you center to be your own leaders in your own sphere. and grow from there and become stronger if you really are determined to be someone who speaks for the principals and values that mean something to you and not be quiet in the corner. make yourself be that person. [inaudible] it's too bad there is a lot of thought in the media. what is the current tactic in poplarrizing in the -- [inaudible] ho are they doing? >> what's the approach. again, you know, as i said, the first thing i thing is number one, you know a few issues. get a few that are important to

you. and you start debating them. start debating them. and talking about how you do this. all do the same thing. look for opportunities if you're a strong pro-lifer i'm not going to find pro-choicers and make your case to them. you have it wrong. every single time a child is life is taken. how can you take this possibility and they're going to beat the blazes for you. you need to keep coming back. i believe in some conservative disagree with me on this but i believe i'm not in your face kind of person. i'll take you on if you take me on and hold any own. but i think essentially sense respect. goes a great deal great distance. you ask say, and you see them the next day. you lost the primary. and your man isn't doing too well. boy, you knocked off our game plan.

whether it be in local politics on campus or issues that are happening or the president issue. don't take yourselves too seriously. but recognize that the issues that you hold dear are to be taken seriously. you don't let anybody get away with the dismissing them or ridiculing them or making you feel uncomfortable you come back if you're not sewer what you're going they. your intensities and beliefs that's sells. it might not sell to the person you're talking about to. that person believes this. it's crazy. and i respect them. how they're holding standing up. they will consider what you have said. they will register somewhere. it might not work this year but next year at another time. you can make a difference. that's how you sell perspectivism. by the way, it else is well because we're right.

[inaudible] active nighttime. all he had was a pow potato. you look at the poi they tow ab as he was going to cook it he thought of the next day. what is he going to eat the next day? he cut it in half and he ate half. saved the half for the next day. one of the things that most journalist, anybody who goes to cuba fails to see, even that go to cuba, they fail to see the way food controls everybody. lack of food. so many times when you don't

have any food to offer to your child, you take a little bit of sugar, put in water, you shake it. this is your meal for today. and this is your meal for tomorrow. and you might take -- and i'm doing a demonstration we go a lot of abstract thoughts here and i look you to remember you know, this. you put the sugar and water. this your meal for today. after she said, the women are responsible for our children's food. so the heart breaking thing is physical to see how they control you, you know. the economist is very well known magazine. and the economist have ab

article about cuba. everything is okay. when it comes to food you know what it says? the economist -- [inaudible] all the cubans have ration card and the ration card subsidizes food and you're like how can a good journalist be so fooled? and this is what is fee dell has done all over the world. all over the world people think health is good in cuba and medicines are good in cuba. you know what i take for presents to my friends when i go to cuba? a zip lock with ten aspirins. this is what i give them as gifts. there are no painkillers. government-controlled economy it's just something totally different that you cannot visualize. thank you for asking.

>> hi, my name is -- [inaudible] and the university and my question is for -- [inaudible] i know you talk about the health care bill and i was wondering [inaudible] what do you think the republican stance in solving the health care crisis as it is right now? [inaudible] more competition -- [inaudible] how do you think the republicans will go about health care bill -- [inaudible]

i can't speak for the legislature. the bottom line is when congress passed law, they deal with the coverage issue and not cost issue and for small business owners, i represent we still even if we win, we still want reform that will drive down cost and you allowed some of the solutions just like with life insurance you should be able to buy health insurance across state lines. you should be -- insurance should be portable, you know, not that the small business owners i represent don't want to offer health insurance to their employees, but truthfully we're getting -- i think it's increasingly become the case people are tied to the employer through their insurance and if we could all just be twreeted the same under the tax system get your insurance for the employer or not you get a policy

it becomes truly portable. you get to pick what you want. what works for you. one other thing i would say is a problem with the law is all the mandates that are, you know, it's not just about having insurance. it's what kind of insurance you have. and this came out in the oral argument to from the chief justice which is a lot of people never are going to need substance and abuse treatment. but under the law, all of us are going to have to buy a policy that includes that which means we're paying extra for something in many instances we're never going to need. we want more flexibility people to pick what it is they need. a lot of the business owners i represent, they don't need help paying. they don't need prepaid medical expenses. they can pay to the doctor. they need true insurance that helps if you get a catastrophic illness. that's the interesting thing. that's what the government is coming to.

all the people that get the illnesses they go to the emergency room and the rest of us have to pay the bills. under the law, that type of catastrophic coverage is illegal. you can't buy a pots under the law that could cover those types of illnesses. many of my members that's all they need, that's all they want. we more choice, notless like we have now. and more port ability of insurance and equal tax treatment. >> thank you. hi, my name is an morris and i'm interning for life. my question is mrs. somers my question is among my peers i noticed the idea in order to be a woman in the career field you need to become a man we're expected to sterile lose ourself far long time. there's law ab academia and medicine have high upfront

investments in terms of time by the time you get tenure by the time you finish medical residence your peak years for fertile -- their trying to balance this. i don't want to become a man. i might not want to wait until i'm done with medical school until i'm done dating. i was wondering for you haded a violence for how to balance it. >> it's big questions. it would be nice if we had a women's movement that was responsive to that. it's been good at telling women how to not have children. how to, you know, the right abort if you get pregnant. birth control, they're good about that. day care, everything, not being -- what about women thapt to have children, and want to be with them? what are the policies they encourage to make that

possible? i don't see them. and that's i think it's a huge problem with con tremple their feminism. it's not responsive to where women are. you look at the london school of economics and you study's women's preferences you find that 30% of women are high power careerist. they are the match for any man. you see them at the height of success. they are very devoted. 20% of women want to stay home. they don't want to work. they might if they have to. only if some great misfortunately. they want to have children and be home. be traditional about 60 percent of us are in the middle. katherine call it is the adaptive. the women behave like the stay at home moms and high power careerist. they want balance between workplace and home life. they know there's an article today it came out in the atlantic and caused a stir it

was referred to in the front page of the "new york times" it's written by an marie. she was a high powered official at the state department. she ended up leaving her job not pursuing anymore power in washington. she wanted to be home. and she had a cooperative husband who would happy my take care of the kids. it's not the same. she had 12-year-old boy who was skipping school and starting trouble. the husband was trying to handled it. she knew she had to be there. she didn't -- women are distracted by children and it's not easy to put them day care and a lot of men can do it. they find it possible. and but we need a women's movement that is responsive to that need, that reality. what i'm telling you, i can't refer you to organization that are responsibly addressing the issue. there are a few, they are very

small. the majority of women's movements and gender scholars in the university they are convinced that gender is just arbitrary not arbitrary it's cultural social decision there's no difference between men and women. by mixing up the children's toys you can mix it up. we would be a gender neutral population. it's never happened. it's a feminist fairy tail from the 1970s. mother nature appears not to be that politically correct. there are differences and women as you see from the story as i said it's causing a stir because it makes them nervous when women admit they might have some special attraction to the domestic sphere. feminism is about getting women in the public sphere. that's good. we needed that. but it would be better if we had a movement that was reality based which is that most women

want to be in both spheres and men it's their relation to the domestic sphere is very different. >> i'd like to take -- excellent question. as automatic of them have been, i might add. but specifically, i think what you have to come grips with, one of the ladies said equal it's hard to be equal. it's not hard to be equal as long as you recognize you're not the same. we're not the same of men. why would we want to be? we have the better of end of the deal. we have enormous talents and abilities. at this age you want to pursue them. see theaferg you might want to do. try different things. if you want to be a doctor go for it. if you want to be an attorney go for the law school. doesn't mean you postpone dating or family. it means what you are doing right now. but the key, i think, fur you all is to keep your minds open to other possibilities.

as you're going through school, you meet somebody you married, you get your degree. maybe you say, i'm going it take the bar and work part-time or full time or i'm not going to go the corporate route. you have all kinds of choices available to you. don't not get the education. don't saying saying with well i want to be married if ifers a doctor it would conflict. you don't know it will conflict. you don't know if you're going end up finding the right person as the right time. duoas fast as hard as you can when it comes to education. enjoy life. if the opportunity comes to be married and have a family grasp it too. this is the key. i know, so many professional women who try to do all things. one was an attorney. another had was a doctor peed trishes and the kids came. and they were not happy because they wanted to be home at 5:00 or 6:00. they wanted to be home for the

school plays as the schoolings get older. the pressure of work and think of the kids. they think about how weren't doing the work. it wasn't working. it won't. you can't have all things. but what they did is one said finally i'm going her husband, my brother, go become a prosecutor forget the corporate ladder you're on. she's the partner in a law firm. she became a prosecutor, a assistant u.s. attorney. 9:00 to 5:00 work. it's and you take fridays off. it's regulated. it's a wonderful profession. she's top-notch in the legal profession. the doctor decided to become a emergency room doctor and four nights a week while she was home. she was able to keep her hands in it. first class kind of medical experience. she was getting. that's where your options are. keep your mind open to any kind

of verification when the kids come you put them first and say, all right, they're first what can i do to make sure i'm there when they need me. you might want to take three years and go off. any variation it's up to you and your husband. how you work out what's best your family. don't think that the best thing is to wait twenty years and hope that you you're going to have a family then. if you believe that, you might want to read some of the silly magazines on the cover on the line of the safeway where everybody is trying to have babies at 44 and spending huge sums of money and not having husbands. they were sold. they turned 45 years old and realized what i do have? a profession. an empty nest. they want to have a family around them. that's the bill of goods. don't buy into that. there's nothing than being a wife and mother and family that, you know, is harmonious and

works together to move the interest of all ahead. >> and i want to add, when you hear some of the things we say, i don't want you to take it as an incorrigible problem. it's an opportunity. you're coming along, entering colleges and some will go to graduate school. you can change things. especially conservative women there's a desperate need gaiting the issue journalist writing the article that appear in the women's magazine that influence so many young women. there's a great opportunity because right now i can tell you we need major correction. the women's movement is dysfunctional. it informs everything we read about women's issues. they have a monopoly on the knowledge about women. it is not trust woat. as an enormous opportunity. i can't encourage you enough to

pursue careers where you can change the way we talk about men and women and doesn't have to be a sort of exsec trek with odd theory about the world this they should not have a monopoly on how we thought about others. >> this is our last one. time for one more. >> my name is emily. i'm an intern right now. my question is for kristina. as a woman in college and being active a lot of friends, my feminist friends in particular, think that i'm anti-- [inaudible] and as you mentioned, [inaudible] another thing as a woman i'm not really a woman. [inaudible] what can you say with a can i

say to my friends that would convince them or showcase that conservatives and republicans really are prowoman? >> well, one thing i'm talking about some young woman who invited me to a college i was conservative and i was part of conservative coming out week. [laughter] and believe me, mount holy it's scary to come out as republican than gay. they're very welcoming with coming out what is your sexual or jenation when it comes to the politics and they approached it as -- actually, the the other students were pretty cool about it. and realized they were being intolerant. and liberals don't like to be

accused of being intolerant. it's one way to tell them they are actually practicing, you know, a kind of bigotry and close mindedness they disprove of in so many other people. it's almost if they dehumanize you if you're a conservative or completely overlook the human being with opinion 'might if different from theres and they have to be more open minded. i would use that language. a lang language of tolerance and see how it works. >> the it is tough out there. and i think everybody here in the panel probably experienced over the years some kind of indication that, you know, you're on the wrong side. you've hurt women's cause. you trying to hold us back. you're not there for us. and i know you feel it an

normsly and i've had stories and, you know, any number of stories told me about you experience on the college campus when you take a pro-life position or a conservative position or social issues. and i think, you know, i learned something from my dad who was a coach for years on my brother's sports mostly basketball. he used to say, the best defense is a strong offense. and i've taken that to heart in politics. as soon as you feel you're being in a deferencive posture, -- defensive posture, they're moving you. you're feeling intimidated has uncomfortable. that's outrageous don't let people make you feel that way. unless you are wrong about something. if you made a mistake. if we're talking about your belief, those things you hold dear don't let anybody ever make you feel that way.

the way i get around it is to go to them. put it back on them. and, you know, if it's a pro-life, i mentioned early we are, i've figure i say how can you possibly do that. you're taking women's rights away. have somebody else tell us about that. what the life your child and you become passionate about the child. or take -- look at the second victim. have you talked to women? read about women who have abortions. do you know what you're doing here? and make them stop and be on the defense. you will get an enormous amount of energy as you defend those things you believe. you feel stronger. you may not be as articulate. they may though questions to you you don't know the answers. that's not the problem. that's how we got the answers. we didn't know it and talked and got the answers. it's no different than any oh sport.

you practice, you practice. this is what i say to every one of you. the moment you start feeling defensive, you know you're not ready for the battle and you better get ready. you need to stand a little tall aerobe a little bolder and speak louder. you can change lives, you change lives. you can move people to make better decisions? your own lives. you make a difference in your family community if you speak out with classified of classified and clarify. you don't speak you cannot do any of the above. you will be a follower. you be quiet and content to say they're wrong and i'm right. you make can't a difference. start now to speak. and on college campuses the moment i feel hesitant and uncomfortable, i thank the lord i know i'm not ready i better keep working. i have to get a little more information on this issue. i don't want to feel this way.

i'm not going have people make me feel like i shouldn't say i believe. because i don't know the answer to their questions. i'm going to find them. study it, ask people with and i'm coming back. and i'm going keep coming back until nobody makes me feel this way again. and you can change things. over the last decade or two too many conservatives have been hesitant and quiet. if we hadn't have been we wouldn't be in this position. we need you leader z than followses. there no better leader than a conservative woman in the country. get in line, gang, get in line! [applause] >> thank you all very much. to thanks to our panel lists. it was wonderful. there were other questions. find panelist please. i'm sure tbhaid happy to talk to you. if you like any more information about the policy substitute, if you'd like that bring a great

woman speaker to your campus this coming year, please give us a call at 888-891-4988 or visit our, at clbpi.org. these were sitting on your chairs. if you'll please them out front and back very quickly before you go. hand them to a staff member. we're doing a drawing for free best selling conservative books. second thing, we have our next big event coming up. these are on the chair, on friday july 27th annual capital hill seminary. star parker and gingrich confirmed and more speakers on the way. so make sure you visit the website and register for that. thank you all, much. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] the

first governor was grass browne and here we have a photograph of him, his wife and the child. what is interesting about him is the fact that his granddaughter, margaret browne wrote the book good night moon which is a favorite of many of the school children not only here at missouri but all overt united states. >> july 7 and 8 book tv and american history tv explore the missouri state capital jefferson city with c-span local content

vehicles and american history tv inside the governor's mansion. >> there was a governor a bachelor governor that the story says he road the horse up the front steps of the mansion and proceeded to beat his horse oath out of part of the side board. now the comment was that he probably should not feeding his horse in the governor's mansion and his comment to them was, i have to feed more people in this home with probably less manner ins they my horse has. >> watch this and 8 of july on c-span2 and three. >> forest fire ul -- we're going tighten our belt and spend less. what happens is because all of our spending at the same time. that we [inaudible] the stuff that we've known since

the 1930s. everybody slash spending at the same time because they think they have too much debt. it's self-defeating. >> who is going to tell them the truth? we have to tell them the truth if we don't tell them the truth, then our country fails. we must succeed in this and we will succeed in this! ..

also participating in the conversation. this is an hour and a half. >> hello. welcome to the atlantic council. and jennifer wells, transatlantic. i send a welcome to those iraqi and those watching on these and get this panel was organized with their global economic program as well, so i want to thank for their help. the last two years it seems that europe has been synonymous with

economic crisis within the euro zone from one country after and there seems to go through it very banking is our sovereign debt crisis and sometimes those. numerous forecasts the euro zone will break up as well as some that even the european union would be a fan. now ferguson and developer finis. very about x-rays disagree about the future. we hosted the atlantic council a couple of weeks ago until recently he bases the at deutsche bank and express confidence that europe will make it through this crisis with arizona tacked at the same that we hosted chris in the guard, former french wine and, now head of the imf with a much more urgent approach, saying that time is running out to avoid and

much wider crisis. the e.u. government has responded to the crisis with a series of new fiscal policies and in dictation. we have new rules on hedge funds and other forms of financial interaction that are believed to have caught some of the crisis. with the so-called sixpacks of new measures designed to return disciplining to the european debt and deficit levels, half the european stability and financial facility facility and the european stability mechanism to provide emergency funding. we have enhanced the new agency in london. the fiscal compact which reinforces the six-pack is now in the process of being ratified. we have two new responses under discussion. even greater banking of the

union and initialization that. despite all of this, the crisis exists as one phase seems to race, one catchiness away from the brink and another comes to the fore. it's not greed come the next in spain or italy or perhaps the market seems unconvinced that europe will succeed. on one level the year is unassailable as strong economic fundamentals come at the deficits as a percentage of gdp is only 2.8% as opposed to hours in the united states of a .7%. the debt as a percentage of gdp is not far off versus 74 or so. countless observers, and it is still based at the national level. the healthy overall figures has a very wide range from estonia

with a debt of only 6% and denmark in the euro zone comment by germany with a deficit in the two to 3% and 840% to 60% deficit to ireland, greece, italy, portugal looked at as a percentage of gdp over 12011. as a result, the crisis has added info about dominating both within elections and government crises and that ring says even if you can fill in the crisis in the beginning, the last six weeks to a month has been particularly harrowing and insert. we have a new french president of parliament who are now arguing for a different tax for europe to take, one that is less prosperity and more growth, at

least that is the rhetoric. we have a pill at a spanish banks, with growing concerns expressed about italy and yesterday moody's report downgraded 15 innings, some of which are large european players. above all the great collection, the great collection since he set two so close together. but the one this past week was a narrow victory for those who support the bailout and we now have a very tentative coalition and that also make clear they want to renegotiate their arrangements with the eeo and it's also become clear that they have basically lost two months in terms of implementing the reforms they promised earlier. we now also face a series of e.u. meetings. the finance ministers that yesterday heard from the guard and today, merkel, monti is

italy blocks to france and norway is paying our meeting next thursday and friday will be the next european summit, where we are hoping that key decisions will be made. to discuss further in the crisis in the future they bring, with an excellent panel and i want to introduce them in the first order. ambassador c. boyden gray and most importantly for this panel the u.s. representative to the e.u. and the last illustration. he also is the atlantic council board member. dr. ulrike guerot as a research foreign and assert previously further think tanks in germany and is one of the most prolific commentators on the politics of european integration and the franco german relationships. dr. jacob kirkegaard has been a research leader's institute for economic since 2002.

since then america's renowned workforce issues attention reform, both in europe and all cell and for the last two years focused on the crisis of european economics reform. let me start with jacob. and let me ask, where are we now? how close are we to the edge of the cliffs as the european economy? >> well, let me start by quoting president obama and say that the euro area, if you get the diagnosis of the crisis right, is doing just fine. and what i mean by that is that there is no doubt that the euro area faces the crisis. the banking crisis in a number of countries. a competitive crisis on the periphery and the fiscal crisis. but the overall diagnosis of what the euro area is suffering amidst an institutional crisis. it's essentially a crisis that

the designer to euro area itself, which, as it was created, demonstrably in the late 1990s basically does not work when you have a major financial and economic crisis that we have right now. what that means is that it's fundamentally a political crisis because it is about the process in which national sovereignty of the kind of national sovereignty of her banking regulation and fiscal policy that governments were not willing to handle our european institution are now in the process of being transferred to the euro area. support to understand this is not a cooperative thing. we can all sit down and say look, this is not very hard.

we can all agree what is the approach. but the basic reality is because we are dealing with handing over of national sovereignty, which is the commodity that no government, even in the euro area will ever part with voluntarily, we basically need the level of acute crises that we're seeing right now for this process to have been. and this is also import that the design of the euro area, which leads or at least at the beginning of the crisis has led sovereignty of her banking and fiscal issues, which are really the key policy that offers and a financial crisis at the national level, means that the crisis response is fundamentally dictated by one single element, which is that of political moral

hazard. it is moral hazard that dictate that when you are in the united states that we passed t.a.r.p. because congress is suffering, well, the european council is not sovereign. they cannot dictate the qualities of recipient governments for such bailouts, which is another way of saying that the bailouts will always be partial. there'll always be conditional and those of you who believe that europe will ever put together a fully credible and big enough firewall will not have been. because if it did happen, it would have very direct and negative adverse effects on the defensive for the spanish and the time for instant parliament to have the kind of reform that are needed. so where we are in the crisis

right now is we've hardly had potentially for this moral hazard dictated process, a sickly brother lives on the crisis then you go very close to dig of having a disaster, disaster that everybody agrees is a disaster, which of course is the collapse of the euro. you go right up to the edge to basically coerce the other players into giving neo confessions. it's basically a team theoretical and the main players here are the court government led by germany, the european central bank and occasionally the rest of the world to the imf. we saw them, you know, in may 2010 with the first three bailout. we sought in august last year where we squared up against spanish and italian government.

we saw very clearly in december last year and we are in the process is the unit again right now. and it is essentially again. it is a repeated game being played out. and the response function is very clear, that germany and the ecb will never agree that they stand fully behind the euro because if they did, they will be subject to moral hazard. but don't make any mistakes. there's actually plenty of political willingness to do what is necessary. and in the case of the european central bank, there's also plenty of financial firepower. so there is a firewall concerned about the issues called the european central bank. but what they mean by a firewall is configured that the european

central bank has only 3% of actual assets as a share of your. gdp in the form security market programs that they have. what that means is if the ecp and a crisis and then it these situations tested by a trillion euros worth those italian guys, after that process only own about 14% of your area gdp. that is less than what the federal reserve already owns and it is much less than what the bank of england islands of quantitative easing. please ask yourself, it's incredible the ecb would not want to do this and had the euro area collapsed? i absolutely believe that is not the case, but again, this is a non-cooperative game that has

coercing government into handing over national sovereignty, to new areas and what is perceived in generally misperceived. >> let me follow-up on this preview arcview this is the burrowing game and and one can see that. one also sees the market constantly raising the stakes. they aren't convinced this will be convinced. we are from economists that for example, the spanish bank they'll out eventually will add to spain's contest and raise this to a dangerous level and have spain's purchases are now being done on interest rates better and sustainable. so i mean, it does seem like there are serious economic positions being taken back in

the e.u. constantly ratchet up and beat those bit by bit, or is there a point where the whole edifice comes down because the economic fundamentals are not dare? you mentioned the ecb serving as a firewall, but very limits to legal issues on what the ecb can do. not only politically, but there are limits. so it is sometimes said that if the europeans had gotten out in front of the market, this would not have cost this much. it would have been over quickly. you agree with that? are we coming to a point -- is there a point to which they cannot recover? >> there is no doubt if you had done this is a cooperative game and head of the market, it would've been much easier, no doubt about it. but as i said, the reality is

that it's not possible for government to handle the kind of property that would entail. that's the process we are in. now in the case of spain for instance, think about what is about to have been. first of all, this is an illustration of how the game works. spain, for here is denied because a sovereign ability to do so. then finally, as it became increasingly familiar to you were really in a bind, a couple months ago baryon although we decided to begin making the european central bank said he could finance themselves. the ecb said no. finally the spanish government were essentially coerced to

accept the kind of official banks of the bailout, including a sociality, et cetera. and so, it is an injury to his. nobody's just happened today is even more interesting, the fact that we are now finally getting to the point for the spanish government, rather than actually asked that to pay the full bank they'll out just thinking about imposing losses on both holders, which again is sent and very, very painful because many of these bondholders are basically his political supporters in spain. again, it is a choice between two went to have my sovereign debt for doing to impose losses in your political outlay? said this is a game that can go on with respect to the real

macro economic costs. but i take the view that, you know, it is not yet at the point of no return. i believe basically in the mainstream that the mild overall recession this year and a turnaround in the second half of 2012, 2011 or at your team and in my opinion, given the longer-term handover of sovereignty in handover of sovereignty in is, for lack of better word, collateral damage that i'm perfectly willing to is, for lack of better word, collateral damage that i'm perfectly willing to pay for. i understand of course the administration has an election in your me feel very differently about that. >> thank you. let me turn to doubt her goodall. you've been a longtime observer of the french relationship that we now have a french government.

they've had a couple of meetings with chancellor merkel. the home came to office with a different church, to the euro zone crsis. e fo german relationship in the past, although difficult with michelob saqqaracisis the european made in this crisis. do you accept to have the same strong relationship? but they were without? what does this i through wit week? >> thank you. i happen to be optimistic because my argument is that is actually a dispute. and we have seen two people in

the name actually is very bad for your. and it is bad because not only the christ says -- but essentially when you have a tandem, you don't give ownership to the countries. the smaller countries need to start go-between to paulus coming together to find the space in the european compromise. i think this has been largely overlooked. they been traveling and what she would hear from the -- of the austrians, to either, they would just be sad that because the moments you have that dictate, for the others. so whatever that would be, there's a lot of struggles between yanking unions,

political unions between france and germany today, there is political struggle in actually is very positive and i'm very confident would be compromised and it's the best europe can see. be reminded we always had these crazy ideas. if you look close their, you saw what happened in 92 and whether we call it the euro -- i was pretty close to politics these days. there is a book written in the night to use was a journalist. the word seven years, how france and germany made it happen. the batter compromise that works for a year. so i'm pretty confident you will see a compromise than the longer

line that we see a pretty interesting and political union in basically germany -- we can do more moves, but please be aware that the political union and to things that requires the integration. i happened to have been in the gaps in 92, 94. it was solitaire. the german arguments about the political union is a very old argument. but for others who want to go back and read the 90 to 94, the document had everything now out in the european commission that

the president was all is said the 90s. i think they need to accept a little bit of it. >> so what does it say though quite few are making the argument that there is a pastor this relationship, which clearly there is. but what does it mean for the future? i mean, there have been a lot of predictions that the e.u. may even fail at it to survive, it will be smaller, more of a core europe. do you believe that there is -- the same if he will come among those of us who watched the e.u. that is crisis comes more europe, not less. this is the exception? >> well, i think it's pretty true. if you see that came up last tuesday with con a study group for more europe, the more europe group, that document, which was

an interim report because of his confederate 10 like-minded foreign ministers. the new democratic your system is a powerful division in the european system of faith very different type of more europe and more political. i think this is really important. if we come back to france and germany come out last to france and to seize the now, but they need to achieve an new social contract for europe, this is but the whole thing is about. i think the whole social contract is one component under the european novels and the other is to fix the relationship if france and germany should succeed in that word because they come from very different socioeconomic traditions, then it would empower the european

union to have a pretty good consensus, where most of the countries can chime in. this is what they both know. of course this is pretty interesting, but they both have away with this and if you can gain, we see little progress of it. >> forgive me for challenging come aboard in the midst of an economic crisis, a very uncooperative game i think was the term you used. is this the moment to be thinking about ground political science? one of the things i have been hearing is we will see a permanent division between north and south. france seems to be somewhere in the middle there, that there will be a very different europe going forward in terms of splits and divisions, perhaps domestic extremism in some countries given the economic crisis.

certainly when i was in europe earlier this week and talking to some of my north european colleagues, they did not see much of a future for this out of fear for them, so assisted moment to be thinking about this? >> the one discussion is they think everybody needs to distinguish the architecture. germans are very pulled architecture, which would pass away. this is hard to explain, for the germans for whatever kind, for the german system is needs fundamental research of the european is to shed, including treaty change. this is a given. the other countries they think should come along because the negotiation thing is that you give something, then perhaps germany goes into thinking union

i think this is the game. for many reasons that i do not want to tell the very sad at peak has this is the national budget, if you need to breathe bank the democratic system in a different way and that is the game changing moment. i think to understand for all the other countries that go along with that thinking of the game changing moment and then think about that, this is what came to definitely understand. that's a discussion to distinguish now, whether it's this big architecture from the german side. the other is to call europe. i think there is no core europe john, talking about this with another lens. this is i think -- this would not fly. historically and politically if not dean.

europe is france and germany. i agree france at some point will decide whether it goes for thirst out your duties but france and germany for 50 years, i don't see politically, strategically the baker institute in, and the transatlantic perspectives. so either france holds an assist by us between france and germany, some crucial, historical and i think the french need to come along because why the historical setting they came along first. we won a political union in the french didn't give it to us. it requires to further jump into the union. this is pretty much what is now happening. i think the french are getting it. and to issue that one sentence,

if you look at the system of the european union, yesterday's discussion was federalism and intergovernmental ascent. the french were tomorrow's discussion or executive in december's parliamentary ascent. but when the french executive as and more parliamentary ascent thinking. france and germany nietzsche, on different contract, but also need to come along on the political system to hold for both. so the presidential tradition of the germans. he was nine tenths into parliament to get out of your relatives. sarkozy meant no time. so parliamentary symbol beneath sm point two reinvent the european system in the french will need to understand. >> thank you.

ambassador gray, you've just been hearing about the uncooperative game within the e.u. a lot of paise, high water. my first question for you, would be, is this the e.u. that you saw? does this sound familiar to you in terms of your experience in brussels? but also more importantly, why is this important to us? fiery here in washington talking about this? figure is down this forward and resolve this crisis. what is your argument about whether this is important to us or not? >> well, we have two economies highly integrated. i don't know if the data are now on the world trade, 60%, 35% of world gdp. there's usually integrated.

i first went to brussels to call john, quercus and i walked in and it was very nice and very distinct whoosh. boston came up to me that i'm so glad to meet you appear. from? i said i'm from washington d.c. is that now, no, nobody's really from washington d.c. were you from really? he said i'm from north carolina and a hug to me. i said to what do i owe this show of respect? he said because we owe the fly, the largest supermarket in the northeast. i didn't know that. i grew up there where we bought our food. and a lot of us don't know this. depending on the investment in the other side, i think many of

the bmws that europeans drive, there are many too many regulatory disconnects -- i think he should be one internal market. the european internal market is one of the keys if there is a key, the formation of internal market. we should give her a happy day because it wasn't until five years ago. we still can't do that very well. greece have our problems too. we should be throwing rocks at europe with the things we can do. but the two economies are really, really intertwined. and it's not so much that our banks fill thanks that fill us in the fairbanks thinks a pullback. it's not that. it's not necessarily that

exports would drop, which they have because we don't ask for that much to europe to reduce the overall picture of investment and confidence in what the european spot now from us is almost the first priority. what do you want -- what they want to stay more focused look on recognition. they put in the guise of a free trade agreement. this is not progressing very well, but i would pass the election let's see what happens. given the obama and romney at tickets a good idea in the administration campaign. so i hope that we all think it's important. why is an important? it is important because europe can't find the key to the kind of.com innovation we are used to, facebook, google, then we

suffer. if we both can get it if regulatory gdp growth on both sides. we are going to be 2%. no one would be complaining if it were 3%. there would be a problem. europe wouldn't have a problem. what are the difficulties? you can trace almost types of bonds in germany and italy depending on the progress. he had a competition. you can trace in canada with progress or lack thereof is getting getting his reform program through the italian parliament. now what is -- what jimmy is the key of all of this is the rhetorical question when i first had to europe in january 2006, who was the sick man of europe when i first got there? germany.

germany's growth, would have been? what did they do? undershirt or, he never really benefited from it. president bush 41 to claim that banking system, lost because of it and clinton had it great. but that's life. that is just five. but germany was very, very nice. the key reform was adopted until january 2005. within 18 months, germany was colossus of europe. and in a way, but brca1/2 the rest of europe is if we can do it, we do this deregulation, the clinton labor law, welfare

reform, relaxing the rules on a higher and higher, we can do that and certainly you can do that. so the price goes up -- the interest goes up when he gives up on that government. you can't lay off anybody without court approval. i set this to one of the more liberal judges. he said, you cannot do what particularly? i said you cannot find anybody without a court approval. without my approval he says? that's insane. today we learn in "the new york times" that the european court justice rules that if you get sick on vacation in europe, you get to take a vacation over a 10. it used to be that if you got sick before vacation, you can

read it in today's paper, that if you get sick during vacation, you get to have it all over again. in any event, i hope you get sick on vacation. so what we need to think is to take a look at these things. there is another on how to do this with our help and cooperation that would add to it. and then i think europe would be under a whole lot less pressure. >> thank you very much. >> i do recall that we european politicians do exactly what we've done. we just don't know how to get a leg after we've done that. >> if you're like schroeder pushed for a new one, maybe you don't get reelected, but you're

treated well by history. >> i think what we have heard from the panel is a different view of the year his son christ says, one that looks at it as a bargaining enterprise and i'm not very pretty or nice on, but one that requires crisis to work. we have a franco german relationship that does better when there have been arguments. and we have politicians who commit political suicide in order to get these reforms through. and so of course, no one in the current crop really wants to do that very much. so it is not a very cooperative environment. it is not an environment where someone can make a rational decision and move forward. but we do have this great and the taste of the economy pushing

people forward, debt levels, deficit levels, pushing decisions to be made and we have been meeting next friday, which we hope will have been. i am going to open this now to the audience and i think we have some microphones here. okay comments so yes, that's right. please say who you are and your affiliation. >> krist witkowski from lines for productivity and innovation. >> can you stand please? are hiding behind. >> i can't believe you and jacob extremely high regard. in fact, these are some of the best brains the atlantic community as today. i read their stuff and values that they are writing very highly. i will be somewhat blind, and maybe play by challenging their

views today. i'm the one hand, we've got a game of chicken, which is trying to track sovereignty, which is given to any group of countries. on the other hand, we've got conflict, which osama is needed in order to advance integration. so if we have effectively a conflict that is needed in order to even the integration. so you've got an amended conflict. i'd link the first solution we have come and ability to concentrate on plan b, the second best and have the second best in the viable option is causing the crisis we have come in the not convinced, the second best is not being spelled out in the in between grey area is causing this crisis to keep going, why do we have to have the crisis in order to solve the crisis?

why can't we climb down and accept the plan b will spell it out at the price of the diminished credibility. wiki and the down the line. i'm sorry i can't put it any other way, but i'll finish that. >> is there a plan b that would work that is something that everyone could agree on? i mean, europeans are often accused of not finding the solution to wake up and suddenly see the crisis is over, but rather muddling through. let me ask you, jacob. there's a timing issue, too. how long is this going to take to play out? how long -- would we be better off having a blast of a time distance to get the goal and be able to have some pain -- a wind of some kind who have made a lot

of money. speculation and investment. had a speech a month ago where he gave europe three months. >> you also said two weeks last year. >> there's others as well who it said this. >> what is the timing? >> well, i think we have to be clear that, you know, as i said, would be much cheaper and much quicker, but that's not possible because of the sovereignty issues involved. so we are in an executive solution here. and with respect to the timing issue, what i guessed -- the way i view it is perhaps slightly broader. remember what the european union

in the euro area is trying to achieve. it is trying to unify from the bottom up by voluntarily pooling sovereignty units to a new center being created. that it's infinitely harder to do than other continents are normally being unified, which is of course the military conquests. but remember that we in the united states half the states versus federal discussions about who does was based on these types of issues. this is essentially the same that europe had the same discussion call a states right issues than in europe they call it the subsidiaries. what is different, is of course

that europe does not yet, in my opinion, have the center that everyone agrees will vote. now i believe it will do we have come to the point of no return in the sense that it's going to be much more expensive for everyone involved to dissolve the european union did go through this process was already talking about. we need to get to the threshold where markets are potentially convinced that the center will hold. once that is established we can go one forever to have these debates internally in europe. when will that have been? i mean, i think that's a very good question. the click delete and night opinionated thinking union. we clearly also need software and data.

this is something i believe can be achieved, you know, maybe in a five either timeline. so that is the timeframe might be looking at. but that doesn't mean that we in the meantime cannot have a quieting down of the sovereign debt market, of the sovereign bond market stability because essentially the way it works, the political response function lenses balance sheet every time he steps forward for the european integration and i would expect that quite frankly to happen. >> ulrike, second best plan? and what does this look like between france and germany? and if they agree on some things, to the other countries who are not so much parted the initial decision, as the second

best for them? i wish to say a little bit about the incentives for germany to compromise and particularly chancellor merkel. she is a favorability rating is somewhere between 55 and 65% since the beginning of the year. >> second best in the sense that politics is the possible. i would agree. the question is the half pregnant situation. and i think it has finished in a couple of speeches in recent days, where they take five years to overlay the fiscal institutions set up. much of the things that has been all of the treaties have been conveyed into the real institutional treaty work. the opportunity will most likely

be signed to do something that the fundamental work on the institutional setup with respect to discretionary meaning and respect to the european parliament to work on more european parties. and i'm deeply convinced that france and germany will take the opportunity and political integration. i think what has been for the smaller countries is i don't want to say they have much other choices, right? i mean, the smaller countries are the largest benefits. they don't have the european foreign policy that benefits from the european energy policy that anaphase from supporter.

so the smaller country as much as they have a system and is very important how we work with the institutional split faces. i don't like this any longer because it's too much compared with the united states. that's more or less what it's about. we do need to have european republic resumes, plenty of firework. i think there must be some pain like more political thinking and then i am convinced there's a lab for this smaller countries. >> this all sounds vaguely familiar. i used to say the nice that they are coming in now, take it from us we are the old country. you and the new country, a lot of states older than them,

italy, even germany, we are the old country. this is not an unfamiliar thing going through. many europeans say gosh, why should germany pick up the dead the way hamilton did? well, he did that when it was formed. that was a huge debt crisis in 1837 when the states that on canals and areas. they said will you tell us no and therefore we got some state balanced-budget constitutional provisions, which is hope to live in this country. so we've seen this movie before. you know, we all used to say

brussels needs to get stronger before you get weaker. they used to be more of a democratic element. either the e.u. parliament or the president of the commission publicly elected. there's got to be this element of it, which has got to be added. the french are going to be resisting because the french -- i do not say this, mata macgowan macgowan -- my experience was that the french really knew how to run the european union. i used to save my friends who dominated this staff that same principal language of coors, the press been so good at this and so articulate, what you really do dominate the commission. no, no, no. [inaudible]

and i think that losing some of that, but this is a problem. the french don't want their secret behind the scenes power diluted any more for god sakes, let alone the united states if we were more integrated in terms of our economic regulatory relationship. select a different church to through member >> just very quickly on this issue of the sovereignty. it's very important to distinguish between the timetable for fiscal union and the timetable for banking because of thinking union has a quote unquote political advantage he can pull sovereignty in the bureaucratic technocratic institution that sickly european central bank. you cannot do that with disco because it's an inherently

political. so there's a timeframe that we talked about. so i actually do not believe that a thinking union is that far away. i actually believe it's a very close one. >> i think we will have an announcement at a camp will have this proportionality in your cooling of sovereignty and coordinates in this case, not bad, the contingent liability. but the principle is essentially the same. >> can i get a microphone here? >> i am at the olympic council. first i want to congratulate the panel for a very lively and very provocative series of comments. i want to enlarge the discussion along the lines of the headlines. you remember reading years ago in mind and an express in another bad channels via dan,

content cut off. we are looking at this in isolation of europe and there's a lot of that they're part, let alone the collapse of the new greek government. what's happening in syria and iran and the supreme court decides to ruin the affordable health care act here come you can imagine what will happen to the stock market. there's a whole series of misogynist things going on not being considered that one of powerful influences. i wonder if the peanut can address some of those and how they might be dealt with. >> so, first check that you are going to actually ask -- [inaudible] something much broader than not. we have had a bandwidth issue in terms of really dominated the discussion on the about his leadership time has been phenomenal. why don't you start. >> i think there's a very easy

and in the way sad answer. we are trying to shut the system away from the absurd we are doing this for other reasons that jacob mentioned of press in the system. but if you shift the system from the others without gaining ground, then the risk is always there that at some point i by the way convince the markets will succeed and go for what i called the european public. but your point is a valid point, which is what she don't price and happening is the end of bananas because we don't know about the unknown risk heard and we don't price in its a lot of unintended consequences. and we have been cnn's as a sort of movement that a good intention of lack of management lead to other consequences which were unintended, that brought up

other difficulty. so is there any chance -- ready to have this with unintended consequences and it just needs to be careful. there is a problem. the problem is we will, if all this goes right we will be basically keeping our whole political system under strain for the next 12 years to come to put it lightly. in the string of political elections and how you have the placement of germany, whatever, you poisoned all of the intellectual things, and this is a risk, i agree. but again, is there any other chance? >> i think the other issue as well. as we look here from washington, discussion about the pickets to

asia and the u.s. policy is the year of some crisis making europe partner that is less of a partner for the united states for addressing global issues and an international institutions such as the imf, world bank, and the journey. this is some in the sum of the american reason we have to think about to act elsewhere. even against the diplomatic stance. >> icbm first. in 20 years i'm listening to this. i never saw the u.s. commentating and looking right now. i am now an nyu fellowship in new york or the whole city is about europe in germany trying

to get the political economy of europe. i think that this country is exercising all his brain and thinking about europe and realizing that we are the most important partner of earth for the united states. and i think this is one of the best sort of unintended consequences from the transatlantic -- >> he wanted to comment? >> yes, i'm sort of a broken record on this. this discussion, joseph jaffe had agreed piece yesterday. i made sure you have copies here if we don't -- and a series of economic. it starts up economics. it starts with the internal

market and the internal market has to be transatlantic. and if you don't have the economic growth come you can't pay for anything else and you can't do the same they were talking about. you need the economic growth. and that is where grilled liberty comes from. we can do that, but it has to be part of the debate. i just want to insist on not. if we don't, and this is from dumont too came here had of europe and the dean german state here come the business figure, if we in europe don't get our act together with common values, different as they may be in some respects, if we don't do it, it's just going to drive right through. and so, what happens between us and europe is really critically important for the future of the

world economic order. and if we don't interact together, we will, as they say, acceptably. >> thank you. let me bring in another voice. >> high, kathryn houser with the transatlantic is this dialogue. my question really was about the rules that the u.k. will play in all of this. i think what americans think of europe, we naturally think of the u.k. and most of our exports go to the u.k. it's the first country companies export to come across relationship we have with them and i'd be very interested in the panel's thoughts about the role or trouble the u.k. may cause in all of this. >> jake, do you want to start up economics? >> well, yeah, i think this is first and foremost the problem for the u.k. quite frankly

because i think that what you will see is increasingly -- i know there is a multifaceted europe, but in the long run because of the benefit that we talk about for the smaller countries have actually been part of the european integration of the presidential integration integration -- i'm sorry about the irish, but i think that in the long run it will end up eating 26 -- i would just say, you know come you think about why that is. poland is a member of the group that we can mentioned in the beginning. ..

actually came out a couple of weeks ago they had a report on what should the u.k. do with it and they actually came out and said these are people that are skeptics saying that at the end of the day the u.k. has more today from being outside so i think they will remain a member of the e.u., but whether or not there would be more so a special

relationship than a full member i think that is off but they will not be part of the core. >> the government has been quite concerned about the of devotee to have influence over with regulations and the financial services because the city of london. do you see even though it isn't a eurozone competency is the single market decisions made at the whole rather than the eurozone level but do you think they will be able to protect, if i can use that word, their interest in financial the education? >> if the dewitt for the political reasons that david cameron chose to stay outside the fiscal compact they will face i think it was a very stupid thing he did because he basically chose to have a headline in the daily mail and

the other tabloid rather than think about the decision about financial services in the internal market already taken by the qualified majority which means david cameron in order to protect these things actually needs allies in the european union already and by staying out of the contact that isn't the way to get a lot so he made a strategic for short-term gains. will they succeed? i think they will because i think there will be allies for the traditional open market model the the u.k. is associated with but it's also because the u.k. is not associated with the financial recognition anymore. >> let me ask a question of you.

what is the dispute between london and brussels over financial regulation? >> [inaudible] >> no, no, no. >> what do you think it is? >> i know what it is. [laughter] >> he's the expert. the issue of all things about the issue is the rope brits want to have less regulation of brussels. what they want is higher capital standards which the europeans don't want because they want to do more lending in europe to

pick up the tab so there's a subsidy going on that's counterintuitive. i'm just going to repeat england wants tighter regulation, higher capital standards don't have to do any other regulation that that's what england once. the continent doesn't want to do that. the regulatory details matter and they are also really boring. >> i would rather argue that if push comes to shove and we will need enrolment of what i call an institutional game change and

which we fix the nature of the system in a way that we can not with unanimity. they dropped out, so we will not do the game change as waiting for a danish or irish yes or no so the game change cannot come with british conditions. that's the point. we gave them the first in december when we said we will always wait for you guys. the fed doesn't say they have the u.k. on broad. when push comes to shove my argument would be the german government seems to be modified to the detriment and the pope will do that and the u.k. can do it if it wants.

>> i saw a question over here. >> i'm a member of the atlantic council but recently i was running the u.s. office of lockheed martin including when ambassador great was their. i have a concern i would also like you to think about addressing and that is when we have these institutional discussions about naturalization and building a deeper treaty changes and things like that, we assume the government of europe can actually say what they are going to do, and i'm concerned the government are going to be forced to sign up to things they actually can implement.

can the degrees influence the state selector and can the reform the labor market which was mentioned. in other words there are these political problems that are very deep and cannot be solved by a dictation from brussels. do you share that concern at all? >> i think in many discussions it has come down to are the germans pushing everyone to become germany, to be blunt about it and whether the long-term institutional factors and these other countries can change. how much room for diversity will there be in this post fiscal compact? >> i'm with you that on the ground of the enormous if you

look closer at say to germany for instance we have a lesser weakening after. for instance it is in that it allows a greek but the huge regional inertia things here at work and in spain and italy i give you another point which might be how we make this all work. to read how do you spend your money we want to take this together in a collective deliberation process and don't speak a language that's so easy that this is why we are having the germans and versus the lazy greeks instead of this cousin who pays for the crisis.

when [inaudible] the greek workers rather than germany's discussions. you understand my point. the reality is to be relative to that reality check then if you look at elections and populism in europe and most of the european countries and what i mean by 37 divided in terms of populism you can measure you have an average populism of something like 30% in the netherlands and france. the regional pressure for the year up argument and the constraints. for the rest that's more economic argument which is how

much diversity we can allow and i hope we can make this discussion. what i mean by is not germany is rich, it is really poor and has the tendency of 40 to 50 to 60% in the region's. but still we have a solidarity concept. if we could intellectually understanding as one aggregated economy fiscal from one wealthy region to the less rather than doing it off in the negotiation then i think we would have won the intellectual mental game change. we have to prepare the ground that it's much more about the

region's and we will be able to recognize not everybody is equally and we will need to accept the region's they cannot perform as germany, you cannot build industries on the islands like you have in germany and everybody can be different but we are still one cells united. that's the work we will need to achieve and it is big work. >> to first reporting to didn't catch a greek bureaucrat it's too late. let me read you just a couple figures from the article. throughout the decade of the year ago, german labor costs

taking into account east germany with some percentage they rose only about 7%, and it was 30% and spain was 35% increase was 42% in labor cost. that's almost where the problem begins and ends. >> how much diversity can we get >> eventually you will get there but i think there is a very important distinction that i would make between it will be very different from that of the united states because the euro area in almost any conceivable shape i can think of and i'm very optimistic remember will

not have a sizeable federal budget like in the united states and it's quite simple and has to do with people's self identity sulphur identified as french, german, belgian. you will only accept to be taxed at the level in which yourself identify which means ironically when you say that europeans are much more willing to pay taxes in the united states that americans that's true but not the continental level. the willingness of americans in the argument that the u.s. is the old country year the willingness to pay federal income tax is much higher than the europeans to pay taxes to brussels because that is an

experienced. what that means in the long run is that keeping in mind the public-sector is larger than in the united states that the overwhelming amount of public spending is going to remain at the state level much more so than here in the united states with a predominant taxing power for the size of the federal government spent directly in the form of benefits before it's been dropped to the states. it's printed it very different. it's great to have the money raised at the regional member state level. but then i would say you would have some sort -- that's why there is this focus on fiscal rules basically how you spend the money that you raise the member state level. so there is a lot of room for

diversity. there's the possibility of a large ten come 15 come 20% of gdp federal budget does not exist. >> i'm going to ask requesters to be brief because we are coming down to the end and we have several questions still out there. this gentleman in the front. the next is way in the back. >> i'm from the economic strategy institute. thanks very much for an introduction. there is a very compelling description of this being a high-stakes game of chicken over and over in the european union and given the stakes of the sovereign issues involved in the banking union and fiscal union it's not hard to understand that, but given the time frame people are talking about in terms of setting up the banking union and the fiscal union my question is how credible is it

that the ecb can keep the pressure on because it seems they're keeping the pressure on the sovereign government by not being a lender of last resort not giving more, to the easing and, flexible, imagine a scenario where the french sovereign bond deals start to mize to address because the markets could breed. it's hard to conceive the french would accept that and they wouldn't go and see listen you've got to do something that the ecb. so how much of an industry decorah is there among the board members of the ecb, and can they maintain the pressure? >> i think also how much longer can analysts like ourselves continually be wondering if this is the week that the crisis will be falling. >> welcome as i said earlier, i believe the actual fire power is quite a lot higher than what is generally perceived by the

market. and with respect to what they would do in the case of the french bond deal, well i think will be the very -- go back to the issue of the conventionality because he wouldn't of the situation where -- help me recall what happened in august last year when the issue was whether or not they would buy the debt but they spent the not very secret letters this is a list of stuff you had to do. the same thing had to happen in france where essentially they would be met with some degree of explicit implicit conditionality in terms of the labour market reforms return for this type of virtues. said it would be in my opinion the kind of repetition of the type of gains that we've already

seen. but i think more importantly, and this also goes to the market psychology. what you need to have is the market circumstances in which the convergence trade and what that entails is because when you have that the markets are always some way to buy the bond because they think you're going to converge and fall and it's over. and that again is continuing from the needs to have a convinced market the the center will not relieve cold. because once that happens, then the markets will open in the way that the quote on quote european integration must rush in the run-up in the early years of the european or economic and monetary union where of course there was a success of

convergence here the policy level. as a complete again is you've got to reach a sort of threshold and then the sort of divergence to converge and i think the ecb is perfectly capable of that. >> let me go back to the back of the room and then we are going to want to get there another question here. >> i'm from the american university and the peterson institute. i want to thank the four of you for an interesting session this morning and to follow-up on the point about the transformation of european politics as we move forward from here which i thought were very intriguing. and in particular, i wanted to ask you a little bit about the result of the european political movements because i think these are glad to be an important complement to the kind of

nutritional transformation that you've discussed. to put a fine point on it i would like to ask you, because i think you look more closely at this than most of us have and i would like to ask about the cooperation between the french socialist party and the german ecb. i have a standpoint for them has been to come to agreement on what to ask as the quid pro quo for moving forward with the compact and stability treaty. it doesn't seem to me that they've come to much of an agreement on this. i've been disappointed that the sbd has gravitated to the financial tax which doesn't help move the fiscal union and banking movement forward in my view so i want to ask about the basic fundamentals of the corporation and in the two parties and some of the cooperation of rhythm and in a

couple of weeks. let me get a microphone over here. >> thank you. >> down in the front. >> i wanted to ask whether the panelists believe the market's share the implicit concern and scott harris's good question about the distance the country's go in reforming. after all, let's remember if and in some of the core countries germany and austria the sectors are very sticky and maybe there's a limit to how much reform you can have. if that is the case and they're asking themselves the same question. let's remember we had a pretty close call in greece. does not argue for something very big quickly along the line say of a redemption fund which did work very well in the confederation of the constitution. >> appear in the front, final question. >> the european union delegation to the united states. you have represented the

situation where main value is the transfer of sovereignty. i wonder if this should be represented because in the end it is represented or perceived as and on some of these perceptions it shows that the smaller countries benefit more from the e.u. than the larger countries. this is the misperception. the point that germany peace to the letters but the others pay as well the labor cost have been diverging. the last two years have shown that the converted.

so do you think clearly the perception is related to the elections and the space process but in the end, wouldn't you agree that the leaders realized the nature of the game and in the end actually how to find the solutions. >> you want to finish with that? >> very quickly on that. i would love to share that. i don't think that there's any doubt that you would gain the in-state solution is a sum plus gain there's no doubt about that but when i talk about the non-cooperative, that again is a theoretical idea that you basically have to have a game of chicken so that is more of a process element and i certainly agree and i also agree with what

you said that the diverging labor cost that was referred to earlier, they are rapidly converging and we should also be careful not to have too much of the labor union they do not represent the actual export in many of these countries so they are not equal. they do not dictate national competitiveness. i will stop there. >> you want to comment? >> i'm from the area that has a beautiful cathedral but it's pretty beautiful. in a way it will never be finished and when it's finished, they will start at another angle

to do construction. i think this is to be understood. the crisis in a way is over. it's left us with construction work and these construction work is now taking on and it's a political construction work, economic construction work and that's why there's this discussion of when will it be over if it is no longer the question, the crisis is over. i think the commitment from the german government, the german government is committed to do the point of the crisis at each step of the crisis a very necessary to prevent an think markets have understood that. and what is necessary in the given moment people see it might not be in the week times and they will fix the details and if it is leader it is the prevention fund might be able but then you get a little condition so that's how i see it. we are already in a big architecture thing to read to be

more precisely i think there is some misunderstanding here which is that it is much more german than it is socialist. and i rode with my colleagues which i call liberalism and i try to match economic thinking with respect to the mainstream international thinking and what you can see in the paper is even if you go into the deep-rooted social democrats they would still be for the ecb stability. they wouldn't be on the french growth argument. they would stop and that stability. so of course sbd was in a way in recent weeks because it wanted to show solidarity so we didn't just want to vote on the fiscal.

it just wanted to renegotiate some element because they needed a the majority to the fiscal which happened yesterday said she needed the vote and they wanted to go along the fever and renegotiate some points which actually did not have been. but it makes you understand that -- that's also what i want to give you. we have elections next year. okay, but to change the election in germany and let's assume you have the majority. the answer is it will not change much. even with less pollution which by the way i don't think is likely, you won't see game changes in the german mind set of how the crisis is to be solved and you will be hearing the same messages of reform, noted finance growth. but here's the thing.

the moment the sbd has been talking very closely in the discussions get to work not only an economic politics but also foreign policy this is what he does not tomorrow, more cooperation as you get into the thinking so this is a good side of the corporation. >> want record back in history the europeans shouldn't vote an example of the resumption assuming the debt understanding but quid pro quo was the general market that he relentlessly followed by justice marshall, chief justice marshall squash the number of states from interfering in the market, so there is a quid pro quo and you're going to invoke come if you're point is to invoke that model it should also accept the market deal.

>> i want to thank the panel. the euronext crisis is a political animal and a political disagreement and the range of topics that we've talked about from the future political construction of europe to the building of the united states just demonstrates how accurate that was. i hope that you'll have found the view of this crisis as a bargaining enterprise if i can put it that way to be helpful and understanding of what is happening in europe and this evening we will have the alternate uncooperative gain in europe or we hope it won't be too and cooperative which is the football match starting in a couple of hours. so we will all be watching and seeing how that comes out as a metaphor for the future of the year autozone -- eurozone but thank you so much. [applause]

[inaudible conversations]

how do you approach a book interviews different than news reporting interviews? >> at the book interviews as gathering history. i think of interviewing when i'm working for the news side as gathering contemporary information. >> how difficult is it to remain impartial and not get caught up in the height of one campaign or another? >> i'm going to try to has been skycam give people asphalt and understanding of what is happening in this campaign. it's not that difficult to put your bias to the side.

>> how house social media changed your line of work and reporting and getting your news? >> rhetoric in particular is now a primary news source for anybody that covers politics and anybody that pays attention to politics. twitter didn't exist years ago for all practical purposes. >> perdue university students interview dan walz on the newspaper business covering presidential elections, what's newsworthy and the rise of the social media sunday at eight on c-span. next, conservative women discuss how women are portrayed in the media and treated in the business world. panelists including commentator bay buchanan and christina hoff sommers talk about how the women are affected by public policy including the new health care law to read the clare boothe luce policy institute posted this to our forum. >> good afternoon.

>> my name is catherine rodriguez and i am collector director the clare boothe luce policy institute. i just want to welcome you will hear this afternoon today to hear from our great panel last about the real war against women. as the nation's premier organization for conservative women, the blues policy prepare islamic leadership through a series of unique programs and events like this one and help students bring conservative ideas to their campuses to read our campus lecture program includes a great conservative women like bay buchanan, michelle malkin and some others who will be hearing from this afternoon. if any of you are interested in bringing a conservative speaker to your campus or learning about other ways to combat that your college or university please call plus at 888-891-4288 or

visit our web site. our first panelist, cristina hoff sommers as a resident scholar at the american enterprise institute in washington, d.c.. before joining aei, she was a professor of philosophy at clark university where she specialized in morrill theory. hoff sommers is the editor of vice and virtue in everyday life, a leading college ethics textbook and is also the author of who stole feminism and the war against the ways. her latest book co-authored with the aei colleague sally settle is called one nation under therapy. hoff sommers has appeared on numerous television programs including "60 minutes" and "the oprah winfrey show." she's also made appearances on the daily show on comedy central. she has lectured and has taken part in debate on more than 100

college campuses and we are glad she is here to join us today. our second panelist is karen hamed comics and director of the national federation of independent business, small-business legal center along with 26 states, the nfib joined the lawsuit against the whole kill legislation. karen has argued passionately on behalf of small business owners and their rights to own and operate business. assonances yet, she specialist in food and drug law and assisted trade associations for congress and federal agencies. she also works as an assistant press secretary for senator don nickels from oklahoma. she receives her b.a. from the university of oklahoma in 1989 and her jd from the george washington law school in 1995.

our next speaker, lala mooney, is an outspoken activist against the oppression of the cuban government. lala and her family were put into prison in 1961, immediately following the bay of pigs invasion. the family was able to use cade after two months, made their way to the united states and eventually settled in the d.c. area. she now truffles to cuba on a yearly basis to visit her relatives and friends and takes clothing and medicine to the local churches. she has appeared on bbc and has also been covered in publications like the frederick news post and other hispanic publications. she has four children, one of whom, alex mooney is the chairman of the maryland republican party. she's now retired and advised her time between her 13 grand children and dedication to cuba.

she earned her bs in psychology from catholic university and a master's in psychology and community counseling from hodes college maryland. our last panelist who will be joining us shortly is former u.s. treasurer and author bay buchanan, whose extensive career in policy analysis campaign and her outspoken offense of the right to life makes her one of our most inspirational campus speakers bay began her career as a national treasure ronald reagan, presidential campaign in 1980 and 1984. this position catapulted her into a distinguished career when she was appointed the youngest u.s. treasurer in american history in 1981. until recently, bay was a political analyst for inside politics on cnn. she's also appeared on numerous television programs and talk radio shows. a published author, her most

recent book is called bay and her boys, unexpected lessons learned as a single mom to read and a native of washington, d.c., buchanan has a master's degree in mathematics from yale university in montreal canada and has further study that several universities including the university of new south wales in australia. in 1981 she received an honor very doctorate of law from stanford university. she lives in virginia and is the proud mother of three sons. at this time i will invite our panelists each to speak. after the last panelist we will have a q&a session with all of them. if you will join me in welcoming them now. [applause] >> good afternoon. i am christine hoff sommers from the american enterprise institute, and it's an honor to be here with the clare boothe luce institute. it's one of my favorite

organizations and i urge you to join us and support us in any way you can. for the past few decades, i've studied the influence of the american feminism on american culture with a special emphasis on academic culture. today i'm going to argue that feminism is dysfunctional, that in my view the noble cause of women's emancipation is being damaged by the contemporary women's movement and in a little time i have with you i will keep track of it, no more than 15 minutes i will explain why i think it is doing more harm than good but first i just want to say a few words about my background. in the early 1990's i was a feminist academic in good standing. my course of clark university crossed the women's studies. i was invited to review papers for the feminist journal invited

to feminist conferences. all that changed in the mid nineties when i wrote a book called who stole feminism and the book was strongly feminist, but i rejected the idea that american women were oppressed. for the most part i said feminism had succeeded as the great american success story. by the 90's they were among the freest and most liberated in the world. in a long-term and sense to speak of women as an oppressive class. yes there were still problems that men have problems, too and free each there was a mixture of sort of burdens and benefits. there wasn't easy to see that women were doing worse than men. it was a complicated thing. well, and the book i try to show that the women's movement that feminism had been hijacked by gender war extension. and i do mean eccentric. at the time i was writing, one feminist colleague changed the name of her seminars to ovulars.

she didn't like the word seminar i suppose because the root word is associated with male power so she changed it to its feminist equivalent. don't even think about it. i thought what is the word ovulars. i was going to the dictionary and i realized she made it up, but i also realized she wasn't kidding. she was serious. when who stole feminism was published i received some of fan mail from the colleagues, not very much. for most part the feminist stila wissman was unhappy with my book and they didn't appreciate my ackley for moderation and i was quickly subjected to a colorful array of insults for my paris peace many academics believe that americans were subject, american women were living under patriarchy and they didn't appreciate my denial of the

oppressive fact and i was called a backlash or in a trade to my gender. on one occasion they referred to the female impersonators. well i'm not a female impersonator or trader. william is a philosophy professor, former now with a respect for logic, clear thinking will of evidence, and i hope i have a strong sense of fairness and i believe it is my dalia starts logic and reason and fairness that puts me at odds with the feminist establishment. i realize there is a harsh assertion but i'm going to try to back it up. if you have had a feminist speaker after school or just go to one of the web sites of the leading women's organizations, the national organization for women, the national law center, the american association of university women it's unlikely that you are going to see a

celebration of the quality, celebration of anything for the most part they are free - and the have a long litany of factoids about how women are still held down and held back in american society. i consider are a self and the quality of opportunity feminist. i want for women but i want for everyone, no discrimination. on the other hand, i can accept the fact they are different but equal. i don't insist on equality of outcome i want a quality of opportunity. most of the feminists are in the mainstream organizations are not the equality feminists their equity what i call gender feminists. most of them believe the and this was developed in the 80's the sec's tender system the idea that we are every institution

bears the patriarchy. churches and schools in the languages of stay liberated from this oppressive system through one feminist philosopher described very vividly. she said the sec's gender system is that by which --. one destined to command, the other two obey to you by read that to my husband and he asked which commands and which oversees the that is the genders system. we were born as human beings, and then the system of social conditioning in terms of -- they create gender which is imposed from that helps find. i just reject this view.

i don't argue that gender is entirely -- of course there are cultural influences. it's a mix of biology and environment. but to say that is to commit an act of heresy. i hasten to add the there are some serious scholars and women's studies must include their fair share who wonder wonderful courses in women's psychology and history, women and literature. but ideologically, the hard-liners. if there's a department that besides this, let m know. by the become a conservative women.

only when and from the radical left have the right to interpret the lives of women. we have a whole body of scholarships developed by which men from a very narrow. on many campuses women are taught to live in a society where girls are shortchanged in schools, robbed of this house stands then the achieve that of 25% of the salary and say it's invisible barriers. keep them out of the higher echelons of power. now this picture just doesn't fit reality. it's distorted we have. at many times i will be like turning on a campus some young women come that have had one too

many persons in women's studies. they are sensitive socially concerned young women that they come to take on this feminist world view of the absolute truth and most of them seem to be contrary look to what they've been taught in their class to read i remember speaking at college while i was talking there was a group of young women needing and. i don't know if their purchasing they may just like to -- a friend of mine in high school turned out to be a famous wican. she changed it to star hawk. she is a leading wican to read a don't want her to cast any - spells. she said she would only cast

good spells. anyway, there was a hectic discussion with the wican and feminists and so forth and one woman defending her major she said it taught me to love my body and just as a philosophy professor i suggested weird goal for a college class. it's nice to love your body i guess but what was the point of that class? anyway, she was mystified. another young woman was appalled that i suggested the free-market had created the conditions that made feminism and women's emancipation possible to read this one young lady was horrified. how can you say that capitalism has helped anyone? i thought maybe they at least enjoyed a lively debate. i found out afterwards the went to the woman that invited me but

she had provided a forum for hate speech so that the philosophical debate. it's not that way anymore. this is a few years back. but over the years i've looked carefully at standard feminist claims, statistics just choose any subject you would like to read eating disorders, violence against women, pay equity, what i found is that in most cases, not all would in most cases, these statistics are widely distorted. egregiously a perfectly wrong. i don't have the time to go through the long, sorry twisted detail about the misinformation but anything you read in the textbook to get with a grain of salt. here's the thing. just as i think young women are harmed if they take too many courses and become bitter and

angry at the world because they are oppressed the ridiculous to read it takes young women and change them in this way. this cannot be a legitimate goal of the college course but there are gender feminists many from the 70's and 80's that are better and eager to transfer the state of mind to their students. i also think it's a very bad to disseminate so much false information. i will give you an example of false information. this 1i just saw today. a professor has written a book about bullying schools and she writes it from a feminist perspective and she had a number of statistics, and i recognize almost all of them as the standard distortions, but she said it's another step on the continuum of the uterus by which place and masculinity demonstrate their power over

gross. so i looked at the date of ratings violence and i went back to the. it said 9% of girls and 10% of boys report being hit, slapped or physically attacked. so it is a problem but it's not the problem she described. bye reporting that that we in her book. some of the statistics i've called heat because they create a kind of bigotry to it i became a feminist and a 76 ascendt like misogyny. i still do not. i don't tolerate some that can't stand them. on the other hand now there are females.

so, the misinformation is everywhere and it's routinely passed along to to really do want to take on probably the most durable false sttistic in the debased just to show how. they are in love with the statistic and will never let it go and it's a claim women are paid 23 cents for every. it's true it depends how you calculate it but it's simply the difference if you look at the wages they're all men in the and eight states you to the average

returns out there is a 23-cent gap. and you've got nancy policy. the leaders of the group of an arms they are not grandstand it. they tried to pass the paycheck. when many have confidence, economists. there is somewhat different and women have a slightly different relationship with the work force. at, for example, women may have different managers and college. the enter different fields. the work different numbers of hours per week. they worked for hours per week, and at.

they're more likely to be pediatricians and cardiologists, more likely to work part time and working part time, they work. they're much more likely to take extended leave to read anything, there's a difference between women and men but to allow of the feminist groups. when doctors are paid less to i don't see how the women are well served by hyperbole exaggeration, misinformation. i'm going to end by mentioning the dena that i think captures plebeian for thing that's gone wrong in the last 20 years. it's called gender bias. bingo. and talk to the sort of fun. we will play if leader. with the help of a large government grant from the national science foundation and

the activist feminist lawyer and her team at hastings school of law developed a website called the gender bias learning project. to win a female scholar is supposed to of submit a harrowing tales about hosam usually mehl colleague mistreated her or stereotyped her or misperceive turn in some ways, some injustice. the site includes animated videos, demonstrating bias and in one episodes there are these three of noxious male scientists sitting to the sort of conspiring about their obvious superior colleague and refer to these females has hobbies, i can't say all these words, speak 18. she says the site is fun and funky and based on science. in fact it's based on 1970's ideology trumped up by

statistics and in ten gentian set of readings and then she says, and this is on the animated video, she says it's better to be a bitch than the doormat. well, who wants to be either? why did professor williams and her like-minded colleagues how did they manage to run off with him as some? my message today is to take back feminism. reformate, correct the access to insist moderate and conservative women be given a voice and then set about writing the next great chapter in the history of the quest for freedom. this section of the ovulars is over. thank you. [applause] >> it's great being with you all here today. i just think it's wonderful you

gather and that clare boothe luce does this for you. i don't recall this when i was on the hill and i'm very sad because i would have enjoyed that. i run the national federation of independent business small business legal center and i'm going to talk about our health care challenge today. i'm going to be probably a little light in my discussion on the actual legal arguments. i'm going to save that for question and answer because i know you want to discuss those since we're waiting for the decision i thought i would get more into what's actually going on at the moment. so anyway, the right to be left alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom to read this quote from supreme court justice william o. douglas could have just as easily been written by one of the seven planned 8 million women small-business owners in this country today. according to the u.s. census, in 2007, the women owned firms

accounted for 28.7% of all non-farm businesses in the u.s.. women owned firms employed 7.6 million people and generated 1.2 trillion in sales. another 4.6 million or 17% of the non-farm u.s. businesses were equally owned by men and women 50/50. the employed 8.1 million persons and generated 1.3 trillion in sales. ..

>> our founders tried to secure the freedoms and the pond doing that sock to

protect our liberties with the purpose of limiting powers of government. they thought by the bidding power they would preserve individual rights to ensure our pitcher prosperity the we have seen no the past century the freedoms have been chipped away bit by bit but. because of that we do view the health care law as a great crossroads of the federalist and what powers will of the going forward over us that is why a we doing to the 26 states of the health care law two years ago. at the time it was viewed

frivolous although now there was over six and a half hours of time given to argument. that was the most we have heard in oral argument since reverses arizona and brown vs. board of education. we think the challenge is humble. if we win the only law that is impacted is affordable care act but if the doberman wins we will have a new world where there is no limits to what canker at -- congress can require us to buy a or to going forward. as i talk to reporters, that has spent increasingly validated throughout the two-year process. district court, court of

appeals, listen to the arguments the government cannot answer the question where will it end? what can they not require us to buy if the individual mandate is up held? that is what was so fascinating to me watching the arguments firsthand. we were dismissed by so many that assume congress could do this. and to cease so early the government was challenged by all justices. some were more sympathetic to bolster them but the best was the argument everyboby

needs health care from some point*. so now we will give congress a chance. why do we keep going back to the claim congress can require everyboby to buy broccoli is because of the unique argument in my opinion. whether or not we exercise, i take vitamins, how we eat affect our health. if you say with the health care market, you can easily get to to the next piece produce the in new york looking to limit the size of your fountain drink.

it is not reached to see then narrative develop because of the cost of our behavior has on the market. at the end of the day, the small business owners i represent care about taxes and mandates that are riddled throw the law. that gets them energized. they want government out of the way. they don't want them meddling. it scares them. they don't know what is next. employers are already regulated. the top three issues have not changed in decades.

alarm really hurts from the regulatory component, they see those regulations so with the individual mandate that it bars the door. what might experience has ben if you are a business owner, you are a business owner. you are not defined by gender. every business owner faces taxes and health care cost. it does not matter if you are a man or woman. it affects the bottom line and payroll. for that reason i do think

there is no difference. we represent men and women who share concerns equally. with the health care decision itself, we expect the decision next week. there were four issues to consider with three cases. maybe one opinion read then the next opinion. 18 individual mandate was coupled with anti-and junction. that was on the first day. the old tax law that prevents all of us from suing big government over tax penalties that we theme for unjust but was best penalty attached a tax or penalty.

afterwards it was very humorous when justice alito challenged the temperament it does not bar the lawsuit but he said today it is not a tax and tomorrow you will be backed to say that it is. that is the threshold question. i am hopeful it did seem that the justices' were skeptical of the taxing power argument. with individual mandate, i have gone back and listened to the government -- arguments they did get a grilling on the limits. however that opinion goes

goes, it what congress can can-do going forward will be the center of the opinion. we hope the individual mandate falls but even if they allow it to i would like to think they will articulate limit to congress's power that very easy for people to understand. then there was the question which will be interesting, what happens to the rest of the lot if the individual mandate falls. if we are fortunate, will it be a clean decision on what comes next? isn't a majority opinion that with the dissent but on the judgment rehab the votes

or a plurality three or 40 opinions that are cobble together and you have to figure out what opinion do we care about? i mean there was a case of property rights. it was a plurality opinion. with kennedy's boats they could get the five votes but did not sign on to the reasoning. so it was kennedy's opinion that controlled. and then the medicaid issue to consider whether congress

can give it take it or leave it. do everything we said collor lewis lending. but the small business owners i represent it is about freedom we hope that we will prevail on the wall stage lawsuit in willfully know the answer this time next week. thank you very much. [applause] >> >> it is and the honor to come and speak to you at the clare booth luce policy institute. i try to find a microphone

that takes care of my accent [laughter] technology has not advanced that much. i appreciate your basis when i make a mispronounce meant i can't see you smile. i was in prison in cuba. what is not often said which is the bay of p.i.g.s. invasion. everybody knows that it failed but the history books don't tell you that they rounded up 100,000 prisoners all over the country. everybody goes to prison.

that gives you a flavor of what i will tell you today. they can pick you up and put you in prison for anything. prostitution, abortion, and rates are important to women. i will start with the story. a young man was a student and friend of my son. as he was walking down at the seashore, a woman approached him. would you like to have sex with my daughter? she was about 15. he did not have that in mind. he said no, no, no.

the woman insisted then said would you like to have sex with my younger daughter who is 11? my friend said he was horrified. he said no and walked away. this is the picture you find today in cuba. it breaks your heart. the prostitution is the mother and father into the business. it shows you the thinking of cuba and they have lack of morality.

then could go castro brag about prostitution in a public speech and they are the best educated. he was bragging. i talked to a friend of mine who travels to cuba constantly and said prostitution generally done by women who are very poor with no other means. in cuba, they the engineers, the architect and medical doctors. why do they do it? why do they have the need to go that way? then it has got and worse. now it is not only with men, children, homosexuality. the government looks the other way and let the have

been and supports it to the point* after fidel castro expressed his support a youth group made a declaration that being a prostitute was being patriotic because it brought foreign-currency to your country. this is the official stance of the youth group in cuba. the second thing i tried to bring, why do the women do this? what is the situation with food and how much does hunger have to do with it? the previous speaker talked about statistics and

miscommunication and handling. in cuba the problem is the lack of knowledge. after talking to a lot of people if they give you a card the assumption is you have enough food. i finally had been good drawing. the famous cuban immigration card. this is supposed to maintain you for a whole month. this only lasts two or three days. after that, you are back to hunger. what people don't understand, the government controls view to hunger, for

food. everything is in the hands of the government. you go to work and they give you lunch. that is how they control you. there is all kinds of laws about what you can knock do. 80 percent of your food is on the black market. now you violate the law. so this brings in another interesting concept the one who breaks the law is scared of the police.

there are some laws they are breaking they are scared. when it was explained to me me, i understood. when you judge a journalist or college professor that goes to cuba and the tourist places and hotels, and they don't grab the reality. maybe the secret service would like to go to cuba. [laughter] i know very good secret service men but i figure i need to put a joke in here. [laughter] maybe other issues that go with the desperation they tell you how well cuban

women are doing and their rates -- rights but they don't see this part. i was invited to talk about the war on women. the woman is the center of the family, the one who have to fight. i made it research about abortion. somebody stayed in my house she had two children and for abortions. you hear constantly they say probably every single woman has had one. i went to the statistics and

sure enough in the whole world that to countries that are the highest darby it numb and cuba statistics provided since 2002. then i went to meet some children commanded -- committed suicide cuba has the highest suicide rate for women in the world and the highest rate of completion of suicide broke women have the highest completion.

rate of completion of suicide broke women have the highest completion. are the key been women better off? -- cuban women? what i beg you is to understand cuba is the lack of knowledge. illiberal see what they want to see and it gets complicated that they don't know what they don't know. and they cannot speak. this is the last thing, there is a law and the lot of the atrocity. if the government or anyone you could be a danger to the

revolution they can throw you in jail. they do not have to prove it. thank you so much for listening. the conclusion is a prostitution in cuba is rampant, explosive, scandalo us. please feel for the cuban women that they have had other benefits as the center of the family but in a desperate situation. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. good to be with you. these ladies have an advantage.

i am in politics. they deal with facts. ideal with the press. where did that come from? the war on women is at that point*. it is important for you to realize. i was in activist in this party to find out we have no war against women was a complete shock to me so much so that when the first question went to mitt romney when george stephanopoulos decided to ask if he would out all contraception i have the same reaction. what? [laughter] why are you asking this? is somebody trying to outlaw?

it did not matter. he tried to get the governor to say something that could be used against him later. i heard nothing about it nobody has ever suggested we would take away contraception but this year we will do it. that is all very nice. [laughter] i will give a few minutes to discuss the war on women. doesn't matter if it is real or it is true? it matters as a perception. the voter perceives this party o or candidate is against women and wants to undermine to take freedoms and rights. you will not vote for that

person. it does not matter may and if they could sell this to enough women. but this will give a taste of what will come over the next few months. when the supreme court rules the big debate prior we were pro-life. in the early days they were for abortion. in a few years they made round way. they managed to get a higher road but win people started

to say words are key. they had decided but the mistake was a ticket to far. that is of second point*. it is thus been. then use been it to make it a case. but it doesn't matter because you have the colonel that is true. if you go to far, it fails. james carbone made the

point* but the obama campaign ignored it. he said you are out there and it is going well. do not go there. we heard private-sector is just fine. you been democrats were bailing. of rihanna right track? things are moving on the right track. more people have lost jobs and homes falling into poverty gas prices shoot up

up, everyone has kids coming home. that is not the right direction. 23 million underemployed people? but to play the apprehend and no upstart backtracking. people know everything will data is not the case. they are worried about their jobs. they're terrified their