the aclu got a view is an cessation not get anywhere near civilian cyber security. it is a military organization, publicly accountable, a record of illegal interference in private -- publicly unaccountable. it has the mission of spying and the defending networks. we cannot have confidence that if it, for example, discovers a certain vulnerability that it will spread to give award to millions of people to fix that will vulnerability when it is tempted to keep that vulnerability see the so it can exploit it for spying. defenders of the nsa says they bring two things to the table. they have a tremendous center of expertise in server security and the u.s. government, and i say if that is the case then that expertise it needs to be spun off to another institution that does not have the club -- conflicting roles, not part of the military and does not have the tremendous history and

institutional culture of reflexive secrecy. number two, defenders say, well, the nsa has access to a lot of secret threat signatures. that may be true but we don't know because of their secrecy to the extent it is true so we can judge the benefits and costs. but if you take all of the different threat signatures and knowledge of different cyber security threats, there is some subset of those in -- by an essay and a subset of the nsa was that they must keep secret that opposed to the ones they habitually keep secret but could share without harm. that subset of the subset, how big of an advantage are we getting from this and as a secret intelligence about cyber threats -- nsa cigarette intelligence about cyber threat? if they are going to protect us based on secret information -- if it must keep the threat and

mason secret and will protect everyone using the secret of the mission it must be done centrally. because it cannot be decentralizing because then they would be giving away their secrecy. we are skeptical about the size and the benefit of the nsa's contribution, balanced against disadvantages of centralized approach to security and all of the secrecy -- secrecy that is involved. secrecy is out of control in the u.s. government, everyone from left to right and commissions that studied it had acknowledged, but particularly inappropriate in cyber security in many ways. the internet is decentralized and because the best way to combat many security problems is to get information out, pushing information out. we have this vulnerability, this is how to fix it. much of the security problems in cyberspace result from people not doing very simple patching and so forth.

so, the idea of the government and the military spreading its tendrils and to the private networks is one of the main concern is that we have. and it seems as though there is a push to do that. there has been talked about doing it. this report that just came out yesterday with the existing code name -- what was it, paul? buckshot yankee. >> operation buckshot yankee. >> raises questions in that area. so, we need to be very careful not to put the government in that kind of role. the second of the three of want to talk about is drivers' licenses of the internet. the crudest form. some people in the security community -- people say we need a driver's license for the internet. in today's world, it is

basically proposing a driver's license to speak. because the internet is where most speech as a practical matter takes place. the can't do that under the constitution. other proposals are not so crude but you basically would lead to the and the possibility of anonymous action online. what cyber security officers caught attribution or add to be of ability, being able to figure out who did what. anonymous speech is one of our oldest american traditions. a lot of the founding fathers and the people of the american revolution wrote anonymous pamphlets. federalist papers we now know were written by john j. and james madison and hamilton. so, a lot of these proposals would raise great concerns. we have to ask the trade off. mike mcconnell said we need to

reengineer the internet to make act of fusion, ngo location and intelligence analysis more manageable. that raises red flags for people who care about the internet as a vibrant form for free speech. people going in senate to discuss and get advice for very personal problems. people speak more freely to power when they can speak anonymously. and we do not want to ruin all of that because the intelligence agencies cannot figure out how to stop foreign spies from getting to their deep secrets. the white house have listed date -- we are running out of time. we did talk about that and q&a of people are interested. the idea of emergency government authority or the network, the idea contained in current legislation proposed in congress. when the government shut down the internet is interfering with

people's speech and rights of association. and we have not seen convincing scenarios under which this would be necessary. there are many scenarios in which over time, this kind of a sweeping power could conceivably be abused. at the very least, theoretically there could being -- could be for extreme emergencies, it could be conceivable we would want this kind of power to take place, but at the very least we need to have very well defined parameters and checks and balances over any kind of power like that. and so, that is something our lobbyists are working with members of congress to work on. let me just this with two quick points. there are a lot of different problems that are several

problems for all cyber security. criminal and malicious security and -- fraud, id fred. there is by versus spy, and espionage. was taken -- taking place off line and now one line. attack on critical infrastructure. the scenario of failure of the electric grid. then there is a war fighting. foreign attacks degrade our military these are several problems with separate solutions and should not be lumped together. then what happens is you get the existential threat to our nation of the collapse of society that is theorized coming from wiping out all our critical infrastructure, which is, according to many experts i talk to, a highly dubious scenario, one that is talked about a lot. you get that at that urgency of that and importance conflated with all kinds of everyday very real threats that did take

place. and that leads to justifying wrapping cyber security in all kinds of secrecy and gives added weight to justify radical interventions and re-engineering the internet, which really would kill the goose with the golden age. it and cyber security -- there has been tremendous amount of hype. we can talk about that. a lot of scenarios like the fighter, a lot of that was publicly available information, i understand. nothing secret was taken. and it these duties circulating around about different threats. let me just stop there. >> i give him a cut sign -- i love jay. >> the virtue of being on one of your own panels is you get to talk last and decide what you want to talk about what the others are talking. i will be shorter than day,

mostly because of what to insure we have a good 15 minutes for discussion. i will make one overarching point with two sub points. but over arching point, is it is a problem. right? i know that it sounds trivial, but listen to what you just heard. you heard gpeff very ably describes why we have a market failure in cyber security today, and the normal answer to market failures is some kind of federal regulation or liability regime or federalization of the problem. typical of things like the environment. environment is a market failure. pollution is a problem -- everybody's problem but nobody's concerned, right? so we federalize response by having a large set of federal regulations, a very intrusive regime because of pollution is a horrible thing. you could imagine a regime like

that in the cyberspace domain but then you would run right into jay's problem, which is the internet has become something more than the common good of fresh air but also at the core of our current perceptions of freedom and liberty and democracy. free-speech happens there. a great list -- even the psychiatrist is there. that is actually a problem -- it is a wicked problem but a social problem that actually does not have a neat set of solutions. the answer to weaken problems, though, is not to give up. in my perspective, essentially what we have done so far. everybody is barreling ahead without any coordination. with their own set of solutions as best they can. an answer we will eventually wind up with if we do not change the trajectory of how we talk about cyber security is the cyber security solution that

arises from a weather gets there first and fastest and best. the first guy who actually comes up with the solution, that will be the dominant result. and it may not be the best results. what i perceive right now, for example, is the nsa and u.s. cyber command are by far and away the most significantly powerful and effective federal actors in combating cyber intrusions. they do have more expertise than, for example, the department of homeland security, and they certainly have a much more centralized set of authorities banned, say, -- and then, say, disbursed systems that operate on a private network. so we are rushing ahead with a system that is likely to result in a default of some form of the military or semi-military control or protection of vital critical resources without deciding whether that is the right answer.

it may actually be the right answer. unlike jay, i am probably willing to entertain the possibility if we put in place and of oversight activity, and of protecting of a tank ability, regulatory, independent ombudsman, we could empower federal action at that level. but we are rushing ahead without doing any of that. it took from 1998 when president clinton first proposed it until 2009, when president obama did it come it took 11 years to develop a centralized coordinated -- not directed, but centralize coordinated function in the white house. the white house coordinator is not the first amongst = who can actually nudge and forced the different agencies to work together, but rather he is the least amongst =, if you must know, who exist right now:

sufferance within the context of the other agencies. what we principles should be thinking about at least on the federal level, in my judgment, is enhancing the coordinating authority and structures of the white house to ensure that -- decisions on where we want to reside at our cyber security efforts in the federal level, in the military or dhs or other institutions, are made by somebody who connects lee direct response to that. right now budgets are disassociated. no unifying cyber security budget within the annual budget. it is one -- within each of the agencies. there is no person task which actually directing conformance with cyber policy. imagine the guy who gets to articulate policy but actually has no mechanism to ensure the policy is carried out. that right now is more or less -- i am being a little unfair to

howard schmidt who is very able, but in terms of his actual authority right now, that is where he is. he is none of authority over anybody who exist in that agency. my second point, what i will close on, we have talked and talked and talked about the need for a public-private partnership, one that will solve a lot of these problems by allowing interchange between private sector a disease outbreak 80% to 90% of the backbone that we use and the federal government which may or may not have enhanced ability to protect. what we have built so far simply doesn't work. the information advise the sharing councils are good in theory, the work somewhat in practice, particularly between and among its private sector actors but they have not yet to

become an effective tool for actually bringing private and public sector people together. one possibility that i think i will lay on the table and we can talk about either in the q&a or perhaps in a paper i will write for heritage or something like that, is to actually consider whether we need to formalize the concept of public as private partnerships. we have public and private corporations. some are in zeolite fannie mae and freddie mac. but others like millennium challenge account and american red cross have been very effective for a number of years. and maybe it's time to think about formalizing the structure, can call it the cyberspace assurance corp. -- it is copyrighted. you have to credit me if you use the name. cyberspace assurance corp., which would be a locus for public and private activities in

a way that is beyond what they do now. with that brief summary, i will turn it over to questions. we are on tv so if you have a question you must wait for the microphone. if you don't, no one will hear you. the floor is open for the next 15 minutes. this lady right here -- right behind you. please identify yourself as well so that people want to be no new york. >> joanne, university of wisconsin -- i teach i.t. there. i have a question about google and microsoft in terms of the search engines they control. the search engine data are especially of interest in cyber security. i of wondering what the appropriate relationship between the government's and these private organizations would be? again, we know of the tension between google and the chinese in terms of their relationships

and i am just wondering if you could project a future in which these private organizations would be able to run their search engines and still provide information when needed to the government for cyber security reasons? and i think that one is in your field. -- >> i think that one is in your field. >> search engine dated if you think about it is one of the most personal sources of inflation about you, if you use the internet regularly, that exists. your every interest and thought, but you want to read, things you want to buy, every passing fancy and interest and research thing and diseases you worried that you might have, people you might suspect our day, all types of things go into your search thing -- people it uses back are gay. that information should not leave the walls of the search engine companies and certainly they should not retain it as an longer an absolutely necessary.

which unfortunately they did. and it should not be given to the government unless the government has specific evidence that it is evidence of a crime and they come to a private company with a warrant. there should not be a routine relationship or prophylactic preventive use of that information all. -- at all. >> i think i would just say that we have the mechanism in this country for law enforcement getting information from companies, it is called a warrant. there is no reason that cannot work more or less the same for computer information. it happens all the time. when someone sends a threatening e-mail from a yahoo account and a secret service, fbi, would ever, thinks it is worth investigated the issue a warrant to yahoo and says who does this account along to. sometimes it reveals actual information and sometimes it does not. i do not -- think search engine data should be more protected

than that or less. i did not think the government should have a magic back door, but i also don't think necessarily that we would say it would be completely off some -- i think he is right, there probably needs to be better standards, possibly probably within the government how these companies retain and use personal and formation. right now it has been a free for all. maybe we are still letting the market work that out. maybe not. i think there is an interesting discussion there, but they're already in mechanisms like the computer assistance law enforcement act, or whenever, technical and legal frameworks to do wiretaps when actually they have a warrant to do so. you don't want to get in the way of that but i did not think you want to make it such an easily smooth path. that is the balance. >> i will take a different tack and probably in disagreement with my two colleagues. two points.

the first is, in my judgment, the increase in computer power that is attending data analysis and a decrease in cost of data storage are going to inevitably cross. we are running towards the world in which, whether we like it or not -- and they don't like it and i understand why -- whether we like it or not, the half life of secrets is plummeting dramatically. your ability or desire for legitimate personal reasons to keep profiles of you secret is eroding prospective of the irrespective of government actions. i do not need to be too apocalyptic but i think in and it is a lost cause to assume there would be any way in the world that we could prevent the development of profiles, whether based on search dado or travel data or whatever. i would add parenthetically that

even if we in america decide not to do it against americans, it does not mean the chinese will not do it against americans or the indians or what ever. unless there is a worldwide disarmament of analytical capacity, the game is over. the other point i would make is that one of the things we found in the last nine years is this metadata is powerful and effective as a counterterrorism tool. it has allowed us to engage in better targeting of scarce investigative and screening resources on people who are of greater risk. like most such album rhythmic assessments of risk, it is not a perfect system and also a system that can be dialed up down depending upon our sense of threat posture today. if we have a sense there is a greater threat in the next two weeks because we have hired chatter over here, we could

change in the screening mechanisms at our airports. when i was at dhs we very successfully used travel packages -- not google certification state of the same sort of meta data to target inspection resources that resulted in a number of successes of turning away potential terrorist activity. that is not to say that wholesale government access is without threat. indeed, it is not without threat. nobody would say otherwise. i actually think that's one of the very biggest missing pieces in the whole puzzle right now is that congress has provided for the existence of an independent oversight board that is supposed to figure out or help us figure out how some of the the rules are to be applied that will allow us to give the benefits of that data analysis without but threats that arises that jay

sees. it was legislated into existence in 2007 and there is a bipartisan agreement apparently not to staff it because neither president bush nor president obama has seen it fit to put people on it. i will cite that as one answer. next question. this lady down here and then that gentleman will be next. >> from japan. i want to ask you about cyber security bills by senators rockefeller and lieberman. critics saying it gives the president a kill switch. they say there is no kill switch. what do you think about that? what do you think about --

national security, how should you balance them? >> you had spoken about the bill so -- what you did not get to say. >> basic going -- basically we do not have the objection of the sort of very concept of some kind of emergency power, and some of these emergency powers may already exist in existing law. whitehouse what not say what it thinks its existing authorities are which conflicts the debate. it needs be careful about that with the checks and balances. a very narrowly tailored. nearly -- narrowly tailored in the way it is executed and that has to be a compelling interest. so we are working with members

of congress, our lobbyists from on that issue. in terms of the balance between freedom and security, my organization represents those americans who put freedom as their highest priority. and a lot of the larger threats, as opposed to the day today at tax and fraud, the larger threat are quite a theoretical in the cyber security realm and we do not want to interfere with the freedom unless we are very, very sure that there is a very, very real threat to security. >> i think it is really instructive to look at what happens with the -- virus. microsoft went into closed session and introduced export take restraining order motion against the federal judge in northern virginia, laying out in enormous detail the technical problems of that virus.

basically, look, 244 domain names hosting the command and control servers for the virus that tells them, here is how to upload the new version. and since all of the reports and a public you can go to the court sites and read them. microsoft almost sieglinde leaf forged this doctrine say you cannot -- if you let them know they will do that they would just update the routing tables and will not know where they are. what you need to do is tell verisign to shut down the main server entry for all of those names and that will decapitate the network. the judge agreed with them and they did it. i think that is a pretty good parallel with the kind of emergency powers that are reasonable. we identified a specific threat. this is why we have to take action to shut down this, as narrowly construed as possible. there is a huge body of american law on injunctions and narrowly

crafting them and doing it to minimize the impact to the public. that is a great template for emergency powers -- here is the threat, this is why we have to act now and this is the proof that it is the most narrow possible remedy and then you do it and then maybe the other side gets to sue you and say, that was done completely and properly and we want damages and we have been harmed. i thing microsoft had to put some reasonable amount of money into an escrow account for damages should they be used once it became public. i think it is a fascinating legal case. the technical background is really interesting. and i really urge people to just go and search for microsoft versus -- i forget who they were suing. i agree with what he said -- you have to narrowly constructed so it is not too easy to use. >> i think that is right.

justice goldberg, the conservative, saying the constitution is not a suicide pact. it cannot be our protections of first amendment and liberties are so strong that we can allow a virus to take -- take down the entire american electric grid in fear of restraining free speech. on the other hand, as jeff has outlined, the mechanisms by which we allow that need to be very carefully thought through. or we are going to run the risk of shutdown -- shutting down people who just disagree with us. one more question, from this gentleman here in the front. and then we will move on. >> thank you. students in cyber security at university of american university college. we know that most of the problems -- actually under cyberspace, related to lack of

proof -- most security implementation. is there a way the focus should be shifted to the security of those software, principally the software targeting the critical infrastructure? thank you. >> i think that is exactly right. a vast amount of the problem is insecure software. it is badly designed software. software written by people who did not take security into account, for budget reasons, trainee -- training and adequate research, and probably most important, market reasons. it does not paid to spend the extra time building security into your system. it is a bad economic decision for any company to make these days. partly what we need to do is figure out how to jigger the

market so it is a good economic decision. if wheat increase -- if we increase the insecure software we will make less money and our stock will go down. but there is always going to be software vulnerabilities. o'reilly has a new book out called "inside hacking." the current generation of threats -- it is so subtle, so clever. as long as people are running computers that have 50 pieces of software on it and they are using the latest plug on top of this release of windows, there is going to be a vulnerability. there is a huge incentive to figure out the mobility and and in the fight it and use it. we should definitely do more research. there is a lot we can do to make software more secure, teach it so people write better software, but it will not solve the problem -- it may move around a little bit. because there is always going to

the vulnerability. >> a very important point, the fact that the software bugs are such a huge part of the problem. we just don't know how to write complicated million-line programs without bugs. we probably never will. one of the best solutions to that is open this. you open up the codes so that coders over the world can see it and can exchange and the nation about the law vulnerability is the seat did open source software is some of the most secure there is. the idea that we need to put the military in control of domestic cyber security or that we need to create a national identity system for the internet, those are attacking the wrong problems in many ways. in fact, there are going in just the wrong direction, putting in more secrecy into the system. >> with that, i want to ask you to join me in thanking the first

panel for a very enlightening presentation. [applause] we are going to do a quick change -- do not moved out of your seats because of the time they get off and they get on, i need the guys to come up and help me with herb's -- you have to sit next to me because this is the computer. . [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> middle east peace talks began thursday with israeli and palestinian leaders. president obama is hosting the talks at the state department read the washington institute for near east policy will offer a preview this afternoon starting at 3:00 eastern. president obama speech to the nation tonight marking the formal end of the u.s. combat mission in iraq. we will have live coverage of his remarks from the oval office. that starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern followed by your phone calls and reaction.

following that, house republican leader john behner is speaking at the republican convention and we will show his remarks after the president's speech. >> line our conversation on the american revolution, the making of the conversation and the importance of historical study sunday. that is life for three hours with your calls, e-mails, and treats at noon. on c-span 2. >> obama administration released a report last week saying that the corporate tax system is flawed that needs to be changed. this morning, "washington journal" talk with a portrait every official about that report. journal" continues. host: eugene steuerle, let me read in this headline. moe berg-led economic panel pushes lawmakers to simplify the tax code -- volcker-led economic

panel. a group that was looking at taxes. 7.6 million hours are spent doing taxes and 140 billion a year to comply with the tax code. since 1986 when congress and the administration overhauled the tax code, the code has been changed 15,000 times. you were part of the discussion in 1984 and in 1985 leading up to the 1986 reform. what does it mean it has been changed 15,000 times for the work that you did back then? guest: it means we have not simplified, that is for sure. it also means taxpayers are constantly subjects to more and more uncertainty, not just respect to what is happening in the past but uncertain as to what will happen in the future. it makes planning heart, it makes the cost of compliance hard. it is actually a hard tax code

to enforce. if you are sitting at the irs and an agent, and you are not sure what is coming. it has created difficulties. it is clearly not the way we want to operate. host: this advisory panel -- let me show our viewers the actual report. the president's economic recovery advisory board, they put this out at friday at 2:00 p.m. and it just includes options. they are not making actual recommendations. first and foremost in this report is simplification. it and they are looking at simplifying the tax code, not only for families but children as well. can you talk to us about what that includes, what sort of options there are? guest: the commission did not take a stand really on much of an anything, which is an issue we should probably discuss. none of the options they put forward make sense. there are quite a few provisions

if you have children, dependent exemption, a child credit, earned income job credit, these can be combined into a more simplified structure. things like exit -- education subsidies, of which there are more than a dozen. they are convinced -- so confusing that a significant of percent of people who are eligible not comply. we could combine these into one or two type provisions. there are all sorts of capital gains tax rates that are confusing. special exemptions for different groups, different income levels, different rates. it is just an extremely complicated set of issues. there are a lot of options where they took sort of combination of proposals aimed at the same target and they said we could simplify that quite a bit. host: how easy is it to simplify the tax code? guest: it is very hard. the reason is really more political than economic. it is not that it is hard to know that if you have a dozen

provisions applying to one thing that it is confusing and you can combine into one or two. what is hard is the politics of winners and it loses. let us take a simple case. you pay 30% tax rate and i pay 10% and let us suppose for all of the reasons, we basically had equal income, equal needs, equal number of children but yet i am paying a much different rate than you. if we say, let us forget about the 30% and a 10% rate and let us give us both the 20% and one of us will be a loser, one will be the winner and the loser protests quite mightily. not only did the losers' protest in some sense more than the winners but now that you have the system, remember, you have to get the majority of the house, majority of the senate and the president to go along. you almost got to get a super majority to reform anything in our current system, particularly on taxes. host: of the debate coming up in

september from what we are hearing for capitol hill will be whether or not to extend bush cut its -- does the advisory panel looked at that in its report? no, no they don't. in fact, the panel basically proceeded with a lot of shackles. essentially, the president asked them only to examine simplification. he said he did not want to have any tax increases on families making less than $250,000 a year. in some sense they were highly restricted in what they were able to examine. so, you have this debate on simplification going on over here, if you want, and meanwhile, the gigantic budget debate, which includes taxes, of course, is what the next couple of years will be spending about $30,000 per household and collecting about 20,000 in taxes. it is a huge gap.

and we all know that we have to do something about that gap. so we have a separate commission. host: the debt commission. it guest: the debt commission, dealing with that issue. how to mix the two is just an issue this commission did not address. host: what do you make of this advisory panel putting out this report on a friday at 2:00 p.m. in august, no cameras, and it was the report and the discussion, the vote on it was a made available via an audio stream, but no cameras, would you make of that? guest: the commission has some decent proposals in here. but it really did not go very far. it did not examine many issues. it is really not a very comprehensive report. quite honestly i think the commission members felt like there commission really did not have a lot of push behind them, and so i think in some ways it did not put in a lot of effort

that you might want. you can even tell that a little bit if you know the people in town at treasury and other places that worked on the report, you see them missing from the acknowledgments or just very sharp right up on real complex issues. basically i think the commission did its minimal job. but did not do a lot more. host: we are showing the list of the board members. this was -- the group was run by austin -- staff director and chief economist there. what do you make of the list of the people, the names? what should you was no? >> the commission members >> the commission members essentially are those individuals that are part of the economic panel the press and put together during the campaign, for the most part. very few of them are actually tax experts and even the tax experts -- were not experts in

the details of how you run a pension system or how children's provisions are applied for what are the complications within the irs. it is the type of panel you might gather if you think you want to get consensus on really making some steps forward. but again, they were not asked to deal with major budget issues. they were not asked to make proposals. the pros and cons, and manages and disadvantages are a little bit -- host: a little bit what? guest: almost bawling. you feel like you want something but it is not there. my colleague had a great line on this. he wrote that he felt like he went into his car and turned on his gps system and he was trying to go somewhere and said, you could take a left at the next week but, maybe not. you might go four more blocks, take the right, another left, and another left, but there is a scenic route if you want to go

this third way. so at the end of the day it did not really give people a lot of guidance. host: let us go to phone calls. winthrop, maine. helen on the democratic line. caller: first-time caller. thinking about hot-button issues and topics that are sort of the third rail. one thing that really irks me is about lack of discussion about tax exempt properties, specifically of religious institutions. for example, i live and a small town. we have several churches. they are great. but i pay property taxes, they don't. when we get to mega churches, principally out and the west, with hundreds of thousands of parishioners, it seems that these people should also -- these churches should be paying their fair share of taxes. the police, fire protection, those types of things. and also i may not be correct

but i understand that the housing that is provided usually free to the religious are also tax exempt. as are their pensions, health insurance, and other salary- related things. i would like your guests to comment on that, please. guest: let me make one minor correction, the pensions and other items typically of religious organizations and non- profit, they get about the same treatment as, say, workers and the private sector and the government sector. but you are right about the real-estate. real-estate in many jurisdictions receives a property-tax exemption. this is a major debate within those jurisdictions. it is not, for the most part, a federal issue, at least in terms of property tax exemption. it tends to be a state and local issue. and if you are interested in this subject further there is a writer on it by the name of evelyn brodie, sometimes colleague of mine, and i would

be glad offline if you want to send me a note, i would be glad to refer you to that literature. host: if people want to find out what you are writing about are talking about, where should you go? go? guest: www. govwedeserve.org, based on a book i co-wrote -- governmentwedeserve.org. host: justin, independent line. caller: i wanted to comment about the to eat -- to london and $50 tax hike, only putting back on the wealthy -- $250,000 tax guide, only putting on the wealthy. looking at 10 or 20 years down the road, inflation is going to take off and anyone making say $100,000 or $150,000 a day will be consumed by the $250,000 tax

bill down the road. i did not think that is hard to argue with -- just after look at the example of the amt to look at. i hope folks will listen up and remember that the politicians are not all that concerned always about what is good for us. they are just concerned about what is good for washington. thank you for listening. have a great day. guest: the architect of a correct -- the alternative minimum tax set up, if you did not pay regular taxi and at play -- buying alternative minimum tax, it ended up hitting more people, it is not indexed with inflation so more people are subject to it over time. but congress tends to offset some of the increases, one step at a time, one year at a time, tries to defer those from taking place. you are right, more people would become subject to the attacks all the time if it is not indexed for inflation or real growth.

the other side of this is a that he essentially since about 1987 we have had a government, both sides, democrats and republicans, who basically decide that they cannot ask the public to pay for anything so we have had a series of tax cuts and spending increases that we have not paid for. so, we are in this box, as we mentioned earlier, of having spending even for the next couple of years of 30,000 a year, tax collection of 20,000. we do not even get out of this box when the recession ends. that means people will be asked to give up something. either asked to pay more taxes or asked to cut some of their spending. and that is a tough, tough road for politicians. and it is not entirely their fault. it is sometimes us, the public, or week, the public, who basically tell -- if you vote for any thing -- but they will

be voted out of office. they are scared to tackle these issues. it is actually reflected in this report. host: how so? guest: the president and the white house could have said we really want to be able to make some of the tough choices, we want to deal with, say, some of the tough budget issues -- we want simplification. we know we will identify and losers. but in identifying losers' i think we will make a better and think we will make a better and more efficient tax code. basically the commission was held off from making those types of choices. if a commission cannot make it, which is independent and does not have to worry about being voted into office, why do we expect those being voted into office will meet tougher decisions? guest: go back to 1984 and 1985, leading up to the 1986 tax reform bill. what was the drive than to overhaul the tax code and what were the lessons learned? guest: several drives.

there were a number of major problems people finally decided to have to tackle. tax shelters were growing as mad. that is a slightly different tax shelter but they were growing quite profusely. i arrest was claiming it could not administer -- administer the system. and we also had a president interested in lowering rates and was convinced -- not when he ran for president but as he sat in the oval office -- that he would be willing to exchange floor rates for a broader tax base. also in respect of the budget, there were a lot of budget issues. we started having an admit such as 1982 and 1984 deficit reduction act that did cut spending and raise taxes somewhat. we had social security reform that did some of the same. we had some movement on the deficit at the same time that we undertook this tax reform. we also had at that time i think some real leadership on both sides of the aisle. i still remember in tax reform,

president reagan getting together with dan rostenkowski, then a very powerful chair of the ways and means committee and they agreed if we are going to work on this together, i will not criticize you if you do things i did not agree with and you did not criticize me -- that is in a package we will both agree on. you had a leadership there and leadership in a number of committees in congress. senator howard bacon, dementia -- leaving out of their important -- bob dole, even on the republican side. host: senator domenichi did say the tax cuts add to the deficit. do you agree? guest: if you want to give both sides, tax cuts and to the deficit, so the spending increases? since 1997, basically done everything on the deficit increasing side. we increased the sense cent -- spending but did not tell the public will have to pay.

so we did not pay for that. we did not pay for entitlement increases. the case can be made that we should incorporate drugs into medicare. then we had big, domestic spending increases as well. we went through a long period where we did not pay for the tax cuts. if all you do is reduce taxes temporarily, somebody has to make up for it later on. it is a tax cut for you and me, but we are playing down on our children and our future. we decided we wanted to keep taxes low and raise spending. that is fine, if you are willing to pay for that long run, but

let's be honest. host: president obama is now saying that now is the time to raise the taxes on those making a certain amount, to bring down the deficit. guest: basically, the people making over $202,000 is not a very large group. -- $250,000 is not a very large group. host: is that a start? guest: yes, but you can only come back to them so many times. also, it is giving a hint that we can get whatever we want from government. all we have to do is tax the rich. that is not true. the middle class gets most of the benefits from the

government, but also must pay for it. that is what politicians are afraid to tackle. host: walker, indiana. james. caller: i was hoping that this would be a segment on the tax code, not allow the love of taxation. if you say that politicians are the problem, then they should the problem, then they should not be able to write the tax code. my tax code does not have any audits, no deadlines. there is a bill in congress right now, that unfortunately, you will not have an opponent on. maybe they are afraid of taking power away. could you explain the fair tax? if you cannot, you certainly have no business being on the

program today. it would cost hardly anything to implement. poor people could get some necessities back. even the rich would love this tax cut. it takes the power out of the hands of washington and back into the hands of the people. i believe this is house bill 25. guest: as you indicate, this is a tax that attempts to collect taxes on retail sales. the complication with most examination of the fair tax is the rates that proponents have argued for do not raise in the revenue streams. a lot of those people want a lower level of taxation. we can debate whether you can do that through a fair tax or just

lowering rates through the current system. either way, you have to cut spending. if you do not raise enough revenues, taxes tend to be high. that is, in part, because a lot of the other provisions cannot apply well to services. state and local governments have a difficult time taxing services. most of our taxes are on goods. your legal services, medical services, which are growing quite large, tend not to pay the retail sales tax. one of the problems with this tax is whether or not proponents are willing to raise it high enough to raise the streams of revenue. host: i would encourage james to

go to our c-span video library and type in the words "feared attacks." we have discussed the issue many times. -- "fair tax." next phone call. caller: i believe in the b.a. t tax -- vat tax. i do not know why we have such a complicated tax code. steve forbes is proposing a more simple idea. the bush tax breaks for the wealthier earning over $250,000 should expire. this trickle down from the rich is a payment. it is not a tax rate, it just goes back to the tax rate.

trickle down does not work. the politics trump's common sense. we are taxing at a rate of 17% gdp, spending 24% gdp. we need to tax at 19.5% gdp to balance the budget. illegals do not pay taxes. if companies did not provide if companies did not provide compensation for undocumented workers -- host: the we get your point. let's get to the figures, taxing at 19.5% gdp. guest: those numbers are about right, but i think the spending ais higher now. the average tax rate for several

decades has been about 18.5%. getting to the budget ton of things, we have all of this growth in health and other programs that is pushing tax rates into the future far beyond what we may be able to do with. the issue of the day flat tax. the notion is we could provide a simplified tax base, few exceptions, deductions, exclusions, credits, but those are separate issues. we can get rid of a lot of those, a lot of tax breaks, whether you convert to a tax cuts -- flat tax or stay with the current system. another complication i should mention is most of the flat taxes that are proposed are really consumption taxes, the exempt to configure and amounts

of capital income from taxation as well. you do not have to do that to go to a flat tax, but that is a part of the component. there is the issue of whether you want exempt capital income, versus taxmmerses --ve structure. for instance, let's say you do not want to tax the poor. well, most flat taxes have an exemption for that. robert hall admitted that it was not really a flat tax. later on in testimony, he said he was not really sure that he cared that we had an absolutely

flat rate. we can debate on how progressive you want a system to be depending on where you want rates to be. host: martin feldstein had this to write in the "wall street journal" in july -- what is he talking about when he refers to tax expenditures? huh guest: within the tax code we have a lot of these tax breaks, but many of them look like spending programs. we have in the heart of housing and urban development. some are for raising our children. we have tax breaks for commerce. tax breaks in almost every area of the budget. in some areas, the tax breaks

are more important than what goes on on the spending side. it earned income tax credit is bigger than what we typically call welfare, temporary assistance for needy families. we have a lot of spending items in the tax code. what martin feldstein is suggesting is we could go a long way to reducing the debt without increased tax rates. it should appeal to people who want to reduce spending as well as to those who want to have a simplified tax code. one way to do that is to get rid of some of these tax breaks i would say there is a strong liberal consensus to reducing

tax expenditures as something that we should do. i testified before the budget commission on this very item. host: is that the debt commission? you testified before them about these issues. guest: tax expenditures, yes.

guest: again, it is like cutting its spending program. the tax program raised the issue of all of these expenditures, although they did not want to address the budget issues. there are basically talking about combining them. host: are you hearing from folks serving on the commission and that is where there could be consensus, likely to be topping their report? guest: i do not want to speak for the commission, in terms of where they will grow. a one or two of the members have said that we need to be looking at tax expenditures. host: next phone call. caller: we could take care of this so a ninth grader could understand in but we do not want understand in but we do not want to put h&r block out of

business. you could have been a system set up on the low bonded rate. it but stop government from having to pay for it itself. this person should get a deferment on his taxes. host: let me ask you, do you have deductions on your tax form every year? caller: i am 80 years old. i do not have to worry too much about taxes. host: one way the report talks about simplifying the tax code, simplification of the process, at least, if you do not deduct

anything, the irs sends you a form already filled out with how much you go, how much you paid. how much would that reduce the cost of collecting taxes, why do some people look at that as a good idea? good idea? guest: one of the costs we see directly into the cost of filling of the tax forms. i have to say, a lot of the administrative costs to the tax system are not just born pulling up the tax system. up the tax system. it has to do with record- keeping, all of the deductions, credits that we can take. if you want a simplified form, one way to get there would be to reduce the number of options we have. that is probably the major simplification. the next question of can you go

further and have the irs return the integration -- the information already filled out? in truth, a lot of the statements that we get from the bank are not right. so if the irs is filling up our form based on incorrect information and send it to us and then there is the question of what obligation we have to correct it, or suppose they did not have the information. i do not know about you, but i often get al lot of 1099 forms late. late. there are questions about how much the irs can do in providing this for us. in terms of wages, w-2 is pretty accurate, so maybe part of it

could be done by the irs. if all you are going to fill out is your wages -- host: peter in the origin. caller: thank you for taking my call i have a question about the mortgage interest deduction. by senator, -- my senator has a bill that would simplify -- 3018 -- would simplify the tax code. we come to find out this mortgage interest deduction represents $600 billion every four years, and in addition, 70% of that goes to people with

incomes over $200,000. so the question is, how can we provide affordable housing to folks that make less? home ownership is critical. thank you. thank you. guest: certainly, senators wieden and gregg have been pushing for this tech expenditures we have been talking about. in terms of the expenditure, you are right, it is a provision that favors middle and upper income people and excludes lower income people, mainly because they do not itemize their returns. i do not want to say that they do not get the benefit from the tax code, but not from this. we encourage not only home

ownership but ownership of large homes through the tax code, but only if you have higher incomes. peter was exactly right, the cost is about $150 billion a year for the exclusions and deductions for housing. the question is whether we can reallocate this money a little bit more evenly across the income distribution. there are some that would argue that, yes, we could. particularly for second homes or very large rooms beyond what one needs to have a decent house. host: danny on the republican line. good morning. caller: i am a republican but i am for the terror attacks, 100%. am for the terror attacks, 100%. i am pretty well schooled on

this, and you aren't planning on the fears of a lot of people. when that does is encourage us, who know better, to fight harder for the fair tax. unsure your just would agree -- i am sure your just would agree. every project under the unfair tax would be less than it costs under the progressive tax. there is a 22% government tax build into everything that is purchased on the shelves. on top of that is the state tax. host: mr. steuerle, give us your thoughts, and then we will come back to you. guest: the unfair tax, we would

tax consumption and not capital income. you are actually correct in saying that somebody has to bear the burden of a tax. if you talk about who would pay the retail sales tax, who would not pay, somebody has to pay no matter what. in aggregate. -- in aggregate, we will pay the same, regardless of the tax system we may want a fair system, but the level of spending will be compare well. you are correct, somebody is going to pay this tax one way or another and it is built into the cost of what we buy, what we make on our wages. host: are you still there?

what do you think? what do you think? caller: he just repeated what i said. under the fair tax, you have to understand there is no such thing as a gross take home. you take home the gross amount of your track. that would be the greatest stimulus. right now, people have $600 the week extra in their paychecks to spend. that is a stimulus. host: an argument against that? guest: because we would see the thaksin directly, we would have more of a tendency to save more. also this notion that we would have greater freedom, you could argue the same thing would have

been with the a value added tax, other consumption taxes. in the people with more money on net, it is not clear -- if i make $100 and i pay $20 in income tax, it may not be different if i spend the $100. on that, along with bill have $80. the argument for that tax is, at least i made the choice to pay that tax. host: panama city, florida. independent line. caller: why is 50% of the nation paying no income tax, is that fair? guest: hope the numbers on those that do not pay taxes come from our tax policy center. we tried to provide data that

can be used by everybody. we try to provide a fair presentation of the facts. some of that number, it can be misleading. some of that goes back to the fact that we have exempted a lot of people in the recession. another aspect of it is, a very large number of people who do not end up paying taxes, increasingly, these are people who are elderly. then we have an earned income tax credit, another one of these cut expenditures, so have you calculate income tax credit? if we would count all spending against taxes, more people would get more in benefits from the

government mandate pay in taxes. that is the type of system we have. i think you need to be a little bit careful with the number. and if you want to raise the taxes on the people not paying tax, it might be more efficient to just cut the spending that they have and clean their taxes floor, which then becomes more revenue that you can spend. host: according to reports about this tax panel advisory option, and look at tax avoidance from small businesses. it sounds like there is a substantial chunk of small businesses. guest: in some ways, the united states is better off in some ways. the little-known fact about the debt crisis in greece is that a number of greeks do not pay a tax.

they have an even larger number of small business. when it comes to something like our wages, they want to deduct the paint -- and wages they pay you. they want an accurate report on what they are doing, so then they file a return with the irs that said you got the wages, and they withheld taxes from you. then we go to items like interest and dividend. that part of the system had become much more accurate. when it comes to small business, me doing a bit of work on the side. aybe i'm babysit or have grocery store. i might be the only person keeping the books. often, there is no one of to track the income involved.

it is much harder to collect taxes from small businesses, especially income taxes. guest: 1 proposal is requiring small businesses to maintain separate bank accounts from their owner's personal accounts. banks would then be able to report receipts and expenses each year. thomas in georgia. republican line. caller: you want to reform the tax code and everything, but what needs to be reformed is the wasteful spending in government. we are collecting plenty of taxes, and that is what needs to be brought under control. anything to do with paul volcker, he is advocating world government. i think he would undermine our tax code. guest: i happen to be a fan of

paul volcker, but skipping that part, you are accurate, you need to adjust taxes. we have so much spending of the tax code -- by the way, we have a lot of taxes on the spending side as well. but when you are dealing with corporate government, you have to cut through both the taxes and spending. and spending. host: in "the usa toda "usa toda-

she makes the point did she hold onto her in disney stock and then handed off to her heirs when she dies, that would not be taxed. guest: the way to preserve the it earned income is to have the crude gains. typically, for the wealthy -- at least some generation must aving.as s they probably did not pay much of an income tax for a majority of their life. warren buffett made a comment once that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary did. if he took into account that most of his income is a crude, in terms of stock value, his tax

rate is much lower. so the state taxes often considered a substitute for this. eventually goes after some of the same income. if you think that is not fair for people who have paid a direct income tax, a way to deal with that would be to do >> we are leaving "washington journal" to go to an update on the gulf recovery effort. >> it is also uplifting to see the progress we have made out there. while i am under no illusion that we are are four ways to restore the marshes for more they were previously, the amount of effort that is going on, local partnerships that have been created, are truly heartwarming. , to give you a couple of updates. i want to tell you where we are offshore, make a couple

observations about what is happening at the marshes, and then i would be happy to take your questions. >> excuse me, i am a little horse today. thank you for coming down to four pikeman's parish. i especially want to be here today to talk about the progress we have made. i have said from day one, until we were all sitting at the table, pulling in the same direction, we were not going to win. i thank admiral thad allen. even though we had our differences early on on getting our assets out there, today, we are getting the job done. the assets that we need will be here through a hurricane season. the fact that they have realized the importance of that realizes a great -- means a great deal to us. without the help of the

government, and we would not have boats out there that have been instrumental in saving hundreds of thousands of lives of wildlife. we have lost a few small battles in the market early on, but today we are doing the best we can as a team. all want to thank pp. over the last 30 days you have not seen me very much. we have been working through the issues and have been making progress. i am proud to say that we are rebuilding, thanks to bp, the president, and thad allen saw them they would stop the oil. that is historical for our parish and coastline, to have those islands back. today is a good day. we are on the same team, we are moving forward, and we will see this through until our marshes

are cleaned up and everybody is back to work. thank you for your commitment and for your support. >> let me give you a couple of updates and then we are happy to answer questions. i spent yesterday on the oil platforms near the wellsite. i visited development driller 3, a relief well. i visited 2-4000, the lift that will do with the blowout preventer. we will be replacing the capp of the blowout preventer which is currently on development driller 2. we were prepared to start that removal flight that weekend and yesterday. we ran into some weather that has put on hold. let me explain why the weather is important. the q-4000, and the lifting tool

that will lift in the blowout preventer to the capping stack, that has to be lifted by the q- 4000. when they do that, the weight of the blowout preventer and the pipe that we are using is 1 million pounds. it will be suspended below the q-4000 at 5,000 feet of depth. there are a couple of things we are concerned about. you can imagine a ship moving up and down with the waves coming through. when it is going up, the amount of dynamic loading and that is put on the plight -- pipe is on the block printer. -- allow printer.

you have two forces acting upon this. tensile strength required to lift 1 million pounds and the amount of play of the blowout preventer. there is a computer modeling that has been done that says you cannot do it above this tight because of the load will be too great. we are in that when the right now. we are continuously discussing with me urologists to try to get a weather window. the weather forecast we have right now is about five days. we're pretty confident in the next few days. we do not know when we will be free. if we can get to it sooner, we will do that. it appears the earliest we can get to it, assuming something happens quicker, would be closer to the weekend.

the discover enterprise will remove the capping stack that was placed on the well on the 15th of july. once that has been removed, and the q-4000 will remove the blowout preventer. then we will place the new printer on. once it is attached, it will need to be pressure tested, cycled with fluids, and once we are prepared and understand the blowout preventer is ready, it will take us approximately 96 hours to complete the relief well and intercept the analyst. once that is done, we anticipate it will be pressurized. if there is any problem at the top of the well, we know the new blowout preventer can withstand that. at that point, we will be prepared to pump cement and there and close off the well.

it is our goal to do this as fast as possible. finishing this well with the bottom kill truly mean the end of the threat. we have the well shut in since the fifth, and we have had no will escaping, which is good, but we need to make every precaution to make sure that this well is done. once we have plugged and abandoned and, i will no longer be heading this process. my directions to the people of the process has been to follow the directions fallen -- bp has been to follow the directions provided by our teams. representatives on the rings themselves from agencies involved, the department of justice, fbi, and others, who

all continue to be involved. i was looking at the recovery operations today. there has been significant progress since my last visit. an extraordinary amount of work to get oil out of the marshes. there is still work to be done. we are at the point right now where we can bring the boom back in, start recovering from the recovering, if you will. we are going to do this until the marshes are clean come into the standards which are acceptable, and we will continue to work with various parishes in the louisiana until that is done. we will be working with state officials to finalize our transition plans, as we move forward. i think we are at a good point right now. we are in agreement on how we want to move forward. it is my great honor to be here today. [no audio] there is some novel technology

that has been deployed, whether it is the rigs or enough floating hotels. we will continue to take these lessons learned. with that, i will take any questions. >> [inaudible] >> our forecasts are five days out. [no audio] we are in a rolling five-day window. the earliest possible could be the weekend but i would caution everybody, this is conditions- based. i was out there yesterday and there were 5-but seas. by the time i have left, it had increased quite a bit. it is getting pretty rough out there. you can imagine what kind of movement that would cost to the

mechanism we are using to lift the blog printer. >> [inaudible] >> we needed down closer to four. >> [inaudible] i wonder what the symbolism is today, if there is any greater symbolism? >> i do not think anybody would down when you have an event like this, -- you have to remember i was here in 2005. i came in here directed by secretary chertoff and president bush to begin addressing the response in new orleans. any time things happen like this to a community, they are put under stress. i would say anguish is not a bad word. their way of life is at stake, economic impacts.

people do not know what will happen on a day-to-day basis. these are times when everybody is severely stressed. what i have focused on is unity of the effort. it takes everybody understanding with the goal is, agreed upon principles of values, and our discussion today indicate we agree on the objectives and values that we are doing together here. in the end, once you work through the startup problems, it is creating that unity of effort that will get the job done. we are going to get the job done. >> has there been any release of oil at the sidte [inaudible] host: >> -- >> there were some leakages early on of hydrocarbons related to the oil blowout preventer.

we washed out site every day. we do seismic readings, temperature readings, vibration readings. there have been no omni's -- anomalies. >> how fast is the process, the blowout preventer, how long will that take? >> we have to remove the capping stack, and then we are going to put the blunt printeron. [no audio] maybe 48 hours. i was on the q-4000 yesterday and i thought i could throw a rock and had been discovered enterprise. it is a very large vessel. this all has to be orchestrated. you want to do it quickly because you do not want the oil uncovered any longer than

you need to, although it has been cemented. >> fishermen are starting to go back to work. i believed bp is reducing their presence of their. >> we are hoping to get the seed for a process stand out. i eat it every night, it is safe. but to get the comfort level, this is to happen quickly. we are working with the government to make that happen. hopefully, the compensation package that kenneth feinberg is working on will bridge the gap of people coming off of the vessels of opportunity, and they would get that compensation in a timely manner to make them whole. we're working closely with that group as well to make sure that happens. >> university researchers have talked about oil suspended beneath the surface, concern about where that can go.

is that a concern for you, as any new oil washed up in any part of the gulf in the past month? >> we still have been active surveillance program going on. it has been a long time since we have seen oil on the surface of the water. some sheening that we have seen is actually oil that is on the beach and coming back out. we are also seeing some tar balls. [no audio] to a large extent, the oil we are dealing with right now has come ashore or is in the form of tar balls or patties being worked in, as you would with driftwood. the problem with submerged oil is you do not know what you do not know. we are trying to gather

information. noaa has been extraordinary in the [no audio] they have been doing in the water column. it is all good information. you can make different assumptions on where the oil went, whether or not you want to count the oil that was produced from the well head. i charged the commander to come up with a submerged oil testing program that brings together all the resources of state and federal governments have to have had on reach meetings this week. we hope to release a plan to show you where we are going to go near-term and long-term testing hydrocarbons in the water. it appears the presence of hydrocarbons are at a small micron level. we have not been able to identify any large masses of

oil. we continue to look because we need do diligence. the fate of that submerged oil is ultimately linked to the state of the gulf. >> tar balls, patties, are they becoming less frequent? >> i would say so. by next spring we could be grooming and beaches and find oil in the sand, and we need to be prepared for that. that is what the plan does with, resources that would have to do with that. >> [no audio] has to dig down in grand isle. >> we know there is probably oil under the stand that we will -- sand that we will have to clean up. we are committed to doing that. no more questions? >> you mentioned bring in

equipment back in. is there a danger of leaving them out there for too long [no audio] >> you want to have been decontaminated. if there is no oil around and there is a boom around, it could harm wildlife nearby, so it can stay, but it needs to be cleaned. where it is not needed, it needs come in and be decontaminated. [no audio] >> we have had been working as a team to make sure -- like some of the critical public and the islands -- we have kept some of them boomed off so that they

do not reinvest the island. those critical areas we will continue to watch. that is why it is important we have worked out this plan to get us through hurricane season. these thunderstorms, as we see every afternoon, have the ability to kick up some of that oil. being able to be out there to pick it up immediately is critical to the wildlife and to other areas that have already been cleaned. >> thank you very much. >> president obama speaks to the nation tonight to mark the formal end of u.s. combat missions in iraq. live coverage of those remarks from the oval office beginning at 8:00 eastern, followed by your phone calls in reaction to

the speech. after that, john boehner will be speaking today at the american legion national convention. we will show you his remarks after the president. >> science and technology week continues on the "book tv" prime time. isaac newton, the architect of the marne world -- modern world. historian walter isaacson documents the life of albert einstein, whose theories changed conventional thinking. >> china is now the number two economic power in the world. this morning, "washington journal" talk about that with a former undersecretary for trade. served as

the undersecretary for trade at the commerce department. he is here to talk about china's power. i want to talk about "the financial times" -- obama right to be hard on china. guest: i thinkhere are a lot of similarities between the sh and obama approach. it should not surprise us. same countries involved. we are not looking for a radical shift. host: why not? guest: most of the trade is unfolding positively, through regular channels, going through customs, both sides are happy. there are problems, market

access issues, currency problems, but 90% of bilateral trade is normal as u.s.-cana trade. it is not a turnaround, not a house on fire that you have to putut, but there are some problems. problems. host: long time and yours have seen the likes of senator schumer and others holding press conferences talking about their currency, threatening that the congress will do something about it but there has not been legislation passed. guest: i do not think we have political consensus to use trade barriers as a tool to do with the balanc people here can find it frustrating, some are put in a position more they have to compete unfairly, but others benefit enormously from the fact that chinese products are

subsidized. it is helpful to some pple in certain industries as well. certain industries as well. i think in the obama administration, they believe it is undervalued and is definitely harmful. as far as what can be done to encourage the chinese to move along is another question. interestingly, they have been doing more -- they had done more under president bush. under president bush. however, to defend president obama, they said that the bad economic conditions are preventing them from doing anything. host: you currently reside in china. this is "the wall street

this is "the wall street journal" editorial -- and can you explain that in english for us? english for us? guest: all the imports in the u.s. are subject to the anti- dumping standards. if we determine a chinese company is selling at a less than market rate, predatory pricing, the u.s. is allowed to attach a tariff to the export. if we determine in manufacturer is trying to undercut dumping, so to speak, we will have

tariffs that come intolay. and come down to methodology. how do you measure the dumping? you have to price different items. how do you do that in a market economy? maybe it anuse does not cost the same. in france, it would be pretty easy. you can add of the cost of each item. the cost of the steel is not fairly priced. these proposals were mythological points that were easier for the u.s.. i agree with the central thrust, you are not going to win offense by tightening up your defense. we are here to get expts up and compete around the world, that is great, but making it tougher for people to export to us has nothing to do with our

exports. host: what do you do in hong kong? guest: have worked mainly with u.s. companies and china, india, southeast asia. helping u.s. companies who are trying to succeed in the chinese market with a brand strategy. government relations is our first specialty. right now, the world's fair is going on in shanghai. it is the largest world's fair in history. in history. this is made up of pretty mh every country telling their own story. i am working at the u.s. building, telling our story to visitors. host: how much it is the u.s. spending on the pavilion? guest: we are the only country

in the world where the the volume is entirely privately funded. the cost of the construction, 90, 46 months, is about $60 million, entirely donated by individuals, corporations, universities, american corporations. host: who is visiting, is this largely a world's fair for the chinese? guest: it is interesting the way you describe it. the majority of people are chinese. tourism is picking up. you go to china to see china. you do not want to see the italian pavilion. you want to see the forbidden city, the head in the house. you want to understand china. host: so what are they trying to accomplish?

guest: more to reach the chinese people. soft diplomacy. let's engage but population, help the average man on the street understand wh makes america work, what makes america successful, their point of view. that way, when you come to issues, you have a reference of understanding. host: next phone call. clinton township. caller: i have always heard there were substandard wages for workers there. i have even heard about slave labor. you talk about the free market, that is state-run capitalism. that is certainly not on equal balance with us. when you say both sides are happy, you do not mention that

the environment is dying because there are no environmental controls. that is e of the reason why 9 indust went over there -- one industry went over there, to skirt all of these lost. guest: let me clarify for you. i think is accurate to say that 90% of the bilateral trade between the two countries take place in normal, legal action. it is a separate topic altogether, and i agree with your point about the fact that china is a developing country. people there are paid less than in the u.s., there are certainly a range of activities going on, but within bilateral trade point itself, it is fair to say 90% of trade takes place in a normal

fashion. when you go to a poor country, it is not surprising if they are paid less. they are being paid more now than at any time in modern history, so their wages are going up, but there are still far behind u.s. in terms of wage rates. host: tweet from a viwewer -- guest: both countries have a lot to gain by collaborating and should books for -- ok for. of agreement, not pois of friction. there are differences of trade, but we need to find cooperation. host: in the "new york times" --

what is happening with china's economy that the government can replace the top executives? gues this is somewhat related to the question from michigan. they have a significant state sector. gdp in total is probably not much different from the u.s. but they have operating companies. steel mills, chemical mills that are state-owned. normally, we do not have that. they have a huge challenge in china with their management class, with their human capital. they do not have the decade of college graduates, business school graduates to run corporations.

they are trying to professionalize, globalize, and it is logical that they are looking for talent from around the world. it is for europeans, america, anybody that can fit into the system. is easier said than done, in my point of view, because a lot of these companies have built-in inefficiencies. think about rebuilding an institution in the u.s., it may be awhile before you could get them moved along. host: next phone ca. caller: it is my impression that the chinese impose something like a body of added tax for foreign manufacturers to ship into china, wheas with the passing of nafta, we allow them to come in here without any tax implications. in the past 10 yrs in not

passing of nafta, the manufacturing portion of our economy has fallen from 20%, down to 11%, so we have lost about half of our manufacturing to china and other foreigners. are we facing an unfair competitive situation with the costs that the chinese impose on our manufacturers shipping into china? guest: the u.s. has its own tariffs and duty to tangible, as does china, and -- relative to trade, as does china, b that has nothing to do with nafta. if we talk about greater china, if we talk about greater china, about $100 billion. u.s. companies compete and win

every day in china, but it is a difficult market. the government plays a role in the economy far more in excess and our government does. it takes some wherewithal to compete an win. but there is enormous demand for american brands. american brands do very well over there. the general motors, ford motors, all do well over there. procter and gamble, paul molitor, pepsi, all sorts of- palmolive, pepsi, all sorts of brands do very well over there. it is just not it is a much more open market to compete in the u.s. host: time to that equation is how much china gets from germany. could you speak to that?

guest: china has higher import penetration than in the u.s. there is a fair amount of import activity from the europeans, japan, korea. at the chinese will say, to some merit, it is not much of it is just manufacturing components and we do not get full bounty from that. we import different parts of the shoe, we will build it, so we do not capture the total benefits of that. host: rate on the republican line. fairfax, virginia. caller: about three years ago, labor wages was not the main reason for the tra deficit. that seems to be the method. -- myth.

if he to their website, national association of manufacturers, they have nothing on labor costs. they talk about spending reform, tax reform, legal system reform, and regulatory reform. guest: i think you are exactly right, and we see this pattern in mexico well. there are labor differential, but there are substantial productivity differentials as well. if someone in mexico is making one-fourth of the u.s. worker, but that person's ability to use a computer, advanced machinery could be sick in the less. the average education worker of a factory worker in china is about six years of education. about six years of education. very limited. so your ability to use precise engineering, pc's to look at

inventory is limited. not surprising that they can limit their wage demands as well. host: jackie on the independent line, a cape cod. caller: hr 4444 was passed to normalize trade with china. i think this should be repealed. they manipulatehe currency, subsidize their industries. multinational companiebenefit from this but the american worker is never considered. guest: trade remains controversial and there are people in the u.s. who have not done well more globalized trade. i would say most americans have benefited enormously from the fact u.s. companies can compete and win. we are better as consumers, being able to enjoy a product from around the world.

i do not think that we would be better off isolating ourselves and cutting ourselves off from other societies. open economies move ahead. the isolated economies arehe ones that stagnate. host: olympia, washington. an, good morning. caller: i have been watching you for a long time. when these ships come into, for example, the port of seattle, what do they pay to dock their ship? ship? as aricans, we need to look into the fact that, even though we buy a lot of products from china, we need to open up to other nations and provide some

competitiveness to china. we should be appalled at the slave labor that these people are working at. one other comment. many years ago in the late friend who told me, this country needs to be aware of the sleeping dragon because it will destroy the country. guest: the emergence of china in the economic world poses a number of challenges, not only for the u.s., europeans, everyby. it is altering the way that businesses operate around the world and is challenging the economies. i agree with some of your base points, but i would also say figuring out how to sell, buy, cooperate from china will be much more beneficial to the united states than any other isolationist approach.

16% of the entire u.s. gdp is imports. 1/6 of the economy is imports. within that, about 15% of that isrom china. so about 2% of total gdp is imports from china. they are putting pressure on u.s. manufacturers and is causing lower prices, but is also giving benefit to consumers as well. it is in open market wre you are free to compete in the international marketplace. host: japan will take two steps to boost the economy. ms. is in not "the financial times -- "the washington post" -- what will this be -- what will the impact be on world

economies? guest: it is a conundrum for their government. they have world-class manufacturing and export with those top tier companies that we all loved. automobiles, electronics. but they have huge structural problems and their economy and i do not see it bubbling up any time soon. guest: next -- host: next phone call. ken on the independent line. caller: i wonder in the future if there could be unionization in china? there have been slow rumbles in that directi. let's say that happens, chinese workers reached some sort of parity, how would that impact us? guest: you are making an

interesting point. interesting point. one of the trends that we are beginning to see in china, because of demographic pressure in china -- china's work force population is shrinking. there is demographic pressure, which is to say supply of the industrialized neighbor if not necessarily keeping up with demand, and there is a work force that once more, not surprisingly, and there is no arbitration structure that allows these claim to be adjudicated some fashion. all kinds o als boycotts, strikes. if they occur smart, they wl come up with a mechanism that will allow wages to increase, contribute to the belly of workers. that will create the industrial

middle class workforce that we and other industrialized countries have as well. this will take years to unfold, but it is helpful. the competition we are getting from china is not slave labor. it is in auto factories where people are paid when u.s. workers are paid about 50 years ago. maybe $50 a month. those of the best industrial jobs in china. and they're not competing with us in terms of automobiles yet, but perhaps with other products. host: mike on the democratic line. caller: how can you ship stuff from china across the largest ocean on planet, across the continent, and still make it cheaper than we do here? i will listen to your answer. guest: the shipping cost of a

container from shanghai to los angeles is only about $2,000. so the actual price of shipping the ibm and there, let's say a microwave oven, would be only a few dollars. these partnerships are massive and can include specially designed ships with containers that will have 5000, 7000 containers on them. this is one of the great innovations in transportation and logistics in the past 20 years. i live in hong kong. i can go on to amazon in the u.s. and it can be at my home in a few days. i may have to pay a bit more, but the world is much smaller than it was 20 years ago. host: surely on the republican line. caller: -- shirley on the

republican line. caller: there was a question that i could not hear the answer to and i tried to pull it up on my computer. i have a comment and a question. when i walk through the supermarket, i see all sorts of food from china. food from china. i would like to be able to subsidize our farmers in some way. perhaps farmers could get a voucher, something for them. we are losing our farmers in this country. i would love to buy organic food. it is so expensive. if i had extra money and the month, i could buy some decent food. if the farmers are going, the trucks are going, storage,

people are getting paid w wages. i am sick to my stomach when i hearhere are little children go to school hungry. a lot of points. let me go through the basics there. there. 80% of the economy is domestic economy. 80% is made right here in the u.s. but 15% or so is imported. about 14% from all other nations and about 2% from china. there is not an enormous amount of products from china, but it is not so much tha chinese steel is flooding the u.s. but what happens is when even a little bit comes in, even 2%, is that it drives domestic prices down. workers are not happy about even 2% penetration because they cannot compete.

the automakers are looking for less expensive steel and the u.s. appliance makers as well. we would win, if you will, but the manufacturers would lose in thatamarra and -- scenario. host: you can go to the c-span series and go to washington journal and you can do a search when you get to the washington journal, web pag next call from ohio, good morning. caller: everybody talks about cheaper products coming from china and all our business is going over there. i want to know who those products a cheaper for. because the working people of this country lost $15, $20 an hour jobs.

there is no way that these products are cheaper to them. it is just cheaper for businesses and the lead in this country. guest: there is no question some people are not better off. but if wealk economics and business, the hardest thing is to look in the mirror. if we look in the major sectors in the u.s. that have problems today, we think of the auto sector. this was not the chinese that put them in bad shape or even the japanese. it was our own decisions. the management leadership in detroit, i would say, and the unions deserves some blame as well. we were the ones that could not make our cars t compete effectively and we were the ones that brought money to build plants that were not used effectively. it was not a foreign manufacturer that did this to

us. it was the fact there we were paying some people on those assembly lines at wages far in excess of their productivity and that is not going to help anybody. we've got our share of problems in our country that i think we need to take care of as well. host: tennessee, james, demoatic line. caller: i wouldike to ask the guest to give his comment on the following scenario. i've thought about this myself and i cannot think of a possible reason for water and getting ready to say. if china is the largest communist country on earth, and obviously in the past has trampled human rights and the workers -- no doubt about it, nobody contends it is not a communist country. but cuba, who also tramples on

the rights of its people -- how does this make any sense? guest: a great question. let me rephrase this generically. at what point in a country's politics would we, as american field all right about what pointand upoat would we say that condition are so bad? one is, if the country itself moves to market economics, regardless of its political leadership and what it calls itself. if it moves to market economics, that at least means that the average person on the street is going to get some benefit from those wages. he is not a slave laborer. he is really working in other factories. he has a little condo or

apartment and has a tv set and can enjoy life a little bit. you contrast that with economics were your only working for the state and you do not get to keep the money that you weren't. that is kind of a slave wages set up. -- the money that you learn. that is kind of a slave wages set up. that is one of the differences between cuba and china. another thing is if a country is not causing problems for us to run the world, then we need to do business with them. if they are causing problems around the world for us, then we need to rethink doing business with them. q. does worked with the soviet -- cuba has worked with the soviets, funding guerrillas. the difference is, china is not working or on the world to cause problems for us. -- working round the world to

cause problems for us. host: alabama, joe, republican line. caller: what kind of regulations do we have in place about reverse engineering going on in china, as far as than duplicating products? guest: when we talked before about 80% or 90% of trade or business issues going along business issues going along normally, right at the top of the list is intellectual property rigs -- intellectual property rights. it is very difficult for american manufacturers to deal with this. i would say first and foremost, i would talk to any u.s. company if you are taking in the intellectual products to china, be very careful about your production mechanism. if you have a proprietary technology, do not share that in china. it is a legal system that is very difficult for foreigners to

get a fair hearing. be very careful about what you're doing with your manufacturing process as you sell your goods in china. host: independent line, your next four frank lavin. caller: thank you. host: you are on now, so turn the television down. caller: i will turn it off. from the time it's an open up trade with china and the u.s., china had a policy that it was willing to do business with us, but it did not really want to buy anything from us and the american dollar flowed into china and when to, i guess, the companies or whatever. but the yuan was traded for the dollar and the dollar was saved by china. i guess we bring deficits year

after year after year. back and sayd we come we need to do more trade so that it is evenly balanced? the subprime market that we experience was, i believe, a flow of u.s. dollars that came back into the united states. we like to blame it on bankers or whatever, but there was such a flow of cash that came in that we made loans that were 100% loan to value, and even more, to make value for our u.s. dollar to, say, china. to, say, china. the trade is fine and corporations are making money,

but on the perspective of the dollar reverses the yuan, the dollar never leaves china, be sure of that, but the dollar goes around the world and we try to make value for the dollar. guest: a lot of ideas in that statement. i will just say this. we sell a substantial amount to china and the numbers are going up quite dramatically. china is more open now than any time in recent years. u.s. companies, i think, are just getting better and better in dealing with a challenging market. our les to china this year are going to come very near $100 billion u.s. our total exports to france, which is an open economy, from the country, our total exports for $28 billion. that is not a small amount of money. just the growth in u.s. exports to china this year is going to be $28 billion.

u.s. manufacturers and exports are going to grow. you can find success in the market. i agree that we are running a trade deficit. they are selling more to us than we are selling to china. that does present problems, but fundamentally, you can find success in the chinese market if you have the wherewithal to get into that market. host: richard on the republican line. caller: a lot of people do not know that when you buy the parts for general motors, it is made in the u.s., but you get it outside the box and it is made in china or correa. it ought -- korea. it oht to be against the law. guest: it is against the law. maybe someone is doing it, but it is certainly legal to put a corian part in a box that says

made in the u.s.a. -- to put a korean part in a box that says "made in the usa" host:ext caller from massachusetts. caller: i do not know the way chinaorks there hours that they work in a week, but germany has just reduced -- they had people working on half a week. host: we will leave it there. and just a reminder to turn the television down when you call in. guest: a very interesting point. what the united states did was to increasehe number of weeks. t surprisingly, the u.s. has provided a decent the center for people to find work and germany

people to find work and germany has as well and their growth was 9% recently. host: sam on the democratic line. caller: i would like to express concern about the statement you made about shipping containers over here for $2,000. i find totally impossible. i do not find any truth in that at all. guest: what do you think the price is, sam? caller: i do not know, but it has to be more than $2,000. guest: you have a ship that has 5000 or 6000 containers on it. that is a reasonable fee. thes ships are common carriers. it is just like a fedex a van or something. different companies show up in shanghai or somewhere, and

generamotors says i havehree containers to ship and ship says, fine. if you and i went on to more to do it, it might not be $2,000. because we have not negotiated a contract. they might charge $4,000. but there is no sense in >> president obama will be speaking troops tonight. live remarks starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern followed by your response to the speech. after that, john boehner. we will show you his remarks after the president's speech. >> , now a conversation on the american revolution, the making of the constitution, and the

importance of historical study on sunday with gordon would -- wood. live for three hours with your phone calls coming emails come and -- phone calls, emails, and tweets. a recap has been requested in the democratic gubernatorial primary. and is expected to get under way next week. this morning, "washington journal" but that the campaign and some political ads. host: "washington journal" summer series this week looking at what goes into politics. yesterday, we looked at the house and senate races for campaign 2010. on wednesday, we will take a look at independent third-party groups and their role in electoral politics. on thursday, there is -- the roles of the polling and whether

or not they are accurate. today we will talk about the impact of political ads and what goes into them. let's just begin with what goes into deciding to do a political ad and campaign. guest: at the front and there's a lot of planning, and obviously polling, and there is a focus group, what has the candidates been up to whether it is a challenger or in the incumbent. then you have a thing like a tv drama were there are opening arguments and the cross and generally someone willry to end on a positive note. a lot of playing on the front end and then it becomes harder when the real shooting between the campaign's start. host: there is a strategy to begin by introducing yourself and then go negative and positive? guest: it generally follows the courtroom drama of formula.

a lot of what happens in the middle, they try to plan for an anticipated, but this is an event driven business. what happened to the news will generally turn into political spots and in the candidates are forced to throw out research and cut quick response ads and getting conversationode with their opponents. then you throw in groups and parties and everybody else and it is hard for campaigns to stay on message and do what they plan to do from the beginning. host: what is the business of as as far as profits? -- the business of advertisements as far as profits? guest: there is something close to its $3 billion election with every party. that includes production, consultants. it makes money -- it takes money to make these commercials. we have seen people like the cut

-- the mccain campaign in 2008 producing a lot of these commercials on their laptops. when production costs go down, campaigns usually find a place to put that money. host: why are had its more expensive in one area versus another area of the -- what are advertisements more expensive in one area versus another area of the country? guest: it depends on if you are going to reach more people. it is based on the audience available through a given station's coverage. host: as the campaign decide when they are going to air and what program they are going to be on? guest: there is a lot of research into this. there is a lot o micro targeting that has made its way into a television over the years. the reality is, campaigns spend the most amount of money when they have the least amount of people to influence.

there is no other business that advertisers like this. you take a product seller and they are constantly trying to sell off cars or dog food or whatever it is. campaigns are trying to persuade the last 6% to 8% of voters two weeks to go before the elections. they will turn the volume of as loud as they can, which means it will buy as many spots as they can afford. generally in planning, they will buy from the for this day out that they think they can afford to stay on the air until election day. host: if your in florida and you are sick of seeing how this from jeff green who is running for the democratic nomination there against kendrick meek and kendrick meek is running ads, is it going to get worse? guest: absolely. the senate primary is over and the governor's primary is over. now you're getting into general elections. the primaries are supposed to be a little more genteel, but the reality is they are very

competitive. because of the stakesn the state, obviously, florida is very important. it is one to be one of the most contested states. the house race, senate race, governor'sace, attorney general's race -- you go down the list and all of those candidates will be competing to persuade voters why they should vote for them against an opponent and that will continue until election day. host: what does your company do? guest: we are out there basically wh computers in every media market. they watch tv and recognize new advertising and bringt back to our headquarters in arlington, va., where we have people that comb these advertisements all day for content. we find out if they are winning and recreated at that the

campaigns will use, the parties will use, interest groups will use. incoorion wants to know how many candidates and iran -- if a corporion wants to know how many cdidates advertisements are being shown around the country come out that is what we will find out. we do not really measure exactly how effective they are because that just comes down to election day. day. host: let's talk aut negative advertising. people complain about them, but you always find them in a race. guest: everyone complains about them, but they work. they work because there are generally more facts in them. they are interesting in many cases, and they work because voters pay attention to this. the kind of like this aspect of politics. people say that they hate them and will turn off their tv and want to throw it out the window,

but it just means they are paying attention. host: if they're talking about it, they're paying attention. guest: and in some cases, look, the campaigns do not mind that the voters get so sick of the ads that they do not vote. it's kind of a dirty little secret of advertising. in many cases, it drives down turnout. if a campaign n control turn out, then they know, look, this is a republican district and fewer people turned out, there will be more republicans. host: i would say that is the case in senator harry reid's district in nevada. i want to assure you a couple of advertisements inhat district and we will come back and talk about them. >> no, i i wouldn't -- would not have saved 20,000 jobs and that we are spoiled. >> we really have spoiled our

citizenry. >> she said she would even eliminate the department of education. >> would you eliminate the department of education were just cut it down? >> i would like to go through the elimination. >> she is just too extreme. >> i am mary read and i approve this message. >> i and sharon engvall and i approve this message. >> obama and harry reid, together, they promised to change america, and, boy, did they. tax funded bailout for wall street, a $787 billion stimulus that failed, and record deficit and skyrocketing unemployment. they say you cannot buy love, but we have certainly paid a heavy price. host: talk about that advertisement. what d you see there? guest: the nevada senate race is one of the most high-profile this year. this is an interesting race because barack reid campaign --

and -- because the reid campaign, and there is a law that has t candidates in trouble. there is not what they can say that the voters do not already know. know. the campaign is to make engle look like an unpopular choice. when you have a president whose approval ratings are in the thes -- are in t 40's, campaigns are going to look to attach to that in these races. the same thing with nancy pelosi -- very popular in her district, but not around the country. indeed reid case, look, let's ma sharon engle look like an

unattractive candidate. host: where would they ever those advertisements, depending on what kind of voter they want to get out there -- where would they ever those advertisements, depending on what kind of voter they want to get out there? guest: political line is always sort of started out the news and then layered out as you can afford. news is the ocean from real- estate of political buying. -- the oceanfront real-estate of political bind. basically, they're trying to get the people that are watching the news because they assume if you are watching the news you are more likely to vote. younger male a numbe

programming and that usually means daytime sports. and you will see them buying places like cable news, like fox is great for republicans and cnn is great for democrats. if there is programming toward women, and there are programs that are skewed toward a female audience. they're just trying to turn of the volume with as much news as they can buy with interesting programming that they can afford. the ideas tuesday on the air until election day. -- the idea is to stay on the air until election day. host: go ahead, caller. caller: i cannot understand how people arever influenced by these things.

i have never change my vote for anything from one of these advertisements. there are legitimate ways to get real information about these candidates, about anything, whether it is a mcdonald's or pizza hut. the advertisements are not ever -- i just cannot understand people making a choice on the basis of them. the whole thing, it boils down to one thing, that apparently, a great majority of americans a political idiots. host: joyce, can i ask you something? do you always vote? and if so, do you always vote democratic ticket or do you vote on issues? caller: i always vote in democratic ticket because of the issues, for goodness sake. i mean, it is the souks. i have worked for polls, for candidates -- is the issues.

i have worked for polls, for candidates, the leue of women voters. host: there is not just one issue that would drive you to the polls to vote? caller: no, unless it would be strip mining in west virginia. i mean, taking the tops of mountains. guest: joyce is unfortunately collateral damage. the advertisements are not really in doubt her. unless it is a democratic primary -- are not clearly aimed at her. unless it is it democratic primary in a state. the political ad the equation here is aimed at driving up name identification in the first case, and in the second case, getting policy issues out there that are going to drive supporters to the polls. but really, it is about and then -- independent and undecided voters that really make up a close race with a month to go. host: are they issue voters?

guest: there in the civic duty catego. they fancy themselves very independent, but in the end, they know they will vote and they are waiting to make up their mind and have that sort fdot a-ha motive -- that sort of a-ha moment. the choice here is collateral damage. they're not aiming her. host: republicans are looking to make an issue out of health care legislation. roy blunt, who is running for senate in missouri is out with his dad to advertisement. let's take a look. >> obviously, the democrats in washington did not care what they had to do to pass more governme control of health care that will eventually destroy theealth care system currently. we need to speak loudly. we need to do this before they force this bill through because

we have said over and over again -- they have said over and over again that people may not want this, but they will love it once it is passed. it turns out to be the opposite. it is time to sign his position and we will get the petition to nancy pelosi and harry reid and barack obama right away. ♪ host: that was roy blunt's advertisement. he is running for senate in missouri, an ad for youtube. i want to assure you -- to show you an advertisement that just came out today, or monday perhaps. it goes after republican candidates on the issue of social security. take a look. >> politicians like shonda be just do not get it. when we should be -- like sean quaddafi, just do not get it. when we should be backing social

security, he does not do it. the plan to privatize social security by sean duffy is the wrong choice. host: 7 tracey -- evan tracey talk about the health care message. guest: is this a strategy to divide people. republicans have done a very good job of making health care an issue. what has been interesting about this election is the democrats ran very successfully the last three elections on the issue of health care. now they have passed a bill that they do not want to talk about. republicans have already branded this obama care and you have probably had $30 million of advertisements, just in the past couple of months since it has passed. rely, the democrats do not

have a counterweight to that. what you are seeg is an issue that they have used in the past, obviously. they used it in the way that republicans have talked about using it to privatize social security. now that wall street is in the rearview mirror, they are trying to regain some footing and a half to seek health care -- cede health care because it is unpopular. they're looking for ways to get those voters back. and i think that is an issue we will see a lot of. we have seen it not justn this advertisement, but in a lot of the local races. and in washington, it is an issue that is getting traction. you'll hear a lot about health care and the new bill and social security in the future of coming election. host: political reports about

that advertisement that you saw is that it is a nine-week spending that they have for this advertisement and sean duffy his running in the seventh district, once held by retired congressman david obiwaobey, a democrat. next caller, go ahead. caller: what actually is ways and advertising going to the next level against its opponents? in other words, what if an individual were to approach the campaign with "delong 3" that could bring the opponent -- "dirty laundry" that could bring the opponent down with some sort of mafia since -- malfeasance. what are the pros and cons of the political campaign that

received that information? guest: it is a good question. the generic case that you presented, obviously, it comes down to whether it is true or not. and if it is true, to make sure that -- look, the worst tng that can happen to a political campaign is to run an attack ad and find out that they have done the exact same thing. the test is, number one, is it true? number two, is it relevant? and number three, are we basically immune to having this boomeranged back at us on any logicalevel? that is what goes into what information to use and how to use it. host: we have been talking about the candidates and their decisions to run, but you also have third-party groups out there running a lot of ads.

it is often difficult to find out who is behind these advertisements. on both sides of the aisle you see the rise of these third party groups. >> there is talk and talk while ohio loses 400,000 jobs. >> ideas from ohio in all 88 counties. >> all part of the plan to create jobs. >> the doctors gave us stimulus and debt. >> portman strengthens job creation. >> and n, that is change. >> american crossroads is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> i made there is. >> i am a schoolteacher. >> i am a nurse. >> i am an entertainment lawyer. i am ao in mama grimsley. >> sarah palin to release a video on behalf of mama

grizzlies. sarah palin, you do not speak for us. >> sure, i attack when my cousin is threatened. you know what threatens me? the fact that my daughter does not have the right to choose. -- that my daughter uld not have the right to choose. >> when my fily was unemployed for several months, guess how we survived? unployment benefits. >> it really gets under my effort and my nails, my beautiful, manicured, covet claw nails. [raor] >> you may think we're on the wrong track because of federal funding for our schools. >> believe me, there are plenty of mama grizzlies out there that would disagree with you. >> you are right, you do not want to mess with mama

grizzlies. >> do not mess with us. host: you saw in small type at the bottom of that last add that was funded by emily's list. what is the impact of these third party groups guest: the influence is going to be great on these elections. again, there are a lot of moving parts. the group's charter is really just to be disruptive on this basis. basis. they are designed to throw campaigns of message, and in this environment of post citizens united, there's going to be the idea of the average of more realistic. to this point, it has only been on you tube, but these are t things that will be able to attract attention and they will raise money off of these appeals. the problem is, we saw this in

2004, is that i love spending was designed to help john kerry. was designed to help john kerry. it was very much to the left and talked to the left base, which john kerry already had. if you look at the bush campaign, it got outspent by $100 million, but the two most successful of these two dogs were the swift boat had and progress for america. -- were the swift boat advertisements and the progress for america. there are very few that were memorable from the other side. those are the lessons learned. that is probably what we will see a lot of this cycle. the groups will try to help more politically then firing at the base, which means more negative advertisement, probably going into gray areas. this is really what the groups can do. they can play the bad cop role and the candidates can play the good cop role.

there was a senate primary where there were very few negative ads, but the guy one, but there were groups attacking the other candidate in t race. basically, good cop, bad cop. host: are you talking about the tea party influence? guest: the tea party was in alaska and not so much in the casef colorado. these grps are not so much associated with political parties as much as they are associated with candidates or points of view. these groups will help certain types of candidates. the same thing on the left with groups like sierra club. really, they tend to ideology than they do straight party politics. host: let's take a look at and have from alaska. >> she is so liberal she voted against republicans in congress

more than 300 times. the left-wing even calls for a democrat. 80% of her funding comes from out-of-state. that is why governor sarah palin and 80 party expressed support of conservative republican joe miller -- and of the tea party expressed support of conservative republican joe miller. ♪ ♪

♪ host: we are talking about the influence of the advertisement and what goes into making advertisements in this campaign season. tracey.t is kevievan virginia, your the next phone call. go ahead. caller: do you find people doing more absentee ballots earlier, or meaning in their ballot? fo example, i can vote absentee and i can just ignore the ads. guest: again, yourole would collateral damage in the sense of what the ad makers are going for it.

but it is an interesting question because it is really pulling the political outs out further. it is making the schedules -- the political advertisement of further. it is making the schedules start earlier. they have to run effective spot earlier and more often, because you're right, more people are voting by mail. but it still comes down to how do you persuade the last 8% or 9% of the voterin this race. host: danville, ga., billy on the democratic line. caller: thank you for c-span. i have been trying to get on for the last three yea, i guess. what i'm calling about is that no one seems to want to call about -- talk about the hidden issue. that is, race.

a whole lot of you whites are voting against obama because of race. host: billy, and not sure where you are asking here -- i am not sure what your asking here. the impact of race in advertisement? caller: no, not in advertisements, on the elections. host: any commts? guest: political advertisement perspective, it is really about attaching advertisements to candidates. there are certain candidates that go after race or gender. that has been politics since before television. host: on the independent line, paul. caller: a statement and a couple of questio -- i do not know if

it would be better to ask a question and get an answer or get going -- or just keep going. host: we are running out of time. kenya has been just one question? caller: how does -- can you a just one question? caller: how does one justify spending millions of dollars on one advertisement? if a politician makes it $250,000 per year, how do you stify spending billions of dollars on advertisements? my second question with negative advertisement, people come up with all of these negative things about their opponent, but they only come up with what is an advantage to them. guest: the cost of advertising, again, this is why politicians raise money, but it is actually in a stupor and more efficient than if they spend every day

trying to go round the state -- it is actually cheaper and more efficient than if they spent every day trying to go run the state and need everybody. the voter has a very short memory, so you want to deliver your best points, as far as wide an opponent should not be elected, as close to the election day as possible. it is simple marketing in that case. host: columbi independent line, you are on the air. call: the caller to callers ago that mentioned about race, again, i think you could look at that both ways. some people did not vote for mccain because they said he did not like us and they voted for,. they could be both ways -- and they voted for obama. it could be both ways. as far as advertisements been

truth, these are half-truths' at best. i think one caller said to go out and do research. if they are targeting people entering half-truths', was the legal liability of this? some of this is defamation of character. is there any recourse? host: we get your point, mike. guest: i guess the best way to put it is that is your version of the truth in the campaign world. there are always two sides to every story. and this is propaganda. it is not the campaign start to give context. give context. -- the campaign's job to give context. they want to talk about the tax bill, well, it could have been spent building schools. the other side of that is that you could say, yes, we spent the, but we build schools out of

it. this is propaganda and should not be confused with what you see on c-span, which is digging deeper into the stories. you can -- is a lot like watching commercials on tv where they tell you are going to get slimmer and richer. host: dayton, ohio, go ahead. caller: all of the ads do not make sense to me and the reason that they do not is because, first of all, it is a two-party system. you have corporate money and whatever other kind of money. it is not a level playing field. on top of that, -- i cannot think. but it jt baffles me, the whole process. it is only two-party system, so if the democrats get kicked off, we're right back with the group that got us in the mess --

kicked out, we're right back with the group that got us in the mess in the first place. host: all right, orange county, calif., good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span, some of the little intelligent talk that is on television. i spent the last years of making silly things -- making these silly things. host: let me stop you right there and ask you what kind of television. caller: it starts with to your guest is and what of a wanting you to buy and then somebody writing scripts for you are asking for ideas. some of the people that i'm actually producing, the candidates have come in and want to do their own ads, sometimes they are so real literature just the written word that i have to edit down the word by word and

take their normal cadence of speech so they did not sound like they were having a grand mal seizure -- grandma seizure. there was one -- i will not tell you who the candidate was that i was working for. she ended up calling him john -- calling her opponent of the board john -- calling her opponent john "value jet" shattuck. and i ended up getting a cease and desist order. it was just after the value jet crash. crash. a lot of these people do not know what they are talking about and you have to hold their hand in this process.

guest: sounds like our caller has visited the sausage factory few times. it is maybe not as easy as it looks to produce the spot and put them out there in a context that matters. sometimes it is very hard because the candor -- candidates are not actors and actresses. you nd a good voice talent and good scripts. and you are trying not to offend viewers, especially those that ll support you. host: what is the impact of a funny advertisement? you have seen the use of them increased over the years, especially in the 2008 presidential campaign. guest: this is where it becomes more of an art than a science. a lot of humor, works when there is a really competitive race that has had a lot of negative advertisements and you want to break the tension. you want to be the person at the table that cracks the joke that makes the two uncles stop

fighting. and if it is sent with a velvet hammer -- a bold hand as opposed to a sry hammer. fdot -- a velvet hand as opposed to raise gary hamel. hong there are some -- there are some that do it very well. host: in the florida senate race, is one of the mt watched races for that seat and highly contested. marco rubio, the republican candidate, is out with his first ad. the democrats' kendrick meek has not come out with an advertisement since he won the primary, and charlie crist has not come out with one either. let's take a look at marco rubio's advertisement. >> my parents came to america. my dad became a bartender, my mom made, and they've worked two

jobs most of their lives so their children with no -- will have opportunities they would never could. the american dream is still a reality, and i approve this message because that is worth fighting for. fighting for. host: evan tracey, why does marco rubio need to put an advertisement out right now while his competitors are not? guest: it is great timing for him because democrats just came off a very expensive, contentious, nasty senate primary, so you have a wounded democrat right now. charlierist is a known comparted -- a known commodity and has jumped out of the democratic party to run as an independent. independent. mercurio is something -- marco rubio is something different than what voters have seen in the last two months.

this gives him an open plainfield to -- and open playing field. playing field. i can guarantee you the ads will not look like this in the next couple of weeks. but this is open playing time for him to get to know the voters and maybe get some of those democratic voters that were not happy with the meek primary win. host: we have shown these advertisements, and if you want to see them again you can go to c-span.org and if you go to the "washington journal" web page you can see them there. donnie, go ahead. caller: on these advertisements here, these politicians have done great research on the american people. american people. i'm one of the american people and on gullible like 99% of all

americans are. you keep putting of these talking points, these themes, these slogans because the gossip seekers, the american public, they eat that up. host: let's talk about the audience. what does your data say? are the american public glol? guest: -- and gullible? guest: i do not want to call all americans gullible, but again, these are the way the candidates are sold to us. this is propaganda from the campaigns that is paid for by the campaigns. again, it contains their version of the truth. it contains what they produce when they polled to get 51% of americans. it like how mcdonald's decides to put a sandwich out. they go and a research and find out that some people do not like it too spicy and some do not

like it too mild. they try to find that middle ground. it is the same thing with candidates. they're looking for the equation to victory. they are looking for the messages and what it can remind voters aut. the internet is a great place to research these candidates, but do not look at advertising and expected to be there to inform you with all the facts. host: will web advertising replace television advertising? guest: i do not think so. it is a great place for candidates to put things on that do not have to be in a 30-second box. the difference between on-line and a television spot, if you go to look at a video on line, you will probably look at it once. if you will probably e-mail it to shoot to your friend or put something on your facebook about it -- you will probably e-mail it to your friend or put

something on your facebook about it, but the messages not sticky. the thing about television is that we have seen it so many times. it is in our subconscious. that is why it works, because it has repetition. it is designed to be where you are watching or listening. with the web, if it gets e-mail or put up on you to, maybe you see it once, but you do not have the recognition. some people go home and watch their computers at night, but most americans go home and watch prime-time television either on ble or broadcast. oney listen in the cars an the radio. you just cannot get that repetition on the web. host: illinois, you're on the line. caller: i was thinking how interesting it is with the

republican party and the tea party movement the republican party did a good job of ruining america and they aren't doing a good job of getting the american public to forget about it -- they are doing a good job of getting the american people to forget about it. what are the politicians not campaigning on bringing manufacturing -- why are the politicians not campaign on burning manufacturing back? does nobody cared? -- bringing mufacturing back? does nobody care? guest: that is a good question. when the economy is bad you hear about nafta, trade with china, practices and other countries. you hear about lost manufacturing and a lot of politicians will pay attention to that. the difference is, will they follow through with what they claim in their television has? i guess time will tell.

your point about democrats -- about the republicans using the obama is a fair point, but democrats will continue to use prident bush. it is a fair fight. host: in making a pass the primaries, what does that say about analyst? guest: i do not know the whole story of behind the voting mechanics, and he obviously did not run in the commercials in the >> president obama speaks to the nation tonight to mark the formal end of the u.s. combat mission in iraq. we will have live coverage from the newly redecorated officer at 8:00 eastern, followed by your

phone calls in reaction to the speech. after that, john boehner speaking. we will show you his remarks after the president's speech. christina romer steps down on friday. tomorrow she will talk about the obama administration's economic policy. we will have live coverage from the national press club that starts at 1:00 eastern. >> tonight science and technology week continues on "book tv" primetime. james gleick and isaac newton. that is tonight on c-span2.

>> arab americans call this morning about the image of muslims in america. but congressional muslim staff association posted this hour- and-a-half discussion with the head up the american institute. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> thank you for all being here.

i want to be clear that this briefing is not about park 51. none of the panelists here are experts on the project or connected to the project directly. this is not a ballpark 51. the congressional muslims opposition does not take position on the park 51 project, nor do we necessarily endorse any of the panelists here. the muslims of the association wants to bring together experts and community leaders and others to talk about the conversations that have taken place in the wake of this controversy. compositions taking place all across america about and where muslim american stance. it is a complex conversation we're having right now. the muslims that position represents all of those who work on capitol hill and in the support offices. when we started this more than four years ago, the first event that we had was in the wake of the danish cartoon controversy that was sweeping across europe

and much of the world. we screamed a documentary for the capital community of the pbs documentary "legacy of profa phrophet." the one that is happening now is happening directly on our shores as americans. as muslim americans work year and grow up. and-- muslim americans who work here and grow at pier can speak about this directly. we're very honored to have this panel here. it is one that is complex. in a poll that was taken of few weeks ago they asked do you favor or oppose a mosque in year frozeronearnear ground zero. the same people said would you

favor one in your own neighborhood, and by its 55% margin they said they would favor one in their own merit and communities. and the same poll, would you say that most are patriotic americans? 55 to 25% they said yes. this is not a simple conversation the media would have us believe that this is onesided fo-sided, it is comple. our moderator works on capitol hill and started a capitol hill friday prayer, in which every friday muslims in washington, d.c. area from all parts of the country come to pray and of the capitol dome every friday. we have had this for more than a decade. we have had visitors from around the world, the state department has brought visitors around the world to this friday prayer.

we have had visitors were they cannot pray in public or in a government building and they are amazed and saddened by their own country. regardless of the adversity we face at home in a time that has been stifling and has been ñyviolence and the desecration f a mosque, but there is no doubt we are blessed to be americans. diversity is the key. i want to introduce our moderator who worked on capitol hill for many years and was a major figure in the bush administration at the white house and the department of transportation and a senior fellow at the institute for global institution.

he is a good man, and i can say that we have bipartisan cooperation. without any further ado. [applause] >> thank you. good morning, everyone. thank you for coming out on this very important topic. and the controversy surrounding the park 51 community center in lower manhattan has really sparked a national debate on a host of issues beyond just the construction of a community center in lower manhattan. a lot of the questions that people have been asking themselves have come to the national conversation, a? who are american muslims? what do they want? what other aspiration and goals, and some of the tougher questions have begun to surface, including what is the role of terrorism? is their relation to terrorism and islamic clerics are muslims inherently violent?

-- are peake muslims inherently violent? -- are muslims inherently violent? what was on the fringe on the internet has surfaced to the mainstream conversation to the point where mainstream politicians are somehow accusing muslims of not being loyal as americans. they might have an inherent conflicts in their faith as far as royalties. there are all kinds of accusations that are swirling around. " we thought is we would assemble a panel of experts to take on some of the mist, challenged some of them miss and shed light on some of the issues that have come up. what i thought i would do is introduce the panel, and they will each speak for every 10 to 15 minutes, and then we can go right to the q&a so we can have a real good conversation about the issues that are on people's

minds. before we go to that, i want to remind people since we are live, if you could turn off cell phones and pagers so we do not have any interruptions. i will introduce our panelists. our first panel list is salem m ishariti. he has been a champion for issues led to the muslim american community for over two decades. he resides in washington with his wife. he works with the executive branch as well loss on capitol hill. he will discuss issues related to basic overview of the role of muslims, their lives in the united states, challenges. are they in any way you need or

different than any other american? next up we have a professor who is a professor of law university at richmond law school. she is the founder and chairman of muslim women's organization. she will be especially able to address issues related to islam and the law. i always say that sh'ria is like a word that is dirty and you want to repeat it when you are a kid. now the new dirty word is sh'ria. i thought the professor could address the issues and questions related to sh'ria.

last up our speaker is dr. jim zogby. he has really been a pioneer. he has been working in the trenches and power in all americans. he is unique in that key is arab-american, but also on risch, a catholic. he has seen this movie before as it were. i thought he might be able to provide a historical context to the challenges we are facing right now.

>> been to an good morning. i will try to tie this into park 51. it started out as the ground zero mosque controversy. by now everyone acknowledges that the place is not at ground zero and not a mosque. it is a few blocks away were you cannot even see it from zero, and it is a community center that was intended to develop interfaith understanding. i think that is important because a lot of muslim american institutions are doing exactly that which at reaching out to fellow members in their local communities and developing interfaith understanding and tackling issues such as party, homelessness, any kind of injustice. in trying to develop better dialogue among the three cases -- faiths.

abraham as rooted as the faith of these religions. the fact is it was called the crown zero mosque, and that costs a lot of consternation. -- ground zero moss, and that caused a lot of consternation. the truth is it is not on ground zero. it is not hamas, it is a community center. -- it is not a mosque, it is a community center. moving away from this controversy you see demonstrations against mosques and muslims throughout the country. the one issue we have to be very concerned about as americans is gainesville, florida, where there will be a reference, or

religious leader, who will sponsor burning acherothe koran. this is a major issue for us. as muslims we have told our congregations, ignored that. keep doing your good work because this is what we're told to do. as americans we should be very concerned about that. i think people need to understand what it is. the koran is what muslims consider a revelation from god. just like jesus. mohammad was given this revelation that was basically compiled into the koran today. within this there are stories about abraham, ishmael, isaac, jacob, moses, and the children

of israel. we read this quite extensively about the struggle of the children of israel against the parifarrohs, and how they were liberated. we read of the jesus and his mother mary. the biblical profits are also islam's profits. we take responsibility of not presenting that information to people. we have, as a result, the spurning of the -- the burning of the koran day. the first thing you should do is call the fire department, because that is a fire hazard. and obviously the images of that cause even greater problems for us as americans, because can you imagine in afghanistan and

iraq images of americans earning burning the koran? here is an important point for us to make. in-muslim sentiment in america is basically a mirror of anti- american sentiment on the global agreement. as of this bikes here in america, then you can expect a spika anti-american sentiment abroad, and now we see several counter-terrorism experts talking about how this is really undermining our efforts throughout the world and putting more americans in harm's way. this issue has to be viewed as an american problem, not just as a muslim problem. pit some have conducted a study that 70% of the american public has either an unfavorable view or no opinion on islam.

here i think the problem is that extremists are able to tell their stories more effectively than the muslim-american community can tell its story. the muslim-american stories still have not been told and tolin terms of who we are and what we want to contribute to the american society. yet is some guy decides to make a video that curses america and talks about bombings, if it is osama bin laden, is that it is made, and then within minutes you get the video played over and over again all of the u.s. markets. yet if we as muslim-americans talk about our efforts, and we have a paper for you today

called building bridges in terms of partnership in developing america's national security -- we continue to do that. that story is still not told. and in the broader sense there is a problem between a religious nationalism and religious pluralism. and religious nationalism, when a few group of people exploit religion using popularity to serve itself pushed the interests of the q and create -- to serve selfish interests of the few and create chaos and export religion and it becomes something without justice. religion without justice is exploitation. they want god to serve them. they do not serve god. religious pluralism is that we

have the belief in one gond, and therefore we believe in the one human family. that means you have to support human equality. schuman equality is critical to the notion of a belief in -- human equality is critical to the notion of a belief in one god. the koran says to each of you we have made different lost in different ways. the koran says therefore did not worry about your differences. just compete for doing good work. this diversity is very important for muslims to understand as well as us explain to other people. very briefly in terms of sh'ria, it means the road or the wait for the past twth to god.

it is an important term. a student of a aventine the assets when there is no justice, there is no sh'ria. when there is a biased against women, violence and hon. communities, that is not sh'ria to us. that is not we want here in america. we will be first to stand up in opposition of that kind of activity. therefore, america to us is the best place for muslims and we will work to preserve our

constitutional rights for all americans. thank you very much. [applause] >> good morning. i did not intend to stand before you and talk about sh'ria. i thought i would talk about american law and citizens in the united states. i got very much interested in the founding fathers of while backed -- awhile back. i looked in the library of congress letters and so on and found a lot of interesting stuff along the way, not only as far as the founding fathers, but the

mood of the country in those days. and i was very surprised to find out, for example, that on the literary level there were plays written about attempts to liberate women who are oppressed. i found out that there were also suspicions expressed about muslims. i also found out the there was an attempt between the united states and north africa. i found out their ridings that jefferson was aware of, that were called a false religion and impostor. a lot of this happened for a while. it is not just happen in the past. it is time to take a deep breath and talk to citizens and ask ourselves how are we going to relate to each other.

i do not want us to push anything under the rug. let's have an honest and tell discussion in a country which believes in the process of law, the country of laws and due process. and this is what projects all of us. it is not just at about an islamic minority or muslim minority, it is about all minorities. another big shock i developed as i was reading the history of this country, i walked along of the campus of my university to the historical society and i found out that their leaders and their own time suffered quite a bit. in fact, they are not the only groups that have suffered. jews, catholics and other

minorities. i guess we all go through that. hopefully as we mature in terms of our understanding of our constitution, the process will become more dignified and less painful. i want people to understand in some way they are not signaled out. everyone had to go do this in some way or the other. the other thing is that banks leave the founding fathers had introduced -- thehankfully the founding fathers had introduced the first amendment, which has the origin in the bill of rights and virginia, and i am happy to say that because i teach in virginia and very proud of that fact. what i am asking for is a double request.

one, reassert our commitment to the first amendment. throughout history it has shown that it is a very valuable part of what the u.s. is about. and in fact, i think this is one of the major attractions of the u.s. to immigrants who leave their countries. they left their countries and leave them because they truly believe in this country they can have free and dignified beings that they have missed elsewhere. the supreme court throughout the years has elaborated and emphasize the basic principles of the first amendment. for example, ichief rehnquist ad possesses the political devices cannot serve to invalidate otherwise prisms civil conduct. what ever we might deal of of the person sitting next to us, that they have rights, even if we publicly disagreed, that is

no reason to behave in a way that would infringe on those rights. furthermore, the first amendment -- does not state that implies, a logistic power of the government could reach actions only and not opinions. it is wonderful we can all sit here, and i am sure some of us would disagree on certain aspects of the discussion, but we are protected by the first amendment in doing that. one wonders about the situation that has arisen recently. with all sorts of misinformation about islam, i would like to point out that that misinformation does not only come from islam's but from

muslims. many are misinformed about their religion. i feel a major part of my responsibility in this country is to educate muslims about what the koran release says. for example because i am a woman and committed to women's issues and liberation, we at my organization run class is in which we teach muslim women and hopefully in the future men about rights and are guaranteed to them by their own religion. what is surprising about all of this is that most of the women we teach our surprise us that they have all of these rights. there is a stereotype about is slump that goes around. it goes around even within the muslim community, because they do not see it as negative. the have misinformation, but they do not understand that the holy book has basically the

principles of the first amendment in it. at historically muslim communities have had a religious tolerance. this started with the united states many -- this did not start in the united states. it started many years ago. certainly it was done and was stunned and a historical error when no one else practiced it. -- historical era when no one else attack the skits. -- practiced it. it is long did that, how come we forgot all of these important achievements and instead we went to a patriarchal understanding and understanding that has caused a lot of pain, not only for us in this country, but

elsewhere. in my message today is that we really need a serious conversation about islam. but that i also include muslims. we need a serious conversation on a serious study of the text of koran which shows a democracy is at the heart of muslim. and through the election of the head of state, none of this we see today in muslim countries, which is why i think he said he feels this is a most congenial country to be in for muslims, because it prevents more of the principles that we believe in.

if we are going to talk a little bit about islamic law, i would mention one verse, which is characterized by jefferson. -- paraphrased by jefferson. he did own the koran. there is a verse that says there is no compulsion in religion. that is the freedom of the exercise of that everyone is free to pick what they believe in. he mentions that in his encyclopedia. he advocates -- the koran advocates communication. even if someone talks steel or acts towards you in a way that is hostile, returned the bad deed with a good one. so that ultimately this person

who is unhappy with you or hostile to you will one day become your friend. human beings, i would elaborate, in the end are good people. if they understand you are not out there to hurt them, they will come around and talk to you. i would like to see a serious conversation started in this country. this word sh'ria has been thrown around as a threat. why is it being discussed in the united states as a threat? maybe you can enlighten to me and i would be happy to answer. but american muslims have been living under the american laws ever since they came to this country, which by the way is before the 1600's. a lot of people think that muslims are recent visitors to this country or immigrants, which is not true. i would like to end by reading

averse, which should guide all of our actions. it is chapter 14, verses 24 and 25. it brings forth a truth at all times by believe of the lord. let us all strive for the cardboard. -- for the good word. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. my daughter used to tease me about 10 years ago when i was 55. she said you get to meet new people every day, because she introduced me to her friend one

day and a couple of days later she was over again and she said he met kelly, and i said i do not think so. she said you did it was two days ago. i get that feeling when we had this discussion, because it seems every time there is a crisis we have to start talking again about what is this all about and who are these people and what is this religion all about? at some point i think it will begin to dawn on us that there is something we need to know and pay attention to, but let's do it one more time. it was shortly after september 11. i was invited by bill clinton to nyu to a panel that he had organized on a topic identical to the one we're doing today. americans were in shock and people in new york in particular and have a lot of questions that they wanted answer. we recognize the importance of dealing with that. what we did was begin to talk about who muslim americans work.

what i did before i went to the session was i called a lot of friends to get anecdotes and poured over my mind and the 30 years i am doing this work. at a doctor in islamic studies and have organized for as long as i can remember and have been pulling arab americans and american muslims, and opening an altogether i told stories of our rearmament who was a premed student, an idealist to told me one day i am not going to be like my father, i want to practice my religion by opening a clinic for the port. she said that would be how i would practice my faith. then there was a guy that i knew in cincinnati who reminded me so much of my father as he took me to the mosque that he had helped raise the money to build and was so proud of the building and he

showed me that he got this from syria and that donated from lebanon and brought all of these wonderful artifacts. it reminded me of my father and uncle who built the church in utica that will be celebrating of 100 year anniversary of the parish. since democrats did their pride and building. he died a couple of years later but today -- two years after he died i have opportunities to bid his son and internships -- an internship. he said if only my dad could see me now, she would be so proud. this is why he came to this country. there are other stories. in the middle of ramadan there was a fight in the school. it started because of principle insisted that the muslim

students had to go to the cafeteria during lunchtime. the kids ask for the opportunity to go to a study hall. he said no. during the lunch time, kids were throwing hand at the muslim students and it was of course something that turned out to be a fight this 14 year-old girl came to me and send i have the solution. i want to the principle and i told him the problem is that we do not understand each other. she said they do not understand my culture, and so if you would help us, maybe we could explain our culture to them. he snapped back at her, my job is not to have you teach your culture, it is for you to learn my culture. she continued to fight and does the work she had set out to do at 14, today as a full-time

professional intercultural communication. there are so many other stories of people are reminded me so much of my own background and of the background i am sure some many of you here. that is people who like us are american to have pride in their face and heritage and want to succeed in value the values of america. it is an american story. it is a community not unlike other communities. it is interesting because the anecdotes tell the story, but our polling does as well. we have polled ethnic americans. we have put together a book. and what we learned about muslims was really quite fascinating. the diversity of the community is extraordinary. probably the single largest

group is african-american. after that you have arab american and south asian american, but growing numbers of iranian americans and turkish americans and people from african countries, though again, each one of them as you need them remind you of the immigrant story of every other group that has come to america in terms of their values, aspirations, you get in the cab and talk to the guy who is doing his day job but he has a night job. it is the american story. like i said, that comes through in the polling we have done. what we learn is the value of muslims in america track closely the values of other ethnic americans. in particular, catholics. they lean the progressive on a

number of fiscal issues, like for example, supporting health care or strengthening social security or school funding or funding to clean the environment, but then they lean conservative on social issues. like family values or abortion or tough on crime or tough on losaws that would fight terrori. the income is slightly above the national income. the values of those that are regular attendees track closely with those that are regular church attendees. the belief in the american dream is the same period this is what we know. this is the story retold after

9/11, and the story retell again today. president bush got a completely right. the problem is not islam, the problem are people who accused is, to commit violent acts against our country and people. what happened after 9/11 when we were all asking these questions is that an industry of those who actually have had an ax to grind against the religion of islam and muslims and arabs, they ended up providing most of answers. they wrote books and got them published. they testified before congress and dominated the airwaves on radio and television. i will never forget and hearing that was held in the senate on is, featuring three guys -- on islam featuring three guys and

it was acceptable for this to happen. allies that told and the bigotry they spread was horrific. and yet people were just nodding in the audience because that is all they heard. --t h the lies that they told and the bigotry they spread were corrected. they have done enormous damage. shortly after 9/11 when we polled over all america is that people still had a very favorable attitude toward islam. today when we pulleolled they do not. today less than half say they need to know more. the fact is that unfavorable views have risen, but that information has increased as well so that people can think

they know, and that is the dangerous thing. ignorance and servitude are probably the most dangerous combination of all. you talk about sh'ria and -- we went into iraq not having a clue and then a month later people were talking about the things as if they actually had a clue. if you could put two words in the sentence to became an expert. if this were not enough, this cast of characters organized not only information for the campaign, but they organize politically. and they were the ones who are organizing against park 51. this is the danger to the image of our country abroad. it flies in the face of the wise

counsel offered by george w. bush. it is a danger to our values, but also a danger to the very social fabric of who we are as a country. a few years back i was invited to speak in warsaw and prague and other places in europe to talk about the differences. people wanted to know the differences between america and europe, and why are your muslim and arab communities not alienated. why have they risen to the top in your countries in ways that they have not done so in here. i began and spoke about the fact that we as a nation have always been different. we have been different in the sense that america as a concept is different and america as a reality is different. no ethnic group defines who we are. no provision defined to we are. pickets have had their way over time, but in the end, the

notion of america as an absorbed entity that transforms people and to america -- you do not just get a passport year, you get an identity as a new person. this transforms you into becoming an american. you could be occurrekurd in gery and you will always be a kurd. you can get citizenship, but you never get the nationality. you never get the sense that i am part of this people. and the narrative does not include you. and when we studied law was in court as a kid, i went with them. -- when we studied lewis and clark as a kid, , i went with

them. what troubles me about what is at stake in the park 51 building is not the building, is about the narrative of who we are as a people. if these guys win, whatever the outcome, then america will not be america anymore. the story of the muslim communities year may very well be like that of the muslim community in france or in germany, and that would be devastating for the social fabric of our country. i will leave it there. i think you. i hope we do not end the discussion again in this way. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i know we have a lot of questions. i want to give ground rules. make sure it is a question and not a speech. if you want to read the speech, have your own panel.

c-span has a microphone. they will come around and make their best effort to get the microphone above you so that you can have your question heard to the rest of the country. let me start off with a quick question picking up on what doctors of r. zogby talk about. well there were incidents of retaliation and some incidents not only against muslims/americans but people perceive to be muslim-american, why is this coming up now eight or nine years later? why is there now call to stop the construction of a mosque across the country? there are over 2000 plus mosques in the country. why is this coming to a head now? >> there is a general mood afoot

in the country. it is part and parcel of the broader social unraveling that is taking place. we saw it began last summer. i think some of that has to do with the fact that we have selected an african-american president and some people cannot in just its. there is no question the economic distress in the social dislocation that has occurred is part of it. i think at the same time that eight or nine years of disinformation has taken a toll. if the social conditions were not there, if the unraveling or not there, i do not think we would see it in exactly the same way. it is classic nativism.

we have seen its before. we had the anti-asian backlash in the early part of the last century. shortly after the war we had an anti-seven european -- anti- southern europeans. fahey we had the same kind of thing. then we have anti-german wave as well. in times of economic stress, this begins to happen. it has been fuelled by bigotry and ignorance. another factor is that the president himself as an a bind. george bush was able -- if george bush was able to speak out, but it barack obama's

because of to the public will the defense camp. in some ways he is in a bind. it puts the rest of the country in a bind in that where this leadership come from on this? how can leadership speak forcefully about it? i think it is a terrible situation. and we need political leadership instead of fanning the flames as some are doing. when the political leadership to do the right thing and put this out, because i think the very social fabric of the country is at stake here. >> i agree with everything jim said. is america an exclusive club or will we live up to our values of pluralism? when people start questioning

the christianity of our president, i think that as a form of religious nationalism. i think they're using religion to say religion with an america is part of an exclusive club. this exploitation of the truth that is used for political purposes, since this now is an election year, and the fact is muslim americans are the easiest targets. they are an easy punching bag for this, because we do not have to reach, we do not have the lobby, we do not have a pr infrastructure. while we are responding to everything, the other side obviously has the microphone. it is the other side of extremists. my mentor always senaid somethig that is very telling. he said the world is not divided

into muslims, christians, and jews. the world is divided into stupid and intelligent people. >> on that note, who wants to be the first to ask an intelligent question? [laughter] raise your hand. we will have the gentleman come over. >> you and i have discussed this in the past, and that is well we note the great majority of muslims embrace and endorsed the founding principles of the united states and want to be good americans, unfortunately there are people who do not. who profess to be acting in the name of islam. one of the difficulties is there is no central authority, central definition of what a good muslim is. is there any effort within the muslim american community to uphold an american affirming

muslim? >> i think this calls for a centralized the year in american is on to tell people what islam is, what is right and wrong is misguided. we believe in democracy. we believe in structures where people would hold to different interpretations so long as they are consistent with and the basic principles of the koran. what we really need is a council. people who understand what it is about and can think about it and write about it and come together and evaluate the various cents

in the united states and comments on them in writing. that is why i was calling for an education. for example, recently a lot of people came to me and said what about the story of a stunning in afghanistan -- of the stoning in afghanistan? we wrote an analysis of that. we showed it is not application of sh'ria, and those who committed its are punishable because they punished an innocent person. i believe in democracy and will move away from central democracy, but as for order and responsibility and for legal authority in the sense of understanding to religion to educate muslims as well as non-

muslims and the u.s. >> it is not just the issue of was callers are saying, but what people are doing on the ground. the strongest that the work is being done in mosques, community centers, people that promote civic engagement. for example, there is a stunnioning in the koran. as far as sh'ria it is the path to god and the principals or mercy, justice, and human dignity. the goals are five that are accepted by all of the scholars with yoon and mindy. they are the rights to life,

free expression, faith, family, and property. if there is any violation of those goals, it is a violation of sh'ria. that, and understanding is really the gulf that our organization and other organizations are pursuing. >> i will take another cut at that in a different way. i am a catholic. all priests are not pedophiles. i work with the italians. they are not all tied in with the mob. i am married to an irish woman, she does not drink. [laughter] i remember saying after christmas day attempt to blow up the plane in detroit that we

learned from that that we did not connect the dots and our intelligence community correctly. as dangerous as not connecting the dots is to wrongly connect the dots and think you have come up with the picture. i think one of the problems we have got is that as i said in my remarks, they concluded every single incident that has occurred and drawn portrait of islam. some have chastise me for using the word bigotry. let's understand what it is. it is when you take the characteristics of the few and attribute that to the whole. this priest, that a priest. the only stories we ever read about priests these days are that. the story of the good, hard- working muslims all over, and

yet we know in our own heart of hearts and in our own experiences -- the problem is we do not know muslims well enough yet. the point that we need to have this intelligence, addition, we need more exposure, we need to know more about it, we need to retain what we know, and we need not to connect the dots in a way that it is not warranted. i think that more than a religious authority, there is more experience and change of heart. that would, i think, be helpful in dealing with this problem more than -- if you had the muslim people say, she is not a muslim for what he did, you would still have people saying he is not authentic. i remember speaking one time in new york at the first anniversary and 9/11. tom brokaw invited me to come and speak to families of survivors. it was a very painful day for

them and difficult experience for me. the first question is, why did they do that? would justify it? i said nothing justified it. next question. why do you say nothing justified its? -- why do say nothing justified it and then said but? >> i said i did not say that. the reality is that the rest of america did not have the direct pain. too many still cloese their ears and said that all muslims are inclined to violence. when the group spoke at an repeatedly spoke out, no one heard them. >> you have to be