and what does that mean to his governance over the next couple of years and how he will stand for the election. >> i think what i would ought to ask them, he seems to feel that all of his problems that he just wasn't a good enough salesman, that is not the product. and i want to talk to a little bit about that. and also about his timing. >> you're skeptical about it sounds like. >> yes, i am. the republicans say it's about the product, and the democrats say it's about the salesmanship. and i can think it's a little of both. i mean, i think basically what the president did wrong, he asked the country to bite off more than they could swallow in one goal. and i would like to talk to him about that. >> having taken the question, i think it right now, at least if it were to be in the next week or so. i've never met a losing candidate or losing party that didn't say there was a messaging problem. he's not going to come out and say done, i shouldn't have

passed that health care reform. he's just not going to do it. he's got to come up with some reason and the reason is a messaging. i think i might move to foreign policy only because there's 50,000 troops still sitting in iraq. whether or not that constitutes a withdrawal, and i would push of a little on the deadline for next june, the time to do that will be after december when the report -- put a report out there. but i think there have been certain signals inside the white house and certainly from the military that perhaps that whole is beginning to draw down, may not work as well as they thought it would even though they remain publicly -- [inaudible] >> the left the democratic party, and does he risk an antiwar candidate running for the nomination, even if it's a symbolic candidate. >> another question, does he think hillary will run? [laughter] >> i would wonder whether he

still believed that the american people want transformational change. i think point you brought up, john, which has to do with what americans really do want. i think a lot of his election was about people want to put a bit of a governor on president bush's eight years. and yet, government has done, you know, things in terms of anything in the economy, started under bush but continued under obama, has been pretty big. >> in the front row. we'll get you a microphone, just give us a moment. >> i work in immediate in alternative media, to recover critical questions. one, the tea party, are the republican? because have i seen what has been placed on the ballot as a separate party like the green party or the communist party. is the tea party republican? and the question to all of you in the media, that i've not heard mentioned at all, the two

largest indices that have been built in the world, in iraq and in haiti, i've not heard any of the media in terms of mainstream media talk about those at all. that's a lot of government and money. >> i mean, you know, if you're concerned about the cost of building the embassy in iraq, you should take on the bigger issue of how much we spend on the worst. that's a huge issue. and, frankly, the money that has been spent on the embassy is just frankly a symbol of that, and our commitment issue going forward in iraq. and has it has been and will be in afghanistan. if you're concerned about that, i think it goes well beyond building. i think the tea party's goal in life is to rehabilitate the republican party. so yes, they are part of the republican party. >> and they ran as republicans. they ran in the republican primaries. i think one of the things that was a sigh of relief for republicans is that they did not

try to run as independents. >> i think it is a pretty valid point, it seems like many of the tea party activist, those people most motivated in this election, care a lot more about their ideological agenda than they do the republican brand. in many cases they seem to me that they were contemptuous, republicans were washington political professional as they were democratic. >> but they ran as republicans. they ran in the republican primaries and more elected republicans. yes, they want to change -- >> we would rather have people with principled and just any republican. >> thirty-two believers than 60 our inspectors spent we do have a lot of people have their hands up so we will ask questioners and answers to be crisp and we will get more. >> thank you. i do question. in the last term we saw a lot of

immigration, statesmen taking action because they have us in congress too much. a limited amount of time in a lame duck but i was just to see what your thoughts are and what might happen in the next term related to immigration. >> anybody want to take a crack at that? seems like it's a -- big problems can washington doesn't seem to respond to it. >> i don't think either party wants to go near it right now. there's a lot of incentives for the democratic party to do, and republicans to do. that i think they're both a bit afraid of the both right now. >> not major reform. you're not going to see that in the next two years. harry reid has promised he will bring up the dream act which is a portion of the. and i think you will see a brought up. >> it's significant for the economy as well because of parfum all the obvious issues about immigration, america desperately needs a president, the smartest people from abroad, this poor student, the smartest engineers, you know, people that come over here and do what they

used to do. a lot of that is caught up in the current sort of impasse, and appearance of being on friendly terms, people -- >> a young man right here. >> good morning. i'm a freshman at george washington university. in 2008 we saw the emergence with the tea party with the republicans losing the presidency. now we see the democratic party having some sort of division, giving that there's a competition between steny hoyer and jim clyburn. do we expect further division within the democratic party? >> that's a pretty good question, and i'm going to adding moderate prerogative. is largely ideological competition or over specific personalities and who is the better person for the job? >> i think some of it is just practical politics. normally when a party loses, you

know, this is the majority, the speaker tends to resign. i mean, denny hastert did dick gephardt it. i think a lot of democrats were surprised that nancy pelosi decided to go ahead and seek reelection. but i think again this reflects, the people who got beat, the democrats who got beat one of the strongest nancy pelosi supported the democrats who remain, the liberal democrats, she is sort of the leader of the liberal democratdemocrats. so i think in that sense, that part is not surprising. >> if it was a total secret ballot, nobody had to make a commitment, to nancy pelosi and know we have to take a stand, just totally what they want privately, do you think that the democrats would make her their minority leader? >> i think they would be less likely to. >> she's such a powerful inside player in terms of raising money

and how she operates internally, but i don't think anybody wants to have it all right of what could be done to them, you know, in a race. and i think the division like bob said, it's practical politics. but i also think the division right now, perhaps the biggest danger for the president is somebody moving on the left because of war policy and the like. >> go ahead, mark. >> how does foreign criticism this week, there was criticism, germany, china, on the federal reserve policy. >> we've got a debt commission to make recommendations in the center. we just had an election that was, you know, voters made their opinions known on the deficit. what is it going to take to address this deficit? and how does, how does domestic policy play into foreign criticism of our fiscal policies to?

well, i mean, i don't know how domestic policy will play into that, but certainly extraordinary things happen just in the last two days. the chinese openly questioning whether america is the leading economic power in the world. that's extraordinary. the germans called the u.s. clueless about its fiscal policy. it's extraordinary language. and it's not incidental. and it's very, very worrying. and people do want to see a u.s. the. and i do think that would be a big, big challenge, and something certainly i want to keep and i on over the next months and years while i do this. because you cannot underestimate, even though globalization is a dirty word at the moment, and people here, feel that allow the economic woe is because of the globalization, outsourcing and rise of the rest so to speak. it is his day, and i think when america's challenge like that, in huge and important international forum, it doesn't bode well for the strength in

the leadership in the united states. >> i thought it was remarkable hearing that foreign criticism. i'm wondering if it matters in a domestic context. does it bother anybody if the united states or president obama seems back on his you on the world stage? mitt romney, wrote a book saying that president obama's is sacrificing the idea of american exceptionalism. is that going to be one of the themes of 2012? >> may be. i think we see how it plays out. i think in terms of the american people, if it's personal in terms of when president bush was president, and people just hated americans. i mean, you've didn't get this feeling -- i'm not talking about leaders necessary. i'm just talking about in europe there will were all those wild protest and everything. i think americans don't like that. i think another country criticizes u.s. policy, you kind of get americans going, who are you?

and i think people don't like that, but i also have to say, that remember that right now, president obama went over there, and i think they see them as they. let's remember, his first summit, economic summit people were questioning whether america -- whether even free markets was the way to go. i think that questioning has gone on as the american economy has been terrible. it will be interesting to me to watch how we watch in britain and france at this point. because they went after the cuts in spending, kids out in the street in london, et cetera, et cetera. so they really have taken the approach. alan simpson would like to take. >> we've only got a couple -- i think we might be rather get a couple quick questions and. make your point in the context. you're a good politician if you can answer what you say regardless of what the question was. [laughter] >> there's been a lot of attention paid to the amount of

money that was been in this years election, especially by outside groups, particularly on the republican side. as people have covered many elections, how do you see this changing how campaigns are shaped images coming forward speak with great question. thank you. >> this was the most expensive $3 million just for television commercials alone. one of the interesting parts, and there was a lot of money coming in on the democratic side, too, also from outside groups. so we shouldn't overlook that. but one of the interesting things is these groups that were put together by karl rove and the less be, they're going to stay in operation. and they plan to keep going right on up until the 2012 presidential election. >> interesting point here. i think the audience might find interesting, of course karl rove, they always say no, we assure we are supportive of these groups. you guys are described as rogue groups. karl says i gave money to the

texas game association or something like that. you don't say i run that. that was at the beginning cycle. the more and more cycle along, the more these groups seem to be doing well. lso that complaint i got. at the end he was referring to the groups as we. [laughter] >> you know, money -- >> this was an effort by the washington establishment of a big effect outside the parties. >> it's almost always about money now. money doesn't always been the candidate wins that you have examples of that in california. i mean, but money is such an important part. it's just, you know -- >> time. >> you can't do everything else expect quick question. we'll make this the last one because i've got a final question for our panel. >> thanks. politico had a pretty good piece

this point about the narrowing of a number of states that will be in play 2012. curious of those of you, do you agree with that premise i do think that the 20 elections are not misrepresent what will happen in 2012 insurance or the democrats and republicans will do will? >> for the c-span obviously didn't see that story, made the point that the 2008 map that president obama had went in states where democrats particularly don't win, virginia, north carolina, that expanded and results in 2010 look more like a traditional map where republicans had their part of the country, democrats have their part of the country. the playing field is relatively small, ohio, florida. >> i think it is an important story, and i think we keep talking about this notion of relying and karl rove talked about it, and then thought about democratic rely. we didn't see that. our politics is too volatile

right now, and voters, independent voters are willing to move en masse back and forth, swing back and forth. win a tumultuous time. and yes, i think this is about the independent voter. you know, in states like virginia or florida, or the rocky mount west, that were with obama. they will be with him and tell that against him. and i think it does narrow it and makes the country more political look at wisconsin with republican party just did in wisconsin. it was obviously in the obama column. so yeah, i think, i think the map does revert a bit. he will have to play defense to. >> just quickly, john, one thing we haven't talked about, that you had all of these governorships that turned over to republicans this time, and state legislatures. you're going to redistricting. it's going to be harder for democrats in 2012 because of the redistricting. it will be done mostly by these republicans controlled legislatures. >> every week on politico i talk with these folks for turn the

table. i was finished up i give us a quick preview of their sunday shows that and that's how i would like to end this session. if you could give us a preview of what you will be serving up for your views this weekend. >> this weekend we'll be doing at debate between senator lindsey graham and madeleine albright, former secretary of state. will also be doing economic debate. with business leaders and also member of the deputy commissioner and do have our roundtable, and we have a couple of supporters as well as. >> we have rand paul who will give us the perspective from the tea party republican side, and then chuck schumer, democratic senator from new york who has a bit on sunday television in about six months. [laughter] >> no kidding? >> very unusual. >> that's the scoop. >> i haven't the vaguest idea what could happen sunday morning because i'm not judicial. my colleague is going to do it, and i have paid very little attention. >> you had a very big speakers

it's all about you expect that's right, exactly. i'm doing an interview with george and jeb bush that will air at night, at 8 p.m. eastern. so i'm doing that. >> the two brothers together. one interview? >> yes, yes. >> very interesting. >> sunday at eight. [laughter] >> my former college. >> i will be talking to david axelrod and presidential advisers, first interview since the election. also i will talk to senator mccain when he gets back from afghanistan and will do an economic discussion as well, about that commission and the president overseas and turning on the roundtable one of the guests will be greenspan and newt gingrich. >> that's a pretty good lineup this weekend. we will be watching a lot of tv. block out my day because we will all be very newsworthy session. thank you very much both for this session but for joining us every week on politico.

we really, really appreciate it. and i know the audience here really appreciates your insights. thank you all to our sunday hosts. [applause] >> and thank you -- thanks to all of you for coming, or for listening in on c-span. thanks once again to our sponsor at the national cable and telecommunications association. please if you're not inhabit, started, every week politico.com/turn the table. it's a great show. these guys start in it every week. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> as the country marks veterans day, learn more about the holiday and the history of the holiday at the c-span library. it is all accessible and free on your computer any time. president obama addressed the media at the closing news conference for the g-20 summit in sold itself korea -- in seo ul, south korea. we will bring you his remarks in full tonight at 8:00 p.m. first, they look at some of what he had to say. >> we are very grateful to our hosts in south korea. we came here to work together to

call the global economy back from catastrophe, to avoid the old cycles of boom and bust that led to that crisis. we committed ourselves to growth, a financial reform and fiscal responsibility. the actions we took were not always easy or popular, but they were necessary. as a result, the global economy is growing again. some economies, especially emerging economies, are experiencing strong growth. trade has risen and jobs are being created, as been in the united states where we have had 10 consecutive months of private sector job growth and created more than 1 million jobs this month alone. in shortcoming -- in short, we succeeded in getting back on the path to recovery, but we all know the progrs is not nearly

fast enough, especially when it comes to my highest priority which is putting americans back to work. nor have we achieved the growth will slow and that we need. many advanced economies are growing too slowly and not creating enough jobs. some are creating large surpluses, others, a large deficits. here, the question was whether our nations could work together to keep the global economy growing. i know the commentary tends to focus on the inevitable areas of disagreement, but the fact is that the 20 major economies gather year are in broad agreement on the way forward, an agreement based on a framework put forward by the united states. for the first time, we spelled up the actions that are required in four key areas to achieve a sustained and balanced growth

that we need. first, we agreed to keep focusing on growth. at,, the united states has been doing our part by making historic -- at home, the united states has been doing our part by making historic investments in infrastructure and education. we must make sure that investment translates into jobs for our people. we agree that growth must be balanced. countries with large deficits must work to reduce them, as we are doing in the united states, where we are on track to cut our deficit in half by 2013, and where i am prepared to make tough decisions to achieve that goal. likewise, countries with large surpluses must shift away from an unhealthy dependence on exports and take steps to shift demand. second, we agreed that exchange

rates must reflect economic reality. this is how major advanced economies must -- just as major advanced economies must work to preserve stability in currencies, we must work to make sure that currencies are market driven. we will continue to watch the appreciation of china's currency. >> see all of president obama as remarks from the g-20 summit closing news conference tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, here on c- span. >> "book tv" this weekend, president george w. bush discusses his memoir.

>> saturdays, a landmark supreme court cases on c-span radio. >> there is nothing in the united states constitution concerning birth, contraception or abortion. >> argued in 1971 and ruled on in 1973, roe v. wade is still considered one of the court's most controversial decisions. for the next two saturdays, listen to the argument at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio. nationwide on ex-im channel 132 -- xm channel 132, and online at c-span.org. >> the new health care law has created a new department, the office of consumers' aboard. the head of the agency -- consumers support. the head of the agency talks about how it will work.

good morning and welcome. i'm susan dentzer, editor in chief of health affairs. we're delighted here with us this morning as we speak and hold a conversation with karen pollitz. karen is currently serving as director of office of consumer support and deputy director in the office of consumer information and insurance oversight at the department of health and human services. before she joined the department she was research professor at the georgetown university health policy institute and directed research reform issues. her areas of focus were regulation to private health insurance plans and markets, managed care consumer protections and access to affordable health insurance. she was also an adjunct professor in georgetown's graduate public policy school. before she joined that faculty she was deputy assisnt secretary for health legislation

the department of health and human services from 1993 to 1997 and was the secrety's legislative liaison on all federal health care issues including then national health care reform medicare, medicaid and u.s. public health agencies and progra. before that she worked a health policy adviser to several members as congress, including as legislative assistant to senator john d. rockefeller of west virginia and congressman sander levin of gn begun. she was member of advisoryoard of the californ health benefits review prram, served on board of directors from the maryland health insurance plan from 2004 to 2006 an was a member of the institute after medicine committee on cancer survivorship. she's also been on the standards committee of quality assurance and occasionally volunteers for the american chanancer society' reach to recovery program. karen, thank you for being with us this morning. >> thank you, susan. good morning, everyone. i'm just going to sit down if

that's all rig. i have to say, after, i don't know, a dozen years trying to get into health affairs and occasionally getting published, it's really quite lovely to be here this morning. thank you for inviting me. so i wanted to spend a little time this morning telling you what i'm up to these days at the department. i am back. don't have as nice an office. were no longer to enact health reform, we're working to implement health reform. there is a n entity at hhs called the office of consumer information and insurance oversight. so a b part of implementation is developing really brand new capacity at the federal government level, relative to private health insurance. and this office is the one that is to implement all of the provisions that relate to private health insurance. so the new market rules, the

exchanges, the new federal high risk pool program called the pre-existing condition insurance program. we're in four divisions. we are recruiting some pretty impressive talent, if i do say so myself. our director, jay angoff, is himself, a former insurance commissioner from state of missouri. two of our division directors, joel ario, who heads up the exchange division, is a former commissioner from states of pennsylvania and oregon. steve larson wh heads up the oversight division, is form eer maryland commissioner. richard popper, my colleague, heads up the insurance division program which includes the early retiree insurance program and new pre-existing condition insurance program. he had been the executive director of the maryland high risk pool. very expert in that area. and we've recruited other folks out of states. insurance department offices, attorney general offices, we

have folks from the industry. so we're really building up i think some very impressive talent and expertise related to changing, understanding private health insurance and changing the way it works. and implementing all of those rules. i head up the office of consumer support, eni wanted to tl you a little bit about what we do in my division. we have sort of two basic areas. one is to promote transparency in private health insurance coverage, and the other is to provide direct consumer services. the transparency agenda is a big one. i'm pleased that our agency, the office of consumer information and insurance oversight gives consumer information top bi billing. transparency is the secret to us to implementation to really making it work. the affordable care act ultimately envisions a new kind of health insurance coverage, now kinds of more organized

insurance markets and new kind of competition. from private health plans where they compete on the bsis of efficiency and customer service, and not on the basis of cherry picking and risk selection and avoiding costs. and that vision for the future, which isn't too far off, is still not where we are today. so we have a long way to go to get there, and as i said, i think transparency is making more transparency is a key ingredient. anybody who's tried to read your own health insurance policy toda knows tha these documents are pretty inscrutable, if you can get your hands on them. when you're applying for health insurance now that you buy on your own you can't get the policy in most states until yove purchased it. you can only get a brochure. you don't get to see the fine print until later after you've si signed on the dolted line. policies are written in jargon, they're nonstandard. health insurance is not a commodity like rice. you know, when you buy rice,

it's rice and you can compare prices, but it may be a little bit different, but it's still rice and you know what you're going to get on the dinner table at the end of the day. health insurance isn't like that, and lots of don't even fully understand what it is that they're getting when they buy coverage unt they use it, until they get sick or hurt, then that's a heck of a time to be finding out you didn't buy what you thought you were going to get. price shoppingor health insurance, which is going to be partf market competition, driving efficiency, assumes people will be able to distinguish between like and unlike products and compare prices in a meaningful way. you can't do that today. price shopping is a perilous thing to do today. so -- and people get caught offguard. so we need to fix that. by 2014 there will be more market rules. policies will be more standardized. there will be standards for essential benefits that all qualified policies need to

cover. they'll be subsidized which will take some of the pain out of paying for t cost of covera and make it more affordable for everybody regardless of their income. d the marketplaces will be more organized and so, again, all of that requires that we just make more information about policies available to people and that process starts now. so we've got two main initiatives in the division of consumer support that we're working on. one is our n website healthcare.gov. has anybody seen it? come on, more hands than that. all right. so this was launched on july 1st, as required by the affordable care act. it provides a lot of information about health reform. the key component is the insurance finder. click on the blue button in the left hand corner of the screen

that says "find insurance now" and that will show you the major medical policies for sale in the individual and small group market. noig deal, right? well, that was the first big deal. just cataloging what's for sale in the individual and the small-group market was a challenge. and it was a tremendous amount of work. we -- we asked states to help us, provide us with a list of who was licensed to sell coverage and what they were licensed to sell. many of them could do that, but me of them couldn't do that. because this is pretty impenetrable market even at the state level where it's regulated. some of them sd, well, i can show you licensed insurers but not the ones that sell coverage. just sort of a reminder that resources, i think, at every level, at the state level, certainly, have been limited and that there's been a lot of focus

on solvency. that that has been the primary focus at the state level. if you have limited resources and keep an eye on everything going on in the insurance markets you want to make sure the claims are solvent and can play claims. when you look at data, life and health, or accident and health gets lumped together. finding all of these plans and gets them up theting them up th. they don't all register with the neic. we had to figure out a new identification system that included their numbers but also their taxpayer i.d. numbers and how can we distinguish this plan from this plan from this plan so we have a list? we want to see what's out there. that's been a tremendous amount of work. the -- we launched in july, just showing you a list of plans that were for sale in the individual market for last month in october. we added some information, more

detailed information about the benefits that are covered and also estimates of at they cost. of course, we can't tell you exactly what health insurance policy in the individual market will cost until you go to apply for it because of medical underwriting and the price will vary bed on your healstatus and history. we can provide consumers with information about how often plans turn people down because of their history. we're gradually, graally adding to this information. we're going to refresh the october launch in, next monday, the 15th, and we're going to just about doublthe numberf plans that we show. we had -- this is a difficult process for the industry, too, as it turns out, to report this informatioto us. and we're asking them for data and in a specified format that they haven't seen before, and

this also happened right as september 23rd was happening and plans were kind of changing and ticking over. so we had reporting issues for october, but i think we're going to catch everybody who didn't show up on the october launch monday. so we should see a lot more individual market plans. then we'll turn to the group market. providing information to small employers is another important part of our agenda. that's a big purchaser of health insurance today. and we are working on figuring out a methodology to provide this same information to small employers. it's not quite as easy as it sounds. first of all, the rating methodologies in the small group market are incredibly complicated. insurers use a whole lot more rating factors now for small employers than they do for individuals. so you know, including the size of the employer, you know, two employers buying the same policy, if one only has five employees and one has 25, they pay different rates based on

fact insurers would prefer not to sell to microgroups. industry, whether or not it's a first-time purchase or whher they're replacing other coverage. there are a lot of different factors and insurers use them in digit ways. we need to figure out a reporting template that captures that and figure out a way for small employers to be able to request the same kin of pricing estimates that individuals can now request. so when you go to healthcare.gov now you have to input your gender and age and whether you smoke and your zip code where you live. imagine you're a small employer with 40 employees. you know everybody's birthday? do you know their wives birthdays? how are you going to but this stuff in there ? we're trying to figure out a way the small employer can get the same information without having to go through and do this entire census which is a barrier to the information. we're working on that. we want to have this smilar kind of information for small employers up in 22011.

we're working really hard on that. some of you have asked me, phil was talking about this before, there's a lot of interest of the data that is on healthcare.gov. you can rank plans, for example, by enrollment, the most to the least popular plan in a zip code, but you can't see the enrollment numbers. some folks are interested to see that. a lot of folks are interested to see that. youhould be interested to see that. i can see that. it's really interesting. so we're also working on a regulation to create public use files so we can just put these data out there and everybody can see them, analyze them, staudy them, write about them. i think that's important, too. transparency is all about transparency. everybody should look and apply their own smarts to what it is we have and understanding how the market works. >> just a quick question?

>> yes? >> why is that information not available now? >>e have a publish a regulation engo through a whole analysis of the data and make sure it can be released to the public. there's a required analysis before you release data that is reported to the vernment that we have go through. so, we're in the government, we have rules. we're working on it. we're definitely working on it. it's a priority and i really want that out there as quicy as we can. so, and then we'll be adding to this over time. so the law requires, as i mentioned, more standardization of coverage eventually but leading up to 2014 the law requires that we establish just some standard definitions of insurance terms. dedoub deductible doesn't always mean deductible if you look at a policy and that makes it hard for consumers. we've been working with a working group of stakeholders

which has been trafferrific, meg tw three hours a week on these massive conference calls to develop their recommendations on uniform definitions of insurance terms and don't mean insurers have to, you know, change their policies right now, they just have to, you know, they have to use -- they have to -- when they use the words where we lay out, day have to me they have to mean what they say. so that consumers can begin to have some sign posts they can rely on. then also developing uniform summary of benefits. again, sounds like no big deal, it's a big deal. so you know, just kind of playing out some basics about what's covered and what isn't covered and how it's limited and doing that in terminology that consumers can understand. the experts tell us we should write this at a fifth grade reading level. you really can't do that. a fifth grade reading level limits the amount of syllables you can use and these are big words. we're really trying to work

through all of this and, again, make this information as meaningful to consumers as possible. the other thing we need to develop is something called coverage facts, which is kind of a dareivation of the nutritional facts label on the cereal box. any kind of food that sort of lays out in a serving of this food, you know, this is your minimum daily requirement of vitamin-c and fiber and here's how much of that this serving will give to you. we need to develop those for insurance policies. we need to lay out benchmark sort of treatment scenarios. if you were to get pregnant you might need nine prenatal visits and two days in the hospital and sort of lay that out and say how much of that would this policy cover? so that we can give people some just common benchmarks. you know, your pregnancy might not always be the benchmark but you can take that benchmark and compare the plans against it to begin to see a little more how all of these many, many

dimensioned covers benefits and cost sharing rules work together to produce an end result. you know, i need this much care, how much am i going to have to pay out of pocket? so thas e of the things we're doing. on transparency. oh, then one other thing -- that's sort of with the website. then the other thing on deck for 2011 is the development of disclosure regulatn. there's a section in the law called 2715-a that gives the secretary broad authority to require disosure of all kinds of data from insurance companies. quite apart from what they cover on paper, how it works in practice. how often do you pay claims and how often do you deny them and what are the aren't why? how does your underiting work? if somebody buys a policy early and makes a claim, what happens with the investigation, when does that result in rescission

and when does that result in other kinds of changes? so all of that is on deck too. another big regulation we need to get out. we'll use that to certainly inform oversight, but also to develop other kinds of measures of plan performance for consumers, so gain, when they're comparing products, you see two products that look like they're the same and one's a whole lot cheaper, wow, interesting, that one denies your claims way mor often than this one. just give people a lot more information about what to expect. so that's kind of the transparency agenda. adding into that is stuff that is being develop in other parts. steve larcenyson is working on medical loss ratio reg and reg for rate review procedures. people, again, can see more about how insurance works an what they can expect from it. and then our other area in my division is direct consumer services. and we have two kind of main

components there. one is a new consumer assistance program, state-based consumer assistance program. we announced the grants a couple of weeks ago in october. and the affordable care act provides funds to create these ombudsmen in states to help people answer their questions about private health insurance, understand what coverage options they have, help them enroll. when a claim is denied these ombudsmen programs are to help you file your appeal and walk you through the process to do that. they're there to advocate for consumers and really provide hand holding. because insurance is hard. and it's always going to be hard. even when it's all transparent and simpler and more standardized, it's going to be hard. because by definition when you're using it a lot, you're sick. and you're tired. and you just need sometimes some help, you know, somebody just kind of, here, here's all my per, can you take care of this claim for me?

we just announced our first 40 grantees a couple of weeks ago. states, territories, district of columbia. and we've just got the money out. we're providing -- we're in the process now of standing up these programs. a lot of them where a lot of our state grantees were already in the business of consumer assistance in onform or another. we have a number of state insurance departments where their consumer services offices have applied and there are grantees but also state attorney generals offices, health departments, an interesting mix of state agencies. and about, what, 16, 17 them are partners wit non-profit consumer organizations to kind of move this really out into communities so you don't have to go to some big government office building to find it. we're very excited about that. and again, looping back to transparency, one of the statutory requirements of these

grantees is they collect data. so, you know, who's coming in, what kinds of problems are they incurring? how hard arethey to fix? you know, when you file an appeal, how often to you win and how often not? and th're supposed to report this information back to us. in aggregate form to strengthen oversight. so that's important. when insurance doesn't work it's, you know, it's going to be mo important to see, well, when it doesn't work for the people making the biggest claims who are the sickest and that can be a really hard thing to fair it out in broad data reporting. this is an indication of how insurance is working on the ground and hopefully a way to leverage. if one problem comes in and data onhat gets reported back you can get to the ro level of the problem and not solve it every time people keep showing up with the same problem time and again. so we're working onhis consumer assistance program. very excited about this.

then the last area we're working on in my office is appeal s. there are new appeal rights under the affordable care act. internal appeals to your plans. when a claim is denied. how quickly they need to process that and how that needs to work. then a right to external appeal. which many states have had external appeal laws. you've probably read some of my reports about them if you followed my work at george foun. now all states will have external appeal laws that meet a minimu threshold for consumer protections andhen they don't the secretary is required to establish a federal system that will be a place where people can take their disputes with their health plans to an objective third party and get them resolved. we put that reg out in july, and it took effect in september. we, understanding that most state legislatures were out by

then, we gave them until next july to conform their existing laws where they had them, you know, to make the changes they need to bring them up to e federal standards. we sort of left the kpiexisting laws be for a little bit. the federal system kicks in immediately for ates that didn't, states and territories that didn't have laws. we had a quick put together. not a problem. we kind of called up our budties at opm and said can we temporarily rent space on your appeals program you use for federal employees and make it available in these states that don't have a system while we go through the procurement? which is a little detailed. we'll have our permanent process in place next summer when the states are ready to go and meanwhile we've got this. a little duct tape and prayer and we're getting stuff done as quickly as we an. and, again, we think the provision of direct consumer services is also fundamentally

important. people just need help and the appeals i think is a critical one. at the end of the day when you paid your money for insurance you want to make sure it actually covers the care th is supposed to be covered and so that's what we're doing. so i don't know, i guess i'll pause there and -- >> great. thanks,karen. let me start by asking you, you probably knew more about private health insurance than almost anybody on the planet. because of your work at georgetown. you also had direct personal experience as a patient navigating complexities of policies. at's been the biggest surprise to you coming into this office, having access to data that apparently has never been aggregated before in the united states? you suggested earlier that the enrollment numbers were going to prove interesting once people saw them. so i gather there's some very interesting patterns now in terms of market share. from state to state. what else has really been the big eye opener for you in.

>> actually, i'm not sure we've really gone the depths yet. we're still getting basic information. our data shows markets are highly concentrated. we kind of now that before. now i can see how concentrated they are. it will help as we sort of move forward and there are questions about, is this change going to destabilize or that change? we can look some of this up now and see, wow, that's destabilizing your market share, you only cover 150 people. so you know, tt i think, just getting it i think has been the interesting part for me. the denial data, there's been a lot of interest in the denial and uprate data. one of the things i guess that's been fun for me is how difcult it is to capture this, that we really do need to think carefully about creating measures. we thought we created kind of a careful measure. some of the carris have come back and said, well, i know, i went through your training but

that's not how i reported it so we think we probably still have bugs in that. i know there's a lot of interest in, can i please see the underlying date a? we'd like to clean that up. the industry has been good at reporting this information and reporting back to us, well, this is how we did it, we want to make sure we're doing this correctly. so i guess maybe the biggest surprise has been how much thought you have to put into how you define these date to elements and how you make sure that they're getting reported consistently. it's -- and some of this i think will be easier in 2014, but it's very, very difficult to create a standardized anything for the current insurance market. it is just -- it defies standardizing. so there are going to be a lot of exceptions. one of the things, actually, that we've encountered with a couple of carriers when we started getting the pricing da, i didn't realize this, but there are some carriers that don't really sell policies.

they sell pieces of policies. and you can really just completely mix and match it. it's almost like, you know, how many partsf the jigsaw puzzle would you like to buy? and then the price of what you buy depends on what pieces you bought. when they said, how do we report these prices? i said, gee, i don't know. so we basically just said we had a threshold, you know, when you have to report to us all the policies that represent at least 1% of your market share in a zip code, so we said, look at your books and figure out what are your combinations you sell and report us the prices for all those combinations. so there are some kind of interesting practices out there that aren't necessarily good for consumers. >> well, just to follow-up, i was intrigued when you said sometimes the deductible isn't always a deductible. what else could it be? >> well, you know, you tend to think, i tend to think, you know, i have a policy with a

$1,000 dedtible and it pays 80/20, right? that's sort of the basic framework, but not so much. some policies have deductibles specific to different service that are covered. we saw one -- out of pocket limit is another one. pay 80/20 up to some limit and the plan kicks into 100%. that's not always how it goes. some policy, certain things don't count against the deductible or certain things don't start tolling against the out of pocket limit until you have reached some other limit somewhere else in the policy. there's some kind of quirky features that don't show up on a basic summary right now. we need to, until some of those go away we e need to at least put orange traffic hazard cones around them. when you to go to healthcare..gov when you see the icon that warns people, it's an orange traffic cone. we got tired one night and came up with that. you doeed to kind of warn

people, slippery when wet, and be careful. >> now we can all feel better that we're not bizarre just because we have no idea what our insurance policies say when we get the explanations of benefits. so let's open it up to questions for karen. if you would introduce yourself by name and affiliation. that would be great. >> bob. i wonder if the site now has a or will have the capability to select among different types of insurance. here's a hypothetical. someone just gets laid off from work and the spouse finds out that he or she, the nonworking spouse, has diabetes or cancer. how would you know, should i go on cobra -- should i take cobra, should i go to the individual maet or should i go right to high-risk pool in my state? how would one navigate? answer those questions. >> well, actually, in the finder we try to walk you through all of those options.

so the finder doesn't just show you the private insurance policies. it asks you a couple of questions, including, there's a question about, i've recently lost coverage that i had through work. then it kicks up a screen of options for you that are somewhat tailored. if someone has lost their job and coverage, it tells you about cobra and you can find out more about that and how it works and how it costs and, you know, the fact it will take you and it will be the same benefits and there won't be a new preex. it will have asked you by the time you got to that point, you know, if you have a spouse who works, because you may -- if that spouse's employer offers coverage and you weren't signed up in that plan because the whole family was signed up your plan, you have by law special enrollment opportuty to just go into your spouse's plan. you don't have to wait until the next open season. you can just go in.

that's been the rule since hipaa was enacted. if you have a health condition, you might not get into this. and if there's ahigh-risk pool in your state it will tell you about that and tell you about the new pre-existing condition insurance program. but that will be hard to get into if you lost your job because that requires that you have to be uninsured for six months. maybe you can get into your state high-risk pool. it will talk about chip and eligibility levels for that, maybe you could get your kids in there, and it will walk through all of these different options for you in as understandable a way as we figured out how to do it. it is somhat tailored. marilyn? >> marilyn. i'm sorry to ask this. i think this is going to sound like a dumb question. >> there are no dumb questions. >> the work you're doing now, the comparative information, the website, transparency, this -- i can see what thisoes to help until 2014.

how is this -- can this information then be used post-2014 once we have the exchanges in place? i mean, first of all, what will happen to your organization and your mission and what happe with this platform that you're building? >> this all continues. this is really building what we'll need in 2014. i mean, it certainly is also helpful for people now. so tha they can at least see a little bit about the differences in the marketplace. it's not like we're going to one size fits all in 2014. there are going to be plan options that people have. they'll still vary. the coverage facts analysis we did was based on work we did at georgetown. we applied that analysis to massachusetts plans that are sold through the connector and found some kind of interesting differences, you know? like three different bronze plans leave you with pretty variable out of pocket results,

just based on some features in the plans that turns out weren't very well standardized. >> do you envision, then, this kind of comparative information will be available, that you'll make it available to the various state exchanges? >> yes. yes. this is national data collection. yes. so we'll just keep collecting this. the exchanges can use it. i don't think we need to collect at 50 different times. exchanges may collect additional information. you knows, we're going to be this kind of federalist system, but, no, this is national reporting authority. it's ongoing. it doesn't stop in 2014. keeps going. we're going to have sort of, at least one layer of basic information you'll always have about plans. it's not just for insurance policies sold through the exchanges. these appl to group plans as well. if you're getting coverage through work or thinking about leaving or coming, you can compare what vw to where you might go. i think that's fundamentally important.

>> just a quick question. is all of this, then, potentially fodder for a national exchange? assuming that there may be states that decide not to set up exchanges? >> this is useful, i think this is just plain useful. it doesn't real matter the way the markets are organized and who's in and who's out. this is consistent information that should be available to everybody. >> let's take your qestion right here. >> thanks. deborah, u.s. news and world report. >> hi, deborah. >> hi. i was curious, you brought up massachuset massachusetts. i'm curious how you were using massachusetts and california as models to develop standardization of terms. i'm thinking, haven't these states done the legwork for you? are you finding there may be some things in these states, statewide insurance pans that have shortcomings you need to deal with now?

>> our working group includes a number of state regulators. we've had really remarkable input from consumer and patient organizations, state regulators, there have been a number of insurance companies that participate in the working group including actually a carrier in massachusetts. so, and you know, this is pretty basic. this is hard. may i just complain a little bit? this is hard. so there's a reason why we're starting this now. i think the congress was wise to get this started now and not wait until, you know, let's throw this togetr in 2014. this is going to evolve. it will get a whole lot more intense once we start developing the essential benefits. so you think deductible doesn't mean deductible, guess what, dme doesn't always mean dme. we'll have to delve into this a whole lot more as we get into the definition of benefits. but i don't know, we're doing it. >> let's take a question in the back. looks like julirobert.

>> hi, jules. >> julie robert from npr. we've heard this week about the republican governors and republican state legislate thurs who are not enamored of this law. can you talk about the role the states will play in sort of your, you know, we knowbout the exchanges. what role do the states play in some of these consumer efforts and what do you anticipate may happen if we have 30 states that don't want to play in this particular sand bo what would you have to? >> the consumer assistance program is one that doesn't have a federal fallback. we have 40 fwrgrantees, we don' have 50. there's republican governors, democratic governors. i like to think on the consumer assistance stuff, that everybody kind of understands that you can use a hand up when you get sick and have problems with your

snus health insurance. so, i mean, so far that has not been an issue. and i mean, it just hasn't been an issue. >> have the states been so far participating? >> i mn, pretty much. you know, minnesota kind of didn't participate in anything, and i mean -- >> minnesota did not? >> no. >> pawlenty said he wasn't going to partipate. >> no. we had some of that. mostly they've been stepping up. i think -- the granting of federal resources to states has really been powerful. states are really broke, a lot of them. they just don't have a lot of money. and you know, if you're offering $1 million here, $1 milli here, pretty soon they're like, yeah, i could really use that. so i think, you know, i think for the most part the states have been a pretty good partner. and we've tried to be a pretty good partner back. on the transparency and data collection, we're working with insurance commissioners, bipartisan insurance commissioners, too. it's just t really a partisan issue. you know, their big thing to us

is, it's important that we just collect this once. we don't need to do all this collection and build a big data system to keep it in. we said, no, no, we'll take care of that. so i think, you know, it's -- there's been some good senergy with the federal government coming in with resources and standards and then states stepping up. you know, it's notperfect, but it's pretty good. >> you've got -- you said at least ten stas that did not apply for funding? or that you did not -- >> ten didn't. some of them, it wasn't always a partisan thing. i was on the phone with some of them -- you knw, we've also just been doing this lickety split. really. i'm tired. we've just been shoving through a lot of this stuff. applying for federal grants isn't the easiest thing in the world. so some states i think are still on a little bit of a learning curve on that. in a couple of states, we had sort of funky fiscal year timing issues. so you know, mostly there was just tremendous interest and they wanted to play and so now

we're going forward. >> question right here? make se i'm not missing anybody. okay. >> hi, karen. drew armstrong with bloomberg news. it sounds like a lot of the changes you all are putting in place are going to alter the way insurers compete with each other on the individual market. explain what your vision is for how you see insurers competing now and on what way basis more so and in comparison to how you think they did compete based on the data you're collecting now and practices you're able to see. >> well, i think competing on the basis of consumer service is a really important issue, and i worry. i haven't seen these data. so i don't want to be too cynical and, you know, dark in my vision. i worry that there's an incentive now for insurers to just kind of pick on the consumers who generate the biggest claims because if you can make them kind of want to go elsewhere, then that's a good

thing. and you can keep your premiums low for your healthy consumers by getting rid of the sick ones. the point of consumers is for healthy consumers to come in so you can pay the claims of the sick ones. i think focusing on how the security of coverage is for people, particularly when they're sick, is going to be, i mean, that's just going to be a nedimension that you can't really see now in health insurance. and i think that will also help consumers. i think the whole concept of insurance is really complicated. you know, you're buying protection. i can't tell you how many people, people in my own family who have said, oh, man, i paid so much for insurance and i didn't even make a claim this year. like, no, it's good if you didn't make a claim this year. it means you didn't get hit by a car,t todidn't find a lump, it' good thing. you have the protection in case you do. that's a really complicated concept. so i think, you know, focusing measures of how insurance works

for people when they're sick reminds them this is what -- you're not buying this in case you stay healthy. you know, this is really a scary occurrence that you're buying protection from. so i hope it will kind of make us all a little bit smarter about what we expect from insurance and make insurers more accountable to deliver that. >> good morning, karen, it's matt dobias at "national journal." i have to ask the question, as you move forward, does the thought ever creep in the back of your head that all this might be for naught? you knowwe've seen the results from the midterm election projecting forward to 2012, we can do the math in the back of our head. if there is a successful to repeal and replace, what then? >> well, i'm just not going to worry about that today. you know, the president is committed to moving orward, and i sure have a lot of work to do,

so i'm just kind of staying focused on doing this. i think it will help. i think it will keep us focused on what this is all about and i think the president's committed to keeping it moving forward and be a hell of a vote to overwrite a veto. so -- >> has there been talk amongst all the people in the office? is it a conversation topic? >> nah, i mean, you know, we're -- the partisans weren't happy about the election, but no, we are seriously busy. we are keeping our nose on the grindstone. we are getting our work done. we have a lot of work to do, and you know, a short time to get it done. so we're -- it's actually not that hard to stay focused on what's right in front of us. it's pretty much blotting out the rest of our field of vision. so -- >> let me ask you quickly, karen, national association of insurance commissioners is developing model legislation for lots of other provisions that effect state insurance that have to now be - come into synch

with the federal law. are there particular areas here that are going to lend themselves to a model, a piece of legislation that niac might develop? or how are states going to make their laws come into alignment with respect to these consumer protection issues? >> well, this is something the naic hasong done for states and in fact, the minimum sort of standard for external appeals is the most recently adopted, now a couple of years ago, naic act on external appeals. the tradition has been the naic puts a model act and goes to state legislatures and don't adopt it word for word, they make changes. i think that will continue, but it's an important service and state legislatures are strapped for time, too. they meet in sort sessions. they don't have profession thal aff. it's very helpful when the naic

can give them a draft. >> will there be a mega model? >> i'm trying to think, i actually don't know if they're working on models for all -- for example, the coverage of preventative services or some of the early, the coverage of up to 26. i don't know the answer to that question. certainly as we move forward into the broader market reforms and guarantee issue and community rating i would expect we would see naic pony up models to give states a shortcut. >> a question all the way in the back then we'll come back over here. >> hi, janet adamy from the "wall street journal." i want to ask two questions. one, there are powers in the law that give the exchang the ability to keep out insurers that have unfairly raised premi premiums. obviously we've seen premium increases this fall where insurers were attributing it to the law.

the administration disagreed with some of those increases. do you have indication so far there will be insurers kept out of the exchanges for premium ine seen and my second question, if i may ask a second question to follow up on what susan said point national exchange, how many states -- th possibility of a national exchange, how many states so far have indicated that they may not run their own exchange and if so would you then do a national he can change for themor would these be individual statease exchanges? >> you know, it's -- "a," i'll refer to you my colleague joel and it's early to know the answer to any of those questions. joel's division is now just beginning to put out the first planning grants to states including innovator grants where states can really kind of try to dig in on some of the i.t. issues that will be important to creating a functioning exchange. on the rate increase, someone at kaiser just forwarded to me

the -- connecticut was a state that recently there was a flap and i know some insurers have been saying, oh, these big rate increases are due to, you know, the affordable care act and all these new big mandates and when you actually look at the file's rates -- i think it was rantham in ken conduct -- i shouldn't say, but they were required to break it down in the state and in a 20% rate increase, 0.2 was due to that i think we'll have a lot of arguing about rate incrses but the whole point of rate review so we can go in and check the actual numbers and see. in terms of how states, you know, how exclusive or states will be i think that's still being worked out and there are a lot of different models for exchanges, one where sort of everybody can come in and compete as long as you're

licensed and one more like massachusetts where, you know, the exchange accepts bids and, you know, just sort of tries to take the best of the best to offer within the exchange and doesn't allow all the insurers to partipate and we're just going to have to see how it is that states build that out and there is provision for the federal government to operate an exchange when the states don't so we'll have to figure out how to do that too but i don't think we've decided that yet. >> let's take these questions over here. these two. >> hi, sara cliff with politico, two questions about heal healthcaregov. do you know how many plans will be listed on the site as of this coming monday? >> it's more than 000. >> using or creating data files that would be accessible to folks, some have raised concerns saying that's not what we submitted this for. that's kind of outside of what

we were told this was being used for. was hoping you could respond to their concerns about this data they've been submitting for healthcare.gov. >> well, that's why we needto do a regulation. we'll do it and they'll comment and then i'll comment back, but we -- i mean we indicated in the reg that established the portal that we wanted to make the data public and that is our intent. >> question here? >> phil gallovits with kaiser health news. i guess we're all for transparency but how much do you think people look at this? when push comes to shove when they survey employers, they're buying oprovides and that's all the big employers doing it so if we put out this data for individuals which may sound gait, what's the chance they'll use it? when you look at the precept plans there's been so little

pickup of it, what does that tell us about what's going to happen in 2014? >> well, s let me separate those. so picip is still new and launched it on july 1st but a lot of states didn't tart enrolling them into lat august or september. and the price varies and in some states we had -- where the federal government is operating it, we had to make estimates on what the standard rates were because we didn't really know and now that we've been able to look at the healthcare.gov data you'll see a reduction in premiums, a significant reduction in premiums along the order of i think 20% so -- o i'm sorry, the pre-existing condition -- >> repeat what you said -- 20% reduction. in the premium in the states where the federal government is operating this so i think

effective january so it is growing. it's growing faster in othe states. i don't know all the -- i'll refer you to richard pauper, my colleague, but we do expect, yo know, that the curve is going to continue upwards and see enrollment grow >> that's the high risk -- >> yes. >> what's the consumer -- what's the likelihood they'll use it. >> that's part of the trick of healthcare.gov so we're constantly modifying it and having a big meeting looking at all the navigational things and i mean there's a ton of information up there and how can you sort of guide people through it, but i think like i said, now when the world is so unstandardized, it's always going to be a super, super challenge. i think e consumer assistce that, you know, one-on-one assistance will also help with that and as we measure some of

these things and can get a better idea of what's happening out there, what some of this variation really is all about, and then we set health plan standards and market standards for 2014 we can make some of it go away and that will help too but i think, you know, it's like i said it's always going to be hard, and so that's why i work so hard. and the states too. i mean they're really engaged in this. >> chris and then we'll come back over here. >> hi, chris fleming from health affairs, a health affairs blog. as you have talked about your work in trying to allow consumers to make more effective choices, opponents of health reform have argued that we shouldn't put any limits on chces. we shouldn't t to put a one size fits all model in. we should allow individualized choice. how as an overall matter how important to allowing consumers to make effective choices is it to standardize the options out there so that people are comparing like versus like as

opposed to just creating as much transparency as possible so that whatever choices consumers make they're making an iormed choice? >> well, i mean, i think we'll be following the guidelines of the affordable care act on that which has some of bo. there is some standardization that is contemplated, required under the affordable care act certainly for policies in the exchange on the bronze, gold, silver stuff but the transparency applies everywhere, in and out, in employer plans, and i do expect it'll continue to be a challenge for people, but i think it's going t be a whole lot better than where we are today so -- >> so you think that -- i mean is there such a thing as too much choice if there are too many options out there are consumers making less of an effective -- >> no, i think we have seen certainly in medicare.gov that when you give people 50 choices they shut down. nobody's brain is a computer and can model it and process it.

i don't know that people need 50 choices but people do want choices, and they'd like some assurances that hidden among whatever the choices are, there aren't these little, you know, grenades that are going to go off on them so some of this is to just comb away some of the bad choices or some of the options that can make a choice, you know, not very secure, and just guarantee people that within this, you know, basket of things you have to choose from, you're always going to get at least, you know, this much protection, so that's what we're trying to do. >> yes, over here. you mentioned some of the data you're collecting in terms of examining market disruptions. i'm wondering to what extent that's playing into the waiver process and regulation for the medical loss ratio. there's broad authority on avoiding market disruptions there. so how is that factoring in and what are you seeing in terms of potential for market disruptions

as it goes forward and i'll ask, when will we see that regulation? >> l me do the second one then -- soon. very -- i think we'll try to get that out by the end of this month, so i would send all your other questions to my colleague steve larson. >> and do you want to take the first part of that. >> i forget what that was. >> the data you' collecting in terms of disruptions to markets at the state level and plan level, how does that factor into development of the -- a regulation or concerns over that? >> i mean steve was the first one to ask me for this. when he was running around when shortly after we got there before we even launched in july, you know, he said, wow, you know, all these charges about market disruption, where am i going to get some market share data? i said, ooh, ooh, i have it. he said, really? so i think this will be very helpfuand it's helpful at the state level too. i've just hired a new director

for my web portal team who came from a state insurance department and it's amazing what a little information will do for a regulator. it really goes a long way so -- it's a lot oftates are excited too and i got to go to a meing. >> so, karen, just to wrap up, it's open enrollment season for many americans right now. it's also the time of year as we approach the end of the year where people look at insurance policies for next year, so you've got 15 seconds to give americans their best advice from you about how to approach shopping for insurance this year. >> well, it's especially important this year to look at your insurance options, particularly your employer is offering new options, because as plans renew, llowing september 23rd, that's when they pick up a lot of these new protections that just took effect underthe affordable care act so it's as your plan renews you'll have the

right to cover your kid up to the age of 26 and they won't be preexiting your younger children and plans have to cover preventive selves without cost sharing and these are important so i would really take a good look at your insurance options now. if yo don't see any of these newrotections you're probably in a grandfathered plan, but -- so they're not required to offer you these new protections, but they are required to tell you that they're grandfathered and if there are a lot of changes in the plan they will lose the grandfather status so if they raise your deductible or the employer kicks in a whole lot less toward the premium then it can change, so now is a really good time to startstudying up on your insurance options and see what's available and like i said before, don't just look at the price. obviously that is critically important for everybody, but

remember you're buying health insurance, not in case you stay healthy but in case you stay sick and look for the mos protection you can possibly afford and you'll thank yourself late sfler great. karen, thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. >> this weekend, american history tv visits the eleanor roosevelt paper project to see how she used the media to communicate her ideas. we will see how very different thinking american and british leadership worked together to defeat the nazis. then a conference marking the 150th anniversary of the civil war. live, november 20, a symposium

on the civil war from the national archives as they discuss the international impacts of the war. "american history tv" all weekend every weekend on c- span3. >> what happens to the health care law with the change in leadership? the alliance for health care reform hosted the discussion. here is a portion. >> i think the medical device tax points out two broader questions. it becomes issues republican leadership will have to grapple with, one of which is how do any attempts to change the bill -- how are they positioned it? i think that republicans and democrats who support repealing that will be less successful by portraying that as something that will help the individual industry by relieving a burden

from devices. as i implied earlier, i think a number of those industry fees and the vice taxes is one of the clearer examples that can be portrayed as things that are going to increase the costs and therefore translate into higher premiums, which is one of the goals of the bill. how that gets position is really important. we don't completely no yet and norm and john may have a deal, but in the past under republican control for many tax cuts come up pay as you go budget rules did not apply. it will be interesting becse when you look at the republican caucus, at it is unclear. will they say they got paid for tax cuts or not?

if they don't, and they hold the traditional view of paying for new spending, tax cuts are returning money to the american people, if they don't have to offset those it makes it easier to have a vote that reduces the impact of those fees. one thing none of us talked about is one of the overriding message is coming out of this election's -- we saw this from the entitlement commission, this concern about spending. that will have to be balanced against all of these things that might need to be all set. >> you think that the republican rule changes now under consideration are going to make it easier to do that? is that what you were alluding to? >> i have not been privy to that.

>> they are talking about their own adaptation of the you cut plan. they will take advice from listeners around the country, but they are clearly not going to have a paygo that includes revenues. how you reconcile that with your desire to reduce deficit remains a big question on the table for republicans. it is a question that has been brought into view, as have issues over social security and medicare by the deficit commission. alan simpson has put some issues out there that are creating discomfort in both parties. >> we have someone here now. >> i am an editor at the college of american pathologists. can you talk about how you see the new congress dealing with

the physician payment sgr issue? >> i will take a crack at best. this is one of our top priorities, to reassure senior state will have continued access to their physicians. we hope that the lame duck session will tackle this. it is an area where because it is new spending we will probably have to be offset elsewhere. the only reason i am not more confident of the result is not because of the desire to extend the sgr, it is the uncertainty about the of set and how impossible it would be to go forward. we are pushing hard to get congress to act very quickly on this because of -- they need to do something by the end of november in order to prevent this.

>> they democrats in congress in a lame duck will be tempted to kick this can off into january for the reason that john mentioned. they cannot just let it drop because it could be close to catastrophe for physicians and access in coming months. i think they would rather leave the difficult choice because there will be a paygo provision on spending for a substantial sum of money to the republicans in the house to deal with. >> you can see the entire discussion tonight at 8:00 eastern on our companion network, c-span2. studentcam'ss video documentation is in full swing. this year's theme is washington d.c. it through my lens.

upload your video tuesday stand -- video to c-span for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. go online to >> at the closing news conference of the g-26 summit, president obama -- g-20 summit, president obama answered questions on whether he will extend the tax cuts introduced by the bush administration, and

on the failure to reach a free- trade agreement with south korea. >> good afternoon, everybody. before i discuss the g20, i want to briefly comment on the agreement in iraq that's taken place on the framework for a new government. there's still challenges to overcome, but all indications are that the government will be representative, inclusive, and reflect the will of the iraqi people who cast their ballots in the last election. this agreement marks another milestone in the history of och modern iraq. once again, iraqis are showing their determination to unify ha iraq and build its future and that those impulses are far stronger than those who want iraq to descend into sectarian war and terror. for the last several months, the united states has worked closely with our iraqi partners to promote a broad-based government -- one whose leaders share a commitment to serving all iraqis as equal citizens. now, iraq's leaders must finish the job of forming their

government so that they can meet the challenges that a diverse coalition will inevitably face. and going forward, we will support the iraqi people as they strengthen their democracy, resolve political disputes, resettle those displaced by war, and build ties of commerce and cooperation with the united states, the region and the world. , whichnow, here in seoul, once again, we are very grateful to our hosts -- president lee, and the people of seoul and south korea -- for your extraordinary hospitality. we came to seoul to continue the work that has taken us from london to pittsburgh to toronto. we worked together to pull the global economy back from catastrophe. to avoid the old cycles of boom and bust that led to that crisis, we committed ourselves to growth that is balanced and sustained, including financial reform and fiscal responsibility. the actions we took were not

always easy or popular. but they were necessary. as a result, the global economy is growing again. some economies, especially emerging economies, are experiencing strong economic growth. trade has risen. jobs are being created, as in the united states, where we've had 10 consecutive months of private sector job growth and created more than one million private sector jobs this year alone. in short, we succeeded in putting the global economy back on the path of recovery -- but we also know that the progress has not come nearly fast enough, especially when it comes to my highest priority, which is putting americans back to work. nor have we yet achieved the balanced global growth that we need. many advanced economies are growing too slowly and not creating enough jobs. some countries are running large surpluses, others running large deficits. put simply, we risk slipping

back into the old imbalances that contributed to the economic crisis in the first place and which threaten global recovery. so here in seoul, the question was whether our nations could work together to keep the global economy growing. i know the commentary tends to focus on the inevitable areas of disagreement, but the fact is the 20 major economies gathered here are in broad agreement on the way forward -- an agreement that is based on a framework that was put forward by the united states. and for the first time, we spelled out the actions that are required -- in four key areas -- to achieve the sustained and balanced growth that we need. first, we agreed to keep focusing on growth. at home, the united states has been doing our part by making historic investments in infrastructure and education, research and clean energy. and as a consequence, our economy is growing again -- even as we must do more to ensure that that growth is sustained and translates into

jobs for our people. here at seoul, we agreed that growth must be balanced. countries with large deficits must work to reduce them, as we are doing in the united states, where we're on track to cut our deficit in half by 2013, and where i'm prepared to make tough decisions to achieve that goal. likewise, countries with large surpluses must shift away from unhealthy dependence on exports and take steps to boost domestic demand. as i've said, going forward, no nation should assume that their path to prosperity is paved simply with exports to the united states. second, we agreed that exchange rates must reflect economic realities. just as the major advanced economies need to keep working to preserve stability among reserve currencies, emerging economies need to allow for currencies that are market- driven. this is something that i raised yesterday with president hu of china, and we will continue to closely watch

the appreciation of china's currency. all of us need to avoid actions that perpetuate imbalances and give countries an undue advantage over one another. third, we took further steps to implement financial regulatory reform. at home, we are implementing the toughest financial reform since the great depression, and we are expecting the same sense of urgency, rather than complacency, among our g20 partners. here in seoul we agreed to new standards -- similar to those that we've passed in the united states -- to make sure that banks have the capital they need to withstand shocks and not take excessive risks that could lead to another crisis. and we agreed on an approach to ensure that taxpayers are not asked to pay for future bank failures. fourth, we agreed to focus on development as a key driver of economic growth. the work we did here today builds on a new development policy that i announced in september and recognizes that the most effective means of

lifting people out of poverty is to create sustainable economic growth -- growth that will create the markets of the future. we also agreed on an action plan to combat corruption, which in some countries is the single greatest barrier to economic progress. finally, we reaffirmed the need to avoid protectionism that stifles growth and instead pursue trade and investment through open markets. that's why, for example, we will continue to work towards a u.s.-korea free trade agreement in the coming weeks -- not just any agreement, but the best agreement to create jobs both in america and korea. veryhat's why i spoke frankly to my g20 partners today about the prospects of the doha round. for just as emerging economies have gained a greater voice at international financial institutions -- in part because of the work we've done here at the g20 -- so, too, must they embrace their responsibilities to open markets to the trade and investment that creates jobs

in all our countries. so, again, i want to thank our south korean hosts for a very successful summit. i want to thank my fellow leaders for their partnership. here in seoul, we've laid out the steps we must take to realize the balanced and sustained growth that we need. and now and in the days ahead, these are the commitments that we're going to have to meet. so with that, let me take a few questions. and i'll start off with julianna goldman of bloomberg. >> thank you, mr. president. a question on the south korea free trade agreement. if u.s. concerns on autos and beef aren't adequately addressed oddly over the next few weeks, at that point would it be better to just have no deal at all? >> well, i've always said that i'm not interested in signing a trade agreement just for the sake of an announcement. i'm interested in trade agreements that increase jobs and exports for the united states, and hopefully also

increase opportunities for our trading partners. i think that is achievable between the united states and korea. but the whole issue here from my perspective, and has always been over the last couple of years, is do we have a deal that works for us? that's my first obligation. president lee's obligation obviously is to make sure it works for korea. i think we can get a win-win, but it was important to take the extra time so that i am assured that it is a win for american workers and american companies as well as for korean workers and korean companies, because i'm the one who's going to have to go to congress and sell it. and from my perspective, again, i'm not interested in a announcement but then an agreement that doesn't produce for us. we've had a lot of those in the past -- a lot of announcements but, at the same time, we see

american manufacturing deteriorate and, as a consequence, a lot of concern back home. and understandably, i think there's a lot of suspicion that some of these trade deals may not be good for america. i think this one can be but i want to make sure that when i present that trade agreement to congress i am absolutely confident that we've got the kind of deal that is good for both countries. dan lothian of cnn. >> thank you. after the midterm elections you said that you were open to compromise on the bush tax cuts. i'm wondering if you're prepared today to say that you're willing to accept a temporary extension for the wealthiest americans? and then on an unrelated question, do you feel that the election has weakened you on the global stage? >> the answer to the second question is no.

i think what we've seen over the last several days as we've traveled through asia is that people are eager to work with america, eager to engage with america on economic issues, on security issues, on a whole range of mutual interests. and that's especially true in asia, where we see such enormous potential. this is the fastest-growing part of the world. and we've got to be here and we've got to work. and i'm absolutely confident that my administration over the next two years is going to continue to make progress in ensuring that the united states has a presence here not just for the next couple of years but for decades to come. with respect to the bush tax

cuts, what i've said is that i'm going to meet with both the republican and democratic leaders late next week and we're going to sit down and discuss how we move forward. my number-one priority is making sure that we make the middle-class tax cuts permanent, that we give certainty to the 98 percent of americans who are affected by those tax breaks. i don't want to see their income taxes spike up -- not only because they need relief after having gone through a horrendous recession, but also because it would be bad for the economy. i continue to believe that extending permanently the upper-income tax cuts would be a mistake and that we can't afford it. and my hope is, is that

somewhere in between there we can find some sort of solution. but i'm not going to negotiate here in seoul. my job is to negotiate back in washington with republican and democratic leaders. ben feller of ap. >> thank you, mr. president. daxyou came to asia talking about the deep frustration that americans feel about the slow pace of recovery in the economy, and over your travels in the past 10 days you've been talking a lot about sustainable growth. but the american people don't seem as interested in gradual growth as much as they want real, noticeable help right now. can you promise them that there will be, in fact, noticeable job growth during your four- year term? and do you think that the unemployment rate will still be north of 9 percent when you run for reelection? >> well, i don't have a crystal ball, ben, but i will say this. first of all, we've grown the economy by a million jobs over the last year.

so that's pretty noticeable. i think those million people who've been hired notice those paychecks. and that's 10 consecutive months of private sector job growth. in order to speed up job growth, we've put forward a range of proposals that i hope to discuss with democratic and republican leaders -- because i don't think we can just stand pat. i continue to believe that we need to invest in a creaky infrastructure back home. and i think as you travel around asia, you start seeing other countries investing in infrastructure. that's what the united states has done in the past, but we've been living off the investments that we made back in the '30s, '40s, '50s, and '60s. and it's time for us to make sure that we've upgraded our roads and our railways and our airports. that will make us more productive and will put people back to work right now.

i continue to believe that it is important for us to work with businesses to see if we can incentivize them to invest now rather than holding cash waiting for the future. they've got cash to spend. and so we've put forward a series of tax proposals that historically republicans have supported. and my expectation would be there's no reason for them not to support it just because i'm supporting it. and so that's a conversation that i hope to have next week. but we have a recovery. it needs to be speeded up. government can't hire back the 8 million people who lost their jobs. ultimately that's up to the private sector. but i think we can set the conditions whereby we're seeing significant improvement during the course of the next year, the next two years, and we can chip away at the unemployment rate so that we get back to the kinds of levels that reflect a growing middle class and

increased opportunity for all people. jake tapper. >> thank you, mr. president. this communiqué has a commitment that all countries will refrain from competitive devaluation of currencies. i'm wondering what you think that means concretely when it comes to china's behavior, what you expect from them? and also i'm wondering, when it comes to congress, if you think your party, the democratic party, would benefit from new blood, new leadership? >> i've been very clear and persistent since i came into office that we welcome china's rise; we think the fact that

china has grown as remarkably as it has, has lifted millions of people out of poverty, and that is ultimately good for the world and good for america -- because it means that china has the opportunity to be a responsible partner. it means that china can be an enormous market for the united states, for korea, for countries throughout asia and around the world. and it's just good to get people out of poverty and give them opportunity. what i've also said is that precisely because of china's success, it's very important that it act in a responsible fashion internationally. and the issue of the rnb is one that is an irritant not just to the united states, but is an irritant to a lot of china's trading partners and those who are competing with china to sell goods around the world.

it is undervalued. and china spends enormous amounts of money intervening in the market to keep it undervalued. and so what we've said is it's important for china in a gradual fashion to transition to a market-based system. now, this is something that china has done in the past. and china has also acknowledged that it needs to transition to a more balanced growth strategy internally where they're focusing on their enormous domestic market and giving their people the opportunity to buy goods and services and consume -- all of which will promote their growth, but also will reduce some of the imbalances around the world. and so what this communiqué i think communicates -- not just to china but to all of us -- is

letting currencies reflect market fundamentals, allowing your currency to move up and down, depending on the role that you're playing in the international trading system, is the best way to assure that everybody benefits from trade rather than just some. and the communiqué strongly communicates that principle. my expectation is that china is going to make progress on this issue. president hu is going to be visiting me in washington in january, and our hope and expectation is, is that we will continue to see progress on this front. it means some adjustments for china. and so we understand that this is not solved overnight. but it needs to be dealt with and i'm confident that it can

be. sheryl stolberg. oh -- i think that what we will naturally see is a whole bunch of talented people rise to the top as they promote good ideas that attract the american people when it comes to jobs and investment and how to grow the economy and how to deal with our challenges. i think speaker pelosi has been an outstanding partner for me. i think harry reid has been a terrific partner in moving some very difficult legislation forward. and i'm looking forward to working with the entire leadership team to continue to make progress on the issues that are important to the american people. sheryl.

>> thank you, mr. president. i'm hoping to get you in a little bit of a reflective mode. you spoke in your press conference in d.c. about your relationship with the american people. you said then that it had built slowly, it peaked at this incredible high, and then during the course of the last two years it had gotten rockier and tougher. and i'm wondering if you think the same could be said of your relations with foreign leaders, who maybe were just a teensy bit falling all over you when you first arrived on the world stage. >> that's not how i remember it. i remember our first g20 you guys writing the exact same stories you're writing now about the exact same issues. don't you remember that, sheryl? [laughter] the united states, obviously, has a special role to play on the international stage,

regardless of who is president. we are a very large, very wealthy, very powerful country. we have had outsized influence over world affairs for a century now. and you are now seeing a her situation in which a whole host of other countries are doing very well and coming into their own, and naturally they are going to be more assertive in terms of their interests and ideas. and that's a healthy thing. that's why we now have a g20 -- because the old arrangements didn't fully reflect these new realities. but let's just reflect on this summit. the framework for balanced and sustainable growth is one that we helped to originate. the financial reforms and basel

iii are based on ideas that came out of our work and reflect many of the principles that are in dodd-frank. the development document that was set forward in this communiqué tracks the development ideas that i put forward several weeks ago in terms of how we can encourage not just aid, but also self- sufficiency. the corruption initiative that's reflected in the communiqué was prompted by recommendations and suggestions that we made. so sometimes, i think, naturally there's an instinct to focus on the disagreements, because otherwise, these summits might not be very exciting --

it's just a bunch of world leaders sitting around intervening. and so there's a search for drama. but what's remarkable is that in each of these successive summits we've actually made real progress. and sometimes the progress -- charting the progress requires you to go back and look at previous summits, starting off with -- let's say, on financial regulatory -- in toronto, we said, here's what we need to do; let's have this ready by the time we get to seoul. it wasn't real sexy back in toronto and nobody really wrote about it, but it actually moved the ball forward in terms of a coordinated response to financial regulation. imf reform is something that the united states has said we need to get done. and in previous summits, we said we're going to find a way

to get that done. and lo and behold, here we are at this summit and we've actually achieved what is a huge shift in how power is assigned in these international financial institutions. so the work that we do here is not always going to seem dramatic. it's not always going to be immediately world-changing. but step by step, what we're doing is building stronger international mechanisms and institutions that will help stabilize the economy, ensure economic growth and reduce some tensions. now, last point i'll make on this: part of the reason that sometimes it seems as if the united states is attracting some dissent is because we're

initiating ideas. we're putting them forward. the easiest thing for us to do would be to take a passive role and let things just drift, which wouldn't cause any conflict. but we thought it was important for us to put forward more structure to this idea of balanced and sustained growth. and some countries pushed back. they were concerned about what might this -- is this somehow going to lock us in to having to change our growth patterns or our trade policies or what have you. and that resistance is natural. it arises out of the fact that the u.s. is showing leadership and we are pushing to try to bring about changes. >> -- leaders and if you had noticed any change during your

time in office -- >> and i guess what i'm saying is, is that i actually think that my relationships have grown much stronger with the people who i've worked with here. when i first came into office, people might have been interested in more photo ops because there had been a lot of hoopla surrounding my election. but i now have a genuine friendship with prime minister singh of india and i think that he and i share a level of understanding and interest in working together that didn't exist when i first came onto the scene. i think the same is true for chancellor merkel; the same is true for prime minister erdogan; the same is true for president lee. that doesn't mean that there

aren't going to be differences, but -- the same is true for my relationship with president hu. it wasn't any easier to talk about currency when i had just been elected and my poll numbers were at 65 percent than it is now. it was hard then and it's hard now. because this involves the interests of countries and not all of these are going to be resolved easily. and it's not just a function of personal charm. it's a function of countries' interests and seeing if we can work through to align them. all right. savannah guthrie. >> a quick follow-up. some are interpreting your senior advisor david axelrod's comments to a newspaper back home that your compromise position is to temporarily extend the bush tax cuts. is that the wrong interpretation? >> that is the wrong

interpretation because i haven't had a conversation with republican and democratic leaders. here's the right interpretation. i want to make sure that taxes don't go up for middle-class families starting on january 1st. that's my number-one priority -- for those families and for our ecomy. i also believe that it would be fiscally irresponsible for us to permanently extend the high- income tax cuts. i think that would be a mistake, particularly when we've got our republican friends saying that their number-one priority is making sure that we deal with our debt and our deficit. so there may be a whole host of ways to compromise around those issues. i'm not going to negotiate here in seoul on those issues. but i've made very clear what my priorities are. >> oh, sorry, that was actually my quick follow-up --

>> oh, i see. [laughter] >> -- but this lds me right to my real question, which is, speaking of fiscal responsibility, given the fact that the bulk of the expense of extending the tax cuts to the middle class would be trillions of dollars, in the interest of telling the truth to the american people, can we afford that? thank you. >> well, the middle class in the united states saw their real wages go down 5 percent over the period of 2001 to 2009, at the same time as all their costs were going up. and so giving them permanent relief is good for those families. i also believe strongly it is good for our economy right now, at a time when we are still in recovery.

the costs are significant and we are going to have to have a discussion about over the medium and long term how do we match up our spending with our revenues -- because right now they are way out of balance. that's why we have a deficit. that's why we have a debt. and it is our responsibility to the next generation to make sure that that gets solved. i don't start thinking on the revenue side. i start thinking on the spending side -- where can we potentially save money? i'm looking forward to getting the official bowles-simpson recommendations. i'm going to study those carefully, consult widely, and see what we can do on the spending side that will have an impact. and then we've got to see how

much of a shortfall do we have. and then we're going to have to have a debate, which will probably be a tough debate and has to be an honest debate with the american people about how do we pay for those things that we think are really important. i think it is really important for us to invest in research and development because that's going to be the key to innovation and our long-term economic success. but we've got to figure out how to pay for that. i think it's really important to invest in our education system. that's going to be a key to our long-term economic growth and competitiveness. how are we going to pay to make sure that young people can go to college? i think it's important to make sure that social security and medicare are there not just for this generation but for the next. how do we make that sustainable? so that's going to be a series of tough conversations. what i know is that if we're spending $700 billion -- if we're borrowing $700 billion to pay for tax breaks for folks

like me who don't need them and where i'm least likely to spend that money and circulate it in the economy, that's probably not a great approach. but, again, i know that the other side feels very strongly about it and i'm willing to have a tough, hard-headed discussion with democratic and republican leaders about that issue. chip reid. >> thank you, mr. president. i know it's not your habit to comment on fed decisions, but there's been quite a bit of reporting, if you believe it, and i'm sure you do, that there's quite a bit of unhappiness among g20 countries over that decision. and i'm not asking you to comment on the decision. but did you get an earful from other leaders here on the fed decision? could you share with us what some of them said? and if you're not willing to delve too deeply into that, what was the number-one complaint, concern, or piece of

advice that you got from foreign leaders about the u.s. economy and your stewardship of the economy? >> what about compliments? you didn't put that in the list. there was only complaints, concerns, or -- [laughter] you know, there was not a lot of discussion about the fed decision in the leaders' meetings. i think a couple of times there were some veiled references to monetary policy that may have effect on other countries. but it wasn't central to any of the discussions that we had. i know that on the margins, there was a lot of discussion -- and in the press, there was a huge amount of discussion about it. but i have to tell you that wasn't part of the discussion that we had inside the leaders' meetings. most of the discussion had to do with how do we translate this idea of rebalancing into

concrete steps. and the communiqué accurately reflects the consensus. it's puzzling to me that the reporting is all talking about conflict when the communiqué actually reflects a hard-won consensus that the world's 20 largest economies signed up for and that gives us some mechanisms to start monitoring, looking at indicators, seeing how countries are doing on this front. it doesn't provide an enforcement mechanism that says to korea or the united states or germany or brazil you have to do something, but it does give the international community the ability to monitor and see exactly what countries are doing, and to see if the policies they're pursuing are fair to their trading partners.

and if they're not, then it gives a mechanism to apply at least some peer pressure on those countries to start doing something about it. i think when people talk to me about the u.s. economy, their main concern is, is it growing fast enough. because a lot of countries, including south korea, depend a lot on exports and the u.s. is the world's largest market. they want to see us grow. they want unemployment to go down in the united states. and so i think they're very interested in what are additional strategies that can be used to encourage take-off in the u.s. economy. and i described to them some of the steps that we're taking and that we're going to be continuing to take in order to make that happen.

i guess the last point i would just make about the fed decision, when i am asked about it my simple point is to say that, from everything i can see, this decision was not one designed to have an impact on the currency, on the dollar. it was designed to grow the economy. and there's some legitimate concern that we've had very low inflation, that a huge danger in the united states is deflation, and that we have to be mindful of those dangers going forward because that wouldn't be good for the united states or for the rest of the world. beyond that, that's just an observation about what i think the intent was.

last question -- scott horsley. >> one of your top advisors said this morning that the challenges facing the g20 now are much more manageable than they were at the height of the crisis. how does that affect the dynamic? is there some taking the eye off the ball among your fellow leaders? >> i think what it means is that in the absence of crisis people probably are willing to hunker down a little bit more on some of the negotiations. speed seems less of the essence, and so people think, well, if it doesn't get solved now maybe we can put this off for another day.

what's remarkable to me, though, is despite some of those impulses we're still getting stuff done. and as i emphasized before, we should not anticipate that every time countries come together that we are doing some revolutionary thing. instead of hitting home runs, sometimes we're going to hit singles. but they're really important singles. and i just listed some of these out. imf reform -- this is something that folks have been talking about for a decade or more. it's gotten done. financial regulatory reform -- huge lift -- that we talked about in my first g20 summit, it is now coming to fruition. we've still got some more work to do but we've made enormous progress in a huge -- really short period of time. basel ii i think took a decade

to negotiate; we got this done basically in a year and a half. the development agenda that's been put forward will make a difference. this rebalancing is still a work in progress, but everybody is on record now saying surplus countries and deficit countries both have to be mindful of their policies and think about the adjustments that they need so that we can sustain economic growth and keep our borders open to goods and services over the long term. so tse are all positives, and i think that's an indication of the seriousness with which people take these meetings -- even if, as i said, it's not always going to be revolutionary progress but sometimes evolutionary progress. i feel obliged to take maybe one question from the korean press -- since you guys have been such excellent hosts.

anybody? this gentleman right here -- he's got his hand up. he's the only one who took me up on it. go ahead. and i'll probably need a translation, though, if you're asking the question in korean. in fact, i definitely will need a translation. [laughter] >> unfortunately, i hate to disappoint you, president obama, i'm actually chinese. [laughter] >> well, it's wonderful to see you. >> but i think i get to represent the entire asia. >> absolutely. >> we're one family here in this part of the world. >> well, your english is better than my mandarin also. [laughter] but -- now, in fairness, though, i did say that i was going to let the korean press ask a question. so i think that you held up your hand anyway. >> how about will my korean friends allow me to ask a question on your behalf? yes or no? >> well, it depends on whether there's a korean reporter who would rather have the question. no, no takers? >> [inaudible] >> this is getting more complicated than i expected.

[laughter] >> take quick, one question from an asian, president oma. >> well, the -- as i said, i was going to -- go ahead and ask your question, but i want to make sure that the korean press gets a question as well. >> okay. my question is very simple. you mentioned interpretation. i know part of the difficulty being the american president is that some of the decisions that you take, actions you make will be interpreted in a way that are not what you thought they would be or what you meant they would be. for instance, some of the actions you've taken were interpreted as anti-business, domestically, in the united states. and as someone just mentioned, some of the actions taken by the u.s. government that you represent as well were interpreted as sacrificing other counies'eres for america's own benefit. so you find yourself constantly being interpreted in a thousand different ways. how do you address these interpretations? >> with a wonderful press

conference like this that give me the opportunity hopefully to provide my own interpretation. but, look, you make a valid point. we live in a connected world. everything i say, everything my administration does, anything one of my aides does is interpreted in one fashion or another. in america we call it spin. and there's a spin cycle that is going on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. and i think that in this media environment, it is in some ways more challenging to make sure that your message and your intentions are getting out in a consistent basis. but i think that if i'm consistent with my actions and i'm consistent with my goals, then over time hopefully people

look at my overall trajectory and they can draw accurate conclusions about what we're trying to do. with respect to business, for example, we've had in the united states some battles between myself and some in the business community around issues like financial regulation or health care. at the same time, i've said repeatedly and i said on this trip, we can't succeed unless american businesses succeed. and i'm going to do everything i can to promote their ability to grow and prosper and to sell their goods both in the united states and abroad. and the fact that the economy is now growing and trade is expanding and the stock market is up i think is an indication that i mean what i say. and hopefully by the end of my administration businesses will look back and say, you know

what, actually the guy was pretty good for business -- even if at any given point in the road they may be frustrated. so -- all right, now i'm stuck with this last one but i think i've got to go fly a plane. >> [inaudible] >> right. >> what led your administration to decide to try and extract further concessions from korea on imports of american beef? and did you miscalculate the extent that this appears to be non-negotiable here in korea? do you really think you can convince people living in korea to buy more american beef? >> well, first of all, beef was not the only issue that was of concern. in fact, a larger concern had to do with autos. and the concern is very simple. we have about 400,000 korean

autos in the united states and a her few thousand american cars here in korea. and people are concerned about whether the standards, the non- tariff barriers with respect to autos is something that is preventing us from being able to compete with very good products. now, i think that we can find a sweet spot that works both for korea and the united states. but i repeat, i'm not interested in trade agreements just for the sake of trade agreements. i want trade agreements that work for the other side, but my main job is to look out for the american people, american workers and american businesses. and i want to make sure that this deal is balanced. and so we're going to keep on working on it. but i'm confident we can get it done. all right, thank you very much, everybody. i'm late for my flight. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] asia pacific cooperative meetings -- from south korea, president obama traveled to japan to continue the asia- pacific cooperative meetings. continues. host: let me introduce you to bryce. over the years, he was a consultant to the office of trade commission. he worked at the senate

government affairs committee and was a co-factor for the presidential affairs commission. i want to show you what i am describing as tough headlines today. what are your thoughts about what happened in asia. >> i want to be careful here. we still haven't seen the g-20 statement. this is quite preliminary. i think, you have to move this out. the set of reasons, the times

headline about economic views being rejected. in terms of korea fta -- guest: free trade agreement signed in 2007 under president bush. what seems to have happened is that this is the first trade agreement, if you will that the president has put his own personal stomp on. he said he wanted it done to get

a personal involvement. possibly because of distractions they really haven't gotten to serious negotiations until after november. i also would have to say that the administration was wrong they tried to amend it and change it. it become too late. host: we don't have a lot of time but let me take each one separately. we'll put the phone numbers on the screen.

guest: the labor union, so labor for the past decade -- this goes back to divisions with president clinton. the korea agreement is a line of agreements they have imposed. talking the specifics of the

agreement, whatever. in terms of the commissions you mentioned. the point you made is correct particularly automobiles. the other thing to keep in mind is that the europeans, particularly the car deal. they have signed a free trade agreement, which it wipes out the tar i haves. what the koreans got is what we really wanted. the standards in korea have been hurting us and other international scar makers. if we don't sign this agreement, we'll be in even worst difficulty because automobile manufacturers are doing quite well and will have a real leg up on that.

on these, it's a question of the whole health issue and the barriers related to the health of these coming in. koreans have backed up a great deal on that so really the beef associations, cattle are not really unhappy. they would like to have a total opening but what they have gotten really allows them to exporter a great deal. those are not major issues. i just think, the administration, we don't know enough yet about these last couple of days but they had a good deal. the president seemed to be saying he couldn't get the deal to change without congress. republicans have been in favor of this for three years it

pushed the president to do it. the situation with the president is always a lot better. you could always get enough for democratic senators to go along. >> on l this, corning from south korea with the president has a new piece and headline with the failure, a lost opportunity for obama. here is what she writes. mr. obama will have to deal with a democratic senate and hostile of working with him and skeptic al of trade deals. guest: neither i or anybody right now knows the position of

the tea party candidates. it remains to be seen, there are a number of committees that have not found an anti-trade stance. secondly, as i said before, you have had for the last decade under bush who they didn't like maybe, democrats have had an anti-trade stance. there have been enough democrats in the house to go along to pass the bill. >> i'll take some calls and get our viewers involved in this and come back for more. the big back drop for all the nations in this. and also u.s. china trade.

>> good morning, josh. good morning. thank you for c-span and taking my call. i have one major point. i'm not sure but i believe personally that trade and currency are just the underlying issues. there have been several things going on that are at work here. there is a subtle way that they tie together all of these in an underlying stream. it's all the central bankers that have poluted the system. they think that they can show off -- well, we are not going to have it anymore. we are the ones funding them.

it's hard to see that they have gone on. i'm wandering your comments on that. thank you for taking my call. guest: despite that all banks get a bad wrap these days. most economists would agree that central banks perform a key function, particularly those that are independent and can step back and take a look at the overall administration, whether you talk about the european central bank, the bank in japan or federal reserve. one can disagree with this or that policy. to get to something you are getting at more specifically. without getting into the arguments back and forth about the virtues and deficit of what

the reserve did last week. it is true to pump overtime over $600 billion certainly under cut the president's trip to this degree. you have bankers not just in asia but in europe, particularly the germans that argue that the united states cannot criticize the chinese when the affect of what bernanke and the federal reserve did ultimately to lower the value of the u.s. dollar. this is not their major goal but we were willing to accept a lower dollar so what you did

domestically had a big affect and badly under cut one of the reasons for the "new york times" of how obama's world economic views were ejected on the stage. >> these comments were from global leaders. the decision to call the easing. first in getting with the brazil president elect who said the last time there was andy valuation of currency, it wenteded up in a world war.

host: when you hear that, what are you hearing? guest: one of the things you are hearing is cheap shots. most of the people quoted there are fairly sophisticated there. they have a point the president in a more informal way was that

ultimately the goal is to jump start or push forward greater growth while the short term affects may be to lower the value of the dollar the longer term affects will benefit the economy and actually help these countries. i think -- i feel for him he says we are in favor of a strong balance. it looks fairly foolish with what the fed has done.

guest: good morning as far as free trade, we have been doing this since pearl harbor. half of the people coming in dwsh the money coming in is from other countries because they are helping us get out of debt. why is it that we can't charge them just like they charge us i used to work for chrysler. all of our parts was coming from japan anyway. we would take their packaging and put it in our packaging and say it is ours.

i feel like the government is doing the same thing we need to charge these people like they are charging us. at some point now that everybody is hurting, now the world is seeing it. what are we really going to do about this trade? or is it going to be the same charge decades after decades guest: what has happened with the world trading system is not just the world war. other nations had high charges in the terms that you use.

those have gone through the developing companies coming down dramatical dramatical dramatically manufactured goods. our trade in relation to the united states and europe and japan and china to cover that the government deficit. if you don't save enough at home to pay for what you consume, somebody else will do it for

you. that's all the trade balance is. the place to look for changes and the fact that we have a trade deficit or current account deficit is at home. we are talking trade deficit. what happens this week with a debt commission. central to what will ultimately happen in a trade balance down the road all the pieces and parts recommended and where we ought to be looking in terms of competitiveness to compete with others. we are talking china and

currency. host: this viewer writes, >> ie been clear since i came into office that we welcome china's rise. we think for the world and america china has a responsibility to be a partner and countries around the world. it's good to get people out of poverty and get them an

opportunity because of china's success, that they act responsiblily. the issue is one not just to the united states. selling goods around the world. it's under valued. china spends enormous amounts of money intervening in the market to keep it under valued. what we have said is it is important for china in a gradual fashion to transition to a market based system.

rising to china and the united states trying to push this off. i'd like to see this pushing harder i hope that will continue. they have a very good case about chinese intervention. we can argue about the degree to which this is way under valued. the problem is that it goes back to why the germans intervene in this. again, the action of the federal reserve which seemed to actually mirror many who are not

economists, really under cut the president. the germans have a different view of how one gets out of the world crisis. the german's think you are to really slash the budget and not pump up the economy at least administration thinks by and large. the comment is just an argument there that the united states thinks that the way they are doing things are right and the way we are doing things is not the way to go. you add into that the whole china currency business at least nobody was going to directly

accuse anybody of anything then you get to the situation there to allow others to come in. we haven't seen the statement they have one on a temporary basis. host: back to the phone on the democrat line. guest: thank you. spring of 2001, we had a surplus as far as the eye could see. free trade is zero. understand what the zero means

my question is, what happens to the u.s. economy if the republicans repeal . do you think the president is smart enough to read and understand guest: i do believe se smart enough. he is a very smart man and rational man. whether one agrees or disagrees with him. he is competent. having said that, there is a foot note here. when one looks back with the lead up to this break down of the negotiation with the free

agreement. income tense seems to be a part of it. a lot of this will let go until too late. as i said before. this is one case where the president has his own stomp on something. it's bound to be a blow to him personally. going back to the first questions you talked about. the key is to go back, you mentioned in 2001. the move really toward rebalancing at home. we did not have a trade balance of zero. we were still on deficit. we were on the way to a rebalancing of our international transaction. what has happened to the bush administration and the internal budget and now continuing in the

obama administration. creating the external imbalances. the key to this, while very easy in to blame trade policy for a lack of competitiveness. the key to the change is internally. the fault there lies in ourselves you it is when we do here. . .

caller: i came in here in the mid-1980s when general motors was still here, when manufacturing was still here. companies employed 20,000 to 30,000 people and they just disappeared, i mean, just gone. this was with policies that were created in washington with nafta, created by the republicans and signed by a democratic president. we have got to get back to taking care of the american people, taking care of all of

them. host: thanks, darren. guest: i do not agree that it was trade agreements that cause the problems in detroit, or in any other industry in any other states. trade can have a negative affect, but in this case, if you look at what has happened in the last 30 to 40 years, much more than anything else it has been corporate mistakes and an alliance of unions, and corporate -- an alliance of unions and corporate leaders, which made the industry and competitive with the rest of the world. i agree that it is time to look to -- maybe i would not use your phrase, but you do not do that by closing off the a u.s. economy to international trade.

we had it apparently wide open under president clinton, just to take a democratic administration. but through a whole decade we treated tens of millions of jobs, much more than other countries who had closed borders and less free trade. i do not think that is the place to go. i keep coming back to the fact that we can debate the particulars of changes in domestic policy, but that is where we have got to start. whether it is changing our tax structure or changing the education system, or changing the balance of our budget as the debt commissioner has done, that is where we ought to look. trade is important. as a matter of fact, it was president obama who has been skeptical of trade before, who has in the last year put forward a u.s. export initiative.

he wants to double efforts. andpoint is he understands that trade is important. it is unfortunate that he allowed the free trade agreement with korea, the most important trade agreement that we signed -- at least, fothe moment -- to go down. host: here is a headline, "obama's eckman view is rejected on world stage." -- "obama's economic review is rejected on the world stage." and here is a tweet. the next call is as surely, from abilene. caller: there are agencies of the government. this is probably the murky as. the american people, i think, are being sold a bill of goods.

we have 14 acting trade agreement, i believe, and we have trade deficits with every one of them. the people that word -- that we are in these agreements with have no compunction when it comes to putting terrorist of -- tariffs on us. it seems the sinister to the american people, that we are getting our country of industry. -- putting our country of the industry. gutting ourare bettin country of industry. i do not think we know who the american enterprise institute is. we do not know who is negotiating these terrorists. all we see it -- these tarriffs.

all we see is the homogenizing of our country and there is an assault -- there is no end in sight. host: we have your point. thanks. from abilene tx. let's look at the current members in the difference between u.s. and china exports. the 2010 numbers from the u.s. census bureau, and this is just through september. mr. barfield? guest: a couple of things. as i said before, and i'm sorry to repeat myself again, the u.s. balance with china or any other country or group of countries is based upon internal economic policies that we have. in other words, we are not saving enough to cover investments and consumption.

inevitably, we will then import people who will pay this for us. if it is not china, it would be someone else. the deficit or surplus of the country does not have a lot of economic meaning in the overall span of things. given the fact that we will have to get it from somewhere, if we do not get it from china, then it would more likely be singapore, malaysia, taiwan, korea. that is the key there. that is not to say that the chinese have not taken actions that impede exports to them. all nations, including the united states. but i would like to go back to the point the caller made about columbia. -- columbia. this has been true with a number of our free trade agreements. and i think it is certainly true with korea, that we have talked

about. colombia, we have already left everything for them to be free. columbia is a developing country. colombia is a developing economy. we are working to open up their economy more to our economy. presidents, both republican and democratic, have lowered our terrorists for them. it goes back to somehow it is -- tariffs toed our terrorist them. it goes back to these trade agreements. yes, in the earlier part of the

20th century were moving to be part of these different and particular sectors, but much of that is local. let's look at, say, textiles. if you were in massachusetts you would have thought, it is terrible that they moved it to the south. or other areas within the united states. the key is to keep the u.s. competitive through policies, sensible economic policies and education policies and other return policies that allow our men and women to compete effectively. host: one of the places, perhaps unexpected, that mr. bernanke is getting criticism is from the former fed chief, mr. greenspan. he said this recently --

the "financial times" today said -- and that we will never weekend our economy to grow do you believe that? guest: i believe that, but the statement compounds mr. geithner's problem. you have disagreements within the federal reserve. yet disagreement in the federal government. and then mr. greenspan comes in and says flat out that we are innovating to lower the value of the dollar. you can understand why obama and geithner are in great difficulty when they try to defend this. geithner is correct in this

sense, the u.s. -- and the other complication is that geithner is defending something from an independent agency, the federal reserve. he is not the person who took this action. but he is arguing that the reason the fed took this action was not to deliberately undercut the dollar so that we would be -- so that we could compete more effectively with other nations, but to grow the u.s. economy. and over the medium term and the longer-term, if it is successful, the u.s. will grow faster. that means it will actually consume and produce more. that will help not just the u.s. citizens, but other citizens. to that degree, one can disagree that it will actually work, but i think he is right about the motivations of the fed. the problem is, as i said before, this came the week before the g-20 where we were

actually making a big deal -- and by the way, it has been said that the chinese were a response will in -- were irresponsible in the way they handled it. we were trying to focus on china, and suddenly we seemed to be doing the same thing the chinese did. that is not correct, actually. if you look at it technically, it has left us very vulnerable. one of the reasons behind the "new york times" headline saying that it was rejected. the "new york times" is not a newspaper that has been negative. it has been quite supportive of president obama. host: our next caller on the line for democrats, good morning. caller: i have called in before and i'm so upset about the free trade issues. i have been in business in houston for 30 years and it is as clear as a bell to me what is wrong with our economy.

nafta and cafta, with their passage, we immediately started seeing this decline with the american economy. every successful -- successive trade agreement since then has added to our problem. i think the american public is being lied to. i think that the manufacturing jobs for the tip of the iceberg. i think we are in a race to the bottom and as long as the american work force is going to be put into competition with third-world labor, the working person in america has absolutely no hope. and one thing i find very interesting -- i'm on the internet a lot and i'm always trying to find ways to aggregate free trade and return my tight those words into the internet, what i always get is someone trying to offshore jobs.

even the internet is being taken over. when the lady said is sinister, it is. it is malevolent in taking our country down and you cannot change the american public's mind on this without bringing jobs back to america. guest: a couple of things. let's go back to nafta and subsequent free trade agreements since then. the negotiations of the world trade organization, which brought barriers to u.s. exports down -- after nafta in the 1990's and again under president bush who negotiated other free trade agreements, we created more jobs than any other country. everyone has been involved in the financial crisis, but the financial crisis did not come from trade policies. it came from other financial policies and internal domestic

policies, or lack of regulation in the u.s. and both parties could be faulted here. i know it seems as if it might be a trade issue, but it is not really. the republicans just one house, but they lost a house in 2006 and they lost the presidency. i do not agree with the opinion that was just offered about the effects of trade. but one thing i do agree with is, you know, -- i do not think this is sinister. i think is pretty open. congressas to vote on these things and give the american public does not agree with it, and if the republicans and democrats who believe in free trade and more trade agreements, if they cannot convince the public, then they will be swept out of office. i think it will be unfor

>> tomorrow, the washington bureau of chief alternate looks at the hundred 12 congress. douglas holtz-eakin, president of american action network talks about the pending expiration of the bush tax cuts would impact middle-class and wealthier americans. "washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next, a look at the impact of the midterm elections. then, details of a report on u.s. strategies in iraq and afghanistan. after that, president obama meets with reporters following the close of the g-20 summit in south korea.

>> in an ideal world, the fact that there were people shorting the mortgage market, that would have sent a signal saying that those would be smart investors who think this will crash and burn. but the market was opaque enough that you could not see that the way you can see it in the stock market. because of the way these instruments work, you were not betting on real mortgages, but the casino version of other mortgages. >> this week, she will talk about the current financial crisis and the future of the american economy. that is sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span q&a. >> now, bob schieffer and david gregory review the results of last week's midterm elections. politico held this panel at the museum in washington

d.c.. this is just over an hour. postelection analysis. welcome to our c-span audience carrying us live, and we are also streaming this live on "politico." we're going to keep it up there for the weekend, so we'll have a big audience today. my name's john harris, i'm the editor in chief of "politico," and i also as we get started want to thank very much our sponsors for this event, the national cable and telecommunications association with "politico," we've done a number of great things with them. they're great partners.

thank you very much. [applause] i do think it is the time of year when we should be willing to take a minute and reflect on and thank the people who take risks in the name of american democracy who are willing to put themselves and their reputations out on the line for all the rest of us. i'm talking, of course, about washington political pundits. [laughter] it's not easy trying to analyze events, make predictions, make sense of the chaos of politics. i know this personally. in 2006 i wrote a book with a friend of mine and a colleague, mark hall person, he's now with time magazine, probably a lot of people in the room know mark. mark and i tried to do a book, it was going to forecast what was going to happen in the 2008 elections from a vantage point of two years out, sort of the

insider's guide about politics. the book was called "the way to win. "you can still buy it. [laughter] you've got to look on ebay. anyway, it was a good book. there was one problem: in its 400 pages there was one name that did not appear, and that was barack obama. [laughter] so it wasn't, it wasn't 100% rock solid guide to the -- i still think there was a lot of wisdom in that book. [laughter] definitely some things, some things we missed. my, i've got a favorite quote about the hazards of predictions. it comes from the his story, arthur -- historian, arthur schlessinger jr., obviously, one of the giants of american history. he said the, you know, our record of bogus predictions should, quote, lead us all to acknowledge our profound and chastening frailty and to realize that the possibilities of the future are more various, more diverse than the human mind

is is designed to conceive. the future outwits all our certitudes. and there was another quote on the same theme. it was by yogi berra. he said, prediction is hard, especially about the future. [laughter] i look back, so every week on "politico" we do a q&a, a video q&a with these guys, chris wallace or fox also joins us, could not be here, in this which i press these guys, tell me what's happening. i look back and, you know what? these guys had a much better track record than halpern and i did. everybody makes fun of political pundits and all the rest, but we did pretty damn well this year. i think anybody watching these shows would have had a good sense of what happened, what is happening. and i like to think that's true

of our "politico" coverage. so we don't always blow it, and these guys hardly ever blow it. i want to go and introduce them, and we'll get this conversation going. christiane amanpour, of course, the anchor of this week with christiane amanpour on abc news. she started this not too long ago. when did you start? >> august 1st. >> of course, news junkies like us and probably most of the people in this room know her from her career at cnn, just recently joined abc. bob schieffer is cbs' news chief washington correspondent and, of course, the anchor and moderator of "face the nation." bob has covered washington for more than 30 years, but i know that's not true -- >> 0. >> more than 40 years, right? you need more than 30 years to pick up laird stories. [laughter] both bob and i know mel laird,

the former defense secretary. he's covered virtually every important beat in washington in that, in those years. candy crowley is cnn's chief political corps responsibility and anchor -- correspondent and anchor. she runs "state of the union" every sunday. she took the reins of that show in february, and in her role as chief political correspondent she covers a broad range of stories including presidential, congressional and gubernatorial races. i think we know candy is one of the real workhorses, you are going to see her on airplanes, out on the scene, the authority she brings to the summit. she's -- subject. she's earned that the hard way. i'd say that's true of all the people up here. david gregory is moderator of "meet the press," of course. he's been doing that since december of 2008, obviously, taking over one of the really esteemed chairs in this business from the late tim russert, somebody we all knew and respected and has very much lived up to tim's legacy with

that show. in addition to his "meet the press" respondents, he's a regular on the today show and see him often on msnbc. been with nbc since 1995. i thought you were a youngerfy than that,day. >> not anymore. >> time marchs on. okay. i just figured we would open it up with everybody talking a little bit about their shows and reflecting back. tell me, what was your biggest kind of get of the cycle, the really illuminating moment that you said, ah, this is really telling me something i didn't know about politics. david, we'll go on down the line. >> i think in the political context there were two that stand out, when robert gibbs said the house could fall was a moment because it was a bit of truth telling that he wanted to dial back -- >> why was that such a storm, right? this. >> well, because -- >> ray charles could have seen it coming. [laughter] and he said it and got in a lot of trouble. >> and i think we all like a

real moment like that, a real moment of candor. by the way, he didn't say it was going to fall. he said, certainly, it is possible given how competitive these house races are going to be. i think that was interpreted by the likes of nancy pelosi as somehow, you know, tamping down the potential for democratic candidates to rally. so that became a bit of an issue. i think on the other side we had all the campaign chair, and i think it was striking and certainly something that the president picked up on when you had pete sessions and john cornyn, the republicans, who weren't really in much of a position to talk about, you know, what areas they would actually cut, what new ground they would break policy wise if they got control again in congress. and i think that was an area that certainly democrats picked up and made people stand up and take notice. >> right. candy, give us a -- >> i mean, i have to give you one that i disliked only because it has a slight story behind it, and it was early on the most visible man around but jim demint, but he was also quiet.

and it was hard to get at him and hard -- and so, he one day sort of surprising us said, sure, i'll come on. so we had him scheduled for the show, and i came in -- i usually come in around 5. >> right. >> yeah. which you don't even want to know what time i get up. i'm one of those people who should just stay up. [laughter] so i got there, and somebody said lisa murkowski wants to come on. this was just after she said she was going to run as a write-in. and i said, well, what do you mean? it turned out that one ofer aides showed up at the guard station at cnn at literally 3 in the morning saying can i talk to candy crowley because lisa murkowski is looking for her, would like to come on the air. she's also someone that doesn't go on on sunday all that much. >> or probably not asked that much until recently. >> exactly. exactly. and, you know, what we figured was, look, she knows we're

having jim demint who had just excoriated her. she was an appropriator which was a bad thing to be now. and so we had the two of them and just the tension between these two people who allegedly worked together, i thought, told us a lot about the tea party and how that is, how that was fitting into the mainstream where lisa murkowski -- >> will how often do you see that -- how often do you see that on the show, i'd be curious whoo others think, the behind the scenes moment, hi, good to see you, sort of congeniality behind the scenes with people who have different political perspectives, how often is it obvious they can't stand one another? >> that's hard to hide. [laughter] >> uh-huh. >> it really is. i mean, i think we've all had the experience when you get on and you think, whoa. the tension in this room is a bit much. but they can't hide that generally. >> right. great. bob, what are some of the

moments -- >> you know, i wouldn't pick out any particular program. we had a really good, i thought, fall going into the elections. and, you know, one week it would be somebody from one party, and another week it'd be someone from the other party. but i felt we made a decision early on in the summer that we were going to concentrate on nothing but the elections until the election. and i felt like, i felt like we did really well on that. you're talking about they don't like one another. one of the kind of low points in the year for me that kind of underlined just the partisan divide that we have in this country is at one point when someone one -- fm one party, one of his aides called up, and we were having his opposite number on with us and asked if we could have a separate waiting room for his boss because he didn't want to sit in the same room with the person from the other party. [laughter] and we told him, sorry, you're

just going to have to suck it up. [laughter] we can't put up a tent out in the parking lot, you know? [laughter] but i thought that just sort of summed up where we were in this campaign year. and so while i wouldn't call that a highlight -- >> right. >> -- it is one of -- >> that wouldn't have happened 30, 40 years ago. >> oh, no. to me, that's what made it such a telling anecdote. >> i had an example from the other extreme which is we did a debate with alexei giannoulias, the illinois senate debate, and right before commercial break i had asked giannoulias a number of questions about his tie toss a bank that had loaned money to mobsters, it had been a tough exchange, and then kirk breaking in. and we go to break, and kirk turned togiannoulias and said, don't worry, now it's my turn, you know? many that was surprisingly nice,

i thought. >> well, john, it's really nice to be here. i would just gently say that i have not yet presumed to be a pundit in washington, i'm new to this, and it has been a really enjoyable learning curve. >> right. >> and i'm, obviously, coming to it in a much more reportorial world and with a great deal of curious and curiosity rather than instant expertise and delivering my prognostications which i'm studiously avoiding sensibly. i would say that my highlight probably was my first program when i interviewed nancy pelosi, and i thought that was a really good get and, obviously, i had met her in a different context, but i'd never interviewed her. and i was, obviously, struck as many of you know by her fighting spirit. and that, i wasn't too surprised when it turned out that she decided to fight for the leadership position right now because i think that's what she is, a fighter and be a true believer. one of the other interesting sort of combinations because i'm also doing a little bit more international and trying to put

an international layer on policy and politics here, connect america to the world and the world to america. i had a program in which we had both secretary of state hillary clinton and the iranian president ahmadinejad. not that they were sitting together, but the fact was that they were talking about the same things from their separate worlds. incredibly interesting to me. hillary clint was very determined, very hard line, trying also to straddle the line of the administration which is engagement while, while staying very strong against iran. and ahmadinejad was as provocative and controversial as he always is. but he did tell me that they were going to go back to the nuclear negotiating talks which they'd planned to go back to. so i thought that was interesting. i know george will thought it was interesting because he sort of commented as i was on my conversation with him about stoning. if you remember the big controversy over this woman who was going to be stoned in iran.

i was asking ahmadinejad about it and pushing him about it, and george will, i could hear him say, well, that's a fist for sunday morn -- first for sunday morning television, stoning. i thought that was good. >> to me, some of the most interesting answers are the ones that are the nonanswers that you keep sort of going back on and back on, and i loved at one point we had steny hoyer on, and i said, so when are you going to start throwing overboard the democrats that aren't going to win. and he looked at me and said, you don't expect me to answer that, right? this. [laughter] okay. he gets the game, i get the game, and so this is just sort of the fun parts when you keep going and going and think, okay, we kind of got an answer in a nonanswer. >> right. >> john cornyn was interesting when he basically said on our show they weren't going to win the senate this cycle. so that was interesting. >> interesting. truth breaks out. [laughter] >> and as candy says, trying to get the details and trying to get the answers. you know, the election was a lot about the debt, obviously, that

was what the tea party was, deficit reduction, eradicated debt, and it's very, very hard to get a real answer about where the cuts are going to be before this commission which is advisory, but it was very hard. so i spent practically a whole program last week trying to press them on that. >> i talked to somebody who's been in a previous white house, the clinton white house where the circumstances in 1994, there are some similarities, some differences between the circumstances that barack obama and his team face now in 2010. and president obama called the election results a shelacking, but this person said it's more like a death. and people in politics have to go through the stranges of grief, you know, first you have denial, then you have rage, and only over time do you have acceptance, and in politics, unlike death, you do get a second chance.

there's the sort of clarity about what action needs to be taken going forward for a recovery. where do you guys think of obama white house is in the stages of grief? are they still in denial? rage? acceptance? what do you think, dave? >> i think -- [inaudible] is where they are, and it's only getting worse. you know, this was not the most successful overseas trip that any president has taken. m. >> right. >> i mean, they went and thought at the very least they were going to get some sort of agreement with trade on south korea, and that apparently has gone by the by. they're in a huge fight with germany -- >> just a historical note, november's always a pretty big travel month for white houses because they have various summits and often a peck is scheduled right around this time -- apec. i can remember the first president bush taking an awful trip after a bad election in '91, remember dick thornburg, clinton took this terrible death

march after '94. >> well, and nixon, going back to nixon, you know, went off on those trips because he couldn't go anywhere. [laughter] >> right. >> but you're right, it is a tradition. but i think, i think the white house and i think the republicans to some extent are both in this just kind of holding patterns right now would be the kindest way to discover it. because republican leadership has got to figure out what to do and how to deal with the new people who have come to their party. and the democrats, obviously, in totality array in the house -- total disarray in the house where they have this unexpected fight over the leadership. so i think until the two sides work out their internal problems, i don't think you can make any kind of prediction about what's going to come after it. but i think the fact of the matter the democratic party in washington is now going to be more liberal, and the republican party is going to be more conservative. so i think the partisan divide --

>> and you have a disappointed left, a disaffected middle and a resurgent right. and if you put all that together, it's a very difficult place for the president to be. you talk about bill clinton, i mean, what his calling card was and the reason why he's so well thought of now as a political figure is pause he was the guy -- because he was the guy, the head of the democratic party, who balanced the budget. president obama is the guy who has, you know, returned or restored the era of big government at a time when a lot of people think the government is out of control. and is not responsive to what the economy actually needs. he's failed to win that argument that government is actually vital and part of the solution, not part of the problem. so that's where he's lost that middle of the country. and then, you know, whether it's the economy or whether it's the don't ask, don't tell policy, you've got the left that still wants a lot more from him. >> somewhere, i mean, as far as the republican party is concerned, it seems to me that

the leadership on capitol hill is is right now in their post election co-oping. i think, you know, they see they want to have this freshman position, they would really like christy nome from south dakota to go in that because she had some tea party backing. i think all of this talk about health care reform, yes, i think they're trying to bring the aboves into it, kind of stop the funding. but the fact of the matter is they know very well they can't repeal health care reform. they don't have the votes for it to override the veto, they don't have the votes in the senate, and they know they can't spend two years trying to repeal health care reform, so i think they're trying to play to that tea party side. i think as far as the president's concerned, one of the reasons -- and i think the main reason nancy pelosi who was, at first, a little bit reluctant to take on this minority position was, in fact, urged by a lot of people to do it. and one of them said, you know, it's not that we're afraid of john boehner, we're worried about the president. >> right. >> you know, we're worried he's

going to, you know, saw off the branch here, and she's the one that can, that can go at him and kind of hold the line. so i think, you know, the president's stuck in the middle -- >> so interest ising. in other words, don't try to pull a dick morris from the '90s. don't try to leave us out there. >> right. >> while you worry about your re-election. >> exactly. >> if so, you'll have her to answer to. interesting. >> somewhat counterintuitively, obviously, the narrative is that the republicans have won, and it's a complete shift in the balance of power, and that possibly is what it is, but i was just reading this one article, and the quote by the alabama republican spencer bachus who said you think republicans are in charge in washington, you can wipe that thought from your mind. democrats are in control of the presidency and the senate, it would take 67 votes to override any veto. to what you're saying, i think that's interesting in terms of, really, what is going to happen in the future and whether it is just a rout by one party of another. and having covered some of the campaigns on the road, i was

struck by how people, american voters were really turned off by the extreme partisanship and wanted more than anything their politicians to get together and solve these big solutions. because talking about compromise is not just a sweet little thing that we would like to happen. on the huge issues that face this country and the world, for instance, the deficit, they cannot do it with one party alone. >> right. >> and it's really -- >> tap into some of your foreign expertise,christiane. a lot of americans like divided government, they don't want just one party to have the wheel. they like some tension in washington. from the perspective of capitals abroad, what do people think? do they worry about divided government, or do they see it as potentially a good thing? >> i'm not sure that they look so much, you know, into the anytimety createty of the divided government, but they're

certainly watching these results very, very closely. because capitals and people around the world want to know whether this means the united states is going to turn inwards, is there going to be more isolationism than engagement, is there going to be battles over free trade, over protectionism? this what's going to happen with certain treaties that are there in the, you know, ready to be ratified? many people hope the starr treaty, will he get that through? if his senate doesn't ratify it, how is that going to make him look overseas? and then, of course, the afghan war. that's the highlight. and i think, paradoxically, stronger republican representation may make it easier for him to get -- and certainly for david petraeus -- to get the troops to get the sort of war machine going. although the president is, obviously, wanting to pull that back. it looks like it's going to go on for many more years than

2011. and i think that's going to be something that's very interesting. and you've heard the tea party candidates talk -- well, the most prominent ones, certainly, sarah palin and christine o'donnell who failed, talk about afghanistan in if very broad terms. i think people abroad are looking at the big unknown which is the insurgency in the tea party and how that is going to effect not just domestic policy but foreign policy as well. >> some of my favorite imimagines from the campaign -- images from the campaign involve candidates almost like they're olympic runners making a mad dash for their car while the hapless reporters are chasing after them. and, bob, christine o'donnell, i believe, canceled an appearance on "face the nation" at the last moment. david, i believe that rand paul

canceled on "meet the press "in may. virtually every local reporter in many of the states with contested races has stories of candidates just kind of shutting down. what do you guys make of this effort to try to escape press scrutiny? i mean, gosh, canceling on face the nation or meet the press is unpatriotic. this is about unity and coming together. [laughter] >> look, they've obviously got a strategy about avoiding, you know, certain platforms where they're going to be held accountable in a certain way. and they know that. i think in the case of, you know, sharron angle, i think a candidate who says i'm not going to answer questions until i'm elected is a joke, and they should be treated that way by the voters. i mean, if you can't take tough questions and you want to be a united states senator?

you've got a problem. now, you don't have to love the press, by the way. you don't have to love our programs or us or all the rest. you should be able to take questions and be held account and not try to narrow cast your way to high office. and i think that sort of works itself out if you look at some of the results. you know, rand paul, i think, made an unfortunate decision, but he's, you know, he put himself out there elsewhere in the campaign and will continue to, i assume. >> well, i hope that doesn't become a habit with rand paul because he's going to be on "face the nation" sunday. [laughter] >> bob, i'm willing -- if he cancels, i'm willing -- >> i'll call you. [laughter] i mean, christine o'donnell, i think that the people, what adviser she had appeared she would simply make a fool of herself, and so they canceled her, or she canceled, and i don't think it's any more

complicated than that. >> i think you're both absolutely right, but i think it's, it's -- it was, you know, they brought these untested candidates because they knew that, you know, they wanted some energy and that they wanted to put these candidates out. but it was, obviously, a deliberate strategy of not talking to the press. it was partly because they didn't want to, you know, expose themselves as you say. but also because they were not able to answer, you know, all of the big questions that were out there. and as dade says, you know, in the -- david says, you know, the voters spoke, and that cost the republicans the senate. basically cost them the senate. >> christine o'donnell was a fluke. i mean, nobody expected her to win that. after she won there were not very many people glad that she had won. and had she not won, it would have been much better for the republicans because mike cassel would have won that seat. >> it wasn't a fluke because we

had tom ross on, the chairman of the republican party in delaware. he said mike castle was meant to win until external tea party support and forces came in and put her money wise and publicity wise and support wise over the top. >> are well, christine, a very small number of people turned out to vote, and no one expected, i mean, no one -- >> in the primary? >> yes, in the primary. >> she won it. >> so i would just stick with it, it was a fluke. [laughter] >> candy. >> there's no legal requirement that they show up on national tv to do anything. that's certainly their right. and i think that for all those reasons that these guys have stated, they don't. they do have local press, and they have sort of talked to the local press which are much more important, as we know, in state races. it's much more important to talk to your big state newspaper or your big state tv station which

they doesn't always do -- didn't always do. i think, actually, what's more troubling is, first of all, there are outlets these people can go to that are friendlier, and they can get their message out there in so many ways. they can just have a web site and pump stuff out, and they can go around and over the heads -- >> do you think that's sarah palin's strategy? >> sure, yeah. >> what strategy? >> you know, i think the other thing that's more troubling is a lot of them didn't do town hall meetings, a lot of them wouldn't tell you what their schedule was. and why? because they're a little bit afraid of the public because every time you turn on the tv particularly last summer, summer before were all these angry people, and politicians never look good when they're around angry people. and i think they sort of backed up. it's not just that they're not accessible to us sometimes, it's that they're not accessible to their voters. >> i think, in this my view and you guys feel free to object to it, that one reason we see our

politics being so unstable with the republicans taking control and democrats taking control, and now we have a reverse of that is that the middle of american politics, the broad middle is frustrated in what they -- and what they most want out of washington is people to not throw away principles, but not approach everything through the perspective of ideology. they want people to be mature, sensible and focused on solving problems. and yet the incentives of our political system, bunch of different incentives, push people to the extremes of right or left. and so the middle is chronically dissatisfied. and there's a paradox. what they want most, they get least out of washington. i'd be curious anybody's thinking on that, but answer it, please, in the context of are people going to get anything like governance over the next couple of years?

and to put some historical context on it, newt gingrich and bill clinton fought, but ultimately they did pass welfare reform, they did pass a balanced budget. it's not clear to me what the dynamics are over the next couple of years. is it all conflict? is there room for compromise? >> i just think the calendars compress so that room for consensus is, perhaps, a little smaller. you also have the principles involved and whether they can restore some trust where there's been virtually none to get some things done. they're the political -- do they have a grasp of the political theater in the way that the gingrich and clinton did, but i think the ground is there and i think the momentum is there for something on the budget and cutting spending and trying to restore some trust in washington. but d make two other points which is i think the disaffection of the middle is aggravated by the fact that people just lost faith in big institutions whether it's wall street or government or media. so that, that compounds the problem. the second thing is that the

american people are not always consistent on these points. they say they want certain things, and a candidate stands up and says, you know, we've got to raise the retirement age on social security. whoa, whoa, whoa, we weren't talking about that adult of a conversation. [laughter] so that's kind of a mixed message. you can still be punished yearly as a politician for going into some of these areas. >> you know, the budget commission thatter skin bowles, the -- erskine bowles, the clinton chief of staff just came out, they made the recommendation to raise social security and also raise the gas tax. my wife was traveling yesterday, and she saw al simpson at the airport, they were standing next to each other in line. they don't know each other but making small talk. she said, well, are you going back to wyoming? he said, no, i'm going into the witness protection program. [laughter] >> i'm curious to ask just from a perspective abroad, you saw who was going on in france, obviously, battles on the street over raiding the retirement -- raising the retirement age just

by two years. do you think, gentlemen and ladies, that they will succeed in raising the retirement age here? >> in the next two years? not a chance. i mean, that's just not going to happen. >> [inaudible] >> no. i think that what happens is they can do stuff around the edges, but i think if you're looking for major reform, change the nation kind of stuff, it's not going to happen in the next two years. i think there's some ground for debt as dade talked about in the budget -- vid talked about in the budget. i think there's ground on trade. i think they have some smolally there. seems to me they'll come, obviously, to some position somewhere on tax cuts. the president seems eager, i think, i mean, we've gotten conflicting signals, but he does seem as though he wants to be seen as compromising with republicans. but in big sort of move it immigration reform, that kind of thing, i think it's going to be smaller piece things. >> i would agree with candy. i think they're going to come to some understanding on extending the bush tax cuts with the upper

levels extended temporarily or some sort of an arrangement there but, quite frankly, i don't see much else coming together. >> are right. and, bob went on face the face the nation, but here on the c-span audience can see it, please, explain your socks. [laughter] >> well, you know, my football team, tcu, is having a pretty good year, and i thought i would just go ahead and wear purple socks until we find out how this season turns out. also pulling for alabama to beat auburn. >> some athletes do not change their socks for the entire season, but i assume you've got more than one pair of those. >> i've got several pair. [laughter] >> bob, are you going to dedicate the program if tcu doesn't get a chance to play for the championship, does this become a political question? >> it would be to do away with the hated -- >> right.

>> i've already done one piece. [laughter] >> a lot of people would like to do away with that. >> i guess everyone should know, i'm not unbiased about that. [laughter] >> not on that question, no one's asking you. who, candy, are you really looking at for the republican nomination in 2012? i know, of course, we need to take a break from presidential politics, so maybe not this weekend, but, like, take a break over thanksgiving, how about, like, the first sunday in december? that's enough of a break, then we can get back to presidential politics. who are you going -- who would you want on your show? >> passing up the obvious suspects, mitt romney, etc. -- >> right. >> look, i think you have to look a little bit at thune. i think he's -- he's just interesting in and of himself, but he's -- senator thune. i think he's interesting. i know chris christie has said

he's not running, but he's so interesting, and, you know, you've had him on. he's just a great get. he's the only politician i've ever seen in my life who actually can take on an audience and actually come out looking better. and, you know, i think you've got to watch marco rubio only because the republicans are so excited about him, and, oh, this is our barack obama, and i don't think in two years they're going to do the same thing that the democrats did with rubio having two years of experience, but i think he's -- both of those guys are up and comers, and i think they will play a part in the presidential race, if not run. so i think they're interesting to watch. >> uh-huh. >> i think that newt gingrich will announce in january in iowa that he's going to run. and i think he'll be the first one to make the announcement. but beyond that i have no idea. i think it is totally wide open. i don't think any republican has emerged and broken up --

>> do you have a hunch as to whether sarah palin would run? >> my hunch has always been that she wouldn't, but now i'm beginning to second guess myself and wonder if, in fact, she might actually do it. i guess if i were going to bet on it, i bet she wouldn't. >> i've been with bob for a long time, but i, too, am second guessing. i do think a lot of that's out the window now and that she's enough of a rock star and doing enough now to position herself. i think what bob says is very smart about newt gingrich. i'll have the speaker on on sunday as part of my round table, i'll be spew sure to saw ask him again. [laughter] but i'll credit bob. but i think it's so important, too, which is we're in such a different climate now with the republican party that there is nobody who's off the blocks with some sort of clear advantage. there's this very unsettled feel. i think the next year will tell us in terms of how the establishment in congress deals with the tea party.

>> by the way, i have a different philosophy on predictions. i think you have to, they're like stocks. you have to buy and hold, otherwise you can't -- [laughter] >> if you're going to be wrong, be consistently wrong. >> consistently wrong. otherwise, you chase it around and every day looks different. >> i mean, i'm with them on sarah palin -- >> somebody would have lost a lot of money, by the way, betting on my predictions. >> me too. but i think sarah palin, i mean, i've always thought she wouldn't run, and part of the problem is that running for president pretty much mirrors what you do to keep your speaking fees up and your books selling. so it's hard to tell what you're watching because the theater is the same and the moves are the same. >> go ahead. >> sarah palin because, obviously, the polls say what they do, you know, not many americans think that she's qualified. nonetheless, i remember, you know, being on a program and being asked about her. it was actually a comedy program in 2008 just before the elections, and people asked me about sarah palin, and i said, don't underestimate her.

and i got roundly booed by the audience and roundly told that i didn't know anything. and the thing is one shouldn't, obviously, because look where she is today. whether she runs or not may not matter, but whether she has a major influence may be, may be more to look at. and, obviously, she did in this round of midterm elections. and then i think we have to see what the tea party candidates do, as you said, in terms of influencing senate, the house and all the rest. i mean, rand paul taught us that far from the establishment republicans co-opting them as trent lott said we had to do, no, we are co-opting the republican party. maybe that's bravado and showmanship, but i think that's going to be interesting to she how that plays out. >> david, what do you think? is the tea party going to pull the mainstream of the republican party their direction, or are they going to get subsumed by just the process and the institutional apparatus of washington?

this. >> i think it does depend. marco ruin quos' a good example of a candidate who isn't beholden to the tea party. he's got a lot more crossover appeal, and he's not going to have to listen to jim demint, you know, in the senate. i think there's probably a lot of house members who do have to sort of come in under the fold a little bit, won't have enough of a power base on their own, but i do think they've made the caucus certainly more conservative, and i think independent voters are moving in a more conservative direction. i think it's less about social issues, more about government war issues. so, yeah, i think they do pull them a little farther to the right, and one thing about palin, just take a look at, you know, working class whites, the ones who voted for hillary clinton and whether a candidate palin would have a shot at those voters. you'd have to say that she might have a good shot. that's part of how she'll look at that landscape. you've got to look at it in a narrower lane and think about her prospects. >> just an observation, if what candy says is true, that her

incentives whether she really just wants to make money and sort of be a power broker or whether she wants to actually run for president, if it's true her incentives are the same, that is going to freeze up the republican field for a while because she's got every reason to leave this question open and tantalizing for as long as possible. now, i want to say something to the audience. we do not have provisions like we did at the last one of these events for you to write down questions. i'm going to exercise the moderator's prerogative, though, and if people do want to ask questions, they should raise their hand. we'll go back and forth. would like to make sure that it is, in fact, a question rather than -- and crisply made rather than a statement. we should do that and have a little fun with that. do we have something? yes, sir. >> hank -- are we on -- what do you think, what are the prospects for the start treaty in the lame duck session?

anybody want to take a stab at that? >> i don't think it'll, i don't think it'll come up, frankly. >> yeah. i mean, you know, let's remember the pressing christmas vacation is coming -- [laughter] and the tax cuts are the big thing and the budget's the big thing. there's just not room for it between now -- >> not to mention if they can move on don't ask, don't tell which gateses and the president wants him to do. it's only going to get harder if they put that off until later. >> [inaudible] ..

take it as far down the road as possible. whether he does a torn not may not be as important as the impact he has on the party until then. i think he is taking a rather serious look at it. >> i don't think, if he decides to do with, he won't do it unless he thinks he can win. >> absolutely. can win. >> absolutely. absolutely. it's not a vanity. >> i'm going to go back and forth with the audience, along -- would like to ask each of you if you can think of it, and what it would be, you've got the ultimate booking, i guess probably the ultimate booking would be god or something like that -- [laughter] >> unavailable. >> unavailable. but i presume y'all have requests in and i presume at some point, one of you are all of you will have to -- president obama on the show. what's the question you most

want to ask. >> perhaps just off the top of my head, i would ask, you know, where does he want to go and how does he think he's going to recoup? it's the obvious question that everyone wants to know. is he going to triangulate, whatever it is that bill clinton did -- >> it illegal, triangulate? >> it sounds like strange elation. it's hard, but, you know, what, people are not sure what exactly he stands for. and i think that's a very interesting question. what is it that really motivates him in terms of what he's going to do to regain the upper hand for the next couple of years. and what does that mean to his governance over the next couple of years and how he will stand for the election. >> i think what i would ought to ask them, he seems to feel that all of his problems that he just wasn't a good enough salesman, that is not the product. and i want to talk to a little

bit about that. and also about his timing. >> you're skeptical about it sounds like. >> yes, i am. the republicans say it's about the product, and the democrats say it's about the salesmanship. and i can think it's a little of both. i mean, i think basically what the president did wrong, he asked the country to bite off more than they could swallow in one goal. and i would like to talk to him about that. >> having taken the question, i think it right now, at least if it were to be in the next week or so. i've never met a losing candidate or losing party that didn't say there was a messaging problem. he's not going to come out and say done, i shouldn't have passed that health care reform. he's just not going to do it. he's got to come up with some reason and the reason is a messaging. i think i might move to foreign policy only because there's 50,000 troops still sitting in iraq. whether or not that constitutes a withdrawal, and i would push of a little on the deadline for

next june, the time to do that will be after december when the report -- put a report out there. but i think there have been certain signals inside the white house and certainly from the military that perhaps that whole is beginning to draw down, may not work as well as they thought it would even though they remain publicly -- [inaudible] >> the left the democratic party, and does he risk an antiwar candidate running for the nomination, even if it's a symbolic candidate. >> another question, does he think hillary will run? [laughter] >> i would wonder whether he still believed that the american people want transformational change. i think point you brought up, john, which has to do with what americans really do want. i think a lot of his election was about people want to put a bit of a governor on president bush's eight years.

and yet, government has done, you know, things in terms of anything in the economy, started under bush but continued under obama, has been pretty big. >> in the front row. we'll get you a microphone, just give us a moment. >> i work in immediate in alternative media, to recover critical questions. one, the tea party, are the republican? because have i seen what has been placed on the ballot as a separate party like the green party or the communist party. is the tea party republican? media, that i've notll of you heard mentioned at all, the two largest indices that have been built in the world, in iraq and in haiti, i've not heard any of the media in terms of mainstream media talk about those at all. that's a lot of government and money. >> i mean, you know, if you're

concerned about the cost of building the embassy in iraq, you should take on the bigger issue of how much we spend on the worst. that's a huge issue. and, frankly, the money that has been spent on the embassy is just frankly a symbol of that, and our commitment issue going forward in iraq. and has it has been and will be in afghanistan. if you're concerned about that, i think it goes well beyond building. i think the tea party's goal in life is to rehabilitate the republican party. so yes, they are part of the republican party. >> and they ran as republicans. they ran in the republican primaries. i think one of the things that was a sigh of relief for republicans is that they did not try to run as independents. >> i think it is a pretty valid point, it seems like many of the tea party activist, those people most motivated in this election, care a lot more about their ideological agenda than they do the republican brand.

in many cases they seem to me that they were contemptuous, republicans were washington political professional as they were democratic. >> but they ran as republicans. they ran in the republican primaries and more elected republicans. yes, they want to change -- >> we would rather have people with principled and just any republican. >> thirty-two believers than 60 our inspectors spent we do have a lot of people have their hands up so we will ask questioners and answers to be crisp and we will get more. >> thank you. i do question. in the last term we saw a lot of immigration, statesmen taking action because they have us in congress too much. a limited amount of time in a lame duck but i was just to see what your thoughts are and what might happen in the next term related to immigration. >> anybody want to take a crack at that? seems like it's a -- big

problems can washington doesn't seem to respond to it. >> i don't think either party wants to go near it right now. there's a lot of incentives for the democratic party to do, and republicans to do. that i think they're both a bit afraid of the both right now. >> not major reform. you're not going to see that in the next two years. harry reid has promised he will bring up the dream act which is a portion of the. and i think you will see a brought up. >> it's significant for the economy as well because of parfum all the obvious issues about immigration, america desperately needs a president, the smartest people from abroad, this poor student, the smartest engineers, you know, people that come over here and do what they used to do. a lot of that is caught up in the current sort of impasse, and appearance of being on friendly terms, people -- >> a young man right here.

>> good morning. i'm a freshman at george washington university. in 2008 we saw the emergence with the tea party with the republicans losing the presidency. now we see the democratic party having some sort of division, giving that there's a competition between steny hoyer and jim clyburn. do we expect further division within the democratic party? >> that's a pretty good question, and i'm going to adding moderate prerogative. is largely ideological competition or over specific personalities and who is the better person for the job? >> i think some of it is just practical politics. normally when a party loses, you know, this is the majority, the speaker tends to resign. i mean, denny hastert did dick gephardt it. i think a lot of democrats were surprised that nancy pelosi decided to go ahead and seek reelection. but i think again this reflects,

the people who got beat, the democrats who got beat one of the strongest nancy pelosi supported the democrats who remain, the liberal democrats, she is sort of the leader of the liberal democratdemocrats. so i think in that sense, that part is not surprising. >> if it was a total secret ballot, nobody had to make a commitment, to nancy pelosi and know we have to take a stand, just totally what they want privately, do you think that the democrats would make her their minority leader? >> i think they would be less likely to. >> she's such a powerful inside player in terms of raising money and how she operates internally, but i don't think anybody wants to have it all right of what could be done to them, you know, in a race. and i think the division like bob said, it's practical politics. but i also think the division right now, perhaps the biggest danger for the president is

somebody moving on the left because of war policy and the like. >> go ahead, mark. >> how does foreign criticism this week, there was criticism, germany, china, on the federal reserve policy. >> we've got a debt commission to make recommendations in the center. we just had an election that was, you know, voters made their opinions known on the deficit. what is it going to take to address this deficit? and how does, how does domestic policy play into foreign criticism of our fiscal policies to? well, i mean, i don't know how domestic policy will play into that, but certainly extraordinary things happen just in the last two days. the chinese openly questioning whether america is the leading economic power in the world. that's extraordinary. the germans called the u.s. clueless about its fiscal

policy. it's extraordinary language. and it's not incidental. and it's very, very worrying. and people do want to see a u.s. the. and i do think that would be a big, big challenge, and something certainly i want to keep and i on over the next months and years while i do this. because you cannot underestimate, even though globalization is a dirty word at the moment, and people here, feel that allow the economic woe is because of the globalization, outsourcing and rise of the rest so to speak. it is his day, and i think when america's challenge like that, in huge and important international forum, it doesn't bode well for the strength in the leadership in the united states. >> i thought it was remarkable hearing that foreign criticism. i'm wondering if it matters in a domestic context. does it bother anybody if the united states or president obama seems back on his you on the world stage? mitt romney, wrote a book saying

that president obama's is sacrificing the idea of american exceptionalism. is that going to be one of the themes of 2012? >> may be. i think we see how it plays out. i think in terms of the american people, if it's personal in terms of when president bush was president, and people just hated americans. i mean, you've didn't get this feeling -- i'm not talking abou leaders necessary. i'm just talking about in europe the will were all those wild protest and everything. i think americans don't like that. i think another country criticizes u.s. policy, you kind of get americans going, who are you? and i think people don't like that, but i also have to say, that remember that right now, president obama went over there, and i think they see them as they. let's remember, his first summit, economic summit people were questioning whether america -- whether even free markets was

the way to go. i think that questioning has gone on as the american economy has been terrible. it will be interesting to me to watch how we watch in britain and france at this point. because they went after the cuts in spending, kids out in the street in london, et cetera, et cetera. so they really have taken the approach. alan simpson would like to take. >> we've only got a couple -- i think we might be rather get a couple quick questions and. make your point in the context. you're a good politician if you can answer what you say regardless of what the question was. [laughter] >> there's been a lot of attention paid to the amount of money that was been in this years election, especially by outside groups, particularly on the republican side. as people have covered many elections, how do you see this changing how campaigns are shaped images coming forward speak with great question. thank you. >> this was the most expensive $3 million just for television

commercials alone. one of the interesting parts, and there was a lot of money coming in on the democratic side, too, also from outside groups. so we shouldn't overlook that. but one of the interesting things is these groups that were put together by karl rove and the less be, they're going to stay in operation. and they plan to keep going right on up until the 2012 presidential election. >> interesting point here. i think the audience might find interesting, of course karl rove, they always say no, we assure we are supportive of these groups. you guys are described as rogue groups. karl says i gave money to the texas game association or something like that. you don't say i run that. that was at the beginning cycle. the more and more cycle along, the more these groups seem to be doing well. lso that complaint i got. at the end he was referring to the groups as we.

[laughter] >> you know, money -- >> this was an effort by the washington establishment of a big effect outside the parties. >> it's almost always about money now. money doesn't always been the candidate wins that you have examples of that in california. i mean, but money is such an important part. it's just, you know -- >> time. >> you can't do everything else expect quick question. we'll make this the last one because i've got a final question for our panel. >> thanks. politico had a pretty good piece this point about the narrowing of a number of states that will be in play 2012. curis of those of you, do you agree with that premise i do think that the 20 elections are not misrepresent what will happen in 2012 insurance or the democrats and republicans will

do will? >> for the c-span obviously didn't see that story, made the point that the 2008 map that president obama had went in states where democrats particularly don't win, virginia, north carolina, that expanded and results in 2010 look more like a traditional map where republicans had their part of the country, democrats have their part of the country. the playing field is relatively small, ohio, florida. >> i think it is an important story, and i think we keep talking about this notion of relying and karl rove talked about it, and then thought about democratic rely. we didn't see that. our politics is too volatile right now, and voters, independent voters are willing to move en masse back and forth, swing back and forth. win a tumultuous time. and yes, i think this is about the independent voter. you know, in states like virginia or florida, or the rocky mount west, that were with

obama. they will be with him and tell that against him. and i think it does narrow it and makes the country more political look at wisconsin with republican party just did in wisconsin. it was obviously in the obama column. so yeah, i think, i think the map does revert a bit. he will have to play defense to. >> just quickly, john, one thing we haven't talked about, that you had all of these governorships that turned over to republicans this time, and state legislatures. you're going to redistricting. it's going to be harder for democrats in 2012 because of the redistricting. it will be done mostly by these republicans controlled legislatures. >> every week on politico i talk with these folks for turn the table. i was finished up i give us a quick preview of their sunday shows that and that's how i would like to end this session. if you could give us a preview of what you will be serving up for your views this weekend. >> this weekend we'll be doing at debate between senator

lindsey graham and madeleine albright, former secretary of state. will also be doing economic debate. with business leaders and also member of the deputy commissioner and do have our roundtable, and we have a couple of supporters as well as. >> we have rand paul who will give us the perspective from the tea party republican side, and then chuck schumer, democratic senator from new york who has a bit on sunday television in about six months. [laughter] >> no kidding? >> very unusual. >> that's the scoop. >> i haven't the vaguest idea what could happen sunday morning because i'm not judicial. my colleague is going to do it, and i have paid very little attention. >> you had a very big speakers it's all about you expect that's right, exactly. i'm doing an interview with george and jeb bush that will air at night, at 8 p.m. eastern. so i'm doing that. >> the two brothers together. one interview? >> yes, yes. >> very interesting.

>> sunday at eight. [laughter] >> my former college. >> i will be talking to david axelrod and presidential advisers, first interview since the election. also i will talk to senator mccain when he gets back from afghanistan and will do an economic discussion as well, about that commission and the president overseas and turning on the roundtable one of the guests will be greenspan and newt gingrich. >> that's a pretty good lineup this weekend. we will be watching a lot of tv. block out my day because we will all be very newsworthy session. thank you very much both for this session but for joining us every week on politico. we really, really appreciate it. and i know the audience here really appreciates your insights. thank you all to our sunday hosts. [applause] >> and thank you -- thanks to all of you for coming, or for

listening in on c-span. thanks once again to our sponsor at the national cable and telecommunications association. please if you're not inhabit, started, every week politico.com/turn the table. it's a great show. these guys start in it every week. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[crowd murmurs]

>> next, and details of the report on u.s. strategy in iraq and afghanistan. after that, president obama meets with reporters following the close of the g-20 summit in south korea. then, in discussion on the trade and currency issues that came up during those meetings in seoul. congress returns on monday. work is expected on the bush that jarrett tax cuts as well as federal spending for the next budget year. what the house on c-span. when the senate reconvenes monday, the display of work includes bills on natural gas and electric vehicles as well as wage equality and modernization of the food and drug of ministration. what the senate live on c-span2.

january will bring the opening of the 112th congress with republicans assuming the majority of the house. before that, party leadership elections. in the house, republicans will select a new speaker on november 17. democrats will choose a minority leader the next day. in the senate, republicans and democrats will vote on leaders on november 16. state-owned to the c-span network for continuing -- stay tuned to the c-span network for continuing of it. >> have become a supreme court cases on c-span radio. >> [inaudible] concerning abortion. >> ruled on in 1973, roe v. wade is considered one of the most controversial decisions. listen to the argument at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio. nationwide, xm channel 132.

>> in recent report, the council on foreign relations independent tax force -- task force spoke about obama intensifying said that if the u.s. strategy is not working, and more significant drawdown is necessary and greater emphasis should be placed on counter- terrorism. the council on foreign relations posted this hour-long event in washington, d.c. >> here with me to give you a sense of what is in that report, you have copies and can read it soon enough. we have richard armitage on my far left, who was the former

deputy secretary of state, now president of our litigious national, and daniel markey, who is the council's senior fellow and was the project director for this report. we hope to have sandy berger with us, but he was not able to be with us this morning. my hope is that in the first half hour, we can give you an idea of the report and then ask you to pose your own questions to mr. armitage and mr. markey. let me begin with the usual injunction that you turn off your cell phones. the isi has been asked to pay attention to this.

journalists in the audience and others, feel free to take notes and report. let me begin by asking mr. arm attached a baseline question. what is that read like -- mr. armitage the baseline question. what is the big thing you would like us to start with? >> president obama got a bad lie from the bush administration regarding afghanistan. we do salute his attempt to rectify the situation. we support him conditionally. we feel that the president and administration should take the time from december through july, 2011, if necessary, to have a very deep review of the situation. if real progress has not been made, we suggest that we changed the mission to a much different mission, one of sport counter-

terrorism and continued training. our report has significant dissent in it. it is something that made sandy berger and i quite proud. we had a debate that congress should have and the american public should have on a matter that is so important and involves the lives of our men and women in service. >> let me begin with the pakistan sections of the report. you talk about the need to help pakistan, a devastated by the flood, in addition to weather problems, through greater humanitarian assistance. you talk about the need for greater economic engagement and economic and development of pakistan. you have talked about a shift in pakistan's own strategic

calculations. the question i was left with, these are things we are trying to do today. they are elements of american policy as it currently stands. what leverage do we have to achieve more? how would you get more out of the policy machine in these ways? >> the question is, how effective are we? for instance, the excellent bill that votes $750 billion over five years is good if we follow through on it and develop the infrastructure projects to help a lot of people. what we're suggesting is the shift in our approach. that is instead of focusing on appropriated monies to the u.s. government. the most efficient and we could do is to give them greater access in the textile industry, which is their largest single industry. it can be done with limited

expense to us and no harm to our own textile producers. second, i don't believe it is possible to get pakistan on-side unless they understand what our and status. without understanding that, it will be difficult to get them to go the distance we want them to go. >> go ahead. >> i would add on that mr armitage has it right. we want to accentuate the positive of partnership with the u.s., including its opening of greater trade oprtunities. the report makes it clear that we need to take a pretty hard line on the negative side. it makes comments about the use of our intelligence apparatus, and sending a clear message about pakistan's continued relations with some groups in particular that don't get enough attention, we believe.

we believe two networks are extremely coming increasingly dangerous. on less pakistan understand they are out of bounds, we are unlikely to see shifts. it is not so much negative leverage in terms of sticks or carrots. the report suggest we can do better on both ends of that spectrum. >> let me ask you in this regard, what would be the evidence on these security issues that pakistan was on- side. what would it take for them to be on the right side? what would they be doing differently with the lat? >> i would hope they would see the network in the same way they see the pakistani taliban. this is a threat to them. they have to see this as something that could be something that causes war in a

single stroke between india and pakistan, something that would be late al qaeda to no end. we are dealing with a very dangerous situation. >> if that effort to encourage, prod pakistan toward a different strategic approach should fail, you say in the report that we should move away from long- term, bilateral cooperation, and undertake increasingly aggressive unilateral u.s. military strikes against precisely that list of adversaries. that sounds almost like going to war against pakistan. i want to to explain to us what it would be and what the risks would be. >> we don't want to go to war with pakistan. it is difficult for me to see much difference between the

attacks we are having right now and what we are suggesting. the difference is we include lat in this target list. but the pakistani do not see this as a threat and an existential threat to them, we see it that way. we will prosecute. >> i will add the report does not advocate a shift in this direction. i think it recognizes the fundamental potential for instability in the u.s.-pakistan relationship, that there is a question of how sustainable such a relationship can be if the united states either seize over a period of time and effort that it is not getting progress with pakistan, or it is in one fell swoop, if we were to suffer an attack from pakistan, we would be forced to take a different line. it is recognition of that reality, political reality, that leads us to look at what those alternatives would have to be.

it is not a desire to go there. it is not an inherent threat or anything we are trying to level against pakistan. it is a recognition of the reality. >> there is one subsidiary issue that is just outside the discussion about afghanistan and pakistan over the last three years. that is kashmir and whether, in some kind of ambitious regional diplomacy, the u.s. could more actively encourage the kind of dialogue in india and pakistan over kashmir that seems to have taken place during the musharraf years. i would ask whether you think that is realistic, whether you think india's ambition with our support to join the united nations security council gives us any particular leverage on the question.

that is a free cushion shot that gets the political military people excited. >> i am starting to sweat already. >> talk us through whether that is possible. >> i will be glad to. i think my colleagues may have some thoughts of their own. they have participated in this endeavor. there is no question that we need to be more regionally focused, to bring in the central asian states. you have influence on the situation. we have not done that as well as we should. the specific question of kashmir, during the time of president musharraf, the reason i think the u.s. was not seen publicly as pushing one way or the other, they were not pushing either side of the equation. i know because i was doing it.

that is the best way. preston musharraf showed it is responsible. i think the public pressure on kashmir would have negative repercussions. i defer to those who are much closer. >> if you would be willing to address this -- this is something you have thought about in detail. >> i would be happy to. i agree with what ms. spermatid just said. the key thing, -- mr armitage just said. there is the principal ingredient that was missing during the otherwise quite successful back-channel talks, which narrowed the gap, but did not eliminate it.

let's not assume the job is essentially all done. the other issue that was alluded to deluxe -- alluded to delicately, if the u.s. will have a diplomatic role encouraging india and pakistan to talk, they both have to be prepared to play along. it effectively means that it has to be an invisible diplomatic role. otherwise, you lose india. india has to be part of it. since then, the situation has gotten more complicated with the summer of riots in kashmir. that opens up a different issue. >> ambassador, as you read indian behavior, they have had a rougher time dealing with cashmere -- cakashmir. does that worry them enough that they would be more amenable to

broader diplomatic options and perhaps u.s. assistance? >> india has had talks with kashmiri separatists and with pakistan, and they have never happened at the same time. that is what is going on now. the summer of trouble has galvanized on indian decision makers. it has been towards reopening channels to the separatists. that is not going terribly well, but there is no inclination to bring these two processes together. >> let me turn our discussion to the afghanistan recommendations of this report, which are pretty stark. you focus properly on the december review of policy, and you go into some detail.

i will read briefly from what the report says are the issues that the president is going to need to resolve in this review process. if you cannot finish it in december, you should keep going with it. you say "it should mark the start of a clear eyed assessment of whether there is sufficient overall progress to conclude that the strategy is working. it should address some fundamental questions including, has there been a significant improvement in the capabilities of the afghan national security forces? is momentum shifting against the insurgency in contested areas? once nato operations have taken place, is normal life starting to return? is progress being made in building local security? has the government taken serious steps to combat corruption?" those are the issues the review will focus on. i think we would all be interested in your sense of -- based on what you know -- oof

initial judgment. >> on the training, bill caldwell and his colleagues have done a magnificent job. they have encouraged greater recruitment. they have got people trained at a higher level. you have more people trained. what are they going to do with training? will they stand and do their job or will they walk away? that is a judgment relief to people in the field. the question of our e erratic partnership with the karzai government is a real one. does the president and his colleagues feel we can get a commitment from the government to be more helpful in this endeavor? the development of human capital, this is the biggest single act that we face in afghanistan. it is fine to have an operation in my job. our troops can hold and do all of that. can anyone government? to make an assessment that would be based on something like, we

can turn profits over to the afghan security forces, is insufficient in my view. the basic question of whether after we have turned it over, the taliban can be kept out and the government can step in, or will people prefer the swift justice of the taliban? there is one thing we always seem to overlook. we mention it in our report. this is what i would call sustainability. we estimate -- it was estimated by our administration, $320 million annually are contributed to the government of mr. karzai and to the training of the ansf. we estimate the annual money needed for that is about $7 billion. where will it come from? it will not come from international pockets forever. we need to develop the internal economy, and this is something i think ought to be part of a

judgment the president and his colleagues make as they look toward the july, 2011, date. >> in the run up to this december, we have had report thing out of afghanistan -- reporting out of afghanistan "in general petraeus, saying that significant progress is being made in one area as a result of our new offensive. what is your own judgment about these positive reports, based on your contact with people and your visits to the region? >> i suspect we're going to get an nie on the question of afghanistan. i would be surprised if one was not in preparation right now. that would be unlike our government. i suspect it will be a little more negative than some of the comments we have seen.

on the question of that particular area, i am delighted we have not had greater loss of life. i hope it is the case. i fear it is the case that they're becoming more robust in another part of the country where we are not so active. i don't have the answers. i have the questions. i am sure these are the questions that will be answered by an nie. >> the timeline is critical. the task force concluded its final version of this report about a month ago. a lot of the questions we are asking now about the state of progress -- the answers depend a lot on how well we are deploying forces and resources that have just completed their flow into the country by the end of the summer. for the group to judge, it seems too early.

it is not enough to make incremental progress. we have to see incremental progress that turned the tide and can be set in place for the longer term. if we don't see that, if the review does not identify that, that is where we have serious questions about the very basics of the strategy. >> you also, in your afghanistan recommendations, urged that the united states sees the political initiative in afghanistan,he implication, sees it from karzai if he is not prepared to take the initiatives himself. this is one of the toughest nuts to crack in the full story. we have a very difficult partner in president karzai. could you address this question of how we go about easing the political initiatives in a country where the government appears to be so unpopular?

>> yes, sir. clearly, there are several routes. one is doable. one is to work with minority politicians. we met with minority politicians when we made our trip to afghanistan. one is to continue to work at a higher level with local, tribal elders. i am not willing to totally forget the role of the central government, but less in it. finally, we ought to be more involved in the discussion of reconciliation. we found reconciliation to be a very loaded word when we went to kabul. it depends what you mean by reconciliation. if the taliban will reconcile to a functioning central government, that is something i would give at least some confidence to women's group and ngo's and minority politicians. on the of the hand, if the

central government is going to reconcile to the taliban, that is a different issue. it is one that scares the pants off most people in the minority and ngo's, etc.. we need to be more definitive about what we mean by reconciliation and be more involved. >> on the point of reconciliation, what we have heard repeatedly is that the process of reconciliation as it stands is a karzai-centric process. he has selected those who will be involved on the afghan side. he has left many out, many of whom would be natural partners to the u.s. they're concerned about what the prospects for that process might be. you see reconciliation without a firmer u.s. and potentially veering toward something that will be more divisive in the broader afghan context than more inclusive. the report suggests that is very disconcerting. >> finally, on this question of

broad recommendations, most important, in some ways, what if we judge, the president judges for the nation that the strategy is not working effectively enough by the metrics that we have discussed? you recommend an alternative approach that could be chosen in afghanistan if that judgment is made. perhaps you could lay that out for us in a little bit of detail. >> as we offer up a strategy, an alternative strategy, which has risks, and we acknowledge that it has risks, you are concentrating on concord terror, there are risks associated with it. there are also to benefit. for instance, we will have a for instance, we will have a somewhat smaller