isn't much we can do in the world like this where it's easy not only for the original material like that to get out but anything that you received you can put a backup. >> it's true we can't control what other people post and in a way that's a good thing because i'm sure president obama would love to delete plenty of things people have said about him and we don't want that to happen, but we can control what we post about ourselves. we cannot posted and use the privacy control knowing full well they are not foolproof. anything that's ever been seen by anybody can be cashed and copied but nonetheless there are privacy controls and people that were read about the privacy or the very people that don't take the time to learn about the controls available, whether it is on facebook or google. ..

field that in my internet role, i want us to be very aware of what is happening and ways in which we can circumvent. i first believed partly because i am a federalist. [laughter] and i don't like to worry about things that are not in miami's control.

>> actually, larry was worried about. i am some sort less worried about what somebody posted on the and more worried about misinformation of substances like my financial information or medical affirmation. accidently being released. this is, you know, accident and mistake that worry me more than anything else, or maybe a business decision which is harmful because business besides, well, that information could be modified. so i do worry about those things. >> and the fact that it happens to all those sunny networking customers. >> back to national security. this comes from a pbs documentary. a fellow by the name of james christy, the department of defense. here is what he said. during the cold war we knew who the bad guys were, and they had nuclear-weapons. there was a finite group and a

deterrent. and he says anybody can buy a computer for two or $300. internet connectivity. sitting on the desk in the bedroom. i mean, if he's right we ought to be a little bit more worried. >> i am wondering what he meant by weapon of mass destruction. did he mean in a clear weapon or a cyber weapon? >> i'm sure he meant a cyber weapon. [inaudible] >> the finance group. one of the problems now, much easier to find. so not exactly like the nuclear threat. [inaudible] >> yes, but a worker, strong

foundations. one of the things, there are major threats like that. the cyber security, and different. there is a whole spectrum of things. >> a multibillion-dollar industry. if anybody here is looking through something to major in, i just came back from the national center security association, 100,000 cyber security professionals. a huge industry of people who are going to be trying to deal. not saying that they will be perfect, but it's a cat and mouse game. hopefully we try to stay at least not too many steps behind. >> have a question for you here, just to be difficult.

fortunately i can blame this on someone in the audience. there is no name. the disclaimer. is it possible for google but to be evil? [laughter] >> the answer is, yes, and we're not. too interested? note to much about me? actually, we don't care much about you. [laughter] >> in fact, what is of interest to us it is not personal the pattern. interested in patterns. we use the patterns of behavior and the pattern we find in our e-mail us to try to figure out so that we can show you that you might click on. that's all that's going on. it's a computer. some people have this feeling that there are people as possible, human beings who are looking at e-mails trying to figure out which had to put on

there. a computer algorithm which we are constantly adjusting to try to learn what you react to. if you don't click on anything then we know that none of the ads with the right ones. try to figure out why it made that. but this is about patterns, it's not about -- >> it's really interesting someone would ask that question. seen as the great wonderful new invention, but now it's starting to suffer from the giants corporation. >> the company that everybody loves. but i think a pretty much agree. i'm not so much worried about go will being evil, a word about what some future management might do and what government might do with the data, but they're in the business of trying to get us to click on ads. it's fairly straightforward. >> let me play on the whole at thing for just a minute.

one of things that the series has been doing over the course of the years, looking at revolutions, connect the internet and business for me and for us for just a minute. estimated that in the fourth quarter of last year they're was about $50 billion worth of the commerce is been up every year. clearly this is the future. what is the future that the internet has brought to our economy. >> everybody practices. much more shopping we do online. and we know from the success of amazon how much a company can start selling one thing online and continue and end up selling

practically everything online. a couple of weeks ago. and interesting, first of all in his company to be willing to try things that are risky and not clear the first time. everything that is revolutionary , like what is happening now on line is going to involve a high degree of failure. and the companies that will be more successful, that is sell the business. again, disconnect. make the point. puffer business. someone who is not then. so it's all kind of come together. real billings.

we don't know. that's what has to be very alert, very vigilance. some of the best things about this country, the concept. it's not like we have the perfect trauma. they're going to be the many new ways. of the internet started, a big ugly banner ad. this is already happened. at the beginning of the internet, the idea was happening get as many to come to your site. come many people can you get to take whenever people do

basically the advertising executive. >> one thing. >> absolutely. i was stunned to punctuated with a question for the audience. this one has to do with the fact that we have mostly talked about consumer attractions. but business to business is taking off, and those can be even more animated. you can do automatic order entry, online billing. we haven't seen anything yet. when it comes to the massive amount of business that will be conducted to my business to business we will vastly swamp the consumer business. >> internet users will not even the people. machine to machine. >> what you mean? >> i mean machines talking to

machines. i mean a cut machine telling the servers that it needs to be refilled. that is a common application today. we've already seen smart parking meters that interact with servers. some machines that are exchanging information with each other. automotive engineering will be revolutionized by machine to machine communication. get everything you want to know. trust and the road. that will take over. >> our cars. roll the computers. >> absolutely. >> not yet rolling internet machines, but there will be soon. >> an interesting asset i found that i love that we haven't. is the greatest thing. some kind of device on every part of the city. i go on. how many minutes the next buses from my stop. four minutes second walkout. it's an amazing thing.

60 percent of the time. almost. strive for perfection. i wanted to ask the audience how many of you or engage in some form of social media, linkedin, twitter, facebook. google plus, how many hands? a few. you've got some. >> too much. >> the other handle. >> i tweeted just before i left. >> i'm busy. >> it's very boring, but it works. how does that affect business? how does it affect business now the people are communicating directly with one another. they are praising, reviewing, engaging themselves. >> well, the example, at a recent example. immediately with innovative.

as a matter of fact, i just think it be very nice about amazon. very pleasantly surprised. something complicated. some human being who spoke perfect english solve my problem. [applause] the big news of the night, you got through to a human being. but no. flowing and maybe telling the next-door neighbor about this. on twitter and facebook and actually get some attention. >> incredibly important. our own things. social media made possible. we started this conversation. that's beck greatest revolution.

and so now the question this, use this new power. massively destructive. >> one of the things we have not talked about here yet and we should spend more than a couple of seconds on, how this technology, how this connectivity is affecting the way we learn. education, teaching. the absorption of information. we have seen suggestions of a revolution, but not the real revolution yet. is one coming? >> i think one is in the process of happening, and i think they like the music. just as they are set to journalism, we will see technologies is kirk -- disrupting formal education as we know it. universities and even k-12 had better be thinking about how

they will adopt a future when not only do not need them to learn, but also we don't necessarily even begun to criticize us. for example, recently did a story on technology disrupting education for the huffington post. i pointed out, you can go in and you can document what you know and what you can do. i'm really good plumber. i know how to program in the c++ figuring out ways to actually validate that. biden so if i'm looking for a programmer or anything else, maybe i can go to this website and find a competent person. universities have to figure out a way to cash in on that and actually adapt to that, figure out a way to deal with the academy which is doing amazing educational videos. it's just blowing people's minds away. they have to figure out a way to deal with that what they're going to find themselves maybe not doing so well.

>> you had a real experience. an interesting experience. one of the designs. the director of research. at junk professor at stanford. decided to teach a class on artificial intelligence that they decided to do online. 500 people signed up. 160,000 people signed up. first reaction at this point is, now what? a lot of software later, a lot a graduate assistants. so a lot of related stocks entirely online. the questions that were asked could be automatically check by a computer. multiple choice but six dozen people on line? >> based on 160,000 people over the course of several weeks, and 20,000 actually passed the course. back calculation, and that's the -- more people than had ever

taken intelligence and the history of a guy. >> 800 people in my class, and it would not have bothered me if there was another hundred and 50. >> get back to your question. the journal about revolution. it occurs to me to try to some of, gutenberg, couldn't birds invention gave people the incentive to read and to learn to read. it pushed literacy. internet gives people the incentive to write or to produce are all these other things to express. and i had not until tonight put those two things together. at thing that is a dramatic difference because we are now people who generate as well as people who sort. >> incredible. this growth stage. put it back.

just a consumers sitting on a couch. now we are galloping on the head. passing out. much more active involvement. and it's not just even consuming it's now expressing. is in your entertainment. and i think media and don't recognize that, still bothered by the fact that so many millions of people are reducing. i don't get that. in fact, self expression. nobody is making them do it. nobody ever asks, why two people sitting on a couch for seven hours a month watching fred -- bad tv for free. entertainment. why is that entertainment?

updating your facebook or whenever entertainment. that's what you want to do. people want to be part of the time. >> complained, those of us to use to get paid to do that. suddenly were competing with millions of people. i agree. no one forces you. it is an amazing revolution of communication and democratization of opinion. i think that is generally. >> this is by no means. the determinant, rising. it's just like if we are all free calibrating. >> is driving. there is another snake. newsweek's sold for a dollar. the publishing industry is collapsing because people are self publishing. hard-cover books for $37 of becoming a thing of the past as people tallow bucks to their readers are whenever they're using.

the music industry is a record store anymore. it's better than when it was a record store because i can go online and listen to a sample and say i'll buy that song in that song and that song and that's the whole album. these trade-offs. >> and, of course, not going to make a lot of money selling records anymore. coming a with a cd, but it will market and his public appearance , marked his other activities. and i think people are having to find ways to create new business. i worry with journalism a little bit because there is always been a theoretical purity in journalism. not out there hustling and selling and compromising themselves. i do worry. on the other hand, and not terribly worried. i think things have a way of working out. at the end of this process it's ugly and dirty. something better. >> he talked about the revolution of the 21st century one of the other ones we looked at was the middle east, this

leads to the next question from the audience. the recent arab spring uprising was large coordinated via the net and twitter. some dictatorial regimes try to control this. how can the internet support and enhance freedom and democracy in developing nations? >> in some sense it already has. i must point out that revolution, like the ones and the arabs bring don't always turn up the way you hope. tunisia has worked up pretty well. egypt is still not so clear depending on how the elections go. libya is a whole other example. syria is still ongoing. i will say that there is something important to recognize about the influx of mobile's into our communications environment. dramatic. more dramatic in many ways of the internet. this is the fastest growing phenomenon. five and a half billion miles are in use today. not all of them are smart

phones, not all internet enabled , 20 to 25 percent are. it goes up over time. what is important is that the mobile is not only patrol the vice, what is important is that it can communicate with the rest of the internet. when we tweet, send one copy to a computer on the internet, and it generates the hundred thousand copies that go everywhere else. you're leveraging the fact of being able to get from anywhere at anytime remotely to exercise the hp and the information of the internet is what is making that combination so dramatically powerful. i believe that that combination by itself is going to help spread democratic things around the world. >> the internet is the tool. before we had the internet via machines. before that we have many other ways to communicate and there have been many revolutions threat history many of which happened before we had

electricity along internet and mobile. so it is a tool. as spend a fair amount of time in the middle east, and everybody said i talked to says that the conditions on the ground were ultimately what caused the revolutions. it was not the internet. the internet facilitated and sped up the process. >> of course did not create the process being celebration, an incredibly significant. the fact that they are organized , the fact that, as you said, the explosion which is much more significant. >> and the revolution, obviously has written a great deal. i happily recommend that you read him if you have not. the revolutionary elements, here comes everybody. everybody to the everybody the

internet has empowered for the first time. everybody to be everybody. that makes it harder to be a dictator. >> test the empowerment. that's the very weakness. it's much harder to be. you know, the revolution, the green revolution. disseminating what was happening. cnn and others. the sense of the regime. china had an uprising. and it learned from what the iranian government had done. it actually since it immediately all of a cultural media, and an aunt. instead of advisers, well-known

journalists, the place of the uprising. and this is a really. a couple of dozen journalists. millions of people. just to go about. the way that they are managed. many journalists. it's much harder to fool an entire population of people. >> all right. i'm going to ask another question that leads to another question. how many in the audience have written a letter, you know, handwriting and a stamp, written a letter in the last two weeks? wow. look at that. >> that is crazy. >> but the question is obviously

this person did not have that in sight. the question is, is the post office obsoletes? no. i actually -- this is great. i did some research on the post office before coming here. in the mid 1700's when this republic was first being established it took about two weeks, as much as 14 days for a letter to go the 109 miles from new york to philadelphia. it would take months for ambassador jefferson to send a letter from france, from paris back to washington. if you are overseas and wanted to send a letter back you actually didn't know if it would make it on the ship where the post office. people would write five letters and send them on different ships .

a letter a year. >> to steering this funny thing. next week. after that actually, the data falling around. over 500. >> 500 e-mails in the day. sometimes you can't respond instantly. what does that do to as? how do we deal with all this and come? e-mail overload. >> famous. my friends and family, not responding to you know, not because i don't want to, but i miss it. i literally just don't see it. the enormous quantity of things that come at me, i just accidently ignore important messages. >> what impact does this have? as communicators, correspondence. >> well, that is sad. not to be.

amazing now. they get to compare to the process. we have to respond to each e-mail. which is really the equivalent of sleeping in your office or in your home. the doorbell rings. is the postman. every time their is a parcel, you get the letter. it never did that. somehow there is a sense of urgency. of course what has happened now. if you really want to send some urgent communication, it has to be text and another female. and people, i mean, i know my friends at work. they need to get my attention, 200 e-mails that aren't even looked at. >> what do you do with that? you can't possibly response to that minimills.

>> i do. >> you do? >> yes, i do. >> the ticket to bed with you? >> probably for hours. >> when do you leave and thank and absorb the attachment that someone has sent you? oh, please read this. >> that's a very good point. what i do, anything that has an attachment, every week i get up dates. i just a moment to another. all i can move them, you know. whenever going to be able. so my instant communications are instance, things that need a quick response to my anything that is laundered, that's why i have five black berries. one of them is just for my

daughter. i can turn up, devices. everybody made that point. and i have a number. they can reach me. that is one of the excuses people get. somebody needs to be able to reach me. i have to run it by. the head of abc news. i need an alarm clock. [inaudible] , alarm clocks. >> i have a secret. brunt -- promise not to tell anybody. i actually have a land line.

i keep it around for a lot of reasons to my including the fact that the power. >> i think i saw that in a museum. >> people don't call any more. >> oh, yes, they do. >> political calls. >> presentations. >> the impact. people don't call in war. too much obsessing. but we have not really address the question, how accurate are that given that most sane people

refuse to talk. [laughter] it's like, who are the people left? a very small minority. very bold and lonely americans. nothing better to do than to talk to strangers. you know, but clearly, evaluating. >> we are. i know a little bit about this because i'm in the middle of doing a poll. hiring a firm that does it on line. online panels. i'm sure that has its own set of patterns, but the polling industry and the academics that do it have really had to rethink strategy. >> first of all, people don't have land lies the way that they used to. secondly, they do look a caller id, and if it's a number they don't know they don't pick it up. thirdly, and i am sure you have all been of robo called, if you pick up the phone and there is not somebody there right away because it is in on the dow you hang right back up. >> i do.

i know most people do. polling has become much more difficult. >> is it less reliable? >> it is different. they have had to rethink the science. >> when you are doing your's and how are u getting people who would not otherwise? >> there is a company, number of companies out there, all the big agencies, they have on line panels with individuals have agreed to participate in these things. untrusting that they're doing it accurately, but they are stratifying samples in such a way that they're getting what they claim to be representative samples of the population you're trying to pull. that is one strategy. i don't know how perfect is because even though i many years ago got a graduate degree in that field, that was long before internet technology. >> i have a question from the audience here. i invite the other panelists as well. can libraries get passed copyright issues to digitize bucks and check them out? so libraries have already shown an ability to cope with some of

that. you will recall, the big fights over the ability to copy portions of printed material led to the notion of use which is unique in the u.s. i'm sure the same as any other country. the libraries are our friends in that regard. as you may remember, when there were pushing libraries, a lot of the publishers said, that is a terrible idea. people will buy one book and then take something out of it. libraries still have the problem that we had to go when we started making arrangements with libraries to scan box and to character recognition said they could be discovered. our purpose was to allow computers to find the books that had information that you were looking for. it was not necessarily to make the book available that way. it was to make it discoverable. so libraries could conceivably help, but they will place the same arguments that we have had

to cope with under copyright law. in general, copyright and its current form is way too restrictive. creating the idea and others like that opened a broad range of alternatives to the creators of these works. it is strengthening that we should be stepping back now and thinking more about how, first of all, to allow shoppers to its use how they want to share their information and not be confined to a copyright infringement, but the other problem that we have run into, as anyone else would as well, books that are no longer in print are very difficult to. it's very difficult to identify the rights to books that are not in print anymore. there are not registered. is not required to register these works in order to validate copyright's under their current convention, which we adopted in

1976. basically any time you create something you have instant rights to it, even if nobody knows that. so we have a problem without knowing even where to turn to clear rights to books they're out of print. we need to fix that, and that think a better regime is to use electronic registration, not only for the primary registration, but also transfer of rights for that work. if that is registered it would make it so much easier to find the party that should be compensated, if they wish to be compensated. >> we have just a few minutes remaining, and here is a question i think that helps us bring this conversation full circle, look ahead, and to a close. the question from someone in our audience here. a high-school teacher, what is the most important thing i should be teaching my students presumably about this and digital internet world? >> well, i mentioned critical thinking to begin with. the other thing is to realize that specific content is much

less relevant than the ability to acquire knowledge and interpret knowledge. the facts our commodities. what is precious today is the ability to understand and analyze. so part of critical thinking is the ability to look at the information around you and make some sense of it. and also, to be a player, to be a producer. go out there and set up your own blog. create a school blocked. admit something to huffington post among whatever it takes to be an active player in this revolution. schools need to encourage that. encourage the use of social media inside the classroom so that it is not simply relegated to outside the classroom. and teachers need to find ways to embrace this. again, don't check out. just to give -- because you think the kids may be more tech savvy, you have some wisdom. >> one minute left. i would like each of you to take a quick shot at what you see on the horizon. the next big thing that this

digital internet connected world holds in terms of its promise. and three things. first of all, more mobility, high-speed access to more use of artificial intelligence for translation, and then a fourth thing, we are going off the planet. an interplanetary internet already in operation, and it is on its way to the next step after that, the interstellar missions. supporting. [applause] >> well, a top that, arianna. [laughter] >> actually, this is the perfect segue. you were saying that the next big is going to be planetary. i think the next thing is going to be. multiple universes' inside. you need to remember to the remember not to be distracted

her by the glory of the internet. >> i agree with that. >> it gets back to machine to machine communication. instead of machines telling you what to do, they're just going to do it for you. >> bottom line is that it has been revolutionary, and it is only just beginning. i think you all very much. thank all of you. i would like to thank our guests, our wonderful audience. as always. [inaudible] ♪ >> today former florida governor jim bush said that his father, george h. w. bush and ronald reagan would have trouble getting the gop presidential nomination in the current republican party. next on c-span2, a debate from

the american enterprise institute of political extremism and the republican party. after that, senate finance committee chairman max baucus talks about overhauling the nation's tax code. >> conference continuing this week. tomorrow morning the commission his testimony from former british prime minister john major and labor party leader ed miller band. justice brian levinson is investigating a relationship between government leaders in the british media. live coverage begins at 5:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. the house oversight committee will vote next week on whether to hold attorney-general eric holder in contempt of congress over documents in the fast and furious investigation that the committee has asked for. tomorrow attorney-general holder will testify before the senate judiciary committee. we will have live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> nancy pelosi began her career in the u.s. house in 1987.

>> mr. speaker, as you know, eight years ago this month the soviet union invaded afghanistan . to no one's surprise the occupation of afghanistan has turned into a bloody war with the victors. a group of human rights lawyers from the united states, britain, sweden, and malta document countless acts of terror perpetrated against the afghan people. >> twenty-five years later the current house minority leader and former speaker was honored on the house floor by republican and democratic leaders. watch any part of her career in the house on line at the c-span video library. >> next, the conservative american enterprise institute hosted a debate in title is the republican party to extremes. we will hear from appel 11 and ronald reagan biographer steven hayward. stuart rothenberg is the moderator. >> good afternoon.

good afternoon. my name is carl and talent. i am a senior fellow at the item and i would like to welcome you to this american enterprise debate, is the republican party to extreme? one of the first things i learned in coming many, many years ago was the institute's mission statement, ten simple words, the competition of ideas is fundamental to a free society . with this low in a i president did not simply mean that we value competition among various institutions in washington, though, of course, we do. he was equally at home with and championed as his successors have done, spirited debate within the family. within a paul's we have had many such debates. to name just a few, scholars have different strongly and particularly the wisdom of the

microsoft case. a more conservative bent have disagreed with conservatives over abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia. they differ on the wisdom of organ donation. scholars have publicly sparred over the merits of a carbon tax. disagreements about the iraqi war and democracy promotion. in the fall a e. i will publish a book on competing views on china's rice. scholars have even differed with one another about the merits of plastic bags. the debates have always been a vigorous and always civil. our debate tonight on whether the republican party is too extreme is very much in keeping with that history. i would like to know is the work of daniel anson and lori sanders to work so hard to make this a success. our speakers are well known to you in the biographical material is available on the website. norman ornstein is a resident scholar and a longtime observer of politics. his columns and roll call on the

streets on capitol hill. steve favre is the fk white house fellow, an important presidential biographer, and a regular blogger for power line on politics. we are fortunate to have stuart rothenberg as our moderator, editor and publisher of the political report and invaluable newsletter covering house, senate, and presidential campaigns and political development. he writes about this twice a week for a roll-call, always with an even-handed tone, perfect for our moderator. stew. [applause] >> thank you. it's a pleasure to be here for this interesting debate. i feel like i am the jack of common of intellectuals. if you don't know who that is, you will have to look it up. try would be a. i am here to give you the rules and then i will leave the stage to the gentleman and be back for

q&a. it's pretty simple. we will begin with in eight minute opening statement by each of our combatants followed by five minutes rebuttals by each, a 27 minute, i don't know who figured this out. it's not 26 or 28, but 27 minutes of q&a for a free-for-all, or whatever, followed by five minutes of closing statements by each gentleman. we will be taking questions. the e-mail and twitter. for those of you so inclined that twitter handle is has stag ati debate. you can tweet your questions to that. the e-mail is a e ag debate at ati got court. at the end of each round there will be a buzzer for a bell. off. that's.

which will sound the end of the round. i will be back in a bit to moderate questions. so now eight minutes each opening rounds followed by 35 minutes each for bottles. gentlemen. began. >> thank you so much. okay. >> thank you, stuart. carla, thank you all for coming. this debate was really precipitated by a russian post outlook piece my co-author and i did, keep to our new book, even worse than it looks which, by the way, makes a great holiday gift. i want to start by thanking my friend and opponent, steve haworth, but i also want to give thanks to jeff bush, and a ei favored he said today that both ronald reagan and his father would have a difficult time getting nominated by today's ultraconservative republican party, commenting disapprovingly

as he did on an orthodoxy that does not allow for disagreement does not allow for finding some common ground. thanks you for your impeccable timing. i want to also think ellen west, richard murdock, ted nugent, herman cain, donald trump, michele bachmann, the 237 house republicans and 90 percent of senate republicans who have signed the tax pledge into many more to name for making my test so much easier. after all these things use i am tempted to do a sally field and say, you like me, you really like me. surveying this audience, no. so, on to the debate topic. is the republican party to extreme? and am going to talk quickly because i have a lot of things to say and evidence to provide. eight minutes is not a lot. i've won't talk as quickly as my son did policy debate where you but things out, but i will glide over some things.

let me start by emphasizing what i will not be saying. i will not say one party is good and the other is evil. there are no angels here. sharp partisanship and hardball politics are normal. both parties often will edge up to the line and sometimes go over. i will not say that all republicans are extreme. many, including some very strong conservatives, want to solve problems and find common ground where they can. i will not say that it is conservatism that is extreme. ronald reagan, john bush, bob bennett, chuck sigell, mitch daniels, mickey edwards to name a few of many top 20 conservative and not extreme. no, i'm going to suggest that a party can be extreme in three ways and discuss each tactic, ideology, and rhetoric. first tactic, and i should emphasize here that tactics depend on content. the gop has adopted a set of parliamentary tactics and anon parliamentary system in a way

that is unlike any we have seen before, underscoring some of the points, purely oppositional and obstructionist, disdaining problem-solving, defining partisan adversaries as the enemy, and opposing positions often because of who is supporting them, not because of what is in the. the first evidence comes from the filibuster. put up a chart, which is now being applied in a fashion unseen in all of previous american history. i don't have time to go over the history of the filibuster. much of it is in the book. did i mention it makes a great holiday gift? but among let me say that in the past filibusters were used rarely for issues of great national moment by a minority feeling intensely about them and willing to stop everything and throw themselves into making a point. no it is used routinely as a weapon of obstruction. your motions were roughly two a

month in the 1970's, three a month in the 1980's. now two or more a week. i have to say to be sure that the minority has a point. many cloture motions are filed prematurely. they are designed to shut off minority's ability to debate an issue. that is true, and it is a chicken and egg question, but it does not explain multiple filibusters on bills and nomination that corner unanimous or near unanimous support. some examples, workers, homeowners, and business assistance act, to filibuster's past 98-nothing, but it took four weeks and seven full days aforetime. credit card holders bill of rights, also 90-5, seven days aforetime. fraud enforcement and recovery act and mortgage and securities fraud, 92-4, six days of floor time, all done simply to stretch out the time frame and take the most precious commodity of the senate and block things from

happening. the same has been true of nominations. the most prominent being court of appeals judge. 99-0 on a cloture vote. but filibustered and delayed for weeks in a nomination that actually took many months before it came up in even more striking on nominations, filibusters' used for what we call the new nullification. also unprecedented. blocking people who are widely considered, even by those opposing them, as being fully qualified and passing everything standard, bud black for things like the consumer financial protection bureau, center for medicare and medicaid services because the people blocking them don't like the laws that have been legally and constitutionally enacted and want to keep them from being implemented. now, on tactics, if i had a lot of time i could go on to talk in detail about the debt limit use for the first time in history as a hostage to non-negotiable demands and no filling the prediction, used it who -- retail defrosted sticking.

two other examples of extreme tactics, the fiscal commission where people who had supported it and co-sponsored it voted against their own bill because they did not want to give a victory to the other side. the same with the health reform bill. and i want to emphasize that these sorts of tactics are not simply limited to washington. earlier this year but there was a bill sent to pennsylvania governor to name a breach in pennsylvania after a local victim of the september 11th attacks in new york, the mary ellen memorial bridge was adopted by the pennsylvania house and the governor refused to sign it, even as he accepted all other comparable bills because it was introduced by a democrat, state representative camille george. now, these tactics have been succinctly defined by richard murdock. among many things, i have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of democrats coming to the republican point of view.

now, on ideology, and a larger sense of records and public opinion surveys show what happened ideologically to the two parties in congress. let me quickly put of a couple of charts to show what happened over time in congress, voting records for the senate and house . and what you will see is, clearly republicans in congress are the most conservative that they have been in a lifetime and, indeed, perhaps more conservative than in a century. democratic party, especially as it lost its southern democrats moved somewhat to the left, but nowhere near as much. let me quote on this particular topic of ideology, maybe the most prominent and respected conservative intellectual, this kind of conservatism would be unrecognizable to calvin coolidge, a current sentimental conservative favorite who favored men always laws in south live regulation, or even to

reagan who favored large-scale government science research beyond just missile defense. recognize that "came from steve haworth. [laughter] the new republican party in congress voted just recently to pick an example to kill the census bureau annual survey and the economic census which has been used by businesses for a variety of vital purposes to establish transportation routes, track inventories, pick sites, used by police departments to track the crimes. and let me quote, representative daniel webster who sponsored it, of the survey, it is not scientific. it is a random survey. you can see why he is not on the intelligence committee. now, i have lots of other examples. of course to my examples on rhetoric that a stir with ellen west and move to many others which will have to discuss during rebuttal or other times.

and that is my eight minutes. >> well, i want to begin by thanking the democratic state minister -- senator in maine who recently said that dick cheney should be executed for war crimes. gives the keep on giving. this way, the legend is told that when conquering roman generals returned to their victory parade to the boulevards of rome he would place this late behind him to whisper in his ear all glory is leading. norma's our slave. although some people might use a more contemporary word beginning with the p. so people ask me, what is the trick? does not have made pictures of are the bricks? that wouldn't work. arthur works out. what i tell him is the norm is actually a very valuable presence around our hallways. he keeps us on our game. promises not to confuse their ideologies with partisanship or

that ideologies become idiocy through laziness or complacency. quite useful to have someone around the point at your inconsistencies and blind spots and petty hypocrisy. in other words it makes all of a spatter and sharper in our work, even if we sometimes mother about the provocation. his interest is grief is sincere. his worry about the future, well-founded. his work here in the eye on the continuity of government project, urging us to take respective remedies against the worst case terror strike. but in contrast so the continuity of government project i am less enamored of what i take to be his implicit continuity of listen to the liberals and project, a new book in a recent "washington post" features. about the book, it is indeed even worse than it looks.

that it does make a good holiday gift, i agree with that. now, there is no doubt that we live in a time of heightened polarization making the gas to fantastic governing amidst a difficult. unstable equilibrium, a very distinguished political scientist made the following observation. democrats and republicans are at the same time swaggering and uncertain, secure and paranoid. each side is confident. thrown off by its abject failure to extend the popularity and control the turf. each party is fearful that it will make a mistake and lose its own empire, not just for one term, but for decades. each side is hopeful that it can finally capture its rightful majority by forcing the other to make the fail mistake. the result is passive aggressive politics. each side is so concerned about avoiding a mistake. the opposition, taking risks to make better policy is increasingly at,.

i think that's a pretty good analytical description. correctly perceiving the symmetry of the two parties and rarely assigning equal blame to both parties. this assessment comes from writing back in 1990. what happens to that guy? the title of the article was called the permanent democratic congress. maybe there is some nostalgia. reliable. chicago cubs in american politics. according to the hypothesis, things have changed. republicans are insurgent out liar in american politics. disproportionately responsible for the problems of government that is just described. polarization has become asymmetric or as they put it

bluntly, the republicans' fault. now, strange to call one of the political parties and a liar when it happens to be at the highest level in terms of elected officials nationwide in 70 years unless you're prepared to take the next step that suggest the american people have taken leave of their senses. some people on the left do that, but it does not appear in his book. it is conspicuously absent. although, i must say that one of the of things about the book is that you hardly notice the election of 2010 took place. moreover, it has to be inconvenient. they did not start winning majorities until they began to turn to extremism. some people to never got over the 1994 election. al turn directly. i want to lay down a couple of markers. ..

and budget appropriations or cutting program found for long-established programs. we could waste a lot of time debating whose political powers to make these discriminations but i think it's ultimately quite futile to argue. i think we can dispense with the balance seat and move to the presumption is embedded in the hypothesis that the weather in

the nothing less. it take for example the view that i expressed in the book the democratic party is more ecologically diverse and as a status quo party protective of the role as it has developed over the course of the last century. it seems to me it doesn't take an extremist to say that's precisely the problem. let's see. let me see if i got this right the democratic party and status quo problem to become party until they get the opportunity to ratchet the state in a big way which as been the story in the last century after which they sit back and protect the status quo and republicans are supposed to be fine with it to this is founding of rickey henderson. they further argue that the culture in its ideological center of the republican party must change if he was democracy is to regain its health. what this amounts to saying the republican party returned to its historic role as the last century playing the washington journal democratic party of the charters as i call them or a

return to the kind of accommodating moderation that prompted the great eugene to say the principal use of moderate republicans is to shoot the wounded after the battle is over. i suspect that the man steam idea of good government would be president david gergen. as of the question is the republican party extreme, i can only answer i certainly hope so. let us recall the republican party began its life as an extremist party dedicated to the purpose of abolishing the relics of barbarism and slavery in the year of its founding the republican party was the supreme court declared the republican party platform to be unconstitutional. the republican party wishes we would have said i guess we should accommodate ourselves to the status quo. likewise there's little reason or purpose for the republican party unless it acts with a new determination to call a decisive halt to the endless ratcheting expansion of centralized government power and reckless spending. my hypothesis is not successful

in gaining placement in the post and in procuring admiration from the daily show audiences but i would remind norm of one thing. all glory is fleeting. [laughter] [applause] >> i don't disagree with of thing. [laughter] let me next say i don't know which is more disoriented, picturing naked pictures of are there were david gergen as president. they're both about on the same. now let me move on to some of your arguments. when i wrote the piece in 1990 and i noted at that point it would likely end the democratic majority that was moving towards 38 years would be a democratic president and the counterpoint of would take place, but things have changed since 1990 and indeed many of the arguments i would make and i want to go back to where i started that neither

party is an angel, both have often crossed the lines and have done things that are deplorable, and l.i.e. in the past have condemned the democrats for the way they handled the presidential or supreme court nomination blocking miguel estrada statements by people like alan west person degette mckinney. cynthia wrote when we single out alan west who said you will recall that between 709081 democrats in the house or members of the communist party and he wrote well, what about cynthia mckinney i don't remember the democrats condemning her. so i went back and looked -- we have a faulty timers. i got a whole bunch of newspaper clippings, democratic leader condoms kenny, democrats get

distance. so there are differences here on that front but more significantly, his so much of this is a matter of degree and not kind but also some of the unprecedented things that i've mentioned. we want to look at blocking the nominations i can show you chart after chart of the number of nominations blocked compared to what we had in the years and the swiftness with which executive and judicial appointments went through. if we want to talk about culbert and with the president instead of drawing lines in the dust, i look at the two points of comparison. when george w. bush came into the white house, and the white house that was at that point in tatters almost we had the most controversial election at least in our lifetimes if not in american history we had a president that had no coattails, 36 days to come in facing an adversarial environment it would

have been very easy for democrats to hold a dinner meeting on the inaugural leave and say the way that we can regain power is to stop on his neck and never let up and vote against everything he wants and block him and his presidency will die. instead they cooperated immediately on a child left behind with george miller and ted kennedy and it gave a victory that established the legitimacy of the presidency whether you like it or not. democratic votes provided the margin for the tax cuts like those are not that worried hallmark of the bush presidency. democrats saved the votes on the program, like it or not, that saved the bush presidency. now, contrast that with what we know from another book about the meeting that took place with top republican leaders on the inaugural leave in 2009. president came in a landslide with an approval rating in the worst economy since the great depression we're going to vote against everything and make the victory look so ugly that it will be delegitimized. i think that is a difference

coming and i think that when you look at things like blocking denominations that are widely acceptable because you don't on the bills to be implemented, that is a difference. now that the address for a second the argument you made that our colleague made in print when he said that we lost our marbles and how could a party the extreme if it wins elections and continues to? let's think of some examples in history of parties that were extreme. peter a. sold enough to remember the 1930's. in fact, he's very, very old. [laughter] he is perhaps our oldest colleague. but i can give you some examples from the 30's. parties winning elections when people are unhappy and especially elections get lost and the referendums on what is going on. a bad economy is bring that elections. what republicans learned from 1994 to 2010 is if you make the process look awful, looked even worse than it is, make it look

worse than it is, you may wayne e. elections as people rebelled against what they see as a party in power. that's a good thing if you want to win the elections. it's not a good thing if you want to solve problems and govern and i think that is what is behind jeb bush being upset about the direction in which his party is going to read the family hasn't gotten over losing , and i will leave it had that. >> i will agree a lot has changed. actually i'm going to say all the people didn't start to crystallize this until the 1990's, and it's this. it came up that question in the debate this year would you take a tax deal 1 dollar taxes and spending cuts and they raised their hands know and on the surface it is a preposterous

idea. the right answer would have been you can keep the dollar taxes i will just take the million-dollar spending cuts. but why was that answer a given by the field? because the history of the last 30 years since politics became closer is that they never worked for the republicans. they've seen this movie before. how many times did the republican charlie brown have to fall for the trick? and that explains a lot of the eddy the logical fervency that grows stronger than it was 25 for 40 years ago and i think it explains why you now see the rise of that he party which i do think is the republican and i war movement in the democratic party 35 for 40 years ago a very disruptive for us might tear the party apart. you mentioned the great, the commission. on the other hand i note the president walking away from the

commission. we can play tennis like this all day but let me make another point in stock and a good audience questions. you remember the piece of evidence about why i think the fundamental problem is the democratic party has never gotten over the presumption that they deserve to be the permanent ruling party in america and this explains some of the estimate tree of the philosophy of the political competition. maybe the best example, and this is old but captures it well, the 2004 election. the member that the extended the maturities which they held for ten years in the house and eight and a half years in the senate in that election, and remember tom daschle was defeated the majority leader in part because of the argument that he had been obstructionist. year net comes harry reid is the lardy leader and the times asks for a comment from joe biden who said the people are looking at

him to be a spokesperson for the party that isn't a role but all majority leaders have felt before. what did he say? majority leader haven't been majority for ten years. now it's joe biden but he is vice president. [laughter] or dianne feinstein of like to call the queen of the democratic caucus who told the times in the same article if we keep going on this way we will be a minority party. now this made perfect sense in 1955 for 1965 rose 1985 to a certain extent. it doesn't make sense after the 1990's, so one of the things you see this subtext often for the liberal analysis that there's something unnatural about a republican majority of this ads to the ferocity in some respects of the republicans to say no let's bring this due back. >> thanks, gentlemen.

that was very civil, wasn't it? [laughter] all right. now i'm supposed to take some questions but i thought i would ask each of you one quick questions to start off so i could figure out how to do this, and i will just ask each of you. i wonder how you would respond to a political party that has dominated door is about to nominate mitt romney as a presidential nominee and for years later nominated john mccain as the nominee. how does that fit with your idea that this is such a bunch of crazy radicals? and steve, i thought i would ask you to address the following plan that would might think the republicans radical in this day and age is the understanding or misunderstanding of the which is the def process that the nature of villages which involves gives

and take and negotiation and compromise and that if you listen to many republicans these days, compromise is a dirty word and they seem unwilling to compromise, and if that is how they approach the nature of the legislative process, it undermines the institution fundamental nature of the institution. why don't you start, and then steve. >> sure. i think the best way to answer that is to look at what became and romney had to do to win the nomination is and where they are. i worked a lot that john mccain who has been through much of his career during conservative and a problem solver, somebody that looks for solutions on immigration climate change, on campaign finance and other areas and abandon all of those positions as he moved forward to win the republican nomination. i look at mitt romney vista in a position on immigration that has

made russell pearce ecstatic in the position i would view as extreme and outside the bounds of our normal politics. a candidate that openly embrace is donald trump who even george will calls an ignoramus but who has gone over the line it seems to me in terms of some of the things he's said. the other positions that had to be taken, and when i've talked to jon huntsman who couldn't even get traction in the presidential contest partly because of his own missteps but about what this test that he views candidates now have to take and once you take those positions, you hold to them and i view it from me as somebody that is not just the edges sketch by the come million. but that doesn't matter. he will move into office if he assumes the presidency and basically be postponed to what he's promised in the past but also to the legislature that has moved far enough outside and

that includes budget and tax decisions that it seems to me grow very far from what we have seen in the past that leave him at the edges, whenever his eternal believes it the assessed. estimate actually i would speak analytically about this. i and there's quite a bit to be said that the republican party and not sure if it's understandable as it of process or isn't very good at it i have a couple thoughts on this. one is that i think the republican party as a legislative party during those decades when they were out of power, and during that period they succeeded in electing presence and with eisenhower and the nixon era and even before that you could see they had a slightly different character somewhat related to the ideology but to their experience. republicans became more executive minded party. democrats became more legislative. better at running the congress.

republicans have yet to prove they are in a good governing as a majority. this is sort of looking back a moment that had there been a way to organize or incite the tea party it would have happened earlier. so when tom delay says we can't possibly cut spending any more it's been cut to the bone the game was up and there was nothing left of any principal or republicanism. they become a factory and establishment party the wasn't any better than the democratic party from a conservative point of view so the challenge if they can win the only reason they've been they had clinton as a foil so they got some things done because that kind of work in the opposition. they have yet to prove that they can actually govern as a majority party either of parliamentary sense or any other and that is going to be a big test if they happen to win the election. >> we are going to go to questions by want to remind people that they still can either e-mail your questions or

trader at hastert at -- that's the most times i've ever said that in a 24-hour period. we have a question here that kind of -- let's start off with this one. what is the role of the tea party, and is the reason or how much of the reason at all do you think the republicans are extreme and how do you think the tea party fits in the republican party in this whole question of extremism? >> i already mentioned a little bit, but i think it is for the first time may be norm will correct me but it's a pretty substantial populist movement on the right universal conservatives out in the street much over the years. they do a lot of stuff, but that was unprecedented. >> they were all in the country club.

[laughter] >> there's got to be a good joke about a country club of why it. >> this has been coming in a lot of time i will just violate the kind of little bit more. just as the new left and the war movement has a seceded parts pushed the democratic party to the left in the 60's and 70's and mcgovern the tea party is problematic. i happen to like them myself. they are my kind of people but at the same time as an analyst you can see on will put it to you this way i was going to say this in the closing but i will do it now. one of my criticisms of the book is that they don't actually take the thesis seriously enough. it seems to me the prospect for the republicans as they might fracture in to for the reasons i was mentioning or for other reasons and there was talk with

ebit party candidate this year challenging for congressional offices and that would look something like the wallace candidacy in 68 and split the republican party and at that point i predict that tallman and norm would look back on the leadership of mitch mcconnell and john boehner. [laughter] >> and i ask you to comment on the tea party and in part to be could you then comment on the occupied wall street movement. >> the tea party movement is a populist movement just as the occupied movement is. it rose during the time it usually does in economic turmoil. populism is deep in our dna. it was an attack on leadership and establishment leadership, but i think we often use tea

party as a kind of shorthand that simplifies things a little bit too much and it gets to one of steve's plants the headaches for john boehner especially and mitch mcconnell who i think it's been very cold-blooded and his strategy in a way that john boehner hasn't but it was in the house floor more than the freshman team party members the members of the republican study committee including longtime veterans like jim jordan of ohio and a number of others that pose a deeper challenge but with all of that a part of the problem was the natural tendency when you have a movement emerging and people that are energized to exploit it as much as you can and believe that once you have taken them past the finish line you can collect them, and i will change the metaphor if you

cultivate a rottweiler and as years of devotee in the neighborhood that can be fabulous until you have to go outside and then it may not recognize who the master is, and i think it's been frustrated who africa is a religious leader and a problem solver that he can't control his troops and the as a part of what is going on here. what is also true, and you know this as well as anybody having interviewed and talked to candidates who become members the people coming in as freshmen in 2010 view themselves as different from the 1994 class. what's the difference? we share a lot of ideology, but they want washington. so if you think the 1994 gingrich republicans went washington and they compromised and you're not going to do that that tells you something about where we are within also emerged from the same routes in a similar way but it tells you a little bit of the difference

between the two parties. the tea party movement emerged from the bottom-up but they organized and found candidates. they moved through and into the political process as it was and they did. the occupied movement has occupied. they are sitting their waiting for something to happen and they've had an impact of thinking changing the dialogue the 1%, the 99% that's out there and the fact that you even had the publisher of the leader before the new hampshire primary saying that he was going to endorse newt gingrich and not mitt romney because she's a nice guy and embodied the 1% tells you the impact they've had it had the hidden impact on the politics oran the legislative process, no. find me one candidate recruited as an occupied wall street candidate to run for any office i haven't found one yet so there is a difference and of course it

gets back to why will rogers said i'm not a member of any organized political party i'm a democrat. >> i have a number of these questions that are combatants here that have already taken a sort of shot that's been part of the earlier comments but i think this is a very direct question and we will start with you on this and maybe elaborate. the question is simply doesn't it seem like democrats are unwilling to meet the gop halfway? and if i may just add to that it seems to many of the republicans went more than halfway for much of the last century but 80% of the way, 90% of the way and not simply the republicans are sticking it for republican principles while democrats are refusing to move at all. comments. >> i do think that there is a point to be made if your status

quo party and that doesn't like the status quo there is some unease that you continue the status quo although we made a point of sale you talking about a status quo that goes back a century the start with you result in the building even some basic regulatory regime that carries through the new deal moving back before the era and we are starting at the gilded age still leaves me with some pause billion distend the point. having said that i think if you look for example the trajectory of the discretionary spending which is most of government as we know it is his been imposed leveled off and declined significantly. steve talked about how the deals were so bad and republicans have been screwed repeatedly. i will go back to my friend who noted the 1990 budget agreement where you actually got some very significant spending restraints with tax increases and as

conservative bruce bartlett has said many times when you find you cut taxes you don't cut spending but you raise taxes you do and that's where we've seen those dynamics at work. i think you do see some significant opportunities here to do more than meet half way with the gang of six plan, and steve mentioned the commission. i would just note that when president obama said positive things at the gang of six planned and said this is a framework for which we can work as the senior republican leadership wrote to politico and said that kills at if he's for it we are against it so i think we are not seen that dynamic play out the way the critics would have suggested. >> we should speak and say x conservative. and then saying positive things about the deal, have a slightly

more cynical take on that that is that we've his telling at given the atmosphere you've described the quickest way is out front. maybe i'm being clever and cynical. i don't know but here's the problem to restate it. i'm surprised norm hasn't brought up a twin with the idea we should raise the taxes on the 1% because many of them vote for obama and the desert of the more serious part is that if you want people to want less government will want less of its that is the sort of philosophy saw a man out later there however here's the difficulty. what we see under obama is the federal government share of gdp go from this range of about 21 to 23% of peace time up to about 24 to 27 with the projections taking it up over 40 in the years ahead so there is a

ratchet with obamacare and the stimulus which raised the debate going forward and we are told me us halfway. that's not withstanding any reasonableness on my part or leader boehner and others are open to higher revenues but obama doesn't want to have an argument, he's a believer in liberalism and wants to tax the rich with its economically efficient or pro-growth or not and people are going to have to move off of that it is the move on the republican side. >> did you want to respond? >> i could give a fairly robust response to that in putting basically if you look at most of government other than entitlements which have been supported by both, that spending has gone down but the more important point is you've seen a willingness you know you can say it is a cynical move by supporting something when a president says he's supportive

of a plan that makes dramatic cuts in most of government in cutting medicare or social security and medicaid which is what the gang of six plan endorsed by tom colburn and saxby chambliss, lamar look alexander, you will have a hard time backing away from that and you've laid down a marker that is a very different marker than what republicans other than john boehner have laid out. as soon as they got to the line of revenue in the negotiations on the debt limit eric cantor walked out and made it clear that there wouldn't be any negotiation in the sort and we aren't dealing with a world in which there will be some increases over all because we have a population that's aging and living longer. that however you want to deal with it we are going to have some increases in entitlement although we can kerf that rate of growth. but when you've got taxes that are the lowest level of gdp since the 1950's, the idea that cutting them for their will

enable them to deal with the debt i find it bizarre. >> the next question i did this question all the time this is one of the classic questions of any speaker we as members of the media here so this is a terrific opportunity to beat up on somebody. how much does the media makes republican party look more extreme than they really are? >> is the media a factor here or not? >> i think the 2,040 election it was said they were worth 15 points but john kerry i think that is completely wrong. if it's true republicans would never win despite the media criticism or hostility or whatever people want to say and also i think what's really fun these days is people -- i just watch a lecture where he taught

directly elected the good old days we all watched the same network news and they hate fox news. the media monopolies over. the criticism that we select and agree with that is a reasonable criticism but the extent that media bias was the most in the goldwater years you go back and look at the coverage of laws such research to the to -- atrocious. you go back and criticize pieces by don't tend to play that game. >> tom and i have written a lot about this. i think there was substantial liberal bias on the press in the 1960's. there's no doubt about. i think of course our media environment has changed. we have a partisan press now that is in the future but with much greater immediacy than we've ever seen before and that is added to the competition because it is creating different facts if we were granted that the the the media, you have to

start with that. when he you live in a world where 30 or 40% of the self invite members of one party believe the president isn't legitimate because he wasn't born in the united states it tells you something about the way our media dynamic is working. that's left the press with a bit of a dilemma and i believe they've solved it by falling back on an old you report both sides of the story

>> shouldn't we expect the democrats in opposition to behave just like the republicans are behaving now? or do you think that they will be magnanimous, looking to concede that republican agenda? are they really going to he hates so differently? >> it will be an interesting to

watch event, and i think that democrats will say if we do it to you, you will do it to us. whether they can work together to do that remains to be seen. let me give you in other scenario that is comparable. imagine if the democrats hold the senate and mitt romney becomes president. do i think at that point that the democrats are going to say, screw you, we are going to behave the way that the republicans did, block everything and hold everything hostage? know, i think that mitt romney will go to democrats in the senate are more frequently than he will to republicans, and safety please help me out here. i will bet a considerable amount, not $10,000,. [laughter] but i would bet a considerable amount that he would find 20 democrats willing to cut deals with them.

>> one of the concepts that is identified in the book is that both parties are now subject to enormous pressure from outside groups. some of the reforms over the last 30 years are part of the cause of that. however, the groups exist. they are the rough equivalent of a no tax pledge. the pressure that we bought to organized labor from other groups for the democrats to draw a line in the sand is going to be enormous. it is hard to resist with independent money and the way political organizations are established. this is one of my arguments in another domain, political reform in general,. richard lugar might still have a seat if you have the old, robust organizations that have actually diminished the power of central party organizations and increased the power of other

organizations, insurgent groups. such that political party establishment can come to the rescue of the moderates were long serving members. >> we have time for one or two questions before closing statements. i may start with you. this is a question that was asked. it is in regards to the debt ceiling. was the debt ceiling in a example of extremism, or an appropriate tool to constrain government? >> i would answer it this way. the fight of the debt ceiling represents the new moment we are in, when republicans are saying stop, enough is enough. norman is right. it is a very dangerous thing to do, although i am not much impressed by credit ratings. the same people that said fannie

mae and freddie mac were just fine. the downgrade doesn't give me terribly excited. the optimist in me thinks that this might proved to be, the first run of the debt ceiling, is a bit of the a train wreck. there might be the fiscal equivalent. it turned out to be the key moment when people came back and said no, we have to see our way through this. it is possible. we might have to go a couple of more rounds on this. it could end up as a lame-duck session and depending on other results. i will stop there. >> isn't as a game of chicken and the republicans are playing it better than the democrats? >> i will say that i was appalled at what happened. we have written about this. you don't play chicken with the full faith and credit of the united states. you know, it is true. it is a stupid thing to do,

first of all. you are ratifying previous steps. if you're not actually extending it. it has been a political football ever since we have demonstrated look at all of the votes over many decades, it is almost funny as he watched the parties exchange their scripts with each other as the presidencies change. the level of hypocrisy, as you stand up and piously say that you are going to stand firm for fiscal responsibility, when it is the other guys president, and then you take the script from the other guy, and you say, we have to be responsible here when it is yours. all of that is enough to leave anybody cynical. the fact is that every time in the past, the leaders knew it was a game and they weren't actually going to endanger the full faith and credit of the u.s. they had votes in reserve if they needed them. so they can be attacked for voting to increase the debt limit. this was different.

id standard and poor is as both standard and poor. [laughter] when they wrote about this, and said this is another rescue, wee had that before. they cannot act. speaker boehner said when he became speaker, he said we are going to have to behave like adults. that includes the debt limit. it says to me we are operating on dangerous ground. we can get away with it as long as there is no other reserve currency and other countries are doing worse than we are. but it is not a game i believe we should be playing. >> this reminds me, i was interviewing a candidate earlier this cycle. i won't say what office he was running for.

but we were discussing his position on the debt ceiling. and i said, would you really -- would you really push hard enough so that we would actually go in default? and the candidate -- he was reasonably bright and articulate, knew something about this -- he looked at me and said, well, you know, yes, because everyone would know it was just a technical default. the u.s. government isn't really going into default. it was a technical default. i thought to myself, well, the european markets would've been very contentious if they wouldn't have fell. that is a radical debate, but now we are going to go to closing statements. then i will have a brief conclusion. i gather this has been all figured out, but apparently we are beginning with steve with a five minute closing statement on

the question of whether the republican party now is too extreme. >> okay, let me start my timeout. it seems to me that you cannot conclude the republican party is too extreme when you begin with a very odd premise that democrats are pragmatic problem solvers. even in the case of obama, they consciously use the fundamental rhetoric with large-scale changes. when conservatives seek changes or reforms, they are being radical or extreme or rolling back the clock. this is a nice way to avoid having to argue the merits of any issue. it is a species of lazy stoicism. i think we should step back to some of the particulars of the hypothesis that we discussed tonight, including some of the reforms. i think it would make very little difference difference from actually. let me step back for a moment and look at those from the

summit, so to speak. everyone ought to put on the top of their reading list this week an article that appears in the new criterion issue called the fourth revolution. you can find it at new criterion.com. the author, tim pearson, meet the challenging argument that might be correct. the successor to the party revolutions of 1800, 1860, 1932. that brought a whole new order to our governments. usually, that was through a new party becoming a dominant and long-lasting majority. it could be that this fourth revolution is already underway. i can see the results from wisconsin last week. political scientists will recognize this as a variation of the realignment theory described by emily bell. in the present case, salient fact is this. we are not just looking at some growth of entitlements. we are looking at extraordinary growth in multiple times, the

growth of the gdp in another 30 or 40 years. it seems that some state-level democrats get this straight you see democrats in san jose and san diego, chicago, the governor of new york, the democratic legislature of rhode island, they seem to get this. i think national democrats don't seem to know yet. pearson argues that even if obama is reelected in november, recently, he and his ideology are going to look like the last death gasp of a dying era of governance. bring him in the same ranks as john adams and herbert hoover, as the end of an age. now, suppose that the clash of the parties that has been described could be diminished or ameliorated through a process reform. i think it is -- it takes optimism to a whole new level. as i said a few moments ago, if you extemporaneous comments came

through, and the thesis ought to be taken more seriously. i think that the problem of democratic stability has been taken too much for granted. and the prospects for instability have been too much banished from our minds by the postwar democracy in europe. i think it is not impossible but six months from now, the priest could be governed by a military government or that spain could ask for help from nato and keeping order in the streets if the employment goes to 40% because of the gathering storm on the continent. the prospects are not nearly as dire as said, they are more stable than that, but i think there is some prospect of the republican party breaking of the unless it holds together for the principal. otherwise it will be cut up by the tea party, and what is the use of it republican party goes

outside anyway? if that prospect comes along, as i say, we will look back with fuzzy warm feelings toward john boehner and mitch mcconnell. and at that point, i pass it on to stew for the last word. >> let me just say that i am sad that stable leave us soon, he is very valued as a collie. steve is, of all things, moving to california. we won't go into that. i would also know that steve has been an apostate within the conservative movement in his own party. we quote liberally in favor of leave from pieces that he has written, trying to rein in a conservative movement, and we also received somebody who takes a conservative position on climate change, which

acknowledges there might be a problem, which has been ostracized for many as well. i have a lot of sympathy for him and what he's trying to do. i am an easy about the future. i don't believe we are going to see the emergence of a new majority. i think that we are an evenly divided country. i think a large part of the problem that we have is not structural. it is cultural right now. moving beyond that, and moving beyond the kind of tribal politics, back to something where we view the drive in a larger sense and looks towards problem solving is difficult to do. does much of anything, our book is about the lamentation about problem solving. and the decline of problem-solving. we think about the reality that reining in the cost and size of government comes down fundamentally to health care costs. we do not have two people -- two parties playing to rein in health care costs would repeal and replace is basically repeal and we will talk about it later. when i think about medicaid, the

single largest component of it is long-term care for the elderly. we are looking at population, as i said and you know, is getting older and people are living longer. long-term care is going to be a huge problem. we funded largely through medicare. the states or to find a formula for taking care of the elderly in nursing homes, the goes beyond moving from one nurse's aide for every five patients to one for every 25 patients. it is simply deluding themselves. have we had or has there been any willingness to sit down and discuss how either liberals or conservatives can figure a way for the society to deal with the problem, that people are going to have at their parents engraved prints parents on the road. these are problems that whether you are liberal, conservative, or anything else, they need to be resolved. they are not going to be entirely resolved by government, the government will play a role,

and we are not at a point where we can have a conversation on those things. how we move to that point remains an anonymous challenge for us. it is a challenge for both parties. i worry about a democratic party that over time may well itself become more extreme or more liberal. it is moved, as we have said in our jargon, probably on the hole to about the 25-yard line you using the football field analogy, while i believe the republican party has moved the on its own goalpost. but you can imagine a democratic party that loses almost all of the remaining elements of its moderate and conservative movement, and that decides more and more to dig its heels in. i do not think that has happened, and i think some of the rhetoric has been kind of ridiculous. the democratic party that took all the reins of power, and did not enact any of the labor wish list items, they came up with a health care plan that didn't do a single pair, and didn't do a

public option. the idea that this is the secular socialist machine that newt gingrich called it, or this is an administration and the democratic party that is herman cain said the other day, consciously deliberately is trying to destroy capitalism, i find it a little bit ridiculous. but you can imagine both parties moving further apart. those type of republicans, with no easy place to go. he leaves them with no place to go. i do not think a third party is going to emerge from our system and culture won't tolerate that. but we are going to have to find some way to get back to culture of problem-solving for the rest of the country might end up looking like california squared. >> i would like to thank steve and norm for a terrific debate. [applause] [applause] >> they showed their great

intellect and stability. i would like to note that this and debates are available at aei.org. i would like to note that moore's book will be available for purchase after we adjourn. here is the book, "it's even worse than it looks." please look at these two gentlemen. the title of this book is "it's even worse than it looks." look at them. they are even better than they look. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> up next on c-span 2, senate finance committee chairman max bachus talks about overhauling the nation's tax code. then google discusses the history of the internet.

>> the lettuce and british media investigation continues all this week in london. in testimony on monday, orden brown was critical of rupert murdoch. his son, james murdoch commander edition newspapers. tomorrow, john major and ed miller band testified before the commission. wednesday, it is deputy prime minister nick clegg and thursday, david cameron will take questions from the levinson inquiry. we will have live coverage starting at 5:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span 2. >> nancy pelosi began her career in the u.s. house in 1987. >> mr. speaker, as you know, eight years ago this month, the soviet union invaded afghanistan. to no one's surprise from the occupation of afghanistan has turned into a bloody war with no victors. a group of human rights lawyers from the united states, britain, sweden, and malta.

documents countless acts of terror perpetrated against the afghan people. >> 25 years later, the current house minority leader was honored on the house floor by republican and democratic leaders. watch those tributes for any part of her career on the house and online at the c-span video library. you're watching c-span 2. 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 her website, you can join in the conversation on social media sites. next, max baucus and the tax code provision. his remarks are followed by a panel with bill thomas and

former white house budget director, alice rivlin. the bipartisan policy center posted this one hour event. >> good morning and welcome to the bipartisan policy center. i am michelle stockwell, vice president of pulbic policy. for those of you not familiar come out we are a think tank and advocacy organization that works with republicans and democrats to develop aleutians for the key problems facing our country. we have packets of information up front, then include some of our more recent proposals, including our tax reform proposal and a recent report on the sequester. we were founded in 2007 by the former senate majority leaders, howard baker, tom daschle, bob dole, and george mitchell. we bring together all sides, regard of political affiliation when tackling a problem. certainly, our federal debt is one of the most pressing issues facing the nation today. for the past two years, our

bipartisan debt reduction task force led by senator pete domenici and doctor alice rivlin has been calling upon congress and the president. we would like to reduce the federal debt by 2020. tax reform is the other key piece of the debt reduction come in addition to entitlement reform. we are pleased to be joined today by the senate finance committee chairman baucus, and this is the wish panel on tax policy. here to introduce senator baucus is current senior fellow at bipartisan policy center. [applause] [applause] >> i knew it would take a house member to recognize me.

[laughter] i don't know whether he would have applauded for pete domenici or not. there's no reason he shouldn't. i just want to savor longtime we have been talking to our better national debt. it is not getting any better. there are some cynics around who continue to think it is not very serious. we have had this problem before, don't worry. i am not one of those. i think we have never had this problem before, except for once when we were in a big war. we fixed about rather quickly, and we spent whatever had to be spent for the second world war, regardless of how much we overspend, because we had to win. once we won, it took about three or four years to get back in balance. we have no such intent come and nobody seems willing to see that that is done. in trying to educate the public as best as we can, with a president who doesn't seem to want to educate the public on this issue, we try hard, and we

are making a point. many others are making a point that the dentist today, and maybe it might be, in some profound way, affecting her life now and in the future. in the promoting of this problem to our people, we have talked to greatly and incessantly about reforming entitlements. no question about it. it is there all the time. but today, the tax piece of the debt puzzle is going to be discussed. the tax piece of the debt puzzle is going to be given equal prowess with entitlement reform. anybody that looks at the entitlement package and the tax package, the laws of taxes in america, those that you can't have one without the other.

they are both in desperate need of reform. today, we are very fortunate under the ostracism of the bipartisan policy committee to have a number of superb speakers, experienced, knowledgeable in this problem, who offer in their own regard come and answer questions. their ideas about this enormous problem. our first speaker is a westerner like me. max baucus. max comes from the great state of montana, and believe it or not, in his campaigning in the west, he has walked the longest distance of that state. he he's walked it as part of his campaign. he has never forgotten. you have to get to the small people and talk with him. anyway he has a series of events which brings the people to him to talk about the problems, and he gives a pretty good idea of how his constituents feel before he goes to work on problems here

in the united states congress, and is chairman of one of the most powerful united states senate committees, if not the most powerful. he is a chairman is a quiet, determined man read i am very pleased that he agreed to come and share. i don't think he has done this before. in this crisis, he has not come to share his thoughts, as i said a while ago, about the tax of the debt puzzle. with that, let me thank max for coming, and once again introduce them to use if you can address this. max, thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much, pete. i am so honored to be here.

and i mean that. first, the colleagues of mine that i work with through the years, those i think do a super job representing their states and working to help solve the nation's problems. they are true public servants. pete domenici is certainly one and bob packwood and others, also my good friend bill thomas. let's give a big round of applause to the members of congress that are here. they really worked hard and still are working hard. thank you all so very, very much. thank you to the bipartisan policy center. thank you for bringing us together. i have often thought nothing of consequence has ever accomplished by doing something alone. it is about partnership. the bipartisan policy center has done that. i want to thank them for getting together and helping advance the

ball here. winston churchill once said i'm a however beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. we need to overhaul the u.s. tax code seems obvious. today, the code is certainly not beautiful. instead, it reminds me of the mythical greek beast with hundreds of heads. each time you cut one off, two more would grow back. like this beast, our tax code is growing out of control. since 1986, congress has made 15,000 changes to the code. we need to get rid of the deadwood and dead wood and simplify the code. and we should. tax reform can't be an abstract academic exercise. we need to heed churchill's advice, which is start with a clear understanding of results

we would like to achieve. a 21st century tech code -- taxco promotes four goals. jobs from broad-based growth, competitiveness, innovation, and opportunity. these four goals will be the heart of my tax reform plan. but there are challenges to overcome. we need to get our fiscal house in order. america's deficits and debt are unsustainable. today, the debt to gdp ratio is 73%, the highest since world war ii. deficits and debt are not just a spending problem. revenues in the share of gross domestic product over the last two years are the lowest they have been since world war ii.

we simply don't raise enough revenue. reasonable people disagree about the timeline. but the reality is we are on a dangerous path. if we don't act, it could lead towards fiscal crisis like some european countries. any tax reform plan must be developed with a sound budget in mind that reduces deficits for the debt. the deficit is not our only hurdle, not by a long shot. since the last major tax reform in 1986, the world has changed drastically. our taxco hasn't kept up. now it is acting like a brake on our economy. when we need to move at full speed. it is time that we had a taxco for the 21st century.

it is time we had a tax code for the 21st century. it had topped the charts. i guess some things don't change. the world is also changed in more profound ways. since 1986, the u.s. economy has grown by 80%. this rising tide that has not lifted all votes. after benefits and taxes, the top 1% of taxpayers is growing eight times faster over the past 30 years. and it is growing 15 times faster. we are not educating our children to be competitive in today's information-based

economy. over the past 15 years, the percentage of young americans going for a college degree increased only 15%. meanwhile, among our foreign competitors, that increased by only 90%. we are not seen as competitive. a child's income depends on the parents income in our country more than others. this lack of opportunity undermines the american dream. it hurts growth and means we are not capitalizing on a lark sits and talents. families today are also different than what they were in 1986. this means more families need to pay for childcare, but the tax code has not taken this into effect. the makeup is also different of our country than it was in 1986. a number of americans in

manufacturing jobs has dropped by one third. services like consulting, information technology, they make a bigger part of our economy. our exports have nearly doubled, and we are exporting different kinds of products. we mainly exported like tv sets and clothing, but today we export financial services, software, and engineering. the global economy has been interconnected. america leading the world has narrowed our place. competition has intensified. other countries have responded by making investments in education and infrastructure, and by modernizing the tax code's to be more competitive. they have lowered corporate rates to attract businesses and shifted territorial systems to keep companies from moving overseas, and they have tougher rules against shifting profits through taxation.

these tax games are easier in today's world where companies most valuable assets are patents instead of factories. in contrast, the u.s. has one of the highest statutory corporate tax rates in the world. we get countless tax breaks to businesses, but many don't attract and retain investments. it is a waste. we are stuck with a worldwide system. as a result, the u.s. loses billions of dollars of revenue and we also lose jobs to companies acquiring u.s. firms. in the past two decades, the number of us-based companies on the fortune 500 globalist has declined by 25%. foreign companies increasingly acquire u.s. companies. american jobs are lost in the process. two years ago, the european

company unilever acquired an american company in chicago. hundreds of americans lost their jobs. there are many examples where foreign countries acquire domestics because of tax codes. when it comes to international tax rules, we seem to have the worst of all worlds. we haven't kept up, it is time to change. how do we do that? week,. >> jobs, more jobs, greater competitiveness, more innovation, and clearly more opportunity. first and foremost, we need to create jobs. getting rid of tax expenditures generate growth. tax rates on 10 rates have

doubled since 1986. some are worthwhile, but many fail to create jobs for growth. the uncertainty of the code, uncertainty impedes growth. there were only 14 expiring tax provisions after the 1986 act. to date, there are 132. that makes it tough for families and businesses to plan and invest in the future. when you take a hard look at each and every aspiring provision, deciding which to make permanent and which to eliminate. you need to get out of the way of the market unless there is clear evidence that tax expenditure spurs growth and create jobs. every tax provision has a benefit to the economy or society if not, it doesn't belong in the code. second, we need to support american competitiveness.

the tax code must adapt to the changes in the global economy since 1986. we need to update our corporate tax rules to print -- prevent companies were they haven't earned any incomes. we need to reduce u.s. companies incentives to move overseas. many u.s. companies are choosing to keep jobs here at home and we need to encourage it. third, we must support innovation here at home. microsoft and apple both started smart ideas on an american garages. there is a reason why some silicon valley internet content silicon alley are in america. we need to create jobs and innovate them. today's economy depends more on innovative fields, like high-tech manufacturing and intellectual property. we can use tax measures to put research and technologies on a more level playing field with

existing technologies, especially in the energy sector. finally, we need to promote opportunity. tax reform can boost share growth and make our society more of a meritocracy. many tax benefits, including education, give the most help to those that have most opportunities. we should refocus these benefits to help those who started off with fewer opportunities. we should ensure more students get education, not just special college, but special training. the americans are the most creative and driven people in the world. education is the key to unlocking potential. it is one of the best investments we can make as a nation. a college graduate working full-time earns nearly a million dollars more over his lifetime than a high school graduate. promoting education and opportunity will pay dividends.

we can accomplish all this with tax reform, we can get results. jobs through broad-based growth. they tax code that puts america in the best positioned to compete in the global economy. more homegrown innovation and opportunities for all of our citizens and a chance at the american dream. much of the talk in washington these days is focused on the so-called fiscal cliff. we need to address the crucial spending and tax whereby the end of this year. but we must reach an agreement on the budget plan, and as the bipartisan policy center recognizes, everybody needs to contribute. deficit reduction must include both spending and revenues, and needs to amp up overtime to avoid slowing down economic recovery. as we just the deficit, we must look a couple setups ahead.

tax reform is a once in a generation opportunity. we can cement america's preeminence. the work has begun. last year, the committee began a conference overview of our texts some, at numerous roundtable discussions and have reached out through businesses, tax experts, and many others for input. and they studied the specifics. they are making a detailed proposal that will attract bipartisan support. we know that tax reform will not be easy. we need to slay some sacred cows. and some of the tax breaks disappear, someone will be unhappy. but that is the wrong way to look at it. the right way is to remember that tax reform should focus on the results that we want. it can create jobs. it can spark innovation. it can expand opportunity.

it can guarantee our competitiveness. it can put america back on top. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> i am the director of economic policy here. we are going to have two or three questions. if someone has a question, please ask. >> [inaudible question] >> can you speak up? >> i am from "national journal." senator baucus, what is the difference between your plan and the plan proposed last fall? >> i am not sure what was proposed, frankly, none of us know precisely. the main thing is this.

i believe, too often in this town, folks focus on mechanics. should we have a church were ill or worldwide system -- rather we should figure what we want to accomplish with tax reform. what is the real reason for tax reform and why are we doing this. sure, it is complicated. it is not very simple. we know all that. but i don't know that we should make changes simply for the sake of simplicity, or simply for the sake of reproduction, which i agree with. while doing so, let's figure out what we want for our country. that is what i think is slightly different. if we sit down and talk about these points, i think the chairman would agree. my main point is let's focus on

the results. the world has changed so much. there is so much at stake. it is partly the fiscal cliff that has to be addressed. there is no debate there. here's an opportunity to refocus our direction, so our children and grandchildren are much more likely to be better off than we are. we all have a moral obligation to leave this place in a better way to be found there. here's an opportunity, especially since there has not been a major change in code since 1986. >> i am from reuters. we think the most likely scenario would be in dealing with the fiscal cliff, and sequester. some people think that a one-year extension and some kind of trigger or fast-track to get tax reform going in to enforce the issue -- can you talk about

-- how you divide the bush era tax cuts in terms of the wealthy? nancy has called for a vote on burners with a million or more income. do you think that is a way to go or stick with the 250 metric? >> with all respect, to all of those specific suggestions, the better approach at this point, in june, it is to do what many of us are doing. namely, engage in a lot of discussions, republicans and democrats. i have attended many such meetings in the last several weeks. by and large, they tend to be rough starting points that people tend to agree with. to be candid, i don't think many members of congress have drilled down the details of bulls congress for. that is part of the exercise

here. i'm going to hold a hearing on bowles-simpson and the other is an opportunity for senators to understand what is included in each. and also so they can better understand the entitlements. what actions can we take under medicare. senators in the country need to know what the trade-offs are and what each change actually costs are what the consequences are. the same thing on the revenue side. i firmly believe that where there are facts coming people tend to focus more on facts and less on the rhetoric. i'm trying to get over the rhetoric and get people to think about the facts. in these hearings, we work together to get tax reform.

and debt reduction, my view is that everything is on the table that is a psychology that is very important to keep people talking and working. i'm going to be having a finance committee next week, a meeting with members of the finance committee. that is probably the first step for members only. we are going to talk about the traditional extenders. is there a way we can extend some and repeal others without any games. by that, i mean democrats still offering the best democrats not offering the buffett tax. that is the chunk that we can deal with. hopefully we can start to regain

your trust and we can start to deal better with the quick. those precise questions you asked, their questions the need to be asked. the better way is resolved if there is more agreement into what it should be. we should try to avoid the division of the election, i don't want customers to be lame duck. we all know what is the right thing to do. it is just a matter of politically getting there. >> [inaudible question] >> that should certainly be on the table. i know that chairman kim talks about that, and it is an idea that has to be fully explored. otherwise, you are begging

another big issue that says that tax cuts should be expired. they are extending the mall for six months or so -- the danger is that congress won't act. it won't address against it. i think that is a big danger. the answer to that -- his answer is critical. we will see. >> could you address the issue, senator, could you address how flat the code should be? it is in vogue right now that there should be just a few rates and all kinds of tax incentives and tax expenditures should be eliminated.

can you accomplish the kinds of goals that you are talking about with that kind of code? >> all things being equal, the flatter the better. but all things are never equal. there are so many other considerations. let me put it this way. maybe sometime when mr. forbes runs for president, thus the flat tax was neutral. if i recall, that would be about 18 or 19%. i could be wrong on that. i could be wrong on the precise rate. the thing is, when people start realizing the actual effect on thought, they back off. under that proposal, flat tax proposal, those are incomes above and are big windfall. it was back then. we would have to pay a lot more taxes. a lot more people would have to pay taxes and we have to be very

careful. i must they, too, that the flat proposals also suggest major tax expenditure illumination to get there. i think some of that is unrealistic, politically, how much that can happen. there is another factor here, and that is revenue. if we are going to solve the deficit, we have to look at the revenue. we have to look at revenue. there is no escape. we happier. my major point is -- it is the goal. let's see what we have to do to get growth. let's see what we can do to make our country more competitive. let's see how make our country more innovative.

one major advantage that we have in america is our creativity and intelligence. the major advantage that we have as our creativity. there is a reason why google, microsoft, and apple, and facebook are american companies. we have to maintain that. you constantly hear that -- it is one advantage that we have to face as a country. and we really have to make sure that we maintain that and keep it. you have to find ways to get growth. the code can do it all. the code can't always address the income in our country. but certainly, the code is a useful tool, and a perfect opportunity to address growth,

innovation, and try to come in some ways, deal with maldistribution. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate it very much. >> thank you for all of you being here. [applause] [applause] >> my name is steve bell, and i am the director of economic policy here. our moderator for the next portion of this is going to be kristin roberts, from "national journal." before she joined the national journal, she worked as a washington-based news editor at reuters. she joined reuters in 1998, and she has had the opportunity in 2006 to spend a lot of time doing pentagon coverage, including her trips with senator gaetz, donald rumsfeld, and

doing world policy visits her cell. it is a great pleasure to introduce kristin roberts. >> thank you very much. i have an excellent panel here that deserves no introduction, but i'm going to give you an introduction anyway. doctor alice rivlin, former white house budget director and widely recognized as one of the foremost expert, that is senator bob packwood. chairman of finance committee, he was one of the architects of the 1986 reform, congressman bill thomas. another chairman, chairman of the ways and means committee. one of the main proponents of the tax cut bill over the last decade. we have robert greenstein, founder and president of the center on budget ilc priorities. and social safety net programs.

let's start with doctor alice rivlin. did it change at all? >> i was glad to here him say several things he said. one, clearly we will need more revenue as we address the long-run deficit problem. and he stuck with progressive rates. he is a more cautious man, i am more radical -- i am a centrist, i would go for a more dramatic tax reform. but i thought he laid out many of the reasons that we need tax reform, and laid them out well. >> to gain any insight from his comments about where the tea party might find areas of consensus, or was there not enough they are?

sumac i'm sorry? >> i was referring to this. there were several questions asked by journalists to try to hone in on specifics, and i thought chairman baucus his answers were that i want to avoid laying out any specifics that around which there would be partisan division before the election. there was a consistent theme there that they need to be behind-the-scenes discussions now, to lay the framework for more intensive discussions when the election was behind us. so while on the one hand, i don't think there were specifics that suggested for their bipartisan progress as a result of this speech, i actually thought more significant development was that there was nothing in what he said that in

pete's bipartisan cooperation, and frankly, lots of statements that get made these days do have things in them that if he bipartisan cooperation come so i would rate it as a plus in that. >> is this the right strategy? >> i am like alice rivlin. i will tell you where i come from, and that is that i am a pragmatist. you need to get a majority of people saying yes. the atmosphere has been such that you are not going to be able to at this time. senator baucus is a creature of the senate. the senate deals and concepts. i am a creature of the house. the house feels in specifics that have to be written up ahead of time and scored before we vote. i think one of the important things that we need to stress is that people should not sit around, making lists of what they will not do. that automatically limits your

ability to move. secondly, this panel is described as the tax part of the debt problem. coming from the ways and means committee, the tax part is the debt problem. because social security is a tax. the medicare part a is a tax. medicare part b, the general fund, which goes back to see number one, the income corporate tax. addressing that broad tax question, not splitting it up into entitlements of social network, if you want to make sure, and i agree with this, the system needs to progressive. you will not get enough people to vote yes if it isn't. if you are looking to take someone's income or wealth, and use it smartly. as senator baucus said, you can talk about making changes in social security, bringing tax

money from the wealthy into the social security system, and by the way, solve the social security problem. you can deal with the tax portion that goes to medicare, and do it in a way that you take care people's medi-cal and social needs, but allow people to spend their own money on what they want beyond what medicare would provide. i'm a strong believe -- a strong believer that taxes need to be addressed in a broader way. i firmly believe you can talk about polls all you want. but we have put up stop signs, we have put up stoplights. none of it ever changes congress' behavior.

what can we do to grow? don't talk about what the world is going to look like in 2025 or 2030 with what we are doing today. make sure you don't make it harder to solve our problems, but get people to say yes to a simple plan that encompasses a very creative approach to dealing with the problems in the system. >> chairman bob packwood? >> complete entitlements and social security. anybody that extended it knows that the spending part of that is a problem. ..

>> i will put together a group to work with democrats, moynahan, mitchell and bradley and republican including wallop. then that group at my office meeting tuesday through friday. we did all of the work in the morning.

saturday night we reached a conclusion, and the outlines of the bill. last minute i had to change the exception on the passive losses we had taken away to everybody else. i could be them by about it would take them on the floor. i gave them what they wanted in exchange of a promise to support everything else. they did. 10 days it was done in secret, quickly and the leadership of republican and democratic members of the committee. >> lame-duck session was there any benefit?

if they ask congress to force the next congress? >> a statute? >> >> i don't think this will happen but like the gate 1/6 last summer nobody thinks you will rewrite the whole tax code. it is very complicated and will be even more so because 86 is revenue neutral offside days of said by the other side to mike nobody realized how much fat there was. of the corporate rate was 46 finally cut sit at 33% and raises $140 billion and we

could offset that with the individual's two-thirds of the business community agreed with what we had done. >> the difference is there would be broad agreement to be economically more e efficient than the opposite. showing that day failed to deal with serious long-term fiscal problems. as chairman baucus said there is of contribution i was glad to hear him say the first goal of tax reform has significant revenue.

the possibility is a framework agreement where you lay out a target for revenue and use set out a time frame to do legislation that does this and tie it all together. the entitlement cuts don't take effect unless the target numbers are hit. then put it together and make it happen 2013. >> we can make light of the stoplight but the fiscal cliff is a real clef. it would be very bad for the economy and what people care about if we let all tax cuts

expire at once and the amt and all things as well as the sequester to make a framework for agreement to six months comeback with the real tax reform and if you don't do that, the cliff is still there there is a reason but giving congress more time and what seems to be reasonable they did it in six days. [laughter] is called kicking the can down the road.

the fiscal cliff is still there. >> i am not making light of it. the stoplight was a statute passed to have that not occur. bob took away a lot of the things that senator baucus was talking about with tax expenditures. guess what happened the next day? they put those right back in the code. the problems came back. let's be pragmatic. i cannot tell you what will happen lame-duck unless you tell me who controls the senate following the election.

i cannot tell you unless you tell me who wins the presidential race. those factors will shape what happens. probably nothing. but when the senator says i put everything on the table did he mean security, medicare? he means defense. just like the flat tax. there is a bump. you have to look at the situation we are in. the problem that the congress has come a week cannot have too many moving parts. it will be hard to keep it together.

you cannot deal and concepts. there will have to be stakes on the ground to see if you can address them. i think the more you pressure them with a down payment and people are sworn in you will run into problems. everybody knows what the options are. messina it domenici rivlin, and other plants presented you can pick and choose. but is there the will?

it is the will to make it happen. any artificial deadline is just that. >> >> i huge mistake is to kick everything down the road. of framework of tax reform. there is no reason it can't or should we should not extend those above 250 in return there should be specific entitlement changes certain veins up front than there is a process.

what happened by january 1st? and probably not. there is a fiscal cliff but cbo says all tax cuts expire will probably go into a mild recession. you do not pull aggregate demand out the first month. the reason i mention that when the government shut down 1995, the pressure was so intense that in three weeks we have a deal. we could go over the side january 1st the pressure is intense and there is a framework deal that is retroactive january 1st.

one final point*. many think you cannot regulate the tax code but what some members came to understand changes of health care almost as complicated you need a number of months so there is a parallel time. >> talk about the mortgage interest the congress and president have been unwilling at all. what needs to be on the table lower eliminating?

>> that is easy. big about your result 51 a top rate you could have three rates. is not bad but to get their you have to tax all fringe benefits eliminate deductions and mortgage interest deduction, . >> it is all state and local taxes. uk get the top rate of 25%. with the progressivity the working wage they don't have a lot of deductions. the people you hit with deductions are the rich people who give contributions to the symphony. u.k. keep the progressivity

reasonable but with a view modest changes you have to decide on the rate to the what do we have to get to that? is that attractive enough? those rates are the amazing attraction. >> you cannot maintain a reasonable progressivity but eliminate the differential. >> but if you maintain moving them to this side it is proportional. because of exclusion if you maintain the differential

you have a huge increase. >> you think this must have been the third conceptual framework because you protect entitlements. the reason the government shutdown and came back together so quickly it was day temper tantrum over a modest argument. because we have the potential for a fundamental decision both in terms of what the democrats want in the republicans want to add that they do can solve that from the five attacks or the trust fund. there are ways to deal with

that in another structure. >> everything fell apart because they could not get into the washington monument and washington could not stand that pressure. >> going back to progressivity you use the word eliminate the home mortgage deduction for example. you don't have to do that. you could make the advantages much more progressive ruby would convert the home mortgage deduction to tax credit at the lower rate. if you do that to you give more benefits to people who

don't take the deduction because they don't itemize. it is hard on high-income people and you have to grandfather the existing ones but we just built expensive houses. >> what you did was not unlike the fairfax. obviously at the tax bracket that is a big difference. >> there is a lot of ways to get their. >> and my friends the liberals say lower rates

make it easier on rich people but those that did vantage the upper end come with more progressive with lower rates. >> nothing is behind the curtain but it is now with exemptions. >> pete and i pointed out in front. >> there is issues of concepts boss of the method you do across the board rate cut it has a regressive defect and to maintain progressivity dead tax expenditure changes have to be progressive strongly in favor of what alice talks about.

lowered sample for home ownership those who could do that anyway. from the economic efficiencies standpoint is upside-down the larger the rate reduction the big your best that -- tactics venture and with the political difficulty. it is virtually impossible to get rates down at 29 to maintain progressivity without eliminating capital gains dividend to -- differential. but my view is i worry is

the rate of a revenue target the employer health exclusion it will give way but to say to members you want a lower rate? and that means how far you are willing to go to hit the revenue target to help get us to the reduction goals. >> please get them microphones out to. >> this is what i meant get out of the box of progressivity. that just means that the rich pay more.

you should not just look gadget with terms of the income-tax why not in terms of medicare? part b is said general powell fund and that causes problems that everybody talks about. democrats would create a program that has the o.k. medicare structure. everybody gets back. above that, those who have wealth if you want to be progressive people could spend what they want above what the medicare structure is. then put it on in the table with fica.

it does not reflect what was originally proposed. put it into the five attacks in makes so security more. entitlement is killing us. you want the ability to get socially supported health benefits for every one. so wide you have to say those who have wealth cannot spend it? let government play with it then provide a better benefit? that is what you could use your own money. cap entitlement to not give it to everybody open ended let people spend their own

money above and beyond the adequate and appropriate social safety net for senior leave -- living and health. that is what the debate should be about the under the tax heading. >> brian johnson from american petroleum institute to win the match this figure out it will be on politics we know that but the chairman without hopeful tax reform proposal is it telling lourdes inserting when asked earlier the chairman said he did not know what the chairman put out?

>> i think it was referenced just to the program with the commission that was created by a obama and also davinci/rivlin that they were knowledgeable i did not think that was shocking. >> i interpreted it to say i am not ready to come forward with my details. >> he mentioned it jog my thinking review are from here is a long shot but it would be the right thing to do if we could get agreement that levy a significant amount of revenue it would

be great of the tax reform process to get a tax on carbon new kudu's part of the results for deficit reduction part to offset as part of the deal for to help lower income tax rate. by an increasingly nervous about what will happen worldwide by our inability to deal with climate change wall what maybe more serious than our ability to do with fiscal issues. the fact that we do need revenue could be an opening for a bipartisan agreement spent.

>> thank you all of you there has been several references to sequestration not as a method to reduce the deficit but to arrive at that solution. there is a requirement to provide 60 or 90 days' notice if you have significant layoffs. that occurred two days before the election the think it is appropriate where necessary to get some agreement to waive that provision?

it will result in loss of 1 million jobs may agree there is not enough time to debate but what about removing the egregious consequences? >> if there is a possibility of 1 million have been before the election it will be changed. >> i understand. even after is what anybody wants to talk about. >> they have the potential for what people to believe the possible outcome it will affect behavior.

quickly on territory quote, '60s and '70s moving u.s. did not go through devastating wars or rebuild the entire economy we talked about the cars being made overseas and honda announced shifted from being made in japan lear cheaper to build cars because of the differential. we can now look at changing to be more like the rest of the world. it talk about territorial vs. worldwide is archaic. it takes energy to vote yes. there are only 70 yes vote

this out of members. you have to prioritize where you ask them to vote yes. it is easier to ignore something that is supposed to happen then force people to vote yes to stop something that would not have been any way. that is why they vote to put it in. [laughter] >> despite skepticism i think this is a huge opportunity for tax reform. however working out mechanics of the main dock this should make the tax code more fair and more pro-growth. >> thank you for joining s