the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., november 4, 2010. to the senate, under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, the hereby appoint the honorable john d. rockefeller iv, senator from the state of west virginia to perform the duties of the chair. signed president pro tempore, daniel k. inouye. the presiding officer: under the presiding officer: under

>> you can see folks are just starting to arrive for this cq rollcall crew. that's a form that refute the 2010 midterm election results and what that means for congress and the obama administration. we expect to hear today from the roll call newspaper executive editor. also the brookings institution congressional scholar thomas mann, and the chief congressional correspondent for the "new york times." as we can see people are starting to file in. let's listen to an interview yesterday speaker nancy pelosi interviewed by diane sawyer talking about the midterm

election results. >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] we are having a technical problem with that nancy pelosi entity. his what "the associated press" is reporting in colorado. michael bennet has declared victory, was declared the winner in u.s. senate race over tea party republican candidate ken

buck. washington state and alaska needs more time of according to the ap counting all the write-in ballots that could give alaska senator lisa murkowski another term. that count will begin until november 10. in washington state, two-thirds of the vote have been counted. the remaining third consist of mail in ballots, will be tabulated over the next couple of weeks. also latest number that we saw this morning, a handful of house members, tent races, will have updates throughout the day here on c-span2, also on her website, c-span.org. again, waiting for the cq roll call forum to get started. should be underway shortly. as we wait we will bring you that interview with speaker nancy pelosi interviewed by diane sawyer. >> what are you going to do next? >> first of all today i'm talking to my members who courageously fought the fight, kerry do better, took the tough

votes. that's what i'm doing today. when i told you into doing that i will start think about what i do next. it has never been about me. the president said he was sent. and for you, sad, bruising? >> it's that entrance of the colleagues who won't be coming back. for me, i'm a professional. >> you didn't feel -- >> i felt like my college. i felt it for the american people because i do believe that there's a distinction. so i believe their -- >> we'll have to talk to ourselves, when it feels bruised. it feels rough. >> let me tell you, when i get time for that, i will call you. i will let you know how it feels. because first of all i haven't had a moment alone to even think about myself. it's about how our caucus goes forward to fight, continue our fight. [inaudible] spent as i said, in our caucus

we always do things by consensus. when we have that consensus, we'll have some announcement to make. >> do you feel you have the support to be minority leader? >> as i said, i don't want to speak for my caucus at this time. >> what's the best thing about john boehner? >> well, i hope john boehner will be the speaker in a way that he lead. i hope that he is not held back by national we are say around here, you have a convoy theory, that congress will go as slow as the slowest ship. well, there's people waiting for jobs can't wait, have that convoy theory. >> life-giving fluid the ronald reagan building in downtown washington, d.c.. just about to get underway, just a few more minutes we think for this cq "roll call" forum for the 2010 midterm election results. as we wait we had a chance earlier to speak with a capitol hill reporter about those election results.

>> of "the wall street journal" on the front page article today's edition on how the route was one. careful plans and timely way, but other gop regain the usl. how early in 2009 did eric cantor begin laying his plans for taking back the house? >> they started remarkably early. you could say that in gnu 2009 they already determined they had a possible of taking the house back from the democrats that you have to remember the atmosphere back there. president obama had just won an enormous victory, all parts of country seem to be turning blue. the democrats have delivered their second successive shellacking of republicans. and it seemed like the best the republicans could hope for in the midterm, just to gain a few seats and retaking how seemed very remote. but republicans did feel like they had a chance because there were so many democrats and swing district and difference have

been won by john mccain. but they felt they had a shot. but i think it's very much fair to say that as early as january '09 they were already planning, they're already playing a process that resulted in what we saw last night. >> why didn't be labeled by the democrats the party of no stick with republican? >> i think it would have under other circumstances but i think because the economy did so poorly over the past couple of years, and that to some degree prompted the rise of the tea party movement, and the obama administration's policies, for whatever reason, prove to be less than popular in many ways. it paid off because it turned out that the voters were not happy with what was going on and say no, resonated with them. now is the economy have done better and if the president's policy have been more popular that could have backfired in sort of a big way. but as we know that's not what happened. >> in terms of republican strategy you wrote about kevin mccarthy, his strategic role. what did he learn from rahm

emanuel's success in winning back the house for the democrat? >> that's an interesting thing that mccarthy and some of the other leaders really studied what he did in '06. they felt i was in some ways a template or a model for running any surgeon type campaign that would recapture the house. that's not to say they didn't have their own innovations and ideas but they did look at what he did. one of the lessons was to recruit in every district in the country practically. so that even in places where it seemed like the democrat was never going to lose, they still try to have a credible candidate just in case because you never knew what would happen. that's not something that had been done every year. they also tried to pummel income is, even long before the campaign started just to weaken them, cause them to retire, you know, you attack early and often. that was another lesson. in the third really was to demand fundraising and other other commitments from your candidates. not to let them get away with

demon fundraising for not having let's say an online plan, but to demand certain things if they're going to get any help from republican leadership. they had to prove that they were running these campaigns. that apply to incumbents, at least as much to challengers. >> so that internal fundraising have not been as successful in the past? >> no. the republican leaders felt like in the past a lot of republican incumbents had been lazy and they relied on the republican congressional committee, the political arm of the house republicans. that many incumbents relied on them to sort of give the money and help them out. the message they tried to send relatively early on was, we're not going to help you. you guys need to raise your own money, and do all this work yourself because we want to be getting help to challengers. we don't want to have to worry about people who already have their seat. and i got to the point where mike rogers who was in charge of incumbent protection from the republicans was booed at some conference meetings because he had been harassing and bugging

and bothering some of these incumbents so much that they booed him. that was i think and just but nonetheless it gives you the idea that, of the average of the republican leadership really put in to having their incumbents to a lot of hard work you need to do to get reelected. >> you write a lot about mike rogers, about eric cantor, about other members not a whole lot about john boehner. what was his role in all this? >> well, he was obviously involved, and he's the one who put pete's sessions in place. the sessions isn't the guy who headed the nrc see. he was very much part of the strategy to let a lot of different republican members take charge of different parts of the effort. again, that's a kind of thing that can backfire, you know, maybe they left out, maybe they were skillful, i don't know but they kevin mccarthy in charge of recruiting.

they had jeb hensarling in charge of raising money. they had mike rogers in charge of income protection. and so forth. and so while john boehner was certainly involved in raising money and campaigning for candidates, you know, he wasn't deeply involved on a day-to-day basis. but you wouldn't really expect them to. nancy pelosi wasn't deeply involved in a day to day basis as the leader they have a lot to do. don't forget, these guys have legislative duties. they are members of congress and need to represent their constituents. so it's not to minimize his role. he was the guy that day in and day out was in charge. >> this takeover of the house wasn't a done deal even as late as september. they saw a poll that concerned republicans pick what did they see? >> it probably was a done deal but there was a typing that took place and it was somewhat to be expected because races like this tend to tighten at the end. nonetheless, there's a confluence of events and a series of polls that sort of gave them the jitters.

and there was sort of a gut check wondering if maybe they could pull us all. one thing to remember if they had lost a bunch of special elections. particularly since president obama was elected. there was at least three election, two in new york, one in pennsylvania, that the republicans really should have a shot at. there was one in new york where they had held for 100 years i think, the civil war. 150 years. they lost it in a special election. or this one in pennsylvania when former congressman murtha died. it seemed like a classic pickup for the republicans. democrats had an edge in registration that many of these were working-class socially conservative democrats who were turning away from the party. they were confident he would win and they get killed actually. the democrat, mark chris. if i'm not mistaken he just read one it again last night. there's a bunch of things that came together where they sort of felt like gosh, maybe there's

something wrong with the polling, maybe this is all going to go wrong at the last second. and there was just, these elections are always roller coasters. out as a final kind of get check before the final stretch. >> in terms of the victory yesterday -- >> we will break way from this recorded interview with a reporter, take you live now back to the ronald reagan building back in washington. at cq today 10 form group just getting underway. live coverage on c-span2. >> good morning. it's great to see you all here on this rainy washington november 40. appreciate you coming out. and welcome to the 2010 cq "roll call" collection impact conference. "congressional quarterly," as

many of you may know, has been holding this conference for just about two decades every two years, usually always happens the thursday after election day. and it's an opportunity for people in washington and around the television viewing area when c-span covers of this, which they are doing today, to take stock of the results from the elections and kind of get a first, a first look, first comprehensive look at the new congress, the incoming class and the changes underway in the house and the senate, and in the committee's, and with leadership. so it's terrific to see you all here. and we couldn't be prouder to be here today, because this is the first election impact conference with the newly combined cq "roll

call" group, which was formed after the merger of the "congressional quarterly" and "roll call" a little over a year ago. so i'd like to just are often asking folks to put their cell phones and they're iphones on quiet mode, blackberries. and let me get started by just thinking a special partner in this endeavor, the public affairs council, which has worked with cq since 2002, to put this event on. douglas pink been who is also a panelist today has been a truly partner with the public affairs council, so thank you very much. would also like to thank our sponsors, alta and united technologies who i just only recently learned those more than

aerospace and defense stuff that they're actually in the elevator business, summary outside gave me their elevator pitch this morning. but they on oldest, which i didn't realize. there are a love this kind of postelection events going on around town, as you may know. today's event here it is by far the largest both indicated and the number of panels and the depth of discussion. so i think we have a great day ahead of us. i think guiding us all through the day will be our guide to the new congress, which some may argue that sort of the real reason why the use to grab a copy of this. it's the first, the first complete look at the freshman class of the new congress available anywhere. in print and online. and it's really an awesome endeavor that the newsroom at cq

put together. by the way, i realize i didn't induce myself that i'm mike mills, editorial director of cq "roll call." the staff at cq and rollcall, the combined newsrooms put this out in unbelievable breakneck speed. and how they do it is the races that are too close to call we simply write profiles for both candidates and hopefully press the right button when a winner is declared. so i think this guide is a terrific entrée and a navigational tool, but throughout the day that you all will be able to use. extra copies are available outside in bulk purchase or single, but everybody in the conference get a copy. as you all have probably heard, this has been a very historic

and in some ways unusual election cycle. one-fifth of the new congress is new. it's a huge freshman class. one thing that is interesting about the guide here is the demographic breakdown that we can do fairly quickly with our software, is we find some interesting points about the new plan and the new congress in general. the democrats and house will by and large be more liberal, white expanded gop will be more conservative. and the new congress will have slightly fewer women, fewer house members will have advanced degrees. there will be fewer lawyers and more business people. these and other insights can be found in the guide, and we will be exploring them in the panel as well today.

as you may notice behind me and around us, today's a pretty big day for cq "roll call" in general. we announce our new logo just this morning with this event, and our new branding for the new group. and we could me more excited about it. today we're also, as we introduce a new congress to you, we are also introducing cq rollcall as a new company. we're also unveiling today a redesigned rollcall.com, and a new daily e-mail newsletter that is free, and you can subscribe to it in the lobby. in fact, if you do subscribe to the newsletter which is called the cq rollcall daily briefing, and it is what it sounds like him it's a briefing of everything that's going on in congress and washington every weekday. when congress is in session. you can register to win an ipad. also, in the lobby you can take a tour of cq and rollcall

products, which i encourage you to do. so without further ado, it's my pleasure to introduce the first panel, which i think is applicable what's the mandate? i notice it is a cold is a mandate. it is called what's the mandate. assuming there is one. first i would like to introduce david was the political political editor for pbs news hour. david lacks the news hour's political coverage across all broadcast and digital platforms, in addition to campaign politics he manages the editor of content from the news hours congressional white house and supreme court be. he joined the news hour, how long ago? >> the beginning of july. >> great. and pride to that he was political director for abc news. by the way, david won an emmy as part of the team that produced abc news in niger coverage in january 2009. so welcome, david.

for joining us. carroll doherty is to david's left, and he is associate director of the pew research center for the people and the press. carroll is responsible for the velvet of the center's research projects and its editorial output including surveys, opinion pieces and political analyses. recent pew center reports cover the role of the money generation and politics, 2010 matrons, the public policy priorities and views of the upcoming census. i have known carroll because he's a former senior writer at "congressional quarterly" where he spent a decade covering congressional leadership, politics, and foreign affairs. he also served as a commentator on presidential clinton's impeachment proceedings four in pr during that time, and is previously an investigative reporter for cbs news. so carroll, thank you for being here.

bob bennett send is not in his 12 campaign cycle of specialize in election coverage. he is the senior elections analyst for cq "roll call." and he was cq's politics editor from 1998 up until the merger with rollcall in 2009 and has been with cq since 1981. bob is one of the sharpest political minds out there and has encyclopedic knowledge of congress and politics cq-roll call's greatest assets, prior to cq, actually, you started at cq after a stint in radio. >> abc radio. one of the finest institutions in the united states. >> as did i, but enough about

michigan state. and last but not least, douglas pinkham, introduced earlier as president of the public affairs council. and the public affairs council is the leading international association for public affairs professionals, founded in 1954. it's nonpartisan, nonpolitical organization that provides training and development to the profession of public affairs. prior to joining the council, doug was vice president of the mutation for the american gas association, which is as you all know major trade association in town. and he has authored many articles for trade and professional magazines around the world. so i think we're looking, we're looking at a very interesting day today, and taking it off with a terrific panel. so please, join me with a round of applause to welcome the new panel and kick off the event. [applause] >> and david, you will moderate the panel. >> thank you.

it's great to be here. i'm going to let each of our panelists here make opening statements. we're going to start with carroll because it's always good to go into the numbers first, i think, and with the title of our panel, tranny, what's the mandate, which there is only some sort of, it's not a mandate, some message the voter. but i guess h want to go your way, if you can work this into your opn remarks, that basic question of who showed up to vote, and why did they go the way they did? >> all, who showed up to vote, according to the exit polls, obviously amore conservative, older, more affluent electorate than in 2006. 41% were conservatives. that's the highest percentage we've seen in probably two decades. higher than in 1994. up from 32% in 2006.

nearly a quarter where 65 and older. witches, you won't see that in a presidential election obviously. there wasn't a chop off in a percentage of young people. the exit polls of course our little rough and ready at this point, we will know more later, but there wasn't much of a drop off in minority dissipation so far as we've seen, but it's just a very conservative electorate spent when you say not much of a drop off, do you mean compared to others'? >> compared to other midterms. obviously, from 2008 a huge drop off, but i think the striking thing is this conservative. should i go ahead? you know, in terms of messaging, i think anybody who spent five minutes watching television tuesday night knew that the voters were in kind of a mood on tuesday. they were pretty clear about what they didn't want, or didn't

like, starting with democratic incumbents by and large. and moving onto the economy and the federal government and congress. a couple of number than a try not to throw too many numbers at you, even though there's a lot of data about this election, and a lot of very fascinating -- a real message was no more expansion of government. i mean, that's certainly came through loud and clear. 56% in the exit poll said government is already doing too much, let the businesses and individual. 43% said that in 2008 after obama's election. broad rejection of obama's signature policies. a third said the statements help the economy. twice as many said it hurt or had no effect. but going forward, that's the easy story. what did they tell us about what they want going forward? what are the voters saying about

that? no expansion of social safety net, but do they really want a contraction? all a the u.k., what they're going to right now. that is a lot less clear. and the exit polls, there's not much of a message from the exit polls in terms of what people really want. we did a poll a couple of weeks before the election which was very revealing. we tested a lot of the gop's proposals. you know, certainly some from the campaign stump. divided over almost everyone. and, in fact, below 50% for most of the eight proposals we tested is the only ones that won a clear majority of support was not one that is in the headlines now. that's a lot more offshore oil and gas drilling. you know, a freeze on government spending, more opposition than support. we didn't even get to the specifics of what that might

mean. the idea of health care of repeal gets a little more support than the opposition. but hardly overwhelming. i mean, in effect, issue after issue, social security reform on down, you get is divided opinion about the initiatives. so that was a bit of influence of what we could expect in the months and years to come, you know. the voters aren't very clear about what they want going forward. i'd like to close, you know, we're talking about, we're going to be talking about the possibility for compromise as well. it's a mandate but i would like to talk a little bit about compromise and what we've been finding on compromised. we tested the general proposition of compromise a couple of months ago. this is will before the election, well before the tea

party victories. at that time 54% of democrats were telling us they admired political leaders for compromise with people they disagree with. republicans told us the opposite. 62% preferred political leaders who stick to their position you're in effect what the voters were telling us if they can't even go on whether the general proposition. so we're off to a bad start there. when you get a gap like that even over the idea of compromise, not even getting to the specifics, too much before the election, you get a sense of how difficult it is to work. i'd like to just mention one more thing. david mentioned who showed up on tuesday. the profile of the republican voter, just fascinating. i mean, this is, these are the voters who propelled the republicans to victory. 67% conservative. 60% age 50 and older.

67% say they are tea party supporters. 80% favor the repeal of the health care bill, and 63% want the extension of all the bush era tax cuts. one more number i will throw at you. much was made over the finding of the exit poll that, you know, for achieving a smashing victory, the views of republicans among the electorate weren't all that positive. 43% unfavorable, 53% unfavorable, 43% favorable. no better than the democrats that republicans achieved a great victory. but even among those republican voters who showed up on tuesday in support of the republicans, propelled them to victory, 23% have an unfavorable view of the republican party. so this group of republican voters is very conservative and

seemingly not much in the mood for compromise, encouraging their leader to compromise. and i'll quit right there. we can add a lot of data here. there's a lot of data about this election but i will turn it over to bob. >> thanks, carroll. and it's great to be here. you know, the title of this panel is what's the mandate. but if you look at the history of elections going back at least to the early 1990s, the question might be more appropriately be who is that they give you a mandate? the elections tended to become especially the big swing elections, and with a rather extraordinary number of them over the last 20 years, three in a row just in '06, '08 and this year. have tended to be rejectionist elections that people are angry about something that's going on in the country. usually the economy, only the iraq war was a big factor in

undermining public support for the republicans and president george w. bush in the past two elections. and voters have tended to go out and vote against, to send a message just as they sent a message this year. too much spending, too much backroom dealing. too much corruption in washington. we want change. voting for change as a principle rather than for specific policy changes. then the problem for the party that has won, that had this big surge is that they have fallen into the mandate trap. and they tend to interpret their victory as an affirmation of, not only their agenda, but even the most controversial divisive parts of their agenda. so we saw just yesterday eric cantor, the current minority whip who will be the majority leader almost undoubtedly in the

new congress, the congressman from richmond, virginia. and he said, their first priority is going to be to put legislation on the floor to repeal the health care overhaul bill. well, one of the exit polls tell us about the repeal? 48% of voters, and now mind you, this is a very strong the republican electorate that showed up, or republican voting electorate that showed up on tuesday. 48% said it or keep it the way it is, or expand it. 49% said repeatedly. so you don't get a more even split than that. even more fascinating to me was on tax cuts. 52% of the voters in this republican wave year said at one form or another that they don't want tax, the bush era tax cuts extended for people with incomes over $250,000.

37% of the electorate said they want the tax cuts extended up to $250,000. but interestingly 15% said no extension for anybody. this suggests a stand saying we need to cut the budget, and the budget deficit and you can't do that without taking this action. when you ask the $250,000 threshold, a third of the people who said that voted republican for the house of representatives this year. so go figure on that one. so the question for the republicans going forward is to what the mandate is, is who are they going to be listening to? whose mandate or whose agenda are they going to be subscribing to? because there are two big major forces behind the republicans successes here. one is their conservative activism a.

it's come under the tea party movement but it is much more than that. these are people who they strongly oppose the election, democrats can majority in congress the last two elections and with that they oppose the election of barack obama as president of united states. they don't want that liberal progressive agenda, and they were very energized to go out to vote this year. that was the engine behind the ways. that's what started the wave, but to win, they needed to get a big swing amongst independent voters. and independent voters, when i said at the beginning that most of the elections recently have been rejection elections rather than affirmation elections, there's about a third of the country on each and, republicans about a third, democrats about a third, and if there is by a few percentage points. and then there are some independents who vote almost one way or the other all the time.

but in the middle, and it's hard to codify exactly how big it is, but it's substantial, is a group of unaffiliated voters, many of them are disaffected. many who can't convince a long time ago that neither of the major political parties was really on their side, and was doing what they felt was right for the nation. and they have become kind of america's free floating anxiety of the political spectrum. they tend to attach themselvethemselves to whoever is out of power, whoever is raging against whatever the machines happen to be at the time, and they threw the people who they think are the current bums out. and we see in the exit polls, the extraordinary swing amongst independent voters between 2008 and 2010. 2008, and specifically picked the house result in the as opposing 2008 to make apples to apples, 51-43 in favor of democrats amongst independent

voters. this year it was 56-38 in favor of the republicans. so that's a 13-point swing. that's extraordinary. that is huge. these independent voters are not necessarily subscribe to the ideological agenda of the conservative republican base. so when the republicans take office now and they will be looking at their political base saying yes, we have the mandate to pursue a strongly conservative agenda, that's what the liberal activists thought and demanded after 2008 when they elected a democratic controlled congress. and put a democrat in the white house. and the democrats acted accordingly and they were punished in the polls this year that it will be interesting to see, to see which would ago. i think the sign is mandate at your own risk. and the republicans are going to face a very tough choice.

one last statistic i will give you before turning it over to doug. and it's not from polling. but going into this election, there were 48 districts that we called mccain democratic district in the house. because they voted for john mccain for president, but elected a democrat to congress. it and this is why the democrats were so foldable this time because they help a lot republican leaning states. so they were 48 of them. assuming that two races in arizona that are undecided state democratic, it looks like they will, there will be 12 of those 48. so far liberal activists who said the problem is those conservative blue dog democrats who were holding us back, they don't have that problem anymore but they also don't have a majority anymore. on the other side of the spectrum though, there were 30 mccain -- obama republican district that they voted for obama for president and elected

a republican in 2008. a lot of those members will be the same kind of swing district quandaries as a lot of the democrats were going into this election, where is the republican leadership decides to follow a strictly conservative agenda, the contract with america, they will be putting a lot of their members out on a limb and they better hope that they get a major public support, more public support than the democrats were able to achieve for their agenda over the last two years or they will face another huge pendulum swing in 2012. make no assumptions for 2012 based on tuesday's elections. >> over to you, doug. >> okay. i'm going to actually start by commenting about what bob said on mandate and give a few thoughts on the nature of mandate and the dangers of mandates. and then segue into a bit of a discussion on what is the impact of the election on the business

community, because that's where a lot of the issues related to hiring an jobs and economic growth is going to take place, and people are curious to see what is the impact going to be on corporations. so i will talk about that as well. just a quick word on mandate. i agree with what bob said, that you've got to be careful when you do declare mandates because very often you are wrong. by the time barack obama was elected in 2008, i think he was elected because people were in love with barack obama, that misses are completely supportive of his issue agenda. and i think he's somewhat misinterpreted that as they were completely supportive of his agenda. but what's interesting i was going back and look at some of the poll numbers from the summer and early fall of 2008. and i want to share a couple of those numbers with the. giusti showed how quickly added to change and the warning here is that your mandate is a moving target. even if you think you know where the electorate is on key issues, they change their mind based on

economic and other circumstances. in the middle of 2008, 57% cash back toward the fall of 2000, 57% of the public including 64% of republicans favored the wall street bailout. 54% supported universal health care coverage, and 71% of the public said there was solid evidence of global warming. in addition a little more than half of the public felt that there was no place for religion in politics. so isn't that interesting? so looking at those data points, barack obama was well-positioned to win the presidency, not only based on his charisma and intelligence, but based on a lot of the core issues that were part of his agenda. as the economy went over the cliff, public attitudes change. not necessarily people became anti-environmental, it's that when you worry about your job and your mortgage, certain things go up in order of

importance and certain things fall by the wayside. and politicians need to recalibrate. evan bayh voting efforts of peace in the "new york times" this week talking out what his party did not get to recalibrate over the last couple of years. so that's a quick additional warning about mandates. now for the impact of the election on the business community. the first thing, i'm often asked to comment on this subject as the token kind of business oriented panelists on these events, is the first thing to say is, say the american business community is by no means monolithic. there's often an immediate this talk of this is what corporate america thinks that there aren't many issues where corporate america thinks exactly the same thing. in fact, most major public policy battles are between different segments of the economy. if you look at major issues we've been talking about the last few years, including health care reform, financial services regulation, climate change, companies are all over the map.

in financial services unit banks and credit unions. you agricultural companies because of the regulation of commodity prices begin at credit card companies. these companies and sectors don't necessarily agree. so it makes it that much tougher to say what does a new congress, what does this impact going to be on the business sector in general. generally, for business executives, as they look at the way they run their businesses and a look at their operations, their marketing, how they raise capital, the political world is a conundrum because it is so unpredictable. and uncertainty, which politics can create and which we certainly have had a lot a few years, equally to to risk. and when there's a higher sense of risk, that is when companies don't invest in new plans and equipping. that's when they hold off on hiring. even if they've had a good quarter they say let's just wait and see a few moments to make sure consumer confidence goes up and there will be a market for our products.

now, what creates risk its a change in government creates risk that even the current change in government, even though i would wager they're probably more republicans corporate executives than democrat corporate executives, it's not all one way or the other. but any change creates risk. so a lot of copies now a waiting and seeing to see what will happen with the new congress. major legislation creates risk that especially in a case like health care reform where it drags on forever. and you don't really know what it's going to go, and you're trying to make business decisions, what your health insurance company or someone who provides health insurance. financial services reform, which was several different directions and a lot of people in industry did know how it was going to end up, that uncertainty makes people stop and think before moving forward. i also want to point out, and this doesn't get talked about often enough, political rhetoric creates a sense of uncertainty and risk. and one of my concerns over the last few years, the democrats

was what i perceived as an unnecessary demagoguery to approach to talking about companies that it's one thing to talk about the true corporate bad guys, absolutely. but when the president of the united states and major democratic leaders are out in public forums talking about the evil oil companies and evil financial services company and evil health insurance covers, ceos and their boards you these things that if you're running what you think is a very ethical, sustainable well run organization, it makes you pause and it makes you think, well, does he mean that? does that mean will be regulated at a higher level over the next two years? we got to discuss that and think about what may happen. so political rhetoric creates a sense of uncertainty. as do things like legal challenges to existing legislation. there are probably some companies who would like to see health care we open that they're probably many, many who would just as soon it not be reopened because of the lack of predictability. and the fact it may come out

worse than when they started. now if you're trying to identify the winners and losers in the business community in an election, if you look at those little road or update and bloomberg updates on your smartphone and they say the market went up because the potential of republican victory, pharmaceutical stocks declined. health insurance stocks went up because we may repeal health care. that is a huge lead. first of all, that i could even happen, and clearly ought to are against that happen. and secondly, how can you possibly predict who the winners and losers will be in the corporate sector based on the far-flung potential of change in existing law. neither politics nor investment decisions are that simple. so in terms of the actual impact, i think gridlock probably decreases risk because it will be harder to get big pieces of legislation passed. perhaps that will help the

private sector take a breath and decided there will be any more huge changes right away, in which case they will start moving forward and do some of the hiring that needs to be done. one of the ares i hope we have a more adult conversation about, because they'll be a lot of subjects we won't be having a dull conversations about over the next few years, one of them is trade. trade is very important to economic growth to this country. it's not just about shipping jobs overseas about making sure we have fair trade. you want to keep as many jobs at home as possible, but it's about business growth, growing the economy, improving employment, improving economic growth. and if we can have some are a dull conversations about trade agreements and about the ability of our very capable manufacturing sector to supply products and get some markets around the world, that would surely be a good thing. some of the challenge for the business community of the changes when it doesn't talk about often is the republicans in key party members are not necessarily add a group which is sort of a loosely knit group at

this point, that's not necessarily pro-business. a lot of moderate republicrepublicans and a lot of moderate democrats, or i should say both moderate democrats at this point can be pro-business. but there aren't a lot of moderates right now in congress. in addition, among a lot of the tea party activists there was a real strong anticorporate cents, you know, all these outrageous wall street bonuses in ceo compensation issues and so forth, some of the most loudest, harshest voices on that were not from the left. they were from the far right. so that is certainly a concern for companies. in addition, there's the big question of what will happen to corporate tax rates are given the deficit, given the concerns of the economy, will they go lower to try to spur investment, or whether the increased because of a revenue shortfall? the hope is the business community can work more closely with government going forward. there are a number of areas over the last 10 years where the

public and private sectors have worked very well together, many of you here work in federal government know what i am talking bout. reinventing government programs that started under clinton has continued. a lot of companies provide excellent support in areas of logistics and i.t. certainly, in disaster relief, starting with katrina and dealing with other u.s. and global catastrophes, the corporate community has played a very important role, and wants to continue to do that. and i would hope in the new administration there will be a continued open door to the. one final point, the business committee shares a common problem with politicians. and the very few people like them. members of congress now have an approval rating of less than 20%. but well less than half of americans according to any poll you will read have a terrible view of both the federal government and the corporations. so this huge trust deficit is

something that all of these major segments of the economy have in common, and that all of us will have to work to try to undo that if the country is going to move forward. >> i want to pick up, and i apologize, the opening statements with little longer so if you guys can keep your answers to my questions here briefly, and so we can quickly turn to your questions, i hope, and if you have questions, there are microphones -- no? i will repeat them out loud. >> shout real loud. >> we will repeat them for you. doug, i want to repeat -- pick up on what you said. trade, the president heading to asia on this trip tomorrow and india. yesterday he spoke about the issue of his relationship with the business community, and i grant you it's not a monolithic, i take that and i knew you can't speak for the entire american corporate business community,

but i'm going to ask you to do so nonetheless. >> i can do that spent yesterday in his press conference he said, he gave the impression he needed to show the american people more that he does consult with business executives all the time. it just happened behind closed doors and he doesn't do it out in public so much, and he needs to give some sort of sense to the american people that he does have a concern about the business community and his policy decisions and how they reverberate through the. i guess my question is will he find partnership, real partnership from the business committee at this point, after the pockets rhetoric and all these things, to join him in this front to present sort of a new joint mission moving forward together between the administration and the business community? >> i think there's always potential for the. one thing you say about business executives is they are pragmatic. not ideological. if you're trying to move the economy forward, and if there are honest overtures for the white house and congress to work together on issues like trade

and so forth, i mean, there will definitely be a willingness. there was a great interview with obama in business week maybe six months ago where they approach the whole issue of easy and that business. he doesn't think he is anti-business. he says look at all the things i've done. one of the things the president doesn't get as words matter, and went on the one hand he is saying look, i'm willing to do on this and i'm open to these issues and either stand or concerns, i realize most of the jobs can't come from the public sector, where up to the private sector to drive the economy, but then goes out and politically demonizes a lot of corporations. people, makes them pause. that's one bit of advice i think a lot of business executives would get to them is toned down the rhetoric and let's work together on issues where we have common cause. >> each of you guys has mentioned the tea party element inside the republican party, and the various challenges that will represent to a new majority of republican party. bob, i want to ask you, going

forward, and you have mitch mcconnell in the next couple of hours will be others were doubling down on this notion that his major priority is to be president obama in 2012, continue to call for the bill of health care. but you also see in john boehner and mitch mcconnell obviously a establishment figures here that now going to have to wrangle. mitch mcconnell have to say senator portman, this is rand paul. this is what you guys have to do to give. i want to get a sense from you on how you think the republican leadership, having now sort of embrace that energy for the purposes of electoral gains, can now manage these factions for governing. >> the republican party strategist and leadership, decided very early on that they saw this tiger, running the landscape. they decided that they were going to ride that tiger across

this election landscape. and they took, they took some bruising themselves in a lot of those primaries where tea party candidates upset party establishment people. i think it's going to be more of a challenge for john boehner. people running either as tea party candidates. or running on a very concerted agenda and trying to ride the momentum created by the tea party are going to be there, and they're going to, there's an activist group and they're going to demand that the party pay heed to the agenda that is why we worked so hard for you. we want what's coming to us. rand paul got elected, but a lot of the tea party candidates who, one senate nominations did not. christine o'donnell loss, chairman rangel laws. -- lost. before the election, i kind of wondered mitch mcconnell is

kind of in india will position because it's always easier to be in the minority in politics because you can just tell people everything the other party is in wrong an and you are not responsible for actually running anything. why mitch mcconnell wanted to be the majority leader was a 51 seat majority where the majority speaker is, what candidates would continually try to pull the party to the right and pull them out whenever they try to cover. is an interesting factor. but there's no question, the party base always wants to be heard, and you can see it and what happened the last couple of years. this election a month liberal activist democrats, you know. the legislative a competent, i'm not saying it was good or bad things, but they got all these things pass, the stimulus, the health care overall, financial regulation overhaul. and yet, you know, a lot of

people said no, it's not enough. where is the public option and health care? the financial regulatory bill is full of loopholes and its repugnance come and say, okay, now have to be a bit more reasonable because really, the only one was a more than half the country, no matter how big those games look. their forces will be built. and just very quickly, about wall street, where the interesting numbers from the exit polls was they as people who do you blame most for the economic problems in the country. barack obama was named by 23%. george w. bush was named by 29%. there was an obvious partisan split there. mostly republican said obama and mostly democrats said bush. but sorry, i'm getting blind your. 35% said wall street, and of those, 56% of the said wall street were republicans. so going --

>> no into the populist rhetoric anytime soon. >> going back to the mandate and the republicans think their mandate is to repeal or breakdown that financial regular tour bill, they may be heading into trouble. >> and carroll, one thing that i don't know if you can find in the numbers, but i certain of that your knowledge of electoral history might help answer this question, we've been talking about the volatility, 30 big change election in a row. which is not the norm, although he seems to be becoming the norm, and i'm wonder, is there anything you read out of tuesday night result, what is your sense of electoral history, where new leaders come into town now and the obama administration can see some signals that they can sort of see a setting in of the electorate for sometime to come, or no, we're going to be any period of volatility for quite some time. >> the message i think bob touched on earlier is watch the independence.

the biggest segment of the american electorate right now, more independents than at any point. 70 years. tip the last three elections as bob noted that they voted for republicans 55% on tuesday, almost identical numbers for the democrats in 2006. early in 2009, we did a major survey. this was about the wonder day mark of obama's presidency that he is still at 60% plus in the polls. and independents support for activist government has dropped off significantly from only two years earlier. this was before the health care debate. it was a clear warning signal about where the independents were heading, and i think watching these independents, their views are important i would just like to get back to one thing that doug said about trade, and going to do a little

self promotion you. will have a survey next week is going to include some trade. for the first time will be able to analyze tea party supporters, and i'm really interested to see where tea party people come down on this trade agenda. because on the one hand, they are free market supporters, and on the other there is this sense of no foreign involvement and a sort of skepticism, if not cynicism, about foreign countries. so we'll have a survey out next week that gets to that. >> perhaps the news today that michele bachmann, the person greater tea party caucus in house the house, is challenging jeb hensarling for republican conference chair in the new leadership. perhaps they could have that debate. i would like to open this up in our final 15 years or so questions out there, that you guys have for our panelists. i do see -- there are a couple of microphone. such registration hand if you have a question and we'll get a

microphone to you. any questions? . . >> we see that still very strong there. majority of the public still favors it, a majority of the voters we interviewed favor it

despite the oil leak. >> other questions? down here in the center. say your name, if you would. >> hi, i'm kevin navarro from the raven group. earlier you mentioned there are 58 districts that have elected republican congressmen but voted for obama. who were some of the new republican congressmen elected two nights ago that are in obama districts? i'm just wondering about that one. >> i'm so glad you asked. [laughter] >> would you like to do a dramatic reading of all -- [laughter] >> sorry. >> i would imagine pennsylvania -- >> that'll kill the last 15 minutes of this panel. >> yeah. >> one obvious example is chip who scored one of the biggest upsets over jim arbistar, the

long-time chairman on the transportation and infrastructure committee. that's a longtime democratic stronghold in northeastern minnesota. charlie bass who made a comeback in western new hampshire to a seat that he lost in the democratic wave in 2006. he's ostensibly one of the more moderate republicans from the republican class of 1994, but that's a district that went 56% for obama. so, you know, with a lot of these people, the degree to which the electorate snaps back to where it was in 2008, i mean, it's a fair comparison to compare 2006 to 2010 because apples to apples, midterm to midterm. but the electorate in 2008 was very different. they had a lot of first-time voters, a lot of minority voters. and the democrats did not succeed in getting them out to the polls to the degree that they needed to to offset the

swing of independents to republicans this year. but if electorate is more like 2008, automatically the democrats are going to be on better footing, and they're going to have to have a greater appeal to independents. but just to run down some other names, there were three candidates, two pickups in illinois -- no, three. adam kin singer who beat debbie halvorson. randy holmgren who beat bill foster, and showy who beat representative hare in a district that had been drawn to be democrat. one of these great gerrymander what i call balloon animals, this one was called rabbit on a skateboard. [laughter] illinois' full of them. they've also got the earmuffs district. so, i mean, not all these are -- i'm not suggesting that these are democratic districts, but they are swing districts, and

they are us -- susceptible to if republicans make the democrats angry or the independents as angry as the democrats managed to in two years and independents go back to the democrats, and the democrats gets a little more of their unlikely voter turnout like they did in 2008, you've got a whole different electorate that the republicans have to deal with, and they have to factor that in to their calculations. one quick and interesting thing is i'm looking at this as the end of the 9/11 decade in politics. there have been five national elections now since the terrible terrorist attacks of 9/11. this country and its people have taken some incredible body blows over those ten years, you know, just one major thing that's shaken people's confidence and made them worry about the future, you know? you had an economic recession, you had 9/11, you had an economic boom and everybody thought that, okay, we got that

fixed, and can then we found out it was built on enormous amounts of government and personal debt and wasn't sustainable, shockingly, and it crashed in 2008. and with other just trying to recover -- we're just trying to recover from that. and you get oil spills and everything. the democrats, desweet what happened on tuesday -- despite what happened on tuesday, the democrats are in better shape in office holding than they were two years ago. they have the white house still, the democrats managed to maintain control of the senate whereas republicans have a senate majority coming out of the 2002 elections, and the house has just sprung back to almost exactly where it was after the 2002 elections. and this shows the enduring power of redistricting. and if you're involved in politics at all, pay attention to the next redistricting cycle that's coming up because in the states where republicans made

their biggest gains the other day -- new york, pennsylvania, florida, michigan -- you either had a situation where the republicans drew the map because they had control of the process or was a split decision where safe districts or supposedly safe districts were drawn for both democrats and republicans. the republicans suffered deep losses in those states in 2006, 2008, and then when the pendulum swung back, those maps went back to working exactly the way the republicans planned them to. so, you know, redistricting is no guarantee, but it's an important factor that needs to be countenanced because it sets the tone for politics for an entire ten-year period. >> i see someone all the way in the back there. >> there's a microphone. >> there you go. hi. no. try -- >> that works. >> booz allen am illton.

the old joke is bills originate in the house and go to the senate to die. you should the current -- under the current circumstances, i mean, the house is flipped, but can you see a scenario where you talked about how this'll be a harder leadership challenge for boehner, where bills originate in the house and then continue to go to the senate to die? or get vetoed? you know? knowing full well that they're not going to get through. >> i mean, you want to take that, bob? >> you're absolutely right, and even with the democrats -- [laughter] you know, for a while so-called filibuster-proof majority in the senate this time and there's nowhere near that this time around, certainly not for the republicans. they're still in the minority. the biggest example was the global climate change bill or the so-called cap and trade bill that the democrats feeling full

of themselves in 2009 pushed through. a lot of their members from more conservatives, even from coal country districts in places like ohio and kentucky and indiana, voted the party line there. the bill went over to the senate, as you say, it went there to die, and these people were out there on a very thin limb, and they got punished for it. a lot of -- you can count at least several members who attribute their defeat to that vote. so, yeah, so that's where the decision that john boehner and the republican leadership in the house is going to have to make. yeah, the, the house because of its rules, the republicans now do, basically, whatever they want. they could push through almost everything they want if they're able to maintain party unity. on their agenda. so they could test drive an entire conservative agenda for 2012. but if that turns out to be not where the majority of the

public, especially those crucial independent voters, are, if they're viewed as pushing too far, too fast just like bill clinton before the 1994 election, like the contract with the american republicans before the 1994 election, like george w. bush when he won in 2004 declared a mandate for pursuing social security and private savings accounts, got smacked down for that, and like the obama democrats are the latest example. if they force some of these obama republican district members into voting for stuff that is not popular, they're going to find the same kind of dynamic. so they're going to have to decide what actually has a chance of at least getting the hearing that they want in the senate. i mean, they are in a fairly enviable situation. i mean, it doesn't seem that way. you ask a republican, they'd say, yeah, i wish we'd won the senate. but they are in a position where they can send up policy flares

but not have to worry about them ever getting enacted into law because it's going to get stopped in the senate, and then they can say, you see, obama and those senate democrats are still thwarting the will of the people. if republicans had the senate, it wouldn't be as easy to make that argument. and the other problem they are is that the one thing the democrats failed most at was trying to keep the focus on george w. bush. in this election. more people blame bush for the country's problem than obama, but they don't want to hear that. what have you done for me lately? why didn't you fix the problems that we have? you've had two years, why do we still have 9.6% unemployment? if republicans get in there and start pointing fingers too and say, well, we've got a perfect policy agenda but it's those guys who are blocking it, i don't know that that's going to play any better for the republicans than it did for the democrats. >> did you guys want to add anything to that?

nope? this i see someone all the way in the back. >> thank you. my name is serena from the hispanic association of colleges and universities, and i was wondering if anybody could make any comments about turnout of hispanic voters, either republican or democrat? >> carroll? do you want to -- >> hispanics voted very democratic. it does not appear as if turnout went up or down from, from 2006. that's what we were looking at. it does not appear as if there's much change. 8% is the number that was in the exit polls, and i think 60% of hispanics voted democratic. we saw a little, a little slide in obama's approval rating earlier this year among latinos. i think it was a bit related to immigration reform, although it's hard to tell. but then i think hispanics voted, you know, about the same percentages in 2006. i don't think there was a great

shift there. >> i would just add that in certain key contexts and scapes i think that you saw the hispanic vote have a big impact for harry reid in nevada, for michael bennett in colorado. they had some impact, probably, in the margin in the susana martinez race in new mexico. >> right. yeah, a few of the house races, but the democrats just barely pulled out of the fire, i mean, hispanic act activists can certainly take some credit for that. >> anybody want to be the brave last questioner? >> thank you. hi, i'm brad finch with congressional management foundation. there's a piece in "roll call" today where a number of surveys show that the vast majority of the american public, talking 60, 70, 80% numbers want compromise and want the two parties to work together. three different surveys in this.

if you had to bet on those issues or those areas where there is potential compromise in both the president and the republican leaders have thrown out a couple ideas, where would you say is the area of potential compromise in the 112th? >> why don't we go quickly down the whole row. >> i would say on the budget, but on the margins. there'll be some areas they'll find common ground on, but i don't expect them to find common ground on the entitlements, the big parts of the budget. education usually is an area that there can be some agreement. i would think energy, perhaps, there'll be some agreement. >> i agree with that, energy policy is one area of agreement. not necessarily on offshore oil drilling, but, you know, the fact that, you know, energy independence is going to become a bigger issue. and, you know, we just don't know exactly what the issue parameters are going to be. we never know what's coming up next. if there is more and more evidence of global warming or

global climate change and that becomes an issue again on the agenda or if economy improves, that's really the bottom line to everything. you know? if economy improving and a lot of the issues that democrats are being cuffed around for pursuing because they weren't paying attention to the economy and jobs, then they come out on the ore end some of the social issues that have been tamped down because, again, people were focused on the economy. they don't want to hear about abortion, gay marriage. those will reappear, you know? the economy subsumes everything in american politics. >> just one cautionary note about polls that show support for compromise. they do in principle, but we did a major study in 2007, and we got down to the specifics. well, how about compromise on abortion? how about compromise on gay marriage, how about compromise on specific issues? and the public's appetite for come propoise on those,

understandably s a lot less. >> yeah. one of the interesting -- i've always felt that, yeah, people say they want them to stop bickering and keep working together, but for not an insubstantial number of people what that really means is we want those idiots on the other side to realize how stupid they are and realize that we're right about everything. [laughter] >> on that note, carroll, doug, bill, thank you very much for being here. [applause] i've been -- thank you. i've been told to inform you that you now have a break in your schedule, so go enjoy that and i guess your program guide will tell you what's up next. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> and when this cq-roll call discussion continues, a look at

the agenda with "roll call" executive editor morton kondracke. that begins in about 15 minutes or so. in the meantime, from this morning's "washington journal," a discussion with dick armey, the chairman of freedom works, about the 2010 midterm elections. >> host: we're back with dick armey, the chairman of freedomai works. you probably know that name, part of the tea party movement. i want to begin with the financial times this morn, this headline: outlandish tea party candidates let down republicans at the final hurdle. it says, indeed for the republican party's senate leadership, tuesday night was, in some respects, a failure.ts a never has the house of representatives changed hands without the senate followingged suit, and the tea party movement should take the lion's share ofv the blame. share of the blade. the republicans fell at least four seats short of taking the senate.

there were responsible for the book cost of at least three senate seats that were >> guest: well, i got a little kick out of that story. i actually saw it earlier, and what i found interesting is the financial times placed rightou abovend that story how two perfectly ideal establishment candidates in california, veryai well known, successful businesswomen funding their own campaigns, everything moderate, they lost too. now, why didn't they write the outrageously well-funded moderate candidates let down republican party in california? look, nobody wins everything they put up. the fact of the matter is 55 net elected members of the house of representatives and 12 new senators are signers of the tea party's contract from america. there's no way you can say they

weren't -- marco rubio, if you it to the establishment, would not be the new senator from florida. it would be charlie crist. or, in fact, it would probably be meek because i don't think crist could have beaten meek. the fact of the matter is these folks who got out there toen change america, take it back, make the government conform to their commitment and their mak requirement foronfo constitutionally-limited small government won this election. a they defined this election. and so that, i put that down as one of the more amusing stories i've read about the campaign. >> host: senator lindsey graham, republican of south carolina, said candidates matter, and it depends on what type of campaiga you run in each state. carly my' a -- fiorina, that was an uphill battle for her.

he said it was a good night for republicans, but it could have been a better one. we left some on the table. >> guest: right. well, now, if i were, if i were lindsey graham and i was concerned about the loss of the seat in delaware, i would go talk to governor cassel, the closest thing to a republican icon you have in the whole state with $3 million and say with all of your standing and all your credentials and all your $3 million, why did you lose toour this woman who's hardly known? the fact of the matter is they had their best horse from their stable in the race.thei they backed their horse, and can their horse lost. >> host: but -- >> guest: so if somebody let down the republican party in delaware, it was their favorite son nominee. not the woman who won the primary fair and square, became their nominee and found that they turned their back on her.ti

>> host: well, lindsey graham goes on to say that if you think what happened in delaware is and win for the republican party, then we don't have a snowball's chance to win the white house. if you think delaware was aave wake-up call for republicans, then we have a shot at doingse well in the long term. >> guest: right. i think delaware was a wake-up call for the republican party. look, if you're going to, if del you're going to have an open primary, then have an open primary.an o if those of you who think of yourself as the in crowd withinf the republican party that got co your hands on the levers within the republican party have a favorite son candidate like charlie crist who was endorsed by everybody under the sunchar immediately upon his announcement including lindsey graham, if you've got that favorite son, that favorite daughter, that, that person,that then you bring your horse across the line. but if your horse loses to somebody else, somebody that you say my problem -- they whinedin

forg months. my problem with these tea party-backed candidates is if they lose, they won't then turn around and be supportive of our nominee. in every instance where a republican primary candidate lost the race and then turned and supported the democrats orsp refused to support the republican or ran as a thirdre party, right? in every instance it was theird establishment party's favorite candidate.shme so if anybody let down the republican party, it was thoseby people who said, look, we have o right to have an open primary, and we'll see it through to the general elections only if ourgee pet project is the winner. but if somebody comes and upsets our, our favorite in the primary, we're walking away and washing our hands of it. >> host: does that apply to senator lisa murkowski in

alaska, challenging joe miller, the tea party candidate? >> >> guest: you know the one thing i will give senator lisa giv murkowski in alaska?se this when she decided that having lost her party's primary for her party's nomination and,r therefore, i will run as a write-in candidate, she saw it through. i think, but lindsey graham would say, look, we needay republicans to win in the final analysis. all right? so fine. then stand behind your party's nominee.cans and they didn't do that, and they didn't do it in nevada, and they didn't do it in, in .elaware murkowski put her own faith murkowski put her own fate in her own hands, in respect of of the republican party of alaska. she won as a write-in party candidate.

host: so should minority leader mitch mcconnell and presumably the next bigger of the house, john boehner, a compromise with democrats? guest: i think what you need to do is understand -- first of all, do not get into the trap we got into in 1994 and 1995. this is not the question of dueling mandates. the democrats have said the american people gave us a mandate and we are going to do what they wanted if they do not like it, they can take it anyway. now, if the republicans say we got a mandate and we are going to do what we want, they will run into the same problem. what they got is a new set of directives from the voting people of america. your group of hired hands, we appreciate that you have this great opportunity. we welcome the opportunity to call you the honorable mr. congressman and be deferential to you, but the fact of the matter is this nation needs a

serious public policy reset, and from big government control and domination and spending into financial oblivion to fiscal restraint, responsibility, and governmental respect for the will and the right of constituencies to be free. host: how the republicans can fill their pledge. he said specifically i believe we can make changes like slowing the growth of benefits for the wealthiest earners and index the eligibility age to longevity. these ideas represent a viable alternative to the unsustainable status quo, and they can be delivered while making no other changes for those aged 55 and older who currently receive social security and medicare. do you support that idea?

guest: what i like about paul ryan is that he is secretive figure and i am very excited about him being the budget chairman. here is what bothers me. every american citizen today, if i have a new grandbaby, that poor little child gets a social security number before she leaves the hospital. as soon as she gets a job, the government forces her to take some portion of her earnings and put it into the most badly mismanaged savings retirement program in the history of the world. what paul ryan seems to be saying in this article is that he joins the chorus of voices that says having forced everybody in voluntarily to go into the government program, they can be subject to the wednesday of politicians. and if indeed we politicians cannot meet our obligations, let us be free to choose who among you will sacrifice your life savings and not get a return on that. host: so it sounds like you do not support that.

guest: it does not sound very responsible to me. what if your private retirement program said to you, we appreciate you put your money with us all these years but we are not going to give you your annuity. the government would sue them. i will give paul ryan a better option. why doesn't he say to every young working man and woman in america, you are free to choose to forsake your social security benefits. you be free to choose. it is a much better thing. if i choose to not subscribe to a government program, then i and exercising my liberty. if in fact the government says we were hahappy to take your money for all your working years, and because you were prudent enough to do something yourself in your retirement years, we are saying to you, you don't get any of your money back. host: that sounds like a fundamental difference with paul

ryan. guest: is a very big difference with paul ryan. who will be in charge of my life savings, the or politicians? host: should they oppose paul ryan as budget chairman? guest: no, they should not oppose paul ryan. he is one of the brightest people -- host: but you disagree with him. guest: we are not in agreement on everything. he has a right to be wrong about some things. he is right about most things. in the end, what you're saying realistically, we must come to terms with the fact that some people will get their retirement benefits and some will not. you are saying i put myself now on the side of big government, and let somebody in washington decide that this guy at 409 hemingway street gets his benefits and the guy at 408 does

not. paul ryan knows this. every american young person -- yourself, if given the choice to drop out of social security tomorrow, you would do it that quick because you know by the time you're 65, they will have taken your life savings all your life and give you nothing back. host: let's move on. do the tea party candidates deserve to have a spokesman within the leadership ranks? michelle bachman wants to be the -- should somebody like rand paul getty leadership position in the senate? guest: you go before the members of your caucus and present your case. i did it eight times and i did it successfully eight times. it was not always easy. let those people in that body, in accordance with the rules of

the body, select from those who compete. in the case of michelle bachman, i believe she wants to run in opposition to jeb hensley. he has been one of the most reliable opponents to big government, unnecessary spending programs -- tarp, stimulus, a banking regulation. he understood the issues and has spoken with them with great -- spoken on them with great thoroughness in the house. no one could ever say that he is not a small government conservative. let them make their case in front of their colleagues about which of the two of us will serve the functions of this office with the greater degree of efficiency and fairness. nobody is entitled to a leadership post. it is an honor and

>> first of all, i'm talking to my members who courageously fought the fight, carried the banner, took the tough votes. that's what i'm doing today. when i'm toward the end of that, i'll start thinking about what i do next, but it's never been about me. >> the president said he was sad. >> yeah. >> sad for you. >> well, it's sad in terms of my colleagues who won't be coming back. for me, i'm a professional. >> have you ever felt it? you didn't feel -- >> well, i felt it for my colleagues, i felt it for the american people because i do believe that there's a distinction, so i believe -- >> we all have to talk to ourselves in moments when it feels bruised, it feels rough. >> well, let me tell you, when i get time for you, i'll call you, and i'll let you know how it feels. because, first of all, i haven't had a moment alone to even think about myself. it's about how our caucus goes forward to fight, continue our

fight to the middle. >> are the odds you'll stay? >> as i said to you, in our caucus we always do things by consensus, and when we have that consensus, we'll soon have an announcement to make. >> and do you feel you would have the support to be minority leader? >> well, as i said, when we -- i don't want to speak for my caucus at this time. >> what's the best thing about john boehner? >> well, i hope that john boehner will be the speaker in a way that he leads. i hope that he's not held back by the slower ship. we always say around here you have a convoy theory that the whole congress will go as slow as the slowest ship. well, american people are waiting for jobs, can't have that convoy theory.

[inaudible conversations] >> back live at the ronald reagan building here in washington, d.c. waiting for this "roll call" discussion to get back under way. this panel taking a look at the congressional agenda. we'll hear from executive editor morton kondracke, we'll hear from an adviser on finance law and others. we're scheduled to start any moment here now. live coverage continuing this morning here on c-span2.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and we wait for this cq-roll call discussion to get under way. as we do, the associated press reporting this today, president barack obama seeking to retake

the political initiative after a bruising election, inviting republican and democratic congressional leaders for talks and challenging his cabinet to make washington work better. quote, i want us to talk substantively about how we can move the american people's agenda forward, the president said of the upcoming meeting with lawmakers. the ap reports that the president said it's not just going to be a photo op. the november 18th meeting will be closely watched, in particular for any signs of elusive progress between mr. obama and his two frequent republican antagonists, incoming house speaker in waiting john boehner and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. they'll be joined by the top democrats, house speaker nancy pelosi and senate majority leader harry reid. that, again, from the associated press. we're standing by for this discussion to get back under way taking a look at the congressional agenda.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> and, again, the panelists about ready to come back out on stage. we expect to hear from "roll call" executive editor morton kondracke, norman ornstein and others. this panel taking a look at the congressional agenda, part of several panels this morning at the ronald reagan building being brought to you by cq-roll call. other panels coming up after this one, this one titled, "what's the agenda." the next panel, "who's up and who's done" with aaron billings, and then we'll wrap up later on today with a panel on the economy, "does it matter who's in charge? "we can see people filing in, should be back under way short

limit live coverage on -- shortly. live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> our panelists sitting down now, morton kondracke from roll call, also norman ornstein, thomas mann and fred barbish from congressional quarterly, cq. so this panel scheduled to get under way in just about a minute.

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning. welcome to the second session today. let me briefly introduce myself, i'm the newly-minted managing editor of cq weekly magazine having moved recently from

politico and before that from "the washington post," both very different kinds of publications. one of the things a magazine editor has to do at a time like this is go back and review how the news media covered other elections once the results were in, and i went all the way back into the '80s, even the '70s to do that including some of the stories that i participated in, and i would like to say it was a humbling experience to see what we said after each election. but it was actually a humiliating experience because almost without fail, almost without fail except one article i wrote, we were -- [laughter] we were not only wrong, we were dead wrong. we have a tendency to as we were talking about in the green room declare things dead that were alive and alive that were dead, revolutions that never

materialize, realignments that never materialize, missing those that did. this is because we, to some extent we reporters are in the business of short-term observation except for a precious few. and that's why we call of people like our panelists today, norm ornstein, tom mann and mort kondracke who writes his own column and has been writing and appearing on television for many years. these are people who, who have been around and know what it's like and have the old-fashioned quality that used to be known as perspective. so they've, they've seen it before, and they understand where it may lead and where it might not lead, and they understand what is possible and what isn't. i would commend you in

particular a volume that norm and tom worked on. i've forgotten the year, 1993, called "permanent campaign," which is a brilliant description of what had happened to elective government in the united states which i think it still holds true to this day, and i don't want to -- you can actually get it free if you google properly. [laughter] >> well, hold on a minute there. [laughter] buy it! >> you have a book that's for sale though. let them tout that. all right, we're going to start with mort today. i don't think these guys really need an introduction, it's in your program. we're going to start with mort. the question is, what's the agenda, and i'll start by holding up this column that mort wrote this morning in be "roll call," the headline of which is voters want the two parties to

work together. it starts off with some analysis of the polls, and then he says, will the politicians listen? despite the dire problems facing the country, protracted high unemployment, the long-term debt bomb, energy dependence, a second-rate education system, chances are they won't or can't and will spend the next two years struggling to win the 2012 elections. with that i will turn it over to mort. >> that's what i fear, that in spite of these grave problems -- and they are grave. the debt bomb, i think, is the most, the most serious long term. very shortly we will be spending $700 billion a year paying interest on the national debt. $700 billion is more than we spend on the defense budget. so we're borrowing $700 billion from china in order to build weapons that we may have to use some day against china, you know? it makes no sense.

and furthermore, if we, if we -- not that we're going to fight a war with china, but, you know, it's balance of power in the pacific and all that stuff. in any event, the -- so, you know, these are problems that the system has got to address and sort of everybody knows that they've got to address them. and yet when it comes to actually doing it, the kind of steps that need to be taken never get taken. and i don't, i fear that they're not going to be taken. now, we have a chance when the debt commission reports. i doubt that they will come up with a, with 14 out of the 16 recommending something that would put it into sort of automatic attention, demanding attention of the congress. but there will be a lot of ideas there. and if, if the congress is really willing to tackle this problem, the ideas will be there, and if president can, you

know, work it out, then maybe something can be done. i fear that, however, that because the president will be pulled by his left and be worrying about offending his base and because i think he is -- i don't think he's bill clinton, i don't think he's a trianlator. i think his mindset is that of a liberal democrat, and there are just certain things that are out of bounds for him to consider. and because the right wing has been empowered and emboldened within the republican party, and there will be shrieking any time any republican leader attempts to make a compromise with the democrats. you can just imagine rush limbaugh and sarah palin, all of whom are saying do not compromise, do not compromise, do not compromise. we were elected, we were put here. this is it, so this is the

makings of grid lomb. gridlock. now, i just end on a hopeful note. i mean, there are other things that can be done and that every -- also everybody knows needs to be done -- that they could begin working on. one of them is education reform. no child left behind need to be reauthorized. arne duncan and barack obama are doing things, this is a nixon go to china exercise where they are really taking on the teachers' unions. and so that's something that could be done almost immediately right after they agree on extending the bush tax cuts if they can. so there are things that can be done, and i've got a whole list of them. but i'm, i'm pessimistic. >> all right. on that uplifting note, norm. >> thomas. >> i'm sorry, tom.

>> fred, thank you very much. what a pleasure to come back. norman and i started the cq election conferences in 1980, so this is 30 years later. we began with that extraordinary 1980 election. think of '94, 2000, 2006. everything seems to change, you know, in the immediate aftermath, and we try to read the tea leaves and figure out what in the world is going on. but alas, often times the sort of immediate take and commentary and struggle by the two parties and their leaders to claim a mandate and define the meaning of the election or for others to pull out their sort of ideological frame that they

apply every day to their jobs and their life, we figure it's useful at least on case the sort -- on case to sort of sit back and see if we can't imagine what stream of kind of political activity and developments, what, what structures exist in some way that might help us get through this. but before launching into that, i'm always reminded of some story when something happens in an election. and this one, of course, is perfect. most of us, i believe, watched the obama press conference. was he contrite enough, mort? that's really the question. was he sufficiently abject? did he give the reporters what they wanted in terms of indicating he's heard the message of the people, and he's, and he's perfectly prepared to

change his agenda to alter his positions, to reject his health reform bill and a belief that stimulus is important in a time of economic downturn? no. he did not. they were not happy. but obama was even less happy than, than the others. i kept thinking and imagining what he was really thinking while the words were coming out of his mouth. of course, i was reminded of that famous story that some of you have heard before about mo udall and the presidential democratic nomination contest of 1976 when he was up against jimmy carter and various other candidates. but carter kept coming in just ahead of him in new hampshire and down, down south into the midwest. it was very frustrating. mo was the perennial second

finisher in all of these races. but they finally came to the progressive state of wisconsin. it was there he was going to make his stand. sure enough, on election night the returns were coming in. it was udall number one. god, he was a happy man. but, you know, in those days it took hours for the returns to come in. now it takes weeks. [laughter] for all of them to come in. he decided he had to get a little sleep. he took a nap. a staffer woke him up at 6 a.m. and said, mr. congressman, i'm really sorry but the late returns were from the rural areas, and jimmy carter actually got the votes to move ahead. he's won, you've lost. udall said, well, that's it, you know? this call a press conference. which his staff did. and mo began by saying the people have spoken, the

bastards. [laughter] and i'm sure that's, that's how many democrats are feeling today. but from a historical perspective, what we have is about a 6.5% swing in the national vote toward the republican party which we have had that kind of swing several time in the last decades while we've been doing this seminar. but it proves efficient in producing more turnover and seats. we know republicans have 60 guaranteed, and they could well move up to 65. so it was a significant victory. didn't produce the majority in the senate but big, big, big pickups. but what i was struck by in reading the papers this morning from george will and kathleen parker and the post, crownhammer hasn't had a chance to weigh in

yet but will get the same thing. of course, it's a rejection of liberalism. it's, clearly, the country signaling that this administration has gone too far to the left. i'm just struck by how much my town is captured by ideological thinking. not just the ideological polarization of the parties, but a belief, a belief that when a politician has a bad election, it's because they've swung too far away from the center. it's all about i'd ideological positioning. when my own view, and i think consistent with what you heard on the first panel today, is it's not rocket science to see what happened. we've come out of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, and can the recovery is

painfully, painfully slow. as we expected it would be. because it began with a financial crisis. if you just consider the democrats were in power, they had a lot of seats at risk, it was a midterm election in which the economy was in dreadful shape objectively and subjectively. and the whole nature of the electorate changed from a presidential to a midterm election with the relative representation of young people and old people reversing. i mean, of course it's going to be a big, a big swing toward the republicans, and the 6-7% swing is perfectly understandable and, frankly, doesn't much require any kind of ideological positioning or thinking. i think it's sort of misleading to jump on changes in the percent of people who identify as conservatives or moderates or

liberals. those tend to be trailing indicators rather than leading indicators of people reacting to the reality. in this case, getting scared, really scared about what's going on and seeing big active government and figuring because they've been hued by the republican opposition that not only did that big government not help, but it really is the cause of all these problems. so if we just cut it back, we will return to some kind of nirvana. the question that i think it's important to ask that we almost never ask in this town because it's considered elitist or snobbish if you do it which is, what if public's wrong about the policy and, in fact, legitimately concerned about the consequences and can the reality of what's going on? in the face of a recession that could turn into the depression

if people think t.a.r.p. is a bad idea, does that mean washington should not enact it? hats off to george w. bush for doing what had to be done in the crisis in spite of its unpop popularity in the his party and his country. whatever the problems with it, it's a massive success. i would say the same for the stimulus, and ironically if you're going to criticize that, it's because it's too small, not too large. the same for the auto company bailouts. and you can apply that, then, to the new agenda. well, how are we going to produce more jobs and real economic growth in the short term? if we don't get growth going, you can't deal with it by cutting spending because the decline in revenues from low growth will overwhelm any savings from cutting spending alone. that's the kind of talk we're not getting, and one of the, one of the really sad things is that the sort of party coming in now

with lots of new members and energy is articulating agenda that if you look at it in pure substantive terms doesn't have a chance of doing anything about, about the problems that are consuming the american public right now. final point, david broder in his column and mort in his column talked about the desire of the public for people in congress working together. and i think in general that reflects a basic feeling they've always had which is they like to see politicians agreeable and coming together and doing the right thing. of course, the right thing differs among those people, and they don't fully accept the fact that there are profound difference about how to go about these problems and that their very behavior in aligning themselves with parties that are consistent with their i'd

you'll -- ideology has reinforced this intense partisanship. i don't think there's a golden mean in finding any policy, i think we ought to be looking at the substance of those policies and understand that the public's got to be brought into this in some more substantial way. if we're going to get anything done. >> thanks. let me start by saying, of course, as tom suggested with weeks to count returns, the elections are not over, and my eyes -- as many others -- are turned to alaska weigh for those write-ins. i'm not -- weighing for those write-ins. i'm waiting for mayor of what scylla, i'm waiting to if levi johnston can get into the double digits to springboard to bigger

things, of course. [laughter] i want to start with a story that i've told many many times before after an election with a dramatic victory for one side or the other. as a cautionary note, it's a story that takes place in the first year anatomy class in medical school, and the professor using the so accuratic method turns to the class and said for the question of the day, ms. richards, what human organ when appropriately stimulated grows to eight times its normal size? and she reddens and says, i refuse to answer that question. so he looks around the room and says, mr. porter, mr. porter says, why, the pupil of the human eye. ms. richards, i have three things to say to you. one, you didn't do your homework. two, you have a dirty mind. [laughter] three, you are doomed to live a life of unfulfilled expectations. [laughter]

that applied to liberals after the 2000 -- he'll use it. [laughter] mort will use it, and he won't attribute it. [laughter] did you? it came from,. >> it came from al franken. >> actually, it came from mort, and he forgot. [laughter] and so for the many freshman coming in, it's something to keep in mind. now, the argument about whether voters have swung towards a much smaller government, i found quite striking a cnn poll that asks a question of voters, what's the first thing you want government to do in this next year. and coming out on top by a very wide margin, 37%, was an economic stimulus. i'm not sure how that squares

with the notion that voters have decided, now, that what they want to do is take a meat axe to government. and what it suggests to me is that while there is no doubt that we have many more people who self-identify as conservatives right now, that americans are as they have always been, pragmatic. they go for what works. and if it's government that's working, that's fine. if it's not working and they see government screwing up, then they want to turn to the private sector. once the private sector screws up, they'll come back and look for something else. now, just -- i'm going to give a series of almost bullet points. the most interesting statement on election eve came from most likely speaker-designate john boehner, and i quote: while our new majority will serve as your voice in the people's house, we must remember it's the president who sets the agenda for our government. ..

>> to lower expectations and try to dampen the fervor of new people coming in who may say this isn't about us, but who believe that it is. and who really do want to turn up the heat and pass an agenda that is, in fact, one that will

take a meat axe to government and one that could not be enacted at this point but that might bring a big enough public backlash. and it reflects another reality, which is that for both parties right now, while we will have continuing clashes between them, some of the most struggles between both will be into. for the republicans, it's a set of pragmatic leaders whose goal first and foremost is to win elections, as mitch mcconnell of the second most interesting statement said, our primary political goal is to make sure that barack obama is a one term president. the second goal is to win a majority in the senate and keep that majority in the house. but a lot of new members coming and did not come in with that as their primary goal. their primary goal is to dramatically reversed the policy course that is being set in washington. and there's going to be a lot of elements of tension there. and attention that we so

reflected in the rather stunning statement of jim demint, as a cautionary note to the new members of the senate coming in, you'll be on committees but never mind those committees, because they will all try to co-opt you into coming up with policies. and what you should do is forget about that and the one the floor and do things that have nothing to do with working together. now, i have never a politician say to incoming members of congress, nevermind the committees you will serve on, it's a quite extraordinary statement. but jim demint, who i suppose you could say for mitch mcconnell, has been like the neighbor freddie krueger living down the street. [laughter] now he's got a whole series of krueger families move in on the block. [laughter] >> for obama it is a continuing disaffection of his left arm which is also kind of funny when you see all of the story

suggesting that obama has moved so sharply to the left. if he has moved so sharply to the left, why is the left so dissatisfied? but they are. and the statement that was of great interest was election get in his concession statement, russ feingold saying, it's onward to 2012. now, i'm not sure that that means that russ feingold is already planning a primary challenge from the left to barack obama. it may mean he is looking towards what future he will have, and i'm sure it'll be a robust one in the world of politics and policy in the public interest. but it's a suggestion that there are headaches for the president ahead. and as we look at some of the areas where cooperation is possible, let's start with trade, where the president has indicated that he wants to move towards enactment of the free trade agreement with colombia and south korea. doing so, will mean finding probably more republicans willing to support that in

congress than democrats. and a base of organized labor which is already unhappy because they didn't get the kind of labor reform, car check or anything resumed that the water. and, of course, that is now dead. certainly john kline is not going to be inclined to do anything on that front in the house of representatives. and this will be another birth under their saddle, along with many other liberals. can he make compromise and still keep his own base impact? just a few other points, before we get to the agenda for the next congress, we have to navigate through a very difficult lame-duck session. one critical question which has been raised already by many, and it's obvious is, can he reach some kind of an agreement, basically to punt the tax issue, at least for another year? and we're going to be watching first of all to see one of the campaign that began a couple of

months ago, anticipating away the election from conservatives, to discredit and delegitimize the lame duck section, because after all these are people who will have been thrown out by voters, will get heated up. if it does it will make it more difficult to do the kinds of things that pragmatic republican leaders would prefer to push off. because if they can't reach some agreement on taxes, one, tax increases will take place on january 1 with the a new congress coming in on january 3. and that would be a jolt to people in a whole host of ways. and one of the more interesting statement right before the election came from the republican congresswoman from wyoming suggesting that if they didn't do something about the estate tax, that some of her constituents would kill themselves. i mean, literally, that she is elderly people on dialysis who would pull the plug so that they wouldn't screw their children

out of the ranches or other properties that they have. it kind of made you take notice. [inaudible] >> but beyond the estate tax, in a fragile economy take, i shot tax increase for everybody, and will the new collection of people coming in on january 3, if you haven't reached and agreed on taxes, insist that their version of compromise is a continuation, make them all permanent. how long will it take to reach the kind of agreement that might basically continue things for years where you could take the battle of next year. the same thing we haven't had a single appropriations bill enacted into law. continuing resolution running out. what will happen with that? they push that forward a few months so that the major battles over the budget that could and probably will lead to a lease one shutdown of the government, yet put off for several months. what about the s.t.a.r.t. treaty? and then keep in mind that we will have two major ethics trials taking place during this lame-duck session.

and the euro plots in which we had a very strong and close working relationship for some, a model of bipartisanship, for other, since that the old senior evil hear no evil ethics process was underway, but between ranking member jo bonner of alabama and chairman bill lofgren on the house ethics committee, fell apart right before the election when all republicans demanded that those trials of maxine waters and charlie rangel take place before the election. now, it was never practical frankly because several members were in tough election battles themselves. but it was a political shot and i suggest that we may have before you even get underway, partisan pitched battles over ethics issues. finally just two more points. one, there's little doubt that the policy agenda in congress will be a constraint when. we will have moved on the most productive congress in the last

50 years, to one of the least productive in our lifetime. much of the focus will shift to executive power. how much the president can do through executive orders, executive agreements, regulatory power, and bureaucratic action. "the wall street journal" will once again discover somewhere buried in its files article one of the constitution. and you're going to find a lot of people in congress with a tug-of-war over the use of executive power. and the courts will play a role as well. and whether courts filled with judges, most of whom have come out of the executive branch who have had a long-standing bias towards the executive against congress will suddenly change as it is an executive controlled by people they don't like, and the congress with a substantial role by people they do. it's going to bring us into a completely different venue. and, finally, let me say we will see some action, possibly on

trade, education, pension, energy is an area where there could be significant amount of common ground. one of the most interesting times of war will be over infrastructure. where a business community that poured a lot of money into getting republicans into the majority wants a major move made on infrastructure that is in the interest not just in jobs, but in terms of making sure the transportation corridors work. the new members coming in do not want a major new area of government spending in infrastructure. and can parties get their act together on that, it's another very interesting area among many that we can talk about in the remainder of our time. >> thank you. while i think some of you are playing down the notion that there is a message from the voters here, norm, you in particular mentioned that message the republicans have taken from this, and a lot of the media as well, the notion i

think the phrasing was that what people want is a dramatic reversal of the course of government. whether that is an accurate definition are with what the voters want or not, that does seem to be the agenda of the republican party. and so, my question, and let's start, for example, with health care as one of those things, and on health care i would like to ask each of you, what conceivably might the republicans be able to do on health care? and how might the democrats, many of them suffered as a result of that bill, how might they respond? i would really like to get each of you in on this, starting with you, mort's. welcome the president said yesterday that he was willing to tweak the health care bill, and the republicans are all calling for repeal and replace. and, you know, i suppose the tea party people just want to repeal and forget about replace, because i have not seen, i think

that many of them think that providing health care to the uninsured is something that is not explicitly referred to in the constitution, and, therefore, it is an illegitimate form of government. so you've got a very wide range of opinions about, about what to do about health care. the 1099 form, you know, that the congress required that every transaction that any business conducts, of any kind, over $600 has got to have a 1099 form issued about it is deemed a everybody to be onerous. it was a fund-raising mechanism. and that will certainly be pulled out of the bill. but that is sort of easy. the republicans really think that, that repealing the health

care bill is a job creator because they be that a small business looks at this -- and i'm now quoting, not a tea party person, but lamar alexander, right? very moderate republican, who said that, right before the election he was with the chain restaurant owners, which is one of the biggest small business groups in the country. and they claimed to him that the health care bill was going to put a burden of $40,000 per employee on them in administrative taxes, mandates, all of that requirement. and that encouraged of them to have less employees. so the republicans really believe that repealing or substantially amending health

care is a major item on their agenda. now, this has the makings of total breakdown of the government. i mean, i can well see that the republicans in the house, particularly, are going to pass bills one after the other after the other two, one, repeal, and two, and headed -- and inhibit the invitation of health care bill. by the way, there is a 22 page document that was issued today by eric cantor, which you all can download, which talks about the steps that the house republican envisions putting into effect. now one of the items in that is to bar the irs from any -- and hhs, from the funds that it takes to implement the health care bill. this is not only in savings, one

of their administrative savings, but it's a way of throttling the implementation of the health care bill. i don't think that -- well, you know, if they just don't appropriate that money, this inhibition the ability of the administration to follow through on health care reform. and could be the makings, if there's a big defunding effort underway, could be the makings of a government shutdown. among many. so i, you know, i don't see, and coming to terms are, health care. you had to basic philosophical differences between the parties on this issue. the democrats and the administration believed that their highest priority was to extend, givebacks to health insurers -- all the republicans cared about was lowering the cost of health insurance.

and the democrats want the government to set the rules, create a mandate, essentially take over the insurance companies, turn into public utilities. the republicans believe in a free market, and health insurance, you buy your policy across state lines, you know. as few mandates as possible. i don't see how they will ever come to terms on this, and i can see it as the root of a conflict during the entire next two years. >> i think it will be, i agree with mort. i think it will be a source of conflict between the parties over the next two years, but i do think an advantage to what is on the books now, and i think, i think republicans will encounter great difficulties. the first panel, i can't remember whether it was carroll

or bob reported on the exit polls. you know, the public is actually divided on this. there is not a majority in the country favoring repeal of health care. if anything, leave it alone or strengthen it. improvement act in some ways passionate improve it in some ways. obviously, you can't repeal it. with the senate as it is. and obama in the white house. you can't harass bureaucrats, and we will see a lot of that. you can try to design, but i think obama would veto and go to the map and shut down hhs. if it's a part of hhs, and remind me, are the funds for the administration of the social security include in that bill? so let's have social security checks not go out because of a

disagreement between the president and the republicans in the congress. but, of course, it probably won't come to that. i mean, if dana has anything to say about that it would never come to that because he's a legislator, but he is so running so fast, it's very difficult. here's the other thing that i anticipate. there is a philosophical difference, mort, but, you know, ron wyden worked for three years with bob bennett and attractive about eight republicans to a plan that is not far different in many respects from -- i would have favored it to what eventually got passed, but it is dramatically different from what the republicans are prepared to do now in health care. by the way, include an individual mandate among many other things, and substantial subsidies for individuals, low-income households.

but mitch pulled the plug and he said, you're all off this bill, before obama was inaugurated. because we are not negotiating over health care. because even if we turned it into a bill more to our liking, obama and the democrats would get credit, and we would not have the kind of political success we want. so there's less principle and more partisanship, in my view. final point is, many provisions of the health care begin to roll, some already have now, and almost all of them are very popular. it's just that the broad public doesn't know much about it. including by the way tax credits for small businesses which have led to a really market increase in the number of insurance among small businesses. but all of the other insurance provisions that are really quite popular, i predicted the senate,

and because it's controlled by the majority, will hold hearings in which various people come forward to talk about the favorable elements of the health care bill now, and that's going to begin to get away from the rhetoric of government takeover, of health care, socialized medicine, and death panels. >> i find some of the arguments that we see over health care bill almost surreal. if you look at what people like dave durenberger, the former republican senator minnesota said, or mark mcclellan who was both ahead of fda and of the center for medicare and medicaid services under bush, this is the kind of plan with some problems that moderate, moderately conservative republicans have put forward as the alternative to clinton's built in the early 1990s, with many of the ideas coming out of the right. so it just shows how much a lot of the debate and dialogue have

shifted. and whether this is a government takeover of the insurance industry. alice rivlin has said she thinks the exchanges are some of the best ways to bring real competition to the process. we will see. i'm a little bit of a skeptic over the notion that we just let people buy insurance over state lines, everything will be fun. we have this notion that if we just let people buy credit cards across the state lines, everything will be just fine. and what happened? of course there was a race to the bottom. everybody went to state that had all the credit card companies that gave him the list is regulations, and it's why we have an enormous public backlash and credit card reform in the last congress. but all that is a separate set of arguments. talking about repeal or review and replace put you in a little bit of a tricky ground. and that's why it started with repeal come and move to repeal and replace. and that it's of course we'll

keep the popular things, nowhere preexisting conditions. well, how do you get to the point where there's no more preexisting condition, lsu vastly expand the risk pool, or otherwise of course people gain a system. why pay for insurance, wait until you get cancer. and then you can go in and get it. you've got have a different kind of system, and it's the logic that led to both in the wyden proposal and what the heritage foundation was discussing many years ago before they said we never wrote that if you are you going to believe me, you or your own eyes? [laughter] to the notion of a mandate. are you going to repeal the into lifetime and annual limits? you become we used to think 2 million-dollar annual lifetime limit, who could ever reach that? a couple of weeks in the emergency room, in the intensive care unit and you're bumping up against that. or letting people get insurance for the kids up to the age of 26.

you can't begin to unravel something without having all kinds of other consequences. and that will be difficult. one thing that john boehner said before the election when he was asked about health care bill was, we are going to first move to repeal the 550, billion dollars in medicare cuts that make up most of the financing of this program. well, i was first a little of the news he used the word cuts. you remember the debates where both in the reagan and bush administration with the democrats talked about cats and republicans said how unfair that was, we were going the rate of increase. well, now cuts are back, but think of what happens if they put out a proposal to basically eliminate all of those things, most of what would be in any fiscal program to try and bend the cost curve on medicare if you're going to get the fiscal house in order as mitt romney said in his op-ed the other day. you've also got to deal with medicare. and if you don't deal with medicare, then you're not going to any kind of a plan to do with

the fiscal problem. and i can assure you that democrats might demagogue social security under any circumstances, but if you get an attack on medicare and to come up with a fiscal plan, that says we're going to tackle social security but we're going to leave aside defense, we will continue to cut all taxes, and we won't touch the health system, you're not going to any kind of an agreement. so this was into very, very tricky territory. and i agree that it could and probably will lead to at least one of the many shutdowns in government that we have. but the bigger thing to watch for there is when the debt limit gets its ceiling approaching sometime in the spring. >> which leads me to a second related question, tom. in which how will debt limit the press the starting point, how will this urge the powerful, however percentage of the electorate you want to associate

with, clearly strong and vocal segment that wants to dramatically cut spending, how will that manifest itself? how far will that kid? will that impact start with some potential crisis having to do with the debt limit x. how will we see that play out? >> this is clearly a part of republican majority priority to deal with spending. in some ways the media spinning. it's not getting with what more was talking a initially, which was our medium and long-term sort of structural imbalance between revenues and expenditures, which it's a serious matter. ironically, it's almost all symbolic, and counterproductive i would argue. i mean, cutting spending now,

laying off federal employees is one of the dumbest things you could do when the economy is in the shape it's in now. we will probably have little impact on the deficit itself. it's patrolling at the margins. and it is sort of anti-stimulus at a time when even martin feldstein and others are calling for more stimulus. but i think the fights will be there, and they will come back again and again, bill by bill, suggestion. they will try to stay away from specifics and do broader sort of percentage cuts, and tell the administration to find the waste, fraud, and abuse to do so. listen, i have sort of a machiavellian view of this thing. what would keep barack obama from being reelected? what is a challenge in the primaries that and that's probably all about afghanistan,

and nothing else. the other is that we never get out of this slow growth, 2% or under. republic seems cutting spending in the short term probably increases the probability of more immediate pain, fewer jobs, slower growth. over two years that puts obama in worse shape, but the public now in his own mind has come to believe that so we've got to do, like households, we've got to cut spending and has going to produce new jobs and economic growth. >> any other thoughts? >> you know, i view the next two years as a great and pathetic game of chess, if you like. maybe it is only checkers. what each side is going to try to maneuver the other one into the blame for what doesn't happen during the next two years. and for the fact, just think about this for a second, in

order to get back to 5% unemployment, we've got to create 200,000 jobs a month for five years. we are currently creating jobs at the rate of 12,000 jobs a month. the fastest period of growth, five year period of growth in history, or postwar history in job creation, is 90,000 a month. so that gives you some idea of how far, how far short we are of doing what we need to do in order to restore the economy to health. i submit that that's not a good sign for anybody's reelection, if they haven't done something about that. and i think that the republicans are now in charge of the house of representatives. you know, they are going be judged, too. and obama is going to be judged for sure on whether he gets something going. but all i see is an inability to

get stuff done and maneuvering over, you know, who is going to get blamed for it spent in light of that let me take you back to john boehner. we must remember it's the president sets the agenda for our government. can't blame us even if we're in the majority now. i think you're actually right, we will see questions of shifting of blame. and we will see also whether obama can be as agile as clinton was when we move towards a shutdown of the government, with a speaker was not going to have anywhere near the power, possibly the power to overreach to backlash as what happened with newt gingrich, but also the power over his own colleagues when that occurred to say, if we're going to get a second consecutive term in a majority we've got to work with this guy. can train to do that? the fact that eric cantor is coming out with a 22 page majority leader's agenda, never

mind what speaker has to say. and that mike pence who is leading the leadership, has been all over television sank compromise? cup of ice, the only kind of compromise we want is capitulation and basically suggests that the task there becomes very difficult as well. and they think it will be difficulty with the public that has a deep antipathy toward washington but that leaves even more to believe that if you just cannot the waste, fraud, and abuse then you really can dramatically streamline this government. . .

>> how they react to it, could be an interesting political development over the years. >> are you saying they are a greater threat than freddy krueger? >> i'm saying the nightmare that john boehner may have over the next few weeks could be and the colleagues in the white house. >> in the end, it's the president who is held accountable even though the president isn't in a position to deliver. i think one the unfortunate things about washington talk is everything is always symmetrical. it's both their faults. he's going to do this, and he's got to do that. we don't look at the substance of what's going on.

i mean, we need to somehow get higher growth. i don't know anyone under these circumstances who argues that cutting spending in the short term will increase jobs in the short run or grow, and so we ought to be able to say that, and the president has discovered one the dlim mas of contemporary american politics. we have parliament-like parties, but we don't have ma senior -- majority rule in the senate like parliament does. obama would have put a larger stimulus into place, health reform would have been passed in three years without the deals with den -- ben nelson and so on, and the he could have made adjustments if more stimulus was needed and

ultimately be held accountable. the ironny is he gets something in part and looks different and worse because the republican opposition, but he's the one who has to be held accountable for it. >> let me give you the optimist scenario here, and there is a deal to be had that might bring stimulus and economic growth that you can imagine being plausible, and that is democrats get more infrastructure spending in a fairly big chunk, and in return, we get some additional short term significant tax cuts including the payroll tax holiday, and a few other things that work and begin to create a stimulus, and also part of that deal, we know the incoming chairman is actually engaged in conversations with ken conrad in

the senate about tax reform. you could see a deal that would transform our tax system, one that would be effective that would be a part of a larger package. the odds of that happening are not great, but the fact is with this gulf between the parties and the growing electoral magnets pulling them apart, there is something that could be done. >> there is an idea that bill has been promoting primarily, and that is -- and he's not alone, felix has been promoting it for years, and that is a national infrastructure bank, an independent institution freed from politics that picks out significant infrastructure projects based on merit, and basically leverage a signal amount of -- a small amount of government money and attract in more

private moneys to get it off the sidelines to develop major systems. now, obama has finally -- he proposed it back in the 2008 campaign, and then forgot about it. suddenly, it's reemerged. i have seen in obama's policy prescriptions indications he's willing to move a little bit. the infrastructure bank is one which mind you is based on private capital. yesterday he said the most important thing we have to do is make sure that small business is hiring. business is the foundation of our economy. that's different from the kind of antibusiness tone you've heard from the administration a lot. the small business bill which finally got passed contained a lot of tax breaks for small business. it may be that the sun has dawned in the administration

that the private sector really is where the jobs gate created -- get created and improving the climate for job sector creation is what they have to do. now, if that's true and they can sit down with the republicans and say how can we do this? they can make some progress, i think it's largely tax cuts, some tax reform, and so on. >> the infrastructure bank, by the way, has a model that obama has supported which is the green bank that was reid hunts idea that decide the same thing to create green jobs. >> it really is though -- i mean, these would work, and more than the tax cuts, it would increase demand which is what's really holding back business investment is confidence that there will be enough vitality and demand to merit new investment. >> it's later than i thought, and i'd like to open it up to

you folks in the audience who might have some questions, and i see one right down here. we have microphones? great. >> bob wayer from pro den cial financial. because they are on to something with the state tax because it seems to me that republicans cannot possibly allow the estate tax to snap back on january 1 to a million dollar floor with a 55% rate, and so i wonder, norm, whether you think that some deal on the estate tax might serve as a kind of an anvil on which a larger deal could be formed on the income tax rates as well. >> well, i think you're right,

bob. there's a nightmare scenario with the estate tax, but if you want an exhibit a in the dysfunction of government in the last few years, we knew the estate tax was going to go to the unwieldy situation where it is now where there's no estate tax, but you also have to go back and calculate capital gains an assets that people had for 50 years, and then move to this level. they should have been able to work out a deal which was on the table two and three years ago which is simply to keep it at the $it 3.5 million exemption. republicans were holding out for a much larger number, and now we're getting into a series of negotiations, and here to, it's going to be a tug of war within the parties as to whether you want to reach that deal even if it means you play the usual end-game negotiation or game of

chicken right up to the session. while logic suggests you reach a deal, logic doesn't apply in many of these cases up to now. >> anyone else? yes, sir. or yes, ma'am. >> [inaudible] i apologize if you addressed this this morning, but can you talk about the interplay of fiscal pressures dealt with and the response of the federal government that is an ongoing debate as states can't rack up the deficits. >> i see no prospect that there's going to be any help from the federal government to the states and what you're going to have is a crisis in state after state after state where state workers are going to be

laid off. i think we had the last quote-on-quote bailout for the states. there's one problem with all of this, and that is that some states have been frugal and balanced their budgets, and other states have been utterly opposite. there's no way that anybody's insented -- their ought to be a per san taj of effort form mullah worked out to reward the states that have actually lowered their own deficits, but i just think that this falls into the category of bailout, and it's not going to be, you know, nothing's going to be done for it. >> it's truly perverse because whatever remaining stimulus dollars are at the stimulus level is counted by the states.

it's insanity. there are analysts that have drawn up proposals where you could have a program of revenue sharing. hey, that was an old republican idea, remember? but tide to performance -- tied to performance on pension liabilities and such other things so in order to keep the money, you had to then act in a sort of fiscally responsible way when the economy returns and you're in a position, but avoid drake conian cuts in economic downturn. that ends up being counterproductive. >> and your comments hold true for no more medicaid dollars? >> i think absolutely, and it's interesting in mitt romney's prescription was to put a cap on medicaid dollars and give that to the states and say you're on your own. i'm not sure that's met by his

republican governors with great enthusiasm at the moment. >> yes, sir. >> there was a mention this morning of battle between bachmam. how about leadership on the democratic side? >> well, yeah, we're all waiting to see what nancy pelosi will do. some believe she might step down. others that she won't shrink from the fight, and i'm not even sure she knows herself. if she does decide to step down from a leadership post, then i think it's basically a slam dunk for stan. i don't see anybody challenging him. we'll clearly have battles

further down the line including the chairmanship for the national campaign committee. i expect that chris van holland despite a big loss for his party this time will remain a rising star and a figure in the party. >> since we're getting into this, i just have to do this because i just have to. since we're getting into personalities, the impact of sarah palin over the next two years. >> i think the little cover stories you see with occasional references on this around, but the people who got slapped the hardest i think in this election beside nancy pelosi and barak obama are jim demint and sarah palin. jim demint and sarah pay lin are responsible for the senate not going republican.

they are responsible for christine o'donnell and ken buck in colorado and sharon angle in nevada. those characters were all rejected. in every single case when the republicans won a senate seat except in the rand paul case, the margin was considerably smaller for a tea party kind of candidate than it was for a regular. rob portman, dan coatz, but the regulars across the board finished far better off, and you can even put marco rubio in

there because he got less than 50% of the vote as well. i think jim demint should not have been a happy camper yesterday, and furthermore his colleagues mostly hate him, and i think that the, you know, he will have more troops than he had before, but he, you know, his conservative caucus in the senate is not all that big, so the same applies to sarah palin i think. i think she's a phenomena, i think she's a rock star. i think she's, you know, attracts cameras wherever she goes, but she's a joke. even within her own party the idea that she would be the presidential nominee among vast majorities of ordinary republicans is just unthinkable. she's got a following. no question about it, but i don't think that she's triumphed

in the campaign. >> a majority of americans agree with you, mort, but i'm guessing republicans do not. i think you're right on your only sis of the senate race and the tea party, but not in the house. the house really -- in the house the energy and activity really did help the party, and a large number are coming in with an affiliation with one sort or another, and i thinkmy shelly baucman and rand paul and jim demint as the new faces of the republican party. it's a nightmare for the party, but i think the quote "adults responsible figures in the party" will have a hard time treating them with anything but absolute respect. >> this is what i say this not

in terms of literal legislative power, but the ability in collaboration with us in the press of a sarah palin to frame issues in a way that leaves a really important legacy the panels being a really dramatic example of her framing an issue in such a way, in such an extreme way, but nevertheless it set up a whole chain of events in which more reasonable people came in. well, you can't use the word death panels, but it's like a death panel, and essentially, she created an outer edge for the debate and made other things that would have been considered more extreme seem reasonable, and they became almost a kind of dominant theme in the debate, and i think it's really an extraordinary phenomena and i'll be interested to see how that plays out as issues come up. >> let me just slightly contrary

or a contrary point of view. of course you lame stream media type -- [laughter] you know, what palin and demint were able to do is channel this both anger and disaffection with power in washington with it focused on democrats. there is a real chance she will be able to channel this against the republican establishment if as is almost certain they are not able to do anything much on the wish list of those people who got out there and nominated some of the candidates who lost. now, she can make the case if there had not been this energy and anger channeled done by her and the others that they would have fallen short in the house. there's at least a case to be made, i think the case mort made is a better one, but i don't rule out the possibility that

unless the republicans change their nominating process, that there's a backlash in that party that could be strong enough to nominate somebody who is in fact outside that larger mainstream, and the fact is once somebody is nominated, we have an economic problem that medical mort stated well. it's a downturn caused by a financial crisis. you don't get a quick spring back. it's a jobless recovery. you win a nomination that's a choice between two people. if you had a sarah palin as the republican nominee, a barak obama, and then you got a bloomberg coming in, that might increase the chances of a palin being able to win in a three-way race, so, you know, -- >> back to freddy krueger. >> well, it's something to keep in the back of our minds.

it's too early to drink. >> who i hope will run for the republican nomination is mitch daniels for indiana. he says it's not written in the stars that the united states of america after 250 years needs to remain a great power, and you just described a scenario whereby we cease to have great power. [laughter] >> i think that our time is up. [laughter] i wanted to close on that note, and thank you very much all of you, and thanks very much to our panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] a live coverage from the cq role call from the midterm election review continues this afternoon. we look at who's up and down after the election. karl post of the "new york times" and emily pierce and ken strickland of msnbc. president obama had a cabinet meeting and mentioned the fact he scheduled a meeting with congressional leaders. that is set for november 18. participants include house republican leader john boehner and mitch mcconnell. speaker nancy pelosi and harry

reid will be there. here's a couple minutes of the president. >> hello, everybody. i just want to make a few quick remarks to expand on some things that i said yesterday. obviously, tuesday was a big election. i congratulated the republicans and consoled some of our democratic friends about the results, and it's clear that the voters sent a message which is they want us to focus on the economy and jobs and moving this country forward. they are concerned about making sure that taxpayer money is not wasted, and they want a change of tone here in washington where the two parties are coming together and focusing on the people's business versus foreign political appointments. i just had a meeting with my

cabinet and key staff to let them know we have to take that message to heart, and make a sincere and a consistent effort to try to change how washington operates. the folks around this table have done extraordinary work in their agencies. they have cooperated consistently with congress. i think they are interested in bipartisan ideas, and so they are going to be integral in helping me to route out waste in government and make our policies efficient and generate ideas to put the american people back to work. now, at the same time, obviously what's going to be important over the coming months is creating a better working relationship between this white house and the congressional leadership that's coming in as well as the congressional

leadership that carries over from the previous congress, and so i want everybody to know that i have already called mitch mcconnell, john boehner, harley reid, and nancy pelosi to invite them here to the white house for a meeting, a meeting in which i want us to talk subsequently about how we can move the american people's agenda forward. it's not just going to be a photo opportunity, hopely it spill -- hopefully it spills over into dinner and the mediate focus is what we need to get done in the lame duck session. we have to act in order to assure that middle class families don't see a big tax fight because of how the bush tax cuts have been structured. it is very important that we extend those middle class tax

provisions to hold middle class families harmless, through there's a whole range of other economic issues to be addressed. unemployment insurance for folks who are still out there looking for work, business extenders which are essentially provisions to encourage businesses to invest here in the united states, and if we don't have those, we're losing a very important tool for us to be able to increase business investment and increase job growth over the coming here. we've got to provide businesses some certainty about what their tax landscape looks like and we have to provide family certainty. that's critical to maintain our recovery. i should mention that in addition to those economic issues, there's some things during the lame duck that relate to foreign policy that will be very important for us to deal with, and i'll mention one which is the t.a.r.p. treaty.

we negotiated with the russians in significant reductions in nuclear arms. this is something with strong bipartisan support. we got people like george schulz who helped to organize arms control treaties with the russians back when it was the soviet union who came out forcefully in favor of this. this is not a traditionally democratic war-republican issue, but rather an issue of american national security, and i'm hopeful we can get that done before we leave and send a strong signal to russia that we are serious about reducing nuclear weapons and send a signal to the world we're serious about no proliferation. we made great progress when it came to sending a message to iran that they are isolated internationally in part because

people have seen that we are serious about taking our responsibilities when it comes to nonproliferation, and that has to continue. there's going to be a whole range of work that needs to get done in a relatively short period of time, and i'm looking forward to having conversations with leadership about agenda items they may concerned about. last point i make is i also invited the knewly elected democratic and republican governors here to the white house in november. it's a terrific opportunity to hear from them, folks who work at the state and local levels about what they are seeing, what ideas they think washington needs to pay more attention to. a lot of times things are a little less ideological when, you know, you get governors together because they got very practical problems that they got to solve in terms of how they

make sure that roads and bridges are funded, how they make sure that schools stay open and teach ers stay on the job, that kind of nuts and brake brake bolts talks yeedz the approach that the american people are looking for right now. so we have a lot of work to do, people are still catching their breath from the election, the dust is still settling, and one thing i'm certain of is that the american people don't want us just to standstill, and they don't want us engaged in gridlock. they want us to do the people's business partly because they understand that the world is not standing still. i'm going to be leaving tomorrow for india, and the primary purpose is to have u.s. companies and open up markets so that we can sell in asia in some

of the fastest growing markets in the world and create jobs here in the united states of america. my hope is we have specific announcements that show the connection between what we're doing overseas and what happens here at home with it comes to job growth and economic growth. the bottom line is that all around the world, countries are moving, they are serious about competing. they are serious about competing with us not just on manufacturing, but on services, and they are competing with us when it comes to educational attainment, when it comes to scientific discovery, and so we can't afford two years to just squabble. what we need to do is make sure everybody is pulling together, democrats and republicans and independents, folks at the federal level and state levels, private sector with the public sector to make sure that america