to make this a big issue. i am wondering, given the president's aggressive statements and policy preferences on this issue, is there any risk that democrats, if they engage in this kind of activity, whether it be an anonymous or not his big money, outside group advertising into doesn't 12, if there is a risk of them sort of looking hypocritical. as a preface, i will ask you how much out and affect president obama's stated policy preferences on this had? >> two parts to that question. on was started in 1998. we opened a voter fund for the 2004 election. i am only going into this

because -- this is one of the most twisted facts. at that time we took large donations. there were not anonymous. there was a large donation by george soro in 2003, never used the c4 for electoral purposes. we experimented with a large the nation. we figured it not work for us, that our strength came from our members' direct ownership of our campaigns. that was our model and what provided strength, not only during the election, but in the legislative side to make differences in our policy in our country. that is one. the second question, you have --

tednow the president's sta policy had a lot of influence in 2008. i think to the extent it had an impact it is because democrats and moveon, we believe in the principle that the baucus i should not be at sail for the highest bidder. -- that democracy should not be for sale at the highest bidder. let's give every american a chance to have an equal voice. we lined up right behind him. we think that is the best way to govern our country. now, a unilateral disarmament meant this time we lost the house. you cannot actually govern your country if you are going to not have the representation in there. there is this dynamic tension. that was the last part of your question. >> like the penn central -- like

a potential -- >> we call our members pragmatic progresses. the american people are sophisticated enough to recognize we have to fight on a couple different fronts. it is no good to hold the principle that every american should have an equal voice if you are not on to ever have any chance of that implementing that through any of the three branches of government. that is why i'm sure this man over here -- we will see a lot of things thrown at the wall. i think to the extent we are supporting candidates whose stated preference is to level the playing field for every voter have a say, will make strides. it is an ongoing struggle. >> you still actually have this 501-c4, would moveon consider

moving its activity tech groups -- two groups that >> we had a c4. i do not think we will consider shifting our electoral work there. there is other stuff that we have done to corporate advocacy. we will not shift our electoral work there. it is both a principled and pragmatic take. we work best when members have ownership of our work. >> i would like and to the response -- >> i am a longtime member. there is this issue about giving. at least talk about on the left -- continued this discourse, until we can get money out of

the election, we have to understand that money will serve a purpose to giving your choice out, whether on issues for a candidate. we want to level the playing field. what you saw in 2010 is a representation of corporate interests have decided as part of their business model is to give to conservative institutions and vehicles that they can funnel money in. it is good for business to elect conservatives. you can see that tax debate on on currently. tax cuts from the wealthy, and expansion of the estate tax as opposed to not employment -- -- unemployment insurance to needy families. you will see that elections are

-- can i do the next time to improve upon what is the next new thing. i think you will see an attention and debate about interest in terms of a more progressive side going into institutions. for one thing, i think that those with the pot a corporate level and large individual donors have to get to a mind-set of giving because you're giving for a cause or a good thing. i am giving because there is a voice that is under represented it out there, and i need and my people like me to be engaged in that this course. privately, to be engaged in the discourse is funding institutions that will help amplify members like moveon or other labor organizations. >> other questions? seiu spanch did deiu

in 2010, and is it important to you that people realize that these contributions are voluntary, because right now it seems like you are looking in that narrative? >> 2010, we are still trying to gather that, because two things -- we both do things on a national level and we have locals and states who actually engage in political discourse, but on the state level. we're still getting some of that information back, but we spent upwards of $40 million in this election, nowhere getting close. aggravated all the labor committee and is on the progressive side, did not compare to what was flowing into these new forms 501-c4

organizations. in terms of looking out, i think i said some of the things as our goal, one of them were to give our members more engagement. part of that is raising funds among our members to speak in the electoral this course. we saw an increase in this election cycle of our members been engaged. we have a strong political program and a member program, talking to members why it is important to get engaged in elections, both from your feet and your voice, but with your pocketbook, and it is extremely important for us to get that message out there. these are voluntary contributions. if you look back in october, there was a series of letters to the editor from our former

national political director that spoke to this issue, try to clear up distortions about union contributions and what money we spend. we spend money engaging to different conversations, conversations with our members, member to member, internally, and spend money speaking to the general public. the money we use speaking to the general public is money that our members voluntarily give every year. in a state like michigan, we have to go back to those members every single year and ask them again to sign off that we can use it to your money to speak to the general public. i feel good about where are you positions in terms of resources. the fight -- arts and i talked about with this congress and

that current republican congress, the public and a vehement anti-union sentiment, and you will see republicans going after making public employees the bogyman, and the reasons why we have these deficits, not to -- by giving tax cuts, to a millionaire, and not the janitor who is making $5.25 an hour who is trying to feed his family. >> if he could expand a little bit on can cost question in regards to whether it is for the last host: host: -- for more money to come in. giving money because it is good for business. the president has said the private sector is the main engine for the job growth.

>> it is a business model. for them they have made it a decision to do that. the money they spend, their shareholders have an idea how they spend their money. interesting how the right likes to point -- try to indication that -- tried to indicate that members support progresses and progressive policies. you will have people out there, but -- for an individual to give money from our union, particularly congressional hour, governor, senate, it has to be endorsed by the local unions within that state. you have five local unions in that state. we have an endorsing process. hui will target and support.

-- who we will target and support. we can take the moral high ground and turn the other cheek, but it is only so many times that that she is going to get slapped. the battle of issues and ideas, you cannot go into it with your arm tied behind your back. it is a question that -- because the labor movement cannot continue to bankroll the entire progressive side of the political discourse. it is very difficult, an sec what trends are -- and as you see what trends are happening in terms of union households shootings, it will be harder to do. the amount we have time for one final question. >> playing their prerogative. i have to note that two of the ads we saw here presented by our

panelists were ads that we criticized as being false or misleading. the moveon organization saying money from foreign corporations was financing chambers of congress. the chamber says that is not true. there is no evidence that the chamber of uses for dues money to finance this adds. they say they do not. they say they have plenty of money from domestic corporations, which now is legal to finance that sort of thing. the service employees at, accusing plants lincoln of voting against -- of blanche lincoln voting against. we found she cast a key vote for that. i will go to a question from one of our subscribers. i will tone down her language. she says, it doesn't bother your conscience is at all or do you

believe that the end justifies the means, and is win, win, win the only anend? >> we stand by that ad. every television station, given what we were spending. to this specific, the chamber of congress was to take -- the chamber of commerce was taking money from a general fund. the greater point being made that we thought resonated across the national discourse was that when you have got multi-national corporations whose interests transcended that of the american voter, who have far more money than the american voter, playing in his races, is it fair to point that out so that the voter

can discern for himself or herself whether in that candidate being backed by that money will hold their interest at heart? absolutely. not only does my conscious not bother me, i feel an moral imperative. an informed electorate where every voyager has an equal voice -- where every voter has an equal voice is a stronger democracy. >> think we can go back and look at her procedural votes and it will be used for our characterization of her votes that she did make floats that actually were wrong on that issue and we pointed that out. we did several adds, pointing out where we sell it. blanche lincoln was out of step with the graft works with progresses. -- blanche lincoln was out of

step with progressives and her constituency. you know where we got our money from, where we spent our money. we did not see that in terms of the chamber of commerce. i'm glad you brought it up because i know politico is here. i want to make it clear that seiu does not believe it is wrong to go into that election. we felt like we possibly were the wrong messenger. the message was right. her years in the senate, she was continuing to not support progressives. whether on wall street, health care insurance companies, on a host of issues, and all democrats, all progressives are not alike, and going forward our

organization will continue to support those progresses and those candidates, pro-worker issues, families, and not support those ones who do not. >> please join me in thanking this panel. we're right to take a short 10- minute break to set up for the republican and conservative panel, so we will have a response to some of the things that were said earlier. we will be back around 11:00. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> we go live now to the white house where we expect to hear remarks from president obama, who will be talking about tax cut legislation. the negotiation between the president and congressional republicans has a number of extra measures attached to it. the bill includes ethanol

subsidies, tax breaks for people who use public transportation, and grants for wind and solar energy. as the associated press reports, the measures are aimed at winning votes from democrats. the focus of the bill extends the bush-era tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 and his son to treat for nearly all americans and will continue to fund long- term and implement benefits. you're watching live coverage here on c-span.

for marks bying president obama on the tax-cut legislation, and the vote going on on the floor of the u.s. senate. it has passed, which means it will go on for further consideration and debate, but the vote is being held open on the senate floor to allow senators extra time to get back to washington because of bad weather that is making it difficult for senators from the midwest to get back to washington. there will be required amount of

debate, and then it will go back to that house, where steny hoyer says the house will follow the sun at's lead on that tax cut deal. he also said that any democrats who are unhappy with the deal will have a chance to amend it. we're just waiting for the president to make some remarks about that vote, currently on the senate floor, here on c- span.

>> is this the two minute warning?

>> we are here waiting at the white house the remarks by president obama. he will be speaking about the tax cuts currently under consideration on the floor of the house. -- on the floor of the senate. they are holding that flowed open on the senate floor to allow senators extra time to get back to washington for this but because of bad weather that is making travel the vote in the midwest states. the bill is moving forward in the senate. it'll be up for court amount of debate before heading back to the house for a final vote. steny hoyer says the house will follow the senate's's lead on this tax cut a deal, but says any democrats who are unhappy with the bill will have a chance to amend it. you're watching live coverage

here on c-span. >> hello, everybody. i am pleased to announce at this hour the united states senate is moving forward on a package of tax cuts that has strong bipartisan support. this proves that both parties can in fact worked together to grow our economy and look out for the american people. once the senate completes action on this bill, it will move over to the house of representatives for consideration. i have been talking with several members of that body. i recognize that folks on both sides of the political spectrum

are unhappy with certain parts of the package, and i've understand those concerns. i share some of them. but that is the nature of compromise -- sacrificing something that each of us cares about to move forward on what matters to all of us. right now that is growing the economy and creating jobs, and nearly every economist agrees that that is what this package will do. taken as a whole, the bill that the senate will allow to proceed does good things for the americas's economy and for the american people. first and foremost, it is a substantial victory for middle- class families across the country who would no longer have to worry about the massive tax hike, january 1. it would give hope to millions of americans by making sure they will not find themselves out in the cold without the unemployment insurance benefits that they were counting on. it would offer real tax relief

for americans who are paying for college, parent raising their children, and business owners looking to invest in their businesses and propel our economy forward. so i urge the house of representatives to act quickly on this important matter. if there's one thing can be -- we can agree on, it is the urgent work of protecting middle-class families, removing uncertainties for america's businesses, and getting our economy a boost as we head into the new year. thanks very much, everybody. >> that was president obama making the remarks on the senate moving the tax cuts bill forward, and that vote is still open as the senate which for members from states with bad weather to arrive for the vote, and from here the senate will start debate of the measure.

it -- is passed, the house will take up the bill before moving it forward for the president's signature. tonight ftc commissioner on recommendations on how to handle online privacy and do not track technology. 8:00 eastern, on c-span2. >> elena kagan says she is facing a steep learning curve as she is drafting her first opinions and trying to acclimate to life as a judge. since joining the court, she spoke about what it is like about being the newest justice. here is a look. >> as of our taking, have you been assigned an opinion? >> i have. we have had two sittings, and i will not be very specific than

this, but every justice gets at least one opinion from each sitting, so that general practice has been followed. >> this is a part of your job that is new. how are you approaching the art of persuasion in opinion writing? >> i would like my opinions to be as clear as possible. i would like people to pick them up and understand them. i would like them to be as thoughtful as possible. i would like to write the kind of opinions which address the competing arguments, do not try to sweep competing arguments under the rug, but tried to address them fairly and forthrightly. i guess i would just -- i am trying hard to write opinions that i think our thoughtful and complete and as well reasoned as

i can make them. >> can you talk about your application process and what the first couple of months has been like? it has been like drinking out of a fire hose. always something new and different. a lot of nerve. the learning curve is extremely steep. sometimes it seems vertical. people here have been so extraordinarily helpful, all my colleagues have a wonderful and warm and gracious. i think the experiences i have brought to the job will help me a good deal. you get to see the court and everything it does from a different point of view, the point of view of the advocate rather than the judge. hooker i am familiar with procedures of the court. -- i am familiar with procedures

of the court. i am familiar with my colleagues, the way the ask questions, the kinds of things they're interested in. it has been a whirlwind. it is new and exciting things all the time. >> explained the process, because as solicitor general you are having to recuse yourself. how does it work when there are cases under consideration that you have for creigh is yourself from? >> on the cases that i were cruised myself, where there is any discussion that will last other than that moment, i actually get up and walk out, and they just let me know when i should come back. that is consistent with the general practices. if somebody is recused from a case and there's somebody -- some discussion, that person will not be there. >> well the art of refusal to mission? >> yes.

most of the issues by the middle of next year will be gone. there will be an occasional case even after this year, but in the spring, -- but it has definitely subsided. >> a portion of her first television interview since she joined the highest court. you can see this on sunday here on c-span. just in time for the holiday season, the supreme court is being offered directly from our publisher at a very special price. just $5 plus shipping and handling. as a discount of more than 75%. this handsome hardcover edition is the first book to tell the story of the supreme court through the eyes of the justices themselves.

the supreme court gives readers a personal and compelling few of the modern court, rich with history and tradition, with photographs detailing the architecture and history of the landmark building. a handsome addition to the bookshelf of any non-fiction real the reader -- reader. the order, go to see standout board -- cspan.org/books. >> our coverage of this discussion on camping discussion -- of campaign spending continues now with the republican perspective. from the national press club, this is an hour and 10 minutes.

>> thank you. we will be hearing from carl forti political director of american crossroads, which in combination with crossroads gps, as recorded, a $39 million of outside spending in the 2010 elections, making it the largest outside spending group by that measure. carl will tell us how far off that is and how much more was spent than was reported. carl? >> thank you. thank you for having me, and i will give you an overview of what american crossroads did this cycle. this was something new for those republicans on the outside, and

i want to thank the democrats on the panelists -- on the panel before us. we followed their model in 2006 and 2008. we are trying. hopefully one day we will succeed in getting close. american crossroads -- our goal is to elect gop candidate is the federal office. i think we did a fairly successful job this cycle. our sister group is a 501- c4. it does not disclose donors. its primary purpose is to engage the issues and promote the bay. we were able to conduct limited direct advocacy in certain campaigns around the country. we raise and spend over $70 million. we had a goal of $50 million

early on and were able to exceed that. those from large donors and a large number of small donors, which was unforeseen. i think we were very successful and what we were able to accomplish. where were we active in about 11 senate races across the country. as you can see in the map, from nevada, missouri, kentucky, florida, we were there. that is part of our initial mission, to engage these races early to make sure we had an impact that the candidates were able to benefit from net impact, and we are trying to engage at a time when others may not be able to. nevada, for example, we were out there to days before the republican primary, when harry

reid was pounding her. same in colorado and around the country. in house races, we were involved in over 20 house races throughout the country, and our call in terms of the coordination with other outside groups was to expand the playing field. that was our sole goal. with the other kerbstone, all available through a competitive information that stations provide, we were able to go other places. we have never seen a cycle like this where we were tracking 120 different house races as we saw less competitive. we could not have a man shouldn't that the field would ever be that -- we could not have imagined that the field would ever be that big. we did paid phones and mail in the nine states to see here. we did microbe targeting on the

voter file. we look at who was likely to support our issues, who was likely to turn out to vote for republican candidates, and those were the folks we targeted. in addition to do in the paid mail and phone, we did door-to- door in washington, cholera, and nevada, and experiment -- washington, colorado, and nevada. and we experimented in texting. very successful, i might add. this is what i wanted to focus add-on in terms of what the groups were able to accomplish, and that was the coordination. never before have the number of outside groups of the republican side coordinated to the six that. as you can see in the bottom left, 14 days out, outside groups were in 14 -- were in 55 different house groups, and combined with worth another group was, that was 80 districts

where we had somebody on tv with no overlap. that is amazing. that was by far the untold story -- not on told, but that is the highlight of what came out of this cycle, the coordination, and whether it was the mention -- whether it was the american action, 50-plus, where it set aside all interests in accounting for themselves and the goal was -- and that is what we did. we accomplished the goal to spend in places where they did not want to. the fact that they are talking about succeeding in arizona 7 and winning that race, it should never have been on the table. california 20. in september that told it was going to be a rough cycle for democrats. this had to do with the angry

electorate. we took advantage of the angry electorate and made things possible. people cannot get angry because they saw our tv ads. the anger has been growing for two years. peter will -- people were unhappy. we fit into that unhappiness. it was something we were able to generate. i wish we had that kind of luck. what did we learn? we learned it is a good model, that it worked for us the cycle, and hopefully we can do it as well as the democrats did in 2006, and will continue to try to accomplish that goal. we also learned we are not the party committee or a campaign. there is an impact we can have out in the field is limited to. going door to door and organized that when you cannot coordinate with us don't -- with the state party is hard.

in the end, the candidates matter. and it is in arizona -- nevada, colorado, candidates matter, and it does not matter whether i spend $100 million on a particular race, if there is a bad candidate, voters will know that. voters are a lot smarter than what people give them credit for. that is one of the lessons we learned. what is our future? our future from crossroads gps is to continue to engage in the issues debate. we have made no secret of that fact and you will hear from us on that. from american crusher, which will try to shape the playing field for 2012. that is our goal. redistricting will have a big impact on that, and what happens legislatively. we will try to be flexible enough to take advantage of that. that is american crossroads and

crossroads gps. thank you. >> thank you. our next presenter, brad todd, as founder of on message. he is an adviser to the national republican congressional committee. brad? >> i appreciate you having us here today, and i am going to focus on the changing role of party committees and independent expenditure campaigns, but i still want to add thing. if you are unhappy about citizens united, you need to get rid of -- one shackles the other one. if you are upset with how it

changed campaigns, the only possibility is to engage candidate. all the focus on the house side this year. independent spending was a big factor on the house side this year. part of that is due to the fact that the campaigns are not large enough to make their own weather. many senate campaigns all are. budgets are smaller, so outside groups that play a bigger role. quickly we think the job and changing drop of party ie's to drag out the spotlights, show third-party groups this is where the races are, this is the race that matters, this is the agenda that we can win with. in keeping with that, we should take a minute and look at the scoreboard, what happened in money. i want to puncture this myth, this morning from our friends on the left, there was this avalanche of republican money.

republicans had so much money. we were so underfunded. the democrats had plenty of money this year. it had $62 million. republicans had $43 million. major ie groups, and major issue groups come on the house side only here, there was a republican advantage, but you look at candidate spending, democrats had $60 million more than republican candidate in the top 92 races. ie served to level the playing field this year and give campaigns a chance to get the message out. committee spending this year returned to a more normal the level. republicans were at a 43% disadvantage. that is a big change from the last cycle in 2008 when democrats had and the advantage over republicans, and that is why democrat friends are so

exercised this year because they did not have a advantage as they did in 2008. they think it is a a fair fight when they are 200% ahead of us. house money board -- showing each category, and i am sure brooks will help us with these numbers. there are estimates in rounding the way the data is reported. you can see basically republicans had a $60 million advantage on the independent side. democrats had a $60 million, so that gives -- i am sorry, democrats had a $60 million advantage on the candidate side. i will call your attention to the circled area. major democratic i.t. groups, $50 million off this year. issue groups, $18 million off. what happened this year was democrat donors to third-party

groups did not step up in the way they did in 2008. yes, republican donors to increase their activity. democrat donors, despite obama out of the country hard left, did not respond, and that is the unwritten story that needs to be focused on. there was an $85 million cap on the left. it is not just how you spend, it is when you spend it. we believe september is the new october. dscc spent its budget before october 1. it worked. i was involved in north carolina and watched as democrats caught up, pass them and put away elizabeth dole before october 1. that was an operating principle for us this year and four other curbs as well. -- and for others as well.

if your head or even, you were going to win in september. the democrats who were ahead, in 28 other races, the one about half of them. all the other ones, we were ahead by october 1, we won. most democrat money was spent after october 1. they simply waited until today when their campaigns were already behind. case study for this, florida second district. rcc vested $20,000 in the tallahassee market. our candidate got ahead by six points in early october, and you get an incumbent democrat down with a three in october he will not win. dcc outspend us in the last two weeks and the knot wind. if you build it, they will come.

the reason we did it, you can look at the june 30 category, the top 75 house for a kiss, the republican candidate was at a cash disparity of $600,000. we had to get our candidate in the game. that is why there was so much republican activity in the summer. by september 30, that that had dropped. in the first two weeks of october, the republican challengers out raised the democratic incumbent sen. think about that. two weeks in october, longtime s arean incumbrancant getting outraised. we had to do a lot of our damage in third quarter rates. anybody watching tv now, the fourth quarter is the most competitive quarter in advertising circles. we spent -- we saved up to 50%

by spending in september. we got to set the agenda. without the voting percentage of each democratic candidate, how much they voted with nancy pelosi, all through september. as was thought about expanding the field, democrats canceled ads in districts, moving to districts they did not want to be in, paying rates they did not want to pay. early, we look for cheap markets, waco, texas, springfield, missouri, wisconsin, those are the places we targeted were a little money could go a long way. surprising, places democrats gave us for little or no money. nine seats on the board for democrats to be dccc spent 0 dollars on advertising.

we would have broken the bank to say these seats. democrats let us get them for nearly nothing. we actually spent nothing on the air because democrats did not put any pressure on our resources early. our original bosnia -- but it had $7 million allocated, and we spent less than half. democrats did not make us do anything we did not want to do. the transition to what we spent, a summary of our messaging. if i could put it into words, i would say lost independence was the key phrase for how we conducted house campaigns. we did not have to convince voters that these were bad guys. we had to convince them that they had changed. since nancy pelosi took over they were not as independent as they once were. in the house side, we were running in a lot of red

districts. they have tough races before. i will give you a good example of one of this adds. >> for years, spratt was listening to south carolina. the race for stimulus bills, and the health care bill, yes, yes, every time. john spratt -- he is not our candidate any more. he is working for her. >> that is one key thing we had. voters were agitated over the things we were saying in our ads. we try to make our campaign war watchable. we did not any personal slurs. we tried to stay away from

character hits. that was a big mistake that democrats may this year. their campaign was a he is a bad man, he is an unethical business man, he he see. i think we benefited from it. >> when pelosi pushed the energy tax, perioello toed the line. government got bigger, taxes went higher. he is making it worse. >> one of the reasons the democrats made mistake is they learned the wrong lessons from pennsylvania 12. the may election was a watershed moment because they thought it meant they were ripe hold the majority. it was a moment the next day

where they drew all the wrong conclusions. they concluded we can change a race late if we throw in advertising in the last two weeks, and the way to win is making republicans and ethel. the lesson they missed was that he went on the tv and said that he would be a check and balance on his own party. >> in washington, no party has absolute power. government takeover of health care. he voted for it all. too far, too fast and the absolute wrong direction. put the brakes on pelois. schauer. >> we're also here with a

generic ballot question. in the 75 races we were tracking, the generic ballot was pluss 11 votes. when you add in one more component, the advantage goes to 20%. the same survey, the you favor a republican candidate who will be a check and balance on obama, 20% advantage. this is a polling from eight district race in missouri, we asked that check and balance question. do you want someone who will support the president's

policies? ike skelton is independent. he is not independent because of cap and trade. if you were a voter who said, we need checks and balances on obama but i think ike skelton was independent, it was 17%, that was the target. everything we did was based on what the 17% thought. the check and balance argument was it. the only argument was i am independent and i will be a check and balance of my party. that is only -- the only way they won this year. the conclusion in the last slide. what could have been done differently? when does this election change? when did republicans win the majority? it was not because republicans had so much more money. it is offensive to hear that

because it says the voters were duped. the voters knew what they were doing this year. it was not advertising. they were angry before the ads started and they did something about it. three days did not matter. october 1 when the democrats let us expand the playing field, an important day. we feared in september, they would open up new friends. october 1, we knew the opposite would happen. maine that -- may 19, they mentioned that. leslee, march 21. the health-care bill passed. while the stimulus bill made a lot of appearances in the hands, let's not be mistaken. the voters give up on that democrats the day they passed a health care bill. we asked this question, what is your hesitation about voting for candidate blank.

they said healthcare was up there. every single one of them, they did not listen. we told them not to pass it and we cannot get these guys under control. that is -- when the race was over, it finished off october 1. >> i will make sure you hear the ads. our next speaker.

welcome and thank you for having me today. these forms are important and i will stick to the topic closely. discuss the thinking behind the ad and the results. i will make one comment. it collaborates with the program panel. this year, we did catch lightning in a bottle on the right side. i would say it was following the road map laid out before us. for all of us, adventure on left side was kind of impact will and showed us what is possible. we are glad we were part of an effort to catch up and balance the plainfield on our side. i worked in the american

national -- action network. we are trying to impact policy and policy makers. we have a number of goals and objectives. policy development. they are building the policy and we're working with them to develop -- and to find avenues where we can take your principles and apply the challenges but make it relevant. not only to people who support us. those critical independent swing voters. we build on that with education. advocacy, which we will talk about. we do a host of other things. the topic is advocacy. -- we will stick to that as we move forward. we do want to highlight.

we have policy and messaging. something weird looking forward to. january 13 and 14, we're having a national hispanic policy forum, cochaired by jenna bush and carlos gutierrez -- jeb bush and carlos gutierrez. we levi and technology to communicate and educate people. i will talk about our methods. how we got to the ads you will see. we look at polling. we wanted to find out where the landscape was. some of this was polling. just to identify the key issues. one surprise i found is how vibrant the health-care issue remains months after the vote. if you ask me in june, i would

have said health care would be in the rearview mirror. a symptom, not a problem. health care stayed at the forefront of the american people's decisionmaking. we went through the house and senate identification. we identified candidates and areas where it is a strong center-right issue. we conducted research as an in depth boad analysis and tried to match of local issues with the national issue. we did a deep dive into statewide polling. some of you may remember our sister organization did three rounds of polling. temple's each in the east coast and the middle of the nation. those polls were helpful in identifying races where we thought there was an opportunity but also it showed us a couple of things. we will get that in a second.

health care, jobs, and government spending. we are critical. the spending issue which was regionally powerful. that was the issue. in washington state, it was not the issue. it was not as big an issue as in wisconsin which is what all those races turned on, size of government growth and spending. we move into a creative concept of development. we produced the ads and stuff that we tried to frame of issues and -- in a creative way. we did something i was new to. one of the most impact will things. we went to the suburbs of akron ohio, pittsburgh and we showed our ad in draft form and got results.

what was interesting to me, i broken into summer advocacy. in the fall, people did not want concept at a spread they did not want big picture adds. they wanted to know what did my representative vote for. there were two flavors of the ads and they go from the concept into a focused critique of their voting record. after that, we talked to our friends and make sure we knew where they were going. there was no overlap and excellent communication. we understood what everyone else was doing. we go into the advocacy phase. we did a number of other things including using internet, a grass roots, phones, all kinds of messages to motivate folks.

i will show you for your ads. this is designed to break through when people are not necessarily thinking about elections. what are we talking about here? they are on the creative side. they are grabbing your attention. we started out on the positive ads. we're talking about a loss -- a local businessman. patty murray came to congress as a mom in tennis shoes. this was a popular ad. it is an ad where we talk about

cap and trade. voters did not know what it was. in west virginia, they knew what it was. in the summer in the middle of a hot time in d.c., my friends in new hampshire said late summer is when they buy the heating oil so this was powerful and resonated with folks. i will run through these real quick. takes me to pennsylvania. two congressmen know how hard we work. they understand where businesses need.

they stand up for responsibility. they keep a sharp eye and watching spending and take -- keep taxes down. thank you for setting up for fiscal responsibility. our days are long enough. >> we had high hopes that you are different. one of us. then you wore tennis shoes out on our taxes. you pushed the largest increase on federal spending ever. it cost us jobs. sorry, patty. time you got off our backs. learn more. ♪

>> it is a sure sign campaigning has begun. it was hard to miss those commercials. they may have had an effect. >> if you watch any television at all, you saw the ads portraying senator murray's shoes walking on people's backs. 44% disapprove. 49% approve. her approval rating dropped into the negative. the ad came from a conservative

action group. better never earmark charlie crist's in aid. you cannot trust him on jobs. he supported obama's stimulus bill and said he never did. no wonder. it has ballooned our deficit. leaving florida with near-record unemployment. it cannot trust him to fight for jobs unless it is in his own job.

>> those numbers, paid for the american action group. his group is targeting a guy who is not too popular in republican circles. former republican charlie crist. republicans think they have a strong candidate and they're going after senator patty murray. those will remember that she got to congress as a mom in tennis shoes. >> winter is hihere soon. why else would he vote for the cap and trade tax? increase gas to $4?

costas 2 million jobs. -- cost us 2 million jobs. the american action network is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> we have -- you will see the difference between what i can do and what the insurance can do. advocacy ads were different. get someoneying to to buy a different product. we want to give them the facts and make sure we are direct and this is critical. they want to know what the person did this. they want direct accessing

information. these ads are designed for a busy political season. we want them to break through and be memorable. the first is a wisconsin state add. it highlights that issue of spending. the next is an ad we called "secret." this was a powerful statement. for them, it summarized everything that was wrong. next is the backpack ad. it was strong with independent voters and women. it did a great job of tying present problems to future problems. last is a funny ad that was

effective and it was able to grab your attention. our focus group conductor said one thing you never want to do is show it to many - babs -- negative ads. we want to show you the concept we use. >> we send tax money to washington and what does russ feingold do with it? $800 billion for the job bills stimulus. $2.50 trillion for a plan that hurts seniors. forcing us to borrow $9 trillion. he voted against the balanced budget amendment. russ feingold and our money.

what a mess. american action network is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> remember this? >> we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it. >> we know what they were hiding. a one trillion dollar -- $1 trillion debacle. they spend our money on health insurance for illegal immigrants. and job killer.g spender now we know. >> there's a lot on the backs of our kids today. thanks to congressman gerry

connolly. he loaded kids up with nearly 800 million in wasteful spending and added $1 trillion more for the takeover. a debt of $14 trillion. congress wants to pile on more spending. how much can our children pay? tell him to cut spending. it is just too much. >> how can you tell the taxpayers in his district? he spent the shirts off our backs. i do not have any pockets. congress wants to strip this bear with more spending. call and tell them, but to spenvote to cut spending.

>> i guess we will go to the key findings. we had access to about 240 polls. we watched public polls and things we found to be impact will. jobs popped up in almost every age wherever we were. it would have been in the rearview mirror. it was a deciding factor. capt. trade. it played start out in places. -- strong out in places. it was interesting to see how it was a major issue and an unbelievable motivator of voters. fact based arguments.

personal attacks, divorces, lawsuits, we did not get into that. we did not have to. this election was a policy. speaker pelosi was impeccable. we did not build our ads around it. she was present in what was done. we did not build her up to that. that is what we inherited. and whatever advantage of. i was surprised but our polling bore that out. enthusiasm matter. there was a talk about in enthusiasm gaps. you would not have gone in there. if you were motivated, she was always up and we felt good about that race. the last, a social media online was critical.

it magnified and expanded our efforts. there was a microsite that was set up. they would see a banner that looked similar. we started out with 0 facebook 220,ent ended up with220,00 000. the social media was a powerful tool. the most impeccable, -- impactful. this was not about red vs. blue. this was being -- pumping the brakes ont h the leadership that had been in the country for two

years. president obama was around the election. he was not as impact will as nancy pelosi. -- impactful as nancy pelosi. they share a media market with the virginia race. it fell off the table and i do not know why. it does not impact this conversation. if i was at the white house, i would be concerned about north call-up -- north carolina and virginia status. sometimes these messages are delivered in a tough way but they are fact based. we thought we did not need to get into politics. we focused on voting records and we felt that was an effective way. there were some ads the

democrats came back with. are we going to lose these races because we are not being tough enough? the speeding tickets issue was known. some of the bad person and bad businessman, does not like america. it was going through people's private lives. we never went there. we had a conversation. are we missing something? i am glad we stuck with where we went. i felt it made a difference. i will take my seat. >> what carl told us was his

organization's spend $70 million. the house races only. good point. it is true that i think the federal election shows 38 or $39 million. there is 30 million box there that was reported. a cautionary note. before we go to the audience, i want to ask this group. what difference did citizens united make? of all the money you spend and the things you did, what could you not have done had it not been for citizens united? >> >> it did very little to impact wet you were able to, --

accomplish. it was a committed group of donors that wanted to get back in the game. there were deflated in 2008. he did not want his donors to participate in outside groups. those donors rolled back this time. i think it helped some of them but a lot of money raised. that money was coming anyway. >> were the messages that you ran that you could not have run without citizenship? >> had it not passed, we could have done issue eds which we did in august. we did adapt to the law but that would not have prevented us from doing advertising. >> you would have spent money with the same amount of a fact?

>> i think you're right. he law changed but i can't remember a conversation where a voter cared. >> they did nothing because of citizens united. it would have done the same thing. one of the reasons was to talk about the target of boycott which happened earlier on. what i am curious about is target took some heat for making a publicly closed donation. they issued an apology. did you see the effects and was that in any way one of the reasons why so much of the money

your groups raised was not disclosed, was given anonymously? >> people are overestimating the amount of corporate money that was involved at all. >> i would be happy to have you tell us how much. >> groups like target, all these corporations have to enter to shareholders. even one that they gave to the c4, they chose not to give. all this money. it is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. >> do you think corporations were because of the target boycott, did corp. say we want

to make a donation but we do not want it to the public? >> did that make a difference? was it a motivator for donors to give anonymously? >> i think carl is right. people do their due diligence and they ask questions and whaad felt the network based on policy dealing with health care and education, national security, and size and growth of government taxes, felt comfortable with our issues. we have three former senators on the board. two investors. they felt we were an organization that was credible. they were willing to impact

policy makers and policy. >> they were required to report. did you think you would raise any less? >> no. the folks coming to us -- we saw some ads but we focused on the house. they felt this president and this democratic leadership had taken the country in the lowrong direction and they were scared. the things that work -- made them successful were being taken away from them. the number one concern from folks that supported this was not about confidentiality. it was about the future of the country, and there were anxious about that. >> we will take questions.

we have microphones. hold up your hand and please identify yourself. >> i saw the patty murray tennis shoes that. i saw the citation backup you our claims.9our her vote was for schip. can you explain how stepping on a child is akin to voting for health insurance for children? >> can you summarize your question? >> the ad had patty murray stepping on a child and the back of claim for that ad was she voted for schip. can you explain how chat --

stepping on a child -- voting for schip is akin to stepping on a child? >> you are trying to make a point and i appreciate the point. we have a different point of view. >> as a leader of a think tank, could you explain that to me? >> an expansion in government decreases the ability for this company -- this country to have economic freedom, the ability is about small business. as to increase the size of government, you decrease opportunity. you are talking about and and and we did 53 ads. it does matter. it cannot defend this? >> i can. we defended it and we feel

comfortable. you are trying to make a political point and that is good for you. >> you had a back up and that was that she voted for schip and that was like stepping on a child. >> we can take another question. we have three or four up here. >> thank you. two separate questions. the open question is, you talked about how this is an effort to even the playing field with what the left has done with prior election cycles. they were unsuccessful.

wondering what makes you think that you will be successful at influencing the presidential, if that is a goal. a more specific question. early on, the folks behind crossroads and crossroads gps talked about how they disclosed -- expected disclosure and transparency to become an issue and work committed to transparency. they wanted to take it off the table is an issue and would be disclosing their donors. what changed the c4 doing many of these things without disclosure? >> the second question is, this closure was important for us. some donors did not want to be disclosed. >> there were donors who would

not give their names were disclosed? >> i do not know so they were more comfortable with iving to a c4. >> to what extent it that way in or was it just -- >> if you look at what gps did and continues to do, the majority of the work would be five year issue work and that is what we spent the majority of our summer doing. despite the limited direct which is which we did wit what you saw. there is other work that goes on. that is what we will continue

over the next year or two. i think we also pointed out, it was 221%. in terms of the presidential campaign, i have no idea what american crossroads will be active in in 2012. >> just to follow up. and to the other panelists. if you thought you would be able to raise the same amount of money, were you able to offer anonymity? it sounded like yes, you'd be able to. that is not your thinking. >> i do not know of those people who gave to gps --

[unintelligible] that is impossible to know. >> if it were not for the $2,400 handcuff, there would be giving. they could give a limited amount to those entities. it is crazy and a complete violation of the first and then it. they seek other ways to play and engage in political speech. we have this crazy system that change them down and keeps them from exercising their rights. we can ask these questions all day, with this donor have given? they all gave to the cabinet. the answer is to repeal those limits and increase disclosure. >> in 2012. >> i am curious about the

longer-term plans of these organizations, if you could flesh that out. without arguing about the ads, most of them were focused on opposition to the administration and the democratic agenda on a range of issues, without talking about specific issues that republicans would support and where they would want to take the country. i wonder if since the election that has been flushed out in terms of the specific issues you would be looking at and policy proposals. >> the future of the network and the forum is, we feel very solid. we have an outstanding group of policy experts we're talking with. we had a health care reform where senator and came and we had a bunch of health-care

experts talking about different ways to reduce the health care bill -- redo the health-care bill. week engaged the policy network -- we engage the policymakers. the best and brightest minds will talk about how we can expand access and opportunity to from the center right perspective to the hispanic community and vice versa. how can we get them talking? there's a number of things we will do. we will develop our message where we take what we find out through polling and focus grouping and phrase it in such a way that it -- our principles and policies relevant to the average american. sometimes when you come from a

strictly theoretical think tank arena, it is hard for folks who are making a living and working to understand what you are talking about and why it matters. that is something we're focused on. we plan to be a durable organization that is around for awhile. >> i want to put the question back for a little bit. there was a palin state -- a 10 democratshan who mentioned cap and trade. the absence of the policy debate this year, their ads were, the

republicans were an unethical guide. if it is incumbent upon us, the voters will be happy if we stop what has been happening in the last two years. >> our ads were not -- we were not telling voters what to care about. they told us and that is what we talked about. >> the voters demanded it. >> one more question. >> thanks. i had wanted to ask about 2012. it does not sound like you know what will be happening. is the issue whether you will choose and wait until the general. you mentioned north carolina and virginia. if you could take both of those out of play for president obama or just virginia, that would be it. that would be the 2012

presidential election. is there thought about either of the groups focusing on one or both of those states? thank you. >> it was rob that brought to virginia and north carolina. process ofe determining what we will be doing in 2011. it is difficult to imagine we would be involved in the republican prairie. >> with regards to virginia, yes. if you look at the obama coalition and there are some problems with what they're trying to do. is math is looking like john kerry's math. you look at indiana, virginia,

and florida. does the election results show challenges to the coalition? you wonder if obama can recreate what he did in to basnight. mr. looking at a space where he is -- states where he is strong and the church's -- it starts to shrink. that was a question about how strong andr was i thought it would be close. i guess you could see , had the desired effect. boater model said 52% would show up and it turned up to be 57%. he did elevate his boat. in both elections, his side was

unsuccessful. the states that have voted with republican presidents went back to where they were historically. it is a challenge for them. to look and say we have a smaller program. it looks more traditional to me than what obama was able to accomplish in 2008. >> i will give the last question to one of our subscribers. i will preface this by noting that we found fault with many of your ads, including that patty murray ad. aren't you just a bit embarrassed by putting out false information in order to win an election? the same question.

>> tv ads ran our ads and none were pulled. >> if a tv station takes your ad, it is accurate. >> they had a responsibility to run the ad. >> we do not have the protection candidate bands have. -- ads have. the other side fights you legal. they tried three times through legal council to get the ads pulled. factually, we were accurate. >> we were not saying they were bad people. >> thank y9ou for attending.

nvite my boss to make some concluding remarks and wear down. >> i would like to start with one observation. we're talking in terms of dollars. a dollar does not by the same amount of access or impact. media con-- micro targeting makes a difference. $1 buys more impact. it lets you find the purse wettable boater. -- persuadable voter. we saw in 2008 that internet use

the presence of controls predicted an obama vote. it was about as strong as talk radio producing a vote for mccain. there was a disproportionate amount spent. as we talk about money matter ring, money may be more effective than it once was as a capacity for micro targeting increases. what is the relationship between campaigning not any someone elected, but in creating a climate in which that person can lead or the collectivity can govern? high level of attack -- does

it increase the amount or chance that they will vote for the other side? is the winner at the cost of having weathered attacks that increase the persons on trustworthiness on the part of large parts of the electorate and constrained policy options? does the climate of increased polarization in a way that makes it difficult to make decisions that the electorate will accept in circumstances where there are no good choices. everyone has made the paspoint t tv stations do not have to except adds. are the stations scrutinizing

the ads for accuracy before the opponent comes in place and tries to put his or her argument in for the lack of accuracy? are they performing any kind of policing function on their own or are they becoming subject to the cross pressures of campaigns arguing with each other about whether or not something should there? are the stations applying comparable standards to every ad that comes in place? are they created equal from the station's perspective, or is there any influence if the stations and advertisers are part of a community that is advertising the same? we do not know the answer but it is an interesting and important question. with those questions and that observation, thank you for joining us and thanks to our panelists. we are pleased to join us today. -- that you joined us today.

[applause] >> john liebowitz on how to handle online privacy. "the communicators" on c-span2.

>> the newest supreme court justice on the confirmation process, her adjustment to the court, and her relationship with chief justice john roberts. gray.m paam we conduct our british documentary competition. it asks students from ages 6-12 to think critically about issues affecting our nation. this year's theme is washington, d.c. through my lands. we would like to explain how the government has affected an issue or banned in your life for community. select a topic that interests you. one to have your topic, it can do your research. the goal is for you to research

your topic and include c-span footage that supports your theme. for more integration, go to our website or email any questions you have. go get started. we cannot wait to see where you can do. >> the discussion on a state-by- state survey of financial literacy. from today's "washington journal." it is 35 minutes. wspan.org to watcmore of this. joining me at the table is john gannon and he's here to talk about financial capability. he is with the financial industry regulatory authority investor education foundation. how are you measuring us? guest: financial capability is trying to get people beyond their financial literacy, but looking at auction at their financial behavior. we broke it down into a couple of categories, first of all,

making ends meet. are people taking steps to make sure they manage their day-to- day finances? then we look at planning ahead. what are they doing to plan ahead, such as an emergency fund, a retirement account, are they planning for their children's college education? are they making choices, decisions around financial products? then we looked at whether they are taking certain steps to basically track their finances? such as, do they check their -- then we look at whether they are taking certain steps to basically dropped your finances. such as, do they check their credit score? host: when you break it down, how many households spend more on a rainy day fund to cover three months' worth of expenses in an emergency? you found that over half of all americans are living paycheck to paycheck? guest: yeah, that is pretty

worrisome that i think that people are living paycheck to paycheck. the other thing that we found is that what we did this study in the summer of 2009, 40% of our respondents had a large drop in income. people are not only living paycheck to paycheck, but some were in very difficult financial straits. host: and you also found that more than half are spending more or equal to their household income. the 60% do not have a rainy day fund. and 24% have use higher cost of borrowing in the last five years. guest: thais right. this points to a couple of critical issues for americans. they are not saving in general. they are spending more than their inme, but they also do not haven emergency fund. we think of as a key component of financial decision making, wise financial decision making. if people have even $200 or $300 saved, when their car breaks

down, they can get it repaired and continue to work. but if they do not, they are on to a credit card, or those non- bank arwin anti- debts set -- type of borrowing and that can get into a financial crisis. host: you also broke it down by states. what did you find? where is financial literacy the best and where is it the worst? guest: one of the things that we had in the study is that we have 28,000 respondents, which allow us to get sample from every state and the district of columbia. some states did better than others. new york, new hampshire, and new jersey. and some states did a very poor become especially montana, oklahoma and arkansas, as well as some others on the financial

capability questions. host: you also found a young americans were more likely to be less financially capable than older americans and young americans more significantly likely to be engaged in on bank borrowing. what should we take away from that? guest: i think young were americans are less financially capable. part of that is that they are young. typically, people's financial knowledge and financial behavior get better with time. it typically peaks around age 55. but it does concern me, especially that there is such a high rate of no emergency fund. 68% of young people have no emergency fund. host: what can be done on the federal or state level? guest: that is one of the good things about the state-by-state

survey is the policy makers can actually look and see whether the policies they already have in place are having an -- an impact. for example, one researcher is looking at data comparing state regulation of non been borrowing, pay loans compared to how people in those states are actually utilizing or not utilizing pay loans. e research can be used to do that. it can also be used to inform you policy a round different types of products and how they are being used and how to encourage people to save. host: what about education? if your survey shows that young people are not as financially literate as older people, our young people in high school getting what they need to know this stuff? are young people in high school getting what they need to know this stuff? guest: we can tie this to

mandates in the state that are tied to school curriculum. but one of the things about many of these mandates is that they are unfounded. there is no teacher training. we need to -- they are unfunded.e there is no teacher training. we need to doore. host: but go to the first caller -- let's g to the first caller in georgia. caller: the high income tax rate for the very rich, and we need to rescind those. we need to change the channels [unintelligible] we also need to find know why these republicans, these millionaires and billionaires

are holding congress hostage. host: let me try to tie that into what we are talking about because i did see a story today about the tax cut deal if you are living in neyork saying that this will put more money in the pockets of americans, but at the same time they are seeing their health-care premiums go upon. it appeared -- and go up. they're seeing their payments for their cars go up. when you look at thessue and having a rainy day fund, how in these economic times when the cost of living seems to be going up for people, how is it that you could possibly save for three months? how realistic is that? guest: obviously, it depends on your income. for people who are making minimum wage, that can be very difficult. but i would urge people -- you

know, three months may be beyond many people, but even ving a couple hundred dollars in savings can keep you from increasing your credit card debt and increasingn bank borrowing. those are things that are high interest types of loans -- and increasing on bank borrowing. those are things that are high interest of loans. we have to change the philosophy. we just did focus group testing with kids. we asked them, what is an emergency fund? their answer, credit cards. that is not what we want to be teaching our kids. host: there is a story in the "new york times" this morning, lenders taking on me risk.

guest: only about one-third of americans in our survey shopped around for credit cards. it is so simple today to go on line and look at virtually hundreds of credit cards, you know, which once had the lowest interest, which ones may have payment terms that are in your interest and not the banks. other options that you may want to consider. those are the things that people need to do, shop around for the best product for them. if host: what is the reason they gave you for why they do not shop around? guest: do not know the answer to that. many people are just uncomfortable with finances and they do not necessarily know where to turn. but the information is out there. people need to take just a half an hour of their time in some instances and shop around to find whatre the best financial products for them. across the board, some financial products have hi-fi's that will hurt you and some ... -- have high fees that will hurt you and

some do not. host: richard, you are on the air. go ahead. caller: how does the -- how your findings relate to pensions? and in a consumer economy, why would you be saving? what is the average income level of the people that you cold? and was the average world of the people that you tolpolled? guest: that is a very good question about pensions because what we have seen in the last decade is employers going away from contribution programs or for one case where the individual, rather than the employer is responsible for making the decision around their

retirement savings. our survey tells us that people are not necessarily making good decisions with respect to their retirement savings. not everybody has figured out how much they need to save for retirement. that is a key component. also, a lot of people do not understand the difference between ning a stock nurses a stock mutual fund and what diversification -- reverses a stock mutual fund and what diversification can do. those are some issues that are very important for people to get. host: next call is from illinois. mckee on the republican line. ller: i understand that taxes are going to be increased for the upper level income businesses, etc. and i was wondering if there have been any studies to find out if they are actually using this money to

actually have any jobs, you know, starting in the new jobs with that money that they're having to pay taxesn. and in general, i just wanted to find out pretty much that, if that is what they are actually doing with the tax benefit that they are receiving. host: i do not think our guest can answer that bet -- the question specifically. we're talking about in a report that his group did about financial literacy. do you have a question about that? caller: i do hava statement about that. i went toigh school and i'm also a college graduate. i did have an economics class in high school that did help quite a bit. my husband and i, we are finding -- we were financially doing fine and unfortunately he passed away a year-and-a-half ago. but i do have two sonshe graduated from college and they also took those kinds of causes

as well. but if you do not have jobs to save the money, it makes it hard for them as well. i know they do have a little bit of savings. another example is, my one son, he had --e wanted to get a home, but the rent is $600, i believe, per month. he wanted to get a home and, of course, he figured a dog. he figured of how much he cou buy -- he figured it out. he figured out how much he could buy and etc. when he went back to it, he found out that he pays $600 -- well, he knew it, too. host: we're going to have to leave it there and move on. i do want to remind other viewers that the tax-cut deal is

going to come up in debate in the senate today on c-span2. that is the first test vote on whether or not it can pass the senate. we were reading appears this morning that it should pass with relative ease. guest: to raise some good points about college and college education. one of our service -- one of the things our survey did show is that only about one-third of the sabres were planning on the saving for their child's college education and only about one- third of those were using good methods for doing so. people need to think about choosing the right method for college. you can save for college or you can borrow for college. the average amount of student debt is $24,000.

that is a lot of money for a child to get into this economy and have to pay of host: the regulatory authority investor a vacation foundation recently put out a study. fairfax, va., you are next. caller: i'm really glad you are talking about this today. i have a couple of comments and then a question. at first the question. how can we get the cost of living down far enough? the rent here is ridiculously high. the wages do not cover it. people educated in how to handle finances are forced pretty much go on credit cards. that dris them further into debt. how do you see your financial literacy report helping people deal with that situation? i will take my answer and i

appreciate you being in here today. guest: living there myself, i know that it is a high-cost place to live. there are a number of things people need to do to manage their credit-card debt. i do think that many people can actually save some money. there are different ways that we can all cut our costs if we look at it. unfortunately, today we take a lot ofhings as expected expenses that maybe for the short time are not absolutely necessary. we all need to look at how we can cut our expenses. and do a better job of that. host: on your web se do you have tools to help people with their financial literacy? guest: yes, we do. trudy website we have a number of resources that we have

created and a number that other organizations have provided to us. for example, we have a great partnership with the library association and reporting educatio materials in libraries are run the country. we're doing the same thing with the united way to get into communities through nonprofits. those are the ways to reach people. there's a lot of good material out there. unfortunately, it just does not reach people. that is one thing we are trying to do at the foundation is get over that hurdle. host: on the website, you can find an interactive link where you can play around with this state-by-state study that the group put out. also on the web, you can see the producers are playing with it. also on the website is a financial jaques, if you want to quiz yourself on your own financial literacy -- there is a

financial quiz. if you want to quiz yourself on your own financial literacy. next call is from ellyn. are you with us? we will move on to florida, john, go ahead. caller: i am retired military and i also have a degree. my parents taught me a very early age to balance my checkbook and not by anything i really do not need. as i get a little bit older, now receiving social security, and of course, the past two years we have not gotten a cost-of-living increase. our senators vote themselves a raise, but we have to bite the bullet. is there anything i can do to try to help myself? i do not spend money that i do not have to spend. guest: one of the things with respect to social security, you can obviously write your

senators and congressmen to get a cost-of-living adjustment to social security. the good thing is that we are in a low inflation environment today and part of the reason is because there has not bn a cost-of-living adjustment. but different expenses can go up even though the overall inflation rate is very low. things that you can do -- look at your monthly expenses and figure airport what you can do to cut those expenses. you said you were formerly in the military. we have a very large military financial education program. weave a site, saveandinvest .org. and on financial literacy they did much better than the population at large because of the one area, and that was credit card debt. a huge amount of cdit card debt among the military.

over 27% of the military response we had were over $10 in credit-card debt, which is a lot. -- $10,000 in credit-card debt, which is a lot. hosthere is a tweet. guest: if you get retirement savings, that this tax advantage in a number of ways. if you contributto a 401k, your interest compounds over time and that is not taxed until you take the money out. if you buy a home, your interest rate is deducted. that is another way of saving. pure savings is not a tax advantage in any way, but there are ways to save for college, to save for retirement and you do get a tax aantages and i think the government is trying to encourage saving in those areas. host: here is another comment from illinois.

guest: that is a hope. right now we have four states that mandate a personal finance course. and we have another 20 stes that mandates some kind of personal finance during the secondary school years. i would hope that we see more states mandating in some way, some financial education for our school children. i think that it is also very important that parents talk to their sons and daughters about money. unfortunately, it is a difficult situation, but i think teaching people gd sings and investing habits is critical to making sure that children graduate from school with a good understanding and a good finaial sense. host: the next phone call comes from midland, n.c., and john cullen democratic line. -- john, democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call.

you said he did not know the answer to why people are so lile -- delivered about finances. the problems seem to be in our schools -- so illiterate about finances. the problems seem to be in our schools. i was never taught about what was about to happen to me when i entered the work force as a young man. fortunately for me, i did make up quite well. host: we will leave it there, john. guest: that is a good point. for many years, financial and education has not been taught in schools. i think we are starting to see a reversal of that with many states now mandatingome form of personal finance in schools, which i think is important. i do think improvements need to be made there, especially making sure that teachers are trained and able to teach the subject. and i think organizations need to focus on that.

host: texas, don, independent line, your next. caller: a pretty good discussion, but everything legislative literacy might help a bit more. the dollar are spending -- because you are spending this merry go round so fast-spinning this merry-go-round's so fast when it is actually the financial industry that drive our congressmen and senators in order to do regulate the industry. host: all right. that is down in texas. andy, republican line in new york. caller: i was a democrat and now a republican. the problem is, -- i think midwest. he said, in school -- i'm 38

years old, by the way. i do not remind -- remember being taught anything financi in school. now that is the biggest thing. we're losing jobs overseas. it is a scary time in america. how can i put it? i cannot be a democrat. we have too much government. i have been out of work purina i was a subcontractor -- i have been out of work. i was a subcontractor. i have been out of work for two and a half years. i have lowered my standard. at one time i was earning $23 an hour. they do not even want to give me a job for $10 an hour. and the lord my rate. it is scary. ordaz -- by lord my rate. it's scary. the best -- i lowered my rage.

it is scary. host: i'm not sure he had a questi. guest: at age 38, is likely that you did not receive financial education in schools. but things are changing and i hope that more people are writing from high school with some knowledge of these issues. it is critically important, especially today. we are so much more responsible for making the financial decisions we have to make when it comes to retirement savings. that is now on us. products are more complicated. we have a lot of financial choices we have to make and we have to educate ourselves about them so we made good financial decisions. if we do spend the time to do that, we can be in a better place.

for most people, learning these lessons is critically important. host: another comment from our twitter audience -- in your survey, how did you get at how americans view money? guest: we did not serve as a degree of the question. we did ask a lot of questions about how they were spending more saving their money and we found that many people are not saving in general for retirement. they do not have an emergency fund. people have been spending more than they should. i tnk what we have seen since the financial crisis when our survey was feeling, the savings rate has gone up, which is a go sign.

hopefully, when we read to the survey, we will see a -- when we do the survey again, we will see an increase in saving. i think the financial crisis was not only with a call for congress and policy makers, but individuals as well. i do think a lot of people refocus on their own death -- financial decision making. host: gilbert, thank you for waiting. caller: isn't this kind of misplaced, your function there? instead of financial education for the american people, shouldn't we have it for the american -- for the government officials who spend more money? guest: that is a difficult question to answer, but i think we all need to spend less than we make. i think that is critically important for this country host: -- for this country. host: are you still there?

caller: yes, but i think we are dealing with a symptom rather than the route cause. because is that we keep shooting our jobs overseas. our government keeps putting us in this position. i suspect this is more by design than anything else and people are just trying to survive the best they can. i do not believe it is a matter of education of the american people. i think the problem squely on every senator, every congressman and every president that we have ever had. host: another comment from a viewer. guest: that is one of the questions that we announced in part of our battery of questions, did people understand inflation?

a fairly large percentage did not understand the impact of inflation on savings. we do have very low interest rates today, which is very challenging for most americans where to put their money where it can earn a rate of interest above inflation, especlly for people who are entering retirement. they cannot necessarily rely on bank deposits or cds to keep up with inflation. but there are other options ailable, bonds have a higher interest rates, and some forms of stocks. i think there are different ways to try to talk about. but again, it argues for the importance of financial education, and making sure that we are shopping around for good at financial products. host: what is the least understood financial issue by americans? guest: from a knowledge standpoint, e of the questions the people -- that people did the wot on and only got 28%

right, we asked a question about the impact of interest-rate on bonds, which is a very common investment especially for older americans. when interest rates go up, bond prices go down, which is a very important thing to understand today because as we are in a very low intest rate environment, and interest rates are only headed probably one way, which is up. we do not know when, but at some point they will. to not understand that bond prices will fall when that happens could put a lot of people in a difficult situation if they have bonds in their portfolio. host: the most understood? guest: people have a fairly good understanding of coound interest. if we askeunfortunately, there t of information out there where

you have high interest rates over a long time friend and people get very confused about compound interest and tend to underestimate the benefits of saving more, ginger's they will have to pay on that. host: new jersey, your on the air. -- you are on the air. caller: this conversation is so laughable. there is nothing wrong with the financial literacy of the american people. but you just dismiss the previous caller, who i think god it really right. it is not the american people that need education. it is a public and private sector politician -- is the

public and private sector politicians that have gone completely sociopathic. it is not about money. it is about having a conscience and some level of ethics. we are always talking about money, but the heart of the problem is that we are being controlled now by very reckless tax collectors and very un scrupulous money lenders. host: louisville, kentucky, republican line. caller: my question might be slightly off the train of thought that has been going on, but my question is about in defined savings plans previously, such as with companies like enron -- i'm

wondering if in the defined contribution plans there are any legislative or regulatory protections. guest: the difference between a defined benefit and defined contribution plan, which respect to the contribution plan or 401k, the money in the plan is your own. once it is in there, unless the company is committing fraud on the plan, you can get that money because it is your own. you have your own account. which is much different than a pension, where an employer is basically collecting and investing money for you in a pooled fund. when a company goes bankrupt you may lose all or some of that money. host: next crop -- next phone call comes from minnesota. are you in minnesota, monna? ller: montana. is there a correlation between

the average income and the liracy? guest: that is a good question, and actually, in looking at the data there are a couple of demographic factors that impact your financial capability. one we ready discussed his age. typically, people who are younger do less well on financial capability questions on our survey. the of the demographic factor that influences financial education -- financial capability is education. income does play point also. to become a higher income, more financially capable. -- typically, higher income, more financially capable. that may be because individuals with a higher income have seen more types of financial products

because thecan access them. they are more likely to have a mortgage. they're more likely to invest than people with lower income tops. host: next -- lower incomes. host: next phone call from florida. caller: i am financially. , but i have a question about the reagan years. -- i am financially ignoring to, but i have a question about the reagan years. a lot of people get credit cards, they miss a payment, their interests can dog to 18%, 24%, 26%. is it the financial industry in the united states just a bunch of loan sharks now? guest: i think the creation of

the consumer financial products bureau is trying to do a lot to be sure that people get fair information about credit cards and other types of financial products like that. obviously, it is not up and running layet and we will see hw it does in managing those issues. host: robert, republican line. caller: good morning. when i was 5 years old -- and i'm 72 now. i was selling packages of soap and down the street during the war and i was making money. i got a savings account. i save my money. i bought a war bond. i worked for people. you know, minimally, doing this, doing that, picking up bottles, gunnysacks. everything i've bought and sold. horses, cows, everything.

today, these young kids, you cannot work orou are going to lose t best part of your life. kids want to work. they want to make money. this is the best way to teach them how to take care of their money. this country is absolutely stupid. the main problem -- my mother, unfortunatel told me, so your sheep. we do not have time for them. -- sell your sheep. we do not have time for them. those eep would have p me through college. young people want to work. i listen to you all the time. your the best. guest: work teaches young people the value of money, probably more than anything else. it is difficult today, at least compared to when i was growing up, to get jobs. when i was growing up, there was a paper route. there were many options for

kids. i think kids should look for jobs and i think parents should encourage them to get a a job because it is t >> tonight john wolfowitz on -- jon leibowitz. .the communicator's" on c-span2 >> just-in-time for the holiday season, although of the supreme court" is being offered directly from the publisher at a very special price. just $5 plus shipping and handling. this is a discount of over 75%. this is the first book to tell the story of the supreme court through the eyes of the justices themselves. our original c-span

interviewers. it gives readers a personal and compelling view of the modern court, rich with history and tradition, with 16 pages of photographs of detail in the architecture and history of the court's landmark buildings. i. handsome addition to the bookshelf of any non-fiction reader. to order copies, go to c- span.org/books and click on the supreme court book. be sure to use the promo code c- span. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal," about the news of the day, giving you access. during the week, watched the u.s. house and continuing coverage of the transition to the new conference -- new

congress. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekend coming you can see our signature interview programs. on saturday, "the communicators" and the prime minister's questions. you can watch our programming c- span.org any time. . is all searchable at our c-span video library. c-span -- washington your way. a national service created by america's cable companies. >> president obama signed a bill into law today expanding the federal school lunch program by 115,000 students. the health the hunger-free act was supported by michelle obama. pelosi joined by nancy and kathleen sebelius. this is 25 minutes.

>> ladies and gentleman, the president of the united states and mrs. michelle obama. >> hello, hello, hello! thank you. thank you very much. thank you so much. thank you, everybody. please, please have a seat. good morning, everybody. >> good morning. >> i want to thank all the students and faculty said here at tubman elementary for hosting us today at your beautiful school. and we want to thank principal harry hughes for doing outstanding work here. give them all a big round of applause. [applause]

we are thrilled to be here with all of you as i sign the healthy, hunger-free kids act -- a bill that is vitally important to the health and welfare of our kids into our country. but before i do this, i just want to acknowledge a few of the folks who are here, as well as a few who are not here but he played and a hugely important role in getting this legislation passed. on the stage we have madam speaker, nancy pelosi. to the outstanding senators, blanche lincoln and tom harkin, who worked so hard to get this done. members of the house of representatives miller, delauro, and platts who worked so hard to make this happen.

we're show grateful to you. and three of my outstanding members of my cabinet who worked tirelessly on this issue, secretary of agriculture tom vilsack -- it happens to be his birthday today. happy birthday. secretary arne duncan, our great secretary of education. and secretary kathleen sebelius of health and human services. they could not be here today but they played a huge role in making this happen -- senator harry reid, the majority leader in the senate. senator mike mcconnell the ranking republican who helped facilitate the smooth passage of this bill. senator chambliss, the lead

republican. republicans hoyer, clyburn, and mccarthy all played important roles, and so we're very grateful to them. give them a big round of applause. it is worth noting that this bill passed with bipartisan support in both houses of congress. that has happened as often as we would like over the last couple of years, but i think it says something about our politics. it reminds us that no matter what people may hear about how divided things are in washington, we can still come together and agree on issues that matter for our children's future and for our future as a nation. and that is really what today is all about. at a very basic level, this act is about doing what is right for our children. right now all across this country, too many kids do not have access to school meals.

often the food that is being offered is not as healthy or as nutritious as it should be. that is part of the reason why one in three children in america today are either overweight or obese. and we're seeing this problem in every part of the country in kids from all different backgrounds and all walks of life. as a result, and doctors are now starting to see conditions like high blood pressure and high cholesterol, and tight ii diabetes in children. these are things that they only used to see in adults. this bill is about reversing that trend and giving our kids the healthy futures that they deserve. this bill is also about doing what is right for our country, because we feel the strains that tree seen -- that treating obesity-related health conditions puts on our economy. we have seen the connection between what our kids eat and how well they perform in school. and we know that the countries that succeed in the 21st century will be the ones that have the

best prepared, best educated workforce around. we need to make sure that our kids have the energy and the capacity to go toe to toe with any of their peers anywhere in the world. we need to make sure that they are all reaching their potential. that is precisely sleep what this bill -- that is precisely what this bill will accomplish. this legislation will help 115,000 children gain access to school meal programs. wherever we can, we're doing away with bureaucracy and red tape so that families do not have to fill out mountains of paperwork to get kids the nutrition they need. we are improving the quality of those meals by reimbursing schools an additional 6 cents per lunch to help them provide with healthier options -- the first real increase in over 30 years. when our kids walk into the lunchroom, we want to be sure that they're getting balanced, nutritious meals that they need to succeed in the classroom. we are empowering parents by

making a commission more available of rigid about the quality of school meals, helping families understand what their kids are eating during the day. -- we are empowering parents by making information more available about the quality of school meals, helping families understand what their kids are eating during the day. to support our schools efforts to serve fresh fruits and vegetables, we connecting them with local farmers. we're improving food safety in school and boosting the quality of commodities like cheese. it is also important to note the while this bill was fully paid for, it will not add a dime to the deficit, some of the funding coming from rolling back a temporary increase in food stamp benefits, or snap as it is now called, starting in the fall of 2013. i know a number of members of congress have expressed concerns about this offset, and i am committed to working with him to restoring these funds in the future. we know that every day across this country, parents are working as hard as they can to

do healthy choices for their kids. schools are doing everything possible to provide the nutritious food they need to thrive. communities are coming together to help our young people lead healthier lives right from the beginning. it's time that we made that work easier. these folks are fulfilling their responsibilities to our kids. this legislation helps ensure we fulfill our responsibilities as well. shortly after signing the first law establishing school lunches, harry truman said that nothing is more important in our national life than the welfare of our children, and proper nourishment comes first in attaining this welfare. today i am very proud to sign this bill that continues that legacy. not only am i very proud of the bill, but had i not been able to get this passed, i would be sleeping on the couch. [laughter] so now --

[applause] now i am very proud to introduce someone who has done so much to shine a light on these critical issues related to childhood nutrition the end -- childhood nutrition and obesity and exercise -- america's first lady, my first lady, michelle obama. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you all, thanks so much, and good morning. >> good morning. >> and thank you, mr. president for that very kind introduction. and all kidding aside, my husband worked very hard to make sure that this bill was a priority in this session. and i am grateful to you. >> because i would been sleeping on the couch.

>> but i am thrilled to be here. we will not go into that. [laughter] let's just say it got done, so we do not have to go down the road. [laughter] but i am thrilled to be here with all of you today as my husband signs the healthy, hunger-free kids act into law. we usually hold these bill signings in the white house. we felt it was important did this one right here at tubman elementary because we wanted to share this moment with our partners -- with the students, the parents, the teachers, the community leaders, like all of you here who have been so instrumental. our white house chefs have worked closely with educators at this school and they have seen your commitment to serving high- quality school meals to all of your students. i have worked side by side with kids from this school, as well as from bancroft elementary

school, to harvest our white house garden we could not have done it without all our students helping us. and i saw how hard they worked. i also saw how brave they were to try vegetables that many of had never even heard of. and i also understand that there are students from murch elementary school who are here today as well. we all had just a great time last bring working up a sweat and exercising and playing on the south lawn of the white house. with everything you are doing to give these children a healthy start in life, you are fulfilling the mission of this legislation every single day. that is why we are here. i want to thank you all, all of our partners, for what you have done, not just in hosting us here today, but in making sure that we are doing the right thing by our kids. i also want to echo my husband's

thanks to leaders and members of congress, many of whom are on the stage, many of whom are not and are down here, and you have all done just a tremendous thing in making this day possible. as the said -- as he said, this was truly a bipartisan effort, with passionate supporters from both parties putting in late nights and long weekends, working around the clock to make sure that this bill that passed. while we may sometimes have our differences, we can all agree that in the united states of america no child should go to school hungry. we can all agree -- [applause] we can all agree that in the wealthiest nation on earth, all children should have the basic nutrition they need to learn and grow and to pursue their dreams, because in the end, nothing is

more important than the health and well-being of our children. nothing. and our hopes for their future should drive every single decision that we make. these are the basic values that we all share, regardless of race, party, religion. this is what we share. these are the values that this bill embodies. and that is why we of seen such a groundswell of support for these efforts -- not just from members of congress here in washington, but from folks in every corner of the country. it has been beautiful to see. from educators working to provide healthier school meals because they know the connection between proper nutrition and academic performance. from doctors and nurses who know that unhealthy kids grow into unhealthy adults, at risk for obesity-related diseases like diabetes, heart disease, cancer.

from business and labor leaders who know that we spend nearly $150 billion a year to treat these diseases and who worry about the impact on our economy. from advocates and faith leaders who know that school meals are vital for combating hunger, feeding more than 31 million children a day. and from military leaders who tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight, they tell us that childhood obesity is not just a public health issue, they tell us that it is not just an economic threat, it is a national security threat as well. these folks come at this issue from all different angles. but they have come together to support this bill because they know it is the right thing to do for our kids.

they know that the long run, it will not just save money, but it will save us lives. let's be clear -- these folks do not to support this bill as leaders and as professionals, but as parents as well. and we know that ensuring kids that kids eat right and stay active is ultimately the responsibility of parents more than anyone else. and everywhere i go, fortunately, i meet parents who are working very hard to make sure that their kids are healthy. they are doing things like cutting down on desserts and trying to increase fruits and vegetables. they are trying to teach their kids the kind of healthy habits that will stay with them for a lifetime. but when our kids spend so much of their time each day in school, and when many kids get up to half their daily calories from school meals, it is clear that we as a nation have a

responsibility to meet as well. we cannot just leave it up to the parents. i think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home will not be undone each day in the school cafeteria or and the vending machine in the hallway. i think that our parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy food that meets high nutritional standards. and particularly in these tough economic times, when so many families are struggling, when school meals sometimes are the main source of nourishment for so many kids, we have an obligation to make sure that those meals are as nutritious as possible. but by improving the quality of the school meals and making sure that more children have access to them, that is precisely what the healthy, hunger-free kit act

is going to do. while it might seem counterintuitive, hunger and obesity are just two sides of the same coin. both rob our children of the energy, the strength, and the stamina that they need to succeed in school and in life. that robs our country of so much of their promise. both can be solved when we come together to provide our children with the nutritious food that they need and deserve. that is why for well over half a century, we have made child nutrition a national priority. the bill we are signing into law today actually has its roots in the national school lunch program signed into law by president truman after world war ii. it also has roots in the child nutrition act that was passed just two decades after that in 1966. the idea for that act came from a priest named reverend @ c.b. woodrich, who worked with

children in denver, colorado. many of these kids were all going hungry because they could not afford to buy lunch. reverend woodrich thought that was unconscionable saland decidd to do something about it. he somehow managed to talk his way into a meeting with president johnson. he arrived at the oval office without any prepared speech. he brought an enormous album filled with the photos of children in need which he promptly spread across the president's desk. the rev. later explained that the size of the photo album was delivered, because he wanted to be sure that it would be big enough to cover everything else on the president's desk. and that is hard to do. it is a big desk. it is to this day a moving reminder that the most important job of any president is to ensure the well-being of our nation's children, because we know that the success of our

nation tomorrow depends on the choices we make for our kids today. it depends on whether they can fulfill every last bit of the potential, and we in turn can benefit from every last bit of their promise. that is our obligation, not just as parents who love our kids but as citizens who love this country. that is the mission of this legislation -- to give all of our children the bright futures that they deserve. that is why i am so proud to be here. i am so proud to have worked on this bill with all of you, and now i am pleased to stop talking and turn this over to my husband so that he can get to work signing that bill. >> let's go sign that bill. >> let's go do it. [applause]

[inaudible] [laughter]

[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

♪ ["stars and stripes forever" playing] ♪

♪ [inaudible] ♪

♪

[military march playing]

♪

>> the senate move forward on tax contents and unemployment employment benefits earlier. before the bug, steny hoyer said he expected tax legislation to pass the house this week. we will hear from congressman hoyer later this hour. .