narrow, somewhere between not much and nothing. if you think back to how difficult it was for the democrats to get health care reform through, it gives you an inkling of how difficult -- i probably would say impossible. i'll see whether tom will quibble with a word. it is dealing with these fundamental questions of spending on particular entitlements. democrats had a 60 seat majority from january 2009 when arlen specter switched parties until the mental at january 2010 when the special election in massachusetts elected republican scott brown. drought that time they couldn't get health care done can even the 60 seats in the senate in 70 or 80 c. for majority in the house. and their own party's president. he thought that would've been an

apartment which would make it likely for the party to do its premier issue. but they only were able to do it after they lost the senate race in massachusetts before brown receded in getting something done. now, we had an election in the meantime in november 2010. we now have divided government and we have a party with -- two parties are fundamentally different values, priorities, assumptions, beliefs. fundamentally different. tom is right, the bubble we have been named in december and january, first the result of a frenzy of congressional activity in the lame duck him an extension of the bush tax cuts, american publics about congas can do something in that we had during the shooting in tucson, arizona and the president came out on as a policymaker, but as a figure of unity and represented the national purpose and the national sympathy and we all felt good.

now suddenly what is happening again? we are talking about the budget and the spending that we are back to politics. you will see those numbers change again as the battle lines are drawn because the country really, although we have three dramatic swings in 2006, looks like there were lots of democrats into republicans. and it does make him a lots of democrats into republicans. in 2010 can let the republicans into democrats. that's not the case at all. we still have a divided country which reacts on base is a short-term event and made it look as though we have these white strings but the country is still divided. one of the things i do is i actually meet and talk to candidates. now i know we are not supposed to do actual research in order to have opinions. we are supposed to enter as a political commentator you show up on a television show and tell people what you're supposed to think.

so i said in interview candidates in the house and senate for an hour to research everything. date of birth and what did your folks do for a living? were decicco rough-cut exported to go to school? what is your education? what is your political background? get a sense on who these people are. this time a whole bunch of them went. and a lot of the conservatives who were elected often described as tea party folks, sometimes tea party for the sometimes not, but often blunt together. they are an interesting group in iraq or we started asking one question to these kinds of candidates midway through the cycle and what there was bobby schilling in the northwestern illinois. we didn't know if he would win. he owns saint giuseppe's heavenly pizza in moline, illinois or one of those towns in the district or paul kosar and arizona dentist who had

never run for office before. schilling had never active in politics. regardless of the candidates, we started thinking how you different if you win? how would you be different from the class of 94? remember the republican class of 90 or? revolution is going to change washington and they all said the same name. it was really interesting and we didn't know how much attention, how much weight to give it origin of these people were going to win. many of them one. they all said the same thing. they said we have the same values, the same goals, the same beliefs as the class of 94. there was only one way we are different. and we are different in that when they got to washington, they caved to the establishment. they became part of the establishment. they fell in line with the leadership. we are not going to do that. we're not going to compromise. in fact, for many in the tea

party and many of the antitax movement on republican side, there those liberal wing of the democratic side that compromise has become a dirty word. they won't acknowledge compromise anymore. speaker boehner actually did an interview. i think it might've been a 60 minutes interview, where he was asked about his leadership and his party. he refused to use the word compromise. the interviewer asked a number of times and even set, why are you skirting around compromise? because that is to come a dirty word for many people, for outsiders on the left and the right. for those of us to follow politics, i shouldn't speak for everyone. we should ask him later whether compromise is a dirty word. i'd be shocked if he said it was. for many of us, it's the art of politics. it is how you achieve some sort of legislative output rather than sitting there and after two

years not getting anything done because no one can get exactly what they want. if you think of that, think about how difficult it is to address questions of taxes and spending and particularly entitlement if you have an increasingly vocal elements on both ends of the parties, both parties, both ends to reach party that thinks the compromise isn't it tells a sellout. it's difficult and it makes them more difficult for the leadership. i think tom is exactly right about how the parties changes in the party system make it more difficult to achieve compromises and consensus. if your body schilling and you know the folks back -- i do want to take on bobby schilling. if you know that the tea party folks back in your district are watching you and each and every one of your votes and they are not going to give you any play

here. they're not going to give you any freedom that she's got to toe the line, is significantly more pressure. it used to be the book to depend on the party. the party was freezing. the party leadership is important to you and i. you have control and you have outlets for candidate and for members of congress to go on rachel matteau and add shallots and chris mathews and sean hannity and glenn beck and rush limbaugh and appeal to their folks and raise money from their people. we don't have the common language and the common sorts of assumptions i think we once had. i want to just turn a little bit on the survey data and then we'll open it up for q&a. doug elmendorf mentioned the survey data. and the numbers also make it

harder for candidates to compromise, to find some sort of middle ground. , which most people in washington seem to think would be some additional tax revenue and some more significant even cuts in entitlement spending. the numbers don't make it easy for politicians to do that. so there any member of service i can look after the most recent one and one of my favorite -- at i don't know if this will get me anything. if you like i'm pimping a procter & gamble product. one of my favorites is the nbc news "wall street journal." i like it. i think the numbers don't bounce around a lot. i think they take great care. not that others don't, but this is one of my favorites. there is a recent one that is just out. every 24228, a thousand atoms.

they did it by yourself and your family. we think about our federal budget problems, including a growing federal budget deficit and increasing national debt, think about the debt, how much does this concern you personally in terms of how it impacts you and your family's future? how much does it impact you? think about the deficit and the debt. 48% said a great deal. 32% said quite a bit. so 80% of americans that a great deal in quite a bit. that would seem to suggest that they are worried about is, that they've internalized this committee understand this and they are prepared to act on this. that question sounds like well, here we go. then two questions later, jeep and will be necessary to cut spending on medicare? the federal government health care program for seniors in order to significantly reduce the federal budget deficit?

do you think kobe necessary to cut spending? remember, 80% of people think it will affect them in their family a great deal for quite a bit. will be necessary to cut medicare? yes, each team. no, 54. next question, do you think you will be necessary to cut on social security in order to significantly reduce the federal budget deficit. yes, you will be necessary to cut social security 22%. no, 49%. here's a question where they say okay, here it three options. if you can't be eliminated by cutting federal spending, if it can't be, what's this wasteful federal spending? at easy one. so if it can't be done, which one of the steps would you favor more? he would make sure they aren't answering the first alternate for the last alternative, but this week on important programs

by raising taxes or postponing the elimination of the debt. responses are almost even. 35% say we better cut important programs. 33% say raise taxes. 26% say proposed postponing the elimination of the debt. there is not an inherent consensus they are for quick immediate action. the nonstop in behalf be to take questions, arguments, whatever. again, doug mentioned the survey showed that people often don't want to cut individual programs. then he says there may be surveys that if you ask a question in a little different way, whether certain things are acceptable or unacceptable, maybe they show a greater willingness to cut entitlements. fortunately, nbc news, "wall street journal" used those words and the question over 25.

when they feature a number of programs that could be cut significantly in a way to reduce that federal budget deficit. for each one, please tell me if he thinks in amicably cutting funding for the program is totally acceptable, mostly except, mostly except, mostly except mostly unacceptable? totally an accident will. so, there were four were at least 50% of the public said cuts for charlie excepted are mostly acceptable. the one with the biggest support, 57% of total acceptable are mostly acceptable. the use of the nuclear power plants. that is one that's going to balance the budget tomorrow. number two, 52% say this next one was acceptable from either completely or most use

acceptable. only 45 said mostly unacceptable are totally unacceptable. cutting federal assistance to state government. in other words, pass the problem along. i'm sure that's going to take care of it. that may help the federal deficit. it won't help tax the overall problem of government funding program. how about social security? i am collapsing the acceptable and unacceptable. it is acceptable to cut the security. 22%, unacceptable in the 77%. medicare current federal government health care program: 22% acceptable, 76% unacceptable. medicaid, federal program for a health care: in 52% of people said it was totally unacceptable

, totally unacceptable to cut social security. they didn't even save mostly unacceptable. now, if you're a politician, if you're not a visitor to balance the budget, you said the poll numbers distorting and they don't care what people think. if people know how serious a problem, make them say okay, we have turned this bankruptcy for cutting social security. a lot of people ask questions and ask them in a different language, but over and over we get the same assistant. you are the politician. you make yourself a liberal democrat, a conservative tea party republican. make yourself a moderate. make yourself a moderate. and you get these kind of numbers in d.c.@televisions from interest groups attacking you to matter what you do. turn on the tv and the cable news and don't even mention the internet. it is so offensive.

you see how difficult this is. and somebody like me comes out. says, how do we address this? how do we do if his problems? our immediate reaction is, i don't know, you know, it seems as though we have to reach some sort of point -- to the point where all the sudden everybody throws their hands up and says it's greece. we better do something tomorrow. i think we are so little too far from the edge of the cliff. we're getting closer, but i'm not sure if folks are looking at the edge and saying yeah, we better do something to avoid that. one of these days i hope that will happen. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. when they go first asking the question. it is my perception that policymaking in washington has really been driven by crisis over the last 10 years.

i'm thinking oxley, even dodd-frank to some extent. clearly there would be some crisis, the event that will change those attitudes and my prompt action in terms of our public finances. and of course, we hope it won't be a crisis of greek nature, but something that will rally. what that might be? do you envision something had been that may change the perception in the public opinion, in the political spectrum? or do we really need to wait to become greece before something is done? >> i'll take a fair shot. look, t.a.r.p. was a crisis. congress generally waits for the crisis information basically threw the voters to act in a decisive manner.

9/11. you go back and take a look at these crises. that is when you e-mail the sudden a of legislation after those kinds of things. there's very little reward the political business for getting on a issue. i.e. clinton on health care back in the 90s. so i think will take some kind of crisis. i would note that a lot of this u.s. debt is short-term debt. this is not long-term debt when you take a look at what's out there. so it wouldn't take much to trigger as doug said one day to decide the interest rates start going up and% pâté something. i was in the house for the t.a.r.p. though. i supported t.a.r.p. both times in the house, but it took two votes to get it through. the reluctance on the right and left. if you look at that as a legacy though, that is not a political winner. at this time, that is like albatross, who voted for the

primaries. >> i agree completely. if you look at the end of any session, as when you have this frenzy of the committee in the final couple days. look at the cr. they let it drag until the end when they pass something. it's kind of the nature of capitol hill at the moment. it's hard to put together coalitions on most controversial bills. maybe naming a post office is easy if you can find something, but when you talk about making good choices in terms of spending and winners and losers and with the interest at trinity, not that i'm opposed to it. that's part of being a free country, but it makes it very difficult to get majorities. again, you have the fact that leadership seems to have less clout with the members and kind of the increased democratization in terms of political power. yes, i think it would take a

crisis. >> the incentives and politics are to defeat hungry kids. as long as that continues to be an incentive, that the way you can act. it's predictable. >> what question about the composition? how do you rate the newly elected tea party members on the congress in terms of their understanding of economics and complexity of the federal budget? >> i don't know how you quite frankly. besides my first year under the capitol dome with someone with a mother who brought her five kids, and a full scholarship amherst is how does a guy like me ever get their? after six months you wonder how everybody else got there. i think when you start taking a look at the way it works, you know, there's a lot of education. you do have your committee chairman i think of a pretty good grasp of the program, pitcher constituencies are feeling a lot of this weird this is difficult to come together with because even members who understand it represents certain constituencies and compromise is

very difficult in this political environment. >> i would simply add that members, particularly freshmen know more about economics than i do foreign policy, but that's a different problem. in terms of economics, they don't know -- most of them don't know the eerie. they don't know the depth of knowledge. their idea of economics as they run their business, run their family household. this is the way we do it in my house in my town. why can't we do this the same way? so is that a extensive comes sophisticated knowledge of economics? no, but they come in at least some instincts and some opinions, maybe they're right or wrong, but they have a bs in economics. when a comment on foreign policy, they are absolutely blindsides. they do want to talk about jobs and spending and things like

that. >> report on the freshmen, they didn't agree to this problem. they came as a result of the problems of their predecessors. in one sense, they are focusing on an issue that has not been focused on for a long time. they may not be policy mongers and of the solution, it they reflect a constituency that recognizes something is wrong with the direction we're going in spending. >> let me out because i don't want to be seen as beating up on them. when they said they didn't want to compromise, i think compromise is important. on the other hand, it is refreshing, recently refreshing to have politicians coming to washington to say i said this on the campaign trail. i want to actually do it. i mean, to them, besides the government, deficit spending, these are huge issues, particularly to the freshmen class. this is what motivated them. now, some of this is philosophy with the size of government, the

candidates over and over say we decided to run because we saw how big government was getting the first three months of the obama presidency, the matches any. $787 billion stimulus in the financial ballot cannot frighten us. if rightness about whether we could afford this is a country. i don't know. i think they did look at europe and saw what was happening and made a connection. it's not an unreasonable connection to have made. ..

political contribution, free speech and individuals to spend as much money on their own behalf as they want and now that's been extended. corporations under citizen united so you run against first amendment. like the virginia law where everything is disclosed. today you've got millions of dollars of attack ads and we don't know who's paying for them. in virginia we allow everybody to contribute. gaming corporation and everybody but you know who these and at least you can go to the voters and say look who's behind this person. these are independent ads coming into campaigns where the candidates don't control their own campaigns interest groups to. so i think it's gone away off the cliff at this point and i just think going back to a full disclosure is the best way to go. i have nothing else to add except a kind of feel like the

genie's out of the bottle, is that what comes out a bottle? the genie is out of a bottle and it's hard to put back together again. how do we make our conversations more civil? eliminate half of cable television and the internet. it's just not going to happen so i agree with tom completely. making the parties stronger, give the parties and candidates more control of the method and more responsibility but i don't think it can't happen. >> would you favor having independent commission saying redistricting for congress for the republican districts leading to more middle-of-the-road congressmen and more open to compromise? >> we have an argument in the political science community about what is redistricting and

gerrymandering, is this a cause or manifestation of the political polarization but it runs right against two things. which is one man one vote and the voting rights act which means you can't pack coming to have to pack minorities of the can get due representation. what's translated for the years is cpac minorities and democrats, so what's happened is you've had districts particularly in the south and these urban areas that get taxed one way by putting minorities. you make them less competitive. and from a partisan point of view so it's a difficult situation. i was a plan where they draw the line to have the redistricting commissions and i don't know that i would want to make the recommendation in terms of how you do it best i will tell you in my case in virginia when my line is redrawn in 2002 my wife was chairman of the committee that drew the lines so i kind of like that system. [laughter]

>> let me just add that on the long district lines redistricting is inherently political. there is no right way to draw the line, and so i was always somewhat skeptical of the nonpartisan commission. i'm actually changing my mind and warming up to them because of the ridiculous abuses in drawing of stirred district, but i think a requirement of contiguous districts, compact districts would help them but i would like to try and let some political scientists who argue it's more important to have open primaries rather than closed primaries to allow independent voters who are soft partisan or independent to pick. that might help the candidates who are in the center but we do

have a problem in terms of where people are living now and i think a couple of years ago they had a piece on this increasingly people are kind of living with their own kind of folks and so it's not surprising you have red areas and a blue areas and it may be hard to get anything out of those districts. what do you think? >> i like the open primary. so i quite like getting more people involved in the primary. i came out of a caucus convention in virginia to fight my way through a republican caucus which was tough for me what unmanaged to do. so california has interesting laws. number one, it sounded like a jungle primary were the top two people go to the general, two republicans against of having to cater to the nativists just to get nominated allowing independent to vote in the primaries is another way to go and get people involved. what has happened over the last couple of decades is moderates in both parties and become

independent. the largest registration group is independent, not republicans or democrats. they haven't picked up market share. independent and allowing them to vote and participate in the primary process which in many cases means the election defeat would be probably the best thing you could do to reach the politics. >> just to give a quick example or two. the last-second defeat to election yitzhad evan bayh retire, you had judd gregg, i consider him and a pragmatist, who knew more about and this time you have kent conrad of retiring, joe lieberman retiring, lugar who is likely to face a very, very, very, i don't know if i used enough, very difficult primary for murdoch to the state treasurer who is more concerned, so a lot of these guys that tend to be more in the metal and are defeated, blanche lincoln and the general

election, but tallman talked about the party sorting out it is proving to be a problem. it's hard to compromise and you don't have anybody in the middle. >> thank you. this has been a fascinating session and i have so many questions. unfortunately we are out of time. please join me in thanking our speakers today. [applause] the national association for business economics also heard from dennis lockhart, president of the federal reserve bank of atlanta. this is 45 minutes. good morning. welcome to the spurring policy conference. my name is richard and i'mth