about 19,000 jobs. transportation warehousing employment edged up. leisure and hospitality edged up, and a little cited number, the fusion index, how many industries are growing or losing employment. the diffusion index was 52%. that shows more industries are adding jobs than reducing jobs at the moment. ..

and of course recessions prior to that we were a bit deeper they have had quit paris recovers and we have had so far. >> is there any evidence that the holiday season hiring this year will be merrier than last year? >> i have to say, the early employment build up in october was a little bit ahead of last year. in fact it was a fair amount ahead of last year but november has now fallen back a bit. the employment told up was a little bit less, so i would say on the whole we are looking in terms of the employment build up for the holidays we are looking at about the same as last year. >> and does it look like overqualified workers will still fill positions that might otherwise have gone to less skilled or younger workers?

is that happening in the economy? >> it is hard for us to say on that. since we sort of count, we sort of count the numbers. so you know, it is not obvious in the data we collect and what the answer to that question is. >> could you give us a rundown on demographic groups on recovery, how do african-american men fair and african-american women, hispanic men and women? how are they faring in the employment situation? >> sure. for african-americans the unemployment rate went up a little bit. it is at 16% for november, which of course is quite a bit higher than the 9.8% overall. for hispanics it remains that 32 32 -- 13.2% which is also quite a bit above the average unemployment rate in both unemployment rates are well

above the unemployment rate prior to the start of the recession. >> at an earlier date you reported on the high rates of unemployment among women who are the sole supporters of their families. are these women still experiencing extremely high rates of unemployment? >> the answer is yes. the unemployment rate for women who maintained families is 13%, again well above the prominent rate overall. >> and just women, other women that are not heads of their families, unemployment among women generally? >> with adult women it is 12.8%. >> thank you mr. brady. >> thank you madam chairman. dr. hall, last month 390,000 americans were laid off or lost their part-time jobs.

15.1 million are now unemployed, cannot find work. the federal reserve board has lowered its projections economic growth going forward and so has the chip consensus as well. i thought it was important to acknowledge that compare to the severe recession prior to 1990, and 8182 that was a much quicker recovery because this recovery is very subpar, about 2.5, two to three times lower than the regular recovery of 81 and 82. i am going to ask you given how slow job growth is going how many years it will take to get back to the bucher average unemployment of 5.5% or below. one point i want to make if i could and i want you to think about and answer is that psychology really plays a key role in economic recovery.

yesterday's vote was a good example of how to discourage job creation. think about who you are looking to tax. if you want to raise taxes on the consumers in the upper income brackets it will control one out of every $3 going into our retail stores, so those most likely will be able to boost consumption will be spending a greater, sending a greater portion of dollars to washington rather than circulating it around in the local economy. and small businesses which are the driver of job creation in america i far, half of all small business incomes will be taxed under that new law. not all small businesses, in fact if you just look at the, you count a tax i.d. numbers it is only about 3%. 3% of the most productive creates the most revenue and creates the most jobs. half of that income will be taxed at a higher rate under those of new taxes.

it is hard to believe that either hammering consumers who can help pull us out with small businesses that can create jobs is a very good economic move. i also question the myth about the money going to reduce the deficit. in the last two years if you look at the seven, technically eight bills that have gone to the white house and signed by the president to raise taxes, $625 billion, almost as much as this tax increase ugoda to do yesterday, $625 billion, can anyone wager how much that money went to reduce the deficit? the answer is zero. not 1 dollar went to reduce the deficit. in fact we spent all the tax increases so if i am -- over your credit card limit nus for help, not only do you not pay it down but you spend it. i think most consumers and most

of the public understands that myth that money will not go to expand the government. having said that again i'm always appreciative of how difficult this economy is, pritchett of the below him -- unemployment rate we had prior to president obama and i would like to know how long will it take us at this rate? how many years will it take just to get back to that 5.4, 5.5% average? >> i think the way i would characterize what is going on right now is we have had steady job growth all of this year. and that is good and we have had 961,000 jobs added this year but that comes to about 86,000 per month. and because the population constantly goes in the labor force constantly goes you need a certain growth and payroll jobs to accommodate the growth in the labor force. >> is that around 100,000 roughly? >> i would say you need around

130,000. to break even so i would say so far this year the 86,000 per month is not enough to start lowering the unemployment rate and i think obviously this month we had the take-up in the unemployment rate, that reflects job growth is not strong enough. so it make's it really kind of impossible to calculate how long it is going to take because we are going to need stronger job growth to start lowering the unemployment rate. >> have there have been some projections out there that you are aware of? >> no i tend not to look at them since we deal and the actual data. and we stay away from trying to forecast that. >> my sense is that last christmastime when economic growth looked like it was starting to pick up fairly strongly, i think people and congress was estimating it would take four to five years. now that economic growth has slowed by almost half, now we are looking at you now heading toward, hopefully not in to this

decade but clearly being extended each month i hope we can come up with policies and ghettos not just to 130,000 each month but more robust, 200,000 above in order to get these 50 million people back to work. thank you dr. hall. >> senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much chairman maloney. i am curious if you see any geographic trends commissioner hall, when you look at the united states. i know when we were in the midst of this recession we saw the password which states we are doing work. it wasn't really a regional bias and i wonder if you see any regional differences in terms of improvement? >> i am not sure of a clear pattern. i can give you some idea for the different regions said that at the moment. for example the northeast region of the united states, the employment is down about 3.8% rum before the recession.

that is that the low end and the west is down about almost 8%. so there are some differences by region. >> what do you mean down? that the unemployment is down more? >> i mean the number of payroll jobs. >> employment is down in the west, k.? >> other than that, the state patterns at least certainly month or two mother hard to characterize. >> i know these numbers lag behind where your number is four today. >> they lag behind a month so it is not -- right now the highest unemployment rates, puerto rico nevada, michigan and california are all, florida, rhode island, those are all states with particularly high. >> and a lower unemployment states? >> north dakota, south dakota, nebraska, vermont. obviously there are quite a lot in between.

there is no obvious pattern. >> how about small business hiring. you note earlier automatic data processing reported 54,000 of the jobs created by businesses with fewer than 50 employees. do you have data that supports that and a small business hiring service any kind of an indicator for future economic growth? >> our data on size of this lags behind quite a bit. you know i think her most recent data only has this through something like mayor something like that so it still lags behind a bit. the job loss in this particular recession was really spread out. it was much higher percentage of job loss was in small establishments or something in the last recession for example and i think the recovery so far, at least the early part of this

year a lot of the recovery was in the larger establishments and not so strongly in the smaller one's. >> that would make sense because our unemployment in minnesota is at 7.1% and we have actually seen, we are number one in the country per capita for fortune 500 companies now so that would explain part of why we have a lower unemployment rate i think. the other thing i'm going to ask about, you mentioned the part-time job openings. you know we have found in our state that job openings went up 32% in september but 42% of the openings are for part-time help. and, you have seen an increase in part-time jobs. how many people did you say would like to work full-time that are working part-time? >> right now they are almost 9 million people who are part-time for economic reasons. >> what do you see for a transfer that? >> that hasn't changed a lot over the last few months. it is changed a little bit but

not a significant amount so that is just sort of holding. >> and the veterans numbers? you know i ask you that every month, where those are. i always find it disconcerting and discouraging that our veterans coming back from iraq and afghanistan have higher unemployment. you and i have talked about it before. they left when maybe there was a job and now that job is no longer there so they are put at a disadvantage. what are those numbers like? >> the gulf war air to veteran still have a higher unemployment rate. it is 10% as opposed to 9.1% for non-veteran's. >> has that gotten a little better lately or is it about the same? >> it actually has, well, it is hard to look at this data month-to-month because it is not large but is it up from 9.6% a year ago. so it is still up over the last 12 months. >> there are some proposals i won't go into now to help some of them get jobs and use the

skills they have learned, especially paramedics and those kinds of things. the last thing i wanted to ask you, i am concerned as i know you are about the long-term unemployed americans. i recently got a letter from somebody in minneapolis who wrote saying i lost my benefits in august. i still have not been able to find a job. i don't care about minnesota's unemployment rate being lower. unemployed is unemployed. do you see any promising signs for the millions of unemployed americans like gene from minneapolis? >> i would have to say unfortunately the very large number of long-term unemployed hasn't made a lot of movement. of the nine-point 8% unemployment rate 4.1 percentage points of that is long-term unemployed and it has been over 4% for over a year now. that is an extremely high-level. >> so you see my interest in some of these longer-term competitive issues with the exports and really looking at what our ways that we can get

rid of some of the obstacles for creating these private-sector jobs, because given 95% of our potential customers are outside of our country i really believe that the way we are going to get out of this is by making things again, by exporting to the world and any big way, because right now we are just kind of hanging in there seems to me and obviously doing much better than we were as the congresswoman pointed out, a few years ago. but still not getting to that point that we want to be. correct? okay, thank you commissioner. >> thank you commissioner hall. what was november's long-term -- excuse me. i am sorry you came in and i didn't see you. elijah cummings is recognized. >> recognized. >> thank you very much madam chair and i want to thank you or your leadership and addressing the very very many sensitive issues and difficult issues and the reports in the research and

the staff under your leadership has been extremely helpful to the entire congress and i want to thank you. commissioner, how are you doing? >> doing well. >> good. what are the trends in worker productivity and what is the impact of these trends on wages? >> yeah, the productivity trends have been rather high actually, and you know what usually happens after a recession, the early stages of a recovery, productivity gets very high. in large part i think it is because basically this does is bring back labor kind of slowly and that has certainly been happening the last productivity number was well over 2%. and that has not been reflected in wage growth. the wage growth, at least out of

this report the average hourly earnings i think only grew about well under 2% i think over the past 12 months, which is kind of slow growth. >> you say that they say people, companies are now realizing that they can do more with less, less people, and do you find, do you think that is part of the problems they are too? >> i do think that is part of what is going on. i think, something we can all see when you go shopping, you can see the use of technology has really changed, and i think that will be one of the interesting things to see when this recovery strengthens, how the jobs, job recovery goes in areas like retail trade and etc. where we have obvious productivity improvements. >> the people i am always concerned about are those over 50, and what are the

unemployment trends among workers over that age and do these older workers constitute more of the long-term unemployment? because that is a zone which is a difficult one. i guess, employers i guess are not anxious to higher older people and at the same time, they end up in that twilight zone. >> yeah, yeah. the make up of the long-term unemployed, it is a concern by age. the older workers for example, 55 and above, the mean duration of unemployment is something over 30 weeks for those folks, which is higher than any other age group. and, that is probably part of

why the long-term unemployment rate is so high. unfortunately, the longer somebody is unemployed, data shows pretty clearly it takes them longer to find work. >> we have had this discussion going on with regard to reducine age where people become eligible for social security. and as you do your numbers, i am assuming that you are looking at people who are retiring. you almost have to, right? and, are you finding that people are retiring later or earlier? would your numbers even yield any kind of information like that? do you follow me? the argument i make is in my district, a lot of people, by the time they get to be 60 because of the difficulty of their jobs they almost have to

retire. but in other situations, people may have a job where they are sitting down and not lifting heavy drums and things of that nature and 70, 72 might be a good age and i'm just wondering what are you finding with regard to people retiring earlier? they can't find jobs. what are you finding generally? would you have any information on that? >> what we have seen actually, even throughout the recession is that the older folks are actually staying in the labor force longer as opposed, as opposed to dropping out. and i am sure there is quite a number of reasons for that. one is, if you have a job that job is precious and you intend to hold onto it but of course a lot of people have lost a lot of asset value in their homes and their stocks and so financially it might have been more difficult to retire than they

might have planned 10 years ago. that is really the only group whose labor force participation rate has been increasing over the last few years. >> interesting. so, under normal circumstances while they may not be, when you look at unemployment, you are seeing at least a slight increase in the number of people who art in the pool to be employed now? is that right? >> that is right in so among those people in the labor force of course, there has been a growing share that were unemployed. that is we kept looking for work, so some of that labor force by our definitions labor force are people who are working in those who are unemployed so some of those people are unemployed but it could be that in other periods, people would have after a certain period of job search they would have just left the labor force. what you might call discouraged workers.

now it seems that people are more likely to persevere, and so they become as commissioner hall said, tape come long-term unemployed. that is they continue for -- to look for work. also another. they might have been able to retire because as you know, a number of years ago private pensions were much more common than they have become now. we are much more dependent on a 401(k) type of arrangements rather than the traditional pension. >> i see my time has expired. thank you bed and chair. >> madam chair can i just have a point of clarification? i really appreciate the representatives focusing on these deficit issues and share concerns about the age. i just want to point out the deficit commission is come out with a report. there is so much misinformation out there. people would have to be 28 years

or younger to have that recommendation in any kind of increase in the age at which you could get social security. that would need 28 or younger right now on and in addition to that i think it is worth looking at. it also increases the benefits for people when they reach a certain age that are older. so i know there's a lot of talk about that right now and i always think it is important to get the facts straight and it is worth looking at that recommendation. of course the focus is to shore up social security. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner hall, what was november's long-term unemployment rate? in other words what was the share of the civilian workforce that was out of work for seven seven -- 27 weeks or more november? >> it was 4.1%. >> and what was the highest long-term unemployment rate in the past when congress failed to renew federal unemployment benefits?

>> would this be june of 1985? is at the time period? >> that is what i believe it is but i'm asking you. >> my data says that i think that it is jim. >> yes, it is. i am sorry. it shows june of 1985 at 7.4%. >> the long-term unemployment rate was only 1.1% at that time. >> and can you put these numbers into context or me? how many long-term unemployed workers are there now forces in the past when we failed to extend unemployment benefits? >> the number right now was about 6.3 million. i have a unemployment rate. i don't think i have -- we will look up the number for 1985. >> and, you have that? >> yes, we do.

it was about 1.3 million as opposed to 6.3 million. >> and what share of the unemployed for long-term unemployed in november versus in the past when federal benefits were stopped? >> the share of the unemployed better long-term unemployed right now is about 42%. we have got this. it will come. >> thank you. >> it was about 15%. >> thank you very much. mr. brady is recognized. >> thank you. let the record now that every

person under 28 in the room sat up straight after senator klobuchar talked about social security reform. it's been helpful helpful for the deficit commission as life expectancy grows over decades and decades, social security age will have to be adjusted at some point. you are talking 30 or 40 years in that process. construction manufacturing, we were told with a stimulus bill that we would see the most job gains in manufacturing and construction. but my understanding from your remarks is that manufacturing has been flat since the spring and may. construction employment has also changed a little, as well mining unemployment up a little bit construction manufacturing -- what happened to all those shovel-ready jobs? >> well, i can just tell you what the trends were and i think you fairly characterized the

terms in the payroll jobs. >> energy, obviously a key part of our economy. early this year it revealed weaknesses in spill capacity but a drilling moratorium was put in place pretty hastily over the objections of scientists and those who understood an edgy expiration. we have got a shallow water expiration, drilling moratorium that continues in many ways because permits simply aren't being granted to get those workers back to work. deepwater, which has had an amazing safety record as well over the decades, still drilling permits not being granted there are. are we continuing to lose -- did we continue to lose energy jobs in november? >> let me see here. my sense is it was around 2000 jobs. >> i have got mining and logging

here. i should have something a little more detailed. in mining, we gained about 4000 jobs overall. >> energy? >> right, mining and oil and gas extraction support activity for mining, etc.. >> you have got oil and gas extraction minus 2000 jobs? >> the oil and gas extraction was 2000 that support activities for mining may include things. >> petroleum was down 20,000 jobs? know, 200 jobs in all. thank you. i know we continue to push the administration to get these energy workers back in america specially with so many people out of work. it is the holiday season.

which we had better news. thank you for the work commissioner that you end your group do and again, thanks for the leadership of chairwoman maloney throughout the past two years. has been a fascinating time in our economy and we are all looking for those positive signs in no. through the next session we will continue to do so as well. >> i hope so, thank you. mr. cummings. >> just a few questions. ioa saskia the presidential question, and that is if the president came to you right now and said commissioner hall, how would you describe the situation and what do you think we should be doing? are we on the right course? how would you see the situation and summarize your report? what would you say to the president? you are ready for that question cried -- right? you knew i was going to ask you that. >> in terms of looking backwards, i think we have had,

we have had relatively steady job growth is here. we had about 961,000 jobs this year which is good. but the job growth just hasn't yet strengthened enough to start lowering the unemployment rate. and, while it is not unprecedented to have this long period here where we are waiting for strong job growth to come on, we are going to have to have stronger jobs to start putting people back to work in lowering the unemployment rate. >> and the other question is if somebody is looking at this and they are saying, you know i realize they may not be able to get a job anytime soon, what are my best prospects for getting a job? what kind of retraining do i need to do? you know, what would you say? what region of the country do i need to be an? >> yeah, you know in terms of the long-term job prospects, you

know obviously a lot of the service sectors like health care and etc. are likely to grow over time in the next 10 years with our changing demographics. i think that in particular. probably another number of other industries which i don't have at the top of my head right now but we do, we did do some long-term employment projections by occupation near the beginning of the year. if you like, we can take a look at that and summarize some of that for you. >> i would love to have that. again i want to thank you commissioner for all of your hard work. you all have helped us tremendously. and i thank you so much. i know sometimes you are unnoticed and unappreciated and unapplauded and sometimes you bring messages that sometimes people don't necessarily want to hear but we do appreciate you. we also appreciate the staff

that is behind at the office who was looking at us right now, and we wish you a happy holiday. again, mr. chairman thank you for your leadership. >> thank you so much. this is the last hearing of this chair of the joint economic committee. in the last two years we have had the opportunity to examine a whole variety of critical issues that are vital to our future into our country's economic well-being. in the wake of the great depression, this committee was established by the employment act of 1946. it seems appropriate that the first hearing in the last hearing of this congress has been on the employment situation. dr. hall they want to thank you and your team and your staff for all of your hard work, for appearing before the jec each month for your professionalism, for your public service. thank you. i would also like to think of the other members of the jec. i have valued your insights and

have thoroughly enjoyed their spirited exchange and ideas. i would like to especially thank vice chairman schumer, ranking member brownback and senior republican house member, mr. brady. thank you. while this is the last jec hearing of the 111th congress, i will be issuing at least one more report before the end of the year. as the first woman chair of the joint economic committee, i have asked the majority staff to prepare a comprehensive overview of women and the economy. i have asked the staff to focus on how unleashing women's economic potential will help fuel a recovery. i look forward to releasing that report before i hand over the gavel to the next chair. again, i thank while the members of this committee and thank you very much dr. hall. this meeting is adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> these are racial statues tube perpetuates the bonds of slavery. that is not a permissible state action. president obama made a surprise visit to afghanistan today, where he addressed u.s. troops at log rum airfield. he also met with commanding general david petraeus. rough weather forced the president to cancel a scheduled meeting with president hamid karzai. this is the president second trip to afghanistan as commander-in-chief. >> good evening to you all.

we have got to try that again. anybody out here want to say airpower? >> airpower. >> is everybody ready for the main event? are you sure about that? okay. here is the deal. a couple of years ago, my aerosol buddy at the time, at the time command sergeant major of the 101st airborne division division -- command sergeant major marvin hill told me what he looks for in a commander. he listed all the usual qualities that you would expect. you know although once. then he added, i also want a commander who is a available to our troopers, who is accessible

to our troopers and who is approachable. now as i thought about it, i realized that in addition to all the qualities we expect in liters, i also look for those specific after buttes. this evening it is my honor to introduce to you a leader who has demonstrated his concern for each of you, who has already been to the hospital to pin purple hearts on some of our wounded warriors, to meet with a platoon that suffered a tragic loss and who has proven above all that he is available, accessible and approachable by flying halfway around the world to be here with us tonight. fellow warriors, please join me in welcoming the leader who made the tough decision to provide us the resources that have enabled progress here in afghanistan, the president of the united states of america, our

commander-in-chief, president barack obama. [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] >> okay. before the president starts, i think you all know the president was out on the basketball court a few days ago. now he had eaten at team four times already. he just scored on the guy and they'll both started flying around.

now the only explanation we can come up with is that they had forgotten who they were playing with. my aerosol buddy decided we would give him a t-shirt. well, okay, i got it. is not the biggest baddest. it is an isaf t-shirt. but then the commander, the 43rd commander of the 101st airborne division -- came up with a manly man t-shirt that no one will mess with you if you wear this, mr. president. [applause] >> hello everybody. [cheers and applause] i am sorry, bagram i cannot hear you. air assault. [applause] it is great to be back. let me first of all thanked be

honored first airborne division. where is the man? give them a big round of applause. thank you. to chief thomas hager and the commander in conductor. i gather we had a couple of other bands playing manifest destiny. i don't know about, what did you think? where they pretty good? it is great to be back. and i apologize for keeping you guys up late. coming on such short notice, but i wanted to make sure that i could spend a little time this holiday with the men and women of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known. and that is all of you. [applause] i want to thank general petraeue introduction and the t-shirt,

but for general petraeus' lifetime of service. this is somebody who has helped change the way we fight wars and win wars in the 21st century. and i am very grateful that he agreed to take command of our efforts here in afghanistan. he has been an extraordinary warrior on behalf of the american people. thank you, david petraeus. [cheers and applause] i want to take a while of your outstanding leaders who welcomed me here, including general john campbell, admiral bill mcrae then from the 455th expeditionary wing, turn -- colonel todd annenberg. out to salute your great senior enlisted leaders, including command sergeant major scott schroeder.

[applause] command sergeant major chris baer and command chief craig adams. i also want to acknowledge the outstanding work that our civilians are doing each and every day, starting with karl eikenberry, all the way through to your senior civilian representative and all the civilians who are here. they are fighting alongside you. they are putting themselves at risk. they are away from their families and we are very, very grateful to them as well, so give them a big round of applause. [cheers and applause] i think we have had every service here tonight. we have got army. [cheers and applause] we have got navy. [cheers and applause] we have got air force. [cheers and applause]

i think we may have a few marines around too. [cheers and applause] and a whole lot of folks from the 101st airborne division, the screaming eagles. [cheers and applause] here in afghanistan, you are all -- coast guard? is that what i heard? [applause] here in afghanistan, all of you are part of one team, serving together, succeeding together, except maybe the next weeks army-navy game and as your your commander-in-chief i have to stay neutral on that.

we also have some isaf partners here as well. you know when i was here in the spring we had a coalition of 43 nations. now we have got got a coalition of 49 nations, and this sends a powerful message to the coalition of nations that support afghanistan as strong and is growing. i am not here to give a long speech. i want to shake as many hands as i can. but let me say at this time of year, americans are giving thanks for all the blessings we have. and as we begin this holiday season, there is no place that i would rather be then be here with you. i know it is not easy for all of you to be away from home, especially during the holidays. and i know it is hard on your

families. they have got an empty seat at the dinner table. sometimes during the holiday season, that is when you feel the absence of somebody you love the most. but here's what i want you to know. as president of the united states i have have no greater responsibility than keeping the american people secure. i could not meet that responsibility, we could not protect the american people, we could not enjoy the blessings of our liberties without the extraordinary service that each and every one of you perform each and every day. so, on behalf of me, on behalf of michelle, on behalf of malia and sasha, on behalf of more than 300 million americans, we are here to say thank you. we are here to say thank you.

for everything that you do. and i want to say thank you to your families back home. so when you talk to them, you know that they know. [applause] they are serving here with you. in mind and spirit, if not in body. millions of americans give thanks this holiday season, just as generations have before when they think about our armed services. hugh are part of an unbroken line of americans who have given up your comforts, your e.'s, your convenience for america's security. it was on another cold december more than 200 years ago that a band of patriots helped to found our nation, defeat and empire.

from that icy river, the fields of europe, from the islands in the pacific, to the hills of korea, from the jungles of vietnam, to the desert of iraq, those who went before you, they also found themselves in the season of peace serving in war. they did it for the same reason that all of you do, because the freedom, the liberty that we treasure, that is not simply a birthright. it has to be earned by the sacrifices of generations, generations of patriots, men and women who step forward and said, send me. i know somebody has got to do it and i'm willing to serve. men and women who are willing to risk all and some who gave all. to keep us safe and to keep us free. in our time, in the 21st

century when so many other institutions seem to be shirking their responsibilities, you have embraced your responsibilities. you have shown why the united states military remains the most trusted institution in america. and that is the legacy that your generation has forged during this decade of trial. in iraq and here in afghanistan. that is the legacy that you are carrying forward. general petraeus mentioned, one year ago i ordered additional troops to serve in this country that was the staging ground for the 9/11 attacks. all of those troops are now in place and thanks to your service we are making important progress you are protecting our country. you are achieving your objectives. you will succeed in your mission.

we said we were going to break the taliban's momentum and that is what you are doing. you are going on the offense, tired of playing defense. targeting their leaders and pushing them out of their stronghold. today we can be proud that there are fewer areas under taliban control and more afghans have a chance to build a more hopeful future. we said a year ago that we were going to build the capacity of the afghan people and that is what you are doing, meeting our recruitment target, training afghan forces, partnering with those afghans who want to build a stronger and more stable and more prosperous afghanistan. now i don't need to tell you this is a tough fight. i just came from the medical unit and so our wounded warriore hearts. i just talked to a platoon that

lost six of their buddies in a senseless act of violence. this is tough business. progress comes slowly. there are going to be difficult days ahead. progress comes at a high price. so many of you have stood before the solemn battle cries, and a display of boots, a rifle and a helmet and said goodbye to a fallen comrade. this year alone nearly 100 members of the 101st have given their last full measure of devotion. there are a few days when i don't sign a letter to a military family expressing our nation's gratitude and grief at their profound sacrifice. this holiday season our thoughts and prayers are with those who

have lost a loved one. the father, the mother, the son or daughter, the brother or sister or friend who is not coming home. we know their memories will never be forgotten and that their life has added to the lives of our nation. and because of the service of the men and women of the united states military, because of the progress you are making we look forward to a new phase next year, the beginning of a transition to afghan responsibility. as we do, we continue to forge a partnership with the afghan people for the long term and we will never let this country serve as a safe haven for terrorists who would attack the united states of america again. that will never happen. this part of the world is the center of a global effort where we are going to disrupt and dismantle and defeat al qaeda and its extremist allies and that is why he were here.

that is why your mission matters so much. that is why do you must succeed. because this effort is about the safety of our communities back home and the dignity of the afghan people who don't want to live in tyranny. now even though it is a hallmark of american democracy that we have our arguments back home, we have our debates and we have our elections, i can say without hesitation that there is no division on one thing, no hesitation on one thing, and that is the uniform support of our men and women who are serving in the armed services. everybody. [applause] everybody is behind you. everybody back home is behind you, everybody. from north to south to east to west, from sea to shining sea the american people are united in support of you and your families. as your commander-in-chief i

also want you to know that we will do whatever it takes to make sure you have the strategy and the resources and the equipment and the leadership to get this done. you may have noticed during these tough budget times i took the step of freezing pay for our federal workforce, but because of the service that you render, all who wear the uniform of the united states of america are exempt from that action. [applause] we are going to make, we are going to spare no effort to make sure that your families have the support that they deserve as well. that doesn't just matter to me. it is also a top priority for michelle, to make sure that americans understand the sacrifices your families are make in. as she likes to say, 100% of americans need to be right they are supporting you and your families 100%.

only 1% are fighting these wars but 100% of us have to be behind you and your families. your generation, the generation of afghanistan and iraq, has met every mission you have been given. you served to her after two or. ufr and not just our admiration, you have earned your place in american history alongside the greatest generation's. the stories of those who served in these wars are too numerous to tell, but one of my greatest privileges as president is to get to know the stories of those who have earned the medal of honor. two months ago i presented the medal to the parents of staff sergeant robert miller who gave his life here in afghanistan is a member of the green beret. his valor, charging towards psalm 150 insurgents, saved the lives of nearly two dozen americans and afghan comrades. last month, we held another

ceremony for the first time in nearly 40 years. the recipient of the medal of honor for ongoing conflict was actually able to accept it in person. his name is staff sergeant salvatori giunta. some of you may have seen his story, but i wants to tell it again tonight because of what it says not just about our armed forces but also what it says about the country that we love. three years ago salant his platoon were in korengal valley when their patrol was ambushed and two americans lay wounded up ahead. that is one sal and his men counter attacked again and again and again. they were being rains down with fire but they just kept counterattacking, because they wanted to get there to buddies. when he saw one of his teammates wanted and being carried away by insurgents, sal rushed in to help his friends.

despite the bullets, despite the danger, he kept on pressing forward. it was an incredibly intense firefight and by the time it was finished every single member of that platoon had shrapnel or abe uhler full in their gear. five were wounded, too had given their lives. now, sal is a pretty humble guy and so when he came to the white house, he said you know i didn't do anything special. he said he was just doing his job, that he didn't do anything that his brothers would not have done for him. if i am a hero he said, then every man who stands around me, every woman in the military, every person who defends this country is also a hero. and he is right.

each of you has your own story. at each of you is writing your own chapter in the story of america and the story of the american armed forces. each of you has some losses. at each of you have made sacrifices. you come from every conceivable background from big cities and small towns, from every race and state and station. you have come together to serve a greater cause, one that matters to the citizens of your country back home and to strangers who live a world away. so make no mistake, through your service, you demonstrate the content of the american character. sal is right, every single one of you is a hero. some people ask whether america's best days lie ahead or whether our greatness stretches back behind us in the stories of

those who have gone before and when i look out at all of you i know the answer to that. you give me hope. you give me inspiration. your result shows that americans will never succumb to fear. your selfless service shows who we are, who we always will be, united as one people, and united as one nation for you embody and stand up or the values that make us what we are, the people. america is not defined by our borders. we are defined by a common creed and this holiday season it is worth remembering that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that is what you are fighting

for here in afghanistan and that is what you are protecting back home. and i believe it is more powerful than any adversary, so we may face a tough enemy in afghanistan, and we are in a period of tough back home, but we did not become a nation that we are because we do what is easy. as americans we have endured and we have grown stronger and we remain the land of the free only because we are also the home of the brave. and because of you, i know that once more we will prevail. so thank you and god bless you. and god bless the united states of america. [cheers and applause] ♪ >> thank you everybody and happy

new year. thank you everybody and god bless you. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

.. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> senate republican lamar alexander today spoke about the republican agenda in the upcoming 112 congress. he's followed by a panel including weekly standard editor, bill christo and kato appeared at the national review institute. this is about an hour and 50 minutes. >> i'm ken weinstein, ceo of hudson institute, which were pleased to say will be celebrating her 50th anniversary pathbreaking research in 2011. i'd like to welcome ideas here at the betsy and walter stone covered center center to today's

event. the new promise of american life, lest from washington, more of ourselves. i also like to welcome our audience at home watching on c-span and our viewers at hudson.org. we're honored to have a the distinguished chair the senate republican conference, lamar alexander address us today. we the seller group of panelists who will be let in discussion by the cato burton, public national review institute following senator alexander's make. amar alexander needs no introduction. he's the senior senator from the state of tennessee. prior to his election to the u.s. senate in 2000 to come he served as governor of tennessee good as president of the university of tennessee, as u.s. secretary of education, as a businessman and also as a hudson institute fellow. but for a few hundred votes in the new hampshire primary, he in all likelihood would've been the republican nominee for president in 1996. i should note that the senator

has treated his signature red flannel shirt for the more muted plaid suit of the u.s. senate. he was a man of firm conservative principles and strong conviction, a leader who takes ideas seriously. in recent years, we hudson have worked with him on numerous issues, especially assimilation of immigrants. he is, as colleagues would say the same, one of the most well-liked members on both sides of the senate and that they think in part because he has never forgotten his small towns tennessee roots. back in 1994, in the days of the strong republican resurgence in congress, former governor alexander, along with an hudson senior fellow checkers and co-edited the new promise of american life as part of a major hudson project funded largely by our friends, but not exclusively by her friends at the wind and harry bradley foundation in milwaukee. the book feature works from a team needed thinkers including our panelists, bill kristol and

bill shamrock as well as david abshire, senator howard baker, john dealio, francis to be on a, michael joyce, alan reynolds among others. some of these fellows they should note are no longer hudson institute fellows. others are no longer conservative. others i think this is arguable or perhaps even less likely they are no longer even alive today. we can leave that to be for. the book was really critically acclaimed volume, a home for two press classic now a less completely sold out, which examines how the threat the government opposed to the american dream may be reversed. to reach evolution of power to the state, locality and civil society and through renewed culture voluntarism and entrepreneurship. as worthy as the ideas were at the time for a variety of commentated reasons, they do not fully take root. fifteen years later at the 112 congress prepares to take office

komar cattolica teams of the book to examine why the vision that derailed and why it is even more urgent today. on that note, i had the distinct honor of introducing senator alexander. [applause] >> thing is, can come up for the good introduction. he mentioned my small-town research continually for last minute still read. i was driving home along with the legislature named the lamar alexander parkway a few years ago after my election to the senate and i had nothing to eat for breakfast the next morning, so i stopped at 711 to get a little stuff and put it on the counter with bacon and eggs and i had no cash, so i reached in my pocket, pulled out my credit card and handed it to the little girl behind the counter. she looked at it and said may ask you a question. i said yes, ma'am. was he named after this road? [laughter] anwar al-awlaki, thank you for the introduction.

thanks to hudson for doing this. this is a real treat and checker and i are delighted perspective sponsored the project to begin with 15 years ago and we had a good photo about it and a discussion that attracted tremendous talented authors for those new promise of american life. insight into the panelists who are here today. i'm genuinely looking forward to seeing and listening to the tamils who are among the most distinguished thinkers in our country. so this is a treat for me and i think all of you for coming. a wise political candidate, like a good composer listens for words and music that resonates with audiences and then repeats those phrases and melodies over and over again. chris is here today sent me a note when he went out and says the eminent british political philosopher maurice cranston said the best metaphor for political performance was theatrical performance because the politician is act being a

drama written by the audience themselves. but there is the greatest or me comparing music and politics, we all listen for what resonates. and for phrases that resonated in the 2010 election, we might listen for the senators who were elected to hear what they said. because in the air -- here's what we find out, and a year with the television screens displayed anger, these politicians often talk about hope. there were real and paul and pat to me evangelizing about spreading free-market prosperity and said a joint government oscar. rob portman and kelleya at, ron johnson using their experience to describe ways to make it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs rather than just wringing their hands about 10% unemployment. and marco rubio, affirming with

his life story, america's exceptionalism instead of lamenting america's decline. to be sure the issues that fired the mortars were but too much spending, too many taxes, too much debt and too many washington takeovers. but the senators who were elected to fix those problems are mostly american dreamers. who believe in this country that anything in this country still is possible for anyone who works for you. the europeans and others around the world find this to be an irrational view held by citizens for no other country. yet most of american politics, anything samuel huntington was the one who wrote this, most of american politics is about setting high goals in dealing with the disappointment of not meeting those goals and then trying again, such as all men are created equal, pay any price to defend freedom, no child left behind. this is not an enforced americanism, with the government in washington to see what to

believe. it is a spontaneous patriotism of the kind you get from reading lincoln's second inaugural address for the old of allegiance at george washington -- george washington's men swore by washington and 76. or david mccullough spoke 1776, were new citizens from all over the world become americans. vitality of that dream is by herbert crowley's book, the promise of american life, written in 1909, a century ago, still as powerful today. the first chapter of crawlies progressive manifesto could be read with enthusiasm and in a tea party, but it is the rest of the boat that we propose to discuss in dispute today. for his remaining chapters, he argues that for individuals to realize the promise of american life, the central government in washington must play a much larger role. his book launched the

progressive movement, featuring first president wilson and now president obama. his is a strategy of made in washington policies, grand schemes to solve national problems, based upon the assumption that these are things that individual americans simply can't do for ourselves. in 1995, as ken said, at the hudson institute's request, checker fan and i edited a book which we call the new promise of american life. checker and i both men men were fellows at hudson in the list are in the country hoping to persuade americans that i was the logical choice for president of the united. the public didn't agree with my logic, prompting my preacher brother-in-law to suggest that i should think of the political loss as a reverse calling. our book was an attempt to provide some intellectual content for the international fervor of the moment, that

moment. he fervor that surges through american history. we chose the title the new promise of american life because we believe that progressivism had been carried too far and that what our country now needed was a reverse mirror image of cooley's vision or less from washington and more of ourselves. our idea of america was one created by state, operating community by community, depending on civic virtue, that individual liberty combination simply too large and too diverse to be managed successfully by an all-knowing central government in washington d.c. speaking of praises that resume. i remember bill kristol like this one. my best political one minor at the time was cut their pay and send them home, referring to congress, which made few friends in the world's greatest alliterative body in which i now serve. we did what we published 15 years ago, i was impressed with the prescience of the essays

from bill kristol and paul wyrick and howard baker and david absher and francis fukuyama, one chambray, diane ravage and others. their advice resonates as well today as it did then. reading their advice also reminds me of how little of that advice anyone took. republicans who were elected in 1994 on the cry of no more unfunded federal mandate to were promulgating conservative government rules to replace liberal big government rules. since 1995 come the size of the federal budget has grown 140% of the federal debt is up from five to $14 trillion. within the last two years, the progressive solution symphony has been playing in washington again, reaching a new crescendo with budgets that double in five years in triple intent, with government bailouts. and as one blogger has suggested, i think will chambray columnist, the appointment of the more news hours in the arenas that even the romanovs

imagined. seeing the inevitable anti-washington surge raging again to counter the excesses of progressivism, i suggested he check or about six weeks ago we asked them to revisit their 1995 book in this form is the result of that suggestion. and after what i have to say will hear from a distinguished panel that includes three contributors from the 1995 volume. checker fan, bill kristol, william chambray as far as kristin muse and kate o'beirne. our hope is the same today as it was 15 years ago, to provide an intellectual washington surge with the additional hope that this time more elected officials actually listen to it and act on their advice. so that they begin the discussion. let me make a single suggestion that i is made before. and that is that the new congress should proceed step-by-step in the right direction to solve problems and

away the that returns the trust of the american people, rather than invent comprehensive conservative big government schemes in an attempt to correct comprehensive liberal big government schemes. to make this point, i thought of hanging up in the republican cloakroom, photographs of nancy pelosi and henry waxman because they symbolize what the federal government has done wrong over the last two years. not just that of the wrong direction, but to try to get there all at once. this is from the government by taking big bites out of several apples and trying to swallow them at the same time, which is had the effect of enraging republicans and terrifying the independent voters of america. during the recent health care debate, i heard a number of times from democrats on the other side of the aisle this question. well, whether republicans for? my answer was that if democrats

were waiting for the republican leader, senator mcconnell, to grow into the senate a wheelbarrow filled with a 2700 page republican comprehensive health care bill, they would be waiting for a long time. or for that matter, a republican version of a 1200 page plan to change built for 800 page immigration bill. congressional action on comprehensive climate change, comprehensive immigration and comprehensive health care has been well intended, but the first two fell of their own weight and health care law has been subject to multiple efforts to repeal it since the day it passed the senate a year ago on christmas eve in a driving snowstorm. what is united almost all republicans and a majority of americans against these bills have been not only ideology, but also that they were comprehensive. i mean, george will might write, congress does not do a

comprehensive well. two recent articles help to explain the trouble with the democratic comprehensive approach that first, which appeared in national affairs, was written by one of her palace today, william chambray, explained that the quote sheer ambition of president obama's legislative agenda as the approach about mr. chambray called a policy president. he wrote that the president and most of his advisers have been changed by the league university to govern by watching a host of enormous initiatives all at once, formulating comprehensive policies aimed at giving large social system and indeed society itself more rational and corporate forms and functions. that was mr. shatner. on the terms of today's forums, this is the latest outburst of cronyism for progressivism. mr. chambra knows the most prominent organization future of the obama administration is its reliance on bowers and arenas to

broad areas of policy. and misuse, systemic problems of health care and energy of education simply can't be solved in pieces. analyzing mr. chambra per the article, david broder of the "washington post" wrote this, quote, historically that approach hasn't worked. the progressives failed to gain more than a brief ascendancy and the carter and clinton presidencies were marked by striking policy failures, unquote. the reason for these failures, as he paraphrased chambra, the quote is highly rational comprehensive approach fits uncomfortably with the constitution, which portions powers among so many different players. rather than as this. democracy and representative government are a lot messier in the progressives and their heirs, including obama what to admit. and a memorial essay involving

or honoring irving kristol, bill's father in "the wall street journal" last year, james q. wilson wrote that the law of unintended consequences is what causes the failure of such comprehensive legislative schemes. explains wilson quote, launch a big project and you will almost surely discover that you've created many things you didn't intend to create. the latest example, that's the end of mr. wilson's co., the latest example of the truth of mr. wilson's observation can be seen by anyone watching the new health care law increase premiums, at two federal debt, caused millions of individual policyholders to lose their policies, cause businesses to postpone adding new jobs and inflict huge unfunded medicaid mandates on states all consequences, the sponsors of the law, strenuously argued, never were intended. although i have to say they were predicted by republicans. james q. wilson also wrote that

neoconservatives than as irving kristol originally conceived of and in the 60s was not an organized ideology or even necessarily can ever do,, but quote, a way of thinking about politics rather than a set of principles and rules. would've been better if we had been called policy skeptics he said. well, this skepticism of chambra and wilson and kristol toward grand legislative policy schemes hopes to explain how during the 2010 election, the law of unintended consequences may been a member of the so-called party of no and more electable choice than being a member of the party of yes we can. james q. wilson also wrote in his essay that respect for the law of unintended consequences is quote, not an argument for doing nothing, but it is one in my view, he says, for doing things experimentally. try the i.t. out in one place and see what happens before you inflict it on the whole country.

that is why the republican party aspires to be a governing party rather than merely an ideological debating society. the question must still be, what are republicans for? and the question has to be answered. we'll examine the congressional record, you'll find we've been trying. you'll find a republican senators try to answer the question by following mr. wilson's advice, proposing a step-by-step approach to confronting our nation's health care and other challenges 173 times on the floor of the senate during 2009 on health care, for example, we first suggested setting a clear goal. and that would be reducing americans cost, health care costs, so that more of us can afford to buy insurance. and then we propose the first six steps towards that goal. one, allowing small businesses to pool their resources to buy health care plans. two, reducing junk lawsuits

against doctors. three, allowing purchase of insurance across state lines. for comics and a health savings accounts. five, promoting wellness prevention. six, taking steps to reduce waste, fraud and abuse. there could be many more such tips, but we offer those six proposals and complete legislative text composing 182 pages for the six steps. the democratic majority ridiculed the approach is quote piecemeal in part because our approach was not comprehensive. take another example. in july 2009, all 40 republican senators announced agreement on four steps to produce low-cost clean energy, create the environment for 100 new nuclear plants electrify have our cars and trucks over a long time, explore offshore for natural gas and oil and double energy research and development for new forms of clean energy. this step-by-step republican clean energy plan was an

alternative to the kerry boxer national energy talks that would've been posed an economy wide cap-and-trade scheme, driving jobs overseas, looking for cheap energy and collecting hundreds of billions of dollars each year for slush fund with which congress could play. now here's still another example, a bipartisan one. in 2005, a bipartisan group of us in congress asked the national academy to identify the first 10 steps congress should take to preserve america's competitive advantage so we can keep growing jobs. at the academies appointed a distinguished panel. they recommended 20 steps. congress enacted two thirds of it. we call it the america competes act of 2007. it was important legislation, but it took on a big problem, but it was fashioned step-by-step. the style of governing scores of my experience as governor of tennessee during the 80s. my goal was to raise family

incomes. our state was the third poorest state they are pure but i found as i went a lot of the best way to do that was step-by-step. some steps larger, some smaller, such as changing banking laws, defending the right to work, keeping debt and taxes low, recruiting japanese industries in the auto industry. but also building highways so suppliers could get their parts for the auto plant just in time. and then it instead better schools program, one of which was to make our state the first to pay teachers more for teaching well. i do try to turn the whole state upside down at once, but working with leaders of both parties i did hope change it and grow step by step. after a few years, we became the fastest growing state and family incomes. so what is this approach in the examples to suggest republicans as we look to the new session of congress? as a result of the 2010 elections, we clearly have

enough clout to stop risky comprehensive schemes, featuring more taxes, more debt, more washington takeovers and more hidden and unexpected surprises. we have enough clout to suggest alternative approaches for the most urgent problems of the day. in fact, we have an obligation to do so if we want to be able to persuade independent voters as well as republicans that we had to be the governing party in america after 2012. it's no mystery what our focus should be. jobs, debt, terror. jobs and that dominated the 2010 election. so applying the step-by-step rather than comprehensive approach to our first goal, it should be to make it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs. make it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs. and you can make your list. i can make mine. a quick step -- list of such steps comes to my mind. don't raise taxes on anybody in

the middle of an economic downturn. were having a discussion about that congress this weekend. repeal one by one the mandates on job creators in the health care law. reduce the corporate tax rate, reduce or eliminate the capital gains tax. defends secret ballot union elections. defensed its ability to protect retort. creates an environment for 100 new nuclear plants. double r&d for new energy, but a first-class transportation system, repeal the so-called consumer protection agency and the financial regulation law, not korea, colombia and panama free trade laws. all of these are steps toward making it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs. i would have repealed to health care law entirely -- although this may seem to be a comprehensive at, violating the wilson crystal chambra step-by-step doctrine. such a comprehensive undoing carries the risk of scaring

independence, but as a practical matter, there's no other good way to deal with a historic mistake other than by revealing and replacing it with a step-by-step approach to reduce health care costs. in addition, most provisions don't take effect until 2014. stayed step-by-step approach can be applied to the second goal, making the annual spending come as close to revenues as possible. trying to eliminate deficit when you return the nation upside down. it's a point like this that photographs of publicity and waxman and the close quote room become useful. before a nation that's burrowing 42 cents of every dollar to wait one day, to begin to address its debt is suicidal. so what they are steps that can be taken immediately were larger steps are being fashion, such as step one could be no new entitlement automatic spending programs. in other words, don't go any

deeper. president obama's budget would shift half a trillion dollars in poker bending over 10 years to mandatory spending. no more unfunded federal mandates on state and local government. the democratic governor of tennessee which has a billion and a half dollar revenue shortfall this year estimates for new health care law will impose 1.1 billion unfunded medicaid mandates on just our state between 2014 and 2019. caps on discretionary spending. these dollars out. take a half trillion in medicare savings the new health care law spent on new entitlement programs and music to make medicare solvent. adopt a two-year budget. this would allow congress to spend every other year an oversight, repealing and revising laws and regulations that are out of date wasteful. give the rest of the governments general motors sides to every american who pays federal income taxes last april. that's the best way to get the government out of the automobile

also supported to year in america and peered remarks have become a symbol of wasteful washington spending. there are too many of them. and too many are for less than worthy purposes. but the process needs to be cleaned out. but this is more about good government than saving money is even unworthy projects are paid for by reducing spending in other parts of the budget. and in long-term and earmarked the entrance to check it over to the president at a time when most americans voted for a check of the presidency. fifteen years ago, republicans captured control of congress during one of those recurring outbursts when american voters announced that they wanted less of washington and more freedom for themselves. that advice was not well heated and now we find ourselves again the political beneficiaries of another such outburst. and we have an opportunity to lay the groundwork to be a governing party within two

years. my hope is that this time, republicans heed the advice of wilson, chambra, crystal, that rather than how comprehensive conservative schemes, we keep our eye on the polls that matter most, make it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs, reduce spending closer to revenues and dealing in a tough strategic way with terrorism. and then, we proceed step by step towards those goals in a way that returns the trust of the american people. we should give herbert crowley credit for reminding us in 1909, in the first chapter of his promise of american life, that's the still is the one country in the world where most people believe that anything is possible and that anyone can see can succeed if he or she works hard. this is a country still does your grandfather can tell you, as mine did, aim for the top. there is more room there and

really believe it. hopefully republicans who were elected in 2010 will follow their instincts not just to oppose the excesses of the crow is progressivism, but to offer a new promise of american life as we try to do 15 years ago. hopefully they will continue to remind americans that this debate is not found dry, dusty analysis, but a contest of competing, governing philosophies about how to realize her dream of an upstart still a new nation in which most people still believe that anything is possible. our argument is that our country's exceptionalism is best realized by the largest number of americans when we expect less of washington and more of ourselves. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you, senator for those characteristically thoughtfully appalled remarks. a day to open up for a couple of questions which the sender has graciously agreed to take. please identify yourself and speak into the microphone. >> and tina ruby -- [inaudible] the question i would have, mr. senator, is certainly the last time they started strong, they were serious about him in any government function. i don't hear in your blueprint something serious about eliminating the overgrown government that has gone beyond the outlines. further, question i would have for you is the achilles' heel of the modern conservative movement and particularly in the

so-called war on terror and all its attendant, including two wars in the middle east, it seems that conservatism as follows the so-called comprehensive approach, that you have very salient when he decries. what does conservatism need to do to approach the war on terror in a non-comprehensive way? >> well, that's a terrific question. what i'm going to do is give you a very brief answer leave most of it to the panel because i'm anxious to hear what they have to say anyway and i've had my say for about 30 minutes. on the first part of your question, and that you be as serious as i could about less government. the title is less from washington and more from ourselves. by suggesting a focus on no new entitlement on the whole series

of steps that i meant. i mean, where the crisis in our country. were it a point where we have to have the other direction. i'm deadly serious about that. i think i will, with respect to to take your question and ask candidates to panel can do at that question as a part of its discussion of the whole issue because it's an excellent question. >> thank you, senator. thank you very much. let me ask the panelists to come up. and as the panelists, up, i have the honor of introducing our distinguished moderator, cato burn. kate is the national review institute and was previously national review's washington editor. she's contributer bloomberg television and the illustrious trellis who spent many years as a commentator on cnn, as a frequent panelist on "meet the press." she was going to moderate the discussion between her panelists and field questions from the audience. kate.

>> thank you. very encouraging to hear such a terrific speech from a senator. i'm looking forward to the 112. solider alexander, we couldn't have this afternoon a more insightful group, as insightful, but not more insightful, who are going to share their thoughts about today's topic, less in washington, more of ourselves, including senator alexander's remarks. i'm going to introduce her speakers in the order in which i'm going to call on them, to share their initial thoughts. hopefully that will start the discussion among the panelists and would be delighted to invite questions from the audience. soak first, chris demuth. christmas is this easy for at the american enterprise institute. he was president of aei from december 19 through december 2008. scholars uniformly at aei talk

about how indispensable chris demuth's insights and guidance was across policy topics. previously he was administrative for information and regulatory affairs of management and budget and executive director of the presidential task force on regulatory relief and needed reagan administration. christmas is towards law and policy at harvard's school of government. also practiced in those fields in private has worked on urban and environmental policy in the nixon white house. he holds an a.b. from harvard university and a jd from university of chicago law school. her second speaker is going to be bill chambra, director of hudson disputes pacific renewal. prior to joining hudson institute, but was director of programs at the valley foundation in milwaukee. he served as senior adviser chief writer for edwin meese. he was director of the office of -- and director of the office of personal management connie horner and also secretary of health and human services sullivan. he was also director of social

policy programs for aei and codirector of aei's decadent study of the constitution. he served as member of the national historic publications and records commissions to which he was appointed by president reagan. and from 2003 until 2006, served in the of of directors of corporation financial community service. bill kristol is editor at the weekly standard, which he cofounded in 1995. he's one of the nation's leading political analysts and commentators. he forgot me appears on fox news sunday and on the fox news channel. before starting the weekly standard, though lead the project for republican future and prior to that service chief of staff to dan quayle and chief of staff to secretary of education bill bennett before coming to washington in 1985 by bill kristol taught politics at university of pennsylvania and harvard's kennedy school. and finally, senator alexander's coeditor, checker fan is joining

us. he is a think tank devoted to advancing educational excellence. also at the red task force on k-12 education. he's a senior editor of the outstanding to inform education maximum adjunct fellow here at the hudson institute. for 40 years, it trained first at the beginning of national debate on school reform. the other 19 books and innumerable articles and he holds undergraduate degree in history, masters degree in social studies, teaching and adapted in education all from harvard university. with that, i'll turn the program over to chris demuth for his initial remarks and then bill chambra, bill kristol and checker finn. >> okay, thank you very much. realizing the new promise of american life, as described in senator alexander and checker

finn's book of 1995, involves many political -- i'm sorry, am i not on? it involves many political and cultural challenges described in the book. it also involves challenges as emphasized in bill kristol's essay in that volume, that are primarily at additional. that is how well or poorly are legal and political institutions do the translating popular sentiment into policy in shaping the decisions of those in authority in a public interested direction. the recent elections by reasons to be very pleased with their political institutions as a whole, a dramatic shift in popular opinion, changed our major legislative institutions at the national level and many

political institutions at the state level in just a very few years. it is impossible in any other advanced democracy for a shift in public opinion to translate into a change of government so rapidly. in the fact that we have institutions that are so responsive effects and encourages political participation. i want to focus, however, on an institutional problem that i think is particularly severe and is particularly related to the progressive movement, which inspired the book in this panel. and that is the problem of government regulation. the mail for this current example. federal spending and debt has been growing at a terrifying rates in recent years. federal taxation is scheduled to increase substantially in just one -- a few weeks. following the elections, which were animated by these prospects, this is likely to

change. 112 congress is going to take a very different view toward new spending and under the constitution at least, it has the power of the purse and collaboration with the obama administration, the new congress is likely to moderate, perhaps very substantially the scheduled tax increases. the federal rulemaking in regulation has also been growing at an unprecedented rate in recent years. as a result of the environmental protection agencies come enormously ambitious agenda to revise and extend most of its important environmental and pollution control rules as a result of the deployment of many energy conservation regulations in demand statute in the bush administration as a result of the fcc's ambition to regulate the internet and dozens of other initiatives. and that scheduled growth -- and

that growth is going to increase vary significantly in the next couple of years as a result of the regulatory juggernaut created by the obamacare legislation and the.frank at, which are launching literally hundreds of new rulemaking proceedings. yet under current arrangements come the trajectory of regulatory growth will be little influenced by the elections because it is on autopilot as far as our elected legislature is concerned. here, but was i returned, costs, benefits disbursement by congress or by regulatory agencies in the executive branch. and under delegations of power from past congresses, from congresses 2009, in 1970 he were in the new deal earlier. we have lately been putting in place many new innovations for increasing the autonomy of

regulatory agencies from the congress. just in the past two years, for example, in the bush administration under the sarbanes-oxley act, we created a new regulatory agency in washington with independent taxing power. the public company accounting oversight board, is a five o. one c. three, just like the hudson institute created in washington d.c. but it sets its own budget and send the tax bill to cover a public corporation, which must be paid or you go to leavenworth just as if he don't pay a tax bill. and this was taken a step further under dodd-frank, the new consumer protection agency does not have to go to congress for money either. it takes its budget as a cut of the federal reserve bank's profits. the federal reserve is a very profitable bank and make it nondramatic share of that. into the regulatory state has been the most durable legacy of the progressive era itself,

growing and morphing for now a century. the break down to the president long after the congress that impulse had been debated. the original rationale was a specialized agency, delegated with lawmaking power from the congress with expertise. the idea was that the natural application of rational analysis and control, beyond politics could improve society, could improve economic performance. the long after that original idea lost its luster, the independent agency independent of the congress developed a political logic of its own. congress, elected representatives can take credit for lofty goals, clean air, safe products or the solution of exigent problems for crises, such as the crisis of 2008, believes the hard contentious

decisions, the real policy decisions to regulators. and that approach was the primary approach in response to the depression. it was the primary response to the growth of environmentalism and consumerism in the 1970s. it was the response to a variety of crises that marked the w. bush administration, such as the accounting scandals that gave us the sarbanes-oxley, the energy price increases that gave us this vast arsenal of conservation regulations. and then more recently in the dodd-frank and the obamacare act, we find it very, very heavy reliance on regulatory authorities such as if you talk to people about what the facts say, say what we're just going to have to wait and see. statutes are there, but what they really need is to be determined by the bureaucracy. there's two other features that make regulations so persistent.

one is that regulation perceived minutely in tiny, tiny little steps, taken to regulatory procedures, which amount to a stumbling a coalition of interest groups, kind of an equilibrium in favor of each small step, so that each small step is very, very secure against being unwound. second, the costs are off budget. the current estimate is the regulatory costs are $1.75 trillion a year. i think that's probably rife within half a trillion one way or the other. it's very hard to estimate. but the important thing is no congressman or senator ever voted to appropriate this money is. they are not subject to any kind of budgetary control. and so, you get things such as utf-8 or the epa is always taken further and further and further

steps. if the cost of the due tsa heavy petting procedures at the airport, whatever they're called. [laughter] if those are quantified and put on budget, it would be a very different sort of debate. the result is that the growth of regulation is continuous and utterly bipartisan towards the new deal. although republican rhetoric is far more attuned to free markets, much more skeptical of regulation. a democratic record, democratic party rhetoric is much more pro-regulation, pro-control. is the very regulated change. and in fact, the regulatory champs since 1960, the administration's words and the greatest regulatory growth have been the administration of richard nixon and george w.

bush. we have this brief interlude of popularity that deregulation, which would similar bipartisan. it began in the ford administration are gathered great momentum under jimmy carter, with the aid of senator kennedy and then was continued in at least the first term of senator reagan. even very smart, ambitious, principled, conservative reformers stay away from regulation. the 1994 contract with america, the 2010 pledge to america, the ryan roadmap to american prosperity, there are large issues, cultural issues, economic issues. there are reasons for this. and i describe some of them, but just to kind of end with a point of emphasis here, there are several current epa regulations that are as complex and

resistant to understanding and summary as the proposal for a new arms control agreement. which of the two should a conscientious legislate -- legislature focus on? in the epa rules, each one of them is designed to provide us with cleaner air and better health agency and tell us about the vast benefits that will result in allegedly even faster than the costs. "the wall street journal" this morning has a very good op-ed article, proposing the abolition of the federal communications commission. they run so calm about once every five years by one person or another. sometimes it's liberal, sometimes it's conservative. among people that understand from the broadcast telecommunications industry, everybody agrees the fcc is decades beyond any legitimate

public justification. a practicing politician would go near that proposal with a 10-foot pole. i wouldn't say that the regulatory firm of the sec is quite as big as that of the irs, but it's pretty close and the irs touches vastly more people and is much easier to summarize and characterize for the purposes of political mobilization and reform. there are several proposals that are springing up to change the institution of regulation. one side of proposal, senator mark warner of virginia falls into this category, is to take account of this problem of off budget costs. you would like to regulation on a paygo basis, so that if an agency of the role that cost $50 million a year, ford could impose it. it would have to go back and clean up all of the regulations

that have been imposing for decades in the past to the tune of $50 million -- $50 billion in savings through abolition or reform. and even more audacious proposals, that is senator jim demint in its original author, jeff davis -- congressman geoff davis of kentucky, which is the so-called ransacked, which says that no major regulation does regulation cossey $100 billion per year or more they take effect until it has been affirmatively approved a joint resolution of congress. the president's signature. that is addressed to the delegation problem. and it has the advantage of going right to the heart of the problems of the autonomous regulatory state and being, for all of its vivacity, been difficult to oppose in principle. but congressman and senator will say as now, we should not my

body stand up and be counted on something that's going to cost $100 billion a year. i like these institutional reform ideas. they also like the practical step-by-step approach emphasized by senator alexander and his prepresidential years, ronald reagan was a crusading newspaper columnist and he was focused on big issues about our contest with the soviet union, issues and taxation, issues and spending. while we always paz, every couple of columns to get done in the weeds to some preposterous regulatory proposal and make great fun, very knowledgeable about these matters and very, very pointed. and i would like to see the new congress to a couple of step-by-step things. and my proposal for starters is to pass a simple law repealing the law passed in the bush admin is patient but is now being implemented to be in the incandescent lightbulb.

individual cases like this can have a great effect on the direction of policy. and there is -- there are huge number of prospect. thank you very much. >> bill chambra. >> thank you, kate. thank you for calling us together. i'm very honored to be in the same speech with -- when hudson institute undertook the new promise of american life, it was my privilege to be working alongside hello fred can come attachment and others for the projects, the financial backer aligned in that harry bradley foundation in milwaukee. it is a particular honor to work for the late mike joyce, who was the co-author of the essay in the volume. our enthusiasm for the project came not from some ideological

dock turn, but rather from our work on the ground in the low income neighborhoods of milwaukee. for decades, those neighborhoods had been supervised by cadres of social service professionals, who claimed to know better than everyday citizens how their affairs should be managed. and the results they are, as across america have been disastrous. the kane family dysfunctional schools, rising crime rates. and milwaukee though, we saw in the bradley foundation encouraged the first indication of a populist rebellion against the regime of experts, namely parental choice in education. ..