have answers to many of the vexing phenomena. i would contend many of those so-called conclusions are only conjunctions. for example, soon after the terrible, dramatic events of 9/11, there was much discussion as to why it happened and do these people were, and why they did it. there was something in my mind missing here. it's sort of occurred to me that the actions of 9/11 or distant cousin to the shooting at the columbine high school a couple of years earlier. . .

it is rather bewildering. i had a cousin who was lost in the bombing. he was a very gentle, kind man. it would never be perceived that he could mean bill to anyone.

we mourn his loss. >> this question has to do with the february 1989 establishment of the arab cooperation council, and jordan, iraq, yemen, and egypt. it was short-lived. where is this concept now? none of the four countries are as they once were. there was a dynamism to it. there was a logic to it. is the idea still under consideration? if so, how and why? >> did anyone ever tell you that you have a great radio voice? i used to always enjoys speaking after someone who had a high

voice because i have a deep voice. it is a good question. i think it was simply overcome by events themselves. we have the case of the innovation -- the invasion of kuwait by iraq. it did not really progress beyond that. and then we have the application of economic sanctions on iraq and it quickly perished as an idea. >> how would you assess the effectiveness of special on by george mitchell's efforts to move the peace process between israel and the palestinians forward? what more can and should be done? >> i once had a discussion.

in baghdad, he was the u.n. special envoy. he had served in almost every conflict since 1971. he said, the toughest negotiations were always between the parties in the middle east. one cannot underestimate how difficult this has been for senator mitchell. notwithstanding his enormous credentials and qualifications, which make him the perfect fit for this job. it is just so difficult for anyone. we think that he has laid the foundations for the launching of

discussion in the final stages and i think that is something to be commended. >> in bringing this session to a close, there is something i did not mention in the introductory remarks. there are blocks of countries within the united nations and there is an arab bloc for various needs and purposes. but prior to the most recent elections of the current incumbent of the united nations , all 22 arab countries voted for this individual to be their representative and their candidate for the secretary general ship for the united nations sprit no small honor. -- united nations. no small honor. the last question is not so much a question. it is a statement. i am in the eighth grade and i enjoy listening to your speech

about peace. on behalf of this audience, i think we can say that the rest of us are in kindergarten and lead to enjoyed it and learned a lot. >> thank you. [applause] >> a week from today in prague, the president will sign the nuclear reduction treaty with russian president. the associated press reports today that china has announced that the president will take part in a summit on nuclear

security. that will be happening that people 12 and 13. the president heads for new england today. he is heading for maine where he will talk about the new health- care law. we will have live coverage today at 3:25 eastern. before returning, the president will go to boston to speak at several fund-raising events. in washington, the obama administration today setting new gas mileage standards for cars and trucks. the head of the transportation department and the environmental protection agency signed file will rule today setting fuel efficiency standards for model years 2012 and 2016 with a goal of achieving by 2016, the equivalent of 35.5 miles per gallon.

>> this year's c-span2 student competition past middle and high school students to create a five-eight minute video dealing with one of our country's most major strengths or challenges. here is one of the third-place winners. >> it is a regular day at work and you are working hard, like you always do. suddenly, your boss calls you into his office. it is weird because he never called you in. he walked into his office and he asks you to sit down. he begins to talk to you about your work and about how tough things are at the office. then, he says the words, i am letting you go. then, it is too hard and painful. you feel like the whole world is falling on top of you. ♪

unemployment rate now, the state of being unemployed, but available to work. >> in october, the unemployment rate rose to 10.2%, the highest rate since april 1983. job losses have averaged 180,000 over the past three months. the declines were much smaller and less widespread than they were last fall and winter. over 5.6 million workers have been jobless for over six months or more. among the employed, there were 9.3 million persons working part-time in october that would have preferred full-time work. >> in october, production lost 52,000 jobs. construction job losses -- many

factories lost 61,000 jobs. professional and business services shed 51,000 jobs. >> our jobs are seasonal. >> on a brighter note, health care added 29,000 jobs in october. heavy been hiring lately? >> we have. we have expanded 15 employees to our facility. >> restaurants and bars added nearly 9000 jobs. but not all did. are you currently hiring? >> you are welcome to fill out an application. >> recognize any of these pictures? 1929 to 1943.

the great depression. the unemployment rate began at 3.3%. in 1933, it was up to 24.9%. we stand at 10.2%. are we falling into the status? >> i do not need to remind any of you about the situation we have found ourselves in the beginning of this year. the economy was in a freefall as a result of our financial crisis. folks could not access affordable credit to run their businesses home values were plummeting and we were hemorrhaging about 700,000 jobs per month. today, the economy is growing for the first time in more than a year. november's job report was the best that we have had in nearly two years. the fact is, even though we have stopped the rapid job losses that we were seeing a few months ago, more than 7 million

americans have lost their jobs in the two years since this recession began. unemployment still stands at 10%. we're not finished, far from it. we have a lot of work to do. >> job loss is a scary thing. but it does happen. it happens a lot. fortunately, there are ways to recover. find out if you are eligible for unemployment benefits. determine how long your financial resources will last. if your help benefits are paid by your employer, find out how to maintain those benefits. cobra will be able to help you. determine whether a career change is an order. if layoffs are rampant in your field, you may want to consider making a change to a field that

is stable. take this time to beef up your skills. find out what skills are most valuable to employers. begin your job search. write your resume. begin your job interviewing skills. realize that you are in a very stressful situation and being upset or even angry is normal. take a little break to evaluate your situation, but try not to wallow in self pity. unemployment may be a huge problem, but president obama has a plan that will free us from this trap. right on point is the number-one issue that we need to confront in this country. we cannot borrow our way at of this crisis. we have to earn our way out. we have to put america back to work again. his approach is addressing that.

>> last week, i announced some additional -- additional targets steps. they will give added boost to small business by building on the tax cuts in the recovery act and increasing access to the lungs desperately -- loans desperately needed for small businesses to grow. i called for the extension of emergency relief like unemployment insurance and health benefits to help those who have lost their jobs while boosting consumer spending and promoting job growth. we also want to take some strategic surgical steps in areas that are going to generate the greatest number of jobs while generating the greatest value for our economy. for the moment we took office,

-- from the moment we took office, we began investing in a newer, stronger foundations for lasting growth. when that would free us from the cycle of boom and bust that has been so painful. one that can create good jobs and opportunities for a growing middle class. that is at the heart of our effort. [applause] >> many people worked incredibly hard to support their families and to earn a living. losing their jobs is like putting a death sentence upon them. we will fight unemployment and we will win. for the sake of our country and for the sake of our future, it is time to turn the page and began a new chapter. >> to see all the winning entries in this year's student competition, visit studentcam.org.

>> since the economic stimulus program was signed into law last february, $355 billion have been committed. for more details on those programs, and you watched hearings, etc., and to track watchdog and government groups on spending, go to our web site. earlier this week, surgeon general regina benjamin spoke about efforts to prevent chronic disease by involving primary care services. the first point of contact for patient -- a group called patients enter primary care hosted this event and her remarks run 30 minutes. care and speaking to the group patient center collective care

and it's just started live on c-span2. >> i'm john crosby executive director of the american osteopathic association and the chair of the patient-centered primary care collaborative. this is a collaborative we formed about three or four years ago made up of primary care physicians both osteopathic physicians and mds as well as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, other clinicians, other specialists, hospital executives, pharmaceutical company representatives, employers. and most importantly, the patients of america. we are gathered here at washington at the ronald reagan international trade center for our semi annual stakeholders meeting. our work here is to begin implementation of our ideal way of practice, which is the patient-centered medical home concept. we are reinventing healthcare in

light of the historic action last week by the u.s. house of representatives, the congress as a whole and the signature by president obama of the healthcare reform act. speaking of reinventing primary care, i want to call your attention while i've got your attention to the may issue of health affairs. it is going to have over 40 articles focused on workplace issues, practiced profiles and most importantly, the medical home concept. there's information outside on the tables regarding this health affairs issue. our first keynote speaker today is keenly aware of the need to reinvent primary care. dr. regina benjamin is the 18th surgeon general heading up the u.s. public health service.

she is the former ceo and founder of the la-batre medical home care. after that she was the associate dean for rural health at the university of south alabama college of medicine in mobile. dr. benjamin is the immediate past chair of the federation of state medical licensing boards. in 1995, when i met her, she was the first physician under 40 and also the first first african-american woman to serve on the american medical association board of trustees. in 2002, dr. benjamin became the president of the medical association of alabama. the first ever african-american woman to head up that organization. and the first african-american woman to head up any state medical society in the united states.

this unique individual has many, many awards behind her name. i would just like to mention a few. she is the recipient of the nelson mandela award for health and human rights. the 2000 recipient of the national caring award which was named after mother teresa. and recently received a mcarthur genius award fellowship. upon her appointment as surgeon general by president obama, dr. benjamin received the unanimous -- that means bipartisan support of the united states senate. [laughter] [applause] >> who confirmed her appointment last october. i am honored and proud to present to you america's doctor, regina benjamin, m.d. [applause]

>> good morning. thank you. what a warm welcome. that is so nice. it really is. it's nice to be here. but i didn't expect such a warm welcome. that is really, really nice. a nice way to start my day, although it started a few hours ago. [laughter] >> but this is really the beginning. that was a wonderful introduction. i'm glad to be here for the stakeholders meeting group. patient-centered care is what i've always been about all my life. and my philosophy. and so this fits right in. so before i start talking about a little of that, i want to tell you that people often ask how they should address me.

should it be general or should it be certain or what. [laughter] >> and so i always say just call me doctor 'cause that's really what i am. and that's what i would prefer. but while my title is surgeon general of the rank of my uniform is that of a three star admiral. and that's because i commanded 600 -- 6500 commission corps officers of the united states public health service. and as many of you may know, the public health service started and originated as a service to provide healthcare to the merchant marines. so with that nautical theme in mind, i just wanted to start by telling you a little story. i have a lot of friends in this room so you guys probably heard this story. but bear with me. and it's a story about a young ensign who had the duty one night under watch on this big

battleship and he noticed out in the distance there was a light and he plotted out the course and he realized that he was right in the direct path of a great battle hip and he flashed out a wonderful that you're nath path of a big battleship and alter your course. he waited for a reply and he said no, you attar your course. so he got the captain. the captain came and assessed the situation. plotted out the course. came to the same conclusion. the captain flashed out a warning, you're in direct path of a great battleship alter your course immediately. waited for a reply. reply came back, no you attar your course. so by this time it was getting pretty late so they had to wake up the admiral. and like any good ceo the admiral says you want something done right you do it yourself. so the admiral plotted out the course. came to the same conclusion. so he flashed out a warning.

you're in direct path of a great battleship alter your course immediately. i am an admiral. so they waited for a reply. no reply. waited. still no reply. finally, the reply came back, no, you att -- alter your cours. i am a lighthouse. [applause] >> i believe that you and i have to be lighthouses to stand our ground to change the directions of those great battleships that are moving in the wrong direction. that we know we are moving in the wrong direction like health disparities, the uninsured, underinsured, the underfunding of medicaid and care for the poor. and as you know a few days ago we certainly began to change the direction of some of these battleships with the historic signing of the health reform legislation. i'd like to share with you -- [applause]

>> thanks. [applause] >> i would to share some of my personal experiences and hopefully stimulate some of your ideas. and particularly on how you can continue to make a difference. people often ask how did i get started in organized medicine on the policy side of things. so when i was an intern, i attended the medical association of georgia's annual meeting. and one of the intense issues that was being debated was that sexually transmitted diseases needed to be taught in medical school. and i stood up in a room of probably about this size, about 20 people or so. and i had never seen certain diseases in a textbook and the resolution passed. the georgia delegation sent that resolution to the ama. and they sent me to the ama to speak to it as well. and at the ama that resolution eventually passed. and within six months, every medical school in this country

was encouraged to include sexually transmitted diseases as part of their core curriculum. i learned that one person can make a difference. whether it's in medical policy or in medical practice. and i learned that i can make a difference in medical practice when the national health service corps sent me to bayou la batre. it's a pretty place but it's a poor place. i found a community of working poor, too poor to afford medical care but too rich to qualify for medicaid. i like the people and i like the community and i wanted to practice medicine there. but i quickly learned that practicing medicine wasn't just sewing up the shark bites. i had to deal with the land sharks. the regulators, the reviewers, the red tape dispenser, whom i jokingly call the hammer heads, the lawyers. [laughter] >> but i learned that i had to stay involved in any kind of organization that could help get services to my patients. you know, everything from the

ama to the state medical society to the local medical society, united way, red cross, chamber of commerce, girl scouts, anything that we could get services for. it was an entire community that i had to turn to. and there were things that my prescription pad wouldn't take care of. and some of the things were things like -- i had a young patient, 20-something years old, early 20s, she had two little girls and she had been my patient for a while. and she had seizures. and with her seizures, she'd been under control but then she started to have seizures again so she came in and i asked her what's the difference? what have you done different? well, i tell my patients to write things down for me so they won't forget. and she drew for me her pills. and she used to take striped

ones and one was solid and one had stripes and two colors. and what she confided in me was that she couldn't read. and when our hmo got generics she didn't know what pills to take. you have to have your patients trust you enough to be able to confide things new. i also have patients to give me phone calls. they had my phone number. we have a central line that they can call in and reach me anytime. they also have my phone number, my home number was listed. and they could call me. i even had a patient say well, you know, we have a house -- at a meeting in chicago, you know dr. benjamin we can reach you quicker than we can reach those doctors here and you're way up in chicago but they knew they could call me. they didn't abuse it. in fact, they told me we want you to get some rest.

we don't want you to die like dr. taffy did. [laughter] >> so in a small town they take care of you. but there was a saturday when this one patient called me on a saturday afternoon. and she told me -- she says, you know, dr. benjamin, she's about 40 years old. heavy weight. short lady. african-american lady. and she worked at the school in the custodial department. and she called me and she said, dr. benjamin, i could hear the pain in her voice. my back is hurting so bad. she had a slipped dis he told me i needed to lose weight. i have been trying. i really have. the ibuprofen is just not holding. can you give me something stronger? you need to come and see me on monday or tuesday.

i called her in something and on tuesday, i walked into the exam room and there she was, leaning over the exam table in so much pain that she could not sit down. i said, mrs. smith, did the medicine help at all? she said, i did not get it. i just did not have the money. i said, what do you mean? you work at the school, you have blue cross, you could not get it? >> i did not have the kobe. -- kiko pay -- copay. as i went back in, and handed her the medicine and said, you really need to start taking your medicine. i handed it to her. her eyes welled up with tears. she said, i'm so embarrassed. i did not want you to do that. i really did not want you to do that. i realized at that moment that i

had made a major mistake. i took her dignity from her. cultural confidence he has nothing to do with the color of your skin. -- cultural competency has nothing to do with the color of your skin. one of the things that i had to figure out how to get out of that one and i told her that after hurricane katrina, we had some people who would donate things and money. we use those monies to help people by their medication in cases just like this one bit if she wanted to pay it back on friday, you can pay it back, but you really do not have to. she was ok with that. when i was ready to walk out of the room and all the clinicians

are here, she said, oh, by the way. [laughter] >> this wasn't so bad. can i get a work excuse? sure, you can get a work excuse. today is tuesday. you want to go back to work on thursday or friday after you start taking your medicine. she said oh, no i have to go back tonight. we have to strip those floors. this is the kind of patients that we see in our practices every day. these are the kind of patients that we're all in this room in primary every day. these are the folks we're advocating for. we're their voices. and when you talk about a medical home, those are the people who need us to have a place they can come in and when that specialist doesn't quite understand them that they feel comfortable with. we in our practice try to treat the whole family. not just the patient. we didn't call ourselves a medical home. we just unknowingly practice

those principles and embrace those premiums. -- principles. when a patient called in for an appointment, we'd say well, when do you want to come in? what's a good time for you? rather than say i had these slots. and we found that all the -- you know, the no-shows started decreasing once we went on their schedules 'cause oftentimes they'd have to get somebody to bring them in and they could coordinate them better themselves than say we've got this 15-minute slot available. and so we learned later that was called open access. i didn't know what it was called. [laughter] >> and we never let the staff fault the patient. if a patient was late with a specialist or didn't follow our instructions for some reason, a new staff member might be defensive and say well, i told her and i gave her the information. and cindy was there when i told her. our response -- not just mine,

my other staff would say well, you didn't explain it well enough for the patient to understand. it's not the patient's fault. it's our fault. so next time explain it better and make sure they understand. i had a patient in the hospital and a specialist called me and said, this patient is very angry and uncooperative. complains about everything from the food to won't let his blood get drawn and the specialist told me, you know, i the primary care doctor couldn't get a handle on that patient and basically make him nicer then he's going to have to sign off the case. well, that afternoon i go in the hospital. i sit on the patient's bed and larry was telling me. he had just learned, you know, it had nothing to do with the nurses or anyone. it had to do with the fact that he was frightened because that specialist had just told him that he was going to be on diall

dialysis and would probably lose his leg and the only thing he could control was by being defiant. he wanted somebody he could talk to and be comfortable with. and that was very important when our patients trust us. and that trust is so, so important. and that all of us who are physicians will understand that that trust is the thing that bonds us. and other clinicians as well. we're truly a blessed profession. there's no other profession like ours. the look on a mother's face when you tell her her baby's going to be okay, whether her baby is 3 or 33. that look on the mother's face is the same. and our patients truly, truly trust us. a young woman who's being physically abused will tell her doctor or her nurse or her other clinicians her deepest darkest secrets before she will tell her priest, her rabbi or her minister.

and our hands are often -- you know, the hands of a clinicianer is very special because a mother will put her baby in your hands a perfect stranger. she's never seen you before. ever, but she will trust her baby's life in your hands simply because you're a doctor, you're a nurse or you're a clinician and it's the same hands the infant feels as they enter the earth and an elderly person feels as they depart the earth. so we are truly, truly blessed. as you can tell i loved my patients and it was hard to come to washington and leave my practice of 23 years. but my statement now to people who say i came to dc. i opened a satellite office and now i have 300 million americans as my new patients. [applause]

>> and, you know, i want to leave some time for questions so i was going to tell you some of my priorities as surgeon general. but i'm sure i'll get to see a lot of more of you in the near future. and i can talk you a lot about that. and we're doing our obesity challenge program and other things. but the basis of my priorities as well as prevention. and that is the basis of primary care. so that's what it is. so i'm going to end with a story so i can leave a couple minutes of questions. and that is -- all my stories are around water. a young lady was jogging around the beach early one morning before the sun came up. and as she was jogging, there was an older man who was tossing the starfish in the water. and as she ran along the he was continuing tossing these starfish one at a time. and she couldn't take it anymore.

when she finished up with her run she said why are you bothering to toss those starfish in the water. there are hundreds and hundreds of starfish along the beach. and as soon as the sun comes up it's going to dry them out, kill them all anyway and it's not going to make a difference. why do you bother? and he looked at her. he reached down and picked up a starfish because it makes a difference to this starfish and he tossed it in the water. my open is you continue your medical home concept which is a wonderful, wonderful concept that remember to find a starfish once a day and make a difference in their life. thank you so much. and it's wonderful to be here. [applause]

>> we've got time for a few questions. please identify yourself if you come to the mic. and speak up. who's first. yes, sir. >> thank you very much. my name is dr. charlton. your message of dignity and no fault for the patient and respect really resonated with me. but i'm interested in what you think of the patient's responsibility in terms of the mutual relationship? and how accountable should patients really be? because there seems to be an issue there and how do we -- how do we encourage accountability

without overstepping those same parameters you addressed? >> patients are ultimately the decision maker. and they really should be. we should be there to help them. and be there to give them the information to help them make their decisions. we shouldn't make their decisions for them. sometimes they want you to but you can involve other family members and other people. but we need to at least give them all the information if they don't want to hear that's one thing. i remember my mother said if i ever get cancer, i don't want to be told. when she ultimately got lung cancer, she wanted to be told and then she turned it over to me. they need to take that responsibility. if they don't, other family members can. but it's ultimately their decisions to make. and we as their primary care doctors is we know them as a whole person. as the whole family. we'll have a better understanding of how to give them the information they need. and to let them access more

information than we even have. they know their family history. they know their other relatives and things. and they want to take control of theirselves. they know how to buy a car. they should know how to buy healthcare. they know how to buy a piece of furniture. we need to give them just as much information as they can get to be able to, you know, come to us and ask us for what they need. people are smart. and when it comes to your own healthcare, there's nothing more personal. so i would put them straight and center first. >> way over to the right. >> along john hoton from doc sight. you talked about putting patients in the middle of care. i always wondered if care should be care with patients leading that care team and whether we're potentially doing a disservice

saying it's patient-centered care because it's easy to say it's a noncompliant patient and it's the patient's fault versus it's the fault of the care. i concentrate on centered of care instead of patient-centered. >> we're defining it the same way regardless of what you call it. you do have to care for the patient. and i think you're right. you can call it care center, care, or patient-centered care. i think they mean the same thing. that's the person, not the doctor, not the staff. you're not fitting them into your schedules. and your busy life. you're putting their life first and their needs first. sometimes their needs are simply to be reassured. you know, oftentimes making house calls wasn't to make a house call to see that patient. it was to see that patient's family to let them know they were doing the right thing for that patient. so the needs of the entire

family and putting those needs first. and you're right that is care. and that is the care focused that we should do. and it's sometimes not that individual patient or the caretaker are the other people around the family. because it does impact the entire family. [inaudible] >> the obama administration and how -- if it has a lot of support how will that play out? >> it does have a lot of support. i mean, that's been the conversation for the past six, eight months. i think we're being heard so that that patient-centered care has a lot of support. how it's going to play out is yet to be determined. we're just starting to have the teams come together and start to formulate regulations, formulate policy. so it's yet to be determined. so we'll be at the table pushing for it.

and there are a lot of people there at the table that are very supportive. it will take a little while to know how it's going to play out. [inaudible] >> yes. it's the future of healthcare, i hope so. >> dr. charlie jarvis with next gen healthcare. a question regarding this massive health reform legislation that we have in front of us right now. we're all very honored that we have -- that it's in our what is your philosophy? what kind of advice should you give us so that we do not try to boil the ocean? >> some of you are internist, but i am a family physician. we are used to dealing with multiple problems at one time. i think every primary-care doctor is used to that, too. you attack the most critical first and then you start trying

to get things better and better and start doing some of that preventative care. preventive care is where we really are going to change this health system from a six system to wellness system. that is where we need to move a little bit at a time. >> on behalf of all of those starfish across the country, thank you so much for being here today. thank you for being america's doctor. [applause] >> i want to point out to all of you and draw your attention to something that it's in your folder. is a special issue. next month, it will focus on psychology.

we want to encourage all of you to reference that very important publication that will come out next month. the following month, another important issue will come out. you'll see many from this room as part of that sprit it is reinventing primary care. we would also like to encourage you to access that issue at well. at this time, we will take a 30 minute break. you want to use this as an opportunity to network. we will take a 30-minute break and then all of you will come back to the room. we will have the opportunity to hear from our second speaker today. thank you. >> for more about the new health-care law, you can watch recent events, including the event there with the surgeon general and take a look to

links, all our website. president obama is on his way to new england. he is going to speak at a high -- at a fundraiser there in new england and also tour some of the storm damage up there. [no audio] >> this weekend, john dean is our guest on book tv. the former white house counsel to president nixon and author of 10 books will take your phone calls and e-mails and tweets. sunday, noon on c-span2. >> flexible policies make

employees more productive because as you all know, instead of spending time worrying about what is happening at home, your employees have the support and the peace of mind that they desperately need to concentrate on their work. >> watch something on c-span that he would like to share with friends? you can search the c-span video library. over 160,000 hours of the video from yesterday or last year. every c-span program since 1987. it is cable's latest gift to america. >> we were telling you a moment ago, president obama on his way to new england. he is speaking there this afternoon talking about health care. that is live at 3:23 eastern. he will also be at a couple of fund-raisers in boston. we expect to cover at least one of those. the associated press reports that massachusetts gov. says

that the president is trying to arrange a firsthand look at new england flooding. the governor tells the associated press that the president would prefer to walk around the damage rather than see it by air. again, that coverage live this afternoon from portland at 3:23 eastern. we will take you to a discussion with robert samson -- samisen. he talks about the economy, health care and the current state of the financial markets from today's "washington journal." this runs about 40 minutes. journal" continues. host: robert samuelson is our first guest this thursday morning. a columnist for a long time at "newsweek" and "the washington post." what does a nation like greece with 11 million people, and once supported by the european common market, has to tell us about the perils of a financial market?

guest: @ think the message is sort of a mixed political and financial message. that is, that if the government, if a society continues to overspend year after year, decade after decade, at some point there is a reckoning. and greece, like many other modern advanced democracies basically spent more than it is taxed. huge deficits and huge debt and now the financial markets are increasingly skeptical and less willing to lend to greece. so greece now is put in a position that they have to cut back either on spending or raise taxes and do both, and these are not small adjustments -- they are wrenching social adjustments. and the same thing may await us if we did not bring the commitment to the government has made, and our willingness to pay taxes to pay for the commitments, into better balance. we have been hearing a song for decades. we have done very little about

it. but the message from greece is sooner or later the reckoning does come. host: what is your assessment of how washington has been responding officially? the president who has occupied the seat on pennsylvania avenue in this building behind me, this increasing concern? we seem to continue to spend, although we keep hearing about the perils of building up our debt. so what is happening politically that the response has been what it has? guest: the response has been entirely consistent -- which is, let us put it off. it is republicans, it is democrats. the republicans like to cut taxes but they don't want to cut spending. the democrats would increase spending but they don't want to increase taxes. you basically have a consensus even though there is an awful lot of rhetoric, but a consensus among practical politicians that they don't want to do anything unpleasant for their constituencies. it is understandable but the

point is sooner or later, if you do so -- to much of that, evade these problems too long, there will be a reckoning and it will be imposed by the financial markets that become less willing to lend to you so your interest rates go up and the budget situation deteriorates even more. host: staying with politics, other than a reckoning, what could change the balance politically? would it take a particular strong later -- legal or public asking for change? guest: the public and very asks for change but they really don't want it. they want the deficit reduced but they don't want spending cuts of the taxes. i think the politics on both parties reflect the underlying public opinion. my on have a conclusion after rating for this for a long time, as he puts it, is that it probably will take a genuine crisis to force major changes but in the midst of a genuine crisis, the changes will not be pleasant and they will have to be fairly abrupt.

host: we welcome your telephone calls, e-mail and tweakets for a columnist robert samuelson, about what is in store for our nation in terms of financial status of its -- status and lifestyle. his book is called "the great inflation & its aftermath." what is your thesis? guest: in the last 50 years, the most important economic event is the rise and fall of double- digit inflation. for those of you listeners who do not remember, we went from a society who basically had no inflation in the early 1960's and by the end of the 1970's we had double-digit -- 12, 13, 14, 15%. at the beginning of the 1980's, paul volcker, then chairman of the federal reserve board under president reagan, essentially put this country through a crushing recession, unemployment got to 10.8% but it did purge of the society from inflationary psychology and you had a gradual

decline of inflation and gradual decline of interest rates that triggered a boom in the stock market and triggered really two decades of prolonged prosperity. and most of that, in my view, stemmed from the triumph over double digit inflation, which stabilized the economy and, like a set, led to much higher stock prices and home prices, but ultimately that prolonged and -- that prolonged prosperity gave rise to the plan into a crisis that broke in 2007 because people got complacent and careless. host: you continued this theme in a recent column march 22 in "the washington post." alan greenspan potts a flawed analysis of the financial crisis. guest: greenspan is an interesting figure because when he retired in our early 2006, he was praised lavishly across the

political spectrum by most professional eat communist, by milton friedman, who is a conservative who has been a longstanding critic of the fed, alan blinder, a liberal at princeton who has been vice- chairman of the federal reserve board -- really having been the most successful unreserve leader in the history of the federal reserve system. now flash forward three years and greenspan is made to be one of the fall guys for the financial crisis, for keeping credit to easy for too long. you really can't blame greenspan, you can't blame the bankers by themselves in isolation. all of these people were conditioned by the experience in the last two decades, when it became conventional wisdom that we had gone into a kind of new

era of, is not perfect prosperity, but a kind of underlying indestructible prosperity. we only had two minor recessions in the 1990's and this decade. the recession of 1990-1991, 2001, mild increase in unemployment, 7.8%, the economists call the great moderation. a if you think you live and in less risky world, which that is the conclusion, you begin taking more risk because you are not times. that is the underlying assumption. so, banks started making stallone's, people borrowed more than they could. the regulators were blinded to the dangers. greenspan probably kept monetary policy to lose for two long parrot but all of this contributed and these things that on each other and the underlying cause was the great past -- prosperity that was created. i think the conclusion i draw

from is and maybe others will draw ultimately, is that the view that we had, that we outlawed sort of the boom and bust cycles of the 19th century -- well, we haven't. we are not as smart as we thought we were and not as much control over the economy as we thought we did. host: not surprising the phones are off the hook. before we do, speaking of the current fed, it seems bent on a low -- keeping interest rates low. they have been signaling that will be their policy for the foreseeable future. what do you think of that? guest: it is going to end at some point. we don't know when. there really is a division of opinion among economists whether it will end this year or next year. i think that given this a very weak state of the economy, it is certainly justified right now. a what they do face a dilemma if

they keep it in place to long -- but they do face a dilemma, if they keep in place to long they do face inflation. it is not an imminent problem but it is a problem down the road. they are aware of it. i think they are doing the right thing now but i would not want to be in their shoes to decide when to stop doing what they're doing now. host: what about the nation's seniors who are so affected because so many people have money and money markets and other safe instruments, that their own income has been crimped by the low rate system? -- well, they would be in worse shape, it seems to me, if the economy would be declining because the stock market would be recline it -- declining, the stock market would be going down more. you have kind of a trade off between low interest rates and a weaker economy. it is worth pointing out that although people who have the money in money-market funds or short-term deposits are earning hardly anything at all,

inflation is very low, so the prices are not going up so much. so they are not losing that much in real value. >host: related to this, it seems as though the nation is saving more. is that a good thing? guest: one of the problems of the valuation -- prosperity that began in the 1980's was, people felt well clear because the stock market was going up, housing prices going up -- and they borrowed. up to a point it was okay but now we are well beyond the point. up to -- going to the budget deficits, we are having a reckoning with what their own balance sheets. americans collectively decided americans collectively decided they borrowed too there is a kind of retrenchment or their borrowing less. they are prepaying their borrowings and they're saving out of -- more out of their current income per it is a drag on the economy and it will continue for some time. host: if this is pessimism and

this is optimism about our country's fiscal future, where are you? guest: i am more pessimistic than i used to be. that is what makes me pessimistic. caller: good morning. i just had a question on government spending. you get the sense from listening that it is not as effective as you might hope. it occurred to me that the act of spending is a two-part deal. the person who's spent and purchases of goods or services benefits from the receipt of those goods and services were the person who is paid for them also benefit sprit when the government does the spending, it cuts the equation in half at least read to you have any

thoughts on that? guest: in theory, the equation that you put forward ought to apply to government spending as well. it is a political process and if it is working right, the things that the government wants to spend money on ought to be the things that people want to spend -- want the government to spend money on. if the democratic system is working well. . .

would you say may be true. host: mike is on the independent line. caller: i just happened to finish an article entitled "america under martial law." it basically goes on to state the central banks are counting on a popular uprising against the banks in order to enact martial law in this country. it goes on to state that an entrepreneur said u.s. citizens will be enslaved by the fiscal overlords, starting with the health care bill.

it has more to do with controlling every aspect of the americans' lives than it does with american treatment. host: let me interrupt. we understand the direction of your article. does it reflect your point of view? caller: yes, i believe central bank's barclay, all of criminals that need to bring down the middle class in order to run the government. as this man says, you cannot have a government after government -- whether it is a democrat or republican -- things keep getting worse. guest: basically, i do not agree with you. we have been a democracy over

200 years. we have had disagreements. with the exception of the civil war, we have resolved those conflicts within the democratic system. across the political spectrum, people were a mere freedom and liberty. we are going to argue about it. that is part of it. but believe me, the government is not full of a bunch of militants. that is the last place in the world where you look for the origins of military takeover. host: you are critical of the health care bill. guest: yes, i have been. i do not think, given the state of the country's finances, that it was the right time. it makes an already bad

situation worse. just to give you a few figures. looking at 2009, looking at the deficits that have been incurred, that are projected by the congressional budget office, $13 trillion. that is a lot of money, even for washington. our debt to gdp ratio rises from about 40% at the end of 2008 to an estimated 90% in 2020, according to the calculations from the cbo. that is almost over the figures were at the end of world war ii. for the president to make his first priority a program that increases spending, even though in a technical sense, it pays

for itself through other spending cuts and tax increases, seems to be irresponsible. those spending cuts and tax increases that are projected to cover the deficit, the cost of the program will not, in reality, occur. they will be repealed or modified by congress. the second issue is we are facing nearly $13 trillion of debt in that time. if they can of hot $13 trillion in spending cuts and tax increases, let us apply that to the existing debt before we have new spending. that was my fundamental problem. host: lafayette, louisiana. dexter on the democrat line. caller: i agree with one thing, people are not ready for change when change comes i am

optimistic about the economy, however. i want to say, what mr. obama is doing, in terms of going back and drilling, that is going to put people back to work. less people on unemployment. getting rid of our dependence on foreign oil, that money will be reinvested into the clean energy act. now i hear that this is 10 years of drilling for one year of oil. but that is 10 years of the jobs that people will have. all of this money could be reinvested. people need to stop compared to the government to their everyday jobs.

the corporation can make a change in one day. government is a process. when the healthcare bill takes effect in four years, more people will be covered. we will not have to pick up the cost of the people that go to the emergency room without insurance. the real deficit is in entitlement spending. guest: i agree with you, up to the point. i did not mean to imply an earlier that i was pessimistic, that the economy was not going to recover. it is in recovery, it is slow, but we could be making the situation worse than it needs to be. but i do think the economy is recovering. i happen to support the

president's announcement yesterday of increased oil and gas drilling off the coast. i wish it had come earlier. in will be some years before this pays dividends, but it will reduce -- not eliminate -- our dependence on foreign oil. it will create some jobs, perhaps tens of thousands. it will, to some extent, reduce our trade deficit and stimulate investment in the country. all of that is good. host: "stocks scored best quarter in 12 years." this is the headline in the " wall street journal." -- "usa today." guest: i would say that most people agree with that comment.

it is great when the stock market goes up. certainly better to have it go up and then go down. but if you try to come under the future of the markets based on past movement, -- it is an economic barometer, but it is also psychological. it tends to be moved by the emotions. you have large declines, substantial rebound. we had a bubble at the end of the 1990's. even in 2008, when the current financial crisis was beginning to unfold, the stock market was reasonably optimistic about the future. it was not until the collapse of lehman brothers that the market really plunged. the market, i would say, is not a great forecaster for the future.

host: so what are some of the good predictors? guest: in is a cliche, but it is very hard to predict. back in the 1960's, when i started reporting, the economists had all these economic models and they felt like they could put in any statistic to run these databases to see what happened in the past and then match up to what was happening in the present to predict the future. well, it turned out that the models were good if nothing changed, but they are terrible when there is a change. host: next phone call. caller: first of all, i am an admirer of yours for many years. i think you are a great

columnist. i have been reading your column for about 30 years. i just want to say -- hello? guest: we are here. i appreciate it. caller: i wanted your opinion about the health care bill and the promises that were made over and over again about the fact that this will help the deficit. and i never believed those numbers. i do not think anyone else does. why does the news media accept this as fact when everyone knows that they were just lies? guest: i am skeptical that this legislation will pay for itself. on the other hand, the cbo did

score it with enough tax revenues and spending cuts to cover the increased cost of legislation. by law, the cbo must make their estimates based on what is in the bill, whether or not it thinks the provisions in the bill are realistic. the skepticism arises, not because the bill does not pay for itself on paper, the skepticism arises because we wonder whether or not these provisions will actually occur in practice. cbo has, in its own to crack way, expressed a certain amount of -- technocratic way, expressed a certain amount of uncertainty. my question is whether or not this pays for itself internally. the government was facing massive deficits as far as the eye could see, escalating deabt

-- roughly $13 trillion. rather than enacting new spending measures, which is what this bill is, it seems to me in the government's first obligation would be to pay for some of the spending that it already enacted in the past. that so that is my fundamental objection to it. it gets beyond whether on paper the program pays for itself. host: indiana is next from the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you, mr. samuelson, for your time. i have a couple of comments and would like your input and opinion on something that scares me. if -- i would have never thought two years ago that i would be discussing economics, but i think it is the number one issues that affects the future of my son. the first question is do you know that we are absolutely in

a lowell? we are no funds for our underfunded liabilities for our seniors. our debt is owned by the federal reserve, followed by china and japan. we can't do anything to them. how does the debt affect foreign policy, and how bad do you think inflation will be? host: tony, how old is your son? caller: he is 5. host: thanks for your call. guest: well, i have children in their early 20's, and i am not that optimistic about their economic future. the basic problem is our government and the political system, the people essentially, the government has promised people more benefits than people are willing to pay for in taxes. that is the fundamental source

of our deficit. at some point taxes are going to have to go up, and benefits are going to have to go down. the prime candidates for benefits going down are seniors and retirees. if you take social security, medicare and medicaid, those three programs all by themselves represent more than 40% of the budget when you strip out some of the special items, the stimulus and so forth. those items are growing because the baby boomers, people like me, are about to retire, and health costs are, so far, uncontrolled. so those costs will go up. and either we are going to bring though costs down or taxes at some point will have to go up. the taxes are primarily paid by the working population, which are my children, and in the future, your children. now just because i am

reasonably pessimistic about that kind of equation doesn't mean i think america is going to become a poor society. we are a very wealthy society today. but whether or not the living standards and disposable income of future generations will continue to go up as they have in the past is, it seems to me, an open question given the large obligations that are going to have to be paid for through taxes. host: in our earlier discussion about the barometers of a healthy economy, this viewer has a thought. they tweet savings are the measure of a healthy economy. if they have savings, they have no debts and can grow our economy. guest: well, i certainly thing that has a society, we ought to be prudent. as individuals and households we ought to be prudent. but if everybody did nothing but save, there would be no economy at all. we have to spend to create jobs or what not. so you want to have a healthy

balance. i think the ball became unhealthy in this decade when americans borrowed so much and let their soifings go solo. we are trying to get back towards a healthier balance. but i wouldn't want to see americans doing what the chinese do where they save more than half their up come. that seems to be a recipe for economic failure. host: the next call is locally on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i am like the other caller that called a little while ago. i have been reading your articles in the newspaper and was really impressed every time i read your article. i saw recently about the health care debate where you said you were against it. i was really disappointed, and my imprecision is this. all these republicans and all

you people against health care, why don't you give up your health care? you have a job, and your job provides you health care. you want to deny everybody else's health care and deny everybody else health care. why don't you give up your health care and give it to the people that don't have it? host: what is your health care situation? do you have health care? caller: no. i don't. i am self employed. why are all the republicans against harkse, and they have been having it for years and years, but they don't want to give it to other people? host: thank you. caller: i am not against having universal insurance coverage. but we don't live in a perfect world, and you have to make choices about what you're going to do and when you're going to do it. the fundamental problem with the health care system is that costs and spending are out of

control. that is one reason it has been hard for many businesses to cover their workers, because health care has become so unaffordable. it also makes it more difficult for people to buy individual coverage. so my view was that because that is the fundamental problem and because it really drives many of the other problems, that we ought to tackle that problem first. once we get that problem undercontrol, then we can begin talking about expanding coverage. it is not that i am against coverage. in the realistic world we inhabit, we have to make choices, and i think that the obama administration made the popular choice here, but i think on policy grounds and in the long-term interests of the country, it was the wrong choice. because in my view at least, the health care program that the president has just signed will actually increase spending and make costs more difficult to control. there are a number of provisions in there that are alleged to control costs, but

when you actually look at them, they are tokens essentially, and my view is that they will not succeed in controlling costs, and i hope i am more. host: north carolina, vincent, republican line. caller: mr. samuelson, good morning to you. a lot of the hyperbole coming out of washington is due to the lack of people paying attention to this government. i am not a conspiracy theorist. i am an educated man. but the way i see this country, it is on its knees in every direction. you know, i believe in taking care of the people who can't help themselves. but the clueless, that is the problem. this country wants to give itself away. if you look at the slow pace that the obama administration is walking on, it is going to fundamentally change this country. the constitution has been shredded, and if you look at everything this country was

built upon, we are totally going in the opposite direction, and it is pushing this country towards a socialist democracy. if you don't believe that, look at everything this government takes care of. medicare and medicaid. look at the postal service. everything is in the red. it has been independent people who have built this country, the small businesses, the working man. you know as well as i do the middle-class is going to get stomped from stem to stern as this bill makes its way. people talk about running on repeal and replace. i am not disagreeing that the health care system is in trouble, but it needed to be addressed in small incremental steps. if this country continues on this way, we will be a european model.

what are your thoughts? guest: i don't share where you kind of end up, which is we are somehow going to some apock lip particular clams. we used to have a mixed economy where we have shared powers between the public sector, the government and the private sector. we are not going to become a socialist society in the sense that the government owns a lot of the means of production, some of the critical industries. the private market and political process interact with each other, and often the results are not good. sometimes the results are good. but i think -- i don't think we are about to sacrifice our freedom and our liberty even though as a practical matter there is a shared responsibility and shared powers between the government and the private sector. but this is one of nuance.

i would say looking back historically, i programs am coming off more pessimistic than i feel. looking back historically, if you go back to the 1920's, the federal government was very small, spent less than 3% of our gross domestic product or the size of the economy. after world war ii and the great depression of the 1930's, we emerged with a government that was much larger, and had expanded its responsibilities. to some degree i believe it has overexpanded and we have been irresponsible in not paying for all the projectses we have made. having said that, despite the increase in government power and size after world war 2, the american economy generallyly has performed well. we have had periods where we have not performed well, but the larger size of government has not yet been a huge drag on

economic growth and prosperity. now maybe it will be in the future. it's hard to say. but i think that ought to give us some sense that we are very flexible and adaptable society. there are underlying strengths in the american economy and society that we tend to underestimate it seems to me. he reference to the postal system. our next guest is the chairman of the postal regulatory commission, talking about cutbacks to ensure a better economic future. pensacola, florida. john on the independent line. caller: i completely agree with the previous caller. last week, we've received some tremendous insight into the motivation of the health care bill. there was a comment made by representative john dingell who stated after the legislation was

passed, -- the legislation needed to be passed in order to control the people. no one is picking up on this and i want to know why. guest: i did not see that comment, i do not know what he meant by it, or the context. i really cannot comment on it. all i can say is, there are an awful lot of people in washington who have a lot to say all the time. it news channels and cable channels tried to report in all, it would be impossible. if i knew the context of that comment, i might be able to reach a judgment on whether it is worth reporting on or not, but i am not aware of it. host: you worked at the "washington post" in 1970.

are members of the public well served by reporting, and generally, in this country? guest: there is always room for improvement. when i started at "the washington post" the business page was a small shadow of what the economic and business coverage is today. we had only about 10 people. lately, i checked, they had 80 people. perhaps a less because of the economy. is the public well served? they are as well serve as you could be in a world where you can say today what will happen tomorrow. newspapers, magazines, cable tv, radio, blogosphere, we all

exaggerate, we all miss stories. but the quantity and quality of business and economics coverage is much better than when i started. host: port huron, michigan. dennis on the democrat line. caller: i am pretty exasperated. i wonder why in the t beggars, and obama haters are treating the president differently. president bush ran in a "recession." he then initiated two wars and tax cuts for the rich. there were no t bed protesters anywhere -- teabag protesters

anywhere. i wonder why the media outlets, these conservative people talking about socialism, when most of them lived in the south which depend on government contracts and do not pay their fair share of the taxes in the country because they are subsidized states. all you have to do is go on line. virginia, georgia, alabama -- all these places where the people are denigrating everything that president obama is trying to $9 billion shrink wrapped palates of money in baghdad disappear. there were no protest buss that. host: we got your point. mr. samuelson? guest: let me say that regardless of how you feel about the president, it seems to me there was a lot of critical coverage of brush when

he was president, just as there is a fair amount of critical coverage of president obama today. that is the nature of our system. i wouldn't want it any other way. i think that -- i'm not an expert on the tea party movement, but i would say one big difference between president bush's time and today is that we are just coming out of an awful recession, and when you have a slump as severe as we have had, you're bound to get a reaction in the public that didn't occur when times were better. so i would put that partly down just to the severity of the economic deadline. host: last question for mr. samuelson is from washington, d.c. this is richard from the republican line. caller: if we could segue quickly from the domestic policies to the diplomatic and national security implications, what would your opinion be about our owing so much to the

chinese, which appear to be potentialally an unstable nation come priced -- comprise ing of many different people like russian did. will this not have serious and severe national security implications in the future? guest: well, i am more worried about the underevaluation of the chinese currency which produces huge chinese trade surpluses. they earn these dollars in international trade in part because their exports are competitively advantaged by their artifically low currency. then they have to invest those dollars in something. that just increases the amount of dead -- or american dollar securities that they buy. that is the fundamental source

of economic instability in the world it seems to me, and we ought to be looking at that and not so much the sheer amount of debt that the chinese have. after all, what are they going to do with it? if they try to destabilize the world economy by telling all their debt, it would hurt them as much as us and perhaps even more. so it is not in may interests to do that. host: you can find his column in "newsweek" and websites. look for his book, "great inflation, the past and aftermath." nice to have you at the table. >> thanks. >> since the $787 billion economic stimulus was signed do law last february, $355 billion have been committed, $205 billion paid out. for more you can go to our website. you can track spending and look

at a state by state list as to how much is being spent at c-span.org/stimulus. michael louis is author of the blind side and other books. his latest book tells the story behind the events and people that led to the 2008 financial crisis. he's our guest this sunday on "q & a." that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio and online, and you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook and youtube, and sign up for our schedule alert e-mails at c-span.org. president obama leding to new england in about 50 minutes or so, live coverage from portland, maine. he will be talking about health care. he may also visit some of the flood damage up there. the massachusetts governor has asked him to do that. while we wait for the

president, a look at this morning's "washington journal" with the chairman of the postal regulatory commission. this runs about 45 minutes. ruth goldway, chairman of the postal regulatory system. thank you for being here. explain to us, what is the authority of the postal regulatory commission? >> it is the oversight regulatory agency that oversees the postal service. the postal service is a wholly owned government enterprise, but it functions independently of the government, so when the law was established to create its independence, law also created a regulatory oversight commission. our job is to ensure the postal service, while that operates, also provides a universal service at a fair and efficient

rate for everyone in the country. host: i would imagine that everyone watching now has heard the news that the postal service is anticipating ending saturday delivery in order to cut costs. it has been described as one of the most far reaching decisions that the postal service has had to make. could you explain why? guest: it is not a decision, the public needs to understand this. the postal service is requesting a change in its service. under the law, the postal service now have to provide service six days a week. in order to change that, i have to come to the postal regulatory commission to see if it still needs the universal standards obligation and then we will give them an opinion on whether or not it is the right thing to do. in addition, they have to make their case to congress, to see if they agree that it will be

okay to reduce their service. what is happening now is beginning the process of considering this proposal, then the german bank if the postal service should reduce service. it is not a done deal. host: how will the decision be made, and by whom? guest: it is a multipronged process. the postal regulatory commission will hold a series of meetings across the country, do research and analysis, and we will make our proposal to the postal service on the best way we believe the best way for them to proceed is. in addition, congress will be looking at our analysis as it talks to the postal service, and the two of us -- perhaps at different times but in court nation -- will make the decision on whether or not they should proceed with reducing service, and to what degree.

they have come forward with a specific plan to reduce service on saturdays throughout the year. there are some kind of people who are saying, just reduce it 12 days a year. other people wonder, why not wednesday? we will be looking at different options and impacts on the postal service and on the economy, community that the postal service serves. if we think they should not cut saturday service, then the postal service will have to look at other ways. host: we will be hearing from many people through the phone lines, e-mail, and twitter. guest: i appreciate that. host: a wanted to show this headline in "the washington post" -- it's just hearing that

the postmaster general told employees -- does the headline@@@@@@@ @ @ @

difficult to communicate among government agencies is because of the anthrax scare that occurred some many years ago, which we continue to try to prevent by delaying mail within the government system. host: i want to tell you a bit about her biography first. she has been distinguished position of being the longest holding position in her commission. she was twice reappointed by president bush in her permission. guest: you can see how much i

like the postal world. host: let us begin with a phone call from the bronx. dee on the democrat line. caller: good morning. god bless you all. i have a comment. she is right on the money in terms of saturday delivery. a lot of senior citizens do not have access to the internet and are not computer aware. it would be detrimental to them and the rest of the country, i believe, especially in rural areas. guest: i think you have some arguments. polls seem to indicate, in general, if people are willing to give up saturday service,

they seem to be willing to do that. in fact, that was also true back in 1977. the public is basically flexible about delivery, but there are segments of society who really depend on it. one thing that we will have to parse out in this process is how dependent senior citizens are, people who do not have access to the internet, people who work all week and need saturday service. what is the size of the impact on them before we balance the needs of the postal service? host: tucson. this is fritz. guest: imf letter carrier here in tucson. people do not realize that the male moves 24 hours a day, seven days a week. if you canceled saturday delivery, every monday would be

like the day after a holiday, in terms of volume. over time for monday, tuesday, wednesday, probably for the carriers. host: before you go, since you are in a career professional in the postal service, you know there are economic challenges. what would your answer be? guest: well, if we address the pre funding for retirement benefits, which no other government agency has to do, according to literature i have read, that could pay for all of our debts and then some. guest: yes, letter carrier -- the major problem that the service is facing is not the cost for saturday delivery. it is the burden of providing a

prepaid health care fund of $5.5 billion each year. in legislation passed in 2006, the post service is required to refund its health-care retiree benefits. no other government agency does that and very few private sector companies do. for the past three years, they have been putting $5.5 billion into a fund, and while they are doing that, they are reducing their own ability to function. if congress can work with the postal sector to eliminate or alleviate that health care retiree benefit fund, that would go a long way to help the postal service in its difficulties. i think all of us in the community think that that is the first area in which we should hope -- help the postal service.

with regard to the savings for saturday delivery, that is one of the things we are going to investigate carefully will of the postal service save the $3 billion that it says it will by eliminating saturday service? if they wind up having extra costs on monday to deliver the mail that they would have on time today, maybe the bill not save as much money as they think they would have. if people choose not to mail at all because saturday is less important, they will lose money because they will not have as much volume, in terms of revenue. there are impacts potentially to savings at the postal regulatory commission will be looking at, and we will report back to

congress to say that yes, they can save $3 billion, maybe they cannot. maybe they can say only $1 billion. is it worth it to disrupt the pattern of services that we have had over the last past century? host: next is atlanta. host: next is atlanta. sam on the@ )%huaz = j >> if you're going to cut out a day, cut out monday, tuesday or wednesday. number two, your real problem is union contracts and your retiree problem. whether you prefund it or don't prefund it, you have the obligation. the fact that you are prefunding it makes you deal with it. you are going to have to declare bankruptcy and give less generous retirement

benefits. otherwise, you're going to continue to lose money. you're in a deadlining industry. i would like your comments, please. guest: well, the postal service has already prefunded it's retiree benefits. there is some dispute as to whether they have overfunded benefits. those are all set regardless of what the future of mail is. the question is the health care retiree benefits. they are obligated to pay that regardless of whether there is a fund set aside for it. at the moment the fund is estimated to cover about 30% to 35% of the cost of health care prioree benefits. that is as much as most private companies carry, the few that do carry health care retiree benefit funds. it is not as though the postal

service is being irresponsible, but it does need some relief. it needs provision for when the economy has gone down and volumes have gone down for relief in order for it to survive in the future. yes, it is an industry that is changing, and it is likely that volumes will deadline. but i think, as we saw with, offense, the innovations with flet flicks, which is a whole new product that didn't expect 10 years ago. there will be products and services that require hard copy delivery, and we ought to have that system available in america. host: raleigh, north ca. john . caller: i work for a corporation that is heavily unionized can we make quite a bit of profit competing against a non-union

company and we are not often done by the government. why is the postal service competing against two private enterprise businesses that make profits? guest: the postal service is a government agency that was enshrined in the constitution. it was one of the major responsibilities of government to provide post offices. the postal service has been providing service, in one form on not -- or another, since the founding of the country. the package services that came up that has competed with the postal service -- and they have done a good job -- but the faithful -- postal service provides a basic service for every day services and other

deliveries. sure, the private sector should be delivering things, doing it really well, but there is a basic service that need to be provided by government think of it as a communications network. you have to make sure that in some way or another, they are provided, and the postal service is that measure of provision, but it does not interfere with the private sector. fedex and ups work with the postal service and they have figured out that it is more efficient for the postal service to deliver smaller packages to peoples' home, and that last mile of delivery. they do this to expand fast delivery around the country with lots of business cargo. products have grown together. in this day of the mn>

>> that is a growth part of the sector we are talking about. host: does the postal service commission approve the operating budget of the postal service? guest: no. the postal service is an independent agency and operates on its own. we used to in the old day before this law regulated their rates to make sure the rates covered the costs. now wie look a lot it after the fact. after ef6ry fiscal -- every fiscal year we review the postal service to make sure the rates are sound and that the rates are fair, that they cover costs. unfortunately, in this last year, the report we just issued last week shows that the financial situation of the postal service is grim. and without relief in regard to the health care retiree benefit

fund and some adjustment in the way it sets rates and develops products, the post a service is in trouble, no question about that. host: the next call is in pennsylvania. i thought he had hung up. we are moving on to a call from austin, texas, vincent, republican line. caller: yes. good morning. host: good morning. would you please turn down the volume on your tv set? we are getting feet back? caller: yeah. i was wondering if you were going to do more internet sales and have -- you know, train, mentor and hire new employees to the postseason with e-commercial? host: thank you. guest: that is a really good question. the postal service has announced it is going to try and do what is called hybrid mail, which is create a product

where digital communication and hard copy connect with one another. there is a great deal of promise in that, and i believe they probably need to bring some people in from the outside who have ton that to help them develop those products. the postal service -- you know, with all the complaints people have, you have to understand it is the largest postal service in the world. half of the world's mail is delivered right here in the united states. it is still a 170 billion piece industry, and it is enormously efficient. it gets people's mail from one end of the country to the other at 44 cents, the least expensive postal rate in the world. host: is the concept of hybrid sort of like the old western union telegram where it starts

electronically and then delivered? guest: it could be. you could be printing a letter or flyer or pamphlet. you don't have to rely on dots and dashes for telegrams any more. there are many ways in which tech nol could work with hard copy, and the postal service is trying to develop unique products in that regard. host: we have joe from the democrats line. caller: in 1986 while working for the postal service, i came up with an employee suggestion that was turned down that would have dropped the postage in half. what it was is that i was a-- or a temporary post master for two cities that had populations of less than 700. in four weeks time both postal

services only had one customer. i was paid $47,000 a year basically to raise and lower the flag. when you take into account the hundreds of thousands of postseasons across the united states in populated areas of less than 4,000 people, and when you figure up the cost of operating those postal services, paying those post masters and also the benefits, you can right now reduce the cost of postage down to 10 cents. now at the time, congressman lane evans, he responded to my employee suggestion and said it was the only identity that some of these cities have. that is the most ridiculous statement i have ever heard. get rid of these postseasons. one last statement. both of these small postseasons were within 10 miles of populated cities of 14,000 or more. now why is the postal service

subsidizing these postseasons in these small communities that don't have any customers? it is ridiculous. thank you. host: ruth goldway. guest: i think the caller raises a very good point about the role of the postal service in america. as i said, the constitution says that we should have postseasons. that is part of what the government should do. where they are located and what their service is, is a ge. postseasons not only deliver the mail, they do create an identity for the community, a meeting point for people, a sense of there is a government that cares about me no matter how far away i am from the urban areas of the country. the postal service is obligated to make sure that every part of the country is serviced. how sexemsive that is, is up to

debate. it is not clear that it is nearly as expensive as the caller says to maintain this network of postseasons, but it is a financial burden that the postal service is obliged to require so that everybody is served. the service has talked about trying to reduce the number of those postseasons. it has over time reduced them somewhat. they are down to about 35,000 postseasons, where they were closer to 37,000 postseasons a few years ago. but the congress specifically tells the postal service that it can't close a postseason just -- post i have just for economic reasons. there has to be other reasons for doing it. congress has told the postal service that the post offices in rural areas are important to maintain. if the service were a private company, it wouldn't have to provide those services, and

probably those people would feel isolated and not as much a part of the country as they would otherwise. the postal service gets a monopoly. no one else can put a letter in a mail box. the postal service prohibits any other company from deliver letters in a certain weight. it gets some benefits in exchange for the obligations it has to provide services in father outlying places in the united states. our job and the conscience's job is to balance those two requirements and try to help them be efficient overall. our recommendation to the postal service is to help them do their job better. we don't see ourselves as punitive in any way.

host: a viewer sends this twitter message. is it possible the postal system could go bankrupt? what then? guest: well, it is a good question, whether the postal service can go bankrupt since it is a wholely owned agency. the question is what the government would do to re-establish what we used to have, which is the post office which is a branch under the united states government under the executive branch. we could do that, or we could try and privatize it and see it a private sector company would like to run the postal service. those are different configurations that are in place around the world. some are totally owned by the government, some are fully privatized, and some are a mix between them. if it gets to that, there are

more serious questions about how to restructure the postal service. maybe i have rose colored glasses on, but if we can address this serious health care retiree fund problem, the $5.5 billion, the economy is turning around, and some of the other losses and some of the other officialses the service is immeltinging now can be balanced out so that the service has a long and vibrant future. host: from michigan, doug on the independent line. you're on the air. caller: good morning. i would like to know why maybe you could get rid of some of this junk mail? i get three times as much junk mail as i get regular mail. i think it would cut down on the postal workers and carriers. a lot of people groove it out of the mail box and throw it in

the trash. host: how important is the so-called junk mail to the health of the postal service. host: some of it cribblets to the bottom line of the postal service. not all of it, but some of it does quite substantialally. your junk mail may not be my junk mail. i like some catalogs. other people like their saturday fliers that tell them about bargains in stores. other people love the coupons they get in the mail. we can't really distinguish. it does seem from the markers' point of view, what they tell us is that direct mail is the most effective way to advertise inspite of the internet, television or radio. when you get a hard copy piece of paper in the mail, your response is going to be greater

and more positive than all of this other kind of communication you get for advertising. so it works, and as long as it works, i think the businesses in the united states are going to 0 -- to want to use the mail , and most citizens in the united states are going to want to get it. it is a question, and i think you will find the cataloggers in particular have been effective in reducing the number of catalogs you get, so there isn't as much waste in the system as there used to be. the recession is making everybody more effective and efficient in what they put in the mail and how they use it. but advertising mail is quite powerful, and you are going to still see a lot of it in the mainstream. host: home people work for the service? caller: there are 600,000

employees. 10 years ago there were over 800,000. host: if the reduction pie one day in service happens, would there also be a reduction in force? guest: yes. that is the how the postal service thinks well save the most money. there are up to 13 thousand position, and i have heard as much as 40,000 positions that will be lost. we are going to look into the impact of job losses, because when you lay people off on one side, or reduce the employment, the government has costs on the other side from that as well. the postal service may not feel those costs, but the government does. so we are going to look at the trade-off between saving jobs and lowering the number of employees in the postal service

so that they can save money. i wish these issues were simpler, but they are always complicated and interdependent. y complicated and interdependent host: ruth goldway joins us and we're pleased to have her on our show this morning. caller: i ran a direct mail business, mainly political. the best rate but i could get if i package everything correctly, marked everything to record, had absolutely correct addresses, it was not nearly close to the raid that a nonprofit could get for doing none of the preparation. mailing packages, i could take a

20 pound package and mail it to los angeles for $37. i could also mail it to samoa, guam, alaska, hawaii for $37. i could mail it to florida for a given price. i could also naille to puerto rico or the caribbean -- i could also mailed it to puerto rico or the caribbean. host: mike, let's jump in here. ms. goldway? guest: i think you have raised a good point about the postal service, which is that it provides a uniform service and a uniform rate across the country. that is to by everyone together and to make sure that everyone has access. people live at the bottom of the grand canyon or in why your

alaska or pr and we all want to be able to -- in hawaii or alaska or puerto rico and we all want to be able to access e-bay. the country has benefited from the postal service providing these uniform rates. the economy has benefited. even if the postal service itself has not benefited from those rates that are available. i think the questions that the postal regulatory commission deal 1/4s -- deals with are not just the dollars a a and sense of whether it is going to break even, but whether postal service is meeting the country's social needs as well as its need to break even. it is not easy. with regard to your first question as far as presorting

and bar coding and getting it into the system and my guess, you get discounts for it, but if you are a nonprofit agency, botox says you only have to pay 60% that a for-profit agency has to pay when you are mailing a doubt standard mail. that is something that congress decided was important. -- when your mailing something standard mail. that is something that congress decided was important. what they do, these non-profit agencies, is so important in our society. it is up to congress to change that, but it is true that the postal service has to subsidize those rates. they also subsidize periodicals, newspapers and magazines, because it is important to have a free flow of ideas and for the mdot -- for the postal service

to ensure that that happens. ben franklin was the father of the postal service and he was there to make sure the dog was written -- to make sure that was written. it is a vital role that the postal service plays in our democracy. host: how many members does the postal service have? guest: we have five members, all appointed by the president and on staggered terms? host: and what are the terms? guest: 60 years. -- six years. we have our own web page for more information about consumer access and we have a particular link to this issue of changing service from six to five days.

and if people have comments or questions or information to share with us, we would rely to have it. we want to make the most aggressive effort we have made today to reach out to the public to get their input on this very important change that the postal service is proposing. we want all of the information we can get before we give them our recommendation as to how we will proceed. host: and how is the commission funded? the commission guest: is funded -- gets its -- guest: the commission gets our operating funds, which are minuscule, through the postal service, but they are voted on by the congress. the congress could change the financial system if it wanted to. we have about 70 employees. and we have a budget of about $14 million. i think we work really hard to try to make every one of those dollars worth while to the american public.

host: field, connecticut is next, tony, democrats line. caller: i like the post office. i would hate to see you eliminate saturday services. my checks usually come on friday and sometimes it does not come on friday. it would be terrible to wait until monday, especially with the economy the way it is nowadays. i've got pretty of high phone bills. -- pretty high phone bills. i just want to say that you have a lot of traditions and you have been around since the 1800's. i would hate to see you go bankrupt or anything like that. also, if you have to -- i guess

you guys will have to if you have to privatize and have contracts. some of the post offices are rural areas and maybe only one customer per day. maybe you could do that through a private company and save some money that way. host: thanks. guest: we all have to be flexible. the world is changing faster than i certainly thought it would. we want to be flexible, but we want to walk on to our values. host: next call on the independent line. caller: my grandfather carried mail for 40 miles one way and he

came back on horseback. this was in the 1920's on the navajo reservation. i would like to ask, please do not do away with those small post offices or small communities because that is the only way to get their mail. mail is not delivered to their momhomes. the people come to get their mail and my family has to go a 30 mile trip one way to get their mail. i surely hope you keep that in mind. my love and blessings to the troops. thank you very much. host: a snapshot of a kind of commentary that you are going to be hearing as you set up public opinion on the postal service plans.

guest: i think so. host: if people are interested, how much time is the comment section open? guest: we have opened it as of yesterday and on april 27 we will have an announcement of what the full agenda of the hearing process will be. there will be an opportunity for people to participate in formally -- informally or formally as participants through the internet. we will accept comments on april 27. we will tell you exactly what the format will be. we expect the process to last about six months, maybe longer. we will also be travelling to cities around the country. so far, chicago, dallas, las vegas are on our list. maybe sacramento and we will be building up others. people can come and meet us and present their firsthand

experiences about the postal service and how important saturday delivery is, or how willing they are to live without saturday. we'll be hearing both sides of that story and i am sure all along the way we will be hearing the kind of testimony that we heard from the last malar about how important postal service is to the country -- the last mailer about arm for t >> president obama, out of washington this afternoon. he is in portland, maine, where in about 10 minutes or so he is set to speak about the health care law and focusing on the plan's short and long-term impact on small businesses. we will have live coverage of his remarks when they get

underway. they are scheduled for 3:25 this afternoon. he has a couple of fundraisers later in boston. the associated press reports the white house says the president will address the severe flooding in the northeast. his spokesman said the president would make comments at some point during the day but not clear when. earlier, the massachusetts governor said the president was trying to work out details for a stop in the flooded areas of southern new england. that from the associated press. the president in about 10 minutes or so. we will have that live. until then, reaction to the news that the president is expanding off shore drilling in the united states. thost: we arey interested in hearing from those of you in coastal states. mr. pittman is on the phone with us from the st. petersburg times. i'm wondering what you have

heard about the official reaction from state officials in florida, and specifically, the tampa bay area. guest: for a long this time, offshore drilling has been kind of the third rail, but when you don't touch. it unifies opposition to it, both parties, because of the concern about what a single spill might do to the tourism industry here, tainting the beaches. but that summer we had for dollar gasoline, for dollar a gallon gasoline, certainly changed the lot of minds and the economy has opened up a lo@@@@er ok, if it can be made environmentally safe, then i'm for it. probably the florida official who has been the staunchest

opponent of offshore drilling, bill mitchell, has said in reference to the president's proposal, he thinks he is ok with it. they are staking out positions that are more open to this proposal than any we've seen so far. >> if the president's plan, if enacted would affect the tampa bay area specifically how and when? >> what is currently in place is a provision that senator nelson helped to push forward in 2006 that keeps drilling more than 250 miles away from tampa bay. this would put it a lot closer than it previously has been. the tampa bay area in particular, the beach areas, really depend on tourism. so there is a lot of concern and strong resistance from folks in the tourism industry.

there was a protest outside newt gingrich's speech here that drew people who work on the beaches, people who are in the business of catering to tourism on the beaches, as well as those who consider themselves environmentalists. many of them were dressed in black to simulate an oil spill. one woman drenched herself in her she's chocolate syrup. i don't know how she dealt with the ants. it is certainly a concern that a lot of folks have, but they are weighing that against what is going on with the economy these day. >> speaking of newt gingrich, at a convention in 2008 -- >> we will leave this recorded segment and taking you live to portland, maine. president obama is set to talk about the health care law and the short and long-term impacts

on small businesseses. he is just arriving here on c-span. ♪ [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] hello, portland! [cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you.

>> yes, we can. yes, we can. yes, we can. >> thank you. >> yes, we can. yes, we can, >> thank you. audience: yes, we can. yes, we can. >> thank you everybody. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> thank you so much. thank you. thank you, everybody. well, what a wonderful reception. i guess when the sun comes out around here, everybody gets very excited. [cheers and applause] audience: i love you! >> i love you back! [cheers and applause]

>> i have to say the last time i was in maine was before the caucuses. it was a little cooler here. as i recall. but it is wonderful to be back. there are some people i want to say a few nice things about. first of all, we could not have a better small business straightor -- administrator than your own neighborhood, karen mills. so give her a huge round of applause. [cheers and applause] she is doing a great job. i think she has more than a few folks from maine on her staff. she has kind of stocked them all over the place. everybody is doing a great job over is he s.b.a. thank you. i want to thank one of the

finest governors in the country. [cheers and applause] he is here. thank you, john. where is he? there he is right there. thank you. [cheers and applause] your outstanding mayor is here. [cheers and applause] and we've got two great champions for maine, whose tireless efforts have helped working families all across this state and all across this country. congresswoman shelly, and congressman mike mashu. [cheers and applause] it had it is good to be back in

main. i want everybody to remember when i came here during the campaign, i made a promise, and it wasn't a promise about any particular issue. it was a promise that our government would once again be responsive to the needs and aspirations of working families , of america's middle-class. it was a promise that washington would concern itself not just with the next election, but with the next generation of americans. [cheers and applause] now keeping that promise is even more critical now at a time when so many families and so many small business owners are still struggling here in maine and across the country. every time i visit with workers in a factory, or families in a dinner, every time i sit down

and read letters from americans across the country, i see and hear the same questions. folks are asking how am i going to find a job when i've only known one still my entire lifetime, and i just got laid off and i am in my 50's? how am i gooding to retire when i keep spending my savings just to get by or trying to make sure that my kids can go to college, and tuition keeps going up? how am i going to make it when i'm stretched to the limit on my mortgage and bills. those are the questions that i hear. i want you to know we are working every single day to spur job creation and to turn this economy around. that's why we worked so hard over the last year to lift one of the biggest burdens facing middle-class families and small business owners, and that is the crushing cost of health care right here in america. [cheers and applause]

and mainers, i want you to know last week after a half year of debate and a century of trying, health care reform became the law of the land. last week. [cheers and applause] last week. audience: yes, we can. yes, we can! yes, we can! >> yes, we did. audience: yes, we can! yes, we can! yes, we can! >> because of folks like shelly and mike, it happened. because of people like you, it happened. it happened because people had the courage to stand up at town hall meetings and talk about

how insurance companies were denying their families coverage because of a preexisting condition. it happened because folks wrote letters about how premiums had gone up 50% or 100% in some cases and was forcing them to give up their insurance. it happened because countless small business owners, families and doctors, shared stories about a health care system that was working better for the insurance industry than it did for the american people. and when the special interests sent an army of lobbyists to congress and belong eithered the air waves with millions of dollars of negative ideas, you refused to give up. when the pundist assessed what the polls were saying, who was up or down, and what this would mean for democrats and republicans, you never lost sight of what was right and wrong. you knew it wasn't about the fortunes of one party. it was about the future of our

country. [cheers and applause] and today, portland, because of what you did, the future looks stronger and more hopeful than it has in some time. now, over the last year there has been a loss of misinformation spread about health reform. there has been a lot of fearmongering, a locality of overheated rhetoric. you turned on the news, and you would see that those same folks who were hollering about it before it passed, they are still hollering. about how the world will end because we passed this bill. this is not an exaggeration. john boener called the passage of this bill --

audience: boo! we don't knee to boo. he called the package of this bill armageddon. you had others who said this is the end of freedom as we know it. so, after i signed the bill, i looked around. [laughter] [cheers and applause] i looked up at the sky to see if ass roids were coming. i looked at the ground to see if cracks had opened up in the earth. you know what? it turned out it was a pretty nice day. [laughter] [cheers and applause] birds were still chirping.

folks were strolling down the street. nobody had lost their doctor. nobody had pulled the plug on granny. nobody was being dragged away to be forced into some government-run health care plan . but the thing is, though, you have to love some of the pundits in washington. every single day since i signed the reform law there has been another poll or headline that says nation still divided on health care reform. polls haven't changed yet. well, yeah. it just happened last week. [cheers and applause] it has only been a week. [cheers and applause]

can you imagine if some of these reporters were working on a farm? [laughter] you planted some seeds, and they came out the next day and looked. nothing's happened! there's no crop! we're gonna starve! oh, no! [cheers and applause] it's a disaster! [laughter] it has been a week, folks. so before we find out if people like health care reform, we should wait to see what happens when we actually put it into

place. [cheers and applause] just a thought. now, look. this reform is not going to solve every problem with our health care system. it is a huge, complicated piece of business. a couple of trillion dollars, thousands of people affected, thousands of people working in the industry. it is not going to bring down the cost of health care overnight. we are going to have to make some adjustments along the way. but it represents enormous progress. it enshrines the principle that every american should have the security of decent care, and that nobody should go bankrupt because they have a kid who is sick with a preexisting condition. [cheers and applause] that small businesses shouldn't be burdened because they want to do the right thing by their employees. so now that this bill is

finally law, and all the folks who have been playing politics will finally have to confront the reality of what this reform is, they are also going to have to confront the reality of what it isn't. they will have to finally acknowledge that this isn't a government takeover of our health care system. they will see if americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor. and if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. no one will be able to take that away from you. it hasn't happened yet. it won't happen in the future. what this reform represent the is basically a middle of the road solution to a very cease problem. it is not single payor. some people wanted that, and i understood that -- [cheers and applause] it is not that. but it is also not what the republicans were advocating for, which is essentially that you completely deregulate the

insurance industry, let them run wild and that somehow you were going to benefit. that was their theory. it was called the foxes guarding the chicken coop health care plan. [applause] so it is not the plan that some of the left supported in the past. it is not what some on the right supported. but it is a common sense plan. this reform incorporates ideas from democrats and republicans, including, by the way, a number of ideas from your senator and somebody i consider a friend, olympia snow, who spent many hours meeting with me on this bill. [cheers and applause] and what this reform does is it builds on the system of private health insurance that we have already got. if you have insurance, this

reform will make it more secure and more affordable. if you can't afford insurance, or if you have been denied coverage, you're finally going to be able to get it. and over time, costs will come down for families, businesses and the federal government, reducing our deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next two decades. that is what this reform will do. [cheers and applause] now, portland, it will take about four years to implement this entire plan because we've got to do it responsibly. we need to get it right. but there is also a set of reforms that will take effect this year. i just want everybody to understand what is going to happen this year. starting this year, millions of small business owners are going to be eligible for a tax credit that will help them cover the cost of insurance for their employees. and let me talk about --

[applause] let me talk about what this means for a small business owner like bill milikan. [cheers and applause] bill, stand up. that's bill right there. [cheers and applause] i want to give a little plug to bill here. bill owns market house coffee and the maine beer and beverage corporation right here in portland. [cheers and applause] in exchange for this publicity, i hope that i am going to get some samples of the beer. [cheers and applause] ok. he nodded in the affirmative. [laughter]

he wants to give his part-time employees health insurance, and he wants to give them more hours, but he can't afford to do both. this tax credit will make it easier for an employer like bill who wants to do the right thing by his workers. starting now, they will have the security of knowing that they can qualify for a tax credit that covers up to 35%, over a third of what they pay for their employees' health insurance. [applause] starting now, small business owners that provide health care for their workers can sit down at the end of the week, look at their expenses, and they can begin calculating how much money they save. for small business owners who don't currently provide health insurance, they can factor in this benefit when deciding to do so. it won't solve all of our problems, but it means that

employees that work for bill have a better chance of a keeping their health care or getting health care. if they are already getting health care, that means bill has extra money, and that means he might hire that extra worker. right? [applause] so this health care tax credit is pro jobs, it's pro business, and it starts this year. this month we are going to be sending out details on how to apply for this credit to millions of small businesses across the country. but if you want to learn about it today, we are going to put all the facts on our website, www.white house .gov. here is what else happens this year. tens of thousands of parents with children who have preexisting conditions will finally be able to purchase the coverage they need.

that happens this year. [cheers and applause] so, last week i met a man named david gallagher whose daughter, lauren, had written me a letter last year. when lauren's mom lols her job, their entire family lost health insurance. when they tried to get new insurance, david was denied coverage because he once had a complication-free hernia surgery. the company wanted to weed him out. he has been sick before, so we don't want to bear that risk. lauren has been worried sick about what would happen if they are father became ill or injured. now because of this reform, david gallagher can finally have access to health care insurance again. that begins this year.

that starts this year. [applause] that is just one of the insurance reforms that starts this year. here is what else happens. insurance companies won't be able to drop people's coverage when they get six or place annual or lifetime limit on the amount of care they can receive. [applause] now this isn't some abstract concept. there was a story in a local paper this week about a woman named teresa deandre. >> deandre. >> thank you. excuse me. where are you? are you up there? stand up. [cheers and applause] >> now her husband passed away recently from cancer.

and before he died, he hit the life time cap on his insurance. as a result, she has not only had to cope with the loss of her cuss, but with $60,000 in medical bills. this was after she had already spent all of her retirement savings on medical care. because of this reform, a situation like hers won't happen again in the united states of america. that is going to start this year. we are inspired by stories like yours. [applause] starting this year, all new insurance plans will be required to offer free free ventive care. and starting this year -- this may interest some of you here -- if you are a young person who doesn't have insurance, or

doesn't have a job that offers insurance, you're going to be able to stay on your parents' insurance policy until you are 26 years old starting this year. starting this year. [cheers and applause] audience: thank you. >> you're welcome. thank shelly and mike. they voted for it. thank them. [cheers and applause] this year seniors who fall into the coverage gap known as the dougnut hole. some seniors probably know about that. they are going to receive $250 to help pay for prescriptions, and that is just the first step. what we are going to be doing is over the next several years, closing that gap completely.

[applause] and i want seniors to know despite some of the stuff that has been said out there, these reforms don't cut into your guaranteed benefits. what they do is eliminate co-payments for things like check ups and mammograms. that is why aarp supported this bill because it is good for people. it's the right thing to do. it is good for young people. it's the right thing to do. it's good for people who hit the lifetime limits. it's good for people with preexisting conditions. all that happens this year. and then by 2014, each state will set up what we are calling a health insurance exchange. it is basically just a competitive marketplace where uninsured people and small businesses out there trying to

negotiate with insurance companies will now be part of a big pool. millions of people coming together, leveraging their performing power. they will get a better deal. wal-mart, the reason they are able to give you low prices is because they buy, and they tell their suppliers we are 800-pound gorillas when it comes to whatever products you are talking about. you have to give better prices. the same thing is true for the insurance market. everybody who can be part of this pool is going to get a better deal than they otherwise going to get. members of congress are going to be part of this pool. you know it is going to be good because they are going to have to use it themselves for their own families. [cheers and applause]n i the ne few years. and when this exchange is up and running, millions of people

are also going to get tax breaks to help them afford coverage. even though this pool will give you lower rates and give you a better deal, some folks still can't afford it. so we will give you a tax credit to help you afford it. that adds up to the largest middle-class tax cut in history. that is what this bill is about. [cheers and applause] so think about it. so think about it. that's what this is about. we are setting up a pool using the private market to give people a better deal. we are giving tax breaks to working people, some of them working two or three jobs who still can't get insurance. we are going to give them some help. we are going to give small businesses help so that they can help their workers and improve their bottom line. and we have a whole bunch of

insurance reforms so people like teresa aren't going to be disadvantaged and taken advantage of when they need it most. that is what this bill is. and it is paid for, and it saves on our deficit. this is what everybody has been hollering about as the end of freedom. and now that it has passed, they are already promising we are going to repeal it. they are going to run on a platform of repeal in november. audience: boo! and my attitude is go for it. you try to repeal it. [cheers and applause] i want these members of congress to come out of washington, come here to maine and tell mr. milikan there we are going to take away your tax

credits, essentially raise your taxes. if they want to do that, be my guest. if they want to look at laura gallagher in the eye and tell her they plan to take away her father's ability to get health care insurance. that is their right. if they want to tell teresa that once again you could face a lifetime of debt if you lose a family member, they can run on that platform. if they want to have a fight, i welcome that fight, because i don't believe the american people are going to put the insurance industry back in the driver's seat. i am happy to have that argument. [cheers and applause] i'm happy to have that argument. now in fairness, and i want to

be scrupulously fair, some of them have said we want to repeal and replace this bill with our brand of insurance reform. but when you poke and prod and ask them what is it exactly you want to replace it with, it turns out they want to deregulate the insurance market. we have already been there. we know what that is like. we are not going back. we are not going back. this country is ready to move forward. portland, maine, is ready to move forward. [cheers and applause] and while we are talking about moving forward, i just want to mention one thing. kind of lost in the shuffle of all this health care debate is the fact that part of the bill that we signed, that i signed this week, is going to provide

an additional $68 billion that used to go to banks and financial services companies, and that is now going to go to the student loan program to expand pel grants and to make sure that college is affordable for every young person in america, and i want to know co-they want to repeal that as well? because i am happy to have that discussion. [cheers and applause] now, $68 billion, $68 billion that was going to banks and financial institutions. we have just taken that money from the banks, from the financial institutions, doubling pel grants, making sure that young people -- if

you have debt when you get out of college, and i know i did, so you probably do, too, that you will never have to pay more than 10% of your income in repayment so that you are not going broke because you decided to get a college education that makes our economy stronger, that makes america stronger. if they want to repeal that, too, we can have that discussion. [cheers and applause] you know, the road to this victory has been long. it has been difficult. and it is absolutely true that because health care is such a complicated issue, a lot of people got worried. a lot of people got scared. and the misinformation seeped

in. and then the process was ugly, and everybody was arguing, and there was all kinds of stuff going on, and the senate, the house and everybody said this just looks like a mess. i understand that. that is part of our democracy. democracy is a messy business. it is the worst form of government except for all the other ones that have been tried. that is what winston churchill said. [applause] that is what winston churchill said. he is absolutely right. it can be frustrating sometimes, but ultimately that is what makes our country so great. because everybody is able to voice their opinions. everybody is able to get out there and organize. [applause] and you're free to call your president an idiot. [laughter] you know?

audience: boo! >> no, that's a wonderful thing. as i was driving by, people were waving. everybody was clapping, and one guy is like eeehh. he saw me through the window, too. [laughter] >> that is a great thing about the country. [cheers and applause] but i want everybody to learn the lesson from this debate. in reaching this milestone, it doesn't represent the end of all our problems. we still have jobs to create and deficits to reduce. we still have children to educate. we still face enormous challenges in this country. jobs haven't been returning fast enough despite everything we are doing. the economy is growing again, but people haven't been hired back as fast as they need to. small businesses are still having trouble getting credit out there. so there are all kinds of

issues we are going to have to work on. but what this fight has taught us about ourselves and about this country, it's bigger than any one issue. it reminds us that change is never easy, but it is always possible. it reminds us that in the united states of america, we still have the power to shape our own destiny. and it remind us that we as a people don't shrink from a challenge. we don't shirk our responsibility. we don't fear the future. we shape the future. that's what we do. that's who we are. that's what you're about. that's why you're here. that's why i ran for president of the united states of america . that's what makes us the united states of america. thank you, portland. god bless you. god bless the united states of america! [cheers and applause] >> thank you.

[cheers and applause] ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> well, the president there in portland, maine, making some comments on health care legislation. the president heads to boston. a couple of fundraisers in boston. he is also set to make some comments about the floods in new england. he has been asked by duval patrick, the governor in massachusetts, to take a look at some of the flood damage in new england. we are going back to portland and give you a look as the president greets folks up there. we will watch this as it continues. ♪

♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪ >> president obama in portland, maine. you will be able to see that event again later in our schedule, and also on our website, c-span.org/health care. all kinds of recent events on health care and a link to the kaiser family health foundation's analysis of the health care law and what is in it. go to our website,

c-span.org/health care. .no carrierringconnect 2400

>> how has unemployment affected your community? >> it has been printed bad here. our school just got budget cuts last year. they have been cutting things off for us and we have been having limited funding. it is pretty bad. my mother works in an hotel. they are laying people off everyday. i just got this is really big. >> in your documentary, you talk about different job industries. what job industry did you notice had job creation? >> construction. did i heard that they had been laying off a lot of people. the auto industry, i heard they are cutting a lot of pot plants and cutting jobs. on a brighter note, medical

care, they have been adding jobs. >> unemployment, has it affected anybody you know personally? >> yes, it has. my aunt was laid off just last summer for a while. i saw how big of a struggle it was for her because she has a family and another family member had hours reduced. he has a family to support. that has affected my family. " what did you learn from working on this documentary? >> i learned that this is really a big issue. i learned things i did not know before about unemployment. i thought it was pretty bad but i did not know how bad it really was. i went to my information and saw everything, i was so surprised. i cannot believe how big it was. i have to refocus on the

situation. >> what type of advice do you have for anybody who is on unemployment? >> start looking at your options. see how long your financial resources will last. the contact in employment office and see if you qualify for unemployment benefits. most importantly, keep a positive attitude. i know you are struggling and angry and possibly depressed or really mad, that will make things worse. >> thank you for talking to us today. congratulations. >> thank you. let's watch a portion of her video. >> in october of 2009, construction lost six to 2000 jobs. construction job losses focus on nonresidential and heavy construction.

manufacturers lost 51,000 jobs. professional and business services shed 51,000 jobs. some continue to employ. >> our work is seasonal. we have been hiring people for the season. >> on a brighter note, health care cannoadded 29,000 jobs in october. >> you can watch this and other videos at studentcam.org. >> the economy added jobs in march. president obama unveiled a new offshore drilling plan. we will hear from representatives from the government, and of oil and gas companies for ways to move forward on american independence for energy. this is about 1.5 hours. >> good morning.

let's get the event started. i am the president of arizona state university. together with the new america foundation, we are sponsoring this discussion which we hope will be one some what differentiated from the difficult discussions where one talks about theories as to why we cannot advance american energy independence. today, the discussion will hopefully focus to the extent that we can on the revolutionary steps necessary to achieve that as a goal. to achieve that as an objective. last week, you may have read an article in the "the new york times" about the israeli attack possibly on the i radians. at the bottom, it said that the streets of jarmuz would be compromised. i remember back to a class in

college when they were telling us the same thing. i was living in an era when people have forgotten how to read and no longer had any conceptualization of the complexity of our energy stream. i thought we would go to our panelists one at a time and they can quickly introduce themselves and attacked this question of how we actually achieve energy independence. i will start with mr. paul. >> i am the founder gigaton throwdown. my day job is a founding partner of sprint venture's. we invest in clean technology. i think the most important

thing, there are new technologies up their being able to convert l.j. directly into fuels -- algae into fuels and others that are breakthrough ideas. what is necessary almost as much as those technologies is a realization of what it means to be secure. made useful analogy is one point out -- one that points out the analogy of salt. salt used to be a strategic commodity. wars were fought over it. salt was fundamental to energy. [inaudible]

the reason it is not a strategic commodity, we did not care who has the power over the salt. the subs and -- it is not because a substitute was found. it was not before -- because we mine more. it is because we discovered an alternative to that the energy preservation. salt was used to preserve food. we now have a lot of other ways to preserve food. >> we deal for -- we deal with oil for transportation. that is what we fundamentally need. there are a lot of innovations out there. one company is converting sugar directly to various types of

oils and clothing for transportation. using algae, without having to build large scale pools of ponds, and another company that has the highest conversion ratio of woody biomass into products like ethanol. those are just two examples. without this kind of thinking, there is a possibility and we can schedule these technologies to the skill necessary not necessarily to eliminate oil but to give as alternatives so it no longer becomes that strategic commodity. >> to pin it down, you are using salt.

we have to have more alternatives to break this focus on these single and simplistic ways of viewing our systems. in a sense, we have to empress complexity which is difficult to do -- increased complexity which is difficult to do. >> we produce electricity. there are a number of different ways of doing that. when you want to move a car or truck or tank, there is only one way to do it. get stuff out of the ground. >> gary, i am turning to you next. you are focused on, particularly with having run bp, what is going on " -- what that means globally in short changing the angle of our perspective. >> i am the the director of

light works at arizona state university. i spent the last 14 years in asia as president of bp china and asia pacific. i would like to take a step back and look at this from a global perspective and build on some of the things that sunil already said. i would like to start with a quote that i find compelling that came out of the international energy agency's world energy outlook in 2008. this says that the world energy system is at a crossroads. current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable. environmentally, economically, and socially. this is from an agency whose goal is to look at the world's anergy -- energy perspective and comment on where it is

going and the security of the system. you might ask yourself why would a group like this say something so provocative. the way to understand it is to begin by looking at what this forecast actually says. they have updated this and in that forecast, primary energy demand growth rose by about 1.5% per year, globally. the implication of that is by 2013, we will have to have it 40% increase over today's energy provision in order to meet that new demand. the bulk of that demand is going to come in developing asia and middle east. the international energy agency projects it will cost $26 trillion in order to meet that

scale. about 50% of that for power, and more than 50% of that in the developing world. what are the implications of that? we are going to see a revolutionary shift in demand pattern, away from the developed world toward developing world requiring $1 trillion per year where you have to ask yourself, where is that money going to come from? how is it going to be mobilized to produce not just the supply of energy but the ability to distribute it and give it to places where it is needed? this is a mammoth task. i think it creates a revolution and its own right blend of -- in its own right. i would like to say a few words about the current energy system.

you would say that he would be saying this having spent 34 years and the energy industry. it is a marvel of human achievement, the energy supply system that we have today. it has literally evolves over periods of hundreds of years. if represents enormous amounts of support by public institutions and intervention by public interest -- public institutions and massive amounts of public and private investment. it really does what it is supposed to do. equally, if not more important is it has evolved with the system for consumption. they form an ecosystem that has been designed for the purpose of reducing costs, maximizing reliability, maximizes availability, maximizing the overall convenience of energy.

i remind people that service stations did not just come on this planet convenient to people. having energy in our homes is something we take for granted. why is this important in the context of a revolution? this system is sophisticated, competitive, adaptive, and it resists change. it really resists change. it has the capacity to resist change because the costs are so low. there is something about it that creates a vulnerability. this is a global vulnerability. it can only be adapted to those things and consents and price. arguably, energy security, not

over long wavelengths, nor the climate challenge, can be priced. if you look at the forecast from the international energy agency, you see that we have a long wavelengths and fundamental shift in the demand pattern that will inherently create security issues. oil has to go from 85 million barrels per day roughly to over 100 during this time period. without intervention, the forecast takes carbon and they atmosphere to over 1000 parts per million. this is what the revolution has to be about. how we deal with ships in demand -- shifts in demand. >> the scale is a revolutionary opportunity from the economic

development perspective. still, at the same time, is the barrier because it has driven prices down and the waves of innovations. i am going to turn to you. a way to reduce dependence on anything is to use less of it and be spartan in a technological point of there. did you talk to us about energy efficiency and some things you worry about? >> there is a conundrum. i am the director of economic social policy for the american council for an energy-efficient economy. we focus on that link between productivity and a robust economy. scale is the critical issue but the conundrum is we have expensive energy, relatively speaking. since 1970, our economy has worked and we can bring down the

amount of energy per dollar by over half. since 1970, energy efficiency has provided about three-fourths of all new energy demands for goods and services. we still have a supply focus even though productivity has been the sleeper. it has been the invisible resource. we have to somehow bring that forward. it is that incredible productivity gains that enables the cost of the decline. unless we achieve a scale and moved to double the historical rate of efficiency, our economy may not be as robust as in the past because it has allowed other economic activities to move forward. i have four different things that tell the story.

they look alike and are made of roughly the same material. this is a toothbrush. not very exciting. this is a flash drive about 500 megabytes. this is a 4 gigabytes/drive and this is a 16 gigabyte/drive -- flash drive. if we continue with an accelerated path, we may be thinking about a 4 gigabyte pattern. the new materials and new designs could get us to 16 gigabytes past called energy productivity, should we choose to develop that resource. that is the critical issue. taking a step back and understanding the science and

the material and the new design. let me close with this thought. the president has announced offshore drilling as a possible way forward. there may be a critical link but i am thinking that that could give us about 20 billion barrels of oil. efficiency by 2035 could give us 65 billion barrels of oil. the only way that can come forward as if we make an active choice to develop that resource and not think of efficiency as a 1980's technology but think critically about new design and new materials and a choice that must be made. >> one thing i hear you saying is something that people have not grasp, innovation cannot be an episodic thing. it has to be always moving forward and striving and a certain direction to enhance these deficiencies.

-- these deficiencies -- effic iencies. >> i remember one economist who said images of the future are critical to tourist-oriented behavior. i want to pick up your notion there. this needs to be underpinned by the role of energy productivity at large. >> we live in a world where both market forces and policy forces combined to create for us the environment in which we advanced technology -- advanced technology. >> i am the director of the energy policy initiative at the

new america foundation. i come to policy as a reporter. one of the things that sticks in my mind when i think about the task that we have in front of us, 1 global institute " -- estimated that over the next 40 years, we essentially have to have the productivity growth of the industrial revolution which means we have to have the industrial revolution in triple time. that is a huge amount of activity, an enormous opportunity and an enormous upset of the previous industrial revolution. the real question is how do we get to the power stick that skip talked about. one thing that is a problem in the u.s. is the issue of greenhouse gases has become a

competitiveness issue. right now, it may seem strange. it seems it a huge political issue. the problem is in asia and europe, and policies are already in place to basically take advantage of this massive remodeling of the global energy system. when you look at europe's standards for automobiles, you have to wonder how u.s. auto companies are going to compete 15 years down the road. when you look at south korea's the initiatives on the smart grid, the u.s. is sort of vaguely trying to pull together $11 billion worth of funding toward a smart grid. we have 50 different public utility commissions and 50 different states and each one has a different relationship

with their utilities. south korea has this dramatic drawn out of how much money they are going to save and how much carbon they're going to save and how they are going to recycle those dollars and how they will create $50,000 -- 50,000 jobs per year creating appliances for this bread. because we have to discuss greenhouse gases, we cannot see that we are missing this huge competitive opportunity to get out and be in the same place as the rest of the world. frankly, i find that scary. we need to start, it is kind of a dirty word, but we need to start thinking about having industrial policy and having energy policy that is a lot more systemic where we look where policy makers are willing to look at the overall system and

say these are some problems that we want solved and we need to create markets to solve those problems. >> i hear you talking about decision making in government, even in markets, is perhaps insufficiently rapid to engage with the skill and speed with which change has to occur. you were hinting that the south koreans and other governments. many people are looking at how our democracy permits agrarian distributed pre-1800's model competes against other types of more modern democracies or other types of missions states that have the ability to make decisions in different ways. i hope we can come back and talk about that. >> i think there is a slight generational change, as well. most of us are rather old.

myself included. half of our work lives are over. that 40 years, anybody graduating now, that 40 years is their entire working life. they have a very different perspective on this than we do. >> one thing we have noticed with our students is they are increasingly different from previous groups. the millennial generation has a different way of synthesizing information. they want to study across more subjects at the same time and focus on the environmental outcomes and so forth. there is some chance that once we are gone, things will be fine. [laughter]

>> at the end of the day, is it about what brains we have and what we can do? >> yes, but more. i was at the lab as a professor. i started my career as an assistant professor at arizona state. thank you. was to make a few points. -- let me make a few points. i believe we are living in a moment in history which i believe is a sputnik-like moment. it is a wake-up call. one issue is energy security. the second is the environment.

newton's book that in many different ways. greenhouse gases are just pollution. the third is technological lead. there are some tectonic shifts going on. we talk about india, china, per- capita energy project per capita energy use will increase and their population is increasing. they have a double when they -- they have a double whammy. that is a business opportunity. for us to change our carbon profile or how we use our energy and getting more efficient is also a business opportunity. that is the reality today. if you ask the question if you are to capitalize on these tectonic ships both in our nation and in the other nations

around the world, the scale of innovation we need is something that we need to understand. i'd like to put it that if you look at the last 100 years of innovation whether going from artificial fertilizers to airplanes to the internet, all of this innovation, imagine happening in the last 20 years. that is the pace that we need. the next 20 years really has to be the most inventive time of our history if we are to capitalize. what are the strengths that we have in the u.s.? we still have the best research and development infrastructure in the world whether it is universities, national labs, the large industrial labs, this is

the best in the world. this is the higher tajikistan -- this is the best higher education system in the world. that is why i came here. that is a strength. the innovation ecosystem is the best in the world. we are the envy of the world. people are trying to emulate it. there is still time to get it right because there are many factors. the third one is the idea that the kids in our colleges are knocking on doors saying they want to work and energy. tell us what to do and where to go and how to do it. they are going to figure out how to do that. our goal is to be the catalyst and to unleash the technological innovations in the u.s. it is to harness these strengths and unleashed that. we try to do that and our goal

is to look for destructive technologies. it is not business as usual. we need to look ahead. just to give you an example, we invented lithium batteries. we have 1% of the manufacturing. if we keep working, desolate, we are feeding somebody else. we need to look ahead and see how we can make that lithium battery obsolete and bring the manufacturing technology back. that is the type of thing that we will be looking for. we need to recruit the best people. finally, we need a policy environment that can pull these technologies into the market at a coscost.

that policy environment is very critical. from my vantage point, the ideas that we are seeing, there are amazing. the reason people were going to china is because there is demand. how do we create that type of demand? i will stop here but i think this is a huge opportunity. >> i hear you talking about high speed innovation ecosystem. something we can perhaps talk about later. some might say that we can create that and be powerfully innovative but then be unable because of market issues or government policy making issues to take advantage of our own capabilities.

let's come back to that when we can. you run one of the country's largest utilities and one of the most innovative producers and distributors of energy. >> my great-grandfather lived to be 104. my best years are in front of me. [laughter] let's get over this young thing. we are in a unique position in the power industry to deploy it the solutions, to raise the capital, not the national debt, to do it at scale, and to do witit.

let me put this in context. in 1910, i can barely remember, we started down the road to provide universal access to electricity in america. we did that. the price of our electricity has been flat in real terms for 50 years. we did that with the prices are lower than other developed countries around the world. it has allowed a huge gains in the development of our country. when we started down that road in 1910, we could not envision what we would enable. hospitals, laser surgery, x- rays. the ability to do things in the

medical world. we could not envision that as a result that it would develop games for developing steel. our steel industry as the lowest carbon footprint of any in the world. we cannot envision computers, the internet, it all came as a consequence of providing universal access. we did it with 50 state commissions and we did across this country. it transformed our country and one of the reasons we are what we are today is because we were a high-tech business in 1910 and we enable things that nobody could envision then. my challenge to you and my challenge as a ceo, i sit here

today and say universal access enabling all of the things that we take for granted as yesterday but i believe that we can have a twofold mission in the 21st century that will achieve all of the things we are talking about. we have the capability to do with it. first of all, we can modernize and the carbonized our entire fleet -- and decarbonize our entire fleet. if we do that, and we have to do that, that will stimulate the economy and create jobs. it is going to create jobs that will rebuild the middle class. there will be a huge scaling. modernization, maybe by 2050. we will raise the capital. we do not need the government to

raise the capital. with respect to our second mission, i believe we are in a unique position to make the communities that we serve the most energy efficient in the world into it at scale. as we convert our distribution grid into a two-way communication bread, we have the -- communicationgrid, we can do this at scale. in a sense, we are a distributor for all the innovation and creativity that comes from silicon valley because we can deploy and make it happen and we have the capability to raise the capital to make it a reality. my point to you, my job has always been affordable,

reliable, clean technology 24/7, 365. we produce 40% of the carbon footprint in america. if i can achieve my first objective, i can drastically reduce the carbon footprint. i also know that i will enable -- i can envision the ability to use renewables and make them a better contributor. equally important, i know that the transport sector represents 30% of the missions. if i carry out the these two missions, i raise the capital, i come up with a solution, the reality is we can reduce our

emissions close to 70% and stability our economy, create jobs, create energy independence and have much cleaner air at the end of the day. i know what the challenge this and we are in a unique position to go to work. we need policy makers to develop a road map so we can get it done. >> we have lived in cities and villages for 8000 years and those were primarily non electric. the last hundred years, which is nothing in terms of time, we built this platform which is efficient but it is not particularly moderate in the way that you are using debt. it is not sustainable or have the kinds of things you are talking about. let us move it will time and we can take that same platform to higher and higher levels of more broad performance to not only to look for that universal access

but also to deliver it in ways in which it is more sustainable, or environmental, and all of the other things to put on the list. it is a maturation process. we have lost track of how long it takes to do things. we have had this electricity for hundreds of years. why don't we take that and make it into the system that it needs to be. >> think about it. in 40 years, i have to replace everything. i am prepared to do that. the other point that is so important, we have the ability to provide universal access. nobody else has the ability to optimize use within a home, a

neighborhood, a residential customer class, industrial, our ability to optimize is terrific. i have a prediction. i hope i am around long enough. in 10 years, what we think of energy efficiency will be very primitive compared to what we will be doing then. that is if we can get on the road and get the work done. >> i hear a lot of positive and upbeat thoughts. let's hear about what it is that holds us back. there have been studies that say every time somebody tries to advance new innovation and to this massively efficient system that they break down. you are investing in companies. you are moving things forward.

you have hundreds of millions of dollars down on the bedding table relative to projects you interested in. we get all this going, what holds us back? >> picking up on what jim said, we are pretty much in sync with this. the first is the image of the future. we need better images that we can do that the behavior changes are available if we choose to develop them. really helping the u.s. and global economy understand the huge opportunity before us if we make those choices and allow that capital to be deployed. we absolutely need a road map. we need a clear and persistence signal of what needs to be done. >> the lack of a road map hold this back and that evokes from some the notion of soviet state

central planning. how do we get past that? >> if i may, i would like to pick up on a point made at the beginning. when we talk about a week, we are substantially talking about the u.s. and not the world. there are big chunks of the world that get it and are actively on their way. germany has done an enormous amount. the chinese are on to this in a very big way because they see the economic potential the number -- a number of the panelists have mentioned. south korea is on to this. they have made it a national imperative to innovate in this area. substantially, the we in this in terms of the big economies are's. for us, i agree, it is this idea of the road map. part of what gets in our way and

it is both a great strength and a potential weakness is we have a very deep reliance on market mechanisms. market mechanisms cannot see the risks that we face because of the way they're presented to us. they did not yet see the opportunity or as some of these other economies to not have the same challenges. the chinese, in particular, do not have that same challenge. when i say road map, i stay put a price on carbon and a cap on emissions and what companies find the cheapest way to achieve those objectives going forward. i do not made the industrial policy where you lay it out. the russian proved that five year plans to not work too well. we have to harness the power of the market but the government has got to put money into the

research and development. we have to commercialize these things but it is a partnership between government and the private sector and it is not either/or. we have to be sophisticated enough to do that in a way to harness market forces and have clear guidance from the government of where we need to go. we will find the solutions and the way, we just need to know directionally what we need to achieve. >> the idea that the government planning is the way to the future is something i simply cannot abide. i am venture-capital list. i absolutely believe in venture under i believe american innovation can get us out of this problem.

security, climate, economic development. i absolutely believe that markets can get there but pills only work when the price is set and reflects what the real scarcity is. right now, we have a scarcity of energy securities and a stable climate. neither of those things are incorporated into the price of energy today. incorporate those prices and the market will work. it is the best known mechanism we have for allocating resources. it works far better than a chinese system or any other system out there. it is not perfect but it works. those $13 trillion that needs to be invested worldwide between now and 2020, the 26 trillion dollars by 2013, the majority of that needs to come from private sources. we cannot look to government to be the banker for derailment of that energy infrastructure.

we need to look to government to be the referee and rules sector for the market, for infrastructure, and building out that a natural monopoly and the structure that cannot be done through competition and we need government to set the rules for regulation of how profits are made. something called decoupling so that energy efficiency is incentivized rather than building more power plants. there needs to be a stable and fought for rule for government and not a command and control rule. >> second to the first secretary of the department of energy, he had a wonderful insight into the road block. >> that was back in the 1970's. >> many years later or did many years later, he said that our

energy policy swings between complacency and panic. it has never been consistent. we have never looked at energy and environmental policy is inextricably linked. in the house and the senate, it has worked in different committees. it needs to come together and we did a comprehensive energy and environmental probe map -- road maps because we are going to continue to do this until the price of oil is this or that. >> i would like to add this thought. i would be remiss to admit that prices do matter. they are not all that matter. we need a persistent signal and it should grow steadily over time. we want the price to motivate and the direction we are discussing, we can enable the

economy to respond if we also invest in our education and laboratories and technology and patent process to bring that about. if we do not come up with ever the price baby, we may not be able to respond as quickly as otherwise. some sort of road map that is clear and steady and that has to be matched by investments in the human resources to make that effective and possible. >> why is this so hard from a policy perspective? >> a couple of things. in addition to needing a long- term road map, we needed to be bipartisan. this needs to be something that everybody agrees on. it cannot be just one party. it cannot be that one party is saying my weight of the highway. it actually has to be a joint decision and everybody has to be behind it.

the other thing is we have to recognize that this is a week to cost us money. we need to recognize that it is worth it. our petroleum industry was built by our grandparents. they have the generosity to pay out of their paychecks and lives to build us this giant petroleum and electricity delivery system. the fact that we are not interested in investing in that to a similar degree is depressing. policy makers need to start talking about the vision and we need to see this as a responsibility to leave for our grandkids. another thing we have not talked about, we are going to need innovation in finance and business models. one of the issues, we had this

enormous project enormous opportunity in people's homes to reduce the amount of electricity people use and once we start using hybrid cars, we will be in another world in this sort of term. it is very easy to finance a new power plant and rather difficult if you do not have a healthy income to start weatherizing your home. you either need to get in on it government program which means you are in the lowest 20% of income or you are in the upper part where you can get a tax break by putting solar panels on the roof. we need to make it easy for everybody and it need to start as a society investing in private homes because they aren't using a lot of the power. we need to be investing in individual cars and commute options because right now we have a private credit system for individuals and a big bond-based

system with financing power plants and other big initiatives. >> let me just add one point. some scholars say that what we have lacked is the ability to get bipartisan consensus. we have avoided things on which we can agree. there are things we can agree on and outcomes that we will agree on. one of them is capitalism- driven universal access to clean energy. i would guess you could get people are brown that outcome- oriented view. it is the outcome. when you are driven by that, things fall into place. one thing as a policy process has avoided is coming together and agreeing on outcomes. that has been forgotten to some extent. >> every major piece of and permit the legislation -- every

major piece of interment will -- environmental legislation has been overwhelmingly bipartisan. we have to be more centrist and our approach because that is our real progress is made. there are many great books and the greatest leaders in our country have been centrists who have found a way to make progress. i want to comment on one thing that lisa said. we did a project in north carolina where we asked permission to put solar panels on a rooftop. we invested $50 million and at the end of the day, we were able to do it cheaper because our cost to capitol was much lower than our customers" '. we raised over $7.50 million.

we did not force families to make it tough choice. do you send your kid to college or douceur on their rooftops? we looked at the rooftop as if it was a power plant site. we paid them, and stalled, operate it, dispatch it. as a consequence, we have the equivalent to 1300 homes that are powered by solar. this is an example, and i can give you examples from the energy efficiency side, where we become a distributor of these technologies that are developed whether it is a silver spring technology or grid. technology and we can take our low-cost capital and deploy at the families to not have to decide between sending a child

to college and insulating a home. it is using the same principles that we used when we brought universal access. we use the phrase decoupling and we use it a few different ways. decoupling for utilities just makes us and different. my thought is, if you can get anybody thinking about anything been done from indifference. nothing. >> that things. >> an artist things. -- anarchist things. >> decoupling as fine but beyond that, putting money into a nuclear plant, we should have the idea to put $10 billion

into energy efficiency put it you get those right, at the end of the day, i would much rather spend $10 billion on energy efficiency than on one plant. it is not just decoupling, it is getting it right and letting us bring capital in the scale that we have to the jobs. >> it is like the ecosystem derives from logic. you wanted to add something. >> there were comments about the role of the government. i am the only government person out here so i thought i would comment. if you look at the innovation that has happened over the last 30 years or 40 years, the biggest player in the game is

the internet. where did it start? 1968 because of funding from the government to create an option that nobody even imagined with the world could be with internet. even the people that developed it. if you look ahead at what the government can do is to invest in the research and development infrastructure to create a technological options. we need multiple options. my daughter is applying to colleg she is not going to apply to one colleges. she will apply to 10 colleges hoping to get into one. that is the type of option she needs -- we need in this country. which the right policy and right signals cannot take those which make the best business sense.

the government can be involved in the research and development that needs to be done and tweaking it so that business can move as fast as possible. >> talking about fast as possible, let's turn to this speed question. we have this way in which markets to move very quickly -- can move very quickly. consensus and a huge democracy is sometimes less swift. let's talk about clock speed. how we speedup innovation and change in technology and in government politics or whatever the area happens to be. >> every ph.d. that graduates from a university is from another country or has a the said staples to their ph.d.