answers you could get. >> should the nuclear regulatory commission pay more attention to earthquakes to make it part of the planned removal? >> when they are paying a lot more attention to it to be honest they were paying attention but probably not on the path or the speed that jim would have liked. they are paying more attention. i wouldn't care whether it is part of real. we have to learn to deal with new information in real time cannot make it part of the renewal or ten year cycle. do it when you get it to find out if it is significant and how to handle it. >> in a plant like the canyon, the real license with a great uncertainty about the seismic risk for the plant? >> they will resolve the seismic risk based upon the study of the are trying to do now the analysis that they will do and i think that they will go ahead and look and see whether or not. it doesn't matter whether it is licensed because you can have

that come up the day after it is licensed and you want them to look at it and not care that they had another 20 year license. >> i agree that there have been tremendous advances in seismology and we are getting better at understanding. but i don't think that there will ever be -- there will always be a great deal of uncertainty around places particularly run the diablo canyon. so i think it comes to the question of human judgment and political judgment as to whether or not we might want to say okay, the plant has been for four years. we probably wouldn't have felt if we knew that it was right under the say larger earthquake fault. perhaps it's good to retire it or not your we are willing to live with those risks. but i think it has to be a serious debate as to whether you go forward. >> jerry is a reporter for investigative journalist to recover other guests are mark fertel, ceo of the nuclear energy institute and jim boyd

from commissioner of the energy commission. let's have for next audience question. welcome. >> i'm at uc-berkeley. i'm encouraged at least one person mentioned concern about the waste issue and the way that it's stored because it is potentially a hazard above and beyond. the entire discussion is the word kind of in embedded and i think that for the settle on a long, long time ago is the universal design for all of the nuclear transfer in the u.s.. there have been advances that have been promoted in france, and i've heard people come to the club and talked up the plutonium reactors in ways to

generate nuclear energy and the use of water so there are things going on, and there's very little in the discussion today that has any of that forward-looking attitude towards at. >> thanks for the comment. the plants being built in georgia and south carolina are the most advanced technologies and the world right now. and basically they've got a lot more systems if fukushima accident happened with those plans, if they were there in japan, the plans would basically be able to go 72 hours to keep the reactor core cola and goes 30 days so the problem we had that fukushima if we had the designs were building now in our country would have probably never addressed to the action conditions because they would have had so much more time to take corrective actions.

and because the design is the most advanced. can they get more advanced? absolutely. let's also talk about the small modular reactors the idea of a smaller plant. bill gates is backing a company which is using the depleted uranium supposedly to produce less waste. quickly marked fertel on those. >> the reactor is right now or something in our country there's a lot of interest internationally there's a lot of interest because we had a country without a large grid and we don't want to put large power plants, to be yet nuclear coal or anything else. yes, bill gates is looking at a very advanced reactor that jumps well beyond where everybody else is looking right now. but he's going to go build it in china because he can't get through the revelatory approval staffing up here. i'm not sure that is what i would encourage him to do. i think you're going to see in our country the department of energy has a solicitation out right now to jointly fund -- and it won't be real, it will be

about a third of them and two-thirds of the company's, the small modular reacted to signs and that is out on the street. there are four companies and we will see where it goes that it might be a breakthrough not just for our country but as a big export market opportunity. >> whatever next line of questioning. >> my name is angela. i live in san francisco. and, so far maybe i missed something. i don't think i dozed off, but all of the former devotees that you've mentioned have been natural. tsunami, fault line etc. what about us? what about people? if i were a terrorist and i wanted to do serious damage as far as the infrastructure is concerned, i wouldn't go and attack england mills. >> you mentioned human vulnerability let's wrap it up there. >> i'd obviously been deep in the subject ever since 9/11, and while we did encourage the nrc

to look at the design based ret design criteria, and maybe make them more rigid in some cases i think the psychological threat of attacking in nuclear plant is far beyond the real threat of causing harm. take lifetimes of terrorists through a dry cask or getting the containment building. the pool is something we've worried about to the nrc that medically the scene more vulnerable when and what have you with. i'm more concerned about a dirty bomb going on in the society that has nothing to do with a nuclear power being abrogated to a dirty device than i am about a nuclear plant. fiber a terrorist linwood blowup the swiss chard plant and scare the living daylights out of millions of people and i do not think there will be aviation threat.

that is my assessment from the years i spent and that isn't the reason for not, for attacking the nuclear power plant we want them or we don't want them. there are a few former abilities that need to spruce up the ability to repulse any kind of attack you can't take a plane out of the air, but i think we need to harden the spent fuel pool in some cases and i don't think that is the thing to worry about in the hollywood movies that make it a threat. >> marks fertel let's wrap up on the future plans underway right now. well more debt built in those right now in georgia and south carolina? >> we've been saying for three or four years now so before speed of that in our country because of the recession, because of the gas and the drop-off in electricity demand, we start the plants sinking four to eight, but we really saw four bayh 2020. we think there will be more in the pipeline for construction.

there is ten more getting their licenses from the nuclear revelatory commission but i don't think that we will see more than the operating by 2020. i think you'll see more in the pipeline for both licensing and construction by 2020. >> is that good for america? they will continue to license the existing one? >> i don't know. i can't say what's good for america. but i think that the issues around nuclear power still exist and need loan guarantees in the federal government. there's never insurance companies of all touch a nuclear plant. the reliability limiting to $22 billion which would come from the power industry. so, and at fukushima i don't what the eventual cost will be. some people say half a trillion dollars in terms of damages.

i guess i will go back to the question earlier we are a nation divided not surprisingly that we are the poorest society and there are some states which are more friendly than others. california we are prohibited from building any new plants. the loan guarantees to the seven companies still talking about, they don't have that it would reduce the cost of capital which saves the customer's money. the risk to the government is about zero. it is not a project financing is on the balance sheet and is very solid as a company and other things and insurance basically have an exemption to have any insurance for nuclear because it's covered by the law.

it's excluded by the requirement because you are covered by what we have to do under the present ascent we will be careful about looking at certain things and subsidies. >> we have to end it there. ceo of the nuclear energy institute and the association for the nuclear industry. former commissioner of the california energy commission, and joe ruben, center for investigative journalism think you all for joining climate one today. [applause]

there are still holes in those

woods and we saw that when saddam hussein invaded kuwait. mideast might have become a nuclear energy supply held hostage so we did what was right and what was necessary. we destroyed a threat free to people and lost retirement of his own country 10 million of our fellow americans are out of work. tens of millions more work harder for lower pay. the incoming president says on the planet always goes up a little before the recovery began. but unemployment only has to go up by one more person before a real recovery can begin.

last week afl-cio president richard trumka talked about 20 tough presidential election at an event hosted by the christian science monitor. discuss to the impact of this pinker citizens united decision and how for the first time it's enabled the labor movement to extend the voter outreach efforts to the nonunion households. he also said his organization has shifted its voluntary recruiting efforts to the door to door approach rather than tv ads. this event is about an hour to our guests are richard trumka president of the afl-cio and the group's political director. mr. trumka gerlach in the pennsylvania caulfield and followed his father and grandfather artilio into the mines and worked his way kitfield fer pence eight university and earned his law degree. in 1982, at age 33 he was

elected president of the united mine workers of america, the youngest and its history to hold that position. he served three terms as president and brought into nwa into the afl-cio. in 1995 he ran to the secretary-treasurer of the afl-cio and became the dumbest person to hold that position where he served for 15 years. he was elected president of the afl-cio he's been on the afl-cio political scene since 1997. an expert in sophisticated mobilization models to become deputy political director in 2005 and director in june of last year he was as the director of citizens action where he managed commercial space and local campaign. as always we are on record here. please, no blogging were

tweeting while the breakfast is underway. there is no embargo where the session ends accept c-span has agreed to wait two hours before ending the tape of the breakfast. with the goal of maintaining the breakfast reputation for stability, if you would like to ask a question please do the traditional thing and send me a nonthreatening signal from a cappoli call on one at all i would offer my guest the opportunity to make brief opening comments and then move to questions from around the table. with that mr. trumka the floor is yours. >> i don't know if ready to hear me to have trouble hearing you quite frankly it seems like we were here last year and another year is going speeding by and seems to go buy a little quicker each year. so hopefully we can make this year more meaningful than perhaps the last year. i'm going to be very brief. i just want to say a few words and then open up and start with

a conversation and questions that you might have. for the last three years the economy has been moving away from working people and words of those at the very top and that has taken a big toll. that's why this particular election that we are facing right now. it is a difference between the two competing visions, and we are about to have at least a debate over which one of those divisions is the best vision. we are excited that we joined together with a number of progressive groups to endorse and advocate a thing called prosperity economics. you will find it in the packets that were passed around.

it was done by jacob and nate. they put this together with a number of progressive groups. from our perspective there is a light at the end of the economic tunnell. so we are excited about that because we are going to have this debate. we are excited that we are able to have a debate over collective bargaining. and we can move forward and talk about what has been holding out the country and where we go from here. and our political program this year is going to be different than it has been in the past. it will be geared towards the rank-and-file but unlike in the past when we would start building our program eight or nine months before the election at this time we have a permanent program that will stay in place. after the election day we will continue to reach out and

mobilize and also continue to bring people in and educate them to read will also allow us to do something we couldn't do before. prohibited by law from talking to them on union members. now because of the new tools that are out there we will be talking to the nonunion members and reaching out to them and mobilizing them. and we are in the process of training over 400,000 volunteers and we have over 300,000 online we can monitor the polls on election day leading up to everybody's vote counted. and all of this we get a real kick off on august 25th when we will start our first national day. so that in 27 states for 50 states around the 21st of august

after we will be in 20 states will be knocking on doors and encourage the participation out there while mitt romney is being nominated savitt to be an exciting time and we are going to kick off this. >> thanks very much. as dave coke likes to say. >> you can walk into the oval office and give president obama once he's a campaign adviser about winning over white working-class men which is a tough democratic for him what would it be, what would you say >> to talking about jobs, jobs and more jobs and if you look that our program i will go through this with you.

this is the union difference in the last election. he won the white union. but it's a 34-point spread. they lost by 7%, but he won the union about 47%. that's a 54% swing. he lost weekly churchgoers by 50%. with increased the union members 1%. the same thing goes on for veterans and 65 years and older. a tremendous union advantage from the program because we keep teaching them about economics and who is actually providing a program that will help them, workers and the children and the family and the community. so my advice to would-be keep talking because talking about jobs, jobs and our jobs and ultimately the vision of an economy that works for

everybody. this is of the two competing visions that is more of the same. if you look at the 85 page economic program and who baliles down to two things. give us more tax and remove regulation and we will create jobs. >> do you have -- >> anybody -- is melanie troutman here by any chance? >> yes. >> she put in a question last friday. >> i want to ask about pensions because last year there was a bit about collective bargaining. how do you defend programs for

your members? >> i don't think we are going to get the program. why should we? the american way is we should be providing the security retirement for everybody and that is something that everybody should have. here is what has happened over the last couple of years. i think that the far right has been successful in turning around the normal american way of doing things. it used to be we would say you don't have a pension. i do. what do we have to do to get q1? now they have been successful in some instances to turn around and say we have a pension i don't why should we take yours away. we shouldn't be taking people' pension away. that's bad economics. it's bad policy and it's a bad example. the rest of the brogue doesn't do that. the rest of the world has figured out how to provide secure pensions for their family weekend for a more prosperous country all we need to do is give that political will day or

about trying to weaken the labor dhaka about a number of things. are there state entities and local entities that are hurting? yes, there are. because they don't have the tax revenue for the tad massive layoffs or jobs that have been led to it and do we work with them, yes, we do work with them if there's a legitimate problem. but to wisconsin. wisconsin starts off with a surplus. it gives a major tax break to corporate america. we now have a deficit and i have to take your pension. they really didn't have to take anybody's pension. he chose to take somebody's pension. durkan to do it, expect continued attack? of course. >> kevin, sorry, you mentioned --

>> you know how the afl-cio -- what do you think the second term for president obama [inaudible] i wondered if he has any thoughts about [inaudible] >> the second term -- >> what is the second obama term been for the labor movement and what do you think would be how

do you feel right now? >> first of all me to the committee in the future. give your name and what entity you are from. i knew you in the middle. first of all, i do think that president obama will win reelection and will will be a close race because the massive amounts of money and resources that are in this election. second, in some instances because of a little bit of good luck, the senate will remain in democratic hands. and i think that the democrats in the house will pick up seats primarily because of the obstructionism we have seen so far in the lack of the program. the republicans haven't shown any program whatsoever by job

creation. they voted hundreds of times on other things. on reproduction control and things like that. to have a dedicated or given any kind of program for jobs program. so i think they are going to lose some ground this time around. what happens in the second term i think some of it is determined by what happens in the election. if i'm accurate and the democrats hold on to the senate, then they may be picked up a seat or pick up some house seats than i think the republicans are going to have a choice. they are going to have to offer some solutions and come up with some job creations and get off of the fighting over things that used to be non-partisan. the surface transportation act, the faa, the clean water act. we never used to fight over all of those things because those things are necessary for the u.s. government, for our economy to go forward. now we fight over everything

that is sort of foolish and reminds me of nero. we are not creating jobs, we will fight over things and deny them that would create jobs. so the second would be the same. we have to continue to fight. we will advocate. we will organize around the report with all progressive community supporting so the progressive community will be behind that. the report if you look at it we will be investing in minimum of $250 billion a year and infrastructure to pick up for the deficit that will have some job creation and also because more effective and efficient as a nation more competitive as a nation we will organize around them. >> i think it's fair to say you think democrats would pick up the seats in the house but maybe not gain control of the house?

>> it remains to be seen. i wouldn't rule that out, but i'm not going to put that. it's where we will see what happens. the extraordinary amount of money going into the house from outside groups this would be another wave for the democrats but if you look at any of the normal indicators such as the question of whether you think most representatives deserve to be reelected in wave years, 94 to doesn't six, 2010, that 50 to 60% folks said most members of

congress should not be reelected. now it is that 76%. when the republican approval for the congressional approval was at an all-time low, that has to be put up against the fact that when you look at 2010 to 2012, democratic house between the candidates and the super pacs have $100 million less than they did in 2008 and the republicans have $100 million more to do think it is pretty clear poll after poll republic after republic is completely dissatisfied with the construction of some in the house and it is going to be a test as to whether or not that much money can keep house republican. ..

something that they can do. at this time we're going to try to do it even better because now we're going to be able to reach out to nonunion workers and talk to them. so it used to be we would go into a door knock and there would be 500 houses in a small community. if 100 of them were union we had to skip 400 houses.

now we can go to those 400 houses, talk to them about the issues, reply to them about the issues, get information back about issues that they find important, they deem important. we also are going to be doing a couple other different things deadly. we're going to energize our volunteer system. last election, lifecycle we had about 300,000 volunteers on the ground. this time we were shooting for four and i think we will see for because we got three so quickly. we will able to get over 300,000 actually very, very quickly. we were able to move beyond the. you won't see us doing all the ads, the anonymous ads, or the ads for feel-good america or the other groups they put out there. they will be doing the airways. we will be doing driveways. we will see what happens. >> i find what they say about that, the comparison even

laughable or galling. but they basically are saying is, one, organizations support business that has a couple hundred donors shouldn't be treated equally for currently with the labor movement which has, you know, 15 million members. and conveniently ignore the fact that americans for prosperity, all of the different business groups on top of that as though there should be some equivalency between one group on the right and the entire labor movement, which is just preposterous. and if you go to the center for responsive politics are anybody independent that looks at this, you see the margin is spending by those groups combined, the dwarf what we spent. and it's disingenuous.

>> under the table, can you -- at the end of the table, can you introduce yourself? >> you were talking earlier about the union advantage. i was hoping you could talk a bit about president obama as a candidate, specifically for unions and union members as opposed to working people broadly. i think when you talk to a lot of labor leaders you say there is some disenchantment with the president. some feel like he hasn't done everything he can to go to bat for organized labor. i'm wondering if you send within rank-and-file within labor leaders that there is maybe an enthusiasm problem with the president? and if you feel like you can make a strong case that he's done everything he can for the labor movement?

>> has he done everything he can for the labor movement, no one has ever done, no president has ever done it. has he done a lot for the labor movement? absolutely he has. has done a lot for the working people? absolutely he has. but let's take the simple guy goes to work every day whether you're in and out of factory, where they go to school as a janitor or anybody. under eight years of george bush, the occupational safety and health administration, the mine safety health administration was nonexistent. it was a cadaver. they starved it of resources and turned from an enforcement agency into a consulting fee for companies. soviet more people being injured, more people being hurt, less people coming home from work that didn't have a health disease. now you have workers being protected. this guy has fought for jobs. look at the last guy. the last guy came in, bush came

in, he had an economy that's blowing off the charts, growing a giant surplus. he leaves office, a just later with fewer jobs than when he came into office. so every american worker, every american was worse off. our pension funds have been ravished, lost money because of the the regulations that he had done to people. and this president has created four and a half million jobs in the worst recession that we have seen since the great depression with an obstructionist house and republican senate that has tried to stop everything he is trying to do. so he has worked hard. has he done everything? of course he hasn't done everything. he worked hard to get us the health care bill. we tried for 60 years to get health care for every citizen in this country. every other civilized nation has figured out how to do it. they provide health care for their citizens. he finally got that done despite the obstructionism that we've

seen on the other side. so are their pockets of workers out there that should have done more? of course there are, but whenever you compare them and when we compare them, like what mitt romney instance to do and what barack obama tends to do, when it comes to working people, there's no contest. barack obama is more for working people than mitt romney. mitt romney is for the very rich. he doesn't identify with them. he doesn't understand what we go through every day. he doesn't understand the decisions we have to make. he doesn't understand it's tough to send kids to school. you shouldn't be slashing aid to colleges or pell grants or things of those sorts are you should be increasing them for the good of the country. >> i'm sean higgins. president trumka, i was curious exactly how much money, if you know, was spent in the wisconsin

recall election? >> with what? >> wisconsin election? >> probably less than 500,000. >> do you believe it was all well spent? >> do i? absolutely. we took back control of the senate so that he can't, scott walker can do some other nonsensical foolish things that he tried to do. he can't continue to make war on his employees. now he's going to have to try to create jobs because we're going to jobs proposals put up in front of him your key will be to support them or he won't support them spent i want it as you, could the president have helped by showing up and be more engaged in that race in the recall? could he have made a difference? >> that was debated back and forth on the ground, and we really did, people don't believe this, a lot of people don't believe this, but people on the ground for really making the calls in that recall decision.

unicom if we have been controlling things in a giveaway, who knows. we might have made some different decisions. they decided that they wanted to keep it about what was happening there, and they didn't want it to become a national issue. so i think he probably -- he was supportive but he wasn't intrusive. >> were you disappointed he didn't go after? >> no. i don't think the people on the ground were disappointed either. he responded as the people on the ground out was necessary. >> can't i bring you back -- tony dimond from the british broadcasting corporation. had to bring you back to what is -- we did discuss -- [inaudible] can you tell me why you think you lost the sort of overall argument? even if he did -- >> the what? >> the overall argument in wisconsin, the recall of scott walker. can you just give me a little more detail as to how you think you're going to fight back on

pensions? there is a sustained effort a special on public sector around the country, and many big cities that are struggling under debt, so how are you going to persuade people with what many people see as very comfortable public pension? >> let me go back to the first part of the question. when you look at what happened in wisconsin, wisconsin, the election, generated into an election between scott walker and -- take ohio. in ohio was a clean decision or discussion or both over collective bargaining. should workers have collective bargaining or should they not? it was 60 plus percent of the ohio population said all workers, public and private, should have election. i think if that election had gone through that same way, we would win and we would have one in wisconsin just like everyone else. it generated and a discussion between walker and -- may be

degenerated is the proper word, but that's where it went. you have millions of dollars of ads, slashing them millions of dollars of ads saying what a great person walker was. and in the end you had even our own membership, probably of those, 75% voted against walker. and of the 25% that didn't, another 40% of those said that they weren't going to vote against him because they didn't think recall should be used for politics. so that killed off a little bit at the end. the primary thing though, and election between people, between trenton and walker. it wasn't about collective bargaining. if it had been i think we would have won. and i think the stuff with attention, i think people are getting tired of that. i think i'm eager to talk to people in the little town that i grew up in and you say to them,

hey, we better take away their pension over there. what does that do for me? i still don't have attention. now they don't have attention, too. who spends the money in the community? what happens to the economy? i think you're seeing a economist after economist look at the hacker report, shared prosperity. it talks about the import of pensions, a strong social security, strong medicare and medicaid. because the economy can't survive without. i think it runs the course, then being able to divide us and we're giving them back. it's starting to take hold. we're going to have a debate hopefully around this shared prosperity, so it's either going to be shared prosperity or austerity principles. we will let the american people decide. i think they will go with a shared prosperity because that's the better of me for everybody. >> -- the better avenue for

everybody. >> i want to ask a slightly different question about president obama. what in the last four years has president obama done for organized labor? >> what has he done for organized labor? i'm going to answer the same exact way that i answered that. it's not just what he's done for organized labor here it is what he's done for workers. okay, he helped us get health care bill that's going to bring health care to everybody. he stood up for social security and medicare and medicine. he has helped does with occupational health and safety. he have a policy right now that is geared towards bringing manufacturing back to the country. punishing those, ice shouldn't say punishing, stop rewarding those who are taking jobs offshores. he has enforced trade act like nobody else has. he has saved detroit from bankruptcy so that we are now hiring people in ohio, in michigan, in indiana and illinois, kentucky. they are being hired in other

places as well. they are being hired because he saved the auto industry. all of those. >> was it worth the $1.2 million that the afl-cio spending 2008, have you gotten coming to you to the organizer have gotten there bang for the buck in this first turned? >> i'm quoted -- tempted to quote harper on that one but i won't. of course it was worth it. for us to play in a system of democracy, to educate our members and to mobilize our members and get them involved in the voting process is always worth it. everybody out to be encouraging that. unlike what we see right now from the republican party where they're trying to discourage people from flying or participating in democracy. i think that's inexcusable.

[inaudible] >> i couldn't hear him. >> i'm with the "washington times." >> i'm having trouble hearing some of you. >> i walked in late so i apologize if you got over these things. how much do you expect to spend on the election this year? >> will will have ample resources this time around. it will probably be the same area except for our super pac, a little more in our super pac to build to spend talking to nonunion workers. i'm not going to give it to you, because that will be the story. how much you spend. we will be underground. is how may people are organized.

[inaudible] >> we think it's corrosive to the system but we will use them. we have a super pac called workers force and we will use that to be able to talk to nonunion workers. the law prohibits us from using union. will use that money that we have to give to talk to those nonunion workers. >> on prime with "bloomberg news." [inaudible] >> about what? >> foreign investment. there was an announcement yesterday that a chinese company plans to buy a majority stake in a battery maker, and auto battery maker, which has been troubled and has gotten support from the u.s. government. this follows last week about

buying some kenny assess. i'm wondering if you think about bringing jobs, green jobs in the u.s., what are your thoughts on chinese investment in the u.s.? how much should it be and how much scrubbing of such deals should we have? >> i think it all depends. because i think foreign investment here can be a good thing, or it can be a bad thing. out give you a couple of examples. a number of years ago, five, six years ago under george bush, we used to make rare earth magnets into places. one in indiana and one in illinois. rare earth magnets as you are used in guidance system of smart bombs, airplanes, things of that sort. the chinese came in, got an exemption from the bush administration. they bought into both of those. they invested in both of those points. everybody said that's the. six months later they close the

plant stuff, they moved into china after they learned all the technology and the know-how. that was bad. that's a national -- bat for lashes security. at for what we're doing. so if they're only investing in battery making so they can transfer it back to china, so that they can also ultimately then decide to use a bunch of things that violate international trade rules, to gain that market like they did with windmills and other renewables, then that would be a bad thing. we should monitor that. we shouldn't allow those type of things to continue to drain us of resources that we've had. we lost 50,000 plants in this country since 2000. 50,000 to end with a not only with the manufacturing progress, but with them also with the rnd. because the r&d follows the manufacturing. that's bad. take boeing. china says we will buy boeing

planes, but there's a catch to it. you want us to buy boeing planes you can make the tail assembly in china. before long we were looking at the engineers and the media should are not working on boeing than a silly, they're working on other projects over there. that's that. we shouldn't allow that to happen. other countries don't do that. why we allow that to happen is beyond me. i think we should look at her own best interest, and i think you haven't asked this question but i will throw it out. there's a guy named ralph who did this tremendous study. it says 50 years ago the interests of corporate america and interest of the country really coincide. they thought about what was best for the committees, stakeholders, states in the country and they made decisions along that line. somewhere since that period of time the interest of corporate america, particularly multinational, has diverge from

the interests of the country. so they look at what was their best interest and lobbied intensely and spent billions of dollars to elect politicians that will do what's in their best interest, regardless of whether it's in the best interest of the country. our biggest challenge as a country is to try to realign those interests. so the interests of corporate america and the interest of the country coincided again so we can both win. [inaudible] >> well, only to this extent. i was a normally know. we should look at all for investment in the same light, but only to this extent. we have such a massive deficit with china, and they violated the trading rules so significantly, we should be paying very close attention and trying to get them to comply with no international norms and trade laws. look what happened when we do that.

the president took a case up on steel pipe. we want in front of the wto. we put several thousand workers back to work, creating steel pipe because they didn't have to compete against illegal subsidies and other ways of cheating that the chinese had. the same thing happened with rubber tires. the same thing happen with a number of other auto parts. so we should enforcing our laws, and because they are the biggest deficit, they should get special treatment that not necessary anymore special scrutiny than we should be giving to anyone else. >> brian from gannett newspapers. could you talk about the two political conventions that are coming up, what with the presence of the afl-cio be in tampa for the republicans that you might want to honor? are there fewer? and then --

[inaudible] they will be a labor day celebration. [inaudible] >> yes, people in north carolina, they are a pretty feisty group down there. i've been under attack probably more intensively than anyplace else, other than maybe south carolina. but they are pretty feisty group, a pretty tough group. look, the convention this time, i think unlike conventions in the past. everything is already pretty much decided. so i think it's a little anti-climatic for everybody. i think there'll be issues that will be talked about. there will be plots or the planks that will be decided. and i think you need to look at those things, because i think the platforms of both parties speak volumes about who they are and what they are. now, you know, we are going to

labor day festivities. i just looked yesterday at about 10 or 12 singlespaced sheets of all the labor festivities that we are having around the country. there will be some stuff in north carolina, charlotte. they'll be some stuff elsewhere. the president will be whatever the president will be. i think probably in one of the states near, maybe to do celebration there as well as down there. and we will be participating. this saturday of course we have the second bill of rights day that will have a son in philadelphia. we've asked the democratic chairman of the republican chairman both to sign the second labor bill of rights, and the labor bill of rights have five planks. i will quote them to you. give me one second. see if they will sign in to get people that don't agree. if they don't then they don't. we will know who is with us and who isn't with us. because it's part of this nation

and the union being we charge people 50 bucks per copy. that's a different issue. that wasn't due back there with josh, was it? the five planks are the right to full employment and a living wage. the right to full participation in the electoral process. the right to a voice at work. the right to a quality education. and the right to a secure, healthy future. you see, i don't know how you can oppose this. but we will see. we will see who signs them and who doesn't sign them and then we will organize it. >> you're not going to go around like grover norquist and ask candidates to sign it, are you? >> some people may. that's not our present intention. it's part of the biggest thing of having a debate over the american middle class and workers. at the shared prosperity. it's part of that.

continuation of, call attention to that, continue to debate. if you said i won't sign that a fair question is why? what is it in your that you oppose? now, i would assume that mitt romney would say well, i oppose the voice at work, the right to a voice at work. and i was it okay, that's your decision to make that. think he opposes the right to full employment and living wage? let's do a survey. who opposes full employment and a living wage? nobody. so it's going to be fun. i mean, and it is going to be part of the debate, the bigger issue getting people to talk about the different type of the company that works for everybody, and forcing them to say this policy works, these policies don't work. >> getting back to tampa, my earlier question, are there any republicans who you will be recognizing as prolabor?

>> oh, yeah. we have endorsed several. there were fewer. the stronger the tea party gets, the less likely there will be any more candidates because they have people, i mean, orrin hatch is too liberal in their eyes. i don't have anybody ever describing orrin hatch as liberal, but he was too liberal in their eyes. so there are fewer and fewer. i mean, all in peace -- olympia snowe, the ones we're really to do bipartisan stuff, we work with, are actually leaving politics are getting beat because they are not right wing enough. and if that's the party that they want to erect, it's going to be tough for them to sell to the american public in the future. and i think, guys like joe lobiondo. we have endorsed him and will continue to endorse him. he stood with us. steve latourette, we endorse him. i don't think he will run again this time.

that's what i say, the more moderate ones are sort of falling off. and that's a tragedy for the country. and the viciousness of politics is really driving the best and the brightest away from politics. why do this? of the best and the brightest aren't going into politics like they used to. that's a real loss for the country as far as i'm concerned. >> on the second bill of rights -- [inaudible] has president obama signed off on it? >> we sent a letter to, one, the head of the democratic national committee and the republican national committee. we sent them a common letter by the way so that no one would say weighted to favor one or the other. we sent it off to them. we sent word to the president that we want him to sign it, and i have no reason to believe that he will sign at the he won't be supportive of all of those things. all of those things --

[inaudible] >> robert? [inaudible] on the presidential election, what does the obama team need to be doing better, and what is the romney team doing well but has surprised you? >> i think the president is making the case right now that he should be making. it's just about two different types of economy. and i think, mitt romney i think has made some, everybody calls them gaffes, but i don't consider them gaffes. i mean, like my wife tries -- tries to cadillac. that's not a gaffe. that's his life. take the stuff with the tax returns right now.

when mitt romney was trying to be vice president, he gave mccain 23 years of tax returns. 23 years. now, making saw something, enough -- mccain saw something, enough to pick sarah palin instead of making. i don't know if it was those returns or not. and then he doesn't want to give returns to the american public that wants to give one returns to the american public. it's not just about transparency. it's about mitt romney. it's about him saying i'm special, i don't have to play by the rules. every other candidate has to give their tax returns. i don't have to. i don't have to play by the rules. when i was at bain capital, i don't have to play by the rules. it's him being elite. and he think he's got to break out of that. because as long as people think he is an elitist anti-is

standing with elite, i don't think the american public, the best record of them identify within. i don't think they vote for him. [inaudible] >> i think he's got to keep talking about the economy and about his vision of the economy. i think that's the way that he goes them and they think he started out last labor day. remember, we were in your before last labor day and i was, i said, the president is making a strategic mistake. he's talking about deficit reduction. that's not going to get him reelected. as long as he keeps doing that, he is losing ground. now, i don't want to say i told you so, but last labor day he started talking about jobs and the economy and creating jobs and a different vision, and he is not let all on since then. i think he stays on that vision. i think mitt romney has to stay on his vision, and i think he loses. obama wins, because i think the

american public are tired of the old economy. they see to it. they don't want the economic winners to be able to make the economic policy that are going to continue to stop them and the kids from getting ahead. >> benji with talking points. a question for you, mr. trump. a quick question about collective bargaining. it seems this issue at the forefront of the whole national conversation and was invested in a couple of years ago are expecting it to be a major issue in the presidential campaign. the president barely mentioned collective bargaining rights in the stump speech. met ron meets to some degree doesn't bring it up all that often either the are you surprised it's gotten less attention from the major party candidates on the trail? >> i think, it's obvious why mitt romney doesn't bring it up.

he doesn't believe in a. he wants to destroy it anyway. so of course he's not going to bring that up. i think the president talked about collective bargaining. he talks about a voice at work. he talks about the right for union. desi talk about everyday? no. do i talk about it in every speech? probably not. more than he does but not every speech. when i talk about economy and things i bring it up. it will be part of this election, i'm sure. we are going to be able to get the shared prosperity out. when you read and i hope you do, i hope all of you, give it a fair hearing and see which one you believe would be better for the country. it is replete with references to collective bargaining. >> mike with the "l.a. times." >> the "l.a. times"? >> wonder if you could reflect on the peace stakes frenzy, if mitt romney would pick anyone he

would light a fire under organized labor or you would ever admit such a thing would were you? and i wonder if you could also reflect on the role of vice president biden has played in the partnership you have had with him? >> i'll take a second part of the question first. vice president biden has taken a very constructive role over the year, over the term, his first term with the president. honestly with a great relationship with them. he understands the working people. he comes out of a blue-collar family. so i think he's been a real plug. and people say well, he is here, he does this or he doesn't do that, i sort of like that along the way. i think anybody -- would be pretty boring for all of you. you wouldn't get to write the stuff that you do. i think vice president biden has been a plus and he's done a good

job. is a good human being and he cares about the country. i really have a lot of respect for them. i don't know who mitt romney takes or his vice president. i can do this. can't take any of the ones -- a fire that they let will be to energize our side, not extinguish the energy on our site. it's his call and it will be his first major decision and we will see what happens. we will see where he goes. >> there is no one candidate he might pick that you think would really get your support? >> he picked sarah palin i thi think. [inaudible]

>> first of all if you go back over the architects of the american trade policy, not just obama's, but the american trade policy under bill clinton, they are now saying that the trade policies that this country had hasn't been real good for us. it hasn't been the panoply that people want us to believe. it's bad, we've lost jobs. then he spent, this president spent a number of years trying to fix the three agreements the ultimately were signed. they still don't go far enough as a trade policy. they still allowing, they are too slanted steel. that's what i will say. let's look at what he's done elsewhere. he's enforced the law. unlike george bush who never would enforce any kind of trade

laws, this guy has taken trade case after treaties, and they have warned them and that when those cases, put china back, stop some of the illegal practice is that are doing, and has put people back to work in this country. now, trade can be a very, very positive thing. the regime that we saw under, over the last, say 20 years, hasn't been the trade policy that this country needs. now, ttp will be the first time the president gets to actually be one of his own. we will see what happens. they can be either a good thing or can be a very, very bad thing. [inaudible] >> he and i are very, very close, personal relationship. i disagree with him on things. on trade policy but as he him being i think he is a fine guy and we had a good relationship.

>> paul with the examiner. i want to ask about the 400,000 volunteers. the question had me about -- [inaudible] do you want joe biden to run? he is talking about it. >> be totally up to him. if he makes that decision, i'm not going to wait until 2016. i'm more worried about 2012 and what happens in 2013, '14 and '15. he can either help his chances or remove, lessen his chances by what happens in between. so i'm not going to 16 when we are here at 12. >> what states do you guys, are you guys focused on? we are will most these door knockers be? what will they do? do you have a percentage on the amount of vote you hope to move in obama's direction by having such a big group of volunteers, like that she confronted you, nonunion members.

do you have a percentage of the fight to grow that on? >> well, first of all, there are 20 some battleground states. those volunteers will be in all of those battleground states. pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, wisconsin, nevada and florida. those are the six core states where we already have, we've had full staff in the states for a couple of months now. three or four months now. the other place, the of the staff of a full-time staff as well so we will keep spreading them. they will do everything to able to phone banks, door knocks, at the plant gates or worksites. they will be talking to both union and nonunion workers for change. and getting back to nonunion workers on the issues that they see are important to them. [inaudible] a certain amount of the vote you hope to move?

>> yeah, 100%. we are not saying hey, there's three of you out there, i do want to talk to you. try and hit all of them, and we'll see what happens. >> just going way back to health care for a minute, what do you make of this new priority, basically saying -- the new priority basically blaming romney for killing the workers wife, this cancer patient. has been a brouhaha about over the last few days. >> i really haven't seen the ad. i read sort of a synopsis about it, and i think what he was saying, i think what he is saying is then capital took away my job. outsourcing, you know what to do. becoming, by a company, loaded up with debt. they use the debt to pay themselves back. debt service is too big for the company. so it collapses.

or patrons are part of it overseas. he lost his health care. and he said that his wife died several months later, i think 20 months later or something like that, because he lost his health care. i mean, if you lost your health care and your was sick to my back and remember he probably didn't have, she had a preexisting condition you couldn't get any anywhere else because they wouldn't take you. now president obama has changed that at well, or at least existing addition you can still get health care. they can't drop you for that. you can't drop you. >> if you could give a moving cycle of -- the cycle of ads on the super pacs seem to becoming more and more negative, strictly the boundaries. >> as the byproduct of citizens united. it's corrosive to the democratic process i think the whenever you are pumping in three, $4 billion

in ads that they won't even tell you, in some cases who is doing it. yeah, that's not good for democracy. i think we are to change the system budget of the supreme court right now that equates to all of this with free speech. somehow i just don't believe whenever jefferson and adams, ben franklin were together and they were tracking the constitution, one of them said, you know, tom, you have $1000 out there so you get $1000 in free speech them i have $10,000 to i should have 10 times the amount of free speech that you have. i don't think that was part of the original equation. but this is -- this supreme court says money equals free speech. except when it comes to unions. because they've said time and time again that you can limit the free speech a genius, although you can't limit the free speech of corporations. so we will be testing some of those in the near future to find

out if they really do mean what they said in the citizens united decision. >> one last question. >> is it time already? wow. >> assuming, rich, assuming president obama does get a second term, what do you think the prospect of a second term -- keystone pipeline project is? a sitting president obama gets a second what you think the prospects are for the keystone xl pipeline project? >> i don't think it's just key stone. i don't think, it's about job creation. i think if he gets a second term i think it's about job creation but i think we will be able to do more of the. i think you'll see stuff in the report, if we can invest 250-$400 billion in infrastructure, you will see job creation along the way. and you will see things i think done correctly. the thing that i did a little upset about, particularly from

the industry i come in, a lot of people try to say is either or. it's either you do the project or to destroy the environment. i think there's a way to do things both ways, we can do things without destroying the environment and i think we should be looking at the. doing things in a very, very sustainable way. so i think that project and others have every chance of success, doing a threat we. but we're going to see more job creation under barack obama, mitt romney, deregulate everything, more tax cuts for the rich and letting it trickle to the it doesn't trickle down and it doesn't work. it got us into the mess that we currently find ourselves in. >> all right, greg. thank you very much. thanks to come in. see you in a year. >> i will be back here. >> great. thank you.

>> [inaudible conversations] >> hear some of what we have coming up for you later today and for the rest of the week on c-span. >> each day at 7 p.m. its past two and a and is focused on the u.s. military.

>> also coming up this afternoon at 2 p.m. these are live here on c-span, defense department briefing with defense secretary leon panetta and joint chiefs of staff chairman our intensity. we are expecting remarks on u.s. response to the ongoing violence in see. also the air force is planning a test of an unmanned aircraft that can fly at about 3600 miles an hour. to carry out missions anywhere on the earth quicker than ever. again that his life at 2:00 eastern on c-span. >> now the soviet bear maybe, but there are still wolves in the woods, and we saw that them saddam hussein invaded kuwait. the mideast might have become a nuclear powder keg. our energy supply held hostage, so we can what was right and what was necessary. we destroyed a threat freaky people, and locked a tyrant in the prison of his own country.

>> tonight, 10 million of our fellow americans are out of work. tens of millions more work harder or lower pay. the incoming president says unemployment always goes up a little before and recovery begins. but unemployment only has to go up by one more person he for a real recovery can begin. speaks he spent has aired every minute of every major party convention since 1984. this year watch the republican and democratic national conventions live on c-span starting monday august 27. >> and on the campaign trail today, vice president joe biden made a stop in danville, virginia, we talk about mitt romney's choice of wisconsin congressman paul ryan to be his vice presidential nominee. you can hear all of what he had to say tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> yesterday americans for tax

reform president grover norquist was at the center for the national interest here in washington and he spoke about taxes and foreign policy as most mitt romney choice of congressman paul ryan as his vice presidential running mate. this is just over an hour and a half. >> okay. folks, ladies and gentlemen, i think we're ready to begin. i'm bob merry. i'm the editor of the "national interest" magazine, and i'm delighted to have all of you here, well. i'm particularly divided to have grover norquist here. grover is one of those people about whom it is often said in these kind of settings, he needs no introduction. i'm going to give him one anyway because he is too interesting not to. he is a massachusetts native, harvard ba and mba. it quickly after schooling

gravitated to the district of columbia where he had significant position of the national taxpayers union and the u.s. chamber. is the author of a recent book, debacle, with john lott. he wanted me to hold it up and i as an author myself, i always do that if i possibly can. then in 1985, grover founded americans for tax reform, whose aim was to reduce government receipts as a percentage of gdp. he believes in a smaller government. he believes in getting a handle on the debt overhang which i believe is the most serious problem facing the country today. he is most famous for the famous pledge, getting members of congress and other politicians who promise not to vote for an increase in marginal tax rates for either individuals or business. and not to vote for any net

reductions and deductions and credits unless there's a commensurate reduction in rates. as of late last year, 238 i'm told, on google, of 242 house republicans who signed this pledge, and 4147 senate republicans. now, this pledge drives democrats and liberals crazy. he has been lauded and attacked for it. a few quotes, john stossel applauds him and locked him, known in modern times has fought harder to shrink the state than the founder of the group americans for tax reform, said stossel. arianna huffington has a bit of a different view. she calls him a dark wizard of the right anti-tax called. p.j. o'rourke, my favorite, said grover norquist is tom paine

crossed with lee atwater, plus just a stupid song of madame debarge. now, i pondered that a bit, and since in our species you really can only be across of two people, a male and female. i found myself reminded of what mark shields once said about his good friend bob novak, the late columnist, when he said that bob novak is proof positive that calvin coolidge and ma barker were more than just casual acquaintance's. now, i thought about that as i thought about grover because he sort of a remarkable combination. he is, i think it's fair to say he's a bit of a slasher. he take sort of a rapier to suppose. he takes no prisoners, and at the same time he is also very, very pleasant. he never raises his voice, which sort of is projected.

and has a kind of a little too. so it occurred to me that maybe back in the '50s richard nixon somehow hooked up with doris day, i'm not quite sure, but in any event, grover. >> okay. thank you for the unique introduction, and i think a generous. talk about economic policy and foreign policy and domestic policy and its foreign policy and how they interact. there are two ways in which they interact. the reality of their economic policy whether it works or not, what you do with foreign policy and it's also since we're not in november talking about politics, you can win or lose an election on one set of issues even do you think you're focusing on another set of issues. foreign policy and economic policy play out in a campaign, but they also play out in governing. obviously, economics matters to

the united states is the preeminent world power and has been for sometime because of its economic policies, because it has a freer and more open society than other countries, and create more wealth and allows people to accomplish great things. more than other countries do, less than we should, less than will in the future. but better, you're competing with the alternatives, not with utopia. we were world power back before we even had much of a military to play with because of our economic growth. you go back before the american revolution. we were taxed between one and 2% of gdp of people's incomes in the colonies. britain, when they decided they wanted to raise our taxes, people in britain were paying 20% of their income to fund british empire. empires are expensive, and

people don't appreciate having to pay for that when they want us to help pay for the british empire we said thanks, we will pass. and rather than run an empire we ran a rather large commercial republic which became very powerful. and when you have all that lovely money you can buy things that go boom at great distances. so yes, it matters if we have a large economy. it makes it possible for us to a national defense spending three or 4% of gdp that dominates the globe. we spend more than the next 13 countries added together. he says understating his case has always. and we do so with a much smaller fraction of the wealth and income of the american people who do that. foreign policy, also affects domestic policy. go back and look at the last administration. bush got elected on his domestic platform, decided after

september 11 to focus on foreign policy. and as a result opportunity cost but a lot of people say guns and butter. the opportunity cost on your foreign policy is you take a dog you're going to spend on welfare and instead you spend it buying a gun. i think the more important opportunity cost, that's not unimportant when you're dealing with hundreds of billions of dollars, but the more important opportunity cost is the bandwidth of the presidency, of a conquered, i the white house, and bush decided to be the mayor of baghdad rather than the president of the united states. he decided to occupy iraq and afghanistan rather than reform fannie mae and freddie mac. and that have tremendous consequences. time, the president's political, the president attention, the president can go ask or demand certain things from the congress. and if you asked -- if you made all your tasks about occupying

iraq and afghanistan for a decade, rather than reforming freddie and fannie, if you talk to him they will tell you we sent several letters to capitol hill and asked them to fix the product that's not quite the same thing but it doesn't fit the magnitude of the threat and the problem that fannie and freddie, the foreseeable for the ages of the president, and earlier was written about by critics, the gses. so a focus on foreign policy has domestic consequences. the of the challenge of course is rather than do doha, we did kabul. we lost the opportunity to either expand free trade during those eight years, that was led, that was in terms of, or request. we could've that all the europeans gang up on france and beaten senseless and get a free trade agreement that made the french farmers not get the subsidies they have been used to.

but instead we had all of your beating up on us over our foreign policy. we could have focused on immigration reform, very important in the united states. economy and to us being us. and it said time and effort was put into iraq and afghanistan. so when you talk about how foreign policy affects domestic policy, in theory you could run foreign policy aggressive foreign policy and an aggressive domestic foreign policy. but try to get a president, a white house to be able to have that kind of bandwidth when they focus on dealing with congress, when they speak to the american people about what they are trying to accomplish and what they are doing. looking forward, i think, go back to reagan, sorry. reagan was able to manage the collapse of the soviet union while, and i would argue this is not a paradox, because he

focused on getting the american economy turned around, taking double-digit inflation down to almost zero, 20% interest rates down, got gdp growing and we have reagan's growth rate during this recovery, one of the charts i have passed out here. lots of handouts year that i wanted to share. it's important to have many, many handouts ever since trees were mean to sunny boat. here you have the various recessions of the past 70 years, and you can see obama's recovery is extremely we. we had been in recovery technically since july of 2000. if we had reagan's rate of economic growth, reagan's rate of job creation you would have many millions more americans working today and the gtp about 10% higher than it is. this is a disaster. and it limits american

leadership in the world. one of the reasons other countries look up to us is our strong economy, and when it appears to be lacking, we are looking okay because, how is your wife compared to what? as an american economy, compared to europe, we are not submit. compared to the trendline and where we were, and where we could be, we are in normal recovery would've taken us today. we are in very bad shape. and much weaker than we could be moving forward. reagan focused on getting economic growth, job creation, and that sense that he was always focused. yet one hand out here holding the soviet union at bay, biking at grenada, whacking at the various proxy wars but he was always looking us in the eye and always focus on domestic politics and explain to the american people he is focused on their concerns while keeping the bear at the door.

the alternative is to walk outside and spend all your time arguing with a better, and convince people you are not focus on what's important to them. and since we have elections every two years there's a cost to the. the republicans lost the 2006 election, not because the economy was a problem. the economy was growing very strong in 2006 into 2007. people were unhappy, independent, swing voters were unhappy with the occupation of iraq and afghanistan. not necessarily knocking off the taliban or knocking off saddam hussein the extended for 10 years afterwards is where people tended to miss the point of the exercise. and voted for independence which had 60 photo 44 republicans, switched 60 that were -- 60-40 voting for democrats. on foreign policy issues even in the economy was doing well going into that election. moving forward, where did he go from here?

i would argue that our tax policy, we will have a big election, we'll get into this on questions and answers more, but paul ryan as choice as vice president kind of clarifies the two directions. obama's present direction and whether republicans would like to take the country. it's not actually written down in the ryan budget, in the ryan roadmap as endorsed by the overwhelming votes in the house and senate republicans. to date and with the presidential candidate endorsing ryan, the person -- ryan the plan. tax policy, i would argue this affects both our hard power and our soft power. and on the soft power, for instance, we have three, 4 million americans living overseas.

makes this difficult to impossible. we have in the united states not a territorial tax policy which the rest of the world does. we have a world of wine tax policy so all the other countries in the world and france, if you live in france and your french, the government steals some of it. if you were a french citizen and go to the united states and earn some money working here, the united states government steals some of it. when you go back to france they don't take any more of it. the bite the american government

took out of your income is all it's taken up. in the united states if you are an american and work in another country, that country will tax you because you earn the money there but when you come back to the united states the united states will top of whatever the other country field to take from you whether this 35 or under obama 33% of your income if so that americans overseas are taxed more heavily than other countries and citizens when they work in other countries. it's particularly problematic when you are working in companies that have little or no income tax to hire a german to work in saudi arabia is a lot less expensive for any oil company than to hire an american. this is less of a problem. when the united states have lower marginal tax rates than the rest of the world. one of the successes of ronald reagan is that he lowered marginal tax rates from a top

rate of 70% down to 28%, and the economy boomed and the rest of the world looked at that and said we want to do that. so you saw the eastern european countries coming with a flat rate income taxes and in corporate income taxes drifted down as well across the country. the canadians are under 18%. not only does it make it difficult to hire an american is less expensive to hire another saudi arabia or brazil article, but american companies are disadvantaged. again i bring this up because the ryan plan is not only in time, reform, welfare reform, plus a tax reform. the outline that ryan generated is 25% corporate and individual and a territorial tax system. within that revenue neutral to get rid of deductions and

credits and bring the rate down to 25 and off to the races. in the territorial fix i think it's very important to america's foreign policy of not just domestic economic policy because an american company overseas earns a dollar. the local government taxes some or not. some countries don't. and if you bring that dollar back the federal government takes 55% of it. if you don't bring it back and you want to leave it in china or brazil or germany there is no additional tax. so we have more than a trillion dollars overseas and when you talk to the corporate guys that have been trying to get obama for the last three and a half years to go to territoriality or allow the repatriation of that money without a big tax hit there's an argument summer between 500 million to

800 million would come back within year. that would be a real stimulus program. money being put into the good of that and it doesn't cost anybody anything. we just have to get rid of our worldwide and tax system. moving they're the reason anheuser-busch was brought by european company was any worldwide company is more valuable if it is owned by a foreign entity than by an american company because of the way we tax worldwide earnings and other companies don't. and if we don't fix this, chrysler and anheuser-busch but other companies will start being bought up more and more by foreign companies because the economics just makes sense. we can fix that by taking the rates down 25% and six it by going to a territorial tax system. i think these are extremely important. now the other challenge that europe has and one of the reasons it is weaker in this foreign policy and economic is it has these defined benefits,

government pensions in the social welfare pensions but also unionized and union pensions for the private sector and other defined benefit which means you constantly have a whole bunch of new people coming in and to support the old guys that are retired. they are more united mine workers who retired and working. more steelworkers retired, and it's an extremely heavy load for the steelworkers and the steel industry. the coal industry, the auto industry, all of these industries are badly damaged and of course you see most recently people have gotten most out of whack for the public sector unions. the good news for the united states as we have begun to reform this, and i want to argue one of the reasons i am optimistic about the united states is not just because i believe that mitt romney and ryan are going to win the next

election and have the republican senate in the house and after the ryan plan. i think that will happen and it's very important. but the good news also is when you look at the laboratories of democracy, there are 24 states that have republican governors and republican legislators, and there are 11 states that have democratic governors and space legislatures. and we've got a real opportunity to see what works. california, illinois, maryland, and new york are busy working on becoming priests, and the red states are moving to reform tort law, reduce taxes. we just had overwhelming elections in kansas where the winners in the primaries were committed to the governor's vision to abolish the state income tax. north carolina is about to elect a governor in the little sister committed to abolish the state commitment with their government. and other states are moving in under action.

in utah the governor there a year ago starting a year ago last july all new hires state, local, county teachers, cops, firemen in utah will have a defined contribution pension, which means your is your pay come here is 10% of your pay and a 401k or 12% of your a fireman or policemen because you retired earlier. and you have no more unfunded liability being created out of utah. that's the model that louisiana has begun to move to. kansas will be moved into and other states, north dakota is looking at it and will do it shortly as well as wyoming. moving state-by-state to reform the pension system allows us to also look at how we can do this at the national level as well. private sector has been doing this 20 years now shifting the defined benefit plan to the defined contribution. i think we missed the challenge

that europe has not only because our demographics are better. we are having more kids, we are in the immigration as opposed to the europeans. and we can reform -- this is the time to reform the pension system so we don't bankrupt ourselves with the entitlement. so i guess the big reform that ryan has put forward does three things. tax reform brings the rates down and makes us more competitive on the corporate level and the individual level. territoriality which stops disadvantaging american companies around the globe, and again american companies and americans living abroad are ambassadors for america. that's how people actually get some sense as to who we are apart from watching us on al jazeera. it's much better to do the one-on-one conversations. so, those reforms are key in part of ryan and happen with the republican presidency and will

happen if obama is elected for the democrats have the senate. if they wanted to do any of those things, they have the presidency in both houses for two years, and they didn't do any of those. they moved in the opposite direction of all including on territoriality which is why so much of the high-tech corporate world was so irritated at obama who they had a lot of hope for when he ran for office four years ago. but the other to pieces are beginning to reform entitlements, and again, the model we have is working in the state level. people are doing this and winning elections, not losing elections, which is always the key things politicians want to know. is this safe for me? can i do this and give the elected? and then second, is it good for the economy and everything else? so it's always nice to be able to assure politicians this is in fact save to walk out on the ice. but the other one is the block granting of all the welfare

programs. remember clinton reform welfare signed the bill in 1996 which block granted the children and they renamed it and here's your money and it's a fixed amount of money that you have a lot less strings and each state could decide how to get people out of welfare dependency and focus on people with real needs so people with needs are taken care of and other people are not locked into welfare dependency. there's a market in 77 to more than a hundred means tested programs at the federal level. the big one is medicate housing programs, job training programs and food stamps but then there's a bunch of others as well. ryan in that approach looks to block grant and doing what clinton did successfully block granting others. when you hear critics saying you're cutting aid to the poor what is interesting of course is there plagiarizing the criticism

of clinton's welfare reform. clinton's chief of welfare reform turned out not to be true and everything that they are saying about ryan is not true for all the same reasons. it's doing for other welfare programs but clinton did from the republican house and senate which turned the republican around was to sign the welfare reform bill that works and did everything its critics said it wouldn't. these reforms here help strengthen the american economy and we can afford to have an adequate national defence which keeps us free and safe and would make anyone afraid to throw a punch at us as well as we don't make some which is to overextend ourselves oversee and to run a government. we are not very good at making americans organize their lives the way that somebody in

washington thinks they should. why do they send people and think they should do something in kabul or baghdad with success. and it hasn't worked well. so let me take some questions here the to feed off of each other. a strong and healthy american economy with reasonable part law, so we don't allow the billionaire trial lawyers to bleed businesses dry in this country. this happens too often where we don't have overregulation. it's happened in the economic strength in the united states. we don't have taxes damaging us domestically. but again, also internationally. it makes it difficult for the american companies to work overseas and for americans to be hired by companies who oversee both americans and others. and when you lose that you lose some of the best ambassadors for who and what america is by having that not happen and

strong economic growth allows national defence to be a smaller percentage of a larger economy coming and we can dwarf any would be any at the united states by having a stronger growing economy more quickly than we can by raising taxes here. if you grow the economy 1% faster than was expected. so 3% instead of 2% for a decade the federal government ends up with 2.8% in revenue. you want to have more revenue, you ought to fund the national defence and other and the state department, reduce marginal tax rates, deregulation, take the trial lawyers and put them in a plastic bag and put them down the potomac. do all the things that look great in the american economy and move us forward from stronger growth better than if you try to chase people down the alleys and pick the pockets.

thoughts, questions, all of its. >> thank you. i just have a couple of observations and then have a question and i would like to open it up to all of your questions. i'm struck as i look at the sort of history of the cold war and since that america's most powerful times for those times we were most healthy economically and vice versa and the early cold war in the truce and i eisenhower administration we told them and checked we were in the 80's and 90's after the reagan performance as clarified by grover to bring about the end of the cold war to keep in control when we have economic difficulties of the late 70's with stagflation and soviet adventurism on the rise in

places like afghanistan and central america and africa. and i think this is related a little bit =to the point about domestic politics and reagan. i just jotted down a few things that will sort of to accentuate your point. in 1984, reagan's election year, the economy grew, gdp grew by 6.2%. so that as a percentage that our current president could really use right now. in his second term, the average growth rate for the four years is 3.4%. and as soon as he managed to get the country through the recession, which was an induced recession to squeeze inflation out of the economy, the growth rate per year on average was 3.89%. so reagan takes a big hit and i want to talk to you about this on the deficits which is a legitimate hit.

in 1987 he had a 5.8% of gdp deficit in 1983 at the height of the recession. but by 87 was 3.16%. by 88 it was 3.04% in his last budget it was at 2.87% which i would contend is a sort of manageable level. then under george herbert walker bush, it went back up to 4185% in 1992. so, growth has a big impact on the deficit as well as on the economy. and so in that context i would like to ask you this. you talk about the plan, about a lot of critics of that plan, and i was reading one of them on the editorial page of "the washington post" today suggest those numbers don't add up that

the tax cuts are going to be devastating to the deficit and that the cuts in the entitlement and other places is going to be devastating to the economy. what is your answer to that? >> the key number to look at in terms of the cost of government is total government spending plus the regulatory burden. the regulatory burden set aside is largely driven by the executive branch implementing the law, but at the same time the spending level the total cost to government spending. now the government spends a hundred dollars, and it takes 90 in taxes and borrows ten. what problem have you solved by taking the other ten? 100 us taken out of the productive economy, 90 sticking out of force and a tennis

borrowed. in either case 100 is taking. it's gone in the private sector. it's gone from the productive economy. the cost to government in that case is $100 to renew some was borrowed and some was taken. this is one of the challenges we get into when people focus on the deficit rather than total government spending and that is when he was focusing on the total size of government but one of the ways you can reduce the total size of government is actually a percentage of the economy our government is right to be bigger than finland because they're a bigger economy. but it's a smaller percentage of gdp of the total economy this is what ryan focusesas well if you look at his analysis of his own bill. the economy is growing and we're spendi lessinwhington it

ends up paying off the national debt we can reform entitlements to save a lot of money and we save a lot by cutting it believed to a particular program. we reform welfare by putting it out to the states and allow when the states to handle it, and we saved a great federal government save a great deal of money because they didn't keep increasing the welfare payments coming into the state also saved money because they were spending less than they used to have to and spending it smarter. the ryan plan cuts aid to the poor are criticizing clinton's welfare reform and a need to explain why they were so violently wrong in 1996. and why they are going to be right. why would they be right this time. it's the same program put to other means tested program as opposed to afdc.

the ryan plan brings on spending and brings down the deficit. the obama plan, and this is the interesting question. ryan has a plan written down. you have simpson-bowles which is an essay in haiku and the wally numbers are in the pages of the bottom of it. except for one. they want to take taxes from 18.5 to 21. they are very clear about that. everything else is underside. so, simpson-bowles is over the next decade the expect to hundred trillion dollars in gdp. two and a half percent of that is $5 trillion, so they are going to increase the tax burden on the american people by from what it would be. this is never mind obama's $5 trillion of tax increases for raising taxes in january. but, an additional 5 trillion under our dear friends

simpson-bowles. the spending restraint discussed in simpson-bowles, is again, not real. no democrat, the democrats in the senate had voted for any of this stuff so they are not really for it. they haven't put it in their budget. obama doesn't put any of the spending cuts in his budget. so, there is no interest in the spending cut part. they just like the $5 trillion of tax increase. and i would argue that ryan has already had his moment talking about the foreign policy and domestic policy. remember ronald reagan was in iceland meeting with gorbachev, and he was trying to get us to cut a deal as his empire was imploding underneath him and he wanted us to take all these concessions and ronald reagan walked away from the entire washington as trouble schmidt said was a great deal now is their anybody that read the plan, fully written down, but they love the idea of the deal, and he walked out and took all the criticisms for having walked away from a bad deal. ryan is the guy that blew up the

simpson-bowles stonyfield because he looked at it and said it is a massive tax increase with little or no spending cuts and that is the only thing he did before it gets to the democrats in the senate, and of course, ryan is a young man old enough to look through the 1982 budget deal where he was promised $3 of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. the increases were real, permanent, we are still paying them and spending didn't go down it went up after the budget deal. and then you have 90 kafeel where george herbert walker bush who was in the reagan administration and watched him get taken on the three to one deal walked into the room they said we have a deal for you. we will give you $2 of imaginary spending cuts for every dollar of real tax increases. now, i think that is a little bit insulting for the democrats. you are lobbying, offer them ten to one or three to one.

weidinger offer to 21. that is just insulting. of course you didn't get to for 1. spending went up, not down after the second budget deal simpson-bowles is the third iteration of 82 to 90 and that is a real tax increase discussion about the possibility of cutting spending perhaps. and it would have gone the same way. and if ryan would have been a hero for the "washington post" and "time" magazine and put them on the cover. if he signed the deal and signed the republicans up for that disaster and the study stepped out and said i know everybody in washington thinks this is a good deal. not of it. if you are going to run the paris underground you have to live in paris. if you're a good fight against the other team you have to live in washington from time to time but you don't have to become of that and you don't have to be

scared of the washington establishment and ryan was and and is it and he walked away and got a much better deal with no tax increase as a result of his leadership and current on that front. >> if you want to ask a question -- >> i was listening to c-span on my drive this morning he was a puppet of grover norquist one. and you referred to an adequate event it seems to me that if paul ryan really was a puppet or strong acolyte of grover norquist and would be serious about cutting military spending as well as others how would you respond to that? >> i would argue that you don't ask everybody to do everything. ryan has designed a budget

approach which we think is all means tested and takes the success of the clinton plan and of course you now have the division and the democratic party between the clinton people that traditional liberals and the hard left you want to smash welfare reform. they don't want to do more of the the what to do less. when you put an they certainly don't want it expanded to other government programs. so he's got that, he's got tax reform, he's looking at entitlement reform. a bipartisan entitlement reform. alice rivlin and the democratic senator from oregon. other people need to lead the argument on what is it that how can conservatives lead to have a serious national offense that defends the united states and from any potential aggressor without wasting money.

i work with a group domestically that is conservative, folks that are focused from bill bennett and new gingrich incarcerating to many people for too long. we are not stopping crime with all of this additional spending. we are hiring more space prison guard union members. and is that a wise way to spend taxpayer llars? but we think of the conservative can come to the table and talk about how long should they be in prison for and the good news is the first reforms are in texas. if the same are done by the liberal in vermont they couldn't travel. nobody would go. they did this in vermont. sign me up. but when you have prosecutors and police and people better seou responsibility and keeping bad guys in prison and stopping

crime and punishing crime, say are we spending too much, too little, spending unwisely? you have a similar discussion that needs to take place on the national defence. how we spend money wisely? you have the army that did this which allows us over time to reduce a lot of the unnecessary bases. did internationally sense, helped the national defence but was quickly difficult thing to do because the bases were put in different congressional districts and states based on who was a powerful congressman or senator just as some of the contracts for the weapon systems are also allocated by congressional district rather than by talent and competency from so that is an entirely long -- that's a huge important project. i think we should be very careful. look, the government should do those things as mentioned in the constitution. with the possible exception to the post office. and probably not things that are not mentioned in the

constitution. if you take the government seriously we wanted its that should be done confidently and without waste and that includes the defense budget. i wouldn't ask ryan to be their reporter of the defense establishment. >> please identify yourself before asking your question. >> thank you. i happen to preface and three brief observations. i'm a radical centrist. second, i sit on the board of a number of financial companies and share a couple and regulatory reform is overdue. it was intriguing that he mentioned paul ryan artilio 31 times and mitt romney three. my question is this. obviously we need tax reform. we need an entitlement reform. we need budgetary reform and obviously we need regulatory reform. we are not going to get 60 msm

net. my own view paul loses the election and obama wins by eight points. here is the good news. >> i will try to cheer you up. >> i grew up in massachusetts. i emigrated to the united states later but i lived in massachusetts. it's interesting. they're basically tired. there plagiarizing of a thing the democrats said about ronald reagan when he won the nomination in 1980. are we glad to run against a guy that likes to cut spending and taxes and come from the soviet union the eat them alive. they understand where the country was and looking at it from if you live in chicago you don't have a working group understanding of what the united

states is thinking about. i would argue he is ready logically rigid and earns less. his economic policies are equally challenging. of the second part is the argument the republicans have written down the ryan plan. now we can attack it. the democrats always attack the republicans ever since the 1940's wanting to undo social security and later medicare. bush read in 2004 with a plan to privatize social security for people under 55. over 55 yes meet promises by the government to read with a 401k, personal savings account

it's one of the few elections those two are the only ones where social security is a vote winner for the republicans. why? we didn't with the democrats care the old people when they also -- we are not changing it for 55 and over and 20, 30, 4550 oral to understand social security drains from that and is never going to give them what it promised. you make it more difficult for the other team to lie about your position. they take $700 billion away from it in order to pay for obamacare and he's had no reforms that will help add to that he added an entitlement. bye writing down the plan, which

is reasonable, bipartisan reform on medicare, and bill clinton's reforms the democrats attack bill clinton's successful legacy in the republican house and senate and make that case if they want. that is inside the democratic party that we should encourage. bye writing down the plan the other team seeks to have a better target. >> look-see romney wins and you get a republican and democratic senate. 60 votes how you get tax reform and entitlement? >> the good news is you can do first of all you can repeal all of obamacare with 50 votes to the vice president. it doesn't require 60 votes. you might have an argument on a couple of -- to of the policy things but with the right

parliamentarian, and those are completely soluble as well. you can do that and 50. most of the tax cuts can be done in 51. you can do them in sidey tenure window. >> moon these are the guys that redistrict the country. in california and illinois the redistrict to the state and the other countries have restricted to elect people that are more free market and more traditional we are very good shape for the next decade. the state of legislative lines and he to be altered states restrict and the blue states redistrict these are still going to lose arkansas but the rest of

it stays pretty much the same for the next decade. on the back of that is the chart 23 democrats up in the senate this time around, can the republicans have the of these are doable and you worry about two of the republicans men in massachusetts, scott brown is about as strong a candidate as you can get running from extremely hard left from elizabeth warren who has all sorts of problems with her campaign apart from being the one that taught obama how to say businessmen didn't succeed through hard work and that everything you own should be. so that is a tough and next to 20 democrats have 13 republicans the reason the next to election cycles are some advantageous for the republicans or the target rich environment is that these are the people that elected in 06 and 08.

so only the republicans that are really tough one, and a lot of democrats got swept in and voted against bush and they will be getting reelected. some of us didn't quite understand what the bush and karl rove were doing when they gave the senate seats and 06 and 08 but now we can cleverly see we are speaking up behind the democrats to take them over that. so, we will get set up this time around but we are going to get close to 60 in 2014 and the presidential election our president isn't pulling any where near 50%. the guys that are undecided are not going to vote for them. >> identify yourself and your organization. >> set up american progress also i would like to debate what you said but my question is let's assume you do things and go to iraq or something.

do you think we should ask the american people to pay more taxes so they would feel part of it and maybe ask more questions? >> no. i think you avoid stupid things. >> but bush did, that's my point. >> the argument, there are two things. one, there are ways to reduce the cost of moving forward. and no pity if you have a government program of any kind that's not working and or counterproductive or is worth less than the money you are extracting by the american people to pay for it you should stop doing that rather than since we've been doing these things it is like a ship that collects barnacles. you get rid of them over time. you go back and say what works, what doesn't, let's reform these issues. i'm in favor of reforming government to cost less, not

cutting it when i cut 10% across the board, some stuff the government does is useful. tough to find in between all the stuff that isn't useful but there are important things the government does, he and you want those fully funded and then confidently and transparently. but then you also want to stop doing those things that are not worthwhile. so, i'm not in favor of raising taxes to pay for mistakes of any kind. yes, sir. >> mark from the center for immigration studies. >> you were talking about running of the foreign policy and avoiding waste and what have you but that is not really the issue. the issue is what are the objectives that we want? we smashed the nazis and the japanese with massive inefficiencies. we beat the soviets by stupefying efficiency. what is the goal, what are the foreign policy goals and i think

that you are kind of tapering over the differences of the very significant difference among the conservatives. now i agree with what i think your policy is which is frankly let's not invade mali or the country we're supposed to take over. >> of the president cannot pronounce it khator not allowed to blow it up. >> it's easy to pronounced. [laughter] >> taking some other things off the table. >> my point is my sense of what you're saying is even if we undertakes the tax and the entitlement reform that i agree with you are a central, we will indeed help. nonetheless, we are going to be under fiscal constraints for a long time into the future. and what i kind of want you to actually say, ceviche can write it down or whatever, is those fiscal constraints are going to force us to not do what romney and ryan said they want to do in

the foreign policy, because the way that they've articulated their foreign policy goal is very expensive, not really in any sense like what bush campaigned on or foreign policy humble is in the right word but the more limited moderate left activist foreign policy. my sense is we are going to be stuck with that no matter what because of our economic constraints, and is that in a sense sort of a positive outcome from your perspective of all the problems we have been dealing with? [laughter] >> whenever you need folks anywhere the first thing you need to do to prepare is to the capitol gains tax. [laughter] and then from there they are different approaches to the moderate conservative movement. i would argue -- look, you need to decide what your real defense needs are. and that doesn't mean certain

committees get to build bases in their states. that's not the defense. that's the political desire. but we need to figure out what do we need to do to protect the united states. what we keep the canadians on their side of the border and otherwise make sure that the united states is secure and that includes the serious navy and all that stuff what is that? what does it cost, of how do you do it and there's all sorts of questions about how do you less-expensive we buy things if you were in the pentagon? you have to buy the product and how do you make that economically efficient? it's not like going to wal-mart and having the free-market decide how to be the least expensive possible the highest quality of the lowest cost so there's a lot of challenges the government house when they buy stuff because there isn't a market for it and other places. so, i would say look, start with

-- come to a decision on that. and your question on foreign policy it's interesting the president's house a lot of leeway on foreign policy compared to other issues. there is no nra on the general foreign policy. there's no americans for tax reform which is asked politely and consistently and repeatedly for people to make a written commitment to voters. and the reason the pledge is useful and important is i ask all candidates for federal office and state office to sign a pledge to their voters, not to me, harry reid seems to get this wrong. but to their voters so the voters understand the american people don't oppose tax increases of any kind. and they make that commitment as a way to let voters know where they stand. they don't oppose taxes because they sign a pledge. a sign the pledge because they oppose tax increases. and those republicans who don't support -- who want to support tax increases or want to be open

to it don't sign the pledge. republican governor of nevada repeatedly said i will never raise taxes. he's sort of like the democratic former governor of virginia, and warner, both of whom ran i will never raise taxes. when asked if they would put that in writing they said i have been offended that he would question my character. of course i say i wouldn't raise taxes. they both passed a massive tax increases so they lie there way into office and then just screwed the voters of virginia. and took their money and ran off the republican and nv said i would raise your taxes but i won't put it in writing and the first time they had a cut in government he raised taxes. so the pledges for people that are not going to raise taxes because they want to reform government and raising taxes isn't an option. the politicians who won't sign the pledge do so because the one to leave it to open increases. that's okay they just have to

run being honest about that and people take the pledge and keep that. >> by in the b-52 isn't the point. the question is how do you define the objective, with the security means for much of our foreign policy elite on both sides. security means we need to have democracy in burkina faso before any american as safe. that is the longing india but the point is it needs to be called out as bologna and my sense is you are trying to be too polite and a sort of team player to point out that mitt romney and everybody else other than paul, i'm not a paul person but basically has the same case, ruling the world, and my point is you are not going to get what you want until that it seems to me is addressed frankly and directly by people on the right

like you. >> i think you need to have exactly that kind of conversation. actually i engaged in that earlier when i said we do need to have a conversation about what our goals in afghanistan are. and what's winning, what are we trying to do, how long are we staying, and some say they contradict us. the answer to the questions are -- the answer is we need to have these conversations within the modern conservative movement because the guys on the left forfeited their capacity to argue that they have something to say here. so yes, it has to be a conversation with in the center-right. what in the taxpayer protection plans we don't organize everything else in the party, so they will be managing this project. and you can be his co-chairman of the committee. >> it seems to me about the one

contingency that everyone is talking about, and it would seem just looking at the obama people and romany people that he is even more willing to go to war. if there is a war with iran believe you me no one knows how much is going to cost. it's going to be a lot more than the million dollars. now at one what point even you prepare for this something will have to be done to pay for it with taxes. >> i think there's the arguments that have been put forward and i don't know when he was your was he on the record or off the record? on the record? okay. and the former head explaining that even if he sat there and showed him for a month he would put off kuran's plans for a

couple months and convince them they absolutely have to have a nuclear weapon. so, i am not a defense expert. i would defer to the head of the cia that this would not get what you want to do. the other question is what are you trying to do plaque's they are showing them and they said there vermont going if we had a couple they wouldn't do this. then when we get tired of that they get back up and start selling at. i would be interested in what other experts in that field had to see. but again, if you set a iran aside for a moment, if the government comes in and decides to focus on a particular war or occupation down the road, you lose the bandwidth to do other things and that is what happened to the bush administration. they focused on iraq and afghanistan and not fannie and

freddie. and that was expensive for the american economy. it was expensive for the world, for our world leadership, and i am not sure that it made us stronger, strictly hard power military sense, and certainly not stronger in the soft power military sense. >> could i ask a kind of follow-up and then go to josh? i think the question and the answer sort of fits. but jeff was a sort of saying if we got into a war with iran, what would we have to do in terms of economic policy? your answer as i understood is we absolutely shouldn't get into a war with iran because they make sense. the famous class doesn't have any numbers on it and one of the reasons it doesn't have any numbers on it is because all those other people from the supply-side the optimal tax rate

is different levels depending on what the needs are the country is more prepared for more taxes because that responsibility. can you respond to that? >> i read it differently. is is there's two ways to get the same amount of money once you decide how much you wish to extract by forcing the american people there are two points to do it with a small tax burden from the much larger economy, and so at any given point when you decide how much money the government decides it is going to take there are two ways to get there. one is a high tax burden and one is a lower tax burden and what changes is a denominator how big the economy is to read and i

would argue if you have a war with iraq cut the tax. do something to grow the american economy. let's do tort reform. drop the other cost of government. right now the other government is taking 24% of gdp used to be more like 20% it's jumped up dramatically under the stimulus package and the general motors fallout and all the efforts of various ways we've wasted money. but, we need to drop the percentage of the economy that is absorbed by the government. that will and the state. at the state's we saw that the gridlock and have one party controlling the legislature and the governor in 24 it states, republicans days and 11 democratic seats, which means the parties get together they can take the state in one direction or the other. as a you are getting serious

reforms in wisconsin. real savings, real improvements. endeavor teacher tenure. school choice for the lowest income kids, would have the kids in louisiana and indiana and massive reforms. a lot of quality government and also less expensive government. so i would argue that what we need to do. we're spending for% of gdp on the national defence, spending 23% of gdp you can't reduce if you really thought you had to spend more money and amex you could spend more money on the national budget to genex canada and reform other parts of the government to cost less. you could double the national defense from four to 8% of gdp and drop the rest of the government from 19% down to 15%. why is the position the doctrine of ted kennedy's government. everything the government stole last year gets to keep and we

will keep the same amount forever and ever and never get a penny back and sit down and shut. this is mine, my money. that's why obama keeps talking about giving people stuff. he uses the money as his. nobody gives it to you. it's mine. you can't have this. i took it fair and square. that's not the way most americans view the proper role of government. succumbing yes, we can afford to invade occupied if you think it is necessary and reduce spending elsewhere. when truman got us into the korean war buy cleverly telling the chinese, he cut other budgets across 25% in order to fund that. >> but he also raised taxes. >> he kept them for some time, yes. >> josh, foreign policy

magazine. >> i want to press you on that last point he made. as you know under the plan in 2015 the total discretionary spending had 3.5% of gdp. so the trade-off issue is reducing spending here. if law hold discretionary budget is 3.5% of gdp, how do you maintain the national event and does that mean everything almost all the time? >> for start talking about projection that is 2050. i think at this point is 2050 what you're looking at is directional. the government is going to spend less and be a larger economy. now, 3%, 5%, 10% of an economy twice our size is a much bigger number. i would much rather fund a serious national defense and those things the government needs to do that are mentioned at least once in the

constitution given in passing out of a much larger. if we had been growing significantly over the last 20 years and particularly. their said in mosc their said in moscow with meaning if they were not shooting at us we wouldn't spend so much. the guys that follow didn't know the soviet union disappeared. >> my big question is do you think it matters that this is objectively the foreign policy to get the republicans would have the least foreign policy national security experience in modern history i mean objectively that they had a cia director and the defense secretary. no demonstrable foreign policy or national security appointed will that make an impact at all?

they're looking at the foreign policy issues. i'm not concerned that we. we survived obama and the problems come not from the foreign policy but that domestic policy. >> to the have any foreign policy that you could point to? can you lose an election based on -- >> advising the president on foreign policy issues and advising them on defense some of the people he's taken away and listened to. >> i would be [inaudible]

they don't pay that much. >> why am i advocating -- okay. at present the government takes 35% from companies 30% marginal tax rate on the extra dollar. >> [inaudible] >> martelle tax rate, marshall tax rate for individuals is 35%. most businesses pay at the individual level. they are passed through a schedule c, not schedule but s-corp. some 35%. under obama's world, that goes

up to 39.5% in january plus 3.8% for taxes on successful small businesses that are incorporated 35% on general motors. so it is a tax increase on small companies and less taxes on major corporations which are more likely to be donors. if they take that rate to 25% as step one. it is a ceiling. we take it from 35 down to 25. this is not an endorsement. they have 25% of their income taken from them in the middle ages. i am in favor of the american people being treated less. so, however, they were being treated worse than they were white obama who had taken down

the status on the way to america's. so, serfs for a couple years, and then down lower house you have the economy grow. and then i am a sabian of limited government person taking a stab at that time we don't have to move it all at once. i don't have a magic number we are looking at. the president the last 70 years the only real physical conservative lot was quite eisenhower he was the only one that down to three times and actually did reduce government spending as a percentage of gdp. whereas that went up under nixon, reagan, both bush's she was moderate, he didn't care for conservatives, he had high marginal tax rates but is their anything you learned from his success?

>> fiscal conservatism is not about balancing the budget. that's what conwell and henry lxxxv it was is just to balance their budget. and to make sure that they had all the money that the needed. that as much as these that they took from other people. that is not a conservative. the modern reagan position, and again, the modern reagan republican party is different than a lincoln republican party. the lincoln republican party was against slavery and for the union. we had a war and then over 100 years had become a largely consensus issue in most counties in america even among democrats. no slavery, one union. got it? once everybody was in on that project, okay, and some democrats standing outside of it we say okay. now what's the republican party stand for and that is the problem you have when you go to the campus just having a conversation with the remaining

lincoln republicans. why are you republika? i was with the union and they were republican. okay. there was a really good reason. more than 100 years ago. that they were old ladies and the mississippi who would read what ronald reagan on everything and they voted for george mcgovern because sherman had been very mean to atlanta recently. [laughter] we have gotten -- we are beyond that except for parts of this room. [laughter] the new movement, and this is why i think the obama versus romney and ryan thing is so clear is that obama can't get away from home and change anymore. it's about talking about what he did which is hard spending and tax and regulate. and expressed contempt for business people versus the republican approach, which is written down. and the modern republican party, the reagan republican party is interested in maximizing liberty and letting people run their own

lives. .. vote to be left alone. they don't knock on your door on saturday and say you should be -- insist every public kids -- they're not out there saying you have to sign up for our project. just leave me alone.

all the various communities of faith simply wish to be left alone to practice their faith so the other side at the end of the misunderstands psychiatryture. if i'm going to have a rebelling use freedom, so does that guy and around the table. that's why the center works well together they are a a bunch of people that want to have lunch together. the guy who wants to go to church all day looks at the table who makes money and say that's not how i spend my time. and they look at the gun who fondles his guns. they agree they should be free. okay. and in the coalition are people in the military and police who protect your right to beleft alone as well. so around the center coalition, the legitimate functions of the government, the republicans win the election, i have a job. those guys, with part of the

anti-government antiabusive government. i get a quick out of the liberal bhos say they are anti-government. cancer doctors are not anted anticell. they are against cells that are problematic and abusive. we're against government that becomes too expensive and too abusive rather than conducive. your assertion that balancing the budget is what conservatives want to do is what the left has been telling conservatives for a long time. we're going spend a bunch of money we'll be back and you can go raise taxes on the american people to pay for the big government and they'll hate you. and some people want to fall for that trick. every once awhile. >> tom coburn? >> but the other 99% of republicans go, i've seen lucy on the football thing. i'm not going to again. so i would argue that your

analysis of balancing the budget is the highest goal of the conservative maybe in 1953 but that's not the moderate conservative movement today. it is the region republican party. >> you don't have to balance the budget to be fiscally conservative. >> you want to limit the size of government. i think over time what you saw the republicans when clinton helped us by scaring everybody, we then had six years of republican governance by not increasing spending as clinton's budget projected by spending less than that. you ended up with a surplus. why? because spending didn't increase as clinton's budget had going out far ten years a little bit less less. not as little as i would have liked to spend. a lot less than clinton was spending. trillions less. that was very important and it did turn the economy around. i would argue limit the size of government. the economy will grow rapidly as

you end up with surpluses. >> ej. >> first i want to salute rover for embracing the constitution's call the government provide for the general welfare which is in there. it's very hartening to see him embrace the clinton legacy which ask a sign of progress even if he has the distorted welfare process in the area. >> he did sign the bill. >> right. i don't want to argue about that. i want to inject a note of bipartisan which is listening to you carefully both here and on other indications have i have the addition ticket -- is closer to barack obama's than to mitt romney. that's number one. is that right or wrong? number two, that the one issue where you really think the republicans could blow the election is on foreign policy. is that right or wrong. >> two things.

obama triple -- i'm sorry tripled the number of troops in afghanistan when he came into office. i would not align myself with obama's views on occupying other countries. and the second part, what was the second part of the last question? >> [inaudible] saying in the campaign in terms of their approach to iran, their approach po intervention, future intervention, it does sound to me -- i hope this is -- so clear that you are an antiinterventionist or very weary of intervention and that the republican party at the moment is far more sympathetic to intervention than the obama administration is. >> this is a interesting question. i wondered about it during the bush years. in the united states, there's a great american people. there's a great amazingly interesting large lack of interest in the rest of the world. and people vaguely know it's over there and every once awhile

the europeans start killing each ore and we have to pay for it. there isn't a lot of focus. there's no -- nobody wants to avenge ourselves on the annoying british. we can't remember who our enemies were forty years ago. yeah, we're very -- unlike the guys in yugoslavia who can remember every slight back 1,000 years, i was once sitting in a room like this where all the guys were and some guy was talking and going, on and on and on and about the 700 in closet sew. kosovo i'm like waiving the guy. can we speed it up. it's taking too long. the -- hajtdz a note. okay. jumping ahead to the 100s. okay. we don't do that.

presidents have an incredible latitude of foreign politician that they don't have on other issues. in the united states, i mentioned passing earlier there's a national rifle association for the national defense. you have veterans groups that are interested in va hospitals not how many drones we have. you have our american community that now caucus on up on turkey. we have a greek community that focuses beating up on the turkey. if you are going to be mean to people don't let them come to the united states. you have four plus places you're not allowed to shell or do something mean to because of a domestic lobby. the president can decide anything he wants to except the four. people think well, they probably deserve it.

depending which government it d. when clinton was blowing stuff up. republicans were saying it's outrage. when bush got in having campaigned against that kind of crazied wack job, nation building, right. we proceeded to knock out the taliban and stay and knock out saddam hussein and stay. and republicans who had voted for the guy who said -- that was dpsh [inaudible] hum beer not going donation building. and the republican base said okay. as the democratic said okay. what's fascinating was the code pink people who are part of obama's base, what has obama done to keep that peace of the coalition together. the ugly stepchild. didn't slow anything down.

the list of things there to -- i'm sorry. >> he withdraw from iraq and romney said he withdrew too quickly. >> i believe he withdrew bush's stated time table. he didn't withdrawal faster than bush. >> what republicans are referring to. >> then again, it gets to at some point this is all skins versus shirts. when your guys guys are blowing up something. the democrats said you're blowing up stuff in syria. good. the republicans said that's crazy. and the teams reversed in iraq and afghanistan. which is not taking it seriously. it's taking unseriously. it's not a vote-moving until you stay for ten years. then it becomes a vote-moving issue. you saw independents and republicans poll not enthews yaysic for staying in iraq and afghanistan.

my point is presidents have tremendous leeway. you the economy is growing? okay. you stay in grenada for a long period of time? so it's just not like other issues. it's very different and you think since we're the most powerful nation in the world we'd treat it more seriously than we do. our politics doesn't drive us to a seriousness about the subject that it does in other areas. that is interesting with it's not unimportant. it's particularly. important. you can see both sides can be foror against the wars. everybody gets tired when they last too long. you're not sure what the point is. it's not being articulated what the point. >> let me say from the record [inaudible] came from the "washington post." thank you ej. justin? >> thank you. thank you very much for your talk. you mentioned a couple times.

>> identified yourself. >> justin logan from the cato institute. you mentioned there is no nra on foreign policy. i think that in a way goes back to larry's question which was how to cow impose cost on people they care about foreign policy. people are indifferent. the rest of the world is the blabbering mas of people we have to bomb. as larry pointed out, if you put cost on it people belong in the nra they care about the game. they want to keep the money from the government. what you sell people, you have read fewer one story about some kid getting the life blown off. people go, we can deal with the story. i think it gets back to how you get people to care get to have people coasted on imposed on them. to that end, i want to ask you more about taxes in u.s. foreign politician. whirm the coburn was going on

atr and coburn, and our moles that we had at the wednesday meeting were bringing back reames of different colored the many offenses of coburn. >> i think think you were quoting him. ged. >> that's what he gets most upset. the quotes i'm going to to raise your taxes. >> i wonder now there's a similar situation going on beginning to go on with people like lynn sei graham who are saying in the context of the sequester lets raise taxes do anything. if we have less than $7 billion in defense we might be killed. i'm not seeing reames and reames of quotes from them saying we're going raise your taxes. is that something you started to build dopily in to? >> i've chatted with all the guys you negligenced, and

they're -- but here's the good news. there a small number of them. and when you're asking skin in the game. who has skin in this game? okay. the head of the finance committee, dave camp and incoming hatch. okay. they view deductions and credit as things you can get rid of and reduce marginal tax rates rates in tax reform named after carp and hatch. they can manage. they are doing all the work on it. you have the other guys who are can we come and steal your deduction and credit and give to the appropriators. when we get the tax reform. there will be no tax reform. thed a votes we can't reduce other spending. we must raise taxes on the american people. my job is to make the taxpayer tougher to beat up than other spending interests. because if a politician comes and says, these spending interests are powerful here in washington, d.c., let's go mug a taxpayer and get the none.

money. if we make that difficult and you look at the guys, he wanted to raise taxes. he's coming back. he was told no, we're not doing that. the handful of rst who have talking about tax increases arrive in the end of the term. not coming back or they don't know they're not coming back. [laughter] but this is a small group and the idea that you're going to raise taxes on the american people to not think through defense priorities. but let me leave the name out. because i don't remember if i promised not to tell anyone. there's a big r. who is the in category. i said i would like serious national defense and not raise taxes and how can i help you apply for serious national adequate that defense the united states and not raise taxes, cut

other spending do you have reforms we can do that help highlight that aren't being moving because of the gridlocks in washington, d.c., from perhaps bipartisan commitment to overspending? and the answer i got was, what you can do is explain to people that we can't cut the defense budget a penny. at which point i thought to myself, this is not a person who is trying. one he said, i have tried all these four things and they haven't work. if you came and henned us push we could get it across the finish line. no. nothing on the list to save money before the pentagon. nothing. and what i i would suggest things. that doesn't solve all the problems. several billions of dollars. tens of billions of dollars. it's a trillion dollars. it doesn't solve next week -- there hasn't yet, i believe you'll get serious conversation from some of the advocates of national defense spending when

they understand here's the dollar amount, now make decisions.

chi argued we we have two minutes. do you have a quick question and a quick answer. >> i'd like to take up and i hate to disagree with you and larry core.

that's -- probably not the first time. fundamentally, we have people in the room that understand what tax does and what tax doesn't do. russia, the tax is use against corporations and to the argument that the tax is required with the governance, no tax low governance. look at nigeria across the world you can couple the ability to honestly tax the people with the people's voice. they're not taxed, they have no voice in how their roads are how many potholes in the roads. if you going war, if you raise taxes to go to war, it engages the populous of politicking more closely and they watch a little bit more closely when they're being told to go.

so just away from the ann tee, away from the details of managerial tax rate but to the fundamental reason behind taxes. taxes to pay for the legitimate constitutional parts of government. okay. things that are actually written down. general welfare is an aspirational thing. it would mean anything, therefore it means nothing. >> just leave it at that. >> i saw you trying to sneak it in. these are the guys who never get as star of the second amendment. that's everything we want. forforget the rest it. >> the potholes are the general welfare. >> the -- well that is state and local government. interesting different question. where at least so you federalism competing. i think what you do to get government is have the best competition you can.

again, people are moving to red states and leaving blue states. that's competition. they're sending their noun red states and leaving the blue states. and your going to see, ten years from now, very people talk about the north/south split in the country. the coastal versus the fly over. the split is going to be policy. wisconsin you fix the pension problems and the utah which fixed the pension problem to get rid of defined benefit pensions. ten years from now, and michigan which ended defined contribution pensions for state employees 13 years ago. fix that piece of the problem in michigan. they're not working on other stuff. you have it the country move in two radically different way. s have big government, france, greece states and lean singapores and the problem is the taxpayers are going to leave the states that want to abuse

them and move to states that don't abuse them. and so there's going to be incredible shift here and get the french guys who don't want to pay 75% tax rates to come over here and fail to pay and stuff like that. that will be helpful to the economy. taxization is necessary to provide for the limited role the government has to set up a rules for a free society like protecting your property. okay. not decides whether you get to keep it. and so -- limited to that and taxes to be as limited as possible. i'm not shower about the idea if you have higher taxes the government would be less likely to go to war. the more taxes the bigger the government, the less premium people have the less voice they be. people have less voice when you have larger government. the government has a bigger government. the nighs people in russia, the government tends to run the

media and other project. i think it squeezes out the freedom there. and that also sounds to me like a backyards argument for the draft. i think it is a problematic and a serious tax on people. getting rid of the draft was one of nixon's great successes in making people freer and improving the quality and competency of the military. >> and with that, we . >> expense . >> we that we adjourned. we thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] looking at some of what we have coming up later today and for the rest of the week here on c-span2 starting at 6:00 p.m.

eastern we gobbing go back to the press club. we hear actor alec baldwin. tomorrow is u.s. airway is ceo doug parker. thursday from weather channel meteorologist on the twenty five years covering the weather. film maker discusses his documentary on prohibition that all this week starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern. the each day at 7 it's past q & a interviews focus on the military. rachael and larry talking about their documentary that explores alleged water con tan make. >> the soviet bear might be gone. we saw that when saddam hussein invaded kuwait, the mideast might have become a nuclear powder keg, our energy supplies held hostage we did what was

right and necessary we destroyed a threat free to people and locked a tyrant in the prison of his own country! [cheering and applause] >> tonight 10 million of our fellow americans are out of work. tens of billions more work harder for lower pay, the incoming president says unemployment goes up a little bit before the recovery begins. unemployment only has to go up by one more person before a real recovery can begin! [applause] c-span aired every minute of the major party convention. watch the republican and democratic national convention live on c-span starting monday august 27th. discussion now on president obama's foreign policy and administration's commitment to multilateral constitutions from

the washington journal. this is about 45 minutes. >> host: he is member of the counsel on foreign relations, and a contributing writer to "the new york times" magazine. he's also written a piece for foreign policy called the point guard a look at u.n. ambassador susan rice. we're talking about the piece in a moment. james a larger question about the president's foreign policy is there an obama doctrine, if so, what is it? >> guest: i don't think most wants have doctrine. i think the people around them sometimes do. they do have a tone, style, a away of thinking. i would say that obama's is an interesting combination of idealism about ends and a kind of chase end realism about means. in terms of ends you think about the extremely aid listic positions he's taken on a number

of broad issues. the idea we have to reduce nuclear arms to zero world without nuclear arms. that's visionary idea. he's passionately embrace the idea of docket rain called the responsibility to protect. that the responsibility to prevent awe toesty. you look at what he does in ordr to these kind of moral doctrines by, for example, by bombing syria. he takes the view no because things can get worse. he has, i think, a very heightened, i will say post george bush awareness that things can be worse. i think that's the moral he took from iraq where he learned that his own instincts to oppose the war on the ground that would makes thing worse rather than better were right.

i think he lever learned in the aftermath of investigation. afghanistan. he trusted the general who the magnificent idea that would transform afghanistan. he said yes, it didn't work. obama has -- because of the unusual combination of chase end sense of limited possibility about means. >> host: let me ask you about the news. the front page of the "the wall street journal" focusing on syria battle regime laid the plans as using russia banks to sidestep american and european sanctions on oil as well as the sanctions on financial transactions. the story point outs the documents offering the inside look how the shrinking group of regime local is working up to prop up president astayed's quest and adding new questions to what the u.s. and the u.n. should not be doing with regard

to syria. >> guest: this goes to a bunch of different things. one is the question which i talk about a lot in the piece on sue soon rice that you mentioned multilot rich. it means not just that you work with other countries that you work with multilateral institutions and above all with the u.n. this, by the way, we can talk about this later. is a real place where bush -- where obama and romney are quite durcht. -- different syria has in parking lot, -- or the international response has come to greece on the limitation on the u.n. security counsel because russia as well as china had refused to take strong measure in the security counsel and used their position their veto protect syria in the case of russia. today's news is just another example of the overall problem of trying to use the u.n. security council when the key

nations who serve on the counsel are dwoided among themselves. this has been a big problem. but it's important to add something else. it's easy to say. the u.n. doesn't work. the fact is obama doesn't really have good options in syria. it's not clear exactly what he would do if russia were fully compliant on the security counsel. syria is an example where to go back to what i was saying before, the moral sense, there's also a agree geopolitical sense. the u.s. needs to do something. it needs to prevent unspeakable awe toesty. the pry additional thing is the real estate decision -- libya style air war might produce something worse which ask to say a civil war. even though it's true, that what obama would like to do is con constrained in the russian opposition it's con constrained

by his own concern that acting could be worse or at least acting aggressively could be doing so. and "the new york times." we'll get to your call the in a second. join us on 0 twitter page at twitter.com/c-span wj. let me ask you about susan rice. the point guard for important follows. you focus on the libya. it was a major achievement for ambassador rice and indication of the president's commitment to multilateral constitutions. you're sighing that the president has embraced the u.n. i wrote a profile of the policy views way back in the summer of

2011. and i remember i was he was at some event in new hampshire. he said to the crowd, i want to stand in front of the u.n. and say america is back! i said to him later, wow, that was surprising because, you know, the u.n. is considered toxic in some places. he said no, i believe in it. he gave me a whole explanation then i noticed a few days later he was able to deliver the same line he said eliminated the u.n. there was some tension probably inside his advisers i guess among a whole heart of embrace both those things. in general, he is, i think, the most unam bigambiguous -- george bush senior. >> let's go to john joining us from atlanta. good morning, thanks for waiting. john, are you with us? we'll track one more time.

>> caller: president of the general assembly on the u.n. he was educated in bay root university around the time 200 some of our marines were murdered in their sleep in the a bunker. i was wondering, i don't think he would let obama do anything over there in syria. you know, to do anything because hillary and those are strange folks. i would like to one other thing. why does the u.n. want $400 billion to give to the people of brazil when if you look at brazil, look them up on google, brazil is doing fine. >> host: thanks for the call. i'm not sure it's an issue you're focusing on. >> guest: i have to say the second one, i have no idea. i don't know why they're giving money to people of brazil. it's important to remember. the u.n. has a lot of different

parts. the active parking lot of the u.n. when we talk about issues of conflict is not the general assembly. it is a talk shop. it's the security counsel. the security counsel is the place where the u.s. and four or permanent members have a veto. so nothing can happen in the security counsel that the u.s. does not want. by the same token, nothing can happen that russia or china does not want. there's not a danger that the u.n. is going to do all sorts of terrible things to u.s. wish it is wouldn't do. there is a danger that the u.n. won't be able to do what the u.s. wish it is can do. that's limit taxing. obama's calculation and that of other presidents who have put faith in the u.n. for all the difficulties it entails, the thing you get on the other end is worth it. that thing is two parts. one is this are many things the u.s. does not want to do. peace keeping in conflict in

african countries. the u.s. won't do it. it is in their interest to have it done. the second thing is legitimate sei. very much in the eye of the beholder. if the rest of the world and much of the rest of the world does view the u.n. asking as being the source on the legacy on international issues the u.s. can afford do without it. we proved all too well in the case of iraq where the u.s. sought that approval, didn't get it, went to war in any case, and really, i think, suffered the consequences as obama himself concluded. >> host: you brought the issue of u.n. and russia. could russia continue to function as one of the five permanent members of the u.n. security counsel after the collapse of the soviet union. why is it that russia and china have a large role in the security counsel? >> guest: well, last this it a kind of heritage phenomena. i think you asked the wrong

question. the right why do france and england have a large role in the security counsel. what are they doing there when brazil, indian -- india west germany respect there. it's a club. the moip rules are self-reinforcing. that proved almost impossible to change the comp decision of it. there are been proposals forever. there is something comically known at the open-ended working group on u.n. membership. if means unended. ic there's clear arguments why china should be there. china has a big role. it should be paying a fraction of dues. russia is a military level a great power. so it's not wrong they're there. it's just wrong that the counsel has not been able to expand the member hererership to account for change in geopoliticking.

>> host: piece -- special on syria and on could we blame him for the failure to make peace in syria. there's a point i want you to respond to. whether or not in the negotiations he was the reason why the agreement failed or the fact he had nothing to to negotiate with. there are no consequences if syria didn't follow along with the u.n. and the european -- nations were calling for. >> i have a long history with kofi and his period of secretary general in 2006. i spent a lot of time watching him negotiate. and he often enters into situations where he risks making himself look ridiculous. he goes before some awful dictator whether it was saddam hussein in iraq or president bashar of sudan in 2004 and

tries to get them to behave in a way different than a way they are behaving. the only way you can is to threaten with something terrible. you didn't have something to threaten with. you have strikes maybe, you can say lift sanctions, do stuff with trade. you don't have an are. my the question should not you

is the real the real gain that was involved there was per it was hoping that by undertake the effort it would slightly schiff the own calculation and the russians would then put pressure on assad. that part failed. you could foresee it would fail. that a good enough reason not to do it. there was a better of set of options. it failed. now it's over. >> host: who traveled he's the author of a number of booking including the freedom agenda why america must spread democracy just not the way george w. bush did and made reference to the earlier book, "the against

intentions "in the era of american world power. steve is on the phone from connecticut independent line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thanks for letting me have my say, fellas. i'm not impressed with u.s. intelligence in syria. especially the al qaeda coming across the border from iraq. what's the story with them? and my other part is, why can't we set up a no-fly zone. we have the bombs. the is the assad guy is a bad guy. >> host: thanks. well get a response. >> guest: those are two good questions. on the intelligence thing i would say there's a difference between what you know and what you can do. actually the u.s. probably has more assets on the ground than we know about. and yes, they know there's al qaeda coming across the border.

but they can't do anything about that. and so all they can do ised a this point try distinguish between the folks the u.s. wants to back and the folks the u.s. doesn't want to back. a large part of the intelligence world in the syria right now is help direct the flow of weapons that are coming into syria as well as nonlethal equipment for example telecommunications equipment. that's what they're doing. so the fact we haven't been hearing anything about america intelligence. we're not supposed to. there isn't american intelligence role. i would say there's a lot of places where you can look around the world and see it has failed. i don't think syria is one. no-fly zone. let's nautical it that. let's call it what it is. if you mount aerial campaign like nato in libya, you don't it to prevent planes from flying. once you are up there and you see tanks advance. you take them on. it's not a no-fly zone.

it's an aerial war like in closet kosovo in naight. why should we do it or not do it? the answer is so far not. it's a hard answer to give. now that syria is using the air force, which it wasn't using before clearly the united states has the capacity to knock out the air force quickly. of course, it can knock out syria tank formations as quickly as it did in libya. reasons are a bunch. one, the amount of damage you will do, the amount of harm you will do to syrian civilians and freedom fighters is greater. in libya you had a big dividing line. that's not remotely true in syria. you have the patch work. two, is the fear that you can wind up creating a situation where you would have more violates. the escalading the war would turn this into an all-out war.

that would take the form of the regime which is on the right which is a form of she ya against sunni opposition. the horse has already bolted on the stable. we have an all-out war. the argument for military intervention in some ways has gotten stronger. i'm still not convinced. i would say the argument probably should be the u.s. and others are not doing effective job of supplying the opposition with the weapon i are they need. i thought the saudis and the others provide that weapony. i don't understand why they haven't. i think there may be a strong argument if we're clear you want the opposition to win, you have to be prepared to do more to help them. i don't think it should be a know-fly zone. >> host: this is a viewer. how closely are following the

situation in mally. what role if any should the international community have in dealing with the groups in the northern part of the country? >> another important and tough question. had is a case where i come back to the idea much multilot rich. constitutionings don't just mean the u.n. they mean regional institutions or sub regional institutions which is not a whole continent like africa but a neighborhood. one of the strongest sub regional institution is an west african institution. they have mounted military campaigns quite frequently in the past. the body of the soldiers tend to be nigerians. this is a case where the neighborhood is really, really, really worried about what's happening. because they see this as being their own afghanistan. and so i suspect that what we're talking about is international assistance to a military effort

which would be mounted by west african soldiers under the banner. we're not going to see american soldiers we're not going american planes or french planes or plane soldiers. what we're going to see is substantial economic and technical assistance to some kind of intervention effort that is mounted by them. >> host: rock port illinois. good morning. republican line. >> caller: hi. locport. like new york only illinois. we have a canal here that empties lake michigan. >> host: i apologize for the wrong city. please go ahead. kristin: i have a two-part question. the first part is the counsel on foreign relations. is it a government sponsored

entity, or is this person who is on tv now, is he like an independent kind of person? or is he a government employee? is he a federal government employee? that's the first part. the second part is, right now hillary clinton is promoting an anticonstitutional move by making our firearms subject to u.n. approval. is she committed perjury by doing that? she took an oath of awfts to protect the constitution. gloifs thanks for the call. we'll get a response. our guest is contributing writer to the "new york times" and foreign policy magazine. his work is available online. on the issue of something we been talking about extensively over the last few months the

u.n. issue guns and the secretary of state. can you elaborate? >> guest: no. i mean, first of all obviously she's the secretary of state. she's not responsible for firearms. i don't know specifically what u.n. issue phillip was talking about. you can be sure given the hyper sensitivity of the gun control issue that president obama is not about to authorize his secretary of state to engage in some serious form of gun control under the guys of the united nations. so no, i don't know what it is. i'm sure it can't amount to much. as for the counsel on foreign relations. i'm a member of lots of things that have counsel in them. the counsel of foreign relation which was an old committee founded in new york years ago with a bunch of bankers and

lawyers. one goes to the meetings and gets to talk and ask them questions. that's what the counsel is. >> let me ask you about the position of hillary clinton indicated she is stepping down at the end of the year. if the president is re-elected how likely is susan rice to be on the top of the list or senator john kerry of massachusetts? >> guest: well, of course this is one of those fun games that people like me goat play and everybody in washington loves to do that. i indulge in that game. so i talked to a lot of people this. what's the handicapping? three people on top of the list. susan rice, senator kerry and tom download is the third. the general view is that donilon doesn't like the job. i had likes being national security adviser. he is effective. kerry kind of not in the family,

people think he's too long winded. probably running a little bit behind. susan rice, been basically going from astronaut strength. rice has really. everything she has done so far at the u.n. has succeeded. she hasn't had any serious failures. the failures are not attributable to hear. she's a terrific team player. he doesn't pound her own chest. she's a very shrewd political layer. even though she is responsible to secretary state clinton as a u.s. diplomat, she sits on the cabinet as a member of the u.n. and really strengthen her ties in the white house. that's to say the national security counsel. i would say she would have the shortest odds so far. >> host: she served in the clinton administration. glrg the did. she was the football not the

youngest assistant secretary of state when she was apounded to the position in 1997 at age i don't know 34 or something like ha. she was darn close. before then in 1993, she was in the national security counsel. so yes, she served eight years in the clinton administration and so then became obama's kind of the coordinator of his foreign policy advisory team when barack obama was running for president in 2008. the way condoleezza rice they are not related. >> host: good morning. independent line. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. let's take a look at this for a second. [inaudible] what we have now is a country with about 100 cities of

[inaudible] that came to work on the [inaudible] being tortured but the constant talk of splitting the country in half with one-half having a capital in ben georgia city and the other half having a capitol in tripoli. if we [inaudible] option against syria, we will be -- encourage the islamist and after the victory retreat, i will say that [inaudible] it might be the final result.

>> host: thanks for phoning in. we'll get a response. >> guest: libya is not as bad as he said. i'm moderately hopeful about libya. if you have a country that essentially billeting poison. it's ruled by a lunatic. it's a horrendous place. when you change, when the guy, he died all by himself, whatever happens that country is then going to go through an awful and horrible period. the fair question to ask at the time of the intervention given we know that the bad stuff will happen is it right thing to do and get rid of the guy? i think it was. if you look at where things are now, they had an election that was much more peaceful than people expected. they elected a gentleman who actually is a essentially from our point of view.

he's a secularist. he got support all around the country to a big surprise. he the separatist movement that the gentleman referred to essentially dead. nobody thinks libya is going to be divided in half. there has to be a regional an ton my. the future is open ended. more bad things and more good things will happen. i don't know which will will come out on top. it makes you cautionary as i said one of the argument against a full scare intervoangs you may make things work. the gentleman is right. you may make them worse in the sense that assad whatever else he was, he was a protected. the minorities in the country. the same way as in egypt the christians who were 10-% of the country are fright end having a country by the muslim brotherhood. they felt like they were protected, now they are not.

that is a huge problem. the middle east does not have an example of successful multiethic society. it will not be easy to create. but in syria certainly the alternative which is keeping assad in power is just even if you wanted to it. it's not going happen. the syrians won't permit it. how can you create the least bad outcome on the other side. >> host: quick follow up on the point from joe. why hasn't the u.n. laid out the case in quote, hearings where say that put the case for or against assad or the rebels? >> guest: because narrative of the case aren't the issue anymore. everybody knows what the narrative of the case are. that is the assad must go. what we don't know is what would replace them. syria, unlike libya does not have the shadow of the governme. it's fragmented. syria is a far more ethnically

diverse country than libya was. it'sharder to have a coherent alternative. so we don't know that. but we know, we don't need hearings to find out that assad must go. that's self-evident at the point. >> host: david on the point. we're going go to alex joins us from few ji on the international line. thanks for waiting. >> caller: yeah. >> host: you're on the air. go ahead. please go ahead. >> caller: yes. [inaudible] waging wars and creating all kinds of bombing airplanes and -- [inaudible] basically also in america. with china and russia both have a oppressive to their people.

they say syria people it's a major issue. human rights does not exist in china. my other -- [inaudible] if syria regime get defeated it's a major below to iran or regime. i believe the west should do everything they can to remove that, and i would like -- [inaudible] kind of mind set that should be [inaudible] on track to be a successful story. the world changed. one question, professor, is the strike me, as i watch the republican or the g.o.p. show shallow when it comes to -- [inaudible] very depressing to see some potentially -- [inaudible]

>> host: thanks, alex. let me take the point and broaden it what troll foreign policy is going to play from the republican point of view and the democratic point of view. >> guest: women, first i probably say to alex. i don't think the republicans are going to want to take me on as the foreign policy adviser. i appreciate the endorsement. the answer is not much. there will be the least foreign policy related campaign certainly since 2000. in that sense, it's something of a return to historic norms in foreign policy has not plaid a big role. are the republicans shallow? i think so. i think it'sa combination of two things. when you're in the one not in power you can propose simple-minded solutions to things complicated. whether you are in power you

realize things are more complicated. i don't obama was. in 2008 said i have a different view. here's my different view. people bought it they were sick to death to bush's world view. but beyond that, i just think, republican on foreign policy right now it's pretty -- very split more split that night democrats are. the republicans have a so-called realist tradition. basically says, you know, in place like libya or syria. we no dog in the fight. we should dover do whatever is good for the own national defense and forget about the moral issues. they have the opposite that have. it the neoconservative position that says america must use the power in furtherance of the national greatness. those are the people who are calling the no-fly zone and other things like john mccain lindsey graham in syria. there's a big tug of war inside

the republicans which is really not true among the democrats. >> host: james has a followup on campaign priorities in the tbfl race pointing out mideast policy is the 15th on the list of voter priority. glrg now i don't know where afghanistan is, you know, it's probably 18th. yes. it's just not top of mind. >> host: thanks for waiting. republican line. >> caller: hello. i have a major -- [inaudible] with iran, syria, and the mid eastern countries. now the united nations are possibly thinking i'm going to into one world order now is that going to control all the situations in the world that would control the situations over in the middle east?

>> host: thanks. we'll get a response. >> guest, you know, people attribute so much power to the united nations. the u.n. is weak instrument. whether or not the u.n. ever wished for such a thing as one world order. what whatever that would mean. it doesn't matter because the u.n. can't do anything as i said earlier the united states, russia, china, france and england don't want. the u.n. is not a world government. it's not going to become a world government. none of those things. maybe it should be stronger than it is. in that regard that's a weak. >> host: dave from new york city, good morning. democrat like. >> caller: good morning. i would like to know in general -- [inaudible] is the job of the united nations because it seems like they don't do anything [inaudible] worldwide nation to government. >> host: thanks, dave. >> guest: well, actually, receipt me say a few things in

defense of the united nations. you know, u.n. has 100,000 peace keeps troops around the world. most places we don't play u attentions to sudan. they help keep the tortured countries countries from falling apart even worse. that's a important thing the united states doesn't want to do it. we don't have piece keeping troops. what we want it to be done. it's a good thing the u.n. also does some good things. very important things in issues like health care, for example. the world health organization. epidemics that kind of thing. children all over the world against polio. it does a lot of specific things. but yes, it also has the kind of very em bartszing public policies that we read about. it's russia and china. which have block action not only syria today but in darfur and years past and many other

places. that a problem in the nature of the relation of states more than it is the u.n. fails. >> host: go back to the earlier point about the idea of obama doctrine. you have written extensively about the issue of human rights. how much of a part is that when the president looks at foreign policy e issues and the relations especially in the trouble spot libya, syria, or elsewhere in the world? >> guest, you know, obama is torn on this one. interestingly i think.'s probably become in most cases more realist and less human rights or yen -- bring more human rights to china. i would say obama started off thinking likes like george bush's democracy promotion and freedom agenda was a failure. he needed to say to the world we are not going tell you how to behave. we're going behave toward you with deference and republican.

i think that characterize the the first year year and a half. i think he released that didn't bayou as much as you thought. there was a cost. and so you look at the really as his role in the arab spring. he wanted to be outspoken. he was more voted spoken that he been in 2009 when iran was in the middle of having elections and obama didn't say much of anything about transparently rigged elections. he thought he would make the situation worse. in egypt torn wanting to preserve a important ally and right side of history. ..

>> caller: good morning, she's been. there's one point i would like to make about nuclear-armed. you can take all of them and destroy all of them. but as long as the knowledge to make one exist, the thread will exist. you cannot destroy an and in tangible thing like knowledge. so the arms being is moot. it's not worth pursuing. i'd like to hear your comment off the air. thank you. >> guest: well, you know, you could always re-create smallpox

vaccine but it was certainly worth trying to destroy and to minimize as much as possible. the gentleman is absolutely right, that the knowledge that somebody was sufficiently determined it might be able to treat a nuclear weapon though it's really, really, really hard to actually create a delivery vehicle of a nuclear weapon. that's way tougher. but if theto prevent as much possible the proliferation of nuclear weapons, that is to say, to prevent it from getting into the hands of the wrong people, and every country that has nuclear weapons has to make enormous efforts to do that. part of the american effort is to say, we can tell you to stop proliferating nuclear weapons if we ourselves had a stockpile. so we're going to try to drive our stockpile down, and agree with the russians to drive their stockpile that but as we get lower will try to do the same thing with china. and then with france and england and others. in order to get as close to zero

as possible. and then that in turn makes it far easier to put pressure on countries which are thinking about creating a nuclear capacity, or countries that might give it to others as in the case of pakistan. so out own nuclear reductions is connected to a larger policy of trying to prevent nuclear arms from ever falling in the hands of the kind of people who would use it, period, for any purpose. >> host: arthur is on the phone. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i really enjoyed this morning and i will make this real quick. looking at the situation in, oh, i'm sorry, i've gotten nervous and lost my train of thought. not iran, but -- that you are you talking about iraq, arthur?

afghanistan maybe? >> caller: know, for some reason i want to say siberia. >> guest: i'm not sure what you mean. >> caller: just below iran. tragedy well, try what are you talking that syria? >> guest: libya? >> caller: i'm so sorry. >> guest: that's okay. we won't tell anybody. treachery pardon? you want tell anybody? >> guest: we won't tell anybody, you're okay. >> caller: you know, this just reminds you of the cold war period and it just reminds me of the russians versus americans. >> host: i will stop you on that point. quick comment. >> guest: i'm not sure, you

know, what to say except that unlike the cold war, it's not a question of containing a superpower, indicates it's a it's a question of stopping someone who's doing and -- and. >> thinks his own citizens which is a way, much harder problem. and write out obviously we are not doing a successful job of that at all. >> host: have we been successful in trying to restore a sense of stability and democracy in haiti, a country as you will know has been devastated? you've traveled to the country by severe weather conditions and extreme poverty? >> guest: no. stability and democracy is asking too much. haiti is just a bad story. haiti is just so bedeviled by its own problems and then just buy things that happen to like the unspeakable earthquake, of course. but by to urge is a bad history. haiti is an example would even

though the world has actually done a lot to try to do so-called nationbuilding there, not only recently after the earthquake but earlier in the 1990s, not a whole lot has worked. i think it's probably also an example where an is the country is willing to take difficult political steps, and less its own elite's will say okay, we can't afford to just keep stealing in keeping therefore ourselves. we will have to try to create a relatively democratic, relatively honest country. it's very hard for outsiders to build on that type of quicksand. so far haiti has had this combination of terrible governance and then terrible misfortunes on top. >> host: jim traub, a contributing writer, "foreign policy" magazine and "the new york times" joining us from new york. thanks to much for being with us here on c-span. tricky thanks. it was a lot of fun. >> looking again at some of what we have coming up for you as the day progresses and for the rest

of the week. >> now the soviet there may be gone but there are still walls in the woods. resolve that when saddam hussein

invaded kuwait. they made these might have become a nuclear powder keg. our energy supplies held hostage, so we did what was right and what was necessary. we destroyed a threat free to people, and locked a tyrant in the prison of his own country. >> tonight, 10 million of our fellow americans are out of work. tens of millions more work harder for lower pay. the incoming president says unemployment always goes up a little before and recovery begins. but unemployment only has to go up by one more person before a real recovery can begin. >> c-span is aired every minute of every major policy convention since 1984 and this year watch the republican democratic national conventions live on c-span starting monday augus august 27.

>> and vice president joe biden a campaign stop in danville, virginia, today we talked about mitt romney's choice of wisconsin congressman paul ryan to be his vp nominee. you can hear all but joe biden had to say tonight at eight eastern on c-span. >> earlier this your former independent party presidential candidate ross perot was the keynote speaker at the national character and leadership symposium in colorado springs. 20 years after his first campaign for president, mr. perot spoke to air force cadets about lessons in leadership you learn from his life in business and the military. this is about 45 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, it is my privilege to introduce to you an exceptional leader of character, sorry, and a man of

integrity. he served in the navy after graduating from annapolis and has continued to serve our nation as a civilian leader of church. is receive many distinct honors including a medal for guessing which public service, the highest civilian honor the stood by the department of defense, and the eisenhower award for his more than 40 years of continued service in the american armed forces. please join me in welcoming mr. ross perot. [applause] >> it's an honor to be with all of you. can you hear me all right? okay. this is all about general robbie reisner. he is an incredible man. he can't be with us here today because of severe health problems, but he asked me to get each of you has highest regards, and to let you know how much he

admires and respects you. he's an oklahoma cowboy. he flew p. 38 in world war ii. he was elected by the force to retrace lindbergh's route in a jet across the atlantic after world war ii. that's a pretty neat trick. he was an ace in korea. he fought the last air to air dog or probably ever before. general macarthur set his combat. robbie decided in the middle of the fight to fight his opponent defensively because robbie had more fuel. the chinese had to go back north to the river. robbie decided that instead of just zapping him down where he was, he would go all the way into china to the man's base and shoot him down in front of his own troops. [applause]

now, just think about that. and that would be the ultimate loss of face to china's top base. i just define the words. right there and that's exactly what he did, as he shut down the chinese trend when he looked down the runway and they were 19 eggs on the ground. he did a giant 360, came back down, and got 14 in one pass. remember now, you probably never heard about this, president truman should have macarthur for bombing the airfield north of the river. these are the details. there's not one black mark in robbie's record. general macarthur took all the heat. then robbie, after he went home, i so robbie and i said robbie, how could you only get the 14th on ground?

[laughter] and you can imagine the response i got from robbie on that. then robbie went on to vietnam. he was on the cover of "time" magazine, ran his picture, america's top ace to vietnam. 90 days later, this is very important to robbie, that you understand he was hit by a missile, not another pilot. the vietnamese knew exactly who they had because of the "time" magazine story. they put this great man in the box and kept him for five years. it was 104 degrees in the daytime in the box. he never bit. he never broke. instead he inspired countless prisoners, young officers and other prisoners to stay alive by tapping on the box with a tap code. okay? how is that for leadership? how would you like to try making an inspirational speech with tap

code? robbie did it. after five years in the box from 104 degrees in the box, they decided to let robbie out. it took in just a few weeks to regain his ability to walk and talk. he was a senior officer in the camp. he looked all around and realize they didn't have church services. as the senior officer he ordered church services which restricted forbidden following sunday. p.o.w. said robbie, we don't have any emblems. robbie said, just write them out on paper. the only paper they had with toilet paper and they rode out the hymnals. they were singing onward christian soldiers enthusiastically in the chapel, and the vietnamese stormed in. chapel service, there was no chaplain. where you can't go to church, you take every risk, including risking your life to practice your beliefs. these religious beliefs kept robbie of life.

any of the men who made it through the ordeal, and they will tell you what a hero robbie was to them. and is still today. the vietnamese came in and grabbed robbie back into the box. they were having church services, and they were singing the star-spangled banner, and the prisoners who were standing with him stood proudly to on her robbie and saying the strictly forbidden song, the star-spangled banner, and all were brutally tortured for singing that song. years later when robbie came home, i said robbie, what was going on in your mind when they drag you back to the box? he looked at me and his eyes were twinkling. he said, perot, with those guys singing the star-spangled banner, i was nine feet tall.

i could've gone better hunting with a stick. [laughter] now, you know there is a reisner stature right here, right? it is nine feet tall with a stick at the base and that's the reason it is there. i don't know if you knew that but now you all know that. i'm glad you do. robbie kendall. he ran the air force base. is responsible for the thunderbirds and one of his highest priorities was to bring the south vietnamese fighter pilot who was a prisoner with our men, with a bit who used as a servant to embarrass him by having him to all the dirty work around the prisons. the men called max, used that opportunity to smuggle food and medicine to men who are dying again and again and again. the highest priority of robbie's agenda was to bring max over and on and in the united states. he was brought over 100 u.s. 14 bases and went back home, when

saigon fell in 1975, robbie reiser, colonel rutledge and navy captain noris were the first to go in to save him. they didn't forget max. can you imagine? after five years in the hell going back in the box and all that, to go back into pickup a vietnamese soldier? they did that. he did the right thing, and it takes a person with a lot of integrity to do that. and, obviously, robbie has a lot of integrity. well, they were doing this. they were on the border, ready to go, and then brent scowcroft was the gem and the white house heard about this and sent george petrie, one of the raiders, over in a car, pickup max, 1970 members, took them to the airport, flew him back to the

states, took him in the trunk of the car to the airport though, and, of course, easier in the united states today, and we did not leave our men behind. and that's mainly because of robbie reiser. i have a canvas painting of robbie reiser in his uniform standing next to his fighter jet that will be placed in a proper place in the leadership all to remind every cadet of who this man is and is outstanding leadership. [applause] >> and now i would like to tell you this story of lance, another story, big statute of lance and one of his family members is with us here tonight. and so thank you so much for being with us here tonight. he graduated from the air force academy in 1965. he's the first one to wear the congressional medal of honor. and maybe, and he then began

pilot training, and after his service, after his death. after his pilot training, he was assigned to the 336th fighter wing stationed in the name airbase south of vietnam as an f4 phantom pilot. on the night of november 8, 1964, on his 52nd combat mission, lance was tasked with a bombing mission over north vietnam. his plane was engulfed in flames and plunged into the jungle. he ejected from the aircraft. he suffered a fractured skull, broken right hand, broken leg and a rough landing. he had no food and little water and no survival kit. but he evaded his enemy for 46 days. says a lot about him.

he was finally captured by the vietcong, believe it or not on christmas day, 1967. and after being captured and severely tortured, he lost 100 pounds from his six tofriend somehow overpowered a guard and escaped into the jungle before being recaptured several hours later. he was put in prison, with the other pows at the hanoi hilton. at one time when he was near death, the men were planning an escape. he was lying nearly unconscious in the same room. suddenly he raised his head and said, count me in. now, how is that? unfortunately he has passed away a few days later. we have a statute of them at the air force academy in and of every cadet who sees the statute will be inspired to be the same

caliber of military officer that he was. and now like to talk about marine lieutenant raymond murphy in korea. he earned the medal of honor, fought a long and difficult battle. many were wounded. he was seriously wounded. continued rescuing wounded marines after he had been wounded, and finally the wounded in including him were taken to a medic hospital. lieutenant murphy refused treatment and to all of his men had been cared for. that says a lot about his leadership as a military officer. freedom is precious. freedom is fragile. and freedom must be protected. i hope that you will always live the words when principle is involved, to expediency. few will be the leaders protecting our nation. i know you'll do a great stand of excellence and set a whole new standards. don't forget sergeants gordon

and shooter who is back again and again to rescue the helicopter pilot chief warrant officer michael to rant in somalia. you saw them dragged through the streets. they died to save the rant. they earned the medal of honor and god bless them, they got it. i would like to talk about john alexander hotel. he graduated west point in the 64. he wrote his own obituary, and he says, i never look at this obituary without thinking, excuse me. and he said, i wrote my own obituary because after all, i'm the best authority on my own life. [laughter] i never look at his obituary without thinking of the phrase, duty, honor, country. and was printed in "the new york times" in 1971. he graduated tint in this class. you as a rhodes scholar but he earned two superstars but he was killed in a helicopter crash on

july 7, 1970. and here are the words of his obituary. i'm writing my own obituary because i am the best authority on my own life. pretty good reason to write it, right? i love the army. it nurtured me. it gave me the most satisfying years of my life. the army let me live in japan, germany and england with experiences, places others could only dream of. i have skied in the house. i climbed mount fuji. i visited the ruins of athens and rome. went to the town, and there were another alexander challenges destiny and heard a masters degree in a foreign university. i know what it is to be married to a fine and wonderful woman and to love her beyond bearing, knowledge that she loves me. about 20 years, i had -- that

was in "the new york times." i had a friend in my office. i decided i should find his wife. i knew nothing about her. i founder. she is a nurse. she never had another date when i talk to her. she said there could never be anyone else like alex. he will be the only man in my life. i love him as much today as when he was here. i want you to know i am very happy. i could never be happier. i could never have a better life. you would think she had just found $1 million on the street, and that's quite a tribute, both to alex and to her. alex wrote, i commanded the company. i was father, priest, income tax advisor, professor and judge for 200, at one time. i played college football and rugby, the british national diving ship it ship two years in

a row. i boxed at oxford against cambridge, only to get knocked out in the first round. and played handball to distraction. i have been an exchange student at the german military academy and gone to the german choke master school. i've had a parachute jumps in everything from a balloon in england to a jet at fort bragg. i experienced all these things because i was in the army. i never knew what it was to thank. i never knew what was to see two old or too tired to do anything. i did not die for my country i live for my country. and surely if there's something die for, there is no -- can you imagine a better role model and alex? is a story of a little boy whose uncle had decided to build his own airplane in the 1930s from a popular mechanics of drawing.

built a wooden frame, and his grandmother who by the way, and his mother who was my grandmother, helped him cover it with cloth. and then he painted it over the cloth. finally who is fortunate to find an engine, attached it. there were no airports in this area so he put on a truck, took it out to a local pastor to test flight. even though he had never flown an airplane before. his mother went with him in the past year and as he was getting in the airplane she said, look them right in the i and said henry, you fly low and slow. henry took off and substantially through the airplane. later, he flew the same airplane from texas to alaska. and back alone. i still cannot figure out how he

found airports to refill and that sort of thing, but he did. later on, a little boy grew up, this little boy spent hours sitting on henry's lab learning to fly. by the time the little boy had gone to college he had learned to fly a single engine helicopter. a few years later this little boy flew the helicopter around the world, single engine helicopter. think about it. made it home. just reflect for a moment how difficult it would be to find places, just think about, to find places to refuel with a short range of a helicopter. he made it home. it's on display at the smithsonian aerospace museum. ..

little boy later worked 15 years as chairman of the committee to build the air force -- if you have seen the air force memorial or pictures, that was a massive effort and he has gone through his life doing other great things and i am sure much of the results for the success is learning to fly at the early age and the principles of leadership while serving in the air force reserve. he has been a very successful businessman. you are probably wondering who

is this little boy? this little boy is my son and i can't tell you how proud i am of his and all the wonderful things he has done. this goes on today but i thought i would stop at the air force memorial. the first rule of leadership is to treat people with dignity and respect the way you would like to be treated. this has been validated again and again over a thousand years. it is nothing born of the restatement of the golden rule. do unto others as you have them do unto you. principles of leadership--even in a rapidly changing world human nature remains a constant. the principles people practice them and your chances of becoming a successful leader will improve dramatically. honest, trust worthy, thrifty and cheerful and helps other people at all times. he promiseds to keep himself

physically strong, mentally alert and morally straight. be prepared. think what a great country we would be if we were all prepared. considerable leadership of a telethon was born in the beginning of the fifth century. by their own actions and not their words do leaders establish the more our, integrity and sense of justice of their subordinate commanders. they cannot say one thing and do another. don't talk out of both sides of your mouth. a hy spirit of mutual trust among subordinates and with their peers and superiors. leaders must attach high standards to performance and have no tolerance for the odd committee. leaders must expect integrity improvement from their subordinates based on new knowledge and expansion. these things are relevant today

to the world you and i live in. leaders must encourage creativity, freedom of action and innovation among their subordinates so long as these efforts are consistent with the goal of a traveler nation. leaders must provide direction never letting them wander aimlessly. chieftains must never use -- miss use power. this causes great friction and leads to rebellion in tribal nations. chieftains must be willing to make personal sacrifices for the good of their own. chieftains must not favor themselves when supplies are short. chieftains must encourage healthy competition among their people and contain it when it becomes a detriment to the tribe. chieftains must understand the spirit of the law is greater than the letter.

chieftains must never shred the quota of honor, morality and dignity. chieftains must hold a profound conviction of duty among all ambitions. hopefully i have made a point that principles of leadership are timeless the coz in a rapidly changing world human nature remained a constant. always use the word leadership. never used the word management when referring to people. you manage inventories. you motivate people. dms si -- you must set the example by being a strong and effective leader who motivates his team to achieve the full potential of the entire game. you must have an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect or nothing works. if they don't trust you and don't trust one another, you earn this trust and respect by treating others as you would like to be treated. trust and respect can be lost in

an instant. you must have an environment where there is no penalty for honest mistakes. these are learning experiences. they are painful but they heal quickly. when a member of your team makes an honest mistake he or she feels terrible. don't shoot them out. tell them about your honest mistakes. put it behind them and move forward to constructive work. make sure they understand that you have not lost confidence in them and this environment people will be open and candid. do not put people into categories. recognize there is something unique in every human. i am unique. i am special. there is only one person in the world like me. do not treat me like a commodity. tree like a human being and treat me with dignity and respect.

and keep the person challenge, and never forget united teams win and divided teams lose and a model of the 3 musketeers all for one and one for all. keep that in place. every part of the unit must be equally important. give strong and intelligent leadership. and recognize award performance. and you will get more information. tell them what they're doing right or wrong. tells them how they can improve and do not keep written records of evaluation. what you have done lately counts. judge people by what they had done. they may have made a mistake 20

years ago. the answers are obvious. and fight alongside the troops. feed the troops first and the officers last. we must have strong plea personal principles leaders. the first rule of leadership is treat other people with dignity and respect the way you would like to be treated. this has been validated again and again and again over the last 2,000 years. it is nothing but a restatement of the golden rule do unto others as you would have them do unto you. the principles of leadership are timeless because in a rapidly changing world human nature -- principles of leadership go back to the fifth century commencing with the knights of great britain. principles of the knights's code was always be ready. defend the poor and help those who cannot defend themselves.

be prepared. that is where the boy scout motto came from. never break your promise. maintain your honor. chivalry requires doing good and to others and the principle of leadership included in the magna carta. no man shall be banished. no man shall be outlawed and we should deny to no man justice. the pioneers who settled our country, many of these principles -- they were honest and kind, generous and brave, ready to rescue a companion. and they had to take care of themselves and one another. a pioneer's creed sums it up. the cow never started. the week.com away and only the strong survive the. we live in the greatest country in the history of man. our pioneers and founders made tremendous sacrifices. they came over on sailing ships.

you couldn't even go across the lake and one of those sailing ships today. they arrived on their own. had no health care. they found work. they save money. they headed was. there were no roads. no macdonald. they hunted for food and shared food with others. they came to be free and practice the religion of their choice. they fought for independence against overwhelming odds and won. they didn't have the weapons that they had the drive and the will to do it and wanted to be free and paid the price and they did it. never forget the declaration of independence signers' paid dearly if you were signing that document. stating our independence. 56 men signed the declaration. 24 were lawyers and jurists. 11 were merchants and farmers

and plantation owners. they were well-educated. they signed the declaration of independence knowing full well the penalty would be death if they were captured. standing tall, straight and unwavering, they pledged for the support of this declaration with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence we have mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortune and our sacred dollar. it means education. they had security but they valued liberty even more. captured by the british as traitors and 12 had their homes ransacked and burned. two lost their sons and the revolutionary war. another had two sins captured. offhand died from woundss in the revolutionary war.

carter maximum of virginia. a wealthy planter and trader saw his ship struck from the sea by the british navy. his home and property and -- thomas mccain was so hounded by the british that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. he served in congress without pay and his family was kept in hiding. thomas edison jr. noted that the british general thomas -- cornwallis had taken over the nelson home of his headquarters and urged general george washington to open fire. the home was destroyed and nelson died bankrupt. from his wife's bedside as she was dying. 13 children fled for their lives. for more than a year they live in forests caves returning home

to find his wife dead and his children vanished and he died of a broken heart. every day think about last phase of the first first of the star spangled banner. oh say does the star spangled banner yet wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave. that is the question. the answer to that question will be yes if we have great leaders. we must have great leaders like you defending the gates of freedom. we are fortunate to have you with that mission. hy know that you continue to do great work and you make our country better as it goes forward. thank you for your service to the country. it is an honor and privilege to be with you. thank you very much.

[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, a more personalized question and answer session. please take your seats. if you would take your seat, we will have some questions and hope to see another side of this. here is your microphone. we will get that working. there we go. >> okay. the first question cadets were wondering as your time in annapolis did you have any time when your character was tested and had difficult time making a decision? >> that was one of the greatest experiences of my life.

never seen the city, never seen the ocean but wanted to go to the naval academy. took me a long time to get there. how fast everything except one segment of the physical exam and a broken nose from breaking horses as a boy and the doctor said you have to go home and have met those operated on. i said i can't do that because i can't afford the trip home or the operation. he said i will fix it. never touched it. you still see a broken nose here. i met people from all 50 states never been able to be just as you are today, so many wonderful people. i had the privilege to a lot of interesting things at the academy. here is vice president of the class in my second class year.

in the middle of all this, be superintendent contacted me and asked me to take full responsibility for creating a new honor code at the naval academy that all the midshipmen were involved in creating so it was a fair honor code. a little over a year on it. every midshipman was on board and interestingly enough, i graduated in 53. that is still in place today and completely responsible -- they're very positive about it and i find it interesting that after all these years somebody would feel this is obsolete but so far because they checked and one of the things the naval academy agreed to was they still felt everything about it was appropriate. it sets the highest ethical

standards the midshipmen set. not the superintendent. not anybody else. it came from the troops and worked well. i have a lot of experiences in the navy and talked about that and i never had the success in life i had if there hadn't been that experience in the navy and learned the leadership by learned in that experience in the navy and made all the difference. >> thank you. next question is who is your most influential role model in your life? who have you looked to to gain leadership and who has taken you under their wings to help you learn to be a great leader? >> different people at different times. the person who has really captured my life was robbie thrasher. i wish you could know robbie. if you have anything to be with us tonight, he was just the economy of everything a person

should be in terms of a great leader caring for his troops and putting others first. i learned all those lessons after unable academy reinforced in the navy, but then once i was involved in the prisoner of war project i had got to be robbing all the other pows they were tested and began to survive and it was all because of their strength and leadership. i would have to say there's not a lot i would change. you heard just about everything i would have to say. >> my next question for you is when you are hiring people for the civilian sector for the elements of leadership across the board, military and civilian, what do you look for in someone you are hiring? >> this is interesting because i have been in the computer

business for decades and you got a bunch of nerds. [laughter] >> from the time i started my companies i started training my systems engineers which you had to back then because there were so few. guess what i did? i took young people in the military only after they had decided they had done their four year -- decided to leave as officers and train them in systems engineering. that was a piece of cake compared to the leadership they walk in the door with. i could tell you stories by the hour. for example a lot of the people live hired into the company were enlisted men who left the service who were so talented they could have gone to m i t and followed combat and leadership at the opportunity

level and they had one mission in life, did get a college degree because they -- the best pay from a second lieutenant and determined to get a college degree. they could get a college degree on any one of three shifts. the computer center never close. let the work any of three shifts and go to college the first or second shift. to make a long story short we had to find these computer centers. anyone who would visit us was overwhelmed. and listed men going through college. when they finished and got their degree we train them in systems engineering the many had training in college in systems engineering and they were unbelievable in terms of letting the company grow successfully. meeting that a group under fire is a piece of cake compared -- i

said it back words. meeting the technology group is a piece of cake compared to leading people under fire. they protesting the planned i could tell you stories by the hours of thing they do all over the world for a mission impossible that they did on their own because it was the right thing to do. taking care of one another. that is one good example right there of the quality of the people who come out of the military and how unique and special you are and nobody could understand why i wanted am i tea or caltech or places like that. all those guys wanted to do was bring the copy. they didn't want to get something done. very talented but their leadership level is zero. and a long way to go. that has been a wonderful factor. wonderful to see all the great things they have done and made

the country successful and all had stock in the company and very successful financially and on and on and on. just a perfect example of the impact of military experience can have on your life after you finish your career even if you stay 30 years or however long you stay you are a very special person in terms of how to get things done and keep them excited and keep them proud. >> thank you. my next question, you have a gigantic family. five kids and 16 grand kids. we are wondering what would you say is your legacy message you would like to leave to them? >> i want them to be honest, tough, smart, take responsibility for other people and keep themselves physically strong and mentally alert and

freight -- i could be more proud of them. the best example i could give you but imagine 15 years with all the work he had to do around the company's putting together the air force memorial and he is a really unique person and i could go through different family members. i had four daughters and perfect mother's and -- also a perfect -- couldn't be more proud of my family. always make sure we didn't spill future generations because there is money around here we don't have to do anything. they have to go out and build their own futures and so far it is too good to be true. nothing i enjoy more than seeing

what they have just done. >> thank you. my second question. have you ever had to release an employee based on a character flaw or doing something that was morally wrong? >> no. doing something -- don't ever get involved with sexually abusing a woman. that is out the door now. we don't tolerate that at all. people here that when they interview to julian. this is a weird place. don't want to be around you. fine with me. the people we had were so excellent and outstanding and highly motivated and committed to the company and so committed to team members that could go anywhere anytime to help the team member that has a problem.

>> thank you. before you got a big swath of future leadership and leaders in america did you have any words of the device? >> get up every woman, get up every morning and making their f-15 great successes, don't even think about it. fide taller mountain and work on the cliffs. the point being don't ever become complacent. just keep making things better. our great country has a lot of problems and if we have people like you involved in that things would be a lot better. our biggest problem in our country right now is to get back on track. not ju financial track is obvious but a strong moral ethical base. sharing for one another and all these things are things that made our country good and ease

of the things we must have to continue to move forward and have its best years during your lifetime. that would be wonderful with all of you out there. >> thank you. [applause] >> as a token -- as a token of our appreciation, we would like to present you with the flags. and general boole's, come goulda second presentation. [inaudible conversations] >> i can't think of anything i

would rather have. [applause] >> somebody must have gotten the word that i really value the sword and i give swords rarely to people who have done great things. the last two people i gave the sword excalibur to -- remember that? only the bold knight can pull the sword from the sole -- stone. the two men who did the job on osama bin laden. so -- [applause] this will be my

best treasurer and i thank you so much but more than anything else i thank you for what you do and what you're going to do in the future. redouble your efforts. god bless you. >> ladies and gentlemen, mr. perot has allowed us to ask questions. he would love to meet you. line up on the right side of the stage. there are buses that are moving to and from fairchild mall every 20 minutes. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> one more thing. the book -- i know you have in your library. it is the passing of the night. my seven years as a prisoner of the vietnamese. read that you will really be

inspired. thank you. [applause] >> all this week on c-span2 at 6:00 eastern, national press club speeches from the last year. in 90 minutes alec baldwin on federal funding for the arts. tomorrow the c e o of u.s. airways and later in the week, meteorologist and filmmaker ken burns. at 7:00 eastern on c-span2 a look at the documentary that chronicles efforts of marion's exposed to toxic drinking water. >> the soviet bear is gone but there are rules in the woods and we saw that. saddam hussein invaded kuwait. the middle east might have

become a nuclear powder keg and energy surprise held hostage. we did what was right and what was necessary. we destroyed a threat. we lost a tyrant in the prison of his own country. ten million of our fellow americans. tens of millions more worked harder for lower pay. the incumbent president says unemployment always goes up little before a recovery begins but unemployment only has to go up by one more person -- before recovery can begin. >> c-span aired every minute of every major party conventions since 1984 and watch the republican and democratic national convention live on c-span2.

>> the description from the atlantic council in washington. we will hear from an economic adviser to the indian government. moderating the discussion is director of the atlantic's council south asian center. >> good morning, everyone. i am the director of the south asia center at the atlantic council and on behalf of my colleagues at the center i welcome all of you and thank you for coming in despite the weather. we are delighted to host -- to speak on in the at's economy. and an uncertain future. not as uncertain as the title

suggests and our event will be spent helping understand that but i can't think of a better person to do this. i am delighted to welcome and also as former colleague at the imf but ireland is a senior fellow -- arvind is a senior fellow at the peterson institute for international economics and global development. a book called eclipse:living in the shadow of china's transformation. the economic domination. and the economic transformation in 2008. a foreign policy named him one of the world's top 100 global thinkers in 2011. in india today magazine nominated him one of the top, quote, 35 masters of the mind over the last 35 years. that is a very heavy burden i am

sure he is bearing extremely well. he has been an assistant director at the research department of the international monetary fund and also worked on the uruguay round of trade negotiations and started for harvard university kennedy school of government and johns hopkins school for the advanced international studies and contributes frequently to the financial times and other groups and educated in stephen's college and the institute of management, masters in ph.d.. we expect nothing but the best from him. i am sure that all of you will have many questions. for 20 or 25 minutes and have a conversation with him.

i would request the conversation is on the record and i request those of you with cellphones to switch them off. we are delighted to welcome the c-span audience because this event is going out live. we don't want any undue interruption this. we should be able to begin and end on time. the floor is yours. [applause] >> thank you for that kind and generous introduction. it is of pleasure to be here at the council. august is generally not the most heavily trafficked month in d.c.. i am delighted to be here. i suspect some of the interests

are because of the blackout we saw a couple weeks ago. i talk about that. let me quickly get sins i only have 25 minutes and had a long power point, an economist perspective on india. politics and security above my pay grade. and just economics -- with some political background. i call this unusual economic policy -- i do want to stress a certain continuity and the

uncertainty -- india's unusual economic times. just a self-promotion. that is my india book and china book and in some sense the more i talk about india various this implicit kind of contrast to china which i will allude from time to time. i have a book on both currencies and that quality but i want to emphasize there is an interesting contrast with china. i want to spend the first half of the lecture talking about the unusual economic model and what i mean by precocious is india has been doing things is not meant to be doing at this stage of its development. things that country's normally do with much more advanced incomes of development but there's a plus side but also a kind of drag that will inform my

assessment of challenges going forward and we can talk about the growth challenge and i want to spend a couple minutes on the big picture, the everything challenge. when i present something, something people overlook. this shows in the's gdp per capita in three phases of the economic growth and development. the first phase is the hindu rate of growth. india grew 3% which is about 1.8% per-capita. we call that the rate of growth because people fought indians are more obsessed with the hereafter and that supposedly is what hinduism teaches. that is complete nonsense

because beginning in 1980 the economy turned around. i want to emphasize this because people think growth took off in india after 1991. it is through the reforms took off in 1991 but growth actually took off in terms of activated around 1979-'80 so india had 30 years of false economic growth. the contrast with india and china not that india began in 91 but they both began at the same time. china did everything -- at 5% growth, between 2002-2008-9-10, we have a rapid chinese style growth rate. that created this buzz about

india, the last 70 years and one could argue which i am going to later on that the question is are we actually in a fourth phase which makes the current phase look like an aberration and doomed because of what it has been doing to slow growth rates over the medium term. by way of background the first aspect of the -- everyone knows and talks about but once to highlight that if you plot democracy against development in viet is a massive allied air. on right side. china is a massive out wire on the wrong side given in the's gdp. this is the modernization hypophysis given the gdp that deserve to be a democracy but it has been for many years and one of india's achievements and the interesting thing is china is at

the bottom. all the states to the right of china are exporting countries. china is and how wire and india claims this as an achievement but this needs to be highlighted in terms of how precocious india has been in its political development but the point i want to emphasize is in terms of economics what has been unusual about india is skill base model of development rather than an unskilled base. india like china has abundant labor supply. it has not used unskilled labor supply. instead it is intensively use as skilled labour and that creates a number of complications. a number of manifestations of this. not just that india does more services than manufacturing which is true and more substance than china does but within manufacturing india does more skilled manufacturing than most

countries in most phases of development. i want -- i wish i knew -- i don't know where the point is -- i wish i could show you. on the left is india and china and the same skill and you can see where manufacturing in india is below china and you see services above china so this is one example of the precocious -- what i find more unusual is the most striking aspect of the skill based development of india, skilled internationally. if you think about the international division of labor it was meant to be that rich countries produce skilled on for northship labor, that is how the

pattern of specialization is coming but in the eddy find consistently and look at this chart. countries like in the and china import fbi. they don't export but india exports much more share of gdp than and china. not really is that the case. it is mostly a lot of it is result based to africa. that is pretty normal because it goes from rich countries to poor countries. it goes from a poor country and what goes to the advanced countries which is not manage to happen and in highly specialized sectors. this was not meant to happen the way we talk about the world economy but happening in india which is very unusual. it shows that india had

comparative advantage in some of the things advanced nations have like skill entrepreneurship and so on. these are all aspects of the other dimensions of india we should talk about that india is different or not so different from the average developing country. i don't want to spend a lot of time on that but i'm sure people will be interested. unlike china we have a domestic demand based model of development. some poor countries do that and richer countries do that. india is different from china. in terms of imposition india is much different from china and growing rapidly as india found out in the financial crisis that it too was more integrated on trade and finance -- it still lacks china -- on social indicators india is not bad on in the quality.

for its level of development in the is less unequal than china. it is life expectancy given within the at -- it is horrible on child malnutrition. on these social outcomes there is no consistent pattern. good on some and not so good on others but these are general characteristics. we can come back later. two major near-term challenges, india is very vulnerable. is tolerable because in emerging market countries it has the highest and most persistently high inflation. inflation has been at or above or close to double digits for two years or more. the external position is more vulnerable land it has high

fiscal deficits. these are the macro economic -- all of you have been reading for the last almost six to eight months because it has been under pressure and foreigners have been fleeing and that leads to the second challenge which is low slowdown in growth. i will talk about that in a different context. inflation is very high. i can give you all these charts. the interesting thing about india. aggregated deficit aggregate consolidated states and federal level is about 8% gdp which is very high u.s. levels of fiscal deficit and the point i would make and fiscal deficits was it was almost a policy catastrophe that in the years of high growth --

♪ [inaudible conversations] >> terribly sorry. the catastrophe was in the rapid growth year's growth was very high. interest rates were very low and yet we didn't consolidate sufficiently. that was the major policy error on the fiscal side. the way i put -- i want to go through the growth challenge which is the most interesting picture here that in some ways one could argue that in the last two or three quarters in the's growth has slipped from the chinese 89% to 6% and the big question is what is going wrong and how do we respond to that? one could make the argument that

in fact the 89% of the boom years did not deserve to grow given all the things india hasn't done. something really important to remember. if you look at any measure of policy reform for india and china in absolute terms or changes across time in the and china are laggers. the countries that did the most policy reform are those in africa and latin america and yet china and india grew much more rapidly than all these countries. i want to be careful. not that china did not reform but the magnitude of the reform and how controlled and closed their economies are but not between china and india and other countries. the proposition that india didn't deserve to grow so much in the first place. in the slowing down but grew so

rapidly in the first place and the fact the we have this in india could be signaling that supply capacity in india is not keeping pace with the market. i would argue this is why i spent time on the precocious india model. one could make the case that this is because in the's model is unsustainable. what do i mean by that? we have developed based on skill labor which is very scarce. this myth that india has a lot of skilled labor is just not true. skilled wages are growing in dollar terms at 14% or 15% for ten or 15 years and a completely dysfunctional system of higher education which is not what the economy needs. the fact the we used intensively -- running into capacity. what we have abundantly we don't

use because of labor laws which were never used and very little chance we will be able to use it and a situation where scarce social capital we call public institutions or governance or corruption or whatever is actually getting eroded progressively. big governance problem in india which is an important development undermined for corruption and criminality and what is happening is went which is a relatively abundant factor has now become the locus of corruption in india so that there is a situation where if you take four factors of production from the development perspective what we are using intensively and running out of it or don't use intensively we have abundant amounts and important for governments and lance are becoming sources of corruption.

there is a chart people have been using. if you look at power losses in india which is a metaphor or a proxy not just for what is wrong with the power sector in india but governance more broadly. the distribution loss as a percentage of india's way about emerging-market sir. india is five or six times as inefficient or corrupt or weekly governed as china or brazil and south africa. this is a metaphor for governance problems in india. the challenge i can summarize in terms of routines we have fiscal populism. the notion that over the last five or ten years that we need to give away freebies in the form of subsidies. we have oil subsidies.

food subsidies. fertilizer subsidies ended the last seven or eight years the government instituted a scheme--the notion that fiscal populism is and alert for 0 vote winner in india--that is a big problem contributing to the macro economic challenges. what is also happening from a growth point of view, removed from one of in the's great states you might not have heard of, he said india -- he did not like the narrow model. some of those things have come down. in a piece that i wrote i said facetiously -- spectrum allocation. absolute disaster. a big source of production.

the land has become a source of corruption. the allocation of land is a big source of corruption. and extracting coal which affects our and infrastructure and subterranean -- a phenomenon in india where we cannot get access to poll because the mining rights are a disaster. in the medium term fiscal populism -- it is an impediment to growth. then you wake up and say there is the other side to india and i can make a case. how can you keep in the down? in viet will grow at 8% to 9% in the next 20 or 30 years and one of the counterarguments? the simple counterargument that

india is still very for. it is 8% of u.s. per-capita gdp so catching up to the economic frontier is enormous. you have to do little to grow rapidly and india has crossed the threshold of having done the minimum and you have a big market and so on and rapid growth going forward. everyone talks about the demographic dividends which is a source of dynamism and labour force. what is happening in india is reforms in india or serious reforms. the indian economy has been doing well because of a growth beginning growth dynamic because in india some growth for 15 or 20 years becomes a very attractive place. my favorite examples is if you at elementary schools in india

teacher absenteeism is 50%. teaches don't show up in elementary schools in india but what happened in the last ten years? because of growth the demand has driven rapidly, private schools leaders know not the best solution necessarily but in fact exactly in those states where public information system is most dysfunctional we see the most rapid rise of private schools and that is a response to growth itself. independent reforms and growth begets reform. and i think finally what i really think is the promise of india is twofold. combination of the dynamic of competition between states. take power for example. some states are doing very well.

that creates the demonstration effect and capital and labor move in a way that puts pressure on other states within india. it is not just that there's a dynamic of competition but that is increasingly being combined with what i would call -- politics at the state level responding to economic governance and economic delivery. in the long run if politics -- democratic politics could aboard economic governance that is in the at's hole. indians are very wistful about we wish we could have chinese centralized decisionmaking authority. that is nonsense because i believed in the doldrums fold rule that you go to bat for the political system you have, on the one you wish to have. india will never have the chinese political system. but if true democracy itself

overcome these problems, in the last few election cycle you see more and more broad legal governance being rewarded through reelection at the state level and other examples we should go into. all that translates into the fact that in the's mission, the private sector is doing well and skilled labor in scarce supply but you get this response -- maybe unskilled labor will come by. even in terms of governance if you find this response, maybe this can be overcome. we have not vibrant civil society in india. that is the positive spin on the medium term challenge. i am completely agnostic about whether i believe in the pessimistic view in india. we can talk about that in the

discussion. i want to end -- my time limit -- speak about the long-term challenges. i have all looted to this so far. i think there is a grace between ross and 3 generation and i don't know which is going to win. i can tell you all the reasons economic institutions and political institutions are deteriorating in substantial and disturbing ways but i can give examples of what is happening and the whole demographic response of politics. i am a little bit agnostic but this is a long term challenge. if politics could responders a chance of overcoming in economic institutions. the other way to think about india, of very broad sense.

india -- what is unique about india is we have many more taxis of difference and discord than the average developing country. that is common to many countries around the world and it is true that this is getting -- in the quality accentuate this but very interesting because in many countries we can talk about the inequality problem. but get the other axe these. language is more than the axis of discord. india has overcome this problem. it is not a serious issue any more. that is something to check for. horrendous assets, historically -- i would make the case that's india is finding a way of overcoming this because simple, politics and numbers mean they

have acquired political power. lots of cost to this but they also found economic opportunity. they found a lot of subsidies and so on but they found a way of overcoming partially all the baggage that was put on them by the historical hierarchy in india. most famously, the political power -- just the numbers have worked in their favor. i don't mean at all to suggest the cast problem in india is over but the water level in this couple is rising. the two accedes of discord we haven't seen is religion and what i would call the geography and tribal problem. if you look at indicators the

hindu/muslim problem and economic -- economically -- standard of living and opportunity and so on. we don't see that to the same extent for muslims. that is an actress --axis that is a source of problems in india. also the big one we haven't cracked is the tribal problem. geography actress --axis because they live in a highly forested than, kind of a band in eastern india and actually not participated in a market economy and it is a hotbed of malice in fraction in india and social security and income because people realize the writ of the indian state does no