..

[background noises] >> this better? this is my seventh book. i've had people introduce me at book signings before. that was a terrific one. thank you very much for that introduction. sometimes people are a little kind of confused, maybe a little nervous when they introduce. i remember this one person who said, were so glad that mr. bradley is here tonight. a new book, a wonderful book. i can guarantee you that you put it down and will never pick up. [laughter] that's what he said. and i remember once in the senate, the natural resources

committee and the chairman of the committee, some guy from louisiana named bennett johnson. secretary henry kissinger was testifying and the geopolitics of oil. the chairman of the committee walked and said, will still glad you're here dr. kissinger. i want to say to the committee members here that dr. kissinger's book, his memoir has just come out, 824 pages. i must tell you, dr. kissinger, i find it full of incites. and i want to say to members of the committee, just be careful. don't read it in bed because you fall asleep and if it hits your bread you will -- your like you'll break it. so, now tonight i want to talk a little bit. the impetus for this book, like

many americans, last summer the debacle, i witnessed the fact that we are still in two wars and the of the side of the world. i was aware of the difficulties of the middle-class of the country, not just for a few years, but for the median income in 2010 the same as it was in 1996. for the last 25 years basically it has been stagnant. i found last summer people calling up to me might be because i was in the senate and politics for a while. do you really think that anything is going to get done? i'm dealing hopeless. and so i have decided to write a book. i'm just a citizen. i don't have my hands on the levers of power. injustices and, just like you.

so what can i do? well, one thing i could do is try to bring whatever experience i have to bear on the moment and talk to the american people as best i could. and that is what i've tried to do. i want to remind the people that we have had difficult problems in the past, depression after the persian. we have had worse. there have been times when the structure of our democracy just does not work, and we have overcome them and moved forward. and i wanted to tell people, remind them that our political institutions are flexible enough to allow us to chart our own future. and i also wanted to remind them of something i talked about when i ran for president back in the paleolithic area. that was the goodness in the

american people. and that goodness, that's helplessness has to be the foundation upon which government policy is builds. for example, if they give to someone else with no expectation for return and the private sector is performer died then the best of government takes the accountability, the private sector and the passion and commitment of the nonprofit sector, and that is when government comes a lot to do great things for the people of this country. and so i -- people ask me what i mess about being in politics. i really messed things. time is not doing public policy 24 hours a day. i loved that. and that is what looks like this one, they try to fill that void. and the second thing that i miss

are the people and all their shapes and sizes, hopes, fears, james, anxieties. i miss that. people look to you like you are part of something that can help. i mean, you run for president and it is amplified 100 fold. and i am trying to fill the void with a radio program that i do on serious ex-im satellite radio . the kind of stories that i have heard from americans. and so it really boils down into two kinds of stories.

one is, a story about people who have an unusual job. the guy that and those in new york city's skyscrapers or a public health nurse in the aleutian islands or a groundskeeper at fenway park in boston. and all of those stories -- in the denver 300 shows now. all of those stories are stories about the dignity of work and about the film that one has been doing something well, wherever that this. a one to read about that, selflessness which, as i said, i think has got to be the inside of the foundation for anything else that we do. what kind of stories.

stories of guys that shine shoes for 46 years. out of every topeka he put a portion that in the fund to pay for poor children self care. the day i interviewed them he put over $100,000 into the pond. the goodness of the american people. then there is a lady outside chicago. a great chicago accent. that is important and radio. and she had an 11-year-old son who had cancer. and she -- he is in the hospital. got a lot of letters. and then when he came on he got no letters. and the asses mother one day c'mon, are they not sending me letters because they think of going to die? and so his mother starts sending in letters. she would sign the letters his

secret pal. a bad week when he was really sick, three letters. at least one letter. one night she came into the kitchen and he was their rating on the kitchen table she said he said no, no, not for your mom. continued writing. folded up, put it a novel up, give it to his mother and said, would you give this to massacre power. @booktv to open at. no, no. by superpower. says abbottabad, came back out. so you do? she open the envelope, to cut the piece of paper and it said, a levy mom. about a form of flattery died. and she went into his closet and the most difficult thing that a mother can do, clean out the cause of a deceased child.

in the four of that clause she found a shoebox. in the shoe box she found all letters from the secret pal organized chronologically. in the bottom of that shoebox she found an address book that had the addresses of all the kids that would to the kids with cancer campus previous summer. as a tribute to her son she wrote every kid in that book a letter trying to buck them out. an amazing thing happened. setting letters from people. in letters from people all over the country. a key for writing to my next door neighbor here. i have a cousin and i was city who has a child, could you write to them? she gets a response that she started organization called love letters.

she wrote over 4,000 letters to kids with cancer all across this country. now, that is the goodness of the american people. we have politics and battles. partisanship polarization car real issues that will determine the future of this country, but we must never forget that there is a goodness out there. we are generous people. we give with no expectation of return often. when we do that we are at our best. raising the barn with your neighbors in the early years or writing letters to kids with cancer today. can know a guy, after i'd done about 20 shows he came up to me and so were you going to do when you run and people like this. you don't get it. this is america. i'm never going to run and the people. so that is really wind the

impetus to write the book. the inspiration to write the book comes from, and the title comes from abraham lincoln's second state of the union message. 1861. the war has been going on about a year. it's not play well for the north . it's about 68 months away from the emancipation proclamation. since this address to congress. one of the great addresses in american history full of so much great stuff. two or three sentences, mind, caught my attention. i was thinking about the book. he says, speaking to the congressman and senators in the middle of the civil war, we can only succeed by concert. it is not that any of us can imagine better, but can all of us do better?

and that is a relevant question. when you looked out and see the fragility and inequality of the economy, the direction of foreign policy, the paralysis of the national dialogue, that is a legitimate question. can we all do better? we know that we have said the at our best if we're going to meet the challenges our country faces we knew each u.s.s. to be a best that, of course, is the next level of the title. as i simply camera politicians are politicians and people and washington to better. the answer is self-evident given our circumstance. in each of us do better? that might mean some very simple things in your life. politics today is a battle

between two competing efforts, caring collective action associated with democrats in the ethic of responsibility and individual action republicans. that is what campaigns are. already shaping up that this is what is going to be this year. the presidential race about the future and not the past. there is. it is beginning to be that same thing. when the truth is, and i think we do need politicians who will put country had a party and tell people the truth, the truth is that we need both collective caring and individual responsibility. take health. well, we need collective caring to say that we want to make sure everybody has adequate coverage and has a chance see a doctor when they're sick. we want to assure that in this country. individual responsibility would

say taking care of your own body . how much you exercise. and, remember, the healthier you are the less you will cost the health care system and the more money that will be available to cover other people who don't have health insurance. it takes both. take pensions, social security. for 35 percent of the elderly lived -- the elderly that's their only income, social security check. so collective caring would say, we have to make sure social security as solid for years and years to come coming generations to come. individual responsibility would say, if you want to retire with mortgages social security your personal responsibility is safe. if you don't save enough your not going to have as get a retirement as if he had saved.

so the point here is, we need both individual responsibility and collective care if we are going to really deal with the problems of the faces the country. as i said to mother challenges we face require each of us to be in our best. even if we are at our best depends on the success of our national community. we are all in this together. so, i decided when i was writing the book that i could not talk about everything. i had to narrow it down a little bit. unmerited down to three subjects. one is the economy, particularly with reference to what we can do to get more jobs and better paid and revive our sense of upward mobility in the country.

i tried to do that in the book. the short-term, mid term, long term. if your interest attacking go into it, but basically boils down to saying that you have to make sure that we raise all, not just on. that is fundamental to who we are as a country. and once we lose that we have lost the optimism that characterized our country from the beginning. we have lost the hope for a better life, and none of us wants that. so we need to do a few things. we do those few things and we will be right back. so i talk about the economy. i also talk about foreign policy . the major point of the chapter

is to say the 21st century is going to be about economics. and our security will depend increasingly about economics, our economy performs. the 20th century was about war , military action. the 21st century, that's not going to be the case. sure, terrorism. we need to make sure we get out the terrorists. sure, we need a great navy. we need to double land forces. many to coordinate this with space. the fundamental point is that our economy performs will determine our future. how do we leave in the world? i argue we should leave by the power of our example, in a pluralistic democracy with a growing economy that takes everybody to higher ground.

the founder and former prime minister of singapore says in the 21st century the winners -- dollar will be -- in the 21st century intelligence will determine the winner in the global competition. he said, in china, there is a talent pool of 1 billion people to draw from. the united states has a town pool of 7 billion people, many everybody in the world because we are an open society unlike most societies. we invite people of talent to come, practice not take us all to higher ground. as long as we preserve that we're going to be fine. and then i talked a little bit about china in the context of the last decade. let's talk about the last decade, what we've done.

we fought two wars i think the power of people that are smart. as for a tax dollars went perry has written many of our lives what. that what about the chinese? in the decade we were doing that they were laying the groundwork for economic of the 21st century out? a few things. chinese have on the books plans to have high-speed rail lines going from china down to singapore, southeast asia, across central asia, turkey, across siberia to moscow and then to berlin. once those lines are and the resources of that whole region can be brought to china.

stern also rise on the books constructing dams, up three gorges. dams would be in the himalayas. rivers that flow into southeast asia and south asia. building those dams with an ability to regulate the water, they will have an influence in the region without firing a gun shot. what about the chinese released its second? he tried to buy 200 square kilometers in iceland he said to my going to build a resort. what might he once? two months ago, the leader of china. no to the purchase.

thus the first wave. why is that important? global warming decelerates and the polar icecap melted more the shipping route over the north pole will be open to all munsey year, not for. and iceland since the spring european understates the you know what to world should look like. we have 40 million people last country listen to american i'll. they had 100 million people. listening to 12 part one hour each serious about the rise of nations. we have to wake up.

this was most starkly on the front page of the new york times october 29th last year. true story. side-by-side. first story, europeans go to china test for investment in euro rescue funds. the story went on to say the chinese would consider it, but they want to change policy under the wto, world trade organization, and have the effect of being less actionable. the story of the burgeoning economic power in using its muscle on the world. right next to it the story that said a western business looks for investments in libya. what was that about? that was about us taking over

our latest mideast venture. chinese are thinking of the next 50 years. and we have to understand, talk about middle income americans and getting our economy to grow, but being on the cutting edge of technology. this is not just about our internal domestic life. this is about and the world. we must not forget that. then the last would be the political system. the political system in the united states suffers from two major flaws. one is gerrymandering that rewards extremes. 435 house seats. fifty are competitive and the rest are 60-40 or 55-45. i'm in a 6040 district. as an even have to listen to the public because i know i'm going to win the general election.

the republican has to worry about somebody on his right. and so we play to that narrow primary constituency. second, the problem, is significant one is the role of money in politics. when i ran for the senate in new jersey for the first time in 1978i spent over one half million dollars. versus $63 million. extrapolate that to the whole political system and you get an idea of what is happening. why is this happening? well, it's because of the courtesy of the supreme court.

let's go back. i want to take too much time. richard nixon, watergate, guys carrying satchels of cash around . congress our rates, a country of rage. put limits on campaign spending. you cannot limit the amount of money that a person spends in his or her own campaign because to do that is to limit that person's right to free speech. today if you decide you want to run for congress was the first think that the congressional committees say? can you raise the money? we get the guy who says all right to check has got the advantage. in the today 47 results of the millionaires falling 9 percent

are and the rest of society. that was just one aspect. in 2010 the supreme court made another ruling that reversed a law that had been in existence since teddy roosevelt put it in 1907. a good republican. that law prohibits corporate contributions. well, building on any supreme court interpretation is that corporations were really people, the supreme court in 2010 said that because corporations are people under the law and you cannot limit the rights to free speech of a person, and money limiting would do that, you cannot limit the right to free speech of a corporation.

the next six months will be an orgy of money, an orgy of money. it will be revolting. this one guy here is going to spend over hundred million dollars on broadcasting lies about barack obama. that is just the beginning. republicans will spend a lot more. democrats will spend some. the point is, how does that affect us all? it affects us because the money distorts the work that politicians in washington need to do for the people in 2009 and 2010 the financial industry contributed $389 to politicians in washington.

the health care contributed $740 million, politicians, and the energy industry and to receive $75 million. so, is it any surprise that we got a water down by a letter down financial reform bill that did not take the action that led to the $2 billion a $3 billion stake. is it any surprise that we did not get it public option for for private insurance companies? and they did not even get around to an energy bill. so there is. ..

and ultimately in this country today, given the experience of the last couple years only reminds us that democracy is not a vicarious experience. and in the internet age, who went in the era of spurring is when deposing autocrats a middle east you say the forces are so

great it will never have an impact. just look at our history. in the 1830's a group of people said slavery is a moral. you've got to end it, call abolitionists. in the 18 eighties a group of people said women have a right to vote in this country called the suffragists. in the 1950's somebody said african-americans ought to have the same break as everybody else in this country, civil-rights workers. in the 1970's somebody said we ought to clean air and clean the water environmentalists. on each of there's locations there wasn't a congressman or senator that had this idea. it was a citizen movement, a group of citizens the decided they were going to shake the country and they did want.

those are things for us to think about what to look at in the next four to eight years. the two groups, t party occupy what. tea party, they are different in many, many ways. that he party headed for a specific objective, will back the government. while funded. had a very clear strategy win congressional races and in 2010 they won 43 seats in the united states congress, the 43t party republicans and in the summer of 2011, speaker bonner and president obama got an agreement for the deficit reduction package of $3 trillion.

those 43 republicans objected it. and almost brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy. when people say things can't change three years ago nobody heard of the tea party but because of money and because of focus, they made it happen and brought us to where we are today. you see the guy that one will in indiana beating lugar still a great united states senator and the tea party guy said after the collegiality is over, the confrontation has begun. my idea isn't democrats support my position. such ignorance what. we wouldn't have a constitution without compromise. that's the only way we move the country as diverse as ours

forward. occupy at a great slogan for the 99 per cent. appointed of a very important issue, income inequality in the country today was not adequately funded, did not choose to have a specific objective, and did not choose to get involved in congressional races even though there is one out running and broken. and the result was there it is. they are not a factor. the tea party is dominant. you can't underestimate the difference in how money. the last point i want to make is one occupy have a lot of passion. the tea party had a very specific objectives and they reached for the levers of power. occupied didn't reach for the levers of power.

and it's when both of those who passion and knowledge come together that makes progress. the 1960's dr. martin luther king jr. had day moral vision and a soaring dream that touched millions and millions of americans. but in order to make that dream permanent in the law of the united states, you needed a politician being lyndon johnson who is president knew how to pull the president's power to get the country to do something that heretofore was not prepared to. so my point is we live in a time where problems are real. we have the means to solve our problems and the rest within each of us. never forget the selflessness of the american people and they're respecting vv custis if it seems to want to achieve, be clear

about what our interests are and then when it comes to money, there's only one answer. we need a constitutional amendment that says federal, state and local government limits and limit the amount of money in politics. that is a central cost if we are serious about making real difference in this country and returning our politics to the people. thank you very much. [applause] okay. i am prepared to do some questions if you would like to ask some questions for a while. but i like to do the questions. you raise your hand and i will call on you. if you have a question and i don't know the answer or i think it is a silly question i will call on somebody else. [laughter] >> and you always want to have a

politician tell you -- yes, all the way in the back. >> when you said a few moments ago about ignorance, i was just thinking why don't you just call it misinformation because we do try to educate ourselves but sometimes with misinformation. i'm going to sit down but could you comment please on the stellar citizen and i think that this ralf meter. >> of the question was on the scholar citizen ralph nader. i think that he's done enormous things as a citizen. i think the public citizen. he said major impacts. i sent him a box of these books. [laughter] and he said i'm going to give them to my friends and i said thank you very much. so, i saw him three weeks ago.

yes, sir. >> how can we be less passive and bush v. gore -- >> on the first point i can't help you. on the second point, the answer is a constitutional amendment. you cannot get around these rulings. okay we will declare it unconstitutional. you do anything to clear it unconstitutional. you could do something that had genuine public financing. but that preferred approach would be a constitutional amendment that says as i pointed out the federal government may limit federal state and local government may limit what the spending power is on the

political campaign. that is the key. it's not like when you do constitutional amendment it has to pass the congress then goes through the state's three-quarters of the states have to do it. a million people will resist and reach a critical point and will happen very quickly. this happened in the 19th century the corrupt state legislators that were controlled by railroads, banks and companies sent corrupt senators who were on the payroll of the railroads etc. to washington, and the people rose up and said no. we want to elect new as senators. they had to into the constitution. took them ten years but they did. so don't say it isn't possible. it is possible. it depends on the genius in this room and thousands across the

country and with an internet, you never have more power. yes, sir. >> our mutual friend congratulate you on your new book. and i love your title we can all do better and my question to you as another new york legend your teams which team was better? [laughter] >> let me answer that very simply. we were. [laughter] [applause] >> we paid them once or twice and i didn't have to guard him.

>> he's clearly one of the greatest and a nice human being. somebody i had my ear. yes, ma'am. >> - a former resident for most of my life, and i was there during your term so what do you feel was your biggest achievement there and the second part is was there any hope for all of the corruption and the government there? [laughter] >> after you left. >> i think that when i was in the senate what was my biggest legislative moment it would have been the tax reform of 1986 but cut their rates from 50 to 28 and eliminated the loopholes in the process. it was achieved but with a bipartisan support. i was kind of a zoellick that wrote books and talked about it.

i talked about this stuff. every speech i made for like three years. i was on a television program record on foot as they broadcast on sunday in the living room with my daughter, and came on and i was still watching. senator bill bradley. so i said to my daughter, she said stick around, it's going to be on tv and she had her little friend that was with her that said all he's going to do is talk about loopholes. [laughter] so, you need that kind of single mindedness. but it would never happen without ronald reagan as president committed to it and i once had a meeting at the white house when of the two times i met ronald reagan sitting around the table with wild tax reform or what we wanted to say so i said mr. president i know you're interested in tax reform because when you were an actor the

marginal ax rate was 90 per cent. and i said i'm interested in tax reform because in basketball my contract made me a appreciable asset. so the point is that would be the thing that i would point to legislatively and in terms of a big legislator. if i talk about what warms my soul, i would say a little program that i created in 1992 with congressman jim leach another republican who were in high school between their junior and senior year from russia, kazakhstan, other reforms of the soviet union with the american family, and so far we have had nearly 30,000 kids that have gone through that program and i think that has transformed expectations or people's impressions of the united states and of russia.

when i need these kids i love them. they are so optimistic and have such a commitment. i could tell you story after story but maybe i shouldn't. thank you very much. yes? >> the defense budget is under a lot of scrutiny with the crisis that we have. would it be proven to reduce the money that we spent some 70 billion on the nuclear arms as one way to make our defense budget smarter and more effective? >> i haven't seen the latest numbers in the budget to talk about 15 years. but i think you need sufficient nuclear weaponry to feature. i don't know if seven fiorina 450 arnove i know that we need to reorient our defense structures that it is not the same as we had in the cold war but is the threat we face,

terrorism being one coming and we have a strong navy and have an acceptable force but keeping the context that the major issue even for the national security will be the help of our economy. if our economy doesn't work, you can't produce the money that you need to spend to defend yourself. you'll spend the money to defend yourself but then you have to cut the programs that are important to our basic living in terms of infrastructure, education, health care, social security, and i think that is not where we want to go. you're going to have to do some of those cuts in the giant budget deal, but not simply because your economy is not going. yes? >> where do you see our economic recovery come from so many jobs are out forced in the united states, and also the flow of the low-cost labor that's undermining construction jobs.

>> i think that is a good question that basically gives me a chance to talk about the economy coming and i appreciate that. i think the highest priority is to create more jobs in america and higher income and there are reasons why there are not as many the last ten years we lost post 40,000 factories lost 6 million jobs because of outsourcing. technology replaced millions of other jobs because you don't need as many people to do the job. productivity has gone up and the lack of representation of workers by labor unions and the impact on all level of wages and salaries. so what do we do? short-term we've got to get people working. some of us say we could give a tax cut like socia security. well, i think we have to be much more specific. i think we have to say to a

company if you hire another worker and you don't lay off any one, the federal government will pay 30% of the cost of that order for two years. and first come first serve the cabinet $50 billion, and that means that not 1 dollar would be spent, not one of your dollars would be spent without a job being created. that's what we need to do in the midterm. midterm right now on the books of the nonfinancial corporations in america is one played $8 trillion. that's in cash and liquid assets. if 20% of that was used to hire people in this country, unemployment would be 5%. when you ask of the ceos why don't you hire more people? they say uncertainty about the future we have to have a rainy day fund. they say there's not enough demand if we produce ten times as much wages there would be

people buying ten times as more so those are the two so if you're going to deal with it you have to deal with both and you deal with the first with a significant deficit-reduction not now or next year and the out years by changing the entitlement programs defense programs and tax policy. and once you do that and see the deficit coming down long-term you will have to borrow as much money. and right now we borrowed $1.4 trillion guess who from? the chinese that they will still have dollars. they have to invest those dollars so what we do is get them to buy the united states reconstruction bonds. we want a trillion dollars over five years creating 5 million jobs in the construction sector doing the things in the high priority projects in this country that we desperately need to do to flee the groundwork for economic growth in the 21st

century, such things as high-speed rail, east and west coast, such things as the air traffic control system you need to go to the airport its delayed, air-traffic control system it's the same as it was in 1960 looking at the tv with red dots moving across. you can do a lot better than that. those are the things i think it's important for us to do and the last thing as long term. we have to change the way we tax employment. right now 40% of the five total revenue come from tax and employment. social security tax, medicare tax, unemployment tax. we need those programs desperately but we don't need to put the full burden on somebody that is willing to hire somebody. we should instead of taxing people in employment we should be taxing things. we should be taxing plastics or aluminum. we should be taxing and efficient buildings, inefficient

cars. we should be taxing even a non-labor not the workers value added tax and use that money to fund social security and medicare and unemployment thereby putting in place a tax system that encourages people to hire as opposed to one that discourages people to hire. yes, sir. >> how would you spark the media citizenship here? we all share the stories so we know the numbers. how do we get real about this? 1.9 and 16.8. high-speed rail they all come to a dead end.

how do you make it work? that's my thought. >> i don't think it is just engaged in the media because the media has in the internet age the media has less and less impact and also fragmented people listening to only those stations, those of channels that already reinforce their own views. there is no commonality camano walter cronkite that tells all of us the same thing. we are told a different things to different cable television stations. there have been times in american history when the plans of few, political points of view have been irreconcilable the civil war comes to mind. but absent that, we resolved our conflict through political combat that is sometimes vicious but bloodless and one of three things happens. one party the first thing is one party wipes the floor with the

other party. i would like to see democrats like the floor of republicans. that's the way it was when lyndon johnson won in 1964. or you have a narrow majority which is what we had during the 18 years that i was in the senate, and what we continue to have to become a and the only way that you move forward is with bipartisan cooperation tax reform 1986 as an example where people come to the middle and compromise. if we are in a situation where the radical right has captured the republican party, and they will not agree if we are at a time where we can't get an agreement on the really important things, 55% of the budget that goes to one criticisms and another group of citizens, then i believe it is quite possibly he could see the emergence of a third

congressional party, not ralph nader and ross perot running for president. that is a nonstarter, but in the congress where there are competitive districts you could have 50 candidates running a very specific objective and the constitutional amendment big infrastructure program changing the tax system deficit reduction very specifically. and those 50 people if they ran in 21, those 21 would be operating at the power of the united states congress and we would begin to ma trades. those are the only things we want to get done and if you want our vote for the communications bill for this amendment, are you committed to the constitutional amendment? and then you find potentially that group able to shake up the system and bring some people back to their senses. the other option is the

following. president obama is reelected. we have a big train wreck about to happen on january 1st if there is no deficit reduction its automatic cuts on domestic and defense and taxes back to the old rates will and back on social security. so, this is a critical vote. and here i would hope president obama would take a page out of lyndon johnson's playbook. i think the president and his staff could identify the 20, 25, who knows, maybe even 30 republicans and house who have temperament, education, background, know that when they are doing the wrong thing to be supporting the tea party. and then i would, if i were the

president know more about those 30 people than their mothers. [laughter] that i would know who they seek advice and how many brothers they have. i would know what they do on their vacations. i would no who their first grade teacher was. i would know who the big businesses were in their community and who their chief fund-raisers are. and i would call them in one by one to the white house to give them a lunch, drink bourbon or coffee or whatever and tell them to follow it. your country needs you. umar republican, democrat. but on this vote on this gigantic deficit package that will help determine the future of this country. i need your vote.

but there are too many bad things that can happen if we don't get this passed and you know that and i know that. so please come as a patriot give me your vote. i would wait about attendees, and if i call back and say do i have your vote, have you thought about it in this critical moment in our history, and if he said no i don't think i'm going to do that, i would call his mother. [laughter] >> before you call my mother, i have a question. [laughter] i think something like 70% of our national economy is based on consumer is some, and it seems to me that our consumerism is consuming us not just as citizens, but as a nation.

now as a politician you can't get there and say if you want to create new jobs we have to alter our relations. but i don't know how you resolve what i think is the paradox that our consumers and i think is profoundly destructive and yet to create new jobs, you have to promote and encourage consumers. >> that is a very difficult dilemma as you know. there are two sides. you either save money or you consume. the united states is one of the worst saving countries in the world. we are the greatest consumer in the world. so just as china has to save less and consume more, we need to consume less and consume more. you can do that at the national level by running a budget surplus or you can do that at the level by saving more. i think there would be the first and most important step to take.

in terms of getting people to by less, you know, i don't think that in the wake of 9/11 president bush said the way we deal with this crisis is to buy something at the mall was an adequate response. i think there was a deeper question and that is who we are as a people. and here i think he would want to shift from consumption more to investment and investment in people. where do we want to spend the money? we are not getting any younger. if you want to have an elderly parent is well taken care of, the person who takes care of the parent has to be trained and talented and they have to have investment, they have to have an education and the more money that we call consumption but its consumption that produces a good social result.

i don't think what you are saying with consumption you want to prevent that or teachers or doctors. you want to prevent frivolous consumption. and i think it would shift more to investment and people that there would be the first step in changing. >> it seems to me the measurement of our national self-esteem as is reflected in these monthly reports has to do with the index of consumer confidence. that's how we are told as a people we are feeling about ourselves. i don't know how you shift that to the investment as opposed to the consumer confidence. >> i think the consumer confidence is just one of the measures that you have when you are saying how was the economy moving. it's an example of what the people are going out tosp