sound and in disguise under which were my web bins and that others may not be able to buy think. >> did this cia have to read your book? . .

>> now, tranter argues that partisan politics are heard in the united states and discusses a range of issues including the economy and help air, political debate here trained to speak for about 50 minutes.

[no audio] catherine crier joined court tvs anchors in november 1999. she served as executive editor, legal news special in addition to hosting catherine crier live, a fast-paced daily series, covering the days front page stories, catherine crier, a texas bred independent with a spirited passion for justice released several books of high-profile cases, such as the scots a different case and the susan polk murder case. catherine has hosted episodes of court tv signature primetime series, this is done and numerous other specials such as

the jury speaks -- the scapegoat jury speaks with dominic dunne, osama bin laden on trial and safe passage coed voices from the middle-school part of the network's public affairs initiative choices and consequences. prior to joining court tv, catherine anchored to crier report for fox news channel. i live, hour-long nightly program, where she interviewed with the newsmakers of the day, catherine currently manages her own production company, transport medications, developing television, film and documentary projects. and now may i welcome with great pleasure, catherine crier. [applause]

>> television has been very good to me for 18 years started at cnn, abc, fox, court tv. but i'll take you other fact he probably five or six years old. i've got to the point now where i think it's genetic. i remember during the 1960 election's, arguing with family members about politics, so much so that my step grandfather would pretend to fall asleep so i would shut up. obviously, i didn't have a clue, but as long as i can remember, i have been passionate about the republic, about the founders, about our history, about politics. and my prelaw background -- microsoft politics, international affairs, government, history. i sort of wanted to. i had to find a profession that

would aid me to do that. he was really in a session of the love because what is our law? it is the rule of law, which is essential cornerstones of democracy, of the republic. if we didn't have this amazing willow thought, i baking going you are my friend, the rules don't apply. you on the other hand i can do with what i want. we've got this amazing willow thought that we are supposed to apply equitably to all citizens. in fact, my first book had nothing to do, but then again it is called the case against lawyers. but it was really a political book. the subtitle is how lawyers, lobbyists and legislators have turned the rule of law into an instrument of tyranny and when citizens have to do about it. he was a political book and then wrote a book about the supreme court. so it sort of balance states and this is the third of the political books and much more

broader-based boat, but one that i would like to believe is very timely. because i am frankly very troubled today. while some of the move may think it's so, or it's because health care or a particular issue, no, i am concerned more than anything about the integrity of the republic, as the constitutional republic in which the founders contemplated liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats as the above would have sakura sites and we would all carry on about which direction and the voters could decide every two and four years how we would shift and change. but all of that debating with take place on a relatively level playing field, governed by certain rules set out in our

constitution. what i'm mean by that is you had to extraordinary wings, liberals and conservatives back in the founders dave. go back and read the constitutional debates. our finders were not on the same page. they had a lot of fights. in fact, you got a one by john on alexander hamilton and conservatives, who when you go back and read their remarks, they wanted a monarchy. they wanted a hereditary cynic. they like the system has existed in england. on the other hand come you had been franklin and thomas jefferson who said, we want one house and congress to be a let it every year, a real peoples house and we want an executive committee. we don't even want a presidency. when you go back and read it sounds much more like what was happening in the french revolution. there were problems with those

sites. one come you got a tyranny by monarchy and the others is a tyranny by the masters. and so, james madison is credited with creating the grand compromise, the constitution, where he said neither the left nor the right as they existed in 1789 are going to dominate. we are not going to create a system that favors one or the other. we are going to create a system that in fact is as level a playing field on which the various ideologies can wrestle as we possibly can. certainly when they constructed this, the senate was going to be a bit more elite. back in those days, you know, it would be hard to get support across large swaths of territory. so someone with a little more power and money was likely to get elected. the people's house, the house of representatives was going to be much more for the common man.

jefferson and franklin got a little bit and adams and hamilton got a little bit. we had a president that was going to be elected every four years. so it was this amazing level playing field. i started there because today we are hearing that my party represents the founders. no, my party does. i'm thinking you've got to go back and figure out, and these guys worked on the same page. in fact, it was this extraordinary playing field that is what distinguishes our amazing republic and it is under attack today in many respects. a favorite quote of mine is from john on dems. and he said, ideology is the science of idiots. today, i think we have to carry that around and wear it on our lapels. and the reason i say is we had this great level playing field and i tried the book to take

everyone back and then show how both conservative and liberal ideologies have developed over time and how in fact when you get up to present day, you will find it a have almost reversed positions in several very important respects, which means if you were in an ideology, swearing as the founders of ideology, guess what? it is the science of idiots because in fact it is not at all what is going on in 1789. today if you listen to republicans, most conservatives will tell you, states rights, small governments, low taxes. keep government out of our lives. this is the agenda of 1789. now come on, that was a radical, leftist, possibly atheist years. thomas jefferson -- that was franklin a jefferson because

think about it. jefferson was this gentleman farmer living in virginia. he didn't need the country to be big and dynamic. he imagine small businesses and farmers unquiet and bucolic m.a. bit isolationist to stay away from the world. that was jefferson. the democrats today are the big government and they are trying to tax the people and they have all of these in the government should be building jobs and doing things and creating alexander hamilton was considered the father of conservatism. our first secretary of the treasury. you now, the very first thing he did? he demanded that the country establish a deficit. and he went around and bought up all of the revolutionary war debt from the states, brought it in. jefferson is over there screaming, can't do it.

unconstitutional said the liberals. hamilton goes, balderdash. i'm big enough to do it and i've got to have a big, powerful, central government to do what i have in mind and that is to create this grand global powerhouse that can by george compete with yours. we are going to show those guys we will not be treated like this sort of peon colony over here. you're going to take our resources and sell them back to us. no, we are going to beat you at the game. but what did he need to do that? he needed to borrow money. he needed to create a deficit in this country. he needed to tax and by george the w-whiskey rebellion was because he was taxing little guys at a higher rate than they were the big guys. he's going what good is the small shopkeepers and farmers that they can't get me what i need. they can't they give me big revenues to tax those little

guys and get them out of the way because what i want to do is i want to have this powerful big government. i want to marry it with the powerful wealthy elite in this country. and by george m. going to come together and we are going to build tanks and roads and canals and bridges that we are going to be busy. that was conservative in 1789. it is phenomenal to me when we cannot get infrastructure, legislation passed in this country. and i chastise. i go after both sides in the book i assure you. but i chastise that conservatives, the republicans today that even when i was a kid and a conservative republican family, which party was going to build things, grant things, was going to make this country this competitive entity in my mind? it was the republicans. democrats were kind of wandering

around and disorganized and didn't want to do any of this stuff. and when i got into the history and started tracking it through, i realized this was quite the consistent republican policy until about the great depression and from that moment on, we began to see if step down and that is really one i think it seems most of the reversal in the political parties began. because when franklin roosevelt ran for office in 1932, it was still the old-time traditional democratic platform. small government, low taxes. even after hoover for the big financial industry, made to the government that of course he asserted and i think in hindsight many of us say, led to the crash and 29. but then he comes in and of course the economy has crashed and there all of these very

desperate people. and his first new deal policy. they were actually two. the first new deal he was creating and allowing monopolies in this country. he brought the big corporatists into the white house. what are we going to do to fix things? there is a lot of mass in a supreme court reversed a lot of what he was doing. but if you look at the first new deal, it was a real effort to bring business and government together to fix the problem. by the time we got around to the second new deal, a lot of conservatives began to adapt because those are the social policies that he created to build a safety net. and of course he didn't really support welfare without work. so instead of handing out unemployment checks, he put people to work. the wpa and built a lot of things, but that is where you begin to see developing a reputation as the party of big

government. and yet, i read an article in 1937 when the economist said basically franklin roosevelt saved capitalism. and this has happened several times throughout our history when you see teddy roosevelt did this and franklin roosevelt -- franklin roosevelt and others, where at moments of tremendous instability, which actually is inherent in capitalism because you do have a wealthy class created inevitably, which is not a bad thing. it's a very good thing. it often times if the disparity gets really great or if we go to the boom and bust periods, which happens with capitalism, assets and the wealth he out there whether it's a housing boom here or attack the mayor. and you'll have the booms and busts.

and when the middle class, lower class, and the majority of people in this country become desperate, when there is no safety net and you see the government has to step in, often times this country has been very good at creating the stability that capitalism means to survive and flourish. if you allow the disparity to increase and you don't have jobs and you don't have opportunity, not equal outcomes, but opportunity for the wide swaths of american citizens, you create instability that can result in riots and ultimately even revolutions we've seen in other countries. 1910 was sort of the socialist moment in the sun and that was the time when the workers of this country, and that was

sorted b. upton sinclair air and the jungle, the workers are getting desperate. and you had the teddy roosevelt might have to go, i love corporations and i love big businesses, but this is a moment when we have to take action. like the antitrust act and other things to begin to regulate, to modulate the concentration of wealth and power. so when we look at moments in time where we're increasing government participation, we are increasing social safety nets. arafat hangs about it, but there could things. you don't overdo it be at the bureaucracy are handing out checks, but understand that stability, economic opportunity, the ability to earn a paycheck and of course by the consumer in this country, all of these things are necessary for capitalism to flourish.

for small, medium businesses, entrepreneurs, innovation, all of that must have that kind of social setting. so again, it's back to balance. james madison going, got to have both the liberal voice in the conservative voice to keep his balance. so as i was working on the book, one of the things that hit me as we are looking at our current predicament was that what has gone wrong, what has brought us to this point in almost all of the issues that we are concerned about, revolve around the economy. i don't care whether tacking about national security issues or education or immigration or the oddly, where the jobs, tax issues, it is all an economic conversation. and so i went back to adams that, while the nations come interestingly a boost in 1776

when one with the declaration of independence. i thought, i want to go back to principles of capitalism because my dad is telling me that it's gotten really skewed in this country and that may be part of the big problem we are having with creating jobs, expanding economic opportunities and with the growing disparity between the well-to-do and even the middle-class and certainly the poor in these countries. and in reviewing, it was like a lightbulb coming out. adam smith wrote wealth of nations in response to the events in britain. he's a. what was going on over there, and the big corporations, joint stock companies, that's a company that big guys were married to the government. the government was sending the military around the world to protect resources and they were off shooting via and taking care

of problems in the colonies to protect it for big business. and those two entities were married. and what it did was surprised to eliminate it for broad economic opportunities that adam smith actually sat with boost and nations production and resources and laughing as. and though, in his book, he talks about how do we expand that opportunity for everyone and headline big warnings. watch out for the concentration of wealth and power into a small, elite class because that in fact is as destructive of capitalism as an overbearing tyrannical government. he calls -- i'll use the term corporations, but he called the big corporations unaccountable

sovereign. and my conversation here is not class warfare. it does not denounce corporations. i mean, if capitalism is supposed to increase the standard of living for people here and around the world, we would've done so without debate. but we've got to remember his caveats because they apply as much today as the moment he wrote them and that is anytime you have that kind of concentration, ewers cueing the ideal of free market. you are spewing fair pricing. you are skewing all of the essential elements of capitalism and we know this in a big corporation can come into a community in and demand that the state and local government pay for the roads and sewers and we know already they can reduce prices because the taxpayers are picking up everything there.

we know they are getting sales-tax waited for 10, 20 years to be just come into our community, they lowered it there. we know that whether it be pollutants from the air or other costs of doing business that they have been able to basically the client are put onto the taxpayers to repair, in essence. they skewed the system of capitalism. and even frederick hayek, margaret thatcher, ronald reagan, one of their favorite economic philosophers wrote the register of time. he said, you don't have fair pricing. if you were about these hidden costs, this is not capitalism. and even hayek said, you've got to have the government in their balancing peer back to adam smith county said the only entity big enough to counter the big concentration of wealth and power is the government, the people's government.

not a monarchy, not the tierney, that the people's government. you have to regulate the really big guys so that the middle size small businesses, individuals, entrepreneurs can nourish and this broad-based economy. i'm not talking about overregulating. i'm talking about rational regulations. and so, i realized reading adam smith and tracking it through to present day at hamilton basically began to institutionalize a more corporatist system in this country as our economy. and sure enough to know when you start reading through history, senator henry clay who is handling the economy for abe lincoln in 1854 said america has never had free trade. give me a break. never. in the sort of track at through nec. it is inevitable that in a capitalist environment you may

have real dynamos and begin to earn the money and you build it up. that's great and everyone in this country, including the people and occupy wall street say we want jobs, we want the american dream. we want the opportunity to make money and grow into all of this. nothing wrong with that. it is when the concentration becomes so great that it begins to mimic your leg and skewed the economy and skewed the market and reduce the opportunity for a broad base in this country that we begin to see damage. and today, the reason i think that it is so necessary to rely on us if there is a new piece of the puzzle and that is the 1910 or the gilded age, when corporations could be big and powerful and the stepford oil and rockefellers, when they made

a lot of money, even if the balance were skewed, the money stayed circulated in this country. even if they were sorted influence in washington, getting things their way, we were still exchanging currency here. now those same guys are playing a mud i called code would either, the very same companies. the names have changed, but the same companies now are seeking policies on capitol hill that will help them in china or india, around the world. they may be flagged in the state, although many of them are elsewhere, but in fact their interests, much of their revenues, not only their plans, but now you see research and development is moving overseas. and therefore, if we continue to

bolster their interests, then we are wall street and the interest of entities that are not concerned with the well-being of the domestic economy. with the american economy. when i say this again, i'm not talking about the well-being of union workers. i am talking about the united states of america. it's economy and the global playing field. and so, many of the policies in the last several decades, financial industry, the wall street conversation and beyond are helping big, multinational transnational entities who are no longer concerned if we are doing things in this country to build innovation or expand our infrastructure or educate our kids to provide the new workers because they are making their

money someplace else. and if we want to restore this country and restore capitalism as it was originally contemplated and has been intended to ask and economic opportunity, listing all of those, making everyone more money, including a wonderful, wealthy class in this country, we have to remember those caveats and understand the effect of globalization. and then we have to conservative and liberal alike go back to the three latest storm of sorted innovation and economic opportunity, education, infrastructure, legal immigration. the best and brightest calling back to this country, and country, incentivizing them to

get educated here, built their businesses here, to stay here and understand how much the decision-making and policy making for decades now has in fact been hoping overseas than discouraging that building and sustaining of these amazing foundation -- foundational elements of this successful republic. the reason i wrote the book is it's trying to take us all the way back and explain what those philosophies were, where they hit roadblocks in the way they succeeded and how we got to today. and get people to understand that the etiological messages that we we are being told are the cornerstone of liberalism or conservatism. we must follow this little box where we are not loyal to our

philosophies but that is nonsense. and we need to go back to the amazing unity that the founders were able to find for the moment , that amazing or public, the level playing field and also understand the philosophies and principles that i'm the one hand file for individual freedom and liberties in a nonintrusive government. and the other policies, often conservative policies that we are going to build the infrastructure of this country. we are going to educate our kids. we are going to use good business capitalistic principles to build this competitive nation. and the ideology of today does not support the principles and values that established and sustained this republic. it is in danger and we need to

be aware and the citizens do something about it. [applause] another script is certainly code group and i nodes because that the only way i get feedback. the microphone is right here. and now you all did this on a regular basis and i would love to step up and ask you some questions. >> i thought that was a wonderful treat to hear the history of our country and go well for this. have you taught -- you should, if you have the patience to do this to you desire to do. it was almost as if they are

thinking that someone is a female, very attractive female newt gingrich. [laughter] >> i'm sorry, and it would appreciate that. >> that's a compliment because -- years in historian. >> i think it's very important for people who are involved in politics to have a grasp in a knowledge of what you have and to know what happened in our history. now, am a very conservative republican, so when you kept talking about infrastructure company to build up infrastructure in schools and all of that, i was tearing president obama because that is what he keeps talking about. and my problem is with what you've been saying and i agree with a lot of what she said, but the problem with president obama, for example and i'm not trying to make a political statement, but i just do when you talk about infrastructure and building schools, i believe

the same thing. but i think the problem today is that these politicians are telling us they want is really they are lying to us. i don't feel that president obama, if he gets another stimulus package and taxes the rich more, that he will take that money and use it in a positive way. i think he is going to take that money and give some to his friends come and the unions or some to teachers. or some to the people who are going to ask him. annecy said, that is what has been happening in our politics for centuries. but i fear that now all of these things that sound as if they are positive and you were talking about them are out of and are being used in a very -- i do want to be an alarmist or have a lot of drama, but i think they

are evil. i really do. i think all of this has been skewed. the internationalists, like i may save george soros, that's how i see him. they want money. they want control of not just the united states. they are not thinking about the united states. they want to control the world. and i don't think jefferson and adams and george washington were thinking about the world. i think they are thinking about the best interest of the united states of america and i don't see it anymore. >> you covered a lot of territory there. >> well, you did, too. >> went to see what i can do. >> yeah, my question is -- >> the core of your question and i write in the book that i still to this day believe in our system of government. the founding of the republic commotion so we what we must do to preserve the republic. and yet, but always messes at

our people. and yet, this system really has a lot of rules in which we can play. it's pretty flexible as we've seen in the camp has some in 60 for 200 plus years and not have flexibility to adapt. but we need to understand that when we expand power for one party or one president. and you see this. remember george bush when you agree to disagree a lot of writing and conversation that unitary president v. executive orders, signing statements, things down where when the republicans are in control of congress, its archive. our guys in office. were going to let it go. i keep reminding people in the book that if you do that, you're institutionalizing and acceptance of an expansion of power. the next guy and there might not

be the guy you like. and guess what? here she -- he or she will, i promise you, use that power as well, which is why we've got to as citizens make both parties reign in themselves, holdback and respect the rules themselves so that the system is preserved, is intact. and that way if obama comes in. and believe me there are people like saying you are abusing power that george w. bush gave you. you are not rename yourself and peered whether it's military leave or patriot act, a lot of issues. and it is because we have allowed one side to break the rules in the next that comes in because you know what? i'm not getting back that power. so again, the system is brilliant, but it is up to us to make sure the human beings that

cycled through play by those rules. so right now it is that inherent mistrust of government. at the moment it's a democrat in the presidency. this year both sides. we don't trust our governments anymore. but i go back to saying we've got an amazing system. we are not making both sides play by those rules. now in terms of sort of the infrastructure, you are telling me you don't trust. there are ways. there are plenty of ways. i mean my god, they can legislate anything out there, believe me. to ensure that those dollars, the stimulus dollars are going where they need to be. >> to know where the stimulus dollars went? to have any idea where that money went? >> let's remind everybody that the first stimulus money was thanks to george w.

>> a lot of the t.a.r.p. money, you know, it's kind of like republicans really went after obama when he says we are pulling out of iraq and all of a sudden we hear this during danger in the country. and guys, george w. bush signed an agreement with the iraqis that we had to be out by then. obama didn't get the credit, but he shouldn't get the duration. so when we talk about stimulus dollars, it is both parties. it is both parties that have been manipulating and misusing it to me in many ways, helping a very select group. we talk about george rosendo worried about this international conversation, you look at the five or six big investment bankers on wall street, recent studies show that 147 corporations basically control

the majority of wealth on this planet. that is on the planet, not in this country. he talk about the george sorenson's of the world and then many people think that is the open society. it's a bunch of liberal agenda. the power is basically corporate power. it can be used well. it can be very good for the world, but it can also be bad. when you about the concentration of financial wealth in their pursuit of stop prices and big payouts for ceos and in creation of a digital world, where we are not brick-and-mortar, building things. they are not putting money and investment were used to be into things that invest in economy, but pushing a button on the computer are making profits, betting on both sides of the game and scrambling to grab for

producing methane. they may produce assets to show up in a bank account somewhere. but lawyers are accused. now, they are not producing much of anything except ginning and turn on computer numbers. that is to me a really big concern. and so, when you are being told that any kind of concentrated wealth and power, particularly now on a cobleskill, that is interested in a very tiny% doing well and not at least stimulating economic growth to pick up consumers in this country so people can spend money and keep the economy growing. and we're in real trouble. so i keep telling people come in future ideology. it doesn't mean you're conservative or liberal, but what they are telling you is

your appropriate list of positions today because i charge both democrats and republicans to defend those given political or, history, studied economics and politics and how those positions have gotten us into this mess. i talk to mitch mcconnell and listen to have been a small group the other day. at the very end i did ask him. i said senator, what i'm hearing is the regulation, lower taxes, small government whether you agree or disagree, but that's kind of what got us to 2008. it's how we got there. now how come that is the same policy that supposed us get out of this mess? solution is that the government, high taxes. under real pragmatic talents are in office and i couldn't really

get an answer. but that is because that ideology, that's the message. whatever the effect has been, whatever the actual pragmatic result, by georgia police say it often enough, people will believe it and they will put in canada by the ideology and that is a mistake to all of us. >> we also need term limits. i don't think the founders never envisioned that these politicians would be in power for all these -- >> i actually used to believe by george, i want to be able to vote. i'm going to vote for the same person over and over again. it's gotten so far and i began to think maybe the term limits. but until you realize so much of the power on capitol hill is what the long-term staffers, the institutions and not just the individuals in the front. and so where come back down is a

must we have -- as the brilliant supporting a constitutional limit to ban corporate money in politics, you could receive out individuals. so it's not we are going to allow people with more money, right? i have been to prefer public financing campaigns entirely. but you cannot allow corporations to buy our politics and that is what's going on with the citizens united decision in 2010 and the supreme court essentially legalize the corporation purchasing our systems. i assure you that is that what the founders believed in. and if you are to fix campaign financial reform and so the lobbyist revolving door, but it took so many problems because a conservative lobbyist jack egremont came out this new book and he says jack egremont came out this new book and he says jack egremont came out this new book and he says jack egremont

came out this new book and he says. and don't kid yourselves. i bought capitol hill. and he said best thing i could ever do as well to the congressman or senator's office and find the top staffers then i would say when you get tired of doing this stuff, come see me. i have a six-figure, seven-figure job waiting for you. and the minute there i slid up, you know we had then. and he said, not only would they say, you know i say jump and they'd say how high, but they bring me the hurdles. they say here is what's going on in the office. don't you want to know about this? joshua to influence this? and again, he's a great conservative example that the whole system -- the whole system is so corrupted by money. and i have time to very representative of their represents the people who put

them there. red state, blue state conservative liberal, let's have a grand clash that the founders intended. that is not what is going on in the american people on both sides of the political system are being greatly disturbed at the system has been corrected as a result is. >> i agree with you my money. i don't know how you answer it. i will just make a note, as we had for lobbyists. the one of the goat things is the firm failed. i think it was great. not for him. >> i see that, but absolutely. >> said he didn't fail and where lobbyists. until corporations are willing to say no more, it's not going

to happen. because it is the institution of lobbyists and government. it's a staffers, but they sort of rub things in the politicians as we were talking before, the major object is to get reelected. the only way they get reelected is money. i happen to agree on term limits. but they're the one you have to give term limits will never happen. >> just like campaign finance reform. >> one of the things that i think is sad but not much to people on different sides of the aisle. i think we have a crisis of leadership here. and to me, ronald reagan was a great leader and he knew how to get things done. bill clinton got things done. and you know, we have a crisis of leadership. i think that is sort of what americans are looking for, but

unfortunately we don't see it. the other thing you can comment on because i don't think this has been historic in our country. one of the things that gets nothing done in the united states senate is closer. you're not going to get 60 of anything. you also have a president who doesn't use a veto. i actually think if we can let congress pass things and if the president doesn't like it, veto it. right now we are getting nothing. >> i love what you're talking about because we had a really good system. when i said they're going on to literally manipulate the system itself to favor one side or the other and right now the habitats seems to be in the hands of the republicans. so i'm not saying democrats in every dumbness convalescence take this present moment in time. the change is whether it is trying to limit voting rights in this country. and there are some really dramatic at times to limit voting rights in this country

is. of course gerrymandering of districts and those sites have been guilty of this, but by george we have to have the independent. there's an interesting article a bad and my car on the phone coming over here is that if a deprivation -- [inaudible] >> absolutely, absolutely. i remember tom coburn, senator from oklahoma was talking to constituents and he actually got booed when he said, let's quit the name-calling, character assassination and fight them on policy. either our policies are right we can win on policy or we should lose. and that applies to both sides. so it is back to you but all of this insane 60 votes to get something to the fuller and vote. gerrymandering of districts to guarantee, ensuring that we have prevented millions of people from going to the ballots, even

as study after study, conservative institutions and liberals like show that voter fraud in this country -- they might come up with 20, dirty, 50 cases over a long extended. and yet that is being used as a rationale to present lands of people from voting. i get both sides want to win, but you don't do it by cheating. you do it by presenting the best policies for the american people and you win on the merits. and when we allow that to happen, we are destroying the institution of our constitutional republic and we are going to pay a price. [inaudible] >> sometimes you have to risk losing a primary to be a good election candidate, to be a good president or senator from your state or your country. >> that's right because the americanizing both sides want --

they want integrity. they want to know who that person is. and we've now accepted the game of running to your primary voters. we're going to go really far to the left or far to the right. and of course they are going to run to the center. wait a minute, how can we possibly can know who these people are on either side? but it is a game and we are tacit players and that when we allow it both as citizens, and the media, you know, with a giggle and a spark ever goes tax or why it is going to be coming into the center. and then we are shocked or surprised at some of the stuff that comes out of the white house or on capitol hill because we don't know who these people are. and so much of the problem when we are complaining again as we are allowing our team to skew

the system because our guys are in office, whichever side. whether they are first respect to the first in knowing that we will all be okay, all of us, if we respect the integrity of the system and put that first can i make both sides play by those rules and i made the best woman win. [applause] >> for more information about the author, visit her website, crier communications.com. >> when the president and the congress were debating after the 2010 elections whether the bush tax cuts would be extended because of the recession and whether it would be a bad idea to raise anyone's taxes and this down economy, one of the things

the republicans said his tax cuts are always wonderful in a down economy, but spending cuts don't hurt at all, which is self-evidently crazy. i mean, there's really no difference or macroeconomic point of view as their friends in the u.k. are fine now. when they went for a nice sturdy response for the current circumstance. one of the things they wanted to get rid of was the 1603 tax credit. and they said it was a spending program which is the kind of argument that to be held in the seminary over some obscure provision of scripture in my opinion, but you be the judge. the republicans have yet to get rid of 1603 the spending program tax cut. and it is, but it isn't. when the congress to things like

loan guarantees for new energy companies, like the infamous wonder loan guarantees was actually adopted during the bush administration, signed by president bush and supported at the time by almost all the republicans on the energy committee. and it's hard sometimes to pick winners and losers. that is not what 1603 does. 1603 recognizes that a lot of people building solar and wind installations or startup companies. so if you give them a 30% tax credit that you would ordinarily give someone for building this new factory, will be worthless to them because they have no income to claim the credit against. so what 1603 does is basically give them cash equivalent of a tax credit if they are startups. now if you just don't like solar and wind energy and you want to keep the police and alliance a

rather tax credits for additional energy, you can make that argument. but a very significant number of the new solar and wind projects have used 1603. so my argument is about to be extended because we've got thousands of more facilities in solar and wind power, which are becoming more economical every time the price drops about 30% for solar and wind every time you double capacity. solar and wind is at significant technological advances in the last three years. ironically one of the reasons so when we went down because the other technologies get cheaper or faster than anybody figured. and to out of a competitive mix. so i like 1603 and i think it should be continued because i think we should be supporting startups as well as existing

companies. in a very significant percentage of americans jobs over the last 20 years have come not from small businesses come in to small businesses that were five years old or younger. so this is the kind of thing that i think, you know, my argument is we should say where do we want to go in this country? we want to build shared prosperity minor jobs and be competitive and then back up if they had licet their? with the government is supposed to do? with the private sector supposed to do? to do that instead of saying government, no government, you come out same 1603 is a heck of a good deal and we should keep doing it. >> since you mention the end of 2010, i want to give you an opportunity to sort of repeat something he said to me earlier, which is the one part of your book where you feel you give the president a bum rap was around the debt ceiling debate. that's been in the coverage. >> i was really upset and i didn't know whether it was the white house or the congress they

resisted raising the debt ceiling in 2010 after we lost the election. >> when i saw the majority. >> oversaw the majority. the congress is meeting in november, december 2010. i knew if we waited the republicans would drive it very hard bargain. and so i said in a very kind of muted way that for reasons i was unclear to me this didn't happen. and gene sperling sent me an e-mail, who worked for me and is a scrupulously honest person said we tried. we did make a big deal out of it because the main subject was by the bush era tax cuts going to be extended? but this shows you that i'm trying to force myself to say once a day, either i don't know where i was wrong. because i think it would be

therapeutic if everyone in washington did that so here is something i was wrong about. since raising the debt ceiling, simply ratifies the decision congress has already made to spend money and since the budget is the only thing that the senate votes on that is not subject to a filibuster, i thought that raising the debt ceiling that was not subject to filibuster and i was wrong. so gene sperling sent a message. he said in an mcconnell said he was going to filibuster unless we agreed rate than two of their budgets that they'd run on. so it turns out he couldn't raise the debt ceiling and i was wrong. it didn't hurt too bad. and that is one way we get less ideological politics is people find errors they make.

>> been a bit out of washington, one of the things that you do frequently in the book is cite examples of sort of where you think this appropriate partnership and shared possibility between government and private sector is working at the state level. if you can talk a bit about your theory is that enough to share examples particularly from your time as governor of arkansas sort of what worked then and then also what is continue to work and not work subsequently in arkansas. >> well, first i think we americans are used to people at the state and local level hustling business, trying to save businesses and expand businesses, locate businesses and it is largely a bipartisan activity undertaken with varying levels of exuberance by elected officials. one reason i was able to stay

governor for a dozen years and never got bored with the job and loved it is the whole economic development aspect of it. and the interesting thing is that most every state in the country come although it's got more partisan now since 2010, but i think that will settle down, it's largely a bipartisan activity. and so, i tried to save some areas in the book. for example, to give you and his practical example, there is a long section of the book about what are they to see time to clear the mortgage debt more quickly. and i guess i should pack up and say, these kinds of financial crashes take historically five to 10 years to get over. and if you have a mortgage component, tends to push upwards 10 years. we should be trying to beat back