by counselors refuse and are not even say, competent, or qualified to deal with their trauma. this is sexual trauma. i have witnessed of falsification of records. i have attempted to report to multiple directors in which veterans continue to be of use, and i as a survivor of sexual trauma in the military and have severe ptsd had to intervene to help keep alive a veteran because the va in phoenix would not stop the abuse of her through counseling and other things. host: we will have to leave it there. if you could respond. guest: i could not really respond on behalf of the veterans administration, because that is a separate secretariat, but i will tell you there are important lessons we're learning. we're learning more and more about posttraumatic stress disorder. we're learning about more and

more traumas that do occur in theater. the surgeon general's office has put together several study groups that have gone into theater and look at the operations and interviewed folks. this is a work in progress. it is an ongoing thing. we have created some additional programs and really put a lot of effort into enhancing and enlarging the borough hall capabilities to handling a lot of these issues at the front end. so often a lot of these issues do not materialize until six, nine months, 18 months down the line come in so often they're not in the care of the military system. we're working very closely with the veterans administration to actually work on them as they develop. host: the relationship between walter reed and veterans

affairs, are they two ventures? guest: they are separate ventures overall, but we are partnering with the veterans administration more and more. here we partner with the local be in terms of prosthetics and the care of the npt, because all of these things can be applied to a beauties of previous wars and those that are amputees secondary to diseases like diabetes and motta terry -- and motor vehicle accidents. i think in the future you will see the veteran administration and the department of defense grow closer and closer together. host: for those treated at walter reed --

we are focusing on the work of walter reed army medical center. joining us now for the next seven or eight minutes, colonel norvell coots. how long have you been out walter reed? guest: i have been here a little over three years now. host: san antonio, texas. go ahead. caller: this will never work. they sent a general down to the army hospital command. in less than one year. nobody won services from their command to take over. they cannot go back. they will be stuck with it. host: next call is boston, massachusetts.

democrats line. chris. caller: i had a couple of questions regarding my real dramatic brain injury. my understanding it is hard to diagnose regular traumatic brain injury in does not show up on a conventional mri or ct scan. i am wondering if the army is looking into new types of imaging techniques such as diffusion temperature imaging, a genetic transfer imaging, magnetic functioning, or functional techniques? guest: well, i cannot answer that question specifically, because i am not the technical expert. i know there were a lot of new protocols using new technology to more clearly elucidate mild traumatic brain injury from the more severe cases. one of the thing that is happening as part of this

transition is there is a brand new national interest bird center of excellence for ptsd that has been billed and open on the campus of bethesda directly across the street from the new walter reade national military center, and they are the facility that has been charged with doing all of the research, all of the four-cleaning technology looks to attempt to clarify these disorders and all of their manifestations in presentations. -- forward-leaning technology looks to attempt to clarify these disorders and all of their manifestations and presentations. the average stay at walter reed is probably about a year. patients have stayed here as long as three or four years. the better we get with the new techniques, the shorter amount of time patients day. we are doing the system of onward movement where the patient stays long enough to get

the exact care they need and then we move them forward to medical facilities closer to home. host: what are you commonly treating their? guest: most of what we're seeing right now in terms of combat casualties are imputations. the signature weapon of the work currently is the improvised explosive device, and because we do not have the mounted patrols as much, we are seeing a extremity trauma. the body armor is protecting the individual and saving the life, and when they get to us, it is our job to reconstruct them and rehabilitate them and give them their lives back. host: in a general sense are advances in technology ending up in the kind of replacement that folks are getting when they get there? guest: absolutely. the work that folks are getting now is incredible. we are partnering with medical centers for the latest in the upper and lower extremity

prosthetic devices that can mimic or actually improved the outcomes with our patients. if you aren't upper extremity patient, you leave with at least three upper extremity devices. if you are lower extremity, you leave with one or two prosthetic legs. the ft the lices allow you to do -- the new foot devices allow you to do things you have never done before. host: the next call is from hudson, florida. for those who have been treated at walter reed. terry, go ahead. caller: i was an amputee from the vietnam war, and i have a son of walter reed army center right now. problem is he is national guard. i was an inpatient at walter

reed. we got convalescent leaves to come home. however, he is national guard and he is outpatient, and he does not get those times to come home. i was wondering if something could be done to make it a little fairer for national guard skies. that is all. thank you. guest: that is a good point. there are different regulations from the reserve component in the national park, but i will tell you the military leadership right now is trying to peel back all the bureaucratic barriers and look at equalizing the benefits they get for patients across the board. we have a really good system for moving patients for full dependence to independence. there are some regular -- regular requirements we have to meet for what we can do for active duty forces vs. retired

forces. i think in the future you will see no separation between them. all service members that are here are currently treated equally, and i think that will be done across the board and services as well. and host: when the census this e-mail. she says what -- sends us this email. guest: that article was about the administrative things. since then we have built the military advanced training center, the first of its kind in the world where we do care for amputees. we built the first ever warrior care clinic, which is a model -- model for other medical centers. in less than a year everything that was identified in those articles was corrected and improved upon, and many things

that were not. that gave us opportunity to do everything we wanted to do and said the system of the way we wanted to to best care for those war years. host: one more call. barber from washington, d.c.. arbra from washington, d.c. caller: could you tell us what will happen to the current campus. guest: the campus will pretty much be split in half. the original hospital in southern part of the campus goes to the district of columbia for their produce. the northern part goes to the state department where i believe they want to create it in the strait of buildings. -- where i believe they want to create some administrative buildings.

there are a lot of organizations that want to come in and put health care here, shops, upscale homes, homeless facilities. all kinds of things are being talk about right now, but that is as far as i know. host: for those currently there, when will they be transferred to either facility? guest: the transition has already started. we have started to move clinical operations to bethesda already appeared in in about 60 days you really start to see the big moves north and south, and all of those will be completed by the end of august. host: that includes patients as well? guest: that is correct. the patients they will move last, and that will be the end of august. host: us for the next 30 or 40 years of their lives. host: we will leave it there.

we're joined by two others from the walter reed army medical center. on your right of the screen mcleana.paul the cleanu can you tell us a little bit about your time at walter reed and what brought you to the center? caller: i was an infantry platoon leader with this ticket and a tree division out of washington. in august of 2009 when we deployed in theater, after being in leader four months i was leading up foot patrol with my platoon and i stepped on an idd in the middle of the night and lost both of my legs. -- stepped on an ied. i was in patient care for about four months. the first couple of weeks to amount was spent in i see you.

a transition toward 57, which is the famous war here at walter reed. i did my four months in-patient care. since then i have been an outpatient. i live on the campus known in the malone house for several months before i moved into an apartment in the town of silver spring where i continue to do outpatient physical therapy. host: talk about the specifics of your rehab. guest: it is a totally new endeavor. it is something i never considered doing in my life. no one ever really thinks they will get seriously injured and end up using prosthetics, so i knew nothing about it before i got involved with it. i am a pretty tough case. out of both of my legs i only have 12 inches of femur left. on my right side i left the entire legs.

-- i lost the entire leg. it makes using a traditional prosthetic device extremely difficult. i spend most of my time doing physical 3 havrehab. we also have to consider how to best fit the prosthetic devices to my body because that is a bit of an issue because i am missing some much of my legs. host: as far as your current date is concerned, tell us about what you do day to day as far as rehab goes. guest: day today is pretty simple. i come in for an hour or two hours of physical read debilitation. depending on how legs -- how well the legs are working or gained or lost weight, the daily fluctuation can affect a figment of the legs. using to prosthetic legs if we

make a correction on 12 -- one on monday, the other leg will be a little off. sometimes it is followed up by another couple of hours working with a prosthetic team. that is my official duty besides coming in for formations and paperwork every now and then. on my own i am studying to go to graduate school next year. i am also a certified pierre mentor. on occasion at a therapist will ask me to speak to another patient. i will talk to them and advise them on the road ahead and see how they are doing. host: we are also joined by dr. pasadena. talk was about how prosthetics art changing. guest: as colonel norvell coots

stated earlier, there have been significant advances and prosthetics over the years, but they have not reached the point where they can replace a human hand or a human leg. so there has been some tremendous advances in the technology, but we still have a lot of challenges ahead of us. host: when someone comes in, what are some of the things that has to be considered when someone is fitted for process that it? fitted for prosthetics. guest: one of the more challenging areas is when this didn't comes into contact with the prostatic. during the day scan fluctuates in size so how'd you come up with the sock it that will accommodate the fluctuation in size? additionally, if you have an

amputation very proximal, there is very little for that prosthesis to hold onto. so we're looking at a lot of different ways, partnering with industry and academic centers, and listening to those users, the customers, but more importantly our service members, and they are identifying their needs and we're trying to meet them from a development and research standpoint. host: how much prostatic work is done year to year at walter reed? guest: we have seen over 1200 individuals that have been injured in either iraq or afghanistan with loss of a major limb. many of those have lost more than one limb. so quite a bit is done, especially if you start adding on the multiple limbs and the multiple fittings that are involved with finding the right prostheses for the individual.

most of our work, if not all of our work, is really individualized. each individual that we see has their different goals and objectives for their life, different challenges as well as an atomic challenges, so we tried to meet each person's goals individually. host: the numbers will stay the same on the screen if you want to talk either of our guests. if you of a question for a specific guest, please address to you want to talk to. gary on the independent line. go ahead. caller: i was calling just to say how much we appreciated walter reed over the years. my mom that my dad there when he came back from world war ii and was stationed there after he had been injured. i was born there, and my dad actually spent his last year there when he passed a couple

years back getting care there for cancer. and i just want to say all the times we came to visit him, spent time there, the care they get to all of the wounded soldiers was fantastic, and we really appreciate it. host: washington, d.c.. sharon on the democrats won. caller: i am ex-military. i am from d.c. i have seen the renovations of walter reed. my statement may be cannot be answered by the gentleman there, but since walter reed has been reconstructed and everything is up to par and were meeting all of the necessities as far as taking care of our veterans, of our military personnel, with the cost of the economy right now, i

tend to find it hard to understand why there will be a need to put all of the money into this new location hostn. guest: how does the press that a court change with the transfer to the new location? guest: right now walter reed has been modified in response to the war to meet the demands of our injured service members. we added on the military advance training center to help supplement a lot of the work that needed to be done, and what we have done with the new bethesda campus is to incorporate that into the medical center itself so that it should improve efficiencies, as well as offer more services to not only our injured service members, to other beneficiaries as well. and host: you set as a peer you talk to various groups there.

-- you said as a peer you talk to various groups there. talk a little bit about morale and your experience. guest: the morale here is very interesting. we have unfortunately a lot of seriously-winded service members, which initially when they learned of their wins a lot of the guys go shortly unconscious after being injured, once they come to grips with the severity of their wounds and what it means for the rest of their life, there is an initial disappointment. at the same time we have a great mix of soldiers here of wounded veterans, and we're all going through the same thing, so i tell people very shortly that it is like a locker room environment. when i am wearing my prosthetic

legs and sweating like crazy and working really hard, i look around and see there are other guys that have been through the exact same thing like me and they are more advanced in their recovery. then i look to the other side and see there are other servicemen that are wounded the same as i am, but they are a couple months behind me so they're going through everything i have already been through. quite frankly i see a lot of guys that are one did worse than i am. it definitely comes down to your individual personality, how strong of a support network you have. whether he still have your spouse or girlfriend or boyfriend, all of those things factor in. my role as a patient is mostly just to listen to guys and evaluate them on an individual level. some guys i can say you will be fine, work hard, but then sometimes you have to be a little more tender. some of our patients do not come from a good solid support

network and they need more care. host: port orange, florida. brian, go ahead. caller: i am watching the program of the sacrifice of many soldiers who have come and gone after i did. in 1991 i spent a year at walter reed after the persian gulf war where i was diagnosed with cancer. i was in a very late stage of lymphoma. dr. nicole lee was my doctor. she was an internship on the oncology war. she saved my life's, and the the sad to see walter reed closing, but it is just an incredible place. it has affected so many people over 70 years, and i have two wonderful children and have been out of the military some time,

but i am humbled by people like this young captain and other people that lost so much more than i did, but it is just amazing, and it is a sad day when it does close. host: for those like the and who come in, what is the prospect of normalcy once they leave the program and fitted and back to being rehabilitated? guest: i think you cannot understate the challenges that our service members and their families face coming back with some very severe injuries. some of those physical, some of those emotional. helping them rebuild their lives is obviously a privilege and an honor for all of us on the walter reed staff, as well as of bethesda. but as i said before, and as dan just said, every individual is unique. everyone has their own

individual social support system. so we recognize that is a very important part of the recovery and rehabilitation, and therefore do our best to incorporate family members, loved ones, into their rehab. our therapy in area, and they -- very encouragement and determination to get through this i think we all find inspirational. host: is walter reed doing the job as far as the mental and emotional needs that those that come in their need as part every have? guest: i would say without a doubt it is. again you have to look at every patient as an individual. some of us require a lot more help and support than others. i would also say there is quite honestly only so far you can take some people.

from what i have seen is the great job they have done. when skies are doing the physical rehabs, if they choose to take advantage of the program, they have all kinds of options for educational rehabilitation. vocational rehabilitation. our guys are set up with internships, both private-sector and public-sector. the physical rehab is only part of the program. the other part is realizing maybe will not be as physically active as you used to be. i cannot be an infantry platoon leader in the war, but i can go to a business school and work in a prosthetic industry and help out other people that are in my same situation, so if our patients, regardless of rank or college graduates or non-college graduate, if they look beyond their injury and decide i am going to push on with my life, i am lucky to be alive, this will be ok, then if they want to take advantage of what walter reed

has to offer, they can. host: those who have -- you said initially those who have been bombed out initially. was that your case? guest: i was conscious for couple of minutes after i inpped on deptthe ied afghanistan. then i was in a medically- induced coma. i had 25 years of a great life with legs. i was very physically active. i did marathons'. i like to go hiking and play soccer. i quickly realized that none of that -- i will not be able to do any of that again in my life, but i am getting back to realizing there are more important things in life than running marathons and playing soccer. that is where i started to see the lining in the clouds i guess.

once i found something i could be passionate about again outside the army. i think my recovery really started to take a turn for the better. host: if you could, would you serve a down? -- you serve again? guest: yeah, without a doubt. caller: i would like to say congratulations to the colonel and a job you guys are doing. i appreciate your service. and i too am a retired military veteran, and a question for the captain is, how hard was it for you to get emotionally back into wanting to get yourself prepared to continue to serve in the military? guest: to be honest, it was fairly easy i would say. again, i had my dark days early

on. i was really disappointed about my injury, but i realized that it is not the most important thing in life, and most of all i realize there are plenty of americans, combat veterans and non-combat veterans have much harder challenges to face than i ever will, even with the loss of my legs. in terms of continuing my are reservists, that is an option for me. -- my army service. i think i could stay in and contribute. it is something i seriously thought about, but i decided the best route for me -- what i want to do is enter the biotechnology sector in prostatic specific specifically from the business side of things. if i do that, i will be able to help many americans.

from kids in car accidents to people with debilitating diseases, and i think that will be very rewarding. host: what is the future hold? -- what does the future hold? guest: having a new generation of people that have lost limbs, bringing incredible intelligence and determination and innovation we will see great things and prosthetics. the biggest movement obviously in the lower lives will be introducing a power back into the lower limb prosthetics. right now the majority of them are passive devices. they don't substitute for muscles that were lost. by incorporating voters we will be able to see much more -- lasting effects for individuals with lower limb loss. in terms of the upper limbs, the

sky is the limit. we can build robots that can do virtually anything. the big challenge is how an individual can control that in a way that is more humanistic. a lot of research is being done. it is very exciting to be a part of that research, but at the same time very humbling to see the injured service members and all of those with when lost. host: what is the cost versus upper limbs vs lower limbs? guest: i have been asked this question all lot. we're very fortunate and uniform, how you put a price on someone's hand? have you put a price on someone's leg? -- how do you put a price on someone's leg? it is very difficult to answer that question. every individual has the book --

different needs, and we do our best to meet those needs. host: what is the cost for an actual leg and actual arms. guest: you have to understand the billing mechanism that excess with in the united states is probably not an interesting topic for many of the listeners, but when you start discussing cost of a prosthesis, elise and the civilian community, that includes the services associated with it. -- at least in the civilian community, that includes the services associated with it as well. and then do initial training in terms of use of the prosthesis, so if you're talking about the individual component versus the service, it is much different. the individual component, what

you see is as new technology comes on the market, it is fairly expensive. as we learn that technology, as we decide or learn that what components are better than others, then obviously those costs go down significantly. we also have to realize there is a business component to this. we can have great ideas for prosthetic limbs, but we needed industry partners that will fabricate those limbs. you cannot ask a company to start making products that do not have a huge market, so we recognize that, but we are very fortunate that in the department of defense, department of veterans affairs, we have gone into these things saying we will paid for these things, do not

to american bar association commission on homelessness and poverty posted a panel where three formerly homeless people discuss their experiences the discussion was moderated by "new york times" columnist who barbara, hauer author of the book and nickel and dime. this is 45 minutes. >> we thank you, everybody, for

making a day one of the forum has a success. i've been at the center now -- this week is actually my five-year anniversary of the center. [applause] and see the growth since the time i started to where we are now is really incredible, and what i'm excited to have been able to share it with you. this is only day one of the forum, a day to taking place on capitol hill tomorrow so don't come back here in the morning. we have directions at the registration desk for those of you who need them we are going to start the day at the law firm write off of capitol hill and then move up to the hill for a congressional briefing and congressional visit thereafter, so we are looking forward to that and again directions are the registration desk if you need them. also for those who may not be

joining tomorrow please turn in your evaluation sheet of the registration desk on your way out. otherwise, keep them with you and turn them into mauro. the whiff of that we come today we differ from a lot of experts on housing rights issues from lawyers, from advocates, government officials and from those who are directly affected by human rights violations. one of the key components of the human-rights approach is elevating the voice of those who are directly affected by these violations to advocate for the remedy to the solution to their problems. so, while in fusing these voices throughout the day on many of the panel's we wanted to close today's event with a panel that gives the floor to them completely, so we are to have them share their stories and perspectives and tell us what what we as advocates can do to insure people who like them are

treated with the dignity and respect that they deserved as human beings. we are also thrilled to have barbara ehrenreich master storyteller here to moderate a panel. barbara is a preeminent author and social commentator whose works appeared in "the new york times," the atlantic monthly and "time" magazine. among her work examining the challenges of the american job market is the best-selling 2001 book nickel and dime, and not getting body in america. and in 2009 she author eight series of op-ed poverty's for "the new york times" including day column called is it a crime to be poor on the criminalization in america. she's been a partner and we welcome her today as we present to you our final panel releases of the streets. [applause] >> thank you very much, eric,

i'm really glad to be here. i should say something about how why are originally got involved in the national law center on homelessness and poverty, and that is when i was working on a series for "the new york times" in 2009 and on the effect of the recession on people who were already poor, which is something that hadn't occurred to the new york times. they were busy talking about people who had to cut back on their personal polities the trainer because of the recession and that's what i was doing and i made an appointment with maria and some of the other people at the center and said well, juneau, educate me more or less, and they did. i shouldn't say this but i fink they did a great job, because

they introduced me to people like space on the panel and other people who are not here, other people who had the experience of living on the streets and you get to talk to them and know them slightly. this is not my first occasion of meeting and getting to know people who are in that situation. i've done that for with nickel and dimed as a reporter and the thing that struck me the most of the experiences of homelessness from the outside of someone that has unfortunately been in that situation is the huge amount of ingenuity that it takes. just amazing. i've known people who work full-time who are homeless, and so so much that those of us that have homes to go back to just

don't have to figure out like a how do you do showers? hauer you going to do that? you have a vehicle to stay in, do you have a pardon the expression of t bottles? how many things require the fought and preparation, intelligence and coming which is also not to mention of what to eat and how you're going to manage that. so, that impressed me, but then i think that is a sort of heartbreaking thing that one of the kind of problems, one of the threats one faces as a person without a home is from other people, organized other people is from law enforcement and a

lot of fog has to go in to help to survive that. maria tells me you've already been talking about it quite a bit today. the address in orlando this week three orlando presidents, not homelessness but people who were relatively affluent or middle class but who were committing the crime in orlando florida, the crime of sharing food with indigent people with, just think about that. let that settle in. there's a lot of cities in this country, lost a guess, middleton that have made it illegal to help people who were indigent and homeless now to me that is

sort of like a violation of the basic rules of any major religion. it is a slap in the face to anybody with any moral compass at all. the law enforcement system that makes it illegal to do to most ordinary things to not stand in one place too long, littering, sit on the sidewalk, god forbid, littered which can mean ripping a cigarette butt on the upside by line. instead of having a system in place to help people as they begin to lose ground economically for one reason or

another like job loss or for closure or illness we seem to have in place a system that access to to people when they are down so they're a little bit. the started down by a kick them and push them down the next level. and if it takes enormous courage and intelligence and craftiness to survive as people on this panel have done, and so i want to turn this over to the real experts. starting with you came into the situation did people who are fortunate enough to have a home to go back to tonight sometimes that's what that experience is. >> again, my name is linda

barnes, sorry, my name is linda barnes, and i am a washingtonian born and raised here in washington, d.c.. i now live in alexandria va my sense of homelessness came back in the 80's. my husband and i worked together, i was an abused and battered wife for years, it took me ten years first of all to leave to get up and a fleur-de-lis comer to leave my husband, but i finally did and when i did leave i found that i was homeless with four children. i said this isn't for me. i would go back, and the cycle would start again would start the beatings so to keep a roof over my head at that time and for my children to have a roof over their heads i would stay and endure the beatings.

another couple of years went by. i decided i can't do this any longer. you know, i'm not just hurting myself, i am hurting my children as well, so one night when my husband went to work i packed up and i left again with my four children. to make a long story short, it took awhile. we stayed with family, we stayed in union station, we stayed quite a few places. back in the 80's it wasn't easy for a woman with four children to find a place that she could call the refuge and feel safe. we did stay with family, as i said, and but it didn't last very long. you know, we were asked to leave, so we stayed here and they're the time my children were in their teens and they had friends homes they would stay over while i would just walk the streets sometimes in the district. when my children became older and i was living with family,

they can about getting their own places and i finally obtained a job, customer service is what i did and did very well, found a place of my own, my very first part of it on my own, and years later found out that my youngest son i moved him in with me, took him to the doctors every single day. this happened in 2000. this is where my second came with homelessness i wind up having to take off to take care of my son when my son passed away i had to use my money, my rent money in order to bury my child because of the fact that she did a lot of insurance because the illness was there before he was able to get insurance. when i contacted my leasing office to let them know that i would not be able to pay my rent

the following month and maybe not the next month because i lost my job, i was asked to leave. i gave up my apartment. i sold everything in my apartment and wind up walking the streets of alexandria virginia with $400 i sold everything in my apartment, my furniture, clothing, everything for $400. all i left with is the clothes on my back and some clothing and my suitcase. - walked alexandria, the streets of alexandria, as i said, and i would go into the embassy suites at king street to wash up, and after burying my child i tried to get an apartment, was told that i could not get an apartment because i had given up an apartment. i tried to explain my reason for giving up my apartment. unfortunately, they didn't want

to hear it. so once again, i just gave up at that time and continued just walking the streets of alexandria with my suitcase until someone told me to go to social services. i then went to social services where i was helped and was sent to one excel the alexandria's community shelters. i stayed there 90 days. i did obtain a job. unfortunately, i did not know that i had a right to housing, and everyone that i went to to try to get housing i was turned away because of the fact that i had given up an apartment and i was living in virginia at the time. welcome to make a long story short, i finally did obtain housing because i went and applied for the housing choice voucher. when i obtained the housing choice voucher i found an

apartment in old town alexandria. there was a gentleman there was a property manager, and when i went to take my voucher up, he asked me how many bedrooms are you looking for? i say just one, but unfortunately i've been turned down so many times, you know, no one is giving me a chance. so he said it's okay, you know, you have your voucher, you can move here. this gentleman allowed me to move into a one-bedroom apartment with my voucher and i have not been homeless since. i also put together a nonprofit for homeless families while i was in the shelter it together, provided incorporated which is a christian and nonprofit organization that helps not only homeless families and single men that senior citizens. i am trying to get my 501c3 now and i have all my paperwork. the only thing i don't have is my 501. i know what it's like to be homeless. i know what is needed.

i have lifted and walked it and it is now time for other things, for people to know what is going on. it's hard for us to find apartments when for some unforeseen reason, some reason that is beyond our control we've lost our homes, we've lost our homes and it's not that we are looking for a handout. we are not looking for anything like that. we are just looking for others to just ask us what is it that you need? we need attorneys, we need lawyers to come to the shelters and ask what needs to be done? we can tell you what needs to be done because we know, we know what needs to be done. and the only way it is going to get done is if you step up and say you know what, with you. i am for you. i will help you. we are not looking for a handout. i have had the job ever since.

when i became homeless the first time, had a job. i pay my bills on time. i do everything that i'm supposed to and it is only by degrees of god right now i have not been homeless since that one gentleman to get in his heart to give me a place to call home and now i'm trying to help others myself to do the same thing, show them what way to go, how to do it. but we can't do it alone. the organizations out there cannot do it alone. we need attorneys who would sometimes just go to a shelter and find out what it is, what is it that your resident needs? what is it that the are having a problem with? i had an attorney do all of my paperwork for me pro bono. $8,000 worth of paperwork pro bono to get providing corporate and incorporated which i am

incorporated in alexandria. but the thing is now it's not going to get done and homelessness is not going to end unless we have people like you who are willing to step up and fight for something that is definitely our right, and that is a right to housing. [applause] >> thank you for that, linda, and i'm going to be very interested to hear more about providing incorporated and it's amazing that you went on to do that, but let me now introduce gw. how did we meet? >> mckinney. >> but we are also facebook

friends. i want to point that out. [laughter] and we've corresponded by e-mail and coming from st. petersburg. >> thank you. i don't want to tell my story, and i will tell you why. i was homeless from 2002 to 2007. i broke 2008 briefly. and i am a high minister and pastor from the church which means mission of god, and i don't hide the fact that i was homeless because everybody knows that, and i was fortunate enough to get a job and being the

incorporates having been homeless, and so i was until probably the 15th of this month i will still be employed as a vista a speakers' bureau called the faces of homelessness where i recruit homeless and formerly homeless people to tell the story is to create and let people know that we are the same as anybody else. but as the minister don't get me wrong i have 1 foot in a hotel and 1 foot on a banana peel so it could go tumbling down to the sidewalk anytime i tell people let's go from here. that's what i'm famous for.

i really want to hear the story because i know their story and i have pretty generic story of homelessness. my house burned down, i was a sailor. i saved nothing. i lived for today paycheck to paycheck. my house burned down which wasn't my house. on recross suffered me for three days and let me go out on the streets. and it took me that much time in florida. i'm from if the coming york but there is no home to go to. i was maybe 40 at that time and there was no home to go to to see what i could do about raising myself with my own hand and there is various adventures in that as i say. let's go from here. and so, if you see the index at

me, accept me from here, and i was homeless for about seven years. so let's go from here. but i want to tell you guys three or four stories. i mean, i have a lot blog and i write stories about people, and i'm always with the homeless because i never left. when i got inside i immediately went outside to take some sandwiches. i got evicted from a place the first time in my life because i let the homeless come over and take showers and somebody was really worried or weary i would let them sleep in my house and my landlord didn't go for it. she didn't want all these bombs are now in his area so let's go from here. the day before yesterday which

was sunday, i was walking in williams park from my hotel and i saw this guy who in his name is mike, she is a homeless guy and i first saw him lying on a sidewalk in florida. it is very hot and so sometimes you lie in the grass but they have a terrible problem, a terrible red ant problem so you can't always lie in the grass in the parks or wherever you are, sometimes you are just going to lie on the sidewalk. so that's where i met him and talked to him and he got friendly enough to ask me for a cigarette and i gave him cigarettes and beer, i drank beer, too, so i don't have any

moral judgment against people drinking beer. but anyway, he walked by, i was going to church, and i will never forget the image of him leaving in the sidewalk. i don't know how many of you know that. i mean, i'm from the streets, like i say, i hang out and used to when i was young, so you have these boombox is it can't really put them on the sidewalk because the sidewalk will drain your battery. who knows that? the sidewalk trains mabry is to -- drainings batteries so your battery will tend to dry quicker if you put your boombox on the sidewalk, and. >> you can never tell how people are in the street because they

look older and as i say the sidewalk trains their energy all of them. as he walked by. going to church its florida so everybody looked sweaty, so he walked to the other side of the park i walked in the park and i was talking to somebody and i see an ambulance, and i didn't think anything of it because i had been talking with somebody for a while and then i walked down there and he's dead on the sidewalk, he's dead, just dead, you know. they are dealing with people and they said, you know, i mean she was complaining about chest pain

or whatever. they called the ambulance. i didn't know i had been out there that long but i had seen him so i must have been out there that long and the ambulance didn't come and by the time the ambulance came, he was dead. he turned blue, he turned black and then he was dead. it may be the sidewalk trend of the energy of him. i don't know. i do know that i remember of the emergency medical services came to the aid of a friend of mine, and she said i got on my cell phone and called him and he said he felt like he was dying and

the emt said homeless people are always trying. there was probably the attitude when they called it they said this guy is having heart palpitations and you better come, because homeless people are always dying. and it's kind of liked roaches or vermin that you see on the street. i mean, you could not get at coming to that way. their energy is always in training and they are always dying. that's a first dixie because remember i don't want to talk about me. if you ask me out me i will tell you but this man walked into the store named toni's across the street from the park, williams

park is between four streets and it's where the homeless hang out and it's their common center because they are not really about to go anywhere else. if they go anywhere else they are going to get arrested this man walked out of the store he had a four pack of beer. they don't really sell six texan florida because it's too high because he left with a six pack but for packs are prevalent. so the police arrested him for possession of alcohol because he had the ear and he was obviously a homeless guy. they had arrested him before so i guess they arrested him for drinking so this was a preventive measure and so the and arrested him for the possession of the year for the fought he was going to drink that beer, and they put him in

the car and they handcuffed him and took him away. nobody said anything. i was thinking well, if it is illegal to buy beer it must be illegal to sell it so why don't you go into the store and arrest that guy because they aren't going to go into the store and arrest that guy because homeless people are in florida where i'm from, st. petersburg florida and considered to be pegged come and the energy dreams out of them. they are always dalia. and so, while other bader, why bother? hill will be out today, he will be out tomorrow. don't bother.

>> the example i am going to say is there is just something wrong. i thought that there was something wrong with the guy who died and his friends were accusing -- they were going to take these ems' botts because they called 45 minutes ago and he is dead. okay and the guy who arrested for body in the year but nobody was arrested for selling beer because he was legal until he came out of the store. i thought i was weird. but i've got to tell you this was the one that i think is really weird. the police asked me, i have a love-hate relationship with the police being a christian man i love my enemies and the police pretty much hate me but that is our love and hate relationship but there are a couple of cops

that i know and they came into the park. i'm in the park every day, i see everybody and everything and talk to everybody that will talk to me but they were looking for this particular woman coming and i knew her but i thought maybe they had a warrant on her or something and seven years on the street a snitch and i'm nobody. i will deal with it myself if i have to. and so they were looking for her and came back and looked for her again and somebody said there she is. and the cops went to her and i guess they woke her up. she had her stuffed and was thinking they were going to take her stuff and they said no, no, we just want to talk to you. and they told us homeless woman her son had died in afghanistan,

and she freaked out, and there was no consoling her, just -- and i thought i was weird because here is someone in the park, their energy runs out, the always tired, it's illegal for them to drink beer it's not illegal for them to sell at here's this woman she's firm in, but her son is dying in afghanistan and we are going through williams' part to tell her that her son is dollying i just think that's weird and a sad commentary for the american society and i think we can do better so let's go from here. thank you. [applause]

thank you. it's hard to go on from here when you wrapped up its ally can think about. i next want to introduce space, who i've met you and if he's one of the people that the national law center introduced me to when i was working on a series for "the new york times." good to see you again. >> how are you doing here? - ascent appear thinking how to start, but i said i'm dealing with pieces of my life going into the what caused me to be homeless, some things that happen and how i got out of the.

i was instructed by my guardian angel to say there is no end. i will first introduced to drugs and alcohol at the age of 11-years-old, introduced to crime at the age of 15, then my first incarceration f-16. my first homelessness was about 1985, but it didn't last long because i got somebody to take me in. in 1996, was arrested in virginia on distribution of cocaine. when i was released in 2003, well, let me back up. when i was incarcerated, i lost my mother, my grandmother and my

brother, and they died in north carolina. >> when i was released in 2003i had nowhere to go. >> once i became homeless they let me sleep in the church. >> because of my criminal history, they said we are enabling you, you've got to go so then i hit the streets of d.c.. i slept on the streets of d.c. from 2005 -- 2004 to two dozen ninth -- 20091i was blessed with a guardian angel. but when i came back to let you know where the crime and

everything came in my record kept me from getting a job, my homelessness kept me from getting a job, but once i got the home, the job, it worked out going back to this thing what i'm talking about is not illegal for them to select but it's illegal for you to have outside. i was arrested one time in fairfax virginia four times in one day. now when the arrest you for drugs for 40 hours, how many eight hours is there in one day? ai was arrested four times in one day and the judge threw it out how can you arrest this man four times in one day and you

are supposed to keep him for eight hours? and there is only three eight hours in one day. but also living over here in the streets of d.c., she was a guy sitting on the street with a solar ball -- soda bottle, something in it but a soda bottle. but the guy selling drugs over there can do it all day. why do you to man when he's down when you're supposed to be trying to help him up? pick him up, taken to a shelter. but the justice system focused on the homeless more than on anybody else and they don't try to help you. we are going to take you to the talks, try to help a man out.

i have a guardian angel that got me where i met today. my mother died while i was incarcerated -- i don't want you to think these are tears of sadness because it is really tears of joy because there's a lot of people they care about me, but it wasn't the justice system. i've been arrested my rap sheet will go out that door and most of the alcohol or drug related.

but those guys out there selling drugs they just get away with it. and i think god today that there are some people who care, and we need some more people will care to step up to the plate. i think obama gave up some money to help the homeless in the united states. the money that he gave up in the united states is not enough to help the homeless in d.c., and d.c. is not a big city. los angeles, detroit, visa other big cities that is where we need you people to step up to say something to help and even right

now when i get a paycheck, i go out and try to help somebody with food or something. >> i was found at my guardian angel on right across from the verizon center there was a guide came to me one night he said i do not want to be gay anymore and i'm cold. i was in a wheelchair and god has blessed me to be out of my wheelchair. am i doctor wanted me back in it but i took my coat off and gave it to this guy, and there was a girl standing there with me who said how can you take off your

coat in the cold? i said god told me to do it at second i have another coat on the back of my wheelchair. so i put that one on. this guy told me he doesn't want to be gay any more and he turned his life around. i try to use my life in this example. you see what the peery and i said i was in a wheelchair why was in about two cars in one day and god has left me here to have a testimony to give to somebody else and i don't want anybody to feel sorry for me but prefer leave but dodd has me here even at the podium for a reason to help somebody else, and whoever

is watching, you all might laugh but each one of you all are on leave, that's far from being homeless. there was a guy that was an architect for the big builders you see he slept right beside me on the bench in the park across from the daily planner after years of making big money and one day his mind snapped and that was it. so the only way we are going to get through this homelessness is if people step up. they made a t-shirt about obama

got osama, that's not even where we are at right now. we've got children out on the street right now there are some young kids on the street right now to get their parents out of the street but that's the wrong idea we spend a lot of money on the war right now. we need help right here in the united states, helping it reveals, fighting everybody else, but the criminal justice system is not for the homeless and if i remember right, a lot of the mental health on the street right now need help. the mental health, they don't have money to help us.

we need some people to step up and help maria do her job because she is one of my guardian angels but with that, i'm going to close and thank god. [applause] >> we have time for questions? okay. here are the experts we just heard some very powerful testimony, we've been challenged morally and individually, we've been spoken to, please come any questions for the experts here. yes, sir? >> i have more of a statement than a question.

my name is rob robinson a work of the economic and social rights initiative and to take back the land movement, and i want to thank windel and walter for telling their stories. it's important as many people in this room know. i spent two and a half years on the streets of miami homeless and ten years in the new york city shelter so i certainly understand and feel your pain and know what you went through, but by tickets important you tell your story. movements begin with the telling of on told stories and it's important for us having gone through what we went through to be able to articulate that any real way. so, i encourage you to get in more forums and tell your story. i think there is a problem in the country when we see homelessness to sweep it under the rug. but i have watched it in my emt many times you will see on television the arena on the

boulevard, a beautiful arena to blocks to the south is ase talmadge ecotown along the railroad tracks a think gw you know what i'm talking about. it was a totally different picture to the folks in the room so i would encourage you again. i want to thank you as a journalist for bringing the story and realism to the story as a sexy issue or the social ills that it is for the folks like you have made it real and put faces on it and we thank you for it. [applause] >> can i say something like that? thanks, rob. he said that homelessness is not sexy. i broke a story recently that is international, it was

shefights.net to what they were doing in st. petersburg is recruiting homeless people for $50 just to make a brief they would tie them up and have these martial arts experts, fighters and football players kick the crap out of them for $50. if you yell on goal before the eight minutes or 12 minutes were up you didn't get the $50, and so i was going to put it on the blog but it was so porth -- horrific i convince people who were victims to get lawyers. now when i -- once they had gotten lawyers denied broke the

story. i had nightline called me, the daily mail of london, people are from new zealand, everybody calling me for this story and today's leader we had a conference called ending homelessness concrete solutions which maria was the keynote speaker. not one single reporter was there, and i called basically every betty who called me about the associated press, everybody who called me about this shefights.net. it's like germany. i got calls from all over the world, literally, and i put it to the test i called everybody back and said we are having this conference, so i tried to tie in, so things like this won't happen, not one reporter showed up.

shefights.net, 56 pages of google it generated just name, g.w. rolle, she fights. for concrete solutions, not one report. so go figure. >> this is something of a really want you all to know about and it slipped my mind to italy. >> when you get ready to send somebody to a shelter, guinn amana stay with them for one night and that's all i have to say. [applause] >> it might be a little hard in the city where we are losing our beds in homeless shelters faster than homeless people are being generated, am i right?

>> maybe we should get ready for the reception, refreshments? a chance to mingle, and i really want to thank you, everybody on this panel i think this has been -- i started, maria started my education a couple of years ago we and now i'm ready for the graduate degree. you are really enlighten us and challenged in many ways. thank you. [applause]

robert mueller served us ten years as fbi director and president obama republican presidential candidate tim pawlenty today outlined his economic agenda in a talk at the university of chicago, his plan includes tax cuts for businesses and individuals, the three-year tax system and reducing government regulation. in his remarks the former minnesota governor accuses president obama of engaging in class warfare. this is 45 minutes. [applause]

>> thank you. professor, thank you for the gracious introduction and your presence today. thank you for the hospitality and for opening up this incredibly prestigious and important institution to this gathering. i really appreciate it, and i am very grateful to have the honor to be here at the university chicago. this is the home to some of the greatest free-market thinking in the country. we have a country now that means significant and dramatic economic growth in the solutions and ideas and principles that have been debated and discussed in this important institutions over many generations along the court of the direction that we need to move forward for this country but i want to start my remarks this morning just by asking you how are you enjoying your recovery summer? that's what the president said we were having, but that was

last year, the recovery summer. gas is $4 a gallon, home prices are in the gutter, our health care system, thanks to obamacare, is more expensive and less efficient, unemployment is back over 9%, our national debt skyrocketed, our budget deficit has grown worse and the jobs in manufacturing ports aren't grim. there was a recovery and the republican needs to enter economic rehab and the american people need to stop his policies the spending has to be brought to a halt and we must have a president who has a growth agenda with pro-growth policies, i will. the president wrongly thought the stimulus, the bailout and takeover were the solution. he says they worked. they did not. the president is satisfied with a second-rate american economy

produced by his third rate policies. i'm not. i promised to level with the american people to look them in the eye and tell them the truth. i went to iowa and said we need to phase out federal ethanol subsidies. i went to florida and said we need to raise the retirement age for the next generation and means test cost-of-living adjustment for social security for people who are coming into the workforce. i went to new york city and told wall street that the era of bailouts, car faults and handouts have to end and i am willing to tell americans the hard truth, and i believe they are ready to learned the truth of the economy isn't that hard tall and the truth is this markets work and barack obama's central planning doesn't. america's economy isn't growing at 2% today and that is what all projections say we can expect for the next decade, 2%.

that is anemic. it's unacceptable. it's not the american way. the recession may have changed our economy, but it didn't change our character. the united states is still home to the most dynamic and entrepreneurial people in the world. they are all around us ready to innovate, in the best, compete and create new businesses and jobs. that will mean opportunities for everyone. they've been discouraged and weighed down by president obama big government and heavy-handed regulations. they deserve a better deal. and i will give them one. and here it is, let's start as a nation with a big positive goal. what's grow the economy by 5% instead of the anemic 2% currently envisioned. such a national economic growth target will set our sights on a positive future. it will inspire the actions

needed to reach it. and by the way, 5% growth target is and some policy in the sky number. we've done it before, and with the right policy we can do it again. between 1983 to 1987, the ronald reagan recovery grew at 4.9%. in between 1996, and 1999 under president bill clinton and republican congress the economy grew at more than 4.7%. in those cases millions of jobs were created, incomes rose, and unemployment fell to historic lows. the same could happen again. ..

>> american businesses today pay the second highest tax rates in the world. now, that's a recipe for failure, not adding jobs and economic growth. we should cut the business tax rates by more than half. i propose reducing the current rate from 35% to 15%, but our policies can't simply be just about cutting rates. they must be about promoting freedom and free markets. the tax code is littered with special interests, handouts, corveeouts, --

carveouts, subsidies, and loopholes. they need to be eliminated. this won't only help offset cuts, but reduce favoritism and government manipulating markets for political purposes. business success should depend on winning over customers, not winning over members of congress. these changes will make american companies immediately more competitive. investment from around the world will pour into our suddenly inviting market creates desperately needed jobs and opportunities. just changing business tax rates is not enough. that's because we know most job growth will come from small and medium size businesses and they are structured as s corp.s or llc's known as passthrough entities, and the owners are taxed under individual tax rates, not the corporate rates.

pro-growth tax reform has to include individual tax reform as realm. small business owners and hard working americans need a better deal too. small businesses should also have the option of paying at the corporate rate. on the individual rate, though, we need a simpler, fairer, and flatter tax system overall, and i propose just two rates, 10% and 25%. that's it. under my plan, those who currently bay no income tax would stay at the zero rate. after that, the first $50,000 of income for an individual or $100,000 for married coupled would be taxed at 10%. everything above that would be taxed at 25%, that's the whole structure. it would represent a one-third cut in the bottom rate, and it would allow younger, middle, and lower income families to save and build wealth and represent a 28% cut in the top rate, and it

would spur investment and job creation. in addition, we should eliminate all together the capital gains tax, the interest income tax, the dividends tax, and the death tax. government has no moral or economic basis to claim a second share of the same income. when you deposit a dollar in your banking the, every -- bank account, every penny forever more should be yours and your children's, not the federal government's. once we unleash the energy of american businesses, families, and individuals as we did in the 80s and 1990s, a booming job market reduces demand for government assistance and rising incomes will increase federal revenues. in the 1980s, revenues to the federal government increased by 99%. in the 1990s, revenues climbed high enough to balance the budget, 5% economic growth over the next ten years would

generate $3.8 trillion in new tax revenues, and with that, we could reduce projected deficits by 40% all before we made a single budget cut. now, the next part of my plan deals with the rest of the equation, the 60% of the deficit that's not solved under what i just described. a balanced federal budget shouldn't be a political sound bite. it should be the law of the land. as one of 49 governors operating with a balanced budget requirement, i balanced four budgets in my two terms as governor in the state of minnesota, i know the reason our legislature gave me a balanced budget was because under our constitution, they had to. we have to face the truth. congress is addicted to spending, and that's true regardless of which party's been in control, but the best way, and possibly the only way to

ensure fiscal discipline is to put congress in a spending straight jacket. that's why i support a constitutional amendment that not only requires a balanced budget, but also caps federal spending as a percentage of our economy. it should be around the historical average of about 18% of gdp. only a constitutional amendment has the power to bind future congresses to keep their promises. it will force decision makers to finally make decisions, and it will give statutory reforms a chance to succeed, but passing a constitutional amendment is going to take awhile, and the crisis that we face is here right now, and it requires immediate action. i have, and i'll continue to outline specific proposals to reduce spending, reform government, and balance the budget. as i've mentioned, i've already begun that process with proposals regarding ethanol, entitle wants, government

employees, reforming wall street, and much more. for example, i've proposed capping and block granting medicaid to the states entirely. i propose raising the social security retirement age for the next generation, and i've also proposed slowing the rate of growth of defense spending, but we cannot really trust congress to do it. there's no historical railroad to give us confidence they will go forward. we can't allow though the situation to risk being unresolved. it will take down america's potential growth and our future prosperity. i propose that congress grant the president temporary and emergency authority to free spending at current levels and impound up to 5% of federal spending until such time as the budget is balanced. if they want do it, i will. now, as an example of the effects of this in terms of the budget impacts, if we're able to cut or the president's able to

impound just 1% of overall federal spending for six consecutive years, we would balance the budget by the year 2017, think about that. just 1% each year between now and 2017 would balance the budget by 2017. i know government can cut spending because i did it in minnesota. i cut state spending in real terms for the first time in our state's history. we did it with priority based budgeting. we did it by setting a record for vetoes. it took a government shout down and a long government union strike and many other difficult decisions, but we got it done. we did not close our schools, we didn't empty prisons, but cut spending where it needed to be cut, and we can do the same thing in washington. impounding the money should be a last resort only to force policymakers to finally do their

jobs, to cut what we don't need, to allow us to keep the things we need the most. now, there's some obvious targets. we can start by what i call the google test. if you can find a service or a good available on google or the internet, then the federal government probably doesn't need to be providing that good or service. the post office, the government printing office, amtrak, fannie mae, freddie mac, and others were all built for a different time in our country and a different chapter in our economy. when the private sector didn't adequately provide those services, but that's no longer the case. what's more? the same competitive efficiency that revolutionized america's private sector over the last three decades should at long last be applied to every corner of the federal bureaucracy as well. it's no longer enough for government to go on a diet. government needs to hit the gym,

and hit it hard. one efficiency program as an example is called liensig sigma using performance based practices to streamline practices at the cia and pentagon and the military. we used this in minnesota, and several of our agencies, and it worked. if we apply this approach throughout all federal agencies, we can save up to 20% in many programs. now, beyond all of this, the real slog of the next administration will be an unrelenting trench battle against the overregulation by our federal government. it's suffocating america's entrepreneurial spirit. conservatives was the butt of jokes and considering what the bureaucrats are in charge of doing like our shower heads, the vigor of our toilet flushes or the glow of our reading lamp,

you know, it's hard not to laugh or cry about such things, but the fact is federal regulations cost our economy nearly $2 trillion this year alone. it's a hidden tack on every drk tax on every american consumer built into every good and service in the economy. the current administration is hunting for far bigger game than just the light lightbulb. under the mandates, america's private health care market is in intensive care, and the prognosis is bad. the dodd-frank bill called for more than 200 new rules to be written by more than 10 federal agencies, none of them resolving the catastrophic scandal of freddie mae. they came out untouched. no one knows yet exactly what the law is or what those regulations are going to

require. the environmental protection agency is now regulating carbon emissions. now, that was a policy that's been rejected by the congress, but puts millions of jobs at risk, the country doesn't support it, the congress doesn't support it, and yet the epa continues to try to advance that agenda against the wishes of the legislated officials in congress, and, of course, the people across the country. if these policies sound adds though they were written by people who spent no time outside of government, well, that's about right. president obama's political appointees have been notorious for their lack of private sector experience. this is unacceptable. it's fundamentally immoral to force working americans to hold down two or three real jobs just to afford the whims of the so-called experts who never really had one. we don't need obamacare to create one size fits all government run health care program. we need washington to allow a

personalized private health care market to flourish and meet the diverse needs of individual patients and their families. we don't need dodd-frank to further intertwine wall street and pennsylvania avenue. we have to prieftize fannie and freddy so their funds can never again sink our economy, and we don't need unleked officials at the epa to do what our elected officials in congress rejected. we need less epa monitoring of the economy, and more monitoring of the epa's effects on our freedom and job growth in this country. i'll require sunsetting of all federal regulations unless specifically sustained by a vote of congress. under my administration, and it'll come up for review in votes, there's sunset up for review every three to five years, under my administration also, the national labor relation boards will never again tell an american company where it can and can't do business, and just as the federal

government must break down barriers with our domestic markets, we must break down barriers in our international markets. congress should ratify immediately the free trade agreements with south korea and colombia and complete the agreement with panama. we should start new bilateral talks with trading partners and promote aggressively our exports all over the world. president obama set a goal of doubling exports, yet his policies really prevented this. mine will achieve it. finally, even if we are successful in changing the way washington taxes and spends and regulates, many of the gains we'd realized could be lost by the continued debasement of the dollar. as a result of the lose money policies of the fed, a strong dollar undergirds all that we do for economic growth. inflation and a devalued dollar cruelly underminds why savings and net asset values and the life pros protects of every

american. if we want to give taxpayers, retirees, investors, consumers, and entrepreneurs a better deal, we have to maintain a strong dollar. no more quantitative easing, no more monetizing debt, no more printing money with reckless abandon. the president and the congress have an incentive to maximize employment on their own, and a limited government streamline tax system and competitive market place gives the economy what it needs to do so, but we need a monetary policy that's focused like a laser on curbing inflation and promoting a strong dollar and maintaining price stability. that should be the role of the fed and nothing more. now, america, as you know, is facing grave challenges, and when times get tough, some politicians try to turn the american people against one another. regrettably, president obama is a champion practitioner of class

warfare elected with a call for unity and hope, he spent three years dividing our nation, been fanning the flames of class envy and resentment all across this country. to deflect detention from his failures and economic hardship they visited on america, the class warfare is not who we are. i come from a working class background. i didn't grow up with wealth, but i've never resented those who have it. the top 10% of income earners already pay more than 70% of the income taxes in the country. we can jack that up to 80% or 90% as president obama would have us do, but that's not the point. while it might make the class warfare crew saiders feel better, it doesn't create a single job in america, and it would destroy many. president obama has had three years to turn things around, and all we have to show for it now is $3.7 trillion more in debt

and climbing, nearly 2 million fewer jobs, a congress that has not passed a budget in more than two years, a health care takeover that he pretends we can afford, and a fiscal crisis he pretennessee we can ignore. we tried it president obama's way, and it's only made the economy worse. other countries around the world have tried it president obama's way, and they've met with ruinness results. now, we have a choice. just because we followed greece into democracy, doesn't mean we should follow greece into bankruptcy. the united states has always chosen its own path, culturally, politically, and economically. for 235 years, we've taken the road less traveled, the road of liberty, the road of self-government, and free enterprise, and it's made all the difference.

america is in trouble. there's no question about that. the frustration and apprehension of the moment doesn't define us. where we are is not who we are. we are the united states of america. we settled the west, and we went to the moon. we liberated millions of good people from communism, fascism, and jihaddism. we lit the lamp of freedom for the entire world to see. the strength of our country is our people, not our government. americans believe our country is exceptional, and they deserve a president who does too. we can fix our economy. our people are ready to get back to work. we just need to give them the tools to get there and get the government out of the way. thanks for coming today. i appreciate your time and your attention. thank you, again, for the hospitality from the university

of chicago, and may god bless you, and my god continue to bless the united states of america. thank you. i'll be happy to take your questions. [applause] thank you. [applause] dean told me that many of you have final exams coming up so we have to be brief, but we'll get in many as we can. do you want to moderate or i call on people? you're moderating? okay, great. >> thank you very much, governor, for coming today to uc. i think we all appreciate a bit of a break from our studying. i think that today is a really interesting day, and i think it's interesting you're here to talk about the economy because i believe just last night when you're talking about the failed economic policies of the obama administration and a professor here has just resigned from or planning to resign from the cea, and he's been in the white house for two years and perhaps two

years from now you'll be going into the white house. i was just curious about how you think the cbo should be reformed potentially, you know, we hear one talking about how we can fix the deficit, only have prosections up to -- projections up to a certain point in time and incorporate only the next ten years of spending into the analysis, and i think that ultimately skews things sometimes, perhaps in favor of, you know, certain politicians. >> sure. >> what do you think of that in >> that's a great question, and again, thank you for coming this morning. the question related to the cbo and they are the so-called official scorekeeper in washington, d.c.. the white house puts out its own budget numbers, growth projections and the like. the cbo does it, and of course, many outside groups who do it as well. i do think having been a governor, it's important to have a neutral scorekeeper so that everybody is basing their proposals on a new trail and

reliable consistent set of numbers, so you have to get people to be scored on a consistent set of numbers. that being said, i think there's a couple things to improve on. one is, they do only stays tick score -- static scoring. you are familiar with that in the room. i know you have to be careful with dynamic scoring because you can get carried away and make exaggerated assumptions, but i think some very conservative or modest dynamic scoring would help more realistically model the effect of the programs. they only look at the ten year window, and i think they are able to make a bunch of assumptions, you know, internally, and there's some assumption that i think should be held to a consistent standard over time, you know, for example, you know, sometimes they assume things are in law or will be in law. other times they say we base it on what's in law. in minnesota, you know, the

model we used is we're going to base it on current law until and unless it changes, and we score proposals going forward, but i think two things, one is make sure the standards are consistent. two is allow for at least some modest conservative dynamic scoring, but i do think keeping the cbo as a neutral scorekeeper is important, and we don't want to dismantle it for that reason. >> [inaudible] >> yeah, thanks. dean? >> governor, you just proposed what would be the third round of tax cuts within the last 12 years weighted towards the wealthy. the first two according to an estimate i read this morning estimated the bush tax cuts added $2.6 trillion in the national debt. my question is this -- if there's a class war going on, as you suggest, who is wiping that war? -- who is winning that war? >> well, the thing i'd like to focus on is to tray to transcend

the rhetoric and get back to this reality. for most americans, 95% of americans, their quality of life economically is going to depend primarily on one thing, whether they have a job or not, and so to give you a background about me so you know where i come from, i grew up in a meat packing town. my dad was a truck driver, my mom was a homemaker for much of her life, died when i was young at 16, and my dad later was promoted to terminal dispatcher and manager, but he for awhile lost his job. my mom passed on, and my dad was unemployed, and my brothers and sisters were not able to go to college not because they lacked capacity, but didn't have the opportunity. i come from a background, just so you know, that is not of wealth, and it gives you a little different life perspective, but the thing i know is this. for my family and families like it all across the country, when you ask them what matters to you? what really gets you excited or

passionate or gives you meaning and a sense of opportunity and hope, most often people describe their faith and then their family, and then they describe a series of things that are meaningful to them. look, i'm worried about gas prices and the ability to even fill my car up with gas. they say i'm worried about affording my health care and whether i can get my kids to college. if they have a little extra money, they might say i want to get my basement finished because as kids get older, we want more space in the house. as you go down the list, there's a common feature in each, and that is they need money. people have to have jobs so set aside, you know, whether the wealthy benefit or not. the real measure of the proposals is is it going to generate in a transformative, significant way more jobs for more people across this country? there's about 5% of the country that is our entrepreneurial class, people who start

business, form capital, deploy capital, add employees, build buildings, invent things, conduct research, commercialize it, and the like, and if that 5% becomes 9%, we have a bright future, and if that 5% becomes 1%, we're in deep doodo,. we are in deep crap. this is not about, you know, whether some people are going to get wealthier or not. it's about what are those things we need to do to make it more likely that businesses are going to start, grow, add employees, buy capital equipment, build buildings, conduct research, and do all the things it taking to keep a private economy going. when you ask those very people all across the country as i do every day, you know, what's the big concern? what's the barrier to you starting something new, growing something, adding employees, they say the same thing every day everywhere all across the

country, small businesses, medium-sized businesses, big businesses, they basically say this -- get the government off my back. some of them talk about taxes. some of them talk about regulations. some of them talk about this slowness and impacts of permitting. others talk about energy costs and policies related to that. i'm not focused nor should i suggest the country be focused on whether this makes some group a little more wealthy or less wealthy. the real measure is will it grow the economy? will it add jobs? frankly, we are not focused on pro-business, but pro-jobs. you can't be pro-job and antibusiness. that's like being pro-egg, and anti-chicken. you know, it doesn't work. i understand the spirit of your question, but i reject the premise that this is fundamentally about nominal measures of who gets wealthy, and it's really about important

macromeasures about whether the private economy is growing at anemic rates, normal rates, or tour bo charged -- turbo charged rates. i'm for the latter. it's not for the government to take over and play a more central role in the economy. that's not working. >> hi, good morning. thank you very much for coming. i'm a student here at the university of chicago, and i'm from venezuela, and i know i heard right in the news there's a group of republicans in the congress that are trying to include venezuela in the list of countries. i would like to know what your opinion is about that issue. >> well, i followed the rhetoric of president chavez, and it's troubling, disturbing, threatening, concerning as to whether, you know, he should be listed or the country should be listed as a terrorist country. that's something i want to give study and thought to because that's a term of art, and

certain thresholds are required before that label is applied and deserved. i have to give that additional thought, but as for hugo o chavez, i think he's misguided, dangerous, imposing freedoms on human rights, freedom, and the constitutional principles in veeps way la that are corrosive and long, but as for the label terrorist country, i have to give that additional study before i give you the final answer on that. >> governor, the first tuesday of every month here on the south side of chicago is the time when the civil defense warning siren is tested. that was 10 a.m. this morning when your event was scheduled. this year, the rating issued their own warning about the

fiscal commission of the government, and it's good you spoke about this issue as an emergency that deserves our attention, and you proposed a major tax cut which at least in the short term is going to decrease revenue, and right now, if you look at the federal budget and poll to one side, four major programs, social security, medicare, medicaid, and defense. the remaining spending by itself, even if you put all of it is insufficient to close to cutting the budget, my question is in the short term are you willing to commit to a major cut in spending on one of the four programs, or would you characterize your fiscal plan as waiting for economic growth to balance the budget for you? >> thank you. that's an excellent question, and let me just tackle the spending side, and then i'll tackling the growth side. as you know, the federal government takes in about $2.2 trillion a year in revenue, all sources, and it now is spending about $3.7 trillion a year, so

they overspent last year and this year by about $1.5 trillion per year, per year, and their trillion dollar deficit programmed as far as the eye can see. if you look at a pie chart of federal outlays and color the red part on the pie chart that the gentleman described as as the nondisdregs they're outlays like social security, medicare, medicaid, interest on the national debt, and a few other programs, that red part is over the half way line on the pie chart, and the rate of which that's growing it's over the three quarter line on the pie chart within 15 or so years or less. almost all the rest is defense. there's a little sliver in there for parks and prisons and a few other things, but if you fast guard 15 years and look at what the pie chart looks like, it's almost all entitle wants and defense. anyone who is serious about

solving the problem on the spending side has to put on the table sacred cows including talking in detail reforming entitlement programs, and so i take up that challenge. if you're going to be president of the united states and look the american people in the eye and tell them the truth. it's the jack nicholson election. he says you can't handle the truth. well, the american people, i think can handle the truth. doesn't mean we freak them out or scare them, but i think it's important as a responsibility of leaders to inform, to educate, and then to mobilize to a positive solution. here's what we should do in my view on the issues. one, on social security, as you know, the numbers are upside down and it's a big part of the pie chart, so i poped specifically -- proposed specifically we're telling everyone on the program or near retirement, we'll keep

the commitments as they are. if you are new to the work force or newer to the work force, gradually over time, we're going to raise the retirement age, not by a ton, but some, and that changes a big part of the numbers. it doesn't solve the problem by itself, but soms a big part of the problem. number two, i don't like means testing philosophically to get back to the spirit of your question, sir. it's not a great thing philosophically, but we choose between really bad options so i think one part of social security reform should be to say, look, if you are wealthy, you're not going to get the cost of living adjustment. if you are middle income or poor, you will, and so the wealthy folks have that cost of living adjustment under my plan shut off in the future. that doesn't solve the problem by itself, but those things combined depending where you draw the cut line make a very different picture going forward. two, on med medicaid. that's the federal state program for health care for the poor.

the federal program -- the federal government runs it and micromanages at a level that's frustrating to up no vatter -- innovators. we'd go to washington saying can we try something new? mostly they said no. every time we made a request to improve our medicaid program, they said no. we have to end the dual management of medicaid, block grant the whole thing to the states, shut off the awe to pilot spending increases, decide what we can afford, make congress appropriate the money each year, block grant the thing to the states. i think they'll be amazing and positive results and the states can compete with laboratories of democracy and share best practices and the like. medicare, the program for health care for seniors, we'll have a medicare plan out in the next couple of months or less. i'll make sure we check out that on the interpret, but the component parts say, look, if you're at or near retirement and

want to stay on medicare, that's great, and in the future that may be an option too, but we're also going to have other options in our plan, and we're going to give people financial incentives to use the system wisely for, again, people on the program now or near retirement, nothing changes, but we have to change the way we pay for medicare and health care more broadly with this principle in mind. now medicare pays based on volumes of procedures performed, and guess what? there's regional disperties between the charges based on historical costs so, you know, if you do a knee replacement in minnesota, the reimbursement to the mayo clinic is different than if you do a knee replacement somewhere else in the country. it's not based on quality or performance or anything other than historical weirdness in the way that medicaid gets reimbursed. if i charge you for volume, what do you think you're going to get? lots of volume.

we don't want to pay hospitals and providers and doctors for how many procedures they perform. we need to pay them fairly for hard work, but switch the payment system from volume to better results and efficiency. we have done these in minnesota, and they work. one quick example. if you did a survey as we did in minnesota, what kind of care and outcomes type i diabetes patients get, about 8%, one of the healthiest states in the country with the best health care in the country, about 8% of the type i diabetes population was getting what you consider world class or mayo clinic level care. if you undertreat tore didn't treat type i diabetes correctly, it leads to all kinds of more expensive and morbid conditions like amputations, organ transplants, not only bad for the people and more expensive, but they are also more

expensive. we said to the providers in minnesota, we'll pay you bonuses if you get increasing numbers of your patients not to this poor level of care, but to increasing levels of care and outcomes, and guess what? they responded well. costs, i think, are going to go down over time, and the outcomes are improving. that's medicare. there's lots else, but those are the big three. as for defense, i don't believe we should cut the defense budget, but slow down the growth compared to the baseline, the cbo baseline, but i think those savings can be realized and plowed back into defense. it's really important that we maintain the first responsibility of this country which is make sure our country is secure and our people are secured, the first and most important duty of our federal government. dean? we're done? thank you for coming. good luck on your finals. if you want more information on any of these, stay in touch with us. we'll happy to do it.

over the course of the summer and fall, you're see a series of policy initiatives from our effort, and we'd love to make sure we keep this dialogue going. thank you for coming this morning. i appreciate it. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> as congress and vice president biden continue to negotiate plans for cutting the federal deficit, four former congressional budget office directors discussed this issue at an event organized by maryland school of policy and georgetown university press. the directors serving between 1975 and 2005 include alice rivlin, the cbo's first

director, rudolph penner, and douglas holtz-eakin. it was held on capitol hill in the cannon house office building moderated by phil joyce, professor at mare's public policy school and author of a new book. this is two hours. >> a series of conversations that we're having about issues of national importance, and i'm delighted that so many people from so many diverse beckets backgrounds are with us this afternoon. before we move on, i want to just pass on a couple of thank you's. the first is two georgetown university press, which is a co-sponsor for this event, and the second is to the house budget committee for lets us use their hearing room. it is indeed an appropriate forum for the discussion of the deficit and the debt. i don't have to spend much time talking about why this is a timely topic. we were treated to a near

government shutdown earlier this year and by early august, necessary for the federal government to increase the country's debt limit in order to prevent a default on the debt. in the longer term, the levels of debt are unsustainable make k imperative something be done about them. there appears to be little con consensus what, when, and by whom. to help address the questions, we have a panel of experts who are each on everybody's short list of go-to people on the topic of the federal budget. indeed, this is one of many things they have in common, not only are they all among the nation's most accomplished economists, but together they constitute half of the individuals who have been directer of the congressional budget office. cbo, as most everyone in this room knows and up deed most everyone in the country, has since its founding in 1957, become the source of issues and a critical junctures clarified

parameters of fiscal debate, and the one we have now is no different. i want to sphwro deuce each -- introduce them. if i recognized all accomplish wants, it would take all the time we have. i'll hit the high points, and then we'll move to the benefit of their thinking on the current budget challenges. to my immediate right is alice rivlin. she is a visiting professor at the public policy institute at georgetown university, a senior fellow not economic studies program in brookings and literally almost done it all. she's a former director of omb, vice chair of the federal reserve board, co-chair of the task force on debt reduction, and also on president obama's debt commission. in 2008, she was named one of the greatest public servants of the last 25 years, but there's a single line in her bio that represents her greatest accomplish wants.

she's the founding director of the congressional budget office that she served at from 1975 to 1983. to her right is rudolph penner, an institute fellow at the urban institute holding the chair and public policy. he was a managing director of the barrens group, a pmg company, been affiliated with the american enterprise institute and held positions at omb, hud, and home of add providers. he was on the cbo from 1983-87. next to him is the vice chair and also one of two trustees the social security and medicare trust fund and also worked at brookings with alice rivlin in 1975 and served at the assistant

director and deputy directer and third director from 1989 to 1995 during which time i worked for him. you may be expecting me to tell you that douglas holtz-eakin who is to bob's right was the fourth director of cbo, but this is not true, the 6th director of cbo. [laughter] having served from 2003 to 2005 came to cbo immediately from the white house economic counsel advisers before which he had a distinguished academic career. during 2007 and 2008, he was director of domestic and economic policy for the john mccain presidential campaign. currently, he's the president of the american action forum. even though we're in a house budget committee hearing room where each of the individuals has spent, i would think it's fair to say countless hours delivering prepared statements, we wanted to avoid prepared statements and make this session as interactive as possible. therefore, i'm going to pose

questions to which each of the panelists will respond, if they so choose. for each country, i will then open it up to a more interactive decision among the panelists if they want to talk to each other, and then the audience, so i can't wait. i'll start president first question, and that is that the financial markets, for example, standard and poors and mood ys and others say it would take an incredible plan to reduce debt in the immediate term. what i'd like to know from the panelists is what does a credible plan look like? that is, what would be the minimum requirements for a plan to appear credible? i'll turn to alice first for views on that. >> yes, i do. [laughter] fist, i want to thank phil for writing this book and

recognizing that cbo is an important organization and deserves to have a book about it, and by the way, it's a good one. back to the question what is a credible plan, there's no single answer to this. i spent the last year and a half almost two years now serving on two commissions whose objective was to answer that question. how do we get the federal budget back on track? the president's commission and the one i co-chaired both bipartisan, and i think we learned it is possible to put together a bipartisan plan that answers that question. first, what's the objective? we decided in both these commissions that you were not aiming to pay off the debt or

even to balance the budget. the first thing to do was to stabilize the debt so that it is not rising faster than the gdp is growing, and stabilizing at roughly 60% of gdp has come to be sort of a montra of what constitutes the objective of a credible plan. when you start working through the numbers to see how you get there, you don't have much choice. you have to do something to slow the great of medicaid and medicare, and to put social security on a firm foundation. there's lots of ways of doing that, and we may get into a discussion of what's the best way later, but you have to slow the rate of growth of those big epa titlement programs, -- entitlement programs or you cannot get there. you are immediately driven to the discretionary spending side

that can be controlled faster, and both the commissions froze discretionary spending for quite a number of years. when you get through all of that, even if you start with an ideology that says that the spending program, not a revenue program, you realize that you've done an awful lot that you have not solved the problem, and you have to move to the revenue side, and that drove both commissions to substantial tax reform that would improve the efficiency of our tax system and allow us to raise more revenue with lower rates. i think the arrhythmia tick drives you there that that basically is the outline of a credible plan. >> rudy? >> well, thanks, phil, and thanks for organizing this, and thanks for a very good book. i do have one disappointment. we all spent countless hours testifying here. i was really hoping to sit up

there. [laughter] here rewith in the pits again. [laughter] my grate fear is maybe there is no such thing as the credible plan in the following sense that the two parties are so ideologically peer and the ideologying are so far apart that what one party thinks is a credible plan, the other party thinks is totally noncredible, and it is very hard to see them agreeing to thecepsble plan that alice put forward. we often blame partisanship for this. i don't think that's the right word anymore. it's hard to think of anyone more partisan than tip o'neill, and president reagan was not exactly nonpartisan, and yet

they got deal after deal after deal. they agreed secretly not to oppose the recommendations the greenspan commission on social security. i can't imagine somehow speaker boehner and president obama agreeing to anything like that. it would have been nice if they would have agreed to not to oppose or to support the recommendations of the fiscal commission when they came out instead of recommendations that i'd adopt in an instant with a buffering on health care costs, but, again, it just is very hard to imagine what kind of plan that two parties could agree to today. >> bob? >> thank you, phil, for hosting this discussion and congratulations on the book. when i walked in the room, i was handed an envelope which i understand has the credible plan in it. [laughter]

but so as not to be an vang over my colleagues here, i've decided not to hope it yet. [laughter] maybe at the end i'll open it and reveal the credible plan. credibility, i think, has a lot of different dimensions, and some are substantive, some proceed -- procedural, and some are attitude. i don't think credibility involves a number like it has tore $# trillion over -- $2 trillion in ten years or $# trillion, but i think it involves taking a significant step in the right direction. this is a many upping game that -- inning game that we're in, and it's just begun, and i think all of us would fall over in a dead faint if, you know, "the plan" that would get us to 60% of debt

to gdp ratio were enacted this year. what would we do for the rest of our lives? [laughter] >> sounds good to me. [laughter] >> a certain, you know, seriousness, not particularly important how big, and something that is perceived by markets and leaders as being sustainable, and that involves a degree of balance as alice suggested, not all taxes, not all spending because i think anybody with any political judgment would say at all if we go too far to one side or too far the other side, there would be a political reaction and different group of folks will come in and turn the cart over again. it has to be plan which the

public and the policymakers think is the best they can get, and understand that they are going to have to take this medicine. i'll talk about that later in answer to some of the other questions that are raised. it has to have some safety belts that if things don't go right in the sense of the economy or world events, there's a way out that doesn't involve huge and wrenching procedural changes, and there has to be an enforcement mechanism that if the system tries to undo it or achieve the modest goals it has, there's somebody standing in the background, some procedure in the background, triggers maybe of some kind, that will push us forward so those are the elements i see in the credible

plan, and let's hope they're in here. [laughter] >> all right, doug? >> let me also begin by thanking the right people, the house committee, georgetown university press, and everybody for coming and complaining about phil joyce. [laughter] if in any way i contradict his book, it's of the author and not the interviews. i had to go after alice and rudy and bob, and i never get to say anything new, and it's happening again. [laughter] thanks, phil. [laughter] i'm delighted to be here. on the credibility issue, i mean, look, credibility is something the market believes, and that's a very slippery concept, and so we don't know ultimately. it's been incredible that the market believed the things they believed thus far, and certainly changing the direction is an imperative, but we don't know exactly what they will buy

into. i think we know -- i think we should think about it in particular ways though. number one, it's not a bright line. there's more and there's less and just as there's no bright line at which point international markets lose their confidence in the united states, i believe we're close to that state, but -- and should move the other direction as quickly as possible, you we don't know the exact number or the content, but many is better than less, and at every juncture, we have to be more in the way of a long term fiscal outlook. second is i'm with bob. there will be multiple plans. what we're worried about is what's the first step? is the first step going to be compelling to those international lenders that we care so much about, and there i think we do know a couple of things. i think that policy changes are

better than process solutions. they are -- it is more convincing to actually change the actual structure of entitlement programs as to reduce the budgetary commitment in the years to come than set targets for the promised to do that at some point in the future, and the more we see the coping, the administration touch the kinds of policy touches, which alice went to, these are policy choices. i think the more we see that, the better, and her choices is the right menu, it's all the spending programs and tax reform, and the more of that in the first deal, the better off we'll be. the less we see and more we see to appeals and triggers and promises that are on us, the next crowd will be good at this, the less credible it will be. >> thank you, anything that any of the panelists have to sort of respond to what they heard from each other?

>> i can just make a comment on doug's definition of credibility which is whatever markets will believe in to cast our eyes back a few years and remember markets will delude themselves very greatly as long as they possibly can, and we saw that right up to the fiscal crisis. i wouldn't put a lot of faith in, you know, to get by, all we need for them is to believe, but they believe in about anything that makes them a buck. >> that's certainly right, but when markets move, they move fast, so you don't have a lot of lead time, but i agree with what several people have said that there is not going to be one plan. there's going to be a series of plans. i didn't mean to imply otherwise, but i agree with dug

it's better to do substance than process. on the other hand, we're running out of time, and with respect to the debt ceiling, and when you think about what it would take to actually legislate significant medicare and medicaid reform and tax reform, i don't think we are going to be able to do that by the second of august, so the question is what combination of substance and process can we put in place that's credible? >> now i'd like to if there's questions from the audience in terms of this question of what a credible plan looks like, what might look credible to you. if anyone has questions, we're happy to entertain them. there's a mic we can get you. all you have to do is raise your hand.

yes, mack? please identify yourself and where you are from when you ask the question. >> i'm mack -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> [laughter] >> right, i think we got it now. a couple of years ago or even last year, we would have said we have to distinguish between the immediate near term and the medium term, a point in some eyes might be underscored by the economic reports of the recent days which suggest we are, the

economy is doing very badly and one -- the main story of it doing badly is cutbacks in spending, particularly at the state and local level leading to big hits in employment in that area. i know i've had a conversation with at least one of you talking about the need to distinguish between pushing the economy in the short run and then somehow cred my move -- credibly moving in the long term moving the opposite. it's not clear we are able to do that sort of thing. we obviously went a long way, whether or not is enough is the question, but we went a long way in the stimulus package two years ago, and now we are supposed to be ahead or at least part of the system is trying to be full speed ahead cutting in the other direction with no -- with total rejection of the notion that the level of federal spending, the level of the deficit had anything to do with

simulating the overall economy, so i guess this is -- is there any prospect remaining for trading off some restrain and restraint in the short run with credible commitments that would take effect two or three years down the road? >> well, things are very bad. i never thought there was a contradiction between the short and long run goals. . between the short lon . that would have been possible simultaneously to announce various kinds of short- run stimulus programs while putting a plan on the street that would in fact pick things up in the long-run. i think there are a lot more -- [inaudible] things are not as bad. spots in theow sough

recovery, but that is not uncommon. and i think --[inaudible] playing with stimulus even conception elite is somewhat risky when you are are ready in the recovery given the time line that has any effect, but politically there is no danger of that, absolutely no prospect of another stimulus program from either the fiscal or monetary authority in my view. >> i think as reduce it just, it was a great opportunity missed that we did not do it stimulus simultaneously with long-run deficit reduction, and i do not just mean two or three years from now. the real problems are out there

a decade or more ahead, in many of the things that we could do now and must do now are things that will not take effect for quite a long time, but should be legislated to show that we are serious and can do them. you still have a timing question. i would be opposed to cutting the deficit to quickly right now, and i would be very much in favor of cutting it out in the future, and i think that only makes sense given the fragility of the recovery. >> i was going to call on doug before he raised his hand, because i was sure he had something to say about that. >> i am on record about being a lot less enthusiastic about the stimulus measures that others have been. number one, i believe the situation is incredibly urgent. if you look at the measurable

parameters, the things you can take a look at on the number of -- gross debt to gdp is above 90%. higher probability of a sovereign debt crisis. look at the qualitative characteristic of the united states, heavy reliance on short- term borrowing. short-term borrow short. they have lots of contingents and not terribly transparent obligations. we are in terms of the theory of the case for getting in trouble. we looked like that kind of a place, and i think there is tremendous urgency in getting something done. step to an argument is i started cynical and went downhill. turn off and turn on that

simultaneously as awesome but i would count on. i do not want to confuse the debate with that. let's get on with controlling the debt. the third thing is i think there is a tremendous over blown perception about the near-term impacts of discretionary spending cuts. when the house see our came out earlier this year, the $100 billion number scale, it changed actual purchases of goods and services in 2011 by $8 billion. it's a 15 trillion dollar economy. that is nothing. in the way iset away ♪ terribly troubling to me. it takes a lot of time to underspespend money, too. i live for the day congress cut

so aggressively to impede recovery. we have never seen that. i would like to see that. we have returned and a troubling way on a bipartisan basis to the policy making regime of the 1970's in which fiscal monetary policy were very reactive, attempt to find-tune the economy, target unemployment so we do not worry about inflation, do not worry about the fiscal situation. the outcome of that policy regime was not good. it was high unemployment, poor performance, and i think we have lost that lesson in history, and i would like to set a strong fiscal path. what will spending do and what will taxes look like? >> other questions? tony. >> toni mccann, public policy

program at school of university of maryland. having been up here in the 1980's, you look back to which a time when agreements were reached and we made progress. the series of agreements, every time we came back from reconciliation bill, the deficit was bigger and the problems extended as far as i could see. it did not seem to me that we actually made progress until we overheated economy in the late 1990's and were able to generate revenues to solve the problem. with that background, what does that say about a credible plan when we made hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts in medicaid and really never change the program hardly at all. >> i do not know, but i will say things anyway.

>> certainly anyone who is sitting thinking we will just run the clinton playbook and it will be fine, should take that notion and put it aside. we are not going to get a peace dividend. i hope we're not going to count on a .com bubble that we believe will come on forever and that will pledge that way, and certainly we're not in the time of the baby boom, so the programs change things considerably. you cannot look back and say it worked, we know what to do. different world. that is the biggest thing. the second thing is among conservatives, there are some that are fascinated with the idea of these sort of regimes

of across-the-board cuts. 1 percent across the board for the next five years, that does not fix the problem, because unless you change the programs, and the issue reform medicare and medicaid and reform social security, all of those three programs are basically broken. they are not delivering the quality of service we would like to see. we have a simultaneous obligation to have a secure state met for the next generation that requires reforms, and the fact if you do not change the structure, one to start doing the cuts the come back to life. reform is the key word. it is not enough to balance, you have to reform. >> you harkened back to the 1990 and 1993e

budget reconciliation bills were real red meat. they did well worth it trajectory for discretionary spending. they did raise taxes, they did cut entitlement programs and combined with the strong economic history of that time and some luck, we ended up with for years of budget surpluses, which i do not think you or anyone on this panel here in 1995, even in 1997 after the balanced budget act was passed would have predicted. so the 1980's, there were a few things done. i would argue based on the work i have done and others have done that while it came nowhere near achieving objectives, it

did hamper the growth of deficits, so i do not think it is the same kind of situation that we're looking at right now. >> i was going to say much of the same thing, but to emphasize not only that the processes we were working under in those days did a lot of good. paygo actually mattered, and the caps on discretionary spending actually matter. spending was rising very slowly, and the economy was growing faster. i saw bill hoagland walken at some point, and he would argue that it actually had impact. it was not nothing. i would not rule out the efficacy of strong process roles. >> reflecting back on the

1980's, i think one question -- one thing your question brings out clearly is as we did find spending cuts in this town, because we went through the 1980's with a large number of what is called tax increases, the first of which was a bill of 1982 i heard it characterized by some as the biggest bank increase in history. it was a tax increase relative to a line that was pledging -- plunging. similarly with your remarks about medicare or medicaid cuts, there are things that slowed down the rate of growth, but did not really cut things. when you put that on top of the recovery that is those figures by today's standards, it was still disappointing then.

it really did create a lot of frustration and the congress because they had done the entire thing. they change the tax to retreat. -- they change the tax trajectory. they got it to go up. that is what they got ultimately, the frustration. i have been reading -- reading about the british austerity program. they compare everything to last year, and it is so refreshing and so easy to understand. i just wish we could do that in this country. >> thank you. we will return to work questioned later, and i have four questions to ask. the question is this, we have heard a lot of people make arguments recently that perhaps having the u.s. default on the debt would not be so bad. if that is what it took the congress and president to get

serious about taking steps to reduce the debt. my question for the panel is any -- is there any plausible argument in your view that says it the fault is a necessary step to get serious about debt reduction that it is a desirable thing, and should we draw a distinction between a little the fault and a default, one that may be is only two or three days of and its people attention and then move on, versus something that is more long-term. >> eve said two out of it was not a very big apple. it is a bad idea. the fault is a bad idea -- default is a bad idea period. the idea that somehow whe need o

raise interest rates in order to default in this country is a bad idea. everything about the avoidance of default should be conditioned on the recognition that raising the debt limit is a recognition of -- recognition of the symptom. the problem is the debt. we should fix the problem and deal with the symptom. i just cannot endorse anything that involves defaulting first. >> i saw i was warming up, and i thought -- >> sorry about that. >> i agree with your basic point. is there a constructive perspective on this issue, and by default what we're talking about here is the failure to pay in a timely basis, obligations of the federal government, and that might mean

that social security recipients receive their payments and those that have interest earnings received there's and urban institute has none of its bills to the federal government paid, so i know -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i wanted to get you on board here. it strikes me that we do not have forward movement on this, in part because a significant number of policy makers and a larger number of people in the public are not convinced that pang -- pain and sacrifice is unavoidable, and some time we have to change that situation. we also have a number policy makers that have staked out positions which in no way are in concert with resolving this

issue, and they need some cover, so if there were some way to engineer a 700 point drop in the stock market or something like that for a few days to shake people up and say you have to get serious about this, and we have to do it in a sustainable kind of way, do i advocate that? no. do i think that is risky? yes. but we are looking for adult behavior and cnn. [laughter] >> the only trouble with the 700 point drop is it could be a 2100 point drop before we are all finished. i find the talk around this totally baffling. i agree the dumbest thing to do would be to default, even for one day at this point.

i find the men -- even dumber politically the idea of prioritizing things where we make sure the chinese get their interest payments, but we are dubious about whether we will pay social security benefits or pay the bills of people here at home. that does not seem to be a winning political strategy somehow. for a time in my life i worked internationally. there are more countries that do not pay their bills band to pay their bills. when you work in a country like that, it is a very bad thing, because someone has to choose which bills to pay and which not to pay. if you talk about an opportunity for favoring political friends or taking side payments, the amount of corruption that kind of situation in genders is very problematic, so i do not seem much good coming out of these notions that somehow we have a

big budget deal, it will be ok not to pay interest for a few days. it is playing with matches around gasoline as far as i am concerned, and it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. >> i agree. i want to be firmly on record default is a bad thing and we should not let it happen. >> that is clear. >> i think it is important to emphasize how misguided is this notion that if you do not raise the debt limit, somehow it will all be ok, and i think this is at the heart of this crowd that believes there will be no real pain. the problem is we have had 2.3 trillion dollars in revenue coming in. it might be politic -- politically risky but if you

could pave the debt service to the chinese and still have two trillion dollars, but there is 2.1 in mandatory spending. at that point you have 04 0 for national defense, infrastructure, education. it is hard to believe that is either politically viable or rational at all. it is like saying to the bank i would like a second mortgage. in the house has no roof, the windows are broken, you have the citing falling off and there is no way you look at the second mortgage. this makes no sense from a credit management point of view. it does not add up. what is worse about it from an absolutely strategy is --

political strategy is the problem is not gone. if you want to cut spending, change the law. >> we have a remarkable degree from the panel that can -- defaulting on the debt is a bad thing. [laughter] now i would like to entertain questions from audience. and anything anybody would like to ask. >> i am a graduate of the school of public policy. i work in the community development space. since we're all in agreement about defaults, getting back to the question of cutting the debt, the tax reform, so a historical question and in a sense of what will happen in the future. in 1986, did that have significant impact on reduction and the debt, and what do you think the prospects, even though

tax reform is not the silver bullet to solve everything, but do you see the likelihood of significant tax reform in the next two to three years? >> i do. the question about 1986, that was done in a revenue neutral fashion. it should not have been, but it was. the kind of tax reform we are talking about now, i believe must not be done revenue neutral. we must have a more drastic base broadening than we had in '86, such that we can lower rates and still raise more revenue. >> i think it is almost a necessary condition for resolving the budget problem in the long run. it is very difficult politically and the fact that we showed that in 1986, and the fact we have not seen that since

1986 is an indicator for how difficult it would be. i have seen no prospect of resolving this without some kind of increase in revenue. i see very little prospect of conservatives ever agreeing to a new tax like the value added tax or new tax. it would be crazy in my view to simply raise rates in the current an inefficient and unfair system of taxation, so the only hope i see is the ability to raise more revenues but with lower rates. the only way you can do that in my view is with a very radical tax reform that broadens the base very substantially. >> just another footnote on the 1986 tax reform, it was revenue- neutral overall, but for certain individuals it was tax cuts and

increases for individuals. they thought this was a trade- off that would not last, that once they were off, they would come back to the ways and means of the finance committee and undo some of the tax increases that were imposed on them on the corporate side, so we do not have a history here of true at revenue neutral tax reform, let alone tax reform that raises a great deal of money, although i would agree completely with alice and rudy that if there is going to be a significant contribution of revenues to the solution, and i think there has to be, that tax reform is a critical aspect of that, but that brings us back to alice's's original point is that it is getting late.

tax reform in 1986 was the result of many years of work and study and analysis and -- in treasury and elsewhere while lots of people have discussed the ideas of reducing itemize deductions or various tax preferences, getting the dial's set right on things like that are not easy to do. >> the last footnote on the 1986 tax reform is that while it was intended to be neutral, it did not play out that way. indeed, the corporate money never showed up. in part because i think we made a bad choice in how we structure this. it lost money, and it drove the pressures somewhere after that. i think that is important to remember.

tax reform is really hard to get done. you can count on one hand the number of substantial broad- based reform. on the evidence, this is an incredibly difficult policy task to achieve. i think this one is even harder for the reasons that have been outlined. the right reforms in this day and age are the ones that lower the corporate rate, in many cases quite dramatically. but with a corporate rate -- what were the corporate rate so we get in line with everyone else. -- lower the corporate rate so we get in line with everyone else. i am not a political expert, i have proven that, but i do not think that will be a winner. if you are not going to do that, you have to drag into revenue neutrality. there are some real serious

political opposition to getting another tax in the system. this is a territory that i believe, if we get it done, and i firmly believe we need a better tax system, it does not happen. >> it certainly does not happen fast. and i sense that there really is a difference atmosphere with respect to spending through the tax code, that even many conservatives are now recognizing that we have done a lot of spending to the tax code and call it tax entitlement, a tax earmarks or what ever, some of that is fair game. >> other questions? bill. >> [inaudible] >> i apologize for being late,

what is the best and worst memories you have while you were director? [laughter] anyone? >> people are struggling for their worst memories i am sure. there is such a long list of best ones. anyone want to take that? >> my best memory is when i was noted for wearing a dark suit with the red tie a lot. that might be every day. i was invited to breakfast by a dear friend, and when i return to the office the entire staff was dressed in my clothes and standing in the great hall and serving my favorite foods, twisters and diet cokes.

there were pictures of me in this very suit and tie all over the place, and i will never forget it. it was the happiest day of my life. the worst day for me was the night of the house vote on the prescription drug bill in 2003 where i was -- since our work was done and it was just recreational boat commenting, i thought it was ok to slow -- fly home. i turned on the tv in the were still doing recreational boats counting. it was clearly one of the fiscal missteps of the past decade, and it was one of the political policy missteps in the way the pope got done and the nature of strong army to get the boat, and that was a bad night. >> anyone else have any memories? memories?