interested in. >> if i am able to provide that information -- >> you wouldn't be able to provide that eventually? >> i promise the hearing will be over by then. >> i'm going to yield to the gentleman from ohio for a minute mr. johnson. >> thank you the gentleman for yielding and this will give me the chance to set the stage a little bit. i hold with a bachelor's and master's degree in computer science and i've worked for over 40 years in the i.t. industry and if implemented large scale systems like this both within the military and in the department of defense. some of the systems globally and some of them affected national security, some of them held the success and failure of multibillion-dollar companies in the balance. so i speak your language and i've been where you are sitting trying to figure out what went terribly wrong in the

implementation that has cost the american taxpayers over $400 million the cost is continuing to rise. these are more than glitches. they can't be fixed. i'm going to explain why i believe they can't be fixed when i get back. it can be replaced. i don't know the large cost to the american taxpayer but they can't be fixed. i will explain that when i get back. ..

what was going on, that changed came in to two weeks before so people couldn't just browse and take a look at it. that appears to be a political change. i know, you can't make that statement. let me ask you this, when the request came in from cms did you tell them it was going cause difficulties in getting the website lawmpleghted by october 1? >> it's us, it's a flag in the system. we turned the flag on and turned it off for the particular component. >> you didn't think it posed any problems with any system. >> that's correct. >> and mr. slavitt, if i read your testimony, it says you reported you did some testing and reported back to the cms and the relevant contractor who was responsible for fixing the problems you found, when did you finish that testing? >> we would do the testing whenever the code was made

available to us. >> okay. when was the last time you if testing and notified cms and there were coding changes that need to be made. >> i believe it was toward the end. >> okay. and do you know who you were working with on this -- that? >> i don't. can you find it out? >> we'll get back to you. >> and can you alert folks these weren't fix there would be problems. did you alert cms there would be problems with the website if it doesn't get fixed. >> we alerted cms to the result of the test. >> do you know who told you to turn off the browsing option? >> i believe it was henry ciao, and members of his team. >> okay. and did they give you a reason for not making that option live? am i correct or am i fair at least to astudent it was a political decision? >> i can't answer whether it was political or otherwise. >> so you were not given any reason other than that? >> i was not given a reason. >> all right.

and okay. and i appreciate that very much. thank you very much. i'm going yield the remain of my time to my friend and colleague from ohio. >> thank you for yielding. let me continue. here is why i believe this can't be fixed. it's got to be replaced. this -- from what i have seen, based on my experience, this is indicative of failure somewhere along the line to employ the disciplined processes method methodology, standards to deliver a system of this complexity. in laymen's -- term how the american people can understand. it might help a little bit. you can't recook eggs. you go to a restaurant and order two eggs over medium and they bring you scrambled. you have two choices, eat the eggs you got which means you don't get what you ordered or

send them back and the restaurant owner eats the cost of replacing those eggs. somebody loses. in this case, it's the american people that is losing because what we have here is either the development team of which you phone -- folks are a part did not follow a disciplined methodology therefore you didn't see the red flags coming up which calls in to question your capability and qualification. or, you didn't notify anybody in cms as miss campbell stated when you saw the red flags coming up, which calls in to question your judgment. the only other possibility is cms ignored your recommendations and move forward with implementing the flawed system. folks, the eyes of the nation are watching and listening to what is being here said today. some of you are publicly traded

company. i suspect every government and company you would do business is watching what you say. it i suspect your chair shoulder and stock analysts are watching what you say. they're going try to determine is if your capabilities and qualification at fault, your judgment that is at fault, or did cms ignore your recommendations? that's what we've got to get to the bottom of. with that, i would yield back. >> my friend yielded. gentleman is next. you have another five minutes. >> okay. thank you. mr. slavitt, if you stated in your testimony -- if i read this correct, you -- your performance is based on trusted data sources; correct? for the hub? >> the data services must be --

>> correct. are trusted data -- you assume the data is trust worthy, correct? >> well, miss campbell in her testimony stated that -- if i go back to it, let me get back to it here. that as performance -- >> the gentleman didn't let him answer. i didn't ask a question yet. this is my time. i haven't asked a question. when i do, i'll let you know. >> i heard it. >> when miss campbell testified that performance issues like slowed response times and data assurance issues arose, they would be addressed through fine-tuning and optization. were you aware data ahiewrns issues were present? did anybody tell you about did c g.i. tell you there were problems with data insurance issues? >> i'm not sure what was intended by that statement.

they did not tell you. >> if there are issues made aware to our team, our team addresses them discreetly and promptly. >> okay. miss campbell, did you tell the independent tester there were later assurance issues you were aware >> to put it make sure we have it in context. when testing curs; right. >> i know how testing occurs. it's a simple question. did your company. >> i think you're taking it out of context. now if the system has gone live just as one of the gentlemen commented on some of the errors we're seeing on 834 are now making those corrections. are you the pm for the contract for your company. >> i'm not the project manage or. >> you don't interface directly every day with cms on a daily basis? >> i'm not, that's correct i'm

not the program manager. >> your contract required you to deliver your company to deliver a risk-management plan. have you delivered the risk-management plan? >> we have. >> can you provide a copy to the committee? >> with permission from cms, yes, question can. >> we'll be asking cms for that as well. the contract also required that you recommend standards and industry best practices and key performance indicators that you testified earlier you didn't make any recommendations to cms about the performance of the system. it was totally cms that made these decisions. but yet the contract requires you recommend standards and key performance indicators to make sure that everything works right. did you just decide not to do that? >> again, we provided that -- >> that's not what your contract says. were aware you were supposed to be performing on under the cms exchange life cycle management?

>> and we do. >> okay. you do. tell me about the preoperational readiness review and what it requires. >> so i would have to give you -- i wouldn't want to go to detail here. >> hit me go to detail for you. here involvement things that the preoperational readiness review requires. integration testing results, tend end testing results. you have testified that cms was respond to end-to-end. clearly your contract requires you to to provide end-to end. in other words an estimate what it was going to take to fix those things that were found at the preoperational readiness review. do you know when the preoperational readiness review was to be connected. >> to be clear -- >> when was it -- >> supposed to be conducted.

>> part of our system and our . >> when was the preoperational -- supposed to be conducted? it's in your contract. let me help you. 2/4/twowfl. -- 2012. did you participate in any of these reviews. the operational review or the preoperational readiness review? >> personally? no. did. >> you did not. did your company? >> all the necessary -- >> okay you said early you were an independent tester. how can you be an indent tester when you are an integrate developer the system. how does it qualify you?

>> gentleman's time is expired. >> thank you. gentleman in west virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. several questions here, if i could. >> is your mic on? >> it is turned on. is it specified in the contract? >> so do you feel you fulfill your contract yule obligations october 19st?

do you know whether or not was that to be used in the process? this engineering development? >> i do not recall there being a contractor. >> okay how about with you, mr. slavitt? >> i don't know. >> okay. do you any it would have been justified? at the start of the program, it could not have hurt. >> okay. do you have the developmental art facts that could confirm your engineering solution you go developed in developing your software? >> yes, we do. >> is that --

>> for approval. >> okay. in the contract i listened here a little bit after so many questions being raised. is there an issue about the, i mean, -- strike that -- go back -- how long did you have in the specification -- did they tell you two weeks is all you -- that's you have to have? i come from a construction industry that is very specific about when you have to have substantial completion and incompletion on a project. was there anything like that in this that said you must begin testing just two weeks before it's launched? >> no, none of those specifications were in our original contract. >> okay. but i also heard were there change orders.

>> correct. >> were there ever a change you shall begin testing two weeks prior? >> and once again, testing was not our ultimate responsibility. testing of our code, testing of our code, our responsibility. but then it went through the cms process for testing independent testing done by qssi. and cms doing the integrated testing. >> were there -- if you feel you achieved your objective by october 1st, can you tell me whether or not there were anything about liquid dated damages if there are projects associated act 1st that have to be corrected. are they part of your contract? >> i have to get back to you m. i don't recall if it's a standard of our it could be there as a standard of our clause. i don't know for sure. being a cost-plus type

contract. now i'm stretching. >> i again i didn't think you had a change to recomplete the review. i thought it was performance-base plus cost for incident. i didn't -- are you saying it's a cost plus not a performance-based contract? >> i believe it's a cost plus contract. cost plus fee type contract. >> that's what i believe. but i'll get -- i'm surprised by the panel. you heard both sides of the aisle here. over this thing not being satisfactory at this point. i haven't heard one of you apologize to the american public on behalf of your companies for

problems that were associated with not having this ready. >> i'm sorry. we tried. but there were changes made -- we tried. i just i've not heard the word "i'm sorry." i know, men have a hard time saying that but the whole panel. i heard anyone say -- as a contractor when we didn't finish a project on time, we had to go to the owner and apologize explain what happened here. we're not ready here. words why there's -- i heard an apology from any one of you. >> the gentle map's time is

expired? >> we got an apology for shutting down the government because didn't like the health care bill? >> chair would recognize the gentlelady from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to our panel. this has been a long process, and i do appreciate you coming and meeting with the entire committee today, and -- that cms is responsible for the failure. and behalf of your company you have a opportunity to throw them under the bus as far as i'm concerned. and we will get that information, i'm sure. miss campbell, i need to know -- the american people need to know how many people are enrolled. how many individuals are now

enrolled in health care coverage from the website? >> so i'm not able to provide that information. >> you are not able or you not have that information? >> i don't have it, i don't is it with me. i have to have approval from cms to be to be provide the information. >> to the point, one, i ask you to please submit it by 9:00 ament tomorrow. i understand where you're coming from. you all had a contract with cms. you have to understand that cms is a government agency. we oversee cms and cms is the american people. so when we're talking about contracts here, that's really who we're talking about. we are talking about the american people. cms is not a private company somewhere in the united states. they represent the american people, and we've got get to the bottom of these issues. yes, we need the numbers by 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. mr. lau, on that, how many paper

applications have been completed up to this time? >> somewhere between 3 and 4,000. >> 3 and 4,000. okay. to that point, now the president on monday at the rose garden gave a speech, because of the glitches -- i call them gaps. they're bigger than glitches, i believe. glitches are hiccups. these are more than hiccups. he refer to the 1-800 number and urged the american people to call the call center and to go through the hard copy process on or the paper process. to that point, miss campbell, do you know the process, what happens if someone calls the 19-800 number? where do they go? where are they directed? how does the process layout? i know you have to be brief. i only have two minutes. >> right. it's a question that goes to -- >> okay. that's fine. so you --

to the best of your knowledge you would not have knowledge of that at this point? >> no, -- >> paper or hard copy. >> mr. lau, what is the process. >> paper -- if someone called the number and they -- >> we don't operate the call center. >> okay but you -- >> okay. >> the call center people provide a standard correctly key enter the application to the people willing to give out over the phone. >> where do they go from there? the same portal ?m. >> correct. >> they are going to the same failed portal system? >> it's the same portal system. >> it is. what would be the average time, then, and now i know you mentioned about 3,000 applications being completed up to this point. so there are individuals, my understanding would be, that have gone on to the site and they are still waiting to find out if they have been accepted or any further information; that's correct? >>. >> to which site?

>> if someone called and there was a paper application process or started initiated. >> i only know roughly how it work. i'm unfamiliar with the data on that. we don't really -- connect. >> to the best of your knowledge because the portal system which is the same portal system that the entire process goes through. because it's experiencing the failures that it is, those individuals would -- to your best assumption would continue to be waiting? >> i'm not serbian -- certain about that. once they turn to the system, then it's system process. >> okay. >> and determine the length of time before which they were here. >> we can assume since it's only 3,000 have been processed fully that it's a minimal number when you think about it. >> that is from the paper side. >> okay. thank you. and miss campbell, i want to touch on one last thing. i know, you had said you had gone through the process. did you complete -- actually complete it? >> i did not. i'm not signing up for

insurance. my company provides insurance. >> but when you tested it yourself my understanding is you earlier you said you tried it through the virginia system. went to the website then you did or did not complete it? >> i did not complete it. >> you did not. thank you. thank you. i yield back the remain of my time. >> mr. cans i did is recognized. >> good news on the last one. >> it's a little bit repetitious . and today in anticipate of future payments, what are think, please. >> >> today -- $1 12 million, and for the year, i believe, $196 million. >> for the phase of the contract. >> and going forward do you have any? >> the total contract value with

option years would be $293 million. >> the $196 million is not in addition to the 112. >> it's part of the 112. >> okay. >> the data services has a contract has been funded to just under $85 million. that include the hardware and the software. >> and what you anticipate going forward? >> i don't believe that amount has been fully paid. i think that's been funded. i would point out that we have contracts for work we do. >> i got just a minute, man. i'm sorry. today we received less than $2 million. the first year of contract with modification is $200 million. to date we have probably received about $30 million. >> next, miss campbell, in your previous testimony here today you said you're not responsible

for the front door. here is the testimony from september 10th. you said your scope of activity was architect and development of ffm and later immediately after ward you said it will serve at the front door. i'm not sure why today it's not a front door. on the 10th. >> i know. it's a matter of interpretation. when we first were trying to giveaway the explain what our role would be. it's really the face of the application as i said. it's the front of the house. but the front door of the house is where eidm would take over. >> and that's -- >> that's correct. >> okay now also in the previous testimony, i ask you -- i ask you spanish was going to be part of the rollout of implementation. i asked if it was ready. it would be a seamless for the primary spanish speaker. for the online application, yes. there's report today that the

spanish language website are not up and unclear. is it because they're not ready or the administration has chosen not to take them online? >> cms districts which components go live and when. is the spanish -- it would be function signal. >> it would be. cms decision -- mr. slavitt, you're the front door now, would it be why is someone 49 years old be quoted a rate for someone who is 27 and why is someone 64 being quoted for someone 50. clearly misleading response -- credibly misleading. it would be difficult to ask users the date of birth to generate a more accurate estimate. >> i'm not sure i understand the phrase front door. these are not part of the tool.

>> if you put in the d. o. b. is it technologically difficult for what it could cost a 50-year-old gentleman giving the rate for 27-year-old. >> that's not part of the tool. i wouldn't know the answer. >> is it part of your site. >> it is. it would be tech technologically difficult to give more what a quote would be? >> it would not be difficult to add date of birth. then to connect that with an actual rate as opposed to a disengine wows rate. it would give a better accounting. it couldn't gave complete account. >> a much better. a big difference between 50 and 27. >> i totally agree with you. everybody on the panel, at least the one here on the 10*9 swore it was going to be ready. now it appears the administration had some idea it was not going to be ready prior to the opening date. let me ask, when the questions -- the problems became apparent.

did the administration impose any pressure and any for for you not to be forthcoming regarding the magnitude of the problems? >> no. >> no. >> so even though you pointed tout them, mr. slavitt, it might not be red did i for prime time and you saw the train wreck happening on the first, they never pushed back. >> we shared all the result of the testing they did. they were fully awater of the tests. >> i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, panel. i would like to note for a particular c g.i. did send letters to both your companies on october 6th asking for information about health care.gov problems. and that deadline for the letter response was october 23rd. so members, i know i've asked a number of follow-up questions it may not be at 9:00 tomorrow. if you can get it done as

quickly as possible. particularly in light we have secretary sebelius agreeing to testify next week. we would like to have the information in hand so we can be prepared for that. i appreciate your testimony. you are now excused. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

the associated press is reporting this afternoon that the obama administration said it's finally getting someone outside the government to take the lead in clearing up problems with the launch of the health care website. until now, officials at center for medicare and medicaid services had the lead role. administration officials say sub contractor qssi is being promoted to general contractor with overall responsibility for fixing health care.gov. this news came out of a conference held earlier today between reporters and jeffrey. he said that he's fully confident by the end of november the site will work smoothly for users. here's a portion of the call. before we take a few questions i want to share the result of the

assessment of the site's problems. update you on an important management change to address the problems. as you know the high volume to health care.gov created problem at the front end of the site. but it also exposed issues across the whole system. we know all too well that the first -- who could even create an account over 90%. over 90 prptd can create an account. when it comes to the next step in the process, completing an application performance is volatile. it points the success rates at to those completing application was very low. with few as three out of tenuressers getting through the application process. as the president, secretary sebelius and others have

expressed the bottom line the performance of the system has been unacceptable. we're executing a plan of attack and the system is getting better. over the last week, we have worked with a team of experts to conduct an assessment of the overall state of the health care.gov site. we asked this group to analyze the site to establish a baseline understanding of the problemsing and to help identify and prioritize fixes. the top assessment is it is fixable. it there are a lot of problems what need to be addressed. it is fixable. >> we expect to hear more about at the next week being held on

capitol hill. tuesday maryland administrator of the center for medicare and medicaid services will testify before the house ways and means committee. wednesday health and human services secretary will appear before the house energy and commerce committee. we plan to have live coverage of the hearings here on the c-span networks. tonight at 8:00 eastern ted cruz speaking in des moines, iowa. talking about about growing in west virginia and the kennedy campaign and the own political career. after that, washington state congresswoman discusses growing

up in washington. her current family life, and her role within the house g.o.p. leadership. you can see both of those interviews beginning at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> i saw firsthand the tragedies that children face when they are not cared by loving parents. it was in the sheriff's department i first witnessed the horrors of child sex trafficking. it convinced me we needed do more to protect our youth at risk of abuse. >> like me and many other we, accustomed to being isolated much like the victim of domestic violence by adapting to multiple moves from home to home. this allow us to easyily adapt to when traffickers move us multiple times from hotel to hotel, city to city, or state to

state. they go without punishment due to the lark -- lack of attention when young people go missing. no one looks for us. i want to make it clear. >> when they hear the term child section trafficking most americans think happens in over countries or foreign children are brought here to be sold in large cities. in fact, we have learned that most of the victims of child sex trafficking are american kids who are task -- trafficked in small towns and large urban areas. it people are not aware of it. they're not looking for it. >> this weekend on c-span house ways & means looks at changing foster care systems to prevent sex trafficking. saturday morning at 10:00 eastern.

took part in a discussion yesterday on the recent government shut down including the debate over the debt ceiling and the health care law. the center for the national interest hosted this 90-minute event. [inaudible conversations] >> the editor of the national interest. we have convened this meeting because of the crisis that we recently experienced. we had a standoff between president obama and the congressional republicans. in a number of questions have emerged from that crisis. including but not limited to, the future of republican party itself, the impact on america's image abroad, and what it imply

for the duration of president obama's presidency. to answer some of the questions, or to attempt address them. we have assembled a distinguished panel here today. including david keane, the former chairman of the american conservative union and the current opinion editor of the "washington times." david is a veteran political observer, and has participated in republican party politics for several decades. to my immediate right is roe roe -- roe institute for economic policy study, the heritage foundation. she will address some of the economic implications of the crisis.

organization of the national interest magazine. and democratic national -- dimitri will talk about some of the -- for the united. to my furthest left, not politically, but seating wise. [laughter] is my friend and colleague bob meter, who was the former editor of the national interest. also with the editor of "congressional quarterly" for many years. he will talk about some of the domestic implication of the crisis. i would like to kick it off by asking bob to give us some of his thoughts. >> thank you, jacob. it's great to be here. i like to think that i bring the prospective of distance to the past crisis. i, as many of you know, i spend the bulk of my time on the west

coast. i concentrate on book projects, and to i was looking at washington from a disdistance during the shut down. and found myself asking a question. what would mark twain say about all of in? and i think i know based on my favorite twain quotes he spoke about the intellectual capacity of flees. your average flea, said mr. clemons, can be trained to do pretty much anything a congressman can. [laughter] from that distance, i was looking at the achris in term of two things. number one, is it truly a crisis in term what it could actually generate a default, and what is the -- what explains the behavior in

washington? and looking at just a few headlines from that period, give you a sense what kind of crisis it was. from the "new york times" warning of global risk leaders -- warning of global risk leaders urge u.s. to did solve the debt limit crisis. they were leaders from the world bank and imf and suggested that it was in prospect. from the financial times, a piece by david lee, a professor of economics in china beijing should cut back to the lending to washington. china calls for dollar to be replaced as global reserve currency. from the what's debt crisis. obviously we were in a zone of ominous danger yet raise the question how could washington politicians be so stupid?

i think the problem with the question and much of the analysis that sort of surrounded that was that it assumes there's no fundamental connection between the political machination in washington and what is percolating and bubbling up within the country at large. there's such a connection as there always is. and the country was in crisis. it's an ongoing crisis and not over until any time soon. everything in washington is a reflection of what is, in fact, percolating at the country at large. which we feel one last headline, which ran in the "washington post" over the byline of william gulf tob of brookings institution ran in the "the wall street journal." tea party and the g.o.p. crackup. now gulfton, who is not a

republican, channeled walter ruse l immediate's famous piece he talked about various political tradition -- and the code. which encompassed certain tenet he describe z as loimty and courage. i think of the -- among recent politicians in america, one who would reflect the credo would be jim web, the former senator from virginia. the jackson outlook income passes certain thing as suspicious of federal power. skepticism forward goo-goodism at home or abroad. an opposition to high taxation, a fairvelt toward social security and medicare because they are earned in the view of these people.

rightly or wrongly to a significant extend wrongly. and significantly antielitist. there's a wisdom in the collective that the elite often are combating. gulfton wrote -- i thought it was quite a remarkable statement the tea party jackson america arouse, angry, and above all fearful in full revolt against a new elite backed by the new american demography that threatened the interest and scorns its values. they view obama as a sort of having a conscious strategy of building political support by increasing america's dependence on government, and they pool of the tea party conducted by pugh research center and others suggest that these people consider obama as pushing

america toward socialism. that's not entirely wrong in the sense that obama seems to be an advocate of european-style social democracy. so this is a powerful strain in american politics. it has significant antisend in the political tradition. it may not be a big majority, it ran the country from about 1828 until the civil war in term of dominating american thinking with but it is in these days a reason having to do with the crisis at hand, it is very intensely held political beliefs. and; therefore, is a political force that has to be reckoned with. there are a lot of democrats, liberal, people in the media

that suggest these people need to get over that. the country is moved beyond that and sometimes you hear some kind of adjective suggesting they are sort of white bred people which is pa pejorative that ranks with any kind of pejorative that you can throw at an ethnic group. but they don't have to get over it. maybe history is not on their side. probably demographic of the country is not on the side. the american political tradition is on on their side. they don't have to get over it because they can press the point of view as they are rowly as any other group or alignment within the political spectrum. and so what is this question that is pushing america in to those korea -- cry cease?

it has to do the deaf i -- definition of america. are we going move to a democratic etho system. are we going retain something closer to the free enterprise, free market concept exemplify say in our lifetime most strongly by ronald reagan. i don't have the answer to that. it's a question and a profound question. it has america in the grip. as a result of that, america has washington in its grip and vault of that, washington has become i did functional. as a result of that, i have such things as a crisis of the governmental shut down. now we solve that crisis with a very temporary band-aid, and; therefore, we're going to be back in this suit very, very

soon, and i think that this has a long ways to play out before we know which direction america is going to go in. >> bob, thank you for remarking. it remind me a bit of a piece in the "new york times" a few weeks ago. the best the tea party could do was precisely what ted cruz's arguing that the republicans should, in fact, from their own interest respective, should furntion best as an obstruction in the force rather than trying to push legislation through. dpaifd, i like to turn to you and say where is the g.o.p. headed? where should it go? and why shouldn't we count it out? does the elephant, in fact, have life left in the limb? >> there are is a lot of life left particularly in the two-party system. the republican party has been

counted out as dead and ready to be buried seferlt times. after the 1964 election when the conservative gold water took control of the party, time and "newsweek" carried coverage saying the republican party was dead. four years later the republican party took the white house. in 1974 those same appeared with television programs talking about how the republican party was dead. in fact, timid republicans actually held meets to disutdz -- discuss changing the name of the party. no one would vote far republican again. six years later, republicans were in the white house. so in is not something that is new. it's something that goes on. remember, when george h.w. bush was elected, there was a talk of what was called the republican lock all the sudden things switched. and they said no democrat would be i elected in our lifetime

because of the electorial lock as referred to in the media. a few years later bill clinton was president. in a two-party system in which both parties parties are frown screw things up and find themselves unable, in some cases or many cases to deliver on the promises or perform as adequately as the people put them in office expect to perform or people get tired of them, the other party has a chance at coming back. i think the republican party that are a pretty good position right now if you look at much of the pound try, the talk is of the survey that show that republicans got more blame for the crisis of the shoes -- shut down and democrats are in real trouble. history this is not going to be something that many people vote

on. the former "new york times" man who make a habit of handicapping the race. that's what history shows. s a, while it is a crisis in a sense, it's not the external crisis that folks talked about. the coverage of this one, of this shut down. i think bob is characteristicked the fought line here make it in some way more significant. the shut down itself was not significantly different than previous shut down other than the fact that the executive branch decided to make as much visible pain as they could for people for average americans outside washington so they could argue it was a real crisis. the president argued that never before had this kind of situation occurred where one party try to put something on to a continuing resolution of such

importance. in fact, the government shut down four times under ronald reagan. three times in a battle over the m x missile, value was a fairly significant ghat took place in those days. the champion president to suffer through shut down was jimmy carter who hold the record for the longest and the most dais during which the government was shut down. the debate then over abortion. if those were insignificant questions, these presidents were able to bring people to the table to solve. one wonders about the ability of this president to do the same. jim baker, the former chief of staff to ronltd -- ronald reagan writes and talk about the fact when reagan was president. he immediately called everybody

together and got things moving again. it didn't happen during one. and it's the kind of rhetorical crisis that could become real. because, for example, alan green span's new book, he talking about one of the failing and the failings of the economist to come up to the economic collapse of a few years ago. perhaps they underestimated the importance of psychology and herd perform on the part of investors and other when it comes to economic decision making. we are looking too much at simply the economic fact. what we've had this sometime certainly a white house that argued that this is such an crisis that the entire world economy could collapse as a result of something that happened many, many times before. as we approach the debt limit, the assumption, if one reads the daily newspaper or watches cbs or the other networking.

if, in fact, he don't extend the debt limit by whatever the secretary of treasury sets. it varies from week to week, the world economy will collapse because we go back on the obligation. if there's revenue coming in it wouldn't happen unless the president decided to rearrange the bills he was going pay. so when the house of representatives voted recently to pass legislation that would require present revenue the payment of that obligation of that sort. the president said if it got to his desk he would veto it. he wants to scare the bee jesus out of voters in this country. green span is right. and psychology matters it could turn political, rei territorial crisis to a real economic crisis as people react not to the realty of what might happen, but to the political badgering and

back and forth that takes place in this country. it's interesting to me. one thing when we get to these kind of battles, "the new york times" some years ago when obamacare passed praise the democrats. because they believed so strongly they were willing to vote for it even though it meant they would lose their seat as hero. men of conscience. when republican, who believed as strongly there was something wrong with it and it would take the country in the wrong direction, "the new york times" said they were fools because they were risking their seat. and the fact is sometimes courage and heroes depend on where you stand and where you want the country to go. so the people agree with you are heroes. people that oppose you are fools. and that's sort of characterization come nailts -- dominates things. it's interesting to me one the shut down ended. within the last 24-hours six

democratic senators said with we need do is delay obamacare for a year. because it isn't working. and it's a disaster. those six a week said that delaying obamacare for a year would destroy everything. now when you remove the partisanship and remove that we said, gosh we look the at this and do something about it. most americans in the poll blame the republican for the shut down. today a national poll came out 51% of americans want obamacare repealed. the fight between the two sides is not going end either over this or many of the other issues that are going to dominate american politics for the next decade. >> david, thank you for that. now i will return to the heritage foundation. on october 16th, excuse me, congress did it does so well.

it didn't do anything. deal that passed it ended the government shut down. the first one we had in 17 years. only by setting up another battle in the early january. the deal also suspended the debt ceiling without enacting any reform to slow the growth in entitlement spending, as we know is driving our spending and debt cry size. we won't know how much it was lifted until february 8th. there's no dollar limit right now on the debt. effectively there is no debt limit in place. next week, the 29 members of the budget conference committee will hold their first meeting. the committee faces a deadline on december 13th to come up with recommendations to present to the full house and senate in a report. the first priority, of course, will be to figure out government funding past january 15th.

because on that day sequestration the automatic budget cuts passed in 2007 as the debt limit was raised by $2 minute 1 trillion, by the way, all of that borrowing happened within a year and a half. but the cuts are to be faced in over ten years through 2021. the sequester would kick in again on that day. what is important keep in mind as the budget conference committee starts negotiating is we have a dual crises of spending and dmet this country. the congressional budget office projects that without any fiscal restraint, the public debt will reach 100% of gross domestic product in less than one generation by 2028. academic research increasingly confirm the danger for economic growth at the growth slowing to have public debt level this high. fiscal uncertainty, more over, among the key drivers holding

back growth in the u.s. today. that and the president's health care law which appeared ten times in the recent federal reserve book which summarize the concern of business in the 12th federal reserve districts. businesses were reporting yet again that uncertainty over increases in health care premium and the affordable care act regulations were keeping them from hiring and especially hiring full-time workers. it concerns over the 2,000-page law that barely any lawmaker read before they voted also known is obamacare. is affecting how it effect the americans in general. what it does to change the size and scope of the federal government. these were at the core of the recent government shut down. house republicans refused funded for the implementation of obamacare, and the president decided to keep the government partially shut down until they were able to get fund for the

law. but the stage was set for the funding challenge back in 2010. when president obama in the senate allied decided to highlight a process mechanism called reconciliation to ramp through the law without popular or bipartisan support. if you look at the history of the united states, know callly major change ins social policy -- not social security, not medicare, not even the civil rights act was able to be successful over the long-term without any bipartisan support. but president obama and his allies decided to enact a health care law with just a 51-vote purely partisan majority and that's why we have this funding challenge now. we have a majority of republicans in the house. they control the pursestrings, and it's within their constitutional right to deny funding to a law they don't

agree with. the founders of this great nation wanted there to be broad consensus before laws were passed. they neither wanted a single person, nor a single chamber of commerce to be able to impose its will on the public. so they deliberately -- required agreement between the house, the senate, and the president that can only be produced by comprise. but comprise was all but absent during the recent shut down, as president obama repeatedly and publicly refused even to negotiate. ..

for six weeks as the exchange's especially the web exchanges have proven to be completely unworkable. even so, the administration was arguably using the shutdown as a leverage to pressure the house republicans into funding this because it even attempts to roll in parts of the government where almost all rejected. and i quote here from "the wall street journal" a senior administration officials said we are winning. it doesn't matter to us how long this shutdown lasts because what matters is the end result. so the house key man on

october 16th and voted to fund obamacare to reopen the government and they also suspended the debt ceiling to to worry seventh. in the meantime our deficits are more than half a trillion dollars before the end of the decade they will rise back up to a trillion dollar levels. the congressional office projects that even with a very modest increases in interest rates with the federal government pays to service its debt will double in less than five years and triple before the end of the decade. there is broad bipartisan agreement that entitlement spending is out the core of the spending and the challenge that we face as a country this is true from the president's fiscal commission which he ignored to just about every economist out there. the sooner the lawmakers come to terms with our fiscal realities and start the process of reforming programs like social security, medicare and medicaid, the of the more deliberate and

on a thoughtful those reforms can be. bye judging how far apart the house and senate budget proposals were, however, adding it seems very likely that washington will continue this cycle of passing 11th-hour deals that failed to fix the problem and will continue to have this discussion likely again next year. >> we will now turn to dmitri, the head of the national interest. >> i was in bhatia about a month ago in september with president kim vladimir putin. he was supposed to be one of the panelists, but he quickly kind of appointed himself the moderator and began asking other questions and he had dressed one question to me. what is going to have been with

the u.s. debt situation the? is it going to be something that the u.s. government will allow to grow out of control? and i kind of gave him assurances that this would not have been, that we would have several weeks or months and that we are not quite out of the woods yet that the situation would be resolved. there were about 200 people including his former finance minister. he said what do we have now in u.s. currency? what part of our currency is in u.s. dollars and putin said about 50%.

then he looked at everybody in the room and he said then we are out of date. we already reduced at 40%. and then at the small dinner, putin came back to the same topic again and he said you will need to understand that we wish the united states well because of the american economy doesn't do well, it affects us but he also said when we witness what is happening in washington, we have to draw our conclusions, and it was clear to me that he was not just talking about conclusions in terms of what percentage of russian currency would be in u.s. dollars, that there would be broad conclusions about the nature and the quality of the u.s. global leadership.

recently at the summit which president obama decided not to attend, putin was very unanimous when he said it's understandable that president obama is not in there under the circumstances. if i was in a similar situation, i probably would not come also magnanimity is deadly. outspoken and they were not holding their punches. they were making it quite clear that they regret zero president obama's absence and they saw it not only has a problem but also as an opportunity to remind everybody that china was a rising superpower and the that

america for whatever reason could not offer economic leadership in china was there and willing to act. in singapore who normally are not only among the staunch american allies, but are very reluctant to criticize the united states became also outspoken. there's a piece today and the national interest by a very outspoken, very talented academic and the former ambassador to the united nations during critical call the united states and more specifically the administration handles the current crisis. that is not unusual. he is an outspoken intellectuals what was unusual is that senior

members of the government were using almost exactly the same language raising questions about the quality of the u.s. leadership. this is already disturbing and that it negotiates with president obama is saying about the seriousness of the crisis of the shutdown of the american global positions except it isn't quite that simple. if you would be watching bbc today as i was doing this morning, you would know that the big story in europe is the u.s. alleged spying on chancellor merkel, and of course before that the u.s. spying on french citizens and spying on the european union in their office in brussels and washington and so it goes.

there are a lot of explanations coming from the obama administration and a lot of denial to the classified information. but i know one thing for sure, it really smells. in a very major way affecting the fundamental image of the united states and the world and there is no escape from that. there is also no escape from us in the reunited states not looking serious in the way this administration approaches foreign policy. red wines and syria is a protected sample. i couldn't understand for a second why president obama declared during the uprising that president assad had to go.

i don't understand why he had to say that. president al-assad wasn't known in the united states or not aware at least the administration never made public that al-assad was acting against the united states. to the best of my knowledge we had diplomatic relations with us thought. we had senator john kerry, the current secretary have been quite prevalent. so the question lies why is it that syria was an independent country, not an american colony why would the president of the united states be saying that al-assad had to go on as we have a specific plan to remove him and then of course quite similar became in the case of egypt and other countries where he was saying that mubarak had to go

who was a reliable ally and we came into a situation in egypt where the former associates were in power again and the administration doesn't seem to be quite happy with that but in the case of syria and had very serious implications with chemical weapons and the red lines was that al-assad had to go and you would not expect the syrian opposition to negotiate seriously with us awed. if the president of the united states had announced he had to go. we had an event in this room with a very senior parliamentarian close to the government and he was telling us how turkey decided to support the syrian uprising but they decided to do it after obama spoke and said that al-assad had to go because they decided that that's from washington,

statement by the president of the united states and that the united states would do something to get rid of al-assad and the makeup this red line about chemical weapons. if chemical weapons are pretty terrible thing that anyone would agree with that. there is only one question. if the other side of the war happens to be al qaeda, would you tell the relatives of those who were murdered on the timber 11th -- would you tell them that their relatives who were murdered somehow was morally superior to using chemical weapons? i think it would be an offensive statement for anyone to make, but the president had established those red lines and then of course a sod has crossed those red lines or at least the administration and what have we done? we have done virtually nothing.

and a tough course me and now have this remarkable initiative to get rid of syrian chemical weapons we are pushing together with russia. some would say better late than never but we are trying to understand what is going on. we were told by the obama administration that the president had a separate summit with putin because there was nothing to discuss and then of course we were told that the debris and counter in st. petersburg during the g20 and we were told at that time it was a very meaningful encounter and from what i hear from officials within washington and moscow in the it was not a very involved conversation. and then suddenly we are kind of

confronted with the situation when the administration claims that this idea of getting rid of syrian chemical weapons was with the administration wanted all along and it's almost like a diplomatic victory. if that is what the administration wanted to do all along why would the president go to a summit with putin in moscow he would have to state criticism because of the snowden affair that they've mishandled and criticizing them publicly the moment snowden landed in moscow without having a private discussion between the two presidents of how to get it resolved preferably on american terms. but so the president decides not to go to moscow, not to have a negotiation with putin. if getting rid of syrian chemical weapons was a priority,

the president had to go there and then we wouldn't have this humiliation with the british parliament acting against their own prime minister. we would not have this situation in washington where obama would have to discover that his own congress would not support human intervention and syria. the bottom line is that this administration doesn't seem to have a serious foreign policy. it doesn't make foreign policy priority. i don't understand why the president did not go to the summit. if he decided not to negotiate with republicans, he was putting himself above the battle and a subtly suggesting that it is up to the congress to work out the difficulties i think the foreign policy would be a priority the responsible thing for him to do

would be to go and reassure the other leaders that this crisis would be resolved and that america remains the only superpower. i was really offended by the president talking about american exceptional was some only several weeks ago in the situation where the administration clearly does not think that if you're talking about being exceptional you have to act responsibly otherwise those words have no meaning. when senator obama in 2008 began reading on primary after another, the future first lady michelle obama said that this was the first time she was proud of america.

when she was questioned about the statement which was pretty remarkable has a presidential contender, for the sitting u.s. senator she said she was misquoted. what she had a really said, she explained, is this was the first time she was really proud of america. perhaps it is a very important distinction. i don't necessarily agree. but what i do see is that for the first time since i came to the united states 40 years ago i see a lot of americans are becoming really ashamed of their country to be more specific about the way that this country has been governed. i do not for a second oppose the techniques of house republicans. they have to be mature adults and engage in the serious

conversation and have to understand that what they were doing was an exercise. but i think the primary responsibility for the u.s. policy and the fiscal solvency this is a responsibility of the president of the united states and have to say that his performance during this crisis was unexceptional at best. >> on that note, we have a good basis for stimulating question and answer session here. and i would forgo the opportunity and let the audience fire away. who is going to be first?

>> [inaudible] and national interest. publicly, and i think that dmitri already addressed this to a certain extent i would be curious how the rest of the panel feels about that. didn't this shut down to the to the very purpose of some of the leaders said it was a distant it distract from the discussion over the health policy and make the gop an issue the heavy and the shutdown which people didn't for that very reason now that it's over things are going to refocus. but isn't this what they claimed they were trying to do and that

was to launch a serious discussion on the issue of the health program on which the american people are largely on their side and used reverse and put the american people what they were opposed to. it seems to be rather stupid. and last night there was a gathering of conservative gathering of american spectator's where ted cruce was speaking and he is already starting with the sort of the german post world war i saddam the back. if only a few of my colleagues had gone with me to prevail. so they're seems to be a little bit of a destructive streak in the gop also judging from the audience reaction which was not that for ted cruce last night i think that there is a same shakedown taking place. just curious how the various members of the panel see that. >> the answer to your question, yes the subject got changed to

the shutdown. but no, in spite of all of the difficulties with the tick riders approach, which was based on no real expectation of winning, though he claimed that he was going to when he had no end game. but the discussion itself as the recent poll shows did increase hostility to obamacare. the challenge that he faced because there was no end game was does the immediate reaction to the shutdown which was blamed on him -- and remember the only to shutdowns that have been created in this kind of hostility have been the 90's shut down with new gingrich where it was blamed on him and this one that is blamed on the republicans. the other rooms were just taken as part of the game because the two bodies, the legislative and the executive branch have different missions and different powers and means of exerting leverage. so the question is in the long run if it was to hurt, does that

go away? the betting is that it probably does go away. what ted crews did do is set the table for the -- and it's not just him but others as well set the table for the off-year elections. they may not vote on the shutdown but they may be voting on obamacare taxes and jobs and in that sense, he probably made the republican position stronger. think about this division in the party. if you personify the two sides, mitch mcconnell and ted cruce, mcconnell saying you're splitting the party if you are in peoria what did you see? use all the two republicans are doing about who hated obamacare the most. you didn't get into the details and then you say i didn't like it much either so i don't think in the long run it hurts unless it becomes a personal civil war and the comment that senator

crews made yesterday and the comments that some of mitch mcconnell's allies are making are dangerous. they don't have to send christmas cards to each other but they do have to pretend they get along and that they are part of the same party if they expect to get with the need to actually change policy. and as mcconnell was saying that would be votes. that would be the control of the senate or at least close enough to control the senate so they can get a couple of democratic senators to go with them. if they do that then the accomplished something. if they don't do that, the accomplish nothing. >> one of the questions i had is that it was cheney that said deficits don't matter. the republican party has two wings on economics. one is the calvin coolidge herbert hoover gramm focus on reducing deficits and cutting

spending. the other one is a more optimistic message of ronald reagan and focusing on economic growth as the way to prosperity and cutting the deficit. the argument today which seems to be defeated to the democratic party is that growth is the optimistic half. kim the republican party really sell the deficit-cutting? is that a positive message to deliver to the american public or are they making mistakes? should they be focusing more on cutting taxes and increasing growth as a way to reduce unemployment? >> i think that growth is the key in political terms. the back to the republican party the famous article in the national observer talking about the santa claus theory, the democratic santa claus that wants to give you all of these goodies at christmas and then

the republicans santa clause ought to be giving new tax cuts to generate growth and to use that idiom in the political arena. the problem is the republicans have been the tax collectors so the republicans became scrooge and it was ronald reagan that basically turned that around. he didn't turn it around because he didn't care about deficits and i will say more about that in a moment. he turned around because he believed what his priorities were. he wanted to get the country moving again and the chairman was squeezing the economy because of the inflation problem and he needed to generate some growth and that was his plan. he didn't run on any kind of a significant tax plan. he was the original kind of republican that we are talking about. when you think about what he

accomplished there and how george herbert walker bush kind of reverse it, in his last budget proposal for his last year that they went up to congress, he had the deficit down. that deficit was down to less than 3% of gdp which is a manageable level and then a shot back up under george herbert walker bush and he never bought the growth idiom concept that ronald reagan brought. so the growth has got to be the key to that with enough growth, you can deal with the debt and deficit problem and that is the ronald reagan was in that is certainly lost by the people who look down on him in historical terms. but lost on a lot of people including cheney who basically became cavalier about deficits. i don't think that's very smart but to take the deficit as your

focus is also not politically smart. >> in a sense of course his comments are taken out of context. they came at a time when the deficit was significantly lower than it is today and he was saying basically growth is the important thing. you know coming years ago milton friedman took the position that because the nature of the two parties, one promising all these things and the other was paying at that with the republicans ought to do or the conservatives ought to do -- and this was back in the 60's and 70's is get off this job of raising money so the democrats can pass out gifts to the public and say we are not going to worry about that because nobody would let the deficits grow completely out of control. but they were talking at the different time in a different context but you're absolutely right. and that is that growth has to be the key. there has been historically in

the debt and the deficit remember hubert humphrey used to say we owe it to ourselves. it doesn't mean anybody. nabil it to china perhaps or other nations. but wasn't that big and we could live id and manage it and there was no context whether this was good, better or different so it was never a voting issue. that's changed in the last few years because of the size of what's going on and the country that we are on the wrong track fiscal the and economically so that is not an argument against pro-growth policies because they are essential as the optimism that goes with them but now there is a sense that the deficits make pro-growth policies unworkable because they take too much out of the private sector. so i think the world has changed and the thinking of average americans has changed to some

degree. >> of the deficit is the result of the difference between the spending and revenues and the problem is the of the expansion of the size of government as the entitlement status expanding. we cannot grow our way of this because if the federal government keeps growing in size honeybees' worse is it consumes in the economy, that is going to affect growth in a very negative way. the high levels of that we are facing in less than one generation, academic research confirms that there is a high correlation with low growth as you get to these high levels of debt and that is a problem that we can only resolve with entitlement reforms. but we cannot ignore this problem because it will swallow the economy if we do.

>> the university of notre dame. i wonder if there is a disconnect between the the date within the beltway on this issue in terms of the details of policy as opposed to how the defense of the past few weeks or viewed both amateur terms of the american public and most opinions abroad. and there is a bit of a danger in having an analysis of what the problem is and missing the fact that i think the lesson that most people outside of washington have taken from this is a more general lesson. and that is the lack of confidence the political system is up to the challenge of dealing with big problems like this.

if that is the issue are doing what spending and out stripping resources that misses the larger cost that the country has been forced to pay as a result of the spectacle of the system not being able to address that in the first place we have to wrestle with? >> i was looking at president obama with one of his appearances during the shutdown and looked to me like abraham lincoln that he told was the same sense of righteousness, commitment and dedication. the only problem with that is of course president with lincoln with all due respect 600,000 americans had to die in the

process. more than another war in the united states had ever conducted. there are certain things you cannot do what ever it is in your country. the majority from a significant minority. you cannot do to them without a very stiff resistance, without trying to compromise and without difficult partners rather. and i think that what we have seen is a reflection of this fundamental disconnect between the obama administration and of the american middle class. particularly the white middle class. which clearly feels that they are at the receiving end of the barack obama redistribution

crusade. i completely agree that doesn't make what some in the house and in the summit tried to do because it was counterproductive and that was playing games with national prestige and insolvency but you have to understand this wasn't a crisis. not only on the obamacare but immigration. the supreme court had decided as you all know that the state's had greater flexibility and establishing their own electoral law, what eric holder called the

obama administration attorney-general. he goes straight to the same states for the electoral practice using a legal technicality. of course on one hand it is perfectly legal and on another level you don't understand that this administration cox could do. if the supreme court was sent on their side elect a senator and the administration would try legal maneuvers. this may be perfectly legal but that alienates a considerable part of the nation. they are not very sophisticated

yet. they were not quite ready for primetime. but i think that what these people are trying to do is one more thing over a much broader disconnect. we have to take it very seriously. if it wasn't just some artificial crisis between house republicans and the administration. it reflects a fundamental disagreement inside of the american society. >> to the >> out there in the country the average american thinks we are on the wrong path and there are all kind of problems and that in washington to are a bunch of, don't listen to them and there's a lot of things that they do not understand.

and so, from this sense and just alienates them further. the reason, whether you agree or disagree and the reason that ted cruce and these folks up popular support they did out there is because of that frustration, because of the fact they want someone to tell them there is a simple answer to this. let's just do it pity and that is what he is saying. i remember back in '76 this was a foreign policy question, but when ronald reagan was running against jerry ford in the primaries and ronald reagan had in his speeches time and time again reference to the panama canal, remember we build it, we bought it, it's ours and we are going to keep it. it did not resume until one night in florida when it blew the roof off of the place that he was speaking to the extent that ronald reagan had never lost his place was stymied. he didn't expect the applause when he was there. they had nothing to do with the

panama canal. it had to the complications of the time mozambique in all these other things if you got into the issue you have to have a bookshelf of explanations of why what you were doing was right and wrong and the response to the average american must you don't get it. so reagan came along and city you may not get that but by god you can get this and that was the response. what ted cruce was doing is the same thing. he's saying don't listen to these guys that say it's complicated. don't listen to all of that. just applause it -- it works in a political sense because it is a populist appeal to the frustration who have every right to be frustrated and every right to be upset about the way that things or in washington. what's the response to the tea party people when they get upset about spending? you have 18 people that say that doesn't mean anything. what's of their planned? it's not the job with the american people to come up with the plan.

it's the job of the american people to say we don't like this or we do. we hired you to come up with the plan and implement it. but that's not the way of the elected officials react to public pressure. if you don't like what we are doing and come up with your own plan. that is in the way the system works or should work. >> i would like to say i think that the professor told you that the government will dysfunction in washington can become a significant political issue in the country in and of itself and can become very significant. there is a large prospect in the country a lot of people will not necessarily tie that to what else is going on in the country in terms of the big mix of the sentiments and pressure and forces and desires. but in washington they can't be separated. because the only way that you can address them is understanding that they are one and the same and this gets to my

thesis about presidential leadership in america. when the country is in crisis, and any country goes through crisis on a pretty regular basis, the only way in our system that you can really address the crisis is through presidential leadership or not of all. and what does that mean? it means that the president -- the person whose position to do this -- and the only person who is in the position to this must scramble up the political fault lines and find new coalitions to break the deadline that is the reason the genesis of the crisis in our particular case i happen to believe that is a profound dead lock and it's really got us in gridlock, deadlock to gridlock in terms of our policies. can president obama do that? not now. he had an opportunity to do that i believe when he was even

elected in the sense that what, reagan did and franklin roosevelt did in his own way abraham lincoln, certainly jefferson and jackson they scrambled up and brought these new coalitions together and then they were able to move the country beyond that debt clock. president obama squandered one of the opportunities for the president to do that. he's not we do have another chance, certainly not now in this climate the year so we are willing to have to wait for the next president. and next president to lead? we are going to be bumping along in crisis in this country probably deepening in crisis until we get the presidential leadership that can do that. >> we have a bunch of questions on both sides. i will start with the general and then at jeffrey and work on this side of the room.

>> the four speakers now have agreed to serve discontent to the >> i think we can codify that. but a question that has been asked by the american national study group over the last 60 years or so, the question being do you believe that your government -- do you trust your government to do the right thing all or most of the time and the polling data in the 50's ran around 75% of the american people believed that their government what indeed do the right thing all or most of the time. with the viet nam war the trend

started downward and its then with a few little ripples. it's continued to the point that it is as i recall a around 20% now that the american people believe that their government will do the right thing. among 80% of the population doesn't trust their government. i don't know the outcome over time, but it seems to me that the democracy cannot function over time with that level of distrust of the people. i would be interested in all of your opinions. how do we turn that around? call is eight going to take? is our political class simply unable to deal with that kind of trust or distrust the point that

they can't function themselves. we have to essentially what is happening in the 60's is the great tumultuous change that came from the bottom-up etc. but let's talk about eight dysfunctional system, so fundamentally dysfunctional that 80% of the citizenry doesn't trust. >> there was a more important number in a recent survey and that is for the first time in american history the majority said they fear their government. and that's new. the most destructive things that we have this function, we have all of this. regardless of which side you were living in peoria which side of the fight you live with a view to you don't like to fight. i came to this town and worked for the vice president spiro

agnew and we took a poll once and found out that 65% of the people agreed and 75% wished he would shut up because americans don't like that kind of fight whether they agree with that or not. but you have got a government that has earned the distrust of the american people, and that is what this populist uprising out in the country is all about. people are fearful of the government, but the controversy and all of that which is not only been dismissed by the government, but defended by the president saying i didn't do that and nobody has been punished for any of these things and people are beginning to become afraid of their very government come and that is the danger to the democratic system. >> does anyone else want to make a quick comment? >> i think also the kind of spending that happens with the

stimulus and how it is very apparent that a lot of federal funding goes towards politically connected to groups of people just as well as certain changes like deily and the employer mandate but keeping the individual mandate on the books when it comes to the president's health care law. i think people are paying more attention. they have more access to the viewpoints on what's happening in washington and they are learning that too many of our lawmakers are not representing the interest of the american people well, their own interest and the interest of well-connected groups in washington and that is another reason that people are increasingly distrusting their government and they are looking for somebody who will represent their views. they are looking for principled leadership and i think that we saw some of this with the shutdown where some lawmakers stood for the principle. we know that this is bad. we -- they didn't vote for it

and it was on a purely partisan basis and the house has a constitutional right to deny funding and to attempt to do that i think was important to show that lawmakers act on printable at times and in the best interest of the nation. >> the next question we have a lot of questions from jeffrey who is the author of the rule or ruin, the book on republicans in name only. >> the question i think that is always worth asking is what would nixon have thought. people tend to forget that nixon would challenge the republican primaries in 1972 from the right by john ashbrock. i think i've heard and are to division from the point of view from much of the panel today as opposed to anything that might be defined as the governing win of the republican party.

an issue with any number of statements that i've heard, whether they are on the constitutional issues, factual issues but i don't think i have to because the argument is going to play out in the republican party and particularly the force we haven't really spoken on the tea party against the governing wing of the country and i would point you to yesterday's of head in "the new york times" by john taft saying that mr. conservative wouldn't recognize the publican party today and their petition to the physical integrity based on these responsible actions of the tea party and also point to the article the national journal today on the business groups that are challenging the tea party candidates in primaries and putting up candidates against them. we will see the war inside of the republican party again on the argument we heard today and i wonder if anyone had a comment on that. >> i'm not impressed with this idea that somebody from the past had to rick mize the republican party or this or that.

they wouldn't recognize american society today. we are in a totally different life in a totally different situation. the political parties are struggling with this. we have these movements throughout america in the history of america suggests that these movements, the entire war movement in the democratic party largely and in the late 60's and early 70's, andrew jackson come after the 1824 election come etc when you were talking of the tea party they have to get absorbed somehow. it isn't just going to be sufficient in fact it is going to be counterproductive and silly and frivolous to be suggesting that we could just ignore the tea party because robert taft wouldn't recognize them. these movements in the system if you go back and look at the

presidential electoral tallies in the early part of the depression in putting during franklin roosevelt's time, the vote tallies for the socialist communist parties in america were beginning to be rather significant, not necessarily in the percentage terms but in body terms significant body of political sentiment. roosevelt brilliantly siphoned that sentiment and brought into the mainstream. that is what robert taft today would have to do and that's why i kind of reject your question. >> i would like to say if i can today i'm sort of between the tea party and the other and i was then come and i remember talking to john ashbrock as he was preparing to launch his primary campaign against richard

nixon. i said why are you doing this you are only going to get 10% of the vote. he looked at me and he said i'm doing it because someday we are going to be able to say that we went there. that is one reason people oppose the establishment figures they think have gone off in the wrong direction. more importantly, bald is exactly right. a few years ago, i was at a meeting with republican congressman was winning about the fact that he had gone to the county's republican meeting in florida and there were 200 people there and 180 of them were for ron paul. he said this is horrible. we have to find a way to keep people out. i said it seems to me the problem isn't with the ron paul people is with the regular republicans in the dimly round up people for the county meeting. the job of the party, and this is sort of what bob was saying is not to be exclusive, but to bring people in, the parties in

the two-party system in particular are collisions of people. an effective party leader or candidate or campaign manager is a little bit like a product manager. he has to have a product that's going to sell to a majority of the people that makes it tougher than it is for the corporate product manager because he has to be able to get up to 51% for the candidate or for his party and that means for a practical matter in the long term of ameliorating the differences and getting people to agree on more things than they disagree on if you can't do that or she can't do that, ultimately they fail. as the country changes and the issue changes, you have to be able to afford those new groups in to your party or if you fail and the republican party -- i've been there through some of those. when goldwater came along the northeastern part leaders. we are shopkeepers. the leadership was picked by the manager of the steel mill and the banker and all that.

they came in and became the people that ran the party. when ronald reagan ran, the same thing took place about the westerners and folks that didn't get. when pat robertson can a long, famously the michigan national committee visiting the political meeting with him are bound was a little like the bar scene in star wars. all of those people socialized into the party and became the leaders of the next generation. it to go back to that question in the last election cycle primary for the voters 30 and under with the candidates in the field 50% of them voted for ron paul and it isn't something you can throw out if you have a growing membership. you have to be able to look at these things and bring them together. new people in politics aren't realistic. as i said before it's not their

job. the party leader if they won their party to continue to be successful is bring these people in and give a degree of sophistication to succeed in the political process. it's to keep people out, but in a space system the job is not to keep people out it's to keep people in. >> nixon did fairly well during his later years. he was my mentor, the best man in my wedding and a plan to me on the subject. that doesn't mean i know what he would think about this particular situation because nixon liked to be very unpredictable man. but one thing that i know for sure is first and foremost as a

foreign policy national security president this is what he really loved to do and what mattered to him the most. the idea that we would have the president of the united states like barack obama who has a reasonable will foreign policy instincts but for whom the policy is an episode, not a pretty nice think that nixon would have a great difficulty identifying with that. the second thing is if you talk about richard nixon and ronald reagan was that obviously there were fairly big men in their own way in a different way and they would never say my republican party right or wrong. but the articulated it very well

when you hear how this inside the republican party and after a crisis like that, the republican senators essentially the administration off the hook and focusing on tactical errors of the tea party there is something that ronald reagan and richard nixon in mind you wouldn't be able to identify with. the tea party and the republican party but i'm not entirely sure how you do that when they seem to be so dramatically rejectionist in their policies and act like an outer parliamentary opposition rather than part of a party that wants to govern or contribute to governments so that is my first

question to be the second one is your comment on entitlement reform i think that i entirely agree with what your depiction of the constitutional mechanisms was a little bewildering to me because i thought that the founders wanted to create a state in which democracy was functional that we were supposed to be creating a nation where democracy would work better than the alternative in a marquee. and i don't see how the kind of stonewalling the rejection is and is part of that constitutional mechanism something that comes about as the law of the land you try to make it work and so on and so forth. i just don't understand where that part of your depiction of without going into the intricacies of the constitutional law as a picture of the constitution something that was intended to promote government rather than the opposite. >> on that point i fundamentally

disagree the system of checks and balances is there to prevent a court majority from rolling over to protect on the minority from the manure majority rule and was set up with so many checks that effectively promotes a lot of dysfunction. once above all is on the books is very difficult to change it and there are very few mechanisms that force compromise. some of them are these kind of dead ones that we have right, the debt limit for the end of the funding year, the end of the fiscal year. i disagree. i think that the system is there to have come to the right of the compromise to struggle and through some dysfunction. >> let's work our way up. >> clich question very briefly.

>> i think that history indicates that successful politics entails in cutting the rank-and-file from the rejection as often radical sometimes quite ridiculous leaders and we see that to today. this goes back to michael's question that has to do with richard nixon who was the governing party of course but a 43% president and then he was a 58% president. what was the difference? a significant part of the difference was absorbing into the republican party by wallace constituency come 13.4% of the

electorate. he took a lot of heat for that. the southern strategy and people were attacking him for but the fact of the matter that is what politics is all about and that is what the leaders of politics have to do now in a tea party. >> i heard the same critique of the administration foreign policy. but i wonder if you could put it in some context because it reminds me very much what we heard of the carter administration and post of vietnam in. if the world remains the preeminent power and the saudis complain that we are not doing enough just as you described yet they rely on the fleet to keep

the strait of hormuz open. they complain and they will continue to come in yet they are hoping the united states will join them because they cannot destroy iran's nuclear facilities by themselves. they lack the capability. the country's economic power is perhaps diminished with china and other countries but it remains a preeminent economic power. so, is this period worse than the period of the 1970's or not? >> i don't want to send like a defender of jimmy carter, and he had his share of faults. but let's remember, this was the post of vietnam years and this was after watergate. this was after the crisis in the foreign policy. there was a deep crisis in american gov