guest: i do think that the welfare system has to be based on love, but tough love. we have to help people to become self-sufficient while not arbitrarily denying them aid. that is what we did with one program in the 1990's and as a result we saw dramatic drops in poverty and dramatic increases in employment. the system generally worked. but it has been stunted and only applies to a tiny fraction of welfare. if all welfare recipients are working, my problem defends itself. but an able-bodied adults should be able to say that i will look for work for 30 hours per week. if they are not doing that, then this is irrelevant. the fact of the matter is that they are not working anywhere close to that and you would oppose any kind of a push like that because you basically support home independence and a massive system of one way

handouts. host: our guests have been robert rector and donna pavetti. thanks to both of you for your insight into welfare in the country. we appreciate all your calls this morning as well. "washington journal" starts every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern time every morning. we will be back here again tomorrow. plenty of time for your calls, see you back here then. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] .

>> this is about one hour. >> thank you. we must come closer to the rule of law. thank you for inviting me. this club has a nationwide reputation and it is an honor to be with you and to know you have a joint session with members of

the palm beach bar. we look in our civic light for mediating institutions. i noticed your courtesy in calling candidates to be recognized. it reminded me of how important it is to participate in civic democracy. i noticed you have here speakers evaluation -- [laughter] it reminded me of the time i was in modesto, california, for the rotary club. the treasury said, we need to raise the dues to get better speakers. [laughter] it is a pleasure to be back in florida. i was the circuit justice for

the 11th circuit, georgia, alabama. it was my honor to be the circuit justice and to come often to those states and to meet with members of your bar. that circuit sits in atlanta. montgomery, alabama. one of my friends was appointed to the court directly from private practice. he had been on the bench for six months. . the trial judge made a mistake. the attorney was arguing and said, it would be of interest that this was a new judge. he had been on the bench for three months. have been ond, i

the bench for three months. he said, it is surprising, your honor, how much one can learn in 90 days. [laughter] the nature is that we learned from real cases. it is an odd system in which we tried to take advantage of is how the legal system works. a number of my colleagues have been here -- may i have my watch? rom my clock. there is an academic metaphor to our professional schedule. it is like you were in college. we have our summers off.

we have duties 24/7. we read and teach. in the fall, we're so pleased to see each other. if you have taught, the blue books will be better. to continue that metaphor, this is the time of year we still have four term papers due. we have an internal deadline. all cases will be announced by june 30. we get our work done on time every year. [laughter] [applause] and the process begins with applications to hear cases called petitions. we get about 9000 of those a

year. it's like doing pushups every morning. there is not a lot of collegial capital spent in arguing over what cases to take. it takes four votes to hear a case. we can put a check mark on these petitions. we meet throughout the term. if there are only three votes and you think is important, it is not a major loss. it will come back in some other case. some cases that are wrong, we don't take them. if you just do error correction, it goes on forever. we wait until there is a conflict on the courts. we take cases because they are

controversial. we know that the court will not be unanimous and that's the american public will not initially be pleased with the result. but that is the nature of the function. the briefs come in. we have a short argument time. when i was on the 11th circuit, i was meeting with judges and attorneys in alabama. i think it was a saturday morning. it was 9:00 a.m. and they were ready to play golf or tennis and the were gracious to hear me for a few minutes. one attorney raised his hand and said you have a tremendous amount of reading to do. how do you do that? i said, i have four clerks and that divide them up among the

clerks. they are difficult cases. i will take them home and read them a second time just before argument. i like music. i have opera playing in the background. i have one-pauper cases, sometimes two-opera cases -- i have one-opera cases. it sounded intellectually pretentious to hear some eastern guy talking about the opera. but i was saved. one attorney raised his hand. he said i have a 16-pack brionek brief. i said, i think i remember your last brief. six-pack brpack b

ief. we have been talking here close to 20 minutes. you have a case of a lifetime justices interrupt very quickly. we demille interrupt the justices, the attorney. -- we interrupt the justices, the attorney. basically the attorney who has been with us before and skilled in the dynamic knows that -- isn't it true, counsel, that the clean water case, you are entitled to be here to bring this suit, although he did not have a flood on your property?

he will say, isn't it true that -- they can engage in conversations. it is not like the lincoln- douglas debate or a great jury speech. it could be like a quiet discussion of a doctoral thesis . the english are horrified that we would give only one hour per case. they would go on for days. when -- one time i was in england. i was in a chair doing a judicial function. there was a case going on for three days. the barrister mention the

statute. we have rules. they cancel each other out. n time savesh i nine nine. i shall be forced to leave the room. council said, i would not wish to precipitate that. we do not have time for that stuff. [laughter] after the case is argued, within 48, 72 hours, we will just the nine of us, and discuss the case. we begin in order of seniority.

if the case is one in which there are great issues of public policy involves, we know that we're required to make a decision. the courts have been divided on it. we did not want to hear the case but it is necessary for us to do so. if it is a 5-4 case - rule for smith or jones or the government, a question of the rationale, the principale. the reasons you give. it is important to see that we get at least five so that we can give some guidance to the system. if is an important case, and let's say is 5-4, the five do

not have a lot backslaps and high-five's. there is a moment of awe when we realize one of us will have to write an opinion that commands the allegiance of the american people, an opinion that explains, it teaches the principles of law, the constitution that control the results. when we issue that opinion, we draw down on the trust that the public has in our institution. it is our job to replenish that trusts buy a hearing to the principles of neutrality and fairness and independence and

quiet discussion and decency and courtesy and scholarship. that is the way our court works. it is of tremendous importance for high school students to remember that the constitution does not belong to a bunch of judges and lawyers, it is yours. democracy and the principles of the coostitution, the principles of freedom have to be taught. take a dna test -- you don't have to take a dna test to see if you believe in freedom. learning is a conscious act. characters is handed down from one generation to the next -- it is of vital importance that our

young people know the meaning of the constitution, no the declaration of independence. it was designed to be read to the troops. i can barely do it. i have taught the subject. my mind will start to wonder. i cannot get through article one. you cannot look -- you cannot tell the young people that you can look at specific provisions of the constitution. the meaning it has is remarkable. it is not just officials, the officials, the judges, the president who has the obligation to protect, preserve, and defend the constitution. you cannot preserve what you do not reverre.

you cannot defend what you do not know. the court has a formal meeting institution. our civic society is a less formal institution. the common cause, the common duty to teach to a waiting, anxious, skeptical world the necessity of the rule of law. and the verdict is still out. probably 2/3 of people live outside the formal rule of law. one of my favorite authors is an author, alexander solzhenitsyn,

an important book for young people, for anyone interested in the idea of justice is a novel which is 24 hours -- he was my literary hero. he gave a commencement address at harvard. this was in the 1970's. i had to wait a couple of days to get the text of the speech. i was disappointed, stunned, surprised to know that he attacked the west because of their fascination and their commitment to the law. after i puzzled over it, i realize for him, the law means something different to him than it means to us. for him, it was a cold, threatening, unforgiving,

dangerous, inaccessible, unfair principle, a mandate, a command. it is a promise. it promises you cannot live and plan and dream -- promises you can live and plant and dream and hope for the future. democracies must be stronger. we have a different conception of law than many parts of the world. this we must teach. our best security is in the world of ideas. the law empowers the person.

if the person does not have the law to empower them, they put a bomb in their knapsack or a machine gun in their car. and we must do more to make it clear to the world that our commitment to the law is a commitment to the reality of decency, to the promise of progress. and we're not doing enough. in july, over 1000 people a year -- inanka,lin other countries, a woman who is raped must pay $5 to file a complaint with the police

department. this isn't the rule of law. this is the absence of the rule of law. it is the antithesis of justice. we recognize that. we are so fortunate. in this country, to get a business license, you pay $100 or more. and you get the license. in some countries, it is discretionary. this doesn't give the opportunity to build and to plan and to have a certain amount of capital so that you cannot resist a government which always wants to plan your destiny for you. i served on the united nations commission for the empowerment of the poor with madeleine albright.

we had not many lawyers. a distinguished economists and reformers from around the world. we were concerned about how difficult it is to get business licenses. i knew egypt was a problem. ght of a bakery. it should be clean, selling food items. find out how long it takes to get a big three licensed in egypt. 480 working days, 22 government officials, cost three and a half months wages. you cannot have a decent legal system with those kinds of rules. you pay under the table to get the license. it is the antithesis of the rule

of law. so we must learn and understand and defend our own system so that the rest of the world agrees with us that the work of freedom is never done. thank you. [applause] >> if you like his impression of the in english barrister, you should hear his impression of president reagan, which we have the privilege of hearing last night. if you have any questions, a

volunteer will pick them up. i now will introduce the president of the palm beach county bar association, michelle, who will do the question and answer part of this event. [applause] >> thank you. our first questions come from students and these seem to be our most challenging questions to our speaker. someone have a microphone back there? >> good afternoon. center frome s pre law. what are the pros and cons of being a supreme court justice? [laughter]

>> what are the pros and cons of being a supreme court justice? >> i missed the practice of law. i love advising clients. the con is that there is a distance. the fascination is in the course of learning about the law, you find you can always learn more about yourself. that means you realize you have a lot more to learn. >> we have a second question. >> good afternoon. i am from the pre law program. was being a supreme court justice your long-term goal when you're younger?

>> my long-term goal? i think not. my father was a lawyer, a solo practitioner. i was probably at the council trial at 10 trials and it was assumed i would be a lawyer. i love the law. i thought i should except the urging of the president to go to the bench at a young age. being on the supreme court was sufficiently remote to me. i was happy at what i was doing. i wanted to be known first as a fair minded and always ethical attorney and as a neutral judge.

>> thank you. a potential colleague is starting the confirmation process. how has the process changed? >> i like my own. [applause] [laughter] the senate is a political body and they have to act in a political way. t.e framers knew that th they said they are appointed by the senate. it is not for me to tell the senate how to structure the process. i do think it has the obligation to recognize the

necessity of preserving the neutrality and the independence and the integrity of our court. to ask questions to try to figure out how a judge would rule on a specific question seems to me rather short-term exercise. you should ask whether the judge has the temperament, the commitment, the character, the learning to assume those responsibilities. i think the judge should be broadly read. i was fascinated with political theory. you'll get an autobiography. you have to be careful about that. [laughter] so the senate has a difficult position. i think the appointment to our

court are sufficiently rare that there is no one pattern. i think is good there is a tremendous amount of interest on the part of the public. the idea that you are appointing a judge for a particular result seems to me not right. the senate has a tradition of courtesy calls for a tradition. the nominee visits the senators in their offices. i think when i was nominated -- i saw somewhere between 70 and 80 senators in their office. i was impressed by that part of the process. had not thought of it much. the senator would say, i'm not going to be able to talk to you

if and when you are on the supreme court, but i can talk to you now. i want to tell you my concerns. then they would open up on whatever particular subject was of concern. i thought that was fascinating and constructive. the constitution says the nominations are with the advice and consent of the senate. i always wondered what advice meant. the president doesn't always ask for advice from the senate before the president makes the appointment. it might be the advice the senate gives to the nominee, which certainly happened in my case. but it is important for the congress to recognize the

instances in which there is a dialogue among the two branches and it should be conducted against a background understanding that one of the things at stake is the integrity and the independence and the stature of our court. [applause] >> thank you. do you have any device for elena kagan as she goes through this process? >> no. actually, we are very distant from it. our tradition is that we do not contact them. the rule is we have no contact

with the justice if and . if they are confirmed, we will call within the next 10 minutes. >> how is the dynamic changed when a new justice comes then? i know -- when a new justice comes in? >> it is group dynamics. you replace one person and it is a different group. we were together for 11 years, arguing, thinking, discussing, mediating, reconciling, and then suddenly a new person come ans in. it will be a new court.

the dynamic will change. we are a happy court. there are some times when the court is not happy. earl warren came in 1953 to a very unhappy court. he was able to change that. we are a very happy court. we will miss john stevens. he and i both tried cases and we both missed the practice of law, as i indicated earlier. he did not follow standards of professional excellence, he set them. [applause]

>> if elena kagan is confirmed, it will be the first time without a protestant member. that used to be a consideration. d see that as an issue during the confirmation hearings -- do you see that as an issue? >> that is not for me to comment. i will say that the qualification of judges has changed over time. for a century, regionalism was of tremendous importance. you had to have a southern seat -- now it is not a criterion andnymore.

i am the only justice from the west. >> there could be a new york blot on the court. >> i said, i am the only guy you have west and three new yorkers, none of whom are suffering in self- confidence. i said, this is not fair. she said we have bronx, queens, we need brooklyn. >> you have been called the most important jurist in america, providing pivotal swing votes. how do you feel about that?

>> the word "swing vote" is somewhat abhorrent. it has the visual imagery of wild swings and just asia. i did not swing around cases. they swing around me. again, of tremendous importance to find a results that unites a majority of the court. we always like 6, 7, 8, or nine if we can have it. i am committed to do this. my colleagues in gengage with me

and with each other. well -- that is how we write opinions. you may have an assignment, give a report and the start to write. you look at your first -- "that is no good." we try to think things through. sometimes where you think you are writing a big deal opinion, your colleagues are not convinced and you're on defense. that is part of the process we have. it is a splendid process. >> if you had to name one

decision that defines you, what would it be and why? >> it is like asking your favorite child. [laughter] i'm not sure i want to touch that. i think that is for others to say. >> people think divisions among the justices will be based on political issues. your brotherde an etheren? you need to search within the structure of the law. of course your background a

facts who you are -- affects who you are. your identity is formed. yourself definition is formed by your beliefs. no judge comes to the bench a blank tablet. of course your background is important. the duty of judging is to see this within yourself and to find some neutral principle. that principle is honest and true and it works. the public and senate should allow it to work that way. >> cannot empathy be excised from the judiciary? -- can empathy be excised from the judiciary? >> no. if lack of empathy means you

close your eyes to the consequences of the law's decree, that is just silly. we supervise the criminal system. our criminal sentences in this country -- the judiciary bears some responsibility -- are eight times longer than sentences in england and western europe for the same crimes? eight times. my home state of california has close to 200,000 in present at a cost of 32,005 $1 a year -- $32,500 a year.

techies you an idea of the dimensions of this. -- that gives you an idea of the dimensions of this. a single, windowless told by for 20 years. that is the first thing you have to know. winston churchill said your society will be judged by how you treat the least deserving of your citizens. and so of course empathy has a role. is that translated into, i feel sorry for this person that that is not it. but you certainly cannot formulate principles without being unaware of where those

principles will take you come out what their consequences will be in human terms. law is a human exercise. to be that, it is not the rule of law. >> in 2004, you made the following statements about the exploding prison population. it tough on crime should not be a substitute or lead us into a moral blindness. unwise.es are often on li seven years have passed since your statements and nothing has changed. what can be done about the exploding prison population? >> i think there is a growing

awareness. if you are asked to design a penal system that would win the prize for the worst system, the one you have would at least be runner-up. [laughter] cost.tioned it cos if cost is a way to activate human compassion, i will take it. we're spending our resources in the wrong way. i think there's a growing awareness of it. there was a commission to study this. you think prosecutors of being locked up, throw away the key types. prosecutors who see the results of these sentences are concerned

about it and they had some of the most creative ideas for finding new systems. for those who are not lawyers, there is a problem in sentencing. if it depends on the judge, it will be an evuneven. animositye has an on ama to arsonists. ness has to be some even th and we have guidelines. the only thing worse than sentencing is sentencing without guidelines. that is different from mandatory minimums. we have been an states marshals as our security people and they

will take an 18-year-old, 20- year-old kid away. the mother will say, how long will my child have to go away? they will say, 15 years. a 20-year-old child does now know how long years is. take some of this money and put it in advertising on the tv shows with the magazines and tell them about these sentences. we don't like mandatory minimums. >> how would you define an activist court? >> that is a court that makes a decision you do not like. [laughter] [applause] it is silly. are you being actively non-

active? >> that is a good answer. speaking of opinions that someone may not like, at the state of the union address, president obama took issue with a decision you authored. justices never react during these addresses because we look to see if you will react to these addresses. justice alito seemed to mouth the words "not true." >> i am familiar with the case. [laughter] look, the competition talks about checks and balances. we often use these as interchangeable terms. separation of powers gives each

branch of the government a certain prerogative so that that branch can be independent in the assertion of the powers. the congress has the purse strings. judges have life tenure and independence. checks and balances mean we have to work together. this system does not work if there is no communication between the two. i have presented the budget to the congress and it is in a way a formality because we know they are going to give us the money and we have been careful in our budget. we say, may we have the money? they say, you may have the money. it's a formality.

but the gives them the opportunity to ask questions. this is an inter action the branches have with each other. at the state of the union, we are the guests of the congress. if they want us to be their guests, i suppose it is a good idea for them to do that. i have a lifetime job, the president does not. [laughter] and of course, not just the president, anybody can criticize a decision. we right these decision in a way that gives reason. our branch of the government is different from the political branches of the government in

this respect. the law and the courts have a language of their own. we speak in a language that has a formality, a constraint, a limit, a tradition, a grammar, we think and, elegance that is different from the language of the political branches. not better but different. i think it would be a very boring society if everyone had to speak with the formality and the constraint of a judicial opinion. it would not be very dynamic or interesting. the same thing with the political branches. they have their own dynamics. but we have ours.

i go there, we sit towards the front, and there is a very beautiful rostrum with five sides to it. one side has justice and liberty. the other, freedom and equality. in the middle -- a nine-letter word -- "tolerance." it was not a word jefferson or the framers often use because it often evoke the toleration acts in england. i think it expresses the meaning of the constitution and the

etiquette of constitution discourse. it doesn't mean everybody is right. there are a lot of ideas that we confront that are silly ideas. tolerance does not mean that you accept every point of view. i think it does mean that we have to be careful to understand that courts speak in a different language. we do not have officers or we don't clout and read how great our decision was -- we do not do that. we're judged by what we ri write. that is it. it is in those books. >> there were a few questions

about that specific case, the citizens united case. can you share some because you offered the decision -- you authored the case? >> it was about whether corpse could spend it their own money speaking there -- whether corporations could spend their own money and then it gets kind of complicated. 60 days or 30 days before the election. it applies to non-profit corporations, the sierra club, the chamber of commerce commer. you had to go to the government and sign off in advance. the government said the law

could then a book that came out 30 days before the election. there were some problems with that. they pointed out there is a real danger, money and politics. we tried to make that judgment. the society over the course of time, we will look at that decision and come to its judgment and wisdom and its correctness. we live in a world of technological change and we will see if there can be an accommodation. if this was a law school class, i would put hypothetical questions just to test that. that is basically what the opinion is about. i regret they are long. i will not get into technical reasons.

justice stevens dissented 90- plus pages or something like that. my opinion was also quite lengthy. we are judged by what r write. the cases you remember the most. we had a case toward my early years on the court about whether or not it is protected speech to burn the american flag. in a 5-4 decision, we set the first amendment protect that action. i wrote a short opinion, up 5-4, to explain my views. i said that it is fundamental that the constitution sometimes

requires us to make decisions we do not like, and we make them in the sense that they are right. the flags are a beautiful flag and is a symbol of american unity and of a country of political and national background. it is a transcendent symbol. your family has loss -- or you have lost a friend in the service and you see this flag presented to the survivors. it is a moving ceremony. it was not easy for us to say you can burn the flag. i thought the first amendment required it.

it was issued toward the end of our term, a few weeks before we recessed. well, 80 or 90 senators denounced the court on the floor and the first president bush took the week off and went to flag factories. [laughter] you react in different ways. i noticed over the course of the next three months, the initial editorial outport, it changed. people flocked that the court is protecting my constitution. it passed to of relevance in your own time. this is a right of speech that we have now. my children were living in

california and i went out to visit them. we had pancakes or something. a young man came over and said, are you justice kennedy? i thought, here's a c-span insomniac. [laughter] but he said, i am a practitioner like you and i practiced in a small town in california. the reason i am there is my father, he is still living. i lost my mother some years ago. my father never comes to the office. i had a busy office and a busy day and my father came in with a newspaper reporting your decision and slams it on the thing and said you should be ashamed to be a lawyer.

he said there is a reason for that. my father was a prisoner of war in germany and the prisoners used to get a piece of cloth and that would make a little flag. the guards would find it and take it away and they would make another one. hat generation, john stevens' generation, was incensed about the case. i gave him a copy of the opinion. he said, three days later, my father came by and said, you can be proud to be a lawyer. eight reasons, thoughtful, reflective reaction to a case

that has surfaced difficulties and that we might not like in all sense, but that is the way we operate. i see my time is going by. i will mention not long ago, five years ago, the chief justice of nepal came to washington. they have almost a shakespearean apparenthere thehei heir shot his father and turned the gun on himself. it was within weeks discovered the legislature had absconded with public funds. the government was being run by the chief justice and his colleagues. there was an

assassination attempt on the supreme court. officers and staff members were killed. this judge wasn't washington d.c. and i was asked to visit him and i did, i met the judge. he was a wonderful man. . . it occurred to us that none of

us do enough. we must do more. thanks. [applause] >> on june 28, supreme court justice nominee elena kagan will testify before the senate judiciary committee. you can find all the key moments from previous confirmation hearings on line at the c-span video library. every program since 1987. it's washington your way. >> 99% can be avoided by people just doing simple things that are already available. >> tonight, preparing for cyber attacks, the california congressmen and how congress and the federal government work toward protecting federal and private security networks. "the communicator's" on c-span2.

weeks after the british elections which produced a new prime minister and a coalition government, queen lms -- queen elizabeth ii will formally announce the government's legislative agenda for the new session. we will travel from buckingham palace to parliament and inside the house of lords for the state opening of parliament come alive tuesday morning at 5:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> a live picture from the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies this morning where we are awaiting the start of an event with lawrence summers, the head of the white house national economic council. he will about economic policy at this forum, hosted by the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. we expect it to get underway in just a moment. until then, your phone calls from this morning's "washington journal."

c-span, senate on c-span to. -- this is the outlook section of "e washington post" from the weekend. on one side, the forces of free enterprise -- on the other, and expanded the paternalistic government, and it is time to choose. he writes that this is not the culture war of the 1990's, not a fight over guns, gays, or abortion. those old battles have been eclipsed by a struggle of two competing visions of the country plus future. in one, america will continue to be an exception one asian organized from the principles of free enterprise, limited and on the, on

other, america will move toward european statism, a managed economy, and large-scale income redistribution. these visions are not reconcilable right now. we must choose. i wanted to get your thoughts this monday morning as we enter a busy week. the idea here is free enterprise vers an expandingnd paternalistic government. that is what arthur burks rights, with the american enterprise institute. -- what arthur brooks writes, and he is with the american enterprise institute. democrats call -- more from the peace in the posts. it is not all that clear, writes arthur brooks. which side will prevail? both sides of the government

enjoy the full arsenal of the administration's money and it was pretty leaders in washington, aided by the unprecedented economic crisis of recent years and the panic induced had seized the moment to seize breathtaking swaths of the economy. if these forces continue to prevail, america will cease to be a free enterprise nation. first call this morning, corpus christi, texas. bill on the line for democrats, what you make of the idea of this new culture war, as arthur brooks seized it? -- as arthur burks sees it? caller: well, in the first place, let's realize one thing. free enterprise -- no industrialized nation can withstand the onslaught of unlimited third world labor. it is just not possible.

free enterprise is what we have got now -- no regulation of free enterprise is exactly what happened in the gulf. exactly. they do not apply to the regulations -- they do not abide by the regulations, and the authorities have no regrets. he had been a union member, he could not have stopped the job for the active in. host: we go to mary from buffalo, new york, on the republican line. what do you think? caller: i just wanted to say thank you. this is the first time i have called in to the program. what i wanted to say is that socialism as a whole has failed in our world view, and i think that if we depend on a government that is more -- is less free market and more government run or, you know, monopolized, maybe businesses, organizations, it believes the

two worst things, in my opinion. host: tnk you for calling. "i call this a culture war because free enterprise is interpol to american culture from the beginning, and its allies if the court -- is integral to american culture from the beginning. as thomas jefferson declared, "a wise and frugal government which shall lead them otherwise free and not take from the mouth th bread that it has turned. "to take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much in order to spare others who, or whose fathers, have not exercise equal industry and skill come is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his indusy and the fruits acquired by its." and other words, the where

government's economic control, and woe betide the read distributors. -- the, distributors. silver spring, maryland, jake. caller: well, i see ouration's development. something is going to have to compromise between the two, because the for enterprise work in the government -- in the country, because we had free labor to build the enterprise. now, i do not know. that is just not working. i am not sure. i do not like government sticking its nose into business, but sometimes business can get out of hand and take advantage of people. host: to jeanne now, back to the democrats. jean is in new orleans. -- gene is in new orleans. i say bravo to the first caller --

caller: i say bravo to the first caller. he is absolutely correct. being an old hippie, i go back to the 1960's to a band called 10 years after. a very wise guitar player wrote a letter, "tax the rich, feed the poor until they are not rich no more." thank you. host: herald, republican caller, freenterprise versus expanding government. caller: think in our country we have sorof a compromise, but you can look around the world and tell that free enterprise works everywhere. socialism, when it is tried in a far left version, has faid. even in the socialist republics of europe, we are paying for their defense bills. when fdr had the great depression and it went on year after year after year, after it had stopped all over the world, it is because he took l my productive wealth and put it into government programs -- all

of our productive wealth and put it into government programs. if you want to take all the productive members of society and all their capital, and all the wealth, and give it to the government who is going to dish it out to people that cannot use it, you are not going to do very well. host: arthur burks calls it the new culture war -- arthur brooks called it the new culture war. you can go to "to the washington post." more from the peace and then more from your calls rewtes "entrepreneurship can only flourish when individuals >> we will go live now to that event with lawrence summers, who heads of the white house national economic council. he will be talking about economic policy at this forum, which is hosted by johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. it is just getting under way. >> -- people would come out with

just a little bit of time. i am said the enough science, and i am delighted to see students, alumni, other members of our community, and of course, the media, here. it is my great pleasure to welcome all of you here this morning for a most timely presentation by larry summers, who is surely a month spent the most thoughtful and influential public servants of this generation. is easy to say that larry needs no introduction, and it is true. in particular for an audience on massachusetts avenue. for our students and perhaps some of their family members or here for commencement already, let me offer some highlights. i first met larry summers in the early 1990's when he joined the world bank as a young and brilliant chief economist. having been awarded by the in the john bates clark medal as the most outstanding economist

under the age of 40, he was leaving the ivory tower to take on the challenge of applying knowledge to help alleviate poverty through economic development. larry used empirical research to understand sites which he could then expand with some startling simplicity. for example, many of my colleagues at the world bank recall his trip to pakistan, representing the bank. it is did it -- she stood before his audience and brooklyn that research demonstrated that the most powerful investment pakistan could make in growth would be to educate its women. no preaching, no cultural hesitancy. just the facts, educating girls for economic growth. on another occasion, larry spoke about how when he looked at the data on the company performance across and within countries, the

distribution was clear. state owned companies clustered on the poor performance and of the spectrum in comparison to privately owned companies. his conclusion, once again, not based on pre-existing values, was ownership matters. in an immortal metaphor, he said no one ever seems to wash a rented car. it was insights like these, simply stated but never simplistically apply, that made larry such a powerful force for thought and deliver a change in public policy. the rest is legendary. he took his curiosity and his intellectual capacity into the u.s. government, where he became secretary of the treasury, succeeding his mentor, bob rubin. together they steered the u.s. and global economies through dramatic crises and to rebuild in time of growth, low inflation, and culminating in a budget surplus.

it is easy to stand 10 years on a look back in history to find a place where the crystal ball was hazy, but that was a golden time in public finance and economic management. after elections brought in a news administration, prof. summers became president summers of harvard university. he broad vision and direction for a great university in which he had grown up. with all the controversies surrounding that tenure, i have not heard anyone take issue with the insight and inspiration of what he thought education at a great university must becoming the 21st century. in the interest of full disclosure, i should say that i was a part of the group of former women colleagues of larry's, some distinguished leaders in their own right, wrote a block to dismiss firsthand knowledge the notion that larry underestimates the ability of women. indeed, his striking characteristic is to disentangle

good ideas from the messengers and to harness the best ideas for public good. in 1997 the treasury, larry started giving speeches about the worrisome cloud on our nation's economic horizon. at that time, the administration decided that it's best contribution would be to stop government deficit so as to not make the problem worse. as head of the national economic council, that merging problem now of u.s. savings in government borrowing is likely to dominate his tenure in office. we're very privileged to hear his thoughts on how our country can get ready to tackle the looming challenge before us. the podium is yours, prof. summers. [applause] >> with introductions like that,

i will come here more often. [laughter] thank you very much. it reminds me of what lyndon johnson is said to have said when he was introduced very generously. johnson responded, i wish my parents had been here for that. my father would have appreciated it. and my mother would have believed it. [laughter] i am glad to be here at an institution that has contributed so much to our national life. he jessica was kind enough to praise some of the thinking i have done over time on public policy questions. i do not know whether that praise was deserved or not. but i do know this, the united states has been uniquely successful among nations. one of the sources of that success has been our ability to

turn creative intellectual energy towards public policy problems. and institutions like this one are very, very important and part of that process. when we list our national strengths, i think we too infrequently acknowledge the contribution of institutions like this one. my topic today is fiscal policy and the united states economic strategy. there is an old joke about economics exams, the questions change -- questions never change, but the answer's always do. economists at some point seem to be saying that budget deficits need to be reduced to grow the economy to private financial armageddon or keep the country solvent. at other times, to be asserting the budget deficits need to be expanded to prevent depression, prevents public investments, and promote growth. then of course, there harry

truman's legendary two-and economists to offer one list on the one hand and the other list on the other hand. the questions about fiscal policy are especially pressing right now. fiscal issues are at the center of economic concerns in europe, and almost everything about fiscal policy is debatable in debate, i suspect that a wide array of observers across the political spectrum would agree that the fiscal policy choices the united states makes over the next several years will be as consequential as any we have made in a very long time. i say this in part because the cyclical position of the american economy, and in part because the magnitude of projected deficits and the nature of fiscal trends. turn first to the cyclical. we can be hard and by the fact that, due in part to the strong

actions taken in the recovery act, the american economy is growing and creating jobs again. a combination of tax cuts, emergency support for newly unemployed, fiscal support for states, and a range of catalyzing investments, infrastructure improvements to in a jeep have played their intended role. the depression scenario that appeared a very real threat a year ago now appears remote. by and large, forecasters debate the likely pace of recovery rather than the magnitude of double risk. yet, the observation that the economy is again a sending does not mean we are out of a very deep valley. far from it. when we're nearly 8 million jobs short of normal employment and about $1 trillion or $10,000 per

family short of the economy's potential output to in town. and when recent events in europe have introduced uncertainty into the prospects for global growth. shortfalls in output and agreement stunt the economy's future potential as investment projects are put off and as the skills and work habits of the unemployed atrophy. this last point is especially important, when for the first time since the second world war, the typical unemployed worker has already been out of work for more than six months. and behind these statistics, like men -- lie millions of stories of americans who have seen the basic foundations of their economic security erode. beyond the economic projections and equations that we economists like this struggle of communities devastated by the impact of this recession.

whatever the judgment of groups of economists about the official parameters of the recession and the growing signs of recovery, for millions of americans, the economic emergency runs on. the challenge we must thus confront is the imperative both to do everything in our power to accelerate the momentum behind recovery so that it addresses the imperative of job creation, and also, addressing the challenge to growth and prosperity of budget deficits in the medium and long term they cannot be ignored. the federal budget this year is projected to be $1.50 trillion. to be sure, over the next two to three years, a recovering economy and the president's policy choices, like the freeze in on security spending in the expiration of highly income-tax cuts, will cut this budget

deficit in half as a share of the economy. measured relative to gdp, we will enjoy the fastest rate of deficit reduction since the second world war. but deficits on current projections will still be in the 4% to 5% range of gdp, implying steady and unsustainable and unacceptable increases to the ratio of our national debt to our income. so in the tradition of two- handed economists, i emphasize both the seriousness of our current cyclical situation and the magnitude of the budget challenge we face, because as a convinced it is impossible to sensibly address either challenge in isolation. many commentators focused either on the need for strong fiscal actions to assure economic

growth and job creation over the next several years or the need for strong measures to reduce the budget deficit. and they largely sterile debate continues about breaks versus accelerator's, about opening loss reverses tightening purse strings, and so forth. i want to begin by laying out what i believe represents a set of views on fiscal policy that would command a cent from a wide cross-section of economists. by stating three propositions. first, in a normal economic times, we're more precisely over any horizon at which output is determined by supply factors or equivalent only at which the federal reserve through monetary policies able to achieve its desired level of output, a government budget deficits will impact a composition but not the

level of gdp. budget policies in this medium term can influence the productivity of the national economy and its success in creating jobs for the distribution of income, and much else. but they are unlikely to have a large immediate impact on aggregate demand or gdp. why? deficits. under these conditions will raise private and or public consumptions. but because interest rates and adjust upwards, balance supply and demand at full employment or at federal reserve is desired level of output. these increases in consumption will be offset by reduced investments and net exports so that fiscal policy will have little contemporaneously impact on output for employment, and over time will reduce the national income. financing government spending

through deficits should not be viewed as an alternative to raising taxes or cutting alternative spending in such circumstances. because of compound interest, the only delays and eventually magnifies the need for these steps. the settings, such as those that arise in emerging markets or have arisen recently in southern europe, where there is doubt about the ability of government to subsequently raise taxes to cut expenditures to repay nearly incurred budget debt, increased budget deficits raise the prospect of inflation or default with the dire consequences for financial markets. and in these kinds of normal oscars -- normal circumstances, there for other considerations. sustainable budgets and economies not suffering significant output caps. excessive budget deficits for as reliance on external borrowing.

they raised a question for the united states as they did through much of the last decade of how long the world's greatest borrower can remain its greatest power. excessive budget deficits limit the ability to respond with fiscal policy when circumstances require it in an economic downturn. and excessive budget deficits, when associated with spending that is wasteful, erodes confidence in government and trust and public institutions. ironically, this may make it more difficult to bring about reforms that are necessary to make the public sector function better and enhance our long-term productive capacity. second, proposition about fiscal policy is equally important. in settings where an economy's

level of output is constrained by the band and where the federal reserve is unable to relax that constraint, fiscal policy will, through the multiplier process, have significant impacts on output and employment. i their direct government spending or tax cuts that promote private spending will raise demand directly, and then as increased demand raises incomes further, further raise spending. the result will be economic growth and reduced joblessness. moments like the present, when the economy faces the liquidity trap and when the federal reserve is constrained by a zero bound and interest rates, and when the financial system is functioning in perfectly because of credit problems in financial

intermediaries and because of overleveraged borrowers, there are moments when these conditions for fiscal policy to have an expansionary impact are especially likely to obtain. most economists believe that in demand-constrained economies, $1 of extra government spending generates between $1 and $1.50 an extra output. and believe in possibly quite smaller figures for tax cuts. assuming that they do not have any major effect one way or the other on the continents of consumers and businesses, fiscal actions that add to confidence by increasing expectations of economic recovery or reducing tell risks associated with depression are likely to have larger than normal positive impact on demand and benefits

that may persist for a significant time span. conversely, fiscal actions that raise questions of future governments and taxing spending policy or ultimate sustainability can reduce confidence, and so can actually depress output. third, while the impact of contemporary news deficits on an economy depends on circumstances, there is a very strong presumption that reductions in the budget deficits expected after an economy has recovered and is no wonder demand-constraints are likely to have beneficial economic effects. the increased confidence. the reduce long-term capital costs by reducing the prospect of federal borrowing on interest

rates and tend to encourage investment, raising the economy's long run potential. i belabor the record -- the macroeconomic analysis of budget deficits because it points of the broadly correct path for fiscal policy in these years. it has in recent years been the essential for the federal deficit to increase as the economy has gone into recession. it has been severely constrained by demand. i cannot agree with those who suggest that if it somehow threatens the future to provide truly temporary high baying for the blood jobs and growth measures. -- high bank for the buck gross measures to its strengthens our future economy and future prosperity as with many benefits, including the greater ability to manage our debts.

on the other hand, those who recognize the fiscal and growth benefits of strong expansionary policies must also recognize that it is simultaneously desirable to provide confidence that deficits will come down to sustainable levels as recovery is achieved. such confidence both the spurs recovery by reducing capital costs and reduces their risk of financial accidents. to put these points and differently, it is not possible to imagine sound budgets in the absence of economic growth and solid economic performance. equally, assurances that deficits will come down once an economy recovers are integral to the maintenance of confidence that is essential for economic recovery.

in the year 2000, the end of my last tour in government under president clinton, the united states ran a budget surplus. projected surpluses would have grown even larger had the country remained on the fiscal policy course, we've equi in the year 2000. but in that eight years that followed, the budget deficits grew from surplus to deficit. by the time president obama took office, the congressional budget office was projecting an annual deficit of $1.30 trillion in 2009. after accounting fully full lift -- for the full impact of the economic crisis, the administration faced humility and deficits in the range of $10 trillion over the 2010 to 2020 decade. this deterioration haven't for a

combination of reasons. the most consequential and fundamental was the break during those eight years from the common-sense principle of paying for new initiatives from tax cuts, new benefit programs, to the war in iraq. in 2001, 2003, the tax cuts and the unpaid for prescription drug benefits alone are projected to add nearly $6 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. the recession and the necessary response contributed an additional $3 trillion of those $10 trillion in projected deficits. these factors are at one level the dominant reason for a sustainable fiscal situation. because of the power of compound interest, success in fiscal policy its success and failure begets failure.

remove these factors. the unpaid for major steps taken during the 2001 to 2008 timespan, and our deficits would be well within the range necessary to reduce the debt to gdp ratio over the medium term. yet, as we look beyond the next decade, there will be a larger and larger role in our nation's fiscal challenge. these challenges are profound and entrenched because they reflect structural changes that have taken place over the last several decades. we as a country, democrats and republicans, have chosen to make a commitment to the elderly. and to health care. these commitments reflect our values as a society. we believe the elderly must be kept from living in poverty, as

so many did before the enactment of social security, and we believe that illness and suffering should be minimized. these are commitments that found expression, even before president obama's health care reform program. they are the right values, and we have accepted the they have costs. the costs of these commitments are growing more rapidly than the rest of the economy. not because government is doing more, but simply because of changing demographics and rising health-care costs. consider the following -- the share of health care in our gdp is now rising by about half of one percentage point for yeaper. since the federal government pays about 40% of health-care costs, it follows that the

federal government spending on health care is rising by about .2% per year or by about 1% every five years. in other words, if they're no policy changes and we simply maintain the programs that we have, the federal share of gdp spent on health care rises by one percentage point every five years. what appears to be an increase in spending as a share of the economy does not reflect government bloat or inefficiency. simply reflects changing demographics and, on current policies, and increasing cost of health care throughout the economy. the nexus between economic growth and our fiscal prospects, along with the recognition of the structural demographic

factors driving our long-term fiscal challenge, has shaped the administration's strategy toward both. as we led ahead from our position today, a position that is far stronger than anyone would have anticipated a year ago, there are four key components to our strategy to putting the budget on a fiscally sustainable path. first, promoting a sound economic recovery. consider three ways to reduce the share -- reduce that debt as a share of gdp by half a percent. cut spending by $75 billion. you can raise revenues by $75 million. or we can enjoy an extra three quarters of a% of nominal gdp growth. resulting in more tax collections, lower benefits spending, and higher incomes relative to debts to make the

arithmetic comparison is to point out the importance of economic growth. spurring growth, if we can achieve it, is by far the best way to improve our fiscal position. that is why job creation and economic recovery remained president obama's top priority. it is important to recognize that the ultimate consequences of stimulus or indebtedness depend critically on the macro economic conditions. when the economy's demand- constrained, the impact of the dollar tax cuts will be at its highest, and the impact on deficits at its lowest. that is the defining characteristic of our current economic environment. it is important to different from the economic challenges that our countries face in the early 1990's. at that time, and this man was held back by high capital costs associated with respect of budget deficits, rather than

look vastly -- rather than low capacity utilization associated with lack of demand. growth was lagging due to inadequate investments. in contrast, over the last several years, our problems have been on the demand side. in areas where the government as a significant opportunity for impact, it would be penny wise and pound foolish not to take advantage of our capacity to encourage near term job creation. this explains the logic of the recovery act success and rationale for taking additional target actions to increase confidence in our economic recovery. consider the package currently under consideration in congress to extend unemployment and health benefits to those out of work and support to states to avoid budget cuts as the case in point. it would be an act of fiscal shortsightedness to break from a longstanding practice of extending these provisions at the moment when sustained

economic recovery is so crucial to our medium-term fiscal prospects. at the same time, legislation properly emphasizes the importance of taking additional measures, including higher matches on medicaid to avoid dramatic cuts in state budget that would not only contract the economy but hurt the most vulnerable additional subsidies through emergency fund for parents looking for work. a summer jobs initiative will attend the thousands work through the summer, and continue sending for -- continued funding for initiatives to know support credit for these small businesses. in addition to these measures, the president would like to see congress moved quickly to prevent the layoffs of hundreds of thousands of teachers. first, doing everything we can to assure economic recovery. look at the situation in japan over the last 20 years. look at the budget picture in

spain or in ireland, countries that were in surplus just a few years ago and then experienced a profound slowdowns. the first step in any sound fiscal strategy has to be doing everything we can to ensure recovery. second, proposing and taking tough steps to bring down the deficit. much of the deficit reduction, the fastest deficit reduction since the second world war that will take place over the next five years will stem of the economy's return to growth and from the phasing out of recovery act programs. the president has made other important commitments to bring down the deficits in an additional $1 trillion. he has proposed a three-year freeze on discretionary spending outside national

security. he supports letting the 2001 to 2003 tax cuts expire for the very richest americans, and will oppose any exceptions to this. he has put forward budgets that would read out wasteful, outdated spending in every area, particularly defense, were secretary gates has suggested that his procurement reforms would save $330 billion over the life of the eliminated programs. financial fee an international tax provisions together save $200 billion. the president has also proposed, and at a time of these kinds of challenges proposals of this kind are, i believe, very important. a number of steps to restore faith in the federal government's capacity to use money wisely.

there is, contrary to what you hear about economists filling up empty holes comment at me be absolutely clear. there's no macroeconomic rationale for wasteful spending. that is why waste is being cut and more cost-effective ways are found to deliver needed services. today, the administration is sending to congress a proposal to make it easier for the president to ratify and eliminate wasteful spending from appropriations bills passed by congress. and working with the congress, we have restored, at long last, pay as you go rules, requiring that new mandatory spending or tax cuts be fully paid for. we're living by those rules with respect to any permanent legislation. third, putting in place a

framework that offers the potential to contain health-care costs. health-care costs are at the center of the federal budget challenge. total spending on health care in 2009 exceeded $2.5 trillion. that is 18% of gdp. twice the share of gdp in 1980. last year, the congressional budget office estimated that health care spending would comprise a quarter of gdp by 2025, and a third by two thousand 40. the growth of health care represents, as i mentioned earlier, the growth of health care represents the daunting calculus that federal health spending as a share of gdp rises by one percentage point every five years.

it is for these reasons that the president believed and acted on the conviction that reforming our health insurance system had to be the top priority in renewing our national economy. the legislation -- legislation enacted this year represents the most serious prospect for addressing health-care costs and public policy in more than four decades. a prerequisite tfor any serious attempt at cost control is ensuring universal coverage. otherwise, cost constraints will have man the best -- manifestly unacceptable human impacts their shifted from one provider to the other. in the easiest way to reduce your costs is to stop providing

uncompensated care. if you look carefully at the legislation, it embodies essentially all the ideas, ranging from encouraging prevention to cost effectiveness research to reimburse an reform, to altered insurance incentives that experts have put forward for containing health-care costs. we're under no illusions. this legislation is not self- executed. its impact will depend on decisions made going forward. legislation takes an important step by establishing the independent payments advisory board, a kind of permanent medicare commission specifically empowered with the ability to bring about the presumptive implementation of its recommendation so that a congressional veto, rather than

congress congressional action, is necessary to stop its recommendations from taking effect. we have made a very important start. but success will depend ultimately on our ability not just to contain federal health care costs, but also to contain all health care costs. because the situation in which federal payments come to lag far beyond private insurance payments would be unacceptable for our seniors. fourth, we will follow through on a bipartisan process centered around the bipartisan fiscal commission. deficit forecasts are uncertain. no one ever looks at these numbers, but one of the most striking members in the federal

budget projections made by the congressional budget office or made by the office of management and budget, is the width of the confidence, the range of uncertainty surrounding budget deficits even five years away. that range can exceed three to four percentage points of gdp. and that is taking no account at any policy choices that we make between then and now. we have to live with and plan for the reality that he's deficit projections will, in all likelihood, changed substantially over the years. it is just that we do not know in what direction. they could change in substantially positive directions, as they did during the 1990's.

they could change in substantially negative directions, as they have in recent years. but we must also recognize that the current projections suggest the preponderant probability that major changes affecting the way the government spends and collect money will be necessary, even after the measures i have described. experience suggests that these tough choices that are necessary to put the budgets into what economists call primary balance, a situation where taxes and expenditures cover each other, excluding interest payments, or what is essentially equivalent a situation where the debt to gdp ratio is stabilized will require the cooperation of both

political parties. experience suggests that achieving this kind of cooperation will require deliberation outside of the immediate cuts and the rest of political debate. that is why president obama has convened a bipartisan commission with leaders from both parties and with private citizens, tasked with producing clear recommendations to cover the costs of all federal programs by 2015, and to meaningfully improve the long run fiscal outlook. that is why he has won agreement from congressional leaders to bring forward to the floor of the senate and the floor of the house any recommendations that the commission makes. for the commission, everything is on the table.

the president has stressed the importance of maintaining his base for the commission to consider all possible options to achieve its objections -- its objectives. we should not downplay the magnitude of the challenge the commission faces. it's proper functioning will weigh heavily on confidence in our country's capacity to make the tough choices necessary to confront our fiscal challenge. remember this, the question is not whether excessive deficits will be sustained indefinitely. we know the answer to that question, as herb stein famously observed, the unsustainable will not be sustained. the question is whether the adjustment will take place in a

planned strategic way, directed at increasing confidence, reducing capital costs, and motivating future investments or whether it will take place in a lurch with renting costs that will disrupt economic activity and performance. a final thought, i have spoken about the necessity for sound management of macroeconomic policy, both in the short run and the long run, about the reality that sound short run and long run policies are not, as many believe, opposed, but in fact complementary. but let us be under no illusion. no matter how wisely fiscal

policies are set, no matter how wisely the dials the monetary policy are turned, a nation's prosperity depends on much more. misguided fiscal or monetary policy can do enormous damage, but they cannot open cells that create prosperity or opportunity. and that is why the much broader agenda of economic renewal, embracing health care reform, energy, policy, education, and much more that president obama has spoken about is so urgent for us as a country. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you. we have a little time for some questions, so we would like to open up to the audience, and thank you very much for that eloquent and very soulful speech. we're going to ask for a show of hands. we would like to keep this to the students in the community. please, when you get up, just tell us who you are. and as one brief question. if you ask two, our speaker will have to choose between them. so try and choose one. >> actually, if you ask two, i can dodge the hard one. [laughter] >> who would like to start?

a microphone will be coming to you. >> i am an alumnus, and i am wondering if you see any compelling evidence that there is a bubble in china, and if so, what it is? >> i will tell you, my government colleague, geithner, and a substantial fraction of the president's cabinet, are in china right now as part of this strategic economic dialogue with china. i have not had the opportunity to participate in their deliberations over the last 36 hours, and with the very large number of american officials currently in china, i am going to be uncharacteristically reticent and not comment on the

situation of the chinese economy. >> [inaudible] i am former director of fiscal affairs of the imf. i would like to ask you, you mentioned in your statement that you think that it is the appropriate medium-term objective in -- [unintelligible] could you give me some idea of -- if i interpreted that correctly? and how far are we from the objectives of current policies? give an idea of how much would

be required of additional fiscal effort. finally, would you like to venture sort of the time horizon for this? thank you. >> for those of you who did not hear the end -- >> i got it. [laughter] >> the rigor of her question gives you a feeling of what a large number of countries experienced over a very long time span when she was their mission chief, coming from the international monetary fund to address their fiscal situation. you will understand what i say when i observe that saying the primary balance and getting the debts to its gdp ratio on a sustainable path are essentially

the same criteria with the u.s. nominal gdp growth and nominal interest rates are likely to be roughly comparable. obviously in the near term the situation is somewhat more favorable than that if you look at our rate of gdp growth over the longer term, it is less clear. on the kinds of projections that come from the administration or come from the congressional budget office, it depends on just what you're you choose and just how you do the calculation, but i would say roughly that the adjustment -- if you think about the middle of the next decade as the moment when you want to achieve this sustainability criteria, the fiscal adjustment is on e order of 2% of gdp.

there would be those who would argue, as the demonstrations budget figures would suggest, that it would be somewhat less than 2% of gdp. others would argue that it would be more. how does one think about 2% of gdp? notice a couple things. first, the2% of gdp is a very substantially smaller number than the kinds of numbers that are discussed in the context of countries that are having severe crises, such as those in greece or i dare say you think about your imf career in countries that have needed fiscal adjustment, a very large fraction of the required for more than