his recent trip where he was shown the construction site for a nuclear enrichment facility. that is that o'clock a.m. at the korea institute. you can log on to c-span.org for more scheduling information. >> a forum on the future of the health care law. a look at u.s. security in the middle east where several former advisers -- with several former advisers. and reporting on politics and politicians. robert gibbs was asked about new procedures. >> learn more about the nation's president online at the c-span video library. biography, interviews, historical perspectives, and more. it is washington your way.

>> a forum on the future of the health care law. it was hosted by the american enterprise institute. it is more than an hour. >> good morning. i am delighted to welcome you to today's symposium. we are joined by our good friends of the national review

institute which is headed by kate o'beirne. we're looking forward to a lively discussion all morning in three different areas are will tell you about in a minute. the election obviously has mandated sweeping change. the question is, what exactly is that change of custody? how to execute change? it is obvious that changes when for.e ask foed in exit polls, we find some startling things. of people that voted on november 2, 57% said the number one issue for the next congress is cutting spending or lowering taxes. asked their view on the government, 3% said they were

enthusiastic. 21% satisfied. 74% of voters said they were either dissatisfied or openly angry with what was going on in the film -- federal government. that sounds like changes in order. what kind of change? this is the question that policy makers and analysts, people in the business community, academics, and journalists are asking about. what kind of change we need? what is -- republicans and democrats have dedicated themselves, how do they respond to what voters wanted? what are the policies that will work best for rationale and might satisfy voters. we heard that policy makers heard what brodeur said. we have work today to talk to you about in three different areas. we have panels in health care in the economy.

and on the constitution. first as a panel -- is a panel that kilbourne will be chairing. it features policy analysts in this area. anothertt godley and antohe from "national review. be mr. is ae will ceremony -- mistress of ceremonies. finally, probably the most difficult set of questions of all. a lot of politicians in the last election said they would be -- if there were elected, they would be guiding the legislative

action by the u.s. constitution. what does that mean? they today? what does that mean we're talking about the budget, when we're talking about regulation, about taxes? is that an achievable goal? panel 3 is the constitution, a repair manual. our panelists will be david mcintosh and matthew [unintelligible] from the heritage foundation. i should note that [unintelligible] will be the moderator. we have a full morning for you. i hope this is a lively discussion and also with you. thank you for coming. i will turn it over to kate o'beirne. >> thank you. we are delighted to be joining with you this morning to address

such important, crucial issues. with the election season over, candidates are policy makers. it is our terturn to analyze options and make recommendations for an agenda that begins to deliver on the promises made during the campaign. this morning's conference addresses three central policy challenges facing the new congress. is it fitting that the issue of health care reform is first as many conservatives believe, that addressing this new law that imposes on federal dictates is fundamental to tackling the bloated fed budget, the entitlement reform, we need to restore lives. health care reform is central. eight months ago tomorrow, president obama signed the

patient protection and affordable care act. eight months ago, the following day, opponents pledge to repeal it. the new majority in the house is expected to attempt that appeal, but there is no majority support for appeal in the senate. a veto would be a certainty. last year, president obama knew he was not the first president to tackle and take up the cause of such a sweeping health care reform. he was determined to be the last. the opponents look forward to a president who will realize the cause of appeal in 2013. why has the law met with such opposition, and what options are available to its critics short of a repeal that remains unlikely? this panel will address these questions and entertainers. jim is a fellow at the public

policy center here in washington and he was assistant director of omb and presides over a website called obamacarewatchdog.org. following his remarks, we will hear from a practicing physician who is a fellow here and served in policy positions at the fda, including deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs and has been a senior policy advisor at the center for medicare and medicaid service at hhs. and finally, a senior editor . one of his specialties is the issue of health care reform. i will turn this over to you.

thanks. >> a pleasure to be here this morning. the really important time to be talking about what we do now. before we get to that, it is important to spend a few minutes on this health care bill once more to lay the predicate for why -- there is no avoiding the need to repeal. and replace it with a genuine reform. as "the wall street journal" bill ever."wroswot is worth going back to that. that is basically right or it is in the running. it is worth going back to why it is support for the congress to keep focus on this issue. why they cannot let what past stand. why they have to muster the

effort they can to, despite some obstacles, to move forward on building the coalition to move health care in a different direction. why is the bill in need of repeal? but it will have a devastating effect on the economy. on fiscal policy. on the quality of american healthcare. and on healthy political discourse in the u.s. we will take it from the top. the economy. so much has been said about the bill that on its insurance coverage aspect, the new rules regarding what is covered by insurance and pre-existing conditions and so on, it is lost in the shuffle over the debate that it is a gigantic tax and spending bill. over the next decade, according numbers, it will raise taxes $700 billion.

this is not just in insurance regulation bill. it is a massive tax -- tax hike. it will tax income, wages, all manner of health sector industries. the effect will be slower growth, lower employment, and higher health costs. it is bad for the economy is bad for the economy. if i hire a higher wage worker, [unintelligible] this creates disincentives to hire the people who are most in need of jobs. the second issue is the federal budget and fiscal policy. the premier problem is entitlement spending. this bill would dump an ocean of

gas on the raging fire. it expands medicaid by 60 million people. medicaid is stretched to limit. it is not serving the 50 million who are on the program for a while. the network of physicians and hospitals that cn take care of medicaid patients is constrained. this program -- new law will put a huge number of people in the program without any ability to take care of them. the second entitlement is everybody between the income of [unintelligible] this is a huge number of people. the number of -- the census bureau said the number of people between the that is 100 million people. this is a massive new expansion. the official estimate liches 20

million in this entitlement, that could be off by two or three. that depends on whether the employer based system stays intact and employers are finding new ways to get lower words workers into the exchanges. he will have a massive new entitlement in the exchanges and lots of similar workers with the same income still in the system getting on the order of three, four, five, $6,000 of support. you have a huge disequilibrium. lots of people assume that will not stand. eventually, all these lower wage workers will take advantage through their employers helping them in there. this new massive entitlement program. if that is the case, in the first 10 years, not counting the

long run, we would be adding $1 trillion more to the cost estimate of the bill. watch out for a headline, cost estimates explode. i do not think most americans will be surprised. in the state of massachusetts which gets us to the third point, what it will do to health care. they are going down this road. lots of costs above projection. the state is grappling with huge deficits. what do they do? they impose caps and price controls. that is the next step in this process. the bill was supposedly going to reform health care and find painless ways to improve efficiency and the delivery system. that is not the case. what is happening is across the board price cutting. they cut every doctor and every hospital and every clinic the

same. there is no difference. they cut everybody the same. that is how we save money to hit budget targets. the effect is predictable. it drives willing suppliers out of the marketplace. that is what happens. it will happen here too. it is already happening. that is an access problem. the damage will be quite cigna began. the last point is the bill will have a huge impact on the nature of american political discourse. the real point of the bill when you strip away is to bring the american middle class into full dependence on the federal government for health care. they will have many millions more people looking to the federal government over time for the financing and delivery of their health care services.

this will change if that succeeds, it will change dramatically how people view their government. it changes the balance of power between the government and citizenry where people feel dependent on the federal government power to deliver health care for them. you have a shift that could occur and it has occurred in other countries. that could occur here. i think there will be damaging in the long run for a healthy functioning of democracy. what we do about all this? i wanted to make sure we laid the predicate for where we need to do something. beyond a straight repeal but which of course should be done as soon as possible, there is lots of things that can be done to advance and continue to build coalition. to move 180 degrees on health care. one that is based on consumers

and markets and competition. a couple of ideas at the beginning. why is that the case that people can keep the health care plan they like? that was the president's promise. i can see an amendment being offered to allow people to do that. not just through waivers issued by 8 to assess -- by hhs. i can see provisions delivered to [unintelligible] and the commensurate delay in the startup of a new program based on the fact these cuts were not the way to do this bill. there are lots of things that the congress can do along those lines to continue to build momentum for moving health care in a different direction. thank you. >> >> thank you. -- thank you. >> i wanted to touch on two things. to talk about setting the table

for repeal and what will happen between now and the time in which we can do anything in terms of new legislation that would encompass this bill. and what i think can be done. it is not likely this legislation will be repealed as long as the obama administration remains in power. startup by commenting on a remarkable article in "the new york times". the creation of care physicians and this would create effective local control of the provision of health care by the hospital under the auspices of this new construct which no one has seen yet. they have just heard about it. sort of like unicorns. you do not know what is until you see it. what was remarkable about the article is the liberal left in the article were against -- had

been listening to the administration. insurers. we were surprised to find out they will hand local monopolies to hospitals. the left can take solace knowing this is a privilege to a single payer system. once you have these organizations controlling health care, contrasting with the federal government for the provision of care and medicare, also the exchange's, you are close to a single payer structure. we're evolving towards that rapidly. this is important to watch. of these things are happening very quickly in this country. more than 6% of physicians will be working for hospitals. these mergers are happening fast. the health plan is doing their own acquisition by buying out provider practices and they can get them. most of the big ones are hooked up with hospitals already. the implication notwithstanding

the impact, that they think it will have on health care and the ability to exercise choice is the market structure has evolved so quickly that any attempts to repeal legislation in 2013 will probably be met with resistance and others who have invested heavily. 2013 is too late to do anything about this legislation. you will have a large constituency that will have money in a new arrangements going into effect. the problems with the organization's are manifold. i talked about the fact that these are local monopolies -- handing local monopolies to hospitals. it did not have to be this way. the concept of allowing doctors, providers to bandogether to assume arrangements for

providing care to patients, that is a fine premise. there is nothing wrong with that. what is wrong with that in the health-care plan is the legislation is tilted into the range of hospitals. the wrong vehicles for in spurring innovation. hospitals have never innovated. all the real innovation gets delivered whether you look at how patient care or trellises, all the innovations were designed to take patients out of the hospital and move them into a quality setting. none of them came out of hospitals. they're not innovative structures. doctors have tried to enter the market to raise capital. they have not been able to get the capital.

none of them are getting funded. the only people with any capital [unintelligible] are the hospitals. that is the way it is planning out in the market. this is going to have a couple of implications for patients. first, it decreases choice. if you are a medicare patient, it decreases your flexibility. the more important application is the administration does not see -- the inventionthe -- they envision the aco's and writing rules to exempt them from certain antitrust regulations. certain kickback positions to give them a leg up. these rules are written out by the administration.

i think these advantages will give them a leg up in the exchanges. with the goal of cutting out the insurance companies. once you cut them out which to create a competitive environment and also the steering of patients to high quality hospitals, once you cut out that, if you believe they are middlemen, yo turn of the provision of care over, you are close to a single payer system where people are getting care from captive provider networks and those are contrasting with the government. it is a short leap to become price takers. the real problem is the rules will favor these aco's. there is nothing inherently wrong with them. the legislation will tilt the

market in favor of these local monopolies. that had people against -- aghast. folks have been talking about it for more than a couple of years. what to do over the next couple of years? i do believe this market structures as they continue, you're seeing doctors consolidate in their local markets quickly around hospitals. selling out their practices and becoming employees. as these things solidify, the bill becomes self sustaining. i would try to stall and head off some of these regulations that will hand favoritism to certain preferred market actors like hospitals. and other entities like that. i think that a lot of the action

will play out. we rode about this here in a recent -- we will continue to work on this idea. there is an opportunity to put in place structures that challenge the elements of the plan. by creating rules and frameworks that might not be complied with federal regular -- regulations but offer an altar -- an attractive alternative. if people want to look for something different. >> to build on your last point, could you briefly explain what is happening in the state's? you could contrast utah and california. >> the states have to this year passed legislation to set up the framework for housing. they have a choice. they can pass legislation to set

of the framework for how they will create these exchanges, or they can default and not do it, refuse to do it and let it fall back on the government. governors were talking about refusing to implement the health care plan and letting it fall back. if enough states do that it wouldn't cover the federal government so much that would not able to go forward. the more courageous choice is to put fourth things that are truly transformative and noncompliance with the federal rules and challenge the administration to hold these of to stay exchanges. utah is creating a market base to type of exchange. california is creating a government run exchange with a board. we advocated to create a structure where any willing plan in a state that is operating

this to not confine its plan to meet the federal rules. it is a one-size-fits-all plan for everyone. it is not a choice. it is one plan. the benefit structure is the same period allowing true competition in these exchanges and allow the subsidies. you cannot repeal the subsidies. there will start flowing in 2014 unless you repeal the legislation. at least create a market based from work. some are talking about exchanges that would be kents -- confined to a consumer oriented health plan. >> thank you for the discussion. i think it is important to broaden the discussion to options available. to the states.

it is helpful that you have done that and hopefully will talk about it in more detail. the courts promise to play a role here. our next speaker will cover the court's role. i am the moderate on this panel. role.accustomed wo t is right up there on the list, in addition to the defects that have been mentioned, one area that has not received enough attention is the very high marginal tax rates that the subsidy design creates for millions of americans of low and

middle income. where they are going to effectively for every dollar of a race that will get, they will keep 30 cents of it. when the subsidy withdrawal is factored in, we have been increasingly worried about declining social mobility. this is not a step in the right direction. i agree with the other things the mentioned. it is striking that the difference between the spending cuts and the spending increases in the bill, the main difference being that the spending cuts are fake and the spending increases are real. in short, i would say that this bill is an expensive way to die. it is -- i agree with what it take to be jim's point that there cannot be, notwithstanding

these recent elections, a revival of a free market or the individual responsibility if this law becomes an accepted part of the public policy landscape. i think it is impossible in the extreme that we're going to have a system in which americans look to washington, d.c. for the maintenance of their very health care. and retain that kind of jealous regard for our individual liberty that the constitution envisioned. i do not believe that this legislation for a variety of reasons can be tinkered with or improved. i am sure there are improvements that can be made at the margin with this legislation. the fundamental choices are, are we going to have this what this

nation? i think that is what conservatives should be focused on. there is a nontrivial chance for repeal. that is being underestimated in washington, d.c. and among the political class in general. i would say that if there is a republican senate and a republican president in 2013, repeal is more likely than not. i would say that one thing we have not talked about, there is a strong case that this individual mandate in the bill, which is required to make the thing work, is too weak to do the job it is intended to do. this will cause a massive amount of -- it could cause people with insurance to drop rather than rise. i do not see any possible

congressional majority over 10 years that will want to stiffen the penalties. we just had the most lopsidedly liberal congress will likely to have for some time. there are good reasons why it was not able to make those penalties high. i am not quite as much as a pessimist as a lot of my friends on the right. i do not believe this plan will go into effect as it was designed. or will stay in effect for very long. when you start talking about this issue with conservatives, particularly those who are active in electoral politics, probably the most important thing you run up against is this concern, the law bans insurers from discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions. that is a popular present -- provisions. what are we going to do about it?

maybe we should not take on this legislation. the paradox of the politics of this issue is that yes, banning insurers from looking at pre- existing conditions is popular. but none of the things that you have to do in order to do that are popular. for example, if you are going to prohibit insurers from making those sorts of decisions, it becomes totally irrational for people to buy health insurance which is why you have to force them to do it. if i were to save for all complications of this legislation to my can be boiled down to two steps. what the legislation does is transform insurance into a product that could never survive on the free market and force everyone to buy it. i think that the question becomes a political question. what's -- which of these effects

predominates as the popularity of this provision, it is outweighed by the popularity of everything that is inevitably attach to it. i think so far, by any reasonable reading of the political landscape over the last year and a half, the unpopular provisions are more important politically. especially since the ban on looking at pre-existing conditions is not implemented for a couple of years. i do not see what that does not remain the case. it is important for those of us who oppose the legislation to explain there are other ways of dealing with the problem of pre- existing conditions. we're not going to ignore this problem. this is something that opponents have done a good job of. you could make a strong case that the existence of this problem in the first place, the pre-existing conditions problem is an artifact of our dysfunctional public policies. we have a less fragmented market

with the possibility of renewable individual policies, the possibility of buying health status insurance. if we did not have this tax cut preference for employer based health insurance which has the consequence that when people lose their jobs there is a gap in their insurance state. they're already sick and people do not want to -- the insurance company, it becomes a rational for them to offer insurance. not at the same rate as the upper everyone else. if republicans and conservative democrats who oppose this legislation say, we have a discrete problem here and there are market oriented solutions. we can move toward a more robust individual market. and have better funded risk

pools for people in this situation. we can address problems without threatening everything everybody likes about the health care arrangements and overturning the existing system from washington for everybody else. that is the winning message and it is going to continue to be a winning message. cleckley beyond it. let's not forget that we hav repeated predictions from proponents that popularity was just around the corner for this legislation. after the town halls and when the president weighs in in september. the president hardly give that speech. people will see the good elements. it does not seem to have happened. once it is enacted, people will love it and they will greet congressional democrats with candy and flowers as liberators

from this health insurance system. we saw what they were greeted with this month. all the folks who say things are going to change, i would not be so sure of that. on the politics of this, folks were expecting something to change. we are all dead in the long run. i just hope that this legislation does not speed that up by a reality. thanks. >> would you address court action? >> i would caution opponents, but not your faith in the court. it seems to me that if the political campaign against this health care law fails,

republicans acquiesce to a continuation of obama care and conservatives allow that to happen. the challenge is -- challenges will not succeed. if the campaign continues and gathers force, there is a shot at succeeding in the courts. perhaps i am too cynical about the way contemporary american courts work. i do not think so. i think that the choices that justices make are going to be significantly affected by what they see as mainstream political opinions. to the extent that obamacare is accepted, they are not going to want to act against it. >> i have a few follow-up questions for the panelists before we go to the audience. on the politics of health care

reform, conventional wisdom holds that it was a problem for the white house and the majority party to spend two years talking about health care reform when voters were concerned about the economy and jobs. they were engaged in health care reform. does the new majority who pledged to repeal the health care reform and to be doing things short of repeal, do they run the same risk of aearing to be ignoring the economy and jobs? >> i think there is a chance to integrate these messages. you argued correctly, at a time when we are projected to have weak labor markets, that is not

the time for an effective $5.90 increase in the minimum wage. at a time when we are worried about the fiscal condition of this country, maybe we should not be loading on new entitlements. i think that there is a possibility this thing gets mmisp -- misplayed. there is not a reason not to put economic implications front and center. >> thank you. the concerns you have raised about the quality of patient care, the effects of this lot on innovation are shared by so many practicing physicians i have spoken to. the ama endorsed the bill. giving the impression it enjoyed that kind of support from

doctors. you have any explanation? >> i was told by an ama official -- this is what happens when the [unintelligible] that is the single thi8ng the -- the thing they will lobby for with the exclusion of all else. the risk here in this legislation is the business community evolved so quickly, they become a constituency in support of the legislation. plans ande ceo's of none think this will go away. i want to mention one other thing that is true. you talked about the popularity of the legislation. is there any potential for this to become more popular? everything that will happen

between now and 2012 [unintelligible] consumers will find themselves in tight networks and less hospitable types of health plans. the already find themselves there because of the rising costs and the way that employers are dealing with it is not raise premiums but to tighten networks so -- that patients are in so they get less coverage within their plan. there are fewer plants and we're seeing plans pullout in the individual and small group market. not yet in a large group market but you might start to see that as well. costs are going up. the number of insured have gone up and there will continue to go up. small business are calculating they do not have to offer health insurance. there will offload the responsibility on to the exchanges. from a budget standpoint, the costs will be higher and the

number of uninsured is in excess of what will be anticipated. what will happen is not attractive. >> thank you. scott made the point, jim, that will be important given what is happening in the health-care market for congress to attempt to stall regulations that -- in favre the companies. how's that possible? >> there is two ways to do it. one way to stop it through legislation. you can passed provisions that say you cannot spend money to implement x, y, or z. you have to get past the senate and the president or override the president. the odds are low. it is not out of the question.

there are some aspects of this where there -- democratic senators who are watching what happens three weeks ago and up again in 2012 who are worried the bill was too ambitious, too regulatory. there is possibilities for coalition's to form, bipartisan coalitions to slow down that ideas and put them off until the voters can have another chance in 2012 to decide which direction they want to go. i would say that the way to slow down regulations is probably through a lot of oversight. i think the first thing to do is bring before the oversight committees hhs and map out for the public with their planning to do.

what -- and make it clear that these regulations will restrict their choice and drug costs and impose a lot of burdens on the employment sector. doing that i think is probably the most important step. highlighting that in an oversight commission. >> they are trying to put this out without a lot of public discussion. >> defenders of the bill point out that there are so many moving parts. making it extremely difficult for the public to understand. which are the most crucial and which is the most damaging? that poses a real challenge for politicians to explain. >> on this point, i do think the question a minute ago about what

republicans overplay their hand by talking about working on the repeal to the detriment of not focusing on other issues important to voters. they connect health care to the economy. if the economy was -- what is needed most now is private sector employment growth. more dynamism in the economy. more investment, creating new country -- companies. hiring more people. that is what they see was in need of happening. they rightly view the bill as imposing a massive redistribution and burden on the ability to get that going. mindmuch in the public's is we want our politicians to focus on the economy and job growth. we do not like health care, but they're connecting health care is being a negative and that is important. i think that is one reason why

health care will form an important issue in the next couple of years. >> one fruitful topic of hearings, remember a letter was sent out that could be characterized as threatening regulatory reprisals against insurers who told their customers that their premiums were rising in large part because of this legislation. i think that is something where the secretary and some of these industry officials could be useful the be asked to shed some light on the corrupting potential of this legislation. what it says about this relationship between the insurance industry and washington, d.c. is deepening in this legislation. >> what congress can do in terms

of oversight and getting a handle on regulation that are central to the implication. the creation of these exchanges , there is not a lot you can do short of slowing down the creation. it becomes easier to [unintelligible] the regulations that congress could dress and the administrative rules that they could address. ones that cms has made the provision of health care less competitive. they made a decision that health care plans offer more than one or two part d plans need to offer to plans. if you are aetna, you can only offer two part d plans. there were too many choices and

consumers could not tell the difference. you have health plans having to shut down a lot of their lines of business. these are the kinds of things that are happening. it is making the health care market much less competitive. it will be harder to superimpose a market-based reform. you do not have much market based industry left. >> what is the most important moving parts? the most important element of the bill is they subsidize people through a heavily regulated federally run exchange process where the government will have control over everything. if you take control of the exchange process and they by people in through a new entitlement program and they capture every winter that process. to get the key issue because we

have 29 republican governors. it is an idle threat that they will go to all 29 of this states and run health care in spite of what the -- the governors. they need those states and governors to implement this bill. if the can get together -- they can get together and say, regardless of what the laws says, here is how we need to move in our states and around the country. it puts hhs and the obama administration in a difficult position. >> speaking of those governors and state officials. a growing number of them are howling over the mandated expansions in medicaid coverage. it will be costly for the states. what would you recommend that these governors do with respect

to the dictates medicaid is placing on them? >> they need to go back to hhs and say the systems are on the brink of collapse. piling a bunch more americans into a system that is not delivering for the people that are in it is no solution. the bill is trying to take the private market and put it under federal control. what should be happening is they should be listening medicaid and making that more consumer directed, more of a fixed entitlement, more beneficiary control. you can almost put them into the exchange as opposed to the rest of the private marketplace. i would start from that end of the spectrum and say what we need to do is take medicaid and move it into a system where they can choose and have consumer choice. have them pushed back. why are we starting from people in the employer sector? let's start with medicaid.

>> i am going to usurp your role. is there a case for states to opt out of medicare? >> i have heard about these stories about some states looking at it. they have to think long and hard. the consequences politically are pretty severe. i do not have a stronger view yet. my inclination is it is something to rattle the cage with them to do. >> you talked about the opportunities for new majority at least in the house to have some votes on some of the more unpopular aspects, up and down votes on aspects of the bill. one of those they could be looking at are the medicare cuts. that the bill has.

fiscal conservatives may have been taken aback to arguing against medicare cuts. they were and are. what do conservatives make of the cut opponents? >> i hope i am not an elected fiscal conservative. -- alleged fiscal conservative. there is a right way and wrong way to cut medicare. to reform over th emedi -- the medium and long-term where the government is not trying to price regulate. medicare is the dominant player in most markets. it is the source of most tremendous dysfunction in the health-care marketplace. the reason why it is is because it imposes prices on the marketplace. it does not negotiate with anybody. it says take-it-or-leave-it. it is such a big pair. -- payer.

it leads to fragmentation and lack of coordination of care. the bill and the cuts they are imposing double down on that. they go with more price cuts, more across the board payment rate reductions. that does not get at the problems. they may get much worse. -- make it much worse. it looks like it will save money on paper. i do not think it will. we have done this many times in the past. look where we are. we have been price cutting medicare for basically 40 years. it does not work. the alternative model is to put more consumer -- control in the hands of consumers and give them a fixed entitlement and say here are the choices available. they become much more cost- conscious. that is the way to get control of the program. that is the way you can solve it.

they went in and in the opposite direction. >> the reason is utilization increases. utilization will continue to go up. there's nothing the government can do about that and they're not willing. >> folks who make the case, they make a big deal out of this independent advisory board. on medicare. what people did not pay attention to is this board is supposed to not suggest changes to the structure of the entitlement that matter. it is not supposed to suggest cost sharing. it is allowed to suggest higher price controls. the idea that this board is -- opens the door to reform, what it does is slam it shut. question beforet

we turn to the audience. it is a political question. you have always address the alternative vision. there are fundamentally different approaches. we have adopted and are living with a dramatic increase in government control and less choices. the prior administration missed opportunity to have had this debate with the advantage of white house committed to consumer choice in health care. >> i would say yes and no. i think you are exactly right that -- conservatives spent more time on health care and there were knowledgeable about it, it would have prepared the ground for debate over the last two years better in terms of public opinion and getting republican

congressman prepared for this debate. i do not think we should overestimate how much conservatives could have accomplished under previous congresses. republican attempts to reform medical malpractice law and to make it possible to create association health plans were successfully filibustered. republicans never had the degree of power in washington, d.c. that democrats have over two years. i find it extremely implausible that any more ambitious conservative free markets, health care reforms, a real big bang change in the tax treatment of health insurance could possibly have been successful. it does not mean they should not have tried. -- to highlight the issues and educate the public and educate republicans and shift this .ebate, but let's be realistic

the people who say republicans never reformed health insurance, they tried to make little reforms and they were not allowed to do that. >> with that, we're going to turn to our audience. we have an initial question in the second row. a microphone is headed your way. identify yourself and if there is a particular panelist would like to address, let us know. >> i am sort of daniel in the lion's den. contrary to many of the panels that have been presented which i enjoy doing as a trade lawyer, when they have issues of trade law that are going to be discussed, they have a few variations of points of view. here you have a monolithic point of view without any opposing kind of consideration. i think that is not a way that a

public policy forum ought to run its business. two issues with regard to health care that have not been discussed here. first of all, the notion that there is a requirement for insurance and a government poll for covering the uninsured is not novel. we have that for automobile insurance. we require everyone to have insurance and if they do not, there are pools to cover the consequences of the lack of insurance. i do not find that there is a big outrage about that kind of program. it could be applied here also. with regard to health care, the i was three days in the hospital two weeks ago for a slight heart attack which i was quickly relegated from.

my nights in the hospital, the bill was $83,000 without a doctor's bill. for going to the emergency room and intensive care treatment for three days. that is beyond the range of most people's capability of being paid. with medicare and military service benefits that i am eligible for, i'm not going to pay hardly anything. the real problem is, most democracies have recognized that health care is such a universal need that a single payer system in some way that's a reasonable way of addressing that issue is the only way a democracy can deal with that issue. having the fictitious kind of

program we now have is not working either and to suggest that's a desirable remedy is irresponsible. >> thank you. we are delighted you are well enough to be with us and you have ably made the case for the other side of the issue. we did not bill ourselves as having a debate over the merits of these issues. what we have asked the panelists to discuss is given the promises made in the campaign trail, what are the options for the new majority, at least in the house? does anyone have a comment in response? >> i do think you are right that fundamentally, the debate in this country is how to allocate resources in the health sector. this is a question of what process is going to be put in place to more efficiently allocate resources in the dow sector. the key objective is to improve productivity in dallas sector.

if you are going to try to slow the pace of rising costs and make the system more affordable and not rise much faster than in come, then you have to give more help for the dollar spent. what process is going to lead to higher productivity in the health sector? that's the fundamental question. the bill answers definitively, just as you did, that the government can do that. i think that's just not true. that is false. a market mechanism will work much, much better. the government should provide oversight of the health sector. the deserves more oversight because of the equity questions. but fundamentally, resource allocations are best left to patients and consumers' driving the market place. if the government tries to do it for everybody in the united states of america, it will be

less decision and worst quality. there will be a lot more equity, but it will be a worse system. >> on the car insurance point, you are right that states do have that requirements, but there are couple of reasons why the health-insurance mandate has attracted more opposition. one is that it is dead at the federal rather than state level. you have not had the federal government require everyone purchase a particular product. second, the car insurance mandate is a condition of driving, which is very important socially, but the health insurance mandate is a condition of being a citizen of the country. it's a condition of breathing, so is qualitatively different. one last point that's interesting about the car insurance parallel is that the car insurance mandate does not

get you to 100% compliance or anywhere close to it. if you project that out to something that's likely to be a lot more expensive, some of the consequences of the likelihood of this mandate to work are a lot more significantly negative. my last point would be that i think it's a mistake to suggest that because health care is a universal need, therefore single pair is reasonable, if we did that, if that was sound logic, we would have to agree to a single payer provision for food, which is also a universal need. i think the more important something is, the less likely we are in general to want there to be a government monopoly on its provision. >> another question. we have one in the back.

>> -howard smith and i'm a physician. i want to congratulate the panel. this is the first time i've heard any discussion about the systemic reviews as opposed to the budgetary concerns. it is those systemic reviews that concern me the most. the issue of accountable care organizations is a very destructive concept. in terms of it never been tried before, in actuality, it has. in t mid-1990s, organizations called physician-sponsored organizations were formed. they were all paid by capitation as the accountable care organization would be. as the capitation was conceived of, the risks could never be

repaired by the amount of money that was allocated. these caused tremendous parochial interests to form in the organizations with primary- care verses specialists. the specialists, particularly cardiologists and pulmonary doctors who took care of the most high-risk of the group were forced into situations where either they would leave the group or they would be instituting a type of care that was cheaper, less effective, and more risky so that everyone else could make money. this is the future of what an accountable care organization would have brought up on us all. it is a formula for a much more deadlier madison. unfortunately, these accountable

care organizations at medical homes also, although they will inherently become institutions not of higher-quality, but of deadlier medicine, should they go bankrupt as did the tso's. in the bill, there are already bailouts built in. these organizations have been deemed too big to fail. >> you make an alarming point. the have a question? >> i'm glad i'm making an alarming point. my real point is most people don't understand these things. they have been bombarded with the course of this system and how expensive and damaging it will be to the economy. but the real issue is it will be damaging to the health of every

american and i think people who are in a position where they could get the word out need to get the word out more than anything else. >> you make a good point that all of the arrangements in this legislation have been tried before. the concept of medical home is capitated primary care, which has been tried before. it does not mean they are inherently flawed concept, but they did not succeed for certain reasons. one of the problems is this bill envisions these models being nationalized and they are not appropriate for every market. there are markets wary have succeeded, but it will not succeed in every market. their reasons that the ama and other physicians who tried to lead the revolution failed is because they were not exempted from certain kick back and

antitrust provisions. that is why the administration is using that criticism as part of the impetus for working on some of those provisions. i would expect to see some of those rules fairly soon. the larger reason they failed as because they were not well run from a business standpoint. they did not have deep pockets and they could not ensure the risks. from that standpoint, i'm not sure the hospitals will do any better. they will hobble along a little better until they reach the brink of bankruptcy, and but in terms of reinsuring some of the risks they're taking, i'm not sure the commercial health plans will be able to wrap around the hospitals to reinsure some of the risks they're taking him. i think commercial insurers will find themselves at war, battling

for business in the exchanges. i'm not quite certain this is going to play out any better. the one thing at think we should be doing right now from the standpoint of trying to envision a future is look at what is happening in the markets where they are becoming dominant because the fact remains in local communities, hospitals have become the dominant providers because they bought out of position practices. care has changed. i am not close enough to tell you all the different ways it has changed, other than to cite anecdotes, which i do not want to do here. but the practices have changed and hospitals have not driven "change and have not invested in better systems. >> we have time for one final question.

there's a woman in the back who has a question. >> thank you. i was late, so if you covered this, please give someone else a chance for the last question. a quick fact -- i found amazing listening to television of the last few days, it is a discussion of the budget problem and everything has to be on the table, including defense, they went to a spokesman for the defense department and they said we need to get control of our budget, our number one problem is health care for veterans. it permeates the budget dispute. what is different now than what was around before we debated this was the -- is the impending bankruptcy of the united states. as we go forward, if the republicans got the white house in 2012, at least stayed the

same or better in the congress, would it be too late to make significant changes? is all going to be so tightly put into the firmaments that will effectively be impossible? >> i don't think it's too late in 2012, but the hour is late we probably have one last chance to do serious entitlement reform and health care reform. that allows a level of taxation in this country that is not ruinous. but, if we wait too much longer, the only solution the political class will be able to glom onto will be a sudden and damaging tax increase that could have off

a fiscal calamity. when i look ahead to the landscape here, thinking back on missed opportunities and where we are, we have delayed entitlement reform for 15 years and the baby boom is starting to sign up for benefits and we are going to basically double the number of people over the next two decades, so we are on the cusp of the last chance to do something different before the wave hits. the presidential contest in 2012 is shaping up to be a debate about that exact question, the future of the american economy and how we structure our social contract with the citizens. but wet quite too late,

are about at our last chance. >> thank you. i would like to thank all of the panelists which have so ably done that which we have asked them to do. what are the challenges and options in healthcare? i know you have helped me better understand what we can be looking forward to. many thanks and we will make way for our next panel on the economy and spending. thank you. [applause] >> one of the new house members will do representing northeast minnesota. in running for office for the first time, the 51-year-old airline pilot defeated the incumbent, james oberstar. the new congressman representing mississippi cost first district is a native of tupelo. he has been in the senate since 1995. a sixth generation resident of the state, he's vice-president of a life-insurance company.

>> in a few moments, a look at u.s. security interest in the middle east with several former national security advisers. in a little more than an hour, a discussion on the role of journalism and reporting on politics and politicians. after that, today's white house briefing with press secretary robert gibbs. he was asked about new airport security screening procedures. later, we will reach air an american enterprise institute forum on the future of the new health-care law. >> several live events to tell you about tomorrow. the american association for budget and program analysis will hear from the comptroller of the federal financial management office. that's at 8:45 eastern. later, the reform on the history and budget process. here on c-span, the national academy of social insurance hosts a panel on the free -- and

the future of social security and how the system has been affected by reforms implemented in the early 1980's. that is at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> here are some programs c-span is airing on thursday. jeff bridges talks about his work to reduce youth hundred. jane goodall on her love of nature and animals. the chief justice on the role of the supreme court. lawyers discuss the impact of john paul stevens retiring. former president bill clinton presents the liberty award metal to tony blair. that's thanksgiving day on c- span. >> this year's student camera video documentation is in full swing. make a video on this year's theme -- washington d.c. through my lands. uptilt -- up load your video to c-span before january 20th for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. for more information, go on line.

>> now a discussion on u.s. national security interests in the middle east with a panel of former national security advisers. the aspen institute hosts this form. it's a little more than one hour. >> thank you for coming. we had sandy berger, but he is a little under the weather. we have general john jones -- i

don't think anybody has ever confused you on the street for sandy berger. we always have a backup national security advisers, so general scowcroft under president george h. w. bush, national security adviser and not since henry kissinger dined alone has there been such a collection of national security advisers. do you think in the middle east , prime minister netanyahu and prime minister abbas can really get to peace or should we take more aggressive action? >> the administration has worked diligently with both of these gentlemen for quite awhile. we have certainly spends a lot

of time with both trying to bring them to the table and trying to get into understand just how important it is a strategically, globally that we find a solution to the middle east problem writ large. i don't know when the time comes that you go to another solution, but it's clear we're having a difficult time figuring out exactly what it is that gets them to the substantive part of the discussion. the lines have been drawn a pretty tactical level, so the strategic discussion and global ramifications of failure to find a solution to this longstanding problem, around which it seems

to me there is a convergence of views between the europeans, the arab world, the united states, this is a moment that even though we have not reached success yet, this is a moment that has enormous potential, if only we can figure out the right vectors to get too parties -- >> the convergence of views is -- i know you cannot speak for the administration, but -- >> that has been advocated, certainly by some of the leaders of the arab world and the europeans. it is certainly something the administration might have to consider at some point. what ever does, we have to find the solution. failure is not an option. one of the reasons we have this synergy that represents some

hope for the future is the shadow of iran lurks ominously on the horizon as a potentially bigger problem for the arab world and one they want to address trade but before they can do that, they want to get this middle east situation figured out. i think there is enormous opportunity internationally to figure out the way to ring the two parties together. the question is what is the best way to do it and at what time do you shift to another strategy? >> do we know what the outline of the plan is? >> most everyone knows what it's going to look like. the question is how do you get

there? do you get there all once or sequentially or gradually? on that issue, i found the palestinians are reasonably receptive to a certain time frame by which things will happen rather than say nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. i don't think that's a major stumbling block. what it looks like at the end is fairly well known right now. >> do you think prime minister netanyahu is willing to give up land? >> i don't know. he has a difficult coalition to deal with. as a result of the nature of it, it's difficult to get clear picture on what it takes to move forward. many times with our going to make progress only to find we

could not get there. to use an analogy like lucy and the football -- somebody has to hold that football. >> doesn't somebody have to be the football -- be the guy going up to the football and get pulled away? >> somebody has to. >> everybody knows what the solution is. two democratic states, israel and palestine, living side by side in peace and security. palestine as a homeland for the palestinian people and their citizens, israel for the jewish people and their citizens. because of the negotiations under president clinton and president bush, a lot of the contours of the deals look like are out there.

there are a lot of incentives to do this. president abbas made history when he said the need to get through a palestinian state through negotiations and not violence. he needs to show his bold decision he made is going to work. netanyahu has a historic opportunity to and the de legitimization campaign against israel and establish israel as a homeland to the jewish people. the arab leaders clearly want peace. they're building the institutions of a palestinian state now under occupation, which is very important. it shows the palestinians that a state is real and it shows the israelis that will not be a safe haven for terrorists. how do you get there?

we've got to somehow get the debate of the issue of settlements and construction breezes onto the issue of the terms of peace. the settlements issue politically as a winner for netanyahu and the loser for us. if we got the issue of the terms of peace, that's an issue public opinion shows 60% of palestinians and israelis want that. >> would tabling the plan help? >> i think it's something we ought to do, but timing is everything. but we are running out of there is in our quiver. the plan has to be done at a time that will catalyze progress and not become a dead letter. i think it's an element of an end game. the question is when? i think with the settlement issue still in front of us, it is premature. what i hope we would get and what secretary clinton has been

signaling is we need to get a negotiation going, start on the issue of borders and security and get a preliminary agreement because that makes the issue of settlements. >> can be done in 90 days? >> i think it can be done in fairly short order. it moves the issue of settlements and the question becomes do you actually stand up that state with provisional borders while you continue to work on issues? >> that gets to the issue of whether the united states should veto irresolution that recognizes the palestinian state and will exercise its veto. should the u.s. give that guarantee to israel? >> it depends. the administration has to be careful trying to convince the parties and make commitments

that get in the way of what may be a solution. >> how easy that? >> i think steve plays it out pretty well. i personally believe that state head, -- statehood, however that is defined, gives them international legitimacy. >> un recognition of a palestinian state? >> yes. if they are willing to, as i think they are, willing to agree to reasonable gradualism in terms of how you get to the final status, that's not something that's going to take 30 years or 20 years or 10 years. i have a feeling it's not more than 10, but somewhere between

zero and 10. >> i think the cause would be dramatically enhanced. >> can you imagine them being recognized as a state without there being an israeli- palestinian agreement. -- palestinian agreement? >> that would mean a major shift in how we have been approaching this in terms of trying to stimulate both parties to see that this is in their interest. frankly, i think both parties generally want to achieve this solution, but the local politics -- the >> i don't think you can do it over the israeli objections. if you can get a negotiation on borders and security and could

get israelis and palestinians to agree on what that is, then the proposition you put to both of them as wooden did advance that process and be in their interests if we stood up with that state with provisional borders, security and borders having been resolved. the question is whether you could persuade them if that is in their interest. >> a country like ron does not want to see that happen. ed immediately changes the equation. strategically, in a geopolitical sense, this would be a good thing. >> i'm going to take a quick break for our sponsors.

-- leading to a question, i see someone with our middle east investment -- before you were in the administration, you worked with a lot of us. to try to build up the economy in the palestinian territories and in particular the west bank. the middle east investment house how much money? >> $70 million in loan guarantees. you just stood up a venture fund to go up with it. firstre coming to our close, most of it toward technology companies.

[inaudible] >> does this look to the peace process or is it a way of helping netanyahu placate the palestinians and not get to the peace process? >> in my view, it has not changed from what i was working with steve and secretary rash. i should thank them for that opportunity because of clearly one of the most interesting things i've ever done and unable to be a part of. tony blair, by the way has also been very helpful in all of this. the idea was basically to help the palestinian authority assert its governance over the west bank. in so doing, to show it would succeed and if the janine model

work, to expand it. it was a bottom up economic approach that would stimulate a whole of everyday life of palestinians on the west bank and it would also have a dramatic affect, hopefully on gaza to hopefully show there is a better way to live in peace and security. i was pleased to see the israeli reaction to this as well, the idea -- that strategy was unchanged from counter-terrorism to counterinsurgency and that was not an easy thing for them to do. under the rubric of if they do more, we will do less, they built up over time a pretty healthy relationship with the security forces of the palestinians and have been generally pleased with what they have seen. i still think it's a very good

model and it is not a way for the israelis to placate them, to keep the status quo, but it is flat as to happen if we're going to be successfully the future. the top down issue is important at the international level, but this bottom-up approach has its own energy and force that brings it toward the solution everyone wants to see. >> i completely agree with that. i think it is one of the most helpful things going on now. there is a lot of cynicism about whether there's ever going to be a palestinian state and if so, what kind of state is going to be? by building the institutions now even under occupation, it reassures them they can see the state beginning to emerge that is real. it reassures the israelis that it's going to be the right kind

of state, a state that already cooperating with israeli security forces to deal with terror. for them to say let's shall the negotiations for a while and focus of this bottom-up, i think the better argument is the institution building can only go so far without the political cover of credit bola associations and that's why the administration included both its top down and bottom up. >> he has a two-year program. it is to be completed in the fall of 2011 and it will be very interesting what happened at that point and what decisions the palestinians and israelis make and i think it depends on where we are, whether there is

an active of -- and at debt negotiations. >> the director of the palestinian authority, he gave that horizon and his argument was with the help of the palestinian partnership, we will build a state in two years and we will build it from the ground up. once we have built that, they cannot deny it to us. does that mean at the end of 2011, now matter what the status is of the peace talks, the world should think about recognizing the palestinian state? >> the issue at that point will be on the table. it will be decided on the basis of where we are at that point in

time. >> i agree with that. >> do you have thoughts about where american policy should be toward the middle east now? >> i think parties by themselves have demonstrated that they are unlikely to ever be able to come to agreement by themselves. the circumstances are so different, one as strong collapse what is weak, they both have opposition groups, and for them to have a chance to get together, they have to do something to their own public. we don't want to do this, the united states made s. they have to have a scapegoat for doing what they have to do but are unwilling to do it.

there has to be and that is here. >> it has to come from the president or does the secretary of state have more credibility in the region? >> it has to come from the president. the united states has never done anything like presenting here is something. good, but they't laid out -- >> the timing wasn't good because was after the election. >> it was the end of the head of the restoration. for a variety of things. '67 borders with rectifications, no automatic right returns for the palestinians, jerusalem the capital of both countries and a non-militarized palestinian state. the problem the futures good deal with borders is you cannot

do it without taking up all the other issues. if you draw the borders, what happens to the opposite sides of the wrong side of the border? you have to do the population thing and part of that is the border. it moves it had, but i agree that settlements is going after one part of that which cannot be solved separately. a comprehensive offer -- all of the issues now are inter- related. >> so i pushed by the president -- do you think the president's ought to take a proposal at a fly to jerusalem and speak -- >> i don't know what he ought to do. it seems to me a u.s. proposal,

i think the europeans would love it. to me, the worst outcome for the israelis is that the palestinians give up by two state solution. that presents the israelis with three fundamentally disastrous options. i think we need to get them to realize they need this as much as the palestinians. >> i agree that we are a point where something has to happen. likelydon't think it's we will have this convergence between external entities and the europeans and us that have

this historic sense that this is the moment. we have got to figure out what ever that solution is to force it to its logical conclusion. unfortunately, logic does not play a big role in this. if you talk to both sides, they both logically say we want to do this. but they will not let us. we have to find a way -- a >> day of meeting the population? >> the other side. it's always about the other guy. we simply have to find the right formula to take that step. once you take that step, you might be into a whole new world that might be irreversible and very good. >> i agree and i think the way around it is if you wait until

you have negotiated to close all the final status issues, you will never get there. it is just too hard. what i think the ad ministration has said that as you have a free market agreement that sets up the basic principles of these issues, but you don't stop there. with that agreement, give some restaurants about how it's going to come out. let's focus on border and securities. that's the issue where there is the most convergence. let's see if we can nail that down. and you may have an option to see if you can convince the parties to stand up to the state and that would be transformative. i think it will buy you some time to then turn to the issues of the final terms of the refugee issues and the jerusalem issues and then you can put it

altogether in a final status agreement. but i think you're going to have to do this in a couple of bites. waiting for the grant agreement, i think that's just too hard. the administration is setting up the potential for a different kind of approach. >> i think so. waiting until everything is agreed to is what we have been trying to do for a long time. [crosstalk] i don't know if the ambassador will let me do this, but the next question logically is whether there is a syrian track. do you have any thoughts? i know they have been trying to get a syria track going. do you want to say something

about whether there is time for a syrian track? >> if you want me to ask a question, i would like to hear comments -- the obama administration his has been telling us that they believe, and this is a major difference compared to previous administrations, that peace in our region cannot be achieved unless it is comprehensive and on all tracks. they do not believe it can happen on one track and they don't believe in the game of playing one track against the other. i would love to hear some comments on that. >> if you would, talk about whether you think it would be good in our level and sequence for syria. >> where the bush administration was, president bush had a conversation and urge him to go

after a comprehensive peace, including syria and also will not. that was the goal -- as -- also allow the non. -- also lebanon. we authorized the turks and the israelis to tell the syrians that it improve -- that improved relationships with the ad states went through a syrian- israeli agreement. we tried to be as supportive as we could of that track. it made some progress and, at the end, it got overwhelmed by a whole series of things that everybody knows about. general jones will speak and by

cents is the administration has tried in good faith to get a syria track going. >> i think that is correct. obviously, it would be to everyone's advantage, the peace we have extended to a broader area included syria and lebanon and i think the -- i know the administration has been working quietly to see what the potential is to do that on several fronts. i think work on the comprehensive nature of it can do it and there is reason for some optimism there. the players we have talked to on this issue, it is certainly

something that would be in everybody's interest. >> how would this help on iran? if you are able to achieve consensus and results in obtaining a piece that is foundational for the region and you build upon, it serves to isolate iran a little more than perhaps it is right now. the combination of peaceful negotiations plus the sanctions we know are having a major fact , it will send a very strong message to iran that perhaps it is time to return to the table and start negotiating seriously. >> if you see syria andld

lebanon are serious, does that send a message to iran? >> it does send a message of what the middle east is going to be. but there are fundamental issues with iran. one is the nuclear program but another is the nature of that regime. the unhappiness many people in iran are showing. >> do you think the sanctions are helping a lot? >> there may be comments from people here, but i have been surprised and pleased with how well the administration did getting the people around the table to impose sanctions. they did better than i expected they would and i expect a lot of other folks.

i need to talk to people to get a better feel for it, but the theory of sanctions is you are putting a lot of pressure on business class is that middle- class is to in turn put pressure on their regime. the iranian president and a date regime is putting pressure on the middle-class. that's the center of the opposition and i wonder if we don't have a perverse alliance between our sanctions activity and a regime policy, everybody squeezing the middle-class. so i worry about that. sanctions are right and i worry they are not going to be enough. i think you need to marry sanctions with major support in a way that does not discredit them for the forces of change in iran because i think it is domestic pressure for change that's more likely to convince the regime that they don't want a domestic confrontation and in

international confrontation at the same time and may be more willing to deal. finally, we have to start thinking very seriously about what happens if it does not work. we have a lot of false debates on iran. this debate about can iran be deterred is a false debate. can they be deterred from using nuclear weapons against the united states? of course. can we deter the adverse effects that come once it's clear they have a clear path to a nuclear weapon? i don't think so. what are those things? and empowered iran called willing to interfere with its neighbors, its neighbors going after their own nuclear programs with processing so that egypt, jordan, turkey, saudi have the same options that iran does. we need to think seriously about the problems of iran with a

clear path to declare weapons and we have had another false argument about this issue of the do you go to war against iran? it's easy to demonstrate that would be a leap in the dark, but that's not the right question. the question is, is there some way we can visibly set aside and setback there and ticket the -- their activity, which is the route for a clear weapon capability. can we visibly set that back in some way? diplomatically, but some other means to set back. president obama has said not just that a nuclear iran is unacceptable, but we will prevent iran from getting a clear weapon. >> how do you stop them other than striking it if sanctions don't work? >> what is diplomatically,

hoping the sanctions work. the other thing they need to do is think of other options. >> like cyber? the worm or other virus? >> it is that an option? i don't know. it is difficult, but look at what the israelis did it taking out the syrian nuclear reactor. it was done covertly and not acknowledge and syria decided to let it go. by ali point is i think we had a big public debate of whether or not to go to war with iran and we need a more sophisticated public debate about what do we do if we are faced with a stark choice of either going to war which nobody wants to do or accepting iran with a clear path to nuclear-weapons, which i think is acceptable. >> that's a great summation.

i would add a couple of things. one is i think the president's thinking of this has been consistent all along. the idea from the outgo was to see if iraq was willing to negotiate reasonably, but to always leave the door open, even as we move toward sanctions. the sanctions results, at least the process, was a foreign policy achievement that has not received its just due because of how hard it was. the fact that the end of the day, even russia and china came to the sanctions protocol, the close relationship with the european union that followed on the heels of the un sanctions was also very, very welcome.

that's something that did not happen automatically. the united states participated rigorously. i think we are still six-eight months away from having the full effect of the sanctions. >> so what happens if they don't work in eight months? >> obviously we are not just betting on that and nothing else. there's an awful lot of dialogue with other countries. the israelis and particular. i think this has had a calming effect in terms of the hype about eve got to do something now. steve is right. there are three reasons why a nuclear iran is a bad idea. first is the fact you have another nuclear capable state. but you can deter that. secondly, the fact that it would

probably trigger a nuclear arms race in the middle east is something that is pretty well a foregone conclusion. that would be very bad. thirdly, and the one that is the nightmare scenario because, without trying to overstate things, it might change the world we live happily, a country like iran exported that kind of technology to a terrorist organization. >> with a joint israeli-military -- joint israeli-u.s. military action likely if we have a israeli-palestinian peace? does it help solve iran if we get a israeli-palestinian peace? >> i think it peace process that is ongoing in movingly the right direction is probably one of the best things we could do to show iran that it passed is the wrong

path. i think it's extremely important to leave the door open, as we have, on official and unofficial channels with iran. they have shown a certain willingness to come back, at least to the conference table. we will wait and see whether that happens or not. but i wouldn't necessarily believe that all right now and say sanctions are not going to work. i would not go too far the other way and talk about what we might do if the sanctions don't work. one of the things that has happened between us and the russians and israelis and others is we have arrived at a kind of sense of what that timing is. we know more about their program and it's having difficulty. we generally have a more common view as opposed to 18 months ago. >> what is your knowledge

[unintelligible] talk aboutgoing to that. >> i think we ought to let the sanctions go forward. you have to look forward to where we might be a year from now and be doing some careful planning about it. second, i think one of the impact of the election as there will probably be more support for president obama and what ever decisions he makes should we get to that point. i noted particularly the comments at halifax security council where there were talking about regime change. >> i think there is support for

him to do something, but if we get to that point and the sanctions don't work, -- i would say if there is some difficult work, it needs to be done by the united states and not israel. >> either military or covert action? >> something needs to be at the end of the day. >> real quickly and we will open up. four or five times you have mentioned how helpful russia has been in this situation. how harmful would it be to this process if the start treaty is not ratified by the senate? >> i think it would be extremely harmful. i think it would be a blow to the prestige of the united states. it certainly would be a blow to the president, which is not a good thing in terms of his clout

around the world as an influence. especially at a time when i think the united states has reasserted its leadership with regard to nuclear issues. the things that have been done working toward the start treaty, which i think was done in consultation with both sides of the hill, on a regular basis, there was a clear understanding of what the red lines were from some of the would-be opponents. i think we work really hard to try to meet those red lines. there are all kinds of reasons for passage of this start treaty and i shudder to think well happen if we did not get it. >> i'm probably a little and the

metal. i think russia has been quite cooperative for the bush administration and the obama administration. in terms of how they handle the negotiations, the bush administration got for security sanctions resolution and that russia supported them. i don't think russia will stop that, but it's an unnecessary argument. there are problems with the start agreement, they can and should be addressed in the ratification and that is being done. we need to get agreement on the modernization program, so as long as we have a clear programs which will be for a considerable time, they are monitored. there is a way forward that early on in the new congress we can get. >> not in the lame-duck? >> early on in the new congress.

we can get a good number of republicans joining democrats in ratifying. >> you think senator >> i think there is a modernization program that he and a lot of other people -- we both talked about the need for a modernization program. i think that it can be done. i would like to see it done that way. i think it would be a good start for the new congress, working with the president to be bullish show the week ended the nation's business done on a bipartisan basis. after they have addressed these concerns.

>> i agree with gm and with steve partly. i did not see the objections to the treaty. none of them are really the defense to -- really advanced. that is my problem. some of them need to be fixed, but they need to be fixed by fall lot negotiations with the russians. that can only happen if we ratified the treaty. i think that psychologically, it will hurt -- they are not going to make decisions based on that, but the whole progress that we have with russia, not only iran, supply lines to afghanistan, there is a gradual

-- we ought to encourage it. i think it would be [inaudible] >> >> thank you very much. thank you for sponsoring this meeting. i think it is a great idea. the arab league has its peace initiative. it is a comprehensive framework. looking from my experience, when i was involved in that the egyptian-israeli peace

negotiations, i think if president carter had not presented his own proposals and ideas to both sides, we would not have reached an agreement. i did not think that what israelis fear sometimes that there should be imposed on the process. it is just a proposal put on paper. but israel is trying to now to get from the united states, to veto any attempt from the palestinians and octane endorsements. i think this is a very on helpful development if this happens. the united states should be perceived throughout as an honest broker who takes no sides.

on the question of erotic and nuclear weapons, -- on the question of iran and nuclear weapons, it should apply to everyone, including the arabs, israel, and should have a zone that is free of proposed threats. thank you. >> do you want to comment on that? >> add some bridging proposals will be how you get the peace. at some point, you may want to lay down a comprehensive proposal. if we are talking about a framework agreement. timing is everything. we have seen a lot of things get played.

second, you in resolution -- it is a complicated question, i think. the best thing to do is to try to get these negotiations back. we have a lot of discussion about nuclear free zone in the middle east. once you have a middle east peace, there are other threats other than nuclear weapons. when to get a comprehensive middle east peace, then we can talk about how to build on that. >> [inaudible] was subject that has not, is the 1.5 palestinians live. a lot of the focus of the administration is on making some

sort of peace agreement. what should be done with gauze that? how do you ultimately incorporates that part of the palestinian territory and is there a point at which you begin to reach out to hamas? >> why am i entering the question? if we begin to make progress on palestinian peace, hamas can not afford to be left out. we take away some of the leverage they have now to say no by beginning to move. they will feel compelled to participate.

>> i think the west bank is where we start. what this state will look like at some point. that does not mean that you cannot make progress. trying to fix this now will only impede progress of getting the to stitch together in the future. >> if you get a peace deal that involves the establishment of a paleinian state of the west bank, you are in a position to go to hamas and said, are you in or are you out? if you are in, you have to give up terror.

if you can get that piece, and show that a palestinian state is coming to the west bank, it will be -- a double shuffle the deck. >> [inaudible] is a hopeful sign when president obama extends its $3 million inducement to israel in return for simply it 90 days of a settlement freeze? >> this is the matter of the

table as to what is the -- what makes it worthwhile. in exchange for a 90 day settlement freeze. the israelis, to my knowledge, have now responded to that yet. the will to talk to wait and see what happens. the discussions between the u.s. and israel on israel's security have been ongoing with some tremendous detail for the last year. the united states and the a ministration has spent extremely generous, even ride up to this point -- even right up to this point in providing assurances to israel that security is something that we pay a lot of attention to. i also want to come back to the

point that is extremely important. the united states should be perceived as being an honest broker. we have to be careful that the skills tool tip to 41 way or the other. -- that the scales do not take one or the other. >> the worry i have is that i think the settlement freeze has not done with the destruction hoped it would do. at some point, if you are a whole, you stop digging. i am not sure going another 90 days is maybe the best outcome. again, i am not party to these discussions. we need to get some other

understandings. that address palestinian concerns, five -- we have to get on with it. >> thank you. thank you, everybody, for being there. i have had the privilege to work closely at the aspen and institute has done a phenomenal work for many years in support of the palestinian people. it has made a tangible difference.

furthermore, i would like to draw our attention what maritime -- a to state solution has jeopardized at this point and continues the result of pessimism on the grounds to continue to be jeopardized. and what state do you reach a point where it becomes an option anymore? are we close to that or not? >> what is the alternative? >> i do not think we're close to that. because of the synergy that exists between the arab world and the europeans and the u.s. the outside watching is more to gather on the necessity to be successful than at any time in my memory. i think that the prize is still

on the table and it is achievable. we have not figured out the right combination yet. i am impressed by the fact that everybody who has -- to place in this game really passionately believes that there has to be a solution. it is not just a regional problem. it has global dimensions. solving this will solve -- will help the world in many different ways. >> [inaudible] most of my concerns addressed. i am very much concerned that this offer has been made by the united states in the terms of already been discussed. the question is -- you are dealing with the palestinian authority.

it is an occupied area which has its own unique problems. what concerns me is that we talk about having to be an honest broker. and we talk about the timing problem as being crucial. if you are in the palestinian west bank right now how comfortable would you be i would think that it would drive them away. that is what concerns me greatly. you look at the end of the 90- day period and while there is some optimism expressed in the long run as a matter of necessity, what is going to

happen? let's assume that it does not work and for various reasons of politics, the palestinians do not feel comfortable coming back to the table. what happens then? >> i would simply say that really want to make things conditional on progress. if, in fact, we did x, then why would be the result. and if y fails, x is off the table. you have to tie some of these things to good faith. and they demonstrated will to be courageous and to make some of these decisions so that we can move in the right direction.

>> the $3 billion in security ordinance -- >> the president would expect that there would be some momentum that would lead to follow along progress. i do not know that for a fact. i left the administration before they made this proposal. i think you cannot simply keep putting down payments on things that do not work out. >> i see many hands. i am trying to keep them in order. >> just to get back to the issue of sanctions, if i were the adviser to the iranian government, i would see something like, a steady as you go. it is working pretty good. the sanctions have not heard

that much. -- kurt not much. the government -- the u.s. and redid the un sanctions are pressing the same group. i cannot allow imagine that sanctions are going to work. all right, in business you deal with a lot of probabilities and there must be a plan b and a plan seat. but i am always kind of surprised, we are talking about sanctions. i know you have to try. but when it becomes accepted, not obvious, that they are not going to work, something is going to happen. it has to. did i say that robb? >> that was pretty clear. this is an open forum. i think that one has to have faith that responsive --

responsible people are thinking about these things as well. we hope the sanctions work. we hope the sanctions create a sense of logic and reason in the rodney and leadership to bring them back to the table. -- the karate and leadership -- the iranian the leadership. we will prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. >> were you raising your hand way back there? >> i was not. i just got back -- i saw president's next week and a lot of this people. i was more optimistic that even with this are rumored package

that they will come to the table and the key is what happens when they get there. steve knows that i very much share his view of borders. the wild thing they did the convergences are possible. it was striking to me, all the jerusalem part of the trip, was the opposition that this idea was hitting because they feel that their cards are all territorial. they have to move forward on all issues. in theory, that is what we all watch. we all want progress on all issues. i am skeptical that they have conditions of societal landscape on jerusalem refugees. all of a sudden, borders and security is almost a dirty word of it there. i think it is a mistake. that is my personal view.

i do not think we can solve these issues in 90 days. i think you can make progress, but i think you are coming up with some of the more moderate elements against this approach. i think there is still some work to be done. >> thank you for your commitment to peace but they cannot the government. i was in cairo in 1995 negotiating the final details of the creation of the palestinian authority. that was to be able in that year temporary status. that was 15 years ago. we are in the same legal limbo where the palestinians do not have sovereignty, they do not have borders, they do not have access.

everybody thinks that we have about six months to negotiate, they grow progress on the two- state solution. because of our political process here. a conservative number of us have is that the conditions that are being sent by the israelis for the extension of the moratorium are going to be so great that the ultimate achievement of a two-state solution will be potentially nullified. it will be certainly severely diminished. three months is not a very long time to negotiate something as important as borders. if you have a border agreement that does not encompass jerusalem, it is a nonstarter. the best mechanism other than a negotiation for an independent

palestinian state is the u.n. part. the prime minister is working very diligently on it. that will be presented in to douse 11. if there is a u.s. veto threat and, that will severely undercut that option. you'll be led to a one-state solution, which i think the majority of the people in palestine today are leaning toward. particularly the yacht. they do not have much faith in the honest broker as some of the united states or americans are the ability of the israelis to give up land that they have been colonizing and occupying since 1967. all this is a way of asking if we do not get it done in three months, what? >> you have the wrong witness is up here.

i indicated my skepticism of this approach. but i do not really know the general -- the details. italy, the questions you raise are serious questions. -- in a way, the questions you raise are serious questions, but they have to go to the administration. it sounds like a dodge, but i think i share a lot of those concerns. there are questions that have to be put to the administration. >> do you think it would be useful if the demonstration said, it this approach does not go very far, at some point, we will have to recognize a palestinian state. >> these are hypothetical.

it is a hypothetical that may come our way. i think i will pass on that one. >> his formulation is i want to get to the point after two years with the only thing wrong with the palestinian state is occupation. he wants to cut -- >> maximum pressure to get these issues resolved. >> is a good strategy. >> we will see what happens. >> but we will leave open that option? >> i do not know. >> david? >> thank you. i think that is the least attractive way out of this problem. the negotiating outcome would everybody agreeing -- there is

much to be learned. sorry. >> [inaudible] i want to sell the cautionary notes a framework agreement and focus in on borders and security. first of all, i just do not see the palestinian -- the israelis be willing to endorse jerusalem as the capital. this government simply would not do that. if you set that aside and simply start to negotiate on borders, you run into the question of jerusalem. even if you carted out as something to be worked on later, then you get it immediately the question of settlement. we are right back where we are today. >> what i would like to do -- i am going to let a few people

make comments or ask questions and that 1:30, allow you to enter the ones you want and ignore the ones you want. >> what is president said to the united states, fine. i will come back to the table -- the palestinians want east jerusalem as their capital. we are giving the nod to netanyahu to go ahead and build your settlement in east jerusalem. i will go back to the table if the u.s. agrees to pay for dismantling every single settlement and to pay for relocating all the individuals who were sitting in the settlement illegally right now. >> thank you.

having three national security but this is with us, i would like to ask the question, since 1979, the u.s. has been very poor -- but we have not achieved very much. the big things were done by the parties themselves. the fact that everybody know what the final solution looks like, why is it so hard for a president -- what is the impediment for a president who really wanted to get this done? every american who understands something about israel knows that the support for israel runs the the blood of the body politics. it is not a jewish issue in the u.s.

the safety, security, the fulfillment of the zionist dream, will not be done until the israelis draw a line with the palestinians. it is only the palestinians that can legitimize the israeli state. why can we get this done? >> please see if there is anybody in our peanut gallery that did not get a seat at the table. >> final thoughts? >> general, do you mind giving us your final comments. >> the second question -- it is hard. it is hard because of the

history, because it is so important to everything that we do. to me, it is the one saying -- if youone sayithing -- could pick one saying that you could fix, i think it should be the middle east. that remains at the top of our work. how do you do it? governments change. our government change. the israeli government changed. there was a period of adjustment through most of 2009. we all know each other a little bit better now. we have face-to-face meetings and dialogue, the palestinians and the israelis.

i still remain optimistic that there is a way for this to happen. the reason i am optimistic is not because i think the two principal participants are going to somehow wake up and say, eureka, we've got it. it is because of the compassion with which the rest of the world watching this feel toward the necessity of getting this done not just for the two parties concerned. it touches on so many other global issues. it is hard. i think that the president and showed great courage in taking this on from day one. as opposed to waiting.

this gives him more time, obviously, if we got two more years to go of this term. there is time. it is not something that he is ducking away from. he is trying very hard and the whole team is trying hard to make sure that the right path is found. the pact is as comprehensive as possible. at the end of the day, i do not think you'll see president obama saying, this is too hard. i have too many other things to do. >> now you are out of government, if there were some way of cutting the 40 and negotiating letters about settlements, it is there some other approach, an international conference, what would you do that of government? >> there has been a lot of proposals. president sarkozy has tried to

put something together in barcelona following the nato summit. ultimately, the people around the world of this issue look to the united states. the europeans do, the arabs do. there may be a day when this president will have to confront the hard choices and make the decision that we might not get their using the tactics or the strategies that were ongoing. we may have to shift to something else. that is something that i cannot speculate on. i think he wants to give it as much time as he can, as much energy as he can, to see if there is a way to get the parties to do what needs to be done. there are other options.

>> like what? >> board direct involvement in terms of bringing the outside world -- more direct involvement in terms of birinyi outside world with proposals that have more if forcing function. instead of having them be the articulators, because it is such a global issue, there might come a time when you would have to look at other options. that is for the president to decide. >> when your invoice over their common -- the think she really wants to make a peace settlement? >> i was very impressed with the foreign minister when she was in office spread qaeda secretary rice and steve and their team

worked very well with her. my discussions with her since then, i think she is committed to finding the path to the to- state solution. >> diaz think that netanyahu is committed to that? >> i think so. he represented that to the president of the united states. >> it is local politics and. they make an impact on people. what is going to be required is before the president and the prime minister to rise above politics and do what is right for the region and for other people. both will benefit from the spread i think both understand

this. both are struggling to find the right path. the president of the united states, leaders of europe, leaders of the arab world, are also willing to try to push these to toward doing the right thing. there will come a time where they will have to come to their own conclusions as to whether this will happen or not. for now, i think we should let it play out. >> it is ironic that is the creation of a palestinian state that can legitimate israeli state. we should be saying that over and over again. israel is a democracy. the palestinians are building a democracy. they have to be willing to have a deal that they can sell to their people. that is a difficult thing. when you do a negotiation,

sometimes you start with the hardest issue. sometimes you start with the easiest issue to build some progress. david, that is why under a framework agreement, if we have to get a green light of the jerusalem issue up front, we are going nowhere. agreeing to pull down settlements and pay to relocate sellers, we're going to be did not big time, i am sure. that is currently in everybody's future. i've tried to be very positive in my statements about president of lots -- and what they're doing in the west bank. we have to recognize that there is a question out there. you talk a lot about questions about netanyahu. there is a question about whether any palestinian leader to accept any concessions short of what under% of their

declared position. a lot was offered by president clinton. i think it is a question that is out there. it will have to be decided. lastly, it may be that -- i would have some smart people think about this. maybe the formality and the bright lights is itself the problem. it is just too hard to do an informal negotiations. for the parties agree on a coordinated parallel steps. sitting down with the great formal peace negotiations may be too harsh. we may need to really start thinking out of the box if we cannot make progress. >> thank you very much.

[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] i >> this weekend, with polling data from a arab countries, he questions muslims about stereotypes, 9/11, and the war on terror. he discusses his findings. part of our extended holiday

weekend of nonfiction books and authors. starting thursday on c-span2. >> in a few moments, a discussion on the role of journalism. in a little more than an hour, the white house briefing with robert gibbs. he was asked about new airport security screening procedures. after that, the american enterprise institute forum on the future of the health care law. later, we will be there the discussion on u.s. security interests in the middle east. >> on "washington journal, we will talk with one of the group of republican economist. our guests include the u.s. the ambassador in nato. a look at the cost of higher education with richard vedder,

the director of the center for college affordability and productivity. "washington journal" is like every day at 7:00. >> we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non- fiction books, and american history. it is all available on television, radio, online, and on social media networking site trade fight dark -- under constant anytime at the c-span video library. bring in our resources to your committee. is washington, your way. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> it forum on the role of journalism in covering politics. the bipartisan policy center hosted this event at tulane university in new orleans. it is a little over an hour.

>> there is such a person up there that is not heavily involved in still trying to catch their breath from the recent events. they're all here for free. thank you all for doing this. [applause] this pedal on journalism -- this panel and journalism, if you want to see bipartisanship, talk to any democrat or republican about their views of the press. how much this campaign compared to previous ones. we kept talking about 1994. media today is really a completely different from the

media environment in 1994. the media is a player. that is why we can all have our views about them. we cannot do this -- we cannot have democracy without the media. for those of us, as we travel around the world, and work with the emerging democracies, talk to young people. why did they want to do? they want to be a journalist. if they want to tell the truth. they want to get the truth out there. for those of you have kids, it is incredible profession ended is one that is under a lot of transition. everyone here has lived through that transition. the title of this panel is is a journalism or entertainment?

david is the washington editor. he is on television and he writes all the time. he is an institution in washington. we used to start on the "cross fire." he asked me one time after the show, i do not consider that a term of endearment. stop using that. we always had a civil conversation and it cannot happen -- and it can happen. bad blood point, we're just going to place ourselves out with some of the rhetoric. now is the time, david is going to introduce all of these fabulous panelist. thank you for coming. [applause]

>> let me do very quick introductions. we will go right to the discussion and get to questions. i will start with dan carlitz -- bartlett. he was very instrumental in george w. bush winning the white house. in 2004, at least and somewhat in 2000. >> here we go. >> now you deals of public strategies in washington. next to his betsy fisher, the executive producer of the number-one rated sunday morning show, "meet the press."

it is the longest-running television program in the history of the world. she has not been there all that time. jill a la carte was press secretary for bill clinton. -- joel block party -- joe lockhart was the press secretary for bill clinton. next to have it is martha, immediate -- a media producer who has worked for president george w. bush and senator john mccain, let's armstrong, and bono. next to him is kiki. she is been a senior adviser to hillary clinton. she worked on the ad, -- she worked on the obama campaign.

right next to me is jonathon martin. it is an honor when you are known by a nickname. he is the senior political writer for "political." -- "politico." going to talk about glory . is the entertainment? is it journalism? let me start by sending out a few premises. when i think of the media, it is a tough term to use. it covers a lot of things that are not the same. it is convenient at least. there are three sort of views about the media.

one is the platonic ideal, to inform the citizenry's of the week and have good public debate. that is the ideal. then we have the corporate view. the media are for-profit pop -- corporations that have to make money. what did you have to justify the bottom line. for the political class, the media that is really something to use. it is a vehicle. it is not their job to make the media to do a good job. it is their job to use the media to advance their addendum. it could be promoting a presidential policy. all those things are happening at once and people come at it from different spectrums. i do not think we have to go

into detail about the ever changing media landscape. let me start with betsy. the freight of the discussion is journalism or entertainment. my friend told me that he was at this: couple of years ago. brian williams was talking about katrina. harry asked a question about why the networks were not covering more, what went wrong with the engineering of the levees and in new orleans during the flooding. bryan said, it is the emotional stories that are the most compelling. to its credit, he then had harry on the next day to talk about that issue. the notion that it is the emotional stories the most compelling. you have a particular niche ko'd

"meet the press." is that a fair way of looking -- afraid to get? >> the emotions that went into our coverage of that, the people pleading, crying for help. that was the emotional story. that was the first week or two of the story. then i think, as time goes on, people do more investigating. at that point, the emotions of the story is actually what generated the huge outcry across america. if you did not to those people on television crying for help, the next job would not happen. that was an important starting point. >> do you think there is a default position in the media to go with a personal, the dramatic narrative? maybe will get to some of the

tougher issues. >> in order to draw people into the story, you always have to start with ed meredith and let people know why they are connecting to a certain issue. -- start with that narrative. you start the story with relating to something and you go from there. >> mark, as a person who does the media and you try to use the media, the care about whether it does a good job -- and do you care about whether it does a good job? do you care about whether the media gets this correct? as a person is sees its as -- isn't an important vehicle for you guys these days? >> absolutely. there are a lot of people that

look at the transformation of the media and it has to be an either or proposition. there is been a decline in the network news. now with a proliferation of cable news, that you can forget about that and just focus on the news social media. i did not believe in that. our approach has always been all of the above. you still have to focus on traditional media. when you are talking about a crisis, the network news will still shape the narrative and it will still have the reach and the context to provide the most amount of americans during a crisis. it was very important to us -- we knew that a lot of the motion

was going to be put on the forefront. we are always banon those guys, focus on this, focus on that. there is an evolutionary process. it starts without raw emotion. you kind of start saying, what went wrong? that is where the dissection takes place. >> there is a lot of criticism that the media goes for titillation. if you are on a presidential campaign, is and it's your job to manipulate the media as much as you can to advanced what you are working for? >> look, obviously, in a campaign, the more you control the narrative of your candidate, the more successful you will be. the reason why we spend billions

of dollars on political advertising is a direct recognition that you cannot control the media or free journalism. having said that, having a strategy to recognize that reality, understanding the tendencies of journalism, there are some things that you can do to help try to shape the news. you do it by who you give guests to. these are all things in our little effort to spear the beast in one way or another. a summons, you are successful. -- some weeks, you are successful. the very recognition it of paid advertising demonstrates that we recognize that there are limitations on how much you can manipulate or control them.

>> was there ever sort of a conversation in which someone said, we need to have a good public debate on dass. -- on this. >> then we have a real meeting. [laughter] just to pick up on something that he said, what the media is doing now, i'd buy into your second argument, the corporate argument. there is such competition to keep readers. the traditional mainstream media is losing the fight to a host of other things. let is missing is while everybody is sitting there, we have got to get people to watch us, is the basic element of, we have to inform people on what

is really happening. it has become just what you think they want. there is nothing that is coming underneath it yet to give you that broader textured reasoned analysis of what really happened. it is not good business right now. there may be, as we move forward, with the wonder of the internet and the digital revolution, something that will emerge. but it is not there right now. that is why you see some of the debates that you see on cable tv better not really about what the public interest is. >> jonathon, to some people, but it is the next great big thing. to others, it is everything that is wrong on internet journalism. it is all about getting --

squeezing out competitors and make money for its backers. it does do a lot of analysis and it does cover a lot of legislative details. those stories do not seem to be the ones that get tweeted. diaz take it represents a step forward, a step to decide, or just something else in terms of modern journalism? >> we do not control what the readers are interested in. we write it and putting out there. obviously, it is up to the reader to decide what he is going to put on facebook. that is their decision. we have a lot of people who are very serious about politics and policy. to say that a person like david is somehow frivolous is not

fair. i've spent lots of this year on the road. i hit 15 states to cover the midterms. i think it is not a fair critique. i will say that there is no question that we are guilty of -- you have to guard against that. but it is in some ways inevitable. you look at to the most covered senate candidate was. it was a person who lost the race by 17 points. that should not happen. that is a problem for us.

we have to try to examine that and figure out what we do about it. i am concerned about all these incentives are built in toward rewarding behavior that is more flamboyant. joe wilson, south carolina congressman, what happened to him after he said that? politicians love publicity and the blood money for their campaigns. -- and they want money for their campaigns. he was a congressman that nobody in this room would have heard of. he was on national television four days. he raised millions for his campaign. if you are joe wilson, and you look back on that, was that a mistake?

i do not know. that is what i am concerned about. we reward that kind of behavior and -- >> with the explosion of media and the expansion of media, there are fewer gatekeepers and there is always somebody out there that if you do something provocative, they will transmit the message. in decades past, people would say, a small number of people had control of someone's access to large number of view. if you offended them or did not play by the rules, you did not get access. nowadays, through proliferation of media, people can break through very easily. sarah au pair lead, it is a table or journalism? table or journalism?