corporate entity and the national management that was responsible for all of these various instances of sex discrimination. instead it was individual managers of individual stores, so what joined these cases together? the supreme court decided nothing joined them except the women, except the fact that the plaintiffs were women in that lawsuit so they dismissed a class-action. the difficulty this raises is it is going to be very difficult to many of these cases for the individual women to prove their case individually because the statistical evidence might show that a lot of women were discriminated against but it doesn't show that you are one of them. ..

>> going back to educational issues, affirmative action

which was originally intended to be about the big picture, where are we now on that? >> [laughter] >> that is a very big question. >> host: from the civil rights standpoint? >> guest: affirmative action is legally acceptable and a fairly narrow range of circumstances but what we have seen is the legal debate, it has done several interesting things. number one of legal principles that were understood to be in support of things like integration have now been turned against policy that is designed to integrate schools and what have you for affirmative

action policies. they began on a narrow idea that it nearly this describes affirmative action and that is an instance of the kind of thinking that i am describing. does that mean affirmative action should not be controversial but the precise way the law has dealt with with these most important questions rather than eliminate them. we don't make much of a decision now with the popular debate as a result of the legal debate. we don't make much of the state's affirmative-action or higher education or public contracts these are very a different context brought to bear and highly plausible that they favored one and oppose another but they are focused relatively

narrow on the issue of affirmative action. one other thing that has happened as a result with the way the lot is dealt is much of the debate around if we should have affirmative-action and in particular the higher education no context has been truncated as a result of legal opinions that says there is basically only one rationale that is acceptable for higher education which is diversity. so the diversity and almost all described as the appropriate rationale for affirmative action with a narrowing and precisely the place to have a robust debate, universities now have to say it is only diversity that is why we do this proposal another of reasons to remedy the societal discrimination more

ruled out by the supreme court by the most part and i am oversimplifying a tiny bit. the results has been a constructive debate about something we need to have a robust debate about. the state of affirmative-action the popular conversation is an example of rights gone wrong >> host: the issue that the legislation was too ambiguous or open and did so the courts depend move or interpreting its could you go back to make different legislation that is more specific? would that remedy? >> with the affirmative-action context it is not legislation but the constitutional principle. the equal protection clause

is written at a very high level of generality and it is almost inevitable that the courts will have to interpret it. but what i am suggesting this sites that have have been unfortunate that it narrows the debate we can have about the important social crisis slim become much of it has to do with the effort on the part of conservatives to have more conservative judges on all levels? >> that is part of the story. but not the whole story. i say a few things about that. number one, in the 1960's, liberals had an idea and many still do that the courts are naturally the vanguard of social justice

and will be the last resort in the face of a hostile confrontation of political practices. that has not been historic in many ways the progressive jurisprudence of the warren court was historical for a very long period of time they had occupied the role and one could see the zero later court the roberts court. and at most, they are bag being the political process. to the extent because politicians ultimately a point* to the federal judge. they'll lag eighth political process but not escaped from it and it is important to note. but also it is not just the

conservative effort to take over the judiciary which is a natural part six of the political process which anybody in power tries to do but the narrowing of ideas is the reliance on the courts or individual rights that left us without other options when that is what we want to focus on in the book. >> host: the other options of policy? >> changing hearts and minds. the whole new way of thinking about a question primarily in terms of individual and legal entitlements to think of a broad social policy may not involve legal entitlements are individual rights adderall. >> host: is there any argument some of these should be reformed or do we

just move line for other things? >> some should be reformed. i could have a long list of potential reform proposals. [laughter] that would take a variety. but yes. civil-rights laws could be reformed to address those more repressing forms but some of those are back to the future because they were advance in the '70s either rejected or narrowed with the judicial opinion. but many involved do approach that may trade-off for lack of a better term of individual entitlements of social justice let me give one example. my back to wal-mart comment instead of the focus on individual entitlements we had a focus on the laws that try to change the day-to-day practices.

we know those that are vulnerable to bias now businesses are not required but they could be incurred in we are encouraging them if you adopt practice is known to reduce by as you could join some immunity from individual lawsuits. we have greater collective justice for those who could not prove their lawsuit against wal-mart would be better off if colmar were encouraged to have practices less likely to buy as. and in order to encourage them to do that they could enjoy the civil-rights case. that is on possible i.d.'s. >> host: it is interesting on one hand to address a more complicated problems to be at we're also in the middle or in the beginning

and middle of the at gay-rights civil rights legislation. can you talk about the defense of marriage act had you see this play into these issues that we talk about? >> one thing to note is the gay-rights struggle is part of social injustice the bigotry over discrimination, that has not gone away with minorities and women but it is a smaller part of the problem. -- of louis -- lesbians it is the largest part of a problem. as an example of that, the civil-rights approach is appropriate and remarkably effective. the civil-rights movement will remarkably be effective from over discrimination

much more effective than many people expect it. particularly in the area of public accommodation the laws that fell very quickly and much less than people thought and for the first generation bias the conventional civil-rights model is a good thing. that is where we are with those of the issues that are currently facing the gay-rights struggle. they could be second generation and issues also right now the focus is on the form of the overt bias. >> host: it ties into your book that the senate judiciary committee just repealed but they don't think that they can pass that to the general senate. been no that they can't sew

up the same time we have others coming to the judiciary system. how do see that two different process and how they can help? which would be more effective? >> a complex question but on the one hand litigation could inspire the legislative change and so for instance a conventional way to think about brown v. board of education the civil-rights act of 1964 that brown sparked the change to make fat act possible but it is important to note that civil-rights act was necessary to effectuate brown, a very little happened in those years between brown and the civil-rights act of 19642 tide funding for syria's efforts of desegregation. also important to note to that achieved through legislation in the minds of

many had greater legitimacy than those achieved in the court. when social change is achieved through the courts, the argument is always available for the a legitimate intervention for the political process. the will of the people when it is achieved through legislation that is not available and as we see already, gay-rights advocates thinking hard of the trade-off and what is better to win in the way of massachusetts through litigation or the way they did in new york through legislation and in new york there are doing our victory has greater legitimacy coming to the political process. >> host: right. so interesting. knu talk about class division and how these might

be affecting civil-rights ideas and issues? >> absolutely. one of the most important and overlooked problems in thinking of contemporary civil-rights. increasingly, the division of up for class and middle-class middle americans has grown so stark that it is fair to say the kind of injustices that the relative the privilege have our different not just from degree but from those that the underclass face. as a result those civil rights laws that want them to gather -- together both misdiagnose a problem but the kinds of regional justices are much more likely to be subtle, take the form social snubs, invisible impediments

to career advancement. but with the problems of the underclass largely the result of isolation. poverty poor public service and high crime neighborhoods. increasingly we need different solutions and fixing the problem for the underclass requires investment in the under class community better schools in reform to the criminal justice system for prosecutorial misconduct and changes to drug laws that are responsible for most of the disparity of incarceration for on the other hand, the changes to address the problems that those face better like the wal-mart context. there is very different

problems it is not all the usable to lump them together into the category of discrimination. >> host: we will have to close unfortunately it is such a wonderful conversation. i was thinking when i was reading your book from the martin luther king's letter when he talks about we're caught in the inescapable network of mutuality, of whatever affects one directly affects us all indirectly. and your work is so cognizant at these levels for the individual to be a part of the larger whole and it is such an important conversation your emulating and i think you have written this book thank you for joining us. [applause]

>> host: would you tell us your opinion regarding the judicial opinions of clarence thomas? [laughter] i will tell you a little bit. clarence thomas opinions i can only talk about the narrow range there are so

many of his jurists prudence on a number of levels but particularly those involving the strong who libertarians of malcolm x and the same opinion that very often, for instance, with the affirmative-action cases to say it is insulting someone would think the only way blacks could get an equal education is to be in the same room with whites. almost pulled directly broke the same time one of the most strident free-market conservatives on the course, that's the did some things that characterizes most of the clarence thomas discussion about race. it will not surprise you to

hear of the jurisprudence of that race and i don't agree with the consistent thought it is impossible to tell the difference between the nine discrimination they're all forms of racial classification and should be treated with equal contempt. the view that i plush throughout the book is possible to tell the difference between the nine forms and the jobs of judges to evaluate these conflicts in the context in anyone's way. they are called judges for a reason they aren't to make judgment. that maybe hard but that is why repay them. if it were as simple as the people who would finance the simple idea then we could have the computer doing a good job that is my strong this point* of disagreement with clarence thomas

although there are others. [laughter] >> host: all fares argue racial discrimination is also severely need the strongest laws. -- other authors say we should determine affirmative-action what did your stance? i'm sorry, i can i get some help? [laughter] how can we look? is there an argument that we need stronger laws? >> guest: we need stronger laws but also civil-rights

are doing not enough and too much at the same time. again with the subtle forms of bias the system reforms we need more but they may not take the form and probably wouldn't those of our conventionally understood but on the other hand,, when the law is applied indiscriminately comment then sometimes it is too much and in many cases as my book is designed to illustrate we do need to say that prohibits ladies' night. it is both it is the end type of problem which is a vexing thinkpad about the contemporary moment. >> host: this is a curveball comment on the henry s. storey.

is that a civil-rights issue? >> that is a curve ball i don't know if you had a chance to think about that. >> guest: i am aware of the controversy. her resonates because in so many instances, historical a african-americans have been exploited to have their contributions fake and without getting it acknowledgement or credits of there is a sense it is the epitome of that history that includes everything from artistic contribution to the labor and that is why the book resonates. so much. yes, it is a civil-rights issue.

but it does fall into the category of the issue that does not directly involve discrimination and is said to involve the social structure that a class of people are subject more vulnerable to exploitation of the variety. >> host: a wonderful book. here is another hard one. please tell taka he would change hearts and minds. >> guest: the 1.2 wanted to advance with the book is to think about the social justice struggle from the wide range of perspectives that might not involve individual entitlements or things like that so changing hearts and minds comes into that category that right now in many ways advocates for social justice using our

hearts and minds perceived into the civil rights narrative so you start off with a narrative and it is a bigoted town. it is the perfect instance but it is ambiguous and a lot of people have legitimate objections to the idea is straightforward civil-rights the you are preaching to the choir. so that says to me a consistent pattern with many are much of the civil-rights agitation of today that we lost the battle to win hearts and minds of those. but how to fix that is a complicated question because

so many social injustices are not susceptible to a dramatic narrative are susceptible to the narrative of the individual reno has done wrong but instead they are complicated. through statistics and analogies that lead people to flawlessly. that can is the challenge. i don't have a straightforward answer but i do believe that is a challenge to make them more hour to make them come alive to be real without going through the bit to the individual that is a hard narrative to maintain. >> host: have the divide and conquer strategy is by the economic elite? darby dunn?

[laughter] that i thought that was my time call. are the divide and conquer strategy for the economic elite perpetuated climate for racial characteristics and identification to take on exaggerated her -- importance with the general population? >> guest: a very interesting question. i am not sure about the strategy of the elites but i would say that there are many instances in which civil rights policies have played out and have exacerbated the division between the working class. the example of segregation and busing. one of the things that happened was relatively early on, it was decided by the supreme court that busing could not reach the suburban school districts

unless they could be found to have been engaged with discrimination involving the traded could not be desegregated within the city because by the time the case got to the federal court it was 85 percent black and the courts held you could not reach the super been districts that could contribute to meaningful desegregation. out one result is the place is for the wealthy live to were and the metropolitan areas were exempt from desegregation. it was the inner cities, the old cities to be engaged where the busing have been and intensified those effects but also made it appear that desegregation and busing were reserved for the less well off. so that played a role and

resistance to desegregation so the story of the resistance of the desegregation was strongest was the story of racial bigotry but also resentment against the elite and the feeling the white working-class was abandoned by the way to beach. so there are instances that kind of antagonism has been the result may be the unintended result perhaps of the application of civil-rights with poisonous consequences for political dynamics ever since. >> host: what is your opinion of the statement, we fought long and hard for

immigration. but i tell you harry i have come on the realization that really troubles me. martin luther king to harry belafonte. i don't understand the question i have a great last question that i have one i am not sure that you can address but what about the child civil-rights? >> guest: those are not this civil-rights questions restocking about. >> host: that's is the definition of civil rights could be broad but that is not the subject. >> host: this is the last question. what would you have for individuals to exercise their power or position in

society on a day-to-day basis despite the more subtle forms? what the people do who want to make a difference? >> i would say focus on the local issues that are closest to you and look for the ways the subtle biases could affect the institutions that you are a part of and the difficult part is very often the practices that are vulnerable to buy as or give rise there also justified for other reasons. and wal-mart, scott store managers have broad discussions to make decisions of criteria that might be a perfectly good strategy to make the business conduct themselves

but also to be vulnerable to buy as. so then one state of conflict can you do what it takes? even at a cost or when there could be good perfectly neutral reasons to do you are doing now. but most institutions face these questions if they try not to address the problem there could be a cost or a people in trying to address the questions but be willing to do that to take a hard look at your own institution our practices and act if they may be contributing to social injustice. that is what people could do on a day-to-day basis to make a difference. >> guest. >> host: one thing related to that. i have seen cases where individuals might fight for

entitlements it was tied to racism are sexism and that seemed problematic looking to choose their battles for example, talk about oprah winfrey and then you think she was denied entry but the door was closed. is that a good case she should have fought? but then getting into the larger issues right now the other serious. sir reading a book opens the questions. so one thing you should do is buy the book and read it. [laughter] the makes you think about things you may already have opinions on and opens up the ways that you may connect as an individual to them. thank you so much for coming to 95 -- 29 tonight

>> host: this is booktv on c-span 2 at the university of maryland talking with professors who are also authors. we're now joined by professor joyce whose book is called the congressional budget office honest numbers, power and policy making. professor, when was the cbo formed? >> guest: 1974 in fact, in

reaction to some of the perceived excesses of the nixon administration and part of the effort of congress to reassert its role of the budget process and as a part of that they created the budget committee and budget resolution of they are equal players of the process and they really needed to have their own budget agency as opposed to relying on the numbers from the executive branch and that is the reason for the cbot seven yes or no has been successful? >> phenomenal successful and i think the success was mostly measured that if you talk to most people in the media and if they are being honest on both sides of the aisle and congress that the congressional budget office concerning the budget probably has the most credible numbers are information out there. that was not a foregone conclusion and that

necessarily was destined to happen and if you said to someone 1974 we will create a nonpartisan agency in the middle of the most partisan environment imaginable, will that work? i think a lot of people would have said no. but it was made to work and they worked hard on that but that score it has been successful. >> what is commission? >> to provide nonpartisan and information on the economy and the budget to the congress and increasingly to the public as well. that was not as anticipated when the cbo was formed but there is a lot of excess of individual members of the public and the media have those products they did not have before because of the internet and other sources and increasingly the mission has broadened to the

congress. the nature is crucial and the law that created the cbo said only that the director and cbo staff should be appointed without regard to partisan affiliation but the good first director alice rivlin such a giant still going strong at the age of 80 really created a culture move from director and staff reappointed without regard to partisan affiliation to doing their work in a non-partisan manner. >> host: who appoints the director. >> guest: appointed by the speaker of the house and the president pro temper of the senate who we know is a member of the majority party with the greatest amount of seniority but practically

speaking it is the chair and ranking member of the senate budget committee that is responsible for selecting the director. there have been eight directors since the formation. four of them have been nominal democrats four of them are nominal republicans. what they all have in common is they are card-carrying middle-of-the-road people that he would consider to be relatively moderate members of their party's although nominal republicans. the current director is almond north and has been director of this is his third year and is very active. most people who know about the cbo probably know about him but he was all over the place over the obama health care reform.

when the cbo became the crucial arbiter whether the health care reform would actually add or subtract to the deficit. >> host: professor, you write in your book because of the cbo they put off action on the health care bill for one year. >> correct. have if the health care reform had not been viewed as something that had to be deficit neutral then i think the cbo would not necessarily have had such an important role but one of the things you say you are concerned about and obama's said elevated this cbo to the stature by saying he would not sign a bill that had a deficit that really meant it was a much higher hurdle for the bills to get over had not been true. certainly there were delays in various stages of the process because congress was

waiting to find out whatever the latest version was could pass this cbo test. >> host: doug bowman to refuse to work for dick gephardt? >> guest: i am not sure. it is possible to seven is there a professional staff has well that goes through the administration? >> guest: there is. interestingly nonprofessional like you would find with most federal agencies. first, dominated by a ph.d. economist that you cannot find in the federal agency usually but the cbo staff work at the pleasure of the director. of a director could come in to clean house on the number one if they wanted. in that respect the relation of the cbo staff and director is like the relationship of the congressional staff to a member of congress. no director has ever come in and decided to clean house and a number one because

there's a lot of expertise that resides in the cbo staff so the practice has been for the staff to stay from one director to another but really because that is what the directors have chosen to do. there was one case when o'neill director was appointed just after the republicans took back congress 1994 that the assumption was she would come in and clean the place out. the house republicans, the leadership wanted her to do that. of the assumed because the cbo staff had been there for a long time under democratic rule that must mean there were giving comfort to the democrats. the senate republicans particularly senator domenici who was the top republican on the senate budget committee did not want that to happen in she

did not do that much to the surprise of some house republicans. >> host: how big is the cbo and what is the budget? >> guest: it is about 250 people. i think the budget is somewhere in the neighborhood 25 or $30 million. that is the ballpark. not a big agency. it has all lot more influence in a new think an agency of 250 people would have. >> host: why was alice rivlin so important in the early days of the cbo? >> guest: i think she was important because she had a clear vision of what she wanted the agency to do. she set out to make the organization in that image and was pretty stubborn about it in a sense she had a vision sometimes pushed by

members of congress to move in a different direction and pretty clear about the direction she wanted to go. once she did that she began to create a culture in the organization that is one of the most interesting parts of the story of the cbo that it takes not only it was an agency that was supposed to be non-partisan in the middle of this partisan environment but the organization starting from scratch prepare you don't have a model necessarily to go from all you have been told is the new director is to create an organization to make it responsive to congress in a non-partisan manner. you have to figure out what that means for the issue is very clear it brought people together how will be know if this has been a success? but then she had to hire

people and find the people whose the days to she thought to work in the organization to realize this type of vision and that was an extraordinary thing to do. she was there to terms and that made a big difference so by the end of eight years, it was relatively well established. however it was still possible that director could come in to change things who was a republican. alan greenspan called him a republican alice rivlin. he behaved that way. he reinforced the things she had said and once that happened and then the next director followed him and did pretty much the same thing then they were off and running in the sense one to create a culture you sustain it over 15 years now it is pretty well ingrained. >> host: has the cbo been

used as a political football? >> guest: absolutely. the one thing you can say about organizations that produce information is you cannot make any better use that information or interpret that accurately. whoever is to could be a supporter or component of a particular policy could clear the use this cbo cost estimate to say this is a bad or good policy and that certainly happened with the clinton health care reform 1993 and 1994 cbo come up with the estimate that said the clinton health care reform rather than saving money that they said would actually cost money was one of many aspects that someone could look at two judges that was a good or bad reform but they grab on to

that particular conclusion to use it to their best 10 to see if they could go to bat fell 37 we are talking with professor philip joyce at the university of maryland his book the congressional budget office park recently with the super committee, how was the use? >> it was only using one way it should have been used. it was used to help the super committee to set the parameters of what they were going to do. director of the door of testified multiple times before the super committee on the nature of the problem facing the country and what kinds of things need to happen and what would be a reasonable trajectory to get the deficit down for

example, and clearly the cbo staff behind the scenes work for the super committee to answer questions and a lot of work that the cbo does that is not physical two provided by ase when asked from the staff of the committee. what would have happened if they had been successful is the cbo would have had to score with other -- river legislative changes they came up with whether to determine to meet the target set for the super committee that needed to come up with deficit reduction of 1.2 trillion dollars to prevent the automatic sequestration and across-the-board cuts. if they had gotten that far which we know they didn't, the cbo would have had to judge if the specific changes actually met the target. if it didn't, then we either

would have gone back to the drawing board to end things to bring them up to the target or the difference between what they did in the ultimate target is still subject to the across-the-board cut which is now what will happen unless changes are made 271 to be mean by scoring? >> guest: cbo is required to do cost estimates of every single piece of legislation doing taste going out of a congressional committee before it could be considered on the floor of the house or the senate. that is a very important role for what existed prior to that point*, and nobody was doing the cost estimates and a way that was trustworthy prior to the creation of cbo but you would either have the president's budget office to do a cost estimate but that

was not immune from influence in the way the president likes this bill or did not like the bill or worse yet, you could have the sponsor of the piece of legislation being the one to do the cost estimates of they had every incentive to suggest the cost was lower than it would be in reality. cbo clearly does not get the cost estimate right to all the time. nobody would. but the influence is people realize they don't have the particular ax to grind in the debates and they tried to do what they can do with the most accurate process and they are not trying to help the piece of legislation to get past or to kill the legislation. >> host: can you give us one example where the cbo got it wrong or were they

really got a right? >> guest: one example they got it wrong and everybody did, 2001, president bush came into office, one of the things that cbo does is the projection of the outlook for the federal budget. those projections sometimes covered five years but increasing may cover 10 years the when president bush came into office there was the estimate from cdo's that said left to its non devices under current law the budget surplus cumulatively would be 5.6 trillion dollars. that was really not a prediction but a projection based on the best information they had and is anybody should know the further out you make a

projection and a less accurate it will be. that is the midpoint of the range and it is a big range. but it did support those who thought it was important to for the congress and the president to cut taxes is at that line. of the tax cuts that were enacted were helped by the fact there was this projection that clearly was wrong. there were projections coming from elsewhere that were wrong as well. the things they did not predict was the recession starting soon after that to war did not predict september 11th that nobody did. and there were fiscal effects coming out of september 11. what the cbo about write but also illustrates the limits 70 analytical agency, the cbo for many years 15, was producing reports and

analysis warning about what might happen if the government sponsored enterprise ever got into a situation where they did not have enough capital and needed to come to the government for a bailout? they're position is that would never happen. with the financial crisis 2,008 and beyond, the government had to take over fannie mae freddie mac a cost over $2,300,000,000,000 to the federal budget and clearly a case where cbo had a right not this would inevitably happen but there were particular things that congress should do and legislation to protect the federal government for the potential. >> host: the last couple of years the federal budget

process has broken down not passing the appropriations as required by law with a lot of continuing resolutions. what is the cbo role if any in the process? >> they're role really is just to support the process. a little uncomfortable talking about the cbo i talked about the success in the middle of a process that nobody says is successful but it is the limit of what any organization whose job is to provide information can do. what the cbo has been doing is what they always do is to have congress consider legislation and provides information on the effects of the legislation and does not really have been able to play to force the congress are get the congress to do something that it does not

want to do. one important things that alice rivlin did and it was the working definition of what remains to be non-partisan, she said the cbo will not make recommendations. it was described to be one somebody's attic you ask cbo how much something costa they will tell you. fasten if it is a good idea they will tell you how much it cost. so even though i do agree with you of the budget process being dysfunctional i am not sure how much they can do about that other than to eliminate the effects of the failure to engage in various policies whether deficit reduction. >> what do you teach at the university of maryland? >> guest: a general course of public budgeting which covers all levels of government and policy

programs and i teach the course which is required of most turns and we have a semester course the federal budget. i also teach a semester course on the federal budget which simultaneously makes the students more illuminated and disillusioned than they were 37 you worked at the cbo a one point*? >> guest: i did work at the congressional budget office 19,913th 96. the resend -- 1991 through 1996. because of how impressed i was coming from the outside when i worked there i wanted to give it time. i did not start writing the book right away because i wanted to have enough distance that i thought i could be more objective but nobody had written a book on the congressional budget office.

i knew a lot of the people and i was pretty sure i could get the ax directors to talk to me the more over a thought it was a story that needed to be told there are four books on 10 gao and zero and the and at some level there is not a book on the cbo. it became easier to convince publishers more important to the book enterprise that such a thing was an important thing to do once cbo was so involved in the health care reform because there was the beginning pitch why should anybody care? >> host: i think our read in your book that the congressional budget office is were legislation goes to die? >> guest: senator wyden said that for more again that the history of health care reform is that bills go

to the congressional budget office to die. the irony is there was the health care reform after that point* enacted but what he had in mind moseley was the clinton health care reform of 1994 where a certain they became part of collor that it was the cbo cost estimates and the report on that particular legislation that killed it. there was a lot of things that killed it and that was one of them but anybody who can live through that episode certainly came away with the perception and cbo is a powerful organization that could kill something if it could be killed on the basis of that economic hour budget analysis. >> host: newt gingrich recently said last month the cbo is a reactionary socialist institutions in. >> guest: he did say that.

given a statement that could be extracted time to time, i think one of the most interesting things about that comment to me when i talk to people within the cbo having close contact with him that he was speaker of the house, what they said it is the same that made him the angriest was that periodically he has bills to add particular error procedures to medicare to have those covered buy medicare and that discord is costing money in his argument is they will save lives. how does it cost money? but that could be true simultaneously to cost the federal budget money but also to save lives. some republicans i don't know if this is what he had

in mind comment turn to an upset them, the cbo does not consistently believe that cutting taxes necessarily will pay for itself if you lower tax rates it does not necessarily lead to some much economic growth and is not a loss of revenue and also the fact that cbo said the obama health care reform would make things a little better with the overall budget outlook is an article of faith among many of the republican party the obama health care reform made things worse as opposed to being better. there could be a legitimate difference of opinion but that is not the conclusion. >> host: professor joyce have there been any scandals in its history? >> guest: it depends what you mean of the scandal i am not aware of any that involve the staff. there was say many scandal