Skip to main content

tv   Capital News Today  CSPAN  August 13, 2009 11:00pm-2:00am EDT

11:00 pm
in other words, dealing with one problem here as opposed to 100 problems is what you are asking us to do. >> please. >> thank you for coming. my question would be, what could you do to get the government out of our lives and let us use our god-given ability and talent to make things better for everyone. >> i suppose the easiest answer would be just to vote no on new
11:01 pm
programs. i think there are a lot of things out there already this year than to have the pill. .. i have found it easier to stop -- to cause problems for not getting larger and not establishing new problems and i found it to do with older programs. programs. being a person wants to limit government, i found the best way to do it was through the taxing policy. if you limit the money coming into the federal treasury, you will limit what can be spent to some extent. you are still having overspending. i do not by the principal that an increase the dollar of taxes is a dollar reduction in
11:02 pm
expenditures -- in the deficit. a dollar increase in taxes does not result in a dollar decrease in deficits. what it results in is probably a $15 - a $20 more being spent -- a $15 cents to dollar and 20 cents being spent. i think this is the best way to do it. that is part of the because i sit on the committee that has jurisdiction over taxes. my principle is to keep taxes where they have been on the 40 or 50 year average. i do not have charts to show you. this will be easier to explain with charts. whether we have a high marginal tax rates like we had in 1993 -- in 1983 or the lower 6% when
11:03 pm
reagan was president, but did this president has his way it'll go to 39.6%. i could show you that on the 40 year average, about 15%-18% of gross national product comes through the government for 535 members deciding how to spend it. in the year 2000, when that gets to 22%, i am chairman of the senate finance committee. we have the biggest tax cut in the history of the country, the 2001 tax bill. we are back down into that range of 17%-19%. i think that is the best way to keep government from being interested.
11:04 pm
i would like to thank you for your integrity. and for sticking to the principles of the constitution and the bible. i would like to have you know that you are in our thoughts and prayers. i think this country really needs it. i see a parallel between what happened in the early 30's in germany and what is trying to be done by the leadership of this country now. step by step, there is overtaking of the freedoms and the choices and the privileges of this country. we have the health care reform bill, the water bill, one that limits the freedom of speech by the broadcasters.
11:05 pm
we have the cap and trade bill. one is being run by the house. white house and said the country. this is outrageous. my question is, in this green water bill act, is the word in navigable water being changed to water so that the federal government will have to go over all water in the united states? >> the answer is yes. i think any to go into this if you let me just a little bit deeper. this is a complicated issue. by the way, i am against that bill. she said she prays for people in government regularly. i pray for president obama every day. we have a responsibility to pay for people in government. all you have to do is read
11:06 pm
second timothy 2:1-2 and it tells everyone of us that believe in christ that we need to pray for people in government. i told the president at lunch one time i prayed for him. let's go back to this issue. in 1972, there was a court decision that restricted -- that gave the army corps of engineers almost control over any job on what he -- water that fell any place. in 1970, i was in the house and the changes but not very well. not enough to protect private property. thank god in the last 10 years, we've had two or three supreme court decisions that have restricted the army corps of engineers to what is termed
11:07 pm
"navigable waters." navigable is a legal term that says event oceangoing ship warship a certain size -- or a ship of certain size can go up the river, that is army corps of engineers controlled. people that want to control your private property, want to take the word unnavigable out. -- navigable out. yet the pedal of water and bureaucrats can come in and regulate it. -- you have a puddle of water and bureaucrats can come in and regulate it. that was a problem i had with judge sodic my door. i think she made some decisions -- said judge sonia sotomayor . i think she made some decisions
11:08 pm
that did not show some respect for private property. that was one of the reasons why i voted against her. [applause] can you come a little closer, please? if you cannot, i will come closer to you. maybe you should hold it for her so she can read. >> obama says people will have a choice and they can keep the insurance they have, but it was mentioned that on page 16 of this bill that it does not give that choice. i am confused. this is under the grandfather health insurance coverage.
11:09 pm
the individual's health insurance issuer offer such coverage and does not enroll any individual in such coverage. it is the first effective date of coverage on or after the first day of y1. what is y1? >> y1 would be the first year the bill would take effect. >> insurance companies cannot take on new people after that time? >> i have said the part of that bill. i am not sure i can comment on that. i can answer your question where i am coming from. i think it means what you fear, but i do not know for sure and maybe if my staff wants to chime in on this. but me see what i can answer without my staff helping me. what the president said during
11:10 pm
the campaign is in danger, not because he has changed his mind, because people in congress have a different thing that they want to accomplish. it goes to this public option thing. that is only part of it. that is an important part of it, because you heard me say before -- they say 120 million people will opt out for the government- run plan. then you have 170 -- any have about 50 million left. premiums will go up. pretty soon other people drop out. it makes the president's promise actually unworkable. if you are going to have a government-run plan that people get into. the other one which is in the house bill that you are talking about that, this may be part of
11:11 pm
what you are reading from, i do not know for sure, in the house bill there was a law passed in 1974 that gives companies that are self insured exemption from state mandates because they operated across the nation and internationally. they are exempt. in the house bill does away with that exemption in five years, which i read -- but i do not want to be taken word for word, because i have not studied it. i'm not a lawyer. john deere, after five years, would not have his plan. that is the way i read it or any other company that is operating under this. those two things lead me to
11:12 pm
believe that under -- after a certain time, you are not want people to keep your health insurance if you like it. if i do not hear from my staff, i'm going to want to the next question. if i am wrong -- >> [unintelligible] >> that is the bill. i'm going to vote against that. i'm not in favor of that. go where i can hear you. >> we have not yet heard of the senate bill being place. will that come to pass, first question? second, what are you looking at for out of pocket caps, a
11:13 pm
lifetime caps, coming with the bills under been presented to us? >> i can answer that. before our committee, we are still talking. we may not reach an agreement. we are talking about not having any cap at this point. the other bill is the senate kennedy-dodd bill. i'm not sure i can tell you exactly what the duke. if you are asking me what to do not know. they voted out the committee, but they do not want to print it did they do not want you reading between now and labor day. it is not scored either. the congressional budget office has not given them the score. we think there subterfuge there.
11:14 pm
if you find out in my cost, it would double the size of this trip. >> my health care cost on a monthly basis over $900,000. my out-of-pocket job requires me to have a part-time job to put fo on the table. we are looking at out of pocket caps so we can afford to deal with members of society. >> i think our policy is in the neighborhood of 13%-15%. again, i want to make clear. we are talking and there is no bill right now.
11:15 pm
i have been a practicing pediatrician for 55 feet -- 55 years. >> what do you@@@@@@r@ @ @ @ @ ) 20 of those years were spent, i am the lone survivor. i was on the blue shield board for 10 years, 1963 to 1973. and every single blue cross board in the country was nonprofit. we ran an operation with 15 doctors and 15 highly skilled businesspeople. the director was paid $75,000, and $93 of every penny paid in was [inaudible] there is not one single blue shield organization in the nization that is not profit.
11:16 pm
some of these companies like walmart -- -- welmark [unintelligible] the president got an extra $8 million bonus. the hedda aetna -- the head of aetna his salary is $60 million. a couple of others i have written down and i cannot find red cell. they are making so much money and we are spending twice as much per person than any other civilized country with health insurance. to the best of what figures i see -- if it jumps right out of my mind -- we are ranked 12th in hair care o -- health care in
11:17 pm
mortality rates and and in general we rank 12th, not first. it is great for people who have health insurance. there are 45 million people who do not. something has to be done about insurance companies and their rates and their profits. [applause] i had to move to texas . there are hospital delivered 300 babies a month. if they have medicaid they were fine. if they had insurance they were fine. but we have our monthly pediatric meeting, there was always about 35 people who came into the emergency room in labor, never having seen a doctor. in this country, i think that is just ludicrous.
11:18 pm
i'm sort of a libertarian. i think it is hard to legislate morality. they tried to do that with alcohol and it was a total failure. even now, alcohol causes more problems than all other drugs the together -- drugs or all legal into 1923. after which they became illegal and now there is a murder and robbery and all kinds of gang wars. drugs are cheape if they were made illegal. harcourt would have 50% less cases. -- our courts would have 50% less cases. all the money could be used to rehabilitate the people who did over use the drugs.
11:19 pm
my last statement is afghanistan is a total -- we have tried for tenure to do something with it. -- 10-year to do something with it. [unintelligible] i have a lotf that in a letter that i will pass on. [applause] he di>> he did not have the question, but it did prompt me to use the word medicaid. medicaid is a state and federal program. it is completely government run. it pays so little that we have got just a massive number of doctors that will not take medicaid patients. we are getting in that boat in
11:20 pm
the inner cities or rural america with medicare. it ought to give you some judgment about how much more you want the government to get involved in medicare. with medicaid, -- medicare, not medicaid -- one factor about money not being spent wisely in the united states is the statistic that, and you can get this from an annual study by dartmouth university, the upgraded every year. they have been doing this for two or three decades. if medicine costs were like a war from wisconsin over to washington state and from kansas north to canada, we would save 1/3 of our health care dollars.
11:21 pm
they would be in the medicare fund and make it last longer than it is. some of those are related to just simple things like how doctors practice medicine in iowa and do a good job of it. people in iowa are healthier than number. the doctor does not send it to the hospital at the job of a hat or a dozen specialists. those are things that really add up on the cost of money. getting back to what you said about taking care of the eight or 10 million people that do not have insurance and deer and on that, well, we need to zero in on things where money is not being spent wisely.
11:22 pm
why do not you come over and stand by me and you can talk right into this microphone and everyone can hear you? >> this is a follow-up on the issue of the uninsured and people that have pre-existing conditions. i think that is a larger problem in this country than the uninsured. you cannot get coverage because of that. i am curious what your thoughts are about how to solve that problem. >> that is a very good question. i'm sorry i did not touch on that in my opening comments, because it is one of those things that i think there is almost a consensus in washington that when we are dealing with health care that we ought to do away with the discrimination that comes from
11:23 pm
pre-existing conditions and then connected with it, we have this wide-ranging of high to low. we are going to narrow that down closer. between the high premium and low premium there will not be a big difference. in this particular instance, where we have been talking at this time is not to set up several insurance departments. we will continue state regulation of insurance, but we will do it through what we call preemption. federal law will preempt state law or override state law in these areas where they would allow pre-existing conditions.
11:24 pm
>> to me afford insurance companies to continue [unintelligible] is that not going to increase everyone's premiums? >> the extent to which we deal with this business of the uninsured and having insurance, that brings more revenue into the insurance company. >> i am just trying to figure out what did this. but it is one of the most difficult issues we have to deal with. it is one that is not even settled at this time. it is something that fits in with the american principle of individual responsibility. it is like the state if you decide to drive a car, and you have an individual responsibility to have car insurance. >> a few moments ago you said
11:25 pm
this bill, a john deere would not have health care. >> i did say that now. >> a few weeks ago you said you want better health care and you should work toward a john deere or the government. why would you predict them to lose their health care? >> you understand that i would not be for the provision that this lady brought up that i talked about. i do not think the exemption ought to be done away with. then he would keep the john deere insurance. go back one step in that into question. i am not for doing what the house of representatives is doing. >> i work for the electoral corporate jet. -- a cooperative. [unintelligible]
11:26 pm
we have a real concern would be hr2452 climate change a bill. our concern is for individuals or members that there of victorville's, you being from iron ore -- electric bills, tubing from iowayou being from a [unintelligible] i want to know if you are for the bill as it is and what this congress doing to make sure that electricity remains affordable and reliable and we can provide it? >> this is a bill that would increase your utility tax very directly every time you turn on the light switch it increases costs.
11:27 pm
everything you buy the goods three manufacturing process would be affected when you increase the cost of energy. this puts a real cost and the american family. it might be phased in between the year -- now in the year 2020. it to be major in three years and gradually ramp up to even more. the way it passed the house i would not vote for. that may not be the bill that comes up in the senate. there is not a bill out of the committee yet. i think we have until the end of the year to worry about this and work are members of congress. they are working on me about the issue. it think it is one to be issued a difficult for them to get some sort of a compromise -- i think it is going to be difficult for them to get some sort of a compromise. i would like to answer your question about where i am coming from and not going to vote for a bill and i do not know what it
11:28 pm
is it does not tell you much. with the house bill, if you have a problem within the united states was not a level playing field. the midwest and southwest are dependent upon cole and it is going to come out of this very badly. in new york and california, they are going to come out of it relatively well. the may even make a little bit of money. -- they may even make a little bit of money. when you go united states by itself, if the rest of the world is not follow along, we need to go ahead and be the moral authority for the other nations -- suppose we are uncle sucker instead of will stand and where the only ones that and of doing it. then we have a very unlevel playing ball. how ironic it is that the ones that are outsourcing
11:29 pm
manufacturing jobs to china over the last 10-years for some the same people promoting cap and trade for calling it cap and tax, because that is really what it is. i do not want to unlevel the people for america, particularly when the director of theuta says if the united states doesn't by itself it will not do much. -- does it by itself it will not do much. i turn my tangent to copenhagen in december. there are international negotiations. i do not know how to get china and india to come along. if they will go along with it and we will not lose all and we will not lose all manufacturers to china understand, china is the number one and matter of this pollution. not the united states. india is even more adamant about
11:30 pm
not doing anything. then, we lose our jobs. we want to get china under the umbrella. number two, it takes the 2/3 vote in the united states senate to get it done. there is some protection for our industry and some protection for our consumers if we do it through international treaty. >> glad to see you again today. i am a veteran. i am very proud to be a veteran. [applause] i belong to the american legion. in order for a person to be called a veteran that has to serve in the military, there are lots of people that are called veterans that cannot belong to
11:31 pm
the american legion. congress after world war roman one set up the american legion. is the largest veterans' organization in the world. we have a lot of people. in order to belong to the american legion, you had to be in the service during a war. we had a lot of people that after correa, vietnam, world war i, if they are still alive, that not able to belong to the american legion. it is up to an act of congress to change that. we as the american legion can change that. i was just wondering if maybe you would introduce a bill to have that change. >> i'm going to do this.
11:32 pm
if you would let my staff have your name and address, and i want them to tell james on a washington staff to call you said you can be in the background. quite frankly when you started out to talk, i was thinking in terms you are going to ask me -- i thought only the american legion made this determination. if you are right about congress doing that, we have done it since i have been in congress, i do not remember that. i want to know what there is about that and in the controversy is connected with it and maybe i will do what you want to say. i do not want to tell you that until i steady. i hope he did not get mad at me i do not do it. -- until i studied it. i hope you will not get mad at me if i do not do it. s>> if people can have
11:33 pm
five or 10 minutes and express their concerns without an answer. why do not we open it up for that for about five for 10 minutes? and not know how much more time we have. but my staff says there is one more question. i think what is being fought here is that i take too long to answer a question. i would be glad to just listen. >> [unintelligible] some of them are very highly controversial. they have really radical views. i do not understand what we see in those people. >> 44 czars that have been
11:34 pm
appointed to the white house. the lady is opposed to it. >> it is good to see you. thank you for being here. i appreciate folks from union county be here. i came up with eight questions. it is been narrowed down to if you. in your conversation, since the president did single you out as being one of the people willing to talk about various provisions, these something's out by to ask you. in your conversation, is there any provision for a person to purchase their own health insurance? is there any provision for the individual to establish health savings accounts and for a tax incentive to do so? is there any provision for tort
11:35 pm
reform would add substantially to health care costs? is there any guarantee that abortion or other life ending procedures will not be paid for by u.s. taxpayers? the other thing that is frustrating me is that why is health care reform getting some attention and the president's attention when the jobless rate is the greatest current threat for our family? >> one of the things that scares me is that when you hear the obama sound bites, his advocacy of the current keep your health insurance, etc. sounds very much like you. it scares me to death that there is so much misinformation around the we do not really know what is happening because the
11:36 pm
co-ops of the terms and debate. nobody can argue with what is being said because all they have done is say you'll keep your own insurance and do this or that. when you get to redeem the bills, that is not what it says. >> i realize the senses is part of the executive branch. a portion is done by congress. is there anyway we can get insurance at all the citizens of the united states will have equal representation after its? >> short said. not unless we amend the -- short answer. not unless we in amended the senses losses to not tell people
11:37 pm
that are illegally here. >> congress counts only the citizens and not all the people. >> statistics come from beingcensus. -- come from a beingcensthe cen. >> [unintelligible] there has never been made in the comment made about this. it is h.r.45. [unintelligible] this would make us report our fire arms on our income tax statements.
11:38 pm
it to make it have to pay taxes, about $50 each on our firearms. there is a top provision clause on page 16. guns must be locked and put away and gives the government a right to come into your home at any time and check things like this outcome. this is an encroachment on their second amendment. this is so sneaky because they will sneak it in on the internal revenue act of 1986. this can be passed by the finance committee without anyone voting on it. i am opposed to anything that encroaches on their second amendment rights. -- on our second amendment
11:39 pm
rights. >> i am too. i am, too. >> you pointed out several times that there are states to run the coast that cost a lot more for medical care. >> i am for it to under the thousand dollar cap on it. it as a medical -- $250,000 cap on it. it will save medical companies a lot. >> a clinic a comment about tort reform that will probably not be done. this is a really good thing.
11:40 pm
>> i am a farmer. >> this is regard to the inspector general. they are part of each government agency. recently the president fired one without a 30 day wait. -- 30 day wait period. we are going to have no police force along our government agencies? >> the one to answer that. the law that should have applied that if he is going to be fired he had to give a 30 day notice and notify congress. senator obama was the author of the bill along with me. he forgot about it evidently after a got elected. that person is doing. what we have here is a big problem with inspector
11:41 pm
general's that we have to watch this administration on. there are bills that have more presidential appointments of inspector general and said it had in the department heads appoint them. i use inspector general's tremendously in my oversight work. i get more fraud and mismanagement sorted out by working with the inspector general's. i'm going to fight hard to make sure they maintain their independence. one more question. >> it seems appropriate since we are the united methodist church to lead to know that the united methodist church [unintelligible] we are in favor of a public option and health care. we do not believe that health care is a commodity to be
11:42 pm
purchased by the largest bidder. nor do we believe that the insurance company bureaucracy is any more trustworthy than any other bureaucracy. the united methodist church believes that healthcare is a right of all americans, all people living in the united states. healthcare should not be off oauctioned off to the highest bidder. it goes to salaries, advertisements, and to maintain the health care bureaucracy which seems to be as large as -- as large as the government bureaucracy. the united methodist church voted for a public option for healthcare. >> thank you for telling me. i think we have to go.
11:43 pm
>> we would all like to thank the senator. [applause] >> thank you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> we are goingax credit to help people. >> you are still mi
11:44 pm
>> we just heard senator grassley take questions about health care. a number of organizations are weighing in on the health care debate with television spots. here are a couple of different points of view. >> what does health insurance reform mean for you? it means you can't be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition or drop if you get sick. it means putting healthcare decisions in the hands of you and your doctor. it means lower costs, a cap on out-of-pocket expenses, tough rules to cut waste and red tape, and focus on preventing illness before it strikes. what does it really mean? quality, affordable care you can count on. >> washington's latest of reform idea? a $1 trillion health plan with a government-run public option to
11:45 pm
big tax increases, even on health benefits. the nonpartisan congressional budget office says the deficit will grow $239 billion, and let it taxes, swelling deficits, and expanding government control of your health. tell congress to slow down and reform health care the right way. >> how is c-span funded? >> donations. >> private contributions. >> i don't know. >> from commercials. >> something from the government? >> 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public-service. a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. >> coming later on c-span, defense secretary robert gates talks to reporters about iraq
11:46 pm
and afghanistan. after that, the conference of progressive bloc -- bloggers. next, david sloane of aarp joined us on washington journal for 35 minutes. journal" continues. host: this is david sloane, the senior vice president of public relations for aarp. guest: thank you for having me. host: i want to show our audience two clips. then we will come back. >> the prescription drug companies have already said that they would be willing to put up $80 billion in rebates for prescription drugs as part of the health care reform package. we may be able to get even more
11:47 pm
than that, but think about it. when the prescription drug plan was passed, medicare part d, they decided it would not negotiate for the cheapest price. as a consequence seniors are way of repaying, and forced go out of pocket -- that the anatdonuts always looming, and if we can cut that in half it is money back into your pocket. that is one reason that aarp is so supportive because it will save it seniors money. >> aarp says they are supportive and have been for years on comprehensive health care reform. the president does not mean to apply any thing untoward. he has discussed the notion that
11:48 pm
aarp is supportive of legislation -- an agreement that would fund to linda donut hole for seniors as well as medicare part d, and comprehensive help with healthcare. host: what is the position of aarp on reform? guest: they made a big story out of this and shows how incendiary the health care discuson is. the reality is that the aarp has supported the need for reform for 50 years . we are in general agreement with many policy makers, democrats and republicans on the need for reform. all we were trying to do with our effort here was to make clear we have not yet endorsed the bill. we are in a listening mode with members. we are doing a lot of education and outreach to members.
11:49 pm
when there is a bill that has been finalized in the house and in the senate will make a decision about endorsement. host: let's show this ad by aarp about health care reform. >> special interest groups are trying to block progress on health care reform. derailing the debate with miss and scare tactics, desperately trying to stop you from discovering that reform will not ration care. you and your doctor will always decide the best treatment for you. learn the facts. host: what is the point of that ad? guest: you know, unfortunately, there's a tremendous amount of mythology around with these health reform bills seek to do. we return to make clear to people that this bill, whether the house bill's worked on, or the senate bills, are not going
11:50 pm
to result in socialized medicine or result in a government takeover. they are not going to put t government between you and your doctor. they are not going to result in euthanasia -- all of these comments that have been made really twist and distort with this legislation seeks to do. host: 1 more broad perspective. if you go on to the aarp website, one of the services it has been offering for years is access to health care insurance. you are player in the health insurance part of health care. how does that affect your positioning on the reform debate? guest: there are a lot of people whbelieve our commercial interests really affect our policy, and they do not. the reality is that we use our brand and licensing to providers that provide insurance and sell it to our members. it is a member benefit.
11:51 pm
three very large group plans we're able to offer the very best deals to members, so we feel it is part of our mission. it does not affect our policy. you will hear as we get into questions that we will have areas we can make that clear. host: let's do that. we have been talking about a lot here. we will begin with a telephone call from brian from michigan. good morning, on the republican line. caller: thank you, thank you mr. david sloane. guest: good morning. caller: i find it ironic. i am a republican but i did support president clinton the first time around. basically his platform was health care, health reform. the same thing as an a. he got into office, turned it over to his wife. i have high respect for her, she
11:52 pm
has done well. but it did not pass. now we have president obama who i do support because in an age group that does support the president. the thing about this, it is so ironic to me, so sad that he did the same thing, yet he talks -- he speaks really well, but he says that he will not make the same mistakes expecting better results. don't you find it ironic as an american citizen, sir, that he did not get out in the forefront and basically write this bill and say this is what i believe host: and why let me interrupt. -- let me interrupt. we will take it from here. guest: this white house has sought to do it differently. books have learned from mistakes
11:53 pm
previously made. the prior administration sought to send up an extraordinarily detailed bill. -- folks have learned from mistakes previously made. this president is trying to provide broad advice but let congress do actual legislation. i think it is a smart way to go. host: here is this message from twitter. guest: well, the donut hole is one of the reasons we're supporting health care reform and went to see changes. it is a significant coverage gap and the number one problem medicare beneficiaries complain about, the high cost of prescription drugs. we were fortunate to support the pharmaceutical industry negotiation with the white house to reduce by% costs through the donut hole.
11:54 pm
we're supporting provisions in the house bill that would close that gap and towed. there is rationing in this country and it is when people decide on their own to cut their bills in half or shooting down on their costs with prescription drugs because they simply cannot afford them. host: next, a phone call from north carolina. caller: good morning. i have beea question after watching the media and a lot of people are saying that there will not pay for a lot of people's health care, they need to get their own. but from my understanding is like automobile insurance. you pay for people who do not have automobile insurance. same thing with health insurance. they are paying anywhere.
11:55 pm
tell them it is not couple of dollars. it is a lot of money. guest: you are absolutely right. i appreciate your comment. within the premiums that all of this pay a certain percentage of that is the collective cost of uncompensated care. when people go into emergency rooms without insurance, those costs go somewhere. they go into the premiums that employers, individuals pay, costs reflected in what the government pays. it is sometimes referred to as the hidden tax anywhere from $800 up to $1,000 per year for the average family policy. there is no free lunch. you are correct. host: some of the language is very common to people in the system, but not for others. let me ask you to explain things.
11:56 pm
this next comment is about medicare part d. guest: it is the prescription drug benefit that was added to the medicare program in 2003. host: this your rights -- -- this viewer writes -- guest: well, i do not think that aarp supported the coverage gap. at the time there were only willing to put so many dollars into providing that drug benefit. one of the ways they go with that was by the architecture of a program which provided for the coverage gap which we believe is a serious flaw that needs to be closed. host: here is another question about it. guest: it is interesting you raise that. it was offered as an amendment in the energy and commerce committee showed before the
11:57 pm
house left for the august recess, and it is a provision we strongly support. that is something we believe ought to be in the final package. host: kentucky, on the republican line. caller: i would like to make a comment about medicare and insurance. i do not appreciate our president to get on the air and say that he will let us keep our insurance that we have. you do not let me do anything as far as i am concerned if i pay for it. i did not think it is any of his business what insurance co. and i have or the democrat party, either. or the republican party. i just do not believe in that. i do not abuse my insurance. i just found out that i have cancer which is in remission right now. i want to know if they would
11:58 pm
change everything so you will not have insurance, or not -- if i have to pay for taiwan's that entrance to be there when i needed. i only go to the doctor every three months to get my medication. i cannot take generic drugs. it makes me sick. why should they worry about it? if i pay for it, it is none of their business. the government is sticking their nose in too many things. there will be a civil war here in this country the next thing you know. i will not live to see it because i'm 86 years old. but if they do not quit arguing back and forth and do not try to get along, and another thing -- they need to get a lot of women out of government because they just run their mouth all the time. host: emma jean, we need to let
11:59 pm
you go at that point and best wishes for your own health care situation. guest: she raised a number of interesting points. first of all, aarp would not be working toward the passage of health reform the did anything to take away your medicare benefits. those are not on the table. it is not part of the discussion. what is is that medicare which is symptomatic of broader problems in the system is not on stable financial footing. it is going broke. we need to change the way medicare operates just as we need to change the way our overall health care system operates. we need to move away from a volumetric type of system and move towards a performance-based system that rewards doctors and hospitals for outcomes. it sounds a huge. there are minor steps over time
12:00 am
there are minor steps over time that will have to reorien make sure that your children and grandchildren have a medicare program that they can depend upon. >> the next call comes from illinois, the independent line. >> thank you for having me, c- span. i wanted to ask what the aarp's stance on folks on medicare who choose the medicare and not a private insurance option? their grandparents that are on medicare, and because they are low and come, they are on medicaid as well. . different options like part d. the fact that there is no dental
12:01 am
coverage is such an issue. everyone talks about wanting the choice for private insurance. there are people who want the choice for the government choice for the government option, the medicare, but really the issue is that you have to go the private option to give dentil coverage. it is such an issue for preventative care. i have to drive a family member 50 miles away from home just to get dental work done under their medicaid because there are no providers in the area close by. host: thank you. guest: one of the problems in the medicare system that need to be addressed is for those people enrolled in medicare advantage which is private plans that
12:02 am
offer medicare benefits, the average taxpayer and other beneficiaries are subsidizing what is in many cases are richer benefits package they enjoy to the tune of about 14% per year or about $1,000 more per year to provide benefits to someone through a private plan that they would normally get under the medicare program. you are correct, medicare itself does not offer dental coverage. that is something that obviously would be beneficial. it is a problem. but there are soonly so many things that can be afforded through a program like this. host: this concerns in of life counseling. would you speak about the part of the debate, please? guest: i would be glad to. many people rely upon
12:03 am
information they hear from the news. there is a tremendous amount of mis- even dis- information out there. it has been championed by both democrats and republicans and provides an optional consultation with a doctor under the medicare program once every five years for an individual to talk about whether they want advance directives, a living will, are any advance information to physicians said that in the event they become critically ill, they will have made wishes known. unfortunately, this has been distorted. it has become a debt panels, euthanasia. all of that kind of demagoguery does not help. -- into death panels. we need to stop confusing and terrified people. it is not a good thing or reasonable thing to do. host: the next call comes from
12:04 am
tennessee on the republican line. caller: first of all a couple of things. aarp represents a lot of people, but not necessarily me. isn't aarp a for-profit organization? guest: no, it is not. it is a not-for-profit organization. caller: well, six or aarp eight years or was looked at for receiving receipts from drugs. guest: we do have a for-profit side of the organization. caller: first of all, parts d medicare is a very good part of the program. it could be worth it to scale it down. the $3,500 donut part -- the first part is covered, the last part they pay for themselves.
12:05 am
95% of medications are paid for by medicare. guest: that is correct. caller: there is nothing wrong asking for people to help pay for their own medications. if they did not have it, where would they be? i did not see where the government will improve on the program. if they want to reduce it, that is fine. but medicare is also paid for by payroll taxes. i can see where they could extended if they want to make sure it is funded properly. 4% will not hurt someone. but to extend it for longer periods beyond someone was making $90,000 per year, they could probably do that and make it well-funded. host: thanks very much. everyone is giving us
12:06 am
complicated questions here. guest: yes, i'm not sure what the question was on that one. but it is our judgment that the donut hole is a problem. we have significant evidence through polling and other means that americans depression their bills. many beneficiaries from medicare are people who typically live on fixed incomes of maybe $20,000 or $30,000 per year and pay very high out of pocket costs, much higher than those in typical private insurance programs that might be employer- sponsored. they can pay 30% out of pocket for health care. that is very high in relation to the income i just reference. there are people who really have the financial needs. they need some support to make drugs more affordable. we want to make sure that people have access to their drugs. host: this is a frequent topic.
12:07 am
has mr. david sloane or aarp or act actually read the bill? guest: first of all, let me admit that i have not read the 1000-page bill in the house, but we have many people at aarp who are expert in legislative language, lawyers and policy people who have read the bill very thoroughly. i can assure you that there is nothing in that legislation in the house or senate bill that has been reported from the health committee that would in any way unable illegals to receive health care coverage. host: next call from albany, new york. caller: good morning. my question is what are going to
12:08 am
be the options for seniors who are going to be living on social security alone because of their retirement plans were derailed when the economy went defunct? also, what would happen if you were an older person in your eighties and your doctor recommended that he needed to check for, let's say, colin cancer? but a colonoscopy would be too invasive for you and a government plan would only cover the procedure and not one where you might swallow a camera. how the get what you need that would be best for you under those conditions -- how do you get what you need that is best for you under those conditions that are set procedures approved for certain treatments? guest: we have those now under any form of insurance.
12:09 am
interest companies deny procedures all the time. i do not think there's anything in healthcare reform that would lead us toward a system of rationing or determinations about which technologies or treatments would be given. there are provisions in the bill that would help to establish best practices and that would do head-to-head comparisons among various technologies and therapies and products to get a better sense of which are most effective. but i do not think there is anything in the legislation, and we categorically reject the notion of canadian-style health care -- aarp would not support that, and this legislation would not result in that type of legislation. host: here is another message.
12:10 am
guest: well, i think you are religious. clearly, just the difficulties they are having you can see how much consternation the idea of a public plan has cost. i think it is an unfortunate distraction. there are summoning core issues beyond the public plan notion. we would look at a public plan, try to evaluate its benefit and whether it could provide cost- effective care, but for us it is not a threshold issue. however, bipartisanship is important. we need to make sure that they're both democrats and republicans supporting this legislation. we're talking about significant
12:11 am
changes to our system. it is better to have as many people in congress supporting these things to provide the broadest base of support to launch such a significant change. host: our guest is a graduate of the american university and has spent time on capitol hill as a legislative director to delete lawmaker from rhode island. he served at the transportation department under elizabeth dole, and it was special assistant to george h. w. bush. how long have you been at the aarp? guest: four years. host: the next phone call is on the republican line. caller: i am a little surprised to would not support a system like the canadian system. we pay about 6% gdp war and are nowhere near covering everyone. if you factor that out, what does it save us? if we had a system like the
12:12 am
canadian one we could save about $500 billion per year. why we do not promote that system? is there some way that aarp cannot negotiate import drugs and distribute them on a not- for-profit basis for those who need them? guest: let me take your last question first. we support re-importation of drugs into the u.s. the situation here is that many of these are very expensive and there are no efforts to control prices here. there are in other countries we can get them less expensively. we think we should open the system up. there are legislative proposal sponsored by both democrats and republicans that would do that in a safe manner. with respect to your first question, there is some much concerned and hype about the canadian system, and i will not argue over its merits.
12:13 am
it might well be a system that works well for canadians, but you see the discussions we have here in the u.s. -- what is possible and the legislative process? it just is not possible. there has been an enormous focus on people having to wait long periods of time for procedures like hip replacements and it scares people here. it is just not a road we can afford to go down. it is imperative that we try to strengthen our health-care system in the u.s. things like the public plans which may well have some benefits leads to arguments about socialized medicine which is an unfortunate distraction from more important debate. host: the next phone call is from a william. caller: let me make one short statement and ask a final question. i am dvr'ing this and will put
12:14 am
it up on youtube. i'm a proud supporter of aarp guest: blood to hear it. caller: i joined back when i was 55, and i'm 75 now. i had allstate insurance on my house and both cars. you cut my prize -- or harper did, exactly in half of what i was pain. -- you cut my price. i have been with you for 20 years now and all thalthough i e one minor accident you only raise my price by about $20 per year. when i go out to rent-a-car and will get the final price and then pull out my aarp card and they still have to give you another. 20another my question -- bill o'reilly
12:15 am
compares with some republican plan which is retarded. -- the still have to give you another 20%. here was my question. but you keep advertising? most people have already cut back on advertising. fox news is just as bad. guest: that is a decision made primarily by the providers who offer insurance using the aarp brand. it is not a decision i would make, but they have lots of information that suggests it is a good place to advertise, so host: they do here is a message from twitter. guest: some people scratch their
12:16 am
heads and wonder why medicare is part of the discussion? guesthe medicare is symptomaticf many problems which is not to say it is effective and reliable with huge public support, but just like our standard healthcare system and needs to have incentives changed. the program is not financially sustainable right now and needs to be adjusted to some extent. there are coverage gaps. we need preventative benefits. we can do a better job of chronic care coordination. one problem in medicare is that 20% of the people who go into the hospital within 30 days return with related illnesses. we need to stop paying for that kind of service with hospitals and incentivize them to do a better job with managing the care of those who leave a
12:17 am
hospital so that they can remain out of the hospital. there are subtle, significant changes that need to be host: made john, on the republican line -- that need to be made. host: john, on the republican line. caller: we had a speaker in our church from brazil. he cannot walk, but his wife is on the same type of insurance, and they have to send all the way back to the u.s. to get it. host: new jersey, go ahead. caller: i don't know why everyone up there screaming is so upset. they all seem to have insurance. it is humanitarian.
12:18 am
these people can go to the doctors to get medicine. they have no problem doing that, but 50 million people cannot. insurance companies now control whatever treatment sick people do get. they make profits 19 treatment to those who need it, hoping that they will die before they have to get treatment -- they make profits not giving treatment to those who need it. also, foreign governments pay for the medical care of their people. businesses could compete more
12:19 am
easily with foreign governments if they did not have to pay so much for their employees. i do not understand the excitement of these people. president obama ran on a platform of getting health care treatment and issues change. now everyone else is screaming and yelling, saying it they do not want this to happen. i think it is time for change. i just had to get this off my chest. host: sir, someone who has been assembled with capitol hill and washington as you have, what is your opinion of how this will shape up after the august recess? guest: honestly, much of the town hall turmoil has taken people of back to some degree, but on the other hand, it is not surprising given where we are.
12:20 am
we have the most significant downturn since the great depression and are not out of the woods yet. many people approaching retirement or in retirement have lost an enormous amount of their nest egg. many have to return to work. there have been extraordinary government interventions to try to put a floor underneath the economy which was in freefall, which has added enormously to the deficit. i think there are many people who are quite worried and cynical about the government, so it is not surprising. but democracy is not always tidy. sometimes it gets a little rough around the edges. i do not think this will deter legislators from moving forward with reform because the costs of inaction are much greater than it actually trying to do the right thing. host: the last call comes from columbus, texas.
12:21 am
caller: how many people are on medicare and how much is the estimated shortfall for fiscal year 2009? when that increased our payments to cover the shortfall? the program will be in a position where it will nowill largely be government transfers to pay for things. the premiums collected are not enough to cover the program. it is scheduled to go broke within the next few years. action is needed. you would not be able to make it up through additional premium
12:22 am
increases. people are all looking for 25% with part b and payroll taxes are not enough to close that gap. other steps are needed. individual beneficiaries should not be responsible with trying to cover those. host: thank you for being here. guest: i appreciate your having me. host: at what point will aarp take a position? guest: when we return from the august recess, when the house finish >> on "washington journal," we will look at the news with erik erikson, the managing editor of the red state blog. corey booker focuses on job
12:23 am
losses and the economy. also with us, fred kaplan, author of "1959, the year everything changed." that is live on c-span at 7:00 a.m. >> brian jennings on the new fairness doctrine. why it is a bad idea and alternatives to censorship. he is interviewed by monica crowley on "afterwards," part of c-span2's booktv weekend. >> robert gates said the top commander in afghanistan will not include requests for more troops in an upcoming report on the country. afghanistan was the main topic at this briefing with reporters at the pentagon. it is about half an hour.
12:24 am
the role of the afghan military forces is to support an election administered and organized by the government of afghanistan. the goal is to provide an environment to hold a fair and credible election free from violence and intimidation. due to some of the operations that have taken place in the helmand province and other places in the south, it looks like more afghans will be able to vote than have been the case before the recent deployment of additional u.s. forces. we're looking at a mixed picture. the taliban has clearly
12:25 am
established a presence. the operation is under way now and those being considered for the coming months are designed to roll back the taliban and establish a lasting security and government present. the presence can give the afghan people confidence that they will be protected from retribution. a critical factor in the success of this mission is reducing civilian casualties from a military operation and i believe the rules of the abatement changes. -- changes general mcchrystal put in place are making a difference. these operations are but one component of a multi faceted strategy for afghanistan and pakistan announced by the president for. five months ago. at this time, general mcchrystal was assessing the security situation in the context of the president's goals and strategy and will submit his assessment to us and to nato sometime between the afghan elections and early september. that assessment will not
12:26 am
includes pacific recommendations or requests for more forces. we have made clear to general mcchrystal that he is free to ask for what he meet -- he needs to complete the mission he has been given. there has been a good deal of report and recently about what general mcchrystal might ask for. i can tell you it is premature to speculate on that. in a future report request will be considered separately and subsequent to his assessment of the security situation. i would be happy to take your questions. >> how long do you think american combat forces will be fighting active war in afghanistan? >> i think that is -- in the intelligence business, we used to categorize information in two ways, secrets and mysteries. secrets were things that were notable. mysteries were those where there were too many variables to predict.
12:27 am
i think how long u.s. forces will be in afghanistan is in that area. i think we're certainly hoping to see progress within one year in terms of the president goes on new strategy in general mcchrystal's new strategy. it would be our hope, assuming we are moving in the right direction, that we would cease to to we should, as we have seen in iraq over the past 2.5 years, where more and more of the security responsibility will fall from the international security forces to afghan security forces. we and our allies, as well as the afghans, see a significant easing factor here to be the
12:28 am
speed with which we can accelerate the growth of the afghan national army and police. we have a lot of money in the budget to do that for fiscal year 2010. i think it is just not possible to predict specific times when you are in a conflict like this when the enemy has a vote and when there are so many variables. as i said from the very beginning, i think we need to be in a position to be able to show progress within a year. being in a position where we could completely -- where we are in iraq depends a lot on the political environment inside afghanistan and also on the afghan national security forces.
12:29 am
>> we're looking at the significant engagement part of this and we are more into a holding side of this. we will turn over more responsibilities to the afghan national army and police for security. the acknowledgement and contribute to it. they helped us maintain -- maintain the security. you have a sense things will move in a direction that would be towards the end of the violence side of this agreement and more towards the stability, the holding side of the equation. >> what you're hoping to achieve in afghanistan, rebuilding institutions, increasing the size of the forces, the economy, it will take many years. david richards says british troops will be committed there for up to 40 years.
12:30 am
does that sound about right? >> i do not agree with that. first of all, i think you have to differentiate between institution-building and economic development on the one hand and defeating the taliban and al qaeda on the other. the latter can be accomplished with all of the considerations that i just described in a few years. the larger part of it come economic development and institution building, probably is a decade-long enterprise in a country that has been through 30 years of work and has as high and illiteracy rate as afghanistan does and a low level of economic development. that is a long-term prospect, but it is an area where virtually all of our international partners and non-
12:31 am
government organizations are committed to that side of the equation for an indefinite amount of time. that is what we do all over the world in developing countries. that is a long-term prospect. in terms of the security, you are looking at a shorter timeframe. i said it is unpredictable. i said perhaps in a few years. we have to show progress of the course of the next year. >> general cartwright, can you give us an update on the current operation in helmand province? is accomplishing what you set out to do? is this the desired time line for this operation? could it have been done sooner without days to spare before the election? >> on the first count, with the work that is going on in a
12:32 am
moment, we are seeing positive signs. the commanders believe that they are making progress. what is the end state if the election is the time when we're looking at? the metric is, are more people able to come out and availed themselves of the democratic process of voting? yes. that looks like it will be the case. all indications are. unstable? have we obtained the objectives we intended to? not yet. we have a lot of work to do. my sense is coming back to the original question, that will take a some time. from the standpoint of the marines and hellman, and now the strikers as they start to rolled in, they of establish a situation and the environment where the elections are going to be better off than before. >> the answer to your second question is straightforward. the forces were not available to send until recently. we got them in of breath that we
12:33 am
could. -- we got them in as fast as we could. . >> the second engine for the joint strike fighter, the senate does not want to build a second engine. you won a victory in the senate. the program managers said that the and a proposal had gone up by 0.4%, a fairly significant cost increase. doesn't that cost growth undercut your case for keeping one producer on the engine for the pentagon's largest weapons program? >> there is always cost growth associated with a developmental aircraft. that was true of the f-22 end of the at-35. -- f-22 and of the f-35.
12:34 am
we have billions of dollars in the budget to reduce program risk and allow for more engineers, more testing time, more airframes for testing, and obviously, the engines are part of it. we think that fixing the problems that we have encountered, the challenges we face with the engine, is something that is quite manageable, doable. we do not think it is the best use of our money to fund the second dungeon. >> general? >> there is more than one way to manage the risk and do all engines might be one. the path we're on it to manage it with technical expertise, making sure we are working up the day of the issues that we see that might be risk, and from the standpoint of a larger decision that we made here, for
12:35 am
a lot of reasons, be on management of risk, we went to the single engine. those reasons are still valid. >> are you in favor of a fixed contract as we go forward so the taxpayer does not get mailed? >> that is something we would have to look at. when perceptions began, the congress likes the idea. i am open to it. i think we have to get through the development part of the program. >> you have expressed reluctance to send more troops to afghanistan. have you been convinced to change your mind, perhaps through the belgian meeting? is it a matter of resources of the mission or changing the mission now? >> i have expressed my concern in the past about the sides -- the size of the footprint of international forces. i think general mcchrystal makes a very valid point that how those forces be paid for the
12:36 am
afghans is clearly an important element of that. so far, i think that most afghans see us as -- we are there to help them and are there partner. i do not know what the size of the international presence, military presence, might be that would begin to change that. i think we need to move with care in that respect, and in close consultation with our allies and with the afghan government. that is still a concern for me. i would also say that the availability of forces is still a challenge as well. >> what is your view of the resources? >> right now, we have a new strategy. we are resources of that strategy. the resources and the forces have not all flowed. the infrastructure is not in place for that strategy change
12:37 am
and the allocations we put against it. as general mcchrystal goes for the fifth month, it is understanding he is still receiving forces against that strategy. he is assessing, have i got it laid down right? is it appropriate? is that restores laid down corporate -- down appropriately for the problem that is there? he will come back to us and talk more about, am i going to be able to do that job i was given? it is not coming back and saying, what our forces. it is a question of the strategy resource mix. is it executable as we go forward? remember, the forces that are moving to the theater under this updated strategy are not all there yet. >> as you look at 4.5 months of reduced afghan strategy, one of the things we do not hear you talk about any more is osama bin
12:38 am
laden. if you look at this regional strategy, and they're so busy with this, to what extent as the hunt for bin laden become less of a priority? on a scale of ato 10? -- scale of 1 to 10? >> we are still very interested in getting rid of the leadership of al qaeda. i can tell you that the effort against al qaeda, not just in afghanistan, but in other parts of africa and the middle east goes on. my view is that what we need to do -- i think we have done some real damage overtime to the al
12:39 am
qaeda organization and leadership, and i think they still have capabilities. they are still the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world with respect to this country and a lot of our allies. and they are a high priority. by the same token, that does not mean we cannot resource the efforts in afghanistan. >> and stand with you were saying about leadership. my question goes to, some americans -- so many americans, eight years later -- the president talked about killing him. to what extent can you tell americans -- have you had any good leads? does this administration still look for him every day? what is their priority? >> i would say that the united states and allies and partners
12:40 am
continue to have the hunt for al qaeda very high on our priority list. let's leave it at that. >> [unintelligible] has caused a lot of concern among latin american countries, among them u.s. allies. do you feel this agreement is worth the political price? what guarantees can you give the u.s. will actually not deviate from its mission there inside the border? >> let me start. virtually, all of the counter- narcotics efforts that we pursue in latin america are in partnership with other countries. these are not unilateral actions on our part. we hope to continue these partnerships. clearly, the need for reconnaissance, being able to
12:41 am
five laboratories and so on, we bring some assets to this that our allies will come. that is what this is all about. how do we work together with our partners in the region to go after these narcotics cartels? >> as you might know, this is talking about seven bases in particular. the intent here, what we're doing is going in first. we used these bases to provide capabilities. it is going in and actually assessing the basis for safety and security, the ability to give us fuel, park, the weight bearing of the runway, things like that. the intent, though, the strategic intent, is to be able to provide what they need in order to continue to prosecute their efforts against the internal threat they have. this is a bilateral relationship
12:42 am
with the colombians. >> criticisms or concerns are expressed by latin american allies. >> we need to do a better job of explaining what we're doing and make it transparent. the concerns are valid. we need to do a better job about describing what we are doing to make sure we allay those concerns to the best of our ability. >> pakistani -- pakistan responded and there has been fighting on the border. all of that is going on. only 9% of pakistan's see the u.s. as a partner. 64% to the u.s. as the enemy. how do you react to that? what you think is the role in changing that public opinion?
12:43 am
personally, do you see a need to go to pakistan? you have not been there. >> i think that, first of all, one of the reasons that the pakistanis have concerns about cus is that we walked away from them twice. we walked away from them after the soviets left afghanistan. we walked away from them through the 1990's because of the pressler amendment. our military to military relations were significantly interrupted. i think the pakistanis, probably with some legitimacy, question how long we are prepared to stay
12:44 am
there. is the only reason we are interested in working with them because of the war in afghanistan? do we value pakistan as a partner and ally independent of the war in afghanistan? the latter is the case. i think that the bills on the hill to provide multiyear economic assistance to pakistan manifest that. i think it is going to take us time to rebuild confidence for the pakistani people that we are long-term friend and ally of pakistan. by the same token, i think the polls that are perhaps more meaningful in this context is the strong support that the pakistani people seem to have given to their government in terms of the activities in western pakistan in the fatah and the northwest frontier province. there seems to be more than any of us would have expected six months ago. broad political support for what
12:45 am
the pakistani military is doing. i think that this change of attitude and the success of the pakistani forces clearly serves our interests as well as it serves the interests of the pakistanis. my hope is that over time, we will be able to demonstrate to them that we are a reliable ally that they can count on for the long-term. over the next six or eight months, one of the places i am looking into going back to is pakistan. it has been a while. admiral mullen has developed a good relationship with the general and he has made something like a dozen or 13 visits to pakistan over the past 15 months. but it probably is time for me to return. >> [inaudible]
12:46 am
their concerns about the federal government of president karzai. al qaeda is still coming back in the government is not doing much. >> the only thing i would say is that -- is what admiral mullen has testified to on a number of occasions. we're comfortable with the level of security. >> back to the availability of forces for can stand. you have called for 22,000 increase in the army. that will take some time. do you have the forces to give to general mcchrystal and in the short term? i need more into next year. does the president agree? >> as far as i know, people have not started to look into the
12:47 am
availability of forces. i would say off the top of my head that, until a more accelerated drawdown in iraq begins after the elections, that it will be a challenge for us and particularly as we seek to increase the dwell time at all for our forces. it is something that i am sure will be looked at. it will depend entirely on what he proposes. >> is that after providing courses for afghanistan? >> i think you have to balance these things. >> you mentioned when you left iraq a few weeks ago there was a potential to speed up the drawdown even further. is it safe to assume that that is still on the table, despite an uptick in recent violence? would that likely be done in
12:48 am
going to afghanistan? >> not necessarily. i would say that we had a video conference with general odierno earlier this week. i think he is feeling pretty positive about the way things are going in iraq. i would say that despite the uptick, which is clearly one of the things that he made clear that as a positive development, is that the shia clearly recognize that this is al qaeda trying to restoke sectarian violence. these are not the sumy's coming after the shia -- sunnis coming after the portia. they have not reacted. i raised it as a possibility. i think that is a decision. whether or not to do it, he will make that decision several months from now.
12:49 am
>> back to the troops issue. you said mcchrystal's assessment will not include a request for more forces. he can ask for what he needs. if -- has he been told not to ask for more forces? if he needs more forces, are you willing to put a cap on the number? >> first of all, general mcchrystal has been told very directly by both the chairman and by me that we want him to ask for what he thinks he needs. i think you have to allow your commanders that freedom. then, the chain of command, general petraeus, the joint chiefs, chairman and vice- chairman, myself will all look at that and decide what to recommend. we are not talking about caps. we are waiting for his assessment.
12:50 am
we are waiting to see what options or courses of action he put forward independent of the assessment as we move forward. as general cartwright said, the reality is, he still has another full brigade to come in. these forces are still flowing. they already have then made available and approved by the president. he needs some time and we need some time to see what the impact of all of that is. >> the only other thing that i've with that is as we have watched and you have watched what is going on in afghanistan, the ied fight is pretty lethal. that is one area that we are going to have to focus in on, whether it is an adjustment in our laid down and tactics, whether it is additional resource, we have to take a serious look at that and we will have to do that some. >> given what you said about
12:51 am
beating back the taliban and the comment about needing to secure populations and redeploy troops as a result, is there some trade-off between taking the fight to the taliban and protecting the politic -- the population? >> my view is that if you deny the taliban access to the people, you basically are starving what nourishes them. the key, as general cartwright's at the beginning of the conversation, the key is the afghans themselves becoming part of the security force. it is not just their security forces. it is ordinary afghans turning in taliban were turning in ied's. we saw this happen in iraq and it is clear that when people
12:52 am
begin to feel a sense of security, then they began to look to the long-term future and become the allies of their government and of the international forces there to help them. >> does that mean they might be protecting people in population centers rather than fighting the taliban? >> i suspect that might be something that is addressed in the general's assessment. >> how do you assess the security meetings of yesterday in damascus between u.s. military officials and the government? what are you expecting? what improvements are expecting from the government? >> i have not heard anything about the results of the meeting. the reason they are there is that one of the foreign fighters -- when the foreign fighters crossed the border, the
12:53 am
target american troops. my expectation is that the syrians need to do more in terms of stopping those for the facilitators and foreign fighters. >> but me ask to questions. do you see any evidence that al qaeda is playing the roles in the recent fighting? is there coordination between al qaeda and the taliban? the second one is on somalia. do you think the level of assistance given by the u.s. to the interim government is enough? do you need to send more assistance, technical support, maybe, to see a change? >> with respect to the latter, but secretary clinton just having been in africa and kenya, i am interested in hearing her evaluation based on what she has learned out there
12:54 am
before i make any judgment about whether we ought to be doing -- recommended to the president that we do more to help the transitional government in somalia. i am waiting for secretary clinton on that one. i think that what we have seen in afghanistan over the past more than a year in several different elements engaged in the fight against the government of afghanistan. al qaeda is one element. the taliban is obviously a major element. there have been some others as well. these are the major players, if you will. i think it is fair to say that they are mutually supportive. at times, they collaborate.
12:55 am
i have not seen any information that suggests that they are unified fighting force or that they are following al qaeda's direction. they all have their own independent agenda. in their view -- i think al qaeda is in touch with these different elements and probably different elements help provide protection for al qaeda. i do not see that their firm allies or have a common agenda. >> one more. >> one more? >> roughly, how much of afghanistan do you consider to be other taliban control right now? how can you convince so many afghans to vote when the marines are just showing up in their village seven days or so before the election? >> first of all, it is a pretty big country.
12:56 am
i would remind or make the point that, first of all, based on everything that i have heard, we are looking at an election in which there will perhaps be 13 or 1400 more polling places than there were in 2004, several million more afghans have registered to vote then in 2004. they're holding an election in adverse circumstances. i think these considerations are important. they have significantly larger numbers of both international and afghan observers for these polling places. there is a tiered security arrangement. i think the potential is there for a quite credible election. i think general mcchrystal's view would be that kabul is calm
12:57 am
right now. there's more activity in the west and the north, but there are individual provinces and district where there has been an uptick in activity. for the most part, they are not too bad. the real issue, the challenge has been regional command south and east. it differs from district to district in terms of the security situation. i think that most of us here believe that there is ample opportunity for a quite credible election. >> i will just throw in -- if you walk or move around the country, the other thing that you see now is candidates making speeches, having rallies, posters all over the place, rally's absent the candidates in villages advocating one candidate or the other. it is the openness of the activity that is substantially different than anything we have seen in the past.
12:58 am
that is a judgment on their part that the security is sufficient that they will do that. it is also a reflection of their confidence in the security. it is not the same everywhere, absolutely not. by and large, you are seeing some much activity out there that you would associate with a political campaign, and democratic election, it is really startling when you walk around and watch this. could that be interrupted by violence? sure. right now, it is very shocking, at least having seen it before, how much openness there is in this campaign. >> ok. thank you, all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]
12:59 am
>> up next on c-span, the netroots nation conference with former president bill clinton. after that, a discussion on the economic stimulus package that passed in january. later, former house speaker newt gingrich. >> three days of peace, love, and music. 40 years ago this weekend, half a million people gathered for woodstock. saturday, the co-founder takes us behind the scenes at 9:00 p.m. eastern on booktv. >> now, progressive on-line activists and politicians are attending the netroots nation, -- conference. we will hear from former president bill clinton later in the session. this conference is being held in pittsburgh. >> i am the political director
1:00 am
of the steelworkers union. how would you all like a hard hat today? there will be a lot more important people giving you greetings and i will be the mexican comic that will warm you up while you get ready for bill clinton. . give you official greetings. i am just going to be the mexican comic that will warn you of. if you have not met anybody from pittsburg, this is the home of the world champion pittsburgh steelers at pittsburgh penguins. we also have a really good aaa minor league baseball team called pittsburg pirates. [applause] i also want to let you know, for all you big city folks who are all you big city folks who are here, if you stumble upon the subway, yes, that is the world's smallest subway system. if you get lost and write it from the beginning to the end, just get off and what back. about eight blocks. i don't know if you realize, but
1:01 am
the pittsburgh steelers kickoff their first preseason game 10 minutes ago. right now is the prime time to go still a new refrigerator or t be -- or tv. they are rooting like the end of the world just came. forget bill clinton, the steelers are playing tonight. let me help you out. if you have not figured out yet, i am not from pittsburg. i am from a small stake in the south and -- a small stake in the shot. a big shout out for the texas delegates. let me help you like i wish someone would have helped me when i moved to this city. if you hear someone say yins+2b that is the same thing as ya'll.
1:02 am
if someone calls you jag, that is the same thing as an idiot. netroots nation. this country has come a long way. i remember when i hired into the mail when i was 19. factory worker, had played football for nine years. i had no idea what the internet was. i had never seen a computer. i had never owned any kind of mobile technology. now we are on the cutting edge with the unions. now we are on the cutting edge of grassroots mobilization via the internet. i remember 1996 when i first got out of the factory to work my first race. the afl-cio send me a brand new laptop. the first time i had ever laid eyes on all on one.
1:03 am
they sent me a brand new beeper. i did not on a mobile phone. i went down to the mobile phones store and bought the latest, state of the art mobile phone, and it came in a bag. i am not lying. you plug it into your truck and had to roll up the window. i would pull up next cue girls and act like i was on the phone. i really could not afford to make a phone call. i was in dallas with a beeper, mobile phone, and a brand new laptop. i drove a black pickup truck. most people thought i was another drug dealer in arlington. let's get serious. they said this day would never come. they said we set our sights too high. they said the country was too divided to ever come together
1:04 am
around a common purpose, but at this defining moment in history, we have done what the cynics said we could not do. hang on, that is not my speech. i wrote that for somebody else a long time ago. how many of you recognize that speech? raise your hand. congratulations to you, because of you and millions of union members and young people all across the country, that men stood up, our president, and could give that speech because we voted for hope and we voted for change. you are the reason why. [applause] now, let me tell you what my pawpaw told me growing up on the form. i spent most of my time with my grandparents. we would go out and plant corn
1:05 am
and squash and strawberries. i would look at him and say i hope that's up comes up, because i love strawberries. >> he said hope does not just happen. sometimes you have to help hold long. that is what we have to do, just like that vegetable garden. planting is simply not enough. he needs to be fertilized. for all you tree huggers, organic fertilizer. we need to be pulled and pests need to be kept away, and i mean no disrespect to rush limbaugh or sarah palin. it is up to us to make this president do what he promised us he would do. he is not just going to get in there and do it. we have got to force his hand to give us the things he promised on this beach. there are a lot of people around him that do politics the old way, back when i did not know
1:06 am
what a laptop was, because of the cut of their suit or how much money they have, they think that equals power, and it does not. power is with the people, and the people in this room. we elected a lot of congress people. we elected a lot of centaurs. hello mr. franken from minnesota. it is up to us to keep the pressure on. i cannot name the number of chiefs of staff that call my office and say this is a tough vote for us. we are in a marginal seat and we have to make sure we do not get too crazy. it is going to be a tough election. no shit. we were there when you got elected the first time. remember that e-mail's and the labor unions and young people? we will be there again, but you have to perform. you will have to show us what you are made up.
1:07 am
-- made up. in these most marginal congressional districts, the general public voted 47% democrat and 47% republican. the union voted the same congressional districts. recon what the margin of victory was? don't tell me about a tough race. accountability is where it will be. if these people lose their way or go astray, i know how to run a primary. [applause] the netroots nation is not the future of the movement. netroots nation, young people, and the unions are the backbone of the movement.
1:08 am
this dust the mail? who makes the phone calls? who knocks on the doors? his sense of the e-mail's? who blogs? who makes a facebook events page and invites everyone from across the world? i live in pittsburgh. i cannot attend your thing in toronto, canada. quit sending me that. we do the work. politicians should listen. politicians should listen to us, not just a couple of hundred disrespectful people at town hall meeting who scream down their elected officials. [applause] there is freedom for everyone, but there is a way to be respectful of that freedom. you know there is a lot of education and needs to take
1:09 am
place when a retiree stands up and says i am on so security and i do not want the government in my life. hang on. i am not the sharpest pencil in the box, but we are the only ones fighting for regular folks, young and old, whether you work in a factory or a cubicle, no matter what the color of your skin is. when i started in that factory in east texas, i was 19 years old. my father worked in the same factory and so did six of my uncles, many cousins, and kids i went to school with. it was the best job between dallas and shreveport. they may passenger tires in that plant since 1965. these people paid their taxes and more active in the community. the union hall was a center of activism within the union -- within the community. they made a profit. guess what, it was not enough of
1:10 am
a profit. they figured they could import these tires from overseas and make even more of a profit, and destroy 1000 people's lives in east texas who had always played by the rules and lived right. that is what is wrong with our economy right now. it is the lady working at the doctor's office who read my x- rays. she had health care and could provide for her family, a single mother. her job is now in india. those x-rays are emailed every night to india, and all those ladies who did that job are out of work. my grandmother in tyler, texas, this week we had a meeting of the family. she had a stroke and has been in intensive care in a long-term nursing facility. her medicare will not pay for her to be there anymore unless we put her in long term. she has to switch over to medicaid. my mother and her two brothers
1:11 am
had to figure out, can we afford to have a nurse come to the home so my grandmother can pass away with dignity, or do we have to leave her in a nursing home and hope medicaid can pick up. this is not feel sorry for chuck rocha. everybody in this hall can tell that same story at some level. my family is not the only one having that meeting. their families all over the country having that meeting, and we need health care reform now. [applause] it is up to us, the people in this room. you have the power, just like the unions had the power and young people in this country have the power. we do have the backbone. we do not give a damn, and we
1:12 am
will stand up and tell you how we feel, because that is the way we were raised. you have the power, whether you have 100 people or 100,000 people in your network. it's time to fight and to recruit more. if we want health care reform, we are going to have to fight and force him to give us health care reform ticket if we are going to fight against bad trade deals, we will have to force him to do that. that is our job as americans. this is our government. we are supposed to have a say in our government, not screaming disrespectfully at congressman, but have a debate and talk about the issues. we cannot do this alone. that is why this convention is so freaking awesome. if we combine our mobilization with a little bit of old school unionyñ÷ activism, and all those
1:13 am
wonderful young people who voted for the first time in the last election, those people will soon be leading our state parties all across the country. we need to invite those young people in and make them part of the dialogue. [applause] a 5% of union members get it -- 85% of union members get e-mail about the issues. the steel workers already have a stated the our website. you have probably seen us out in the foyer. we are involved in social networking sites like facebook, and we are willing to build those coalitions. we cannot do it alone. we cannot have the netroots nation doing this thing and the young democrats doing that thing. we just want all our lives to be better. we just wanted to be there. a lot of people are just like my
1:14 am
family back home in texas tonight, dealing with a very personal matter. they are sick and tired of being sick and tired. we voted for hope. we cannot let hope of escape. let me end by saying this tonight, for you to think about. i was 19 years old and working in that factory. i thought i would be there my whole life. somebody came up to me and asked me to be a union steward and a volunteer to be involved in the union. i did not have a very good education, either. education, either. i got along with people because i look like them. i got along with everyone. to be really honest, if that guy had to come up to me and asked me to volunteer, i would not be here tonight. there are many people out there who could be sitting at a computer right now looking at
1:15 am
stuff we don't believe want to know about. they are sitting at their computer. we need to find an issue demobilizes them and asks them to get involved. they might have their grant grandmother story like was talking about or maybe they lost their health care. it is up to each and every one of us to double the size of this room. they are always going to outspend us, friends but they cannot out mobilize us. the internet has broken down a lot of walls. there is no reason why we cannot break down the same walls to get into someone's living room and ask them to get involved to help change this country. these coalitions that the bill together will be the power that we have that will change the future. we cannot let barack obama walk down this path alone.
1:16 am
he is now walking alone and he is taking shots every single day. when you go home, somebody to be involved. ask them, the worst thing they can do is say no. i ask people to come tonight, and they said hell no, we are going to the steelers game. i want you to have a great time in your workshops. remember what we said, it is a new day in politics. to all my facebook friends i have never met in the room tonight, i do not have a lot of time to the inner mafia, and yes, that is my picture from the eighth grade. thank you. [applause]
1:17 am
>> how is everybody doing tonight? you guys can do better than that. that is what i like to hear. my name is raven brooks. i really glad to have everybody here tonight. i wanted to talk about -- netroots nation has a rich tradition of alpine -- amplifying the voices. you made it happen and got the speakers here. there's a rich tradition with doing this with elected leaders. our speaker on saturday night is a great example of that. she was identified as being a leader that was worth following. that percolated up to the national level, and now she took
1:18 am
two runs at elected office and now is leading the charge with progressive policy in congress. we are starting a new program at this convention called making progress. each year, we will pick a few more people to bring out and amplify their voice, let you get to know them and learn about what they are doing and let them engage you. we are going to be doing this year round. the first one i would like to bring up is somebody who is one of us. judd legum started the blog that is recognized as more of the premier policy blogs on the internet. he is now lawyer and is running for the maryland house of delegates. he is taking the next step.
1:19 am
i would like to welcome judd up to the stage to address everybody. [applause] >> i want to thank raven and the whole convention for having me here. i know many of you came specifically to 90 hear me became tonight to hear me, but i encourage you to stay for the rest of the program. you might be pleasantly surprised. i had an opportunity to attend the first netroots nation in las vegas at the beautiful riviera hotel. if you remember, there was a swarm of media there. you really could not use the restroom without stepping over someone.
1:20 am
the story they were covering basically was, who are these freaks, and why are they using the internet to talk about politics? why did mark warner build them and ice sculpture? now, most of the media are not here, and the reason why is they are at home trying to figure out how to be more like the people in this room so they did not go out of business. [applause] what they did not understand and what many people still do not understand is that this community is not about the internet. it is about an approach to politics. he is about moving from a kind of politics that is clubby and
1:21 am
transactional and hierarchical and toward one that is open and transparent and participatory. that is what really motivated me to get involved and to start blogging. i was working from a think tank, and to try to present all the great work that was done then and today at the center for american progress and open it up and make it more accessible. that work is still going on today. that is the same thing that motivated me now to run for the house of delegates in maryland, where i am from. [applause] in annapolis, which is where the state house is, and also where i live, the state house sits in the middle of a circle. the college stake circle. you can guess why. all around state circle are a
1:22 am
series of fancy restaurants and hotels. we have had ethics reform in maryland, so that you as an individual lobbyists cannot take a single legislative or and take into one of these fancy restaurants. you now have to take a group of them to the restaurant, a whole committee or caucus. a lot of the work that is done today, a lot of the discussion gets carried out in the back rooms of state houses and hotels and restaurants. i am trying to bring the discussion at the state house and onto the street, into people's homes, and on to the internet. i am not interested in doing that because i think that the internet is groovy and that this is the future. i am doing that because i believe, and i think many of you believe that when more people
1:23 am
are involved, that when the barriers to entry are lower, when there is more engagement, we get better policy results. that is really what this is about. it is not about youtube or twitter or blogging or whatever 10 years from now everyone will be into. it is about trying to make things happen and impact people's lives. the impact that this community has had at the federal level is very well known. there has been a string of victories, social security privatization and the iraq war and the presidential election in08f 2008, but there is also incredible work that many of you are doing on the state level.
1:24 am
for those of you who are not yet working on the state level, i would really encourage you to make time to do so, because i know just from being in this for a few months that on a local campaign, on a state campaign, one volunteer, one can vassar, one donor can make the difference in thousands of races all around the country, including my race. i just want to say i am really privileged to be here and consider myself part of this community. i am really excited to keep coming back here and keep working with all of you to try to make this country a better place. so thank you. [applause]
1:25 am
>> the next person that i wanted to welcome up to the stage is my very own secretary of state, debra bowen. she has just done an amazing thing for california. she ran a grass-roots campaign and won the secretary of state race. typically, those races are not something that a lot of people focus on. she has done some amazing things towards election reform and integrity. further, she is one of us. she is a deep like everyone of us in this room. -- she is a geek like every one of us. she is very technically savvy. she is just as comfortable going to a conference like this as some tech conference in santa cisco or somewhere else.
1:26 am
it is a real pleasure to be able to welcome her to the stage tonight and to include her as one of the first people we are honoring as part of this program. so i would like to welcome debra bowen to the stage. [applause] >> this evening, fellow roots, and a big shot out to although roots who are with us digitally somewhere. i did not say watching us, i said with us, because the big change is that you can participate without being physically with the people you are working with. so all of you out there who are going to tweet me, a shout out to you, too. thank you, raven, and to judd
1:27 am
for talking about openness, transparency, and participatory democracy. all of those are what motivated me in 1993 to carry legislation to put the california legislature on the internet. in 1995, to ask for special permission to have an e-mail account, because that was just not done. politicians did not have e-mail accounts. and then to put my campaign finance information on the web, and on and on. what is coming next that i am really excited about is we are going to use goingwiki and the secretary of state website in a discussion about what a participatory democracy might look like if we were to use all the new organizing tools like facebook and twitter. we will be doing that soon.
1:28 am
the tag is social voter. we will keep you posted as that effort goes forward. it should be very soon. we had a great turnout in california last year. we had about 80% of california's registered voters. thank you to all of you who worked on that. it is great, but not good enough for me. i am aiming at 100% of the registered voters, and i am aiming to get every eligible voter register. part of that means changing the way we register voters so that we can put as many people on the rolls automatically whose identity we can verify. that will happen in california within the next few years for anyone who has a driver's license or a state id. from there we can move to get a
1:29 am
lot more people on the rolls without having someone stand out in front of your favorite place that you stand out in front up. one of the things i was proudest of in the last election is that because of the work that we did in california, shoring up the security and accuracy of the state's voting systems, californians spent a lot less time worrying about how they were voting and more time focused on who and what they were voting for. that is the goal for all of us. i do not have to tell you in this room that following the elections of 2000 and 2004, elections of 2000 and 2004, there was a great hunger to get past the wounds
1:30 am
about to those elections and also the tools that we use to decide on the peaceful transfer of power. voters deserve transparent and verifiable elections. just trust the government is not a solid basis for democracy and for anyone who is waiting for proof, check out iran. we cannot expect our citizens to do the hard work of democracy if they don't believe that it would be reflected in the results of their elections. california's checks and balances are mechanisms for self correction and they have to assume that errors in judgment will sometimes be made, that trust will be violated, but that the system will be tough enough to discover the truth and recover its bearings. that is one of the reasons why we are using paper ballots in california.
1:31 am
we don't want to have to say, we are not sure how those people voted. doing the work to look at the voting system where using, and then to establish uniform security procedures is not a partisan issue, nor is it a radical idea, but it was certainly easier said than done. we know that when voters have confidence in the election results, the turnout goes up. i believe there is a strong role for the secretary of state, a role that includes being a strong advocate for every voter's right in bringing more transparency to the government that the people own. i also believe there is a role for the secretary of state that has a strong code of ethics and does not allow any conflict of interest. that is why you do not find me cochairing anybody's
1:32 am
presidential campaign. [applause] yes, it is something that i learned from a couple of other secretaries of state, notably those in florida and ohio. lessons well learned. but i grew up knowing that nothing happens by itself in politics, and that as thomas jefferson said, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. all of this only works if we believe that our elections are fair. it is up to each and everyone of us to continue the work that was begun by our founding fathers over two centuries ago. had our democracy not evolved since then, more than half of the people in this room would not be voters, because you had to be white, male, and in most dates, you had to on 50 acres in order to be eligible to cast a
1:33 am
vote -- in most states. so we have evolved to include all our citizens in the electorate, although in some instances it took some people a much longer time than it should have. we have evolved to improve our electoral system, to strengthen the checks and balances of government, and have evolved to connect with one another in more ways than we ever thought possible. from the net routes to the grassroots, facebook, twitter, who knows what is coming next? but we have to continue his quest for progress and self correction in all aspects of our government. it is at events like netroots nation that i get inspired talking to people. i look forward to seeing you all over this weekend. i remember john f. kennedy telling us that democracy is not a final achievement, but rather a call to an untiring effort.
1:34 am
you are on the front lines of that untiring effort, carrying the torch of democracy, spreading the word about campaigns and about engagement. your work did not end when the campaigns of 2008 ended , and 2008rocha's speech -- chuck rocha's speech let us know you are still out there is spreading the word. let's see what we do with wewiki form of participation that will let all of us take a proposal to do voter registration and differ way, or educate people about instant run of voting, and let everyone have a chance to look at what is being proposed and to have their say, before the policy or the
1:35 am
rules of the bill gets drafted. see whether or not we can create a better results if we get people involved as we go along the way, rather than only at the end. i strongly believe that we will, and i also welcome your ideas, if you think there are other ways we can do this. we have moved from the government gives them permission to you to the government gives your information to you and now we will take email, too. people are talking not only to one another but to their elected officials and the staffers. it is a lot more complicated. it is a greater challenge, but if we do it well, the payoff is much greater in terms of what we can accomplish together, and how well armed and inform you all or if you think the results coming out of the process do not reflect the well-being of the
1:36 am
united states citizens, but instead reflect some other interest. it gives you an incredible amount of power. i look forward to working with you. great to see you at netroots nation. i look forward to talking to many of you this weekend. thank you so much. [applause] >> hey, everybody. i am simon rosenberg. i. i
1:37 am
tonight, president bill clinton. i was present at the creation of the clinton campaign back in 1990. i would like to think i was present at the creation of netroots nation and a lot of the work that went into creating what we know here today. i was an original member of the clinton campaign back in 1990. i worked in the general election and was aroundi when wassm was really for -- when clintonism was formed. for those of you who do not know, my organization back in 2003 and 2004 was the first mainstream political organization to host a guy ran a small plot in northern california. i had the temerity to flight
1:38 am
marcos all the way to washington in the spring of 2004 to speak at his first gathering in washington. in the year that netroots nation was launched, they invited me to write the foreword to their first book called "crashing the gate," which i was honored to do. i have been around from the clinton presidency and this remarkable event. i just wanted to reflect on these two things tonight. one of the things that has been very clear to all of us who have been laboring in this movement in recent years, in the first half of the first year of the obama presidency, is that our work is not done by just having elected barack obama in the fall of last year. the idea of what a movement really is, so much of what brought many of you to be involved in netroots nation and blogging and citizen activism
1:39 am
was an anger about where our country was going, and a discussed of the leadership that president bush was providing. there was a sense that if we just elected democrats, that we would sort of solve that problem and get it all done. we have come to realize that the work we are signing up for is really the work of a lifetime. we will not solve any one set of problems right away and get it done and then retire for the next 20 or 30 years. if you look back at progressive politics, whether it was all that fdr did in his time about defeating totalitarianism and communism and fascism and establishing social security, and all the remarkable challenges he met in his day, or the work that lyndon johnson did in the 1960's along with john f. kennedy to bring about the civil rights act and to establish medicare, or the work that bill clinton did in 1996, were we
1:40 am
were able to oversee the largest economic expansion in all american history. we are able to move from deficits to historic surpluses. we cut taxes and made the tax code more progressive. we were able to raise median income of over $8,000. i could go on and on. in his day, he faced a different set of challenges. it reminds all of us by his presence here tonight that the work we are involved in is a continuum. a movement goes on overtime. even in this remarkable age and a remarkable leader like barack obama, and the challenges he has decided to help us take on in reforming immigration and all the things we will be working on, at the end of those eight years, we will not be done.
1:41 am
there'll be another set of extraordinary challenges, and our movement will continue. this is important as we look to hear from president clinton later tonight. one of the things i hope we can all commit to is that this remarkable man, my political mentor, who was so inspired by for all of his eight years as president, i hope we can commit tonight to make sure he is not sitting on the sidelines of this great battle for a better america, but very much at the front lines. we will hear from him a little bit later. i hope he discusses this in just a moment when he speaks. why is that you matter so much. when i moved to washington with president clinton in 1993, i was like many of you. i had come from the private sector. i made the choice, having been
1:42 am
inspired by a particular candidate and his cause to move into the public life. when i moved to washington in 1993, with the first democrats who had been the white house in 12 years. jimmy carter's administration had not been all that successful. it had been all the way back to the 1960's since we had a successful time in washington. what we found after 12 years of reagan and bush was what confronted us, something different than any other democratic president had confronted, a robust, well funded, conservative movement. we did not understand it when we came into the white house, what we were up against. we sought to play out in front of our eyes, the rise of fox news and rush limbaugh, legal challenges that docked the clinton administration, the robust talking points and
1:43 am
political activity we are all seeing played out today in this debate. that stuff all was brand new. david brock writes about this eloquently in his new book. it took us a long time to figure this out. one reason i got so excited in 2003 when i first met marcos and jerome and i started reading the blog every night. you saw average, everyday americans just riding, people from small towns saying i just gave $25 to howard dean tonight, the first time i ever gave money to a campaign. i feel like i have taken a step to making my country better. [applause] in my mind, that effort became about -- i was sitting up in my attic in my house late at night,
1:44 am
a obsessed with the dean blog. my wife thought i had gone crazy. i was experiencing politics in real time with real passion and real people, making it clear that they wanted a chance to participate in their democracy and to make their country better. there were dissatisfied with the path, and this path,judd had said earlier. what i realized in that moment was, that i wish that we had those people and these tools when will fighting the conservatives during the clinton era. i know that the president is going toi[b around this room and wished that he had all of and wished that he had all of tools that they have now. there is as creative ecosystem that has been made over the past
1:45 am
six years. there are dozens of blogs represented here. for the past six years, we did together was a short and mary. we build the beginning of the 21st century progressive movement. we have seen more democrats having ideological control in washington. how different that is from when marcos started logginblogging aa time when the republican was a dominant force. these were dark circumstances endangers days for our country and for our politics. because of you and the
1:46 am
organizations we have built and the politicians that have had leadership, look how much we have changed the country. important work we have to do together is still in front of us, because now we have power. we have the trust of the american people. we have these modern institutions. we have americans working side- by-side for your blogs -- through your blogs. now is not the time to reject the other side, but to use our imagination to imagine what kind of america we are going to build together. how we will continue to build a growing and modern american movement. that is what makes this gathering the most exciting we have ever had. this is a time for us not to reactor be defensive but to imagine and inspire each other. i want to close by saying two
1:47 am
things. first, i want to thank all of you for giving president clinton, who i think is one of the most -- we only elected three democrats for two terms entire 20th century. he is a rare bird, one of:u ony three democrats to be elected to two terms, it clearly left america and the world better than he found it. he was a remarkably successful president and an inspirational leader. [applause] i want to thank you for helping put him, not on the sidelines, but very much at the front lines of this battle. he has a lot of years left and a lot of fight in him, and we will hear this and a few minutes. i also want to thank all of you. this has been a remarkable journey we have been on together. as much as we are connecting with the struggle and the fact that the right is not going away, the battle of our
1:48 am
lifetime, not just part of a decade, that you will make the decision to sign up for this battle in whatever way you choose to fight. we are stronger together. when i got into democratic politics, when we imagine the campaign, what we saw in our mind's eye was a torment hit by a candidate, a 32nd spot, and 200 kids in a headquarters fighting every day for that candidate. now our model is 10 million people going to work every day, side-by-side, as partners in the fight. that is a model that you created, a better model than we had before. i want to end by saying thanks to all of you here tonight. [applause]
1:49 am
. . coming all the way down from the valley a link from brad pitt, pa.. -- braddock, pa. i am the mayor of that fine town. since many of you are from outside of the region, i want to give you a brief history. this was one the most prosperous towns in the state and in the country in the middle of the last century. this is where andrew carnegie started his fortune. we were a bustling town of
1:50 am
20,000 people with unparalleled in history and wealth creation. today, we are a shattered committee of under 3000. we lost money% of our population, buildings, businesses, homes. -- we lost 90% of our population. our unemployment consistently ran 2.5 to three times the national average and we could not get credit before the bank's collapse and we still cannot now. things are getting better not just because of the work that we are doing but because of the work of the man that i am here to introduce tonight has done. i am here tonight to introduce dan onorato. [applause] dan is the chief executive of allegheny county with its 1.2
1:51 am
million residents. under 3000 in my community, yet dan is looking to see what he can do to help the less fortunate not only in my community but communities throughout the meinong the haley the valley. from putting in a basketball court, senior housing and our community, to two weeks ago, i got a call about a building just collapsed in the street. guess who i called? guess who came through for us? there are no votes, no power, and no money to be had. dan onorato is out there because it is in moral conviction to help the less fortunate not only in this area but in the region as a whole. a lot of press has been given to green and redevelopment. he has spearheaded the largest project certainly in the state
1:52 am
if not in the country. he has taken an abandoned site and is bringing it back as a green enterprise zone that is going to help drive the community. [applause] furthermore, of the three communities that comprise the side, two of them are in municipal bankruptcy, what we call it in this state act 47. he is doing it that brings along the least fortunate of us including my own community. without further ado, i would like this opportunity t introduce my friend, the county executive of allegheny county, and the next governor of pennsylvania, dan onorato. [applause] >> thank you, mayor.
1:53 am
let's hear it for the mayor. [applause] will come to netroots nation. thank you for coming here. [applause] i want to give the official welcome to the greater print -- to the greater pittsburgh region. that michaux a raise of hands whose first time to pittsburgh. per your hand down for a second. raise your hand if you were shocked how nice this place look when you got here. that is what i thought. you are going to be our best ambassadors when you leave here today. people have one image of the greater pittsburgh area. when they get here they sealed -- they see the real image of what we are about. we are proud to be the city that turned it around and took
1:54 am
advantage of the green movement, and now we use our rivers for recreational activities and we have opened up the whole area. we have figured out one thing about the green movement. it meant jobs for us in western pennsylvania. we produce products for the green movement. [applause] you should build green because it made good sense to build green. it made good business sense to the landfills, just for reusable products, and because we realize we have thousands of jobs in western pennsylvania that are producing the products that go into green buildings. we are now one of the leaders on how to build green, and we take a lot of pride in that right here. let me tell you a little story
1:55 am
about our region because most of you that raised your hands, you know us as a steel town. we still make steel here but we still have steelmaking, and we are proud of those jobs. we work closely with our friends, the united steelworkers, when figuring out how to manufacture it in a clean way and in an advanced way. we are showing the world how you could have advanced manufacturing and make it work. we also figured out we needed to change how we do business. over the last 30 years, we went through a major transformation in western pennsylvania. now that i have been the county executive, i look back on what has happened and how fast it's moving. just six years ago in this region, we were down on our backs. the city of pittsburgh was
1:56 am
filing for bankruptcy. we were losing jobs. we had old steel mills contaminated up and down all of our rivers. that was six years ago. today, the new york times" has done to stores on how pittsburgh is the one bright spot in this economy. newsweek has done a story about the turnaround of southwestern pennsylvania. [applause] in a few weeks, we are working hard around the clock because president obama said i want to bring that g 20 summit to pittsburgh. [applause] that happen because a lot of good people rolled up their sleeves and said we are going to change the way we do business in western pennsylvania. what did we do? in the last six years, we clean it environmentally contaminated sites, 1,500 acres on our
1:57 am
waterfront. did that to for us? it allowed us to bring development back to the old in for shropshire and its stop this urban sprawl problem that we have going on because it was not competitive. those brown fields are now competitive and now back on the tax rails. today, we have on employment 3% below the national average in western pennsylvania. it does work. it can work. as i sit here i deal with other bigger issues that we are all dealing with together. this health care debate that is going on. i watch these news clips and i see those rallies in this town hall meetings. it is easy to say no to everything. one thing i know is that the status quo does not work. it needs to be fixed. we need washington to step up
1:58 am
and help fix this problem. the biggest threat is the out of control health-care costs and where is headed. i know many of you are dealing with it. i thank you for fighting this battle with us. locally, with the county, the 28th largest in the country, our health care costs in six years went up $30 million for our employees. i can tell you that watching what is happening to health care, watching people lose health care and the cost of health care, i want to do a special thank you to our friends in labor. the united steelworkers. whenever unions are here today. because they are fighting, they are fighting for the pay scale and the benefit package that we are asking congress to help us with. it is a daily struggle. it is a very fine line that if we do not win this battle,
1:59 am
people are going to fall below that line. it is you and your organizations that have helped create and maintain and continue to fight to keep the middle class in this country the size that it is because without the health care costs going out of control, without a decent wage, control, without a decent wage, we are not going to have a middle class. it is up to the mystified. you might not like the details of a particular bill but did not tell us know. tell us about how you want to fix it. tell us how you want to fix it, because they know is too easy and we have been doing this for a long time in washington. it is time for us to invest in our people and that was president obama is trying to do.

208 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on