quote. hoping to profit and getting good press for standing up for the environment. they said why should i care if it is good for the planet? how does that affect me? >> bringing up another example, alcoa the largest aluminum maker in the world is lobbying for the environmental emissions in the name of global warming. of call-up happens to make aluminum car frames that are just as strong but much later. the high quality performance cars but pay no -- more will have an aluminum frame it cost more to make so the u.s. consumer or autumn

maker of environmental regulations whether fuel efficiency standards for global warming regulations is to drive up the cost to buy a steel car that makes you buy the aluminum framed car makers so that helps out of call-up but they make most aluminum and manufacturer posted and australia where it has successfully lobbied to kill the global warming bill down there. aluminum is a much more energy intensive process and the manufacture of a steel frame car. there is a chemical process that go into it to produce greenhouse gases. idiocy how much energy it saves by being white shirt it may be worse for the environment and worse for co2 emissions but the way the government measures it come it helps alcoa sell it profits and the cost goes up

and the environment is not necessarily benefit it. it is regulatory robbery where you use big government regulation to hurt consumers and smaller competitors. what i argue and "obamanomics" is that this is something that has gone on for years. but because the bombing embraced government control in somebody corners of the economy, he provides more opportunity for regulatory robbery and subsidizing big business the nature of washington, the lobbying editor of the washington examiner and when the government is getting bigger that provides more opportunity for the big guy using lobbying take unfair advantages over smaller business. i will get to the four laws of obamanomics.

not because obama invented let me be clear common george bush by doing the bailouts of wall street transformed our government and the economy and the relationship between them to say the government will pop but business is we think are important then who does that end up being? those who have access to the lawmakers. the book is about obama's who was a career president but as far as the relationship with big government did george bush bailouts were the biggest blowout in that direction we have ever seen. but some facts about the 2,008 elections you can start to think of a bomb in a different late day slide that he has presented himself goldman sachs exxonmobil, boeing, a pfizer and general electric these are the poster children for

special interest and a huge well-connected corporation and has something else in common, employees and executives who gave more, a much more to barack obama and john mccain. a caveat, overall obama's raise more than mccain primarily was longer and he did not go ahead to do the matching funds saying we limit fund-raising to get government money. he raised a lot more. >> but the company was two /1 fund-raising over john mccain. that should tell you about the corporate rhetoric but his ratio is much bigger. goldman sachs the most notorious special interest cable bauman $997,095. no company since mccain-feingold that made it illegal to give gaffes no company has donated

$1,000,000.21 candidate ever but it goldman sachs came very close. that is the most progress should be careful these of the employees and executives and political action committees. that is not actually the company but that is the most from any single company since reform. john mccain raised 230,000 from goldman sachs he out raised four /1. looking down the line at the wall street industry, obama raised more than any of there candidate in history from microsoft on a 10 /1, a google 10 /1, why did they get this much money to barack obama? were they buying kaman? that could be that accusation every time george bush out raced somebody said

he was being bought off. maybe later we can debate about whether that happened. i am a reporter and i have clear opinions i put ron paul on my cover and i am very clear i don't believe in government intervention in but i also the report on things. i do not know what barack obama's motives were. will not spend a lot of time guessing but assume for the sake of the book he is trying to help the country, the net defect of the policy is to help the big businesses and intrenched and the most importantly they heard the consumers and taxpayers and consumers and small business owners. i said that choice but behind this comment to put some context, the four irked laws of obamanomics, number

one the inside game whoever has the biggest lobbyist has the small print #2 regulation adds to over head. the cost to do business. higher overhead crowds out smaller competitors and prevent start-ups' from industry and the number three, a bigger companies are often settled by inertia robust competition is a threat. it is like raising a basketball hoop 23 that have time. number three i called gumming up the works in number four is a confidence game. governor regulation grants an air of legitimacy boosting consumer confidence often beyond what is warranted. i have examples of a lot talking about the inside game who has the best lobbyist one if you don't

bring something into the realm of washington lobbyist does not help you. >> if washington is debating all of a sudden your ability to afford a better lobbyist helps you. a great example is the current health care debate on capitol hill. right now you have democrats trying to piece together 60 boats and from lawmakers are asking for this or that require promise at this moment there are hundreds of lobbyists on capitol hill representing mostly industries that are directly affected including employers and drug makers and hmos. of you listen to barack obama rhetoric what is happening is all big businesses say no. pass nothing. drug makers have cut a deal and "l.a. times" reported on this and the book the drug makers tended deal where the sitting down with rahm emanuel said we promise to

support your reform effort on health care if you will make sure that the bill does not hurt us and do not pursue these policies and sure enough it ends up subsidizing. look what happens. the one thing insurance companies really fear from a policy is the public option the government ensure to compete with private hmos. that will get stripped from the bill. i will put odds on that. you have other subsidies for the individual mandate. when students graduate and you go out there if you want to buy a health care plan that says $5,000 deductible, i will pay for my insurance and if i am hit by a car it will tell day's pay my big expenses that will become ill the go because there will mandate you buy insurance at a certain level part of you only by for a catastrophe that is the sort of thing that will violate the

individual mandate you pay a fine. they might allow young people to buy catastrophic brands but they are requiring everyboby to buy the product that the hmos are selling. while they do this they claim they are leading a crusade against but hmo. the rhetoric this time match the facts at all. but whatever the initial proposal from barack obama, whatever he wanted to do do, it comes out the other end, he will sign, that bill will benefit whoever has the best lobbyist. that is the way it works. you also see this with the global warming stuff. my favorite example is monsanto they make genetically modified organisms and make said genetic frankenfood. did you ever use roundup to

spray weeds they make that, and an industrial roundup for farmers to kill the weeds. also genetically modified roundup ready seeds you planted and spray it with chemicals and it is not hurt. to kill weeds it turns out tilling fields and doing whatever releases carbon dioxide into the air and causes global warming and sea levels rise. , etc.. , etc.. under a good global warming bell, a farmer can earn special greenhouse guest credit. if you plan to monsanto seeds and use that to control your reit, the government will pay you for the carbon offset. carbon offset themselves are

a bit of a farce that the idea you get paid to plant a tree or do something to use up carbon dioxide out of the year. sometimes if you pay for the carbonless that you pay for somebody to plant a tree to take co2 out of the air. what of that tree burns down? will they come back and say your tree burn down now you have to pay us back? that will not happen. they used to be called snake oil dealers. i am all for conservation but offsetting that curb the division has nothing to do with carbon dioxide but it makes you feel good game but the you will get carbon of side dishes assets because the people who stand to profit have the best connection. the second law, the overhead

smash. that makes it more costly to do business. who pays? mom and pop or the big guy? obviously mom-and-pop suffer more but my favorite story is wal-mart on the health care bill. coming out in the spring or summer saying we are joining with the center for american progress, it is a liberal activist group in washington and the labor union close to obama. the three of us are joining together and we're supporting the employer mandate. every employer of of some certain small size has to buy insurance of a certain level for their employer. why is wal-mart the biggest private-sector employer? they itself unsure which

means it actually act as the insurance company. when you pay your premiums as seven going to blue cross come it goes to wal-mart when you use your health insurance is as wal-mart, not at nine who pays set out. they're so big that self ensuring makes sense. many employers to self insure. they use the economies of scale to get good deals. they are getting very good health insurance deals. nobody else can do that to the degree of wal-mart if you have a competitor such as target, you get the right regulation by you raise the cost. you don't raise your own. wal-mart also lobbies for minimum wage but they paid over $10 per our eric cantor where and 12 and a high cost of place of living. i worked at a movie

theater, a single screen 100 years old owned by a guy that lived down the block i earned $4.50 per hour. minimum-wage by the high school kid after basketball practice, home depot and wal-mart does not a minimum wage if it goes up $5.50 up at $7.15 it helps wal-mart but hearst smaller competitors and gives wal-mart good press and gets the unions to back off. >> mitel did another overhead smash where i don't know if you remember back in 2007 there were the unprecedented number of tory recalls because mattel was making toys in china with lead. other manufacturers might have had recalls but it can make your kid six cetera. they were all recalls and of course, congress did what

they always do, we have to act and pass the lot to fix it. obama's got behind the cp cp-- consumer-products safety act and in addition to changing the allowable levels of lead and chemicals and said every toys sold in america needs to get tested at a separate third party testing facilities. >> not every single one what is a line of toys? if you produce 1 billion barbie's you have to give it tested by identical buffett's but what if you are a grandfather that works in your car ride and you car about childrens' toys to sit on? our using identical methods? no? one of them by making 48 year-old the one is a third party tested for each 182 component tested. depending on how complex complex, the testing could

range from a couple hundred to a couple thousand. mattel pays $2,000.2 test one barbie is not a big deal but that handmade come with a handmade toys lance come with this not the sort of group i normally run with as a free-market conservative suburban dad but i am on all of their list because i have written columns that criticize us the days consumer products safety act because mattel benefits as icing on the cake, the law in a provision that said if you can prove to the government that you have set up within your own factory a testing facility that is independent from the parent company then it you can test in your own factory. one waiver has given it that

is mattel that help to write the bill in the first place to react to a scare that they caused by putting lead in there toys in china. it is a band of the -- plan of the above a policy he backs the policies that have the intention to try to help consumers or the small guy or curb the excesses of big business and end up having the opposite effect. and the third block, we know that too why is government the wealthiest country in the world? i am sure a lot of people have answers but mine is we have the freest economy in the world a free economy is more vibrant. a more regulated economy is a slower economy. if you are the top business looking around at how much

you can go from rags to riches or the top of the mount 10 down to the bottom in a second. it is a scary place and exciting the u.s. are scared if they think that slows and would be good. that is why goldman sachs are backing the wall street regulations. they will not end up as initially proposed, but the adm of executive cap on pay or other wall street regulations common goldman sachs has publicly expressed reform and a very close in working with obama on that and have a great access to the west wing and clinton's west wing and probably reagan going back. it is the quintessential special interests. barack obama raise more money from goldman sachs and anybody has raised from any

corporation since campaign finance laws were changed. they were the number one beneficiary for the wall street bailout. the final law is the confidence game. this is the idea government can give people a false confidence in what other people are selling. why are we regulating the financial sector? we need to restore investor confidence. talk gain of about confidence half of the democrats talk of restoring confidence but i believe it is the job of the company or the broker to restore the confidence. they should not use your money to convince you it is okay to use -- invest in the stock market. that is what government does and the ownership society would say it is much better to own stocks than not to.

so they set up these policies that drive people to own more stocks than they would in a free market or buy a house it from the free market. we saw with that created, a bubble. bush did it and obama's continues the policy. mattel has a case of the confidence game. now the toys are safe. they said that on the floor of the house. now you can be rest assured the toys are safe because the federal government is making sure of that. but my favorite story on the confidence game comes from the world of food. i am told in the dining hall here or the food place to talk about sustainable, local, and if i had more time i would do it or if five bereday hit the

girl we would be to organic fair trade. i support that perfectly voluntarily. obama would quote to a food writer who wrote to the omnivore dilemma and others to talk about very important points out government and big business end up hurting local food and slow food is a term they use now. but the safety director was a guy named michael taylor whose previous job was looking at genetically modified food. the negotiator for agriculture is a man who is a top lobbyist for the group

in washington. and the pattern goes on about that. so obama has said new food safety laws, the consumer product log they are being proposed to require more testing and what of the bills creates something or regulates food production facility which sounds like a kellogg's factory where they turn out cornflakes' from who knows what but food production facility also occluded common not if you produce something you sold under the bill you are a production facility and had some regulations. >> 1.oracle i read about this from the "san francisco chronicle" said testifying

to congress vice president for safety it to their farms is the world's largest producer explains he supported government safety standard to eliminate the hassle of knowing what they will pass on your left new-line to certify it is organic. but food color it where is the lead is coming from? then maybe you have made don't kill any rabbits to grow our carrots, while. a lot of people put in or maybe a parent afraid of anti- -- bacteria. with their own regulations some groups were setting up and one bourse trichet might want something and another might want another.

this was private sector regulation. but they also preserve more diversity but barack obama said idle think government can solve every problem but there is something government can do which is to ensure our food is save. >> he was sitting all of the grocers stores that take pride and quality in their food spit in their face. but they could pre-empt and make it illegal. the federal government has set standards but no buyer can have a its own standards. that is the king of san francisco was lobbying for. you have private sector buyers that obama said did not exist. but he said on the government can ensure that

the food is safe that is a confidence game. and take a step back in time who might have you bought your meat from the day? maybe it is a butcher and how would you trust he is giving use a food? because he sold to your father and his son wants to sell meat to your son. >> when you have regulations to make it harder to succeed come let you ride toward a more centralized industry. and you end up in the food situation and especially, government report about say food processing leads to foodborne illnesses that you can imagine is thrown into a bucket.

they are big government but while the breakfast the battle with special interest it has now worked out that way because in washington, they have the most say and get the seats at the table both in congress and even in the obama what house. and so this is what you have got to and from the big everett policy but to end up benefiting big business. it is bad for the economy but it is for the economy because that is an abstract it is bad for consumers and taxpayers and small business and bad for taxpayers obviously. we have to start with bush overspending on the bailout and the younger people will pay the bills that has just gone to helpful street.

the stimulus bill, again, all borrowed money. and a couple months into the bill said 80 percent of the money goes to the top but when the government gives out money, who has the apparatus? random small joe in the corner store come with a guy selling fruitcakes does not have the ability to get people money but that corporations that have the establishment said up and have "cash for clunkers" appear benefited, you did but everybody else was programmed over the summer it require the car dealer who took the trade and to destroy the treated and had to be a trade and that could run. so the ad is take old cars of the road there's a lot of

good questions but it drives up the cost of buying a car if you destroy there is a smaller factor. if you were a car do you might have done okay with you traded in and got a subsidy, you did okay. of you make new cars are already had a big stocky profited and everybody else loses. you already paid for it as a taxpayer but the most upsetting thing may be the way in which it hurts small business. it sounds hokey but small business is the heart of the economy. it is a little inaccurate when people say small businesses the number one creator of new jobs because there is a precise way to break it down.

as of 2007 two-thirds of new jobs were created by companies that were five years old or younger meaning new business is the most important they do creating or saving the jobs that will hire. you need their to be new business is being made it. "obamanomics" gets and the way for a few reasons. number one, the regulations add to overhead and keep you out and increasingly become a lobbyist to get by if you cannot afford one then setting up a business will crash you. number three, bail-out, what do they do? they prop up failing companies which is good if you work for them. then you know, your work has not been producing things that consumers want to buy. i feel good for those people, but there'd job is saved or created at your

jobs expense because when a failing company is propped up that keeps up a new company from entering the economy and the new companies are exactly what is creating new jobs. this has been a depressing talk if you share my concerns about saving small business are limited government and has been upsetting if you are an obama fan but talky about limited government i do have some hopefully the is looking forward. the first is simply the fact there is clearly anger. bush's balance focus people's attention on the fact there really is a situation with the people with political power and money are getting together

and taking your body is not an exaggeration. it is tax dollars and also taking your neighbors money but also your many more than a 50 year-old because it is all borrowed money. the taxes will end up paying for this and where did the money go? it went to goldman sachs and to bank of america now the idea is it trickles down. this is an idea that was blocked when the first george bush talked about it but no bomb of full four signed onto the bailouts. so people are a angry that people with economic power and the political power are clearly on the same side and regular taxpayers and businesses are being left out. >> on the right it will manifest itself and the tea party movement which has a lot of good elements that are in their end of the things i like to see more

from the tea party types is not just a leaning against the one-party because both there spending too much and not just against big government but big business which is lobbying for and pushing for the big government. another thing that is hopeful and again come i am not a partisan republican end, i voted for a republican candidate, denied did vote for bob dole when i was a freshman and i did not know any better. that he was in my book as a corporate lobbyist to support health care but moving on and come with the idea that to there so far in the wilderness they have lost their corporate supporters. no matter how bad the bill

was, like the bailout it pushes both banks through. why? because what the democrats say is true. they have listened to big business no they don't even have money anymore some may be that is an opportunity for republicans to start standing up for regular people and against big government. on the democratic side i have lots of, a bit like to be called liberal, it is progressive friends that are getting upset with the bombing and they are ready to explode if what i predict happens happens with the health care bill and without a government auctioned four subsidies are mandates, they are ready to blow up and get angry and i think the global warming bill will be passed and it is no effect on greenhouse gas emissions why did we do that?

then use the nike and outgoing and monsanto profiting. >> on the left if you were not a partisan end republican democrat you are dedicated to ideas such as ticking down to the little guy on the left, then anger will be so clear it will be focused. in the last chapter of obamanomics i lay out the agenda like stopping the dow at any money that has not gone out the door, do not send it out but put it straight into retiring debt or cutting taxes and the money that is out, bring it back. canada has price control you buy the same brand ned -- brand-name drugs but why do they let them get

away with that? to make one pill is 1 penny it is the research and development and testing that cost $1 billion. basically sages have to make up the cost to produce and ship but with us they make up the cost of research and development so it is illegal for me to go to canada and buy at the price control price and sell it. that argument is when you import price controls, the drug lobby spends more than any other industry lobbying and they do well the matter who is empower. why can they allow the canada? no. we give them a free ride. that is it. say okay you have five years to figure out what will happen but it is your job to make sure you still return to profit not the federal

government's job we're already giving your patent and exclusivity and after that you are on your own. there are a handful of other items and anti-a bailout constitutional amendments is my dream idea to make it illegal for the government to own a portion of the company to ban corporate welfare. if anything a direct transfer of wealth to a private business? you have to allow for government contracts but tried to ban that. i am not sure how to implement these things but the main problem is where is the constituency? all of these ideas i am proposing? if we abolished some corporate welfare agencies agencies, boeing might make $10 billion per year but if you divide that among every taxpayer it is $3.

where is the constituency to kill corporate welfare and smash big business with pollution? that is a problem in dade anger i think we can help channel that if you are a republican party and want to raise money and run in the corporate campaign and might be difficult but that is where what ron paul did and what every think of his ideas, like most of his ideas, but you have to be impressed he raised $6 million and one day. donors gave him $6 million in one day. he did not organize one donation his supporters set up some money bomb and raised money the average donation was less than $100. >> even though he has money coming from goldman sachs was reported but it was the

perception he was not hillary clinton. for all of the coziness of our common ground to comment hillary clinton would be 10 times more so people thought i am disenfranchised because i don't have the access i would give them money and people part with there 10 or 25 or $50 to give to him. i will open in a second for questions but i want to restate my initial seizes. every time government has bigger, somebody is getting rich. so what i have done in "obamanomics" i try to name the names and buy-out in a pattern to show that it is not an anomaly but it is the pattern and the fact obama has of america is not what many people think it is. thank you very much for your time. [applause]

i am happy to take questions. i am supposed to remind you to stand up if i call on a new and rate for the microphone before you ask a question. >> could you taka little bit what is called the revolving door of politics and the big business that when people lose an election they tend to go into lobbying and the adr 1/6 come back they will come back? sino ben bernanke and st. paul said are well known for this could you talk about that and any ideas on how that could be stopped through laws or voter action and? >> i am glad the reminded me. i see this happening. my friends do this to dress kind of like me when they

work on capitol hill but two years later have a nice suits with french cuffs and offer to buy me lunch because they left their capitol hill job working for a congressman and a lobbying firm hired them because they know when somebody says the want to talk to you, the old boss colleague will take the call. that is the revolving door. barack obama reit literally said i will stop the revolving door. his white house chief of staff is from emmanuel it is almost up the right word because all he was werke ag bill clinton 1982 campaign he was getting paid by goldman sachs as a consultant at the same time for nondescript work. he may have been getting paid to work for bill clinton for all been no. then he leaves a couple years before clinton to work

in a private equity firm but if you look at the list of his clients, there were all people who had business before the clinton administration. he is very smart and hard-working and the effective but 1.6 million dollars in 2.5 years. i must imagine the real skill is knowing who to call in the clinton white house. he makes one point* 6 million by milking the former contacts and uses that to run from -- for congress not in the obama whitehouse who there is a lobbyist now who was the ex obama administration official already less than one year and somebody went to the obama administration and left him became a lobbyist. >> this is damaging because anything festering fence are

gives more power in the fact takes political power away and gives perverse incentives because they will say this will kill the program or i will tinker that way when it passes somebody's to hire me to figure out. that happens quite a bit. that is very problematic some actions have helped her you cannot become at a certain level use where not to become a lobbyist for a while more not to lobby the administration but this is radical anyone who is an elected official or makes over $100,000 at any point* should be prohibited from becoming a lobbyist. i don't think that would pass because the people

affected are those who write the bills. on the other hand,, that is the only lobbying regulation a proposed and in the end i would not back it because lobbying is an expression of your first amendment rights. the problem is not the lobbyist but his with government. the way to get rid of corruption is to get rid of the high places. tim wheeler came up with that saying that i think that is a lesson of "obamanomics" you cannot simultaneously increase the government control or decrease a lobbyist. the only reform is have the government have less control over the economy. i am happy to take another question. >> how do think the obama plans to pay for the new

regulation programs he is trying to do? through the creation of money and new taxes or debt issues? >> to start with spending spending, the stimulus bill bill, a lot of that is not obama's problem. trying to predict what would happen who knows what would happen. but on the other hand,, the health care stuff and global warming it has much more of a price tag and our history of predicting expenditures of the program like medicare and social security has been very bad sell whatever taxes are introduced in the new bill and there are some, i don't think there will be adequate.

i am not an economist but i would not be surprised if we see inflation and a print money out of thin air the federal reserve so there is a mixture i don't think we will see spending cuts what is the number one objection? democrats are trying to cut medicare what are they arguing against democrat spending money? part of that is the insurance companies do not like medicare. most of it republicans know it is a good political issue there is no constituency four cuts back of the answer is all of the above, new money coming more borrowing and more taxes. >> hold on.

mr. carney i know you expressed your opinion on domestic legislation being passed looking and environmental problems but there is the g8 summit coming up this year and the proposed talks there will be some legislation that would have international a fact lakeview said cutting down on carbon emissions in china where other parts of asia have on these manufacturing. >> you are talking about copenhagen. the summit is a global get together to get to these u.n. tied the events now propose global regulation and/or even a proposed global coordination for

national regulation will come but to answer your question, what would a global policy do? it was good break apart the u.s. coalition for the greenhouse gases because some businesses like caterpillar manufacturing in the u.s., we have been fermenta regulations if you put carbon regulation on top and also on china, then all of a sudden you could actually make the field more level between u.s. manufacturers but then that nike and alcoa, they just want domestics produce the domestic manufacturers that support a cap-and-trade assuming we will lobby china and india to restrain their emissions. but the growing countries come imagined a few words your poor for years while the western europe and the

u.s. burning coal, getting rich and building skyscrapers it is just turning to a trickle and then all of a sudden the u.n. says that cheap energy? you cannot do that anymore. you will the stand for that a viewer china or india or third world. i think what we will get to some of the rich countries will go ahead and constrain and pay for a subsidizing clean energy in the third world that is the most you will get. of more questions? i will follow-up on the global warming question with one of my favorites of general electric is forming a joint venture called

greenhouse guest services that deals and carbon offsets and greenhouse guest credits. what they have done for example, they are on a trash heap in north carolina sucking them with a now it is a very powerful greenhouse guest 20 times as powerful as carbon dioxide so they sought get out and burn it then turned into co2 to the overt carbon dioxide levels and who will pay them to do do it. so google getzlaf sets because they destroy methane what good is google do? they get to say we're carbon neutral. but if said government mandates you have a credit to run a factory or power plant, then when general electric is making becomes worth a lot more.

maybe that is capitalism? the partner of general electric greenhouse gas venture is a company called acs, that is currently building coal-fired power plants and has clean air power plants that appear but what else happens if you tax coal effectively? you make fewer american companies by coal, it is cheaper for the third world. they are winning on both ends the nuclear power plants are subsidized and coal-fired are down there but it is the exact same scheme the energy company tried in 2000 and that was called enron. jeep picked up the wind will and the lobbying practices. there is a chapter called general elected the

for-profit arm they spent more years lobbying than any other year. they are number two this year with individual corporations. a rumor obama opens up a new policy, ge opens a new business. high-speed anti-free trail ramps up business and hires a new lobby is. tom daschle is very close to obama and the embryonic stem cell research and she starts a venture with one of the largest of sell companies and the world. you see it again and again. i do not think obama is trying to enrich g. not even because they still on msnbc were they saying the hallelujah obama's on. [laughter] i don't think he is trying to enrich them but they see the way to make money in the world of "obamanomics" is to

line up with government. what does that do? saks on to burn your ship and that means you will not have a job when you get out of college unless one of the chosen few google, microsoft, general electric gore boeing that have the best lobbyist, they will increasingly have more of the economy but that is a net effect of being bad on the rest of the economy. . . >> you mentioned earlier -- he mentioned earlier you felt the

american people were being left out in times in favor of big government and big business. however i believe he were speaking specifically in terms of the bailout and stimulus package which if i remember correctly work policies that the time were supported by the majority of american public according to the polls. my question to you is how do you feel the government should address those issues with the people, majority of the people are supporting the initiative that you feel in the end of will ultimately damage and give them a short end of the stick? >> i know that there were holes in the majority that had a support of the bailo i know that these guys got 900 antibailout phone calls for every pro bailout phone call and i don't pay enough attention to the poll to answer that firmly but i'm pretty sure most people oppose the bailout, every honorable member voted against the wall street bailout. detroit may be people supported that. i don't know. but i also think the polls should not drive policy.

i think principal should drive policy and the constitution should constrain what you do. i don't think the bailout was constitutional. i done think by and general motors was constitutional regardless whether the people supported them. and i'm very happy to take antibailout side against any politician who thinks that giving all that money to goldman sachs and bank of america was popular at the time those guys had just created the collapse. but this is why i'm not a politician. i probably would get voted of a very quickly for opposing all these measures and i would want to put tolls on the free highway and that wouldn't be very popular because right now the highway system and all transportation is subsidized trucks come and make them pay for the roads, that probably wouldn't go over well. i'm not a politician because little said what is the best policy by what is most popular. i said it but what i think will do best and also by some moral

principles and it's wrong to take money from regular people and give it to big corporations. that should be enough to settle the fact, not to do the bailout's. thank you very much for your time. i appreciate it. [applause] our special primetime book tv

did you know you can view book tv programs online? go to booktv.org. type the name of the author, book or subject into the upper left-hand corner of the page three and select the watch link. now you can view the entire program. you might also explore the recently on booktv box were featured programs box to find in few recent and featured programs. coming up next book tv present "after words," an hourlong program where we invite guests to interview authors. this week constitutional professor ken gormley discusses his book, "the death of american

virtue clinton the start and the impeachment of the 42nd president. mr. gormely interviewed the players in the drama including president clinton, kenneth starr and monica lewinsky. the author and archibald cox the conscience of a nation and expert on watergate talks with former white house counsel greg craig who oversaw the team that defended president clinton against impeachment. >> host: my name is greg craig here with ken gormley talking about his new book which is quote could the death of american virtue clinton versus starr. before we get into this book, ken, let me find out a little about yourself. where did you grow up? >> guest: pittsburgh and went to the university of pittsburgh went astray and went to harvard law school, so after i got out of law school i went back home and i teach currently in by the

interim dean at the duquesne university school law in pittsburgh. >> host: how long have you been teaching law? >> guest: teach constitutional law we primarily. i've been teaching pretty much about 20 years. i did practice law we come to back the during that time i kept writing. i've done writing throughout my career. i find it keeps me kind of energized and so these book project stick a little bit of time. they are different than writing for newspapers and magazines did things like that but i enjoy it a lot. >> host: have you done that, writing for newspapers and magazines? >> guest: i've done that through my career in fact early on i would do feature stories for newspapers in pittsburgh and kind of character studies and actually i found it helped a lot in tackling these big books of nonfiction because you learned by a lot and learn to study people and so it was very helpful. >> host: now this is not your first big book. i say this is a big book but it's not your first one to read you wrote a biography of archibald cox; did you not?

>> guest: yes, archibald cox was of course the principled famous watergate special prosecutor who was fired rather than back down from president nixon and that led to the unraveling as you know of the nixon presidency. archibald cox was my professor at harvard, and i wrote the book fairly early on out of law school. it was another big project that took about seven years. it was a lot of fun. that 1i have to say was easier in the sense of one of life you kind of know where you're going from start to finish. this one had so many movable parts this was scary at first because of such a big project. >> host: well, that raises the question about why you did it. obviously this was a topic that was front and center in the newspapers and on television for many months if not years. he wanted to go back and revisit this exciting days. >> guest: will never stopped revisiting in many ways.

my book on archibald cox came out as the monica lewinsky scandal was blowing up in the media so i became one of the talking heads on the subject at the time and i was viewed on an expert on special prosecutors because of the lot of writing on that. so i followed this and wrote off heads for newspapers all over the country and attended the first day of the impeachment trial in the senate so it was almost as if i was destined to do this so i began work on this and january of 2000 and a startled me i was thinking my daughter was born two months after that. she's about to turn tens of this has been a long project. >> host: it's interesting to me a lot of people who covered on a regular basis and that writing books about it. peter bigger from "the new york times" wrote the breach and a couple of others but you were not really covering it up the time. you were watching it and talking about it but you were not writing a regular newspaper

column for it. >> guest: and in fact that is one of the things i wanted to accomplish is all i knew from working on other projects that the npt and the dandridge johnson, people are still writing about it 100 years later and some of the best accounts were written by people who lived through it. i wanted to write the book. most of the people you referred to, peter baker wrote primarily about the impeachment, jim stewart for instance wrote about whitewater and there are books about paula jones and the monica piece of things. no one had the whole story it showed how it was interconnected and no one really got access to both sides. that is what i wanted to do, to be able to talk to both sides. this was something that as you know because you lived through it consumed the country like nothing other than in our lifetime perhaps watergate and nixon's ultimate resignation and disgrace and the assassination of john f. kennedy. everyone was fixated on this. everyone had a strong opinion. the country was divided and i

wanted to write the definitive neutral historical account that people would look at 100 years from now and say this person got a right. postscripts interesting to me mentioned the various stories and parts and narrative's and i mean this as a compliment. the book seems to be structured very much -- and it's really easy to read -- very much like an international spy thriller. [laughter] on the one, we start off with the impeachment and vote on the impeachment and go back to the beginning of watergate -- >> guest: whitewater. >> host: unsury and if i missed the cut through the conversation please correct me. [laughter] i mean whitewater but the narratives are woven together so they are never completed until the very final days of your book. was that intentional? was there a quality to this? >> guest: sure. i will tell you this little story and i haven't told anyone else. but i actually had sitting on my

desk when i started, and this was before this had become real popularized a copy of truman's "in cold blood." and i wanted to take this store you could not have made up, greg, this was so crazy all of the pieces of it with your wildest imagination if you were writing fiction you could not have made the story up so wanted to capture it in a way that was readable for a completely broad audience but i wanted to get it right and so early on in the process i remember having a little talk with george stephanopoulos and as i was getting started an informal chat and he said if anyone can get all of these pieces and show how they are connected which no one had done before. everyone treated them as separate, you would have something. that is what i try to do. >> host: let's begin with some of those because some of those characters particularly in

arkansas that predate the clinton's arrival in washington, d.c. are absolutely fascinating and you spend a good deal of time explaining this context that sets the stage for what is happening in washington leave iran and the story of jim mcdougal is extraordinary. why did he play such an important role in this? >> guest: without jim mcdougal you didn't have the rest of the scandal getting any attraction and it was this whole -- arkansas as you know was always in the background of all of this stuff. i spent a lot of time in arkansas to try to get the story right. my dad was from kentucky so i loved being in arkansas. it was like seeing my aunts and uncles and spending time with folks. but it is very much a small town sort of place and until you wrap yourself around that, you don't understand where it all goes. what ultimately was the problem in my view was and that the

clintons were involved in criminal wrongdoing with respect to whitewater. i mean there were lots of issues was this person telling the truth about reconstructing this fact. but they were tied up with this guy who ended up having extraordinary problems in terms of unorthodox business practices who ended up a pauper and convicted felon and this was bill clinton's business partner. that was a problem to read and you can't understand the story -- some people like trust very much on both sides said you cannot understand the story unless you understand where it starts with whitewater and they were right. >> host: there is a magnetism strangely about jim mcdougal did mabey explains why president clinton became a partner. clearly a smart man, clearly will read, clearly loving the limelight. what was about gemma mcdougal that attracted the clintons do

you think? >> guest: i have to tell you people don't understand this. bill clinton was a young aspiring politician and jim mcdougal was a more a somewhat older guy he was a charming fellow it turned out he had serious problems. he was i believe manic depressive and that is what the psychologists discuss with me. , started spiraling downward and it turned out he was a con artist. there is no question jim mcdougal could spend a story and as james stewart explained the

bigger the lie the greater the thrilled so he could fly at any moment so this was a very complicated thing the clintons ended up being tangled up with. >> host: briefly tell the nature of the partnership in their early days. >> guest: the white water project as you know came to symbolize i went fishing with one of clinton's friends on the wide river to see it, add the fresh fried in peanut oil and that was one of the perks of this project. but there was a hearing planet triet time and it was not a good location. lost money but there really wasn't whitewater the was the problem as you know it was the madison guaranty savings and part of the s&l failures of the country and jim mcdougal was playing games and cooking the books in all directions. i do not believe the clintons had anything to do with it but they were in tangled in it it came to be.

>> host: you speak about the psychologist from the prison, richard clarke with whom he talked about jim mcdougal. mr. clark got to know him during the last zero years or months of jim mcdougal's life. that story is very unsettling and brand new. i don't think anybody's told story about jim mcdougal's death. >> guest: i got access to mcdougal's psychiatric records and his history in the prison with the permission of his estate and dr. clark, a wonderful person really care about him and spend a lot of time with him in prison, and there is no question that he came to believe that there was some grand conspiracy by the clintons and others to get him in this present. but his death was tragic and there were a lot of unexplained circumstances. i do not believe the clintons had anything to do with it and

incidentally this is during march of 1990 so you know because you were involved in it for the clinton white house, they were focus completely on fi monica lewinsky matter, they were not worried about jim mcdougal in prison in fort wood texas. did people in the prison play games with this guy and give him a hard time? he ended up in solitary confinement donner being under fairly unusual circumstances separated from his medications. there were bodies across the road in the story, greg, from start to finish and it's a tragic story. this story shouldn't be allowed to repeat itself because jim mcdougal was kind of symbolic of all of the tragedies that littered the landscape in the story. >> host: he died on the verge of being considered for parole. i think you report he went to his death be leaving within a matter of days he would be released. tell that side of the story.

was their truth in this or do you think he was misled? >> guest: a lot of people in the prison believe he was going to be on parole. that is what the psychologists were led to believe. susan mcdougal, when i told her and showed her the notes from dr. clark that he was told after mcdougal's death by a prison official that mcdougal was never going to be on parole she just almost lost her composure and said that explains it, jim donley because he lost hope, the was the only thing keeping him alive but there were other factors coming into it. i believe that until that final month everyone expected jim mcdougal would be paroled. >> host: let's talk about susan mcdougal to be completely different story, really about these key to her husband, jim mcdougal.

she played really interesting rule again as backdrop to the impeachment in the washington, d.c. story. tell about susan mcdougal and her relationship with president clinton. >> guest: very colorful character, very likable and interesting person. in the book as you know and as politico reported first, on the report categorically there was an affair between susan mcdougal and the president and at some point during his governor years. i believe it was brief. i'm not saying i believe this to be the case. i'm saying it is the case however i cannot disclose my sources and i will not disclose my sources. but i also conclude that although the starr operation spent time and money trying to figure out that piece of things that it wasn't the missing link that explained everything work

really much as anything. what have been uncomfortable for her to testify about that in the grand jury? yes. was she looking forward to that? no. is that the reason she did not testify and went to prison instead? i do not believe so at all. during the point, gse and jim mcdougal turned into what she described as a craving lawyer, turned into a quiet reading witness with starr making up the stories to try to save himself from going to prison or get out of prison, and she believed because she didn't have incriminating evidence against clinton that she would end up going to jail no matter what she said. whether that was rational or not is another question. but did she go to jail because she was hiding the fact of this affair with clinton? i don't believe so at all. i think she went there because she did speak ken starr.

it is a very interesting piece of the story because susan mcdougal ends up two years in prison as a result of this and -- >> host: the reason she's been the two years in prison was because? >> guest: in contempt for failing to testify in front of that starr grand jury. >> host: that raises one of the first what ifs because as you know that period was volatile. you didn't know what was going to happen the next day or the following day and you go back and was struck reading your book how many times the development or the outcome could have been changed if something different happened. that is one of the what ifs. what if susan mcdougal had cooperated with the council? >> guest: well, i don't know that would have changed anything at all really because she wouldn't have testified as to any knowledge of the clintons

being involved in anything. and so at that point -- i mean maybe she wouldn't have gone to -- i don't see the starr team as being vindictive and we should talk about ken starr. i don't think he was about to just put someone in prison because he could or wanted to. but would that have self changed anything? i don't think so and i think probably they would have turned towards another pressure point. ultimately what the office of independent counsel was trying to do was figure out who was telling the truth, was clinton's fault with the madison guaranty scam with mcdougal and david and if she wasn't going to talk i think more pressure would have been put on webster hubbell to get him to talk. >> host: that's another arkansas figure that came to washington, d.c. the kids a good deal of attention. it strikes me that as these developments occurred in real

time those of us watching them were eager to know what was really going on and i think this is something you achieved. you talk to mr. hubbell a number of times obviously. you report about he was prosecuted almost three times, and i write? >> guest: indicted three times. >> host: and served time in jail as well. what do you think about the web hubbell relationship? >> guest: obviously they were close friends. hillary clinton worked with him in the rose law firm. there was vince foster, web hubbell, bill kennedy, bill clinton. it was a shock to the clintons when it turned out that he was building wall firm and don't forget hillary herself was a victim of that so that was a total shock. to his credit, hubbell is one of these people i've spent a good bit of time with him. he has really come to grips with his mistakes i think and just acknowledges them.

one of the fascinating things about hubbell is i believe the most compelling proof because he kept saying i don't know with these starr people felt i was hiding whatever it was they were looking for i don't know but i didn't have it but proof of that, stop and think, craig because he raises himself if he were hiding something could bill clinton have afforded not to pardon him? if he was hiding something, you know that would be the shortest way she was going to blab so there were no bodies buried there because as he said, she would have certainly told the story than when he didn't get pardoned. most of the other arkansas person that joined in washington, d.c. was vince foster and the tragedies of aside occurred within the first months of the administration and had a devastating impact on the white house, did not? >> guest: it did. it was tragic and i first started working on that because on the way back from visiting

the whitewater site and fishing up there, zhifu was close with vince because they'd grown up along with bill clinton told me about the months leading up to that. he had lots of conversations with vince and was clearly depressed, and one of the things i try to show i was finally able to get bill kennedy. people didn't want to talk about this, bill kennedy came to washington and worked alongside vince in the white house counsel's office right next door and he was the person who went and identified his body at the morgue and told me of that story and i put it in their only to show to the extent people try to create conspiracy theories the clintons were somehow involved and killed vince and rolled him up in a rug or whatever, that was just so over-the-top and so inappropriate because they had all lost one of their closest friends. this has been bill clinton's friend since he was 4-years-old, this was a horrible time for all

of them and so that whole piece of things i think it's just a very sad piece of the story. >> host: and then the final arkansas personality that we can talk about in the context is paula jones and the paula jones story, the whitewater story, they got intermingled. did you talk to paula jones? >> guest: yes, i did. >> host: did you learn anything new from paula jones other than what had been in the newspapers over and over and over again? >> guest: i think i got a feel for what made paula jones take and she is a likable person. you know, it is in fact the last piece of it because you see what happened as we have white water bubbling back up, white water had been dead for years as you know and now it bubbles back up and gets connected somehow with the vince foster suicide as people said they are connecting the dots the don't connect and suddenly comes david brock's story in the american spectator talking about troopergate and

this woman named paula and everything comes together and creates this kind hysteria that propels for the appointment of the special prosecutor. we don't have ten hours to talk about -- >> host: unsury we are moving on -- >> guest: let me just say this with respect to paula jones i spent a lot of time on the piece of this story and there's a lot of material. i got access to the raw footage of a film shot as part of the clinton, which was a very anti-clinton movie in the very early stages when paula was still trying to get the story together which would have been used by her lawyer as exhibit a in trial and wouldn't have been flattering are painted her in a sympathetic position. i believe that 95% of her story of what happened in the hotel room is true. it's the 5% i have a problem with and that is what was her role in these events and one of the key fact that was emphasized

by president clinton's lawyers but others was at the time she went to the hotel room at the hotel she was engaged to be married to steve jones. they got married seven months later. when this came out there was a big problem for pola because steve jones was a fairly hot headed fellow as described by others and hated bill clinton so there was definitely a motive to cover this story in her favor and that was in fact what trooper danny ferguson as you know testified to -- >> host: a willing volunteer. >> guest: and again there's so many pieces to this but also the other thing that's incredible is her own lawyers, the virginia lawyers backed out of this case and quit because she wouldn't settle for the full amount the asked for. they thought they had this case settled in 1997i believe it was and in this remarkable letter i got my hands on, the lawyers beg her to settle this case and said

that at most it was worth $50,000 if anything at all so there is a lot about the paula jones case. >> host: that is another what if though is it not? had the case settled -- there was opportunity to settle even before the loss was borut. >> guest: that's true and for that part i think president clinton deserves that wasn't the best decision on his part but i have to tell you president clinton's the five lawyers and public jones lawyers made clear to me the believed that the case settled so this wasn't something president clinton didn't agree to. he did agree and they thought it was settled in at the last met paula jones her adviser, susan carpenter mcmillan and her husband wanted more than what they asked for, wanted an apology, more money or whatever it was and the whole thing was scuttled and susan webber was none too happy with that i learned from others as well. >> host: let's get back to the

lawyers and the lyndon to washington dc. the office of independent counsel had been created. the special counsel had been appointed, bob fisk. the statute then passed congress and the question was whether there was going to be a replacement for robert fisk and you go into the details of this quite carefully and it is to me extraordinary to see their role the department of justice played as well as the panel of judges with david judge sentelle. could you tell a little bit about that event, the event of substituting ken starr for bob fisk as independent counsel? >> the scope clearly president clinton believes it was the biggest mistake of his presidency to sign the reauthorization of that independent counsel but once that was done and that has been as you know part of his pledge during that election during the campaign he would sign that. it was viewed as a good

government law. everyone expected robert fisk would be reappointed. that is what janet reno asked for, asked the three judge panel so it was a jolting jarring even when he was replaced because fisk was viewed as straight down the middle, a republican but that his investigation was balanced at that point he was moving it along quickly and then to have ken starr interjected into this that rocked the washington side especially in terms of democrats. what i was able to show here which hadn't been known before was publicly it's always been said the three judge panel unanimously wanted ken starr. in fact i was able to get papers, internal court papers and talk to the lone democrat on the panel, joe from virginia from richmond, and he adamantly

was opposed to the appointment of ken starr, for that very reason that in the previous panels they had steered away from anyone linked to the washington beltway. they didn't want anyone could have any connections to the political establishment on either side and ken starr seemed very much connected to the republican elite establishment in this town said he was adamantly opposed to the appointment of ken starr, and throughout the whole time in fact i found a memo in his file indicating he wanted to pull the plug on the independent counsel operation during the impeachment proceedings or shortly thereafter under the pherae that his work was now complete. >> host: had the panel known about ken starr's involvement in republican activities in the past and even the paula jones case? >> guest: well, the latter

probably know. certainly i don't think ken starr was hiding anything and was well known he was involved in -- to consider a run for the samet in virginia and was actively involved in -- he was close friends with robert bork, kind of an icon of the conservative republican elite in washington. the paula jones stuff was the source but because leader joe said that he was not a defeat comprised of fact ken starr had appeared on television and taken the position that the president could be sued civilly, a strong position and it turns out was prepared to write briefs for the supreme court case if it got to that or in the appellate courts. again i don't think ken starr was hiding out in his view was this was public anyone could have found it but it wasn't brought up and don't forget the whole point of the independent counsel, gregg, was to have

someone beyond reproach, beyond suspicion of having any dog in the fight, and that was troublesome to the judge and he had notes scribbled on his pad of paper indicating he was extremely upset about that. >> host: that was generally on known, judge botts mur's reservations. should that have been disclosed to the public at the time? >> guest: he himself chose not to disclose it. he ended up signing on to the court's decision to make it unanimous decision acting as a judge should in the sense that he wanted to make this above politics. he did not want to create the impression here is the democrat who is against this and here are the republicans in favor of it. so he tried to do it to protect the court and i can understand that. you can understand that. >> host: we've got to go to break down. we will be back in just a minute. >> guest: excellent. i appreciate it.

door one-stop shop for everything c-span's at c-span.org/store. our series on presidential libraries and every c-span program plus a collection of books, prints, coffee mugs and other c-span accessories. look for these and other gift-giving ideas at c-span.org/store. >> host: welcome back. he spent a good deal of time with ken starr in writing this book and one of the things you

did in the early part of the book was to compare the family life and the origins of bill clinton and ken starr. talk about how these men that were such adversaries have many similarities. >> guest: well, they did, and in fact i think that there is more similar about the indian dissimilar even though i'm not sure either of them would like to acknowledge that. it's so coincidental in many ways that they were born within a month of each other and born within a couple hundred miles of each other. bill clinton was from the lower part, the southern part of arkansas. ken starr was from texas nearby and they grew up in many ways -- they obviously grew about the same time that in many ways with similar upbringings, very religious but slightly different, so they take these paths each of them coming to the

peak of their career at this moment ken starr having been solicitor of the united states, bill clinton becoming president of the united states. i like them both i have to teleview, and i do want to say this. both of them deserve a lot of credit here because when i went to ken starr and he was the first person i went to when i decided to write this book because i figured i'd written some things that could have been viewed as pro clinton during the impeachment because i didn't think it was an impeachable offense and i concluded that ken starr wasn't interested in talking i didn't want to read the book because i wanted to have both sides and i wanted it to be balanced. ken starr knew what i had written and about my background but he cooperated and gave me access to personal papers i tried to weave in and letters to his kids that i think shows the human side. he's a wonderful person, thoughtful person.

bill clinton knew i had spent a lot of time with ken starr and i made it clear in talking to him and his lawyer, your former partner y have great respect for that this wasn't granted be a ken starr bashing book. the bible isn't going to be portraying him as a person with horns coming out of his head because that isn't what i believe this of both of them went into this project knowing that is how i was going to tackle it and i think both of them understood that there was a value in having someone right an objective historical account of this that they were similar in many ways and those very -- bill clinton again his public persona doesn't always capture this, very thoughtful and considerate person. i saw that over and over again talking to people who grew up with him. i went to the nursing home with his mother -- one of her best friends, marge mitchell and visited her mother who was 90 something-years-old in a nursing home and she told me about she

would get a call from bill clinton on her birthday every here and he would say look, do you see me i'm wearing the coat you gave me, and he would be in egypt or wherever he was. i can barely my -- remember my own birthday. there was nothing think about that. an extremely considerate and thoughtful person who you almost -- he's so convincing because he's speaking from the soul in many ways. well, ken starr is also a gentleman. you don't get to the solicitor general of the united states by just being some rugged is a one-of-a-kind and he wasn't i don't believe. a really kind person and i brought him to do kaine university in 2000 when i first started working on this book and all of my democratic friends were saying what are you doing bringing ken starr, what is wrong with you? then they came and saw him and said boy, she's really impressive. so this is what i tried to do is

judge people on my own. i tried to talk to everyone myself, not using the one-dimensional characters the media often creates. >> host: white you think he took on the task? >> guest: i don't know. that's a great question. i will tell you in his mind, ken said he was called to service and i believe that. he was in implored to do this just as when he was in part to the solicitor general and give up his seat in the u.s. court of appeals and he told me he went back into his chambers and wept like a baby -- >> host: he loved being a judge. >> guest: yaki didn't want to do this. i believe that on one hand but i still have a problem with the fact that ken, like many of the republican intelligentsia at that time thought that the independent counsel was a disaster, was a monstrosity, and i still don't understand why he took the job and devoted all of his talent and energy to this

when he didn't believe in the first place. there was a recipe for not a good result. >> host: at time there wasn't a consensus that fisk was during the bad job. he was a widely respected person to the question remains why do youzy think ken starr to combat tosk? >> guest: well, at the time you have to remember if you go back there was a portion of the republican party that was incensed at robert fisk, the thought that he was doing a whitewash job, he had already written a report that vince foster had been murdered -- i'm sorry, committed suicide -- but what was being portrayed in media accounts, so there was a lot of pressure on the three judge panel and others to switch. >> host: from that part of the republican party. >> guest: yes, that's correct. >> host: still looking from the al-sayyid one might be forgiving of the perception were

given donato leave the three judge panel but judge starr were responding to pressures from a net extreme element of the republican party. >> guest: don't forget ken starr had done the investigation with diaries. i think that he saw it as there was a moment of crisis here. people wanted to change. it was an unsettled feeling -- >> host: this is all before monica? >> guest: before monaco and i think that he decided this was the right thing to do even though i can tell you i interviewed his wife, alice, a wonderful person, and she -- her view was why would you do this, ken? and i think that he felt called to do this. i think it was one of the most significant mistakes he made in his career to take this on. >> host: the interesting thing because you cover his life during his period as independent counsel in great detail. the interesting thing is this

wasn't fun for him. this was something he did not enjoy. he obviously neither did the president but ken starr was in agony for much of that time as well. did you ask him if he regretted taking this job? >> guest: well, i did in a number of different ways, and of course ken been ken just said well, he still would have done that because he was called to do this and he doesn't look back over his shoulder. he did -- i had a number of conversations with him where i told him on a view that i thought it was the biggest mistake expanding to the monica lewinsky matter. i think that he was the last person in the world who should have handled that because rick or wrongly a large segment of the population at that point of view him as partisan whether that was true or false he should not have done it as an independent counsel and he has come to acknowledge that there was not a good decision. i'm not sure if for the same

reasons exactly but i think if he had to do over again he definitely would have ended with whitewater and i think that he did a pretty credible job as whitewater special prosecutor although it took too long and he would have stayed far away from the monica lewinsky system become matter. >> host: final question, looking back at his career as independent counsel does he recognize where he made mistakes or his office made mistakes putting aside the question of taking on the monica lewinsky matter. whether he was too slow coming up with the results of the whitewater investigation and whether he shouldn't have testified in front of the judiciary committee, to what extent has ken starr looked back and said these were some mistakes and i could have done better with the office should have gone another way. >> guest: well, i would have to go back and see if there are specific examples. i think in general ken's view is

his office did the best it could with an impossible situation. i think that is the fairest way to sum it up, so i think that he would not agree his office made terrible mistakes. i think even with the report something you are very familiar with because it worked with the clinton white house when that arrived on the scene i think ken felt there was no way to avoid putting the detail into this thing and as you know that may have been the single event that galvanized the clinton forces to defend the president at that point because it was so over the top in their view. >> host: let's talk about monica lewinsky, the cast of characters monica lewinsky introduced into the story you might. you had a chance to talk to her. what does she think about this experience in her life? does she regretted that anything she did? does she look at this as a

positive experience? how does she look back at this moment in her life? >> guest: i don't see how anyone could look at this as a positive experience, greg, and i have come to have a great deal of sympathy for monica lewinsky and her family and i have to say i went into this not knowing what i would think about her, not knowing what i would think about paula jones. monica is a very, very smart person. one of the most difficult interviews in many ways because she knows exactly what she will talk about and what she won't talk about. i spent a good bit of time with her. i sat on folding chairs in a storage room in greenwich village going through documents with her when i finally convinced her that i should see some of the documents from dustin to help me tell the story. it was clearly a very painful day for her. this wasn't a joke in any way for monica lewinsky's family.

it was the worst experience in their lives. there is no way to undo it but i will tell you this, what i came to respect, she's one of the few people in this whole saga who openly acknowledged that she made mistakes about things. didn't try to justify or rationalize that in any way. but nonetheless, when you stop and think about it often people will say if you are having an affair with a married man who you know also happens to be the president of the united states you have to assume this sort of thing is bring to happen and she wanted the attention or whatever. well, my answer to that is if you have this kind of a relationship, you certainly know that if things go wrong your picture may appear on the cover of a tabloid magazine in the supermarket. you do not expect you are going to be cornered by fbi agents and

federal prosecutors and told you might go to jail and your family is in jeopardy. you would never imagine that in a million years. this was a nightmare for this family. it's a very sad part of the story, and i think she gets a lot of credit for beating admirably in this because it was just a terrible experience. >> host: one of the moments in the investigation that you focus on is the moment that the fbi and the lawyers from the office of independent counsel confront her with a possibility that she is filing a false affidavit when she is misrepresented the truth about her relationship with the president in connection with the paula jones case and the details of that and the story of that particular narrative and incident i think that you told the story. you've got it and obviously the independent counsel people spent time with you on this as did

ms. monica lewinsky and her parents. what was the significance of that the french? that moment in the ritz-carlton hotel where you call with the bracing of monica lewinsky. tell us what the significance of that was. >> guest: it turns out that jury significance, because its -- you know, this is the part the whole thing kind of comes together. one of the great ironies of the story, gregg, is on one hand monica lipinski was office of independent counsel star witness. they needed her. they had to take the position of everything she said was the truth except for one thing and i was their treatment of her when they first confronted her in the ritz-carlton. on that front the honor likely have to argue she was not telling the truth and in fact she wasn't about to talk about during this time. in the end as you know from later on in the book i disclose

there was an internal investigation by the justice department. >> host: joanne harris. >> guest: joanne harris appointed by ken starr's successor, robert ray, to conduct an investigation of allegations against ken starr's office about a host of things, it the one piece of it where joann harris concluded there were problems was their handling of this brace of monica lewinsky, the grace being -- >> host: confronting two yet >> guest: confronting, yes. there was no planning. the prosecutors told me they thought naively. this happened quickly. they went in thinking they would be there 15 minutes talking to monica and she would agree to cooperate or whatever. they didn't have a plan of what happened when this young woman did not want to cooperate and not only that but asked to talk to her lawyer, frank carter who had written the affidavit and as joann harris told me, she would have gone nowhere near this once

monacco started asking for her lawyer. this was not one of the high points of the ken starr operation and it's been there. all this time and guilherme harris's feeling is like everything else has come out about the story. it doesn't seem appropriate to hide the one piece of evidence and facts that do not necessarily panned the starr and a favorable light. >> host: before she wrote that, she interviewed the participants on the office of independent counsel. >> guest: every one of them, fbi agents, everyone. >> host: has that been published? >> guest: it's under seal. i was not able to get the report. i just got joann harris as the author told me essentially what was in the report. that has been hidden for all this time, placed under seal by the court. but under these circumstances, my judgment was that was important for the public to know because lord knows everything

else rall grand jury testimony and virtually every detail about people's lives was made public and i did agree with her there was something the public deserve to know. >> host: we've got to tell the viewers who joann harris is so we get a sense of who she is. >> guest: jul and harris is a prominent lawyer and now law professor and had been the head of the criminal division in the clinton administration under janet reno and was picked because she was viewed as neutral, on modest, and a very thorough person. >> host: let me say as a lawyer looking and it's a little surprising back the prosecutors when they were organizing and thinking through what they were going to try to achieve with monica lewinsky and the ritz-carlton hotel had not developed a strategy sufficient to deal with the question of immunity to think through the various scenarios that might

come out. were you surprised at that? >> guest: don't forget this was happening rapidly and goes to the question should they have gotten involved in the first place and why your linda trip after going to her house and during she was going to meet with monica lewinsky and in 24 hours y zearing her without first getting permission from the interregional or the three judge panel so it goes to the fact that at this point this is where i feel the office of independent counsel kind of lost its composure as prosecutors and wanted as jackie bennett told me to get ahead of the curve because they felt the rigging still called by the clinton white house. it's not your job to get ahead of the curve when it comes to something like this and lead to problems i believe because it had not been felt through correctly. host one of the facts in dispute about what occurred in the ritz-carlton is whether or not

the office of independent counsel asks monica lewinsky to wear a lawyer and going to the oval office. did you bring clarity to that question and what you think happened on that? >> guest: i think they clearly talked about her wearing a wire to record some conversations. as to who i am not sure. i don't know that they were talking about going into the white house to talk to bill clinton necessarily. maybe to betty corrine certainly. mabey to vernon jordan but it's very clear at one point he called for to make sure they had the equipment ready in the office if she was queen to wear a one year so they're talking about that and she and her mother were adamant as to what the specifics did they really think she was going to go into the oval office and talk to bill clinton i'm not sure that is what they had in mind. >> host: and deinze request came to the panel to expand the

assignment, the mandate of the independent counsel and before they went to the panel they went to the part of justice and talked to the attorney general and deputy as to whether or not they would support it and the doj supported the expansion. do they have regrets about that? you talk to the attorney general and eric holder who is now the attorney general. did they regret giving the office of independent counsel its additional assignment? >> guest: well, they did. i interviewed janet reno in her home in florida and as you know she's a very -- she thinks carefully before she answers and her answers are very short. but she set i would have done things differently. but i think that they felt held in evin as you know we have the presence of mike from "newsweek" who had called the office of independent counsel and said he was going to have to contact durham in jordan and monica lewinsky to confirm the story said he had the information. they felt pressured the had to

act quickly so there were a lot defense and incidentally i think this is what journalists do. there wasn't anything wrong about putting pressure and the question was should the justice department have dictated its behavior by what a journalist was or was not going to publish. that was a mistake but both eric holder and janet reno felt troubled and felt if the had more facts particularly about the involvement with the paula jones' lawyers the might have done the appointed someone else but what they have appointed a special prosecutor? yes which is an interesting part of the story because just because you get rid of ken starr doesn't and the locomotive isn't still coming down the track and president clinton and that locomotive was the paula jones the position. >> host: but the speed with which this occurred is also a component in what happened for example and to talk about this with the media, there's a

constant theme in your book how important and the devil was in the development of history and the decision making was influenced by the media and of course michael played a central with that particular moment because he was threatening to publish at any moment and of course he held off publishing a little bit and one of the questions i got is what if isikoff had gone ahead and published what he knew according to the timeline he laid out for himself with that have made the difference? >> guest: that's one of the questions i asked or if the justice department said we don't care what he does. we are going to take our time and do this. that's the interesting question and i do raise this in the book because i talked a lot of judges and prosecutors. the prosecutor's job is not to encourage people to lie and if that happened it's quite possible president clinton would have gone into the deposition and figured out how to tell the truth because he knew what was

about to hit over the head so that could have changed things considerably, yes. >> host: then you described in great detail the presidents deposition of the paula jones case which by the way i might say was played at the impeachment trial the first eight or nine minutes with the description of the definition of sexual relations. another key moment in addition to the paula jones the position was the president's appearance before the grand jury in his testimony and that was where great lawyering from david occurred. can you describe what happened there and how david's presence on the scene and preparation made such an important difference. >> guest: first of all the whole grand jury event was set in a way that fever president clinton with him filling the camera and ken starr's prosecutors been muted in the background.

but also the president clinton read a statement where he admitted generally to the wrongdoing and didn't get into any details so in fact in many ways the grand jury testimony cleaned up the problems that had been created in the paula jones case. that having been said there are still -- i've read the whole thing and i've watched it. there are some things false and you can debate whether it was intentionally false or she and monica herself as you know from some of the store is concluded there was no way of around some of these things being false but for the most part president clinton did a masterful job and starr's office knew that and walked out totally depressed as one person said there was like trying to nail jell-o to the wall but president clinton dominated. his big mistake of course was going on television that might and chewing out ken starr. he was on top of the game before that.

>> host: you remember this vote in the united states alleging perjury and grand jury is 55 for acquittal and 45 for conviction. >> guest: that's correct. >> host: to things quickly, one is how close hillary clinton can to being indicted in the drafting of the indictment and discussion and second briefly the secret service versus the fbi. these are two things you develop and discretion in great detail and i don't think it's ever been discussed we've discussed in your book and the our extraordinary stories. talk about the indictment -- the suggested indictment of the first leedy. >> guest: no one has ever seen this indictment to my knowledge except myself and i got my hands on it somewhere where it shouldn't have them. that is one of the great things about doing projects like this because i know president and mrs. clinton haven't seen that yet. it was to the indictment of the first lady and webster hubbell and relate