absolutely right, the president would just let that thing go and create the jobs that could be created through it. and i think the antibusiness argue is one that gets thrown around a lot. i don't think, at all, he's sbent business. i think he doesn't have the mind set of a, you know, private sector, job creator businessman. he's much more out of the background of government as a factor mitigating force against the possibly nefarious impacts of the market and of, you know, industry at large. and he does not have that ease that bill clinton did with wall street and the business community. so they have the sense, you know, that he's very much against them and is going to do anything he can to, you know, put in these new regulations that are going to block them from creating jobs. that doesn't make any political sense because his whole reelection depends on job creation.

but that idea that he is hostile to corporate america hostile business is absolutely set in stone and is not going to change between now and november. so he's just going to have to overcome that if he's going to win again. i see it on wall street every day. hey, raise money for him, just really visceral ly can't stand him. >> how did facebook become fleecebook? well, it became fleecebook because you've got to love the people on wall street. they're so incorrigibly bad. i've read a book about this. it's how they created a high-tech, computerized infrastructure to trade stocks. the machines are picking your pocket. and what happened was this was

prove den shl. the machine malfunctioned and bit the nasdaq and the high speed traders. it's symptomatic of a structural problem in the marketplace, which is frielgtenned the retail investor out of the stock market. in terms of the jobs act, you know, we talk about widows and orphans being taken advantage of in the stock market. if you look at the commodities, future trading commission, if you look at their cases they bring against scamsters, it's rich people that get ripped off more often than widows and orphans. they're people that should know beter. but we have a false sense of security because of our regulators. we just project more power and wisdom on the regulators than we really have. and i use the analogy, if you go to a fast food restaurant in a really gamey neighborhood, they generally have a rent-a-cop out

there with no gun to convince you it's safe to eat a hamburger out there. it's the same with wall street. you get the false impression because of the securities and exchange commission that people are watching out for you. you don't do your homework and you're just walking in like a sucker. >> you know, the job akt, the crowd didn't go for it. but keep your eyes wide open. >> we have a question in the back of the room. >> hi. i'm marilynng. wicks with rpr. you took some pretty good shots at the fed debating the currency and set out to punish grandma. but, seriously, i want to think through -- what were the alternatives -- what are the alternatives scenarios?

what should the fed have done? >> well, the feds should not have robbed the sabers. the fed should give savers a decent return on their deposits. those deposits are used by the banks to make loans. so what the fed was doing, at our expense, was giving the bankers a huge spread. between their deposit costs and their loan costs. so tin addition to the bail out of wall street, our savings are being used to subsidize the banks and wall street. they should have given us our money and savings, number one. and we would have gone out and used that to stimulate the economy with purchases. i mean, let's -- that's my biggest gripe. the other thing is when they deface the currency. you know, in order to improve our exports, say, and make us more competitive.

they're reducing our purchasing power. and so that also hurt it is economy. >> we did have a credit crisis. we had to unfreeze the credit cycle. but at some point, you had to ask the individual saver to stop paying for this and, you know, give them what they're do. . >> can i just respond quickly? i hear this a lot. but you have to think of the interest rate as being the price of savoring. it's the people who need the demand for savings and the people who want to invest it. it is a harsh fact of life right now. there's lots and lots of people who want to supply their savings. they're trying to pay down debt. they're not trying to take it out. every country is trying to export its way out of trouble. the world is not in a terribly great time to be a saver because you're competing with so many other savers trying to get a

good return on their money. that's just the way it is. when the fed has high interest rates, people do not turn this against them and tell them that they're subsidizing savers at the expense of debtors. the job of the federal reserve is to maximize ploimt and keep inflation low for everybody. not just a small segment. you can run a policy that would have 8% real interest rates that would tank the economy and everybody would be earning extremely high returns and their savings would have been wiped out by the depression. the job of the fed is to maximize the size of the pie. maybe we will learn that there are other policies that they could have pursued that would have worked better. and with respect to banks, the big thing banks complain about is the fed's policy by pushing down long term interest rates. while they are forced to still pay to their depositors.

that's one of the reasons bank stocks are so weak right now. that is not nice for banks, but that is a direct transfer for customers of banks because it is flowing through with terms customers are getting. >> so we have one more question in the back of the room and then we'll take a question in the front. and i think that's pretty much the time we've got. >> hi, there, thank you. i'm mona rabi. i'm a general assignment reporter so bear with me if the question is a little too broad. if i were a member of the middle class fallsing out of the middle class, what over the next 6 months, election aside, would i have to be worried about the most? what one or two critical pessimistic forecast you see for someone like that? if two years ago, it was my home is losing most of its value. if last year, it was realizing that as someone as the unemployed, my unemployment is going into month 12, month 14, 18 months unemployment. is there a way for people like you to sort of know or see over

the next six months what would be the next one or two crisis moments for that category of person? working poor? middle class? your average american? >> yeah, i think one of them is student loan interest rates. that's the one sort of real, big, open question is can congress figure out a way to not have the interest rate on government subsidized student loans double, which it would, i think, the end of this month or next, if there's not another piece of legislation passed that would put that off. i mean, a lot of people, you know, in the middle class struggle with a lot of student loan debt, you know. our own president just paid his off a couple year ace go. and, you know, he's been around for a while. so i think there's a trillion dollars in outstanding student loan debt that also crowds out other economic activity based on people with limited disposable

income, having to use a lot of it to pay down student loan. so i think one key thing to watch is does that get fixed? do we not see the interest rates go up on student loan debt which would take what little discretionary spending and struggle to gain middle class status families are struggling with and would see a lit piece of their monthly budget go to increased interest costs. so there's not a lot of talk on the campaign trail. there is in washington and congress, but not so much among the candidates. the student loan debt crisis in general and what's to be done about it and how do we address it and not have it turn into, you know, another piece of a debt crisis. and that, then, opens up the whole question of education, education reform, how do we start to prepare people for the kinds of jobs gym was talking about earlier and technology that are going to drive incomes going forward. we don't have a lot of talk in the presidential campaign about how to address the skills gap

that we have, the job openings that can't be filled because their work force doesn't have the skills to fill them. i think the immediate near term thichk thing is the student loan interest rates, the entire size of student loan debt people are fa facing, and, beyond that, how do we get the skills to people who can use them to put people in the middle class. >> i would just say the biggest thing to worry about is europe. >> there's that, too. >> if you're in that economic position, i've spent most of my life in that economic group, you know. and you live from paycheck to paycheck. and you don't really concern yourself with what melee ahead. you have to live a very sparten existence. we've had a very mild wipter and fuel prices are down.

food prices are going up. you go to the supermarket and you notice that you're paying a lot more for a lot less. that's a big concern. the other concern is when i see wage growth in the country. if you're expecting a raise from your boss, forget about it. as i said, there's more of a wage deflation going through the economy and that makes life a lot harder to live. >> and the last question. >> unaffiliated. i wonder if you all would talk a little bit more about europe? ben mentioned -- listed the big thing that is have to happen to stabilize the crisis. i wonder if you would talk about them a little bit more, like the deposit insurance and the other things. how hard they are to do and how likely you think they are to actually get done?

>> i should also disclose that anne is my mother. [ laughter ] >> maybe? >> maybe it's a good place. >> you should have asked a harder question. >> yeah, putting me on the spot here. i mean, those are things that people are a lot smarter than me have mentioned as, you know, potential steps that could be taken to mitigate the crisis. i mean, you know, one thing that the federal government did in our crisis, in 2008, 2009 buzz more than double the fdic insurance on deposits. guarantee all money market funds to, at that point, make sure there were not runs on banks. i mean, we were at a point in late 2008 early 2009 where there was real concern that we were going to have massive runs on banks. there's the famous paul talking

to his wife on the phone and he's worried people are not going to be able to buy food and we're going to have a real disaster on our hands. so one thing they could do, they don't have a mechanism to do it right now, they would need some greater political union and banking authority, regulatory union to put in place cross continental increase deposit insurance. so you don't have the situation in which somebody takes their money out of a spanish bank to put it in a safe german bank. you need to have everybody assured that their deposits are not going to disappear. and then you have the places like spain going above 6% on the fear that echbl though they don't have as much of a debt crisis as greece does, eventually, they will be unable to meet the burden of their existing debt. so if you have an agreement across europe to put all of that sovereign debt into one pool in which, you knorma,

stronger countries are assuming some of the risk for it, this is presummablely interest rates go down and the crisis is reduszed. a lot of this takes a lot of difficult, complicated agreements on each 17 -- each of the 17 members of the euro zone. but you don't need to have that done. you need an announcement that you're going to move towards it. this is the direction and the set policies we're going to take. and then you get the market taking its foot off the neck of some of these countries. >> i think you need the equivalent of the u.s. treasury bond. one of the reasons the united states can run now and bail out its banks is because nobody questions the ability of the treasurer to repay a hundred percent on its bonds. that's something that spain and italy and greece cannot do. and what europe is trying to lurch towards is something like the creation of a risk-free

treasury bond so that spain can borrow at the same rate as germany. so this requires enormous political compromises. it means that the creditor countries have to be willing to stand behind the debts of the borrower countries like spain and italy and greece. and notwithstanding our cover like merkel, the german position which boils down to why do you think they'll be more careful with our money than they were with their own? the germans are very sincere saying the answer is more, not less. we believe in the european project. we are prepared to sur rended our sovereignty to make this work. and they're not convinced that they have gotten the buy in yet from the other countries that want to keep using the german credit card to get themselves out of their problems. so for europe to solve their problems, it will require the germans to become more comfortable with the idea that their credit card will have to

play a more important role in keeping europe together and the other countries to realize that that credit card will require them to make certain concessions of their own that they have thus far not prepared to make. >> i don't think europe will solve its problems, unfortunately. i think that's one reason you see the royal stock market here. if europe's bank banks collapse, we don't know what the effect will be on our banks here. that's sort of a secret that i have been unable to unearth. but, you know, i just don't see the euro standing up in to the future. >> and, with that, i think we'll conclude. >> ben, greg, jim, thank you very much for this lively conversation. thanks for joining us this morning.

please, watch press.org for more par panels like this on the presidential election. [ applause ] >> in a few moments, a look at the u.s. political system, including the role of independence and open primaries. in a little less than an hour and a half, a discussion of executive power. after that, a forum on the effects of climate change. >> this is c-span3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend, 48 hours of people events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and sea pass programs on our web sites.

and you can join in on the confers on social media sites. next, a look at the u.s. political system, including the role of independence and open primaries. this is part of the politics for the people series hosted by the new york city independence party. this is about an hour and a half. >> hi, everyone. i'm cathy stuart. i'm the chair of the new york county independence party and the founder of politics for the people. it's great to have you all here with us tonight. and i want to give you all a special welcome to our c-span audience. let me start by thanking martin huckstra, e.t. williams and david nolan for underwriting the cost of this evening's event. tonight, we're going to be looking at the people versus the parties. and we have with us two of america's leading advocates for a restructuring of our political process.

jackie salek and normer congressman nicki edwards. jackie is the nation's leading strategy and organizing center for independence with a network in more than 40 states. she's a frequent television, radio and print commentator on independent voters and politics. jackie has a book coming out this summer entitled independence rising. outsider movements, third parties and the struggle for a post partisan america. mickey edwards is a vice president at the aspen institute. he was a republican congressman for 16 years and is the former chair of the republican house policy committee. mickey is a distinguished educator and has authored several books.

his latest book is also due out this summer. and its title is the parties versus the people. how to turn republicans and democrats into americans. you can see why i wanted to have them both here with us tonight on this stage to have a dialogue with all of us. before i bring them to the stage, though, i'd like to share a clip of each of them in action. we're going to see two very short pieces, an excerpt from a speech mickey edwards gave in october of last year and an event entitled the constitution, democracy and unintended consequences. and then we're going to see jackie saleb appearing on fox and friends last summer in the midst of the debt crisis. so give us a moment and we're going to have a look.

>> democracy is about process. . it's not about policy out comes. when we talk about the institutions, our political system is not working. our election system is not working and our governing system is not working. and i want to pause et that the root cause is the amount of control over all of the systems, the election system and the governing system, that we have seed and our governments have seeded to the private clubs, the political parties that control ak setsz to the ballot, that control how district lines are drawn and that control who sits on what committees and that control the basic functionings

of the congress. >> i'm a member of the antiparty, which is about what 40% of the country is today. american people don't like partisan ship and they don't like parties. increasingly, that's why 38-40% have left the political parties and the system that is so dominated by republicans. they don't like the tone of the debate and they don't like the direction that our politics are going in this country. that's what they want to see changed. >> yeah, and my group is nolabels.org. what we're really looking for is solutions here. and i think both are right. we do want to get the dialogue moving. but we want to find a solution to the issue. >> but, jackie, there is no middle ground, it seems. >> well, there is no middle ground. and i think that's such an important point. >> look, i'm going to veto it. >> see, there is no middle ground, but there is a way to bring americans together. and the way to do that is around the issue of structural reform.

the parties have the system hard wired and partisan advantage will trump every other issue every other time. i think franklin is trying to play at the center when there is no center. what he needs to do is make a strong stand around structural, political reform issues. independence will join with him if he does that. >> that's interesting. [ applause ] >> we have to be careful now. we're turned on. >> we're turned on. we're fully miced, i think. >> yep. >> you got it? >> okay, well, thank you both for being here. i'm delighted to have had the opportunity to speak with you both and to have our audience

get to know you more. i'm going to start it off with a couple of questions and then open it up to all of you. but to get us going, the two of you are the country's advocates for the kind of structural political reforms that move power away from the political parties and to the american people. and you both approached this from very, very different places in histories. mickey, you were obviously a highly respected congress member in the republican leadership during your 16 years in congress. jackie, you've been a leader in the independent movement and a progressive for over 30 years. and, yet, here we are. and you're both advocating for some of the same kinds of political changes. nonpartisan redistricting. nonpartisan open primaries.

so i wanted to ask you both what's going on in the country that brings the two of you together asking for what i think would be some rather radical restructurings. >> okay. thank you. >> hello, everyone. great to see all of you. and to spend this time together. i think that maybe as a place to begin, i would say that there are two things that are going on that bring us together. though i alts, not to be contentious right at the start, but i did want to say that it says something about our political culture that we even consider it remarkable in anyway, dha we would be sitting here having this conversation with all of you. so, in a way, just for starters, i think maybe it's helpful to

reflect on that. two basic things. first, one of the things that's going on is that there is a massi massive political disalignmented. 40% of the country consider themselves independents today, which is sa remarkable, remarkable number. particularly in a system that is so substantially dominated. and i love the talk that you gave there, mickey, about how controlling the political parties are. they control the electoral process, they control the political culture and, yet, even with all of that, 40% of the

country has made a statement to say i do not consider myself to be a part of that process. i might vote for those candidates, i might participate in various kinds of elections, but i'm making a statement that separates myself from that culture. i think when you have that kind of social, political shift going on, which i think is substantially misunderstood by the middle class and the media and so on and so forth, that tells you that something is happening. >> different ways to describe it. but maybe as a starting place, the political institutions which are designed to be the representatives of the american people the parties are not

playing that role. they are not rep senting in any kind of on going and meaningful and substantial way, the concerns, the interests, the worries, the treem dredreams, t aspirations, the desires of the american people. so that disconnect, when you're living through a time in history where institutions as powerful as those and as historically important as those have been, can actually no longer function in their expected role, and then things change or the opportunity for change opens the door. and then we start to see, and certainly we see this in our independent voting dot org. and nearly every state, we have

activists taking on the issue of structural partnership. that's where we're at. and i think that raises very complicate complicat complicated political, tactical, cultural questions ch and how to make the most of it. but that's where i think we are. and so i think that one of the issues in that kind of context, or one of the questions that comes to the floor is what can we do to remedy the state of our political process so that the american people can express our interests, our desires, our needs, our dreams and how does that political structure need to be changed in order to make that