but the first one would be stop digging. what we did last year is where the budget in place that was supposed to save by trillion dollars but we did is we added another trillion dollars to the debt. stop making its worst. that's the first piece. we know we need is something that social security to the tobacco long-term health. we know we need to fix health care, a taxi for. that something getting a lot of attention right now. i think we strongly need to reassess our budgeting priorities, how our resource, how our resources are spent and look at consumption versus investment and look at the fact we spend $6 on the elderly for everyone we spent on children and is the right ratio? the final piece would be what we're talking about today, budget process. i think the best thing would be let's do it all at once and let's fix this problem for this country. they were to put ourselves unsustainable fiscal path it would open up so many economic opportunities. can be so much better in a

meeting of the long-term budget for not able to all of what there's a lot of pieces we can work on and hopefully we can break it into areas of interest for members on the hill to work on and i would say key is bipartisan. each piece has to be addressed by the republicans and democrats together. >> i think the maya is right on target. our history, we have never had a budget commission that has exceeded. that trade-offs are too broad. we've had pieces, however. a's closer commission is probably everyone's best example. members of congress want to be bailed out. they wanted to have someone else make those painful decisions. we don't have that with most budget issues. one of the other examples of the property and plant and equipment for federal agencies, a proposal to the commission if it doesn't already exist to close certain agency field offices and properties. that's an example of for our something like that might work but i think we tend to resort to much to this notion of a process fix that a conditional bail us out. that's not going to happen.

the closest we came with the andrews air force base summit. political leaders taking accounted for something, ultimately the old-fashioned form of government we have is going to have to work. >> we have time for just one last question. >> well, do -- star trek you already had a question. is it okay to go to somebody else? >> we can speak after. >> blake from the federal reserve board of governors. i'd be interested in any from anyone on the panel if anyone is in support of a balanced budget amendment. as a taxpayer i see logic behind it but also more from the economic side, that there is a certain benefit of having both fiscal flexibility and flexible

fiscal monetary policy. so i guess i would be interested in hearing how would you try to square that circle if you want to both of a responsible fiscal budget but also want to have some flexibility to address the ups and downs of the macroeconomy? thank you. >> no. [laughter] i think there's a need for targets and i would say the targets should not be balanced budget another i think targets are more debt. as the chairman said he would be for a deficit of 3% or 2% if the debt were down. that that is the critical variable come and we have talked about this. the notion of having debt targets inform the process. i'm worried about a balanced budget that it starts locking, even if you have an exception, wheezing of the politics of gaining approval from a minority that can hold you hostage becomes that much more difficult

to i think i really do not the kind of effective anti-recession programs we did in 2008 will he becomes limited i think our economy would be much less nimble as a result. >> i'm not as opposed as i used to be but i'm still not there yet because i think we can get there with, it's too blunt an instrument at a think what you want to do is have a deficit targets be manageable over a business cycle, and i think the targets are what matters. from a political become perspective, in this case i see people talk about budget balanced amendments. i want to talk about simpson-bowles. i want to talk about the policies that would fix the problem. when i hear politicians say we need a dba but they will not talk but i do it, i think it's not fair to put forth that again osha also put the plan. one, i think it's too blunt for where we are in, number two, i would love to shift to the policy discussions to get us there.

>> states to balanced budgets, and to use a rainy day reserve fund. it's not inconceivable that the federal government could adopt a policy that anticipated future needs to run deficits and budgeted accordingly. >> i mean, i'm also drawn to the idea of a balanced budget amendment essentially because other rules seem to fail. i think that's probably why you're supporting one. i think of the panelists have made very good points, that it's not clear that necessary to balance the budget is really what you are aiming at so much as sustainable situation, having debt under control and so forth. therefore, it may not be the right instrument. it's a simple instrument that people can understand conceptually what it means that that makes it attractive but it doesn't make it the ideal. and also i suspect that the

conference will be find all kinds of interesting and novel ways of getting around such a balanced budget. i think there's infinite reserve of innovation when it comes to figuring out things like that. so i think i really come down more went maya said chemically important to get the substance right. what should the budget look like and what are our goals in that budget. rather than locking ourselves into just a balanced budget which may end up with massive increase in taxation at certain times or massive debts of other things or defense spending not being cut. that's a very blunt instrument when we should be using much more subtle instruments to get to where we want to get, you want to go. >> thank you all for coming today, and thank you maya faq for responsible that you. if you have additional questions we will stick around for a few

minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> c-span, created by america's cable television companies and brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. >> this week on "the communicators" a discussion of the fcc's proposal to open up to the top ox market to competition and what that might mean for consumers and businesses. joining us are two guests are different sides of this issue, george ford is with the phoenix center where he is the chief economist, and mark cooper is the research director for the consumer federation of america. mr. cooper, what you think about what the fcc has proposed? >> guest: we think we need competition in the set-top box market. and 96 act said we want competition, competition, competition. some places it's worked, some as a. this is one place where really hasn't and we think consumers would have lower prices and more choices if we got some vigorous

competition into that space. >> host: george ford? >> guest: the fcc's nprm asked the question was not the set-top boxes were competitive, the first question. actually the first question is is there a market for set-top boxes? the answer really concerned about is delivered over the cable network, no, because the set-top box is actually a component of the network. that's the most efficient way to design and deliver cable television service so it's the cheapest way to do, the most efficient way. that companies would prefer a market. >> guest: let's bring lydia beyoud in. she's our guest reporter this week and she is with bloomberg where she covers telecommunications. >> thank you. to follow up on both of your questions, chairman wheeler and introducing the item, this proposed rule said he wants to open up with but a closed market and make it more like a market where consumers can buy their

own devices, that leaves with mobile phones, tvs and other electronics. do either of you think there is something similar or different to that analogy that would make it such that this proposal would or would not work? >> guest: we think it is the perfect analogy. you have an interface between the device and the network that has been closed. it's been impossible for people to sell across the interface. it's just like computers or modems, software systems come the microsoft case is about that and the court said open the interface and to get competition. we have seen that type and time again. remember the old telephone market? at&t uses a no one can plug a fourth piece of the quip into my network that will blow it up. they were wrong and we got tremendous competition. open to the interface and we think you get a lot of competition and innovation for the device without harming the

network. >> guest: well, you look at the set-top box and rather than making a judgment about whether it is or is not like the other things, look at and say it's not behaving like other things, and why might that be? the answer is it's not like the other things. it's not like a cable modem which you can buy from best buy if you wanted to. it's not like a telephone either in the fact that these devices are a secure link from the cable's head into the household which secures the property that is delivered over that which is copyrighted content. it also prohibits theft of the signal because it's scrambled. so it's not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. it's also very important part of managing the quality of the network for the cable operator, if you call the cable operator and so your service is down, they still down, they sell that picture box and see what's going

on. it's a very different thing but i think it's worth asking yourself rather than trying to convince you of it is, what is it that this is different than other things? what is this different from a cable modem where you are perfectly able to buy one of the story using them even though 50% of the people do. >> host: what is your response? >> guest: that's what they always say is we have to be integrated to protect it. the edge is the way th to orders written, the way the law is written you will protect the quality, protect privacy, or to the advertising scheme. and letting people connect is exactly what has been the issue with the home recording industry. they wanted to stop vcrs, stop mp3 players, stop filesharing. they said they would be found. under the copyright laws they will defend themselves and they have won all of those cases. the court has never let him to take technology to protect the copyright. and for us that's a critical

point. they went to court cases and the marketplace just opens the system up because there's a lot of value in consumer choice. this is exactly the same thing. that has worked so many times that the question is, should we experiment? the answer is absolutely yes. if it goes wrong we can close the door. we believe it will not go wrong because of that experience. >> guest: that has gone wrong. a telephone market just remember, the reason that telephone companies were opposed to the telephone was the whole system was regulated. it created an incentive to want to keep the phones as part of the network. there are significant differences between that experience and the of the. you also have to look at who is really opposing the challenge proposal, and that is copyright industry. they are very concerned this program is going to threaten their livelihood. there's also, what's interesting

about this case is that normally when a new company comes along that wants to use video content, for example, when the phone company began operating in the cable business, or when netflix came around them is that the copper industry didn't have a new customer. i sat down with these guys. we did a deal, created new things. and so they had an expanded customer base. now what the fcc wants to do is say no, comcast can bite and then who would want access to that knesset. no compensation your you really don't have to pay a lot of attention to the contracts that are written. and so the programmers are thinking, or the program content people say wait a minute, this isn't really right and fair, and it's really confiscation of our property. i think really what happens in so program as it runs square into the copyright law. fcc has no authority to

implement copyright law and this is a pretty clear violation. >> to follow up -- aspect that is wrong. when someone puts an independent third party set-top box there, does not raise us to erase the relationship. you don't get it for free. you still have to pay your cable bill. you of danger bill to the cable company to digitize to pay the cable company for the set-top box. it's exactly the same compensation the day after an independent set-top box is put on the line as there was the day before. >> guest: that's not true at all. these companies want to do is take the content and do something to make money with it. to make profit with it. you make profit with copyrighted content, you have to compensate the content owner. the copyright owner for the. google is in business to deliver service for free. they want to be in the business so they can monetize whatever information they gather from what the view is doing. where does the copyright only

get to play this game of monetizing the use of this video content? so it's not the same thing. there's something else going on, otherwise nobody interested in doing it. >> do either of you do away that perhaps an alternative to what the fcc proposed in the rule, google or any third party device our app maker could go negotiate carriage contractor at the with the content providers? why do they have to go to the pay-tv industry? >> guest: than they do that but that stream that is coming to the cable box, the set-top box today, is going to continue. it is going to be almost impossible for anybody to monkey with that because that would require rebuilding an entire network to replicate what exists. will they put a piece of advertising in front of the show? maybe. he thinks they own that they don't own that. they get all the advertising in

the show. where they give people the ability to move around more quickly, absolutely. they don't own that the guilty. so they have their stream of revenue. they put their ads in. their ads will stay there, and now anytime someone else thinks of a neat way to place that come to spread it around, they hate that. but anyone who tries to think of another way to deliver that content exactly the way they provide it, they get upset. i could've monetize do that for me. that's my money. it's not. they made a deal end of the people are innovating, and maybe gaining rewards for how they move the content around. also this is a mark place where there's money to be made in manufacturing that has been monopolized by the cable market power. >> we are already seeing pay-tv providers delete or skip over advertisement in the shows now. is that a concern that they

would have with this as well as it relates to copywriting? >> guest: to have a right to defend their interests under the copyright act, but what they can't do, an and the courts have let them do is use the copyright act, the communications director even the copyright act to dictate technology. so this debate about should consumers be allowed to skip ads? well, consumers do skip ads. now have some technology that automates that. is that the radical change? should that be banned? the telecommunications commission has no business being in the middle of the copyright act. they battle against technology to the irony is they win their court cases, but they lose the economic war because the courts will not let them dictate the nature of technology in order to protect their interest. so they work about. streaming music is a perfect example. that's the majority. they make less money than they

did before. they have much more costs than they did before. so that's the process under the copyright act. the copyright is a balance between the consumer interest in the creative arts and the copyright holder interested in getting enough revenue to continue to critique. that's a different balance. the fcc is about communication, not copyright. >> guest: i think you pretty much made my point. when you make money using copyrighted content, then you of the copyright owner money. if it's adding advertisements in addition to the ones that are there, you must pay for that right. that's what a broadcaster is a broadcaster gets copyrighted content, sells advertising about it, makes money doing that and in the copper it only comes in and takes his fair share of that money. that's exactly the point. you can't do anything, we organized the channels, put a nice front end on it, anything you do to make money is a

violation of someone else's right if you don't pay them for it. that's what the copyright law is. >> host: george ford, wouldn't open of the market benefit the consumer by having competition where you can buy box a, b or c? >> guest: it wouldn't. the cable operator, the box is a cost to the industry. it is not a benefit. it provides no profit. you can't take a profit -- product like video like everyone's been added to the set-top box that nobody wants to make a more profitable. it just has to be there and they're trying desperately to get out from under it which goes back to your question, which is by moving to a-based model to the industry was on board with it. the sec had two choices. they could do a choice of the copper industry and the cable industry and video provider on board with a willing to do which would eliminate the box for all practical purposes. or this other approach that didn't which is probably a

violation of copyright law, complex and existence -- resistance. what the heck do you think they will do networks not only are they doing to come to cable industry by the copyright people are going to go do. what is the copyright industry says you can't give this information to a third party? you can't. what does the sec program going to do, mandate that you didn't get a third party as a video provider? is that what is legal to do that? i don't think it is. you are going to run into debt. on the other and we could've gone, chairman of the god of the route and done it. but at a time when we're trying to limit the set-top box, it's almost like we can't eliminate the set-top box because the statute says i to have a market for a set-top box i'm going to force you to keep it so we can have competition an competition. which is just a crazy idea.

post you reference the cable car. what is that? >> guest: a cablecard, the first time they did this was a total disaster, total failure. they had a security guard basically, those cable system comes in, it's scrambled, hits the set-top box indicates the scrambled and the tv can see it. what they decided was we can pull out this security peac pief it and move it around to different boxes. so then you could have i.t. even that had a slot in and you could slide this card in there and they would be scrambled -- descramble the signal. you could buy the card and everything would be fine. go get your market box from the store and put this thing in. it was a mess. i think maybe half a night of things were ever put into service. people just quit making the technology really because consumers just really are not

that interested in it. they could buy a cable modem and they just don't. you can buy a cable modem for 60 bucks and they choose instead to rent for six bucks a month. it's obvious they are not that keen on that. that cost billions to do but that program. not thinking of the. it was a disaster and fcc admits that. this is going to be a disaster. this is the fcc's third try. the dog returns to its vomit. the sec's come right back into this. no wonder the soviet union has failed. look at all this complexity. this is never going to work. in the copyright in she comes in and puts up a fence and that's going to be the end of it. >> guest: the copyright holders would i buy a book they want to charge me every time i read. they certainly don't want me to read it to a roomful of kids. they want to get a quarter for every kid that listens to that book. that's a model they want. instead of recovering the cost

in the set of the in this case the prescription fee they get back from the cable operator. they want to have a copyright fight, let's have a copyright fight in the courts. the mp3 player, file sharing, we've had those fights and the world has moved on. technology has moved on. the fact that they had away, look, let's get rid of the set-top boxes this way, it was a way to preserve their bilateral monopoly. cable guys still have the power to control the signal, broadcasters can control the signal. no competition. they define the way the programs come through. they defined the way you search through the programs. that's exactly what at&t said about the telephone. that's exactly the same argument. if you plug it in it's going to blow the system. the answer is, it's just the wall they put up to defend their market power. the commission has looked at

statute the they say we've come 20 years later, we do things in software now, and so the cable card installed a physical. some people succeed with cablecard. i believe that tivo uses cablecard. we no longer have that. we have this new flexibility and we can control these interfaces. that's much more efficient way to do it. we can have security, protection of copyright and also competition. that's what we as consumers care most about getting some competition in this space. >> guest: i think that was a gross misstatement of the copyright industries take on books. they've never tried to charge me for reading it to my children and we've read the same books many times. but the question is, is there such a thing, this is fundamental is a such a thing as a market for set-top boxes or is it just part of the network

works we can draw distinctions and said the cable network outside house and all the incensed officials but that's just artificial regulatory distinction. is nothing separate and apart from the network? it's really not. now we've got a realistic possibility to move to a software-based solution and get rid of this thing altogether. that's not good enough for some reason for the sec. i think the reason is obvious. that's a valuable piece of information that traverses that cable wire. and comes into somebody's house, particularly when you know what to watch what you're not. there's a huge opportunity to monetize. the fcc as i could let that. they let somebody else in each of course is the problem the copper industry people have because they should be up to charge when somebody makes money with a product. there's nothing illegal or wrongheaded about that. it is their property. there is a software solution that can be implemented.

what is that not good enough? why can't we get rid of the set-top box already? i already have. i get rid of two cable boxes because charge mitigations provides an apt that i can use. >> host: let's get the next question from lydia beyoud. >> guest: if you oppose that, i'd be fine with it. >> guest: that's not what the fcc is saying to do. >> guest: you guys didn't. >> guest: you did not offer a. guess but i don't offer anything but i don't provide internet. is exact reports it is the app, open your rope to box, hit on the comcast out and watch whatever you want. they say you can do that. but you cannot, what you cannot do -- >> host: let's get lydia beyoud in your.

manipulate the signal. >> here's the question to follow again. one of the most criticized aspects of this proposal is that it is not clear how copyright holders would be able to enforce the copyright, if a third party were to either change the programs neighborhood where it sits in relation to other channels or it layers certain types of content, non-family-friendly content on top of it is a program that gives he might not like and that the in force through their contract. so could you describe a little bit about what the fcc has proposed in terms of, sounds like a self certification regime and now that would not work because when the sec says -- >> you can watch the communication every monday at 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. eastern time or anytime online at c-span.org really the last few minutes as the senate is about the gavel in

working today on a long-term funding bill for the faa. a vote to move forward has been scheduled for 5:30 p.m. and work on another mesh to advance the energy and water programs bill. the first of 12 appropriations bills that the hous house and se are supposed to consider annually. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, we praise you for the privilege of praye