could buy into a home and earn equity. when they went month after month, decade after decade, they have no equity. the bank is not to be cut out. we are processing the loans for the government gets your%. .

i asked a couple of weeks ago i had lunch with president obama. i raise the issue of our crisis in foreclosures and families underwater and that we needed to be as simple and as aggressive to help our families in this situation as we have been to put institutions back on their feet. the result was a follow up with treasury secretary timothy geithner. i laid out a couple of ideas. one idea stems from farmers. they lost it in the midwest.

a foreclosure rescue loan that enables it back at the price it has been auctioned off to the public with a loan that is not based upon credit scores of but a fair analysis of the ability to pay, that is the way the family would be out from under water. if they would not owe more than the home was worth. they would have a fair interest rate. they would be back on their feet. that was one idea. the second idea was to do 6% a refinancinrefinancing. at that rate there could be a standard mortgage for about 5% for a little less plus an insurance to help pay for once that failed. this would allow people who have

subprime loans web gone up to 849 today 8% or an nizam -- who have subprime lines that have gone up from 8% to 9% to get out from under water. they could take the $50,000 and have it be a zero interest mortgage that to be paid off when they paid off the regular market shook -- regular market. families would not feel under water anymore. they would feel more comfortable. they would go to the hardware store. they would feel comfortable. these ideas, and the strategies, we have got to do more to help our families are or we will not get back on track. thank you very much for t. >> i put that together to help

other people. i myself already have a home that is paid off. a lot of individuals say they could never get into a home for this and that. i thought i would put something together. i thought i would come and say what i feel can help. maybe it is good enough. maybe you can meet with larry summers and go over it. he would be lending to poorer -- you would be lending to poorer individuals. [applause] >> how many folks think we should have a much more aggressive effort to assist families in homeownership trouble? [applause] thank you. >> we will have #611. -- number 611.

>> thank you. i think there is a lot of feelings that the stimulus package have been spent for the banks and this and that. i would appreciate it -- >> please, speaking to your microphone. >> i would appreciate it if he woulyou would -- instead of blog up money in afghanistan, if we could spend the money on roads and fiber throughout the united states. you can put guys to work laying fiber. it will be forever. we will not be stuck was slow speeds.

the infrastructure needs to be redone. this is money we could be spinning in america. expanding in america -- this could the money lease in america. then it stays here. it is very important. >> thank you. let me note that net neutrality is the concept that every user of the internet gets access at the same speed, that there are not some special deals were some people get put into the slow lane and everyone -- it is that it serves everyone equally. is that a fair description? >> [inaudible]

>> if you have your internet connection through time warner, and they cannot -- they cannot deliberately slow you down. it is a fair and even speak for everyone. i do support that. >> the next one will be number 627. goin , goig, going, gone. 608? >> i have a question for you. in lieu of our deficits and our hundred -- the only way we will do this is to cut the size of

government drastically even to the point of the draconian. can you give me some specific examples of how you would cut that and get this out of control spending under control? this is not sustainable. >> i must tell you that one of the things that is really exciting to me was nine years ago when we were running a substantial surplus. it looks like within five years we could pay off our national debt and have a debt free american to give to our children. it is not just the we are going deeper into debt. it is that the debt is no longer owned by americans. when i was in grade school, every friday we would have a chance to buy savings bonds. does anyone have that in the schools? a few of us. at that time, american's own

their own debt. if the interest payment was made, it made in our economy. now a growing share of our debt is owned by china, saudia arabia, and so forth. we also have debt payments going out of our economy each and every day. behind every program there are advocates. there is no program where there is not someone who wants it. there is a second of the jet engine that is being developed for one of our new jet fighters. it is to separate engines being developed. the secretary of defense says it is not needed. the joint of staff says it is not needed.

i voted to wipe out that second engine. i can tell you that the places that the part of the bill are screaming in protesting and they want the second engine built. they will keep trying to build it. there are additional copies of an earlier fight terror that had the same -- earlier fighter that had that same store. -- story. that is in the budget. i voted against it. normally they come up in appropriations and you just get a bill on the floor. we do have a challenge. the budget bill laid out a three-year path to get back to the point where we would not be digging the hole in the deeper. why did not lay out an instant path? if we shut them various pass

right now, we would not a looking at the level of unemployment. we would be looking at the double that. there are decisions that i support, sending support to the state of oregon for medicaid and education. oregon discussed $170 million to support school districts throughout the state. there would be some cost to an effort to help people in home ownership. we have to be extremely cautious or we will end up in a position like grease with an unsustainable debt -- g reece with an unsustainable debt. >> if i do not pay my

electricity bill, it is shut off. same with the sewer. if i do not have money for gasoline, i do not drive anywhere. this gentleman was talking about the internet. we use our blackberry for a modem. you want to talk about slow. what i am wondering is why, if we have to live by the set of rules, that if you do not have the money you do not spend it, why doesn't the federal government have to live by the same rules? [applause]

>> may be is a gambling habit are something of that nature. they go belly up. in the short term, the federal government is able to borrower if they are able to pay back. if you shut down -- it is a counter-cyclical thing. if you shut down spending when consumer demand drops, you add to the debt of the economy. the drop in consumer spending was $3 trillion over a two-year time frame. the stimulus bill designed to help fill in some of the gap with $800 billion -- versus $3 trillion. it is a little more than a quarter of the hole from consumer spending. of the stimulus bill, there are

three components. a third was tax cuts. the second and third were support for medicaid and education. state budgets were in deep trouble. the bastard was direct spending on jobs. -- the last was a direct spending on jobs. it is designed to insist across a recession. it does not fail and the entire hole. -- fill in the entire hole. the family would be looking much larger at the debt. we saw what happened under hoover with the great depression

when he said "i googling to predict i am going to balance the budget because there is love revenue." he drove into a dark depression that was awful. at the family pass the stimulus bill and and a plume was going up 1% a month in oregon and higher in many counties, the goal was to try to prevent from completely nosediving. the nation is borrowing money to help us get there. we will have to pay it back. we have to be careful not to borrow too much the.

>> 644? >> i have so many questions i do not know where to start. i will try to narrow them down. >> take your best down -- pick your best one. >> congress seems to be under the impression that the american people want deficit. bureaucrats are running our health care. there are open borders. they are closing car dealerships 1/2. i am wondering when democrat of hoehling to take credit for it -- democrats are going to take credit for their own responsibility. it is always pushed for the

summer down the line, it is going to have to be obama and the democratis. a turnaround in close car dealerships. they will not let them continue drilling in the gulf. where is, a step -- they are

trying to make themselves a viable in canada -- again. that is a decision by a private company. i love it for them to back off from that for the -- i lobby for them to back off. i am not running the private company. it is their responsibility to make the decisions. they did restore some dealerships. it was not much. i guess we are going to find out whether it works for them or not. >> 958. 958? ok. it will be 954.

>> what is your plan? what are you doing? >> i took a huge hit from a loss of jobs in from retirement savings. when people lost their jobs, and they lost their health care. then the value has plummeted. they helped create a bridge through. i have been pursuing them every possible thing gulf to try to

fight for us to take on the issue of a loss of value in homes and home ownership. much more aggressively than we are doing right now. the third thing is to really try to put our economy back on track. elem not been so much time on it. they are creating jobs through energy policy, putting our construction back to work. that is essentially -- it is not just that they took a hit. the hit is ongoing. prices are continuing to drop. we are further under water. more families are owing more than their homes are worth, etc. >> we are down to our last two people.

613. after 613 will be 626. 626, are you here? there you are. >> in the bulletin, there was a story about the forest service. i think it was this week. they have money given to them by the federal government to clean up the forest. they outbid a bunch of other people. they hired foreign workers with that money but. is there something in place to keep that from happening again? >> are you saying folks from outside the united states or organ? >> i think it was from outside the united states. >> can you give me a copy of that article?

>> i read that. it was outside of oregon. it was basically for fighting fires just like oregon goes to arizona to fight fires. they go to california to fight fires in t. other sources were hired to come in and tell. >> i love to see the article. if the gentleman is correct and this from a state, that is not that unusual. our workers it hard from other states and vice versa. any time with their projects, we

can proceed to hire people close by. it creates good for the local economy. people are traveling a long distance. other private contractors can tap in. i understand they have to do a fair bidding process. it is hugely ivan stages to have them go to the communities. >> i have one other question. >> i'll ask to come and talk to me afterward. >> ok.

>> i have a look to the questions. when you are talking about the smog jobs bill, i listened to the president talk on it the other day. he said it was already paid for. how is it paid for? do they have to be appropriated? congress has not passed a budget yet. this is an open check to spend it anyway they want. why do we have a budget in congress? >> we adopted a pay for statute that said we had to establish a set of programs to cut foreign just in order to pay for something we are creating. that is a way to try to start

exercising fiscal restraint. it does not apply for everything. it is not apply to unemployment benefits. i cannot specify the list. there are a whole bunch of things put together. we would yield a list. follow with me. we will give your name in normal. that is part stock of the goal that i think probably resonates for most of us of trying to establish some form of fiscal discipline. on that note, thank you for coming this evening. thank you to our host and the commissioner for in seen --

emceeing. smucker see is a lot of trouble of their having town halls and no one is coming. that is when things are going to go off course. thank you for coming in sharing your views for the of = = = = = = = = = = = = = = -- for sharir views. we are getting 10,000 letters from people across the state. it is more valuable to your person to person from . thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> they talk about cyber attacks and government computers. after that, a discussion of how social media can be used to make government more response will -- responsive the the. >> they hear from james webb, a former navy secretary. that is on c-spa 2. live coverage of president obama's conference on economic

proposals. >> 1971 but rules for radicals but it is done this as a blueprint for bringing about social change. >> he defies all the serious types of rabble-rousers'. >> he spent 10 years working for alinsky. he writes about his experiences in "radical." >> more coverage now of the recent public policy conference and new mexico state university. speakers include the president of the federal reserve and bank of kansas city. the event is hosted by a former senator. this is a little less than an hour.

>> they are extremely important to the grassroots development the. it is my pleasure that you also served on the board. they served on the board at the denver office of th i also want to make a note. this is the first time ever spoke before two other prominent senators prepare -- if only get

better from years of the one it to tell you. to the president and new mexico state, thank you for welcoming me here. i much appreciated. i want to mention senator hutchison with a little bit of a special note. she played a key role in keeping the regional banks in the midwest and texas and the policies around banking.

her who she said of and help desk. i want you to know how much they appreciate her support during this change. i'm going to speak on regulatory reform. the democratic ticket for taking this on. it is one of the most important issues that face is the united states going forward. i wish you all the best in the very significant effort. i will tell you my comments are directed to the students.

if i seem a little been narrowed to some of you, it is on purpose. unlike a genial but some of the changes and experiences we had. i want them to feel free to ask me anything. if i will certainly be happy to take questions if there is time at the end of this. these are extremely difficult times. it is a fact that this past july the president signed into law one of the most significant pieces of financial regulatory reform legislation in u.s. history. at 2300 pages, the bill is considered to be the most sweeping reform of u.s. financial regulations since the

great depression. this legislation was in response to a severe recession that is among the worst of our history. we suffered the loss of a million jobs. it did the evacuation of trillions of dollars from the housing market.

it is a poorly and asian financial instruments including many ties to the real-estate market of. as prices to kinney to decline, the austin to work. -- as prices continue to decline, they stop working and th bear stearns suddenly cannot make its payments to others. then fannie mae and freddie mac came under pressure. soon after that, a lehman brothers came in to pressure it

failed and was not bailed out. the crisis became a panic. these events left congressional lawmakers with the challenge of taking steps to not to repeat this crisis but to improve the means for responding to a future crisis regardless of their cause should it come. that is an exceptionally tall order. the reform in consumer protection has numerous provisions focused on these goals. i appreciate the challenges lawmakers face in crafting this legislation. from my first day on the job they are my appointment to the president say and continuing to today, i have been directly involved in banking supervision. although out of having to get into the details of this

financial regulation, i will touch on only a few aspects. they include the resolution according, the vote " rule -- the volcker world, and standards for the i believe these are among the important provisions. and the they do a good job with the mystery of the complexity of the issues at hand in the challenges we face increasingly necessary safe ground -- safeguards. i will talk of the what i believe needs to be done to ensure the success of this legislation and stability of our financial system. this recession had some kind of direct impact on every american.

if you do not have a house, do not think your escape the crisis unscathed. it could have real implications for those of you looking for a job in the future burda. it can be felt more directly with the way they do business in the way credit is extended. as you might expect, the act is

extremely complex. it is highly technical and requires the implementation of hundreds of new rules that are yet to be written. when it the most important regard to establishing a process of dealing with those institutions whose failure would have adverse systemic effects. the fed and the government took the steps. those very institutions are larger today burda -- today. there have been intertwined with

one another it plays an important role in our financial system. for decades, there have been discussions about firms being too big to fail. this was an issue well known in advance. because they believe the government will not let them fail, they have incentives to take on excessive risk. they were able to attract capital and expand their presence. the buildup of excessive risk led to the greater risk and other segments of the economy. the effect is negative and harm full. it attempts to address several issues in this area.

it provides a number -- a process of allows for an orderly wind down of systemically important financial institutions when they fail. it to be implemented in some of a taxpayer funded. it provides for a priority of queens when systemically important firm fails and they fear losses according to the rest that they willingly accepted the. what it requires dismantling, it also provides for the continuation of critical operations so that the failure does not cause other problems in our economy for our financial

system for i think aerial and to welcome the creation of this process and insist it be followed without exception. if it is not, they will be built up again. keep that in mind. the world has to be non- negotiable. the other bellamy, i think is important is called the vote for -- volcker rule. in school is to bring more stability to the system. >> the volcker rule prohibits commercial entities from trading securities or derivative instruments for their own account and from investing in private equity and hedge funds.

high-risk activities. a related provision also prohibits commercial banks and thrifts from making markets and certain types -- in certain types of derivatives for their own accounts. for several decades now, and this is why i want to go back -- it is so important. following the great depression, it was understood that commercial banks would be limited in their risk-taking because of their critical role played in the economy and the special privileges they hold because of that special role. economic activity cannot occur

without a system for making payments. virtually all payments ultimately go through commercial banks and are settled there. banks play a special role as the most trusted intermediary for holding our deposits and are savings. his critical role is the reason the united states provides these banks a public safety net, including deposit insurance, allowing the banks to borrow from the federal reserve if they have temporary funding or liquidity problems, not solvency problems. in 1999, the separation of commercial banks and the more highly risk oriented investment banks was ended. the market will take care of things. it took less than a decade for the first major crisis to occur, and guess what? the market did not take care of it very well. if implemented well, the volcker rule can take as a head, i think, in a safer and more sound manner. the third area i want to talk

about is capital, because there is a very important provision in the dodd-frank act. capital, and i will find it nearly -- narrowling, i define it as shareholder equity, provides confidence to depositors and other creditors that a firm can withstand an economic downturn which inevitably comes. financial firms, however, can most easily enhance their returns to their investors by leveraging up their assets. against this capital. that is, borrow more for themselves to invest in assets such as loans and securities

against the smaller basic capital. but in a financial crisis, the more highly leveraged the bank, the more vulnerable is because there is too little capital to absorb the loss. creditors then lose confidence and the creditor run occurs, and the crisis begins. the fallout of such circumstances is always a recession. like the one the country has just experienced and is only now slowly recovering from. the need to absorb losses and rebuild capital forces the temporary cessation of lending because you are building up capital which inhibits economic growth and worsens the recession. so you need the capital before the crisis because and then you spend the next four years trying to rebuild after the crisis. to demonstrate my point, i would noted that prior to bear stearns a failure in 2008, its leverage ratio was 34-1.

that meant that bear stearns had made $34 worth of loans or investments for every $1 of capital at held. those are shocking numbers because it meant that a loss of 3% of the assets is held, just 3%, made it insolvent. and it failed. to address this, the dodd-frank act instructs regulatory authorities to set up appropriate -- maximum leverage ratios for hyatt -- with higher capital for larger banks. the standards are more stringent to reduce their risk of failure, given the widespread systemic effect it would have on the economy. in addition, i should note that at an international level similar requirements known as basel are in process and should be completed in the near future. we will see how those turnout. in my view, this provision of the act is now one of the most important resolution. it is essential that regulatory

authorities get it right. a major contributor to this pass crisis was excessive leverage in the financial industry and in the economy more broadly and heard of it -- the standards must be established at a much higher level than that of the past if the industry is to provide not just credit in the long run but also credit with in an environment where the public can once again have confidence in its institutions and its economy. if we revert to allowing high leverage in the interests of short run growth, we are certain to repeat the mistakes of the past and experience another crisis, i can assure you of that. now, let me turn to another element of this that i think is every bit as important as the first three.

each of these provisions, as well as many other in the act and there are many, that lead to important and necessary changes that will protect our financial system. however, it is important to recognize that the president's signature on this legislation is only the beginning of a long process that will eventually determine the success or failure of this legislation. and even more importantly, the ability of regulators to respond and prevent crises. the title of my remarks today -- "who will lead, implementing regulatory reform"does not refer to a question of which agency. in fact, that is irrelevant, unless we have leaders within these agencies who will firmly

enforce regulatory standards. i am an advocate of a sound commercial banking system to underpin and facilitate this u.s. economy of ours which is so great. it is time that the largest financial institutions in my words experience a little more tough love. no one escapes. that is it say we should not be tough because they deserve a threshing, because we need sound, robust banks in this country. today, i have offered only a few examples of the complexity of the issues that lawmakers, regulators, and the financial industry face. as with any piece of legislation, some within the public believe it falls far short of its goal. others believe it goes far too far. for the moment, we must implement it as prescribed. it is the law. opponents who are working hard to weaken its implementation and struggling to find loopholes already. others are insisting that it be implemented quickly and without exception as to the broad rules outlined in the legislation. this is to be expected and is

part of our political and our capitalistic system. for example, the resolution process that i mentioned includes provisions that could leave it susceptible to political considerations and possible taxpayer bailouts, failing financial firms, especially when those failures happen quickly, as was the case during the most recent crisis, because there are ways to have the human element come in in a crisis. we cannot take a chance. bail it out. that is where the hard part is. i can tell you from experience. as we look to this legislation and more broadly at our financial regulatory system, it is absolutely critical that it be implemented with strong, fair, and firm leadership. let me take just a minute to give you, and stint as particularly, an example of just such a person. -- and student particularly, an example of just such a person. individual by the name of bill taylor stepped up to the task of what was then that the worst banking crisis since the great

depression. he headed supervision for the federal reserve system and then let the fdic. he was forthright in his views, firm and his conclusions, and fair almost to an extreme. he was a man of integrity and when necessary, he was willing to take unpopular positions. he recognize that the failure of the bank, regardless of its size, had an important impact on the community it served, whether a world community or a major wall street market -- or a rural community. and it always, always impacts customers and consumers when there is a failure.

you understood that the job of a bank supervisor was not to close banks. it is not our goal, but to enforce rules and exercise regulatory judgment that minimizes the bank failures in order to strengthen the safety and soundness of our financial system. he encouraged strong capital standards. that is where we start. he insisted on tough examinations and always outlined careful actions with a focus towards reducing the number of failures, thereby preventing or mitigating much of the damage before problems became so unmanageable in a crisis. finally, bill was not intimidated by those he had to supervise. you think that is simple, but it is not. because everyone has a reason for why things have gone bad. and if you only gave him a little more time, and with sticks it their way. he consistently administered capital rules, examination findings, and enforcement actions from the largest to

smallest institutions. talk about fairness. bill would look at a ceo from some of the largest firms eye to eye and tell them, it is time to change. it is time to get that capital. it is time to write those losses off. it is time to step up to your problems. delivering bad news and enforcing rules for safe landing is never an easy matter. the bill do it was necessary, and he had the courage of his convictions and the courage to act. leadership be the most -- let me emphasize this to the students -- leadership will be the most important element in the success of the new law in the months and years to come.

without it, you can throw 2300 pages in the trash. this year, our bank published a biography of bill that focused on his experiences during the financial crisis. -- of the 1980's. those who read this book, available on our web site, at the federal reserve bank of kansas city not only can see the important role he played but also might be surprised at the similarities between this most recent crisis and the events of two decades ago which we learned so little from. so i encourage you, as we go forward, that the fact is to strengthen the financial regulatory system is necessary and it is an absolute must in response to this crisis. the federal reserve, the treasury, other banking securities, regulators will now shape the law further as they write new rules and begin the process of implementation.

as i said, this lot is complex and the real challenges lie ahead. the easy part's done, believe it or not. those will implement the legislation must make it understandable, without weakening its and without undermining its goal. we must take the complex and we must make it simple so that it is understandable and, therefore, reasonably enforceable. it must serve the objective of protecting the financial system and especially the business and consumers who use the service, who depend on those services. this must also occur without destroying the competitive environment and the personal responsibility of everyone for their financial decisions that is so necessary for capitalism itself to work. you cannot blame it on everyone else. you have to step up to it. we must explain it in simple terms. we must enforce it with the the financial industry. the consumers must take responsibility. it is a community effort. and most importantly, we must show leadership in making sure

it works. if we fail, and i assure you, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. thank you all very much. i am open for questions, students. so fire away. [applause] >> ok. good morning. first, we would like to welcome our guest from our state to the land of enchantment. those of you out of state, welcome. would like to welcome our fellow new mexicans as well. we extend a deep appreciation to the senator for allowing this opportunity to create this dialogue and have the same discussion where everybody is heard. the recent recession has affected a lot of americans.

their livelihood and most of all their hope for the future that their children will have a better day than they had. so right now we would like to take a moment just to recognize those americans who are struggling right now to this recession. our first question gets right to the heart of the topic. do you think economic collapse has damaged american communities for generations? in the wake of the disaster that has rippled through our communities, our first question gets to the heart of the topic. the banking act calls for more regulation.

/'///7/'#@t

. .

>> as we try to provide a level of coverage sustainable overtime. many things will have to be done dealing with the overall healthcare system but some things will have to be done with the focus of medicare specifically. one thing is we don't have a budget. billionaires received significant taxpayer subsidies

for vol tarly signing up for medicare part d.

>> we have a huge problem with regard to state and electrical healthcare costs. they represent a liability that

have to be dealt with as well. when you look today and add total public debt held by the federal government, the state governments and the local governments and you compare that to comparable numbers of debt for european nations, we are already worse than spain, portugal, ireland, united kingdom. within 10 years of greece and i'm just trauking about the debt held by the trust funds. thank you very much. look forward to your questions

>> do we have questions? >> if we did implement the affordable henl care act the way it is written and reduce spending on seniors by $2800 by 20 to and $again by 2030, what do you think their healthcare would look like? >> you'll have much more difficulty getting care. we'll have a lot more seniors in the er. even if you are insured, if you can't find a figs to take care of you. second, if we see provisions change in the way healthcare is

provided for medicare. i envision medicare wings in the hospital where you replace semiprivate room was wards. nothing bad about that september it's like having more company. people may leave those lines like in canada because they don't survive the line. >> we need to think outside the box. in my view, i think the federal government may be in the wrong business with regard to healthcare. what level of universal coverage

is sustainable overtime? >> in my view that is wellness protection with an option to obtain more, if you want. we are going to think about how are we going to move forward while maintaining xiition? right now, the system we have now, we've made a lot more promises we'll be able to deliver on. that's the simple truth?

could you talk about the potential var ability. what might be a reasonable ra e range. >> you are right, huge changes may come along. we are looking at a long run of trends trends. er you have diseases like pneumonia that used to kill people and now you take a few pills.

i think it is largely about incentives. as we are structuring the incentive, we are not making the providers bid.

take them out and let them bid to get the customers. make them bid let us get everything part d did for us. 60 years of healthcare growing faster than the economy gives us a better idea of what healthcare will do. >> there is a lot greater security dealing by healthcare, you are talking intensity not

because of changes because of healthcare but because people end up living a lot longer. on the other hand, they are probably going to end up using a lot more healthcare overtime. if you make fundment will changes on one of several changes. level of coverage you are not

going to bend the healthcare cost curve down. i would add that the more variable the healthcare cost is the worst it is >> when comparing to other countries, i think it would be interesting to look at what those countries do. nothing of what i'm hearing from you. i'm curious and it sounds to me like you are supporting further

privatization of the system we have in the united states and the fact that we have all these different insurance companies that are spending a third of the dollar on marketing and insuring the plan in this nation, people don't even get in lines for care. >> tom and i may not agree on what the answer is here. you'll find i don't advocate the

same thing here. i do think we need to learn from other countries and learn from them and come up with an american solution. the fact is that other countries do have global budgets. they don't have the same unlimited fee. they have evidence based standards. if there's not evidence something is going to significantly improve your life, you may not be able to get it. you may have to wait longer if it is more elective. physicians in other countries may make half. this is a lot of things. we do need to make the care.

on medicare part d, that's a perfect case study. >> we made another $8 trillion unfunded promise. we promised something we couldn't afford and provided subsidies across the board. the one positive light was the competition element which caused the cost to be lower but still unaffordable and unsustainable. >> i'm not going to debate with you about this. wref to be careful when talking about our outcomes are so bad. one of the things when people say, the japanese spend a little more than half of when we spend and livelonger. the fact is japanese americans in the u.s. livelonger than

japanese jap nose. i would add one more thing. there is an academic paper with 100 rifrnss that compare the united states system with other countries i recommend that paper to these policies.

under a fee for service system it creates a dangerous disconnect. it encourages people to do more because further under our malpractice system, you look to get sued because of everything. since 85% cost is paid for by somebody else there's really not enough consumer skin in the game.

you need to have a bunl et. ultimately individuals need to be able to get whatever they want. should the taxpayers pay for something if there's not a meaningful chance to improve or sustain life? one of the things you have is taking evidence based approaches

at all bases end of life is not just senior citizens. the key concept is not just evidence based. if you pull those things together, you can have a positive change. we have done a lot of look at end of life. you have to be careful to

account for survivors you take extreme measures to account for survivors. that's important. that's why you are doing it. you are hoping these people are gooding to survive. if you have a group of figses that say you are going to die anyway. we need to look at this.

that's an important question. we need to do better research. i come from a pediatric subspecialty side. hitting a couple different points in the world i travel and the exposure i'm faced with. all the physicians practice evidence based medicine.

it is the accumulation of knowledge of what works and what doesn't work when you take a current system, you then flip is around to outcome driven in our parameters. >> what is your specialty? >> peak pediatric opop.

you have the government certainly not perfect administering one set, the fee for service i don't see that the outcomes are any better. >> the first thing on medicare advantage i haven't studied that. it is relevant to look at.

that's what medicare choice did that's not the advantage we are going to have. so suppliers have a reason to bid for when they are going to be supplying for. what we are currently doing is

not doing that. everybody talks about the government programs. what about the providers? you are worried about them did he parting. we have to incentivize. that's critical to making this whole thing work. fraud exists e where. wal-mart has fraud.

who pays for theft. if the customers care that they are being cheated at the country. the reason, every customer is the policeman in healthcare. they don't care what it costs. if they don't care, the providers aren't going to care either. >> i don't like painting a broad brush for any provider you have to have three things.

clearly defined incentives that encourage people to do the right thing. you need to have appropriate transparent si you have to have adequate transparent si. we are 0-3. a strike out. if we do what we did last spring

and cutoff medicare advantage because it is costing us too much, we really haven't saved much money. we have just shifted it. another question. >> this is a question regarding global budgets >> what does the healthcare system look like in a world of global budget. i'm running this couldn't raw diction in my head that the problem you run into someone has to loose out once you hit the top of the bunl et.

first, you have to define what you mean by global budget. my view is people should be able to spend what they want. because you are spending other people's money and mortgaging outcomes, if you will. what is being promised? on what basis is the payment system working? are you paid foresee of service or the approach? how much skin do they have in the game.

as we said before, one can debate whether or not as a result of this reform. >> are you asking where does the money go?

as far as medicare is concerned they do produce it. you know what they are doing with part a and part b and how much money is going into part b. what you don't have is med i gap. you don't have what seniors are spending on their own. even for all henl care, they do a tremendous amount of research on non-medicare operations. >> we are not sure we are sure what you are real i will asking.

you have to come up with numbers to say there are three different opinions. >> i will tell you when i was a trust y of medicare. i've done a lot of practice this

is not just a medicare problem. it is a healthcare system problem. we need to rethink this so we can get different results. that's the only way we err going to get different results. i agree. we let everyone and pay for what they want. from single payers perspective, mammograms don't pay. any time you get a ma'am owe dpram and it doesn't discover anything, it was unnecessary.

from a third party payer's perspective, it is not. that's why we had this blowup. every time you check the air in your tires and they were ok, you wasted time. if someone was paying you for your time, they would say it doesn't pay to check your tires. for those people that don't check your tires and their tire explodes and they die, that's a problem with third party payers. and i have all the interest this regarding the customers we have

to think about what benefits is the third party payer. the emphasis is not all we should be concerned about. >> anyone else? jo you both said we can't keep doing what we are doing. what i see congress doing is adding on benefits i think that no more than five years down the row, each year, they'll revisit the judgement in eliminating and

changing them the way they've been doing in the unsustainable thing. it can't happen and won't happen. that's where we are going to head. it is too bad that the whole trust y's report is contending. we can't solve the problem. if we think we can solve the problem by pretending we've solved it. that is just pretending. this is real. when it comes time to make the cuts, congress will have the guts to do it. >> it will have adverse affects

on seerors. they'll be marching on the capitol. they are giving you their estimates congress just spent a year to a year and a half. that healthcare debate did some positive things with regard to the type of things that really need to be done to stabilize it, those were largely punted on.

we will refocus that in 2013 and we'll end up having to engage on them. unlike social sek curity healthcare and tax will have to be done in installments probably be gun in 2013. >> thank you to these guys for coming.

now an animal science professor. book tv in primetime tonight on c-span 2. >> now, a forum on raising the

retirement age. the center for economic research hosts this 1 hour 15 minute discussion. >> this briefing has been organized by the women's council organization and social sek cury

they have done so much to help us with this. we regret that they couldn't be here today. thank you to the committee in talking about why raising the retirement age for social security is a terrible idea. this was set up by president obama as a challenge to address the aging and the unfunded

deficit. we know what is causing that. unfunded wars, tax rates and a swiss cheese financial system. what has resulted, we have lower income tax revenues have i said anything about social security there? >> no. why in, it has nothing to do with the federal deficit. yet, we seem focussed on the problems.

one of the favored ways, it seems. we don't know what they are doing because they are meeting behind closed doors from when we can tell, they are focusing on social security. one of the things they would like to do is raise the retirement age. for women, the three legged stool for retirement is wobbly. first, women work in jobs that don't provide any pension at all. that's one leg of the stool not there for many women.

after a time time of wage sdrim nation, women approach their retirement years with little or nothing in the way of prnl saveings. the wage gap has women paid less. for a woman of color, it is worse. women of color often approach their retirement years with a negative net worth. here is the kind of dole that

the commissioners apparently are being told is a good deal. on one side, we have all the wedgy people making a sacrifice and on the other side, we have all the other people. on one side somebody gives us that third vacation home or yacht and on the other side, hundreds of women get pushed out of the dole and no poverty. we have a wonderful panel to speak with us today. our first speaker is hiedi hiedi

is a research professor. without the research, organizations like mine would not have the ammunition to go to the grassroots and explain what is really going on. thank you.

this has all of the reasons wrapped up in one document. i wouldn't be being care to my own organization if i didn't point out one of our fact sheets we have available today talking about retired workers and disabled work rers about 4 milln people in america get social security benefits. it is an important benefit for families as well as women and men workers. i want to provide the overview today and to tell you as terry has said, the national council of women's organizations is concerned about the president's work on fiscal organization and

reform. it does look like they are focusing on social security on a way to restore faith in the american government that we are going to do something about our debt. it would be great if they did something about the debt but if it doesn't, it is barking up the wrong tree. apparently, we do not. interest rates are at an all time low. people from all over the world are begging to boy bonds. the system is completely able to pay full benefits through 2037, 2039. it is three decades away. there is no emergency that this has to be dealt with right now in the middle of a great recession. my over view consists of saying

four reasons why we should not be facing the social security age. once we knew they were all born, we knew they were going to grow older and retire. >> the women's organizations have called for his resignation >> his time as co-chair of the commission. the first reason is it is not

contributing to the debt. one would seem logical. >> we are living longer. isn't most of the predicted gains will go to women, not men. men livelonger anyways so we will give the men a chance to catch up with us. older people and lesser income people and lower income women experiencing some decreases in life expect si. even if it were evenly distributed, would we want to take all of our gains in work

years? our society is becoming more productive if we work longer. we want to split them with a little more work and a little more retirement. there's been a big incrows in the amount of time they spend working and retired. we feel it is pretty well balanced now. i'll say a little more about that. i know one of our presenters is speaking about that. the increases in life expectancy should not increase in the retirement age. the third mainlior reason is that it is a benefit cut everybody watches their own balance grow. we know that would cost the

system more more and result in more cuts. if benefits are being cut, that means less money is going into the system and people will have to provide for retirement anyway. for a long time, i wondered why the more money we get out of the private sector we put into the public sector. any benefit cut is privatization through the backdoor.

it is a way to move money to wall street. he needs to come out strongly against all cuts in social security. older workers did flood the market. unemployment went up kwoit a bit and more than doubled. we don't have an economy welcoming to older workers. yes, yes, stay in the work force until you are 70. we have a lot of jobs for you. no. not a lot of jobs out there. these are the four major reasons. i do want to emphasize the first one. social security is not

contributing to the deficit. it is not going to bankrupt the country. the numbers that make the most sense to me is that right now, we are spending 4.4% of gross product. it will go down after our baby boom. it will go back down to 5.8%. that's a small increase in the number of people that we have to devote to our retired people. it is an increase we have to deal with in our revenues. some people may be talking about that today. i'm not sure. we would be happy to take questions about those. in fact, life expect si has increased about two years since

those changes were made in 1983. we took those in the form of work years and reduced retirement years. one was to increase the age from 67 to 65. we have no idea of what that impact is. it is 66 now and it will go up to 67. it's really the wrong time to raise this age further when we have enacted this system. to do it again when we have no idea what impact this is having on older people other than the fact that we suspect strongly that it is not good. it would be madness from a point of view. you can't do it again until we study all of the affects that this has.

>> i guess i want to focus really on the fact that it is kind of i am practical to be raising the retirement age and especially for women. both are doing more physically demanding jobs. you'll hear more about this. older men are doing physically more demanding jobs. for women it is 38% in this age group 58 and up. this is a lot of older people doing this kind of work. for all these reasons, we don't think that the raising of the retirement age is a good idea.

when we look at the increase, they are the only people whose labor participation and employment went up will find that they took the worst jobs. it has always been the bimodal disrib use. we'll see a greater gain of these older people in these jobs. this aspect is an important one. for them, it is almost like a theft of retirement year. you justify it on the grounds of people not living longer, you are putting it into a year of work. for women, you are taking away a

retirement year and putting it into a work year. you know, some societies might need to do that. france want to move retirement from 60 to 62. they are rioting in the streets about that. we are already at 67. benefits are a big problem. women already have lower income and benefits are lower. if you increase the retirement age, you decrease the benefits. buzz of women's care giving obligations, they already have lower benefits. this would make it harder for them to have a decent benefit in retirement. these are all the practical reasons of why we think it is a particularly bad idea.

we believe it is a bad idea for everyone to be increasing in the retirement age and to be demanding that people work more to get the basic retirement for older people. i'll stop this. thank you very much. >> the co-chair of the campaign to strengthen social security. eric serves as a policy adviceor of two presidential commissions, 1982, and 1983 commission on