. are evil. i don't like -- look, i'm imposing the moral standards

you're a lot worse off than if you're renting an apartment. just taking the same position that conservatives have been taking if, you want a half page to have "wall street journal," attack fred iowa and fannie. i don't think -- freddie and fannie. charles? who is next after him? you can come in front. >> i agree with almost everything strategicically, maybe not tactically in all cases. you talked about that government behavior. when adam was -- there is an argument that that has changed a lot in the united states. you have been around c.e.o.'s and senior executives or for a fair number of years now.

>> thank you. >> i just want you to reflect, have you observed changes? in a sense of yes, i could do this legally but i'm not going to do it for other reasons? have you seen changes in that period? if so, what? >> that's a very tough question because i don't work with or for random samples. as you can tell, my views not mainstream corporate. i don't work with a random sample of american corporations. one corporation i worked with i was at a meeting and accountants came with an incredible way in which the minority shareholder could grew the majority shareholders. he said it is wrong. it is legal but it is wrong.

there was an upward spiral of self-reinforce identical. proof they really deserved all of this stuff. the attacks for instance on shareholder groups that oppose them as being, you remember the phrases? it may be slightly worse in the compensation area than it was before. i can't go as far as saying that's enough.

preferably incentives. relying on shame, again, the government has a role to play in creating what obama is doing -- he has gone a little overboard. they are trying to tone down his rhetoric on this point of bankers and shame and so on. i don't know, charles. i can't say. i would say it got a little worse in the compensation area. a lot of people in closely held corporations, that's thing. i was against family capitalism. look what it did in italy. it restrains growth.

on the other hand, it does something that publicly owned companies can't do. gentlemen, there? no, this gentleman here. >> thank you. i would like to ask the question that perhaps, this is one of intellectual history but since you pitched this as a message that conservatives may not be comfortable with, as to what conservatives you're attacking. i hear your message, it sounds rather similar to what is being said, neo conservative sociologists in the 1970's.  basically in public and private activity poem respond in self-interested ways and often lack information.

are you suggesting that conservatism has kind of shifted from that respective and is somewhat now problematic in ignoring important incentives and some of these structures that affect private action? just where is the problem here? >> that's terrific question because i'm not sure. let me tell you what i think. i think that the -- the bush and obama administrations were such a shock to the sensibilities of conservatives. on the one hand, the spending of the bush administration. the kind of mindless spending. and on the other hand, well, we haven't got time list the obama stuff. but that -- such a shock to their sensibilities that they

became afraid -- the phrase that leads to mind is nattering negativism. they stop thinking about popular programs. it is going to be like, you know, what might happen to -- what duke might do tomorrow. i think you have to go on the offensive on this. the -- you know, you can pull out your copies of the public interests. a lot of what i said is there. in such an inflammatory way. i once came out avenue a 100% inheritance tax. george will said i would like to poke tigers in the eye with sharp sticks. i think conserve ties as they

style themselves -- conservatives, as they style themselves, are in such shock that you mentioned czar baines oechsli. you know -- sarbanes-oxley. a knee-jerk reaction to anything that goes on in the board with government. libertarians have knee jerk reactions when the government gets involved in the bedroom. i think we have to fweand knee-jerk reactions and say what do we really know and what are we really for? are we for short sellers who can drive a company otherwise sound company to bankruptcy? are we for all of that? i don't think so. maybe what i should have done is coming in with old copies of the public interest and saved the speech but basically you're on

the something and i don't have a complete answer. way over there, there is a -- >> there was one topic. >> can you tell us who you are? >> steve williams. >> pored? >> steve williams. there was a topic you barely glanced on. that was health care. your interest in carving out a conservative position that might actually prevail is obviously a very enticing one. here is a thought experiment or a half-baked or even a quarter-baked idea. that is how about just throw in the towel on catastrophic. a single payer system.

>> you better not get sick soon. [laughter] and so that -- and then, it seems to me, the argument can be made that everything else can actually be stored to the market. enable insurance companies to sell. stay as long as their policies are approved and so forth. and i recognize it is not -- >> what would you think of this? give money to poor people so they can have health care? >> the argument -- >> if they choose not to use it for health care, too bad. >> the argument is that -- >> many of them will get themselves in position where they are desperately sick. >> of course we know better how

they should take care of themselves than they will know. going down that road is a bad road to travel, my friend. >> that's the basis where we now have what we -- >> let me just conclude it this way. we used to give people something called wic. you remember this? this was a program for women with -- what was it called? women, infants and children. they used to get coupons to go buy, we thought, baby food and other stuff. they went and bought cigarettes and beer and stuff. i know this because the company that was giving these out found it had given out an awful lot of coupons and not moved a lot of baby food. i'm for money. if we want people to be able to afford something. if it means i have to pay for taxes so people can have a

decent living who are the deserving poor, i'm perfectly happy to tell you where i draw that line and because i've been in britain for a long time now and i can tell you that that line really has to be drawn, it seems to me that i would rather give people money or give them vouchers for health care if you're a little nervous that they might not take care of themselves and there is an old joke that ends in if she dice, she dies but -- that's where i would leave it. we have what? one more question? there are no more questions. i have solved all the problems. no, no, i can never turn down diana. without diana, i have no columns. i have nothing. i'm not sure at all. >> your views on inequality. you don't think too much inequality is a bad idea.

whether you're looking at it as a life span nor absolute numbers. if you think perhaps women shouldn't be allowed to work outside the home? that would reduce inequalities? >> if you think i'm going to say a thing like that on live television, you're mad. look. as you know, because you're an expert on this. this is a very difficult question. the question of inequality because what you don't want to do, as i pointed out, by methods and to the extent the initiative of high earners the wealth it does trickle down. that's a problem. i think when you divorce the high earning from economic performance you have made a very serious mistake. over what time period? i know that we are in a very strange period at the moment where there is an adjustment demanded of lower income workers

who have to get more educated. that's why you're for, i'm for the community colleges. we used to call them volkswagenal schools but that's not allowed anymore. so i -- this is a tinkering question. i don't collect at the prospect of the marginal tax rate going up a point. the way the money is used, offends me mightily. if you said to me, i'm going to use that and give out vouchers for community schools. if you told me it was going to go up 10 points i would get upset. i would call you at the hudson institute to tell you where is the point where we optimize growth and maximize satisfaction with the fairness of the system and when you told me i would then write a column about it. anyhow, thank you very much for your attention.

[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] thank you for a ver [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national c g [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> today on "washington journal," a discussion on how massachusetts was used as a model for national health care legislation with judyanne bigby. also a look at extremist groups in the u.s. with mark potok and also chat with joanne lublin.

live at 7:00 eastern, "washington journal." wednesday, live from the white house, first lady michelle obama who has made fighting childhood obesity one of her priorities will sit down with matthew shimura. his documentary was submitted in this year's competition. joining him will be other student filmmakers from around the country. that's live wednesday here on c-span. >> all this month, see the winners of c-span's studentcam video documentary competition. middle and high school students from 45 states submits what are our country's greatest strengths or challenges. just before "washington journal" and at 8:30 during the program,

meet the students who made them. for a preview of all the win ers visit studentcam.org. >> now several experts discuss the nuclear summit between washington and the middle east. this is an hour and 30 minutes. >> good afternoon and welcome to the washington institution for near east policy. my name is simon henderson. i'm the director of the energy policy program here. it is one of those curious occasions here when i'm also a speaker. i hope i'll get the balance right. if i have to disagree with one or either aspect of myself. [laughter] with -- me today, to address this very important topic of too

little, too late, nuclear security and the middle east, are gregory schulte and shortage perkovich. gregory schulte is the visiting fellow at the centers for the study of weapons of mass destruction. there is no way you can get that on one line. from 2005 to 2009, he served as the u.s. permanent representative at the international atomic energy agency in ve yena. -- in i have yena. -- in vee yena. george perkovich is the vice president of studies and director of the program for the endowment for international peace. he has done a lot of work over the years on nuclear issues and wrote a very good book on india.

many years ago, which i refer to frequently. welcome to you both. i'm going to start by asking gregory schulte to speak and as a government employee, he has a variety of conditions to dwibe the restrictions he is under. he knows better than i do. i'll leave it to him. greg? [applause] >> simon, thank you very much. it is a privilege to be here with you and with george. when i was the u.s. ambassador to the iaea, george perkovich and i agreed on many issues. he grot india all wrong despite that great book but on many issues we agree so it is a

pleasure to be here with you. i need to make clear i'm not speaking for the u.s. government. a year ago in prague, president obama said nuclear terrorism poses the most immediate and threat to global security. he said we need to secure all vulnerable nook materials around the world in four years. this month's nuclear summit is intended to advance that goal. like president bush and president clinton before him, president obama recognizes that nuclear terrorism must be at the very top of our national security agenda. to prevent nuclear terrorism, we must detect, disrupt and destroy terrorist networks. we also must lock down the material that terrorists can use to build an improvised nuclear device or dirty bomb.

when i was in vienna, by the way, vienna is a wonderful place. when i came back after four years somebody actually thanked me for having served my country in vienna as though i had been in baghdad or kandahar. i said no, i was actually amazed that the taxpayers paid for me and my wife to be there. what was wonderful about it was working with the wonderful people at the department of energy. in particular the work our department of energy was doing on something called the global threat reduction initiative. this initiative has done much to remove dangerous material from dangerous places. to account for and to consolidate what we -- remains and to improve its physical security.

it has helped remove nuclear materials from libya and iraq. in fact, it removed 550 metric tons of nuclear material from iraq and has helped to convert civil reactors from high-enriched uranium to low enriched uranium. the department of energy has requested congress to increase funding by 67% to help meet the president's goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years. while combagget nuclear terrorism sits very high on our national security priority list, many other countries, including in the middle east, do not see the same threat. during my four years in vienna,

to combat nuclear terrorism. one of the big obstacles i faced was the disinterest of many member states. while the united states, our european friends and allies and other like-minded countries ranked nuclear terrorism as a top threat, not everyone else does. in fact, diplomats from developing countries often say nuclear terrorism as an american obsession and not a true tangible threat. they thought of nuclear terrorism as the stuff of hollywood thrillers and should it materialize, it is primarily a threat to the nuclear powers. they worried that nuclear security would create new barriers and other barriers to peace and technology and divert funding from civil programs that were important to them.

a very simple goal for this summit is for the president to encourage other heads of state and government to treat nuclear security with the same priority that we do. one of the basic national instruments is the country vention on the physical protection convention on the physical material. israel, saudi arabia, pakistan and turkey have signed the convention but not the 2005 amendment that strengthens it. if a few cases, the reason for this recess sense is purely political. the summit provides an opportunity for president obama to press these governments to set aside the politics or other inhibitions and join with other countries, including in the middle east, algeria, jordan, libya, u.a.e.. nuclear security should be seen as a key task for governments and for the iaea rather than as

a distraction or for some countries in the middle east as part of a political game. the middle east is, after all, a potential source for nuclear terrorism and a performance victim. in the middle east, nuclear security will become all the more important as more and more countries seek to benefit from civil nuclear power but the immediate problem in the middle east is not nuclear security nair owely defined. the -- narrowly defined. it threatens to destabilize the region, provoke a nuclear arms race and promote the risk of nuclear terrorism. iran is reaching the threshold where it can build nuclear weapons. it has mastered the basic technology, the enrich uranium. there is extensive credible information that it has conducted studies on assembling a nuclear warhead.

the missile can already reach u.s. allies and bases in the middle east. we tried thwart their pursuits with diplomacy. the last administration and this administration. with three rounds of international sanctions. we have given tehran a choice of two pounds. negotiation and cooperation or isolations and sanctions. iran's leaders have ignored our choice and have take an third path, using negotiations and partial cooperation to divide the international community and stave off international -- and to continue their nuclear pursuits. i can only assume their leaders calculate that the prestige and security they provide squout weigh whatever condemnation and

sanctions emerge from the multilateral process. increasingly, i would argue, we must base our plans and diplomacy on the asthauges iran will have -- assumptions that iran will have nuclear weapons. did i mention that i'm speaking for myself and not the u.s. government. i just want to make that clear. iran's leaders, once nuclear armed may not be so suicidal as to launch nuclear attacks against israel, the united states or their partners or allies in the region. however iran's leaders may engage in nuclear brinksmanship. dangerous behavior to try to intimidate neighbors, to deter outside intervention or to impress their own public. they my feel emboldenened to use surrogates to seize territory and extend influence or assault

neighbors. and whether tehran intends it or not, groups like hezbollah may see a rise in the atomic arsenal as a nuclear umbrella for more action against israel and others. mishandled brinksmanship or nuclear boldened aggression may escalate deliberately or not to nuclear use. commounding this danger is a rell risk that others in the middle -- is a possibility that others in the middle will will attempt it also. saudi and also turkey. the nato ally most exposed. no country that aspires to middle east leadership will want to be the last to have nuclear weapons. the nuclear arms race is not inevitable, nor would it

necessarily be fast, with the exception of his rail and iran, most countries in the region are far from having bond-making capabilities but we must prepare for surprises. remember how in the mid 1980's, saudi arabia suddenly had c.s.s. 2 medium range missiles. remember how more recently, syria built a nuclear reactor in the desert with no one noticing for at least five years. fast and surprising or slow and fitful. a nuclear arms race could involve miscalculation or a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorists. the united states must prepare to contain the dangers posed by a nuclear-armed iran. we should do so in several ways. first the u.s. and nato should reinforce our collective ability to protect the territory and population and regional