on the future of medicare. she discusses her book medicare meltdown. how wall street and washington are ruining medicare and how to fix it. visit booktv.org for more information object schedule. up next, james antle. editor of the daily caller news foundation presents the thought on the danger of a large federal government. it's about fifty minutes. a lot of questions i get about the book ore wrote the book have to do with the subtitle. "devouring freedom: can big government ever be stopped?." can it? and at the risk of discouraging you from buying the book, i'm going let you in on the answer. my answer is, yes. but it is possible that it can be stopped. but first of all, there are a lot of other questions that have to be addressed, and in my book,

one of the things that i do. it's essentially a story about what are the political perspective of limited government. why started writing the book, we didn't know who was going to be the next president. we knew it was going a relevant issue regardless of who wouldn't election. i don't think -- i'm a massachusetts native myself. i adopt think there was any real danger that government was going get drastically smaller if mitt romney was elected president. i know, that's a shocking thing for many people to, you know, grapple with, but i think that it's clearly the record is the case that was unlikely. but certainly there is no probability it was going get it all smaller if president obama was elected as he was. after the president's re-election, i think a lot of conservatives and libertarians were demoralized particularly people who thought that romney was going win in some kind of a

landslide. were worried obama's re-election meant the country had changed in some fundamental irreversible way. they began to doubt after the 2010 elections had looked pretty good for groups like the tea party and conservative and republicans. they began to doubt that big government could be stopped. so that's one of the reasons why i think having the discussion is important. i think there's no reason for people to give up all hope. i think when you look at the trajectory of american politics in the last few election cycles it's been bald. we have seen a lot of change in a short period of time. you are a young audience. that was going to be ushered by the american's opposition to gay marriage. remember that? how did either of them out.

by by 2006 we were hearing a different story. democrats took a both house of. 2008 barack obama was elected. the most liberal senator and he easily won the presidential election. that was supposed to be the permanent democratic majority. then two years later, there was this tea party, quote, unquote, revolution that happened and the republicans retook the house, picked up governorship, earve said, see, democrats they are out. it's going to be a permanent setback to the democrats. it was so permanent it lasted about two years. all right my point is that politics can change very quickly. even though we live in a 50/50 divided between red and blue. there are still millions of people who went from voting for barack obama to supporting candidates who were going make john boehner speaker of the

house in a short period of time. many americans are not systemic political thinkers. they go by who they trust, who they like, they go by personality. they go by who think is credible and perceive as having a successful track record. when they see something that suspect working, in they view, they want a change. just as i think the liberalism of obama administration is -- of the bush administration i think it is a real opportunity for conservatives and libertarian to capitalize on what will be the real failure of the obama administration. age lot of other issues simply before you can get to the question whether you can use politics to stop the growth of government or to curtail the growth of government in some way. we have many people who question whether big government is a

problem. does it exist other than something as a slogan. there is this view i call it the liberal form of exceptionalism there are people that argue having annual deficit that are almost as big as the federal budget when bill clinton was president is not really a problem. there are people argue having a public held debt be a majority of our economy is not really a problem. there are people who argue that the gross federal debt consuming our entire economy being bigger than our entire economy isn't a problem. and then you have the unfunded liability of the major entitlement program like social security and medicare which are larger by some measures than the world economy. but that's not a problem. and there are usually two arguments that people make to this effect. i try address them in "devouring freedom: can big government ever be stopped?." one is trust us, we're the

government. we'll know what to do before the crisis comes. the other it's will a sucker born every minute. people will keep buying the treasury bonds, interest rates will never return to where they were before the financial crisis. the economy at some point will recampaign some semblance of normal growth and everything will be fine. there's no nothing to worry about that. i think that is something that has to be addressed before you can talk about doing anything politically about the size of the federal government. secondly, i think there is a sort of divide amongt american people. many are divided even with themselves over what kind of role they want the federal government to perform. there are numerous polls, which i site in the book, that majority americans don't trust the federal government, trust it less than labor union, big business, other major forces in american life.

more americans even when you look at the exit polls in the 2012 election, more preferred a smaller government that offered fewers services to a bigger government that offers more. they become more pronounced if you mention they are paid for by taxes. you might have to pay more taxes if you get more government services. but at the same time, many of the same americans who an in a limited government way when asked that question by pollsters do not in fact want the federal government to stop doing a lot of things it currently does. or don't see it as having a immediate or near term cost to them. i think there are two examples we enhance late as well. i'm going to focus on people more conservative than moderate. the new york thymes did a story on the tea party, than quoted a woman named jo i did white.

she said she was conflicted with the entitlement and things like that. he said, you know, i guess i want my social security, and smaller government too. which is, you know, there are people who are ought to be more familiar with the workings of the federal budget than random people quoted in news stories who nevertheless take this similar viewpoint. dick morris, the political consult assistant who moved from the democrat to the republicans who is famous for the prediction of the romney presidency -- [laughter] that very, you know, energetic spirited race between hillary clinton and condoleezza rice that was going happen. [laughter] he has written a column where he said that republican should beat president obama on the issue of government spending. just don't medicare and don't talk about social security. but you can talk about

government spending. many republican would add don't talk about national defense, the pentagon budget should be off limiting. the problem with the thinking you have exempted the three largest area of spending from the critique of spending. these are the division and conflict and contradiction any serious proponent of limited government has to contend with. i think there has been a sort of this view propounded that there limited government is impossible. they make the argument and i would count that limited government is possible but difficult. the fact there's been limited government, the federal government was fairly limited for 150 years even after the progressive era, even after the civil war where there was government growth and there were some impediment to governmental

growth that were institutional. we had a limited federal government. i think they might have a little bit of stronger argument when it comes to sustainability of long-term for especially in a mass democracy or welfare state. for the purpose of the discussion we pause a somewhat limited government is possible. i argue in the book when republicans have been serious about cutting spending they had success in doing so. and i also think there are some things question learn from attempt. some worked better in others. in each of the cases i would argue that they were successful in preventing the united from becoming a full blown european style social democracy. but there were some spending cuts that were more longer term and prevailed far long time. there were other cuts to government spending that were

really restored spend was restored right after the republicans left office and in some cases before. that to a large extend happened after the reagan administration and after the first couple of years in the gingrich congress in the mid 'out. most the successful conservative congress in in history was the do-nothing congress after world war ii. robert after it atv -- they didn't repeal the new deal. but where they decided to strike, they struck decisively. they abolished programs. ty didn't trim them. they eliminated price control and military as everrization of the u.s. economy. they didn't tinker around the edges. they cut military spending. they a british national health

service style of health care being supported by the the truman administration. they county a db didn't have a lot of public opinion on their side. they didn't have a friendly president. they had a hostile president in harry truman who was a firm believer in the new deal consensus. nevertheless, they were successful. one reason why the work has not been replicated very often is that political my that were the lest successful. ronald reagan was reelected. the republican held the senate until the 1986 elections, after the gingrich elections, republicans controlled the house until the 2006 election. they had the house for twelve years and the senate for most of that time period. the nothing-nothing congress was voted out in the next election. [laughter] in term of saving the country from a bigger government and making it possible for us to have the debates we were having

with reagan and ginch i don't think you can argue with their success. i don't talk much in the book about calvin cool a.j. one reason is marketing. there are three books i know of on cool age right now. he governed during a period where limited government was the political norm in the united states. which i don't think is applicable to today. he was scaling back some vancesf the state during the progressive era from the progressive era. he succeeded a president that also wanted to return to normalcy in the person of warren g harding and what he was doing really was the political norm up to that point. we didn't have thed a advantaged federal welfare state we developed after the new deal. i simply didn't think the example of cool age there were many things were as relevant to the contemporary political debate as the later example.

i think it's a mistake if we exclusively blame president obama for the size and cost and scope of the federal government. president obama came to office during a period of economic crisis. there was a lot of uncertainty and desire in the part of the american people to have the problems economic and financial addressed by government. we just had the financial meltdown, the create recession. and paraphrase white house chief of staff. you never let a crisis go to waste. they didn't let a crisis go waste. it would be unusual to expect anything else. and certainly the growth of government in the first two years of the obama administration was worse by an order of mag stein attitude than anything we have seen in recent years. i would argue when we got off course fiscalically was there

was barack obama and even george w. bush. the republicans who controlled congress lost their commitment to fiscal discipline by naight. they were -- they felt they had lost the government shut down battle and then eventually the interdispute within among congressional republican in favor of raining in government spending particularly dealing with entitlement the more big government they won the debate within the party. followed by george w. bush who believed a political liability for the g.o.p. was the fact they attempt budget cuts. he made the statement ha he didn't want to balance the budget on the back of the poor. he talked about compassionate conservativism, he was going to be a different kind of republican. unif plrmt i he wasn't. if you look at the experience of the nixon administration. the first bush administration,

the ford administration, growing government has been the norm. it's been the trend. but george w. bush, i think took it to another level. he was a guns and butter spending increase president. and i think he undercut the g.o.p.'s vebility on any of these issues including from some of the more promising young republicans who were coming of age at the time president bush was in office. but the fact that the republican party is brand as a small government party, however inaptly meant that the failure of big government under the push administration tarred rhetoric of limited government. and paved the way for bigger government. the iraq war, the medicare prescription drug benefit, no child left behind. they were costly federal

interventions it's cyst, i think, to argue that republicans were upholding some kind of small government ideals during that time period. most of all, i think you see with the fact that the republicans did not really attempt to address a lot of issues that president obama ultimately came to office arguing he was going address. there was ther. seption that the g.o.p. failed on foreign policy, a perception i agree with. there was also the fact that the republicans didn't do anything about the health care issue. didn't do anything to promote a genuine free market in health care which i talk about in the book. as a result it made it inevitable that when it came time to dream health care issue, it would be dealt with on democratic terms. republicans; however, however rarely they launched full front

tam i salt on the size and scope of the federal government have tried indirect routeds to limiting the federal government. during the reagan years we had the supply side revolution the idea would be we cut marginal tax rates which were onerous. fourteen tax brackets. it was definitelily the time for some cutting and the hope was that the economic growth that tax cuts and deregulation would unleash would allow a covert assault on federal spending. the reagan administration with the help of a bipartisan conservative majority in the house and senate had a great deal of success in cutting nondefense domestic discretionary spending. they did relatively little; however, about entitlements and increased defense spending. we saw larger deficits, some of

larger government. some of the discretionary spending cut and the democratic growth did cut the government's share of the private economy. we saw when even while reagan was in office when it came time to deal with the deficit that was something we ended up doing on democratic terms. with tax increases that began to wipe out the reagan tax cuts before he left office. and sharply curtailing when bush iv i was in office. that approach did not shrink the federal government. the next approach that was used was the theory of starve the beast. which contradicts the supply side. but we were in a slightly different place. instead of now we get the tax increase. we argue the tax cuts will reduce revenue. it will mean that the federal

government has less money to spend and spend less. i think it's half right if you give the federal government more money it will find a way to spend it. the history of 2000s show it actually made growth of government seem like it was cost free. even taxation deferred than tennesseeed. it makes the current generation of voters feel like they are getting something for nothing even at the tail end of the reagan administration we had at one point better government was charging low tax rates we have a post grade society welfare state. david, when he was more libertarian tan today. [laughter] described as post great government at pregreat society prices. it was something of a failure in term of cutting government and limiting government. the final thing is dividing

government which has been successful in curtailing the growth of government it was in the '90s you had to divided government between clinton and republican. i would argue we would see some degree of success with it now. to actually address the long-term drivers of the debt and keep the federal government from continuing to grow, there are going to need to be systemic reform to entitlement. and under the current political conditions it's very difficult to see how those things could be accomplished through divide government today. there was a period in the '90s it light like there might be an opportunity for that. we had a centrist democratic president and and people talking about entitlement reform and other things. there are different views of what role of government actually stimulates the economy. we moved from the ruin mommic of the clinton which

returning to the post new deal of liberal consensus view. deficit spending and increased government spending are stimlative of the economy. in the climate, i find it difficult to see how divided government will produce the hope for grand bargain that will end up taming the entitlement program and dealing with our impended debt problems. where cousin does it soft leave us? i argue there are a new generation of in ways of speaking out about the issue and being committed to principle on the issues.

i'm not arguing if rand paul or paul ryan got up and talked about medicare premium support or blocked granting medicaid for 123 hours the things would happen. i think it's an example of how thinking creatively about the issues really open political opportunities that even opinion leaders don't really see. even more important than principle leadership. i think there's a limited number of principle rather than self- it's important to have groups like freedom work and club for growth and the tea party activist groups and the heritage act.

if republicans don't think the best career move for them in blue states is to be the person behind cap-and-trade. person who was willing to kind of play perhaps not pram, obamacare. if they feel it's not the way to get ahead politically we'll see less big republicanism over time.

it's not trying to frustrate domestic agenda because conservatives want or incorrigible or contrary that we have an opportunity to maybe fight big government in a way that people understand there are reasons that will benefit them. the prosperity. the checkbook at the end of the day. i think one sort of telling republican leader who i talk about in my book is paul ryan. i think paul ryan, chairman of the house budget committee really demonstrates the disconnect between the aspirations of the g.o.p. and the actual track record of the g.o.p. i paul ryan a lot of credit for being almost alone and talk about the need for entitlement reform when you know the political reaction shoving grandmother off the cliff in a

wheelchair. and i think that when you look at the long-term of the final destination of where things like the road map and the path to prosperity will take you. medicare part d. he was instrumental in getting that passed. he was instrumental in passing the wall street bailout. he was instrumental in passing the automakers bailout. i have some theories as to why that might be the case. paul ryan was elected to congress in 1998. that was the conservative if you

look at people who clawed their way on the back benches it was people like newt gingrich newt gingrich cracking down on conservatives who want to cut spending. my view of paul ryan believe that traditional path to power

it's crucial to the debate. in contemporary political terms i don't see any movement toward the more restrained federal government from democrats. it's clearly not the issue that animates them or really drives them. there was only one democrat who participated in the poll drone filibuster. there was a handful of democrats that were active in getting red of the national defense authorization act. democrats was a minority of democrats in both houses on the paid yacht -- patriot act. i think the direction of the republican party is important. so i talk about the main obstacle. there are numerous obstacles to

limiting government that are institutional that are deep in public opinion that have to do with the media. i talk about those in my book. i think the most important thing is do we have two big government parties as we currently do or do we have the small government or relatively limited government party to contest the party of big government? we have seen mike go from opposing the leadership on a lot of issues to joining the republican leadership and becoming governor of indiana. we have seen -- jeb from texas voted against leadership on a urm inform issues and ultimately joined the leadership. we saw jim demint from south carolina become an important king maker in the senate.

having a lot influence. in 2008 we saw the ultimate congressional back bench in the person of paul ryan show you can have a lasting impact on the debate. i think that is where the action is going to be going forward. the final thing i would say in terms of opportunities for limiting the federal government is if you look at when

conservatives and libertarians have been conservative in the -- successful in the past. it's been in response to liberal government. to people always like big government when it's free. soon we're going see the middle class begin to pay some of the costs, and that is really the circumstances under which the social revolution of the 1960 and '70s gave way to the limited skeet reform of the '70s and 1990s to a point when you are democratic presidents talking about the era of being over and deficit reduction the best thing for the economy. and actually talking about entitlement reform. unfortunately nothing happened. that transformation may be seen through obamacare. obamacare will do one of two things. obamacare will be the policy that drives us to a permanent state of big government that no political activism will be able to reverse or contain.

it will be the issue where big government fails for millions of americans that it forces people in another direction. neither response is inevitable. to say it was a settled issue after the president was elected. after the supreme court had the decision thanks in part to a republican appointed justice. there are going to be a lot of problems in the implementation of obamacare. we are already seeing that the implementation of obamacare is problematic. we have even repealed portion of obamacare already in the 1099 requirements the medical devices tax, with democratic support with bipartisan support keeping obamacare repealed. the problems will be addressed in my view, in one of two ways. it's either going to lead to

movement forward a single-payer electric as people blame the problem of bureaucracy on the remaining private sector of medical and health service or provide the opening for republicans to actually talk about creating something more like a free market and the provision of health care in this country. i think it is vitally important that conservatives and libertarians not give up that fight because giving up that fight, i think is really giving up on every other front. you can't simply surrounder on the issue and expect any other issue to remain in play, remay politically vital. so that in my view, is next big fight, and on many republicans we're going have to fight republican leaders on these issues. and talk to republican leaders about why they will not be

republican leaders much longer if they do not side with conservative and libertarian on the particular issues. we have seen things like this happen before. there was an expansion of medicare late in the reagan administration called the medicare catastrophic care act, and essentially what happened is it was such a disaster in the implementation that congress very quickly repealed it. there are some political differences in that was a bipartisan piece of legislation. so both parties had a little bit of stake in it. and both parties therefore could neither party really was hurt by the repeal. it is difficult, i think, for an unpopular program to survive with just the support of one party. once it has the support of just one party. i think it always remains a possibility to do things to reform it, to repeal it peace mail, and a political conditions allow to revoke it entirely.

but we can't be too naive about the g.o.p. either. that's why it will be a constant fight. in a very small period of time, it's one thing i use as a illustration with the growth of government. we didn't have a trillion dollar federal budget. we didn't have the federal government spending a trail dollars a year. it wasn't until 2002, 2003, e had a $2 trillion federal budget. then it was roughly fife or so years after that we had the first $3 trillion federal budget. that's a lot of government growth in a short period of time. every single one of those milestones, those trillion dollar milestones was hit under president -- republican presidents. i think big government is not just a democrat or republican issues, i think that

conservatives and libertarians will be at the vanguard of stopping big government if it is ever to be stopped. with that, i would be happy to take any questions. [applause] [applause] [inaudible] let him get to you so he can speak to the microphone. we want the questions on c-span tv. >> and certain marco rubio joke here. [laughter] >> thank you so much. my name is tyler o'neal the youth and employment foundation. and i'd like to actually discuss calvin coolage and hear more reasons why you didn't include him.

but because the way i see it, everybody focuses on reagan, but calvin was the man who said, hey, we're going cut government. that's going to be any number one priority. he did it, he cut really unemployment -- popular programs like aid to military. and looked and sill in the federal government. do you think we need more leadership like him? it was it accidental you kept him out? >> inerm -- in terms of cutting government spending, there's no question that calvin was more successful than ronald. no question on that point. one of the reasons i department emphasis calvin. he was not operating in a -- in were things in reagan's records that were successes and things

in his record that were failure we could learn from. calvin's record in pairing nongovernment spending and balancing the budget and cutting taxes, he was the last president that was scuntly what the republican claims to be. that's why i didn't discussion calvin. i discuss him somewhat. one of the things i'm interested in hearing your thoughts are the impact of the state level reforms that are currently happening from conservative governors like scott walker and bobby ginned l. how we can take the lesses from cutting government spending, reduces taxes on income, con sog taxes. those sort of things. look at the federal level the politics might be a little bit

different. there's no state level federal reserve. the sort of debt crisis faced bay lot of state governments has to do with pension obligation of government workers. not the benefits that you and me may someday get. [laughter] i think did makes a little bit easier to pursue some conservative reform. i think the track record of republican governors is going to be important to whether there are any act tractive political personalities who have any credibility on the issues. there's nothing better for a political party than been seen as governing successfully. and if question show that conservatives can govern successfully, i think that will

make the 2016 and beyond much more competitive than otherwise would be. there's a lot to be seen in term of the actual track records in the political figures. [inaudible] i think governor romney made the statement because it played well with a lot of people he was speaking to at the point which shows a lot of people within

reason the republican party believe there's an infamous figure of 47% or nearly half of the population that isn't fronting the major cost of government there's no way to effectively reduce size and scope of government. there's a doomsday scenario for limited government as, you know, the number of people who pay for it get smaller and smaller and smaller and democracies will vote on -- [inaudible] was romney wrong? and was he right and what is your response or thought how conservatives overcome this idea? >> i talk about this actually at length in "devouring freedom: can big government ever be stopped?." i think he was partially wrong and right. i think the 47% metric who is deeply fraud. it's a percentage of people who were not at, you know, in the last couple of years paying a

federal income tax. reagan when he signed the 1986 tax reform boosted we were dropping from the tax role entirely. wiped out a lot of middle income families at least for the period of time while rearing children. president bush expanded that and knead larger. cutting the bottom tax rate to 10%. so i think it's a very -- not only is it morally suspect to say that the mission of a party of limited government should be to subject level of income to taxation rather than having

these people support their own families and their own community. i think that's morally problematic. and politically saying we're going cut taxes for hedge fund managers. everybody else has to pay raise a minimum tax. rush limbaugh years ago did a skit pretending he was advocating tax for the poor and said i was demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. we have politicians who think it's a great idea. [laughter] not i think any will seriously do it. if you talk about it enough, that becomes a big part. in that respect, i think he was very wrong. however, there is a serious problem with the fact there are many people who are net beneficiaries of big government. that's always going to be the case when you have a deficit financed welfare state. and that is -- and romney i think was inartful about how to talk about that.

how to deal with that. but it is definitely the makers versus takers is a -- way of framing it. and i think it should be avoided. why would you vote for a party that is pledging to consult taxes that you don't pay? and also cut benefits you get? it is a real problem for supporters in limited government. [inaudible] i'm going to be honest with you. they are pessimistic we are going to be able to turn this ship around before it hits the rocks. i honestly think that given the debt level and the economic growth that there's going to be a sovereign debt crisis before we prevent it. so with that picture in mind,

what do you have to offer for that scenario. i think this is a valiant effort to say, hey, look we can avoid this. but given the real possibility of the next ten or fewer years we will be facing down a real reckoning. knees are important argument to have even if the debt crisis hits. there's no guarantee it will be better as a result of the crisis. yes, i'm not a proponent of the view the worse the better. i think when you look at actual history of governments that collapsed, and had serious problems, there's ample president taking over in their place. ic making limited government

arguments remain essential. even if the crisis hits. particularly when you look at the fact of window without two dpepped on the program is rapidly closing. i think it's going to be a relevant debate we'll have even if you, you know, cypress is looking to take money out of a bank account or something, you know. if you think unilaterally the dictator for a day passed one law, what would you do? that's definitely a major flaw in the republican thinking. they assume we're going to be dictator for one day and limit government by doing that. in fact we're dictators for life and government gets bigger. to get to the spirit of your

question, i think if we could reverse or somewhat change the relationship between the federal government and the states, i think that is the most lasting thing to serve to limit government. the vision of competing multiple jurisdiction of preventing consolidation of power is valid and valid in this century as well. the senates go hat and hand in washington asking for federal money. >> hi, spencer with the "daily caller" you reference the mythical permanent majority of the republican party. of course they disappeared. now we see a vision the

establishment fading way. tea party segment is rising. do you think that is a permanent influence on the modern republican party now? if so give that is a grassroots movement is there anything your book you address individuals working at local levels and what they can do to further the cost? >> well, to answer your last question first. i think the most important thing that local individuals can do is be successful in local government and successful in your local political activism and campaigns. i think establishing a track record much credible effective government and proving that limited government is not about dismantling thing for no reason but maintaining acceptable level of prosperity and freedom. i think that's the most important thing that can be done. in terms of sort of the federal government, i think that a big

thing that we often miss -- actually i'm guessing now. i don't remember the first part of your question. [laughter] >> do you think that the tea party . >> yes. >> will stick around as the major influence in the republican party today. >> i don't think there are any permanent victory or defeat in politic. i think they will be around far long time. i think how enduring the tea party will be will be how effective it is in terms of ininfluencing the republican party is at winning election. i think that's a big part of it. what i discuss in my book i think if there is no return to a more limited government, the republican party isn't going to have much to say to the american voters. i think we reached a point it's getting to be in the g.o.p.'s political self-interest to advocate some retrenchment. if there's a permanent bidding

war over spending, the democrats are going to outbid them every time. what you'll see, i think you see it in western democracies, a major set of party answer what you see in new york city when rudy giuliani was elected. .. from when you said earlier, i want the government to be smaller, but i still want to mike entitlements than i paid into. do you believe there is the

ability it changed that basic rhetoric due to the truth of you paid into it, but it's not yours because it has already been spent somewhere else. and, you know, that -- >> it's not an investment. i think the perception of entitlements are earned in some way and that the money belongs to you is a difficult thing to combat, but what i would say is, it is not really a choice between whether we're going subs remain on thomas or question of whether we gradually and intelligently or whether we're going to wait until we actually have problems bang of the benefits and we have to do things in a sort of drastic, blunderbuss, sequestrations' i'll wait to deal with these problems. i think most americans would rather contemplate some kind of structure reforms go even if they're difficult to understand than the ira you and trust fund coming due.

>> thank you. >> banks are much. [applause] >> you're watching book tv on c-span2. forty-eight hours of nonfiction authors and books every weekend. here are the best selling non e boat and print titles according to the new york times

>> join us this month as we read emigration wars forging an american solution. as you read and post your thoughts on twitter @booktv using-tag book club. you can also watch his recent appearance on book tv by visiting our website and then join us on tuesday, april 30th at 9:00 p.m. eastern for a live moderate discussion on twitter and facebook. >> a look at some books that are being published this tsongas

>> and it is a perfect southern california day and a perfect day for a book festival. you're watching book tv live coverage of the 18th annual

los angeles times festival of books on the campus of the university of southern california. we will be covering several of their panels today and tomorrow, and there will also be several opportunities for you to interact with leading nonfiction authors. here is our lineup for today. in just a minute, a history panel will be starting here and on campus. amy greenberg has written about the 1846 u.s. invasion of mexico. fergus warwicks britain about the great debate to preserve the union

so that is our live coverage for today. it will be live again tomorrow. but right now we are going to go into the hancock foundation building. this is where the history panel here at the los angeles times festival books is just beginning . you're watching book tv on c-span2.

[inaudible conversations] >> if you would, would you let me know when i'm supposed to start. >> i'm waiting for a signal. [laughter] >> sorry. good morning. that is my signal. my name is jim newton on behalf of los angeles times am pleased to welcome you to the two dozen the june festival books. more specifically and delighted to welcome you this morning to

today's panel which brings together some remarkable, exceptional of the stock about their latest works and the ideas behind them. today we going and a piece of paper that says that it is critically important that i read this. the first is pleased silence all cell phones during the session. melson need to tell you, there is a book signing following the session. the book signing for this battle is located at staging area number-one. i am told this is noted on the festival map in the center of the event program. the authors will be available to sign their books immediately following our program. a final note here is to say that personal recording of this session is not allowed. if you're doing so, please stop. you are about to meet these authors. before i introduce them, i want to point out something that they all have in common. have been doing the festival for many years, but i believe this is the first time that i have never moderate a panel on which every single author was a finalist for a times book prize.