>> whose money is it? >> -- what difference does it say on their website? there is a very important philosophical point here. you think that all the money belongs to the government -- >> nope. >> -- except to the extent that it is designed to allow private people to keep some of it. >> it doesn't take it by taxes. that's just your whole argument is based on. >> no it isn't, justice alito. my argument is that if the government imposes an income tax and people the government in a certain amount of money in income taxes due, and the government says you don't have to pay it to us, you can pay it to a sto, that is a payment of government funds. >> they don't owe it to the government if they have made the contribution. that's the whole point. >> it's not a contribution. >> they don't owe the tax to the extent that they have given money to these institutions. you profit at the very beginning

that unifil not tax. that is just not true. you don't owe the tax if you've made the 500 of our contribution. >> if you look there's on income tax from it says here is your income. apply the tax rate to the term. and here are your taxes due. five dozen others. you may pay this in part by getting $1,000 by paying $1,000 to a sto. you are paying your taxes. when taxpayers take this 1,000-dollar credit -- >> that's the problem; they have to revise their form. [laughter] so that is a deduction before the line. this is a major lawsuit? >> this is a government spending program. is there any doubt about that? the money in this program is not private charitable contributions. >> if i assume that this is -- i see your argument there. now, and mr. zelman beholding, i would think -- which i was not in agreement with, but it's not law, that the government can have a -- a spending program.

and what they did was the government spent money in the form of vouchers to be given to private individuals to use for such education as they wish, that meant certain standards including religious schools. so what's the difference between the program here and the one the was held constitutional in zelman? >> the difference is that zelman the money went to the parents without any religious discrimination. religion was not involved in the distribution of the money to the parents. the parents and zelman got funds based on their financial need and the fact that their children went to school in cleveland, which was a feeling school district. and the program was to give them, based on their financial need, was to give them a voucher. in giving the parents a voucher, nobody said to the parent, but your religion? nobody said to the parent, are you going to send your child to a religious school? the court said as clearly as it could in zelman that i would be unconstitutional.

>> but who's your says to the parent who is going to the school what is your religion? >> the sto who gives them the scholarship. >> and other words, the sto gives this question only to catholics to go to catholic schools -- >> yes. >> -- only to jews to go to jewish schools? >> exactly. but most of the money -- simic but the government money you plan is at issue here is -- is the money that the contributor to the sto has failed to give to the government when its the government's money. now, the decision -- of whether to give the money to a sto or not, whether to give it to a religiously affiliated sto one of the lead at one, that is in the hands of a private and individual, just as the folger program was. there is no religious discrimination in that choice. >> let me put it to you in this week, justice scalia. suppose the government in this case get the money to the stos directly itself, the sto's then

gave up the scholarships. would it be constitutional for the sto to say to a parent who comes asking for a scholarship or you catholic? if you're not, we will give you a scholarship. >> perhaps not, but you have -- you have an intervening to read or contributor. and it's the person who is making the decision of whether to give to a religious or nonreligious organizations; it isn't the government making the decision. >> nope. it's not a parent, by the way. >> and that was the same thing in zelman. >> it's not a parent, but we, in answer to justice kennedy's question before. parents under this program are not about to get contributions for scholarships for their own children. the people who get the -- who can claim the tax credit, the person who gets the scholarship cannot be a dependent of the person who gives the -- >> suppose they change 14 when it ruled that the stos was held was they said we will give you the tuition if you otherwise qualify for your child to go to school that you wish to go to

come and if you are jewish or are the protestant and want to go to st. joseph's catholic school, that's absolutely fine, they want to keep out, and vice versa. now in your opinion that would be constitutional? >> yes. >> so the only thing that you are challenging is the will but they will not get a scholarship to the protestant to go to a catholic school. how do we know they would -- that's -- >> we allege that the stos that give out the majority of the funds -- i think now it's about 70% of the funds -- that the stos that give out a majority of the funds only give the funds to parents who will send their child to a religious school. >> that's -- 66 does it needed by the sto. >> that's different. you were complaining about -- i'm jewish, i want my child -- let's say, to go to st. joseph's, and now -- now, do i qualify or not? the only thing -- seabeck that depends on the sto you go to. some of the stos -- secure complete is only with the stos

that wouldn't let you send the child. >> exactly. >> and you know that the exist because? >> we alleged they exist and no one doubts that. >> i'm sorry. i want to make sure i understand your complaint. you just said to justice breyer that your complaint was that the stos are giving scholarships based on the students religion. >> yes. >> i thought another part of your complaint was that the stos were given just to the religious schools. >> stos don't give scholarships to religious schools. they give scholarships to parents. the parents are awarded the scholarships, the schools. >> but to attend that school? >> to attend that school, yes. >> said the essence of your complaint is that some of the stos are requiring that the recipient, the recipient child, be of a particular religion? >> that, and some of the stos that are also requiring that in order to get the scholarship the parent agreed to send the child to a particular religious school. >> but that doesn't -- that doesn't get you there.

that doesn't get you there, addis justice breyer's interrogations indicated. >> but you are seeing -- your saying both, is that right, mr. bender? you're saying both of those things? >> both of them, yeah. >> i ask you is there a -- do you understand the beneficiaries of this program? has the state said who the beneficiaries of the program are? and the beneficiaries of this program, the parents, or are the beneficiaries of this program the general taxpayers? >> the beneficiaries of the >> in appearance and the children. that's what this program is for. the state set up a program to help parents send their children to nonpublic schools, and to do that, they are going to give them scholarships. scholarship money is going to be made available to the specs i would assume, then, if the beneficiaries of the program or the parents, then it's the parents who have to be treated equally without regard to religion? >> that's right. exactly. the scholarship -- as zelman said as clearly as it could -- the scholarships in that case

the vultures, have to be available to parents on a religiously neutral basis. the scholarships are not about to be made available to parents according to their religion or according to whether they will send their child to a religious school. both of these kinds of discrimination are going on here. and i think they -- to mr. bender, can i go back to your point -- you were making a distinction between a taxpayer who makes a charitable donation. well, that taxpayer has the whole universe to spend it on. buying clothes, gambling, on this jury, that charity. but you're point here is that this contribution -- contador does not have the universe to pick out and is free to take the charity. this one has -- you either give it to the government or you give it to the sto. is that -- >> exactly. right. yes. it's not the taxpayers' money. it's confusing because we are talking about two kinds of tax payers year. we are talking about my clients,

or general taxpayers, to use -- whose money is being used to fund this program, and we are talking about tax payers who take the tax credit. we have two different kinds of tax payers. >> so if arizona had a statute that gave an income tax deduction only to individuals who make charitable contributions to educational institutions, there would be a problem there because they -- it wasn't a general tax exception for the charitable contributions? >> no, just as alito. i think it would be constitutional if it said you get a deduction for making a charitable contribution to an educational organization, and that can include religious educational organization, because it didn't, it would be unconstitutional. you can't set a program that gives you a deduction for giving to an educational institution but not to a religious organization. the would be unconstitutional. if you are going to support private charity, you have to support religious charity in the same way you support non-religious charity.

but if you're going to save the leave to have somebody -- i thought your answer to justice ginsburg was the difference between this and the federal tax deduction for charitable contributions was that the federal tax deduction is available for a broad range of charities, whereas in this is available only for a very narrow range. >> i may have misunderstood her question. i think her question was at the time the taxpayer makes the charitable contribution that he is going to take a deduction for, the taxpayer could do anything you want with that money. he could take a vacation. he could give it to charity. he could buy clothes with it, buy food with it. it's a completely open system. nobody tells the taxpayer what he has to do. in this case, when the taxpayer rights that check to the sto, the taxpayer can't keep that money. can't use it on education, can't use it for buying food. has to either pay it to the state or, with the state's authorization, paid two and sto

triet >> the same thing is true of charitable deductions. when you take a charitable deduction, you don't have the money anymore. you have given it to a charitable organization. now, you are about to give it to a particular religion, a particular church, and they're seems to be nothing unconstitutional about that, right? so what is unconstitutional here about the private -- the private decision to get a benefit to a -- an organization that only supports particular schools, and indeed, only supports people of a particular religion to go to that school? i don't see any difference. >> there is nothing unconstitutional about the tax years sending the money to a and sto. if stos did not discriminate on the basis of religion in getting that money out, there would be no and constitutionality. >> but churches discriminate on the basis of religion. when i take my charitable deduction to give to a particular church, that church discriminates on the basis of religion, but that's okay.

>> if the government said to you you can pay your taxes -- don't pure texas to buscapade into a church, and the church gives its benefits only to people of a certain religion i believe that would be unconstitutional. >> so it's how the government puts it? so it really is just that line in the tax form that you are concerned about, and only relief you really need is -- is changing the tax form? >> no, it's the difference between charitable and paying your taxes. when you make a charitable contribution, you are making a charitable contribution. it costs you money. in arizona, if you get charitable contribution of $1,000 it costs you $950 if you are at the maximum tax rate, because the maximum tax rate is 5%. in arizona, if you take this tax credit, it costs you nothing. it's not charity. charity is something -- islamic excuse me. just to follow up on justice scalia's the fourth question, because i want to make sure we have the answer to be that this

system were set up exactly as it is now, but arizonan said contributions to stos are deductible -- you would have no problem? >> contributions to stos are deductible from one's income tax? >> right. >> no, we would not have a problem with that. >> so the only difference is that there is on a set up this system where you get a tax credit instead of a tax deduction? >> of course. >> and that would be true if even the -- of the top marginal rate was 90%? >> yes, it would be true only if the top marginal rate for 90% which is never going to happen in arizona, believe me to treat stomach but the federal rate has been that high -- >> it's going in the other direction. [laughter] >> i understand. >> that's what to the establishment clause terms on the -- >> yes, because that's still a charity. it's the top rate is 90%, when

you give that money, it's your money. you can use it for anything you want. and if you are in the 90% bracket, you are giving some of your own money. you are engaging in charity. and the constitution, i think, permits the government to subsidize private charity. and if the government is going to subsidize private charity, it can't leave religious charities out. so that's the dividing line. is the government subsidizing private charity? in this case, the government is not subsidizing private charity because it is not private charity because the tax -- >> if this is government money, then why would it be constitutional in your view for the scheme to exist -- if the stos did not discriminate at all on the basis of religion? >> because it's perfidy okay to use government money for non-religiously discriminatory purposes. you can get a tax credit for launching a solar water heater. that is 100% tax credit to but

now that's a somewhat different kind of tax credit because when you buy the heater you get something for the money. it's -- this tax credit is a very strange kind of tax credit. this is a tax credit that is only used to pay your taxes. that's the only function it has to respect you have stos that say we will only give scholarships for religious affiliated schools, but we will not discriminate on the basis of the students religion. >> right. >> and if this is the government's money, you think that would not be as the bush and clause violation? >> no, no, no. afa sto discriminates either by saying we only give to people with a certain religion or we don't give to people of another religion, war by saying we will only give you a scholarship if you send your kid to a religious school that we designate. >> i thought you said that the opposite earlier, i thought you said the opposite earlier. >> i'm sure you did. >> what is the problem with that? that is to say suppose the

government gave its money to the to put cat scans and hospitals it has certain beneficiaries and one group of beneficiaries is the association of catholic hospitals, another is the association of jewish hospitals, another is a set of totally secular hospitals. so it gives the tax credits to all free. no of course the catholic group is going to get it to catholic hospitals and so forth. what's wrong with that? >> i don't get your hypothetical. >> what they do is to have government money, just like you claim this is coming and they say we are going to give it to -- we are going to give it to an umbrella organizations, like the association of catholic, jewish or secular hospitals, and we expect them to distribute it. and they will, of course, distributed to those who are their members and in some cases their members or religious organizations and in some cases they are not. now, what is the difference between that and what happens here, leaving the students out of it? >> it depends on who the beneficiaries of the government

-- >> the beneficiaries of the government, the catholic hospitals the six government cat scan program will be catholic hospitals, because they're the ones who belong to the catholic hospital association. money will also go to the secular hospital association, and as it goes to a secular sto here. so i don't see that part. that's the last promise that we are talking about. >> i'm not clear on your program. it's a government program to benefit hospitals, the benefits have to go to hospitals on a religiously neutral basis. >> the government says -- that's the difference -- the government says -- it does give the money away on a religiously neutral basis, it gives to the hospital association. it turns out that some of these naturally are supposed to give it to their members, all of whom will be religiously affiliated. >> the hospitals are the beneficiaries, justice breyer, that's the difference. the beneficiaries here are not the stos, that's the

beneficiaries here are the parents. the sto's are a conduit of government funds to the parent. the parents of the beneficiaries and the constitution requires that the benefits of the government spending program go to the beneficiaries on a regularly natural basis. so in zelman, the beneficiaries were the parents, and the vouchers had to go to them. >> i'm sorry, i don't understand the answer to justice breyer's question. his question was you give it to the hospital equivalent of the sto and then that gives it to the hospitals on a religiously discriminatory basis. why aren't the hospitals the beneficiaries of that program just as you say the parents are here? >> well, if hospitals are the beneficiaries of the program, than the hospitals have to get the money on a religiously neutral basis. >> the analogy would be the patients are the beneficiaries of the program. the government wants to help cancer patients. and so it's quite to give money to hospitals to help cancer

patients, so it gives money to various hospitals under justice breyer pt to speak of question to the car -- justice breyer's program. if one of those hospitals says the only true catholic cancer patients, that's unconstitutional. >> that's the other issue. we are trying to separate in your argument the issue that some of these organizations are religiously affiliated from the argument. that moreover, they will only give money to individuals of a particular religion. now, understand your argument for the latter, but i must say i don't understand your argument for the former. but if you accept these other -- >> if i go to get a scholarship from an organization and they say where are you going to send your child with this scholarship? and i say i haven't made the decision yet. they said well, we will only give you this collision did you send your child to a jewish school which teachers -- teaches

people to pray anyway jewish people pray. education is jewish religious education, that's religious discrimination. >> thank you, counsel. now, mr. katyal, you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you. my friend said, i think i have this right, we are talking about my clients whose money is being used to fund this program. that's a nice description of flast and not of what is going on here. last recognized a special solicitude for taxpayers when money is taken out of their pockets and used to fund religion against their conscience. here, even if you accept all of this public money discussion that's been happening, not a cent of their money is going to fund -- >> flast, i looked at it again briefly, and it seems to use that wonderfully precise word nexus. [laughter] and you are quite right in flast that was the case. but why isn't it -- given that

it is a nexus in flast, what was in flast, why isn't it also nexus where you have this complicated system which is designed to make the ordinary taxpayer pay a little more in this kind of instance, where what you've done is directly subtract from the treasury $5,000 cash to turn over in view of the plaintiffs, to be purely for but in a religious purpose? >> justice breyer, two things: first, the relevant language in flast is at page 106 come it's called the nexus test come it's the definition of what the actual taxpayer claim is, and requires that, "his tax money being extracted was." >> was that in the instance in flast? and and that's the general description in flast says about how taxpayers standing will go forward. if there is any doubt about that, of valley forge makes that clear because the decision centers set exactly what is it which is look, let's just look to the economic effects and that

is just pretty close, tax spending pulls, doesn't really matter. bottom line on the treasury and the court said no, that is in the case. >> general katyal, flast could not have meant that it's your particular dollar. there was a way to know that it was their particular dollar and it is a silly fictional than to sing as the plurality opinion. but flast said was that tax payer dollars, not your dollar, the taxpayer dollars are going to this activity. in the same with its going to the activity here. >> i disagree. first is i don't think that is what flast is. i think flast is about the micra fraction of a cent that is coming from your pocket and being used to fund religion. and that is what madison complain about. it may be very small, it may be 3 cents, but there is a special harm of conscience when it's your money, your hard earned money being used to fund a program directly as to which you don't like. >> flast talk about a nexus to a way justice breyer said and here is a taxpayer challenging a provision of the tax code, and active pursuit to the tax and

spending power that grants a tax benefit. that is a close nexus as you were going to get using the language of flast. >> again, i think that doesn't deal with the direct injury on the taxpayer, which is the language of flast. even if we disagree with me, the really -- part here is a lot more speculative, just like cuno, because to deposit in order for this to harm the taxpayer, the tax credits will cost the government and cannot sit, as opposed to someone else's tax burden corporation and the like were occupies that the government would cut spending in order to make up the shortfall in revenues that he says exist. you have to all those things, none of which you have to in the flast situation because it is a direct owsley of funds. if i could just spend a moment on justice kennedy's question about the state action, which of course they didn't advance below is the ninth circuit said. i think it's this court's precedents are quite clear in saying that the fact that the government regulates or funds

something doesn't transform it into a state actor. if it did, then all 501(c)(3) 's would become state actors and that i think would be enormously damaging predecessor to the koza precedent for this court to follow. rather, i think what blum says is that requires the performance of the traditional executive prerogative -- additional government brought in it and hear all the sto is doing is just finding its handed out money, it is doing so on and natural basis. anyone can form a sto, and anyone can find one. >> thank you, general. the case is submitted.

the effects of last week's election are discussed in a conference by the bipartisan policy center event in new orleans. democratic and republican strategists and pollsters talk about what their cooperation between president obama and converse is possible. from tulane university, this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> we are going to move right in and talk about the thing that everybody loves to hate and that is the media. i'm going to answer this and start by introducing the moderator to say that here is the father is and the incoming freshmen here at tulane university this fall. as we are delighted to have john here. to talk about people in journalism. john has done everything that

you would think. he started with the washington star, he graduated magna cum laude the and i graduated "thank the laude." [laughter] he's on cnbc, "meet the press," everything you think of when you think it's a big giant guy as a part of the reestablishment. it is a good thing to be part of or not, john, but you are real new orleans welcome to one of the really intellectual people in all of political reporting, john haulwood. [applause] >> and, don't get a waiver of tuition for being here. [laughter] >> exactly. i'm going to get miced up and

think james for the introduction and save all the things he says are not enough to make you dislike me as a member of the media stubbles and i will just add one more thing. i am a duke fan and think that it is pretty popular most places, so bring it on. [laughter] [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> okay, bias. we have a fantastic panel.

everybody in the roman going to introduce each one. i'm going to have a question for each one just to start us off and it's going to be relatively short answer before we get into the broad subject of the panel which is is there any prospect for bipartisan prospect on the country's problems in the next two years. first let me introduce matthew doud. matthew works for abc news as a political contributor. recently joined the national journal group is a columnist and strategic adviser probably best known to most of you who follow politics as a lead strategist for president bush and his two campaigns in 2000 and in 2004. he's the guy that told karl rove what to do. [laughter] and was highly successful. [laughter] and he's also worked for arnold schwarzenegger and his winning campaign for governor and he is the co-author of "the new york times" best-seller apple visa

minnick how successful political business and religious leaders content with the american community. steve mcmahon is a democratic strategist. raise your hand. and the cofounder of purple strategy's a bipartisan advertising communications and public affairs firm. steve started in politics working for senator ted kennedy and worked with dozens of senate congressional gubernatorial suppress the country including the campaigns of howard dean and barack obama. taha harris has just emerged from a spectacularly successful 2010 campaign working for marco rubio. we will find out over the course who made the key strategic decisions for the campaign. [laughter] but todd has worked against matthew in the 2000 campaign in two different iterations. he worked for john mccain in the primary and of course before

that he worked for the campaign of john kasich running for president quite early in the cycle. it didn't last too long because he did not disappear but is now the incoming governor in the state of ohio. seth greenberg, and you just heard from him, and finally kate zernike likely to "the new york times" is a national correspondent and worked at the paper for ten years. she is the author of "boiling mad inside tea party america," so she knows more about the tea party than anyone else on the platform. she was a member of the team that shared the 2002 pulitzer prize for explanatory reporting in her stories about al qaeda and the september 11 attacks and the reporters covering the scandal and hurricane katrina. so, welcome all of you. let me start with the first question for matthew. and it's relevant to the broad subject of the panel.

matthew, i thought your key insight in the 2004 campaign of reelection of president bush's a number of swing voters was quite small. that the electorate had been polarized pretty dramatically on both sides come is the reason the numbers didn't move so much of the year was it was a tiny number of people who were capable of being persuaded. since that election we've seen three different change elections where the independence have moved quite a bit, and i just wanted to get your updated take on the existence of the metal and how big it is in the current context. >> it's great being here at tulane. if anybody is acquainted i'm just going to give a quick history because it has been slightly misinterpreted. i think there is a big metal but i think people are put in the

position they have to make a choice between both political parties and when they make that choice the usually have a tendency to wind up and down the ballot. somebody makes the decision doherty republican for a presidential race or a governor's race or u.s. senate race, by and large they make that decision pretty up and down. they go all the way down and the reason why republicans did very well this year on the state races is the picked up nearly 700 seats was because there was a republican wave and people decided they didn't like what was going on in washington and they voted up and down the ballot but in 2004 so i think it still takes place. that does not be in command this doesn't mean there isn't a group of folks in the metal which is actually the majority of this country who are not pure ideological on either side, and i remember this because i gave the memo that helped move the strategy for the campaign in 2004. there were two pages. the first was the loss of the metal over time and then in the

2004 we had a president that was very polarizing who added to that democrats hated him, republicans loved him and very few people were on the middle ground but on the back of it, and i actually put this together after 2000 sort of to say here's what we need to think about after 2000 was because somebody says they are a republican doesn't mean they are socially conservative, they are for smaller government necessarily always want lower taxes. if you just looked at people that said those three things, that represents about 2546% of the country. those people that say i'm a republican, socially conservative as always for lower taxes and smaller government. if you govern that way or government the opposite way which is bigger government, higher taxes, socially liberal, you represent only a minority share of the public and so i think that while to go back to reflect on president bush and the aftermath of that, while licht was successful in the campaign, in the end he got

position in the place where he only represented a minority of the country. in how we govern. and so, we are still a country that people and this can be different, we might have a different panel on whether we need another party in the system, that people have to make a choice and in most national elections most are nationalized and when they are nationalized people have a tendency to vote not necessarily straight to get, but they pretty much built street to get when the good on the ballot and say i don't like barack obama and the democrats in washington. i vote for the u.s. senate republican and the state republican. that is a practice which is why we have major swings going on and in effect some top to bottom. >> the interpretation of the election has been with the tea party is and what it represents an ad on the previous panel and i agree with him that the tea

party was a substantial asset republicans in the campaign and focus with a problem. but on the plane down i was reading a piece that the liberal historian had written a multi-party and he took some of the rhetoric and strains of argument prominent to prefigures have been using and essentially said these are the heirs to the society in the 50's and 60's and smart republicans and conservatives during that period of time was a leading example recognized the more exposure that conservatives got the worst would be for the republicans and conservatives to the conclusion of the peace was the guard rails are off on that and i guess what i want to know is do you think the two-party is fundamentally

and ideological force and that's where the deal comes from or is it a group of people may be a lot of whom are in the middle as matthew said who are upset and moving in the same direction but not motivated by the same things? >> first i would say that in terms of being in the middle that is somewhat of a question because poll after poll the tea parties tend to be republicans. they are not sort of the -- this talk but he parties are independent and vote for obama and that's not the case. they define themselves as conservative and as republicans so that is true. but within the two-party i don't think there is a slip that is going to be problematic moving forward because it starts out with people who were very ideological, most libertarian connaughton rahm paul supporters or of that stream of conservatism and but i think it's as the tea party swells and

the great proportion of now are people who just came with more sheer frustration they didn't come with any particular ideology. so the first segment more on the logical they do believe in things like investment accounts instead of social security, things like that, which a lot of the older voters in particular who have come to the tea party don't share those goals. it is a question going forward particularly when we talk about spending cuts. four of ten the exit polls said they were to party supporters. i'm not sure most of those people would go along the spending cuts that some of the more ideological tea party talks about peace but you mentioned earlier that you've been on both sides of the ways in the campaign. you work for senator hutchison and her campaign against rick perry, and she was pulled over by the tea party wave, the same thing talking about in the general, and you were for marco

rubio in the general. what is your assessment of the tea party is and how susceptible they will be towards working with president obama, with democrats, the kind of people who would follow other than panache republican leaders have made compromises and deals? >> well, there is no question in that same wave that marco rubio wrote successfully to the samet is the same that crashed kay bailey hutchison, largely out of anchor anchor overspending marks and the bailout. i am slightly counterintuitive on the tea party and by partisanship and to define counterintuitive in the world of political panels [inaudible]

[laughter] i think the establishment in washington views the tea party movement as something you're glad to have around but also slightly terrified of and it would behoove our leadership, the republican leadership in washington to let some of that tension out of the tea party balloon. what some of that anger, let eight dent out a little bit and the way you do that is to give them some of what they want, and so that actually -- that suggests some time out of bipartisanship with. is on spending, even some of the giant issues, entitlement reform marco rubio one in florida by 19 points and he was one of the only candidates anywhere in the country who said if you elect me

i'm going to support the changing social security. and we need to talk about raising the the retirement age and we need to talk about means testing for benefits. all these things that you're never supposed to mention. marco rubio talked out it and what -- in essence for of all places to get so in terms of what the tea party means going forward for the republican party i think that if our leadership, the republican leadership doesn't do some things to give them some of what they want and do it pretty quickly, that ander is only going to intensify and its quinn to spillover in the 2012 primary elections coming and we as republicans are going to end up with a nominee who has absolutely no chance whatsoever of winning in november. >> just to understand where you're coming from. when using give them some of what they want, do you mean like

in their early move to organize the congress? are you talking about substantive things down the line. for example would be spared for them to say okay, michele bachman you're going to get that leadership and not -- >> no, i'm talking about real -- i don't think that there is any -- there are very few members of the tea party who are waking up every morning mad as hell about what michele bachman is getting. but there are -- they are mad as hell about spending, and especially for the young dirty party members, i agree with kate, they don't necessarily know what it is that they voted for, but i do think that there is -- that we have a moment, a possibility now for some real bipartisanship in an environment you never would have expected it, because the republican leadership, unless we want this doberman to come after us in two years we've got to do something to -- something substantive to

reduce the amount of attention to this bin laden going to come back to that in a minute. but steve mcmahon, from a democratic perspective, those who are the service -- pursued by by partisanship and the health of the democratic party nancy pelosi says she wants to remain a democratic leader. is that a good thing or a bad thing? >> a great thing. [laughter] fantastic. it's a complicated thing. [laughter] it is, it is. [inaudible] of [laughter] >> the fact is the speaker has been the most effective speaker and maybe 100 years. she's basically got every single thing the president wanted passed and she did it sometimes in an ugly way because she understood what it took to get the members of congress to take very difficult votes. now obviously in the recent elections democrats didn't do so

well. she was demonized by the republican party i think on a fairly, and so her numbers reflect that. so, does she deserve to be the leader? absolutely. should she be the leader? i think that question is a little more nuanced because her numbers are such that the symbols of leaving her there creates problems for democrats. -- >> when you heard she was running again were you disappointed? >> i wasn't surprised quite frankly because she is a very, very tough cookie and she did a great job and people who do a great job getting the work of the house of representatives stunned deserve to be able to go out on their own terms, and i think that she is going to get reelected because she's strong. and she's going to do a good job of drawing distinctions between the democrats and republicans because that's what she does well. by understand why the republicans sit here and say it will be great when nancy pelosi, who is numbers that frankly are not that attractive in terms of her favorable -- and just being

honest here. it's harder for the republicans, but i think that she deserves to be reelected and i am perfectly happy with nancy pelosi as a leader of the house. spec let me ask the leadership question about the party. one of the things the issue that was sometimes discussed over the last ten or 15 years about republicans, was that they were -- the party and its spokespeople and leading figures were weighted towards the south which is the most conservative part of the country so the fact that you now have a speaker from the state of ohio, is that a good thing in and of itself for republicans? >> can i say something about nancy pelosi first? [laughter] >> yes, it's a good thing. the upper midwest in particular was an enormous boost republicans this last election and have a speaker from the midwest from the heartland is a very good thing. no longer can people barely

passed the republican party as a regional or sectional party. it's clearly now in national party and this is a national victory for republicans. >> you have been around the president got back in the midterm in 1994. tell me what you expect and what you think should happen as to whether or not president abominates to fundamentally change something either substance -- substantively or as james was talking before this panel, you know, maybe the best thing for obama is to sit tight for a while wind that republicans make the first move. >> well, first of all, having been there, you know, i know this has many acts that are not played out. the first reaction is a pain reaction we all remember the meeting in the cabinet room in

which the president talked about all the people lost in the election that felt great pain and guilt for what happened, but he took action over four, five, six months, three years that changed his presidency and i have no doubt president obama will learn from this and make important moves. the most important is the one he already signaled wishes on the economy and his every reaction has been on that since then and i think that will be a very important change. the piece we expected most for him which is kind of a narrative about what he was doing not what happened in the process of the government. he clearly has to have a narrative that shows people where we are going. it's a long process. he has two things here and his instinct was to transcend the partisan polarization in

washington. that's why he ran september 15th in the election he focused on -- that wasn't the focus before that. he was much more focused on different styles of politics. i think he will view these new moments of opportunity and by partisanship. he will do -- i don't know which areas you will move on by the ki should move. he should show he's ready to move in areas people find surprising. >> should involve the people who work for him? one of the complaints that the merged and i don't know if you think it's valid or not is a small group of people advising him after 1994 you have morris, leon panetta, mike mccurry -- is that something that is important even symbolically or actually?

>> i don't want to speak to it, but i'm sure every president has a change at this point with this kind of election and i don't know which one they will be, a whole range of things. >> i think the president is in a very different spot than bill clinton was in 1994 and a much more problematic spot which is his ability to control the destiny. bill clinton's ability to control his destiny was much in his hands, much of his own hands because what brought him the barriers that have been denied before the election wasn't a disaster is economy because the economy going into the '94 election was rising and beginning to do very well but he lost because the public thought he'd gone off on the wrong track and mismanaged so he corrected a bunch of communications problems, brought people. the health care thing he had done and when he corrected those of the economy was on the rise and he got rewarded for that. i think that barack obama could

make a whole bunch of personal choices and like 72 different speeches and say he's doing all this kind of stuff, but if the economy doesn't change he's not going to get rewarded for a management adjustment or a management change and that is a much different place. >> alternatively if the economy does get better, does that mean all the critique about his policy agenda -- >> that's the interesting thing. there would've been no tea party of the economy was doing well. he could have passed health care reform and he would have won the midterm election. the economy's doing well. it's totally his destiny, which interestingly is much more like ronald reagan but i think one of the huge differences between ronald reagan and barack obama is the ability for the government to improve the economy. we no longer have seven per cent marginal rates. so this ability to change that dynamic of the economy is --

it's almost like he's going to pray. he is dupre because if it doesn't he's lost. >> everything we say is wrong. there is a new set of rules in the game. >> one of your colleagues in the republican party told me a couple months ago if the economy were in even slightly better shape of the oman plan after it had gone down and some of the momentum continued from the spring when we felt we were getting job growth we wouldn't be talking about the wall of government, take over and all that stuff, the context is completely set by what means he said. do you agree? >> i think that the economy explains the 30 seat loss in the house. it can't explain a 60 plus seat loss in the house. and the additional explanatory power comes from the actions taken by the democratic leadership in washington.

it was a stimulus people think did not work. it was a $1.3 trillion deficit, it was and although bailout. >> not everyone,. >> what you have you could explain how of the democratic loss. you can't explain a wipeout. >> when people look back at the direction to understand this election was about big things a lot of elections art about small things this the election was about really, really big ideas, big decisions and when we did polling and florida swinging and all the swing states what we thought this election was about and focus groups they felt like

this vote was about fundamentally changing the direction of the entire nation. and so if that is what is fueling -- >> is and that another way to see what matthew just said? >> i agree with matthew. if you are looking for specific deductions to make, we all remember after 94 suddenly we are talking about school uniforms and things like that, like that is not -- or things changing at the white house. that's all window dressing in terms of what the election was about and therefore what the results moving forward are going to be. >> i have to defend the president for a second because they will sit here and talk like these are choices the president made rather than things thrust upon him when he took office. i watched barack obama pretty closely in the 2008 campaign and

i never once heard him say when i'm president i'm going to take over the united states auto industry. when i am president of one to bail out wall street and big banks. i'm going to pass this $800 billion stimulus package because our economy is falling to the floor in the financial system is about to collapse. he didn't say any of those things because those were not things he chose to do. those were things he had to do. [applause] and i understand there are people who's lives are struggling and people felt the stimulus package wasn't as effective as it should have been. i think president obama would say that and people feel like the government is too involved in the private sector and spending too much money. i think a lot of democrats would say that. but these are not traces he made. the one choices he made -- i'm sorry, matthew. i will be done in just a second.

the one for choice he made was health care reform which he promised on the campaign and he did. i would argue he may be spent a little too much time on it and maybe they could have done it a little bit differently and they would have been better off but they got it done and the only choice he made your party left. the other thing president obama -- the other thing he never said once during the 2008 election i'm going to turn over control of all of my issues to nancy pelosi and harry reid and let them write them with every single spending plan democrats have been trying to get it done the last eight years i'm just baffled. i've always been baffled at why it is the white house needed control of these signature issues to people who didn't understand the reasons why the president got elected.

>> i want to step back and ask the big question. i think that's not what happened and i think when you talk to people with the white house when they pass the stimulus bill is that the stimulus bill you wanted, like 95%? that is our bill. we want that bill. >> it hasn't helped us but i think on health care what they did is they -- i want to achieve health care reform, and i think the best strategy for doing it is to settle a certain set of principles and let them get it done and i would say that on the evidence, of being the only person who's gotten it done in 70 years was a successful strategy. but i want to back up a little bit and refer to a group i had at my house, republican and democrat who worked for members of the house and senate before the election and everybody knew

at that point it was going to be a big election for the republicans and i asked them what they thought was possible to get done in the next two years and the answer was pleased, nothing. we are going to fight for two years. we will pass, you know, we will do the appropriations bills, and it's just going to be basically an extension of the 2010 campaign run in 2012 and there is just no other way around it and i want to start with steve and see if you think that is in fact. >> i think it's good to be interesting because the republicans now have an obligation and responsibility to try to get something done. i have had more criticism the last five years. >> and its right to be interesting because the tea party folks can with a specific agenda. mitch mcconnell has said no for

two years and when the tea party folks are asked to waive for the united states government so it can continue to function i think bigger going to say no and i will see any reason they would compromise and say yes to any point so this notion that they are going to come to town and schedule a whole bunch of votes to kind of release the pressure and they are going to get to take a stand on things i think is just wishful thinking on our part. specs and you agree on the proposition that next to nothing will get done -- >> i absolutely agree to a >> do you agree? >> as a matter of the odds of think that is the most likely outcome, but i also think that these independent that we were talking about in the last panel expect something to happen. they expect some kind of action to address the problems facing this country, particularly on the economy and taxes and deficits. ..

>> the question you have from the administrative standpoint and the republican and democratic leadership standpoint is are they going to bay attention to a small minority ideological set, some of whom represent tea party people, but don't represent frustrated voters out there in entirety. are they going to pay attention to those and do nothing on both sides? or are they going to say no, the mass of the country that helps our own reelection in 2012 of

president obama and the republican leadership in congress would help them appealing to the voters as do they have the capability of listening to voices unherd in the -- unheard in the cable channels and in the halls of congress. the vast majority wants something done, but they don't have the talk in the ear of john boehner and the folks in congress all the time. it's going to be the most minor voices in the republican party. >> if, in fact, and i accept there's a attention in obama's platform between the agenda in the campaign that he pursued, and the notion he was going to change the way washington works. as said in the previous panel, he sidetracked the later to achieve the former because it was more important, i think. is there a tension within the tea party between get stuff done, work together, stop

fighting, and stand up for what you believe in and cut the hell out of the government. >> absolutely. >> how does that get done? >> it's through the ideological divide and remember the tea party is not a party. it's a state of mind. it's hard to define, and there's no agenda. >> it's not only not a party, but it's within the republican party. >> that's true, but i think tea party candidates came in with, you know, having said we're going to say no, but i don't think that's what tea party voters are say. i don't think they want gridlock. some of them do, and they tend to be ideological and they are fed up with washington. >> whether it's rand paul and sharon angle who got votes from people who don't agree with what they would do. you think a lot of people voted for him who don't want that to happen, but want them to move

forward? >> i think people voted for candidates who couldn't win, but i think people voted for candidates like rand paul because they were enormously frustrated with washington, and wanted something to change. kentucky is a republican state. that was not a change for kentucky. i don't think tea party voters are saying we want you to go to washington and be gridlock. there's regional differences too. when i went to kentucky with rand paul cheering gridlock and they were excited about that idea. you don't hear that in the suburbs of philadelphia. they are people who either say, you know, we're tired. we don't like the process of health care, or the special deals of health care, but they want, again, to reform washington. you know, it's interesting. there was a piece last week with two people interviewed almost exactly in the same spot in nevada and one said i want

gridlock and no more laws. another guy said, he brought up why can't they do things like that anymore, democrats and republicans coming together for the country. why can't we have more of that? you know, here we are in the exact same spot, no regional differences, both from nevada, and there are differences in the tea party, and i don't think the tea party voters want gridlock. >> this is difficult to do indicated by this poll. by two to one the country wants republicans to work with the president to get stuff done, but two-thirds of republicans, and i think it's stronger, but two-thirds of the republicans say president obama is trying to do harm to the country, and they should not work with him, and the tea party are a stronger element within the republicans with their views. it's going to be incredibly difficult to work with. on the other hand, i think they

will -- i think the president will force them to address these issues because i think they will see this opportunity. i think -- i wouldn't rule out on something like energy, it may in fact may not be good policy in terms whether you're doing anything, but nonetheless there's a set of policies that everyone supports. there will be moments where republicans and democrats need to pass something to show they with act for the country's interest. i think energy is one that is most likely to figure out something on the tax thing because they got to deal with it, you know, going guard. it could be on trade. some of these things have tension within tea parties, but the president has opportunity. >> the circumstances are going to force this too in particular on the debt limit. i think that's something we have to deal with. it's not something we can keep kicked around. >> these tea party republicans get a pass and make the votes and there's doesn'ts in the room and day no, the debt limit

passes and won't shut down the congress, rand paul gets a vote against it, they vote to repeal health care, it won't get passed to senate, it's probably going to pass in the house, all of these thing cast these votes and this is what we did, but there's enough adults in washington preventing this stuff from happening, and they get a free pass on this. >> is that the right way to think of it with the mainstream republican leaders, and tell me again, they think of themselves as the adults and they are managing the unruly children -- [laughter] that the kids might riot and wreck their car if they do the wrong thing, but that's really the dynamic we're dealing with? [laughter] >> i've got a lot more respect for voters than a lot of people

do. i think that the tea party movement is and groups that are economically pressed, middle class people who feel scared and frustrated. it's painful doing these focus groups. i've had people break down in tears saying i lost my job in a company i've been with for 35 years. my husband thinks he's going to lose his job. we're in our 50s, we don't know what we're going to do, and they truly believe that their people in washington, republican and democrat, are just not listening to them. they are giving them money -- [laughter] they are giving their money to bailout wall street and they don't care about them. in is a cry of frustration. they are not children or blind to the choices being faced, but they're saying we don't want the

country that keeps spending like their spending and mortgaging our kidses' future. they got to stop that and help the middle class that feels economically pressed. that's the message of the tea party. [applause] >> with those voters, and therefore with the politician who represent them have an incentive to welcome a government shutdown, a defeat of the debt limit as a sign that something is going to be different now. >> no, they don't. they want government to work effectively to address the problems that they feel are pressing them. you know, they are not into symbolic shutdowns of the government. it's -- real quick point on that. if you look at, you know, there's so much written out by marco rube -- rubio, a rising star in the

republican party, but it's important to listen to what he says. in his speech he said it would be a huge mistake for anyone to interpret the results of this election as an embrace of the republican party. it is not. it is at best is second chance for the republican party to do the thing that we said that we were going to do originally, and so, you know, i think there are leaders like him, biased obviously, but there are people like marco who can put a foot in each camp. he is creditability on the tea party side and on the leadership side, and he's willing to say, you know, the republican party, we deserved to get thrown out of office, and we're not put back into power because people are in love with us. >> speaking of that foot in both camps, a week before the elections i interviewed jeb bush

in miami, and he struck a similar profile. he said, they don't like the way obama is going and want to change the direction, and b, they want people to stop fighting. basically the way to think about is it you have a set of things you can do together, do them, save your big fights for later, and if they are not able to do that, he said, i think you could be looking at the dismembererment of these two parties. do you agree with that? is that a possibility? is the kind of thing we talk about all the time and never happens? >> i think on the republican side there's enough anger with the grassroots of our party that, you know, i don't think it would be something happening in the next two years, but it could marginalize the republican party and basically slowly suffocate it because people have stopped turning out and voting which is to the point that i was making earlierment i think it's in the

republican party's leadership best interest to get things done in a bipartisan fashion even if it means giving the president a win and we get a win because we've got to do something to take the air out of that balloon. >> do you think party crackup is an actual clear and present prospect? >> well, it's remarkable how the esteem is of both parties, and they're in the same place. we asked the third party that's beginning to explore that question. i think the country, i think a third party, ross perot would do quite well. >> michael bloomberg? >> he wouldn't be the candidate i'd pick, but -- perot is more in the republican

party. >> you know, the best thing possible for our system is the emergence of a new party, but you know, the history of our country is with two political parties. one party -- we've gone through similar things, but one party thanks and adapts. the democratic party today is not what the democratic party -- the democratic and republican parties today were not what the democrat and republican parties were several years ago. that, i think, could easily happen. i think our structure of our system to allow a third party to compete is unlikely, but the idea of another party remaking itself where they are reflective of where the majority of the country is a possibility. i think we would benefit from that. i think it's con ting gent -- contingent on what happens in 2012. if barak obama's numbers

continue to decrease and republicans nominate a sharon angle type of candidate for the presidency, it makes that window, and i'm not saying any former alaska's particular name, but if that happens -- not a bloomberg. i think in my view if he wanted a third party, he should take $5 million, create a institution, and have someone else nominated other than him. i don't see him winning missouri. he has so many things he's done in alaska -- i'm, wow, sorry. [laughter] >> that doesn't fit the majority of the country? >> do you think it's likely president obama gets reelected? >> wow, that's a very interesting -- there's so many factors in that. i said this earlier in front of a group of people. if barak obama -- if the economy creates 150,000 jobs a month for the next two

years, he loses. there's a question, and i think sam or someone eluded to this. are we in a fundamentally different place in the world and economically that it's not going to allow him to win reelection because the economy has to readjust itself in a fundamentally different place than it has. >> we're deleveraging the economy in >> yeah, and that's a broadest problem that i agree with and i trust 300 million american more than people the washington to make decisions in their best interest. but the leaders in washington don't follow what the majority of voters want, but the republicans lost faith and trust in every major institution in the countries. the media, the two political parties, many places they have lost faith and trust in their churches, sporting institutions, all simultaneously at once. they sit there and --

>> down, boy. [laughter] >> and that, i think, is a problem and creates not only great anxiety, but how do we address that problem and unless we do, we've had two presidents in a row that got elected on the same method. we're bringing people together and basically both presidents said you don't have to go through pain. you can have it all. we can do these great things, and nobody has to pay the bill. president bush and president obama got elected on the same platform and diverted from that in the exact same way, ideologically differently, but the exact same way. >> real quick to your question. i think it's a mistake to narrow a discussion about a possible third party specifically to the realm of running for president because i think what you could see is, you know, 50 individual little laboratories just if you want to fund intellectual exercise, think of what could

have happened if megawhitman in california ran as an independent and didn't have to go through republican primary process where she then became a republican and then had to move to the right and, you know, meg is not a perfect candidate, but once she did that, it was hard for her to ever get back. i think if someone like whitman, especially in the blue states, the republican brand, you know, on the west coast is parched. it's the one place that this red tide, you know, it never hit out there. >> obama was over 50% in california. >> right. someone like a meg whitman out west -- >> especially running for governor, i think there's real possibility. >> we should not -- we shouldn't leave it there. matt's saying and it could be

right. he couldn't say the probability above being relegislated because he couldn't answer that question. if we're a more vibrant country than that, and i have to think we are, but if you think our growth is 4% which is not great which we create jobs at 2%, but 4% with a slow drop of unemployment, i think the president does have a better than even chance of getting reelected and the mood dramatically, but we're close to the argument this is premise on what is the future? the last election had big issues. these are big issues. >> right. >> i want to invite all of you guys who work in politics to take shots at me and kate, and i'll let kate defend us. [laughter] if necessary. >> oh, no, i can't imagine it would be. >> the question is did you look

at the array of forces play out in the election, and then what we have in washington when we come around to january, do you see those of us in the media, newspapers, televisions, radio, as an independent obstacle to achieving results for the american people, you know, pragmatic solutions to the country's problems, or are we simply just describing the aspects of the problem that exist in the political system? steve? >> well, it seems to me that the internet has changed so much, and one of the things that changed most profoundly is the way people get their information. it wasn't that long ago there was four or five major newspapers in the country, and they were all newspapers that treated everything right down the middle and people read the local papers.

>> "new york times" still does that by the way. >> i understand that, but you can see what's happening to the "new york times" online. there's three networks, nbc, cbs, and abc. >> nbc still does that. [laughter] >> but the viewership is a thirpd of what it was 25 years ago, and people now increasingly are getting news from places and sources that they agree with and align with their point of view. if you're a republican, you get it from the fox news channel. if you're are a democratic, it's msnbc. if you are a young person, you think john stuart is in evening newscast. [laughter] i'm serious. we have focus groups with kids who are 23 years old and they don't read newspapers. they read everything online and go to sites that align with their point of view. it's not that you're doing a bad

job, but the mainstream, middle of the road, cover both sides, don't have a point of view is becoming less and less relevant. >> without passing judgment on whether the "new york times" and major networks play down the middle with, i basically agree with steve's point about the proliferation of outlets. marco rubio built up a two to one lead over a popular incumbent governor without a single paid television ad, without a single ad. it was a stunning example of the proliferation of information sources and the ability to communicate to large numbers of volt -- voters. it goes to steve's points you have republicans and activists and marco created this national movement really, certainly national fund raising without a

tingle tv ad. >> steve, are we an independent problem? >> no, it's important to the internal dynamic of the republican party. >> are we an independent obstacle to independent progress? if so, a big one or small one. >> cable-driven aligned media, for sure, but i'm not making a judgment on major networks but the cable process is an obstacle, it is a fact. that's how people get their information and that's how you have to operate. i would rule out the fact that major stories in print journalism impact the way issues and stories, you know, play out. you can't have afghanistan, i don't think, without, you know, they are major issues in which the media plays a big part on both how the public looks at it

and how the partisan aligned media. >> i've seen you on cable tv, how do you plead? >> how do i plead? can i be balanced? >> i was thinking more guilty or not guilty. >> what i'm worried about is what you're saying is correct. people are so hungry for something on either side. i wrote a book that very consciously came up through the middle and that we, the public made a conscious decision there was a lot of to limbic out there. i could be a reporter, and we made a decision there's people out there who didn't understand what the tea party was. there was merit in saying we're taking an objective look and conservatives think i'm not objective and liberals think i'm too objective, but whatever. you can't win that sport, but we're trying. you know, we are the people --

>> setting the book aside, do you think the tea party is bad? >> did i think it's bad? >> i'm just trying to catch you. >> no, i've worried that, you know, i think look, i think stan's point about afghanistan goes to this, there's content from the "new york times," but i worry increasingly people want to go to, you know, their republicked corners. -- respected corners. >> what i think is equally worry some to me and taking after my political hat off and putting my american hat on is the total pres dation across the country is very alarming for the country because -- [applause] people on both sides are just not getting information the way they used to be. stories that were no brainers

are not being written anymore. that's not good democracy. >> i want to put a question before the panel that strikes me as not totally ridiculous. it's a description of what might be a path to achieving some of the things that was talked about that would be good for president obama and for the tea party and would actually achieve some progress, so assume that the big systemic legislative programs, and they're not happening in the next two years, but it seems to be possible that that is not what obama was going to make the next two years about anyway, might not be in his interest to do that, but instead if you take obama had long talked about a turn toward deficit reduction after you get out of the first two years. he's got this deficit commission. they're not going to have a big systemic deal, but why couldn't

you have a president who makes some legislative compromise with the president on energy, not cap-and-trade, but energy stuff, some trade agreements forward, you then have the president and republicans go about spending cuts and governmental reform in ways that are not big dollar-wise, but symbolic and might have the capacity to raise confidence in the american people that they're looking at what they're dollars are going and being smarter about it. why is that not a recipe for calm down politics for the next 12 months and get headway that makes people feel better, is it? >> i think it's a possible scenario, and i think most of the folks identified for independents would welcome that

outcome. i don't think it's likely, but it's possible. >> i think it's in the political interest of the president, i believe to move on this, to do it, to take the heat, the partisan heat out of it. this ideological intense, you know, this hot-house is not good for his politics. he needs to let the steam out. >> i completely agree to the point i was making before. it's the establishment of the republican party's best interest to let some of that tension out of the tea party movement or else in two years, it's not going to be good. >> kate? is that reasonable? basically, the next 12 months would be about modest spending reductions that nevertheless make like people hear it, see it, and feel better about it. >> i think that's what people want, but what interests me is

what dan talked about in the previous panel and are republicans going to make the same mistakes on health care as obama did and just keep putting the up and down vote, where 2k0 you stand on health care and make that their issue. >> i don't think any -- i don't think he will benefit from any legislative victories at all, the president, and as i said earlier and we eluded to it, i think the thing that he needs to do is figure out the best way to restore faith and confidence in our economic system and what's the path tabard in that -- forward in that system. >> spending cuts? >> it's not like cutting $10 million here, it's a bigger deal. if you want to send the signal, but he, i think, from his own political standpoint in the future of the country, the best thing that could happen he calls up the speaker like john boehner

says, we have to put our stuff aside, we have to tell people where the prommed land -- promised land is. john boehner may say good luck with that, but his political interest is tied directly to whether or not people have more confidence in our economic system and business to invest in that system. if they don't feel the confidence, he can do all little legislative things, but he's dead. >> will green energy progress, trade progress, spending cuts doesn't do it in >> he has to go to 10,000 feet and convince the american public that he is a person that believes in our economic system, and that we can have confidence in it so businesses invest and small businesses people they have a partner in washington and not an enemy. >> steve, do you agree? >> it's rhetorical and sort of a communicating a vision rather than doing little things with

congress? >> totally with matthew. one of the things attractive of barak obama the candidate for president is he was positive, hopeful, and aspirational in america's future in what we can do, be, and become again. i think there's a lot of people out there, particularly the people who are scared and feeling the economic pressure, who want somebody to stand up saying we can do this, and this is how. i think if you can stand with some republicans and do it together, that's would be betterment i think there's symbolism in spending cuts to restore people's confidence that he heard them, but in the main, he has to go up here, this is where we go together, yes, we can, and this is how. he hasn't been able to do that for awhile though. in the end, there are big issues, real issues, okay. one, the question of growth.

okay, growth is not just narrative and rhetoric in feeling confident. democrats have a point of view. they want investments, infrastructure, they want to do things. there's a real -- ultimately, because he won't have time for that stuff, when he comes to the election, that issue will be there and the tax increases. there is a big question put off until the election which is do wealth people pay for deficit reductions? are they part the deal? part of the pain? that is going to be a big choice in the election. this is all fun in terms of getting there in the right way just as in 1996 with bill clinton. there was a big battle over the welfare state and preserving spending and education, and there was ultimately a big battle over big choice. >> but the policy of this president so far in my pin is not wrapped in the same kind of positive aspirational narrative he was good at in the campaign,

and what he needs, i think, is to get his mojo back and he has to say all these policies that the democrats are promoting in the places to meet republicans in the middle are a path to get us to a better place, and here's what that means for you if you're in ohio, michigan, or in a swing state where i need reelection. the larger narrative is missing. >> he quickly transitioned what people saw of a leader of the country, to a leader of his party. people elected a leader of the country, not of a party. when that transition was made and was bogged down under the process of washington, d.c. and perceived his decisions he was making right or wrong to the person he was doing it to a political party, he lost that. >> republicans said he won't get one vote. >> he never really asked, you know that. >> if dwrow have a -- if you have a question, we have a little bit of time and we have a microphone.

[laughter] >> actually, the american public did repudiate some of the tea party especially some of the notable ones, the sharon angles, joe millers, l comic relief on the east coast, and california. although some got in. you got these cats running around, and it's up to the republican leadership to herd them, but isn't it in the best political interest of the republican party to maintain this gridlock with the bigger prize being to defeat obama? >> let's let todd do that. >> again, the buoyant i was make -- the point i was making before is the tea party is fueled by failure in washington, and so the more -- the greater the perception of failure in washington, the more

gas you put in the tea party tank. the danger or not surface if you're a republican you think that's great. the danger, however, is having that tea party weight then come crashing down on every establishment of republican. warren hatch is looking at a primary challenge in utah. just a few years ago that notion would have been absurd. graham in south carolina, and so there are going to be -- there's always going to be that element of on the right that are just angry, but what really fueled the tea party movement and gave it energy was all of the people who were just -- they're not the ideologs, they were just angry, and those people need to be spoken to and their issues and concerns need to be addressed, or they will be

even angier in two years. >> okay, guys, we have just a few minutes. i'll limit to one wise comment to each question, and we'll move it around. >> if we look specifically at social security or government shutdowns, do you think there's like a disconnect between the generalities of people talking about i'm for gridlock or social security reform versus what the specifics of that mean? like obama's with health care, you know, i want health care reform, is there a disconnect between, yeah, i want health care reform, and health care reform means could be increased spending. >> well, yeah, there's a disconnect. but what happened with president obama and health care reform is 80% of the people in the country who voted and wanted health care reform had health insurance mplets what they wanted was lower health care premiums, lower cost, and some expanded access. what they got was higher

premiums, increased cost, and there's still a question about what access is available. it's probably been expanded, but they wanted health care reform, and they were delivered something different than they wanted. people know we need social security. if you gave truth serum to the democrats at this conference, they would have a solution quickly on what to do with social security and medicare. everybody knows we have a problem with that, but, and the country knows we have a problem with that. there's people here, kids here, anybody under 30 years old doesn't think they will get social security. my kids who are 25, 24, and 21, don't think they will get social security. we are paying for a program that won't benefit them. leaders of both political parties many times aren't willing to communicate the hard truths about what the situation is and how we solve it, and

that's, that is fundamentally the problem. the public is pretty smart. if they're given the right facts and told the truth, but on social security reform, they have not been told the truth by either party. >> amen. next question. [applause] >> couple questions for todd in pelosi staying. how do you respond to the argument that though she's unpopular, what she did was the right thing to do? >> well, from a political -- >> that's not his department. >> well, from my stand point, democratics can make that argument for the next two years, and i know a lot of vendors are thrilled they can change the 10 to a 12 and mail out the same one again. >> fair enough, as a political matter, yes, but what about the point on the justices and put yourself in the position if it were a republican leader who did what his party wanted to do and

achieved it but was demonized and like, how do you respond to the justice argument? >> well, the truth of her question you know and the political reality of it is very different from whether she deserves to be, you know, made minority leader. >> but address that part? >> you brought it up earlier if she stayed as minority leader. >> i don't care. you know, it's not my -- [laughter] >> and how did christine o'donnell get 40% in delaware? how did that happen? >> well, people are saying it's just turf, just made up by the interest groups in washington, and christine o'donnell was ultimate proof it was a grass roots movement because the groups in washington didn't want her to win. it was people in delaware who believed, hope and hope, that they could win the two southern counties, and that was enough,

and she did, and i think she's -- there's republicans who always vote republican, but the reality is mike castle would have just, you know, the numbers were switched so -- >> conspicuous in his absence has been the christian right and their agenda. i guess my question is do these folks get rolled over by the tea party? did they willingly sign up? considering the different priorities that the two groups bring in social and economic issues, is there a potential for a subplot playing out over the next few years as the two groups struggle for control within the republican party? >> we haven't heard much from the christian coalition for a long time. >> it is alive and well. what happened this election cycle is the economy washed out everything else, so the concern about jobs and economic growth

and the related governmental budget deficits in budget and spending drove every other issue under ground. >> my question's about marco and the future of the their republican party. he's, obviously, thought of as the republicans thrown around as minority candidate, he is an english only, proimmigration controls and stuff like that. if he doesn't run on one of the big concerns of the latino community, is that all for show that he happens to be latino, or is there a breakthrough with the latinos because he is a latino. >> he showed how you can run as a latino republican and win the vote in florida. i think he's a classic ample of how a conservative can win

conservative votes. >> for the record, marco does not support english only, but supports making i think lish the official language, but does not support english only policies. you know, we got as mentioned on the previous panel, 66% of the latino vote in florida. we did very well not only with the cuban vote, but the vote that is critical in the corridor, and if you look at data in florida, the issues that were most important to latino voters were the exact same issues most important to white voters and african-american voters and every other voter segment, and marco tapped into that. >> sadly, we have time for one more question, and that's yours. >> it's two questions, but one is very, very quick. [laughter] first is proper etiquette is the

a panel like this after a panelist says something you agree with? i notice that happening a lot >> yeah, sure. >> it is? >> yeah. >> the second more serious question is like, it's been mentioned there's been like tea party-like groups in the past, and i want to know historically, how do they end, and is that end result likely for the tea party and for their leaders as well? >> kate, go ahead. >> yes, absolutely there's other groups. i compare it to the goldwater movement aligned with christian conservatives and you had the reagan revolution. >> the only thing i say is people forget the movement that ultimately put president obama in office was the minority antiwar movement that started off with a people with voices that if they were way out, and

then they remit -- represented large section and swept bush out of office. the branded tea party is not a party as kate said. it's frustrated voters and tea party people seem to speak for, but in similar ways barak obama was put in office because of the antiiraq, this is a similar group of people that don't speak for the majority, but represent the frustrations and anger of them. >> it is appropriate at this time for you to -- [laughter] >> thank you. [applause] >> next on c-span2, question time from the australian parliament, followed by a look at the health care policy for the align for health reform, and the research journal health

affairs. the senate returns from its break on monday at 2 p.m. eastern time and on tuesday they scheduled a meeting to pick their leaders for the next congress. possible agenda items for the session include incentives for natural gas and electric vehicles, gender wage equality, and a modernization bill. you can watch live proceedings here on c-span2.

>> in this week's question time, os australian prime minister answered questions on troops in iraq and afghanistan. this is half hour. >> hello, i'm david speers in

kambra. nine years since the war in afghanistan began, the australian parliament held its first debate on australian trail yew's role there, and while they can't decide whether they should or should not be involved in a war and there was no binding resolutions in the debate, there was one with overwhelming bipartisan support in australia staying involved. the coalition supports our role there only a minor party saying we should get out. we saw an update on parliament and world bank talks in washington. the government defended its plan to set up a regional processing center in seymour for seekers continuing to come to australia in increasing numbers, and the government spilled out its plan

to put o place on carbon to tackle climate change. here are the highlights of the australian parliament. >> my question 1 to the minister of defense. people who had rational is cropping up by the karzai government. is the government concerned by the level of corruption to the highest level of the karzai government, and do they agree with general petraeus' comment that the afghan government is a criminal? >> the minister for defense. >> mr. speaker, i think the man before his question, the very clear rational for australia's involvement in afghanistan is that it's in our national interest to be involved. it is in our national interest

to support a united nations mandated international security assistance force, a coalition of 47 countries, mandated by the uniteed nations, and that including the united states has seek to stair done international terrorism, and these issues are debated by the parliament in the days ahead. let's come precisely to the question that the member raised in respect of the karzai government. as members of the house might recall both before and after the recent presidential election, we saw president karzai reelected. i said clearly on a number of occasions, that australian australia, the government, the assistance force expected to see, expected to see considerable and substandard improvement from whatever afghan

decision was made. we expected to see substantial improvement on corruption, on governments, on human rights issues, in particular the treatment of women and the treatment of girls, especially when it came to matters like education. i said that on behalf of the australian government, and on behalf of australia internationally and domesticically before president karzai faced the election and after his reelection, and the position of australia and the australian government has not change z in point. >> will the treasurer update the house on the state of the global economy ring and what it means to the government reform ajean da? >> i thank the members for this very important question about the global economy and what plans the government is doing to

broaden and strengthen our economy. mr. speaker, last weekend i attended the i measuring f world bank meetings in wash. it's a good opportunity to take the temperature of the global economy, talk to fellow finance min steers about the global outlook, and share the australian economic story. now, it's incredible to think where we were in the global economy just two years ago, just two years ago last weekend in washington. there was a g20 emergency meeting which was attended by then president george bush, and what the global economy was con tim plaiting at that time was a collapse of financial stock markets, and a drop in global demands, and it's incredible to see how far the glebal economy has -- global economy has come in those two years. of course, last week two years

ago, we moved decisively to put in place our bank guarantee and credit the australian economy, and of course we announced our stimulus package phase one, but the global economy has come a long way and so too has the australian economy. the message that came out of this meeting over the weekend is whether there is still risk in the global economy, and while it is recovering, the gloablg recovery is fragile and uncertain, and we included the risk intensified particularly when you look at what's going on in the european economy, and of course in the united states economy. in those economies, you're looking at near double digit unemployment, and in some countries even more. this is how the chief economists of the imf summed up the situation. the result is recovery that is

not as strong nor balanced and runs the risk of not being sustained. in most economies, weak investment and little improvement in exports are leading to low growth. unemployment is high, and barely decreasing. mr. speaker, there couldn't be a sharper contrast with the australian situation. strong employment growth, strong economic growth, strong economic growth compared to all over countries in the rocd. what they talked about in washington is what australia has done and it's special. mr. speaker, it's truly something special ring and of course, part of the success here is that while we put in place the stimulus, we put in place our plan for recovery, the fastest fiscal consolidation that we've seen since the 1906s, bring -- 1960s, brings the budget back to surplus, making the investments

in infrastructure, putting in place a tax system that is competitive to broaden and to strengthen our economy. this is the way fought for australia and the contrast with all of the other countries could not have been more stark. >> my question is to the minister for climate change and energy efficiency. >> what does research into carbon places with the competitors indicate? prime minister is a carbon pricing important for business certainty? >> the climate change and energy efficiency. thank you very much, mr. speaker, and i thank the man for his question. mr. speaker, today, a report has been released by the institute, a report prepared by an organization called vivid economics. it's a well-respected organization from the united kingdom that does research into climate change economic issues, and the report that's been

released today is an analysis of the implicit carbon prices that operate in a number of key economies in which australia trades. the study is, in fact, one of the first efforts made to quantity my the -- quantify the costs of what carbon prices there are in particular economies including countries as important to australia including japan, the united kingdom, the united states, and china, and south korea. the vivid economics report has found that countries around the world are, of course, already taking steps to reduce their carbon pollution, and there by moving to cleaner energy sources and effectively having a carbon price in their economies. importantly, it indicates that countries with which this country trades, with which australia trades, like china and

the united states already have implicit carbon prices within their electricity sectors, and as foreshadowed, this is a matter of citizens of interest to the multiparty climate change committee, the government considered to establish the issue of an introduction of a carbon price in the matter that the government responded to in response to a request by the member of new england to do an independent analysis of what carbon prices would be operating with our major trading partners. mr. speaker, in our economy, a carbon price will not only create an inventive to -- incentive to reduce pollution, but also provides certainty for investment by the business community. it will also increase this country's long-term competitiveness because it will drive investment in clean energy, and it will make australia an attractive investment place for companies

to do business. now the energy company, one the major exeaps in the energy industry, estimates that uncertainty caused by the delay in implementing a carbon price in our economy could cost consumers up to $2 billion a year in higher electricity prices or around $60 per household in the year 2020. the shadow treasurer shakes his head. i'll explain. that is because investment in new base load electricity expwren ration is being deferred because of the uncertainty of electricity generated in our economy. that is, we have further commentary from the other side. it is not rubbish. if you engage with the major players in the energy sector, they tell you that's the case, and they will tell you that is why they support the introduction of a carbon price into our economy. it only, the interjections -- >> order, order.

>> it only serves to emphasize how out of touch those officers are with mainstream business in this manner and undeveloped internationally, and their position in opposing a carbon price in this economy is economically irresponsible. >> my question is to the prime minister. i referred the prime minister to the proposal for the processing center in east seymour. which country constitutes the region under her proposal? >> the prime minister. order. the prime minister has the call. order. >> thank you very much mrs. baker, and i know the deputy leader of the opposition like the officer for foreign affair blown over a lot of

countries in the last few days, but australia is in the same place when she left. on that basis, of course, australia is in the same place where she left, we live in the same region. given we live in the same region, how would you like to think the pacific is the way you define, and i think, that even you know -- >> order, order. order. >> we will -- [inaudible] of course -- >> order. >> it is incoming but the barley process, the minister of immigration referred to in his various statements. the minister of immigration has also of course been involved in dialogue in the region prior to to the parliament commencing hearings. he was pursuing these

discussions. we will work on the dialogue. we are obviously predominantly interested in the country through which people transit, the most common ruths of move -- routes of people movement, and you would expect that's our prime area of interest, but in terms of working across the region, we want to work with regional partners and neighbors. >> mr. speaker, my question is to the prime minister. i refer the prim minister to the words last night. if you can't trust the government, who can you trust? i asked the prime minister why has she -- >> order. >> the mining industry. >> the prime minister? >> thank you, thank you very much, mr. speaker, and my colleagues are assisting me by reminding me how extraordinary it is to get this question from

the leader of the opposition given his statements on accuracy and truthfulness during the course of the election campaign. >> order, order. >> the answer to the member's question is this, and it's exactly the same answer as i gave yesterday. the government is working through with its policy transition groups so we're leading that and the ministry is working alongside with the issues that the leader of the opposition is referring to about the treatment of state royalty, the implementation of the arrangements is worked through in the policy transition group, so we keep working through, mr. speaker, to deliver the legislation as promised to this parliament. >> supplementary question for the prime minister. is she insisting on an agreement

clearly at odds with that of the mining industry, clearly at odds with the statement of the heads of agreement because she knows that it is necessary to have her interpretation to protect the surplus to 2012 dead-aim? >> the prime minister. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker, and once again, i refer to the leader of the opposition to what i said in parliament yesterday and in a press conference yesterday which is that it obviously is not the government's intention to have state governments able to change royalty arrangements in a way that means federal government gets the bill. we are working through in the policy transportation group on implementation and we'll work through with australia mining companies. i know the leader of the opposition in stock and trade to overstate everything to be constantly claiming crisis and carry on. there is no need for that, mr.

speaker,. we are working through it. ..

of the opposition was to be honest and accurate way with this parliament and went through it and change by a change what he would recognize is the canadian government has gone for a different mix of measures. in some areas for it samples taken a different approach, for example in this country we have here mandatory who detention we deal with people's processing to the finality whereas my understanding is the canadian approach is that you're going to put a time limit on how such detentions so that there are differences but we need to make the decisions that we believe our in our nation's interest that are most effective range of policies and we need of course to implement solutions to the long-term which is why as a government we are working on the framework and processing center.

it's why we announced our long-term strategy for detention and new arrangement for which children and i am yet for any clarity with the opposition stands on those changes. it's the leader of the opposition was being honest about this rather than the simplistic comparisons with only one aspect of the new canadian proposals what will actually be saying to the australian people is this is a complex problem. there isn't one policy measure that provides a solution and certainly no 13 word slogan. >> the leader in the opposition. >> my question is to. the prime minister to have pre-election commitments to speak to the text to rule out the tax and stop the smugglers and i remind her since the election is still on raveled. she is ruled on the tax with 24

votes with 1,200,000,000 people on them so i ask when will the prime minister stop complaining and introduce policies that will fix this mess? >> the prime minister. >> thank you very much mr. speaker and i thank the leader of the opposition for his question and let's go through it piece by piece. the minister of the come minerals resources and is being what consultant and his legislation will be brought by the parliament and the opposition will be a fundamental choice whether they will continue to maintain their opposition what that australia's biggest mining whether they will do that and to stand in the way of the tax to achieve balanced economic growth tax breaks to small business and stand in the way of roi of trillions and

increasing national savings and stand in the way of $6 billion of productivity improving infrastructure that of course will be a choice for the leader of the opposition. on the question of tackling climate change i don't believe in the leader of the opposition simple slogan. i believe in using the opportunities of the parliament for the to address the question and of course i reiterate the leader of the opposition would to the effect the reformist of a demolition derby if he ever weeks up to that fact then he will be unwelcome here to join with the government in efforts to the change in the price war to join the climate change committee and do something constructive rather than seek to

wait and the third point the opposition raises what i seek to the australian people before the election at the institute what i said to them as this was a complex problem unlike the leader of the opposition i wasn't going to use simple three were slogans unlike the leader of the opposition i was going to be truthful about the dimensions of the problem with. for me not to generate using terminology i would explain factually to the australian people the dimension of the problem and the regional protection free-market and processing center that i believe is important to the solution would and the government of course we have worked on him that methodically who with the ministers of immigration in the region just before the parliament pursuing the dialogue on the questions. at some point the leader of the

opposition needs to think through with the political will accord by being someone who is now known or whether his cause is that financed by returning to the liberal party which brought on a reform advocating political institutions. and i say to the leader of the opposition as i said last night for us to see the benefits of prosperity coming out as we have from the global financial crisis we need to keep walking the reform road. now was not the time to lead the liberal party away from the post 1983 on economic reform. now was not the time to lead the liberal party into economic [inaudible] now is not the time to conclude that the way forward for the liberal party is to conduct in the demolition derby -- my

question is to the foreign minister. when the revelation last night he opposed the prime minister's detention center policy stating that it will go off like a firecracker. given the foreign minister was right and the parliament passed of leased to resolutions opposing the the detention center, why won't the government drop this dumont proposal? >> the minister for foreign affairs. >> mr. speaker, as i said to the house before, the reason the government, including the prime minister of immigration minister and myself, support the proposal for the processing center in the context of the original protection from work is one -- it is compatible with the u.n. convention on the refugee. number two, it is also capable of attaining the support of the

unhci and migration and a number three has the support of the original countries. mr. speaker the honorable member raises the latter point on the regional countries. i will draw her attention to the results by the president and the statements made by both the prime minister and by the immigration minister concerning the government's reception of the australian government has a basis for further consultation to discuss the negotiation including through -- can i also say to the leader of the opposition any country when we are dealing with countries of the speakers that there will be democratic debates that occur in those countries. before that it is natural and normal in indonesia and it is natural and normal in any other country. the governments that support this policy because it is consistent with the three principles i announced before

and i would draw to the deputy leader of the opposition's attention the reason why, for example it failed the test and the previous government ignored the convention now there's not to the refugee convention. the unhci reached a process because of the concerns about the then the arrangements on why robie and therefore the government's approach and basic humanitarian and international legal tests which this government takes seriously and forms the basis of the government current approach to the challenge which faces not only us but other countries around the world to respect my question is for the minister defense. will the minister of state the house on the fourth protection measures being implemented for the troops in afghanistan? >> the minister for defense. >> i thank the member for his question. it's one of the highest priorities to ensure that we can do everything possible to

protect our troops in the field in afghanistan. it's also one of the highest priorities of the defense forced and generally. the member asked about issues i will be implementing. members might recall in this year, many of this year the government announced the adoption after the review requested been and mr. faulkner adopted the $1.1 billion program to implement enhanced measures so far as for some protection for the troops in afghanistan was concerned. his attitude about half a billion dollars worth of existing measures, so in the budget this year we saw the financial period at 2009, 2010 through 2012, 2013. some $1.6 billion worth of enhanced measures for the forest protection. of the 48 measures, announced were affected in the budget that has happened and the cd if implemented a very tight timetable and a rigorous

schedule and system of monitoring to ensure the measures were introduced as soon as possible. there is some interest in the implementation today because yesterday as a result of the request by a member of the media outlets requesting the incoming government on the part of defense i redacted the so-called redacted version with national security sensitive matters eliminated. the redacted version was supplied to the outlets. of course some time has elapsed since the incoming president brief and the advice i have from the defense yesterday and today that of the 48 measures that were announced effectively in the budget, 36 of the 48 divided incomplete or are on track. there are 12 which are monitoring programs have issues of concern. a couple of which go to time and so far as timing is concerned

there are concerns about the delay implementation so far as additional protection measures for building the troops occupy or live in and also some highly technical measures so far has electronic triggers a been prefaced explosive devices. mr. speaker, as you would expect, there are some areas of the matters that would not be appropriate to deal with in public and that's also reflected by the reducted nature of the decision made by the nation decision making but all of these matters go to particularly enhanced and i in protest explosive device measures, the roadside bombs and that the patrols encounter overhead surveillance, mine clearance and the like. and mr. speaker, as i said at the outset, there's no i your priority the government service has ensuring every practical

measure we can reasonably take is in place so far as protection of the troops is concerned. also an important point, mr. speaker as the chief of defence force made clear consistently most recently and the governors made clear these are under continual review because circumstances always change. the threat is there, the threat is ever present. we continue to experience by difficult and dangerous circumstances in afghanistan and the techniques used by the taliban change so the measures continue to always be under constant review. and they were the highlights of the latest of sterling in parliament. we will be back next month for the final session of the australian parliament this year. for now i'm david speers. thanks for accompanying me. ♪

republicans won control of the

u.s. house in the 2010 midterm elections with many gop candidates campaigning against the new health care law. today the alliance for health reform and robert wood johnson foundation coasted the discussion about how that new republican majority might change health care policy and forward. speakers include a representative of aarp as well as the former top health care adviser to former senate majority leader bill frist. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> i think we have microphones on everybody up here and thehavo opportunity for everybody to have gotten lunch, so why don't we get started. i'm ed howard with the town audience for health reform.efm. end on behalf of senator of s rockefeller and senator collins in on your leadership and boardo of directors, i want to welcomet you to this session about howsen last week's election might affect the new health care

reform law we and other health w care issues.owled i also want to acknowledge the co-sponsors of of the robert wood johnson foundation. ss unless you're brand new to health care you know that rwj i the largest philanthropy in america devoted exclusively to health and health care, the way and it is they hesay they want americans to lead healthier l lives and get the care theyd get need. c brian quinn of the foundation as planning to be with us todan but had a late a rising conflict. i know that he would be happy o try i know he would be happy to try to steer you to what you need for many of the programs that the foundation has in both health and health care. and if you don't know him, i want to point out bill ervin, the communications director of the alliance, former charlotte observers reporter, he would be happy to help you identify

sources, track down contact information, suggest story ideas. he's the go-to guy. i should tell you the briefing is being broadcast by c-span. so please when you are asking a question if you would wait for a microphone to arrive at your place, and identify yourself and try to keep the question as keep as you can, so we can get to as many as possible. we will have a transcript of this briefing available in a few days on our web site at allhealth.org. that's all of the overhead that you need to get us into this discussion. we have a high powered panel here to respond to your questions today. i'm going to introduce them very briefly. there's more extensive information in your package.

then the show belongs you to. he's a resident scholar at the american enterprise institute. he knows more about congress than members of congress know about congress. >> that's not way of -- not saying much. >> low bar. >> low bar. yes. he writes a weekly column for "roll call" that a lot of senators read. he's a student of, and expert on how government works. at the far end is dean rosen. he's a partner in the public affairs firm of melman, vogel, castaneti. he was the advisor to senator majority leader bill frist, at a time when he was the vice chairman for the alliance and health care reform.

next to dean is john rother, the executive vice president of policy, strategy, and international affairs for aarp. he has also spent a number of years on the hill working for jacob jabit and john hines. i should say john the new board of directors. he's sort of my boss. whatever you say, i agree with. let me get started with an international question. as i say, as soon as we get some responses from our panelist, we'll open it up to you. and it's pretty general. and we've had a lot of successful republican and house and senate candidates saying during the campaign that they wanted to repeal or maybe repeal or replace the new health reform law. some others said, well, that's

not going to be possible. pointing to the democratic-held senate and the possibility of an obama presidential veto of any repeal bill. they focus on -- depending on who you listen to, defund and delay among other littertive suggestions. what's your best guess, john, how the congress is going to deal with the new reform? strike it, or try to do something else many >> let me say in the interest of time, i'll dispense any usual comic monologue. those of us who writes jokes about politics and politicians, just to step back for a second within -- second, we've had the

three waive elections in a row with the status quo and all of the actors in washington. brace yourself for a wave sometime, probably in two years, who gets caught in the under wash remains to be seen. that means a brittle and difficult environment for almost everybody out there. and in the short run, meaning the next two years, one the real sets of tensions for president obama, now facing a very different and combative congress is also the challenge from his own base from the left. i was particularly struck election eve when russ feingold, one of the incumbent losers said, it's on to the next battle in 2012. which could be many things. the obvious one would be a challenge from the left to the president. that means that every issue that comes up, the most recent being how to handle the bush tax cuts,

as watch with close scrutiny by his base. he has to be careful on that front. at the same time, as we talk about the health care issue, the really interesting set of dynamics to watch is within republican ranks. john boehner has basically called the health reform package an abomination. he's called for repeal and replace in a speech that he gave at my institution before the election. he talked mostly in cautious and prudent terms in how he wanted to change the dynamic and atmosphere of the house. the second question was health reform. he got very animated. he said we're going to cut it off at the knees. we're going to cut the funding. the first thing that we're going to try to do is cut out and eliminate the $550 billion in medicare. i remember the great debate in the reagan years where

republicans went ballistic every time that democrats talked about cuts. he said these aren't cuts. they are a slow down in the rate of increase. now they are cuts. also, because it put republicans in a way, because they were in the health care debate, in the funny position of defending every dollar of medicare into perpetuity. that's going to come into conflict with the new members coming in, balancing the budget, cutting spend, and fiscal discipline. at the same time, the initial talk of repeal was replaced by repeal and replace. but i think there's a real dilemma here. when you start to parse out the individual provisions, most of them are quite popular. the one that isn't popular at all is the individual mandate. but if you take out the individual mandate and do as most republican candidates out there, and as the leaders have said and make sure that, of course, you are going to keep the ban on preexisting

conditions, you are left with an impossible situation. it was striking that when karen mcanni, the head of the american association of health insurance plans made her first overture, she said it required universal coverage. how we get around that is interesting. it's going to leave some people disappointed. you can't defund the program. to do so, you have to give bills that still pass and cut out the funding. and since most of it doesn't take affect for a while and get the bills through the senate and signed by the president. that won't happen. you can retard the progress. you can end up with a show down over the labor hhs appropriations bill.

and we may see a number of shut downs, one the shutdowns must be the selective one. if you shut down hhs, you shut down all of hhs, you shut down cms, nih, a lot of things that people may not find very comforting. and republicans leaders who remember the last shutdown, and the disaster saying they don't want to have that happen, they may not be able to control it and a new members who expect them to take a meat ax to it. they are going to try to mix up the information is to call kathleen sebeilus, secretary of hhs, in to testify every day. the committee chairman says he wanted to do 280 hearings this year. we're going to see requests, subpoenas, not requests but

demands for documents and more documents. let me just mention one final thing. i believe one the first acts that we'll see in the new congress, they are going to stop extending unemployment benefits. that's going to have real implications and repercussions for health in the states. i suspect it's going to increase. you are going to get more people going to the emergency rooms back, end you are going to have the states which are already strapped for funds coming to washington and says hey, if you are going to do this, you got to help us out. that includes a waive of new republican governors. they are not going to find much help from their compatriots on the hill who are focused on slashing the budget who are providing welfare for their friends in the states. >> pretty good of calendar of things to attack and look for. now we'll turn to dean rosen who is going to tell us why all of this can be worked out. >> well, thank you very much. and thank you for inviting me.

i'm not sure i'm going to tell you how it can be worked out. i'm happy that i don't have to follow any of norm's jokes. that's the main thing. let me, i guess, first say something broad about how in fact reform played out in the elections. and i'm sure we'll get into some of the bigger dynamics. and i'll try to respond to what i -- to your question, what i think -- how republicans, i think, are going to grapple with the repeal, replace debate. leadership elections will be next week. all of this should be taken with a little bit of a grain of salt. but i think the first thing, if you look at the election, i think this is how the new leadership in the house and returning republican leadership in the senate will look at it as, you know, you can look at the polls and take different lessons from them. for me, i think the clear message of the selection was about jobs. and the economy. but i don't completely buy the

white house explanation that if it weren't for the poor economy and unemployment, we wouldn't be in the situation. i think there was also some very strong message about voter concern about government over reach, and the size and scope of government, and deficit spending that if you look at some of the polls and you look at some of the outcomes, it was more significant than at any other time, even back in 1992. if you look at the deficit as a percentage of gdp, and also in real dollars, you can see why people are concerned about it. i think in terms of health care though, you know, you can -- depending on how you ask the question, you get sort of an even split when you ask voters do they want to repeal the law or something else. when you ask people whether they were sending a message about health care pro and con and you look at the tremendous vote among independents and others who voted were people were

concerned about it. i read the election results in general. i think republicans will look at folks who voted for them and sent them to washington as a repudiation of the health care law or at a minimum significant concern about the direction. yes, there are voters who want to grow it, add a public option. i think the overwhelming message from independent voters and others is that way want to scale back, if not completely repeal. but i think in context, where does that fit in, and for me, health care reform and again, i think the election results translate into how folks will interpret those and how they might governor, really were two things. one, i think they were symbolic of the overall message of government that has grown too fast, spending too much, trying to do too much. while people are probably not voting over the particulars of health care reform, clearly, and john will talk about this. some seniors were concerned about medicare cuts or reductions in growth or

spending. whatever you want to call them. for most voters, i think it furthered a narrative, this is a big spending bill. $1 trillion bill. even if it's offset by tax increases or cuts, it's still a bill for government. it furthered the narrative. i think the second thing for me, i got outside of washington and talked to real people, it also became a symbol of an administration and a congress that wasn't paying attention to what the american people felt were job one. which is to deal with jobs. and the president for however articulate that he was during the campaign, never really seems to hit on a message that connected health care in a meaningful way to the american people and to voters as addressing their concerns about the economy and about jobs. and so it looked to a lot of people, again, it furthered the other narrative of, you know, over reach, yes. but you took your eye off of the ball of what we wanted you to

do. so when you look at it, and you look at the new congress coming in, you see a significant majority and there are some commentators, norm, it will be interesting your comment on this. but when you looked at the senate about a year ago, you would have said that republicans had a real uphill battle. they were defending more seats. so in some cases, you can say that, well, if we would have had this candidate here, a different candidate there, maybe they would have picked up another seat or two. that's probably true. on the other hand, if you would have told me as a republican a year and a half ago we could have defended all of our seats by really being margin in places that have been close in the past in florida, ohio, and won six of those. i would have taken that bargain. in the house, looks like there are 62 new members with a couple of races undecided. what i think folks focus on and

should focus on is that because of retirements and other things, there are actually more than 80 new members of the republican caucus. about 1/3 of the republican caucus, the majority there is new. so they are -- and of those people, i think by my count, there's at least 35 of them that have never held any kind of elective office. not congressman, not dogcatcher. these are people who come to washington, maybe not with an attitude of let's go along to get along. they feel like they are here to make real change. what they mostly campaigned upon, in terms of health care, was repealing the law and replacing it with what they would say is common sense reform. i look at that, i look at the pledge for america. i look at the outcome and i'm one of those people who believes in this day and age, when you campaign on, you say you have to do. i think to answer your question, my sense that republicans in the house are going to have to have some kind of a vote.

whether it'll come in the first week, first month, first couple of months, i think they are going to have a vote that repeals the law. they may replace some of the provisions in that vote. senate votes or bills to show what they are for. all of the reporters who write on this, there are a number of legislative proposals that have insurance and other things they will point to and i'm sure reintroduce. i think they'll have a vote in the senate. i think there are a number of members in the senate unlike this last election, there are now 23 democrats, a majority of those up in the senate are democrat who's are defending seats. a lot of them come from big square states in the middle of the country that voted for john mccain and george bush. there maybe in a senate that's 53-47 essentially, three or four or five of those folks who might vote for repeal if it came down

to a repeal vote and again in the senate amendments generally don't have to be attached to germane legislation. it could come up on a energy bill or tax bill. there will be that attempt. clearly the president is going to veto that. i think the question is, what do they do next? and i kind of put it into three categories. i think rather than an either or, i think they are going to do all three. i think that are going to investigate, legislate, and appropriate dealing with the appropriations process. i take in reverse order. in terms of appropriations, there are things that you can do. i think sort of shutting down the entire government. you can attach riders and say that treasury funds shouldn't be spend to enforce the mandate now that it's enforceable until 2014. they already ramping up. i also agree they have to be

very careful. i have personally not viewed the appropriations route as the most effective route. i think it's one route that people will look at in terms of investigate, we talked about this. there will be a lot more oversight hearings and i think as y'all know, there was a lot of frustration that secretary sebeilus didn't come up and testify before the house and senate, accept in one circumstance on another matter. i think that will change. i think don berwick, he'll have another hearing next week, even max baucus said he thought it was not good use to the president's time to reappoint him in a recess appointment. what are they doing in the response to law? so i think we'll see that. i think the third thing will be in the legislative arena, and

the way that i would look at it is that rather than a strike and replace, after they have their vote and make their effort, i think what we'll see is a series of surgical strikes. and maybe going after things, norm mentioned one of them. the individual mandate. we can talk more about the substantive implications. but that clearly is unpopular, more than that, there's the state lawsuits that you can point to. i think they'll go after the independent payment advisory board potentially. i think they'll look at some of the industry fees and taxes which you can argue were -- offset the cost of the bill. but will very likely drive up premiums if you tax the underlying cost of care, they are going to go up. i think they'll look at some other programs, some of which will save money and others of which might harm the bill. whether they are successful with a president that still holds the veto pen, we're among among -- obviously that's an uphill

battle. but my last comment would be, i think that in anything, the next couple of years beyond what are legitimate taking the republicans at their word legitimately and what they will do, in terms of trying to attack the law are also going to be an attempt to keep alive in the minds of voters those things about the bill that they don't like. for me, the next couple of years in some ways, become about the 2012 elections. which are -- i guess started on november 3. and in part become about 2013 when there maybe a new president in the white house and maybe more seats in the senate in the republican hands and reminding all of us that many of the provisions, while they are under way, the insurance reforms and new subsidies don't take affect until 2014. that becomes the real focus is keeping this alive, even if they can't make changes this year because of the president, trying

to be in a position to really make some of those substantive changes in 2013. so i'll stop there. >> john, how does this strike you? either from the institutional point of view, or from the political point of view, or any other? >> thank you for the opportunity. it's a real pleasure to be here with norm and dean, both of whom i respect, and today, agree with. [laughter] >> now that everything has been said, i guess not everyone said it. i'll try to put my own interpretation on this. i do think it's easy to over interpret the election results for several reasons. and to over dramatize that the potential impact on health reform. first of all, the people who voted last week are not the same as the people who will vote next time. there are many fewer of them, many of the demographic groups were much less represented as is typical in mid year, and i think

the -- to pick up where gene left off, the election isn't the one we just had, it's the one we will have in 2012. it'll be a different electorate. the second point is most voters today, perhaps understandably, say they are confused by health care and what is in the act that could affect them. there are many messages during the campaign. unfortunately, from my perspective, many were designed to scare people, especially seniors. but it's understandable that there's confusion. it's a complicated act. it comes into being piece by piece. so the next two years will be an opportunity to help people understand more clearly how it might affect them. i don't think that you can say

there's a mandate out of congress to spend a lot of emergency on health care. i think there's a mandate to spend a lot of energy on the economy. i think there's a poll in the paper this morning that shows that a small minority want congress to focus on health reform as opposed to the economy. i think that's going to play itself out the more that people try to focus on health care and people at home might say, well, okay, what about jobs? and congress is going to have to respond. i also think there's no mandate at all for an alternative approach to health reform. you can see that from the polls. they -- elements of alternatives are not particularly popular. and many provisions of the affordable care act are popular. so you have an act that's very interdependent in it's design. it would be extremely difficult

to start polling it apart without as dean said either raising premiums or increasing the deficit substantially. i think as people start to confront that, we are going to see more and more caution about changes. i also think that politically, provider groups are still quite supportive of the act. doctors, hospitals, insurers, drug companies, where still supportive of the act. i think there's good reason for all of those people to be supportive and those interest to be supportive. i think again that'll tend to temper the debate. i do think that the benefits of the act have not yet been appreciated. particularly for people who need improvements the most. the people who are chronically ill, the people who are frail,

children, i mean there are some very important advances in the legislation that would seriously improve the situation of people who are quite sympathetic to the public. and the more attention that they get, in terms of that improvement, i think the more impact that will have on the tone of this debate going forward. i would conclude in much the same way that dean did, in that the real battle here is not so much about legislation in the next couple of years and not really about appropriations, but really about all of the hearts and minds in the american public. investigations are going to be a tool. but that can happen on both sides of this debate. and the election that matters is going to be 2012. when i think we'll know the answer after that as to what the future is for health reform. >> okay. thank you very much, john?

we are now at the point where we are actively soliciting your questions. let me just say we also have had even before we knew that there would be c-span coverage, we've arranged a teleconference for reporters who are outside of washington, d.c. and we've given them contact information so that if they have a question that they would lake to have -- would like to have asked, we will try to get it responded to. i'll remind you that the e-mail address to send your question is questions -- with an s --@allhealth.org. have a microphone. please identify yourself. >> my name is mark, i write for medical device daily which

telling you something about my orientation. the medical device tax of 2.3% pails in comparison to a lot of similar issues in connection with health care reform. i guess the question here is whether it's going to sort of disappear into the weeds there. some members of the senate from minnesota, for instance, klobuchar and franken have obviously orientations. is it just too small compared to the other things to garner any attention for the next two years? >> i think one answer is republicans are going to try to get some traction by having individual votes on individual pieces. every part of the revenue component of this is going to be attacked, and some of it will be attacking tax increases. and clearly with an attempt to lure some democrats over. we may get some votes. my guess is they are more symbolic than real votes. that either this will be in the

context of bills that will end up possibly being filibustered by democrats. in some cases, you may get republicans joining a hand full of democrats to support something. and the core of democrats will say we're not going to let that happen. others will move into a conference and try to take care of it there. which may mean more potential gridlock and an ability to come to an agreement or it may get to a presidential veto. but i'll probably be a little -- i'll be immediately surprised if that medical device tax got removed. >> i'll just add -- two quick things. i think the medical device tax points out two interesting sort of broader questions. i think that become issues that republican leadership is going to have to grapple with. one of which is, you know, how do these -- how do any attempts to change the bill at all -- how

are they positioned? so, you know, i think that republicans and the democrats who support modifying or repealing that would be probably less successful by portraying that as something that's going to help an individual industry by relieving a burden from devices or other folks. but as i sort of implied earlier, i think that a number of those industry fees and the device taxes is one the clearer examples. i think it can be portrayed as things that are going to, you know, increase the cost of under lying products, and, therefore, translate into higher as opposed to lower premiums as one the goals of the bill. i think how that vote and others get positioned is really important. i think the other thing, we don't completely know yet and norm and john may have a view of this, but in the past, under at least republican control, for many tax cuts, pay as you go

budget rules generally did not apply. it'll be interesting, when you look at the republican caucus now in the house and senate, to me it's unclear. will they say they have to pay for tax cuts or not? if they don't, and they hold the sort of traditional republican view, we have to pay for new spending, but tax cuts are returning money to the american people, if they don't have to offset those, i think it makes it easier to have a vote that pulls over some democrats to reduce the impact of those fees. one thing -- none of us talked about. i think one the over riding messages coming out of this election. we saw this earlier this week with the initial propro sal from the entitlement commission is the concern about spending. that's going to have to be balanced against all of the things that might need to be offset potentially. >> do you think that the

republican rule changes that are now under consideration are going to make it easier to do that. is that what you are eluding to? >> i haven't been privy to that. norm may know. >> yeah. they are talking about their own sort of first of all adeptation of the you cut plan. they are will advice from callers and listeners all around the country. they are clearly not going have a paygo that includes revenues. how in the end you reconcile that with the desire to reduce deficits and debt remains a big question on the table. it's a question that has now been brought into full relief. as have some of the full issues of medicare and social security. alan simpson and mr. bowles have put things out there that are creating discomfort in both

parties. >> and you raise your -- well, we have someone here now. >> hi, i'm julia mcdowell, i'm the editor of the college of american pathologist. can you talk about how you see the new congress dealing with the physician payment sgr issue? >> well, i'll take a crack at this. this is one of our top priorities to reassure seniors that they will have continued access to their physicians. and we certainly hope that the lame duck session will tackle this. it's an area where because it's new spending will probably have to be offset elsewhere. i think the only reason that i'm not more confident of the result is not because of the desire to extent the sgr, it's the uncertainty about what the offset would be.

and how possible it would be to go forward. but we are pushing very hard to get congress to act very quickly on this. because they need to do something by the end of november in order to prevent disruption. >> you know, the democrats in congress now in a lame duck are going to be tempted to kick this can off into january. precisely for the reason that john mentioned. they can't just let it drop. because it brings, you know, something close to catastrophe for physicians and for access in coming months. but i think they'd rather leave the very difficult choice, because there will be a paygo provision on spending for what to do with what is a substantial sum of money to the republicans in the house to deal with. >> yes. >> i'm jim of health reform week. one the provisions in the reform

law that seemingly could be somewhat vulnerable could be the insurance exchanges since they don't start until 2013. i'd like to ask the congress what they think the congress either by funding or other means that would interfere or prevent the changes from starting up in that year. >> i'll take a first crack at it. i mean i think -- i think again with -- to john's comment that so much of the bill is interlocking and the exchanges are clearly, you know, one of those mechanisms. are they absolutely essential? probably not. but they are clearly are integrated with things like the forum and subsidies. i start with the premise that any change, other than things like on the marge -- margin but important, like the 1099, the president is going to be

resistant and veto if it gets from the senate to the desk. i would say given that there are some kind of wholesale repeal of even the exchanges is going to be unlikely. what i would say is as the governors begin, they are already under way to sort of look at legislation, look at the guidance that maybe coming with washington and with republican governors picking up more seats at the state level and republican controls more legislatures at the state level. i think what you may well see, this is another very interesting area in terms of the role of the states. they have a huge role in terms of implementation with the exchanges and other things. you might see it bubbling up from the state level. real concerns about some of the regulatory requirements and other things that might be dictated to the extent that they have flexibility to make changes. to the extent they feel like they don't have flexibility to make changes. i think what you might see if the issues get ripe enough is

some surgical strikes or targeted attempts to maybe make some changes to the exchanges. i remind folks that again sort of the leaning republican house alternative, there was a form of exchanges there. it's not a -- it's not necessarily a democratic idea. but the details as in many of these things are very different. >> yeah, just quickly. there are two states today with exchanges, massachusetts and utah. they are very different. one is more regulatory approach. one is more passive. and i think that's the question going forward is which model and since it is a state by state decision, i don't see this being relitigated as the federal level. >> i would say the one caveat is we're going to see some guidance based on press reports and other things in the coming weeks from the administration. i think again to the extent that the governors feel that the requirements are too strict, you know, the alternative is to just

say we're not going to do this and let the federal government do this. that maybe an option. the extent that they want to do this and keep control, i think you could see them saying we think it's a good idea. we want to go forward. the rules that we are laboring under from the law or regulation or both are too onerous. we want to see the change. >> a couple of dynamics here, they campaigned in a very hostile way to the health plan have really talked about boxing up the exchanges. not using money or their discretion. it's going to be an interesting channel, i think, in many of the states to figure out how you can keep from disrupting your own citizens and make your political point beyond filing lawsuits or amicus briefs. it's actually more of a republican ways. in some fashion to bear. the main republican alternative

has been we don't need any of this. we have to let people shop across state lines. buy insurance across state lines. the real danger is it works in the way the credit card works. the race to the bottom. you just look for a state that as the least cumbersome regulatory offer, the poorest plans. and the alternative to that might be if you did get some bipartisan give and take is to return to the national exchange as one option here. that, i think, in a world where parties actually talk to one another, might be on the table. since they don't talk to each other, it's probably not. >> okay. we've got gentleman right here. then i've got a couple of questions from around the country. go ahead. >> gregory talkman from the pink sheet which is from the pharmaceutical industry. two questions, one similar to the question on devices.

what drug provisions that you see might be targets going forward? and second question related to the patient center of outcomes research institute, how much is that? and do you see any changes that might be attempted to that body? >> let me say to our panelist, we've had a request from one the reporters on the phone to identify the panelist before they speak. who would like to take a crack at that? >> that would be me. this is dean rosen. i think with respect to the to - to many members, if you look at debate, there was general agreement among the republicans in looking at research. there were concerns about some of the individual provisions. i would say, you know, that probably is on the list. but i'm not sure it's at the top of the list. i think if you look at the boards and commission that are

out there, i would put the independent payment advisory board above the outcomes research institute as something that would be more likely to be targeted. but again we'll see. new members are going to come to washington in a couple of weeks and they will have their views on how they want to proceed. with respect to other provisions on drugs, i would say maybe two things, and john, who is at the table and a lot of the bargaining and discussions might have a different view on this. i think that with the device tax, it was clear that that was really done not with a wholehearted agreement of the device industry, but the fees on the pharmaceutical industry was a different matter. it was part of a negotiated settlement so to speak. i think that one maybe less likely to be undone. and certainly the industry might be less likely to go to congress and, you know, remember we'll