is trying to do. we have democratic administrations that are willing to put tax dollars in our infrastructure. millions of dollars to clean up dirty property. millions of dollars to put in the water and sewer lines to upgrade old plants. you have to invest in your people if you want to see economic revitalization. you have to invest money to make sure that they have good jobs. it does not happen by itself. we tried that for 30 years. those sites that we clean it sat for 30 years. if we don't intervene and clean them, you don't have the development that you have today. the government has a role to play. the government has a very positive role to play. we need a partnership at the federal, state, and local level to understand that those investments are important. i want to thank you for one other thing in this room, for

your grass-roots activism that obviously got a lot of coverage during the last presidential race. . . ago ran for my first office at 29 years old back in 1999 -- 1991 with no money, i would not have won if it was not for the 100 volunteers that i had walking on the streets every day in the city of pittsburgh. you have shown that that kind of grass roots can be done at the national level. you showed us that the blogging, the internet, the small community that you have created electronically can easily be converted out into the streets and put bodies anin the streets out there. out there. to be like that now. whoever can put down the ground forces is going to win these

races. people need to be heard. you have showed us the way to do it. you are going to be critical in the future. this debate is just getting started. if we sit back and do nothing, by saying no and criticizing a proposal, that can win the day. we are not going to allow that to happen. i want to thank you for that. i want to thank you for your our reach. i want to thank you for fighting back and letting the voters and the elected officials know that we expect them to make the changes that are needed. when you have done is unbelievable. i am glad you are here in pittsburgh. i know that all of you raised your hand, you are going to be treated to a great city with great activities. remember, it was not that long ago that we were not doing ourselves that way here, but we do now. it was because of progressive

government action working with the private sector saying that we are going to remake ourselves. it was not a bunch of people sitting back and doing nothing. it was because we made changes. that is what the president is trying to do it and let's hope congress also participate. thank you, keep and called, i look forward to talking to many of you after this. [applause] >> good evening. my name is adam bonin. i am from philadelphia, pennsylvania. now the home of michael veeck. [boo's] seriously? donovan mcnabb is my

quarterback. i am the chairman of the board of directors of netroots nation. please silence your cell phones and also make sure you have your birth certificates out and on the tables. they will be inspecting later on in the evening. [laughter] it is so good to see everybody here again. it has been quite a year. barack obama is now president of the united states of america. [applause] our senators taking over from republicans. [applause] our good friend donna edwards has banned elected to her first full term in the house of representatives with many, many more to come. [applause] i have to tell you as someone who works with netroots nation

every year, we had to be ready for the alternative. we had to have our other agenda in place in case the other actions turned out otherwise. some of the panel's we had in place. "no, we didn't." food policy and the mccain era. advocating the canadian immigration process. [laughter] taking your message to the people, billboards and skywriting changed elections. rob emanuel. meet the supreme court's first supreme court justice, alberto gonzales. reforming the vice-presidential selection process, how to find the village with the biggest idiot. [laughter] [applause]

on behalf of our board, i can't say enough about our tremendous staff that works year-round to put this conference together. raven brooks, karen colbern, we would not be here without you. [applause] we would not be here without our volunteers. we would not be here without the guiding spirit of our founder. [applause] or with folks who have been here since the beginning. we are in the presence of so many heroes here tonight. jane hampshire, slinker wink, we are humbled by your leadership in the fight to give health care to all americans which is their moral right. [applause]

to our team behind netroots for the troops, what you guys do every year is astounding and what you guys do for the troops is heroic. [applause] we are honored by your leadership in the fight against torture. and for carl singer, raising more than $65,000 for the obama campaign from small donors. he was a leading advocate online and he is only 15 years old. those last two speakers would not be here but for your support for a scholarship program. thank you so much for bringing them and so many great activists here for this event. [applause] speaking of heroes, we lost a great one this week. her loss must be acknowledged

this year. before her, people with intellectual disabilities were called retards. she changed all that. thanks to her founding the special olympics in 1968, millions around the globe have an arena to experience athletics, competition, and fun. she changed the world and made it a better place, and her spirit is one that should guide us all. [applause] obviously, our thoughts tonight are also with her brother, ted. we are hoping and praying for his complete restoration to health. we need him in washington as soon as he is ready to be there. america needs his leadership again. [applause]

i am here tonight to introduce someone who has been a true hero and has never once sought attention for it. congressmen brad miller has represented north carolina's 13th district. [applause] up to the virginia border, rather than telling his whole pyrography which is impressive as hell, running his democratic party at the age of 31, i want you to understand something. no one gets netroots the way brad miller understand the netroots. somebody might remember back into the five there was a big battle that people were involved with before congress to see how the loggers are going to be treated. did we have to register?

was there something the legal that we were doing? one morning, i received an e- mail from an unfamiliar source. i would like to talk about campaign finance law and the internet. i think i can help. -brad miller. he did not sit on a committee that had anything to do with this stuff. he was a reader and an occasional diarist. we work together to talk about legislative solutions. he introduced a bill in congress to do what we needed which was to treat bloggers the the exact same as traditional media. if we wanted to endorse someone we could do it. if we wanted to be partisan as hell, we could be a partisan as hell, and no government agency could do anything about it.

i am not the only blocker that gets e-mail's like this from brad miller. he is someone that posts his own diaries. the post's his own comments. he jumps into other people's diaries when they are talking about things of interest to him. he is dedicated to the principles of interactivity and transparency that define the movement. what does he get for that? in 2006, his opponent was vern robinson. at one of his campaign mailings, brad miller's san francisco soulmates with a large picture of marcos in the corner of the mailing referring to him as brad miller's internet partner from san francisco. he attacked brad for posting on the same sidte with photos of a

gay prostitute. he attacked brad for using the c word "crap." they called him an embarrassment to voters. he raised more money than brad was able to raise for his own campaign. brad miller beat him down 64-36. [applause] that same year, by the way, brad miller came to vegas. he was the only sitting member of the house to come to the first convention. he came back last year. he came back this year for a panel. he does not come with an entourage. he comes to our party, are panels, he is one of us. he can do a little bit more about it then we can predict

right now, his main battles are in the financial world. to continue the fight for legislation, and the fight for accountability on the bailout. he had a talking points memo a couple of months ago. he wants change to believe in but he can not notice it yet. these are risky steps. it brad miller gets it. as barney frank sa of him a few weeks ago, that people listened to brad miller five years ago, we would not have had a terrible subprime crisis. congressmen brad miller is a fierce advocate for the people in his district, a true hero, somebody i am so proud to call my friend. please welcome me in welcoming brett miller. -- brad miller. [applause]

>> thank you for that very generous introduction and congratulations on michael vick signing with the eagles. i know you must be proud. i began per dissipating five years ago to attract attention -- i began participating five years ago to attract attention to an issue i was working on in congress that i could not get any attention anywhere else. the issue was subprime mortgage lending. it was probably not my blogging alone that did but in reading the blogosphere,

i quickly realized that the democratic party needed the energy, that i sought in the blogosphere, because of your energy and the fact that republicans messed up everything they touched, we have a democratic president, and i am in the majority in congress. thank you. [applause] democrats now have the best opportunity in my lifetime to do great things and to be the majority party for a generation. democrats may be the majority party even if we do not get it right and do great things. i have read a lot of smart analysis that the republicans have made themselves and identity party composed of every shrinking demographic. their definition of real americans leaves out more americans than it includes, and they're based insists that they not budge from that.

thank you, justice sotomayor. [applause] but it is less comforting to me that maybe to some of you that republicans have become a regional party, competitive only in the south. the south is the only place i compete. compete. that the democratic party just becomes an identity party, it may leave me out. it would certainly leave out many people that i love. i am not a democrat because i am a hip urbanite despite the insinuations three years ago. i had to google teabagging to figure out what the snickering was about. [laughter] [applause]

but i grew up believing that the democratic party stood for ordinary americans. my grandfather died when i was a small child and i never got to know him. he and my grandmother raised 11 children on a farm outside of spring lake, north carolina. yes, i am a cracker. my mother told me that when will rogers died in a plane crash, my grandfather cried because will rogers spoke for him. if we are that party, if the democratic party is that party, will rogers party, we will certainly govern this nation for a generation. more importantly, we will deserve to. [applause] because our party will not be defined by who we are brought by what we do.

change will not be easy. we are now in the worst economic times since the great depression. even if we have hit bottom, there is a lot of pain in front of us. millions of americans will never recover what they have lost. the leaders of the financial industry blamed the financial crisis on a weird, unpredictable combination of the events,. who could have known? i don't claim to have seen the collapse of the world's financial markets coming, but i knew that the mortgages that proved toxic for the financial industry where toxic for homeowners. congress is now working to address systemic risk to protect the financial industry from getting itself into such trouble in the future. but we have to do a lot more than prevent the masters of the

universe running with scissors again. we need to reform the consumer lending practices that have now trapped millions of working and middle-class families in hopeless debt with mortgages, credit cards, pay date loans, and on and on, what the financial markets profit. the proposal will include a proposal to create a new agency, a watchdog that will take the existing powers of various financial regulators have and had it used and give those powers to one agency that will use those powers. [applause] defeating their creation of a consumer financial protection agency is the top legislative priority for the financial industry.

three-quarters of a century ago, president roosevelt pushed to regulate the securities industry even after all the corruption in the stock market in the 1920's. that so clearly contributed to the great depression, the securities industry [unintelligible] will rogers said the boys on wall street do not want a cop on their corner, and they do not want a cop on their corner now either. the slot become a political deal in the senate in 1978, home mortgages are about the only kind of debt that cannot be modified in bankruptcy. that has prevented congress and the obama administratio from doing anything effective to get control of the foreclosure crisis. earlier this year, the senate voted down legislation that would have allowed sensible,

predictable modifications of mortgages and bankruptcy so people that could afford their house but not their mortgage could escape foreclosure. an article in the huffington opposed by ryan gramm who is here quoted an unnamed aide to the house leadership as saying that the issue was frustrating to work on because the members who were against it did not know what they were against it. they said things in public and in private, like "i support banking laws but i cannot go along with letting judges reduced debt." what did they think was the point of bankruptcy? [applause] those members are celebrated in the washington political culture as thoughtful, sensible, centrists.

working and middle-class americans have been cheated on their mortgages, their credit cards, overdraft fees come on and on, and now they say their taxes are going to bail out the very people that cheated them. their anger is righteous. i am angry, too i am not ready to make nice. [applause] my greatest fear for the last year has been an economic collapse as bad as the great depression, or maybe even worse. my second greatest fear was that the economy would stabilize, perhaps to recover, the financial industry would have the clout to -- my greatest fear seems less likely lately but my second greatest fear seems more likely every day. congress and the obama

administration must give urgent priority to fixing our financial system but that does not mean just going back to what we had two years ago when the financial industry profits topped 40% of all corporate profits. [applause] in addition to the opposition of powerful economic interests, we also face a fierce opposition of republicans who see the defeat of every democratic proposal as their best path back to power. there's strategy is clear. oppose everything, predict dire consequences, and hope things really do go wrong. they will make no serious proposals of their own. a bipartisan compromise and consensus is a pretty idea, but not really an option. [applause]

republicans say we have the best health care in the world, and we do have the best doctors, the best hospitals, the most sophisticated technology, but we spend twice as much as other economies like ours, prosperous countries, and americans do not live as long. we are 45th in the world in life expectancy. most americans say they are satisfied with their health insurance, but the truth is, they do not know when they got until they get sick. americans are right to worry that they will lose their health insurance if they get sick or if they lose their jobs, or if they get sick and lose their job. i met last week with a woman from north carolina. she and her husband had been

married for 30 years. they put two daughters through college. they always had health insurance through their work. sally's husband was diagnosed with cancer in january. it will be the fight of their lives. last month, sally's husband lost his job. under the law, they can continue his health insurance for 18 months by paying the entire premium, which is kind of hard to do when you just lost your job. they can't do that and pay their mortgage. after 18 months, there is no way they can find new insurance that will cover treatment for cancer. to help people like sally and her husband, president obama has proposed rules for health insurance that are less strict than the rules most states have for car insurance. for that, [unintelligible] deep rage on the right may be

organized from washington. it may be funded by the insurance agency and scripted by republicans in congress. it may have more to do with identity politics. but it is real and intensity matters in politics. republicans hope that the rage it will defeat reform this year and defeat democrats next year. in other words, they want 2010 to be 1994. if that happens, when will we ever have another chance like this? when will we have -- when will we achieve the changes our country needs? president obama must do his part, i must do my part, but so must you. we have always known that there was a right wing in our politics, but now it appears they all have each other's e-

mail addresses. the reason that 47% of republicans in north carolina think that barack obama was born outside of the united states because they read it in an e- mail, and now they are the mailing each other about the health insurance reform. they are talking to their friends and their friends do not know what to believe. president obama cannot reach them all. i cannot reach them all. you have to. you have to talk to your friends, your neighbors, your co-workers. you have to persuade democratic senators and congressmen that not everything that starts as a compromise does not have to be compromised more so it does not do it much anything at all. [applause] even if the washington pundits just loved [unintelligible] next year, you need to be there for us. the same way you were last year

and three years ago with all the same energy and more. because we have come too far to turn back now. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you very much. thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you for the warm welcome. thank you, raven brooks, representative miller for that

great talk. i was backstage listening. it is funny when he said 47% of the north carolina republicans do not think president obama was born in america i am glad it is that low. [laughter] thank you for being here, mayor. i just had a visit with the allegheny county executive and i thank him for giving us a convention center that is actually a leed-rated building so you could meet in a place that is doing the right thing. [applause] [cheers and applause]

first, i would just like to thank you for what you do and for the contribution you have made to dramatically elevating the level of our public discourse and the base level of knowledge of people who participate in reading all of the things that you put out through the netroots nation. i keep a file on me on economics and a file on energy, and i was looking through it the other day, and i was stunned at the percentage of articles that i have actually printed out and kept that came from blog sites as opposed to newspapers, and i think that one reason is you can have more authors because you are open and because people have more opportunities than often the full-time staff of newspapers due to write or one piece a week or two pieces a week and really looked in depth,

so i thank you for that. you for that. i also thank you for another thing which i particularly appreciate. if you have an opinion and you are taking a side, whether it is on an issue or an election, you don't have to feel like you are pretending you are not. i appreciate that and think it is very important. [applause] i have had two sessions with bloggers in my office and that found them very helpful. this year between september 22 and 25, right after the g-20 meets here in pittsburgh, we are having the fifth annual global initiative. last year, we had more than 70 there. i hope we will have more than 200 this year.

i want to invite you to come and cover it and see what is going on. because what i tried to do with that, the next logical step, i believe, to the activism that you represent. when i left the white house, i knew that i wanted to continue to work on things that i cared about when i was president, where i could still have an influence. the last phrase is important. the right thing about being a former president is that you can say whatever you want. but nobody cares what you have to say anymore unless your wife becomes the secretary of state, then they only care when you screw up. [applause] hillary and i basically switched roles. when i first met her she was already active in a lot of non- governmental organizations.

i just thought politics would be my life. when i became president under her influence, i began to met with leaders in turkey, africa, south asia, all of these places that i went. i thought that i would like to do that work when i got out. it has changed my perspective a little bit. most of the time when i was in politics, i noticed we debated two questions. what are you going to do and how much money are you going to spend on it? both of those questions are important but i would argue that in the first few decades of this new century, there is a third question which is equally if not more important, which is how do you propose to do it? how do you propose to turn your good intentions into positive changes for people around the world? that is basically what non-

governmental groups do. that is the business i am in. the "how" business. we offer the world's least expensive, high-quality retro virals to 2 million people in 70 countries. [applause] about two-thirds of all of the children that get pediatric medicine. last week after working for years only with the generic drug companies principally in india and south africa, we announced our first big agreement with a large pharmaceutical company, pfizer, the biggest of all, has agreed to work with us to cut the price by 60% of the only drug we know that is affected at treating tubular chlorosis with people who have had aids for a long time. in other cases, all this medicine almost makes the conditions were spread half a

million people die from this disease who have aids. the interactions of the madison and the t.b. medicine is often not good. the fact that they were willing to cut the price 60% will save a couple hundred thousand lives a year within two years. that is answering the how question. we tried to do the same thing in climate change where we are working with 40 cities around the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by retrofitting public housing, or big public buildings, or changing the street lights, or putting in new led streetlights in los angeles, or making ports more efficient, are working on better public transportation.

my presidential library is the only platinum leed building in the entire system, and that is something you can help on. [applause] i say this to set up the point i want to make now. all this is important, but politics matters, too. it matters whether we get a good congress -- a good climate change bill out of the congress for the president to sign. it matters to get a new agreement, and the one depends on the other. [applause] it matters whether we correct the single most significant efficiency of our economic recovery, which i do believe it is well underway, 9% of the home owners eligible to mortgage relief have gotten it because too many of the people find it more profitable to collect fees for closing on houses and then

selling them again. we have to find a way to do that. that matters. [applause] it matters whether this congress passes a comprehensive health- care reform bill that the president can sign. [cheers and applause] it also matters that notwithstanding the work that i do, it matters a lot, and i can see it already, that we have taken a new approach in our relationships with the rest of the world, offering a hand in partnership wherever possible. it matters. [applause] heathery is concluding a trip to africa now with the only female elected president on the continent in liberia. a couple of days ago, she was in

the congo, one of the most difficult refugee camps in the entire world. i don't know what you think, but i think the american secretary of state should be in the places of human misery around the world. i think they should speak up for rape victims, for women who cannot get an education, make a living, or do these things. i think that is a very important thing. [applause] consistent with the message president obama has delivered in gonna and in the united states, and every other place he has traveled, america wants to share the future. we would like to lead the world in a progressive way but we do not want to dominate it, and we know we can't. we seek a feature of shared prosperity and peace. these things matter, and you can help them happen.

now, i would like to offer a few observations about this. first of all, briefly on the politics. we have entered a new era of progressive politics, which if we do it right, it could last 30 to 40 years. [applause] it is something i have literally spent my entire adult life working for. i was a 20-year-old intern in the united states congress working for my senator who is chairman of the foreign relations committee when the last conservative era started in the midterm elections of 1966, when the democrats suffered

terrible losses, and i knew after that it would be very difficult for us to hold the white house. the people were voting on fear and division, upset about civil rights, women's rights, by saying rights in the street, vietnam, you name it. the republicans developed in that election a message that exploded the resentments and exploded the fears and exploited the divisions. we had a chance to overcome it in 1968, the first election in which i was old enough to vote, because robert kennedy explicitly tried to reach across the divide, but when he was killed we lost our chance and they won. president nixon who was actually a communist compared to most people that came after him

in the republican party -- [laughter] he believed in the affirmative action, he signed a bill creating an environmental protection agency. he still thought arithmetic mattered when you put budgets together. [laughter] he went to china. they were really good at dividing people and building on resentment, the silent majority, and all of that, which was a racial call to signal, really. they went along with that and tell president reagan came along with his unique contribution to this. reagan could tell a story like nobody. he convinced everybody that the government would screw up a two- car parade. trickle-down economics was

actually good for poor people and middle-class people, he said. with those two constraint, the cultural division and a corporative economics, they managed to triple the government debt in 12 years while in comes continued to drop for middle- class people. and then came the second president bush. i will say more about that in a minute. from 68 to 2000, the democrats only won the presidency twice. once because of watergate and president carter won and then when i was elected in the country was in trouble economically. i was reelected partially because the country was changing and part because people believed the government could make people's lives better. in this whole period, the republicans had a bass boat of

about 45%, and ours was about 40%, which should tell you all you need to know about why we did not win the white house very much. we either had to be twice as good as they were as politicians or we had to have very bad conditions. all natural elections are determined by three things. the political culture, the conditions of the time, in the quality of the candidates. sometime in my second term, our political basis began to even out. partly because of the performance but i have to give credit where credit is due. i think the biggest reason because america was moving away from being a biracial nation to being a multi ratio, a multi religious nation, more oriented psychologically to solutions.

in 2000, in 1998, the democrats won the midterm elections for the first time since 1822. thanks in no small measures from some of you in this audience. in 2000, the republicans got close enough to win 5-4 in the supreme court in a decision that i will think will go down as one of the five worst decisions ever handed down by the united states supreme court. [applause] but to give credit where credit is due, president bush ran a terrific campaign in 2000. it was a brilliant slogan, which reflected his guide to understanding that the country had changed, they would not

tolerate overt racism any more, tolerate overt racism any more, plus he ha but they had not quite come over to the side that the government should be an integral partner to our future design, so compassionate conservatism meant the swing voters, not their base, say, "i will give you everything bill clinton did but with a smaller government and a bigger tax cut. would you not like that?" then, after he won, he ran into the old adage that "likes greatest curse can be answered prayers," because for the first time since president nixon was elected in 1968, and president reagan added to their message in the 1980 election, at the american people actually got to see what would happen if they could do what they had been talking about all this time, and

they did not like it very much. the 2002 and 2004 elections appeared in the shadow of 9/11. we have never replace a president during an ongoing conflict, but the margin of victory was the smallest since woodrow wilson's in th/ just like 40 years earlier, in 1966, it was the canary and a coal mine. i told hillary if we don't nominate a convicted felon, we are going to win in 2008. [laughter] there is nothing they can do about it. so look at what happened in 2008. we had a better candidate. they had terrible conditions. and the culture it was with us. america is a different place today. we don't have time for these

divisions over race, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else. we know we live in an interdependent country and an interdependent world. everybody knows that one major significance election is that he is the first african american president and for people at a certain age, that is a very big deal. it lifts a burden off of the history of the presidency and allows parents to tell their kids that they can live to their dreams. that is important. [applause] but for your purposes, the second element of significance of the obama election may be even more important. particularly for those that are younger, for your future. this was the first presidential election to occur in a country

that is self consciously communitarian. that is not always more liberal on the issues but understanding that we are going to rise or fall together. we don't have time for these phony divisions anymore. we'll have time to pretend that we don't need to care what other countries think of us anymore. we are too diverse and in every other way. for a long time, hawaii was the only state that had no majority race. for the last several years, california has had no majority race unless immigration slowed to nothing, the united states would have no majority race by 2015. . .

in order for them to join, and they have to abandon -- you know, you ought to go to one of those congressional health care meetings. you do really well there. [laughter] i will be glad to talk about that. if you will sit down and let me tell. -- talk, but did you stand up and scream will not be able to

talk the other guys love to have the. -- talk. the other guys would love to have the. here we are. it is a different world. it is not like the 1990's. you could not deliver me any support in congress and they voted by a veto-proof majority in both houses against my attempts to let gays serve in the military and the media supported them. they raise all kinds of problems. most of you attacked me and says the congress. that is the truth. secondly --it is true. you know, you may have noticed that presidents are not dictators.

they were about to vote for the old policy by margins exceeding 80% in the house and exceeding 70% in the senate. they gave test vote to send me a message that they were going to reverse any attempt i made by executive order to force them to accept gays in the military. the public opinion is more strongly in our favor than it was 16 years ago. i have continued to support it. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff under may was against lifting gays serve and is now in favor of it. this is a different world. that is the poin and tryt to make. -- the point i am trying to say. when general colin powell came up with this, it was defined while he was chairman much

differently than it was implemented. he said it he will accept this, here is what he will do. we will not pursue anyone. any military members out of uniform will be free to march in gay rights parade, go to political meetings. whatever mailings they get, what ever they do, none will be a basis for dismissal. it turned out to be a broad because of the enormous reaction against it among the middle level officers and down. nobody regrets how this was implemented it anymore than i do. the congress also put that into law by a veto-proof majority. many of your friends voted for that. they believe the explanation about how it would be eliminated. i hated what happened. i regret it.

i did not think that the time and the choice. if i wanted any progress to be made at all. can you believe they spent $400,000 to get rid of a speaker recently? the thing that change may forever on do not ask do not tell was when i learned gay certification below were allowed to risk their lives in the first gulf war, their commanders knew the war gay, as soon as the war was over they kicked them out. that is all i needed to know. that was all anybody need to know that this policy should be changed. [applause] while we are at it, let me say one thing.

the reason i signed delma was -- i thought the question about whether gays should mary should be left up to states and religious organizations. if we were attempting to head off to send a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage to the states. if you look at the 11 referendum much later in 2004, i think it is obvious that something had to be done to try to keep the republican congress from sending back. the president doesn't get to be to that. i did not like signing delma and i did not like the constraints that were put on benefits and i

have done everything i could. i am proud to say the state department was the first federal department to restore benefits to gay partners in the obama administration. i think we are going forward in the right direction. all these things illustrate the point i'm trying to make. america has rapidly moved to a different place on a lot of these issues. what we have to decide is what we are going to do about them. the republicans are sitting around reading for the president to fail. one reason people are so hysterical about all this health care meetings is they know they have no chance to beat healthcare unless they can mortify with the rooted fears.

why did they know that? they do not have the filibuster this time. last time all that was necessary -- i offered to write a health care bill with senator dole to do you cannot let the democrats pass any kind of health care or we will be a minority party for a generation they had 45 senators. they got their filibuster. this time there is no 45 senators thanks to a lot of you. there is no filibuster option. there is no option year but to terrify people. let me say a word to about healthcare. reword or two about health care. -- a word or two about healthcare. there are three things that make

healthcare really hard. first of all, it's complexity. anything that complex can be easily misunderstood and this honestly manipulated. it is hard. secondly, and not a step that will make the most difference over the long run is to cause doubt. you saw the cbo giving a body blow to the house. why is that? the only things they can count today are tax increases and medicare and medicaid cuts. they are tangible and hon. things. we know how much money and electronic medical records will save it directly. it is hard to know when those

things will materialize. we know that delivery systems like the guy sing your health plan in eastern pennsylvania which has hundreds of doctors following what the president wants to do has enabled them to offer a guarantee to every in early that if you have any complications with surgery, and the complication with surgery, within 90 days of leaving the hospital and you have to come back, they paid for it not you. it will be no cost to you and no change in your premium. the error rate has dropped to nearly zero because it has gone down and do not have the same kind of inflation that to do elsewhere. if you have a delivery system for doctors are paid for performance not procedure like the mayo clinic, you can get

higher quality care that much more modest costs. the mayo program was cheaper than 70% of the alternatives anywhere in america offering the same kinds of coverage. it is hard. the third problem the president has was articulated by machiavelli in the 15th century. he said there is nothing so difficult in all of human affairs than to change the established order of things. because, i will because the people who have got it are certain of what they are going to lose, and the people who are going to m&a are uncertain of their advance, so -- -- and the people who are going to gain are uncertain of their advance. if we spend 60% of gdp on health care, and canada spends 11%, and

all of our other competitors, are between 9.5% and 10%, that means we are spotting all of our competitors. where is the money going? follow the money. and so, that is what we are all facing, and that is what the president and congress are facing. what should you do about it? well, if you do not think their plan is good enough, it is time for you to advocate a public option, and i personally advocate a public option, and i always have. [applause] i also favored to some way of people who are uninsured to buy into the federal plant have because there are 36 different options, and young, single people who would want more catastrophic-type coverage whenever an even less costly option there. there are all kinds of options

here. first things first . i do not know how many of you saw the present town hall meeting. i thought he did a terrific job with it, because he may be essential case. i read a lot of your blogs on healthcare. they basically assume that everybody is reading -- that is reading has is a base level that you do. they start off here and go up. i do. so i like him. the president did an important thing that only a president can do unless everybody is reinforcing its. i would like to suggest that if he did not see what he said, you go back and look at it. even if you want to disagree what is in the house or senate plan, start with what he said. he had a three-point argument.

number one, the worst thing of all is sticking with the status quo. it is a gripping america, making families insecure, and undermining the future of the country. [applause] in but am -- a lot of americans were touched about the man screaming at senator dingle. i have been working at this for 17 years now. i went to 300 towns in america in march through may last year. 300. i did not meet in the disabled children worried about losing their coverage. i'm a disabled children and their parents to a party lost their coverage who did that get in a covered in for worried about whether they are going to double to put food on their table. that is far more important.

you have to make the case that the worst thing we can do is the status quo. you have to figure out the three or four things at 100% will agree on. it has to be in the bill. and the three or four things and none of us wanting a bill that we are being accused of. helping someone draw up a living will is not the same thing as an by the seniors to die. [applause] it is a legitimate thing. in order to save our expenditures, -- when they have their wits about them, there is nothing anti-life or anti- american about when hillary's dad had a stroke, he hung on for a long time. with the first things we did

after we went to that experience, both of us, was to make out a living will. that is not have anything to do with all these crazy charges that are being made. then you can say whatever you want about what is wrong with the senate or house plan. whenever you believe is fine. trying to get the best bill you can is fun. first, we have to win the big arguments. the worst thing to do is nothing. hear the things that everybody wants. hear the things that nobody wants. -- here are the things that everybody wants. here are the things that nobody wants. the president need your help. because need your help. this is really important. i wish many of you would write -- it is not all of the morally

right thing to do, it is politically imperative for the democrats to pass a health-care bill now because one thing we know -- [applause] one thing we know is that if you get out there and do not prevail the victors did to rewrite history. -- get to rewrite history. everybody knows what happened in 1993 and 1994. a bunch of them are just wrong. of the two or three examples. not to go back there. i want to point out what could happen now. we have to preserve this progress of majority. we have to. everybody knows that hillary presented a complicated 1300 page bill which would have broken the backs of the federal

statutes. what she should have done was refused to present a bill and it does have her committee issued a report to congress with recommendations. here is the problem with that account. the bill she presented to account for hundred more pages of federal law that it put in. it reduced the number of pages the federal law devoted to health care. it simplified the system from what it and then was. why do people not know that? the insurance companies got to rewrite history. second thing, we actually pleaded with the chairman of the house ways and means committee to let us send a report with recommendations and have the right to the bill. he said of the court i will not take this up and less to send me a bill. there is not enough base level of knowledge to resist it. we will never get anywhere.

this will not happen unless you get a bill. we did as we were required to do by the congressional order. the point i'm trying to make is if you want to do that again. i do not care how low they drive support with misinformation, the minute the president signed a health care reform bill, approval will go up because americans are inherently optimistic. secondly, within a year when all those bad things they say are going to happen do not happen in the good things to begin to happen, approval will explode. we cannot let people lose their nerves. i am pleading with you, it is ok with me if you want to keep everybody on. a vice is a big you do not agree

with, criticize me. try to keep this thing in the lane of getting something done. we need to pass a bill and move this thing forward. it is imperative. it is so important. i feel the same way about climate change. [applause] a.q. dentists, the bill that the house is working on -- if you notice, the bill that the house is working on says it will not reduce emissions. once it will be twice as much as they thought. it was all due to the theme with cap and trade in everything to do with accelerating our movement to efficient buildings, accelerating our movement to efficient electricity generation and closing some of these old coal powered power

plants. again i say the same thing. the president stuck his neck out here. the congress that its neck out. we have to have a bill. will never get china and india to play unless we have a bill. if you want the progress, but look of what really works. -- let's look at what really works. i'm asking for your help having nothing to do with washington. we work with 40 cities on different continents to help them reduce their greenhouse gases. we work with 1100 cities to get them discount clean energy technology. we are trying to retrofit the empire state building to cut emissions 40%. i met to the budget people in puerto rico yesterday you want to make their island energy

independence with a clean energy and efficiency. these are things that can be done. there are a lot of practical things that need to be advanced before we can get there. i will give you one example. this cash for clunkers program has worked great. it has been better than all the mechanisms of reorganizing the auto industry. we ought to put that on steroids when we can sell electric cars and buy them. there ought to be a six month waiting list for every electric car that any company can turn out before the first o is sold. because of the financial incentives. we should advocate it. it would make a huge difference. the other thing i would like to say is, the biggest thing we can do to help the president economically and help our country is to concentrate on the

least sexy parts of the climate change debate, efficiency. the american council of energy efficiency says we can get half the greenhouse gas savings we need by 2015 with only efficiency. mckinsey says if we spend $520 million on energy efficiency we can save almost $1.20 trillion in the lower electric bills. what is the problem? the problem is there is no parallel financing for clean energy in america. if you want to build a coal powered power plant, began finance of over 20 years. 12 building a clear one, 30 years. california has decoupled their rates. a few others have followed suit.

california will let the utility finance this. that is the best we need to get banks to do it. before the banking collapse, i have the agreement of five banks spending a billion dollars on retrofit as long as the savings were guaranteed by energy service companies like honeywell. the consumer paid back only for utility savings. then the bank's collapse. they do not want to do it anymore. let's take taxpayer money and create a small business guarantee fund like the one for the sba and has 10 times as much retrofitting down. that is the kind of thing you need to think about. i do not wanto bore you with statistics. let me ask you to think about one thing. the banks of american today $900

billion in uncommitted cash reserves. that means that tomorrow, in theory, they can make $9 trillion in loans. do you think that would end the recession? think about that. that is their lending capacity. if we could dramatically accelerate the retrofitting of all large public buildings, housing projects, everything with user-friendly systems, we could put more than 1 million people to work. we the lower people's power bills. we could close 22% of markell power power plants -- coal howard power plants. we are not doing it because we

have not found user-friendly systems that have parallel financing. this is the kind of stuff i spend my life working on. i hope that you will think about that. that is the last thing i want to say. i hope i see more blocks sides saying that this is what i want president obama to do. this is what i want congress to do. this is why i think the trades are wrong. here is something you can do, reader, to help solve the problem no matter what is going on in washington, d.c. [applause] i wanted this to last 40 years. i want us to be mindful that sometimes we may have to take less than a full load. in 1992, i ran for president

saying that i wanted to have 260,000 young people serve in america. by the time i left office, a total of 700,000 had. i just went to president obama's bill signing saying there will have 2002 under the thousand people a year -- 220,000 people a year. it is still a great thing for america. we have to be willing to understand that. when i was president, we started having the federal government issue and guaranteed student loans. it saved every student $1,300 in repayment costs for every $10,000 they borrowed. in eight years, the taxpayers pay $4 million to save the students $9 billion. now president obama wants to make that a universal program in america. do i think we should do it? you bet i do. is it worth the 16 years it

took? absolutely. the secretary of education is going to state after state asking them to abolish the limit on charter schools. as long as there are standards and accountability. when i campaigned, every advisor i had said i was crazy as a loon because there is only one charter school in america and their only two states that were authorized. when i left, there 2000. i left money for another thousand. if arne duncan has his way, there'll be 10 or 20,000. was it worth a long time to get it right? you bet it is. you hold the seeds of a genuine revolution in our public life. you do it by mobilizing people and generating emotions and getting people to think. people trust you.

even people who do not agree with you, they believe that you believe what you put down. they do not believe that you budget the facts -- fudged the facts. if you make a mistake, it is a mistake of the head not the heart. they believe they can engage with you in this debate. they believe we can create a great burgeoning american community where we argue these things out. i am not against are doing. we should not pretend that we are all going to may [unintelligible] we should realize that we have been given this staggering responsibilities. i have been waiting 40 years,

all my life i worked for a time when people believed our common humanity was more important than our interesting differences. all my life, i waited for a time when people would in theory believe that we have to search for more win/win solutions and system win/lose solutions. i waited for a time when people with respect and find fascinating all these differences that make america. you are the trustees of this moment. most of you work like crazy to get it. we have to make the most of it. brian miller is living in a state that this pretty evenly divided. this battle is not over. we have big time responsibilities. it is an honor for all of us to be alive and to carry the

responsibility. we cannot be in the peanut gallery. we have to-- we cannot ask the president or congress to do it alone. you have proved this the do you prove did work. do not give up now. for goodness' sake, do not the downtrodden and not get pessimistic. do not lose your energy because things do not work out the way you want. it will not take you 40 years to get the legislation you want. it cannot take 40 years to get america on the right side of global warming. politics better prepare you can help. in the four years of my second second term, w[unintelligible]

that is the suspect i am most proud of. -- the statistic i am most proud of. this matters. this matters. in these four years and the next four years and four years after that, we can go far beyond all of the changes if all of us do what we ought to do. this could be the most exciting time in all of human history. are there dangers, yes. we are assaulting the inequality and instability and on sustainability that the devil of the modern world in america. we have good people and government. they are working hard. they are trying to do the right thing.

so are you. allegis all stay in the same boat so we can reap the reward -- let's just all stay in the same boat so we can read the same reward. thank you. god bless you. [applause]

>> i would like to welcome everyone to brookings this morning. there has been many times over the years when i have set out there with you all. it is really fun to be appear for a change.

the kind to us. we are here to talk about the stimulus. the title of the program says it all. at six months has it been a boom or bust for summer in the middle? i am jackie calmes. i'm the national correspondent at "the new york times." i one-year anniversary was this week. -- mike one-year anniversary was this week. -- my one-year anniversary was this week. i will mostly ask questions and do what i do as a reporter. i was happy to be asked to be on stage with these people. barrie bosworth, as many of you know, is going to give us the macro view of how the stimulus has worked. he has been a senior fellow here in the economic studies program

at brookings. amy liu is an expert on the metropolitan areas of this country. sheba tell us -- she will tell us in a huge country, how well this is working or not working. given how uneven the recovery is right now. amy is the deputy director and co-founder of the metropolitan policy program here. russ whitehurst, sitting next to me is a senior fellow and the incoming director of the brown center on education policy at the brookings institution. he has held a number of positions in the department of education during the bush administration. chris zimmerman will give us a particularly real life you of how the stimulus has been working. he is an arlington county board

member and has been a resident of arlington county for 30 years. i will start out by asking questions of each of them. you can look over your papers and it might raise some of your own questions. they will have some discussion and about 11:00, i will open it to some questions from some of you, which i will be interested to get and take notes on. cspan is covering this, as some of you might know. when you have questions, let's get to the point because there are a lot of people that have questions. it is my prerogative to get the first one. that, i was interested in asking barry to give us the broadview. in light of this week in particular and in the past two weeks, we have seen some positive signs of recovery or at least a levelling out, as the

federal reserve said yesterday, of what has been called the great recession. to what extent are those positive signs due to the stimulus, the $787 billion stimulus plan? >> the good news is that the recession is coming to an end. the bad news is, as usual, government policy has not had too much to do with it. the problem with the stimulus program has been that it has taken too long to get it going. the crisis hit in mid-september. congress never acted on till the spring. it takes a couple of months for the government agencies to get it set up. most of the money is going to be spent in the future. it will be a big plus in driving us out of the recession. in the recovery, we will see that it is a major factor for the united states. it is now going, pretty well. if you look at the downturn,

there is one area where the program did works surprisingly well. that is if you are looking at the flow of income, disposable income, to households in the u.s. disposable income was dropping by an annual rate of half a trillion dollars. that is a huge reduction in household income through july. all of that decline has been completely offset by government transfer payments and tax cuts. that is a pretty amazing accomplishment. disposable income during the worst of this time has been rising. government did not do a lot in that area. unfortunately, consumers have been traumatized by the loss of their wealth which has not been restored. they are not spending, despite the fact that disposable income has held up pretty well. if you look at the procurement programs, they are starting to

get going free the money has flowed through to the states. many of you travel over the next month, you will see an extraordinary number of re- paving projects going on. in the fall, there will be a big kick to local schools that otherwise would have had to make cutbacks for that money will come through. most of the money is still in the future, yet. do not give up on it but what is disappointing is recession after a recession, the same thing happens. we cannot get the political process to act fast enough. it does not have a significant effect on the downturn face. >> given the depth of the recession, this package was designed, many people forget, as a two-year plan, a time-release capsules. was this recession different in that you are right to be skeptical because of the

political process but in this case the bad news is the recession was so bad and the good news is for once, the stimulus can be helpfçx(lc@&c+ >> you can always say the good news is that we got some positive things that a bus. this is the worst downturn the united states has experienced since the great depression. we knew it was coming. it was well-predicted way back last fall for it is disappointing that government cannot act quicker to step in and help during the downturn face. instead, we let it run its course. we then tried to rebuild after worse. >> are you able to say where we would be if there had never been a stimulus package? >> the most telling thing to help on the government side is that decline of disposable income that i mentioned would have been extraordinary and that would have been making the consumption situation even worse. i think, yes, you can say, but

delayed spring and summer, but consumption situation has been better than it would have been. business investment, no, i don't business investment, no, i don't think the goveáa7r barry's answer. i checked with the u.s. department of education yesterday. the department has about $100

billion of the $115 billion in education that is in the stimulus bill to manage. as of yesterday, $13 billion of that, checks had been written of that. roughly come up 13% of what the department has to dole out has been sent out in checks to states and may be too lea's. very little of that money has been spent for anything. it is sitting there in the state's checking account awaiting spending presumably sometime over the next two years. if you are looking for examples of projects and activities that began our work continued as a result of stimulus expenditure, you will have a great deal of trouble identifying. you might, if you went to the local level, find some people who talk about the plans they

put in place and what they anticipate doing. they have not? we spent any money on anything if you go to recovery.gov, you can sort it out in a variety of ways and look by agency for projects around the country that have been funded by the stimulus on that site, i found five hits for education, totaling $25 billion. $12 million out the door and $25 million has been identified with project. the rest of it is waiting somewhere. part of the story is the story of the differences among states. the state stabilization fund is half of this money and other big chunks are for title 1, which is money for education for the disadvantaged and money for idea, which is for students with disabilities.

more than half of states have not taken a single penny from either of those big pots. other states like california have basically taken every penny that was available. it is interesting to me, some states have felt and convince the federal government that they needed the money and needed to have checks written to them now and others are still waiting. >> can you generalize about which of those states are? are the urban or rural? >> i did not immediately see a pattern except of course california jumped out at me. they desperately need the money. i suppose they can't -- they want to get it and where they can. the story is not as negative as it seems from the presentation i have given. imagine you have a rich uncle

who tells you -- >> we will call him uncle sam. >> you can call him uncle sam and he has guaranteed you a large pot of money on a certain date that will be available to you. it is not available now but it will be available next year or the year after. that is significant for me that it would expect my spending now. i would know that i do not need to work -- or about reserves and more. i could go into the red and i will be bailed out next year. that is what has happened here. i looked at maryland, as an example for it in january, the governor announced there would beñ mass layoffs across the state, including education funding which would be cut back to a level the state had not seen in three years. if you go to the maryland website to day, you'll see that the governor has announced that the budget has been made whole and there is historically high levels of funding for education

in the state. the accounting is the addition is + $1 billion which is generous in an economic downturn. i think one of the challenges going forward here is, what is the exit plan for this? if you have essentially doubled education funding over a two- year perios, how you turn that spigot off? are there people who are not planning on turning this off? is this a tuneup for the re- authorization of "no child left behind?" >> when you said you felt like

you had been-at the start, is it a point of criticism that so little has been spent of the education money or is it right to talk of this in terms of talking about education that the administration and congress describe this in terms of the three r's - rescue, recovery, and reinvestment? should we think of the education money is reinvested in the economy for the longer-term? >> the best way to think about the education of investment, most of it, $95 billion, is that averted the layoffs of school staff. the layoff of schools that would have affecd the economy. the administration has been explicit about not wasting a crisis. they have certainly had a reform agenda and tied into the stimulus bill. it is interesting how the farm -- have the secretary of education has been able to get, based on the $5 billion that

congress gave him, to dole out, in a competitive fashion to states, the terms for the competitions have not been set yet. the secretary h already managed to generate changes in state policy by telling states that they will not succeed in competing for these funds if they have artificial caps on the entry of charter schools into the market. or, if they have not signed up with the national governors' association and the part of the development of common standards or if they do not like individual identifiers for teachers to student achievement data so that it in the top -- bacon the sea in which teachers are doing the best job. governors and legislatures have been saying they need to act so that will market this month. it is an interesting indication of how you can get reform by the

promise of incentives. in this case, relatively small portion of the stimulus package but $5 billion is a lot ofoney in absolute terms of state competition. >> amy liu, this recession was unusual in that no part of the country was there. -- wasspared. >.the recovery is uneven. why is that and to what extent is the stimulus package exacerbating that? >> i remember reading recently this past week that people have called the recession a statistician's dream. i will drop more statistics. hidden underneath all the national statistics, we have heard about the recovery that it is highly uneven around the country. what we have done is launched something called the metro

monitor which tracks the recovery of the 100 largest metro areas since the recession began. we did this because we have to remind our leaders that the u.s. economy is made up of a network of metropolitan economy spurted -- economies. it is based on how well toledo, detroit, las vegas, youngstown, orlando, would rebound and shift to the next economy. we focused on the 100 because the 100 largest metropolitan areas generate 75% of the nation's gdp. this is the economic engine of the country in to ask how well these areas of the country are doing. this is where people work and live and employers reside. let me give you some statistics of the first quarter of this past year. the second quarter numbers have just come out and we are looking at that now. in the first quarter, the u.s. unemployment rate at the end of

the first quarter, march 2009, was to enter%. if you look across the top 100 metropolitan areas, it range from as low as 5.1% in provo, utah, to as high as 17.5% in modesto, california where they have been hard hit. if you look at home prices, which has been important to real estate values, property revenues at the state and local levels, and for other important indicators, home prices, at the national level, had dropped 6.3% over the past year in the first quarter of 2009. if you look across the top 100 metropolitan areas, home prices dropped as severely as 30% in one year in stockton, california. that was also in las vegas. we have heard about the pow the foreclosure crisis has rocked

places like florida, california, arizona and we see it play out in many ways. the home prices actually increased in some parts of the country and rose by 4.7% in a houston and some places in upstate new york. this is a highly uneven recovery. what are takeaway is is that broad based fiscal measures, stimulus measures, may not be enough. at the end of the day, they are important and i think we have heard from the others about how they are important but we will meet probably more targeted interventions or ensure that the existing discretionary parts of the stimulus funds are flexible enough for local and regional leaders to bend the money to address their unique circumstances. that is how a detroit and the central valley, california will

have to think. they know best how they will get out of this recovery and focus on long-term sustainability. how well does the stimulus package structure to do that? we need to remind everybody that of the $787 billion stimulus package, 2/3 of that is dedicated to the quick-spend stuff. the stabilization to states, the tax counts, to help families with extended unemployment. those were needed and were quick-spending. they really did stave off some of the layoffs and budget cuts we have heard about. it is the 1/3 above budget in the stimulus which has got most of the attention that matters for the flexibility to deal with the unique circumstances across the country. these are the infrastructure highway spending we have been hearing about, health and the

green investments. how well are those dollars structure? this is a mixed bag if you talk to the local and regional leaders, there is a lot of the traditional funds like highway money that everyone has talked about. highway repairs are safe investments and needed to be done. most folks at the local level have said that they need to spend the money and not do anything stupid. we have heard jill biden say not to do anything stupid with the funds. -- jill biden. -- joe biden. where is the part of the package that are focused on the transformative investments? at the local and regional level, this part of the stimulus package is what is generating the most game-changing initiatives and efforts to

undercut the recovery. these are the things that will have a big multiplier effect and have long-term value. i would tell you that most local and regional leaders know they need to spend the money quickly and they need to focus on job growth. they do not want to take this money and create a short-term quick jumper they want to create a job that will last and create lasting industries. they want to have long-term prosperity. twhat are those programs in te stimulus package that do that? there is a lot of talk about the $1.5 billion in tiger grants which supports modal transportation like public transportation and housing. the money for high-speed rail, the first time this country will invest in a high-speed rail infrastructure, $8 billion. there is a slew of investments that this administration has been brought up on the green side, whether it is energy-

efficient homes, whether is asian, energy-efficient initiatives that we are seeing happening around the country. @@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ yet. the impact is still to come. we are at the beginning of a

two-year package. i think there will be a lot more catalytic things we will see coming down the pike. >> use unconditionally or tentatively optimistic that the reinvestment part will not just the political rhetoric, that there is something in here to give a push to bring jobs. >> we have to remind ourselves that this package had 350 separate spending and tax provisions. there'll be something that someone does not like. there'll be something that people will like about it. people tend to criticism. it people's zero in on one or two programs that might attract that criticism -- the optimism

for me and the local regional leaders and chris will talk a little about this, the one bright light in the stimulus package is that it created an opening for some really transformed the efforts. -- transformative efforts. there have been holistic solutions. at the beginning of the stimulus package, we only heard that states and jurisdictions would beget -- put together their wish lists. what projects to they want? the most innovative efforts around the country are not projects-itis but when they think about transformative efforts. but one example is in the city of chicago where they have taken

one of the energy conversation grants and scaled up an energy- efficient retrofit program for targeting multi-family apartments in the private market aimed at low-income renters. that is the one part of the segment that is not -- that is often overlooked when it comes to energy efficiency. there's a weather is asian program that is focused on single-family homes but they are doing this with private sector partners. in fact, the whole thing is almost all private sector oriented. the entire goal was to have scale. most folks know about the funding will and. they are trying to figure of how to find private sector capital. they want to extend the value and take over these programs. this is what chicago has done.

it has a lasting impact. in kansas city, they have done some completely different, not going after one project fund but there's a regional council of governments there, taking an unprecedented role of working with a bunch of the neighborhood associations and other collaborators to basically channel 15 different stimulus funds into one, low-income neighborhood off of downtown in kansas city. it is a 150-block neighborhood. they will make sure that if they will have impact, they want to make sure that one part of their community will have maximum impact. i think that is the kind of creativity we are seeing around the country that the stimulus is seeding in some places.

>> you anticipated my next question about your favorite examples. we will turn to chris zimmerman who can give us a localized to view in arlington county, just over the river in northern virginia. what is your view on this? >> if you ask the question, did stimulus help or is helping? if i'm given the choice between what is happening and not having passed the stimulus bill at all, unequivocal, i am grateful that the bill passed. there is no question that our world would be more difficult right now if that bill had not passed. at the same time, from our perspective, it was not enough. if you look at the impact on state and local budgets and the simple fact that the budget caps that were generated by the recession at the state and local levels were enormous and the

amount of funding provided through this was a fraction. in rough terms, there is a $50 billion state stabilization fund but the budget caps at the beginning of the year were about $200 billion. you are not talking got a great bounty. you are talking about minimizing the impact of cuts and tax increases that would have taken place at the state level. at the local level, there was not very much. there is in very much money that goes directly to local governments. we benefit indirectly from monday that the state's debt. -- money that the state's debt. -- get. there is very little that actually will come to a local level. for the most part, in my county, we have yet to receive a dollar. that is not entirely a terrible thing. if we have not received the

dollar but we will receive directly about $9 million. in a county with a $1 billion budget, that is not a huge amount. it is not that it will not be helpful. people are working today in our county who might not because of the money we know will come. we're not gonna check if that is okay, things are happening. the fact of the check has not arrived does not mean that it is not working. because you know the check will arrive, it affects people who are employed. it is true that it had a limited ability to help us with our budget debacle to this past spring for some of the reasons that mr. bosworth said bret it takes too long to get going and it is too small. it is not too flexible, especially at the local level. that is a bigger problem when people are willing to pay you to buy buses but not to pay bus drivers, you can be in a situation where people are

laying off bus drivers and a half an offer to buy buses and what do you do with that? that is multiplied overall. i don't think this was the optimal way to provide stimulus and offset the recession of state and local fiscal actions that are cyclical. we to exactly the wrong thing when we are raising our taxes and cutting our spending in a recession. on the other hand, a lot of it is happening. the most significant impact may be long-term, which is outside the range of stimulus. some of the money that is in here, not even the larger amount, will have a positive effect. for instance, i should have mentioned, i am on the metro board and the washington area and we are getting too good million dollars in investment funds that we desperately need for capital. we had $500 million and we are getting $200 million. we are cutting our capital budget by $150 million so it offset what would have been a

huge cut. that is important on a regional level. >> that is money that goes in the entire washington area? >> it goes to the transit system here and benefits the entire region. our transit system needs a lot more investment, $11 billion over the next decade when the funds have been declining, not increasing. that is very welcome. the kind of thing that might have an impact long-term that amy was referring to, like the tiger brands is something we are working on now on a regional level. we have been working on an application for some of that money and it is a competitive grant. the region will try to compete to get one of those that will involve a region-wide bus system that will integrate intermodal a with a rail and a bicycle and that will involve all the jurisdictions and all levels of government. it has forced us to bring together the state highway

departments in virginia, maryland, and the district, the local transit agency, the local governments of all the jurisdictions and we have been sitting at the table for the last six months trying to hammer something out. the very fact we are doing that is a good fit -- thing with long-term benefits for the region. if we get the grant, that will stimulate more that we can make investment in in years to come. there is a lot of balls of the camp and out of desperate at the moment, there is a limited number of dollars that is being felt a local level. >> if you could do it all over, what would you advise congress and the administration? >> my view personally is that if you want to get money out of a rate -- money out in a hurry, which is the point, a lot of this was tax cuts and they are inefficient. a lot of it is capital-type programs which the company needs to do more of but from a stimulus standpoint it's a long time. i always felt that the best way

to go about this would of been a counter-cyclical revenue-sharing program. the most important thing that would he had the biggest effect is to have 50 states and local governments not cutting their budgets and not raising their taxes. that would have an instant a factor when you provide that money. when they are doing their budget in the spring, they are already cutting back in anticipation of the bad year that is coming. they are already holding things up. peeper -- people are already losing their jobs. is that the recession is not over as far as state and local governments are concerned. suppose it turns out that this is the bottom and we are moving up?

next year, state and local governments will have a bad year, probably worse than last year. that is true, even if we are in recovery. we don't even know that yet. in local government, we are heavily dependent on property tax. our debt is by far the biggest. real-estate dahlias will not recover in any big hurry. if you look at the last recession, the one in the early 1990's, the recession was over in march of 1992. there were several years before you saw that showing up in real estate assessments. at best, we are looking at one more really bad year at the state and local level, in terms of doing budgets. last year was hard in this year will be harder. >> is there anything that anyone said that some other panelists would like to address before a

monopolize conversation again? you referred a couple of times to things that barry had said. i want us to continue talking about what this stimulus package has done before raise the question of whether there is a step in stimulus on the horizon. since you make -- a second symbols on the horizon. i have watched state and local governments, especially at the beginning of this decade when we had a recession and there were hit hard. as they start doing their budgets later this year for next year, will there be a need for a second stimulus from the standpoint of the state and local governments? >> i certainly think it would be very helpful at our level. i think people need to understand that no matter what they are hearing about what is happening in the economy, and i hope it is positive that we will

pull out of this, that that will not have a bearing much impact on the very next budget, which is being written right now and all governments. it will be in the news early next year. most governments are working on a july-june fiscal year. most of them adopt in the spring. you should anticipate that we had a tough budget year and will have a tougher one ahead. we will be receiving some of the dollars we are talking about from the existing stimulus. they will kick in in the fall when people start drawing down. that is not necessarily impacting the budget decisions that you have to make for next year. >> i want to elaborate on that. i do think that this is the one thing that was overlooked in the stimulus package. we can talk about whether their knees to be a second stimulus to address this. we have been working with our colleagues at the national league of cities and others talking about the fact that this is another sleeper issue. there has been a lot of studies

done on state fiscal crises and their anticipated deficits which is true. what is harder to quantify is what is harder to quantify is all the@@@@@@@@@ @ ,d@ @ @ @ @ p anticipated to be down for a long time, the home real estate prices are expected be down for

a long time, this next year, the members are expecting that for the first time, property tax receipts are dropping for the first one in 10 years across municipalities. collections are dropping because of the revenues. there is a two-year lag because of the way they do their property assessments. historically, if this year was the worst of the recession, don't be surprised that all lowest point of a local budget will be two-years later. i think that is why you will still hear about the fall out and the lack of this economy in 2010 and 2011. many of us live and localities and we feel the pain when our local governments start to cut back and raise taxes. what the options for that? some of it could be whether we think about a second stimulus

package or a recapture of existing funds to do a revenue sharing with localities. we have done this before. it is not that hard to do. the second is the bond market. most states but also localities rely on borrowing at this time. the ability to access credit and the??é ability to address bondig authority, municipal bonds, those are weak markets. this is an opportunity for the administration to think about how treasury can work with wall street to resolve that for all local governments. there are other options but i think this is one of those overlooked pieces of the stimulus puzzle. >> if i could end to that -- implicit in this conversation, at least as i hear it, is that while the private sector has to shrink and circumstances in which revenue has decreased, the

public sector will always be made whole. there is fat in schools and state and local government. i think we need to differentiate a package that is designed to shorten the recession. it has to represent a permanent flow of federal funds to support local activities and to make them free of the necessary -- necessity to adjust in the context of a recession. i don't know where that line is. we need to remember that we have a very large structural federal deficit. to talk about simply dealing with the needs of two-years of mass appellate days and transferring funds from the federal government, shifts the problem from one location to another. >> you could say that this ties into the health-care debate,

given the portion of state budgets that as medicaid -- that is medicaid, to the extent that has increased through any health care reform will add to the problems during to the extent that there is any second stimulus package in the next year or two, even if it is only targeted to state and local aid will depend a lot on how people assess how this stimulus has done. i hate to do this. given that the title of this program is called "stimulus, boom or bust," i want everyone to take this choice and come down somewhere. barry? boom or bus >> to say is a bust is too harsh. it is very disappointing when the original objective was to try to stimulate the u.s. economy.

the whole focus shifts toward long-term measures. we would like some investment help on this and that. we are really getting away from the subject of stimulus and trying to turn around the recession were the usual focus is how to get the money out fastest and into the hands of people who will spend it. i am in favor of increased infrastructure and investments. the notion that there is a shovel-ready projects was a mess than we are now seeing that. it took a long time to get these things started and we are left with re-paving roads. next year is too late to be submitted this. what happens in these sorts of proposals this individual interest groups come in and use it -- what was the phrase that somebody had? never waste a crisis. that is what happened. that is the worst possible

thing, from my perspective because you end up using the crisis for other agendas. that is what is happening to this and it will be more severe in a second stimulus that was in the first. what you want an argument? -- >> you want an argument? i think that is really overstating it. number one, i think the statement about road paving -- i would note that paving roads is one of the things that gets cut first. if it is just paving roads, it is drastically cut back everywhere when you run into economic trouble. most places have not been paving roads and up. the fact that was available and the stimulus funds were used for it is probably a good thing and was something that needed to be done and does represent immediate stimulus. the $200 million that metro is getting is important spending that is a shovel-ready.

these are things that people are ready to do. these things are also being used for buying buses. in our county, we are ordering buses that we wouldn't have normally order. they are employing people who are building and now. the fact that they have a long- term payoff is a good thing. my overall target in stimulus is consistent with what you are hearing on the other side which is i argue for counter-cyclical revenue sharing so when the economy goes up it does not go away. does the right way to do from an economic standpoint. it is also true that the country has a huge deficit in infrastructure investment. in the short run, the most important thing to do is end the recession and get the economy back to potential gdp. that will close the gap in the short run for in the long run, it is the productivity of the economy. i would argue that our economy has suffered because we have been rolling up deficits for the

last few years and we have not invested in our common. even though this is a highly imperfect instrument, all the stuff that is being done may not agree for stimulus but they are things we need in this country to generate the economy that will take care of things like deficits and other expenditures that we need to be able to deal with in the future. >> the perfect statement is never wish to crisis. i agree. as a different issue -- that is a different issue. >> chris, boom or bust? >> i would not either of those supplies. whether it is a b + or b-, we have to wait to say. we have to see how it plays out you have to evaluate the stimulus and was doing with government spending? most of what is being done in government spending is so

desperately needed that even if it is not being done in the best way, all of it is so desperately needed and so small compared to the need, that that will be pretty good. as stimulus, from what you hear from mr. baba worst was saying -- mr. bosworth was saying, most of this is tax cuts. it offset in, and got into people's hands. when you add in the other things, there is a fair amount of it that was aid to people in need like unemployment. my county is getting $1.5 million that is helping in the service needs. we put our money into that because that is what is most needed at this time. clearly, we would be in a much worse situation nationally and locally if we did not have it. it is not what i wanted or as much. it sure is a whole lot better than if they did not do it at all.

>> the $1.5 million, is that part of the $9 million that you talked about earlier? >> about $5 million of this transportation. having had hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts in transportation, is $5 million that is going into things like buying buses. there's a couple of million that is on the energy efficiency programs and those are programs where things would have happened and been cut back but now things are being done. we also got some money that was for aid of various kinds that helps people most in need. it might be around $2 million. >> russ, boom or bust? >> i will give you a new ones. >> i thought you would. >> the state stabilization investment was a reasonable line. it was about $50 billion that let states avoid substantial layoffs, gave them a fair amount of flexibility as to how they want to spend it, k-12 education

and other needs. i would give that and a. the topping up of traditional entitlement programs so that you put more money into title one or idea, that is the run-up to increasing funding and the "no child left behind" re- authorization. i would give that a c or a d. on the reform agenda, the evidence is still out congress gave the secretary of education and unusual degree of flexibility in terms of dangling a lot of money in front of states with an agenda to be set by the secretary. you have to go back to lyndon johnson to find a time where there was as much power centralized in washington with respect to education policy. they got some good ideas. we will have to see how it plays out over the long term.

i think they have good ideas and have some concern about the degree of flexibility that has been provided. i would rather have seen that worked out of the congressional process where people have an opportunity to opine on whether they want states to have or have not charter schools or national standards, rather than have that as a decision that is made in the white house. >> amy? a boom or bust? >> this was a hodgepodge package and that is why we are getting hodgepodge results. i agree with everyone here that this is still too on even and to be determined. what matters or what we can do now is that the 67% that went

straight out of tax cuts and fiscal stabilization and unemployment benefits, that was fast. that was what most close talk about when they talk about fiscal stimulus. it was crafted well. people can argue about the size of them but that frustration is the 1/3, whether translation -- transportation is getting the money. when i saw christina romer's speech from the economic club last week she, she said of the $87 billion, $100 billion has been spent so far it $100 billion. we're still not there yet. that may not have as much of an effect on this economy. it is still to come. the agencies are doing the best they can. people can quibble about the quality of the choices of the projects under dot but they are

hitting their 50% spending targets at 120 days. the metropolitan planning organizations got directing funding -- direct funding for their transportation plans. they are on their way to that. those kind of deadlines in the bill were important and people are meeting the spending targets. on the other stuff that is discretionary, i think that rather than go to a second stimulus, many are talking about that if there is still $687 billion out there, let's make some reforms now to speed upper also improve the quality of the spending. let's mature the mess -- rest of the money gets used and fast. most local people do want to do this best. they do not want to pour it into a place that has no market activity.

the administration boasted weather is asian in -- weatherization in most state offices. it was 30 times the size of the program and wondered how to get the money out. the program is so cumbersome in the way the agency designed the process that is slow for localities to spend it and some folks are avoiding a completely so it is not getting spent. those of the kind of fixes that we can urge to be made to make sure the remaining funding gets out there and is done effectively. the other is broadbent very bad example where people have said that in the first amount of money the king of the commerce department, the first round of the broadband money was so narrowly defined in the eligibility of on served areas that only remote, rural areas

could qualify for this funding. yet, most business and private sector people who want broadband, think of it as an opportunity. they have a cable modem so they can boost a entrepreneurship and small businesses and connect workers to the system so they can find employment. we need to think about deploying this in a way that it has the kind of catalytic impact on the market so we can feel. itfeel so we can feel it. .

>> the level of where you otherwise would have been is completely hypothetical. no, i think it is unfortunate that we got into this question of new or saved. i don't think we can put a number out. the employment losses in this recession, by historical standards, were extraordinary. it has just been a terrible loss of jobs. the good news is, going forward, people will be surprised, on the basis of historical experience, how fast the recovery comes. in past recessions, the worse the decline, the faster the expansion. i am not sure that will happen this time because we have continuing problems. but i think it is a waste to try to sort those two numbers out in any kind of detail.

i am content that going forward, this stimulus has a lot of things in it that will create jobs. >> which makes it the perfect political promise, to create and save those jobs. >> a bit of a political gimmick. >> it is a time to open the floor to questions. they're people with microphones around. i will take two at times so that we can get as many questions in as possible. somebody will ask a question, and we will hold that thought and ask a second person, and then we will have whoever is best on the panel to answer in do so. sir, on the isle -- aisle, if you could say your name and where you are from. >> we designed that chicago energy program. one of the things we learned in doing it is that it is possible

to do better than things like this situation you describe with weatherization assistance program. my answer to your question -- the experiment may have been a success, even if some of the programs we are -- some of the programs are failing, but we are learning what works better than other things. i would be interested in comments on the latitude to do that quickly, so that we can caliber this midterm. does the federal government have what it needs to shift those priorities? my second comment is how important this was to income maintenance. the other half of this is that the cost of living is still a pressure on people. things like energy efficiency and expanding transit service, a stabilizing or lowering the cost of living, and maybe that should be another kind of target, in

addition to the economic targets. does anybody have a comment on that, lowering the cost of living as a priority? the belated one would be that when you said target, amy, you were talking about special targeting. we are finishing a report showing that the formula by which the transportation money actually went out was severely biased against urban and metropolitan areas. what do we do about that? that has been a traditional problem. they picked 1965 formula for public works and economic development act that just does not work for the way the economy has been working. do we need an uberpolicy from the white house to pay attention to this? your basic premise is that the economy is in metro areas, but the basic formulas seem to direct money away from where the economy is. those are my questions. thank you. >> if you could summarize your

bottom-line question their -- >> does the administration have the tools to make a mid term corrections? we have learned that some things work better than others. it is not one size fits all. if we need to cut our losses and make more of the money that is already in the authority that has been granted, does the administration have the flexibility to do that, or does congress need to do something else in a hurry to make that work? >> let's take a question from this side, from someone. this man here in the second row. tell us who you are and who you are with. >> free-lance correspondent. from what i've heard, the basic problem is implementation. i was surprised to have heard from barry that business did not

get effect. from now on, should put more money to the private, small business, because those sectors really increase employment. employment is the most basic thing of the recovery. amy talked about several things. you mentioned about the green economy. really, we don't have a green economy infrastructure. but one thing is this -- the solar. i was surprised, at the beginning of the year, that the solar industry is not interest in putting a panel in this house. i think we should do that. you talked about broadband. i also tried to mention it. you talk about health reform.

health i.t. is very important. u.s. is the only country that does not pay attention to it. furthermore, i want to say this -- from now on, you do anything, you have to listen to people like is a man at the county level. from now on, -- like zimmerman at the county level. most important, i keep at the size, you should take money from a particular bank to the small business. thank you. >> does anyone want to take the first question about whether, as we revisit this, does the government have the tools that it needs to make these things more effective, a sort of best practices, and spread the word?

>> well, i appreciate scott's, and questions. good to see you, scott. it comes back to your comment, too. this is about implementation. asbury said, government bureaucracy -- as barry said, government bureaucracy is not attuned to fast, flexible implementation. i will not spend a lot of time about all the problems that local and regional leaders are running into when it comes to this. but when scott asked is there a way to scale up or accelerate experimentation, i think that is one of the desires by some of the agencies in the administration right now, that they are realizing -- they are forgetting that when they put out all this money, put out all these programs, 350 programs, it

is the same number of applicants in a local region. they are all having to deal with 30 different reporting requirements, 30 different applications, different rules. they are trying to fuse binding together to have scale. even though they are trying to do this quickly, trying to do it creatively, quick and tactful, the federal rules make it very hard for them to do so. there are ideas that are out there on how to do that so that this experimentation, the innovations, become more the norm than just the exception to the rule. in terms of -- if i may comment on the second question about -- you were mentioning broadband and technology -- one of the things about how government programs are so isolated and

cumbersome is that some of the private sector leaders and local regional leaders that we are running to are so excited about health i.t., broadband, and the smart grid, but they are pulling their hair out because these are now three separate programs with three separate requirements, three separate applications, when setting up a broadband system, setting up an ability for a number of multiple hospitals and health clinics in the region to share documents electronically, and the ability to track and measure energy use in a home or commercial building, and use the same fiber-optic cable. rather than apply three different times or cut up the same cable three different times, they want to streamline and do it all at once, and transformed it technological

opportunity in their community. this is a kind of delay, if you will, that makes, even though the intent is there and the creativity and experimentation is there, it makes it really hard. there is opportunity for the government bureaucracy to be more responsive and flexible to meet the way people, local leaders, operate on the ground. >> i think amy's point cannot be stressed enough. with this package, for what are reasonable reasons, the attempt was to use existing programs doctors to deliver funds. there are good reasons to do that, because you have them in place and so on. unfortunately, a large part of those systems, a large part of the government bureaucracy, as in recent years been aimed at keeping money from going out the door. a lot of those structures have not been implemented in ways that were intended to promote

that did the work being done by people who did not believe in the purpose of them in the first place. the new administration is in the early stages still stuck with the old structures. that comes up in areas i work in, particularly transportation. what qualifies for shovel-ready? it really means procurement- ready. something you are actually ready to do. you have a whole system that has made it very difficult. if you did not have money in hand, you could not have it on the key list you have to be on to be eligible. if you do not have money, they are now giving you money, and you cannot spend it because you are not on that list. there is a fair amount of catch- 22 in all of this. until they change a lot of that, especially in transportation, to where the intention is to promote the development of projects, using those mechanisms is necessarily going to be clumsy. that is very uneven across

government programs. some parts of the bureaucracy are good at getting money out in a hurry. investment and infrastructure by the nature have all kinds of checks and balances, and those checks and balances take time. that is why i came back to my earlier point that if you want it in a hurry, you have to make it a general purpose, and restricted, let them appropriated, and then you'll get it out in a hurry. >> man in the blue shirt -- yeah, you. yes, you. >> i have been around this town and longtime, and i moved to track the medicaid money in the recovery act. i am shocked that that word does not come up here, given that it is the largest spending program in the bill. perhaps that is because it does not say stimulus in the bill, or the medicaid title. it says it is for stabilization of state governments and for

stabilization of the medicaid programs. given that we have maybe $87 billion for those purposes in the bill, compared perhaps to hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars for stabilization of our banking system, would you judge that structure and spending, of which may be a third has gone out so far, has to be f-? >> we will take a second question from the man in the third row -- for throwback. green shirt. >> georgetown university. mr. zimmerman has given us a set of reasons for the difficulty of the program, but when we talk about the fragmention, it geographically, so on, to what extent is this stimulus package complicated because it is the way the administration decided,

to what extent is it because congress put things in, each of which served some constituency somewhere? >> is there someone who wants to take the medicaid question? it looks like it was directed at this side of the c-spa-- >> medicaid? >> you said you were from gao -- >> the question was the $87 billion estimated for medicaid, state stabilization, maintenance of the medicaid program. was that well done, poorly done? i'm just sort of shocked that it has not been brought. >> i don't have much. >> it comes in the category of the income stabilization, so it has been referred to in generalities.

>> again, most people, at the state level, medicare and medicaid is the biggest chunk of the state budget. i know there was talk about fat in state and local budgets, but a lot of the growth or cost of state and local budgets come from things that they cannot control, like health care costs and pensions and the rising prices of gasoline and other things. the increasing match in medicare and medicaid has been incredible physical relief for states at a time when health care costs and needs are rising. the demographics are increasing. it allows them to, in some ways, plugged those deficits and think about where they spend elsewhere. it was very important. >> the second question, to the extent i understood it, was whether or not the program that we are describing is complicated by design, in part because it goes to the question of how much is parochial pork that

might not have been the best thing to have in there. the claim is that it is a pork- free bill. but, you know, that goes back to the old saying that one man is worthy project is another woman's pork. who wants to take the question? i think it is a good one, because the public, so much of the public's in view of this is shaped by is it pork and is it not? that is an important one to address. >> you can argue about what is and what is not. i think the question was how much is framed in the executive in some comprehensive way, and how much of that is formed in the legislative process? my impression certainly is that this was very much a congressional act, reflecting what was necessary to get 60 votes in the senate.

that necessarily resulted in the character that it has. it is not anything -- that is the way it is designed. the executive branch will always have some limited ability to craft anything of that size without congressional interests coming into it. which i do not think is a bad thing, by the way, because that is the united states of america. >> the striking thing about the obama administration so far is that he apparently does not seem to be interested in crafting the initial version of anything. his health care program is basically left for congress to come up with a bill. the stimulus program basically originated in its structure on capitol hill. i am sure there is in formal input into the process by the administration. but as compared to the past, when administration's proposed the program and then argued for their program, that is not the way this administration has worked. it is a congressionally

initiated program, unnecessarily complex, because you have -- necessarily complex, because you have to satisfy many different interests. i would give it good marks for not getting into these individual congressmen getting something for their district. i think it was largely free of that, and that is a big plus. when you have such a big program, i think it makes sense to cover lots of different areas, make it differs -- diverse, because you cannot increase the scale of a single program to fast. >> as someone who covered it as it was taking shape in december, before the president had even taken the oath of office, you can talk about the health care plan and whether he should or should not have had on more detailed blueprint, but the stimulus package was done in the interests of time, in terms of where the economy was at that time.

secondly, in both examples of this stimulus and the health care bill, we are seeing that they are much more involved in congress than you would think by virtue of -- i think the stimulus bill in particular, to stick to the subject, was much more shade down to details in the white house -- shape to down to details in the white house that has been reported, and i say that as a reporter. what is wrong with that picture? [laughter] >> when will you be reporting that? >> questions? the lady in the black shirt in the middle. if you could keep your questions short, we can get as many as possible in the remaining 10 minutes or so. >> i'm a consulting anthropologist. much of this discussion has focused strictly on the domestic dimensions of the economy. i am wondering about the

international ramifications for the dollar and for the economy in the future, and how this is perceived. there is a range of issues that i would -- i think the question is clear. thank you. >> keep it easy, right on the aisle here. >> i'm with the associated general contractors of america. obviously, our industry is probably more impacted right now during this recession than any other week have. approximately 19% unemployment right now. we are frankly very grateful that there was a strong infrastructure component in the legislation, although it could have been more significant. but we found recently by surveying member is -- members is that stimulus projects -- they are putting it off in anticipation of a funding happening. we are working with agencies and hoping that in the fall we will see more projects coming out.

right now it is a little bit disappointing in terms of what we are getting elsewhere. mr. zimmerman, what are you seeing in your local area? how was this impacting my daily life? how is it raising the issue of what the needs are locally in northern virginia as compared to -- we have a $600 billion of waste and water infrastructure over 20 years. local communities cannot pay for that. a lot of people say they want clean water. what are people telling you back home? >> i think the first question should go to you, on the broader impact of the stimulus bill, if any, for the global economy, since the u.s. is obviously a huge player. >> the global dimensions of it is actually a big plus. it is amazing, i think, how cooperative countries are run the world have been. to be blunt, this is a united

states mistake that screwed the whole world economy. rather than the rating us -- berating us -- >> you don't mean the stimulus? >> no, the crisis -- most of the world has responded very quickly. i am impressed by how many other countries -- china comes to mind -- very quickly stepping in with a large stimulus programs. the discussion at the g-20 level has been very effective in encouraging countries, let's not go back to the trade protectionist measures of the great depression, where tit-for- tat we destroyed the whole trading system. most countries have been very positive on that, with minor exceptions. they're always. but on the whole, the story of cooperation at the international level to manage this crisis has been very positive.

another aspect of it, we have gotten away from this u.s.- european dominance through the g8. we are moving to a g-20-type structure, which is much more global. i would give us a very high grades. i think our government deserves a lot of credit. they did reach out, and are very active player in this. >> france and germany reported growth, unexpectedly, in the last quarter. it was well reported that president obama and germany were at odds over whether how much of a stimulus germany should have. >> germany, though, but really hard hit by the downturn, because they are the biggest trading country among the industrialized countries. think of all the automobiles they produce. they got clobbered. naturally, was the worst of that is over, you are the one that

comes back first. germany is down very sharply for the first half of the year. but very recently, they have started to come back up already. france just manage it well. they were not as impacted as severely as we were in the financial sector. they protected their banks a little bit. it is good news, but yes, i think we overplay the conflict to much greed is good press, but it is not what was really going on. what was going on was an amazingly high degree of cooperation. >> think globally, act locally. we are now on your question of how this is being felt locally. what are people saying to you? where is the money, or thank you? [laughter] >> i think the question was on

the infrastructure side, the general question -- most people just figure there is all this stimulus money and your problems are going away, right? they don't necessarily understand that the magnitude is a very small and it mosely does not come to our level. even on the level id does hit, and this goes back to the infrastructure part of it, some of the stuff is coming, it's just that it takes some time and it has not happened yet. but if you look at what is happening in this region and might state, we have had major problems with transportation funding for quite some time. basically not putting enough money into transportation finance for 20 years now. we have had an under-funded program, which in the last couple of years, because we have run into economic issues for some time at the state level, we have seen billions of dollars of cuts. last fall it was a $2 billion further cut announced. the stimulus package comes out and it has money for transportation in the state. i think virginia got $800

million-plus it is not chump change and i'm glad we have it. but when you just had a $2 billion cut, it does not mean you are suddenly rolling in money. and the other things i mentioned, actually being able to use the funds, is very complex. there are a lot of obstacles to it. a lot of this will be happening. the biggest part of the stimulus affecting my county is not the $9 million we are getting directly, it is $10 million for one project, one of the things being funded with the $800 million. a project started a year ago and then stopped, all shot down. when the money gets flowing, people will start seeing that. it is not something you see happening every day. even when it all does, it mostly funds things that people thought they were getting anyway, because that is mostly the rules. shovel-ready, it had to be all ready to go. but the time we get any of this, it is not as much money as people think it is, and it is

paying for things that people already thought they were supposed to have. >> is it frustrating as a politician? >> it is not great. >> a question here from david broder. >> david broder from "the post." what role, if any, has the vice president's office played in the stimulus program? >> i will take a woman, the woman in the last wrote, or second last row. >> i would like to know, how did the stimulus package help to stop or prevent foreclosures, and how did it solve the problems on housing crisis? >> what was the second question? >> who wants to take david's question on the vice-president will? do you have any -- >> i am too far from that.

>> they are having a very active role. i think if you are a governor or mayor or county official -- county executive -- you are probably on regular weekly or monthly calls regarding the status of the spending, and to collect comments and feedback and gripes about how the spending is going. i also think it is where the coordination recover limitation is happening. there are czars that work closely with joe biden's office. they have certainly been doing two things, and i was thinking about the way that the package -- the package is structured in such a way that it is not just congress administration, and there is a lot of inherent contradictions. one of them were joe biden's offices riding herd is to make

sure there is no waste, fraud, and abuse. in addition to the speed, they have been very active in the ensuring that there is no wasteful spending, and they have been very vocal about that, as we know. that has -- it is interesting, because they do not oversee the independent recovery board, which is made up of almost all ig's who are supposed to track this. that is separate. how does that feel locally? that is a very frustrating thing, and i know joe biden's office is very aware of that. but there is an inherent contradiction between the speed and enormous amount of rules reporting and regulations to ensure that that is done in a very straight away. the local and state complaint about -- even the desire to have the money go out fast -- they certainly don't want to have risk in the spending.

they are held publicly accountable, too, for the way the money is spent. but because the amount and mountain of requirements on them, the ig's have an enormous pot of money to monitor accountability, but the locals got a zero money to step back and reduce risk, at time when they are laying off staff and cutting budgets, the ability to staff up risk reduction has been very hard. it is an inherent contradiction in the bill and certainly a priority of the administration. but i would also said that the administration and joe biden's office is interested in making sure that there are quality catalytic investments out of this as well, complementing speed is some good innovations they can point to. >> you, amy, russ, chris, all

pointed out ways the implementation can be improved. is the vice president's office a place you can go to and say, "we have these three separate application processes, using the same object -- optic --" >> fiber-optic cables. >> thank you, having my senior moment pretend locals go to them and say that you could do this better and more effectively? -- can the locals go to them and say that you could do this better and more effectively? >> they are setting up a process where you can go and be more responsive. the first part of the six months with some much attention in getting the money out the door. they realize they are in the midst of implementation. these concerns are starting to rise. i think you are going to see, and this is one of the compliments to the team in the recovery office, that they are working closely with the agencies and starting to find a more systemic way to capture

through recovery.gov and other systems this kind of feedback, and then have the agency sort through these comments and figure out how they can streamline, speed up, create flexibility is within these programs to get the kind of outcomes that we want. it is still early, but i think there is certainly a welcome signal from them that they want to be very responsive to good implementation. >> it will be very difficult for the administration to make a good course corrections year. most of the money will be out the door in the spring. the train has left the station. how the money is going to be awarded -- everybody recognizes areas where it could have been done better. the demand for speech here ultimately gets in the way of the ability to make -- demand for speed here ultimately gets in the way of the ability to make corrections. it has been an unprecedented challenge and they are making

weekly reports, sometimes daily reports, what change, how we got more money out the door? that is coming from the white house and a windy and perhaps the best president's office. -- and omb and perhaps the vice president's office. so far, they had troops on the ground getting money out the door with procedures that seem rational. it seems to me something to be applauded. >> for what will have to be the last question, the lady at the rear asked about the extent the stimulus addressed foreclosures. my own sense is that it is other programs that the federal government has come up with that have done that. but i will open it to anyone else who wants to address the foreclosure question. >> on housing generally, this is where they could do more. in terms of the shovel-ready projects, there are some i know of that are not happening because financing is not available, and again, it is another case that there is part of this addressing some of that,

but not enough. that is one of the areas where if they were looking to redirect something or at as something to it, there is probably opportunities for things that could move pretty quickly. >> for instance, what? >> some of them involve affordable housing, some of them involve market rates. we argue that part affordable, part market rates -- but the fact of not having that kind of financing available makes the whole project collapsed, that otherwise would be constructed today and housing people a year from now. >> thank you very much. this has been helpful to me as i go forward, and whether or not there is a second stimulus thank you for your interest in coming out today and your good questions. [applause]

>> entities known to be in the business of military supplies and so forth. that is the kind of activity that people will be looking for. the resolutions are not named as punishing the people of north korea. there are humanitarian efforts underway, and we support this. in order to look for and give scrutiny to any transaction that may be coming through with north korea. thank you. >> thank you for doing this. i have a couple of questions.

how much can you ultimately -- will of the vulnerability is at this time, or you can squeeze this to the level where you have a best case scenario that this will bring about. how much it is there left to do, on this completes the audit -- isolated regime, is this more of a psychology with them, and the sanctions will not affect them? and thinking back -- to the idea that you wanted to take these measures, and this seems kind of counter-productive. what is -- are they going to stick with these measures no matter how tough that this gets? >> on the second question, the resolution will remain in effect until the steps are taken, to

deal with e denuclearization and the missile proliferation. and all of the issues that are dealt with in the resolution. there are two reasons that these resolutions can be affected. one of them is that there is a unity of the view and the purpose among the five parties, and the security council that passed the most recent resolution. in the way that these resolutions have been supported. for these reasons and other reasons. and so -- you have the effort to continue with cooperation and coordination within the groups

in the security council, within the five party process, and to keep sending the same message, to north korea. there is a pathway that is open for them, through the process of denuclearization, a process that they have already committed themselves to. the second part is to impede the programs that are under way, if that is the pathway that they continue on. there will be inspections and the financial side. there are two purposes. this is the overall effort to get north korea back to this process, but the non proliferation, >> i am not saying that we know the

purpose, but in terms of -- in terms of the effectiveness, how effective can baby? does the involvement of china and the willingness to go along with the sanctions, -- can be? does the involvement of china to go along with the sanctions affect this? >> by having a unity of purpose, and the idea that there is a joint approach, this is a new situation. and there is a clear path way for north korea if they want to rejoin the process. otherwise, these measures will continue until they take the first step. >> a follow up on this, are you able to find out how difficult you are making life for the north koreans with the weapons program?

what is the impact that this is having? >> this is still early and the resolution was passed two months ago, and we are still in the process of implementation. but there are a couple of examples, and the most public was the incident where a ship in north korea was coming to southeast asia, and eventually it turned around. this was after a bit of diplomatic activity, and so, i think that this has had an effect. this is the most public of the incidents, but this will take some time for this to work, and we are committed to a steady process of using this as one way, and we will be offering a

greater conversation about the steps on denuclearization. >> there was some concern last week when bill clinton went to rescue the journalists, that north korea may show enough interest so the chinese or the russians would back, on the programs. do you have any feeling from the chinese or the russians, since you visit those capitals, that they are with the program, because history would prove the skeptics are right on this. >> i was in russia and the humanitarian mission was underway. we have very good conversations about implementation. i do not see any change in that

position. now with moscow or china. -- not with moscow or china. they did not note any kind of change in this position. the common approach has these elements, which is offering a return to the six party talks and the process of denuclearization, and these commitments, and the implementation of the rest of the issues. this is something on which we agree. >> do you have any plans to visit india in the near future, and [unintelligible] they had it 1,600 tons of sugar

-- >> this is not something that has been decided at this time, but i would leave open this possibility. there are several explanations for the incident, as to why the indian government acted, and the authority and the law under which they may have acted. i refer you to the government of india to tell you why and under what authority they acted. as i understand this, north korea -- the north korean ship was in territorial waters without notification, and when this was approached it did not answer. it was acting suspiciously, and the indian government took action to bring them to the board.

the fact is that the government may have been acting under international law, or under their own domestic law. >> the six party talks -- there was not much achievement -- ever since this started. do you still expect -- do you believe that you can get something out of this? >> we hope so. we believe that this is the proper approach for dealing with denuclearization, and that this multi lateral approach is important. but ultimately, this is a decision that will be taken by

north korea, whether they want to return to that process, where they want to face isolation, and the implementation of resolutions, and the rest. this is something that will have to be decided elsewhere. we maintain that we are committed to this, and the process of coordination, and the continuing consultation is very important among the five parties, and this is something that we will continue to do. when i was there last week, at the same time that the ambassador was there, they were consulting with the south korean government. the overall process continues, and we are going to make this work. >> [unintelligible]

only north korea -- only they were at the talks, and this was the sixth party talks. >> i will say that we have dealt with that question, before. we believe in the six party process that does not exclude this with the bilateral exchange. >> one of the main goals of your effort is to get north korea to reconsider their behavior. >> next on c-span, remarks from new gingrich on the budget process, and after that, former president bill clinton from the national conference and on this morning's washington journal, we

will talk to the mayor of newark, new jersey. corey booker. >> sunday, ellis cose of newsweek magazine on his public radio series that profiles people who have overcome signifigant obstacles in life. >> sonia sotomayor attended a white house reception this week with president obama. we will show this at 7:00 on saturday. >> now, newt gingrich. he will talk about the budget process at the federal and state and local levels. the american enterprise institute hosted this, and this is 50 minutes.

>> i apologize for starting as you are eating -- but i want to thank him for a great power, and really showing at a practical level the kind of changes and leadership that can make a huge difference. i will talk about this and i will go to some examples of continuing change and over how fundamental -- fundamentally different the thinking will be. i want to say to -- i want to talk about two examples of this. america works, and the prison fellowship model that he has

done such a great job of developing. i believe that a prisoner rehabilitation should be a concern for all americans. 66% of the inmates are i rested again, within one year and 56% are back in prison. there are several changes leading the way that we rehabilitate prisoners. effectively integrate them into society. america works is originally eckert i worked with on welfare reform. they have been found it under governor mario cuomo and they were able to break through at that time in the 80's in which several social workers went into private business and organized a for-profit company which will get paid if hard core unemployed actually changed their behavior enough to go to work and they only got their bonus if they would work for an minimal of six

consecutive months. they became lost on gush langley successful which led other groups to hate them because they offered the opportunity -- >> [inaudible] >> because the america works was in indianapolis. then they have since branched into working with prisoners, formerly incarcerated folks who worked for direct employment when released from prison the organization works to develop a resonate, appropriate clothing, carfare and take all the things they learned working with hard-core unemployed and begin developing for prisoners how do you retrain people so they get a job, keep a job, or how to be on time, learn how to show up under a variety of circumstances. after a month in the america works program most individuals who were prisoners get hired. the companies get good workers, workers get good jobs and the government gets reduce cost for criminal-justice and the tax revenue for the people now a

holding a job. to give an example, it costs california $47,000 a year to house one prisoner versus 81 time fee of $4,000 to get that person a job which is paid only when they keep the job for six months. so in a sense if california is going to release 40,000 people they should basically help america works or a parallel company we could call california works are about to deal with all 40,000 people and he would have a fundamentally different kind experience. chuckles and developed prison fellowship that provides spiritual, vocational, educational guidance to inmates in all 50 states and 150 countries world wide and relies on a network of more than 20,000 people. again, on union common on a full-time staff and we eat, no pension. all the things we are told automatically raises cost there

are 20,000 volunteers who ministered to many of the 2.3 million prisoners in the united states. prison fellowship has and interchange freedom an initiative which is very tough. inmates are measured in value based programs that teach the best strategy is to enter society beginning 18 to 24 months prior to release. malae talked with pat about how challenging this is. this is a program where you don't smoke, you don't drink, you focus all day every day. they are really serious about helping people change their behavior and helping people change their future. according to a study of the freedom initiative in texas, only 8% of those participating are turned to jail within two years compared to 52% of all american prisoners that returned to jail within three years. i want to give you these two models as examples.

these are not just more efficient ways of doing the same old things. these are fundamentally different approaches to achieve and out comes that are not achievable within the traditional barack receipts and that is a key part of. we are going to talk about policies specific areas and i want to start with the economy because i believe it is ironic james carville and 1982 had posted in the clinton campaign headquarters in little rock a sign that said it's the economy and i think this administration today would do well to post a sign in the oval office that says it's jobs stupid and the fact is we don't focus on jobs and we don't get people back to work and we don't create economic momentum we are in deep trouble as a country. america only works when americans are working. furthermore when you're faced with competitors like china and india you have to have a

strategy for economic growth and economic to filament in a period of considerable challenge. our argument is if we want to build a safe prosperous and free future we need to create the most productive most creative most entrepreneurial pro-market economy that runs on smart and effective economic regulation. let me be clear. i believe if you set out and say well what maximize their are ways to do that. you said what maximize the number of small businesses created by small business there are ways to do that. if you said how can i have the most continuous process of innovation we know how to it just doesn't fit the political elite definition of the future which is high techs, bigger shocker c and politicians entered. so, long term we're going to need budgetary reform

legislation. it's interesting the last congress more than a dozen bills introduced to establish entitlement and budget commission's but if all the legislation did was have the same old conversation within the same old frame work you in fact wouldn't achieve very much. you end up with a compromise in which we would raise taxes while marginally cutting spending in order to sustain a bigger government at higher cost with a smaller economy and fewer job creations. tax increases are a short-term fix the lead to bigger government and the weak economy. the fact that in the last year 11 states raised taxes to help eliminate budget gaps is absolutely amazing in the context of this economy. oregon added new top rates of 10.8% and 11% to race to enter the 53 million jobs. that kills jobs in oregon. california raised rates by

one-quarter of a percent and already the highest income tax rate in the country and reduced the dependent tax credit that kills jobs and convinces people to leave california. delaware raised above $60,000. that kills jobs. new york raises top bracket production for higher income earners. that kills jobs. by the way i've talked to people moving out of new york city because they are now finding it finally so expensive compared to living for example in florida which has no income tax that the differential is unsustainable. hawaii, new jersey and wisconsin raise taxes on high-income earners. every one of those steps kills jobs. they also represent a distorted social policy and which we weaken families, take money away from working families to create a bureaucracy to do for the family when it would have done for itself if it still had the money to get the bureaucracy. but we give examples that are

startling. under president truman, the deductions were a thousand dollars to $1,200 for married couples and five to $600 for each dependent. in 2,000 line inflation-adjusted figures would be $7,300 for married couples and 3650 for each dependent. now if you consider that you've been getting to look at fundamentally different models. by the way the original deduction from income tax would mean no one earning less than $8 million a year would pay anything. when income tax came and it was going to be very limited for a very small number of people very tiny. you have to learn $8 million in 2009 version dollars. but if you look at the way in which the states are desperate to find money and so in effect their exporting jobs to china and india. oregon not only raises top rate

increased minimum tax for business to read delaware race receipts and business franchise taxes which says why would i want to franchising delaware? wisconsin reduced corporate tax breaks so why why open another factory in wisconsin? nv adjusted its business tax at a time when the nevada economy is one of the hardest hit with property having a deep drop in value than all but two states. kansas produced business tax credits. 19 states increased taxes by more than 1%. only one state cut taxes by more than 1% so if you look at that and go through item after item of the north dakota cut individual and then delete the business income taxes by 50 million a good example where energy revenue was helpful because north dakota is having an energy boom. so our argument is if we want economies that encourage business development and freedom in the marketplace we need to reform the current tax structure

and remember as winston churchill warned that government is not the source of wealth as churchill once remarked the nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle so taxation isn't a central form of wealth, taxation in fact reduce is wealth and reduces jobs. i think we have to focus in designing the government of the future on doing it dramatically better job of reducing the regulatory barriers and cutting taxes that are discouraged on abortion and economic growth. that is why an american solutions we propose to programs to create jobs and stimulate economic growth. we have created a program called jobs here jobs now jobs first which we think is steps for jobs and prosperity and we did this because we are convinced that the politician protection act that was the so-called stimulus bill will clearly in the and not create the level of economic growth we want to read the

federal reserve board we could expect a long period of increased economic activity without new jobs and that we could easily have eight or 9% on an plan for a long time. i think the american people will find that a very unacceptable future and i think the left will come in and say we need even more big government spending when the fact is by 3-1 most americans believe business tax cuts are a better way to create jobs than more bureaucratic spending so we suggest four steps for jobs and prosperity in a program we call jobs here jobs now jobs first and i want to tell you what the steps are and why we picked them. first is immediate payroll tax relief. while many people do not pay the income tax everyone who has a salary pays a social security and medicare tax. and in this economy you.

so if you cut the social security and medicare tax and we propose a 50%, to year 50% reduction in the payroll tax you immediately boost take-home pay for even the least wealthy person so the minimum wage workers currently paying social secure a medicare tax would get a significant increase immediately if you had to year cut. we also propose that match also be cut for two years by 50 per cent which means every small business in america would have more cash flow to begin to pay off debt, to be able to invest in new equipment and create jobs and remember three of every four jobs are created by small business. now the way we would do this -- by the way this would be a huge benefit if you are self-employed because you would get both and will your match and and when you tax system would have a significant increase in take-home pay if you were self-employed. remember in a state like california there are more people

self-employed than there are union members so you can have a dramatic impact on the economy and offset some of the damage done by state taxes. we would find the money and remember earlier i talked about fact we had balanced the budget for four consecutive years i am quite comfortable in a 4 trillion-dollar federal budget we can find the money to put into social security and medicare trust fund said they would be held harmless. i would start by taking all the unexpected money along with 300 to $400 billion of the on spent stimulus spending and diverting them into paying for the payroll tax cuts. in addition, we would sell all the government ownership that has been acquired the last two years to get all those businesses back in the marketplace, take the money that would durham, put that in the social security and medicare trust fund and i would propose zeroing all money going to acorn because that is after all an organization dedicated to helping the poor and if we to

call the money they get and give it directly to the war in the form of a tax cut for the lowest paid workers surely that would be the model of what acorn says the stand for so they should be thrilled by this opportunity. the second thing enable american companies to once again become the most competitive exporters the irish tax rate which is 12.5% for corporations. today the united states when you combined state and federal taxes has the most expensive corporate tax in the world. this goes back to to plus two equals four. i got turned on to this by craig their and when he was the head of intel pointed out microsoft has all of their licenses and ireland and he said whitey think microsoft has of their licenses and ireland? they pay 12.5% versus paying what would in some american states be over 40%.

so, to plus two equals four, and you are a corporate ceo or obligation to stockholders to get a return on your investment would you rather pay 12.5% or 40%? all of our liberal friends get out and kill about on patriotic companies let's make profitable to be patriotic by reducing the tax rate to the irish corporate rate of 12.5% he will find lots of american and foreign ceo is and say i would like more factories in america because they will have a lower tax rate in germany or britain or france or japan. ford, if you really want to compete with china for jobs and won the most innovative. of entrepreneurial society in the world match the chinese capital gains rate. if we had no capital gains tax the amount of capital which would flow into the united states, the number of new factories, the number of their businesses and new jobs would be breathtaking and we will rapidly become the leading exporting

country in the world. finally, if your social values are then you believe in the work ethic, you believe in savings and you believe that families ãjght to save for their children we should abolish this permanently to send the signal that we want people to work all their lives and be able to save up resources for their children. this is an overview -- these tax cuts would it rapidly accelerate economic growth and reduce unemployment, and if we simply calculate that we were at 4% unemployment, how much bigger with the tax revenue be from people going to work and how much bigger with the economy big, and how less spending -- you kind of get the economic growth that will enable you to go back to the balanced budget.

there are other major proposals for jobs and prosperity, and i will tell you that a strong and robust american energy program is a major part of this and the strong education program -- i will talk briefly about this. of those. on occasion, the race simple model. world-class jobs require world class learning. you cannot compete with china and india with an inadequate education system and that an adequate system can't be fixed by no child left behind. you need a new model of every american getting ahead because you have to many adults under educated for the world market and you can't say to someone who's 22 we are not going to help you but we will fix k-12 because you have to have 40 to 50 years of person on the job market so we need to have a fundamental new approach that includes vocational technical school, includes college, it

includes k-12 but also includes homeschooling and learning on your own and it includes things like the university of phoenix on libeler in. we have to have a fundamentally new approach to 365 days a year capacity to keep learning at a rapid rate so every american can be fully informed. i mentioned earlier 2 billion minutes. i wish every community in america what watch that film and have a dialogue of does it mean and what we have to do some schools can be competitive. compton points of 60% of u.s. students have no science to biology. only 18% of students take advanced classes and physics, chemistry or biology yet every indian student on the academic track takes four years of physics topped by a physics major. only 45% of u.s. students take math work beyond basic old georgia and interest rate to geometry.

remember these are the students that have been dropped out. if you add in the students that dropped out you realize how huge the educational challenge to the next generation is if we are serious about competing with india and china. september 17th i'm about to announce american solutions will be hosting the premier new documentary 2 billion minutes a 21st century solution hosting the event with the education of quality project and u.s. chamber of commerce institute for comparative work force. it's interesting the film highlights the basis school which is a tucson arizona charter school "newsweek" rated as the best school in the country and we think there is a lot to be learned and this is the kind of opportunity to say every school could be this good if we apply the right principles and prepare to insist on excellence. i believe detective flirting is critical. i don't see how you create job opportunities with productive been fallen planned for

americans and a knowledge based internet connected global the competitive world without having high-quality learning in america. international competition and future of this country require effective learning by all americans and economic viability of the community requires effective learning to read the future of our children requires the learn -- most important debates in this country the next few years and i want to say we are actually directly involved with president obama and with secretary of education arne duncan and reverend al sharpton and we will be this afternoon and then friday we are announcing we are tomorrow morning on the today show we will be going nation white in a joint effort that is try partisan democrat republican independent to get every state to adopt the program.

this is one of the places i strongly agree with president obama. i would go further. i believe in vouchers or as i would call them pell grants for k-12 but i'm happy to say the president's position is strong on charter schools and if you can find a place to work together this is a useful and i can see up front if you told me two years ago al sharpton and i would be going around the country jointly advocating things i would have been dubious of that new say we believe parents have to demand accountability and choice. parents must have transparency about their child's achievement. parents must have the ability to pick the right school for their child. parents should have the right never to have their kids trapped in failing schools. this is fundamentally about the nature of america. we believe in nova and its charter system. all the money allocated for student education goes directly to the school. the school manages its own staff whereby it is exempt from the law regarding tenure and need

not unionized. this will define its own curriculum in line with state standards and assessments. students in charter schools are not exempt from state assessments. the schools are not exempt from reporting requirements nor should they be the have the same obligation for transparency as any other school. steve walsh allow for the first school to franchise its model without limitation that means the need not apply for a new school every time they can build a new one if they have the demand they must be able to serve. the state should have no caps on the number of charter schools that can be approved and the process for charter schools should be smooth and efficient. every station open their system to part-time teachers so retired physicists and edward pharmacists or local accountants could teach one or two hours a day and bring all which to the classroom and business adult expectations to the students and programs like teach for america should be encouraged and of limited. every state should adopt early graduation program so students can learn faster in the state curriculum and students who can

graduate early could be awarded the cost of the years they skid as automatic scholarships towards college or vocational technical school. i know that jackie cushman red lead a foundation where there were seventh and eighth graders with the same wages as mcdonald's employees if they stayed in school and did their homework and they had a dramatic improvement and the number of poor students and these were poor neighborhoods and fulton county and the students responded -- this voice surprises me this is a shock to some education theorists. where children understand money. poor children understand if they could earn money. they want to change their behavior if they actually get the money. something we experiment with years ago when i remember, i would take my speech money we had a program called earning by learning and they paid $2 a book in public housing for every book children would read and had huge response because they love the idea of getting $2 a book and

they were willing to read lots of books. it wasn't complicated. all of us understand when we are watching tiger woods when a golf match or somebody negotiate to be a football player or a movie star or rock star make money somehow we come around to these young people who are poor and need money and we say i wonder what might encourage them to study so we encourage people to look at this and it might curb the dropout rates seen as a mini failing schools and we think it might break the cycle of poverty dependency in prison. so that is is education. on energy we think there is an american energy program to use american energy to create american jobs and strengthen american national security. we believe if you want to build a safe prosperous and free future you have to create a fundamentally new energy infrastructure to facilitate a 21st century energy economy. in fact for many states the key to closing the budgetary gap

lines and increase in energy resources. the six states that projected budget surpluses in 2009 durham substantial revenue from natural resources. alaska will bring from oil and natural gas production taxes. we list some examples of states that are getting more and more resources from the various severance fees and you will notice an example louisiana. it's interesting people worry about julich of short. of louisiana and texas we have bills since of the wells and we have had four major hurricanes the last few years. none of the wells have had a problem. it's much more dangerous for the environment to bring oil by ship from saudi arabia are venezuela and at american solutions we propose ten steps for generating

more american energy now. the first became famous last year as natural curatorial now pay less and the first time in 27 years the congress failed to pass the ban on exploring offshore of of our schwarzenegger agreed they could drill more of santa barbara for the first time since 1969. a position by 59% of the people in santa barbara county so both offshore and in alaska we believe there's a tremendous amount of oil and it's interesting there are continuing discoveries of new layers of oil and natural gas on a grand scale in fact there are new technologies for finding natural gas and shale involving drilling down 4 miles i'm sorry, 8,000 feet and then to link horizontal lee for 4 miles out of the same wild and they are now discovering enough natural gas and shale we probably have 1300 years of supply and the united states of natural gas and

it's going to create in western new york and pennsylvania, eastern ohio, west virginia, kentucky all the way through louisiana, mississippi to texas and oklahoma a huge zone of people who will make money off the natural resources in their farm land on a scale nobody thought was possible ten years ago to the example of new technology. we should lift the ban on developing oil shale and how red, white and utah where we have three times as. we should encourage building new refineries and gas processing plants in the united states. we should reduce bureaucratic obstacles and prevent frivolous litigation. we should encourage clinical development plans. people need to remember china opens a new coal plant every week. if we have any hope of dealing with carbon loading in the atmosphere you have to have clean coal technology because you are all going to get rid of coal plants the next 30 years and coal is the most abundant

single resource in terms of energy. we have over 500 years of supply of coal. we should have a new fuel standard for flex-fuel cars than all cars ought to be built as flex tool which enables you to use biofuel and enables you to use a variety of approaches which both expand. remember the ethanol grown in the united states is money in the united states and my body is is if my choice is between biofuel made in america or importing oil from either venezuela were saudi arabia i have cero doubt we are better off as a country to use biofuel. eight, we need prices to accelerate breakthroughs in technology. ninth, we should invest in nuclear power. there are small nuclear power plants that i think will be a tremendous breakthrough how to develop nuclear power and finally to keep the tax credit for enhanced recovery because we actually want to maximize the recovery of americans will not force us into dependence. that gives the example of

energy. on infrastructure, i think -- steve referred to some of this earlier and i agree. we are at the beginning of a smart infrastructure mall. i am not lead to go through in great detail but if you look what is happening with the miami-dade smart critic and other experiments, we are about to have an ability to create information-which data which allows you for example to have different pricing at different times of the day. it allows you to have an ability for people to decide in terms of their schedule when do they want to travel and you can actually dramatically change the load pattern of most highways. if you will also find that there are new electric grid capabilities so you both have a smart power in terms of smart electric grids and transportation and the combination of the two, the use of information technology for example i met with several companies beginning to install

smart homes so people automatically drive their wash at the lowest cost of electricity that day because their home computer talks with the electric utility computer and can literally tell you if you do the drawing between three and five in the morning you will get charged one-fifth as much as if you do the drawing in the afternoon when people have air-conditioning on and there is a whole series of these kind of things evil thing that will allow us to have a better use of energy and of transportation grid so both electric grid and the transportation great need to become smart systems. i personally am in favor of looking at now connected levitation trains. if you look what the chinese are doing i think it is very sobering you can now go to shanghai and ticket to hundred 50-mile an hour train and virtually all of the very

high-speed trains in the world are being built in china and a suburb of shanghai is a sobering place because 20 years ago ther@ the gdp is $28 million. there is an enormous explosion of economic activity. spain now has a train that goes from madrid to seville, the french have a fast train that crosses most of france. japan has the bullet train. i think that we have to fundamentally think about the approach to rail, but i am against giving money to amtrack on behalf of the unionized work force, to spend 20 years on almost nothing. we are seriously creating

corridors, in which people with a profit motive build very rapidly, high speed capabilities that match china. if you have the equivalent of this to san francisco and san diego, or some parts of florida, you could develop the ability to have people use the train on a grand scale. one of the areas is very high density with a great deal of traffic. you want to take people off of the highway. the highway and i think that can be done but it takes a much different approach. for smaller projects, i think you want to get the federal government to back out. the point steve made it costs twice as much to build federal highways in a city as it cost to build a city highway so you're asking the city to get the fedel money half as many miles both the least they are not

paying that we should grant a number of these things allow the local governments to be practical, allow them to contract out and in the process i think you've got to get a lot of fighting the budget act to create a federal capital budget. when you have something like one of the projects we are working on at american solutions is a 21st century air traffic control system. if we had a space-based gps style for dimensional gps system that enabled airplanes and affect to fly with much greater accuracy and much greater density airlines would buy 10% less fuel so both from an environmental and economic standpoint there would be enormous -- we would also eliminate all the air traffic colds in the northeast and would save an immense -- cao miniet

you have found yourself waiting either at laguardia or to get into or out and do understand what i'm talking about. you get on the plane and the announce we have an air traffic cold now use it for two hours. somebody figured out actually with all of the holds it is now slow were to go from o'hare to laguardia by jet than it was to go by d.c. three in 1946. because 1946 and took off and landed. now you have all these various controls and the federal bureaucracy. we clearly can build a 20th century control system that will save an amazing amount of money. it will free up the northeast corridor and enable philadelphia for example not to be trapped in constant air traffic control holds. if you're going to do that we'll to build them as fast as we can which requires a capital budget approach rather than the annual

appropriation of a tiny amount of money so it takes 22 years to do something that should have taken three years. the analogy i will give you i've written two novels about world war ii. in world war ii from the japanese attack at pearl harbor to our victory over japan in august of 1945 is three years and eight months. so 44 months from december 1945 to the middle august 1941 to the middle of august, 1945 we defeat nazi germany and italy. three months and eight months. it took 23 years to add a runway at the airport. now, you can't a bureaucracy between bureaucracy and litigation. where you become so mosul found that we can't function. so we need very fundamental changes. we need a capital budget that the federal level so we can

invest in things and there's a practical reason. if you notice here that our country has decreased infrastructure spending from 3.6% of gross domestic product to 2.7%. the reason is annual budgets have a huge bias in favor of current services. and whereas capital budgets have a huge body is in favor of the future. so we are very strongly in favor of a fundamental approach to infrastructure that moves us back to a theory serious investment attitude, the kind of thing lincoln would have understood, the kind of thing dwight david eisenhower understood that would build a momentum of economic growth in the long run. wheels about what to do it in an intelligent way and i recommend all of you to read the paper and look at what governor wilson did after the northridge earthquake, what governor leavitt did in order to reconstruct highways around salt lake city for the olympics, and what governor

schwarzenegger date to years ago when there was a fire on the oakland, california bridge this kind of contract, this was finished 74 days ahead of the june 1994 deadline, and instead of two years and two months, this to two months and two days.

that is fundamentally the opposite of the way that bureaucracy normally works. every time that the contractor disrupted rush-hour, they suffered a penalty. and every day they got this done early, they had a bonus. they reduced the schedule for the project from 10 years, to four and a half years. you want strong capital investment but you also want strong contract in. in oakland, there was a major bridge that was knocked out by a fire on a tanker. they thought it would take 50 days to do something, and the contractor actually had been

sitting next to the bridge, when he went to sign the contract. he wanted them there so he could call them and tell them to go. they finished this in 17 days. the massive involvement in the private sector and the willingness to pay for efficiency. so they can use the incentive built model. this is a topic that we will go into on -- in great care. in 2002 i co-authored a book called, saving lives and saving money. i think that this is a tragedy that we are in a fight over whether or not to impose a 30 year-old model with centralized government bureaucratic health,

and the model is, we will do 20% less dumb. -- be 20% less dumb. the senate is not as bad, but it is bad. we do not need a centralized government model. we are spending too much on health care, why not spend an extra dollars trillion. -- an extra trillion dollars. if you just think that sentence through, you understand, two plus two equals four. we work with the lutheran health center in lacrosse that has the best end of life processes in

america, and for the last two years of life, they have cost $18,000 against 25,000 for the national average. how do they do this? they have the it advanced directive. i want to draw a sharp distinction here. my father died of lung cancer and the doctor in cages with the family, in a genuine discussion as part of the end of the process. there is no budget pressure and there is no external reporting, this is an honest conversation with people who understand that they're in a difficult situation. about 19 of the patients end up with [unintelligible] this is in the electronic health records.

so they can deal with the patient and the family in a knowledgeable way, just as the family requested. they have a hospice program, for people who are at the level where medication will not help them. they have very high approval, because people feel that they are dealt with it with dignity, and the family feels engaged. the system has been adopted by the government of australia, and it is very unfortunate that the bureaucratic system, -- is completely distorting the debate, we think that you should stop paying the crooks. and you have to go to an electronic health system, and there should be tax reform so

that everyone can buy into the same ground rules, if you are self-employed or unemployed. we would migrate to the best outcome, and give incentives to the hospitals as defined by the professional standards. not by the government. we would reform the health justice system, because we think unnecessary litigation is a major problem. you can see with the malpractice reform, there is much less defensive medicine. you have much lower insurance. let me close with an example, of how different the future could be, but this is fundamentally different. i was part of the alzheimer's study group.

we spent two years working on this and one member was sandra day o'connor. this is a very painful and difficult disease that can last a long time and will soar the entire family. we think that there is real hope. this is projected between now and 2052 cost $20 trillion to the federal government, and a substantial amount to the private citizens for the long term care. every other person at 85 has some form of dementia. everyone and 62 -- every sixth person at 62 is beginning to have a problem. this is a major issue. we have worked with three nobel prize winners, who believe that with the right investment and

research, and the right organization of research, we could have a breakthrough by 2025 which would largely eliminate this as a threat. first, the level of human pain that this would avoid, this is like talking about sabin when the trick was to go from an iron lung to a vaccine to eliminate polio. they believe that we will be able to break through and stop the steps that lead to alzheimer's disease. if you have a 20 trillion dollar project, and we will spend this much money, what would it be worth to spend this if you went off budget, to create a research fund, and you told the people to give them the optimum that they could invest,