that, all you need to do is right around and see the devastation for the flight and how in the world can the post office at more insult to injury by doing this to all the employees they are quite >> thank you. [applause] my name is david breaks. i'm a volunteer chairman of the hartford development corporation. we'll deal with economic development by citizen involvement and are supported by the town of hartford. we are is an protective of the economics of the town, especially when it comes to jobs. whenever new developments of any kind is proposed, the concept of the multiplier effect is always the main fact year. jobs lead to a very deep impacts that touches all. once in place, the loss of jobs has a deep impact to the entire community and none of it as possible. reducing jobs is not viable for

community. if you have a productivity efficiency problem, don't move the jobs come and find another way. my input to you tonight if you have an entrepreneurial challenge and entrepreneurial opportunity. don't take it down on the community by slashing jobs in bailing out. [applause] >> animists try them a shot and a mobilization coordinator for the vermont afl-cio. welcome to vermont. >> thank you. >> my understanding is that the postal service retiree health benefits fund now has over $42 billion it. that is enough to cover future retiree health premiums for the next 20 years. also, audits show that the postal service overpaid by 50 billion, maybe 80 billion into the civil service retirement system. further the postal service

overpaid at more than 10 billion into federal employee retirement system. also my understand is nearly a quarter of the postal workers are veterans in the postal service is paying the entirety of the veterans pensions. despite the fact that many of their workers service is divided by the postal service and the military, just despite the fact the department of defense pays this proportional pension shared for every federal tea except the postal service. given these factscome over tonight to hear you respond to, why is the postmaster general making the case that we need to close thousands of post offices and mail processing facilities, they have employees integrate service due to alleged insolvency? but you see here in this room is just the tip of the iceberg. i would suggest that you tell the postmaster general that if he intends to go ahead and try to impose this plan, he's going to meet his waterloo and vermont.

thank you. [applause] >> next, please. >> and jesse davis, officer of the vermont post office and i cannot ask for a better stuff or better group of customers there. [applause] we keep hearing out of washington cut, cut is our congressional delegation so aptly put it. one word we haven't heard of innovation. for the last several years i've been saying that e-mail is killing us. i have one simple question. why are we not having an e-mail server that rivals gmail or hotmail? why are we not a web hosting server that rivals go daddy? i don't know how much money you can make off of that. [applause] >> my name is bob reid.

my name is barb reid, a resident of white river junction, vermont. they think it's real interesting that in 2006 when they started seeing declines and it's also the same year that this blog a pass that said that the post office had to pay 5.5 billion a year for 10 years to fund current and future postal workers to the year 2075. i'm not sure everybody knows that. that is kind of ridiculous. i have to wonder why that came into effect. i heard somebody say about the privatization of the postal service. i am here representing myself and not my company, but i have to say that i am in the post office every day and i get excellent customer service they are from the front window to the people who pick up our mail. i would be lost without paying

business mail entry unit. the other thing i want to say is i never have to worry about the mail getting into my mailbox at home when there is now. as opposed to my paper getting into the news tube. so, thank you all. >> appreciate you coming, thank you. [applause] >> good evening. by michelle charbonneau, charbonneau, i'm a member of an alc bridge 521. i have been delivering parcels for the postal service at christmas time since 1983. this year i noticed i was delivering parcel postmarked -- priority postmark december 12 on december 19, which i consider to be serious erosion of service. parcels postmarked december 19, delivered on december 27 i think is a shame that was not delivered by the 24th. and i understand you are from

maine? that's correct. are you familiar with l.l. bean? i believe they are a very service oriented business and that is really the kingpin of their success. i see the internet as a coal mine for the postal service. an absolute gold mine. and if the postal service would put some energy into that cometh in the energy they put into disrupting service enclosing the post office into growing the business, we would be an incredible, successful story. i absolutely ask the postal service to support the postal service protection act. the postmaster general should be leading the charge with senator sanders and senator leahy and congressman welch. we should be working together with them to preserve the post office, not dismantle it. thank you. [applause]

>> not sure which ones we can do. my name is again to me malia and i'm a resident of white river junction for the past nine years. having a name like mine, you can imagine my letters get addressed wrong all the time. but i know my postal carrier branding. her name is janet. i know she's out there, hi. she's wonderful. my kids love her. you know, she's very personable and does the job well. i am not postal or military affiliated, but i have someone's little girl and i'm a follower of the golden rule. so i feel for those in mice that had men and women out of the country, some of them killed by a roadside bomb, what if a little girl nailed her letter under these new circumstances you have here in that letter made it too late for her daddy was killed? and he never got to see that

letter? i mean, that would be terrible for that little girl to grow up knowing that. i have one question at the end of this. i live on disability and i am also an employee of areas that the woman spoke about earlier. i make less than $2000 a month for myself, my husband and five children imail etched country manage to balance my budget with that. you guys should figure out how to deal with what you have. [applause] now, my disability comes in on the third. my mortgage is due on the first. i can mail it out and make my 10 day grace period now. if you screw that up, then i don't make my 10 day grace period and i am charged a late fee or am charged a fee to do it over the phone or do a bike computer, which i don't own.

i don't own a car that runs right now so i can't get somewhere to a computer to mail out or pay those bills. i don't want a credit card. if i did, how they pay the credit card bill if they couldn't it out? doesn't make sense to me. sorry, i lost my point here. i guess my last thing i want to say is i have a question for ms. essler. the billions of dollars you plan on saving when you get rid of all these employees, is that going to be lining the pockets of somebody who's already lined pockets of somebody like yours or is it going to go someone else in our community? [applause] i actually do want you to answer that question. and don't tell me you don't know. >> clearly, they are not going to line my pockets if that's your question. i'm not going to be reimbursed or compensated in any way from any of the antique packages across the united states, nor

will any other district manager. >> where will the money go? >> towards the bottom line they are past our business at the time. >> you don't look too starved to me. >> i name is chuck gregory from springfield, vermont. i'm a volunteer but the vermont workers center. i think i have an answer to the question the last that he posed. the author thomas frank wrote a book called the wrecking crew. and that, he talks about how for the last 40 years republican operatives have been destroying significant portions of the american infrastructure. i'm a leader have just described her problem is the sort of person who is affected most by the destruction of this particular feed and infrastructure. i've a question for the new hampshire representatives of their congressional delegation and that is considered republican operatives are still trying to destroy parts of the

american infrastructure, where does the new hampshire delegation stand in the republican approach to this piece of the american infrastructure? thank you. [applause] >> good evening. i'm glad everyone is here. make me believe in democracy again. my name is tim berio. i work in the real estate industry and i've been a teacher and pretty much worked in about every industry and vermont taking. and i am here to state a few of the points that have been brought up already. the issue of economic vitality, unique services and products to make businesses thrive. you cannot grow without services. to grow and sustain the must-have business support services in this economy. this is a huge loss, not just in the jobs, which i care about all of you dearly, but in the confidence we are ready to deliver. been in real estate, i've tried

several significant companies to downtown white river and as you heard tonight depend on the postal service as part of their business models. we can't cut that and i think the best metaphor i can come up with is the concept of perhaps public transit. we know public transit is not a profitable entity, but a service we need as a society to function and thrive. so yes, the postal service may not have a bottom line due to lack of invasion are changed, however, if you cut these public components come you kill the dirt in the areas would be the public sector or need to work together in a cooperative model to make that work. finally, i also had the joy of writing out the last.com fallout and has been touched on tonight also, i'd like to leave you with this final five. change or die or cut inside.

you can't find your way out of any economic malaise attending. you have to change and innovate and i know you guys can do it. you have to believe in all these people speaking tonight. thank you. [applause] >> my name is wayne martin. i am the president of the american postal workers union in white river junction. [applause] the consolidation plans at the postal services, put are all predicated on changing the service standards. i think you've come out in the back. alas, this is a rhetorical question because you haven't answered it when anyone else has asked it. how does a decrease in service increase their business? want to just drive people to her competitors? part of the presentation you expect to the service standards to be virtually unnoticed.

i think just the netflix customers that have dared service cut in half by the standard change will generate an uprising. [applause] we have a va hospital here in time it ships their medications. i know i have to get my medication through the mail, based on my insurance. how many people is that going to affect when their medication takes three to five to seven days longer to get to them? and vermont -- in white river junction, we process mail 17 to 19 hours or more a day. we are centralized location at the crossing of two interstates. we affirmed the best product to reduce numbers in the district. we stared to follow and vermont

in the montpelier areas. we serve western new hampshire from pittsburgh in the north to acworth in the south. the projection is to know white river junction, the processing into burlington and manchester. one thing somebody brought up earlier, the potential network doesn't show burlington or manchester. so how is that going to affect the service? is it going to continue to degrade? the last thing -- i do have an actual question. last night at the postal service presentation to the employees, somebody asked, what do you think the public would say to the change in the service

standards? mr. the free, delete plant manager said studies show that the public doesn't care. so my question is, what do you think now? [cheers and applause] >> well done. [applause] >> thank you, wayne. next, please. >> i name is cindy was the and i live in wave river junction. i have a family here in my work in the upper valley. what im is a customer of the postal service. i think what needs to be made very clear is that the closing of white river or as six or manchester is strictly phase one of this postal plan of consolidation. i am standing here before you today as simply a customer, a customer that is angry, a customer that is unsatisfied and

a customer that is not going to stand for this. not only to an unexpected phase one, but i do not accept phase two or three. i grew up in retail and various service industries. and when i was a new employee, the first ring i was taught was that the customer is always right. i want my voice to be heard and i want people to know that i am right. this is wrong and i will not stand for it. [applause] >> my name is ron of order. i am the executive board member to the local 31 national postmasters union and i work up in white river. it is just suspicious to myself and a lot of fellow employees and friends that you're doing the studies that depend on the whole delivery day standard been

changed. israel suspicious to us as to why are you putting the cart before the horse? you should be doing it -- is there going to change a standard, change those into your studies. talk people worked up over something else that may not even happen or do know is going to happen or not telling us. [applause] my second statement that i like to make is ms. essler come you said you have plans to process mail 20 hours a day. white river junction processes 17.5 hours. wouldn't be economical to move to a half-hour's worth of mail to white river junction then between 17 and a half hours of mail to burlington or to manchester? can you answer that? [applause] >> thank you for your question. >> essentially what it does it takes a lot more into consideration than just that. it takes into consideration the size of the facility and which

ones can consolidate easier -- >> are not asking you to consolidate. and same at two and half hours worth nanometer criteria. >> we'll put that into record is one of the things they want to look at going forward. >> thank you. [applause] >> my name is catherine harwood. my foreign mailing address is p.o. box 94, north stepford, vermont. a very small post office. it is open for approximately an hour and a half a day. and i have a very big dog in this fight. i am computer literate. i easily send e-mail messages all around the world, received them as well. so why do i maintain a post office talks for my farm in north stanton? i do so because i have learned

very recently that electronic communications, e-mails and others are not reliable. they are not universally available when i send them or when i received them for many of the folks that i need to be in contact with. but mostly, and above all, they are neither secure nor private. [applause] i know when i take a properly addressed, properly sealed envelope to the north stepford post office, i can expect an account times seemed united its flag flying because the post office is open. i expect and always find postmaster holli towle at the

window, wearing her usps i.d. and she is able to sell me post office that i need. she is able to take in the mail that i need to post. and i know that i can go and not post office and find the full, fair -- full faith and credit of the united states post office at my disposal. i know that i can count on seeing that flag in being those ideas wherever i go, wherever iem in these united states. this is a fundamental and extremely critical function of our government to make sure that these communication lines remained open.

i know that if i print out her hand write hard copy of whatever it is i need to send an properly address it and pay for that stand and it receives that postmark with the originating post office, i know that it will get where it needs to go safely, speedily and securely. i urge you all to stand behind these excellent post office employees and figure out a way to keep us all in contact with each other's security, privately and reliably. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> just a quick question if i may make a commitment to allow everybody that wants to contribute tonight to do so. i'm looking at the back of the

line. their five-minute short of two hours to be scheduled. however, to the folks who are going to speak, a two-minute limit and will be sure to get everybody's. >> and in this area from plainfield, vermont. and i am here because i'm really tired of talking about the postal service is if we only care about it to make money. the postal service is a public good in the something or committees care. so just like the fire department, we should pay the fire department does not make enough money. we are going to downsize services of our fire department. the point of the fire department is to put out fires when they happen in our community. same with the road crews. we ever occurs because we want good roads. where the postal service not to make any, but because we care about mail being delivered in communities and care about how much people in our communities depend on that delivery. so i think that we need to

reframe this conversation about not just a bottom line in making money, but about the things that are communities need. our public good. i'm from the vermont workers center and i just want to say me and the rest of the folks are going to keep fighting for this public goods. for not going to let this happen. we will fight from everything else like housing and jobs, mail delivery, all of the things that are communities depend on. we are not going to let this get cut. [applause] >> my name is leslie mathews. i live in northfield, vermont. i am a state employee and member of the vermont state employees association. i happen to work in the department of environmental conservation and one of the things they do in my job is identified plant samples that volunteers around the state are concerned about water quality. so i'm probably one of many people who is depends on the postal service to ship perishable are done for me timely fashion or my work to

operate effectively. so i will notice it the standards are degraded. and i fail to understand why if you are going to do a study you don't start with the premise that you are not going to do great services and look at how the post office can operate under that starting premise, instead of trying to look at degrading services at the same time as you are looking in all of other business properties of the postal service. i just want to also say that i think the solidarity with the other public employees that i work with, including postal workers. i think what is really going on is this is part of the attack on public employees that we've seen in this country in the last couple of years. clap [applause] public employees have been

escaped goes for bad decisions made by ceos and some politician that it's gotten us into a financial crisis and into a recession. and i think that we need to protect those public jobs. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> i name is peter quite attack. i am processing clerk in white river junction, but i live in claremont, new hampshire had been a lifelong dedicated postal customer. one of the things that i haven't heard mentioned today's yesterday when we had our mission at the plant, we talked a fair amount of time about transportation and changes to transformation and consolidation of trips. and this was presented as a means of saving money. but i have to ask you, if you are going to reduce the number of troops coming into a river and if you are going to reduce the number of trips going for white river to the larger processing centers that remain

and that those processing centers then have that much for volume of mail, isn't this a question of more than just first class mail? are you going to have to drop your express standards for mala quality mail also? you take all the mail at the same time and processing the same distance, only fewer pickup some longer distances. how does that not affect all of your other classes of mail, including your most profitable classes? >> there is no thing to change the service standards. this is strictly for going to two to three day, were to add a date to it. there's a pretty comprehensive plans the postal service is looking at going forward to make sure we don't change -- >> so you do have plans in place but there is a first-class letter and express mail piece is picked up at the same rural office at the same time, sent to white river, put on a trip to manchester and there is a plan in place to process that express mail in a timely fashion?

>> we have in our addition to keeping those on place must it come up with something different. there haven't been any plans looking forward to change the service on any other class of mail. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> next, please. >> my name is bob and i respectfully request that i withhold my last name. i'm going to be doing a press release before the new hampshire primary, which is coming up next week. i was born in this area. my dad was involved in the administration of this the hospital for 30 some years. from the time of a child i was taught to develop a great credit, worth that could, et cetera. i worked 10 years doing engineering. peter welch was sitting here. i've done work in reference to powerlines on some land he subdivided in heartland and i've known him. after i left cv, it was because

of lack of ability of customers to go on the front door and order anything. it's all like the phone company has been for years. i hit the ground running, building residentially, commercially, had met construction business. by 92 i had an issue with a divorce yet my ex-wife happened to be come -- with the u.s. postmaster of our community. two years later i found she had diverted by irs mail and multiple other pieces of mail and i requested of a u.s. federal postal are assigned to my issue out of manchester, new hampshire, to get me at a given general store to pick up i.d. numbers of two certified trackable items that i desperately needed him to go see because it was attested to in a legal environment that i signed for, which i never did. he sat in his chrome office overlooking the manchester airport and wrote to me quote on postal team letterhead and

signed in ink that i did not have an issue at the u.s. post office, but i have a problem that should be handled in the new hampshire court divorce court and if i have a problem with a ex-wife, i should get my mail on saturday is the rather times in which she was not working. congress vass became instrumental in his first time as a congressman pushiness through to the top congressional liaison. i believe his name is tony leonard. this is so fragile and so revealing of the death sybarite that the devastation done me, had at least enough decency to tell me he was told not to help me anymore. the amount of mortification of what i earned and what i had for a credit rating and assets is nonrecoverable. now i don't want to splash water on this environment here and i know there's a lot of good basic people who work the average of.

i would not be given food chain of our u.s. post office in the right manner, asked for the right steps. if you have someone holding you up to your home with a gun, you expect to dial 9-1-1 to get the right response. if you have a fire as it's been said, you respected the the fire department showed as efficiently as they help you. what happened in my case is this one of the foodchain of the postal service. they dug in. i have a number of attorneys that ropes and the issues to try to take the matter in a different direction and quite honestly, i have been destroyed by the u.s. postal service. and i have nothing good to say about it. and i respect the people locally, but you know what, i am an employer of people in this area and i have been. and i just want you to realize that has been devastating. and not one person never apologized either from the irs for the postal service. >> thank you.

please, please, next. >> my name is prevent trembling and i am from wilder. i've always understood the post office to be a service of the united states government until the recent depression, it has been -- i've always understood it as a service. it is now considered a business. this is only given the opportunity to make what would normally be a rational decision into the sixth sophie's choice about laying off workers and repealing a bill intended to privatize the u.s. postal service. a release that is what i've understood tonight. so my question to you is since we are short on time, whitey jamaica is watch propaganda film instead of letting this comment about the post office, which is what we are here to do. thank you. >> thank you. >> i appreciate the input. our commitment is to out

everybody who has something to say to do that tonight. the presentation is part and informational session if you offer those folks up to date with postal ways perhaps as you are. so that was the purpose. next, please. >> my name is heather, a volunteer with the vermont workers center and for the past several months we been having these people put people first meetings. there'll be one heartland on january 25th -- hartford, i'm sorry. hartford on january 25th. you know, we had one for another several months ago and what we find there is that we are living in communities, where wages have been stagnant for many, many years. unfortunately, we have had many waves of public workers being laid off in our communities. and the suffering that's going on as a result is heartbreaking.

and the effects of iran have only compounded that suffering for many, many people across the state. and it seems to me like many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been put into studies. my question for you is whether or not the postmaster general has conducted a study about what the impact of closing this processing center and many of our rural post offices under which would lay off hundreds smart people in vermont, what would be the company multiplier effect on our communities? because we know that as more and more vermonters lose their job, that has an effect across many towns. we have seen that you and water very after a rain. so has there been a study done on that? >> be in the states are reviewing this. we don't do much offer an actual economic impact, but we are very interested in going forward and

looking at that. >> next question, please. >> it's not a question. anton urgo from packard center. the post office was created under the constitution was amended in 1970 by the postal lack and then there was that 2006 postal accountability act. it seems -- it seems that the idea of the post office is to foster communication in america. that seems to be the idea in the to to shame. so why doesn't the post office embrace the internet? and instead of hiring people, why don't they hire people so that vermont can be the first e.u. states as was promised in 2006 and perhaps we cannot people putting up high-speed internet lines so that more

people could use the internet, order goods and services, have been delivered by the post office and the post office could increase its profitability instead of destroying the lives and incomes of other citizens. and the only thing i have to do with the post office is by stance. that's it. >> we appreciate that. thank you. >> thank you. >> and edward english from woodstock. i am a customer of the post office and to begin with, i was sitting about three quarters of the way back. i could hear people, but i couldn't hear you, mr. moderator. but that's beside the point. but when it came to this projection that you put on, i

couldn't even see it because there is too many people in front of me. and where'd you come come up with your eight something dollars that you are cutting when it wasn't even on that as far as i can see. i couldn't come up with anything on these papers are in your presentation. besides, i don't have a computer. and so i depend on the mail or else i won't have any. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> my name is david kranzler, a member of the vermont workers center. i believe that the postal service is a public good. a public good is something that should serve the needs of our communities, not destroy our

communities by shrinking itself in a death spiral. my first question and i apologize because i think it's a rhetorical question is, are you accountable to our communities as the public good should eat? my second question -- i came here and watched her presentation i have to admit i am not a business person, but i am not that time either. [laughter] you said people are so name or e-mail. i sent e-mail because i want the people and communicating with to get the message quicker. and your response to your customers wanting the people they are communicating with to get the message quicker is to slow down how fast you deliver the mail. [applause] so i look at this presentation and i think, who put together this business plan that the

postmaster general or the ceo of fedex? because if i were the ceo of fedex -- [applause] i would say wow, they are letting me put together a business plan for the postal service. the first thing that i would do is figure out the best way to put it into a death spiral. why don't i respond to their customers needs for better service by starting off with a study that predicates were service. [applause] >> hello, my name is david catrin and i work about the food co-op. i'm a vermonter. i went to school in new york city and i am one of the few who have consciously come back to vermont to live here because i love it so much. when i was in new york, one of the first places i went with the

james fairly postal center at sixth avenue. above that is an inscription and it says neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from their appointed rounds. how much are you going to cut and so we can't say that anymore? eventually you will cut yourself out of a job. [applause] >> good evening. my name is jim wynberg. i find myself in a very difficult position. again, i find myself in a very difficult position. i am a proud retiree at the postal service for over 30 years. what i'd like to say is that in this planet just like to recognize or have someone recognize the fact that currently the state of vermont is serviced out of the white river junction post office. that post office was established actually in the status as mentioned earlier between two

major enters dates as well as the east to west carders in the state. we currently go from white river all the way down to spending 10, brattleboro, up to and reduced to go into montpelier as well as into burlington. and we do have one acr that does traveling to maine. all of this right now being centrally located at one time use the facilities at the railroad. we also used the airport out of west lebanon. we are in the middle of the state. i hope that this has been taken into consideration when we are looking at moving, transferring or doing away with the plant. i know this. i was a transportation manager and white river for many years. i've lived through 5:00 a.m. tease, where we try to get the mail to the rest of our current processing area. it just wasn't possible. the old saying is you just can't

get there from here. the other thing is the post office is like into a big back-to-back games. all of the processing plants are the dots, a very, very old friend of ours told us this one and the only way to make that total picture, to give you a vital postal service is to connect those dots. the connection of the stats is a transportation. i think we should keep the white river junction plant open. >> thank you. [applause] >> minus four assignment. i am from wild vermont and i have a couple prongs to my question. first, i want to inform you that i been a social worker and teacher for 36 years and few communities within the area of this plant. and i think i can speak on behalf of the hundreds of other people who do my job in the thousands that we serve. they are among the more vulnerable people in our

communities. so one product to my question is, can you assure that their needs can be met as they are now at this new plan that you have? my next part of my question at a point to you is from what you see here tonight and what you're hearing about people doing this all over the country, do you think we are going to back down? i can answer that. we will not back down. and then, i think this will take a little bit more calculation on your part, but in a few areas of cost but i'm hoping you could get back to me and explain. the salary of the workers that will be displaced, will there be any change their? what about the mileage as they are displaced to another post office and impact on the environment of the further traveling? ..

bargaining agreement and to always supports that. next, please. >> the center for sustainable medicine in vermont i run a small sliding scale clinics serving mostly working-class and poor people for almost 20 years and then i rely on being able to walk across the street to my local post office and put medicine in the mail and have it get they're the next day. but i'm actually not here to talk about that. i am here to talk about something that you should be

using so much in this fight which is the power of the love letter. i started writing letters to friends starting at age nine and route three or four letters every week. my friends all over the world and pen pals and the thrill of opening a letter where you see the person's handwriting is something that e-mail and text messaging cannot even begin to match. you can't cut out a little peter hart or put sprinkles in or put a little perfume on the letter to get a text message. you could be capitalizing on this. i don't really like that word. [laughter] the reason i moved to vermont is because i married a man who lived here when i was living in seattle and we rode 50 letters back-and-forth in a five month period before he sent me an engagement ring through the mail

and i knew it was coming and asked the postman to wait a minute while i opened it and had him put it in my hand. >> that's wonderful. [applause] next, please? >> i'm back. in many businesses in this country there's a steadfast rule that if it isn't in hard copy on paper, it never happened if we get rid of the mail system or slow it down, you know, that's going to destroy mortgage documents and things like that. it just can't have been and it has to be reliable in fact and i know for certain i personally can't afford the 8-dollar fedex one to three day service or the 20 dollar ups service the u.s.

postal service will get there in the same amount of time for 44 cents. >> thank you. >> it's also a federal offense to mess with the male if we don't supply any federal funding into the system and that doesn't make sense to me. i would like to know why we don't do that. sorry you said we could come back to the other one and go again and i am. spec i also limit you to one question and i've already heard three. >> sorry. there was an article in the paper saying 35% of the service is done on line and a country where the majority rules that would mean 65% is not done on line so i think we need to keep that in mind. >> thank you. >> i guarantee when i send that letter as it stands today my

letter will get there safely before the january 19th date. >> appreciate that. thank you very much. [applause] >> i'm a school teacher been teaching for 32 years. i find that i agree with almost every person that came up here tonight and said the post office is a service, not a business and the fact that this is timed at about the same time that we probably have double-digit employment in our country i find it incredibly tone deaf that this is happening right now, right here. our representatives from vermont i'm proud to say represent real people like myself. but there is an increasing tone deafness in washington to the

play of real life people and this feels to me like one more attack on working people, period. >> appreciate that. thank you. [applause] >> i'm usually her pretty well. i'm going to have to talk awfully quick to get this and in two minutes. first of all, some of the most visible employees the postal service has are the carriers and the city carriers and these people are genuine heroes. there isn't a day that passed in the history of the postal service and i assure you know they haven't rescue people that are falling, they haven't helped people with heart attacks, they've rescued people from fire, it's just an everyday occurrence and they are truly heroes. my second thing is the question ms. kessler. i assume you also did this for burlington and manchester. the process all of the male in the state of vermont else told

you and it did a very economically and it did it on a one day service standard. well worth the benefits and closing burlington and keeping white river junction open? where are the figures for that? >> we haven't concluded that study at this point. >> will we have another meeting when you get those figures to get your? >> if we go forward with in the of the other studies that are around the manchester. >> when you are saying is you've already decided is if it is going to close it is going to be white river rather than burlington. my apologies by the way. >> i think that is the point is there has been the decision made and after the china we also agree not to make any determination by any of these consolidations to allow sufficient time for them to also continue the dialogue that they

have on the service. >> thank you. [applause] >> i have a home-based business in heartland. i grow in my own organic garden seeds of heirloom vegetables that are specifically suited for growing in the new england area that is my service area. this time of year i go to my heart and a post office almost daily and find the postmistress i know very well and even though she knows i'm not a mystery shopper she asks me anything liquid, perishable, fragile or hazardous? of course my seeds are time sensitive so i am very invested in the surface not been reduced but some thoughts on this, the post office could be if it were

free of the onerous burden of the 5 billion annual the required to prepay towards the pension fund perishable embedded in the very name of the united states postal service. fragile the lives of the people who would lose their jobs in the midst of this fragile barely recovering economy. and hazardous, the kind of short-term thinking that has led to the consideration of this consolidation plan. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> my name is steven. i new hampshire resident with but i've worked in the white river plant for many years. i pay federal taxes and vermont taxes even as a new hampshire

citizen. about a decade ago the postal service which a lot of the volume of mail to the manchester facility and it was an abomination. the overnight mail took nearly a week to receive. the roads are not conducive to manchester or burlington for the on-time delivery for much of vermont. i'm a decorated veteran and i have served in several capacities as a federal employee most of which is with the united states postal service today i am currently listed as an employee but was an early victim of one of your studies. to responsible employers discriminate against disabled employees? again as an early victim in your

last study i wonder what's going to happen next to my brothers, my union brothers within the postal service and how any of these things are going to impact the continued value of the united states postal service. >> thank you. appreciate you coming. [applause] >> i've brought media which is a company that produces documentary films, and i am here tonight because i am very concerned about the changes that are being proposed for the postal service for a variety of reasons. our business is very dependent because we live in a rural area to be able to have access to a service that is overnight that is the reliable. i use the postal service often to mail out film and also mailing out tapes that have been

filmed editors in new york and that kind of thing. the changes will affect my company, and as we've heard from other people here, it will probably affect their company as well. and i think it is shameful at a time that we are in the middle of an economic downturn that these sorts of proposals are being made to actually cut jobs. we are in a part in history when we need to be looking at job creation, and this kind of program that you are proposing will wind up having a ripple effect and affect other businesses in our area as well, so i hope he will take into consideration. and i've done a documentary that actually looks at liberalism and privatization and i see what you are doing as a form of that. you are leading towards that because you are no longer going to be competing and providing the services as well as places like fedex and that will eventually end up causing the privatization i believe of the postal service and i think that

that will be quite a horrible thing to have happen. >> thank you. [applause] >> my name is joyce and i live in lebanon new hampshire. my name is joyce and i live in west lebanon and hampshire. i've been listening to all the comments but wasn't going to say anything because i share so many of the thoughts such as the problems degrading the postal system to try to keep things going. but the main reason i decided to say something is it occurred to me no one has mentioned all the people on the other side of the river in the upper valley that rely on the white river distribution center for their mail. i have a post office box in white river and i also have one in hanover.

the hospital was there. no one has mentioned all the people in new hampshire that are going to be affected by cutting down the distribution. [applause] >> thank you. >> good evening. local 301. thank you very much for all of your patients tonight. appreciate it. i just wanted to add one thing that i haven't heard and i've heard a lot of great things tonight. the postal service for the 28 years i've been employed as a mail handler in manchester new hampshire and elsewhere has been hand-wringing of the degradation of the first-class mail as a product for the usps and in those 28 years i've seen a lot of great commercials on priority mail. i think they've been very successful in restoring priority mail service but i get to see the postal service in those 28

years spend 1 penny on trying to reinvigorate first-class mail service. i don't believe first class mail service is a dead product. i think the postal service has done an awful lot to encourage the first class mail, but my comment would be this. perhaps some of this money would be better spent advertising first-class mail as a benefit on fraga for customer fraud or identity theft or a thousand other reasons why first-class letter for 45 cents is a whole lot better deal than paying for your your bills on the internet and i would appreciate being added to the record as a recommendation on the way to reinvigorate the postal service. >> thank you. [applause] >> the final question, comment of the night. >> my name is michael coming and with my wife and my two sons

operating in vermont i'm going to come at this in a little bit of a different way. i was here this afternoon for the mailers meeting and made some comments and would be willing to speak to people more. as a major i know a lot of the nuances on the structure in light seen where things might be tweaked which i would be glad to share. but i realize it's a business. it's a business to be without the vitality of the post office cease to exist. we provide a service to a lot of small companies, businesses, organizations, that type of thing. we are doing things for them to earn them the maximum amount of discounts they can to invite them to continue to the best benefits. for our congressional delegation, you're the ones that

are going to be able to get some of the hard answers to the many questions that exist. we can read things. we can't discern how true they are. you will be able to ask the hard questions to get the hard answers back and act on them appropriately on our behalf. this is a publication in the united states post office that we receive as a meal entity. one of the first stories and hear the postal service in fiscal year 2011 with $5.1 billion loss. this is set to be after the pre-funding requirements. it also goes on to say the total 2011 mail volume decline by the 20 billion pieces of mail. as 3 billion pieces less, $5 billion lost are we losing $2 for every piece of mail that we send?

again, some of the questions that need to be answered. where are the numbers and what do they really mean? okay. i'm going to just leave you with one last thing. we've got to lighten up here now. how much paper does it take to buy one postage stamp? >> if you don't know, this is your receipt for one stamp it costs 44 cents. >> let me say to everybody that came up this evening -- i'm sorry. one more person here. your name? >> [inaudible] i was born in switzerland and i came to this country i was 18 and spent some time in canada. we've got the best system there

is in the whole wide world. i know because i was at the bahamas for five years. we sent packages to my grandson that was in the marines, and within a week -- so please don't lock it up. [laughter] [applause] if i may as we close out tonight, thank you to everybody who's thoughtful, professionally presented comments and questions were very much appreciated. it's a common theme i heard this evening. a common theme i heard is the regard with which our postal people are held within the community and continues to do that to the postal employees as we feel might well feel that doing the remarkable job thank you for all that he do and continue to the great job.

everybody safe travels, thank you. [inaudible conversations] 20 [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> today on c-span2, florida governor rick scott gives the state of the state address. >> if we begin now, to match our policies with our ideas, then i believe it is just possible that we will, to admire this country, not simply because we were born here, but because of the kind of great in good lands that you and i want it to be, and that together we have made. that is my hope. that is my reason for seeking the presidency of the united

states. >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 and program for the office and lost. go to our website, c-span.org the contenders to see video of the contenders who have a lasting impact on american politics. big mac go to work immediately to restore proper respect for law and order in this land and not just prior to the election date either. >> these young people and they get out of this wonderful university will have difficulty finding a job. we've got to clean this mess up, leave this country in good shape, pass on american dream to them. >> go to our website, c-span.org/thecontenders. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays feature live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events.

and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on book tv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at a website. to join in the conversation on social media sites. >> the unemployment rate dropped to 8.5% in december. now, remarks at last month job growth rate and its impact on u.s. competitiveness with commerce secretary john bryson. he looks at the federal government's role in spurring innovation and job creation. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> i am so enthusiastic for today's event. so thank you all for joining us. we are excited secretary of commerce john bryson here discussing the issue of competitiveness. as you all know competitiveness is about building an economy as fit for the 21st century in a world where we are competing and trying to win with new competitors, each and every day. it's also about building an economy that works for everyone, not just the privileged few.

we know the obama administration has made competitiveness and policy priority since the beginning of the administration and has really geared up in the last year, and a special with secretary bryson's leadership now and commerce. because of its importance, cap has also done much work in this area. a year ago my colleagues john podesta, sarah wartell, and standard released a report calling for a more coordinated and comprehensive approach to u.s. competitiveness so the american workers, businesses and families could prosper in a more competitive world. they laid out a blueprint for u.s. competitiveness at the top of the national agenda and putting the country down the path to achieving it. it was a year ago that president obama also signed the american competes reauthorization act into law. the act is a major achievement and u.s. competitiveness policy. it authorizes significant investments in programs of the national science foundation, department of energy, of course

the department of commerce all nor to assure americans competitiveness. it keeps america on a path of leadership of science and technology and education, and sure that we're doing what is right for our economy in a global world in the next over years but also for decades to come. as part of the competes act congress asked secretary of commerce bryson to conduct a detailed analysis of the structural challenges to our nation's engine of innovation, job creation and growth. known as the competes report, this study is the first of its can look into the biggest challenges our economy is facing as well as the opportunities we have today. the center is on to secretary bryson here to unveil the report and present its key findings today. we are also joined by several members of innovation advisory board who made this report possible. the times report is guided the secretary throughout the competes study and provided incredible guidance on this

issue, and they are all made up of leaders in this issue that many of us have heard from for many years. among them is my pleasure to welcome you at the center rob atkinson, founder and president of information technology and innovation foundation. rebecca bagley, president and ceo of nortech. jim clements, president of west virginia university. abby joseph cohen, president of the global market institute global market institute and senior investment strategist at goldman sachs. larry cohen, president of the communications workers of america. art levinson, chairman of apple and genentech. james manyika, director of mckinsey and company, and mckinsey and company global institute. natalia olson-urtecho, president and ceo of aeg, formerly the equilibrium group. kim polese, chairman of clearstreet inc. julie shimer, president and ceo of welch allyn. stephen tang, ceo interactor of the university of science center, and then, to the last

one, representing the advisory board, members lucy sanders, national center for women and science technology. i know we're looking forward to hearing more about this report and i will turn the floor over to secretary bryson in the moment but just what to say a few words about what we are doing today. we have a different and interesting for me. we will have a panel led by sarah wartell in a few minutes. after secretary bryson's remarks. and we are going to have something of a fair with a lot of members of our advisory group, and information about different elements of the competes act following the panel picks i hope you'll stay for all of that. it's my pleasure now to introduce second of commerce john bryson. he was sworn in a few months ago, but he brings nearly three decades of experience in business to the commerce department. was really an innovative business leaders and leading an effort around green energy and

ensuring that we have, we are taking advantage of new economic issues. and he's been a real leader in trying to find these new areas of innovation in our economy. specifically in green energy. and so i can think of no one better suited to talk about america's competitiveness in the person to release our efforts and leads competitiveness for the president and secretary of commerce john bryson. [applause] >> well, good morning, and thank you very much, neera. it is a special treat really to be able to present this report. the advisory group has played such a large role, advisory board members, 11 of the 15 are with us this morning. i just met with them, huge contribution, really thoughtful

people. diverse backgrounds, coming together around is competitiveness issue. let me also say just at the outset, this is really a pleasure to do this at the center for american progress. john podesta will remember we talked over dinner a couple weeks ago, but, so i had to go to the confirmation process but i've never been in the federal government before. i was naïve in extreme but i've no idea that it would take what it takes to go through this confirmation process. and maybe the fact that i had some of the things i've done over the years, some people thought were not so great, and so it tocaloma want to go through the confirmation process. but it is a real treat. it's an honor to be made secretary of the commerce. and it is a special honor, i was a also, to work with my colleague, becky blank, who really was the lead at the conference department and played in putting this report together.

i am thrilled, my time my for months i've been through this, this is really, really important that i think forrest to think consistently very hard, and heart in a sustained way in a longer-term way that has been traditional here in the federal government about how we strengthen our competitiveness around the world and it's critically important to go through my remarks, but let me just say, perhaps you know this is in sum was also other kind of special, i was a positive thing, good news day, because the report on jobs came out. and maybe you've seen that, but this, the report now is that in the month of december, 200,000, 200,000 net new jobs. that's not just the private sector. job increases that are often reported. that is the net number, after increases in the private sector

with some offsets and loss of jobs in the public sector. so 200,000, now we have six months in a row in which the numbers have been coming each month, 100,000 more jobs in each of the last six months. so you put this together, that for example, is the highest rate of job growth since 2006 over this last half year. so, we've all been very, very focused on jobs for american people. we can't, we can't go forward without them. so this is another step. there's a lot yet to do, but in the competitiveness report, this is the kind of special moment for us to go through the elements of competitiveness going forward. an element of which, having the kind of economy that gives all of us, particularly our young

people, and then particularly our children, fall on the opportunity of the kind of opportunities that we and our generation have had. so let me jump into the report. a year ago, as you know, the president signed into law the american competes reauthorization act. that was a bipartisan bill, built upon the 2007 america competes act calls on the federal government to invest in our nation's long-term future in the areas of science education, and through increased funding for innovation and through research and development. in particular i would like to acknowledge the leadership of the senate commerce committee chairman jay rockefeller, i assume the members are not here, but staff members are, if these people played a huge role. ranking member kay bailey

hutchison, senator lamar alexander, as well as the house science committee chairman mark gordon. many thanks to all of them for leading and renewing this vital piece of legislation. legislation allows our nation to look inwardly at our economic model, find areas of improvement and track down solutions. other requirements, the law instructed the commerce department to study the countries economic competitiveness and innovative capacity. that's what we have done. the study was no easy task. i would like to ask all members of the commerce team were contracting this report to please stand and be recognized. [applause] >> and thank you. that include you, too.

so thank you. now, the topic of this report is certainly a matter of pivotal, pivotal important. our ability to innovate as a nation will determine what kind of economy, what kind of country our children and grandchildren will inherit, whether it's a country that builds and holds the same progress, promised for them as it did for our parents and grandparents. so let's talk a little about the importance of innovation and competitiveness. history tells us that what happens when we don't innovate, when we are not focus on boosting economic competitiveness, when tax dollars and manpower are not wisely invested in good schools or new information technologies.

it impacts jobs and it impacts economic growth. in fact, every support from the information technology and innovation foundation concluded that no advanced economy in the world, except italy, i'm sure that says a lot, none except italy have done less than the united states to improve the country's economic competitive position over the previous decade. that's reflected, as we know, in the lives of many american families today. even before the recession most families since 2000 saw their wages stagnate or decline while prices for some of the key necessities of life, health, gas, tuition, all wind up. so america's challenge isn't

just to strengthen the recovery. it's too late a new foundation for sustainable long-term economic growth. and the report's findings, the report proposes an investment strategy that makes sense, a path forward that will lay down that critical foundation. innovation remains the key driver of competitiveness and job growth, and this report looks to the past to examine the factors that have helped unleash the tremendous innovative potential of our private sector. the study has found three major areas to target for serious, strong federal support. first, basic research. while private citizens and businesses are the top source of new ideas, the government plays a key role in funding the basic

research that underlies their innovations. basic research is under provided by the private sector, and governments around the world are recognizing the need for public support at universities and research institutions. the u.s. has a proud tradition of supporting the work of federal and university labs. and it has helped change our world. the internet, satellite communications, an era not ask, for example, -- and they're not ask, for example, would not have been possible without the use of wisely spent federal tax dollars. energies now have dropped off. in 1980, the federal government funded more than 70% of basic research.

70%. most of that went to universities and university-based federal research centers. since then, the government's share of basic research funding has fallen from that 70% to 57%. and that's a trend that just must be reversed. what's more, the government must take an active role in protecting the intellectual property of entrepreneurs through patents, copyrights, and other enforcement mechanisms. after all, intellectual property and innovation keep our entire economic engine churning. when companies are more confident that their ideas will be protected, they have more incentive pursue advances that push costs down, and with that, employment up. so then the second pillar in the

report is education. for the last two centuries, america has led the world i knew and public education, first in elementary schools, then by providing public high schools throughout the country, and finally by establishing a system of public universities that were broadly available to all citizens. we know now that highly skilled workers boost innovation and economic competitiveness. but ensuring that our children have the skills employers need for the jobs of tomorrow requires dedicated government attention and resources at the state, local and federal levels. of critical importance are the science, technology, engineering and mathematical fields, so-called s.t.e.m. fields. in 2009, about 12.8% of u.s. college graduates, 12.8%, were in s.t.e.m. fields, far fewer

than the 44% of foreign students in the united states majoring in a s.t.e.m. fields. significant economic competitors, such as south korea with 26.3%, and germany with 24.5%, are on a long list of countries producing a much higher percentage of s.t.e.m. graduates than our 12.8%. and that must change. then the third area of an investigation, of investment we need is an infrastructure. the infrastructure needed to support a modern economy relies on publicly provided resources. this goes beyond traditional infrastructure like highways, rail lines and ports, though

those developers to help businesses compete by opening up markets in keeping costs low. but the competes report finds that we must do more to grow out a truly modern electrical grid with broadband internet access in both urban and world communities. here in america, 68% of households have adopted broadband, and an almost eight fold increase since 2001. and yet, a 68% adoption rate still leaves about a third of american homes cut off from the digital economy. it's worth noting that in particular, small and medium-size enterprises have benefited hugely from the internet. those suvs with a strong online presence -- those suvs with a strong online presence

have created more than twice the number of jobs answer is not on the web, creating 2.6 jobs for each one eliminate it. so education, innovation and infrastructure, these are the areas where we cannot afford to cut the role of government. indeedgovernment. indeed, investment in these areas will lead to a more competitive economy and higher growth. unfortunately, this report on verse the sad truth that federal funding for basic research, education and infrastructure has simply failed to keep pace with economic growth, and the innovative performance of the united states has severely slipped during the past decade. so the reports solutions. to reverse these trends the report finds the following

actions are necessary, we must increase and sustain the levels of funding for basic research by the federal government. and in addition, we need a simplified, enhanced and extended corporate r&d tax credit. one that awards firms for undertaking additional r&d, not just activity that would have occurred even without that credit. and we must follow president obama's lead and bring government support for r&d back to a level not seen since the kennedy administration. that's reversing a decades long decline in federal funding of that basic research. and asked education, we simply must invest in the skills and knowledge necessary to compete in an increasingly competitive

worldwide economy where other countries are now surpassing us in the percentage of young people with college degrees, something as simple as that. ongoing and new administrative initiatives are addressing these challenges by making colleges more affordable, spurring classroom innovation at all levels, and expand the size and quality of s.t.e.m. teacher ranks. to succeed in a global economy, government must encourage students and workers toward continued s.t.e.m. education. and then for infrastructure, it is clear that we have to invest in 21st century networks, including fostering access to high speed internet for citizens and businesses, no matter where they are located. and the federal government must continue its strides forward

toward a sport electricity grid a robust network of broadband internet access. than and then a fourth area of economic competitiveness mentioned in the competes report come i think definitely deserves our attention. a flourishing manufacturing sector in the u.s. is crucial to our competitive strength, and will continue to be a key source of the economic growth and job creation. manufacturing base hires in average wages, provides the bulk of u.s. exports, contributes substantially to our are indeed, and protects national security. manufacturing's role in our economy isn't going away anytime soon. in 2009, manufacturing made up 11.2% of gdp, and 9.1% of total

u.s. employment, directly employing almost 11 million workers. manufacturing is also the biggest source of innovation in our economy. over two-thirds of all industrial r&d in america is done by manufacturing companies. ultimately, without a strong manufacturing base, we simply can't create enough good jobs to sustain a strong middle class. and without a strong middle class we cannot be a strong country. if we build it here and sell it everywhere, we can become the world's unquestioned greatest economic power yet again. so conclusion, this administration does not believe

government has all the answers, but it does believe it has a role to play in creating the conditions that make inspiration, innovation and invention more likely to happen. this means providing support to the government that the private sector needs to grow, to create new products and services, and most importantly to generate jobs that offered good wages. ultimately, job growth is the metric that is most important. and long-term job growth will only occur in a world where entrepreneurs and researchers find it easy to pursue new ideas and to turn them into new products and successful new businesses. these are the building blocks for fulfilling america's truest potential, and the conclusions in our competes act report can make that promise a reality.

i had hoped to be able to take a few questions. i regret, unfortunately, i need to leave immediately to attend a meeting over at the white house that i am delighted in leaving you in the very capable hands of my deputy secretary, dr. rebecca blank, who i introduced and committed previous, and also aneesh chopra, from the white house is with us this morning. thank you. thank you very much. [applause] >> and now i like to welcome up to the sarah rosen wartell who is out executive vice president for policy, as wil most aneesh chopra, rebecca blank, to talk about the findings of the report in more detail. and i think you'll be able to action also take some questions about the report as well. thank you so much. been an all right, here we go.

[applause] >> come on. >> first of all i should say that the people standing in the back and we have now vacated nine seats up in the front. so let me encourage anyone who wants to come up and make themselves comfortable, please do join us in i'm going to go pick up when i left on my seat so i can leave it open. >> so, while we do some rearranging of seats let me just -- [inaudible] >> could you speak up? >> pull it up a little higher.

>> sorry. try this. there we go. sorry about that. my apologies. becky was previously the dean of the public policy school at the university of michigan, and i had the pleasure of working with her when she was previously at the council of economic advisers to president clinton. sitting at the far end, and aneesh chopra, aneesh is currently the chief technology officer of the united states. is also served as assistant to the president and associate director of technology, previously he was the center of technology for the commonwealth of virginia. and he was in the private sector as well as the advisory board company. finally, we have james manyika. james is the director of the mckinsey global institute which is mackenzie's business and economic research arm. he was also one of the members as we mentioned here earlier of the secretaries advisory board

and you'll be as part of our advisory board there at the end of the spam as well. so i want, what will do is to can keep things moving i'm going to ask two questions of each of the panelists, and then we'll take a few questions from the audience and then to love you but they wholesome conversation will divide everybody up in the room so that different folks will be indifferent, miller's of the advisory committee not only these folks but the folks were on the advisory committee are here with us will be in different corners available to talk about key elements of the strategy that was developed. becky, let me start with you though. today is jobs day and made good use news on that. the conversations that we have about competitiveness and then the conversations that we have almost every day all the time about jobs and wages and economic opportunity and what's happening to the middle-class in america, those two conversations seem to happen in different rooms sometimes. they don't always get very

well-connected. but i think the competitiveness issues we're talking about here today are related to our economic opportunities to the middle class. how does the report talk about that, and how do you see the connection? >> so, i agree with you that those conversations take place in different rooms, and they shouldn't. they are very, very closely interrelated. let me run for causality both ways there on the one hand if you don't have a competitive economy with strong and stable economic growth you will never had any chance to address any of that inequality problems were the problems facing the great middle class. you love to have a competitive economy in order to address some of those issues. on the other hand, if you don't have some degree of stability and promise of economic success towards people in the middle class or people in the lower end of the income distribution, you of a great deal of difficulty generating the political support for the agenda that this report lays out on competitiveness.

because if people do not see that they are going to gain from some of the investments that we talk about in this report, if they think those gains are going to go to a different group of folks that are similar not going to support these types of investments. so i think, the other issue here is the education issue that one of the things that really concerns me about the bifurcation that you're seeing in deducing intrinsic inequality is that there are large number of people who don't quite see the point of college education, much less s.t.e.m. education, the sort we talk or hear in science or in engineering or technological field. you don't feel that, you, there's together, that someone else will be doing that, and one of the things that a strong competitive growing economy does is it just people incentives to capture onto the growth, to see what is you get by going to college, by being series about the work that you do, and in particular by pursuing some of the fast-growing fields which other fields that are going to be the high technology fields. >> if i could add one other comment to that, there's another

straightforwardly economic reason why wages and income actually matter, which is a health to address the drive the economy. if you keep of mind over the last two decades, something like 70% of u.s. gdp growth has come from consumer in household spending. so if you take out the ability of those households that consumers spent, most of which lives in the middle class, put a big dent into the aggregate demands and drivers of economic growth of the u.s. economy. so it really is important. >> that's a good transition to my next question to you which is about american competitiveness comparatively with other countries. secretary went through and we're kind of used to hearing the sort of system sticks about america not being at the top of whatever list of competitiveness measure you want to use. how are we doing relative to others, and more importantly, are we fated as an offense developed economy that is further ahead in many ways to be

on the downside of those rankings or do we have a chance to sustained a high rate of competitiveness is as dashing even as other countries are by? >> is afford to keep in mind if you look historically back, from the end of the second world war, this economy has by far the most innovative, most productive economy and most attracted economy on the planet. i think that is still the case. however, something has begun to change the witches of the counties have begun to get better as well. they haven't been sitting still. and actually that is a good thing for the economy because when you take people out of poverty around the world and for the global economy, that's a good thing. that puts pressure on the united states tuesday. and i think that's what it is pretty important to keep in mind, of all the factors that affect u.s. competitiveness or any country's competitiveness, would we stand in each of them. there are many of those but let me just emphasize five in particular. these really matter. number one, you always want to

have an economy that has the most productive, the most innovative and most globally competitive companies to invest and participate in your economy. i think that lead you down the path, how do you think about corporate tax are going, how do you think about regulation, et cetera, to make sure that what those companies participating in your economy. never to come he always want to make sure you have got a disproportionate share of the innovators and entrepreneurs in your economy. how do you make sure that is the case? the third point, which is also want to make sure you have the most skilled, the most productive workers in your economy because otherwise, and you get into a debate and fight on who has the cheapest labor. as launch of the most skilled, most productive labor, these help you compete. and then i think, fourthly important point is you always want to make sure the fact you're the globally traded sector, i talk about

manufacturing, are open to global economic. you have those can get the most competitive and the most innovative sectors of that form. and this is down the path of manufacturing in particular but there are a few others. and then lastly, you want, although reports have shown you also want of the biggest reservoir of research in r&d because that creates the long-term foundation for competitiveness. and allows you to can be. so if you look at each of those, i think he suddenly realized other countries have begun to get better in almost every one of those points. so the question is, how do we get back to where we are leading as a country in each of those. i think much of what's in the report addresses that. >> that's terrific. >> if you don't mind, let me do a case study on one sector to give you a flavor for benchmarking and impact on the five country that james mentioned it i would just take

wireless. america invented the wireless industry, and for decades we've dominated that industry. now, on some measures one could argue there are higher adoption rates of mobile technology in some of the asian countries. so one would look at that and say okay, we have to choose of our adoption rate of are going to compete but if you peel back the onion think about the five frameworks that james mentioned, let's take it in its elements. america used to invent the underlying technologies that fuel this wireless revolution. you are a member in your mind the lab, 35,000 injured i grew up in jersey. my dad worked at bell labs committee. is a shadow of itself today. if you loved out the actual manufacturing of wireless communications infrastructure, not a single one is headquartered in the u.s. anymore. not one. and because of the collapse of

bell labs and the private sector's investment in some of the oregon we talk about r&d. it's not clear whether resources are to invest in the next generation of wireless. .com when i talk about the benchmarks of korea or other countries, you could argue that okay we have a current model for how buyers operates, but, you know, what? america will also be the first country to have run out of spectrum. where there is a challengers opportunity or whatever that saying, to say which country in the planet will best understand how do we turn a scarce resource spectrum into one of abundance. through technological innovation. and you would say, homeland. and united states. however, you would say where's the fuel that would compel or propel that reality to happen. well, it is not a significant private investment in the r and isn't as much in this case of

wires, particularly not a lot of u.s. current, et cetera, funding in this area. in fact, some of the ironies are some of the professors, we are getting money from overseas companies to fund a research, so the president did something very interesting, and i would argue innovative. he said look, there's bipartisan consensus to promote the kind of newmarket making, a voluntary incentive option that would allow us to repurpose on the existing spectrum that may be used fo for a different economic purses that has better by and mobile broadband that's where this bipartisan consensus moving that says let's get some tools enhance of the fcc to auction off some spectrum. that will throw off new money, money that is not in the legacy budget. let's take a portion of that to invest in wireless innovation. so that we can, in fact, expand the american capacity to achieve these opportunities and to greet the new industries associated with spectrum policy in a world

of sharing, in a world of capacity constraints. and it's an amazing policy that has had bipartisan support, at least in the senate and we're working towards that now in the house, a policy that actually reduces the deficit, invest in this wireless future, and makes good on a policy objective to use that wireless technology to help our first responders, a win-win-win in terms of economy and in terms of the operational needs. and let's see if congress will make good and deliver on this. but that's i think an example of this story of where we can lead again in areas where we have had historical promise and let me ask you, because that's a perfect segue. that story takes one, i think of it as kind of a piece of our infrastructure. >> yes, digital, 21st century. >> so the federal government has a role to play in ensuring justice we did with a highway system, it's a different kind of role. we're not going at all ourselves, but we're going to have to make sure that that

infrastructure gets built. the report lays out for other areas in addition to that, two other areas but traffic control, cloud computing, smart grid. each of those are examples. talk about not so much where we are technologically on each of them but the mechanisms by which government plays a role in the 21st century way to ensure that the public and private sector, together, build the infrastructure. ..

>> in terms of reducing our dependence on excess jet fuel. you could save money on fuel, reduce pollution, all happy and goodness. it is a permitting process for each and every route for us to say, okay, if we're going to change the landing, we need to make sure that, you know, it meets all the environmental this and policies for that and noise. so we made a commitment, the president said we need to make some accelerations here. we included next gen on our 21st century permitting initiative. there's now a dashboard on the white house web site where we've done a deep dive on the houston metro plex to say we're going to cut in half the amount of processing time to achieve the permits. so we can accelerate. what's fascinating about this, it's the private sector

investing entirely -- we've got to do some legacy ground operations, but no net new r&d, if you will, to get the -- i mean, there's a little bit of r can, and -- r&d, but it's private investment. so the tool is permitting. on the issue of smart grid, we have an unbelievable opportunity. by the end of the recovery act investments, we're going to double the amount of smart meters in the nation's homes. that allows them to have kind of the internet properties of bring anything other sorts of energy and managing them in an efficient way, critical for the future as we see it reducing dependence on foreign oil. there we did have some initial capital deployment, but overwhelmingly the business case for smart grid rely on state-regulated utilities, and the judgment and the policy framework is let's share best practices, what works, so that states can make the right judgments in a collaborative way to accelerate these investments,

and you're seeing a dramatic number in the increase of states to move forward with smart grids. there it's about collaboration as much as anything else. and finally you mentioned, the last one was cloud computing and data. it is unbelievable. the government can lead by example. so we shift today a cloud-first policy, and we have embraced cloud computing, and you're going to see a lot moreover our big data, and we are both potentially buyers, so ceding some of the new market opportunities, as well as suppliers of data. for those of you who are going to read the report, data is the rocket fuel for a lot of this. it's the new infrastructure. and who has the most data on the neigh's health care system -- nation's health care system? >> our government. >> you got it, people, and we're releasing it in machine-readable form so entrepreneurs can build valuable products and services on tom.

tom -- top. gld i think historically if you look at the major technological innovations that have really advanced in this country, almost all of them have involved some mix of federal and private sector. so you look at the railroads. yes, it was the private sector companies that built them, but there was huge amounts of federal subsidies. same thing about the canal system. if you look at medical advancements. huge investments in research in universities and research labs which is feeding directly to all sorts of private sector youth. what we're talking about is, you know, it's radical if you talk about the innovations, but it's not if you're talking about what is the role of government. the role of government has always been to step in places where you need public goods investment of the sort that the private sector at least up front when the technologies are new will not make. >> james? >> two quick talking points. i think for those of us who are

not in the administration and live in the private sector and have looked at other countries, one of the things that is important to competition is regulation and the violence. simply making them go faster. if you look at it what is other countries have done around permitting or having approvals for trucks, some of my innovation board members here feel very passionately about this. that's one of the things where the u.s. has kind of slipped. you can get approval for things on the same standards in other countries much faster. and i think that has to change. that's one thing. i think the other thing that's also worth emphasizing in the idea that the federal government or at least the public sector can also use a lot of these technologies to transform itself. we know that health care and education are some of the relatively not so product i sectors of -- productive sectors of the economy. but the government can also be a customer, an absorber of these

technologies in a way that stimulates growth. >> that's great. i want to ask you to follow up on that point a little bit. so last year mckinsey global institute did a report on job creation needs in the economy. it was called an economy that works, and i commend it to folks, i think it was really interesting. and it talked about the opportunities for job creation in some particular sectors in the economy. you mentioned health care, business services, leisure and hospitality and tourism, construction, retail and some particular subsectors of manufacturing, things like chemicals, transportation and some commodities and the like. and, um, other countries have this very explicit focus on sort of sectors of the economy. america has been traditionally, and i think remains, reluctant to have a sectoral investment strategy per se. but there are ways that you can think about the important sectors of the economy and insure that the infrastructure

for their competitiveness are in place. and i'm just curious how you think about the opportunity for this sectoral analysis to play a role in a competitiveness strategy. >> well, i think it's fundamental because the competitiveness question is one of the growth prospects that are actually very different. there are sectors that look very robust and others that don't look as robust. so if you're trying to solve for jobs which is a very important issue to solve for, you do have to take a central view. i think it's important, also, one other quick thing on the jobs question in particular which is i think it's a mistake to think of the jobs issue as just driven by the recession. right? the economy already had a relatively weak job engine even right up to before the crisis or the recession. that was already the low job creation decade for many, many years. i think it's important to

recognize some of the structural changes that have occurred in the economy. a lot of those have to do with what goes own on at the sector level, the sills mismatches and the sector where people have skills, there's a mismatch. there's the mismatch between what sectors need in terms of skills versus what's available, so back to the education issue. there are also mismatches even geographically, where the jobs has been top is not necessarily where the people are. one of the things that's quite striking about the u.s. economy, we talk about it being a flexible, highly-mobile work force. not so much anymore. it used to be. that's certainly true if you go back to 945 all the way up to the '90s. that was certainly the case. one in five americans moved cities, zip code, whatever. not so much anymore. more like one in ten. so there are all these mismatches that require that you take a look at the sector level, at the skill level and even at the regional and geographic level to think about how do we

solve for that. now, what's interesting that some other countries have done a relatively better job of that, germany comes to mind. it's a lot easier to get kind of the market information about what skills are companies hiring for, where are these jobs, which sectors are growing. that information's relatively more available than it is here. and look at the outcomes. it's quite striking when you look at the recession, for example, on a gdp basis. germany actually had a deeper recession than we did, actually, and yet they actually grew jobs in the same period. where the less deep recession -- still very deep, but relatively less teach than germany, we lost a lot more jobs. >> yeah, go ahead. >> i want to just push back slightly on the notion that the u.s. is awkward on the sector issue. if you con constrained your view to top down, picking winners and losers, absolutely. that's lame. we would not go there. however, i think what you'll hear, read in this report is

that in a bottom-up vision, you can be very thoughtful about sector-specific bottle necks and opportunities. so allow me to share the health care example for purposes of this discussion. the american health care system today is overwhelmingly built on an incentive structure that encourages more volume versus one that everyone -- emphasizes the value for dollars spent. and, therefore, the american health care industry has been designed to reinforce that which it has been sniffized to do -- incentivized to do. if you shift the model to paying for outcomes or for value, one could unleash some of the productivity opportunities that james has written about in the past. and in the same spirit of the casety issue on wireless issue, we'll -- hopefully -- be the first nation on the planet to tackle what does the economy look like in a world of reincentives around outcomes and

value? and you'll see a lot more products and services that could also be exported around the world. therefore, it's an industry of the future. you might call that a sector. now, what is it that we can do in a bottom-up philosophy? what's 21st century infrastructure? we have already doubled the doctors and hospitals in america that are using electronic health records, and we are going to rock and roll forward because the president's recovery act had even more -- i would call that infrastructure investment. number two, we acknowledged that if you want to get to value instead of volume, this is a question of numerators and denominators. we know what we spend. we don't know what we spend for. well, how do you measure outputs, brother? how are we measuring outputses? not well! [laughter] what happened in the affordable care act? one of the most powerful provisions of the affordable care act empowered medicare to release its data for the

purposes of allowing the private sector to publish quality reports on hospitals and doctors. for a whopping 50 grand -- we just released the reg. did you see it? >> i did see it. >> it's pretty cool. >> it is pretty cool. [laughter] >> for $50,000 a company, private sector, can consume that data to help us define the outputs in hospital care and medical care, physician care. and that has never been done before. so now we have data as infrastructure, doctors and hospitals that have i.t. systems and a whole new industry ready to go to combine a and b to empower new products and services. face time video chats between doctors and patients that are reimbursed in a different way, text message alerts to make sure mom be, grandma's taking her meds. and often we play a role offering seed capital.

in november medicare and cms, i should say to be specific, announced a $1 billion innovation challenge. in increments of 1-$30 million. small grants, bottom up. start america like get entrepreneurs moving. if you have a breakthrough idea that will shift the health care system to value over volume and you need that initial kick, welcome. come on in. we're going to bring applications in, and by march have the first tranche of investments out to seed what that future will look like. that's an example of bottom-up sectoral, winning strategies in line with everything you will read in this report. and i believe the net effect of this will be that the products and services we invent in this new value-driven health care system will be, exported all over the world and will lead to dramatic increases in jobs and,

oh, by the way, lowering our health care costs to free up more capacity for other sectors of the economy. so win/win/win if i put this together. so -- >> am i right, james? >> oprah winfrey, we have a successor. [laughter] >> no, no, as to what the policymakers in government can do. i think it comes down to four kinds of things. one of the things about smart policy making is recognizing that the world has changed. as a country we now have to compete for all kinds of things; talent, labor, companies, all of that. smart policy making. second, i think you have to recognize the kinds of public/private partnerships that aneesh is talking about because the government has assets and capabilities, but that can be taken advantage of by entrepreneurs and innovators. so how do you open that up? and i think the last thing is just investment straight up. there's so many areas where

there are market failures, investing in long-term r&d where no one else is going to do it, so the federal government has to do it. how do you identify those areas where you're going to do the smart investment. >> i think the government also plays a role in terms of the aspect of the data, the infrastructure, the tools that, um, the private sector needs. >> absolutely. >> so, becky, i wanted to ask you particularly about one of those sectors that the secretary talked about in his remarks, which was manufacturing. in the mckinsey jobs report from last year when they looked at the potential for job growth opportunity to kind of meet the need we have as an economy to create another 22 million jobs to get us back where we were, manufacturing does not -- on the one hand in mckinsey's view -- does not look like a great growth opportunity. but whether it remains a strong, stable, important sector of our economy is sort of an open

question at this point. it could continue to decline, or if we focus on some key areas, could remain with a different mix of manufacturing, an important pawft of our -- part of our economy. talk a little bit about what this report has to say about manufacturing and how we make the better of those two paths become reality. >> yeah. so, i mean, i think it's quite clear that we need some manufacturing sector to our economy, and we could argue about how big it needs to be, but, um, it's an incredibly important sector. as the secretary noted, it's one of the major producers of exports, um, and it's generally high wage sector. so if you're worried about some of the wage and inequality issues, manufacturing looks good. higher wages, higher benefits, all sorts of things. so the question is how do you move forward to try to stabilize manufacturing. on the one hand, product it has grown -- productivity has grown enormously. but it's also clear that the forces that james talks about

where other countries have gotten smarter and faster and more competitive have also affected manufacturing. so particularly in the 2000s, there are a number of very good economic research studies that simply say we have lost jobs through, you know, by being less competitive than some other areas in the manufacturing sector. it's not just a matter of increasing productivity, it's a matter of losing out to more aggressive and competitive sectors in other parts. world. so why is that a problem? it's also a problem because if you care about innovation, and i think all of us believe that in the long run ideas, innovation, smart people are what's going to drive this economy. you have to, you know, in order to innovate, you also have to produce. you cannot imagine having just the research and development labs in this country and not having the facility that lets you produce the prototypes, you know? there's a reason why the researchers are often located very close to the production facility. they want to experiment. they want to see how it works in realtime and then go back and

tinker and try again. so, you know, to be a top-line innovator, you've got to also have real production facilities here on the ground. now, that doesn't mean the u.s. needs every single sector in manufacturing remitted here. clearly, there are some areas where we are less competitive and have less comparative advantage, and i think if you want to talk about what are the sectors that we need to really compete hard on and we need to keep in this country, you go into the sort of analysis that james is doing, you know, looking at very sector-specific, what are the skills needed, what does this do, how does it mix with the other cluster of activities that are going on in the economy. in general it is the, you know, the higher technology type manufacture, the high value-added manufacturing that i think clearly this country wants to capture and maintain in a long-term, stable basis. and, um, you know, doing that, um, goes right back to all the things we've been talking about it means you've got to have the infrastructure to ship goods, have the work force that is going to be skilled that that

group of industries and sectors needs, and, you know, you've got to have the innovative capacity that does the building blocks at universities and research labs and other places, um, that manufacturing then takes and turns into products. >> so let me, i want to close with this group with an open to anyone. i want to talk briefly about r&d and its relationship to manufacturing and more generally to this competitive strategy. um, aneesh, you may want to talk about public sector r&d, but i'd like the other panelists to talk about private sector. and i'll do a brief cap plug. this afternoon cap is releasing a report by laura tyson who has had an illustrious career and is also a member of the president's jobs council. she and her co-author have analyzed the u.s. r&d tax credit and its centrality in creating these public benefits that come from larger public benefits that come from encouraging private sector r&d investment.

um, and so we can all look for that on the web. the tax credit is one of the r&d pieces that's mention inside this report. just talk very briefly about the role that r&d plays and what the government's role is encouraging both public and private r&d. whoever wants to start. >> and the report goes deep on this, but i'll just share it from the i.t. standpoint. there's no question that if you looked at the billion dollar segments of the i.t. economy, nearly all of them originate with some federal r&d investment. you can even look at companies like google that were worn out of a grant on libraries indexing or even the work on the mosaic browser. so nearly every subsegment of the i.t. economy originates -- berkeley has this beautiful chart that actually maps back which of the key subsegments of the billion dollar plus industries in i.t. originated from federal r&d investments. so category a, continuing that

nsf engine to cede kind of basic activity does have, in fact, over time -- and this is the long-term point that james made -- an impact on the economy. we have applied benefits, and no question in anyone's mind that darpa has been a phenomenal resource for the commercialization benefit of the work that they're doing, the internet, gps, stealth, you name it. these technologies were very, very much critical and were guided and directed by the wonderful work at darpa which, by the way, is why you see the president so committed both in terms of investing in areas like arpa-e which is already this just its start-up years has generated significant private capital, follow-on investment because so many of the innovations have already hit some of their key milestones. so the applied piece is certainly there. and then the third tranche is the tax credit policies. you probably should comment more on that. in the basic area we've seen

direct benefits especially in i.t., in areas of the applied work there's been spillover k and then i think the tax policies in this area. the president laid out a very ambitious goal to get america's collective, that is public and private, r&d investments back to where it was and exceed anything many cases investments of the future, and he's been very committed even in the difficult fiscal climate. you will always note in the president's budget, we always prioritize the research and development investments, and it's based on this ed. evidence. >> the only thing i'd add is i think, again, to emphasize the long term and, again, the fact that it's usually the long term where you tend to have market failures in terms of who invests in it. so r&d tax credits, i think, are very helpful because it gets companies to think more long term. but i think it's important to recognize when you think about long-term r&d, especially the r, i think secretary blank made the point which is it comes back to you're trying to create public goods on which innovators and

others will take advantage and build these amazing, interesting companies. and that long-term r&d really happens in government labs, in universities, and when companies have been given the right incentives to think about the long term much more than they otherwise would. that's where the role of r&d tax credits comes in above and beyond what they would normally do. >> all right, great. with that, i think what we're going to do is we have a few minutes for questions from the audience. um, please, if you would, wait until billy comes to you with a mic. i'll call on i yo. and i would also ask, if you would, to identify your name and the organization you're with. so, billy, why don't you come on back here first. the woman with the vest, we'll start there. thank you very much. >> hello, i'm ann, i'm an einstein fellow and a math and computer science teacher at thomas jefferson high school for science and technology. and i'm very glad to be here, but i do have a couple almost concerns. i'm very thankful and glad that the report talked about

education, and secretary bryson brought up the importance of educating our youth for the work force of tomorrow to have the technological skills, but i'm also very concerned because that, even the report says more than half the s.t.e.m. jobs are computer based, and none of our students are seeing computer science in k-12. i'm at one of the five high schools in the country that requires it, schools don't even offer it, and that's a real problem when we look at the skill set and the technology of the future and what's going on in our schools today, so i'm curious for your opinion. >> without any doubt, the president has been deeply committed to s.t.e.m. education, and that -- i would break down s.t.e.m., he wouldn't use these words, but i would. there's a sm strategy and there's an et strategy, and sm is -- i wouldn't call it regulated, the wrong word, but science and math has common core standards or and so forth, but et is the policy equivalent of a wild, wild west. that is to say there are no

national -- there are standards or in some cases, pockets of them, but it's an opportunity for innovation. so what you're finding in our policy area is we are very, very aggressive. we're leaning forward on the whole learning technologies paradigm. the president delivered a speech at tech boston academy earlier in the year where he envisioned a year of dramatically more uses of technology in the classroom and the incorporation of technologies as a learning tool. and by the way, um, there is a future here that you don't have to have a ph.d in physics in order to begin working on coding. in fact, now, in fact, there's -- we just had an event at the white house yesterday celebrating all these summer jobs we're going to provide for young people. there are companies that are offering coding courses, how do you build iphone apps and android apps and so forth that would allow folks in schools to be able to play and tinker. and so you're seeing in the investment innovation fund at the department of education, the i3 fund, opportunities for schools to promote new curricula

emphasizing the et. in fact, s.t.e.m. is a key priority in their evaluation criteria. but in addition to that we're thinking about gameification, how do we bring the principles of gaming? one of the things you've learned from the gaming industry is that every single interaction in this a game is an assessment data which the gaming companies use to make better judgments about -- you look at our ability to assess a child's performance in school. you get the letter grade at the end of the year, and you take a test. you know, if you compare the file on a gaming assessment which is megabytes of data per kid versus the two kill la bits of numbers we know on a child here, i think you're going to see a couple points from the president; a s.t.e.m. initiative that's encouraging innovation in the et, you're going to see more investments in areas that think about the gaming and the other kind of learning technologies

infrastructure which is why we launched digital promise, and collaborations of the private sector to bring some of those training programs into career and technical schools, ctes, and i think that's an area of great promise. >> terrific. we had here in the -- move up two spots, and then we're going to go to the back, and i think that's all we can take. >> dr. richard singer at the johns hopkins kerry business school and a co-founder of a social media company, and an applicant for one of those challenge grants coming up. two, two questions. one -- >> quickly. >> -- about the structure of that kind of program, wouldn't it be better from a policy point of view instead of like a billion dollar tranche now and a billion dollars coming up in six months, if there was a way to make it more evened outover time? so maybe it's a quarter of a billion dollars every three months, and so as new

innovations pop up, especially in i.t. where things can happen in a matter of months, you can have a more even, cyclical process? that's question one. question two, after we win one of these, the folks we're going to be hire rg going to be, like, i.t.-savvy nurses, you know, ph.d.s in computer science and algorithms. how do you address the fact that these other countries whether it be singapore have these deep skill sets? you're not going to be able to take someone who just lost a manufacturing job and put them overnight in an i.t.-intensive job. how do you take that middle part of america that didn't have that background that some of us were fortunate to get and give them what they need in order to be able to do 23st century high-end, high-value-created jobs? >> go ahead. >> first of all, i mean, the vast majority of the research that we support doesn't come this way. it comes by supporting people, labs, universities, you know, with long-term sort of basic

support. so folks who have a good idea tomorrow have the money that they need to try and go pursue it. so i do think the majority of our research funds does resolve that problem. the new ideas topic questionly, and we've -- pop up quickly, and we've got a structure that addresses that. so, i, you know, wouldn't worry about that particular issue. >> does anyone -- go ahead. >> this is really important though. the reason why, becky, this particular question is being asked is it's not the money that the medicare innovation center is awarding that matters. in fact, i would argue it's not relevant as much. it is the policy tools that say if what you experiment with leads to a new reimbursement methodology that proves quality goes up and costs go down, you can change the regulation smart policy so that that reimbursement methodology scales. so what we're doing to be very specific in the example i referenced is not basic r&d at all, it is basically ceding

reimbursement pilots that with evidence can then scale to change the medicare e are imburstment formula and help us create the market conditions for a better economy. i'm take your point -- let's just see what happens in the first tranche. in the recovery act, we funded a series of community college programs that are all open source so that now dozens of colleges around the country are training what you would otherwise have called, you know, middle class americans in other sectors to take. you could be a medical coder in as little as three months. so, please, i understand you can't be a data scientist in three months, but there's a whole range of jobs that are going to come out of this new sector and, in fact, the grants in particular look for those creation. and so that kind of investment in community college infrastructure was critical to the programming of the, of the health i.t. initiative in general. >> that said, i think everyone who looks at s.t.e.m. understands, you know, it's not just what you do in college or at age 20, it's what you do at age 5, 6, 10 and 11 that really

matters, and working on s.t.e.m. is not just a matter of federal policy, it's what happens inside families and communities, it's the messages the media send out. this truly is a national partnership if we're going to work on s.t.e.m. issues. >> all right. so also on the aisle in the back, and then we are going to have chances for other people to ask their questions in smaller groups. go ahead, please. >> director of the center for learning and competitiveness at university of maryland's graduate school public policy, current consultant. also with some questions on the talent issue. largely, your report has been about framing the federal role and the role of the federal framework. one of the talent area that we hear a rot about is -- a lot about is immigration, and i was surprised this your leafing that out because historically a big driver of innovation in the united states has been we've been a place that people wanted to come, and we've welcomed the best.

the other question that i would ask quickly is that for a generation of current americans and parents we didn't grow up in this world. so we're not used to making decisions about learning in s.t.e.m. or the importance of motivating and supporting our children in s.t.e.m.. so how do we tell the story in english to a broad number of americans so that adults and young people are making investments in themselves and voters are making choices to support this kind of framework that you all have discussed? >> so let me say a bit about the immigration. i think there is some issue, a small section on immigration in the report. it isn't very expensive, but there's a lot of important issues that aren't very extentive, and i certainly agree that immigration is an important source of skilled labor into this country, and making the availability, you know, as others here have mentioned people to be able to stay in

this country and to use their skills, you know, within american businesses and american universities is, um, something that we should be all working on to make that more available in terms of immigration reform. um, i just -- i could address the question about s.t.e.m., but if others want to? >> go ahead. >> so the question, you know, how to you motivate kids to be interested in this, and let me say two things that are really quite different. as i noted before, i think there are multiple issues here, and there's no one single answer to this. on the one hand, i do think we have to do a better job of teaching science and math at the elementary school level. um, you know, many of our elementary school teachers -- wonderful as they are -- this is not their pleasure area of expertise, and it often gets skimped in the curriculum in a variety of ways. i know there are a number of pilot projects really trying to deepen both interest and hands-on learning in some of those fields and see what difference that makes. so there's a curricular issue there. on a whole other side, i really do believe the media here

matters, right? and, you know, i just want to see a whole bunch of really great tv and youtube and, you know, other forms of movies where the protagonist is in a laboratory, you know, or is a doctor or is an engineer. you never see those role models -- >> more nciss, right. >> >> you could throw a little bit of seemmy sex in order to sell it. >> the commerce department is now promoting -- [laughter] >> on this very point, today is a telling day. it's the launch of the first robotics challenge that will come out for the kids to compete in. tens of thousands of kids across the country. and this particular example, i was a judge in my earlier life, and i was down at the championships last year. will.i.am filmed the championships for first robotics and paid off the his pocket -- out of his pocket to buy an abc special for one hour. and he said, look, if black eyed

peas can sing at the super bowl, he brought the black eyed peas to sing at the halftime show of first robotics. and that, plus a whole bunch of other background video was in that special. so let's acknowledge that the celebration is a big part of this equation, and i want to just particularly say that today's the day for firsts, so it's a good segway. >> all right. that's an upbeat note to end this. better will.i.am than steamy sex. [laughter] >> today on c-span2, florida governor rick scott gives the state of the state address. he's expected to talk about his jobs creation package and auto insurance costs in that state. that's life at 11 a.m. ian here on c-span2. also today on c-span2, the center for strategic and international studies hosted a discussion on the future of the internet. that's live at 3:30 p.m. eastern. >> if we begin now to match our

policies with our ideals, then i believe it is yet possible that we will come to admire this country not simply because we were born here, but because of the kind of great and good land that you and i want it to be and that together we have made it. [cheers and applause] that is my hope, that is my reason for seeking the presidency of the united states. [applause] >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our web site, c-span.org/the contenders, to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> the leadership of this nation has a clear and immediate challenge to go to work effectively and go to work immediately to restore proper respect for law and order in this land and not just prior to election day either. >> these young people when they get out of this wonderful university will have difficulty finding a job.

we've got to clean this mess up, leave this country in good shape and pass on the american dream to them. >> go to our web site, c-span.org/the contenders. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction be authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web site, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> fcc chairman julius genachowski outlined proposed changes to the government's lifeline program aimed at reducing fraud and adding broadband internet. the program currently provides subsidized phone service to the poor using a portion of the universal service fund on everybody's telephone bill with. his remarks are about 25 minutes.

[background sounds] >> morning, everyone. my name is matt bennett, i'm the senior vice president for public affairs at third way, your host for this morning. we're delighted to have you all. you know, when i was growing up, my grandmother used to write out phone numbers beginning with letters. her number was gp6-6814 if you want to call her, and i remember calling her from our house with rotary phones. if those phones were still on the wall at my parents' house, my children would not know how to operate them. and at third way, we are about addressing america's challenges with modern ideas, bringing things into the 21st century just as rotary phones have evolved into the 21st century technology. and that's precisely what the fcc and chairman genachowski are doing today. we're going to hear more a little bit about some of their efforts to modernize this vital government agency.

the fcc's in the middle of a concerted effort to create and reform programs that will empower consumers and meet america's communications needs in this century. julius genachowski is just the person to lead that job. of course, he was appointed chairman in 2009, he was returning to the agency where he had served as chief counsel. before that he spent more than a decade in the private sector working on technology and media industries. he was a law clerk to not one, but two supreme court justices, david souter and william brennan, and he worked in congress for then-representative, now-senator and friend of third way, chuck schumer, among ore jobs up there -- other jobs up there. the chairman is spearheading that commission's reforms to accelerate deployment of broadband, and third way strongly believes this is a vital part of creating jobs and economic opportunity in this country. and as we'll hear in a moment, the chairman is working with his colleagues on efficient and transparent reforms which is

exactly what we believe needs to happen in agencies like this, and we applaud this tireless work to eliminate waste and to drive growth. so with that it's my pleasure to give you the fcc chairman, julius genachowski. [applause] >> well, thank you. matt, thanks for that introduction. thank you for welcoming me to third way. for the reasons you said, a perfect venue for a talk on smart, responsible government. thank you all for coming. i know there's a lot of competition for your attention. you've got the football playoffs, you have got the new hampshire primary or a wonky policy speech. once again, you've chosen the less obvious but wise third way. it is a pleasure -- [laughter] to be here to talk about our proposal to reform and modernize

lifeline, an fcc program created by congress to help insure low income americans have access to basic communication services. this is one of the many fcc initiatives to harness the opportunities of communications technology to benefit our economy and all americans. it's an important part of our ongoing effort to modernize our programs, to modernize them for broadband, and to insure that they are efficient and fiscally responsible. what is our mission at the fcc? since becoming chairman, i've worked to focus the agency on driving innovation, driving investment, promoting competition and empowering consumers. there's never been a more exciting and challenging time to be at the fcc. broadband internet, wired and wireless is the most transformative new technology since electricity. it's changing almost every aspect of our economy and our

lives. it's why we developed america's first national broadband plan, a comprehensive strategy to build a world-leading broadband infrastructure and bring the benefits of high-speed internet to all americans. for the past two years, we've been working to implement that plan, and 2011 was a year of accomplishment for all of the commissioners and staff at the fcc. we adopted a major modernization and overhaul of the largest part of the universal service fund, the interrelated carrier compensation system, multibillion dollar a year program that we've reformed for the modern age to meet our 21st century strategic goals. we've put in place strong and balanced rules to preserve internet freedom and openness and spur investment and innovation throughout the broadband economy and, indeed, over the last year if you look at the broadband economy both network and infrastructure be and also absent services across

the ecosystem, investment up, innovation up, jobs up. it's a thying sector of our -- thriving sector of our overall economy although this is still much more work to do. we took many steps over the course of 2011 to make sure that the u.s. has a strategic broadband advantage in the global marketplace and that we drive investment in the nation and the u.s., foster competition and empower consumers. one lesson i learned during a decade in the private sector, and thank you for mentioning my background, a lesson i learned as an executive and investor is that an organization's ability to advance its mission depends not just on what it does, but how it does it. since day one i've made it a priority to improve the way the fcc does business. etch sizing the need -- emphasizing the need for smart,

responsible government. and i want to commend my negative commissioners for being part of this effort. one of my fist acts as chairman was to appoint a special counsel for fcc reform. if you don't organize for reform, you're less likely to have reform. i directed her to lead an agency-wide review of our rules and processes. we've already, pursuant to that effort, eliminated more than 200 outdated rules and dozens of unnecessary data collections at the fcc. and at the same time, we've cracked down on fraud and abuse. in fiscal year 2011, we logged a record $67 million in enforcement penalties and settlements. consistent with a number of congressional directives to insure modern communications are available to all americans, the fcc administers a number of programs to help connect underserved populations, rural americans, the hearing impaired, children and low-income

americans. these are vital programs grounded in a longstanding national commitment to the idea that essential infrastructure and platforms -- electricity, highways, telephone services and now broadband -- should be available to all americans and that we all benefit from universal service. we've put all the programs we administer under the microscope asking the tough questions and reforming our programs to make sure they are efficient and fiscally responsible. the program can be efficient and fiscally responsible and still be ineffective, and that's why we've also asked if programs need to be modernized to meet today's needs and be effective. we found that we'd inherited a series of programs that needed to be updated for the internet age and must, oh, and most also needed careful scrubbing to insure they were carrying out their missions effectively and efficiently. is and so we've worked to reform

and modernize our programs, rooting out waste, fraud and abuse and insuring that our programs are serving the right policy goals in today's broadband role. for example, we reformed the video relay service which provides vital communications for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. the program had suffered from serious abuse. now we've made changes to eliminate incentives for fraud and have already saved taxpayers about $250 million. our e-rate program helps connect america's schools and libraries to the internet. it's a successful program, and we've reformed it to make it better and be more efficient. we eliminated unnecessary restrictions and red tape giving schools and libraries the ability to get high or capacity and more cost effective broadband services. we've removed barriers that kept schools from opening their computer labs as hot spots for their communities. allowing them to provide internet use when students aren't in school, allowing what we call school spots.

reflecting the increasing use of digital textbooks and tablets and the need for continuous reinveption -- reinvention of our programs, we're also running a learning on the go pilot project to test the use of e-rate funding for off-campus mobile connectivity. most recently, as i mentioned, we approved a once in a generation overhaul of the multibillion dollar programs that insure communications network reach rural america, the largest part of the universal service fund and the related intercarrier compensation system. we took a system that was still focused on supporting 20th century telephone service and doing so pretty wastefully, paying as much as $2,000 a month for a single phone line and subsidizing multiple carriers in other areas. we transformed it into the connect america fund which will efficiently and effectively spur wired and wireless broadband buildout to hundreds of thousands of homes in the near

term and put us on the path to universal broadband deployment by the end of the decade by using smart, market-based policies and cutting waste inefficiency. we were able to do this while for the first time putting the fund on a budget. and our intercarrier compensation fund will eliminate subsidies and spur the rollout of innovative communications services. now, tomorrow i will circulate to my fellow fcc commissioners an order to reform and modernize the universal service fund's lifeline program. the circulation of this draft order an opportunity to take another major step forward in our efforts to modernize our programs for the digital age and to make them efficient and fiscally responsible. lifeline is a vitally important program. it implements congress' directive that -- and i'm quoting from the statute --

consumers in all regions, including low income consumers, should have access to telecommunications and information services. over the past two decades, it has helped tens of millions of americans afford basic phone service. lifeline recipients rely on their phones to do everything from finding a job to coordinating child care to calling 911 during an emergency. the other day at the fcc we heard from a local lifeline recipient who had a chronically ill daughter. she said her lifeline-supported phone has enabled her to make multiple emergency calls to her daughter's doctors at children's hospital meaning this assistance has literally been a lifeline. but the program has also had its problems, and we can't and won't ignore them. some carriers are providing lifeline service to individuals that already have lifeline service from another carrier. there's currently no database of recipients the carriers can

check against before signing up a new customer. and we've received reports that some unscrupulous carriers are abusing the program, obtaining support for consumers who did not sign up for lifeline by mailing them phones already set up for lifeline service or signing people up for lifeline who aren't eligible for the program. defrauding a public program designed to help our most vulnerable citizens is flat out wrong with. it's flat out wrong, it's simply unacceptable, and we have launched multiple investigations into these reported violations. where individuals or companies have unlawfully defrauded or abused our programs, we will penalize them, and we will make it clear that it does not pay to rip off government. with the reforms we're now proposing, we would also standardize the program's eligibility requirements and clarify rules to further tackle the issues of duplicative or otherwise improper support. in some cases old rules may have

invited end runs and created loopholes some carriers are exploiting. this order would close those loopholes. lifeline has also lacked adequate cost controls. as the economy improves or worsens and the lifeline-eligible population shrinks or grows, the size of the program will naturally fluctuate, and this explains part of the recent growth in lifeline spending during a down economy. that flexibility is crucial to insuring low income americans remain connected to our communications networks, particularly in tough economic times when, for example, the need to call about job opportunities or to obtain basic services is particularly acute. but much of the program's recent growth stems from waste and inefficiency, and that can't continue. the program need cost controls, and it needs a budget designed to address those issues consistent with the program be's

purpose. program's purpose. finally, the program is outdated, focused on phone service when high-speed internet has become our vitallal commune caigs platform. the commission started the process of reforming the lifeline program with the release of our national broadband plan in early 2010. shortly thereafter, we asked the federal/state joint board on universal service to examine the lifeline program and offer recommendations for reform, which it did. last year the fcc proposed rules that built on the joint board's recommendations and the order being circulated tomorrow implements many of those idea. we haven't waited for this order to take concrete steps. last june the commission adopted an order clarifying that an eligible consumer may only receive one lifeline-supported service creating procedures to detect and deenroll subscribers with duplicate lifeline support

services and establishing an unprecedented process in partnership with major lifeline providers to detect and eliminate duplicative lifeline support. a process now underway in 12 states that will expand to additional states in the months ahead. as a result of these actions, we've already identified more than 200,000 duplicative lifeline subscriptions for elimination saving millions of dollars every month. the order to be circulated tomorrow continues this important work. if approved by the commission, it would reform the lifeline program in a number of significant, additional ways. the order would, for the first time, establish clear goals for the program. clear goals and metrics to measure progress toward those goals. but -- putting goals and metrics in place is crucial to insuring that the fcc and the entity that administers the program are accountable for program performance. one of the goals is minimizing

the contribution burden on consumers and businesses. we pay for the program. consistent with this goal, the draft order contains a number of significant measures to constrain the program's growth and make it more efficient. for example, to prevent multiple carriers from receiving support for the same subscriber, the draft order would create a national lifeline accountability database. the order would also set a budget for lifeline. over the next few years, this would help insure that reforms successfully eliminate unnecessarily spending while the program continues to provide enough support to connect eligible consumers to our communications networks. to insure accountability, every carrier that receives more than a specified annual amount of support from the program would be subject to independent awd -- audits every two years. the order would establish national eligibility criteria to

insure access to lifeline service for all low income consumers who meet federal standards for participation in the program with the recognition of the unique circumstances facing tribal communities. states would be permitted to add to these criteria. the order would make lifeline reimbursement more transparent and streamlined so that carriers receive funds only for subscribers they actually serve. common sense. the order would also take a number of steps to protect and empower consumers including new measures to insure that consumers are informed of program requirements. altogether, our staff estimates that the reforms propose inside this draft order could save the fund as much as $2 billion over the next few years, keeping money in the pockets of american consumers that otherwise would have been wasted on duplicative benefits, subsidies for ineligible consumers or

fraudulent misuse of lifeline funds. this would put the program on a firm footing, it would put an important program on a solid foundation for the future so it can more effectively serve consumers including helping low income consumers afford broadband. which brings me to the final, but perhaps most important reform. beginning the process of modernizing lifeline from telephone service to broadband. broadband has gone from being a luxury to a necessity in the 31st century -- 21st century. it's essential for finding a job, for example, as job postings have moved on line. and for landing a job as companies increasingly require basic digital skills. over 80% of fortune 500 companies do all of their job postings online and require online applications. but one-third of americans

haven't adopted broadband at home. and the majority of low income americans are not adopters. this is a negative cycle. where the people who most need broadband access in order to find a job, develop skills, participate in our economy are at the biggest disadvantage. we know there are three primary barriers to broadband adoption; cost, digital literacy and relevance. all of our work, the work of pew and other entities confirms this. relevance refers to the fact that too many americans don't perceive broadband as having value for them. now, as i said before, there's no single solution to closing the broadband adoption gap. it's why the fcc has taken a number of steps in this area including working to launch the connect to compete initiative which enlists government, nonprofit and private sector leaders to tackle the barriers

to adoption. on digital literacy, partners ranging from best buy to the nation's libraries have made significant commitments to teach americans basic digital skills. on cost the cable industry is rolling out a basic $9.95-a-month broadband plan for families with kids on school lunch programs. it's a very significant initiative. e-government is another powerful tool for accelerating broadband adoption. for example, the winners of the fcc's apps for communities challenge develop tools to help people find jobs, connect the homeless with services and let public transportation riders know when their bus is arriving. and in general, accelerating e-government at the points where government interacts with low income citizens is a real opportunity to address the barriers that we've identified to broadband adoption. and cost, as i mentioned,

members of connect to compete are making broadband service as well as computers available to low income americans at significantly discounted rates. we believe that lifeline, a program that insures low income americans can afford vital communications, can and should be part of the solution. that's why the order i'll circulate to my fellow commissioners tomorrow includes insuring the availability of broadband to low income americans as an expressed program goal, and as a first step toward transitioning the program to support broadband, it would establish a broadband adoption pilot program using savings from other reforms. the pilot program would test and determine how lifeline can best be used to increase broadband adoption among lifeline-eligible consumers. the program would start by soliciting applications from broadband providers and would

select a number of projects to fund starting this year. of lifeline would help reduce the monthly cost of broadband services, but applicants would be expected to help address other challenges to broadband adoption including the cost of quites and tingal -- digital lit cat -- literacy issues. data from all the projects together with programs around the country including comcast internet essentials and century link's intermate basics would be regular rousely analyzed to support broadband. and a proposal that accompanies the order seeks comment on using savings from universal service fund reforms to increase digital literacy training at libraries and schools which could eventually arm more americans with the digital skills they need to fully participate in our 21st century economy and society. lots of people have worked to bring together our broadband

adoption initiatives in general and be our lifeline reforms in particular. i do want to thank the people who contributed ideas to the proposed order, especially the stateses and the joint board as well as the goth accountability office, gao, which has studied the program and made suggestions over the years. i want to commend the staff of the fcc for their hard work crafting this proposal, and i want to thank my fellow commissioners for their input. this has been a subject of discussion internally, and their input is reflected in many parts of the draft order. i look forward to working with both of my colleagues to insure that the lifeline program is efficient, fiscally responsible and that we modernize it to meet the needs of low income americans in a broadband world. thank you for coming and thank you for listening. [applause] >> thank you so much. >> thanks, everybody.

[background sounds] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> today on c-span2 florida governor rick scott gives a state of the state address. he's expected to talk about his jobs creation package, education and auto insurance costs in that state. that's live at 11 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. l also today on c-span2, the center for strategic and international studies hosts a

discussion on the future of the internet. that's live at 3:30 p.m. eastern. >> we begin now to match our policies with our ideals, then i believe it is yet possible that we will come to admire this country not simply because we were born here, but because of the kind of great and good land that you and i want it to be and that together we have made it. [cheers and applause] that is my hope, that is my reason for seeking the presidency of the united states. [applause] >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our web site, c-span.org/the contenders, to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> the leadership of this nation has a clear and immediate challenge to go to work effectively and go to work immediately to restore proper

respect for law and order in this land and not just prior to election day either. >> these young people when they get out of this wonderful university will have difficulty finding a job. we've got to clean this mess up, leave this country in good shape and pass on the american dream to them. >> go to our web site, c-span.org/the contenders. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs, weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web site, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> wisconsin governor scott walker discussed reforms he instituted in his state on collective bargaining rights for government workers and changes to education. from the american enterprise institute, this is about an hour

and 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. thank you for joining us today at the american enterprise institute. my name is nick schultz, i'm thn dewitt wallace fellow here at aei, and i'm also the editor of aei's online magazine,edit america.com. we're honored to have wisconsin governor scott walk we with us.k over the last year, wisconsin u has emerged as a crucialar battleground in the fight over the future of the free enterprise system.legr specifically, the battle over the role played by and the privileges enjoyed by public employee unions. privileges by public employee unions. let me give you a bit on governor walker's background. walker began his political clear

in wisconsin in the state assembly in 1993, where he earned a reputation as a fiscal hawk in the armor. after a stint as milwaukee county executive, he ran for governor and a platform of eliminating the state's budget deficit, creating jobs and cutting taxes. this week marks -- i think is this week marks the first anniversary of scott walker's inauguration in what year it is then. [laughter] in march of 2011, governor walker signed what is known nationally famous legislation to reform public employee bargaining as well as other reforms with an eye towards putting wisconsin on a solid fiscal path. public employee unions five bitterly and unsuccessfully to block reforms. now they are spearheading an effort. but that is done all he did in 2011. the milwaukee journal sentinel, which issued out to pose governor walker's reforms and

criticized recently wrote, quote, governor to announce the budget. he did reduce structural budget differently and did put a lid on property tax increases. he did give schools and municipalities more control over budgets than they've had in years and his efforts at economic development for corporate tax rates and a revamped congress to permit was promising. so that's a lot of accomplishment in a single year. the conversation today with governor walker's designed to shed light on what's happened over the past year was happening now, but also what it might mean for others dates who face similar issues and for the country as a whole. joining governor walker is my colleague andrew biggs, a resident scholar here at aei and prior to joining the principal deputy commissioner of the social security administration. over the last two years, and are as good doing an extraordinary amount of research on employee comp patient, benefits and

pensions and revealing than a foot can only be described as unsustainable as his entrance at work dates across the country. the thank you for being here, governor. >> great to be with you. >> maybe would be useful to take time and tell us what the context was when he came into office and go into some detail about the reforms you propose that were ultimately people and why he decided to do this. >> well, i'll start with that. when you think about it, a year ago governor faced a deficit. governors to public incumbent democrat, independent come you name it. nearly everyone of us faced a deficit in the 90s by five different ways you can balance the budget using all or a combination of those different ideas. one is you can raise taxes. my neighbors to the south have shown just how the attempt to do

that and risk taxes on the 67%. six months later they still have a big budget problem. but that doesn't necessarily work in these tough economic times. another option is you can relax public employees, which is what they're talking about in illinois and connecticut talked about this year, which is what other states talked about. i thought that doesn't make a lot of sense. i don't want any massive numbers in the public or private area. the third option is you can cut coursers is like medicaid. and our state come a lot of people would be surprised, i actually added $1.2 billion to nine medicaid program in wisconsin, one of the largest increases in the country because i thought the growing needs of seniors, needy families in my state come although i did put an reforms so it wasn't a permanent entitlement, but a way of providing a safety net, one of the largest per capita, so i visited make a choice of cutting that either.

and a fourth option is you can use the citrix. my state have been done previous times in the past and was part of the reason why we have such a large deficit to begin with. we look back and restored some of those -- we stopped the raid on the patient compensation and repay the state of minnesota to tax reciprocity payments so they can put money because we knew that was not a good long-term strategy. so you look at those first four options. none of those in my opinion were options, even though other states chose to answer budget. instead we picked up the option, long-term structural reform. i like to say we pick them out chin to talk more about the next generation and the next election. i've got two sons, matt and alex, junior and senior and i wanted to make the state i passed onto them is greater than the one i inherited from the past and for us, that's the real key. in our case on every state is like this, but in wisconsin

case, the biggest single portion of our budget overwhelmingly is the local government. having been a county executive, and if you just pass by a cut from local governments that would foresee their higher property taxes, which i didn't want her devastating cuts there as well. so the only way to offset that and give local governments to assist various state government was reform one of the biggest portions of our budgets, which is compensation. what we did was eliminate click bargaining from the state and local government employees for everything except a salary. we kept it so times are tough. like now was there and sacrifice times are good. public employees got the benefit is the rest of the taxpayers did. so do respect for the taxpayers of wisconsin. in doing so we are powered not only local government does well to ask for things like a master of pension contribution, which

nearly everybody in america does for their retirement and to make a very modest contribution for health insurance premium. in our case 12.6%. the average taxpayer in my state pays 20 to 25% outside of government. so we did all those things, but more importantly without our school districts to do things like that out there health insurance, which is to say tens of millions of dollars. school districts in particular had to buy health insurance from a company owned by the teachers union a bidding that out and hope in the that to our reforms. school districts have saved millions and millions of dollars just by changing where they bought their help insurance from. were able to rein in abuses at them like over time other access without they are by no longer having opportunities were some other state employees could literally call in sick on their ship and come back and work the next shift. bus drivers in places like

madison made $150,000 summer because of overtime. those things about change and now the powers back in the hands of local officials ultimately the taxpayers of our state. so that's ultimately what we did. seems pretty reasonable when you hear us talk about it. probably the biggest reason i think i am a target is in addition to all of that, we allowed nearly 300 public service we have in our state. third out all of this, despite what the others have said, i've repeatedly talked about my respect for the men and women who dedicate their life to public service, both my kids go to public schools to whether a tradition as well. but we allowed them to do was to ultimately choose. they have the right to choose now in wisconsin. they can choose whether they want to be part of a public employee or not can no longer can they do us but taken from payroll. in the end, that's about the focus from out here in washington in terms of the national unions were focused on

and it really comes down to is i took away the gravy train come in the free money they had before and gave that right back to the workers to make that decision. not something mandatory and that's really the focus is. >> thanks. i want to talk about some of the specific sonoita creek entering here. andrew, maybe you can give some of the broader trends that have been going on at the lit matches just in wisconsin other states, too. >> thinks a much, governor for coming today. the background of social security in an assertive federal programs. in a way i see it as is trying to fix state and local governments without public. compensation might ask in the budget without thinking about entitlements. it's technically possible to do, but very difficult t