know -- you mentioned 85,000 new private sector employees in your state. as you know throughout the country there have been massive job losses in the public sector among states and localities. that has led to higher unemployment in this country than would normally be the case. would you support a request by governors to the u.s. congress that would request funds so that states and localities would hire back the essential employees they have been forced to let go? >> no. >> why? >> because it's always a temporary band-aid. we saw this with the stimulus plan. john corzine used a billion to retire teachers he was supposed to use over two years. it was the year before reelection and i was left with a billion dollar hole afterwards and had to cut $800 billion in

fiscal 2011 to balance my budget. the fact is that unless what we'll do is federalize the states so you pay for everything, you continue to give us this money, we spend it and hire people for a finite period of time and the localities and the state are on the hook then to pay for them beyond the time that the subsidy has. where is the money coming from. i have the highest property taxes in america to begin with. where is that money coming from? it will pay these folks afterwards. i don't see it. new jersey today has fewer and in january of 2001. that's good. we did it without any layoffs. we did it through attrition. there is money at the local level and pressures on the local level, i don't think that's a bad thing. when anybody loses a job, the fact is i have more government pleas for square mile.

please don't send me any more money. please don't. i don't need anymore. i got plenty. i don't need more. they are extraordinarily expensive and difficult to manage and the idea that we continue to have to deal with some of these issues, i think because of the federal intervention, if the president and the congress want to spend monothose to create jobs, spend monoinfrastructure. what builds private sector jobs. don't send monosending me money to hire more public employees. do something that will have a multiplying effect and a geometric effect on the economy. if you do it, don't do that by the way unless you do the other things that they talked about up here already. which is to deal with the fairness of the tax system and to deal with entitlement growth as well.

>> thank you. i want to ask you about -- their two sets of governance in the country. on the one hand you demonstrated what can be done with the right kind of executive leadership. you said that there other examples around the country like john hicken looper in colorado and elsewhere. you said you were not necessarily hopeful that that contagion will move in any time soon. given that, it seems to me it raises the question of rethinking federalism itself and the partnership between the federal government and the states.

of course the brookings has written a book about that and among those who are talking about what steps might be taken, what specific kinds of programs might it be possible for states to take either all responsibility or greater responsibility for so that the federal government can concentrate on doing the things it does best and states can take the lead. i am wondering what your thinking is and to the extent that you have certain thoughts and you can share them with us. >> first, what i would say is that we have to have that type of examination and it gets to the question i was answering over here. do i think this continued intrusion into the federal government of the areas that have been helpful or harmful. i said i thought it was hrmful. we have to have that conversation and lower the suspicion that states want to do things that are injurious to their population.

we get elected too. the fact of the matter is we want to do things that are generally good for the population in our state. we will make people feel good about wanting to live and work there. raise families there. i think we should have that conversation. on the specifics, i haven't given it a lot of thought. contrary to my reputation, i don't top the shoot from the hip, but i think it's worthy of the conversation and think that's part of what i hope will grow out of a vigorous conversation of simpson bowles. that will force that conversation because in an era where you are trying to figure out your priorities, really the question you are asking is what should the sprirts of the federal government and the states be and have them divide responsibilities based on the priorities. right now we are saying

everything is the priority. we will do everything. man, if you try to do everything, you will probably do most of it lousy and it will cost you a fortune. let's figure out what are the priorities. seems to me at the federal level you start with a national defense that only the federal government can provide in an effective way and you work from there. so the state responsibility should not get to be encroached on by large federal programs that then blur the priorities even more. we don't have to pay for. >> we have time for more quick question. tracy here in the corner. >> i spent time in the other new york. these are essential and important questions. i was going to ask a different question, but it gets back to

this. you became governor at the worst possible time in the first six months of 2010. i wonder about that saying about crisis creating opportunity and how do you sustain the changes going forward. similarly in any important topic like federalism, how do you keep people focused on the problem? >> listen, i feel like it was a much better time to be governor than then. i feel like at the time it was an incredible burden. when you sit down and you are cutting over 2400 lives in the state budget, every one of the reductions you know that i can see those people in my mind. we are going to be affected by it. that's a heavy burden to carry. my wife could tell when we were doing that over three weeks, we had three meetings a week and

they ran about four hours per meeting and that's about all we could take. my wife could tell and i had one of those meetings. it wasn't a difficult time to be governor, but everyone and all the games have been played in new jersey. we bonded our tobacco money and borrowed for ongoing spending. every trick in the book that could be played extended from 20 years to 30 years to balloon payments from every game. now you are left and there were nothing left in the playbook to use. you had to make difficult choices. the sustainability of those is i think the possibility embodied in the right direction that i told you.

what the special interest will attempt to do when you make the tough choices, this is the end of the world as we about it. your children will not be able to learn. you will not be able to get to a hospital. the roads will be caving in. the bridges will be collapsing. there is commercials for all this. 30-second ads from all this stuff. what they have seen is sun is still coming up every morning. the kids are still going to school. test scores are good in a lot of the districts. our roads could be better, but they are not awful. our bridges are being repaired. we are doing the things that government needs to do. we are doing it with less employees than we have done it with since 2001. we amended the pension and benefit program and no one is visibly suffering from that. would people like to have more money? sure they would. i can't justify any longer to

the union carpenter who has been out of work for two years. he is trying to keep his house. his property taxes continue to go up because i am paying for 5% raises for teachers. i can't justify it. neither can the union carpenter. the divide you see in our country in one respect is the divide between the private and public sector union movement. the private sector union which is dependent upon a vibrant economy to put their people back to work. during a downtime like this, saying how can my people survive? how come when our pensions go down, we have to put more money in and they don't. when my health care cost guess up, i have to put more money in and the public sector doesn't have to pay anything. this is an issue of fairness.

what you are seeing is sustainability of the changes lie in their common sense and fairness. that doesn't mean they are not hard and doesn't mean they are not painful because they are. a are also fair and make sense. people are willing to accept that in the context of shared sacrifice. new jersey we have an extraordinarily progressive income tax code where the top 1% pays 41% of the income tax. it's not like people are saying people are getting away with something. the top 1% pays 41% of the income tax, there is shared sacrifice there too. we are trying to spread that. that's where you get sustainability. the last place is the last piece i talked about and used the example of my mom. you have to talk honestly to people about it. you can't say don't worry. this is not going to hurt.

this is going to stay. it's going to hurt, we are all going to hurt, we are going to hurt together. in the end, we will have a better day. two or three or four years, but it's going to get there. that's the only thing that it will sustain. candor with people where you are not trying to protect your own rear end-all the time in elected office. they are obsessed with reelection. they are willing to do anything. that's note the kind of person you want in the executive position or any position, but right now given the challenges our country faces. beware of the person who will do anything to get reelected that. means they will do anything to get reelected and it won't matter. it won't matter what the long-term is. i had somebody me when i was

talking about the pension changes saying why do you want to do this? this is a friend? they will go bankrupt by 2018. he said chris, if you are elected to two terms, you are out in 2017. let the next guy deal with it. that's the mentality that creeped into political consulting and the politics of it. if it's not blowing up on my watch, let it go. only deal with the things that blow up on my watch. that's what got us here. the next explosion will be explosions that are difficult to contain on the federal level. it's going to be -- people say europe, look at europe. forget europe. europe will be a picnic compared to what will happen here. the entire world depends on this economy. we start going in that direction and then the ramifications for

the world will be graver than anything we are seeing in europe. so the sustainability is to say that to people. to say it from behind podiums like this and say guess what. social security, we will have to raise the retirement age. like i said, i was at aei and social security age will have to be raised. i haven't been vaporized. i am still here. we need to be honest and look at wealthy people and say some of these benefits needs to be means tested. i know you paid into it for years and you are entitled, but we can't afford it. sorry. you got screwed. it happens. you have to say this stuff to people. if you are unwilling to say it, you are not worthy of having the position. you certainly can't call yourself a leader. leader is not just somebody who

is whistling a happy tune at the front of the parade. sometimes that's part of your job. you have to sustain the reforms you put in place and sell them to people. in a way they can believe and it becomes a part of who they are. then they will support you. if they kick you out of office, they kick you out of office. it's not the end of the world. for some people maybe it is, but we should keep those people out of office. that was a long answer. eyeless about that. >> thanks for your honest comments. this is a great way to start the week for us. thank you for commenting. >> thank you.

>> i don't mean to sound like i want to go crazy and regulate the internet. on the other hand i don't believe the internet should exist as a place outside the law. >> coexecutive editor of the wurn's all things d on the future of personal technology and technology makers and the federal government tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span 2. they are unknowingly collected and license plate readers and internet monitoring. they join us on washington journal wednesday morning at 9:15 eastern to take your phone calls.

this past weekend in deferson city. watch for the continuing travels of c-span's local content vehicles every month on book television and american history tv and next month look for the history and literary culture of our next stop. louisville, kentucky august 4 it is and 5th on c-span 2 and 3. >> now a look at the supreme court term that wrapped up last month. the immigration law and the constitutionality of president obama's health care law. we will hear from the court reporters with the associated press, reuters, "the washington post" and the "new york times." . >> i'm art spitzer and the legal director of the local office of the aclu and amateur court watcher. standing next to a panel of

professional court watchers. starting next to me is adam covers the supreme court for the "new york times." he has been doing so for four years. has a long history with the times as he joinedas a copy boy after graduating from yale. in 1992 he joined the times's corporate legal department advising and litigating on defamation privacy news gathering and similar issues. a decade later he jumped over the chinese wall and covered legal issues including the confirmation hearings for justices roberts and alito. an indepth series on the connections between contributions and political campaigns on the ohio supreme court and the subsequent voting records. his work appeared "the new yorker," "vanity fair" and many

other publications. david savage and the court reporter on today's panel has been with the "los angeles times" since 1981 and covered the court since 1986. also in recent years he has been "the chicago tribune's" supreme court reporter. the author of a book called turning right and making it the rehnquist supreme court and writes the monthly column for the american bar association journal and offers regular legal commentary on national public radio's talk of the nation program. he recently authored the latest edition of quarterly's guide to the supreme court. he's not a lawyer, but that's a secret. you wouldn't know it from reading and listening to him. next to david, bob barnes covers the court for "the washington post" where he has been since 1987, original covering maryland politics.

he has been deputy national editor in charge of domestic issues and the national editor in the first term of the clinton administration and the paper's metropolitan area coverage. he returned to reporting in 2005 and began covering the court in 2006. next to him is jesse hollins with associated press he began covering the court for the ap in april of 2007. he has been with them since 1995 previously covering legal affairs and judicial nominations at the white house and on capitol hill. before that covering state capitals in new york, south carolina and other states. his book is black men built the capital, covering african-american history in and around washington, d.c. published in 2007 and today is his wedding anniversary, happy anniversary, jesse. we offered to comp his wife, but

he had to work. at the far end having arrived in the knick of time is covering the supreme court for reuters. she covered since 1989. previously at "usa today" and before that covering the supreme court for "the washington post." and before that as a legal affairs writer for congressional quarterly. along the way, she earned her law degree at georgetown law school. joan specializes in presenting the supreme court through the lens of biography and is the author so far of two biographies, sandra day o'connor and the first woman on the supreme court became the most influential justice and a book called american original, the and constitution of supreme court justice ska lay in 2009

and i am going to make sure she tells us if anywhere on her most recent project. together we have reporting on the panel of 64 years and should be able to get some interesting observations. they have been sponsored by the section on the court's lawyers and administration of justice. and between the bench and the bar and the relationship to the profession and ethics and admission standards and focuses on improving access to justice. we are pleased to be cosponsored by 11 other sections of the d.c. bar and those of you who are

members of the d.c. bar or will be in a year or two, i encourage you to join the bar and i encourage you to join at least one or more. the connection dos a lot of very interesting and useful work and it's a great way to get involved in legal affairs of the community. my involvement many years ago is what led to my getting asked to moderate this panel. we are going to save time, 15 minutes or so at the end, and if you like to ask questions and we are being cover bide c-span. if you don't want the back of your head or your voice on national tv, don't ask a question.

and finally there should be evaluation forms on your tables. if there, please do fill them out and hand them in back at the sign in desk. then i guess there will be a stack and if you pick one up on the way out, maybe someone will come and distribute them during the program. the bar appreciates getting the valuatio valuations. more thing, tony morrow's name was listed on the panel in case anyone wanted to see tony has been without power since friday night. they had things that urge endly needed to be done at his house and sends regrets and apologies to all that he couldn't make it this year. let's start with what's is on everybody's mind. who is talking to jan crawford at cbs and watch the inside story on the health care

decision. i saw in this morning's papers, adam and bob and david all had articles on the subject. jess he an article, but it was about the glaxo smithkline fine. he didn't get to write on this today. ap makes you do lots of different stuff. would anybody like to start out? we talk about this rapidly developing story? >> we established that on the junior member, i only covered the court for four years. i'm sure the more senior colleagues have better sources than me and would love to hear your thoughts. let me second that motion. >> whoever is the source for that historian and i don't know who it is was unhappy with the out come, right? it's very rare for there to be links about what happened inside the supreme court, particularly shortly after a big decision.

there were a lot of people on the right who were very shocked and surprise and angry at what happened. they were quite upset with john roberts. they wrote a book about it and had good sources with the conservative members of the supreme court. we know we are not talking about john roberts. pick from there. >> the phrase that she used was that her sources had specific knowledge of the deliberations. i wonder if you have interpretations of what that's likely to mean. does that extend as far as the spouse of a law clerk, for example? >> the spouse of a law clerk? >> right. they say to the law clerks, here's how the vote went. i am writing the majority opinion and you get to do this

piece and you get to do that piece. law clerks get told and never have been one. presumably they talk to other people. >> let me define the word deliberations so people know what the process is behind the scenes. some people have been law clerks to the justices and read various accounts and some might have been lucky enough to go through the documents that are available from prior terms that show the kind of conversation that is constantly ongoing among the justice when is they resolve a case. they basically do it by letter and memo and this constant back and forth on not just the bottom line vote which in these cases is important, but is almost just part one to the whole thing. the rational. what i presume happened if you get the conservatives so angry, the options are presided over the conference about how he will

go on the taxing power. we know how he felt about the clause and rejected the rational with the conservatives. it's hard to imagine that a vote got switched per se because many of us felt from oral arguments he was laying ground work to uphold and even laying ground work on the taxing power. maybe he might have suggested to conservatives that it was open on that question and leaning against it. when he started to circulate his continue as i say, lots of opinions, i can't imagine how many drafts that might have gone through. the average case can go through a dozen or two. imagine a written conversation of them working out their rational and i guess by mid-may, the chief circulated a draft that showed where he was likely headed. it wasn't with the four conservatives on a rational that would uphold it. we saw around that time, a

flurry of activity among conservatives in the press about how john roberts might be being pressured. was he being pressured by president obama in his statements and was he being pressured in some way by pat leahy. he doesn't have to go back for ten years. he is appointed for life. the idea that they were pressured by outsiders, i think that just cannot -- that cannot hold up. clearly as david said, conservatives were unhappy and if they saw it as a switch vote maybe, i think it's unlikely that he out right said from the start he will vote to strike this down and mid-stream said no. the opinion had all the marks of a june opinion that is a messy document anyway. they are crashing up against the deadline. there were signs that there was shifting on the