to be done, and new policies need to be pursued and followed. certainly over the next decade and longer. >> host: dr. brian biles, a former democratic staffer at the house of ways and means committee. he's currently a health policy professor at george washington university here in the nation's capitol. dr. biles, thank you for your time and inside as we -- insight as we conclude our series here on medicare. >> guest: thank you very much.

>> a discussion on public unions. we'll here from stephen moore. this was part of the libertarian conference held annually in las vegas. >> hear ye, freedom court fest is now in session for this important trial of our beliefs.

judge jeffrey verdon is presiding over this hearing. please all rise for the judge. [laughter] >> please be seated. [applause] ladies andladies and gentlemen, members of the jury, we are gathered here in the great sorch state of nevada to decide the fate of public unions in america. in this hearing, we hope to discover if the benefits, the public, and the taxpayers to have our civil servants at the federal, state, and municipal level join the unions. do unions serve the public interest or nuance that we cannot afford and should be abolished? before this court, the prosecution will attempt to show the public sector unions in our schools, fire, police departments, the post office, and other municipalities have

become unelected special interest groups that are overpaid and abusing public retirement funds threatening strikes, slow down, and even violence, and through political lobbying, raising the burdens of taxes and excessive spending on the american public during times of economic stress and high unemployment. we have brought before this court thea lee, deputy chief of staff, policy director, and chief international economist of the afl-cio, the premier organization representing labor groups both public and private throughout the united states. ms. lee, would you please stand. you and your union supporters have been accused of taking advantage of the public treasury. being paid too much, taking advantage of the pension funds, threatening to disrupt the general welfare of the country, and through lobbying, raising the burden of taxes and public

debt during a time when the american people are suffering from unemployment, heavy taxes, and stress. how do you and your supporters plead? >> not guilty, your honor. >> we'll begin the proceeding with a five minute open statement by the prosecuting attorney, steve moore. he's part of the editorial board and author of books including "how barak obama is bankrupting the u.s. economy" and several co-authored with author, the end of prosperity, return to prosperity, how america can reign in economic superpower status. he is a strong advocate of the flat tax, social security privatization, free trade, considered one the premier supply site economists in the united states. now, after opening statements, each attorney will call two witnesses who will be subject to cross examination. then each side will make closing

statements and after wards the jury rules on the case. if the defendants are found guilty, i'll impose the judgments. you will listen carefully to the opening statements, and the witnesses at the end of the hearing will be required to determine whether there is sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and that ms. lee and the union followers are responsible for public malfeeance. is that understood? mr. moore, you may begin your opening at the same statement. >> thank you, your honor. ladies and gentlemen of the jury thank you very much for being here. when i read the title of this trial, public unions, are they good or bad for america, i thought this must be a trick question. i think there's no question you will find that the evidence shows that public employee

unions are bad for the u.s. economy, and we'll show you in an hour that the unions are guilt. >> i'm going to need a bench to rule from, so can you step over here? >> okay. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> no. >> can you hear me now? >> yeah. >> okay. we were show the prosecution, the employee unions are guilty of three charges. number one, public employee unions have become a scourge on our u.s. economy and are making us poorer as a result. number two, public employee unions are responsible for the bankrupting of virtually every state and local government in america. [applause] number three -- >> silence in the court, please. >> number three -- public employees unions are guilty of causing one of the greatest income inequality injustices in

american history. the injustice and inequality 1 the inequality of pay between what public employees receive and private sector workers that are skilled. we'll provide evidence for you showing the average private sector work in america receives only half of what a public sector employee unions get. we hear from liberals all the time there's injustice in the america and i make the case to you and i'll show you the evidence that the greatest injustice and unfairness is this disperty in incomes between what the public sector unions receive and the private sector unions, and that's something causing higher taxes on all of us. now, if you look -- i've made -- there's an article in the "wall street journal" about a month ago called "makers versus takers" and it really shows what's wrong in america with the growth of the power and the size of the unions in america. let me just give you one statistic to document how public

sector employee unions are taking over america. if you go back to 1965, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you'll find in america, there were twice as many manufacturing workers in america as there were public sector union employees in the united states. by 1995, there were exactly the same number of public employee unions members as there were manufacturers. today in america, and this is a sad commentary of what's happened to our economy -- there are twice as many government workers today as there are manufacturers. there's twice as many takers in the american economy than makers, and, ladies and gentlemen, that is a trend that is simply unsustainable. [applause] in america today. [applause] one last point i'd like to make is we have not talked yet about the real evil empire of the u.s. economy, and i think you all know who i am talking about. the teachers unions in america

are ruining the schools, bankrupting our schools, and we have to do something about freeing the kids from the public teachers unions in america. one example of the injustice that public teacher unions impose on our economy. today in states like ohio, just take one example: there's a policy like hire and retire. a teacher at the age of 53 or 54 or 55 earns that the public sector employees are guilty as charged, and the american economy and every state

and local government in the federal government would be much more fiscally healthy if we did not have public employee unions. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, counselor. please, no applause. there will be order in this court. this is a courtroom. i expect to have order in my courtroom. [laughter] now, thank you, counselor. we'll here from thea lee. she is a deputy chief of staff policy director, chief economist at afl-cio earning a bachelor's degree from smith college and one from the university of michigan. she's co-author of a field guide to the global economy. she is an expert on the north american free trade agreement, international trade, wage inequality, and the steel and textile industries. she's appeared on numerous national television and radio shows. she's also on the board of

directors of worker's rights united for the fair economy, and the national bureau of economic research. ms. lee, will you give your opening statement, please. >> thank you, your honor. good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, and assembled audience. i submit to you the charge against the clients, the public unions of america and the hard working men and women who belong to them are utterly baseless and should be thrown out of the court. it's based on shotty statistics, isolated, and unrepresented evidence and a false premise. moreover, i will demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that my clients have been unfairly scapegoated and blamed for crimes in fact committed by another party entirely. the prosecution is well aware of this fact, and i submit to you that the prosecution has an unseamly and i might say intimate relationship with the

true culprit. the entire case against the climate is a smoke screen to divert attention frat crimes at issue today, the collapse of the economy, destruction of the middle class, and the state budget short fall. my clients could not be present in the courtroom this evening, but if they were here, i have no doubt that you would find them to be an extremely sympathetic group. they are your neighbors, your family, your friends. they teach your children. they care for your elderly parents, keep your libraries open, and pick up your garbage. they were the ones who walked back into the burning building on 9/11. they are the ones who threw their bodies in front of violent criminals. many of them, literally, risk their lives every single day to keep you and your family safe. the question in front of us tonight is do these hard working americans deserve to exercise

their base imhuman freedom to form a union if they so cheese an bargain collectively with their employer for decent wages and benefits, a secure retirement, and a safe workplace. my case tonight rests on three key points. first, that it is a basic human freedom for workers to join together at their workplace and have a voice on the job. the government should not deny workers this freedom, and every decent democratic government recognizes the right of workers to form unions, and it is kick taitership that our afraid of workers having a voice on the job. second, it's good for the u.s. economy and essential for the survival of the american middle class that public sector workers have decent wages and benefits. there is overwhelming empirical evidence that public sector workers are not, in fact, overcompensated compared to the counterparts in the private sector. once you take into account the different levels of education, of skill, and years of

experience. in fact, many, many studies show that public sector workers are underpaid relative to private sector workers by at least 4%. third, public sector workers and their unions are not to blame for the fiscal troubles of state and local governments nor for the pensions. there's no correlation between those states where public sector workers have rights and strong unions and state fiscal troubles. in fact, states that allow public sector collective bargaining have recently 14% deficits relative to their budget compared to those states where public sector collective bargaining was not allowed they had 134.5%. -- 14.5%. they do not allow clerkive bargaining like texas, north carolina, nevada.

what then accounts to the ballooning state deficits 1234 any economists says the deep re-- >> you're making a speech. you need an opening statement. >> yes, sir, your honor, of course, your honor. the stock market crashed collapsed to the housing market were to blame for the troubles that state budgets are having, not the workers and their unions. rising health care costs affect private and health care workers, again, not the fault of the unions. they deliver significant benefits, not just to their members, but the community and economy overall. teachers bargain for smaller class sizes so kids can learn. nurses bargain for patient loads so their patients can get the care they deserve. firefighters and police need safe conditions so they can provide the protections for their communities. richard florida of the martin prosperity institute, the toronto business school found unions if you look state by state, states with a higher

union density have higher incomes, more education, and more creative work, not the opposite. internationally that holds up as well. the country's with the highest unions have higher productivity, less inequality, and lower unemployment. public sector workers were dragged through the mud to disstraight you, the american people from the truly guilty party in the economic problems we are facing today. wall street, big business, multinational corporations gambles our future, turned our economy into a giant casino, sent jobs offshore, and now they blame hard working nurses, teachers, fire fiters a police police officers for the damage they brought. this is what america is all about. you work hard all your life, play by the rulings, take care of your neighbors and community. you take pride in your work. you deserve decent schools for

your kids, 5 safe neighborhood, and a dignified retirement. my client is not guilty of all charges. instead of putting hard working people on trial, we should be thanking them for the hard work they do and for the modest pay. we should redirect our justified anger at the collapse of the u.s. economy towards the truly guilty party, wall street and big business. that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is who should be going to jail. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, ms. lee. mr. moore, please call your first witness. >> thank you, your honor, i'll call to the witness stand. mr. john mackey. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please, no applause. this is a courtroom. [laughter] >> will you swear on this whole

fruits apple to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? [laughter] >> how do i know that's a whole fruits apple? >> he went to whole foods and told me he bought it. >> we'll stipulate it's a whole foods apple. >> i do. [laughter] >> thank you for -- thank you for being here. let me start by asking you this question. you're the ceo of whole foods. how many employees do you have around the country? >> i think about 61,000. >> 61,000. of those 61,000, would you say that you are an employer that provides your employees with a fair wage and a fair benefit, and could you describe a little bit the wages and benefits that you provide for your workers? >> the average wage is $16.50 an

hour. the benefits are extensive, fully provided health care, food discounts, retirement benefits. it's a very generous -- named one of the 100 best companies to work for by "fortune" magazine for the last 14 years. >> how many are part of a union? >> none that i'm aware of. [laughter] >> why don't you have a union at whole foods? >> because the team members have not felt they needed union representation. >> so you believe that the performance of the company would suffer? what do you think a union would do for the workers? do you think they would benefit from that or they would be harmed? >> i do not think they would be benefited by it, no. >> let me ask you this question. if a union were forced upon you and whole foods had to have unionized workers, what do you think that would do to your

competitiveness in your class structure as a company in a very competitive industry? >> i think it would be harmful competitively. i mean, every industry i'm aware of that is heavily unionized begins to decline in competitiveness. we ceased upon our unionized competitors as a general rule. there's not as good of service or quality. they don't seem to wosh as hard. it's competitive disadvantage. >> have you workers attempted to unionize? >> our madison, wisconsin store unionized for a year. >> what happened in that distance? >> 9 workers promoted for union representation, and then they changed their minds. >> so the reason you're not unionized is not because you don't want a union, but your worker haves chosen not to have a union; is that correct? >> it's illegal in the united

states to prevent unionization. if they wish to have a union, they are free to elect one, but so far they have not chosen to do so. >> let me ask you one more question, sir. given that the studies are showing that public sector employee unions are paid substantially higher than what a comparable private sector receives and we'll provide evidence of that in a few minutes, but dpifn that premium in wages and benefits, do you think that's fair that one of your workers who is paid $16, $18, or $20 an hour

service unions, i think, don't have that competition to keep them in check, and as a result, i think they've done great damage. i don't think public service unions should be legal. >> thank you, sir. >> all right, ms. lee, your witness. >> my partner -- [inaudible] >> that'll be fine. please proceed. >> mr. mackey. i'm karl shoemaker, associate professor at the university of wisconsin-madison. [laughter] there was an impressive job that you've done in building and leading whole foods, and it's commendable. i want to ask you a couple hypothetical situations and get your expert opinion of having

worked all the years that you have with whole foods on how you assess the situations. imagine, i know you would never do this, but imagine for a moment that you today issued a directive to your company and said from this day forward, no employee at whole foods will ever get a raise higher than the cost of living allowance in a given year. we'll tag it to the consumer price index, and no one gets a raise above that. can you tell me in your expert opinion what that would do to your competitiveness. >> that would be very harm offul to our competitiveness. >> i imagine that it would. i'd like to imagine another hypothetical situation, again, something you'd never engage in. but let's say you engaged in a contract with a group of employees and built a range of things of salary, health care, benefits, all the things you said you provide. imagine at the end of the year due to a contraction in the economy, unforeseen capital

expendtures, you decided not to make that contract agreed upon contribution to say a pension. you just decided not to do it. you explain the circumstances to your employees under which you had to make such a decision, and then you don't make that contribution. what do you think the result will be for the company? >> it would be bad mori real, it's illegal, and we would be sued andlegal consequences. >> that's right. would it surprise you if i cold you all the scenarios i just described while illegal in the private sector whether unionized or not are permissible under law for public employees? >> nothing you can tell me regarding what goes on at the government would surprise me. [laughter] [applause] >> very well put. very well put.

[laughter] given presicily that uncertainty that you just described, given the unpredict the of government and the dangers it poses in certain circumstances, why take away from public employees the right to unionize to protect themselveses against those arbitrary engrossments? >> there's essentially no competition. a company is in a sense, the unions compete for the hearts and minds of the workers in the private sector, and if you don't do a good job of taking care of your employees, you run the risk of unionization. on the other hand, the check on the unions is competition. if the unions ask for too much, then you'll be at a competitive disadvantage. the public sector doesn't have that competitive disadvantage because they can continue to go back to the taxpayers for more money. that's exactly what we see happen. [applause]

>> no further questions, your honor. [laughter] >> you may step down, mr. mackey. [applause] >> all right. let's call the next witness. for my next witness, i'd like to call mr. steven greenhut. [applause] >> please, ladies and gentlemen, please. >> mr. greenhut, do you swear on this copy of the "wall street journal" to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> not on the international editorials, but on everything else, yes. [laughter] >> this is going to be a long night. [laughter] i can see it now. >> mr. greenhut, state your name and occupation.

>> [inaudible] >> oh, sorry, sorry. the bailiff made a mistake here. rusty's on vacation, ladies and gentlemen. >> steven greenhut, editor of cal watchdog and just wrote a book on subtle employee unions. >> let's talk about the fiscal crisis in california. you're an expert on that subject. to what degree would you say public employee unions are responsible for the $20 billion hole in the sack crament toe budget? >> the unions say there's only a small percentage of the state budget attributable to the unfunded pension liability or the debt, but they hide the amount that the impact is on the state budget. it's a pretty large effect, but at the local level, it's enormous. >> okay. >> we have cities, you know, that spend 80% of their budget on police and fire services going to salaries and the

benefit, and the state has a half trillion dollar unfunded pension liability. real debt -- >> half a trillion? >> hall a trillion. that's big by california standards. [laughter] the union say it's not a real debt because of how it's funded. i suggest we don't pay it, but they don't like that idea. [laughter] >> how many cities in california in your estimatist, and you're an expert, how many cities do you think if the fiscal path continues, and the kinds of wages and benefits that are provided to public employee unions continue, how many cities would you think in the next 10-20 years would declare bankruptcy bought of the union contracts? >> well, i don't know the number that are going to declare bankruptcy, but there's a business insider analysis of the 14 worse cities just plundered. i love that term. by the public employee unions, and five of them are in california, san diego officials used the b word, l.a. officials

used that word. when you pay police captains $300,000 a year and -- >> say that again? >> the police captain earns $300,000 a year. their average firefighter is $175,000 a year. we have life guards in orange county earning over $100,000 a year. >> excuse me? >> have you taken evidence in law school? >> no. >> i have not heard objections, and you mayment to raise a few. [laughter] >> i'm trying to be impartial here, but, you know -- >> [inaudible] >> it's unobjectionable. >> you will, but there's maybe evidence you would like to object to? >> [inaudible] >> all right, proceed, proceed. >> sir, can i please get back to my questioning? >> yes, you can. order in the court. >> just trying to be fair. is it true, mr. greenhut, there are many public employee union

retirees that receive pensions of over $100,000 a year? >> there's $100,000 pension club, 15,000 members growing by 40%-60% a year because the pension benefits -- >> these are six-figure pensions for the rest of their lives? >> cost of living adjusted plus the best health care in the world, and that does not count all the many disability pensions. i have yet to meet a police chief who has not retired on disability. >> sorry to interpret, but there's a number of questions to ask. is that common in the private sector for them to receive $100,000 a year pension? >> outside the ceo level, i don't know. >> only ceos are the upper top management of a company receives $100,000 pension whereas in the public sector, you -- it can be fairly routine in california? >> oh, it's very routine. ..

you are retiring with 90% of the final gears paid if you're a public safety with things like milk in fact tears and billboard inspect areas. so if they are older than 50, they essentially work for free. >> sera, the defense has asserted this afternoon that public units are not overpaid, is i think we are the defense make the case that they are paid less than comparably skilled

private joker. you've looked at the data of the country. can you tell us which are researchers found in this area? are public employee union paid less than 5% of workers? >> no -- public employees are paid more. it used to be the old deal they got a little bit less pay. plus they give slightly better benefits of extra days off and all that. now they get paid more. there's some categories -- >> how much more? >> that's a hard number to parse. but you had mentioned that in some cases it is double on the retirement. i see on the retirement assets can be tripled. >> objection your honor. [inaudible] >> let me will be objection, mr. greenhut. sustained. >> to the extent that you have done research on the subject of

what the disparity of public and private sector pay and benefits, what would you say on average if you would, sir, what would you say is the premium paid to a public sector worker today? >> what i've seen, for instance, the unions will talk about on retirement at the average government retiree gets about $27,000 a year could they say that as evidence that these are not average as pensions. these averages include people who retired and include people who are short timers. in the private sector, the number is about 9000. soon after $27,000 number still tripled on the pension. if you look at people retiring in the last couple years. in california, the averages about $66,000. >> i think you made your point. we have to move on. any further questions? >> with the size nationally of the public or employee unfunded

liabilities in the pension and health care benefits, could you provide the jury what the best estimate is for that number. about how much money is owed by states and cities to cover these enormous pension and health care costs? >> i see numbers from 1.5 trillion -- i'm a journalist so i don't understand numbers. more than a half trillion versus 3 trillion. >> how high is the entire amount of state and local budgets today? >> that's two questions. it's an incredible amount of money that must be repaid by law and must be repaid. >> thank you, mr. greenhut. counselor, please be seated. i do want to ask you again.

>> mr. greenhut, pacific research institute is >> various donors. >> corporations? >> i'm sure there's some of that. can i ask you funds for public employees? >> they are members. >> i'm sorry, i know you're asking the question. [laughter] >> i wasn't sure whether taxpayers funded it. >> you said 15,000 public sector workers in california and a pension of over 100,000. what% is that? >> i don't know what the percentage is, but it's a large and growing number. >> when you are looking at an average, what we have got is a soaring number is growing by 40% to 60%. >> also workers, how many were under collect the bargaining agreements that make up this pensions? can you tell me that?

>> i don't have the percentage, but virtually every -- >> idea. less than half. most of the subset management or elected officials. >> managers earn associations. >> counselor, you can't answer the question you asked. you have to let the witness. >> is not the same thing. management is not a union. >> i'm sorry. it's an association. >> we talked a lot -- did not collectively bargain. >> collective bargaining idea that unions has an impact that creates a ratchet effect. >> you talk about unfunded pension liabilities, right click >> yes, that's something worth talking about. you don't think of the problem? >> is that generally the problem of workers, unions about how much goes into the pension fund them at the actuarial

assumptions are comments that contain units usually do? >> you are trying to make a huge distinction between public site management. >> mr. greenhut come answer the question. i don't understand the question. it was a little too convoluted. >> we are union, which is over talking about tonight. >> i fail to make a distinction between management associations. when i was at the orange county register, 90% of the people in the county, management and rank-and-file were either an association or union. only 500 employees, some of the very top level and they enjoy of the pension benefits that the rank-and-file are able to. >> to trust that is not government. >> at the union select their bosses. >> let's move on. >> save your closing statements for closing statements.

>> so with the weakening units have to do with solving budget problems at the state although? >> i used to say that the unions of the legislature, but that's not true. they are the legislature. [laughter] it is a united food and workers union organizer. the senate pro tem is a former fbi you attorney. i mean, if i were you in the afl-cio, the private sector union guys are furious, too. any good progressive -- >> mr. green, please stick to the answer. i'm the judge here. stick to the question. answer the questions we can move this along. people have dinner reservations. [laughter] >> mr. greenhut, do you believe in democracy? >> that's a really ridiculous question. that's like asking if i beat my wife. yes, i believe in democracy.

>> do you have a right to run for office just like everybody else? >> sheri dew. >> final question. >> so when a democracy, people can run for office and they receive campaign contributions, support and corporations, unions, it is the juror believes that the lack of official has no free will and the incapable of representing his or her constituents given the campaign conjugations out there? >> well, i know a lot of elected officials and i wouldn't give them much credit for anything. but i do know they are deathly afraid of the public employee unions. mrs. republicans as well as democrats because republicans love the public safety unions. they want to pose next to the fire trucks and police officers. i'm not sure what your question is, but i don't know what my answer was.

[laughter] >> one last question for you, sir. if we were to do what you're suggesting. >> what am i -- i haven't suggested anything. >> letter asked the question and you can answer. >> if you allow me to finish my sentence. >> my apologies. >> if we weaken public sector unions and take with the collective bargaining right, splash their pensions, and they pay in their health care, do you think we will attract a more or a less qualified set of applicants in the future? >> you know what, i have never seen in the 22,000 applicants for a firefighter job and california. i'm not worried about getting applicant problems for $135,000 job, we are paid overtime to watch the fire. >> is that true for teachers and nurses as well? >> teachers and nurses do not

get his generous of a pension. >> thank you ominously. >> no further questions. [applause] you may be dismissed, mr. greenhut. >> your honor, the prosecution rests its very strong defense. please call your first witness. >> i would like to call to the stand.there karel shoemaker, professor of law. >> mr. shoemaker, this is unusual, but i will allow it. >> he didn't have to move very far. >> will you spare on this copy of the national labor relations board manual to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> i do.

>> dr. shoemaker, tell me a little bit about your education and relevant working theory. >> all the bashers science from liberty university in lynchburg virginia, and law degree from cumberland law school in birmingham, alabama and a phd from the university of california berkeley. i briefly practiced law in the university of alabama and instill a member of the bar there. i've been actively in my younger years in the republican party and in recent months i've been paying attention to events outside my door in madison, wisconsin. >> misplay, the court will stipulate that he smiled. >> thank you, your honor. dr. shoemaker, what were the primary reasons for opposition to public unions in the first half of the 20th century? >> three real reasons. when the sake mistake and scenic ranging in canyon nice to public workers would allow them a legal avenue for striking and striking with a major issue leading to some very fat confrontations in the early 20th century. the two other worthy goals

issues. one was a doctrine of sovereign immunity, the state government and the federal government could not be held to legal obligations that they created. the fear was collective bargaining would force them to have to honor contracts in a situation restates typically didn't want to be balanced by law. some states, north carolina is a sample that holds the state employee with extra duty to the states, not the communities they work for, but the state government itself. those are the factors that were the real reason. >> are those concerns still valid today? had they been alleviated after many states began to recognize public unions and collective bargaining rights? >> the great bargains struck in exchange for the opportunity to form collective bargaining at the state level was to give up the rate strikes. in fact, the law prohibits strikes by public unions and in most cases very strict penalties to.

since the 1960s, there's been a radical decline in public sector strikes and this worked quite smoothly. the doctrines of sovereign immunity have tended to be relaxed as more democratic and abilities have taken hold in states have understood to be accountable. >> how do they bargain -- what about pension benefits? >> in most states they are set by the legislature and not subject to public bargaining at all. >> when the state began to allow public-sector workers to unionize, how did that turn out? was very real -- could you by nature and its strike and so on? >> now, to the contrary. there was a decline in that. there was early opposition from some states because it was sometimes a spoils system. collective bargaining and public-sector unions stood in the way of the old way of appointing one's cronies and

political supporters into all kinds of public positions from high-ranking position to teachers and public unionism was a very effective way of stopping this kind of cronyism in what we call political spoils. >> thank you. what about the role of mediation and arbitration with respect to public-sector unions. how does that compare with union rights and states that don't have rights for collective bargaining for public or? >> there's actually not much difference in terms of compensation levels between states in which there is a right and states in which it is prohibited. >> to find overall public-sector workers are uncompensated compared to private sector workers? >> reliable studies show there is anywhere from a 4% 3% penalty for work and the public sector and that actually weapons of education and qualifications. >> the highest level of application, cancer research at the national institutes of health or a legal scholar,

there's even a bigger gap for public-sector workers. >> it approaches 20%. >> how do you explain the figures the prosecution has use for those who decided? >> are interested in using inflammatory rhetoric rather than paying attention to the data. >> final question, ms. lees. >> the studies that find the public-sector workers are not overpaid, are they careful empirical studies? what do they take into account? >> to compare levels of education, age, qualification, levels of responsibility. the studies that show overcompensation compare fire chiefs to mcdonald's employees and it's simply not a meaningful comparison. >> thank you. no further questions. >> mr. moore, your witness. >> thank you, your honor. professor shumaker, let me get the facts straight. you are a professor of history and legal studies, is that correct? at the university of wisconsin

madison? >> that's correct. >> does that make you about the most liberal person in america? [laughter] is there someone more liberal than a person on the campus in a liberal arts school? let me ask you -- >> it's actually not a liberal arts college. do not let me ask you about the region disgrace of what happened in madison this past winter. we dare to observe the goings-on? >> yes. >> let me ask you this question. according to news reports that are credible, their schools throughout the state of wisconsin, especially milwaukee that had to be shut down for several days it has the teachers are protesting in madison. can i ask you this question? i was happening children first? >> as far as i understand it, some school districts in milwaukee and madison have school closures for as many as two and three days. >> so basically teachers are putting their unions added the

kids? >> actually they were taking great risks to themselves professionally since there have been no repercussions for those who did. but they were doing it because they really believe in quality of education offered in wisconsin and they are desperate to hold onto it. >> you don't think the kids were how that affected in a school those days? >> the kids were probably delighted. >> let me ask you this question. you've been a big defender of collective bargaining. is that right? that was one of the major issues of contention in the protest about whether republicans should have collective bargaining. let me ask you this question. if you have a situation where you have a democratic mayor or a democratic city council that was essentially elected predominantly with public employee union money and that mayor or city council members sitting at the negotiating table across from the public site or employee union representative, do you think -- can you honestly

say that you think that elected official is going to act on behalf of the teachers -- of the public employee unions are the taxpayers who pay the salaries? what is your honest opinion? remember, sir, you are under oath. [laughter] >> well, i believe all human institutions, whether private or public are susceptible to all kinds. i believe people try to arrive. >> when he asked the question differently. in that situation, with the bargaining table as representing the interests of the taxpayer, not the union? >> would've bargained for? >> would have democratically elected official who was elected to public employee union money. who would not negotiation -- the salaries and benefits of those union workers, who is representing the taxpayers interests? >> as opposed to those representatives -- >> you can't have a negotiation.

you can't have a negotiation if both sides are in the side of the union. >> professor camacho like the question readback? [laughter] >> i think i understand what you sow and artfully trying to ask. [laughter] >> professor coming a trip to the question because this is mr. moore's last one. >> there's so much i want to pursue under the microscope on. are you familiar with the fact the last year when they had a budget crunch in the city of milwaukee, do what has to happen is that the city had to fire because of union work rules, the city had to fire the teacher of the year? what private sector institution would ever, ever fire their best work or? you don't have to answer the question. his silence is deafening. let me ask you one last thing.

as everyone else, especially members of the jury, the members of the legislature, the number -- 10 or 11 members of the state senate in wisconsin blocked out and fled to illinois. are you proud of those actions? >> the number is 14. >> i knew you would know the number. do you think that's a justifiable action to leave the city and not at his -- to do their job and act as a representative of the state? >> i look forward to when the voters in their districts either affirm what they did or complain, but i suspect that what i know the landscape here, they are getting a lot of support from constituents. >> said that is what it's come to. the democratic party is so beholden right now. this is the question. true or false, the democrats are

now so beholden to the public employee unions that they simply walk out on their job? >> false. >> thank you, professor. he may be excused. [applause] >> okay, do you have your witness is coming out or? >> i call dr. spencer transfixed to the stands. >> dr. pack, what you say on this copy of "the new york times" to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i don't think i can plan "the new york times." i'm sorry, i cannot do that. >> just on your own good will. >> i will, thank you. >> the court will stipulate he'll tell the truth. >> dr. pack, state your name and

occupation. >> and spencer pack compressor of economics at connecticut college in new london, connecticut. >> what are your relevant work experience to this tragedy? >> have a ba in social theory from zirconia college in new hampshire, masters in political study university of toronto, phd in economics and political economy from the university of new hampshire. >> so when your view, dr. pack, as an economist, can you tell me what would be the impact on economic growth if tomorrow we unilaterally eliminated all public-sector unions, collective bargaining rights and aggregated pension and health care obligations for public site workers and retirees, what would we be impact? >> it would demoralize people at this time that i would think in denying the freedom of workers, public workers to join unions. it would be incredibly demoralizing. in the second place, to be

firing people in times of massive unemployment would be a terrific mistake. in the third place, and the global economy that we have now, where we need more teachers and more education, to be firing teachers and wrecking the educational system would be a terrible mistake. >> would that close state and local budget cuts over to fire public-sector workers and reduce pensions and health care unilaterally? >> know, the problem with the deficit is the recession that's been going on for years. we have 9.2% official unemployment rates. many more people are underemployed or discouraged. when you have this kind of unemployment, government revenues will go down to the extent this is a safe event to help common people on main street, expenditures will go a good that is the cause of the dataset. we will have the deficit as long as we have 9.1% or more

unemployment. that is not going away under these policies. >> last question, ms. lee. >> dr. pack, can the u.s. compete internationally in the global economy without investing in infrastructure education on the skills of our workforce? >> obviously not. even with that, it's hard to see how we're going to keep our international winners low-wage economy coming onto the market and we have a bipartisan consent is to have outsourcing, free trade, wage arbitrage. wage arbitrage means when they're hiring when countries such as the united states are lower in other countries such as an you and china, the tendency for the wages in the united states is to go down and that if we were lucky not. >> thank you. >> thank you, dr. pack.

>> is your contention -- by the way, you're a professor at the school? >> connecticut college in new london, connecticut. >> so unique be more liberal than this gentleman here. [laughter] >> i think i'm probably the most liberal person in this room. [laughter] >> okay -- >> and how i was invited here on the one hand is a mystery to me and not the other hand i'd like to thank -- >> objection sustained. >> the line of questioning is not pertinent. >> is it your contention that to be a good teacher you have to be a member of the public employee unions? >> it is my contention that in america, a free country, people if they want to form a union we should have the freedom to do it. this is not 1975. it is not santiago chile. this is not pinochet. these are people in freedom.

>> let me ask you this question. i don't think you would contend that we have many teachers in america they teach in private schools, correct? the vast majority are not members of unions, would you agree with that? yes or no? that teachers in the private schools, like catholic schools are generally not members -- >> i'm sorry, i misunderstood. we have a system of public schools and private schools in america and we've had the system for a long time. >> it's your contention if i understand what you just said earlier, was the high salaries for these teachers than benefit and the school system in the case. my question to you is, why is it in the dirt in catholic schools that teachers are paid much significantly lower and yet the

results and graduation results are significantly higher in private schools with non-unionized teachers? >> cannot think any teachers are highly paid. i don't think any teachers are highly paid. the people that are highly paid are on wall street. those are the people that are highly paid. not main street. wall street. >> let me ask you another question because you brought up another important principle. i think you said the freedom that teachers and firefighters and police men and women should have the right to form a union. is that a fair summation of what you said? >> in the land of america, quality -- >> so you think they should have the right to choose a union is that your point? >> my point is they want to be in the union -- >> let me ask you this question. is that needs you will support of republican governors around

the country want to do, which is create right to work laws so every worker in america has the right to join a union or not join a union? is not a basic civil right of every american worker? [cheers and applause] >> the question here -- >> seders speeches for closing. >> the question is here come the people to join unions go to jail. that's the question. >> no, it's not. >> professor, professor. >> if i want to work for the police department and local government for become a teacher in the public schools, should i be forced to be join a union? >> overruled. >> should i be required -- to think it's a subtler right of mine to have the fundamental individual right to joining the union for not joining the union? >> i think workers in america

should have the fundamental right to join a union if they want to. whether or not they want to and not, each state should be able to decide that on its own. i would anticipate new hampshire would decide one way. other states were decided not to wait. >> you agree that there are hundreds of thousands of workers in america who are forced to join a union. >> objection. nobody in america is forced to join a union. >> order of the court, please. >> we are going to go right into our closing statements because her running out of time in this wonderful situation of jurisprudence. >> we will conclude the court proceedings with the state conclusion to the jury. mr. moore and then the defense.

i assume mr. moore also make a closing statement. members of the jury, members of the audience, but we have here is what i call a slam dunk case for the prosecution. let's just review some of the evidence we've heard your preferred the evidence that public sector unions are paid a very large premium for being members of that union, that those premiums can be 30% -- 50%, in some cases 100% higher than what a private-sector worker receives. there is a basic unfairness. liberals love to talk about the concept of fairness. how is it that the janitor or the plumber in america who lives down the street from a public employee union has to pay taxes to pay for these inflated salaries, then the feds, health benefits and so on to tout worker does not get themselves? i would make the case that is unfair and hurting the economy. second of all, you heard

evidence that the states and municipal government unions have created a situation through collective bargaining, where states and municipalities are facing a 1.5 to $3 trillion unfunded liability. and i would ask this question when you delivery. where do you think the money is going to come from that paid for those exorbitant unfunded liabilities? they will come from two sources. either one, will have to radically cut the kinds of public services. aliso had to cut school funding. it means we have to cut our police and parks on fire fading and close the prison and we will have to do that because of these exorbitant kinds of employee benefits, retirement benefits that are simply unaffordable and a direct result of forced unionism in the public sector. we have also heard that we have seen evidence that teachers walk

out on their students to protect their government employee benefit. is that putting children first? i would take the case to you it is not. we cannot go forward in america with public employee unions bankrupting every state and city in america. you heard the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, about what is happening in california. i make the case to you that the fiscal problems in california are the canary in the coal mine. unless we do something about these enormous benefit paid to public employee unions, we are going to see the kind of california's fiscal crisis hit name, hit new hampshire, hit florida, hit nevada. every statement in america is not going to be able to pay their bills on the important public services be relying on are going to be put in jeopardy or else the alternative to dad and i think this is the alternative to the public sector unions want is to dabble in some cases triple taxes to these

benefits. ladies and gentlemen, the ship has to come to an end. i urged to come back with a guilty verdict. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. professor shoemaker. >> goldplated an offense, the new house, the numbers simply don't back it up. in last couple of months on, one u.s. senator has twice publicly claimed the average salary is $89,000. he was off by $40,000. it's only $49,000 a year. to listen to the router, one would imagine there is taxpayers set up with ungrateful public employees lap up the following blood. this simply isn't the case. across the country on average, 3% of state and local budgets are obligated towards pensions.

in wisconsin at 1.5%. wisconsin's benefit -- pension fund is fully funded to 99.7%. there is no gaping crisis of pension settlement in wisconsin or any other states. as you heard in the testimony, the budget deficits are states that don't even have collective bargaining agreements, even the prohibit public employees have budget deficits and in some place even greater ones in the states that allow collective bargaining for public employees. it's true as one of the witnesses said that the employment relationship between an employee in the government is different than say a whole foods was competition from other grocery stores. but why is that without the competition that the numbers show the salary, the so-called goldplated benefits simply aren't that high. the average pension in wisconsin for year is $21,000.

there are watch as a minister that cost more than that. in california, it is $27,000 a year. 75% -- 75% under the state system get less than $36,000 a year, goldplated indeed. as we said in the opening, much of the prosecution has been aimed at inflaming rhetoric, inflaming outrage, gratifying outrage that is simply not grounded in the facts. it's also been an attempt to distract from the real cause of the problem. the state budget shortfalls were not caused by public employees or their unions. they were not caused by collective bargaining. they were creating in the economy as a result of irresponsible policies and ran a weak wall street. >> thank you, your honor.

if the amounts collected in state pension funds rate now have simply been invested at the rate of return on a 30 year t-bill from 2007 onward, simply at that return it would've generated just under $1 trillion. these are manageable problems. it can come at the high-end, 3% of state and local budgets are going to pensions. that is at the high-end. that is in california. states can pass laws to prohibit double dipping. states can and must have passed laws to exclude collective bargaining agreements, things like pensions and in most states collective bargaining does not set down. our elected legislators do. there will need to be some innovative solutions to solve the problems that we face. but abolishing collective bargaining, some states are trying to do, putting blame is facing on the workers who teach our children, put out our

fires -- >> professor, you might want to address the jury, not the audience. >> putting the blame on them is they're responsible. it was help solve the problem and none of the solutions offered will not improve the place of private workers. but we have of course is a smokescreen. you have been asked to find whether it's beyond reasonable doubt the prosecution has made their case and i think clearly they have not. fortunately, in this setting we can rise above the sort of outrage and calculated rhetoric that we read in the opinion pages or that we hear on tv from the talking heads and we can think clearly and look at figures we've been given and make a decision that not only preserves the right of those who choose to organize and a

collective way, to bargain against their employer, a powerful employer, the government. at dizziness has reduced its cronyism and a spoils system and are assaulted with a radical decrease in work stoppages and strikes the public sector. collective bargaining has been incredibly successful in that regard. to dismantle now is raw partisan politics and is not good for a policy of four communities. >> thank you, professor. [applause] >> all right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. thank you for your patience. thank you for serving. you've heard the expert witnesses. you've heard statements from the prosecution and you have heard from the defense. it's now up you to decide the guilt or innocence of nissley and professor karo shoemaker and supporters of public unions in america. the way this will work is bad form and we'll tally the votes and announce the verdict. the decision will be read by the

jury. there will be a unanimous vote. it will be a majority vote, not a unanimous vote is but i'm trying to say. is that clear? majority, not unanimous. all right. members of the jury, please begin deliberation. you have two minutes of delivery. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> yes, do you have a question? [inaudible] can i repeat the charges? and are they federal and state classics just a moment. the charges are: where are the charges? well, our unions good or bad for america? public unions good or bad for america?

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> you read at the very beginning the accusation. [inaudible conversations] >> all right. 30 seconds, jurors. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> five seconds, jurors. [inaudible conversations] >> two seconds, jurors.

all rights, jury, time is up. for men, have you reached a verdict? they are -- i will. i am a judge. you can do it next year. they are tallying the votes, ladies and gentlemen. should be just a moment. will the defense prize class mr. foreman, have you reached a verdict? [inaudible] i know the suspense is killing all of you. these lights are killing me.

[laughter] we just need the majority, not a unanimous vote. for men, would you please read the verdict? [inaudible] >> read the jury find the defendant guilty. [cheers and applause] >> order! order! the judge, i am going to now -- [inaudible] five to seven. you did say guilty, did you not? okay. ms. lee, professor shoemaker and you and your union brothers and sisters have been found guilty

of subverting the public good in the fine citizens of this great nation. with the powers vested in me, i hereby continue in your union leaders to receive measly social security benefit instead of your cushy teachers pension and subject to you in your unions to obamacare rolls, rather than the current exemption. you will also be condemned to spend the next 24 hours confined to a featherbed here and bally's hotel scabs and mineral will be subject to whitson lashes. for men, take them away. [cheers and applause]

>> pack was a theologian who participated in the theologian again the nazis. he was arrested and killed in 1945 by the gestapo. next, martin marty talks about his book, "dietrich bonhoeffer's

letters and papers from prison" from the "chicago tribune" printers row that says, this is where the minute. [applause] 'r >> thank you very madchen welcome to the printers row with fast. we are delighted to have thisop opportunity to talk with you about a particularly interesting idea. idea of the biography, not of a person, but have it both th that idea is the recent author of just such a biography, dr. martin marty, who is professor emeritus of history at the university -- of religious history at the university of chicago, as many of you already well know. and he has written a biography of dietrich bonhoeffer's letters and papers from prison. it's one of three books that's kicking off a series of such

books from princeton university press. and to start our discussion, i want to read the press' description of what they're trying to do and then ask dr. marty to comment on it. they say that this new series recounting the complex and fascinating histories of important religious texts written for general readers by leading authors and experts is intended to trace how their reception, interpretation and influence have changed over time. often radically. as these stories remind us, all great religious books are living things whose careers in the world can take the most unexpected turns. now, dr. marty, you've also recently completed and published a biography of martin luther, a lutheran who somewhat predated dietrich bonhoeffer. [laughter]

what's the difference between with writing a biography of a figure like luther and be -- and a book like bonhoeffer's? >> there are far more similarities than i thought i would find. when princeton university press described this series and asked me if i would be a kicker offer of it, it took me about five minutes to sign the contract. it was a new challenge because i didn't know anything like this. the first thing you have to do if you're writing a biography of the book is forget about biological analogies. that is you don't want to say the book was born this way and went through adolescence and all those things. [laughter] they don't do that. but they have careers, and they change in the light of the passage of time. think of almost any book you read 20, 30 years ago and think of its reputation now. think of the vonnegut books and the books that were big in the '60s and '70s if you're old

enough to have been around then. very different books now. malcolm muckeridge marshall mcclewin. i'm in the ms today. [laughter] cultural superstars then, and they don't show up now. so that's, i think, the first thing. the other thing is the biography of a person, you dig into letters, you dig into reminiscences and so on. here you have mainly a narrative of where it's gone, what's happened to it along the way. and it was such a delightful concept that when i met the other authors and like to tell them about who some of these authors are or what they're going to write about because that gives you a sense of where you can take this, the diversity that's been going on.

>> the other two books that have already been published in the series, one is a biography of augustin's confession by gary wells who has, of course, written about augustin several times during his career. and then this is a biography of the tibetan book of the dead by donald lopez who's up at the university of michigan. each of them treats this idea in each of the three in a different way, and still, and some of the books that are still to come in this series also promise to be very interested. vanessa oaks is writing, bruce chilton who many of you may have heard of is writing a biography of the book of revelation. [laughter] so -- >> if he finishes it in a hurry. >> yeah, yeah. right. [laughter] i think october 20th is the deadline. [laughter] the dead sea scrolls.

you did, you did try to avoid those anthroto morphic moments, but i thought one thing you said that was quite important was to think about, um, not just the physical object, but its soul, the book's soul. so in thinking about dietrich bonhoeffer and what he left postwar theology, what is the -- when you were thinking about the soul of his letters and papers, how did you come to assess that in terms of its effect on its readersesome? >> aristotle and leon cast and i define soul this way -- [laughter] >> good threesome. >> soul is the integrated, vital power of any organic body so long as it is open to possibility and opportunity and

so on. um, a corpse has the same corpuscles that the hand did, but it can't do anything anymore. what's missing? soul. and i think that's what i look for in bonhoeffer. for those of you who haven't done a lot with bonhoeffer, i'll just say a few little things about him. the first thing that strikes me is he lived as long as martin luther king. when i'm on campuses and very often senior generation, i often ask them name four people in, say, the spiritual field that made living in the 20th century worthwhile. well, you hear mother teresa, you'll hear martin luther king, dorothy day and bonhoeffer, they tend to be the top four on the list my part of the world will say. and he lived to be 39, and the last three years were in prison. so, basically, he lived to be 36 plus the little book i wrote about. this is the newest edition of the book i wrote about.

this is the one you might want to buy because it's affordable and carry bl, and this one costs $80. but it's a 16-volume series of somebody whose writing, basically, stops at age 36. and meanwhile, he was active in underground activities, he was in, a double agent in the cia of germany, if you want to call it that. he spent a year in america, he went to barcelona, he had a church in london. all these things are crammed in there, and my search for his soul is what held him together. that's obvious that as a christian he was an ordained minister, you naturally look for where the resources of that faith were. and i find that he's held together by promise. the last thing he said as they led him to the gallows was, "this is the end, but for me it's the beginning." and you can read that a lot of

ways. you can take a traditional doctrine of the resurrection, you can take it somebody who's fulfilled all he can in his life, and yet he can foresee what's going to happen because everything was unfinished at that time. so i think that was where i most saw his soul. >> one reason, of course, that we write biographies of anyone or anything is that we believe that the impact that that person has had on others has been in some way transformative, the biography of washington, a biography of lincoln, think of any of those. and so of necessity, a biography of a book is about the impact that it has had on its readers and the uses to which they've put that. and so of particular interest to me as i was reading your biography of the letters and papers was to think of the different kinds of people that it changed. do you want to -- and they are

not at all similar in many ways which is fascinating too. do you want to -- can you speak to that? >> the book has been translated into 34 languages. i can why it in bogota, i -- buy it in bogota, i bought it in cape town. you can buy it anywhere in the world. it, obviously, travels. people read it, things happen. its first round happens to young people who are thinking of vocation. some of them wanted religious vocations, but others steered their life in the light of it. , that's not the central use today, but just the variety of some of these impacts. the first, i brought a couple samples along. the first big book about him gives you a sample of what it goes to. an east german communist theologian -- that sounds very contradictory, but the stalinists were running east germany. in fact, the very town where bonn

bonhoeffer went to school and studied was one of these headquarters. they allowed a few universities and a few theological fact faculties, humboldt university was one of them. and they had to allow theological faculties because the majority of the people were catholic and reformed, and they had to comply with what was pushed on them. but subvertly they were keeping things going. my wife and i visited a theologian. their daughter was a 14-year-old, and she could never go to university because she was going to confirmation class. they couldn't suppress -- they couldn't suppress the act of worship, but they could keep everything else out. bonhoeffer's adapting to that, and he takes all the passages in scriptures or anywhere else in which jesus is the figure that impels you out into the world, and that's what could happen here. now, whether miller is himself a communist or not, it was approved by the communist

authorities. then another sample -- i won't do more of them, but it'll show you a variety -- in south africa, this is bonhoeffer in south africa. we visited there the last year there was apartheid. a young leader in a movement that helped bring down the regime, they were reading bonn how farer because they were -- bonhoeffer because they were learning from him how you outlast regimes. and it had an enormous impact in that way. the hardest thing, i think, was to figure germany itself. first of all, the conventional historic lutherans had real problem with him because luther liked where paul the apostle wrote every soul should be subject to the higher powers, and if you resist them, you're condemned. obviously, bonhoeffer's resisting the powers, he's ready

to kill the head man. what are you going to do with him? his own parish was not allowed to use his name as a memorial. the closer you got to that, the east germans had taken to it right away because he was upsetting some of the things that they were after. today it's very different. there's a bonhoeffer church in london where he served for a year. almost anywhere in the world except his home church, he's not the only prophet that's had that trouble. [laughter] but they're getting, now, to the point where they're accepting it as you do. they do not think and i do not think he was perfect. he didn't think he was perfect. he was, essentially, a pacifist, and pacifists don't normally try to bring down the head guy. and he was in a conspiracy that finally failed, the death penalty came about because the bomb didn't go off on hitler all

the way. how can you do that? by the way, in prison he was also writing a book called "ethics," it's a very important book that people still read. and how can you do this? you're a pacifist, you don't believe in killing, and yet you are in on this plot. and he said, if you were in a street and a madman were coming along in a truck and you had the chance to grab the wheel even though it's going to kill him, you'd do that, woudn't y? i like .. to quote paul, a professor in paris from chicago some years ago who said sometimes you live by what you call an ethic of distress. you don't say what you're doing is right, you're saying the circumstance in which you have to do something as one novel in world war ii said, you must do what you must do and then say your prayers. [laughter] so he had a theology and an ethic, and then he had to interrupt it for this and then go back to it. and i think the chronicle of

that, you don't find that in the book of his letters because he knows he's doomed at the end. but these letters are written for different purposes. he has a fiancee, a very young fiancee, writing love letters to her. he wrote -- i can't do c-span without mentioning his best friend in life, his biographer and someone -- he's been in chicago sometimes, 1966 i got a signed one from him. i'm a groupie, too, like to collect autographs and books. [laughter] and the letters to him. his parents, letters full of culture. can you send me a new copy of plutarch? one of the reasons? he liked fat books. because some of the letters were in code. if you wonder why the letter the, page 1, put a pinprick

through the t. page 3 he put it through h. takes a long time to do a sentence, but plutarch served well for that. and he kept those things going. so that combination. but most of the deep letters are the ones that have dr were those to his best friend. they were hidden. obviously some legal, many weren't. they were hidden in gas mask canisters and dug up years later. people would find out where they were. none of this wouldn't have existed if not for him. he saved them. he made the book. >> it's an interesting fact in launching 24 series that in many ways they are not books someone sat down to write for a particular audience. also stitched together by the

person who discovered those texts and sort of americanized them. bonn however would have never imagined that. there were scrines doing the work for him. the idea that the book affects people justifies the biography. the other thing that fascinates us about people and what we look to read about in their biographies are the turning points 234 their lives 245 mark a shift in their perspective or a new chapter. what turning points did you find in the life of letters and papers from prison. >> one was the common touch. it was from an aristocratic

family. he lived a sheltered, privileged life. a non-religious life basically. his mother taught him hymns, but he graduated from berlin with a one year scholarship to america, and we're talking 1931, and the best friend there was frank fisher, an african-american, the only one there and there was a baptist church which was a big turning point. remember, a berlin professor, their footnotes had footnotes. it was that world he lived in. [laughter] he's now in a baptist church, fell in love with music, came back in 1939, his friends wanted to protect him.

i can't -- if germany's going to survive, i have to be a participant in the suffering too. i think that carried through all the way. and he was planning when arrested to meet gandhi. the peace vision was very big for him. the day hitler came to power in 1933, he was giving a radio address. i didn't know it until i was reading a new biography of it, the only time he was on radio, and it was cut off in the middle. we who like romance, we say hitler's people turned it off. the engineer made a mistake. [laughter] it was on the principle of having a furyk. you could see how germany shaped up to the total obedience.

from then on he never, ever, ever played up. some of the people in the catholic and lutheran churches played up to hitler. there was a movement in which they tried to make hitler's germany into a christian antisemitic force. the vast majority were just silent. what can you do in the middle of that, and there they were. he got committed early and hung out with a whole underground ever -- of people. i think another turning point 1 they knew -- is they knew a movement in the 1930s was being born and wanted to form the world counsel of churches, and it was postponed after the war. he was an early agent, and that's one of the things that served his cause. he got to conferences in switzerland and sweden, england. the archbishop who was over

anthony edeen was the contact person, and what you had there, some of you saw the movie, "volcurian" -- i have not seen it, but that's who he was with. he wanted the allies to drop the idea of uncondition surrender because if that happens, germany will vender, and we can rebuild and so on. anthony was not ready to bite on that because it would have been a high risk to anybody. again, the exposure of people in the other churches around the world, catholic -- there had been almost none of that happening in the 30s. i think that opened him to a larger vision. >> the book you cite there from the chernlg to -- church to the world partly grows from an idea that came in one of his late letters that you mentioned that he talked about the world that has come of age

and that phrase and the implications of that then were seized by a variety of people in the years after the book was first published. can you talk a little bit about how the uses of the book by the various camps if you will by various thee lotions and philosophers had an impact on post-war germany and others. >> others, yes, including america and england, yes. when you write a book about a life, you have to think about that life. if you are an abused child and you know a secret about them, you can't treat them another way. if they have a secret, you know it, and you are guided by it along the way. if you pick the life of 5 book, you do the same thing of thing as this man in germany did it. then it traveled to england.

there's a book called "honest to god" by a british bishop. it traveled to america. the death of god theologians had their moment with them. many of you may not know that one october day, "time" had a cover saying god is dead writing about sweet people who thought so, and easter came along, and god was living again -- [laughter] they had their moment. why? back to the question. some of the radical ideas he was pursuing that adds to the interest in the book and he has seen the terror of religion taken over by the state. in a way, that's what hitler was doing. he saw false piety of people, pry, -- pray, pray, pray, and antisemitic -- it really

bothered him. he had a three-prong thing. first of all, he saw secularization. germany which had a long religious tradition was being jetsonned into the universities, and some of the books he read long in prison dealt with that, and so he -- probably the greatest influence on him was karl bart in switzerland, and he studied as much as he could. bart wrote a 50,000-word footnote -- [laughter] you could count them. it was called religion is unbelief because he believes 245 people who form a cast about their religion that keeps god from them, and so he didn't the it was a total tragedy that secularization was coming. he said it's coming, embrace it, and live it.

don't force people into the middle age, live with it. the world came of age. the word is adulthood. of the concepts, this one i have problems with because, yes, if you look at western europe, you really believe it. look at the modern university, you really believe it. look at entertainment, and you really believe it, but around the world, religion never had it so good. religions are booming. in dietrich bonhoeffer's part of world and are, there's a thousand fewer christians every hour. when you see how post china tried to put religion down, they are all there. organizations spilled against it and such. i think he was half right. i use the word religi osecular. is this religion or secular i'm

talking about? texas, baptist, millionaire. [laughter] he didn't want the preacher to talk about that and so on. the other -- but that's led him to the whole new market, if you will. he was not looking for a market. he was ready to die, but then he talked about religion and less christianity, and that's what refused people. he used the word "religion" to show how you develop piety so god can't get at you. he led worship to fellow prisoners even, but he believed the shawl we put on often stands in the way of it. i think that the question is what should he say about jesus christ in whose divinity believed, but he said the church always argues about what this mean, and if all the things in the new testament and the church that would fit in religionless

christianity is jesus christ as the man for others. his whole life is that. we're supposed to model that. go deeper into your faith, or carry it and say let's get rid of the stuff and throw it all out. >> if you were to identify the single biggest impact of this book on religious thought today, what would you say that it is? if you want to -- if any of you would like to ask dr. marty questions, line up at the microphone in the middle of the aisle while he's answering the question. >> i think the two main sets of impacts. still big as ever. this year there's two monstrous new biographies of him, and little ones. there's tens of thousands of things written about him. he's as prime as ever, but they

sort of run on two tracks. the insiders, the people who studied him all these year, people who knew him and so on pick up on this religiousless christianity theme and jesus is the man for others. the evangelicals which were not well-known inside of tennessee in 1931-39 now are the most prosperous of the religious elements throughout the culture. they were marginal. they were hillbillies, but in america, he goes to a fundamentalist preacher in new york, and he says, well, the guy is preaching the bible. that's better than a lot of stuff in seminary. no offense to those in seminary. [laughter] but he didn't believe in the verbal belief of the bible or the literal second comings like

the evangelicals. he was not a literalist at all. they were suspicious of him. there's stuff going wrong, and they see the overall impact taken over, and i would say both of them have a vivid claim on it. the two main impacts, the one is the radical one i described. the other is just plain the letters themselves as a whole. here he is sitting -- the publisher gave a cover of it to get himself from within. the window is too high to look out. he always identified when they were singing outside it. it was a tiny closet-sized cell writing prayers that are used and hymns now in hymn books of catholics as well as everybody else, and i think this attracted his spirit, use the word "soul"

before to survive those circumstances and that has a strong impact on people today. one is the whole book and the other 1 the late theology, the final letters. >> sir, you had a question. >> yes. thank you. passivism when you say dietrich bonhoeffer was a pass vies and they are against the death penalty. he was part of the firing squad, and you notice how he had a conflict with the lieu tran thing about supporting government. well, jesus wiped out authority in mark 10:42-43. show us why dietrich bonhoeffer could not react to that and talk to hitler nonviolently. >> good question, i'm glad i don't have to write on jesus. [laughter] i don't know any place -- jesus

own texts are nonviolent throughout. turn the cheek, do all these things, and he's rarely been followed all the way. bonhoeffer made an appeal to that. there's a book called "cost of discipleship" which is nothing but his interpretation of jesus and the sermon on the mount. there's a famous line in there. you know, jesus says you follow me at your risk, and bonhoeffer says when jesus christ calls a person, he calls him or her to die. he was that devoted to what's there, but he also enjoyed the live that jesus also enjoyed. >> well bonhoeffer could have died either way. >> what's that? >> bonhoeffer could have died either way, nonviolently resisting.

he died violently trying to resist hitler. >> right. it took him a year and a half to get to him, but he knew he was doomed. again, if you try to shoot the head man, you're doomed. they had all the power, and they got him so there's nothing -- there's no other alternative for him. he only lived by his witness. thank you. >> another question. sir, thank you. >> as one who is not even sure how to spell bonhoeffer, know little about him, but what led up to the imprezment and final death? what's the background, why was he in jail? >> good question. my name is marty, m-a-r-t-y. [laughter] b-o-n-h-e-o-f-f-e-r, bonhoeffer. [laughter] you should hear the people 234 -- in taiwan pronounce it.

[laughter] why he was in prison -- first of all he was a resister all along hitler, and those people in the catholic, lute ran, and reform churches were resisting. they were the only peer for bonhoeffer. there's a very famous -- naval captain in world war i, resists all the way and says first i came for labor and i didn't speak up. then they came for the jews, and i didn't speak up. finally they came for me, and there was no one left to send. i think that bonhoeffer was with that movement from 1933 on. he's a marked man. every move, the more records, they knew every move he was making. they thought they knew. he did other things along the way. finally he was caught -- some of you have been following music

know the name of a major conductor who was a nephew of bonhoeffer, and one of bonhoeffer's sisters were married to a jewish lawyer, and they had to leave for london otherwise he would have been killed. all these things raised all these flags, and i think he would have been put in prison anyhow, but the death punishment awaited until the attempt on hitler's life, and when they got out the files, bonhoeffer was technically in like the cia, they smuggled papers there. when a different faction took over, they got the keys to all the files, and he was guilty as can be. >> he was found out. yes, sir? >> so you mentioned that

universities and europe became secular, but africa became very religion. does it bother you that more educated parts of population became secular, but very uneducated became very religious? yesterday, professor christopher joseph lectured here, and he said people who do not believe in the revolution should not use cell phone. [laughter] if you don't believe in science, you should not use the fruits of science. you can pray. [laughter] >> i believe in evolution, but i also use a cell phone. [laughter] well, yeah, that's an extreme statement of the case, but there's something to it. in general, it's been not only evolution, but many other features. i did an editing of a six-volume study of fundamentalisms around the world with 28 religions. all across the board they are

critical of moo dearnty -- modernity, ect., but in every case they outdo moderates and liberals in the media. they are better at television, radio, and internet and so on. you put the worlds together in very different ways. the generalization is true. the majority of people in higher learning knew this. i think of darwin said when i start in science is i put my beliefs on paper in a drawer and years later i pulled it out and it was crumbled and old. he didn't work at it. people in science do work at it, and think fresh thoughts about religion, but your generalization i think is generally true. i don't think that it's uneducated. again, if i took you to -- i taught at cape town the year before the change, and the leaders of the christian

resistance and couple jewish resistance there not government were top scientists. they were at the hospital where christian was, and i have seminars with people, in fact, six different religions 234 south africa. everybody's there, hindus were there all the way back to gandhi's time, communist, catholic, protestant, so many religions in those days, black, colored, everything. we studied religions with human rights, and they were highly educated people and highly intensely religious. i think it depends on what you devote yourself too, and if you're a busy scientist, that's what you devote yourself. >> although the question was not directed to me, i'll say having read these three books and read the partial list of some that are to come in the series, there's certainly an opinion in

parts of the academy that there are -- there's much to understand the religion texts bear on the world today, and partly what we see around the world is as people acquire literacy, they acquire the urgency to ask questions in new ways, and partly we see that too in many institutions that are rejected for the first time because someone suddenly gets the ability to ask questions. it's an interesting phenomena that makes books like this nonetheless important, so, sir, you have a question for dr. marty. >> yes, i could pretend i'm occasional audiences in c-span where they work at a think tank and are not unemployed. i hope i'm not the only one who is unemployed. [laughter]

the other fellow mentioned christopher hill, coauthor of the book talking about physics for poets. by the way, he thinks global warming is a problem, he does. i mentioned my interest in equipment that i got from my late father as well as classical music. i wish i could say that's the only cause of me not having a girlfriend. [laughter] the steinways cost $188,000, the best. christopher hill is a musician. we have to notice the difference between long term and short term trends. if people are more religious today than yesterday, it doesn't mean they will always be more religious, so not being a genius and coming up with something worth your hearing, how long will people believe in the literal reality of bible or verbal traditions about faith when there's not the same miracles that are supposed to be in the bible that prove virtually god exists like the

parting of the red sea that was done in the 50s and silence and the roy palmerroy did a good job. they used gelatin and heat jets burned the path, and like john fuelton did in the movie, they came together by reversing the film. i like special effects. [laughter] >> let's hear an answer. >> well, about how long will people believe -- >> i think i got the heart of the question, and i'll give a quick illustration here. in 1960, the book came out called "towards the year 2000", and it's a wonderful book with early use of computers 245 were just coming in, and they hudson institute put it together, and the book starts with long term, multifold trends, and among

them, the first 18 were about secularization in religion so they said the future of the world will be that everything will be determined empirically. there were about 10 adjectives. empirical, concrete, pragmatic, a whole list of things. then say said, because they were not dumb people, we're looking long term from the short term f. you look at the long term, almost every major philosopher of history of the 20th century, and he listed a lot of them, almost all of them envision a future in which the human story is too loaded up to to be carried along pragmatically, and therefore, we foresee it could take many forms. it could be a revotallization of old religions, ominous new religions of nationalism and so on. we are seeing that.

if you take long term of the whole world, a lot of that is going on. i say everything we know so far about ourselves and people as a whole is there's so much we don't know, so much mystery, so much breakthroughs and every breakthrough in science means a breakthrough in the arts and may be in religion too. >> a follow-up -- there's a book i remember reading -- >> we have to -- i think -- >> religion without revelation. >> that's the one we quoted. >> yes. we've come to the end of our time. i thank you for your attention. the -- one idea that is dr. marty quotes 1 the idea that from another author on the subject. as expressed bonhoeffer's ideas are not merely disturbing, but they are actually dangerous, and we've even seen some of that in our discussion today, and the impact of dangerous ideas on culture and society is always

been an important one, and i personally thank dr. marty for writing this biography to remind us of those ideas in the work of dietrich bonhoeffer. thank you for coming today. you'll be able to meet dr. marty -- [applause] he will autograph books for you down the hall. [applause] >> thank you. >> next, a discussion on the first two years of president obama's presidency. we'll hear from eric alterman, author garrett graff, and katrina heuvel, editor and

author of the nation magazine. from the 2011 los angeles times festival of books, this is an hour. >> hello, good morning. i'm not steve clemons. [laughter] i'm nick goldberg, editor of the editorial page at the "los angeles times". i was called -- [applause] am i still in los angeles? [laughter] i was called 234 at the last moment to moderate the panel because steve clemons cannot be here, one of the couple people who dropped out of the panel because there's a white house correspondence dinner. there's a panel talking about president obama on the night of the white house correspondence dinner. [laughter] so let me -- let me get started. i'm going to start by doing

something -- can you hear me? i'll start by doing something a little mean which is i'm going to read something that garret, to my left, wrote a few years ago, and -- >> i have absolutely no idea what this is going to be. [laughter] >> i know. it's to remind us what we were thinking when president obama was elected, and then i'll begin to introduce my fellow panelists and ask them questions. back in 2006, garrett wrote the following. he said no one heard of the skinny chicago state senator and constitutional law professor with the big ears and funny names. bets are off. colleagues and friends, obama might just be willing to the b next president to the united states. it would be the capstone of an amazing rise of a politician whoation personal story of half kenya, half hawaii and college educated bred life into the

democratic party. there's his personality and presence, part preacher, professor, and movie star. his charisma effortless and charm is an afterthought. quotes a guy saying who is that guy? he's got it. he's the thighed african-american since reconstruction to serve in the senate. delivered the keynote address at 2004, won an emmy for his memoir, and then he said he need look no further than his desk in the senate chamber to be reminded of the last politician that embodied the hopes of a generation. the inside is signed by its previous occupants including bobby kennedy. so with that, here we are today. conservatives as we all know late as last week, they are still questioning where the president was born and what's more shocking is the degree to

which progressives who are to some degree i think overrepresented on this financial are disappointed because -- [laughter] lant turned out to be -- hasn't turned out to be exactly the president they expected. the issues are numerous, you know, obama has failed to one degree or another to -- i'm sorry? >> [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> the president has despite coming to office as after george w. bush, a failed to undo the bush national security state, failed to close gautham guantanamo, taken up the issue of jobs, and we no many of the progressive criticism, and i hope we can have a serious discussion about whether progressives are justified 234 their disa--

in their disappointment of obama, how much is obama's fault, hotch is the fault of the republicans, the filibuster, and if obama is right when he says let us -- let the perfect be the enemy of the good. with that, i'll turn it over to garrett who is editor of the washington tonnian magazine. his first book was the web and the race for the white house examining the role of technology in the 2008 campaign. his second book is just coming out called the threat may trick, the fbi at war in the age of global terror. that was out last month, you said? >> yeah. >> good. why don't you open it for us? [applause] >> well, as befitting my seat on the stage, i think that as i started off in politics working on howard dean's presidential campaign, and i think represent the far right wing of the panel today.

[laughter] i think that the first two years of obama in a lot of ways gives truth to the old political saying that one campaigns in poetry and governs in prose, and that the lesson that i think obama has learned in many hard ways over the last two years is that governing is a lot harder than talking about governing, and that as much as we like to think that is closing gan gan would be an -- guantanamo would be an easy thing to do, it turns out that for all sorts of reasons, only some of this are related to the republican party, it's not, and that's a subject that i've spent a lot of time working on the last two years as i've been researching this book on the fbi, and is i've followed a lot more of obama's national

security plans and strategies and evolutions than i have some of the other issues which i think katrina and eric will talk more about. the world is an immensely complicated place. president obama has been busted by global events out of his control and coming in, of course, when he did with the financial crisis up until the last couple of weeks the unrest in the arab world and the earthquake in japan that one of the challenges that i think has also become clear is how little of a presidency is up to a president, and that much of what happens during a president's term is about reacting to events rather than necessarily creating the events. as we might have wanted him to.

what i think and i'll pass it on down the road here. what concerns me more than sort of where obama is or where the republican party is is i think we're entering an era in politics where the thing that concerns me the most is we are no longer serious about solving the big problems, and that was sort of the subject of my first book in 2007 looking ahead to the 2008 presidential race, and the big issues in education and health care in the environment and jobs, and so on and i think you can see that playing out in washington now playing out in the debate about the budget and the budget debate in so many ways has become about paul ryan and his thinking of the budget, but that the idea that we as a

nation can all agree that there is one guy in washington talking seriously about the budget is an indictment of everyone else in congress who is not, that we're sort of at this point where you want to talk about the budget? there's one guy who's taking this really seriously. he's the one who is thinking about how to solve the budget problem, and, you know, these are huge issuesment i mean, generational issues that are going to have to be solved one way or another, and the fact there is not a larger date that involved more people on both sides of the aisle i think is a stunning indictment of where we are in a political process. i think the debate in the country is -- >> maybe i should take a second to introduce you. >> don't waste your time. [laughter] i'm editor and publisher of the nation, sorry.

[applause] >> the lady needs no introduction. >> no, no, just eager to jump in. i don't have a book, just a magazine i edit. no, i think there's fundamental debates in the country, but the disconnect between the debates going on inside washington now and what's going on in the country are, i think, as radically disconnected as we've seen in decades, and that's some of the problem of what obama has to address or not addressed. let me step back for a minute if i could and i met president obama once. the only thing he said to me when he found out i was editor of the nation was -- [inaudible] a very important historian said -- [inaudible] with that said, i want to just, you know, make the case that president obama in his first two years did pass two very -- they

were landmark pieces of legislation. the health care legislation and the financial reform legislation, but they were not in the scale and scope of the problems this country faces, and one is partly a failure of leadership, but also the systemic structural problems that made our system dysfunctional or not serving people. 24 is what eric's book is about, the power of money in the system and the power of lobbyists. the power of those forces to dilute legislation and a republican party that admitted openly its main task was to destroy president obama, and the health care bill, tell me if i'm wrong, it's the first piece of social legislation that passed without a single republican vote. that said, those are -- that's important. i also think that the stimulus,

the recovery was diluted because of the republican pressure and the committee of many democrats, and then the failure as garrett talked about, the failure to message this was a recovery program allowed too much of a media that doesn't serve the people, to conflate that program with the bailout of the banks so that it led to the emergence of a right wick popular movement and an anger, a justified anger, that the recovery was not sufficient again for the scale of the economic crisis, and as we see today as we sit here, president obama because of the deluded piece of financial reform legislation resuscitated, but did not restructure the financial -- the financial sector so that the banks are more powerful than ever, hyperleveraged, do not serve the people. they remain masters of the universe, and that, i think is

very dangerous and the corporate money in our system, unprecedented amount post citizens united will continue to allow that power to dominate our society. i think one of the central mistakes president obama made was demobilizing those who supported him, and it's not just progressives. it's not just the left. it was a fairly broad-based coalition of young people, african-american, single women, you know, some obamacans, conservatives with a conscious. to have, and if he is truly a pragmatic president, you want that wind at your back, that people power, the only thing probably sufficient to counter the forces of money, establishment, and power. that has been the history 6 our country's truly transformational change when you have the ability of movements from below to push and pressure presidents whether it is abraham lincoln.

or the abolitionists of that time who help found the nation pushed president lincoln beyond the limits of his own politics. we are not seeing that because of the demobilization of base. two small, not small, but team of rivals. remember president obama spoke in the spirit of the team of rivals? he didn't bring in a team of rivals. you did not have this voice. even in clinton's administration, the report reish didn't have the pore and didn't find the great voice he has now. there's another voice in there fighting to ensure the voices of people, and those which majority polls show us in the country believed the real crisis in the country is not a deficit crisis, but a jobs crisis. that has not been well represented inside the corridors halls of power. afghanistan, you know, if we

listened to president obama during the campaign and i was one who said that, you know, progressives need to be as tough and pragmatic on prawsm as he is -- president obama as he is on us. he spoke about afghanistan as the good war and did that because he needed to show because of the national security state grip on politics and until we end that, a president remains captive to that to a large extent. he had to show he was tough. i think now what is going on in this country isoff the ability, polls are polls and snapshots, 3wu on a number of core issues, one is afghanistan, you have people who want to find a way out of afghanistan who believe corporate power is too strong in this country, and a president with leadership, could seize that. it's not too late, and find a way to build a politics around that, and thinking of president johnson, wars kill reformed presidencies.

whatever everyone thinks about the flaws of president obama, he is a reform, maybe deluded, too limited, but in these areas, he's a reformed president. it's imperative now for citizens, progressives, liberals, citizens of conscious to organize more independently and find ways to drive those issues into the next election, but more generally build the coalitions that will give space to those progressive politicians in our system working with people, power, to make the changes we need, and woe saw that, we're seeing that even as someone told me this morning, seeing attempts 20 roll back collective bargaining, but the spirit of madison, wisconsin, even though there's losses, that's the process. to roll back the 20th century is something now that crystallized attention and made people sit up, wake up. we're seeing it in town halls

around this country. we're going to see more of it, not just paul ryan, but a broad based assault on what people understood to be the fundamental pillars of a society, and that's what president obama and citizens working with progressives inside the elected halls of this country can make change. thank you. [applause] >> eric, may i briefly introduce you? >> briefly, yeah. [laughter] no more than 20 minutes. [laughter] >> very briefly. eric's a professor of english and journalism at brooklyn college and graduate school of journalism, author of many, many books, i don't know, eight, ten, 12 at this point, but the latest one i found was the system versus barak obama which is just out now? >> yeah. >> that's it. >> okay. >> that's the intrough. [laughter] >> i'll do the rest.

nick was worried that this panel would be insufficiently controversial between the panelists, so i'll do what i can about that. first, a sort argument with myself. [laughter] then i'm going to have a little argument with garrett, and then i'll try to imp kate nick somehow. >> notice katrina is paid a salary, so she escapes any controversy from eric. [laughter] >> hi two-figure. [laughter] i feel kind of like sybil on this panel. i see the audience is my age or older, so i can say sybil without too much explanation; right? [laughter] in my head i have four competing arguments about obama that i'm not completely sure of which one -- it depends on the day. they derive from really four

seats i occupy in terms of my work right now. one is just what katrina mentioned briefly, personal. he had me over for dinner five years ago after he just became a senator, and i had never been so impressed with a politician in my life, and i was so moved by this new generation of black leadership. i hope one day my daughter who just turned 13 might be able to vote for this man for president, and it just seems to me, you know, i didn't even know at the time that his middle name was hussein. it is a miracle that that guy is president three years later. [laughter] i have a lot of trouble imagining anyone, even today after all my disappointments, who would be president of the united states who is as smart and committed to the values and world view that i hold, and i'm sure we have some fundamental disagreements, but still it's just amazing. you know, that was 2005. bush had just got reelected somehow, and when you think

about it, it's incredible. i like the guy a lot. i mean, i'm sure a lot of you were just crying when grant park, you know, that night. all right. that's part one of the part two is just this morning, actually was writing the obama chapter of a book i've been working on for eight years which is a history of post-war american liberalism to be out next year called the cause, and the fact is is liberalism is a lot more marginal than we like to think it is or those of us, katrina and i like to think it is. frankly roosevelt came to power in an extraordinary situation. johnson came to power in an extraordinary situation. it's not easy to find liberal moments in those times where the country agreed on goals and moved forward and made progress in the way we define progress.

it's a much tougher haul than most people who hold these values as i do understand, and so in that respect, the fact that, i mean, it's significant that teddy roosevelt proposed national health insurance in 1912 and every democratic president since harry truman tried to pass it and barak obama somehow passed it, and it's got a lot of weaknesses to it, but it's not nothing. i mean, his presidency, the first two years of his presidency was the most consequential democratic presidency in 50 years. it's not chopped liver. i don't like chopped liver, but -- [laughter] so that's point two. now, that point leads to my argument that i make in my book, kabuki democracy, which i'll sign after the panel, which is about the system, and the system is so what i call the system with a lot of components, and

part of it is filibuster and the hold and part of it is the legacy of the most corrupt incompetent and ideologically obsessed presidency of the past 150 years minimum. what this world needs is a real good comparison between the buchanan presidency and the bush presidency to decide if he's the worst president ever, but there was so much to be done if you just look at the way -- if you just look at the way the -- the way we were set up to handle the oil spill and mms. people never heard about the mms. the only reason they were in the newspaper is because people dealt meth out of the offices inexchange for sex. there's not a single newspaper in the u.s. that had a dedication to covering the mms, and when something happens when you need the government for, the government's not there. you saw it in katrina, saw it there, the regulation in the

financial industry. you saw it, by the way, in baghdad. we invaded a country with no plan, and millions of people displaced, hundreds of thousands killed, billions of dollars wasted because the people who ran the government for eight years had no respect for govern nans, and eight years of that leaves legacy which the obama administration had to deal with, but the two main problems and i won't focus on them because katrina did a good job that make being a democratic president impossible today which is the power of money, more powerful today than two years ago, and i quote dick durbin in the book saying of the banks, frankly, they own the place, talking about the senate, and, of course, the power of the conservative media to distort and make impossible a sensible discussion of our problems, so when you have a very difficult issue like the health care bill or captain-and-trade legislation, you discuss whether or not you want to kill your own grandma, is that a good idea,

you know? [laughter] will the government arrest you if you put your thermostat over 72. i know you people don't have that problem here. [laughter] we have it in new york. so i have a great deal of sympathy for a guy trying to talk sense to the american people to treat us like adults and make these difficult tradeoffs in a concept where there's no respect for that thing in our society where he has to go after being asked about it by george on good morning america, he has to go and show his birth certificate because of the good majority of republicans don't believe he was born in this country. it's difficult to govern in that context on the one hand. on the other hand, another project i've been working on of late is a serious of columns i wrote in the nation which i might expand into a short book on what i call a conservative class war. for the past 40 years, a group of wealthy conservatives then

joined by religious conservatives and now joined by people who fell into the movement, although not as many as the media would have us believe, have launched an attack on the role that the government plays for the poor and the middle class, so first they created their own media institutions and intellectual institutions to replace what had been the previous establishment. then they went after the tax code so now the wealthiest 1% of the country have more than doubled the amount of wealth relative to everybody else, so they went from owning 8% of our assets to 20% of our at set -- assets. the top is 1*% enjoyed 20% of the gains of the economy. the top 10% of the economy enjoyed 60% of the gains of our society. 23 you read paul peerson's book, this is all purpose. i mean, there's been global

developments with effects on this thing, but the rest of the world, this is not the case. only in america where we've had this degree of inequality, and it's purposeful. the next phase of the conservative class war is what you see in wisconsin which is the attack on public unions as the last voice to stand up to working people. with compingses having -- corporations having power in the system, the only people who can oppose them are the public unions, so that's why they are going after the public unions. obama refuses to recognize the fact. he was this why don't we get along stuff? all this why can't we be friends? the fact is, we can. if one side is fighting a war and the other side has hands behind their back, that side does really well, and we see that in the notion in washington that the only person talking about sensible governance regard to the budget is mr. ryan. mr. ryan is not talking about sensible government in the

sensible governance in washington. mr. ryan is talking about what the conservative media pretends is sensible governance. the fact is that if you take ryan's own numbers, this is an example, i'm picking this one out of respect for nick if he wants a fight. if you take ryan east numbers, he does nothing about the deficit for ten years. the deficit stays on the same course, but it does two things -- destroys medicare and it gives a tax break to the wealthy and increases the tax breaks for the wealthy that they already have, and it destroys medicare, one of the key components of the social welfare that makes this country a livable country. now, i'm not an economist, but a friend of mine has a nobel prize in economics, and he says that the only serious -- he's using the same phrase saying the only serious attack on the long term entitlement deficit is the

progressive budget. is that what it's called in congress? >> people's budget. >> yeah. he's got a nobel prize and says the only serious one is the people's budget. i'll take his word for it. think about it. the fact that in washington you have this notion that only paul ryan is serious. well, what did he do? destroys medicare in order to give more money to the wealthy who had the best 40 years in the history of this country. that's what obama doesn't want to recognize. obama's budget is absolutely worse than the simpson-boules budget taking $3 out of spending for every $1 it raises in revenue. that's the democratic position. $3 for every $1. obama's is worse than that. this conservative ora created 5 notion that to be serious, you have to attack poor people and enrichard natonski people, and that, to -- enrich rich people, and that, to me, 1 the problem.

[applause] i wasn't necessarily endorsing paul ryan's budget in my earlier comments. >> you said it's the only serious budget, only one guy's been serious. >> you trying to get this guy lynched 1234 [laughter] >> this is what happened to me last time. i was the only person who didn't get applauds on the plan in los angeles. [laughter] >> give him an applause. [applause] >> what i meant more on paul ryan is that we sort of use for ryan or whatever your issue as shorthand for starting the debate because there is,ic, particularly in washington a sense that there's no serious thinking about these big issues that we are so focused on the

day-to-day politics, sort of the cable news winning the day, winning the battle, winning the short term that these big problems come down the pike, and we're not talking about them and not working on them, and so when one person does begin to do that as paul ripe is with the budget, we sort of end up defaulting to letting him own that debate and, you know, there's sort of an interesting divide, i think in the way we talk about this that you have a republican congressman and the president of the united states sort of debating this back and forth with almost no one else in the picture. >> but see that's -- i mean, the people's budget is a very serious budget put forth by the members of the caucus, 83 strong, and what was striking about is is that, you know, the nation made it its lead editorial poll. ..

all popular majority position get marginalized in what passes for debate inside washington. and then, ryan he comes to prince because his views accord. but what is interesting to me as they worked well inside washington with the republican

elite. that taken out on the road, you see not just progressives, bgc people say, wiped? you can take away my medicare and my children's. one problem overarching all of this in some ways is the role of government. what is striking, there is a 2010 survey done by a cornell political scientist. 40% did not know government medicare was a government. it's so embedded, which explains the tea party -- keep government out of my hands, off my medicare. [laughter] >> let me finish this subject for a second. i want to ask about libya. on the one hand, it's unbelievable this president of all president in the aftermath of the bush administration has managed to embroil us any new

war before completing the two wars that are currently involved in. on the other hand, this is a different kind of war. a war that is being waged in the name of multilateralism, in the name of humanitarianism. i am curious what the three of you think about that. is this a war we should port? is a toradol? >> i think libya is fascinating because from my standpoint i think it the most dangerous war the united states has ever been involved in because what you are beginning to use the in libya is thanks to tech on sheet, the ability of the united states to go to war without putting any american lives at risk. that we can launch tomahawk missiles, sand and predator towns. it involves no boots on the ground. and when you look at what keeps the nation from going to war, it

is the sense that you have to put blood and treasure on the line and a war. you have to send americans into harm's way. if we are now able to go to war without putting any blood in the process, not that i think we should be sending americans to be killed in libya. i am not in our thing that either. but that in my mind, what is dangerous about libya is the advances in technology have made it possible for us now to go to war without risking anything. >> how is that different from kosovo? not a single american dead in kosovo. >> not a single american died in kosovo, but we had troops engaged. but we are not even using airplanes in libya right now. >> is not antiaircraft spirit we

went to war. nobody died. how is it any different? >> what is different is we didn't have to commit. there was a chance that we were going to lose american lives. we could have less pilots. and we did put troops on the ground as part of a peacekeeping in kosovo. what worries me in libya is there is no reason for us not to go to war if all we are putting on the ground is treasure. >> go ahead. i don't really have a view on this. >> the issue of drones to be very dangerous policy because president obama has used and deployed drones i think 192 times. he is escalated -- bush did not use drones. with the larger framework is that we are seeing the extending of the national security state.

both are little marginal attempts to cut the defense budget, which shouldn't be dismissed because it's an opening to look at that hard. but it is the expansion of the u.s. -- i don't love the word, that the empire. the bases grow. you have asked for calm. nato is an american instrument. nato should have been abolished after the cold war. instead, we are embroiled not just in libya, which is a dangerous on a number of grounds because it violated the u.n. almost immediately. i think the resolution was an important one. if the abuse, and has the potential to also diminish and get a non-berti attacks threaten institutions also changes the narrative in these extraordinary events in your world, where you have a sense of people making their own history and of the west is at kenmare. france, u.k., the overarching thing in my mind come which

president obama may not have had the courage to do for a variety of reasons. there's always a fear of another attack. another 9/11. but to make the case that we must end this war on terror. this is not a war. what happened after 9/11 should have been a response of policing , intelligence is out there, not putting ground troops in countries. even secretary of defense gates on his way out, as you may recall that west point said a few weeks ago, did any adviser who advised the president to put troops in two land wars like afghanistan and iraq should have his head examined. >> this is kind of a sacrilegious thing to say my position, but i don't know everything. [laughter] so i don't know if libya is going to turn out to be a good idea or bad idea. i know we should have gone to congress and got a resolution. but i'm sure about.

i am told if we haven't done this, then there would have been a horrible massacre by an evil man of lot of nice people. who here thinks is a good idea to stay at everyone know? it's not that simple to stand against war. war exists for a reason. it not a good response. this would've been a massacre. there would have been a massacre of honest people that we could prevent. now, isn't that what powers for? cannot say no big of a decision over time. i don't know the they have a good plan. i do know that samantha power is someone i missed back and admire and understands a lot of the teachers here and i feel actually the same way about barack obama. it would've made a different decision that afghanistan. i would have gone with joe biden, but i don't know everything and they note the i don't know.

the choice is not war and peace. it's between war and massacre. and i'm hopeful that also turn out to invent a massacre and prevent for the same time. it may not, but none of us know that. it's anti-intellectual and it's kind of a moral to act as if you know what evil is headed in the other evil because it tough to know that. [applause] not that i have anything against it. [laughter] let me ask one final question and that will open up to the audience. looking forward to 2012, you know, with the possibility of a takeover of all three branches of government theoretically by the republicans. can democrats afford to squabble? is this a time to be closing the angst in supporting the president? you know, how much fighting can

progressives have over the next couple of years? [laughter] >> i mean, i wouldn't use the word fighting, nick. what you do is hurt to drive issues into the political debate such as it is. in afghanistan, did congressman jim mcgovern from massachusetts. good congressman for north carolina, walter jones will be traveling into primary states to raise the issue of afghanistan. you do it to give these two issues, not to tackle president obama, but you've got to pick this up. we're trying to change who we believe is the policy undermining your possibility as a reform president. they think we work hard to elect more progressive people of the congress. i am not for a primary. i think it is a destructive

policy in 2012. you work to elect as many progressives into this congress and state legislatures. i think so much of the action right now, in order to prevent the assault and to stop some of this class war, conservative class war is that the state level, were a lot of attention the to be paid. i think president obama has been given a gift with paul ryan's budget and is being given a gift with a republican field that is more and more looking like that scene in "star wars" at the bar. [laughter] >> you know, they are releasing the blu-ray of all the episodes. another democratic plots of hollywood to release "star wars" right before the. >> i would echo what katrina said. i think obama had a relatively easy reelection bid ahead of him between the powers of the

president he as an incumbent between just an enormous sum of money that he is going to have. he is going to have -- i think most observers agree, a billion dollar war chest and that the amount of tv and staff and volunteer organizations that that dies is pretty, it's pretty massive. in addition to the simple fact that demographics are now on the site of the democratic party over the next generation, that young people continue to vote heavily for democrats in the minority population in the united states, which is proportionately democratic is growing and expanding and at least in the short term, if those people vote, it becomes a very easy election for obama.

the question i think is those people about voting. >> i think that's a bigger problem than a lot of people do. i'm not so sure obama is going to get reelected. the unemployment is not going down anymore. the fed is not in the mindset to stimulate the economy and a further and hasn't been all that turned about jobs in the first place. the problem of japan and its violence has not shown up yet, but it will end it will stall a significant portion of the housing prices are collapsing again now that those programs are gone. it depends on two things. one is, can the republicans nominate someone who strikes the rest of the country s. name? [laughter] i am saying that seriously. it is not clear that they can.

even the people who used to be sane are acting crazy for the purpose of getting the nomination. i don't mean newt gingrich. he was always crazy. but like tim valenti, if you go watch them back when he was on jon stewart the first time ever saw in me struck me as a nice fellow and reasonable guy and now he says a lot of crazy stuff. the question is, will they be able to come back from that? what seems to be happening as they set up mitch daniels to be their guide and the press loves him and he will strike everybody. he has done the things he needs to keep the parties together and how be a very tough opponent. as far as the demographics, well, i think minorities and young people are going to be the hardest people to turn out after the disappointments of between 2008 and 2012. i think a lot of people --

again, the idea of a lack of an african-american named barack obama was so amazing that i think we can all forget there's elves for whatever illusions we have after election day. i certainly forgive myself. but the fact is that -- the greatest criticism i would make after obama is -- i brought a whole book called the system versus barack obama. we have to fight to change the system. just as a quaker side, there is a quote in my book which i lifted from david remnick spoke about which is one of obama's advisers in chicago, when he was a city councilman or some lame. but was he? a state senator. on this other guy who makes and breaks state senators says to him, you know son, you have to learn you can't get the whole hog, you need to take a ham

sandwich. obama is taking every hands in which can get. the problem is there is no hand in the same itches. it's not even all the kosher meat you need. kosher bacon. either bacon or not. forget about kosher bacon. so the thing is we need to get more ham in the same itches. we need to try to get more him in the same itches. and young people and minorities have not gotten much ham and their sandwich at all. they have a big sandwich of nothing. so they won't be there in the same numbers adult. and the second thing, i have this theory that the night obama won the election in 2008 was the night he appeared with rick warren and he put his arms around the guy that i don't agree with everything this guy says, but he's already. so if you look at the numbers in 2008, what really changed was the republicans stayed home much

more than democrats turned out en masse because they didn't think he was the antichrist. now they think he's the antichrist again, so they will turn out. so it is not clear that obama is going to turnout and i'll be a much, much tougher election, which is by far the more crazy by people like ralph nader and alexander are still agitating for someone to challenge him as an independent for within the democratic party. that's how incumbents lose. they lose because they are challenged with them. jimmy carter was challenged and beaten. the easiest way to lose an incumbent presidency is to have to fight two battles at once. so as much aside -- even as i fundamentally disagree, even if i party was terrible, it would be as christina said, building for 2016. >> with that, why don't we open it up to questions from the audience. you can ask about the president

the comment eric's dietary restrictions. [laughter] yes. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i can do that. [laughter] i mean, i can do part of it. israel and americans jews are one of my big issues. it's a very long question. how would one assess obama's

dealings with net and yahoo! -- netanyahu is that basically a? and egypt. i do know about egypt. he blew it with regard to the middle east because he started out as he has done altogether too often for many of our case, he started out bold, made resistance and then ran away and he didn't seem again. he gave a great speech and agents, in cairo. assemble us the most, the speech was great. he spoke a new day. he had the beginnings of a new movement inside american jewry, which would give him the state that most american jews oppose, which is not at all interested in is because if there were a peace agreement, the government would fall. it's antithetical to the

centrists. and then he got some pushback from the organize to his community in the united states and from the netanyahu government and he let them win. you want to weigh. he said it's not going to be a cakewalk, so a train do something else. and the net and yahoo! government has shown they don't have to make any concessions. the republican congress will be on their side. 90% of the organized american jewish community will be on a site, even though the majority of americans are not. a similar problem to many we have with our own democracy and the power of money and it's outdated mindset. and so, i think would have been if i can transfer here to the hamas et al. saying is that this is just not happening. the only way for this to happen is that the united dates is willing to exhibit real pressure on the israeli government and

force difficult concessions to step up to the plate. they are not going to do that. you know, netanyahu denounced this agreement and said hamas must choose between peace with israel and peace with hamas. and the fact is if you chose peace with israel for the past three years, you got nothing. you got more settlement. and you've got the invasion of gaza. by the way, the whole situation was made far worse by the bush administration's attempt to manipulate the first palestinian election and overthrew the government. elliott abrams was the point man on that. there was a coup in site directed by united states. in any case, what you see between hamas and fatah is a rejection of the american role and possibility of a peace agreement anytime soon. now, it may turn out that is a

good thing because making peace with half the palestinians is not just peace and the other half has the possibility to undermine the peace if they are not the booted. there is nothing israel needs more than real peace. unique to make it with fatah and hamas, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. it'll be a matter of crisis management between now and then. crisis management is very difficult when you have an organized jewish establishment demanding that to be 110% israeli. in the long run we'll all be dead. in the medium term, this may turn out to be good thing, but it's going to be very painful to get from here to there. >> there is a guy with a over here. how about that person that they are. >> thank you all for coming. on wednesday, when we woke up,

we heard the announcement about the long form birth certificate and there was a collective cry of outrage across america in the black community when president obama presented his birth certificate. and i was wondering, why would he do it? i guarantees that no black person in america would have wanted him to present at birth certificate. however, i believe -- i would like to hear your opinion, it was not because of donald trump or glenn back or any of the crazies on the right that he present at birth certificate. but it was actually because of the liberal left progressives who would come to me and say, why won't he just release his birth certificate? it would take me 235 years to

explain why he should not have to. >> we do not have 235 years here. >> exactly. so my point is this. someone mentioned the minorities and young people are so profoundly disappointed in the last two years. but it is not just with obama. i believe it is also with the progressives because they were progressives who were saying that. and if he can't get progressives to stand up, then he's in trouble. thank you. [applause] >> anybody want to address that? >> just to be fair, there are crazy but people too. alan keyes is not accepting that, he's black. so let's not be racist about this. there's crazy black people people and crazy but people. >> i think his audience for the birth certificate was neither the left or the right, but the

monterey. it was a way for him to use the presidential collector quite literally in the white house to raise the issue of the unserious debate in american politics. the fact that we are even still talking about this two years later shows all of the others things that were not talking about that actually matter. >> i don't know many progressives who have demanded president depalma shows a certificate, but i take to heart there is an anchor in your about progressives, criticism of president obama. but president obama has lashed out at progressives who have criticized him, but it seems to me there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between those outside who support his president he, but want to push him beyond the limits of what some believe are constricted

politics. and there is a support in mac as opposed to the right to want to do you a demise and destroy his presidency. when i tweet for example, sending critical of the policy, there's often a wave from a range of people. look at the policies eric spoke about the job crisis. the rates of unemployment among african-americans, among latinos have soared. anything can support for president depalma, there is a right kind of cultural identity supporter. but in terms of the raw objective facts, it seems to me people should be agitating for a job's policy in this country that will bring in all. it is a cray says in the new normal should not be 8%, 9%.

[applause] >> there is a one-man way in the back on the left. >> hi, thank you for being here. what i am concerned about is even if you look around this room, you see people that are mostly over 30 i'd say. and that's generous. [laughter] and i'm a high school teacher and i know my students, will in the last election they didn't even know who is running and they didn't know during the primaries and they didn't care. i look at the media and i see that it is so limited. to get actual information out there, all of us are kind of the political advocate junkies, but the rest of the country as that. what they hear a sensationalist sun and day here the

celebrities, but they don't know anything about politics. so how is it that we are going to get them involved in politics and then to have access to the issues? >> very two things happening at the media simultaneously right now. one is that i don't have to say this in this town is the shrinkage of genuine actual news coverage. there is maybe 40% as many journalists on them they have to do twice as much. the journalism review is like a gerbil on the wheel because you have a tweet and a blog and do video chats and watch people's pets and stuff. and there's no time to actually find stuff out and report on it. that is one crazies. the second crisis is what obama was a think talking about what this carnival working staff that is combined with the right-wing

bias. it's a tabloid mentality combined with data when they hear this. the kids are going to leave it. [laughter] the kids are not all right. on the right, which you saw a in the treatment of the birth certificate issue and whether or not he's a muslim and all these other -- possibly even the antichrist. what happened is because the right is so financially successful, it's very profitable, is seeks into the mainstream media and the main street media -- is obama muslim? let's talk about it. what are the two sides? is obama trying to turn this country into an islamic republic. i did read a story that said what inspired a bummer to show his birth certificate was being asked about it by george stephanopoulos on good morning america the day before, two days

before. the fact is the media are not only losing people, but losing self-confidence and they are unable to decide what it is they think their job is anymore. they look to this carnival marking site, but climbed back in bill o'reilly and rush limbaugh and these people know what they're doing. they have confidence, but they don't care what's true. they don't care at all. fox news shows that they want to attack. when fox news reports on the wisconsin protest, they can't find any, so they show a california protest. the palm trees in wisconsin in the wintertime on fox news. that is just one example. i could give you hundreds. ..