health care, there really aren't any financial intermediaries -- intermediaries left. so the disbursement of capital is sort of really 100% there. -- there is. i want to know what kind of role you think, private equity, private capital, influence and the markets, and i would just hang up and listen. guest: it is a good question. the thing to keep in mind is that the government in health care system now is a pair. it pays the bills. it does not actually run the system. i think that is more likely outcome of any kind of government intervention in health care. the government pays the bills for medicare, but it does not administer the health care. i don't think in our country and our society, that is likely to change. even the prescription drug benefit added a couple of years ago, government is administering the program,

paying the benefits, but it is not dispersing the drugs. that is done by private companies. this is more of a question of who is paying for the health care and how than who is administering the health care. i think in that sense it is different than the government running amtrak or running to the extent it is in charge temporarily. this is different, it is not running companies, but administering the system of paying the bills. . host: thank you for coming over as the nixon time with us. two town halls, one live and that is at 1:00 p.m.. president obama in portsmouth, new hampshire. and that it o'clock p.m. this evening, senator ben cardin held a town hall on health care last night and we will show it tonight act 8:00. enjoy the rest of your day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] .

>> the president hosts a town hall meeting on health care. the associated press says the white house is retooling its message. that is expected to focus on pre-existing conditions for live coverage from new hampshire at 1:00 p.m., eastern. at 3:00, i discovered on the russia-store job war one year later.

during the august congressional recess, lawmakers have been hearing from constituents about health care registration. -- legislation. then -- ben cardin host a meeting last night and here's a look at it.

>> we will go ahead and get started. welcome to all of you joining us here at the national press club in washington and to our cspan audit across america and around the world. my name is a list of cordoba with the clear blue loose this -- clare booth luce organization. we are here to honor phyllis schlafly or staunch defense of

traditional buyers and leading the pro-am the movement. luce institute supports women like phyllis schlafly. for more information, please call us at 88-891-4288. you can also visit our web site. zxhlet me welcome michelle eastn to present the award. [applause] >> thank you so much all of you for joining us today here at the national press club in washington, d.c. and welcome to the cspan audience as well. we are so happy today to have this special luncheon in honor of phyllis schlafly. we send a special thanks to roger milliken in south carolina

who made this event possible with a gift. he has been supporting the clare booth luce policies for a long time. let me thank you for changing the lives of many young women all over america with your support for our outreach to young women and promotion of america's great women conservative leaders like phyllis schlafly. each year, the institute presents one woman with a woman of the year award. who has shown grace, leadership and dedication to advance the conservative principles but this year our recipient has such a long amazing record that we felt women of the year just did not cover it. also today we are honored to present phyllis schlafly of with their first-ever clare booth luce lifetime achievement award.

[applause] ms. schlafly first emerged on the national scene as a conservative leader back in 1964 with the publication of paribas selling book from a choice not an echo, the inside story of how american presidents are chosen. a few years later in 1972 she started a national pro-family organization now called eagle forum which he still heads today. in his tenure battle ms. schlafly led the pro-family movement to defeat to the equal rights amendment in this constitutional amendment was a key legislative goal for the radical feminist movements and other leftists and would have greatly expanded the role of the

federal government and the court's. mrs. schlafly has been inarticulate opponent of the radical feminists for decades and we can thank her a great measure for how inconsequential and these feminists are today. she has been on virtually every national television and talk show and has lectured or debated on more than 500 campuses, more than any other conservative leaders. she is a speaker in the clare booth luce policy program and will be featured in our 2010 great american conservative women calendar along with i was telling her earlier along with kerry pregame. [laughter] in addition to a monthly newsletter called the phyllis schlafly report which is now in its 43 year mrs. schlafly has ordered 20 books and her books have coverage of subjects as varied as family and feminism,

nuclear strategy, education, child care, and bonnets. her most recent book is called the supremacists, the tyrrany of judges and how to stop it. she also writes a syndicated column, she has a good one coming out today i think for tomorrow. it appears in publications such as "the wall street journal", george and human events and popular web sites such as world net daily and town hall in.com. mrs. schlafly is an attorney admitted to practice law in illinois, missouri, the district of columbia and the u.s. supreme court. two u.s. appointed by president reagan to serve as a member of the commission on the bicentennial of the u.s. constitution from 1985 to 1991. she has testified before more than 50 congressional and state legislative committees on issues, the whole range of issues -- education, national the offense, one policy and many more to work your way through college at washington university

of st. louis and received a b.a. in 1944. he received her master's in government from harvard university in 1945 as hearing a jd interest dr. from her washington university law school in 1978. in 2008 to was awarded an honorary doctor of humane letters by washington university as a loess. she and her late husband of 44 years of the parents of six children and 14 grandchildren and in 1992 mrs. schlafly was named illinois mother of the year. the u.s. named one of the 10 most admired women in the world in a good housekeeping paul and the world almanac major one of the 25 most influential women in america. mrs. schlafly will celebrate her 85th birthday this week and continues to be a tremendous force for the conservative movement.

[applause] let me finish with a quota about mrs. schlafly, economist george gilder in his book, men and marriage: quote, when in the history of this era are seriously written, phyllis schlafly will take her place them on a tiny number of leaders who made a decisive and permanent difference. if she changed the political landscape of her country. and now it is my pleasure to present phyllis schlafly with the clare booth luce policy institute lifetime achievement award. [applause]

[applause] >> thank you so much, michele, and thing to for all your kind remarks andç in this award. i'm very honored to be here today. the last time i saw clare booth luce was when we attended a reception at the white house given by ronald reagan and she gave me a list back to my hotel in her limousine as he expressed yourself as very supportive of my work. so i'm proud of that and i also want to thank roger milliken for hosting this luncheon. he certainly is one of the great patriots in our country who has been on the right side of every issue where many years. maybe even longer than i have.

in i want to address my remarks today particularly to the young people because we need you. we need you to restore the america that we have known. if you need to find her place in and the conservative movement and i think maybe it was you learn from my life is a, first of all, that anybody can be a leader who, you can be later, iç was not born that way, i developed it and work that adds. and also whether grassroots can organize and take on all the powers that be and the feed them and that is a lesson. [applause] you need to understand how destructive the feminist movement is. the movement that teaches young women that you are victims in

the oppressive unjust society, that is just simply ridiculous. american women are the most fortunate people who ever lived on the face of the earth. and you need to not be propagandize against bat by a new women's studies or those -- don't waste your education dollar on any of those courses. an american women have always been fortunate. the feminist movement did not sought fly for women just in recent years. my mother that her college degree in 1928 followed by a graduate degree then. and i worked my way through college and went to my say a non-traditional job. i will say bernard testing ammunition and the rogers ammunition plant in the world is a louis parent i tested 30 and 50 caliber ammunition with all the tests that the government needed to run before they

accepted bids oral 42. accuracy, penetration, velocity, aircraft function. the tracer bullets implies, did they really go off. examining the misfires when they did not go off. and the course of the velocity. i worth half the time of midnight to aid in the morning and they ever have four to midnight and went to college in the morning and got through in three years and i don't know what college students do in college these days. [applause] but i work a 48 hour week. but i have been a volunteer in politics all my life into a political science into my schedule and that is where the action is. as for in is going to depend what kind of a country we have been and you have to take your opportunities when they come along. now i guess some leaders are

born but i was not born in vader. i grew up very shy. it's been a learning experience and i figure if i can two any of you can do it and we certainly are desperate for later today. at the present time you find in the conservative movement in this country is going to be depressed about the way things are going and i just want to remind you young people that we have been through other times of significant depression in by the conservative movement. of this is the way into less in the years preceding the goldwater nomination of 1964. that is why i wrote my book, a choice not an echo come into this crime out of the north eastern establishment country club type of republican had been dictating our nominees. not in the middle west where i

live in st. louis republican party was very -- today my think of it as almost right wing. we did not use the word conservative but it was genuine conservative and we were tired of these new yorkers telling guests who our nominee should be so i wrote this book to describe what went on and in previous republican national conventions. most of the people who have gone to the convention have never been to america what is a first-time experience for them and at that point i was a have -- housewife and a little town in illinois and, of course, nobody is fine to publish a book by some of a lie that who had never published before. so i published it myself and is 03 million copies. [applause]

and every week i need some public official who says i came into the conservative movement as a high schooler reading from a choice not an echo, because what it did was to show how this establishment republicans for forcing their views on us when we wanted to barry goldwater. and at any rate we got him nominated but we have a devastating defeat after that and conservatives went into another time of great depression. we did not think that we can ever a lacked a real conservative like barry goldwater. that is what made as well for richard nixon and we learned that that was a bad idea. so that did not work out obviously. but those of us who were attending anti-communist movements through the 1960's when i was writing about the strategic missile defense and so

forth, it never could have imagined the that the soviet union would collapse. we thought it would always be there and not only did we think fact of the whole intelligence apparatus in this country was convinced that the soviet union would be the great superpower and henry kissinger said one as the chief adviser for nixon and others that he thought his job was to negotiate the best second best place he could put the u.s. the has and these people believed the totalitarian government was more efficient, and get things done better and could produce better well, now i know that is not so. it is the free market that produces better. better things, more conventions from a better quality of everything.

and, of course, in the years after ronald reagan failed to get the nomination in 1976 he and others were traveling the country talking to little groups, redefine in their conservative image. in and he had a different view. he thought when it comes to dealing with the soviet union he had another message. we win, they lose and he made it work. [applause] and so despite our beliefs that we cannot win he did win, it was a big shock to a lot of us in 1980 when ronald reagan actually wind and then the same thing happened after clinton won in 1992. we cannot believe it feared a two years later we came and have the biggest republican victory and i think it was 40 years in

'94. so that can happen in can but we need in the young people to become leaders and to take on an active role in the the whole political process. it is really find a. now you have got to be kind of tough to hear that because sometimes it gets a barack's as we saw just last week in one of these town hall meetings at the town hall meeting of a missouri congressman where the union dues came in and beat up a black conservative who was passing out fliers. that was his offense and if they did not like kathy idea that an african-american could actually be conservative. but we know there are a lot of concern to test who are of all kinds emmy need to educate them and train them and stand up for them. and attend these town meetings and let the grass roots be heard

because i believe that the grass roots in the all the powers that be. that is what we did with the whole rights amendment. it was a 10 year battle, we had everybody against the. richard nixon, gerald ford, jimmy carter, all the magazines, then 9 percent of the media, all of the calaveras who marched in protest of -- all of the money from all of the hollywood stars. we beat them all. [applause] of course, they have never been forgiven me for that but you can keep in touch through the phyllis schlafly report. now in i guess i wrote 100 and out era but i write about a lot of other subjects to. and i hope you will enjoy being in the process that keeps our country great. and remember, those who laid

upon the lord will rise up with wings like eagles and then they will run in not be weary and to ever be wary because the battle goes on year after. we need all of you young people to join us in the battle. thank you very much. [applause] [applause]

you are such a nuys audience. [laughter] it is exactly that way out of college campuses. [laughter] >> but you were so good on the campus is when you go from a year zero is an inspiration in phyllis and phyllis has agreed to is to some questions here. two have a little bit of time. there's a microphone back there and if you wouldn't mind ladies line up and give your names in your affiliation if you would. we will do some questions. >> you can even ask austal questions. [laughter] >> hi there, my name is maria and i am with the clare booth luce policy institute and have been inspired by your work since before i was with institute but even more so as this is that we work with. still always going back to mrs. schlafly so they really love your work. i just wanted to ask you as a woman who has been involved so

long in the trenches of hasty base but also raised a wonderful family and clearly have a strong faith, how did you back in the days when there wasn't as common and has accepted to be raising a family and in the trenches have did you balance that and you have any words of wisdom for the young women here now who are encouraged to put aside her family for career? >> you have to structure your life, to accommodate what is important to you. now i did not have any full-time job or in a paid job after i was married. i spent about 25 years raising my six children and politics was my hobby. a lot of which was done on the telephone, by mail, a lot of it was pre internet, pretax machine.

[laughter] and when iran for congress iran in districts where i never had to be done overnight. and i guess i am a workaholic. but it was fun in my husband was extremely supportive. he enjoyed when i was doing and it all kind of fit into gathered. one i would go on for some meaning whoever was the oldest one in the household was the one in charge. [laughter] but, of course, a full-time job is very difficult in that and back before you came on it used to be that you're average of middle-class blue-collar guy could make enough to support a full-time homemaker in that same city in america that is slipping away from us with jobs going overseas sites you find out what

you are most interested in and went to can develop as your particular space in the conservative side. but i was a marriage and family are certainly worth the top of the list remains and everything else had to blend in underneath it. >> kelsey budd, it seems to be overarching issue today is health care so i was wondering if you give us her thoughts and feelings about it. >> the healthcare bill is every bit as bad as the one we beat when hillary clinton was promoting her health care plan. it is a government takeover of a tremendous health care industry. it is complete pain for abortion on demand any time in a place. we have recently learned about these counseling sessions they're going to give to the old

people and basically they are sessions, why don't you hurry up and die, take a pain killer so you are costing us too much money. anybody who thinks that health care is going to cost less if the government runs it must believe in the tooth fairy. [laughter] it isn't going to happen. and then the idea of letting the government from all of our health care industry is simply unacceptable and i think we would be better off if we defeated a whole thing that is proposed and then if there is some particular revenues have -- remedies we can work and we can try that everything obama is promoting on health care industry is bad, it is government controlled. which is what he wants. he never had a real job before

he bought and politics. he was a community organizer and this is a process of making people believe that they live in an unjust and discriminatory society and they should organize into protests and a man to take money away from the taxpayers. one of the big problems we face is that now about half of the people did not pay income tax so his plan is to take money away from the taxpayers and give it to the non taxpayers and i think we have to call him on every turn. i am hopeful that we can defeat the healthcare bill. [applause] >> i'm eva molina, i go to amherst college. i want to know to think about the resurrection of seven equal

rights amendment that they are talking about in resurrecting the and and for those of us who weren't around it can you, please, elaborate on what it was you did with the first equal rights amendment and? >> i didn't hear the last part of your question. >> and you elaborate on how it is that you defeated the equal rights amendment? >> it was debated for 10 years in this country, had completely their representation at the hearings. that was the only place where we had a 53d chance to get our message out in the u.s. defeated. the american people did not wanted. and, for example, illinois was in the front line in it was voted on every year for 10 years and defeated. the attempt to resurrect its is i think principally a fund-raiser for the feminist

movement. and they tell a lot of women who don't know any history that send your $25 and will put you in the constitution. of course, they don't tell them that men are not in the constitution so why should women be in the prosecution -- that isn't the way the constitution is written. you can't believe how many times i went to pot -- testified and my opponent is saying that ty need and the equal rights amendment because we want to get rid of all men are created equal. i am sure you smart young people know that is not in the constitution, that is in the declaration of independence and fortunately we are not trying to amend the declaration of independence. [laughter] if it had passed we would have had a same-sex marriage 25 years ago, and i testified in 41 state legislative hearings. there is no benefit to its.

there was only one case where somebody came in and said our state has a state law that discriminates against women that era will remedy. their state had a lot less than that wives could not make homemade wine without their husbands' consent. [laughter] for this we need a constitutional amendment? you've got to be kidding. it had no other -- when i went on television and they would say they would make women think they weren't paid enough but, of course, in the employment laws are already sex neutral so it would do nothing in employment so they were never able to say that anything in the hearing is going to give you a raise or help you with employment. however, the class and discriminatory law is the draft registration law which says that male citizens of age 18 must register and i have sons and

daughters of that age when era was alive and my daughter thought this was the craziest thing. you're going to put this in the constitution and the first thing is you have to sign up for the draft like our brothers? it was an hon saleable proposition. we were just coming at of the vietnam war and, of course, you young people are fortunate to live in a post reagan era where you don't have the draft hanging over your head and so there are all kinds of bad things and then there were no benefits. they were trying every precut idea to bring it back, but you need to let your legislators know there is no benefit to have it wrong to anything good for women, and it does a lot of bad things. thank you. >> my name is katie walker with american life league. i wanted to get your thoughts on the role of the pro-life movement within today's larger

conservative movement in the fight against feminism. >> wealth, the pro-life movement is very essential in one of the things that's my represent my contribution to the movements, you see we have in the fiscal conservatives the 27 million of us who voted for barry goldwater in the 1960's and that was not enough to elect a president. ..

>> i got the money bus to help us. i taught all the different religious denominations could work together. the issue they care about, defeating the whole rights amendment and stopping abortion. then, when ronald reagan came along in 1980, he was not elected because everybody agreed with everything. he was elected because he put together coalitions of the people who saw in him feet solution to what they care about. the pro-life movement is essential to the conservative movement. it is absolutely essential. we cannot win without them. rhinos, or republicans in name only, are very mistaken in trying to get rid of the social conservatives because we need

the pro-life people and we are very proud that the republican national platform adopted a national convention. every time since roe vs. wade, they have taken a strong pro- life position and i believe they always will. [applause] >> i am with the clare booth luce policy institute. we agree it is good to have role models for young women today. i want to hear your opinion about who in the public's fear we should look to as leaders for the future. >> i am not ready to pick the candidate for president. my opinion is that anybody who thinks he might be a candidate should travel the country and meet with small groups. that is what ronald reagan did. he was not all that conservative

when he started out. in listening to the people, he redefined his conservative up view. that is essential. we cannot wait until the primaries in iowa in 2012 to find out who these leaders are. john mccain when up to ohio where they mate with little groups. he was quoted in the new york times as saying," i did not know immigration was shusuch a big issue. " we cannot afford to wait until the primaries in iowa and new hampshire and south carolina in 2012. encourage everybody -- and there is a lot of good people in congress. congressman stephen king, congresswoman michelle bachman, to name a few.

they are articulate defenders of the conservative position. i urge them all to get out and travel the country, get out of washington and find out what the grass roots really want. go to some of these town meetings. >> thank you. [applause] >> i noticed edit this practice in st. louis, the senator from missouri, clermont castle, after next town meeting, she will not take any life questions. she will only take a few written questions. [laughter] >> i have a comment and question. first of all, the comment the young lady who just preceded me is one of four daughters that i have. i would like to thank you as a

parent for being a role model that you have been for people like my daughter's to look up to and see it can be done. [applause] the question of look to put forth is -- if you would perhaps comment on the most recent appointment to the supreme court. the supreme court in general appears to me that over the years, congress and the politicians -- the politicians are politicians. the real direction downhill, as i say it, has been a large in part of our supreme court. they have been setting out what their opinion is for the rest of

the world, or the country. >> it sounds like you have read my book," the supremacist." that is the theme of it. i traced most of the bad decisions by what i call supremacist judges because they do believe that they are supremo or the other branches of government and the will of the american people. it can be traced to the earl warren court. the whole line of cases -- the cases against religion, the cases to let the illegal aliens in, the cases against property rights, the feminist cases and abortion cases, the cases signing international law, all of these streams of bad rid decisions, activist decisions,

stemmed from the world warren court. he was the first one to write that whatever the supreme court says is the supreme law of the land. you will have read the constitution. you know that is not true. the supreme law of the land as the constitution itself and laws that are made in pursuance thereof and all laws are supposed made by the legislative body. i urge you to get the whole picture by looking and reading that book. i will also point out that barack obama -- the internet is so great to get things that might have been buried in history -- he gave an interview on a chicago radio station a couple of years ago in which he said that the earl warren court did not go far enough. all it did was change some of

laws. they did not address some of the economic issues. they did not transfer the wealth from the non-taxpayers to the taxpayers. his mother is to find judges with empathy. -- his motive is to find judges with empathy. that means judges to move the money around. that is his purpose. this is a very dangerous thing. that is why, with all of george bush's failures, we can thank him for samuel alito and justice roberts and we can be worried about who obama made a point next and be ready for a fight. i will also mention, for your four daughters, give them a copy of my book comco of feminist fantasies" because it is

important for them to know what feminism is and how destructive and anti-marriage is. thank you. [applause] >> i have more of the comment in any thing because i was part of the central virginia against the era and that was a long time ago. i want to thank you and how it was being on that committee that initiated me into the import of action and doing something. i would just command to everyone to be a part of the eagle forum. read all her books. thank you. >> thank you, i appreciate that. [applause] it is enjoyable.

it is more fun to win them lose. we have had some defeats. we have also had some very significant victories. when you get active in eagle forum, you will learn about our other victories. it was not just the era. we have had many other very significant victories. >> i work for a congressman and i am a lifelong supporter of yours and admirer. you have inspired me in so many ways. i credit you for me being in washington, d.c. today. your gumption to go out and defend traditional values. as a woman, i give you my sincere gratitude. my question deals with your fight against the era. i see today the importance of grass-roots efforts. i am sure all of us conservatives here are as worried as i am about the future.

i would like to know how it was that you took on the nation and change everyone's mind about the equal rights movement. how did you break through the thick walls of congress and gain the media's attention? how did you do it and how can we work alongside you and to the same for many of the problems we have today? >> thank you for your kind words. there are a number of elements in that. i chose the battleground that we fought that battle on. the battleground that i chose to fight on was the legal rights that women will lose if this is ever ratify prepareifeied they e the right to be exempt from the draft. they would lose the right to be exempt from combat. a white would lose the right to be supported by her husband -- a

white would lose the right to be supported by her husband. -- a wife would lose the right to be supported by her husband. dra would transfer all laws about marriage, child custody, of course, everything to the federal level. instead of the state level. i forced the other side into dividing up the phyllis schlafly reports in coming into these hearings and quoted me. that was a defensive game. is like a football team that never goes over the 50 or blind. -- 50-yard line. they could never show a credible case for it. that was the main thing. also, we have a committee in each state that was fighting it. we trained them, how to make the arguments, how to make them

calmly and respectfully and truthfully and not say anything that was exaggerated not to use other arguments like it was caught by the u.n. or some other argument like that. we told them to stick to the legal arguments. the one place where we get fair treatment was in the hearings. your typical state legislator thinks that if we are hearing about a bill, we need to hear about both sides. the media did not think that. the media were 99% against us. it was pretty funny. a lot of the phil donahue shows that i was on -- i did a speech a couple of years ago called doing the impossible. it has clips from some of those shows. you will see how we handled them.

we simply kept presenting the truth. that was what the other side could not get a handle on. the most frequent question i get is how you stand it when they are so ugly to you and say such nasty things. i said i would not let those slobs ruined my day. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> i am from griffin communications. i go way back with phyllis when i was chairman and illinois. phyllis is very supportive to us. at that time, it was the hippies that were the counter culture. people want to have regular marriages and we were cultural and everything flat.

-- flipped. some young people now consider themselves conservative and they want to limit their families to one child. they are accepting of homosexuals who want to live together. how do we go about influencing this mentality, especially the homosexual marriage movement which seems to be on a steam roller now. opposing that and convincing our young people that children are a blessing and that every child that is born has something to contribute. there are so many scientists that have children that are not being born today. >> you raise some very poor important points. -- some very important points. it is important for young people to understand that it is not

just the gays who are pushing the same-sex marriage. it is the feminist movement, too. the feminist movement is really anti marriage. you have an element of libertarians that do not want the government to establish the rules for getting a marriage license. i believe we have to have the definition of marriage, that we have to have laws that say polygamy is a crime, bigamy is a crime, marrying a child is a crime, and marrying a sibling is a crime, and i would point out that the republican platform, since the very first one in 1856, said that we are opposed to the twin relics of barbarism, slavery and polygamy. the aclu is openly supporting

polygamy because it goes along with this idea that marriage is just a private matter. marriage is not a private matter. the definition of marriage is society's way of dealing with these creatures that appear when men and women do what comes naturally. somebody has to be responsible for taking care of them. marriage should be the institution that is legally designated to take care of that child. you also a population control movement. these are the people who think the earth is more precious than people. when you get rid of the people and have a natural birth, people are good. -- the natural earth, people are good.

there will be natural resources for people. we need to identify the destructiveness of the feminist movement and where the anti- marriage and anti-children propaganda is coming from. it is not just the gays, thank you. >> i am with clare booth luce. could you share one or two of your favorite experiences from speaking on college campuses? >> oh. [applause] [laughter] >> most of the bad experiences were many years ago. it is more civilized in the last few years. there were several where the obamas seed was planted so we had to change location at the last minute. there was one where they live up

marijuana as a protest when i started to talk. there was another one when i started to speak, they were very noisy and raucous and i shipped immediately to a question and answer and that did not calm them down. one guy came up and said he saw a spray paint can in the front row and we got out of there. the most amazing was at the university of wisconsin, in madison. it may be the most left-wing college in the country. i apparently was the first conservative who had ever spoken there. it was a lecture series. the university was so apprehensive about my coming that they assigned an armed guard to meet me at the plant and stay with me the entire time to check me into the hotel under

an alias and have 22 security people on duty the night i spoke. of course, nothing happened with all the security. it is amazing. this is the united states of america. we have become more civilized in recent years. when i felt recently at berkeley, it was not the students' fault. [laughter] so, you have been able a lovely, lovely audience. i thank the clare booth luce institute for inviting me today. i thank all the wonderful people for coming. again, i am challenging the young people to go out and the leaders, be active in the political process. maybe you will enjoy it as much as i have. thank you. [applause]

>> there is nobody in america more deserving of a lifetime achievement award and phyllis schlafly. thank you for all you do and my god ellipse you in your family in the many years ahead. -- got bless you and your family and many years ahead. thank you and god bless you all. [applause] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] >> some of our live programming today in over one hour, lawrence summers speaks at the annual retirement conference, live at noon, eastern on c-span. one hour later, the president opposed the first of three town hall meetings this week on health care. this one will be in new hampshire. it was reported that participants will not be screened at this health care meetings.

we will have live coverage of that for you today at 1:00 p.m. we will have a discussion on the russia/georgia war one year later. that will be at 3:00. during the august congress' recess, lawmakers have heard from constituents about health care legislation. we're cumbered -- we are covering a number of these town halls. ben cardin coast in the event last night outside of baltimore. here is a preview -- >> is this it where you want to be? [no audio]

>> they need tax money. >> this is something -- >> do you realize how big the medical industry is? >> do you want to have medicare when you retire? >> i see people die. they have a 10% chance to live. don't anybody tell me about the system. i know more about the system than 98% of the people here. >> my wife is a british citizen. >> anyone who tried to get rid of the house is in there would be thrown out. that is not even the same system. >> right now, germany, france,

they have a hard time. more than 1/3 of their population, the working people work in the health-care system. it is hard to make changes. france is working on getting rid of it now. germany is, as well. in canada, the guy who originated the idea of how they would bring in an institute health care to canada is now an opponent of it because it has gone so awry. five months you wait. >> the majority of canadians, which is a higher percentage than america, are happy with their health care system. >> are they?

[no audio]3 >> insurance company to make the profits by denying your claim. what we want? >> health care. what do we want? >> health care. >> when do we want it? >> now. [no audio] >> they have your hands tied. >> help me out, sir.

>> where did you serve? >> i did not serve in the army. >> oh. >> i believe in the constitution. i believe in the declaration of independence. >> 2, 4, 6, 8 -- >> we don't know

[no audio] >> would you please specify which article in section of the united states constitution gives congress the right to in forcibly interfere with my rights for my own health-care? [applause]

>> article 1. [inaudible] >> again, all of senator cartons town hall meeting tonight at 8:00 eastern. tonight we did it next a look at this morning's "washington journal." taliban is the winning, do you agree? -- general mcchrystal's remarks. guest: i do agree that in the counter insurgency if you are not winning coming need to seize

back control. but it is not like any of these insurgent groups in afghanistan will be able to march on kabul successfully in the next 12 months. what we are fearing is that this campaign of fear and intimidation that taken place in cities, especially of southern afghanistan -- that is what we fear. the taliban is beating us in that silent war. not so much the shooting, connecticut or. host: what do you mean by the silent war? -- not so much in the shooting come kinetic war. guest: when we track activities, we track how they are shooting at us. we are bad at tracking what the enemy is doing to the population. even though we talk about the importance of counter- insurgency in protecting the publishing, to a large degree we

have low visibility on the way that the taliban is moving into the city and into different districts. -- which have about the importance of counter-insurgency and protecting the population, but not these other things. this will look like a steady campaign of fear and intimidation that makes canada garlic inhospitable -- kandahar in house builinhospitable. it is not as if the taliban will world thinks the kabul, but we're losing in this silent were for the people. we need to do a better job of protecting the people, especially those at risk. host: is there a fair comparison to vietnam? guest: in another way, which is

both in vietnam and afghanistan one of the weaknesses of prosecuting a counterinsurgency campaign is a third party. you depend upon that third government to do certain things for you to be successful. one of the challenges we face with afghanistan is a weak afghan government in some cases, and one in other cases that is predatory towards afghan people. we are facing a difficulty there. not only do we have to defeat this network or that on the field of battle, but also have to build up afghan institutions, especially in the security forces the will be strong. that will also not be predatory. host: this morning in "the financial times" -- the u.s. shifts stance on of can war. barack obama administration has

raised the stakes by including a full-scale attack on illegal narcotics. they have authorized the killing or capturing 50 drug lords. guest: yes, i am deeply skeptical of counter-narcotics operations in afghanistan and their ability to have an effect on any insurgent groups. the financing for a group like the taliban -- the support that they get from the narcotics trade is almost -- not important, but if they can get other support from financing from a the gulf -- there are other ways, so i'm skeptical. but it tracking key power brokers, not only narcotics traffickers, but those who have ties to the insurgency, the government, the drug trade, and

who are manipulating the government and preying upon the afghan people. the afghan people want government, but are getting the government the kowtows to these brokers, allowing them to appropriate land. so, if we target these power brokers, and not necessarily kill or capture -- but building up intelligence against them. one of the problems is that with respect to intelligence we are good at gathering it on the enemy, those who are shooting at us. we're bad at mapping social networks on the local environment. we need to be successful with these. host: what is your background and what are your active in this discussion? guest: i was was in one of the

first conventional units deployed in afghanistan in spring 2002. i later went back there in 2004 as part of the special operations unit. after leaving the army i went to graduate school at the american university in beirut and lived in the middle east for several years learning arabic which is not spoken in afghanistan, but just spent a lot of time in the arabic-speaking world and middle east. i developed an interest in counter insurgency warfare largely to make sense of what we were doing back in 2002-2004. i think became interested by been really bad at that. on the ground we believed that by pursuing the decapitation strategy, especially in iraq against former regime leaders, we would be about to end the cycle of violence.

while that is an important part of any counterinsurgency strategy, if you think that just by decapitation you will have an effect on violence, you are mistaken. we realized this and need to protect the people, to create a secure space for political activity to take place. for institutions to grow. this is as true and afghanistan as it was in iraq. host: let's take some calls for our guest, andrew exum. he is a former soldier in both countries. good morning, california. caller-- from georgia. caller: yes, i was looking at this situation where their comrades of the army and there

were out there with no shirt on, smoking pot. how long are we supposed to be there? our military is exhausted. we have been fighting for almost 10 years with the same soldiers who do not have respect for the military. we need to figure out how to give that country -- if they do not care, but i think they do -- they have their own with their tribal mentality. i do not see how we will go there and turn around their country within one or two years. guest: the caller has put her finger on two key issues. the way in which the u.s. military is exhausted after nearly nine years of continuous fighting. this is being felt within the u.s. military institution. the second is the need to build

up afghan security forces, but the army and thepolice. sometimes it is said that the army is good, but not the police who can be said to be predatory. but i think even the army needs a lot of help. so far it has been a success story for the u.s. and allies. but they still need a lot of help. we're still bringing units on line, especially in the south. we also need to partner with these afghan units. it is not enough to roll them off the assembly line. you have to increase the degree to which we are building capacity and afghan units. the afghan national police have been a real headache. not only are they seen as incompetent, but sometimes even predatory towards the afghan

people, shaking them down at checkpoints, committing atrocities. we are seeing as compulsive. we gave them uniforms and weapons. it is a real headache. -- we are seeing at complicit. we must partner with them at every level to ensure that they are not being predatory towards the people and to make sure the units continue to improve with time. the caller put your finger right on the button. we will not succeed in afghanistan over the next 12 months. we needed 10-year plan. it does not mean fighting for the next 10 years, but may be fighting for the next 24 months, and then a transition period, and then after that we move into and oversight position.

but our aid to the afghan stick will continue for the foreseeable future, even decades. host: the next call comes from iowa city, a republican. caller: great presentation, a lot of intelligence. lot of intelligence. i don't see us ever g we are injecting more and more troops in. i see as their as long as we have been in korea and germany and some of these other places. what would happen in some of these different tribes, and it all look different, i do not know, but what would happen to some of the young girl's? there has been overdue tool arora host: built -- there have been over 200 schools built. i do not see the united states completely pulling out. i think a situation along the

lines of pulling out in germany is more likely. if we get to the point where a situation in afghanistan looks like south korea, i am going to be pretty happy. the second issue, with respect to the tremendous gains that we have made in education and afghanistan, they have seen an explosion in the number of children that are being educated in children that are in school. more people have moved into the school house and afghanistan than anywhere else on earth of the past four or five years. many of them have been women. when women get educated, entire families get educated. daughters teach their mothers how to read. fertility rates go down so we do not have these women caring for a massive families with very little means for support. this is encouraging. on the other hand, our priority

in afghanistan is most certainly stabilization. while development projects such as education, building schools and hospitals, while these things are important, over the next 12 to 18 months we need to focus on what are the drivers of afghanistan. in some places it may be irrigation. we need to focus on these individual drivers s conflict. that is where we need to put our efforts in. host: this is a tape recording. bunny in south east, kansas. and caller: good morning, gentlemen. it is a wonderful day in south

east, kansas. nice to see this great day. and i hope you're having good weather there, too. the problem with afghanistan is comparable to the complex problem we have had in iraq, and all those areas. in orange county, calif. to a muslim skull. in the first five minutes of the mother lied to me. -- in a muslim school. they said i would teach in the new building, but i was put it behind the building in in illegal room with about 30 children and the second grade. i could not teach every friday morning for the noise in the

mosque. there was a loud speaker for women who could not go inside on those days, but had to sit outside. host: could you please route this out? caller: i will try, darling. the muslim people feel, the men feel that they really respect women and they do not at all. but they do not even know the meaning of it. it is a terrible problem. host: any reaction? guest: the muslim world it is as the verse as the rest of america. we have millions ofmuslims here in this state who have adopted pretty well to our local norms. norm's across those other worlds it differ from country to country. oftentimes these traditions that

you see a real pre-islamic tribal traditions that have imposed themselves on islam. so, the problem is really more these tribal traditions. host: here is a message from twitter. guest: there is a lot i could not get into for obvious classification reasons. i just got back from two months working with the general on his initial review. i can say that even though we are heartened by the death of m assoud, we really need in order

to be successful, it needs some movement against the safe havens for the network in pakistan right now. in the past, if not the pakistani government, elements within the military or intelligence services have supported the network. elements of the taliban. these groups are a threat to the afghan state. they see the regime as being overly friendly towards india, so they are sheltering these as an asset on behalf of pakistan. it will be difficult to be successful meaningfully in afghanistan as long as group like this network and the taliban continue to be harbored without interference on the pakistani side of the border. host: this morning this writer

writes the article saying "american officials have grown increasingly disenchanted with karzai's leadership of the past five years. " guest: yes, it is certainly cause for concern. one of the things we realized this summer is that governments, the ability to govern, or degree to which is correct, or taking predatory actions -- this is a winner of this position. will not fall to the network or the taliban anytime soon, but we have been discharged and largely by the way, some of the behavior that thoughkarzai government has engaged -- that the karzai has engaged in of the last few

years. the corruption. everywhere i went this past summer, every direction -- all over afghanistan, each identified government corruption. we have some issues with that karzai regime. the difficulty is that we must have a strategy for after the elections, and political strategy in place to protect key provincial governors who are seen as effective. if we lose them, and the provincial governors, we are in a tough situation. let's say that karzai does win reelection, and he uses some of those deals to put key supporters and to government ministries we see as crucial for our mission success, then we have a real problem. the important thing for both the u.s. and allies is to have a

political strategy, a unit one, for what happens after the election regardless of who wins. host: the election is august 20. is there a chance the hamid karzai could lose? guest: i'm pretty sure that he will win in the first round, and whether there will be enough votes to get to a second round it will be up in the air. but he has distinct advantages. what i fear more than anything else is not so much whether karzai or the other wins, but already there is a sense in afghanistan that this election is corrupt and will not be legitimate. if you give me $5 i could go into the streets and buy you a voter registration card. you also could vote in the afghan election. that is highly disconcerting.

in this environment karzai were to win with a very small margin percentage of the vote, we could face serious domestic unrest there. additionally, if you were to win by some improbable figure like 85%, then we would also be staring at some significant political unrest. it is something that american policymakers and nato allies need to be concerned with. the security plan for the election itself is pretty solid. i am worried about our political plan afterward. host: stephen, boston, thank you for holding. caller: hey, how are you doing? i'm calling in reference to the new stance in the anti-narcotics position taken for afghanistan.

implications will be far- reaching around the world. especially in mexico on the border for people will directly lose lives because we're taking away something -- it outdates any u.s. involvement in the middle east. i think we should just remind our business. host: mr. exum? guest: i agree to a certain extent. when the taliban conducts operations in southern afghanistan they often check with the local villagers to make sure it is an ok time to begin a major offensive. the locals might ask them to wait until after the pot the harvest. and they will agree to wait for three or four weeks. the taliban is very good at

minding the local concerns, but we're not good at this. poppy production has risen sky- high over the last few years. that is a change in afghanistan. yes, its cultivation has been a constant in afghanistan, but at varying levels. certainly poppy cultivation of the last three or four years has risen much higher than is traditional. host: on our democrats line, lloyd from bronx, new york. caller: i have paid a lot of attention to what has been going on with the afghan war and what was going on in iraq. if you look at china, russia, there is not muchwar waging going on with those two. but with america we are always trying to prop up or stop a government, take down the regime. what what happened -- i know the

answer, but i want to hear your impression -- if america left afghanistan right now, today? because we have to have some tight ofend to this. it seems like it is going on forever. -- we need to have some kind of end to this. other nations are not doing that. if we left today in terms of the taliban and other segments, will be your notion of what would happen afterwards? guest: yes, he has expressed a concern of many americans, especially after the never ending more in both iraq and afghanistan. let me point out that both china and russia do wage wars. china has serious domestic disturbances in some of their

own provinces and russia invaded georgia one year ago. but if we left afghanistan, that is a big unanswered question. i apologize that iti do not have a great answer for you. the argument of how serious or important our interests are there if we were to pull out -- i do not think that the taliban would take over immediately. we would be able to use some standoff fire power to keep the taliban and network from taking over the government and kabul. the key issue is whether afghanistan becausea, an area in which al qaeda and other transit-national terrorist groups can plot against the u.s., and b, whether we create this chaos there that destabilizes pakistan and the rest of the area.

that is where we have concerns. we do not know the consequences of an american withdrawal. i am cautious of articulating for an immediate withdrawal until we realize the consequences. we do have interests in both we do have interests in both afghanistan and the host: the former head of the bin laden unit was on this program on sunday. let's get your reaction to what he had to say. guest: the one mission we had was to destroy as much of the taliban as we could. i think it is very hard to leave now and say we were not that worried about those people anyway. on the other hand, i think we are getting rapidly to the point where afghanistan is not worth another american life. if you are not windigo in there to win -- if you are not going to go in there to win, i tend

to think that american parents have the right to demand their children get out there. guest: i think he put his finger on something that is very important. on the one hand, we definitely have an interest in afghanistan. we need to make sure afghanistan is not the type of place that is hospitable towards terrorist presence. on the other hand, they have limited utility. in other words, how long, how many resources we expend in afghanistan, how much money we spend, how many lives we have spent is very much an open question. it is very difficult to quantify that. y that. difficult to ask how many lives afghanistan is worth. to lennar dollars billion more? difficult to quantify.

-- $200 billion more? i am not sure that i agree with mr. michael sawyer, but by boosting the size of the afghan national security forces we can get this trrop-to-task ratio that would be more favorable rigid troop-to-task level. the first question he posed is the question. we know that afghanistan is were something, but are not sure how much more expenditure is worth. host: laguna woods, calif., on the independent line. caller: like most libertarians i have the operating assumption that our political class is filled with power-hundred

control freaks, and that the press corps are their faithful cronies. in afghanistan a principal factor of corruption is drug prohibition. we have tried crop substitution, eradication in colombia and it has failed to work. what is the administration's response to that? how do they think it will work in afghanistan after failing for decades in colombia? have you ever heard any journalists ask the administration that question? guest: mike has faithfully said the libertarian line. there are important debate about how important counter-narcotics are there and whether they advance our agenda. there is a bigger debate within the administration. i am not sure it has been covered well by the press corps,

but it may be because of access issues, not for lack of reporting. in washington things are a bit more opaque. host: finally, this message from twitter. guest: in afghanistan, historically, there has been this tension between tribe, state, and religion. you have it three competing elements of influence. you can build an afghan state that will be inhospitable toward al qaeda or other terrorist groups that would seek to attack the west. . .

host: please come back. to cook this week, washington journal talking to mayors across the country about mayors. -- >> this week, washington journal talking to mayors across the country. live starting every day at 7:00 eastern. >> how is c-span funded? >> by donations. >> federal funds in grant funds. >> honestly i do not know. >> advertising. >> something from the government. >> al c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span as a public service. a private business initiative. no private mandate, no government money.

>> and about 20 minutes, lori -- resellers speaks about retirement. that as at noon on c-span. -- @ leelee summers -- larry summers speaks about retirement. at 3:00 an update on the russia-georgette conflict one year later. this next program is about 30 minutes. host: we are pleased to be joined by phoenix -- from phoenix, ariz., by the mayor, mayor gordon. i want to talk about the economic situation and the city. what are you facing right now? guest: it is tough. the city of phoenix that has led in job creation for four years is now towards a the bottom in terms of job losses.

we have been facing challenges we historically have not had to face. this city has been moving through it, both reducing the budget significantly, as much as 30% and a lot of departments, except for police and fire, and also investing in the future using the bond projects to create jobs and partner with the government of these projects. that has stemmed the hemorrhaging, and we are optimistic we are at the bottom or at least seeing the light and will be moving forward. host: you have about 8.2% unemployment rate, according to the u.s. department labor, lower than the national average. where did it start once it hit phoenix? where was employment at that point? guest: we were down under 5% at that point, and were worried about a point or a point and a half around that average when the recession hit. while we fortunately are under

the 10 percent that a lot of cities experienced, 8.5% is still way too many families. a million and a half in the city, another 3 million around the valley. we have tens of thousands of people who have been working who are not working any more. we are working to figure out how to solve that problem together with the federal government. host: what about the foreclosure rate in the area? guest: construction, particularly residential, has been a big part of the economy this starkly. now because of both the recession and the unemployment and really the still lack of availability of free flowing credit that is based on wordiness, our foreclosures are at a historic high. last year in 2008 we had about 15,000 foreclosures. the first six months alone we had over 8000. that doesn't include multifamily

or town homes or condos in northern retail or commercial foreclosures. host: what effect has it had on your city's budget and tax revenue? guest: sales tax significantly. construction sales taxes, 30% or 35% of the sales tax revenue, half the budget. that is a big chunk. secondly, with the lack of jobs in construction, the lack of buying power for families for buying computers and cars. third, vacancies in homes have created in neighborhood blight in certain areas, and criminal activity. squatters, transients, and and a number of cases, drug dealers to move in the middle of the night. which absentee owners, banks across the country -- there is no one to handle the complaints so the police are using a lot of resources in the neighborhood

service departments that we normally would not have to use, which again is a further decrease in terms of available revenue. host: have any stimulus money come, and if that has, hasn't have an effect? guest: yes, it has. obviously we would like that amount that has been allocated to flow quicker. it is starting to flow. it currently phoenix has $270 million, at an all-time high, of federal money allocated to us. 50 million has been authorized to be released. we put that to work right away. all the money we are getting from the federal government is going to create jobs, private industry jobs, or maintain some city jobs but nothing going to balance our budget. we have seen in the effects from a small projects, roofing projects to runway expansion. we had an individual on television the other day who

was thanking the administration and the city because he was laid off a couple of months ago, has three children and a wife and is now back to work. those are great funds. i want to thank the administration and also the vice president and his staff's work to expedite the funds. we worked closely with the administration. we apply just in foreclosure, we received $40 million to help acquire blighted properties for downpayment assistance. even in the foreclosure. , we have seen positive affects the we have for the areas to go. host: if you live in phoenix and would like to talk to your mayor, 628-0184 is the number for you to dial. what is your city's annual budget? guest: annual budget is about a billion and a half dollars, what we call a general revenue.

money that comes from sales tax and the state. the non-revenue or user fees -- airport, water, develop and fees is another billion and a half. about $3 billion. we reduced our budget over the last four years by about $250 million in the general fund. you can see that is a good 15% to 18%. we eliminated about 1400 positions over the last four years. we had layoffs as opposed to absorption. we had a hiring freeze for two years. we had about 100 layoffs this year for the first time. we are learning to do a lot more for a lot less. we have balanced budget, aaa trip -- credit rating. so i am very proud of the management and financial team. and we are investing in the future, so it is not just

slashing or cutting, but again, we are not able to expand services. we are a growing city. an important distinction from other cities facing these economic challenges. we still continue to grow. sobersides above lack of revenue for essentials -- so, besides the lack of revenue for essential services we already have, we are growing every day and therefore new services were needed. host: the president is coming out to see you all this week. go ahead. guest: i was saying, we are excited. he will be greeting the veterans of foreign wars, and importance conference. i think his fourth trip to arizona since he has been elected. we are hoping that he and the administration will spend more time here. because arizona, in particular phoenix, the fifth largest city in the united states. not only an important element

for recovery but also the future of the country. host: let us take some calls. first up, on the democrats' line, from columbia, tennessee. you are on with mayor phil lorton of the phoenix. caller: good morning to all of you. i appreciate what c-span is doing. i would like to ask him a question that i am sure he can help us with a related to what is going on in tennessee. i am sure he works for the governor, too, getting plans for the stimulus package they are receiving. this sludge field from tva happening, we have news they will pass that on to taxpayers. through our electric bills. i was wondering if phil as may

be enlightenment on what the government can do as far as the stimulus package. i don't know why the mayor and the governor of tennessee can't say, we've got the government's stimulus package coming in and that may give the tva relief to that may give the tva relief to help them clean up the guest: first of all, the environment i think it's such an opportunity, both for job creation and also certainly what we need to protect for our future generations. i am having enough difficulty in arizona working in terms of creating jobs and trying to get our republican legislature and governor to focus on working with d.c. and the federal government.

i will leave that for the caller to work with the mayor. it is a great opportunity it sounds like. host: mary is on our independent line. please go ahead. guest: i have a question for you. caller: you are riddled with these legal aliens. you would not have the 25% unemployment rate -- would take care of this problem. the nation is suffering from this. we have good people who do not have jobs. who would have jobs at these people were not year. please answer my question. i would like to know how you as mayor of phoenix are going to address this problem. guest: thank you. let me first say that we are not a sanctuary city. both by the federal government

standards and by even the conservative radio talk-show host across the country. the city of phoenix and forces that immigration laws as it relates to criminals, does not matter if you are a legal or not -- if you are illegal or not. illegally every year. we cooperate with the federal government. we are to my knowledge the only city that has ice agents embedded in the police to share information and work the streets. what we don't do is, given the amount of criminals on the streets illegally trading in guns and drugs and people, take those police officers away to start doing immigration inspections at work forces or picking up individuals on the street because of the color of their skin. they commit a crime -- once they are in this city, the good of jail. we enforce that.

what we need, though, is the federal government to secure the borders, too, with a total immigration policy so that the country than 10 enforce those laws. the city of phoenix, 200 miles, 150 miles from the border. one city in the nation, we are a transportation depot for the rest of the country but we are not the only one. and we need the federal government and other cities to do it. our unemployment rate, people would argue, because individuals have driven away those here illegally as well as legally have increased. that is a different debate. the fact of the matter -- the fact of the matter, our police arrest criminals if they commit crime. host: the president said yesterday that immigration reform, if any, will be put into 2010. what is your reaction? guest: first of all, i am very concerned that immigration

reform continues to be caught up in an extreme rhetoric debate. in the interim, cities like ours and others run the country are suffering. individuals are suffering and not just those here for decades undocumented that have been a contributing, but family members who are legally here, individuals who are fighting for our country whose families are being persecuted and driven underground, we need a system today to help prevent crime, to help our economy, and also to make sure that the civil rights are respected for all individuals. right now the rhetoric is so dangerous and the hate is so elevated by individuals that we continue to ignore, i think, a crucial element of the economic recovery, public safety and the work that is important to propel our city and country to the future.

host: allen, independent line. caller: how are you doing? my state was, i am a college graduate, a decorated war veteran, 40 years old, but i have been fired from the job. had a family member, we have a family member who was involved in military dating back to the buffalo soldiers. what is the motivation of continuing down this road? you can see how the game is being played. what is my motivation to not move to canada or the u.k.? understand the employment issue, but like asset, being a college graduate and decorated war veteran and being treated the way i have been treated and go work force is very uncool. host: any response to that gentleman? guest: first, let me thank him and everyone who served our country.

that i am humbled by and never have the honor to serve but enjoying the benefits of those sacrifices that he and his family has made and others. i don't know that the country could ever repay him. that is why this seat -- city of phoenix and the federal government, gives preference on points in hiring because of veterans service. unfortunately we in this city's -- like other cities are in a hiring freeze. but we anticipate in late fall we will be. secondly, if he wants to call my office, 262-7111, we will look it up with our job counseling and our veterans liaison to see if we can help. i hope he will not move out of our city where this country. unfortunately the employment picture is not much better and some other parts of the world, including the uk. and in terms of any -- if there

are violations based on the service or any other reason, the equal opportunity division, would look into that. host: about 1.6 million people live in the phoenix area, according to the u.s. census bureau. you talked about the fact you are still growing. how do you get water? guest: let me say, we are a valid. the city is 1.6 million. the rest of the valley is another 3 million beard we actually need water and resources -- we anticipate in the next 20 years that will double, almost 9 million people. that is a lot of growth. the city of phoenix and the state under gov. babbitt before he became secretary, he enacted a critical ground water management act that -- all cities needing 100-year supply

of water. the city of phoenix is using the same amount of water now than we used a decade ago, through both technology and education, not regulation. we invested in a central arizona project, it brings us about 40% of the water through the lower colorado through a series of canals up to phoenix. and also the groundwater, the runoff from the snow mountains of north, through the salt river project, including investing in water ranches. water valleys of that can be connected to the canals to bring the water to us. we are in a desert. we treasure both the principal defense and the water very highly. but we have water for growth -- just smart " we are focused on and sustainable growth. host: bill in miami, florida. democrat. on with mayor phil gordon from phoenix.

caller: i forgot my question -- but i have another question in mind for you. our property taxes here in miami have gone up quite a bit. i do not know if it is true, but will go will begin. in our area, we do public works -- money is going to, i would say for private enterprises. we are building a stadium for the marlins, and i don't understand why we are using public money, money that should be going for roads or schools or public interest. and i feel that government should curtail on things, like spending for private industry with our money. maybe the team should pay for

it. i think they make more than enough money. what do you think about that? host: mr. mayor? guest: thank you. first, tell your mayor, a good friend, -- at least come visit, we could use some of the sales tax. on the issue of stadiums and construction, my perspective is, we need to prioritize. we need to make sure we are creating jobs. again, the private sector, if they are creating jobs and it is an asset that is truly a public asset, that is a great investment. whether a stadium is or isn't, depending on the revenue and depending on how it is structured -- you know, i am going to leave that to the local voters. the same issues that have blown up here in arizona. i will say when there is a winning team, that revenue that

is generated is an important post. we had some important playoff games, all-star games. on the other hand, if it is strictly going into the pocket of any private individual or corporation, then i think that is not an appropriate use. i sent you have to look at how it is being structured, how benefits will flow and how many jobs are being created both end creation and afterward? tourism host:, upper down? guest: significantly down. rates are attractive, air fare is track -- attractive. phoenix probably one of the leading resort areas in the country, with golf courses and all of the amenities. with people being laid off, the tourist industry is being hit significantly, and that has had a significant impact on the revenues that governors --

governments as well as private have and joy. host: wayne from phoenix. on with mayor gordon. caller: my name is win. i am calling from tucson, but i grew up in phoenix. we do have a lot of nice resorts in phoenix. i want to congratulate you on phoenix spending $600 million to own a resort. i don't know where it came from. my primary concern is i live in tucson because phoenix is so violence because, first off, it take the funds from anyone trying to do anything to do about immigration in our city. last time i had my windows shot out, then my car stolen. i can't live there. i grew up in south phoenix, and that used to be a nice. and all there is not as taco stands and graffiti and check cashing places. if you want comprehensive immigration, that means give everyone permission to stay here, how is that going to believe that the problems?

if there is not enough work for people like me, would use to call the working poor, now you cannot work unless he speaks spanish. it is my country, i may veteran, i tried to do everything right but you are not on my side. i remember in the 1960's try to get his city job, telling me if my name was garcia i have a better chance. host: mr. mayor? guest: first, let me say, i think the problem with this country not being able to solve the immigration is because i think both of the frustration that the caller just expressed an extreme labels that cannot really do justice. the city of phoenix, according to the fbi, has had some of the best criminal reduction records in the country. in fact, we didn't receive additional funding under the

cops program, as a result that we did have a reduced crime for the last three years in a row. the only moot -- the only major city to have and in all categories. we are very proud. secondly, as i explained earlier, city of phoenix is about 30% of public safety work force in the state and about 40% to 45% in the valley. the rest of the vast majority, 50% plus, of all of those illegals in our county jails. to say the city of phoenix police is not doing their work and does not save really is not fair and correct. with respect to bell road, a new major investments, both car dealerships, economic development, small businesses -- whether it is thunderbird, camelback -- this city is

growing. i think the caller's experience is really unique in today's world as opposed to what he experienced almost five decades ago. ago. host: what is your given the investigations that are going on by the justice department, both criminal and civil rights and the lawsuits that have been ochre ring, at this point, i leave the police into our police chief -- leave the policing to the police chief. caller: through solar technology you have created a new field of education, working, use the

stimulus, cash for clunkers, wind turbines, anything, because you're living in a son bank. use that. guest: i could not agree more. that is like phoenix in december came out with the agreement phoenix plan. -- came out with a green phoenix plan. a new community college system for training in creating future green college opportunities. and converting our buildings to solar and renewable energy, reducing the heat in carbon output within the valley, servicing new installations and maintenance technology development at the universities. not only in solar but in the

biological conversion of energy through plants. phoenix should be and will be the solar capital since we have 365 days of sun had of the year and one for of the -- one form or the other. we are very stable. we are ready for it. . . journal" this morning, one of the air -- editorials praised the governor's plan, her tax plan coming out for the state of arizona. the is that affect you, is that a good thing, in your view? guest: we are the only state in my knowledge that does not have a balanced budget. the republican house and senate the republican house and senate and the governor had not been able to put any budget together, which means we continue to go further and further in debt. in fact, we have a higher debt

problem than california does in percentage of people and our capital. and then the proposed budget is devastating to cities. while the governor has minimized the impact, the proposals that are being floated will impact our ability to build fire stations, police stations, libraries, senior centers, and deliver service. not only for the city of phoenix, but for all of our stakeholders. this budget believes and slashing budgets, slashing investments and then putting the tax burden on those who can least afford it. so i am perplexed as to what the logic is in any of these proposals that are being floated. i do agree with the governor that we probably need some type of interim sales tax, but i

think we need to be able to share that revenue points of police officers and firefighters and continue to be paid. host: but last call is from cottonwood, ariz.. steve is on the line. caller: yes. i have been living in arizona for 23 years. i worked in phoenix for about 18 years. i will tell you, i have seen so many illegal immigrants meeting in phoenix. it is just killing me. -- it is just killing the construction business. i worked in oregon and montana, and i come here in a right to work state and making what i did back in the 1980's because of all of the illegals here. you have been fighting -- every step of the way. the whole thing, the police

chief of phoenix, he is a democrat and he won't let his officers ask if they are illegal or whatever. host: we will have to live there. mayor gordon, a sharp response? guest: number one, i did not know what the chief police -- he is a professional and recognized, the most respected -- most respected. no. two, with inviting the issues. number three, the officers have a policy that is supported, in fact a model for the country. the other agencies have done it, when it is appropriate, and not based on race but a violation of law as to the legal status. and they arrest. again, i think there is a lot of misunderstanding and unfortunately individuals like the sheriff had targeted people because of the color of their skin. i don't know how you determine whether it individuals are legal or illegal because of either the color of their skin as to whether -- or their necks and,

particularly in boborder states where we have >> and more mayors coming up. "washington journal" is like every day, beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. in a couple of minutes we will take you live to the national press club where lawrence summers will talk about national security. during the congressional recess, lawmakers have been hearing from constituents about their concerns for health care. we will show you them tonight beginning with senator ben cardin just outside baltimore.

>> they need tax money. do you realize how big it is? >> a 10% chance.

i know how the system works. ok, so why give free health care? >> concerned citizens. >> it is not even the same system. >> right now in europe, germany, france -- england has a hard time because more than one-third of their population of working people work in the healthcare system. it is a large voting caucus. but france is ready to get rid of it now. canada -- ok, the guy who originated the idea is now an

opponent of it because it has gone so awry. >> you know that the latest polls say that the majority of canadians are happy with the healthcare, a much higher percentage than americans. [chanting] >> insurance companies made profits by denying your claims. >> what do we want? >> health care. >> when do we want it? >> now.

[indistinct chanting] >> two, four, six, eight --

>> who's goin' to pay? [chanting] >> you deserve health care. [chanting]

>> would you please specify which article in this section of the united states constitution gives the congress to forcibly interfered with my right under contract of my own health care? [applause] >> article one. >> and a reminder that you will see all of that town hall meeting tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. we will take you live it to the national press club in a few

minutes. we're waiting for larry summers, the director of the national economic council, speaking about retirement security. we will have in it like for you once it starts. here is a look at items in the news and your phone calls. this is how "usa today" plays it this morning on page 2a. and, here "the wall street journal" -- obama has to town hall meetings. he plans to hold them in portsmouth, new hampshire, and friday in montana, and saturday in grand junction, colorado. a white house official said that participants would not be screened to keep out opponents. @@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

it would keep people from losing coverage if they get sick, and protect americans who pay high, out of pocket costs. the white house has been upstaged recently by a series of congressional town hall meetings that turned around the after attendees shouted questions about the president's top domestic policy priority. here is the front page of "the baltimore sun" -- noisy disbelief. the senator is heckled the throughout the session. one of our video journalists was their last night and we got a lot of video out said. we will show you the full town meeting this evening at 8:00 p.m. on c-span, but in this article, by paul west and another writer, they begin arriving four hours early,

ignoring he levels, for a chance to holler at senator benjamin cardin's meeting on tuesday night. profound this bullyinthis beliee mood. it goes on to say that many laughed uproariously when he denied that illegal immigrants would be entitled coverage under the democratic plan. but they jumped to their feet when an audience member asked if it was mobilized by the activist arm of his campaign organization -- they jostle alongside conservative protesters carrying detailed, but not actually-accurate

critics. one woman said she is "not a mob" when she referred to the way that the democratic party has described angry opponents. that is all in the baltimore paper this morning. we have shown you some video from outside the town hall meeting that was held last night. the full town hall meeting will be at 8:00 p.m. tonight on c- span. president obama said that the canadian system is not for the u.s.. we want your reaction. austin, texas, on the line for democrats, your first. guest: i know it is ridiculous to say and he was probably forced into by republicans and the healthcare system and big phrma could they have criticized the canadian system.

people in this country who are in favor for reform would be overjoyed. caller: yes, i think the motive was mostly to assuage republicans in distancing himself from tbeen an advocate from the single-payer system which is nearly a curse word in republican circles. host: florida, would be a thing? caller: i think it is a good remark. we call them snowbirds. they come here every winter and they pay for their own care, the ones who can afford two does not equal four with this bill. how the save over $500 billion -- where will you find it? illegals, yes, they will get it.

there's nothing in the bill that says they cannot. abortion will be paid for just as it is in massachusetts. host: alexandria, va., democrats, good morning. what you think about president obama's caller: line yes, canadian's system is unique for canada. ours is unique for the 90 states. these people protesting are protesting for the insurance companies, but they do not realize it. we are trying to help the americans. they are out there trying to ruin this course while we are having a discussion about what will benefit americans. if these people want to act crazy they need to go somewhere else. this is america and we are a democracy here. host: this is video from outside

the town hall meeting in towson , md., shot by one of our video journalists. this is from the chicago paper this morning. dick durbin said that obama is ready to deal on health care. president obama would like to get something passed for health care reform and then start negotiating. he told five small-business owners this at a health care meeting in chicago on monday. host: mich., independent line, you are on the air. caller: the thing that is confusing right now is the republicans acting up. it is shameful. we do not know what the president's plan is. we do not even know what the canadian plan is. i am not interested in the canadian plan. i served in the military.

i am an american. we do not need to copycat the plan from canada. this is america. these crybabies out there are a bunch of have with and do not know what they're talking about. i'm waiting on the president's town hall meeting today so that i can understand better what the real program is about. it is just irresponsible for people to make these ridiculous comments about death panels and killing old folks. this is ridiculous. no one in this country would stand for that, nobody. especially myself. host: at 8:00 a.m. this morning will be about to speak with linda douglass. she is the director of communications at the white house reform center. hear from "the hill" newspaper, democrats fight back on health care in town halls. after one week on the defensive, democrats stepped up

their response to what they consider to be a contrived harassment campaign. there coordinated efforts come from the white house. democratic leaders and allied groups suggested that democrats seize some political gain by going on the attack. organizing for america, the successor to obama's grass-roots campaign organization, sought to counter by asking members to visit their lawmakers' offices to show support for the health legislation. the white house set up a new website to the bunk opponents' claims, including one that the bill would lead to euthanasia. that new website which debuts today is called whitehouse.gov. >> we will leave this and take the lead to the national press club to hear from larry summers. he will speak to the annual retirement conference. this is like here on c-span. -- live on c-span.

>> it is a great honor to have larry with us. he is one of the most distinguished economists and economic policy-makers in the world. he currently serves as the director of the national economic council and is assistant to the president on economic policy. his past positions include president of harvard, awarded the medal for the economics organization for his research contributions, and a list goes on. for a tough audience like you that does not cut much ice, so let me remind you of his contributions in the area of retirement security. reminded that his early work on life cycle savings helped to launch a three-decade long research program. how it can explain saving

patterns in the economy of households. he was one of the first to suspect long term reversal of asset prices. they play in absolutely fundamental role in allocations also would make as they save for later years. as a policymaker in the mid- 1990s he helped to champion the cause of introducing indexed bonds in the u.s. which for many years of discussions had been indicated a key lack for households in preparation. we do not have sessions on those topics any longer. in the late 1990's, teaming up he made it easier for firms to adopt it will plants and ways to encourage contribution involuntary retirement savings plans. i remember getting a call from the secretary of the treasury

office asking if i could speak for a few moments. when larry kim on the line, he said he was working on a new working paper with the default plants encouraged participation in the 401k plans. he asked me about the research committee. but that brief conversation crystallized for me when i think is a key hallmark of his work as both a policy maker and researcher. as a policymaker he has been successful i drawn on the latest research to help inform the policy issues of the day. as a researcher he has been successful at focusing on key policy questions to direct research he and his colleagues carried out. i have been fortunate to know him for a long time. we met when i was an undergraduate and he has been a mentor to me throughout my career. i have always profited from listening to his insight and

analysis on economic issues. the last time he and i were on a podium together at stanford in march 2008, larry delivered a strikingly negative assessment of the state of the global financial and macro economic environment. it pointed to a large and growing real-estate losses, fragility and the financial sector that had gone unnoticed. he concluded by saying that we are facing the most serious situation the u.s. has faced in a generation and possibly for much longer. that morning bear stearns traded at $75 per share. i flew home thinking, maybe larry has just gotten pessimistic these days. [laughter] those doubts only lasted for 10 days because we were together on a friday and a week from monday bear stearns had been taken over $40 per share. we were writing a new chapter in global financial and economic history.

this fnn he will talk about the administration's economic program. i am delighted to welcome him to the platform. -- this afternoon he will talk about the economic program. [applause] >> jim, thank you very much for that generous introduction. can we be a tag team wherever i go and you introduce me? that was really terrific. it reminded me of the old lyndon johnson line, about -- i wish my parents had been here for that. my father would have appreciated it. my mother would have believed it. i really do appreciate what you said and i have valued our friendship.

it must now be more than 30 years since you came to work as a research assistant for me in the late 1970's. there has been an enormous amount of research amending technical change if you think about computers. but i don't think there is still to this day a research assistant who could do so much and so little time so accurately as jim poterba could in the 1970's. it was quite remarkable. there was remarkable leadership

will marty feldstein. now it can look forward to an even longer term of leadership from jim. the bureau and the economics profession are fortunate to have you in the position, jim. i would say that our country is fortunate to have come source yet and groups -- consortiums and groups and conferences like this one. it is not the case that your average senator curls up on the average evening with a working paper, i am sorry to tell you. it is the case that the president walked into my office one day and observed a copy of

the papers on economic activity sitting on my table, picked it up and looked at it, and said, you know, larry, i don't think i will be taken as some for the weekend. but this story jim told about research on defaults and movements toward changes in ira rules is a true story. as one who now has responsibility for daily briefing of the president on

economic policy for we take up an economic subject each day in addition to reporting on that news, i can tell you that the kind of research done at this conference, whether it is work that establishes that 70 is the new 60, or work that looks at the surprisingly large number of people with surprisingly low levels of financial assets, or whether it is work that explores and tries to bring honesty to the question of funding, adequacy of funding of defined benefit pensions plans, it has an enormous impact over time on

the course of public policy. just because the puzzle chains are long and variable does not mean that the impact is not very real. one of the great strengths of american economic policy, and i think it is actually an area where the united states is stronger than almost any other country, is the cross- fertilization between a rich and vibrant research community in universities and think tanks and the actual process of creation of public policy. whether it is the two-way movement of individuals of which i and several others in this room have been an example, or whether it is simply the example that comes from the reading and

communication -- it really does make a big difference. i thought what i would do for just a few minutes this afternoon is talk about the administration's economic strategy. i will touch on how some retirement security issues relate to it. priority number one for the administration following the president's election, during the transition, was rescuing the american economy from what paul klugman had captured in the prevailing sentiment -- let's not mince words he wrote in january to a dozen and, this looks an awful lot like the beginning of the second great depression.

-- in january 2000. economy had lost 700,000 jobs per month in the quarter ending january. gdp had fallen faster than any time since 1958. the budget deficit was projected to be in excess of $1 trillion. the market at one point was at the same level. inflation adjusted, that had been in 1966. options implied a one of six chance that the dow would fall beyond 5000, and the 38% of investment-grade corporate bonds would defaults over the coming decade. large numbers of cities and states could issue debt despite their tax exemption of rates only a significantly greater than the treasury. frankly from the point of view of asian-americans, as from the point of view of other

americans, a single issue stopping the decline, bringing about a reversal, establishing an element of normalcy was of central importance. without a halt to the free fall no other economic policy was going to succeed and no other economic goals, whether the incorporation of technical change or the reduction of poverty, whether the promotion of old age security or the strengthening of access to higher education, whether the restoration of budget balance or the return of banks to help, no other objective had any chance of being met if a free fall was

not contained. that is why the administration moved immediately to contain the freefall. with a diagnosis that started from the premise that we had was a vicious cycle in which a weak economy contributed to a weak financial system and the weak financial system contributed to a weak economy, and that was necessary to intervene strongly at both nodes with a strong program of fiscal expansion to raise incomes, increased the ability to repay loans, create demand in the economy. and with a strong set of measures to address excess foreclosures, to promote

transparency, and encourage capital-raising on the part of the major financial institutions. we put that program in place. the recovery act was legislated in less than 30 days after the president took office. already it has obligated more than $200 billion and led to the commencement of several thousand projects. the financial recovery has been manifest if one looks at financial indicators, credit spreads, many of which have now returned to pre-lehman brothers

levels. we have a long way to go. problems were not created in a week or month or year. and they will not be resolved on the timeline. but looking at prevailing forecasts for gdp growth in the second half of this year, which on the part of almost all professional forecasters are no positive -- looking at the rate of job loss which is running at have or less of earlier rates, looking at market indicators not because policy can be judged by the market, but because there is information in markets.

more obvious indicators like stock markets, less obvious ones like credit spreads spread between libor and federal funds -- forward markets and what they suggest about housing prices, some distance in the future. what one sees is a substantial return toward immoralitnormalit. it is reasonable in the context to say that we are in a good place compared to six months ago. the sense of vertical decline has been contained. we are beginning to lay a foundation for future. future -- for future growth. at that point becomes crucial to think about the kind of

foundation we want to lay and the kind of growth that we want to have going forward. if one looks carefully at the last two recoveries, the last two expansions, and even to some extent the expansion before, those expansions were supported in very substantial part by asset bubbles that drove consumption. in housing most recently, and technology in the broader market. they were assisted with the very substantial financial the statiization of the economy, and

perhaps in consequence with significant increases in equality, and they coincided with important lags in crucial systems within the coming that are essential for our future. health care, education, energy. i would suggest periods in which the economy move forward, but related to the substantial increases in inequality we did not make the progress in promoting retirement security that we might have hoped to make during a period of substantial expansion. so the president was very clear.

this was something he was clear run from the very beginning even in the darkest days. he was very clear that we could not pursue, and his judgment, a strategy of simply trying to restore employment and leave the questions of economic structure for the future. that as we were stimulating the economy we had to think about what kind of stimulus we were providing. how could not be a good idea at a time when fiscal stimulus was necessary and large numbers of people were out of work not to create jobs remedying the situation where the average hospital used less information

technology than the average supermarket. how could not be read at a time when we needed demand and the economy not to be engaged in substantial with a rescission of buildings that the federal government owned or the payback -- weatherizations of buildings where there would be paid back over three or four years? how cannot be right to seek to revitalize deposition and high- speed rail and other key areas of infrastructure, and in particular in renewable energy? how could not be right to take steps that would be desirable at any time, but were essential as we were pursuing stimulus just on the brink of the time that

the baby boom generation was going to begin to turn 65? that is why the president has recognized the crucial relationship between retirement security issues and the lone-run health of the federal budget. what is true if you study the federal budget closely is this. you look not over three years or five, but over 15 years or more. if you do not get health care, costs under care the budget will not be under control -- if you do not get health care costs under control, the budget will not be no matter what. if you do get health care costs under control and make substantial progress in slowing the growth of health-care costs, the stakes are very large. even several tenths of a

percent, as peter orszag likes to point out regularly, contain substantial reductions in costs is sustaineif sustained is large impact of social security on the deficit on a 75-year basis. that is why the administration has done something unusual. on one level this city has seen it many times. a new progressive administration is pushing for measures to substantially change healthcare, and that would widen access. but on another level this is different. the question of cost is at the center of the debate. you can debate the specific measures and programs the administration has proposed.

you can debate the particular compromises the political process may or may not make in the future. but when you cannot debate -- what we cannot debate is that the cost is at the center of the debate, and you cannot dispute that we cut taxes without thinking about doing it in a balanced budget way. thinking what it would be in 2001 or 2003. we expanded prescription drug benefits without anybody considering the issue of what a thepay-fors were. we just did not think about the question. we launched a major war in the middle east without anybody thinking about what the costs were. let's have the best possible

debate, but let's remember that for the first time we have a debate where it cost is going to be absolutely at the center. second, we have got crucial issues in thinking about the savings aspects of retirement security. you know, if someone had said they have a policy that would lift the personal savings rate from zero to 6%, most in this room would say that is pretty good. many have written papers that say it is hard to do policy to influence the rate by very much. we showed them. [laughter]

now i would not recommend incipient depression as an attractive strategy to change the savings rate. there is such a thing as adjustment that is too radical. there is an aspect that i think has gotten too little attention over time, though no doubt some researchers here have thought about it carefully. that is this. you can imagine people having a wealth income ratio of four because they have no debt and has assets equal to four times their income, or you can imagine they're having a wealth income ratio of four because they have six times their income

and assets and two times their income in liabilities. from the point of view of my 1981 paper or many other analyses those are basically the same thing. what matters is the net worth to income ratio. but if they are levered, then the volatility of their wealth is the much greater, even if the volatility of the underlying assets does not change. now what about the underlying volatility of their assets? the single largest asset in most americans portfolio is their house. it is hard to believe that whatever stigma one attached to

one's house five years from now, one should not attach a much greater one today. i am not sure what financial asset the same can be said about. in a world of more levered households and substantially greater leverage on the part of households, i think we need to think very carefully about target asset income ratios, target savings rates, and about retirement security. the more traditional static view that focused only on the ratio of net assets to income may not be appropriate. a related aspect and one

receiving substantial policy attention right now is the microeconomics, the microeconomics of saving. we have much more extensively, we have extensive issues around the transaction's cost, the undisclosed risks associated with a range of savings vehicles. while credit cards have been much in the news, and we have legislated in that area, while

overdraft fees had seized headlines in the last several days, there is in my judgment room for considerable policy attention to the fraction of the return on individual savings that is produced in one way or another by marketing, administrative, and other kinds of transactions, costs. one crucial area of exploration as we pursue financial regulation will be preserving the range of choice that we have, but making sure that individuals are given a fair opportunity to understand what

they buy, and that the forces of the market are properly channeled towards containing transaction costs for the benefit of retirement security. finally, there will be the set of questions and these are also indicated by recent trends. if one looks at the data, one of the surprising features of recent data is that liberal force participation among the relatively aged has been stricken the robust during the current recession. the normal pattern is a cyclical aspects among those who do not absolutely have to be working, and part of that has traditionally manifest itself in a cycle among the older labor force. i don't think anyone understands

why one natural politiethe pouls this to a delay in returning from the labour force. and prior experience i know from the a typical segment of the population, university professors, that there is substantial sensitivity return of behavior to tiaa performance. i suspect that if you extrapolate current trends, recognize the consequences of the increased financial uncertainty, recognize the consequences of longer life spans and increased health and ability, and reduced visibility on the part of the aged, that more people work longer.

i think this will push us to think very hard about our labour market institutions and the traditional pattern in many large organizations in this country where an individual works through their lifetime, periodically been promoted to more responsibility and pay, and then at a certain time leaves. and it stops working altogether. that is a less typical pattern today than a generation ago. i think will be substantially less typical one generation from now. how we adapt to take a vantage of the tremendous human resources we have at our disposal as individuals adjust their effort over the life cycle will i think be a very substantial challenge. i do not think there will have

been more consequential decade in economic policy than the decade we are now entering. at least not more consequential decade since the 1930's. retirement security issues are crucial part of that. the contribution of research like that represented here will be very substantial. thank you very much. [applause] i would be happy to encircle questions. yes, sir? >> mike, drilling down a little further, would you see as a

possible consideration to amending the tax laws in terms of encouraging phased retirement so people can retire and take a pension for which you are knowledgeable and not be taxed disadvantageous the figure to work somewhere else? >> how do i answer that question? experience teaches me that something like that is difficult. if i say we're open to all possibilities you will write a headline that says "summers open to possibility of pension reform" but if i say "no, that is not american submarine" you will write "larry summers rules out tax pension reform." so, how to give an answer that will not change your prior probability on that question at all is very difficult. but the answer has just occurred

to me. you should continue to believe whatever prior probability you had. yes? >> al -- are there any differences in looking toward retirement and investing that you feel safe in talking about in differences between men and women? [applause] [laughter]

>> you just put a substantial risk the health of my staff. they watch my introductory remarks with considerable anxiety. they have been just reading and i expect a sigh of relief because i have not announced my intention to be provocative. now you have just put their health risk. i will move to the next question. >> i would like to give you an easy one. [inaudible] >> over the course of the president's term the administration will, i am confident, address social security and from the perspective that in an increasingly uncertain world,

uncertain because of the greater volatility of financial markets we spoke of, uncertain because of the greater leverage households find themselves, themselves uncertain because of you want to speak and a bloodless coup about it, the value of human capital is much less certain in theof volatile economy, that the protection of the bedrock of the system must be an absolutely central value. so, reforming social security in a way that will assure people that it is something they can rely on, a base from which the

can build their retirement security, would i am confident be at the center of any approach. yes, sir? >> approach to the social security, and a consulting actuary in have been setting the basis for social security for about 10-50 years in my conclusion has been that it with the backing of trustees who are normally conservative came up with a federal substance that may the costs higher than it should be instead of using inappropriate number of substance that there is a slight number of profit