very end that he couldn't have built up what he had without british help. >> in your research, did you get the feeling that roosevelt either did not discourage or actively and kurds the competition between donovan and military intelligence and solo players who volunteered at various times? >> yeah. roosevelt did not discourage competition. he liked the creative tension so if you talk or if you read the histories of roosevelt senior aides even harry hopkins even close people like steve really none of them really knew what roosevelt was up to with everything. feeca things he kept things compartmentalized and he played a zone for one another. donovan for example learned

after he formed or the coordinator of information was formed that roosevelt had a secret spy unit in the white house and run by john franken carter who was a columnist in washington, a newspaper columnist. in fact he ran the secret spy unit while he was running columns all the time which kind of violates some press government rule. i am not sure what it is but it it's certainly violated it. roosevelt encouraged this tension between the two and every now and then he would he hang donovan's chain back or he led army intelligence george strong, general george strong do something that would absolutely enrage donovan. donovan had a very complicated relationship with roosevelt too because again they were from opposite parties. roosevelt senior staff was decidedly worried about what they thought was the republican cast to the oss and all the best in the brightest he brought in

were the best and brightest from the republican party. you had henry stimson stimson the secretary of war, frank knox the secretary of navy and donovan as head of intelligence service and a lot of white house aides were thinking to themselves what are we doing here, running a farm team for future presidential candidates because donovan wanted to be president of the united states at one point. frank knox brand on the republican ticket. so the two men roosevelt like donovan and liked his ideas but it was not a personal relationship and donovan never really wanted to make it a personal relationship either. >> douglas waller thank you for a terrific presentation and a terrific look. [applause]

>> send me the bill in its present form and i will sign it. okay, any questions? [laughter] >> almost every year the president and journalist made at the white house correspondents' dinner to make a little fun of themselves that their own

expense. presidentpresent president obaml head there this saturday. watch live. back and watched a past dinner. search, watch clip and share on line at the c-span video library. every program since 1987. watch what you want, when you want. now virginia's republican governor, bob mcdonnell talks about the fiscal condition of the state in the budget challenges facing the country. hosted by the the 21 economic policy organization and the manhattan institute, this is an hour. >> i am the managing director of the washington office nonpartisan nonprofitnal organization and economic research for public policy for the 21st century. this morning we are delighted tn be hosting our latest in a series of conversations ting oura series of conversations for some of america's most influential

lawmakers. this conversation with virginia governor bob mcdonnell. bob mcdonnell was sworn in as the 71st governor of the commonwealth of virginia on genuine 16th, 2010. in that campaign for office he received almost 60% of the come and the most votes than any candidate for governor in virginia's history. and since taking the oath of office, governor mcdonnell has reduced state spending to the 2006 levels. is cut $6 billion out of two budgets, and he has defeated attempt to raise taxes by $2 billion. as february of 2010, the state unemployment rate has fallen from 7.2%, 6.5%, at the ninth lowest unemployment rate in the nation. the latest poll in virginia has his approval rating at 66%, even and maybe because of cutting spending to the 2006 levels. he has fought for pension

reforms and many other things that we'll get into. bob mcdonnell is one of the country's most successful and for minded governors. we wanted to hear from him in the venue we chose to have a conversation with one of america's finest political reporters, byron york, the chief political correspondent and a twice weekly columnist with the "washington examiner." we will be having a conversation for about 45 minutes. we will open it up to q&a from all of you, so without further ado i will turn over to you, by the. >> thank you very much, and thank you, governor, for being here. the election of bob mcdonnell in november 2009 was really the first ray of hope for republicans after the electoral disasters of 2006 and 2010, along with the election of governor chris christie in new jersey. your election in a state that barack obama had won in 2008 sent a signal that republicans

might be recovering more quickly than thought, and that the for your democratic rain predicted i changed carver might not last that long. it was followed by the election of senator scott brown in massachusetts and then really smashing republican victory in the 2010 elections. now we are in a fight about the budget in washington where we have a situation where last year the leaders of the house and the senate chose not to pass a budget at all. this year we had a government shutdown fight that was resolved literally at the 11th hour. and now we have to budget proposal that both almost come from different universes. you on the other hand in virginia close budget shortfalls by 1.8 going to invent 4.2 billion. you did without raising taxes

and not blowing up the state. so what are the lessons of your experience for what we see now in the federal budget fight? >> that's a great place to start. first, pete, thanks for your work at e21 and happy to be here today at the manhattan institute, also sponsoring this. i do appreciate it. i think not just what's happening in virginia but governors have been doing recently in many states, a pretty good example of how you can take the tough stance, govern like a campaign to govern on conservative principles, resist spending and actually have fiscal responsibility and prosperity in your state that the federal government can learn from. governors have a balanced budget amendment. we can do what happens in

washington. we got to make sure revenues and expenses are equal every year. we don't have a big debt limit. in virginia, 5% self-imposed but we have on that for decades and decades. we can't pass continued resolution. the bottom line is we've got to make sure that balances are equal every year. so to answer your question, what we did is said look, we've got to make the tough call. we cannot raise taxes. governor kaine left me with a 2 billion-dollar tax increase and expense cut to balance the $4.2 billion deficit we had in the 11 and 12 budget. the outgoing governor gets to introduce the budget and the new guy coming in in 2010 gets to inherited to see what we can do with it. we have a set that as a democrat

majority in the house with republican majority whatever we did have to have a bipartisan agreement to get a budget. but i was very clear, we were not raising taxes so let's sit down and discuss where there is we can cut in a way that limits and sets priorities, and that's what we did. the lessons of the federal government, we made tough decisions. governor kaine accepted 4 billion before i got elected, so we cut dramatically in k-12 education. in health care, many health care programs are we're trying hundreds of of dollars on a $40 billion annual budget, and then we did some one time reallocation, like most? there was an federal stainless money. we're able to do that without raising taxes. we'll back to the 2006 levels with the budget, and the good news, tried to come as you start to point out, unemployment is down five much act we do this cuts we ended up fiscal year with a 400, and $309 surplus.

but i guess i'm here today that those things work. yes, there were a lot of short-term pain. yes, we got letters from teachers and from health care providers saying this is a disaster, this is tough, we can do this. but the reason it worked his when you reduce spending and you ask your officials in your administration to set priorities and use the money of allocated the best way they can, they will manage will. it will rise up to the call, it will make a smart decision, and the priorities will be funded and those are not that are not parties will not be. i think that's what happened in virginia and i think that's what we've been fortunate to turn the corner faster than most states. we'll be looking at our second surplus at the end of june for the fiscal year. we are running well ahead of forecast, nine to 60% revenue growth over the last few years. as we cut spending we also invested in job creating

measures, tax cuts to other things. and it's working. >> is the fundamental driver of balancing the budget simply the fact that you can't print money, you have to do in? >> absolutely. that's why i strongly support a balanced budget amendment, i introduced a resolution this session of the general assembly after talking to congressman goodlatte and senator cornyn, both would support that it's the only way i can see after honestly decades of irresponsibility at the federal level with republicans and democrats overspending, overpromising and over borrowing. and the balanced budget amendment, 49 i think and 49 of the 52 governors, i'm counting the territories, is the only way i think put the lid on spending where federal officials will not continue what they have been doing. so it's clearly a motivation for both parties, to make sure that

you don't do with the federal government did. >> even if obama's budget and it were to pass, the whole process takes you to happen. and we are facing i think our third year, trillion dollars deficit. no prospect of a real agreement on cutting that anytime soon. what do you see in the short run in the next four years in terms of the federal budget and the deficit problem? >> i think what i see is, unfortunately, is the greatest country in the world about to pass on to the next generation, the children of the baby boomers, a country that's potentially less secure and more in debt and more financially unstable than at any time in american history. and that is tough medicine. and it should be embarrassing really by all of us. i've got five children and

they're going to be inheriting the decisions that all of us make. and i'm hearing some of these young people say that for the first time, great generation passed onto you baby boomers, a great country, and while yet made great advances in technology and energy and other things like that, but what you all collectively are doing at the federal level in particular usually unsustainable and really immoral. 7 trillion going to 14 trillion under the presidents introduced budget, even with looking more than $20 trillion, which is tens of thousands of dollars of debt for every american. it's just not, it's not responsible. so i think we need a real wakeup call that is debt is just not something out there that some future government can deal with, but this is a clear and present danger to american security. internally and externally, and

until we really are serious about this, we are on a very bad path. and it means cuts and virtually -- no area of the federal government ought to be off limits. into erasers discussion about entitlements, medicaid and medicare, we are really not serious about balancing the budget. this last discussion about 38 billion versus 61 billion, everyone knows you're talking weeks on the interest. not talking about anything serious about balancing the budget. so of course as you well know, a big battle about the debt ceiling and now the ryan budget. >> you mentioned the ryan budget, and one of the key parts to the ryan budget, bringing in medicaid costs under control, is a block grant to states. doesn't that just throw the tough decisions on you at that point, is that something you want? >> yes, because i think governors can manage it much

better than the federal government without the bureaucracy and not have worried baking for worries and all the other things that are locked into the medicaid law. mr. jefferson, the second governor of virginia, said that government passion he's absolutely right. 535 people in washington probably are going to be over all less than touched with their citizens than the governor and his cabinet or her cabinet at the state level fading out what the citizens me. i really think that most governors would prefer the. i was one of 21 republican governors who sent a letter to the congress about a month ago to ask for block granting of medicaid. here's will happen. a couple of things. one, first of all, i find any authority for some of the programs the federal government is doing in article 1, section 8 of the constitution, there in lies is the real problem with

where we are today. that's supposed to be the parameters or the fence around federal power. tenth amendment says everything is basically goes to the state and the people. well, we have dramatically undermined that compact of federalism that our framers thought were key to american prosperity. we really haven't done the. i think part of the discussion about medicaid, how do we didn't get that deal back, the power back to the states in those areas where the founders thought that it should be but i think particularly these areas are exactly it. at least give you an idea of why i think it's important medicaid spending in virginia over the last 27 years has grown 1600%. if you get your hands around the, 1600% from about $220 million, 3.4 billion. far and away the fastest growing expense item of any government

program in virginia. it's gone from 5% of our budget, to 21% of our budget. that's before obamacare. you lay on obamacare, we've estimate is going to be another $2 billion by 2022 which will drive us up to 27, 20% of the state budget. this is unsustainable. we don't have that kind of money in our general fund to continue to put that much over a quarter of our entire budget into medicaid. many states are over that 21%. they are at 26, 27, 28%. every governor in the country knows medicaid expenses are a huge challenge. and so what we all believe are what most governors, if you all will give us the ability and take off the shackles about so many of the rules and regulations, give us the ability to innovate on what kind of program or incentive for self

health care, and responsible for their own care, a series of incentives and disincentives and co-pays and some other things like that that we can put in place for medicaid, managed care and some of the other things we would like to do, we can save money. the federal government can block grant it and just have made a small cost of living increase that they provide every year which will save them dramatically more than what they are paying now. and it will be a win-win. so that's the goal. i know that was a long answer to this is a very important issue and it's one of the government can start to get entitlement under control. >> is it a win-win to the recipients? doesn't mean diminished availability, quantity of care for the recipients? can you save all this money simply by cutting through bureaucracy or does it really mean less care for people who receive medicaid? >> i think that's up to how well each government does with that money that they get. there are innovative programs

like indiana and louisiana, governors that agenda good job with that. states that have gotten a fair number of waivers am the token in the medicaid program have had the ability to do some creative things. there are companies like and their group that are doing managed care for some states that are dramatically dropping the cost of medicaid within those states. so there are any number of ways, try to, to have a reasonable level of care. but again, medicaid is supposed to be a safety net. yes, it's an indictment now. people have to fight it but it is supposed to be a safety net that we as a compassionate society put in place so that those who don't have the ability, reportedly, to provide for the own health care that are either poor or aged or infirm in some way to get these things

through the federal government. but that doesn't mean that we have to have a system were essentially everything is free and there's no accountability for the recipient. you all know what that means for a government program. if you get it free and it's the best that can be and some else is paying for it, you know what human nature is, you want the best and you don't care who pays for it. that is a real disincentive that goes against the very ingrained human behavior. putting together some type of incentives into the system that maintain a good level of care but controls cost i think governors can do that. >> what do you think about medicare component of the ryan plan? >> i have had a chance honestly to look at that in a great deal of detail because that's only federal. medicaid is a 50/50 state federal match and so that's where governors have looked at. i've called the ryan budget a

good start, but even with the ryan budget we're talking about decade before you balance the budget. >> the late 2030s. >> again, for a governor, it's still a four way of thinking. i've got to do that every year on time, no c.r., no excuses, no federal money. so even with that budget, it's really not come is a good start. it's better than the deficit we've been running up with the obama budgets. but it's a small start. i think medicare, doing everything from looking at reducing certain benefits, changing eligibility and agents -- ages and things like that, i understand are contained in components of the ryan budget, are a start but i really think, if this goes to the heart of your first question, i think americans at this point in time already for straight talk and

and ask conversation about what we are doing. for two reasons. one is most americans the last couple of years are doing it with their families and their business. they realize they can't keep spending the way they have been spending, whether it is with her credit card debt or somebody has lost a job in the family, whether it's because of business contracts and such so they've had to make tough decisions about business. people have been doing it so that expect the government to do it too. and then secondly, because i think, i've been in office now, this is my 20th year. i think this is about the first time i have seen a newer and enlightened understanding by the citizenry about what deficits and debt mean to them. not an abstract sense for some future government to deal with, but what it means for them and their family at the front door. in other words, what they're going to have to pay, what they are living on their kids and their grandkids. what increase barred by the

federal government means to them in terms of reduced access to capital and driving up inflation in the future. when voters understand what it means to them at the front door, they then start to react. i really do think now that there's a much more educated citizenry about debt and deficit that is what people are talking up in washington which i think frankly is good for conservatives. we are not talking about health care or some other thing. we're talking about what is the fiscal plight of america. and that's good. we are talking about issues on our turf and that gives me some hope that we will solve it. >> this idea that given the deficits in the last years that we are kind of a different public mindset, paul ryan and republicans i think that you are right on that, and president obama and the democrats are betting you are wrong. and there are a number of polls that show people so they want to see the deficit come down. they would love to see the budget balanced, but they do not want cuts in medicare.

they do not want cuts in social security. and those who receive medicaid do not want cuts in that either. there are a majority opposing cuts in all of those things. so, why do you think you're right on the? >> because it's a math problem. it just doesn't add up. you can't have both. you can't say on the one hand you want to fiscal responsibility in america, at the same time not being willing to have reductions in entitlement spending. i just go back to my own experience, when we say we're going to have to make major cuts in k-12 education, i don't know if you remember that the teachers union said if we make these cuts we will lay off 30,000 teachers. there will be little kids that are not going to be able to be learning in a good public school building. and we heard all the -- guess what, it didn't happen. a year later those things, i think there were less than 1000

teachers that actually got laid off. that we have reassessed that most of them are back, and why? because we instructed people throughout the education system, our administrators, school board and others, make good decisions, set the priorities, teachers in the classroom. the priorities one. more bureaucracy and more overhead and more middle level managers at the public administration building. they made the right decision with the limited resources. i've got some faith in people, that if you give them clear direction, and you give them more limited resources, they will rise to the highest and the welfare that's, i cannot say that's the virginia experience. say that with chris christie in which donald, scott walker and others that are doing a lot of the same thing. and yes, there some short-term pain, and yes, your poll numbers may go down a little bit.

but do you know what? people i think willis, one, we've got to do it, so we are willing to see the government to do. i think tom coburn said it best to he said for us to get our country back on track we've got to have a generation of lawmakers that are not worried about getting reelected. i can say from what we're doing with redistricting now, and what i know from 14 years and the legislature, every lawmaker is worried about getting reelected because they deeply their ideas important for the future and that's great about our system. but we are in a critical tipping point where after probably four years of overspending by republicans and democrats in congress that there is no more room to do that. president obama's own commissi commission, simpson-bowles commission, i think is alan simpson that said this as their issued their report, he said there's no more they can to bring home. the biggest day. i think is exactly right. -- the page is dead.

when they see these numbers they see the stickers on fox and cnn about the interest payments, and just rolling by thousands of dollars a second, type of thing. we got to make some change. >> you mentioned scott walker. what is the situation in wisconsin mean to you? wisconsin, virginia, very different states, but what does the experience we've been watching in wisconsin mean to you? >> it means that there really are big battles in the country between the left and the right. and for there to be significant results gained and restoring fiscal responsibility at both the state and federal level don't have to be some very tough battles. and there were two issues really in wisconsin. one was the walker budget to address the $3.7 billion deficit similar to what had in virginia, and i think largely the citizens were with him. they got it he was very clear.

i'm reducing the budget without raising taxes. we'll find a way to get this done. the bigger battle obviously was the public sector collective bargaining. and all of you are well versed in what happened there. we did that 18 years ago in virginia before i got there. actually governor wilder, democrat governor, signed that bill in virginia. so we have long had a prohibition against public sector collective bargaining in our state. we are one of the best managed state in the country. and in that i think is art of the. i think what you learn is that, number one, governors and leaders at every level are going to have to aggressively take on a fiscal plight of their state,

address pension, unfunded pension liabilities you can't talk about it but i do $18 billion of unfunded liabilities in virginia. ie did a little it .. and number two, that governors starting with people like walker, are going to look for ways to be more competitive. and that means removing the obstacles to auburn osha and capitalism and free enterprise. it means whether its unions or taxes or regulation or these other things that hurt the ability, the entrepreneur to start a business or grow a business. those things will have to be addressed because we are in a very tough global economic. i don't just worry about tennessee and west virginia and maryland and north carolina and florida and texas anymore. i'm concerned about china and india and singapore, taiwan and thailand and other countries that have really figured it out, either perfecting some of the lization, or

flirting with capless and. i'm na n >> we are telling the virginia story and getting people to invest in virginia. we have to think a lot more as we return and what are the things that we are doing that are not working well. i think at the core that's what scott walker was trying to do to make wisconsin more competitive. there's big billboards in chicago saying 23 you don't like illinois, come to wisconsin. people are coming. look at the taxes, and businesses are very mobile. they can vote if their feet and move. >> what does it say about the style of the governing? one of the criticisms of walker that i heard when you're going to do something really big, and what he's trying to do was really big and you make the case over and over and over again, and chris christopher smithty -- chris christie did that in new jersey and when you make a big

change, you have to prepare the public in some way. how do you do that? >> that's a good question and we went through that with reforming the budget in $6 billion in realignments. i talked about that during the campaign, so i dent think anybody was surprised when we killed the tacks increase and they -- tax increase and getting people ready for us to be able to do that. on that, brian, you said it in your question yourself. you have to tell people what the problem is. tell them what their various courses of action are, and then tell them your preferred course of action. in this case, outlawing public sector bargaining and why that helps you be more competitive and creates more jobs for wisconsin. i can only say that the flipside though is political capital is fleeting as we probably -- everybody that's been in and around elected office knows, and

arguably is as high as it's going to be when you get elected. scott got elected by a pretty good margin. when you take on the budget, you might as well take on other things that were budget related, and at the end of the day, not only is it about competitiveness with the collective bargaining issue, but also about the predictability of increases in future benefits for state employees, and that's a huge part of the state budget. virginia there's 130,000 peoples, a huge part of our $40 billion budget. if i can predict better the benefit costs in the future, it's easier to budget. they really were wrapped together, and he happens to be in a state that really is the epicenter of public sector unionization in america, so he had a more difficult battle than perhaps other governors might have had on the same thing, but you're correct. you have to explain the problem, tell them the course of action, why your solution is the best,

and repeat it over and over and over. when you get tired of saying it, that's when people are starting to listen. we're close to it in public life, you have to make jr. case repeatedly and eventually people will at least understand why you're doing something even if they don't agree. >> let me ask you about obamacare or the affordable care act. >> yeah. >> the state of virginia wanted a fast track supreme court review of this to get this thing settled, and the supreme court said no. it has to go through normal appeals process up to the supreme court. what does that mean? >> i'm disappointed. that was the decision handed down yesterday by the supreme court in part because the justice department objected to our petition for a fast track. it's extremely disappointing, and every american ought to be disappointed because whether you are for or against obamacare, what you want is certainty and finality, and that is knowing now in your business, in your

personal life if you're a health care provider or an ensurer, you should want to know is it constitutional or not? then you can start putting the things in place at the state or local level or in why business to know what you have to do with your benefit plan opposed to now maybe waiting a year or a year and a half or two years or whenever the federal circuits finish their work, and then they way wait in the supreme court to have them combined with other cases, and then the u.s. supreme court on the regular track makes the decision. i'm very disappointed with it because the sooner we got the answer, the sooner we know what we need to do. i mean, most governors now are tasked with a number of things they have to do by january of 2014 on the affordable care act. you have to build health care exchanges, change insurance law, do a number of other things, and in good faith as a governor, i'm setting things in place to be ready for 2014 because i don't

know if it's going to be have to be enforced or not. i hope it doesn't, but i have to be prepared because if i'm not, there's other sanctions from the federal government visited upon virginia like other governors do. if we knew in a year from now let's say or six months from now because the fast track in the u.s. supreme court and they ruled it was unconstitutional, we would say the tax -- we would save the taxpayers in virginia a lot of money by not having to do some of needs things. it's a disappointed result linked to obama's justice department opposed to it. i don't know if it's before the election, but what they said is they need the circuits to rule on it and develop a body of law for the supreme court. i think that's nonsense. the supreme court is going to decide this matter. everyone knows that, and they could have done it without any advice from the circuits. they do that with other cases that are important and have

taken other cases over the less 25 years arguably less important to the public than the constitutionality of the health care bill. it's disappointing. we got the ruling yesterday, and it is what it is. they made their decision, and now the good news is we'll have a hearing within the next couple months within the 4th circuit and they agreed to an expedited trial and the virginia case will be advanced and hopefully the florida case will be advanced through the circuits and get it to the u.s. supreme court faster to create the certainty americans want. >> you mentioned things you're doing now to prepare for a 2014 rollout of obamacare, specifically, what kind of stuff are you doing? what's the cost? what's being done right now? >> well, we had to gear up staff in various areas to do the things that the obamacare law requires. as you know, many of the parts of the law have already gone

into effect, the preexisting conditions, kids on your dad's or mom's policy until 26 and other things. we had to make changes in the law. we had to change some insurance regulations already as well dealing with preventative and preexisting conditions, some other things which means some additional staff to deal with those laws. the big thing now is setting up the health care exchange. most experts believe it's about a three year process to adequately set up health care exchanges. we have a bill passed this year in the general assembly that forms the framework for health care exchanges, and other governors are doing the same thing. my secretary of health has been meeting with the other experts to talk about what is a good plan for setting up these exchanges in a way frankly that's less bureaucratic and least expensive to virginia and to the states. it costs us some money to do

that in planning and in staff and some other things like that, so that's what we're doing right now because we've got, the way the law reads is we have to be ready by 2014 to have exchanges in place, and if we don't, the federal government takes over the exchanges, and that's the last thing i want. if we have to do them, i want a state managed exchange we can control and monitor and run the best way possible, so those are the major companies. i think what they did is they front loaded the goodies if you will, the popular parts of the obamacare plan like the issues of preexisting conditions and having children on the plan extended from 24 to 26, but the tougher stuff, the individual mandate is not effective until 2014, and, you know, we'll have to deal with that down the road. >> you can see a situation in which you continue a year from now you will be one year further into building this infrastructure? >> yes. >> at some point after that a supreme court decision comes

down, you win, and it's stand down, and then nevermind? >> it depends on the ruling. the justice department in our suit conceded the individual mandate falls, if that falls, then most of the insurance regulations fall because they are so intertwined. pieces can't exist independently, and if i might -- the reason this whole case is so important is yes, it's about health care and it's about federalism. those are critically important, but it's also about a fundamental decision about the united states constitution and the reach of federal power because if the federal government can make each of you buy a good or a service and if you don't, they fine you, there's very few limits left on federal power in my view, and this is a big deal. it's also a big deal the gurs

jurisprudence and the commerce clause is how far do those powers extend since virginians had a lot to do with those early documents, the constitution and declaration, we really take these issues very seriously, and, you know, i don't think that the founders would have condoned that extent of federal power to mandate and engage in commerce, and if you don't, we're going to take your property, your money, and so i think this is vitally important that the u.s. supreme court get this right. i certainly hope they will, and they will invalidate it, and it's not about the underlying policies per se. there is broad agreement i think in the body of politics that people do want, have a decent safety net. we are a compassionate people. we want to have extended access to health care. we want to see a cost driven

down, but not in such a punitive way we damage the spirit of the constitution in a way that ultimately drives up the cost of health care and not down. >> you are operating on two tracks, one trying to stop obamacare in the courts and implementing obamacare. >> yes. >> it seems like spending fights are endless. you're on the cover of the "washington examiner" -- >> is it a good picture? >> it's inside. they said no to a tum and a massive works project and the washington metro is extended to dallas airport, and the question is it an underground tunnel or come in an above ground station in here, again, you're trying to say no to spending. >> yeah, the difference is it's going to cost anywhere from $250-$300 million of additional

money for virtually no material increase in benefit. >> the underground is more expensive than the aboveground? >> absolutely, by that amount. the cost of the project already is $2.5 billion of the entire project. phase one is about on budget, phase two is threatening to be vastly over budget, perhaps the $2.5 billion project cost may now rise to $3.5 billion, and that's just unacceptable. the other problem with it is the expense, the increase in expense is going to be born by fair january -- fairfax county, and they overwhelmingly just voted no for paying that. the board that makes the decision is the washington

metropolitan air board, and they are made up from people from the district of columbia and mare. it's the mayor and governor of maryland also have appointments, but they have no fiscal stake in the game which is a structural issue, and i made my thoughts made for governors to join me in this. this is not a responsible decision to spend $350 million to save maybe a two and a half minute walk. there's already a moving sidewalk. you can take a cab. we can build a shelter to keep people out of the rain, but we're talking about a tremendous amount of money born by the residents and a handful of residents in virginia for a very limited additional benefit. i asked them to reconsider this decision and frankly to reverse this previous decision. it's just not a good use of taxpayer money. we don't have an endless supply of dollars and in the age of

cutting and fiscal responsibility, it's not the right decision. >> we're going to go to questions in a minute and change subjects and ask you about the 2012 field. as far as the governor updates, hall lee barr beer says he's not going -- halley barbara says he's not running and christopher others say they are not readiment run down the 2012 field. what down about it? >> well, they are all my friends, and it's unusual, and of course, we know who the democratic candidate's going to be, but we're nine or ten months out from the beginning of the primary season and there's maybe not a clear front runner, but we don't know who the candidates

are. this is not a great position i think to be in. i'll say a couple things, and i was surprised at the haley barber decision. i'm biased, but i think the best will be current or former governors because they make tough decisions, the buck stops at your desk, you dealt with balanced budget amendments in your states, and you understand the need to have fiscal responsibility. that's the most critical thing we need for our country right now, so i think mitt romney, tim palenti, people like that make the strongest candidates. there's others out there who are interesting and bright and frankly who are now focusing like a laser on jobs in the economy and taxes and spending, clearly, the republicans playing field and clearly the issues that we should talk about. clearly what's on the very top

of most voters' minds. what i talked about after my election clearly is spnal -- responsible for me winning. if you look at the polls, it appears as though governor romney is the front runner, but he's the known quantity because he was there last time. i thought he acquitted himself well especially on the issue of jobs and innovation, and he's very talented this that areament i think governor palenti continues to gain traction. i talked with him yesterday. he's a very talented and capable guy and did well in a blue state for eight years. there's other people who could get in the race that will certainly, you know, make it very interesting. i don't know whether newt's definitely in or michele bachmann with support from the tea party. donald trump is an entertaining candidate so far, and there may

be othersment in the end, i think it comes down to current or former governors who will gain the no , nomination. >> you called trump entertaining. do you think it's a serious factor in the race now? >> he's serious because he's doing something americans want. he's straight talk. he is -- whether you agree with what the solutions are, he's very direct about where we are and what the problems are particularly on debts and deficit. now, he's had sort of an up and down business career, but he's up now, and plus he's a new virginia business owner and bought a winery and a golf course over the last year. we like to see virginia people in the fray, but he's direct on things. americans are ready for that and it's refreshing to have that. whether people would elect a donald trump, it's hard to say at this point, but he is getting

at least some initial appeal with people that like the direct style. that's what people like about chris christie, here's the problem, i'm not going to sugar coat it. that's what people are looking for. >> the other side of the trump phenomena is what people view as real traps in the republican race which is talking about president obama's birth certificate and permly. what about that? >> i think that's a nonissue really. as far as if he's an american, he's a citizen. the problem with president obama is not where he's born, but what his policies are now which is devastating for american business and our future recovery, and really in an inaptitude of foreign policy. that's what we need to focus on. the others are distractions that don't get us anywhere, and

there's so much for us conservatives to go after with. we now know what hope and change means, and it ain't good for american recovery, and that's what we should focus on, and i just think these other things just don't get us anywhere. they are not serious discussions about what ails the greatest country in the world, and if we're going to remain the shining city of the hill, we have to say this is what's wrong with the president's agenda, which this is what a conservative solution is on spending, deficits, and foreign policies, and if you vote for us, this is what we'll do. we had straight talk in 1994 and look what happened, people trusted republicans to deliver, and we did, and that is the formula for success. >> we'll go to questions now. there's microphones around, so wait to get the microphone before you ask the question, and

right here. >> charlie with dc international advisory. governor, thanks for your comments today. two quick questions. on the tunnel issue, do you think there should be additional appointments on the authority and additional transparency on that board as the decision making goes and things like that. second question on international investment, fdi and virginia and you mentioned china, japan, and carerra, if you could -- korea, and if you could give an overview and countries beyond those three, specific sectors in the aiding countries, kind of an overview. thanks. >> yeah, thank you, charlie. i'm going to look at the mwaa structure. my predecessor transferred the control of the whole dulles cor dare and the department of

transportation to mwaa and from our direct control to mwaa. virginia is the primary funder, but the minority shareholder if you will -- to me, that's not a great deal for us. i have to look at that structure. i have good relationships with mayor gray and governor o'mali. we worked on a number of things together and funding and safety, we're joined at the hip on that. we all endorsed a new government structure for metro through that board, and we're working together. this one, i'll let my views be known to both of them in a letter i sent yesterday as well asking them to support our position and i certainly hope that they will because this is a big project, $2.5 billion and almost a billion from the federal government and the rest from a variety of sources, but, you know, to get rail from

dulles to dc and really make significant more use of that airport and just getting people out to that area so they don't have to use 66 or their tollway, and then they can go from there. it's a very important transportation project, but i do feel like -- i have a project solely in my state that i can't fully control. we're going to look at what with -- what can we do to improve that. on the foreign investment area, i think everybody's thinking more globally. it really is a much more interconnected world because of the interpret, because of the -- internet because of the emergence of the specific rim countries and any number of reasons, and so one of the things i asked for last year in our economic development package is we were cutting 60 -- equivalent of $4 billion out of the budget. we asked the general assembly to invest in job creation of the economic development. we're not going to tax our way

to prosperity but get people to invest and innovate and grow to prosperity. they give us $60 million in new incentives to use, and part of what i asked for was the money to open off trade offices in china, england, and india. i'm going to india in november. if i get on a playing field, that's a third of the world's population right there, and looking these folks in the eye and saying you need to come to virginia. we're the most business friendly state in america and have right to work laws, great tax policies, i want you in virginia. that's what we're going to do, and that's how ceos do deals around the country. i think foreign investment is very helpful to us. if people are manufacturing goods, i assume have them

manufacture in virginia because they sell to virginia any way because we believe in free and fair trade. i want them to make them here in virginia with virginia companies shipping the goods, so that's why we're doing it, and i think where we've had a little success in england and hopefully the same in china and india. >> okay, another question here. right here. if you can wait for the microphone for just a moment. gr >> wayne, i want to go back to the budget question again. a lot of people discount the ability of solving the problem at the federal level because there's a president of one party, a congress divided in two parties, a population who likes budget control in theory, but not practice. how does leadership -- [inaudible] >> that's the big question and backed to byron's question that

there's greater understanding of the debts and deficits, concern of where we are heading, but asking people how they feel about medicaid, medicare, and cuts, so there's a gap in the american mind set, and the only way to solve that is leadership, is telling people why this shared sacrifice is in the best interest of our country. the great wartime presidents have done it and others in peacetime in getting people to move towards a goal have been able to do it, and, again, i try that's what we tried to do in virginia last year with the help of the general assembly, and we did it. back to the 2006 levels and created jobs and dropped the unemployment rates to 6.3% and now people feel better about the tough decisions because they see the fruit of it and people working, and they feel better about it, but i will say there

were tough times in the short run in the education, health care, and that so you have to be persist tent. you lay out the vision, and say why this is the best course of action and what it means for you and your families and increasing prosperity for the united states of america down the road. it takes john boehner, paul ryan, governors doing these things in the states because they have to with a balanced budget amendment to put pressure on the congress to tie the backs of ryan and his colleagues to say we're behind you in doing this because we know it's necessary for our country, and if you do it, you will create a better -- a better and more safe and more secure america. look what we've done in the states? we made the tough calls, we have less unemployment and greater solvency, and if you do it, we'll have your back plailly,

and -- politically, and you get the good results too. i really do think that while people say they don't want to see these cuts, they know in their heart you got to make them. there's no free lunch. there's no way to get anywhere near a balanced budget unless you make these tough calls. it's the first time people really got that in their mind and understand what it means to them, so i think people are ready for that kind of leadership, and i hope that they'll get it out of the congress. >> okay. we have one more, one all the way in the back here. >> scott thomas. >> hi, scott. >> i had a question about creating jobs and encouraging investment in a time of fiscal responsibility. one thing in the transportation bill you just signed created a state infrastructure bank. >> yeah. >> an idea talked about here in washington a little bit incoming the bipartisan bill from senator warner and kay bailey hitchenson

from texas -- hutchenson. i wondered how that increases jobs in a time 6 of fiscal responsibility and keep budgets under control. >> good question, scott. we looked at other states doing that, and secretary of transportation actually developed that idea, and i think it's nosm. -- novel. we set the framework for investment and transportation and those of you who live in northern virginia, you'll complain about construction, not congestion. that's the good news for you. we did it through a combination of advancing debt, which is a great time to borrow. we got aaa rating, great contracts, interest rates are tremendously low. the infrastructure bank was the way to take -- we took money from our surplus and an audit

that found a million and four lying around that we thought should be put to work building roads and put that in a capital of $300 million, lomently a billion and we can balance the money better. with some of our money and maybe some matches from the local governments or because the loan guarantees, we drive down the interest rates at which local governments can borrow, that sometimes is the deal maker to get the projects done, and we're targeting the local and regional projects that are currently unfunded or underfunded and take them grow, and the local governments know what those are better than we do. we believe local governments work best especially when it comes to the kind of congestion relief and transportation projects and because it's a revolving loan fund, it's the gift that keeps giving. as they pay it back with

interest, the loan gets bigger, and we put more surplus money. it will be a powerful engine if we get it to the billion in the next three years. i spoke to members of congress about that and glad to see they are looking at that as a way to create creativity in funding. the other thing is public-private partnerships as well. it's a great way to level scarce public resources. the normal deal is about 25% public money, 75% private money, can get a deal done, and then you pay user fees, tolls. it's a lot more efficient to pay tolls over long rural stretches now than it used to be. it's almost transparent, and so we think we can lf raj that money -- leverage that money better now than we would a while back. those two together -- it's not just a $4 billion, but more like $9 billion because of the leverage and actual projects we

will get done. >> all right. i think we're actually about out of our time here on the c-span. governor, i want to thank you very much for coming and thanks to e21 for making this happen, and good luck to you and your future. >> thank you, byron, and thank you to e21 and everybody for coming. >> thanks very much, everybody. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> up next on c-span2, a discussion from the university of massachusetts on gender and wages. then we'll hear from carrie lukkas and then carole simpson on her book "newslady."

>> now a discussion on gender wage issues and we'll here from evelyn murphy. she spoke to students at the university of boston earlier this month. this is just over an hour. >> good evening, i'm the director of the center and program for women in politics and public policy at u mass. i want to thank you for being here tonight. tonight's program is called "i want my million dollars and why everyone should be concerned about the gender wage gap." this event is brought to you by the graduate program and the

center of women in politics and policy in u mass boston. they play an important part in tonight's evening, and in your way in you met anne forman, a 2006 graduate, and now the alum nee coordinator, so all the students in the program will be graduating and you'll connect with anne forman who continuing on a relationship with you for the future. our center's mission is to promote leadership in politics and policymaking. to our graduate program by conducting research that makes a difference in women's lives and serves as a resource in diverse communities across the nation and around the world. tonight's event is broadcast by c-span, so i'd like to wish a hearty welcome to our national audience as well. we have a fabulous speaker tonight, evelyn mor faye, an

expert on the genter wage -- gender wage gap, and we'll hear from dr. murphy for 35-40 minutes, and then we'll open it up to questions from the audience. let's get started. i want to introduce our speaker evelyn murphy. in 1980, she was massachusetts secretary of environmental affairs and secretary economic affairs. in 1986, she was elected lieutenant governor of the commonwealth of massachusetts and became the first woman ever in our state's 200 year history to hold statewide office. we've had few women since then, and evelyn murphy started the path to progress. evelyn murphy holds a ph.d. in economics and is the founder and president of the wage project, a national organization working to end wage discrimination against women. she also authored a book on the

gender wage gap entitled "getting even, why women don't get paid like men and what to do about it." there's a copy in the back of the room there, a plug for the book and it's also on amazon.com. she sits on the board for public policy, and evelyn murphy, thank you for requester support over the years and for joining us here this evening. ladies and gentlemen, i give you evelyn murphy. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for the opportunity. i'm a big fan of the program and the reason is i just watched the number of women who graduate from here and get the opportunity, the tools, the techniques to actually participate in public life either in public office, appointed, elected, all the public jobs, and it's just -- i think there's no finer thing you can do with your life than play some role in our public life so i cheer you all on, and i'm honored to be able to talk to

you tonight about the wage gap. i want to start for a minute just to understand the audience by asking you how many of you here now hold jobs? okay. out of this group, let me just ask for some examples of job titles. who is doing what kind of job, give me a position, a name of a job you have. >> evelyn, you have to hand the mic. anyone who wants to answer the question, please stand up. >> stand up, state your name, where you're from, and speak into the mic. >> i'm from boston, massachusetts, and my title for my job is education leadership manager. i work for a nonprofit. >> education leadership manager. >> uh-huh. >> okay. okay, who else do we have here?

what other job titles do we have? >> hi, i'm kate lin o'riley, and i'm an instructor and english as a second language. >> you're from? >> massachusetts. >> one more. >> i'm betsy and i live in wilmington, from honduras, and i'm director of parent organizing and community outreach for the charter schools. >> director? >> director of parent organizing and community outreach for charter schools. >> outreach, okay. now, # who are the students here now who don't have jobs and are thinking about or looking for jobs? some hands went down. let's take those looking or

thinking seriously. let me hear the jobs you're thinking about pursuing. yes? a mic. >> hi, i'm jenn, live in broightton, but i'm from oklahoma. i'm looking for a health policy analyst job. >> health policy analyst. okay. one more. who else is looking for jobs nowadays, still students about to graduate. >> hi, i'm megagan and -- meggen. i'm looking for a research analyst position.

>> okay, research analyst. okay. i want to leave those here for a minute. i'll come back to them, but i want to first remind you that i guess tuesday you may know was equal payday, and one of the questions about, you know, when it is that we're going to stop having equal payday? the answer is when the gender wage gap goes away. it's just that simple. the gender wage gap measures this inequality that we now start to try to eliminate when we celebrate and amp up for a rally as some communities did last tuesday. i want to talk for a couple minutes and talk about the gender wage gap. who knows how -- what does the wage gap mean?

what does it stand for? do we know who is measured in the gender wage gap? i'll make it hard on the c-span people, but someone have a chance of that? a guess? okay. look, the gender wage gap is a measure of all year round working -- full time year round working men compared to all year round full time working women. that's what it is. it is a pretty precise measure. it's -- so when you listen to that, and you hear that the wage gap is 23 cents and that women earn 77 crepts for every dollar men earn, that's what's is measured, and this is federal data. this is all the people in the country, year round full time working men and women. now -- so when you hear that the wage gap is really about women

who drop out and have kids, listen carefully because if you dropped out to have kids or raise children, you're not counted in that number. you're in the in it. it's not measuring that. you may drop back in, and in the theory has it sometimes you drop back in earning less, but it's not clear that that's the case, and the reason it's not clear is there's no national study yet that establishes that, so until there's some nationwide study that says this is about dropping out to have kids or raise kids, stay focused on the fact that the big picture, the gender wage gap, is 23 cents that women overall earn 77 cents for what men earn and equal payday last tuesday was the number of days in 2011 where everyone had to work to match up to what the guys earned in 2010. that's what we're measuring.

now, the gender wage gap is -- that's for all women. for african-american women, the wage gap is worse. they earn 69 crepts on the dollar, -- cents on the dollar. for la tee knows it's 59 crepts on the dollar, so it's worse. when we talk about the gender wage gap, it hits different communitiers harderment i want to someday on -- stay on the big picture, the 77 cents on the dollar because that's what we use all the time and what we measure. how does it happen? how do we possibly get this difference? as many as women now working as men now who have been working as long and as hard, we need the money as much as men do, and we're just as well educated nowadays, and half the people graduating from college are women. how does this happen?

it happens in a very specific way. say you graduate from u-mass this spring and get a job at a pr firm, and your starting salary is $40,000. you say, wow, that's neat, this is a bad economy, but i have a job who makes $40,000. a guy who just graduated with you goes to the same firm and gets hired for $45,000. oh, well, maybe i'm missing something that he's got. no, you both just graduated from college. or i can get buy on less, but really the tea costs as much for him as for you and food costs as much for you as him. well, finally you say i'll show by hard work i'm worth as much as he is, and therefore i'll catch up. the end of the year comes, and the boss rates both of you, and

he says, you know, both of you have done excellent work, excellent. that's your review. then he discusses with you the raise for the next year. he says, you know, you are really -- you're good. you are determined. you are prodding along and do everything we ask you to. we're proud of your work. we'll bump you up to $43,000, or $44,000 raise, that's a 10% raise. he's hard charging, really going at it. we're moving you up to $53,000. now, the difference of $5,000 originally is now quite a bit more, $9,000, okay? now you say, so at the end of the year, it comes again, you both have a year under your belt and the review comes again, and you both get excellent reviews again, and so the boss comes to

you to discuss the raise for the next year, and suddenly, you think, well, i didn't plan on this, but i'm pregnant, and i love the job and the firm, and i'll be back in a couple weeks. my mom and mother-in-law will take care of the baby. you'll never miss me. the boss says, okay, well, we want her back. she's been pretty good, so we need to make sure that we motivate her to come up. we'll move her up to say $48,000. he comes in and the boss looks at him and he's a hard charger, working so hard. he's going to be in management. we have to move him on the management track. that starts at $60,000. now, there's a $12,000 difference. it went from $5,000 up to $12,000 in a few years in the little pieces. what the message is here, the

longer you work the wider this gap gets, and it keeps growing and growing. that's how it happens. it doesn't happen in a big way that you miss something or make a foolish mistake and there's something going on that, you know, no, it happens in little tiny ways. now, you say why does this happen? why -- well, here's -- listen to it carefully. if you listen carefully, what you find is the kind of biases and stereotypes. he's a hard charger, and she does good work, and it translates into differences in wages. well, that's unfair. that's strictly because he's a he, and you're a woman, and it's discrimination, and it's illegal, but for the most part, you're not going to sue for that. you're just beginning your career. you think, wow, i'll make it up. you move right by some of this

illegal behavior. that's part of it. there's another part which is if you listen carefully to the language that -- your own language, we tend to talk ourselves out of action, and so it's things like, i can get by on less or i'm missing something that he's got or, you know, it's all these things, it's i, i, i, and so we talk ourselves into not taking any action at all. that's the way -- this is way the gender wage gap happens. it's a combination of discrimination and our own inaction. what i want to do tonight is i want to get you committed to acting, and the only way i know how to do that is to make sure that you understand what this gender wage gap means to you personally. i can talk about all these numbers, and they are interesting, and you'll memorize them because you have to for

class, but the plain fact is until you internalize this and it's in your gut, you won't move on it. here's what it means. if you -- say your sister or a niece or somebody in your family just graduated from high school in spring in boston or wherever, and that young woman is going to earn over her lifetime $700,000 less than the young man standing next to her getting his high school diploma when she does. $700,000. when you graduate from u-mass, you'll lose $1.2 from the guy standing next to you. if you go to law school or mba this year, you lose $2 million over your lifetime. if you graduated earlier, say

ten years ago, 15 years ago and say, oh, this doesn't apply to me. things are better. you're wrong. it does. the gender wage gap, that 23 cents was the same in the early 1990s as it is today in 2011 so things -- there's no natural improvement here unless we do something about it. the next time you hear that the gender wage gap is 23 cents, i want you issue wherever you are, i don't care whether you're in a classroom and somebody mentions it like a professor, or you are out in a grocery store, or on the street, or in your home, wherever it is you hear that gender wage gap is 23 cents, close everything out of your brain and say out loud, i want my million dollars. then it means something to you and matters to you and remind

you what you're losing unless you do something. let me ask you to practice for a min. if you hear the wage gap is 23 cents, you say? >> i want my million dollars. >> now, this is being filmed. you can be more persuasive. you have a message for the rest of the women in the nation. try it one more time. the wage gap is 23 cents. >> i want my million dollars! >> that's better. that's better. keep that in your mind and in your heart because it's that motivating factor that will help you act on this. now, there's two pieces to action as i've analyzed this and gone around the country. one is to be committed to acting which, when you start to personalize this, i think you get that feeling. the other is to be confident about asking. you have to be confident when you act it won't hurt you, but in fact you'll get somewhere. that's what i want to talk about

for the next 10-15 minutes, and that's really about what you do when you negotiate either the salary you have now or the salary you want when you get a job. for starters, they are both the same. for those of you who have jobs now and those of you who are looking for jobs, so let me ask back to the chart here for a minute and ask some people here the woman who is the educational leadership manager, i want to ask you what your job is worth, not what you're paid, but what you believe your job, doing this job is worth. oh, yes, the microphone again. >> stand up, okay. >> i would say $75,000 a year. >> $75,000 a year. okay, how? what makes you say that?

>> because of the extra work i have, that's the minimum i should be paid. it's two titles in one so, it's a bargain for what i'm getting paid now. >> it's a bargain. you have two titles? >> a lot of the stuff it's considered community service now. >> okay, that's what you think it's worth? >> yeah, at least minimum. >> good. the english as a second language instructor. let me -- tell us what you believe your job is worth. >> i would say $50,000. unfortunately, the instructors work a lot of part time, couple part time jobs, but as a full time, i would say $50,000. >> okay. how do you know that? >> because there's a lot of outside work beside just being in the classroom and you play a lot of different roles besides being an instructor.

as a counselor, a job search, a career counselor and different roles. >> okay, okay. you know because there's outside work too. >> yes. >> okay. okay, now we have the director of community outreach. >> what -- not your earning, but what you believe it's worth. >> $100,000 to $125,000. >> okay, how do you know that? >> i'm a lobbyist, i do community outreach, parent organizing, i do pr. i do a lot of different jobs and compared to what the, you know, all these people are earning, i think that's, you know, they make more than that actually. >> okay, you are doing this compared to other people. >> yes. >> okay. okay.

okay. now, let's take the ones looking for jobs. the woman who wants to be the health policy analyst. hold on until we get a mic. what is this job worth? >> i feel like about $100,000. >> okay, you believe it's $100,000. how do you know that? >> two reasons, one i'm looking for reproductive health policy position which is crucial to me to the betterment of women, and two, many of the positions require masters degrees or ph.d.'s in many cases. >> okay. okay. okay, now finally, the research analyst. >> that was my old job so i know that i'm priceless.

[laughter] i would say probably $65,000. >> probably 65, and what makes you say that? how do you know? >> it's slightly more than i made, but in terms of the position that i'm looking for, it seems right. >> okay. >> seems right. okay. now let me say to all of you, those who have jobs and those who are looking that the key to being confident and the very starting point of in sounding negotiation is to know what your job is worth in the marketplace. is that what you -- it's not what you think or what you are getting. it is not what somebody else told you. it's not that you doing multiple jobs. this is objective data. the more objective you get, the

better you're going to be able to negotiate. now, and the way you do that nowadays, the wonder of the internet is these data are available to you. you can go on my website, www.wageproject.org, calculate what your job is worth, and then you flip on to salary.com co-branded from my, and payscale.com, there's a bunch of them. i use salary for the following reason. these are data, these are reports from employers, not employees, so what you get is employers give salary.com these numbers and the data so they can then get back the same information to know what they want to offer for people that work for them so this is pretty reliable data, but as i say, ewe any of the salary engines. what you do is go in there, take

the health policy analyst, or i'll do myself. i'm going to graduate from u-mass boston this spring, and i want to go into pr, and i just got any bachelor's in english with a minor in communications so i'm going to be a starting pr specialist 1. that's what i'm looking for. you go to the salary calculator, and where it says what industry, you go down to clarifications, and then you purchl -- punch in the zip code where you will work, not live. you go into that and look down all these jobs in the communications industry, and i find down there pages of jobs, pr specialist, oh, that's maybe me. when you find that job title, you go in and then you can hit more and up comes a bit of information that says here's what you do if you have this

job, and you read it carefully, and it says i need zero to two years of experience of the and that's me. i figure i have the equivalent of one year from the summers. nonetheless, i'm starting out. when you find the job title, it is very hard -- it is particularly hard for people who hold jobs now. i do a lot of things, i don't fit any box. don't do that. if you don't fit a box, look at a couple job titles. get the da -- data on each one and what employers pay for that job so you're informed and objective. ..

that is important because i don't want to compare my job in boston with a pr specialist in springfield or new york city. they are very different places based on the markets in those areas so i've got my job in boston. that is exactly where want to be and there is a -- between 25th and 71st percentile. you want to know that curve. that is the range. that is the objective range for the job you are looking for, or the job that you have. and then the exercise you have to go through is you then have to figure out where she bp on

that curve and how do you justify it? so you go down all the requirements in that job description and you say okay i do this and i do this and i do additional things. i have more responsibilities than just this job title. and i have more degrees than just what they are requiring or a half more years of experience. i believe i'm starting from one year, and i have got such great reviews were for a work that they gave me the new job. i don't want to work there but they offered me a job so i've got great performance reviews. at the record of being a good worker go so i look at this thing and the pr specialists say the bell curve is between 40 and $50,000. and i think well where should i be in that curve? i am better than the median in my eyes because i am better and i've had this experience and i'm going to start -- i know how to distribute to all the media markets.

so i'm going to -- there is no learning curve for me when i start this job. so i have decided that and this bell curve i want to be at least 25 or to $40,000 i can justify that. that is the way you benchmark your salary. your worth in the market. you have to do that. the more you can talk about your salary and the numbers that are in the marketplace, not what anybody else is earning or one of your friends told you it is worth but those numbers in the marketplace. that is what you do it once you have benchmark your salary then benchmark the benefits. whatever job you have has a value to its benefits as well. you may find there's another $20,000 worth of benefits so you want to make sure later in the salary they go jaish and that you know the value of the benefits and you can see the way they are categorized. x number is $2000 of paid sick time with $3000 paid into your 401(k).

do your homework and say here's the market basket of benefits that i can expect in this job because i want to negotiate to make sure i have at least $20,000 worth of value in the benefits as well as my 45 to $48,000. that is the package to being objective and to figure out what your worth in the marketplace. that is step one. and now the other part of being a good negotiator and being paid fairly and equitably as you have to be persuasive. you can know all these numbers but if you are persuasive you aren't going to get there, so you have to practice the language of being persuasive. and it is all practice. you think about the words that make your case. don't you recall from my interview that i worked for four summers in this company, that i got great reviews, that i have at least two years experience, that i have got others that want

me so you keep practicing the offense of language to be persuasive and you practice the defense of language. you don't have to years. i don't but that is not what the salary is all about. this is about the year ahead. whatever it is, think about what is liable to be the criticism and how you want to handle it. practice that because that is part of being persuasive as well. sometimes you can't. sometimes you know they're going to say something and you say okay i don't, so? but here are the other things i have. it is a practice of the language and a practice of when you make these arguments. once you have done that, then you are the end to into the strategy of a solid negotiation. now, salary negotiations whether you are in a job right right noe looking for one, if you put your mindset, your mindset is this is a discussion. it is nothing more than a

discussion. it is not a win-lose. it is not a fight. it is not ugly and nasty or mean this is a discussion. you have just been discussing you got a job author -- offer or discussing what you have done in this job and now you will discuss what you will be earning in this job. you can set this town tom but you have to do it. and that again think about the language for the discussion. let me break apart to parts of the salary negotiation. i want to talk first about those who are applying for jobs and i want to talk about those who have jobs. for those who are applying for jobs, salary negotiation has three steps. the first step is you want to avoid before you get the job offer any mention of what your salary expectations or requirements are. because you cannot win and that little dynamic. you are sitting there talking and this interviewer says what you must have some sense of what

you are expecting. well, if you say that and what you pick is the number is so high that it is out of the ballpark you just killed herself and besides they will think she cares about the money and doesn't care about the job. if you are so low that you are a bargain you are going to get snapped up and be penalized every job afterwards because that is your starting salary and it is hard to walk away from it. there is no way you can at this stage before you have a job offer and by the way, before you have a job offer there is nothing to negotiate. because you don't have a job. so the key before this and these tempting moments is to think through and practice the language of how to avoid that and you can say, so he says or she says you must have a salary in mind. you can say things like no care more about finding out more about this job and what eventually if you are offer me a

job and what are want to accepting it because that is not there yet. they say don't waste my time, tell me something, with the numbers are. you can say look my research shows you this. my search on salary.com pay scale, here are the looking at. that is what the market is. and then the response i really like because it has some i think strong arguments for it, which is i will consider any reasonable offer. and the reason -- i urge you to think about that wouldn't take that language and make it your own so doesn't look like you were man a king something but the reason that is a nice line is because because consider means i get it we will have a negotiation sometime in us and this and i want to figure out how we bargain this and secondly reasonable says i have done my homework. i know what this curve is and i know what the market is. so it is a nice way of putting

it off. you do all this beforehand intel finally that interviewer says i give up, offering the job and then here is the offer. and this is now in step two. you were now into a salary negotiation. the thing you has to do is when you hear that initial here is the offer, listen to the language very carefully. because it is going to be the clue, the tip as to whether there is a negotiation are not. if the line is here is the number or take it or leave it, clearly said the thing overall there is no negotiating here. don't take bad as that as the final word. think about it. they just offered you a job. they have gone through so many interviews and they have looked and talked to everybody and they finally said you were the one we want. you are it.

at this stage it may not feel like it but you have some leverage. if you have a little bit more power in this discussion then it may feel like. and so you can always even when it seems like that door is closed say something like, especially if you are looking at it way down at the bottom of the scale and you know it is not fair for you know you can't live on it or something, so you can say well, can you do a little better, or this is awfully low on the scale, just to test it. they may say now and then you have to decide whether you want the job or not. but you won't move the job on that little test and you may just open the door to more money. let's assume for a minute that there is a better response, which is you know, i am authorized to offer you $40,000. or i am authorized to offer you $50,000, or 40 which is way

below. whatever it is above, below, in the middle, you are happy, whatever it is your response should be the exact same thing. you stop, you pause, you think and then you start negotiating. and usa do you recall from our discussion when i was interviewing for this job that i do have these four summers of work in this press office. and by the way -- and this is where the strategy of how you layout your argument step i ste, take the next step and keep pushing until you see how far you can go until finally that person says now i think i can't go any further. i can't. style, this is it. think about what you are going to do when to stop.comes. now that you have moved as far she can. if you are inclined to take it, then you sit there and usa i

think we are close. but let's talk about my benefits. because now you want to get into the benefits discussion so you pull out the sheet of paper that says my research shows that the market value for my benefits is $20,000. let's go down these things and tell me what the value of the benefits of your company are so you find the ones i have on the ones that don't have. you tally all those up and say it comes out to $10,000. i don't want to leave and you don't want to leave $10,000 worth of benefits on the table. so you think about how they could make it up or you and you say this is a lot of money for me. this is the market rate and other jobs right next door, pr specialist juan with the benefits so help me. i am very close. help me, make me whole. and so then -- and you can say i want to go back to umass to get

my degree and we pick up the tuition or i am moving from his ring feel to this job in boston and when you pick up expenses for me? all the things you think about before and beforehand that might help you. in addition to that you say things like they are one-time bargains but you know is there a signing bonus? something like that, or is there a signing bonus and are there other benefits like dental care and support that you can add on? and then, if you are still trying to push the benefits and you have some leverage against say look i want to take this but maybe you will consider since we are so far part that you will help right now by having a salary view six months rather than a year. if you put that in negotiation you have a huge step forward because if you can get reviewed six months earlier he gives you the opportunity to be that much

ahead of the game later on. you have to step back and say okay here's the compensation package, my salary in my benefits. do you want to take it or not? you can be so satisfied and want to take it on the spot or you can always say i need and i to think about it and that may leverage you some more but you know at this stage you have -- they want you. you are close. stop and think about it and start out. people have jobs. if i go through this and i am a pr specialist three and i am earning $80,000 i think that is terrific but they look on the salary.com and they see it is between 80 and 100 i have got more years than on this thing and i say oh i am underpaid and i need a raise. now raises our current. they are either earned beforehand or they are earned because you now have new titles,

new responsibilities and new stuff you want to do and that is important too but if you were going to get a raise you don't ask that hearing sitting woefully underpaid. i've earned that i'm worth that and i have now been in this job underpaid for a couple years so i want my race. i want at least a 10,000-dollar raise. the key for people who decide that you are underpaid for the work you are doing right now and that you deserve a raise is to pick the right time to start this process. sometimes the right time is that you just got a new client, declined for the firm or you got a big award or if like me, you are underpaid for a long time. whatever that is, pick the kind that works best for you and sometimes that is in the normal rate cycle and sometimes because it is so big i don't want to be in the normal raise pool because i will not win so i'm going to be off cycle probably now. when you decide what is the best time for doing this what you are

basically doing as you call your boss and usa i want to discuss, i want to have a meeting to discuss my career development, thinks about my career development. if you say i want to have a meeting to discuss the raise they are going to know. then you go win and you sit down and sit down across, round the table. don't sit across from a desk because that is so stifling. bring in your data and your numbers whatever you want to do. put it out there. and say look, give that boss the five-minute elevator pitch for coherence my case. here is my case. why i am underpaid and what i deserve and then stop. be absolutely silent. don't talk over it. i would do a political aside but we are going to run out of time. i learned to do this and i would say sometimes when you do this

your heart will be in your throat, pumping pumping pumping because it is unnatural to do it wait to see how he or she responds. beforehand you have anticipated with those responses might he like. if you are already the highest paid pr specialist in the firm and then you figure out your answer. well, here is one answer which is don't compare me to anybody else. this is not about me compared to anybody else. this is about me versus the marketplace. marketplace. this is my worth. or i can't sell this to the ceo. i agree you are underpaid and you are terrific and i really want you but i can't sell it to the ceo of the company. usa you and i have to ought to go to the ceo. grades. you can't have it better coworker than your boss going into say to the big guy, okay so so -- or he or she says blood it is not in the budget.

and so then you say well it is not in the budget but do you agree that i'm underpaid or what you put it in next years budget? by the year could pii at next year, you are in such demand you may be out of here so i would ask for writing or confirmation. then you have been able to say let's put it in for next year and let's put it in with an adjustment costs of living because i'm being punished for this year. now does in next years budget and you were waiting for it. there are all kinds of ways of anticipating the objections and then you have to anticipate what is the final line select a play that. if the final line is loved, no. i disagree with you, you have to come back to say look, let's have another meeting. this matters to me and it matters to my family. i'm supporting my family so help me in a month or so and let's talk about how we agreed on my value and what i need to do or how we discuss this.

so that boss knows this is not going to go way. there is a mismatch here. it has to be clarified or if you get a piece of this and so you say thank you very much. i appreciate some of the raise. let's talk about my benefits that go with a raise because of course with that phrase you have to make sure that the appropriate that it is also go up as well. or then if he or she says yes to you usa thank you very much and graciously but also talk about your benefits if you got the whole race because you want to make sure it can that you are getting the value of those benefits. that is the way you go after raises. if you do these things, you have to be persuasive and be strategic. u.n. to with lift the kind of powerful i think ability and the confidence to get things done. let me tie this all together and

we will open it up for questions. salary negotiations like almost any negotiation is living on three dimensions. it is it is a three-dimensional curve if you think about the x. axis. the x. axis is from chip chipped active to objective. you want to be moving further out on the objective axis. the furthest you can never get. on the y-axis you want to be from passive to persuasive. you want to keep building your skills up eating persuasive and on the z axis you want to be going from ad hoc to hide -- highly strategic and you have to do all three things. if you are highly objective and highly persuasive but you don't have a strategy you are not going to get there. if you are highly persuasive and highly strategic that you are not objective you are not going to get there. if you are highly objective and strategic but not persuasive you are not going to get their so ever encounter you have, every discussion you have is the

experience you have gained in learning how to keep moving out on all three of those planes and getting more sophisticated and more effective at it and more confident. that is why you practice any plan and then you go out and try it and you keep doing this. if i can they be with one perspective on this, it is if you do this, if you have the commitment to be paid fairly, just barely, no breaks, no special deals, just fairly, what the market pays for this job and what i'm worth in this job if you have the confidence and the commitment to doing that every encounter that you have basically not only advantages you but it helps every single other working woman because what we are doing here is breaking the scale in the bosses eyes of bias and stereotypes in all this stuff. we have to break them all off.

i have studied this for a long time and for me the way to get to equal pay for every one of us to be paid what we are worth is we have to do this from the bottom up. it is illegal to discriminate. the eeoc will never have the funding to be a direct enforcer. we just don't ever give them the money. so the combination of the eeoc's enforcement but our activism here, every single one of us doing it, that is the way we get this dumb because we change bosses, every boss' understanding of what is a winner and not only that but we do it. i say to you that you are not only helping every other woman but every time you do this, every time you take your step of trying to advance your own worth to where you are paid fairly,

you are building your own legacy for your daughters and granddaughters to have an opportunity that they now don't have to earn an additional million dollars. so we all need to do it. okay, let's have some questions and thoughts and responses to this. >> thank you. questions? alicia do you want to ask? say your name and where you are from. >> hello. my name is alicia boggs and i'm from detroit michigan. i read your piece in the new england journal of public policy why do you believe especially after the equal pay act of 1953, that beginning in the 1990s the wage gap for women actually widens or increased instead of decreasing and the second part to that question is what you think that is still happening today? >> well, part of it is what i i have said which is it is still

happening because there is still a lot of highest stereotypes and discriminations. it just goes on and is throughout the worth -- workplaces throughout the country. in the 1990s and it is a great point, when times are good, the wage gap gets bigger. men have tended historically to benefit more and good times than women. when times are bad, women tend to benefit. that didn't even happen this time around with this recession so we haven't had either way. but clearly in the 1990s it was a time of great wage increases for men and we didn't keep up with that. so this is one of these things were again if we think it is inevitable and this is just a matter for length or time, we are missing the point that we have to do things to make it happen because these trends have gone on forever. i hate to think of what i have lost because i am old, but it is sort of for us right now

understanding history is important because it tells you we just cannot sit and let times world without becoming active on our own behalf and by being active on her own behalf we are doing something for everybody else so that is a wonderful part. it is not that we are being greedy and selfish. it is that we are affecting bosses minds on this so you feel a sense of pride. every single boss that you have had whose minds have changed and getting better so step forward for all of us. >> that is very true. i wanted to say, there. is "the boston herald" actually publishing every year how much every state employee by name earns. it is very easy for someone like myself to look at other directors and find out exactly where i stand and it has made a difference. >> objective facts are very important. how about stacy?

stand up. where you from? >> hi, i'm stacy stacey lawson and i am from somerville. i've found a lot of my female friends don't think they can negotiate their salaries and i am wondering if you think women are less able to negotiate their salaries and if that may be affecting the gender wage gap? >> i think it is. that is what the study suggests that women are more reticent than men. i will tell you that i have a workshop and it was supposed to be for women attend guys showed up and they took over the workshop. and afterwards we were thinking, imr is watching to see whether have the audience or not and so i'm watching all of the eyes of the women and they are taking every know. they have all this information and they can see it in their minds but they got silent with the guys there.

i think men tend to be and this is all generalities but men tend to have a sense of going in and asking for stuff and we women, the interesting thing about these workshops because we have done workshops and 200 campuses throughout the country now for women about to graduate. what i discovered as we is we all bring baggage to this and so do know whatever our background we'll think of it is just us. in my family we didn't talk about money or in our culture we don't talk about money so once we understand that every woman's culture and heritage had acreage to it in this regard, but then we are going to get over the spirit of all of us doing it together but we really are held back in part by our social -- socialization from our families. we are held back to the fact that we are called awful things when we do start to negotiate but there are ways.

if we are smart about it in strategic and you pick your language. as a politician you are careful about your language and so here, is just doing the same thing. it is thinking through beforehand the right words so that you don't get a buzz saw so you don't turn somebody often by the way if you are negotiating and you think you are jeopardizing your job for the situation, trust your gut. step back from it that until you can have that uneasy feeling you can still keep pushing forward because it is making some dance in this dynamic. so this is all about how you step in and start to experience it but it is a tougher for women. it really is. >> nicole. >> hello my name is nicole and i am from california. i have two questions. i take time off from work to raise a kid and have a family to

take care of poor older parents and. [inaudible] more professional women will keep working and maybe there would be some point we will actually make more money than men do because men evidently by the age of 50 they have accomplished what they think they are going to accomplish and they can retire if they decide to? i just wanted to get your views on that. and the second question is, if you really have a really good salary and you felt like you were very accomplished and you were not underpaid, however if you want to reinvent yourself and you want to enter the job market and do something else, how do you figure out or evaluate your market value in a different area? >> okay. the benchmark, the exercise you have to go through if you are going to shift into a different

industry or a different kind of career is to look at all the skills and experience you have from your existing or past career and analyze how they applied to your advantage in this new career. and so it is up to you to do the homework to say it it is not i'm starting from scratch. u.s. had a fun experience in doing something and doing it well and the skills are typically transferable but they're not unless you make that case so it is up to you to make the case to sort of look at and do it in a regular way. what i do is you sit down and write these things down, right down the skills you have over here in the skills needed over here and see if it is a match. don't assume for a minute that because you are switching careers that you need to step back. it may not. depending on how good you were and what the skills were and how you did them. the first question about the longevity bonus. i haven't heard that one before.

and i was thinking about it. i think you are right for some number of men who have the luxury of retiring at age 50 but what we are learning now is the baby boomers did not save much money and maybe working male and female a lot longer their lives and for the rest of us the working middle class folks of the country, we are strained right now. i would like to think that might happen because more women are working longer but i think we are going to find that unless in the next 10 years our country picks up with an economic engine similar to what it had in the '90s that we are going to find all of us working long and hard, men and women, to make sure we can afford the lifestyle that we have had because it is a real strain right now for lots and lots of people except the very wealthy. thank you.

>> hi my name is -- and i'm originally from ghana west africa. talking about negotiations, if you have two job offers and the one you really want is less to think it is advisable to mention the other job offer during the negotiation process? >> that is a great question, a great question. well, there's absolutely -- say hey look i have is other job offer. they want to pay me more but i don't want to go there. can you make it up? can you hold me even here so i can accept your job because you like me and i want you and you want me but i'm clueless to walk. you can do that. you must never fake it. you must traverse a look back i have this other job offer where they are offered me a lot of money because they might say you can't take it in then you are sunk. if you really have got it to ensure it is fair to go throw that down on the table and to say and reason with them about why it is you really want the

job. they should do this to cinch it. a great question. yes? >> anne forman from brooklyn. do you think there is a less of a gap in the nonprofit over corporate america? >> no, i don't. the studies i have seen show that there is a huge gap in the nonprofit world particularly in the upper, and the higher-paying nonprofit stuff, the larger research foundations. so, i think the nonprofit world at the low and probably there is not as much of a gap but at the height and there is clearly data on it from research that shows the gap as severe and it is again, it is male-female of the

very wealthy well well-off nonprofits and this clo where there is a huge gender gap. >> can i ask a question? actually i don't need to do it. i assigned the class an article from "the wall street journal" that came out on tuesday called there is no male-female wage gap and this article argues -- the woman you rice said argues there isn't sex discrimination nor sexual patriarchy but that women make choices to take jobs in certain sectors and that these choices sacrifice higher pay for jobs with quote fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. what say you?

[laughter] >> i say there were a few working women that have that luxury and that for the most part we are all scrapping with jobs that have tough conditions and every day of work is hard work. i saw that article, carol, and to me there were a couple of things i have trouble with. first of all there was no gender wage gap. and yet the discussion was about unemployment so i'm still waiting to see the data on the wage gap which i never found that there was a distraction. they got off on unemployment. that is not a gender wage gap number and the argument around the occupations were the kinds of jobs that women work, my favorite example is in "the new york times" magazine over quite a few years, you saw these women pushing baby carriages down central park west and they

talked about the women who dropped out to have kids and raise kids and they all looked really happy. they were having the time of their lives with the new look at who they are. who can afford to do that nowadays? only the high earning mba's or lawyers but such a thin sliver of working women that it is not all of us. so i don't like to generalize on those kinds of things because i don't think that is what working women and america are now doing. i think the jobs are hard and women choose things. our choices are very limited and they are limited because we all need to work. we are supporting our families more and more. women are so supporters are major supporters settled this is not easy times and the occupational stuff by the way because that always gets thrown in. wealthy choose an occupation that pays but look at the occupation of nurses that male

nurses earn more than female nurses. the same happens with teachers. there's an very interesting -- that goes through occupations and shows the predominant number of occupations women still make less than men and there is a thin sliver, handful in which women earn more. this stuff doesn't hold up for me to the research data that is there and so what we know of the conditions throughout the country which i see every day as i'm going out and doing workshops. that is a nice idyllic thing but it is not for most working women. >> is funny because the little subtitle says it was a study of single childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30. so it is a very small subset of women also. >> is it ever. >> other questions? meaghan.

>> i was wondering if he could. >> a bit about the potential impact of the pending supreme court decision to determine whether women can sue an employer? >> well, the impact is potentially huge if walmart can establish, the women of walmart can establish a class-action. it is huge. i've just done a study along with policy research on dissent decrease and it it is clear dissent decrease can be effective where there are class-action dissent decrease. so walmart at this stage, if this can be a class, the settlement is going to be huge and it is going to be a message. how do you effect affect from the top down discrimination, systemic discrimination? it takes one example like walmart, that class-action is established, to scare other employers into looking at the

data between genders and raise because every bit of discrimination of gender is about race as well but for them to look at and take seriously the data that they have and start to make sure that people are paid fairly. so to me, this is a very important signal to the country. it is a class-action can be established, it will be the most important signal to the rest of corporate america to shape up on this and if not it's a huge loss. >> we have time for one or two questions. say your name and where you are from. >> hello, i'm rebecca. i'm from alabama. but i really appreciate you and everything that i learned tonight and i'm sorry i came in late. i thank you for all the great information you have given us

especially exactly the response is to give in our own words to the bosses when they might give us different for reasons why we couldn't get a raise. but i just wondered have you heard stories of a woman and that experience or even in the event that you mentioned like mentioning you might have a job offer somewhere else but he wanted to stay here but can they match this other price? has anyone ever wanted to eat their words and really were that it's going to little bit too far even though their instinct felt like they could still push? the boss didn't think so but i'm kind of worried that i will say too much. >> we all have that worry but now no i haven't heard that. you don't know until you try it. it can seem terribly scary but again, if you judge -- the one thing we have going for us is i think all women can assess other people very well. we have an understanding about

the people we are dealing with. we just know human beings and their behavior. when you are sitting there and you start to discuss your salary you will get the sense about how far you can push and when some languages offputting and if it is how to turn it around. trust your gut because we are all at this stage in our lives pretty good at this. that is advantage of have but i haven't heard regrets. i have heard some people, some women have talked to me and some of the workshops i've done for working women who said i wish i had almost 20 years ago when i tried and got shoved out, but they didn't have -- i wish i had this years ago too but it is sort of we don't talk about that. the workshops in the country are doing this stuff. it is a piece of understanding that is just not out there. so the more we can start to discuss it we are ahead of the

curb. you had a question too. linda. >> so i have two questions. compared to other industrialized nations women in the u.s. tend to fare significantly worse on a lot of issues like sexual assault and nexus to health care how do we rate to comparable nations in terms of the pay gap, the pay equity? and the second question is of all the reading i have done over pay gap and wage increases and increases and so forth native american women are never included. so i would like to know if you know of any studies in which we have actually been included and how we fare in terms of pay and if you don't, why are we being counted? >> you are being counted. is an interesting question. i don't know of studies about native american women in the workforce, and i also, when you look at the large census data and how it gets rolled up, the

number of native americans is so small that it doesn't get reported in that sense. my sense about this is that the bureau of labor statistics and the bureau of labor right now headed by the secretary who is a latina would be the most sensitive towards doing special research studies of the kind of need to be done because you say it and you are absolutely right there are no studies that i know of. so i would take this to the secretary or self and say look we ought to have some studies. talk to them. this is our time to get these kinds of studies done and started. how do we compare internationally? the honest answer is i'm not sure. i am so absorbed in trying to get this right in america that i haven't had a chance to look at and do a good analysis of the rest of the country. i do know from reading some of

the international press that a lot of western europeans countries are a lot better than we are at this and we are just not up to speed with them but for the world i am lacking in that perspective. i will do my homework before i'm invited back. [laughter] i think we are going to wrap things up and i want to say first of all what a wonderful program and i want to give evelyn murphy a great round of applause. [applause] >> the british house of commons is back from its recess so tomorrow prime minister david cameron looks at questions from members of parliament.

this discussion took place earlier this month on "washington journal." >> host: at the table isca carrie lukas executive director of the independent women's forum iws.org is a web site if you want to learn more. we are here with you to talk about this idea of the wage gap so the first question is do meno make more money than women on mt the job and what are thet are differences right now? >> guest: it is interesting because when people talk about this what they really are foc focusing on is is the department of labor statistics that is regularly produced produced. this compares the full time -- the average working of a full- time working men to the average wages of a full-time working women. it is always about three- quarters of what men make. but the thing that i find and that people need to know is that this is a misleading statistic. this does not mean that your co-

worker is making more than you if you are a woman. it means that women take on different jobs in different careers and have different work histories which affects how much they earn. when you start control for those variables, the wage gap shrinks and sometimes even reverses. in fact, women in some specific sections of the country and in different circumstances make more than men. this is good news for women. it is a problem when women are being told that we face systemic discrimination that will rob us of our equal pay. the statistics do not back this up this is an overwhelming problem. >> in some cases mem widget revenue making more than men. guest: we have two sources of information. one report looks at segments of

the economy and specific jobs where women have higher starting salaries. for anyone who wants to know that tradeoff between how much you make and the type of job that you pursue, often specialty's matter alive. dentistry and some health professions, women in the same jobs tend to make more than men. that's an interesting book that i encourage people to look at. another study they got headlines recently the looked at men and women who were single and childless between ages 22-30 living in urban areas. on average, women in urban areas are earning more than men. i would caution you, this is another one of those slightly misleading statistics. it is not comparing apples to apples. it highlights how women are increasingly more educated parts of our population.

since the 1980's, they have been out earning meant in terms of bachelor degrees. it has been 6 and 10. it is not a surprise that women are making more money than men in this younger set, because women are and knowledge economy in the have better conditions as than their male counterparts. we see how that works out in the work force. host: our guest was educated at princeton and harvard. she's the director of the independent women's forum and is a contributor to the "national review." the phone numbers are on the bottom of the screen. as we talk about the wage gap, republicans, democrats, and independents, our guest is making a different argument. before we start to get to the calls, women's choices of careers. life circumstances and what it means. guest: this is the kind of thing

that people intent -- intuitively understand when they think about the decisions that they may. husbands and wives, women tend to have different priorities when it comes to work. but everyone knows when you are evaluating a job and deciding on a career, you take into account factors other than money. we're not all saying we want to maximize our earnings. most of us think about things we enjoy, but kind of lifestyle we want to leave, the kind of powers we want to work, whether we want to travel, and the late nat work. what conditions we want to work in. it is not surprising when you realize that men and women make different choices often. and many men place a higher priority on earning as much money as possible, whereas women want to have a schedule of similar to their kids or they do not have to work after 6:00 p.m. or travel. when you take into account these factors, it affects how much you earn. and the big elephant in the

room, women continued to take a lot of time, the work force and downgrade their work when they had kids. there's a robust debate about this because the societal pressures that women continue to assume the lion's share of child rearing, but for the purpose of looking at the statistics, it should not surprise anyone that someone that takes five years out of the work force, they will earn less than someone who is have a continuous job cycle. women of the ones to take along a list time out of the work force. -- women are the ones who take a long this time out of the work force. host: a labor statistic talks about the number of hours a day that men are working versus women on average. 8.3 hours, women 7.5 hours. and before we get to cause, here's what the president had to say in a recent radio address that discussed women's paid.

>> women still earn on average only 75 cents for a dollar a man earns. that is a huge discrepancy. at a time when people are struggling to make ends meet, and many families are trying to get by on one paycheck after a job loss, it is a reminder that achieving equal pay for equal work is not just a women's issue, it is a family issue. when my first as as president was signing a law so that women who have been discriminated against in their salaries could have their day in court to make it right. there are steps which should take should prove -- to prevent that from happening in the first place. i was so disappointed when a women -- a bill, the paycheck fairness act, was blocked by just two votes in the senate. host: carrie lukas, the paycheck fairness act. guest: it is unfortunate that the president is parroting this statistic in trying to convince women that statistic means that

women are receiving less for equal work. i do not think anybody would come out here and try to tell women that they are being paid 75 cents if you look to the data for the same job. and that is what the president implied. his turn to make a larger political point, but is about litigation, making it easier for women to sue and having a longer time horizon for which they can sue their employer. there is already a lot of protections and the law for women. the money that is spent on lawyers is not spent on other jobs. and it creates a big hazard for companies having the potential specter of lawsuits out there. i'm concerned about expanding lawsuits, but even if we are having the discussion about the merits, people should be allowed to sue, i don't think you need to use these jokes statistics. that is what the president is

doing. host: had democrat up first. good morning. caller: you are very interesting. i would like to ask, how is childbirth figure into the ratio of wages? because common sense, men and women, they are going to take time off for that. how does that financially figure into the ratio between men and women? guest: thank you very much. it is interesting because it is not a surprise that as the caller indicated, women and give birth and tend to downgrade their earnings. they often take time off of the work force or cut back on jobs. they opt for careers that have that built-in flexibility. what is more interesting is that

the response to men when they become falters. --fathers. they tend to earn more. is that a perception on our society? i think more likely, it is a decision that men make. they say that i have to provide for a family. they take on jobs that pay more because of that. one thing that is important to understand. when we talk about the jobs that men take on to earn more money, there is almost a myth that they are smoking cigars and have these glamorous jobs. a lot of the jobs to maximize earnings have been down sides. they are working the night shift in driving trucks, their sanitation workers, working in prison. in teaneck -- they tend to take

on physical risks if they can be physically uncomfortable. there's a premium that has to be paid for performing those tasks. most workplace injuries and deaths are suffered by men. host: michael, a republican. caller: i am a longtime "washington journal" listener. i would just like to ask a very important question to mrs. lukas. we always talk about the gap between men and women and talk about what can and cannot be done. i am going to ask u.s. the professional, what you think they can be done? what can we as americans do to build the bridge between men and women and build in fairness and equality between men and women? guest: i think that a lot of this is a whole lot of nothing. very few people are looking at

the economy as a battle between the sexes. as we've seen in this recent economic downturn, then suffered the majority of the losses. they had had a significantly higher unemployment rate and a harder time because of the downturn. i did not think women are out there thinking, could, our employment rate is higher than men. they are thinking, my husband or my brother is out of work. my son is underemployed. there is no need to bridge the gap or to try to make things more fair. what we need is in an economy for job creation so that everyone has the type of opportunities that they want to have. host: independent college, from houston. caller: does she live in the d.c. area? i like that have her opinion about the michelle rhee, where

the issue is adequately compensated? and if there was a gender bias against her for what she was trying to do? guest: this is not my area of expertise. but i think that she was pushing some pretty radical and much needed and positive reforms in the district of a competent of columbia. i don't think it had anything to do with her gender or race, for that matter, that she faced opposition. i think it was because their interests as you is butting up against. i think that was at the core of that. host: we touched on the economic downturn earlier. can you tell during this downturn whether actual pay for men and women who continue to work has shifted? guest: i think that a lot of jobs that have been lost among

men were good paying jobs. i do not think overall that that will be a major shift. where we do see shifting is among the younger set. is an interesting problem if we're going to view the economy nses of men and women. many jobs are coming less prominent an automated. as the economy becomes more important, as a society we should wonder why is it that our sons are less likely to be going to college and being completing college? the 11 impact on the next generation, men and women alike. -- they will have an impact on the next generation, men and women alike. in our education system, school choice in what michelle rhee was

pushing, less one size fits all education. in our public school system, teach to the -- they were overlooking the way that they have different brain structures. i think that they're making it more difficult for boys who have not focused the talks -- the of the focus and attention on boys. we need to encourage boys to achieve more. host: a republican from illinois. caller: i have a question. i am a practicing doctor for about 15 years. i have noticed a couple of interesting trends. the obvious one is that there are great many more women going into the practice of medicine. i've also noticed that it is becoming very common that their

spouses are taking on the domestic duties that traditionally have been the woman's duties. are you noticing this as the broader trend? are mint taking on more home domestic duties? is this affecting the wage gap in any statistically significant way? guest: the portion of stay home dads is still growing. but it is still a small portion of the population. but some 1% of guys stay at home. i do not think it is having in big impact on statistics. .. acceptance of the idea that the data may be the ones staying home. when it is byases choice. men are having more difficult times finding jobs and that is

why it is ironic that sometimes the media tends to play this is a wonderful thing that they are increasingly prominent. if women are out there earning more and taking responsibility, that is good news, except when it is because their husbands cannot find work and which could -- they wish they could spend more time with their kids. in afect >> guest: in a perfect world, we would have people living the lives they want to live, and if that including women staying home for kids, that's not a bad thing. >> host: matt on the line from san diego, democrat line, good morning. >> caller: morning. i'm looking at the iwf website and the first article or blog is forced renewable energy standards of more polluting and may even be unconstitutional. what's that have to do with women's issues, and why is the "washington times" cited?

is that because the coke brothers gave you money? >> guest: we say that all issues are women's issuesment i think it's a mistake we think we only care about social issues or things that affect babies because women care about the economy and in energy policy, particularly something like energy policy. it has a very significant women's angle. women are the ones who buy most household products and as energy prices climb, that affects women making ends meet and seeing the cost of groceries going through the roof which is the consequence of misguided energy policies. it's a very important issue. >> host: as we look at wedges between men and women, you spoke about education earlier and different parts of the country. is there an insight to what parts of the country where the biggest differences might be? >> guest: the metropolitan and

or ran areas are the most interesting. people are younger and single and childless. that's where we see the real shrinking of the wage gap is in cities. in parts of the country hard hit by the downturn in traditionally manufacturing areas, you'll see a real bump in earnings only because men are earning less. >> host: let's go to new hampshire, pat, independent for carrie, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'd just like to say that did happen to me. a gentleman and myself were hired the same week in manufacturing production, and a year later i had worked my way up to supervisory position, and a year after that, the same gentleman told me he made a dollar more than i did, so there

really is a great discrepancy out there. >> host: if you see a great discrepancy, pat, why do you think that is? >> caller: i really don't know. the man was a single man. he didn't have a family, but he still made more money than i did. >> guest: it's interesting because i think there certainly is, i would never argue there's no instances of discrimination in the work force. there's bad bosses who mistreat employees. i don't know that it's predominantly against women anymore than it is against anybody else. certainly there's unfair treatment because it's not a fair world. one thing that's interesting and studies suggested that could cause and may be responsible for evidence of the wage gap is women's decisions about negotiating for salaries. women are -- studying suggested

women are reluctant to say, hey, you offered me this starting salary, but i think i'm worth 10% more, where men are likely to speak up for themselves. that's interesting research, and if there's a wage gap partially caused by that, we need to know that so we can talk to young women that they need to be preared not shying away from talking about money even if you feel uncomfortable about it. that's important research to be done, and i'd be interested with that caller when offered a job if she tried to negotiate because it's possible the male coworker did and they may have been why she was paid less. >> host: it was narrowly defeated in the senate after it pass the the house with a strong bipartisan majority. do you see that coming back up? >> guest: probably. this has been a priority for the democrats for awhile so i imagine they are not going to let it sit for long. >> host: explain again what it

does. >> guest: it changes the terms under which someone can sue an employer. it would increase or change the definitions of what constitutes discrimination and really, my concern about it is it gives the department of labor would collect new data from employers that would be monitoring how much everyone is paid. that sounds harmless, i do think that there's a danger in this. as the government gets involved in micromanaging and seeing how much employment packages are, i think that we'll find employers are less flexible, and i think that's -- women out there should pause and say what does that mean for me? i know there's a lot of women who say, you know, i'm willing to trade an extra, you know, little bit of my salary if it means that any time my kid is sick i can stay home and no questions asked or the flexibility to say i'm going to work from 8 to 4 instead of normal business hours. you know, i look at somebody,

you know, my own situation, and i'm somebody who has degrees from fine institutions, but if you look at what i'm making, i'm not making the salary of my peers, but i have a terrific position, three kids at home, and i do have a great amount of flexibility, and that's something i feel -- again, i know i'm fortunate being educated and have options, and that affects the wage gap and that changes the numbers. >> host: what about people who don't have your situation or see it the way you do and see the paycheck fairness act if that's not in place for them. what's the alternatives? >> discrimination is already illegal, and there's cases -- you can sue people based on unemployment discrimination. it happens frequently. the thing i caution people is particularly in a time of high unemployment, do you want to make it harder for people to create jobs and the threat of

litigation increased paperwork that comes with new a demands from the government, that's a barrier to job creation so you got to consider the tradeoffs of what these laws do. >> host: on the line from washington, iowa, republican for carrie lukas, good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: i'm proud to hear you. there's one thing i don't understand is why politicians keep trying to degrade the women. the pay gap is nothing. the women make just as much as the man, and in most places, women will outfeed the man. >> host: are you done, homer? >> caller: yeah. >> guest: well, thank you for your commentsment i think one of the strange things about focusing as politicians and

activists do on the one statistics on how much you earn creates a strange lens upon which to focus all your attention on evaluating how people are doing because again we all know there's a lot of factors one considers when they decide what jobs to take on, and i don't think it's a bad thing at all when people pursue -- you work for nonprofits that pay less, but give them fulfillment or pursuing other activities, you know, instead of just focusing on wages. i think money's not everything, and obviously it's important for people to be able to earn money to support their families, but just remember there's other factors out there. >> host: let's hear from john in pennsylvania, independent. hi, john. >> caller: hi, paul. so you agree with wal-mart's stance on unemployment, the million or so women paid less, didn't get promotions, lily

bedwetter was not paid the same of what her equal male employers made, and another question, how much wall street speculation you think has to do with the rise in gas prices? >> host: first, your case on the wal-mart case. the discrimination case may not go all wal-mart's way, your take? >> guest: it's interesting. the facts have to come out and the court is considering not the merits of the climb of discrimination but whether the million women can constitute a class. that's where we are. i think there's -- we need to take a step back before we convict wal-mart in the court of public opinion. we need to wait to see what some of the data is, and i would caution people that when you look at -- when people, i think the gentleman was applying a million women was paid less than

men. we don't know that. we don't know the employment policies like everybody else's, absolutely say no discrimination against women, and we have to be careful because there's factors that affect earnings, how much women, what their specialties are, if you're a manager in one department and what your responsibilities were, so i don't think -- we have to wait and see on the facts and really be careful before just assuming that it's any statistical differences in earnings was based on discrimination in the class. >> host: more about our guest's background, a social security analyst, on the house of homeland security and worked as a senior domestic policy analyst for the house republican committee, this under chairman christopher cox, the republican from california. she's now executive director of the independent women's forum,

what do folks find at your website? >> guest: it's a lot of information and believe women are asked by a lot of issues. we write about taxes and the budget deal and education, oh, and certainly health care. health care's a big topic for us. please come and take a look. >> host: how are you founded? >> guest: by private donations, foundations and individuals. >> host: raleigh, north carolina, wallton, republican, welcome to the program. >> caller: i appreciate the opportunity, and first of all, thank ms. carrie for her informative information. i used to be a writer and worldwide traveler. america should be proud of job we're doing in the area of women's rights. it's very good to hear her talk about the statistics that our president is trying to give to the american people. this clears that up for me

because i only hear or learn what i sometimes hear on the tv or the newspaper, but thanks again for your good information. it sounds like we might need an independent men's organization to support some of those young men who need a couple things. number one, education, a very powerful four-letter word, work, education plus work goes a long way in both genders making it in life. >> guest: thank you for your comments. it's interesting when we look at the situation that the women face in the united states. it's worth recognizing that just how lucky american women are. when we look around the world, there's a need for the best women's movement and parts of women are still lacking basic human rights, and i wish we

focused dangs -- attention on them. >> host: back to this country. the statistics shows more women entering and completely college and doing better than men in the area of college. why is that? why are the trends the way they are? >> guest: you know, i think that our education system may be a little skewed in favor of women and their teaching styles that have become most popular in recent times. >> host: what do you mean by that? >> guest: well, it's interesting. if you look at the research on how little boys and little girls learn, girls are ready to learn certain skills earlier and likely to take in information when they are sitting or able to sit still and repeat things where boys are action-oriented. young boys have a difficult time sitting down and listening. they need to be active and stimulated in different ways, and our education system is catered to girls. i also, you know, it's

interesting. i think right now if you look at the way the public policy has gone and what our government is focused on, we continue to, you know, the white house about a month or two ago came out with -- hailed it as significant report on the status of women in 20 years -- and we often have reports about women, and there has been this focus and still if you hear what the conversation, what the focus is at the department of education and college education, it's really focused on we need more girls in science and technology classes, and that is the one area where women or men are still outnumbering women if you look essentially at all other disciplines in colleges and universities, it's women who are overenrolling. the focus is why there are not as female engineers. i think that's a telling moment when you say, wait a second, you know, of course we want girls to have the opportunity to pursue technology and engineering programs and that stuff. it's a wonderful thing, but we shouldn't be trying to first, you know, micromanage people's

choices and we shouldn't be consistently saying we need girls to beat boys on every academic measure. i think we should be paying more attention to getting boys up to speed and encouraging them to fulfill their potential. >> host: our guest wrote this piece which we're looking at the liberty news online published in the "wall street journal". guess what, there's no male or female pay gap. in fact, women make more than men. now what? go ahead and read it on your own. st. louis, missouri, joe on the independent line. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i've listened to carrie lukas and sounds as if might be her statistics are a little imbalanced. i have been working in the work field for over 40 years and i watched a lot of discrimination, and i also have adult daughters who are educated and continue to educate themselves, have worked

in education and in the business sector and have watched and brought in people for hire who have been hired at higher wages with less experience, have come in with the promotions and hired less and made less than people in those positions with less education and continue to happen. lastly, even up to to thes master's level of education and have been told by superiors because you have bettered yourself and educated yourself does not necessarily mean that you'll make higher wages. i mean, i watch discrimination still happen, so what statistics you're quoting don't necessarily impact what i've seen on the ground level in the work force.

>> host: carrie lukas? >> guest: there's going to be -- there are bad employers out there. i don't at all think there's no such thing as -- it's worth noting and warren farrell's book has a lot of information about this. it shouldn't surprise anybody, but the scale is tipped in the favor of women, especially companies that want to show they have a female representation and upper management sometimes give women the nod when they have or have equally qualified men, and that looks like discrimination against women because the younger women become vice presidents and you may make less than another male vice president and it looks like more discrimination. it's hard to capture everything that goes on in the work force and certainly discrimination exists, but i don't know that it's all one-sided.

>> host: here's a tougher voice for you by twitter. she writes responds to those who feel you are spitting in the face of all the women who came before you and fought for wage parity? >> guest: i feel like this is basically -- i'm proud and thankful and applaud women who fought legitimate discrimination that existed at different times with different pay scales exclusively for men and women. that's been illegal for 50 years now, and there was a lot of hard work done to eradicate discrimination in the work force, and did a great job and statistics are showing it's not a factor. there are a lot of different studies that show different levels of the wage gap and not everything shows that it's zero. some show men have the edge, others women have the edge. we have to look at that and figure out what's going on, but it's misleading, and i think frankly disempowering to women

to convince them they are facing a work force that is inheritly hostile to them. it makes them feel helpless. >> host: you mentioned there's discrimination laws throughout the country. one viewerments to know how are -- one viewer wants to know how they do in court? >> guest: i don't know the rates. a lot of this is settled out of court, so it's hard to have hard facts on this, but it's certainly a lot of discriminations cases are filed and are ruling in the favor of women so there's certainly a lot of protections that exist out there. >> host: by the way, go to our c-span video library through c-span.org to check out the duke's case if you want to learn more about what that's all about, where it's heading. diamond city, michigan. last couple of minutes here. rachel, republican, good morning, rachel. >> caller: good morning. >> host: hi there. >> caller: i wanted to refer back to something that carrie lukas said. how she mentioned that men and

women view things differently. we were created differently, and i see in my own family my brother-in-law would not marry my sister until he had a job to support a family, but as soon as they had children, my sister cut back her work. i was shocked when president obama said that about job discrimination or pay discrimination for men and women. i learned in school that that was something of the past and i also found interesting how she said about the women's education. i have my bachelor's and looking forward to getting my masters, but one day when i get married, i see it as his speedometer -- responsibility to provide for the family and i work if i want to work and be flexible and take

care of the kids although i have seen trends where there's stay-at-home dads which works great, but it's inside of women to naturally take care of children. >> guest: i appreciate your comments and you represent a lot of women out there who are again getting tremendous amounts of education, but still are willing to take and be driven to take time out of the work force or cut back on their engagement in the paid work force to care for kids, and as long as that continues, you're going to -- women are not going to be making -- the statistic that president obama quotes isn't going to be -- isn't going to change that much, and i don't think that's a bad thing as long as women are pursuing their dreams and have the opportunities that are available to them, we should not worry so much about these aggregate statistics and worrying about what that number is. >> host: one or two more

calls. david, florida, independent. hi. >> caller: hi, good morning. there's several issues i want to talk about, but since it's wage disparities between the genders, these studies that she's talking about, do they take into consideration the length of time of people have been out of work? i worked for the county government down here for 12 years, and the job started with a starting salary, and then you receive a merit raise each year that you work. if i worked for the county for 10 years, i receive raises for ten years as well as cost of living, and a woman gets hired to do the same job, her starting salary is lower than mine and has to work ten years or probably 20 years to equal my wage. do these studies indicated a comparison with merit raises? >> guest: well, certainly the statistics that president obama was quoting doesn't control for everything, and that's what's so unfortunate about it is that,

yes, men tepid to have longer -- tend to have longer work history than women do and people who work continue sly make more money than those who do not. one of the biggest -- when the department i labor cat gat goirizes people, there's a lot of variation, and, in fact, the department of labor also has another study that shows men on average work 10% more per day, spend 10% more time in the office comparing people who are full-time workers, more time working than women do. it's not a surprise. it would be quite a surprise if women who worked 10% more were making more money than those who worked less. no, the department of labor, that statistic controls for none of those factors. >> host: last call, democrat, hi there, mary.

>> caller: i'll go back a lot of years, and i worked in it custom case making plant, and i found out that the high school teenager, the male was making more per hour than i, and of course, i hollered about it, not just to tim, because that was women in their place era. they said he's supposed to get more. he said because i'm a male. in this plan there was a husband and wife team. bill was the manager of the plant and then the wife was something lower than him. when he was promoted, she was promoted up to take his position, and she didn't get the money to go along with it. i find that very sad. i have buttons, buttons galore, and it's a little boy and a little girl, each one in a diaper, and the little girl is -- has the diaper pulled out and looking down into the diaper and says, oh, that's why you --

that's why boys are paid more. okay, i was going to make another point, but right now, i can't think of what it was, but same thing of what i wanted to say. >> host: anything to respond to? >> guest: hearing a story from a couped decades ago, certainly there's a history of discrimination against women, and there's wonderful it doesn't affect us as much today as it did in the past. one thing, a final appointment, it's interesting that the women are the majority of managers, increasingly in positions of power who are deciding wagesment i think this idea that there's still, you know, it's only mep who are making these decisions is becoming increasingly antiquated and that may affect the role. >> host: our guest is carrie lukas, the website there is iwf.org if you wanted to check it out. we appreciate your time on this

saturday morning. >> guest: absolutely. >> host: we'll see you next time. >> guest: great, thank you so much for having me on. >> on tomorrow's washington journal, a discussion with harry holzer on the u.s. economy and employment trends. we'll talk with mike glover and james pindell about the 2012 presidential campaign. then senate historian don ritchie joins the stay student cam winner. washington journal every morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span.

>> coming up tonight on c-span2, journalists carole simpson on her new "newslady." and a biography on the shah of iran who was overthrown, and later a look at the life of bill donovan and his book wild bill donovan. all this month, we've featured the winners of the student cam documentary competition. now meet the grand prize winner and watch his document ritchie and meet the winner live during washington journal at 9:15 and stream any of the winning videos online at any time at studentcam.org. >> coming up next, booktv brents

"after words," an hour long program where we invite ghost hosts to interview authors. she details her 40 year career of climbing the ranks in a white male dominated profession becoming the first black female anchor of a news broadcast after joining abc news. she shares her story with nia-malika henderson of the "washington post". >> host: i'm nia-malika henderson joined by carole simpson. you've written a book, your autobiography, news lady. why did you decide to write this book? >> guest: because i had a 40-yearlong career in broadcast journalism, and i don't think anybody else