>> my team is not like to be me -- to not be thanked. . .

we had a wonderful event that honored the 30-plus year employees. we had 150-plus -- one 50-plus year employee that was honored. one thing we have to do is make sure we get the oral histories of the incredible people who love scene technology advance year after year while all of our predecessors wrestled with issues a lot like those we are

wrestling with today. i thank all the retirees. i am glad the room was packed at that day. the success of this government and the success of the nation depends on the career of public servants. it is often fashionable to say the opposite, but those who work here understand how hard and how well the staff works. please join me in the banking -- in thanking all the staff and their service and wishing them well. [applause] are would like to wish everyone a safe and happy holiday season.

now we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> wednesday on "washington journal," a look at the census

results and what redistricting could mean for the elections. re stops by. he will dress -- address the issue of of people leaving mexico because of the increase violence and drug cartels. later a discussion of the arms treaty with the author of "bomb scare." "washington journal" takes your e-mail live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can see the signing ceremony for "don't ask, don't tell" wednesday at 9:15 a.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span 3. >> it should not take a

constitutional crisis, a terrorist attack, or a financial calamity to seven from each of us the greatness of which we are capable, nor can america afford to wait. >> of the congress reaches its final days, hear from senators in which every c-span program since 1997. it is washington, your way. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story and eyewitness accounts of events set shaved our nation. top history professors of leading historians delve into history every weekend

on c-span 3. >> british prime minister david cameron and nick clegg were asked about political infighting within their coalition government. this was secretly recorded about behind-the-scenes political disagreements. next, the hour-long news conference. >> let me take a moment to wish you a merry christmas and happy new year. it is incredibly tough in afghanistan all year round, but being away from home at this time of year is especially

difficult. i know the whole country would wish to join me in wishing them a happy christmas and a safe new year. nick and i want to say a few things about what we did this year and what we will do next year and then try to answer any questions. let me say something about the weather. these are extreme conditions. 5 inches of snow within one hour is exceptional in the u.k., and it looks like we are on course for the coldest december in 100 years. we have been taking action to help people get britain moving again. we have an additional 250,000 tons of salt added to the stockpile. we are working well with 355 million pounds paid off this year since the cold weather

began. they have been protected, and nearly 13 million payments have gone out. we are taking action to change the normal rules to get things done. normal restrictions on nighttime flying have been relaxed to help the situation at airports. normal hours for lorry drivers have not been changed to help get supplies across the country, and normal rules for diesel have been changed to help clear public roads. all these actions have been coordinated by the ministerial resilience committee and uses all the machinery available. over the weekend as go to the heads of the of ministration in scotland, ireland, and -- scotland, wales, and northern ireland, and we discussed the situation. we have also offered military assistance to be a. let me discuss what happened at

heathrow. even the harshest critics say that with the amount of snow a disruption is understandable. i am frustrated on behalf of all those affected that it is taking so long for the situation to improve. there have seen discussions about how to best ensure normal flying capacity is resumed as soon as possible. i can tell you snowplows are on the runway as we speak, and the second runway will be opened by this evening. we all have to make sure the equipment reaches it as desired. everything must be done to get people on holiday or home safely. let me turn more broadly to what the coalition has done this year. what they have undertaken since the election can be summed up in one phrase -- a rescue mission. i do not think that is an

exaggeration. look at what is happening in ireland and greece and southern europe. look at our inheritance from the last government -- the biggest budget deficit in history, and to make matters worse, no credible plan to deal with the deficit or our debts. make no mistake. it has taken difficult decisions to pull us out of the danger zone. within six weeks we have completed an end of year spending review to save 6 billion pounds. within 60 days we have written an emergency budget, and within six months, we conducted and concluded a comprehensive

spending review to redraw of the state works in line with finances for the long term. this is a rescue mission, and i believe the results are already being felt. our credit rating is safe, and confidence is being restored. i see this when i go to the g-20 summit. at the beginning of the year, leaders were looking to our economy with concern. and now they are looking at what we have done and how we have done it. just as we have been on emergency footing to rescue finance, we have been on an urgent mission to drive growth. now from reducing the budget to investing in a project and going on missions across the world -- this government is determined to give a shot in the arm to british business. this coalition is in no way complacent. we are clear eyed and vigilant

about the dangers of there. many of our trading partners face of uncertainty. there will be difficult moments ahead, but i am confident we are on the right track to deal with the economic risks ahead, and from january, we will be rigorously focused on supporting growth and driving job creation across our economy. let me say this. all our work on the economy -- sword in public finances, boosting enterprise -- all -- sorting public finances, boosting enterprise -- nothing would have allowed us to make such a fundamental change in direction. we do not agree on anything. we never said we would, and the political risks are greater, but i believe the rewards for our country of having a strong government, to parties working together in the national

interest are in greater, su. i believe this coalition is working well, and i think we can build on that success in months and years ahead. >> i would also wish you all merry christmas. i have not seen so many journalists in one room since my last constituencies surgeons say. i agree with what he said about our brave troops. the sacrifice they and their families make is sharply felt a this time of year, and i along with everyone else want to thank them for that. the coalition government has achieved a huge amount in a short space of time, and our greatest challenge is tackling the deficit and returning our economy to health, and we are taking the difficult steps to do just that, but labor did not

just leave us with the fiscal mess. they left us with the social crisis as well -- a country where your chances in life are too determined by your birth, and just as we did not flinch from taking the action needed to fix the economy, we will not back down from doing what it takes to address the deep unfairness that exists in our society. it is easy to say this government is just about cuts, but that is wrong. we have begun a far-reaching program to rebuild a society so is liberal and socially mobile so people who want to get ahead can get ahead regardless of the circumstances of their birth so people can be sure the government is on their side, and that is the ambition driving hard changes. that is way we are driving a

premium targeted at children as well as funding child care needed to give the children the best start at life. it is why we are overhauling the system to get people to work and why we are making sure that work pays. next april, 830,000 people will stop paying income tax altogether, and it is why our changes will make it easier for bright people to go to university. we also know to really help people get ahead, the government must stop telling them what to do. from schools to planning, taking power away from whitehall and handing it back to individuals,

self confident markets. it is a big project. it will not happen overnight, and we know the year ahead and the years after that they will not always be easy, but we believe our decisions will stand the test of time and that we are on course to fix the economy while building a better country but also confounding fears about coalition -- the idea that parties working together would cause stagnation has quietly bit the dust. now the complaints from some is that we are doing too much -- not too little, and when we talk about the new policy, we are talking about an old idea, that people who disagree can have an honest discussion and reach a conclusion they can both support. in most walks of life, that is an on right to -- and on remarkable idea, and i hope it

will not be too long before it catches on. the prime minister will show us how you can politely disagree in public, so we have made a good start, and we have a clear view of the britain we want to build. that is our plan, and we will stick to it. >> thank you very much. now that we know that they have different ideas in a number of policy differences region -- differences, do you think it will be bringing the government down, or do you think it is an overblown sense of his own importance? deputy prime minister, back in may, when it was warmer in the rose garden, you said there would be bumps and scrapes along

the way, but we are different parties with different ideas. you have confirmed you still have different ideas. >> shock, horror. the he is embarrassed by what has happened, and he is right to be embarrassed. my view and his view is that coalition governments can only work effectively if the disagreements that exists in a coalition -- that those differences are thrashed out in private and they come to a common solution and take that forward as a coalition government, and that is the way they work. i have lost count of the times the people have said this issue is going to blow the coalition of part.

people say that about immigration, about europe, about cuts. we have managed to work through these issues, working out the right thing to do, and actually going through these issues. george osborn is meeting with the bank at the moment. i would stress all the things that are already done such as the bank levy, the regulation of bank bonuses, the fact that the banks have signed up to make sure they pay proper taxes, but we do want to see progress, and we want to see an expansion of small business lending, so i think on this issue we will work through the issue, we will come to a good resolution, and i think that is a demonstration of how the government works. he was very apologetic this

morning, and i agree he had every reason to be, but it is true that some things he said were not true, but do we have disagreements and arguments and work them out in private and then make an announcement in public? yes, we do, and i would say to judge the coalition on the work it does and the changes we are making. it is a substantial program. you could not do that if you did not have a working relationship and a strong team. >> do you disagree with that? >> i get on extremely well. there are other issues we were resolving. i find with the way the cabinet is working the people are doing a grave job. they're driving their civil servants rather than civil

servants driving them. i am very happy with the way the team is working. >> he made a simple point most people think is absolutely right. he was quite right when he said you need a healthy banking system, but because of the implosion of the banking system, lots of tax payers were asked to provide money to help the banks, so they were supported by the party, so it is in their own self-interest to be sensitive about what society thinks about them. that is what all of us are saying on this issue right now. >> is it to acceptable for the chancellor tumaco a gay impi -- to call a gay mp a dame, and what about heathrow? >> i think it was right to

separate the airports. we have some -- to have some competition is a healthy thing. what we want to see right now is action on the ground. i think it is important they take action across the board. when something goes wrong, the effect is massive. the key is to get these zero working. i was not in the chamber, -- to get heathrow working. i was not in the chamber, but i am sure people are taking rough- and-tumble. i did not hear the remarks. i had better wait until i watched the tapes. >> he replied -- >> i was not there for that exchange.

i was not planning an appearance myself. >> how much do you trust convince cable? can you give a sense of how important vince cable is? he said if he resigned the coalition would fall. is that right? >> we went to india together on the trade mission. we made a series of economic speeches where we traveled together. i think we have a good and business-like relationship. i think what he said was wrong. he apologized for that. i think we should leave it at that. in a coalition, you do have

private disagreements on policy. we have to work these things out. vince has been very instructive on issues like the economy and reducing public spending. he has been incredibly engaged on higher education, which has been difficult. is he a colleague who has worked well? yes. do we find what happened in the papers today embarrassing? of course. is it a relief to find a live demo who is enthusiastic about nuclear -- a lib dem who is enthusiastic about nuclear weapons? that is a different question. i saw him grapple with this really difficult and sensitive issue on the future funding of

higher education. the policy took some brave decisions, which i think will stand the test of time and not only give universities a great future and make it easier for young people who cannot dream of going to university to go to university. that would not have happened without vincent. >> you have figures from both parties. as ken keeps saying, his inner liberal is being brought out. i tried to pop it back in again. >> and the bell, five news. did vince cable offer to resign?

if he is saying things about you that are not true, can you keep him in your cabinet? you have to assert your own authorities. >> events was apologetic and embarrassed about what had happened. he said it is not true. as for the rest of what he said, in this coalition, i have written about a number of issues. we have lively discussions about these things. we do not always agree. the key is -- is this a government that cannot agree on anything, cannot go anywhere? no, this is a government with an incredibly radical program of delivering cuts to get in under control, reforming higher

education, on dealing with immigration and actually having are robust approach on europe. i would challenge anyone to say this is not an active, radical government, and that is because we found a good way of delivering the changes the country needs. >> if you are one of his constituents, i expect you will find a check in his office from now on. he says he is embarrassed. he is going to be a lot more careful of these unguarded moments. he is right to be embarrassed. he was very clear that the only way this government is going to work successfully is you have your differences -- you deal with them in private, and then

you meet as a team. that is what we do. >> a quick question to nick clegg. you made a joke about journalists in your constituency. i wonder if any of your colleagues have come to you and said, we may be involved in the same operation -- and a question about the banks. you have been accused of hot air by the labor party. what will you do? >> i am not aware that has happened to me or anyone else. what do i know. i think both of this -- we come at this from different angles, but i think both of us recognize you are not going to get the kind of recovery we want unless

the banks provide money to households common -- 2 households, particularly to medium-sized enterprises. that is what we want, but because of the context in which banks operate, because they are owned by the taxpayer, it is clear that banks are operating in a different environment than they were 10 or 15 years ago. i think it is right for us to say, you have some wider responsibilities to consider. that is not just a cavalier threat. the chancellor is sitting down with the banks to look get these issues, and a lot of them are complex in the del. we do not want confident insults being flung from banks.

we do want them to understand they exist in a society where they come to the aid of banks and banks need to play our role, to. >> i completely agree with that. you have been very keen to emphasize the positive, but are you not guilty of underplaying the pain that is to come? should you not be preparing the british public a bit more for what is going to be the worst year in many people's memory? the you agree he was right to suggest a need for plan b? >> we are taking some difficult decisions this year which i think our necessary to restore confidence in the economy, and some of those difficult decisions come through in the 2011 year, and we are not at all

complacent about the economy or the difficulties people face, but i think we are confident this is the right strategy. i think the british people wanted a government that took a long term view. we had three years with a short- term view. it was all about trying to get through the next year's headlines. we want this to be a government that succeeds and lasts and delivers long-term changes to put the economy and on strong footing, to have the economy back, and to seek a rise in living standards. that means some difficulties now, but get on with it, and give us a chance to see a brighter future ahead. you do not get a brighter future unless you take difficult decisions in front of you. i think having a coalition

government has helped, because it is self-evident that these parties would come together in the national interest. the most important thing is do we have a plan in the first place? we have got a plan to restore a sense and sensibility to our public finances, which is an absolutely necessary first step. i think over time we have indicated that judgment. we have yankton britain back into a safer place. i think everyone is aware of these are difficult times for everyone in the country. the recovery has not yet gathered the full steam and we think it will over time, so as long as there is a bit of anxiety, that is quite right. people are unsure about things,

but i think it would be as huge mistake if people started talking the economy down by almost encouraging people to not keep some sense of perspective about this. even after all these cuts have been introduced, we will still be spending 41% of national health, which is more than tony blair and gordon brown. the public sector will be hiring 100,000 more people even after these cuts than labor in 1997. the idea that somehow we are doing something that is completely out rages -- outrageous i think is absolutely wrong. we are bringing some sense to finance. if we do not do that, we will

pay the cost of high unemployment. that is why i am optimistic that our policies and judgments will stand the test of time. >> you said vince cable was wrong to say what he did about winter fuel allowance, but will give you -- will you give an assurance it will be preserved as it is? you talked normally about coalition, saying what you are doing is only possible because the parties are working together. some people are talking about the possibility of not campaigning against each other in the general election. would you reassure your party members that you will campaign at full throttle like in the past, even if a bit more politely? >> we are very clear about

that, and we made our choices in spending, and we're very clear about the choices we made, and we are not changing those. i think the likelihood is that we will fight the election as separate parties. it will not exactly be two against one, but we will be defending a share of record and talk about some things we have hopefully achieved together, and i am very clear i am going to go to the by-election. i will be going, and i will be supporting, but i think the campaign will be slightly more friendly -- slightly more friendly than previously, but i think generally speaking, there are some in my party and some

in nick's party that are less than enthusiastic about the coalition. generally what i find up and down the country is people who recognize the main thing this coalition is about common and and and now and they see it is popular and it works. that is what i believe. it is easy to defend party supporters. if you compare it to some elections, it will not be difficult to meet the test. i think it is unusual in many other places where the idea of politicians working together has an effect on how you campaign, but it does not mean you lose urine independence. it does not -- it does not mean you lose your independence.

i just think most people are strangely outside of politics and find it more difficult to understand than people inside politics, but many people find this completely normal. >> will the also be the best way of governing in 2014? >> that is for the british people to decide. >> he is -- >> [inaudible] >> he lost by a handful of votes and was wronged by the labor mp. you have that straight. >> there are four pregnant women in intensive care because of swine flu.

were you fully aware of the dangers to pregnant women? did you receive any information about it, and more importantly, there are some suggestions there is not a national publicity campaign, partly because of the cutbacks in government. if you felt you were ever a hindrance to the campaign, would you take a back seat? >> the short answer is that i do not know the answer to that question. i am sure i can find out. we had a report from the health secretary about the situation with regard to flow and in particular, swine flu. he gave a report of the number of beds being used by people with flu, and the number has doubled in the last week, but there is still plenty of capacity left in that nhs, and i

think the figures are quite similar to what they were two years ago. i think there is a good grip on this issue. i think they have a great grip over the department, and on the issue of cuts, i would make the point that the nhs is not being cut. the nhs has an increase of 10 billion pounds from this parliament, and we have protected it, and i think that is an important decision because there is a lot of demand on the nhs. as we go through a difficult time in terms of making reductions, i think is right to protect one service we all rely on. >> i do not think the campaign should be run by politicians at all. this is actually the case of giving people power over

politicians, so the campaign will be very much of people's campaign, because the alternative would been to basically make politicians work harder for your vote, and that is the spirit by which i think the campaign should be run, so i am not constraining at all, and i think the case will be hopefully made by people outside of politics who want politicians to be more accountable to them. >> the likelihood is there will be separate parties. would you like to harden that into a certainty, because there is a possibility will be fighting as one party? >> we are separate parties. we will fight alexians as

separate parties. i am very much focused on the next five years. my focus is on how we are going to make this coalition work and really deliver over the next few years, and hopefully, that will be good for both of us when it comes to the next election. we will be fighting for our parties, but we will have a record to defend, and that goes to the way i think both of us see this government. it is not a question of concessions to the tories here and questions to the liberal democrats here. the government is right. let's work out what is the right thing to do for our society. let's agree on those things, and if they are successful, and we share in those successes. it is the right way to make the

government work. being a coalition does not mean a merger. we will fight the next general election. >> he thought you were friday region running a government that had not thought through its plans. was that the most worrying thing he put to you? >> i disagree. i think the lesson for the previous government is they woke up to the need to reform things are very late in the day and had to do it at a breakneck speed and never completed it. what we have done is learning from that. we said right at the beginning of the process, we have to do difficult things, but we should also take the first six through eight months to set up our long

term reforms. we have done that. now we have the time to implement those ideas properly, and i totally accept the people say, you are making one announcement after the next. the worst thing would have been to wait until year 3 and say that we want to change some things, because we would not have time to do it. i think the test of time will judge favorably the decision we have taken to announce early on things we want to change, to have a debate where it requires legislation in parliament and to implement them thoroughly over the next several years. >> if you look at our reforms, what we are trying to do is to decentralize.

we are trying to drive powered down. we are trying to increase personal choice. there is a common theme across these changes, but i think a good fusion often makes his policies more radical. if you take the conservative emphasis on academies and free schools but the lib dem emphasis on making it progressive, i think that this powerful. i am certainly not going to insist on being called the great helmsman, if that makes you reassured. >> thank you. this is going back to patrick's

point on maoism. does it not worry you that they will not address those fears to your face? can i also ask, are you satisfied that he makes ministerial decisions based on sound judgment? >> i think one vince was saying is a totally understandable feeling that we have made lots of announcements, and now we have to prove they work in practice. it is quite right. we do this constantly. how are we going to do this? the government is partly saying what are you going to do, but part of good government is

knowing how you do it. the announcements have been made, and people express some kind of feeling. i think we have the time to do it. >> in terms of what i have had to deal with, there are issues like the deficit reduction, trade policies, skills policies, the discussion about immigration. i found on all those areas we have come to the right answer, and he is able to get out and make the argument for those decisions, and to me, that is what matters. you can focus on this story or what the government has agreed to do and is doing, and that is

the way i choose to look at it. i have to call you spencer tracy. >> of home secretary said last week that the public wants to see criminals taken off the streets. is that something you can both support, one thing the public does not want to see is drug dealers getting to vote while they are behind bars. how do you feel now that the government is pressing ahead with its policy? >> prison exists for a purpose, and it works in getting people a break from dangerous environments when they should be off our streets. that is why i do believe that prison works.

is our prison system working properly in the uk? no. 13% are for a national prison ers that should not be here. half of them real fan. the system is not working. i st. -- have a family-offense -- half of them reoffend. the system is not working. as to giving the vote to murderers, etc., we do not want to do this, but we are facing a situation where britain will be repeatedly fined if we do not comply with this judgment. what we have done is the minimum possibility, which is to say if you are sentenced to over four years, and you do not receive the vote, and we think that is

the least way of dealing with this issue, but you have got to deal with the stuff that comes up. it is not always pleasant. it was not pleasant to pay out money to people who have been in guantanamo bay, but i think it was the right thing to do, because otherwise you would have to pay a maximum liability and be in court for year after year. this is about saving money. we have to do it. >> prisons work for things like crime. they do not work if they become colleges of crime. to many of our overcrowded prisons have become colleges of crime. to many come -- go in on short terms and come out and commit more crimes. what is the sense of that seminar -- sense of that? that is why we are trying to cut this endless merry-go-round of people learning tricks, and

before you know it, you are turning young offenders into hardened criminals of tomorrow. i think what we have come up with is reasonable. you get no votes at all if you are sentenced to more than four years. that brings us into line with a whole bunch of court rulings that go back to 2005, and labor just sat on that, and if we had not done anything, we would pay a lot of taxpayer money. i do not think that would have been an unappetizing alternative. -- an appetizing alternatives. >> one thing people have been talking about is the health reform. have the key questions been resolved like what happens if they overspend?

will they go bust? will they be taken over? more generally, over the next few weeks, we are going to see local councils announcing how they are going to deliver the cuts for a constrained budget. you have 100% confidence in the local councils to do this fairly because some of them are going to be pretty painful? >> there are three points to make. first, this reform program is more gradual than many they have recognized. the fact is it is not particularly a new idea. it is something tried in the past that worked well. it is being introduced.

people have volunteered to come forward and demonstrate how it is going to work, so some people are demonstrating these reforms as if there is a big boehner -- bang. that is not the case. the second point is that i think some people assume there is a comfortable do nothing option on the nhs. do not reform anything and hope that it will be ok. i think that is profoundly misguided. the only way you could manage that is if you pumped extra amounts. our aim is that if you did not make changes, i think you would hit a terrible threat wall and a crisis, because it runs away with the money, and the system

is not sufficient enough, and it does not do enough to address the health of the nation and all those things, so the reform i believe it is not just nice to have. it is essential if we are going to go through comprehensive views. next, there was forensic questioning by many around the cabinet table, because we want to make absolutely sure we have thought through the health reforms and they will work, and i have to say every question we have come across -- have come up with has had a robust and -- he has had a robust and could answer, and doing nothing on the nhs is not an option. it is an option that would leave you with annual crisis. you are not investing in the

real problem, which is you have to have a system because you are actually making people healthier rather than having a service that hands out more drugs and. >> i think one of the most successful partnerships is between the liberal democratic minister for the department of health and andrew lansing. if you looked at the manifesto, we were saying less bureaucracy, more patients, and more accountability, so it is run in the name of local communities, and that is why we are giving new powers over public health, and is moving closer to a more

devolved health system. there are good counsels and bad councils. the better councils will deal with the financial questions better than the bad ones will. at the end of the day, it is up to locals to decide. there is a huge amount of new freedom. i think some people do not understand how radical we of been in a short amount of time. i have been investing in new borrowing powers so we can build capital projects in a tax- incremental climate. yes, there is less money, but

there is a lot more freedom. over time, that will be seen as a big change. >> we will take some questions. >> thank you very much. a question to each of you. i know you are embarrassed by mr. cable. are you embarrassed by him? we welcome what some would describe as a new school partnership. is the new measure to not be improving child obesity? will you look at that again? >> vince is a close colleague. i am not the slightest bit embarrassed that he is a prominent senior member of this government. he himself said he was

embarrassed, and i can understand why he was. on school sports, they are important. we want to see children during more sport within schools, and that is partly what the school olympics is all about. the question is about funding. this is not all about funding. part of what was wrong with the old arrangement is it was trying to take it out of school. if you want more support in school, you have to take teachers with you about saying this is important, and while i think the school sports partnership has done some good work, there is a danger if you take it out of the school, the teachers will say it is not my responsibility. i think if you looked at the best, the teachers are fully

involved, and that is what we want to see. >> prime minister common and my question is on foreign issues. they offer ahmadinejad powers, and his newly appointed secretary calls for positive interaction with video -- the eu. they are criticizing the state of human rights in iran and asked for the complete relationship with the u.k. would be you make of these mixed messages? >> i think there is a clear message, that if you want to be part of the international community, that if you want to have an better exchanges, all of which would be good for the iranian people, there is an

easy way to do that, which is to extend the preparation of nuclear weapons and to show that is the case. now there is dialogue and cooperation. the problem is they are not choosing to take it. that is why they are absolutely right now to work hard for stronger sanctions in the european union, and if they are having some affect on changing thinking, that is also good. >> [inaudible] >> there is no doubt iran has an extremely poor record with human rights, and we saw that with a recent case -- the recent case. we also saw that with the election. i think the first thing that needs to be done and the major issue of concern across the world but particularly the

middle east is the issue of iran's nuclear future. human rights -- >> human rights are universal. questionable human rights, it is right the international community should apply pressure to that. there is a path to iran. the eu has been explicit. .

÷???ñ?-span radio.org.

>> "washington journal" continues. >> liz peak is joining us columnist and contributor from the fiscal times here to talk about the new health care law and you write about the new health care law. and that the biggest athlete it may note the republicans wanting to reappeal it, but rather what the crisis that states face with their budgets. >> well, this law imposes on the states an enormous mandate an increase in medicaid requirements and it's not funded through the law, so many states attorney general challenged is because they don't wanto take on these new mandates. last year the states had a

collective budget definite of $174 billion in spite of having-seed tens of billions from the stimulus act which of course, will be winding down. so the state's fiscal outlook is catastrophic and everybody knows it, but erybody is sort of ignoring it, hoping it will some how go aaway. but in this particularrena i think this is going to the big stumbling block. host: studies showed the public in these states do not want the governors to make doubts education and health care. saying most of these viewers viewed that as the responsibility of state governors. >> well, sure. no one wants programs -- if you have a state $30-$40 billion in the red, you have to make cuts. one of the interesting sort of

side notes here is ding this entire t debate, president obama failed to discuss the fact that one of the reasons federal taxes on the wealthy should be limited, the federalal act should be limit sincere because the states are already going there. they stocked the shelves pretty hard because their budget needs revenues, but the wealthy are already paying higher taxes and it's like the federal government stops the play these two as completely separate isolated budget issues, when they are not. if people paying teengs cities or taxes are not paying home the all cities. i think we're looking at a really troublesome situation. and the medicaid requirements

ladled on to the states by obama care. by the new health care bill are just going to be too much. host: are states looking to -- in the research you did -- looking to increase property taxes and local taxes in order come up with the money? >> absolutely. i think in the last year races and fees looked at what eats the have since 2000. and they have basically pulled every stopper out of every bottle they can open, looking for places to raise money whether it's on gambling fees or property taxes or whatever, but you know ironically some of the states are in the worst trouble, like new jersey, and they already -- the elevate there's limits to what states can do. people can move. and in fact, the census i think

is revealed today. i believe. and we're going to see more and more information of just how high taxes are causing migrations to those states. unfortunately in the digital age of high-information, a lot of people have mobility. and in fact,, it would probably be worse if not for the mortgage crisis. >> the census will be revealed and we're cover that live on c-span for those interested. the virginia judge rules individual mandate in his view is unconstitutional. how does that play into the expansion of medicaid and the burden on states? >> well, i think judge hudson's ruling was just the first time anyone other than well known libertarian groups have said wait a minute, is it really

legal under our constitution under the commerce act to require people to buy something? i believe that has been done. you can buy car insurance, but you don't have to buy a car. so from the beginning, this was something a lot of people objected to in the health care bill. in other words the issue is where do you stop, is that right >> so may you have to require people buy diet soda who are overweight all kinds of things can be deemed in the national interest. but again, people who value personal freems are saying what? i don't have to do this? and the conitution basically prohibits this kind of intrusion into personal activity. now the government has countered it's -- that the fee, the penalty for not buying it is not a penalty. it's a tax. but of course, during the entire lead up to passage of the bill, they argued just the opposite. so they are a little bit of a

bind. in my opinion disappoint i think what's happening is there's an awful lot of ways people are coming out and taking a shot at the health care bill. some constitutional. some financial. and basically rolling on the fact that still the majority of americans going coast-to-coast with inexhaustible energy trying to extol virtue of it. people still don't like to -- host: economic reason for it written baez rey klein, a reporter. he says if you eliminate the mandate and remove any incentive for youpping people, you are automatically reducing the cost for those individuals needing it. he writes this adverse -- in

the non-group market by an estimated 15%-20% relative to current law. without it, enrollees wld have higher expected health spending on average than those enrolled under current law. >> that's why this bill is extremely crucial. people don't have to buy nurns -- it will create a tremendous financial burden on insurance companies and on individuals who need insurance. im, you have -- i mean, you have to have healthy people involved to spread the rate. we've already seen that. one of the un intended consequences of the bill is the insurance company stopped writing insurance for the child-only currencies, because

the way it was reworded, the only parents with sick children needed -- in other words parents with sick children would weigh in at the last minute and buy their insurance because of thal fact that insurers can't reject people who are already sick, so that option was basically closed off. it's a problem. it's a problem for the bill for sure. >> let's go to mario in houston, texas. you're on with liz peek of the fiscal times. go ahead. >> good morning, mario. caller: i have a question for you today. do you think the health care bill, is that going to have any affect? you mean will -- guest: will take effect or have an effect on insurance costs? host: i'm not sure what he was asking so let me get you reaction to this wall street jourm funding bill snags health care law. as you probably know the senate

deal does not include any money for the administratio to begin implementing this -- this is the first opening savelo of the newly-elected republicans in the house and also the shift in the senate to basically -- as they say -- starve the bill. they are going to try to withhold funding for the implementation of the bill. and the implementation is sfapt. you're talking about a huge number of regulatory agencies, etc. and they are basically figuring by with holding money from it, it eventually can't roll out. i don't know how this is going to may out. it's a stalling technique and doesn't seem to me it's something they can basically removed -- remove.

host: we'll move on to a demeament pennsylvania. caller: hello. i would like to comment that the reality is that people will still get stick. -- get sick. and they are going to still show up for care but more expensive care, because they will be sicker and require more intensive care when they show up to these hopts. so if they -- if we don't increase funding to meet the need of the sicker moo -- caller: seriously sicker people dying on the street corner because they cannot afford health care? and it's this argument for a single payer solution. thank you. guest: thank you. you know, the so-called single option or whatever is not in the bill, of course. and i think that you raise a

very good point. look, going back to the gipping of this conversation. everyone in the country agreed, individuals and businesses alike agreed rapidly rising health care cost was -- i think one of the disappointments for republicans was that there were some things that just weren't tackled at all in the bill. for example, tort reform. tort rorm is sort of one of these buzzwords that people now just tune out. but the reality is doctor transs, hospitals, everybody tack knowledgethat health care costs are 15%-20% higher because of unnecessary tests and procedures done by doctors

-- the biggest issue doctors face other than dealing with medicare patients whose alcoholism toes down is their practicensurance going through the roof. so it was ignored in the creation of th bill and a lot that's the way the doctor gets paid. so i think that there was a lot that could have been done in trying to reign in health care costs. some how the entire conversation went to

controlling insurance and trying to beat up on the insurance companies. you know, i just think the conversation got by if you are indicated and not in a particularly useful way. so back to your question, which i promise to get to. of course, it's not efficient for our only health care for the poor to be delivered through emergency rooms. i think that's what you're talking about. and there should be more preventive care. however, we have a medical establishment, medicaid, who deals with these people o cannot pay their health care costs. it seems to many a more temper and practical way to approach the issue you'rtalking about. 2 people who can't afford it is through medicaid. give people vouchers for breast exams if that's deemed in the best interest of the patients, which up until now habit those kind of things can be

ucher-driven and they could have gone through medicaid. to my mind they sort of lost the forest through the trees. and yet i agree clearly that we all have a problem here. i would say one other thing that sort of got lost in the discuson about the health care bill is that there was a great deal of conversation early on about how horrifying it was that 16% of the economy, and then 177 of e economy was -- 17% of the economy was devoted to health care expenditures. one thing to think about is that is not entirely because of an aging population, although it's heavily influence -- at my age everyone is thinking about getting a new hip. 30 years ago that was not case. the number of prescriptions people are routinely taking, the average prescriptions in the united states have gone up

i wanna say 40ver the last six or seven years. people are taking vying a grey, new dgs that weren't agree with them. but he was come motely crucial, and part of americans have made the choice. spending pun on our health care a because people can afford it and b because the medical community, which by if way the united states is successful in developing new procedures in testing and so forth, they continue to come up with things we want. so i think -- really -- as i say, i think going back to the beginning of the conversation that the problems that were raised and the answers proposed sort of went off track. and i don't think looking forward we've really solved -- in fact, if indeed issue really was trying to reign in health care costs, the c.b.o. has made it clear we have not done that.

host: this vourtweets in this comment. vouchers are not efficient since they are only a powell trisubsidy compared to the true cost of health care coverage. >> well, then again they would be specific. i'm talking about having a men knew of choices and having that men knew apply. given the recipient's sex and age and whatever else, i think what we're looking at, i have forgotten now about how many new agencies, committees, rulings, etc are encompassed in this bill. this is not an efficient bill. host: from washington, you're on the air. caller: good morning, ladies. host: good morning. caller: my question is if not now, then what time in the how many history are we going to be able to feet in needs of everyone? and we produce now 100 times

what anybody can possibly consume because of our industry and ingenuity. it appears to me that maybe it's not so much that we can't do it. but there's an ingrained belief that we shouldn't. that everyone shouldn't be, you know, able to obtain a standard of life where all their needs are met. guest: well, i -- i think that has been the direction the country has traveled in for many years. im, we -- i mean, w basically have safety nets that provide for people when they go to retirement age. we have safety nets if you are desperately sick, you can go to this country and be treated. we are a wealthy country, and i think that has been the decision of the electorate to provide for our needy most citizens. i think what you've seen in the last few years is concern that when you have more tha 50% of

the country not contributing to the -- not paying tackses. not contributing to the welfare of the country, if that number continues to grow, pretty soon, people determining the fate of the nation really don't have any the skin in the game. let me put it a different way. obviously people on the right feel the incentives should be there for people to work and earn a living. not only should they be allowed to do that, and the presumption is most people want to provide for themselves. and i think that's realistic, but they should be given the tools to do so. and so what does that mean? one of the things it means is a very good education. and unfortunately that's something we're falling down on all over thelace. so i agree withour premise that we are a wealthy nation. that we should be providing for the basic needs of our neediest citizens, whom i would

categori as people in their retirement age who have no other means of support or people who are sick. i don't think it means we should be providing for every able-bodied person to live in a nice home and travel and so forth. i'm not suggesting that we are, but i'm suggesting there's a ectrum, and i believe we're somewhere on that spectrum, and there's always going to be an argument about how far we go. >> tweeted was this all comes down to raising options like britain and france. delecks, angela on the republican line, you're next. caller: yes, i'm calling about this issue she brought up. if she does not want the healthy people to pay for insurance then when they get sick they shouldn't be treated. i'm a republican but i'm against this. if you think it's everybody's right, guess what, if you don't pay for insurance and you get

sick you shouldn't be treated. host: let's get your response. guest: if you heard the las caller, the presumption is we should always take care of our sick. i think you hit at something that's sort of vital tho to this conversation, which is individual responsibility. that's something that when you start talking about, people get for impassioned, because individual responsibility to me for example, means not being overweight well, as a country we're not about to take on overweight people and peoplize them in some way. but the elevate those people have a more likely or are more likely to be sick and have diabetes and he other koch indicated illnesses and those of us who don't have those are going to wind up paying for em. so i understand the thrust of what they are saying which is people need take responsibility

for themselves. as you know, that's a very frauth conversation. but once again, one of the shortcomings in this health care bill, some people, like governor schwarts negativer in california, have tried implement in legislation, a passage of incentives and rewards for people who do try to improve their health. an awful lot of people in this country are eating terrible food and are wildly overweight and they smoke stooned so forth. why not encourage home the go on a diet or to stop smoking, which will lower their health care costs in the long run. that seems to me like a reasonable thing. and we didn't talk thabt in the health care bill. host: ivan a democrat in -- guest: i know you're a democrat. of course, you are. [laughter] caller: oh, i've been listening

patiently to everything you've said, and a i'm just not buying any of it. think you're part of a very well-organized disinformation campaign that's been active in full. i've wanted for 10 months demall and refute conesswoman marcia back burn from tennessee. she said massachusetts has a $5 billion budget deficit because of their health care system. that waa lie and people like her and fox news and you, you take these statistics out of the air. there ought to be fact-checking. you know? it's just ridiculous. you say american people have doubts? well, of course, they do. if i was on my way to work and i heard marcia back burn on the radio say massachusetts $5 billion, health care, i'd have doubts too. this is just -- host: what is your budget

definite? massachusetts? caller: now it's climbed up but a year ago it was $800 million and marcia blackburn said $5 billion and fox news a hundred times said 6 .2 billion. guest: i actually -- first of all, you should know there are a number of sites on the internet these days that doal fact checking so it's very easy to go check on those things. i have written on massachusetts' health care bill which has been more costly than it was anticiped to be. i think you'd agree with that, right? it has been expensive. and what we've seen in the -- the numbers i'm siting come from the office of management and budget which i don't think is part of a right-wing conspiracy. and the reality is the cost of this health care bill goes up every time they look at it to

about $150 billion. so it's not expected to fwend cost curve which was one of the ambitions of health care legislation. and it's also going to cover a lot fewer people than people thought. so i am not -- i actually, just for the record, i do unbelieble amount of fact checking and so does the fiscal times so we're not just picking out numbers out of the air. i don't think you'll find that the information in my columns are wrong. host: as your client uses numbers to say that the massachusetts system has worked, he writes this in a column that the market has worked beder than expected. according to data from america's health insurance plans, the largest trade group's marginses have fallen by 40% since those reforms were

put in place. nabblely, those premiums have risen by 14%. guest: i'm wondering where his starting point was, because there's no doubt rates skyrocketted in massachusetts as here before the implementation of the bill. . .

host: here is an e-mail -- guest: by the way, it is not insurance profits, which is a tiny number compared to the health care pie chart. this is a gigantic industry. again, 17% of our gdp. the pharmaceutical companies are beneficiaries of it, doctors hospitals. think of the number of people engaged in it. it is one of our biggest and growing unions, which is a whole different story. but in any case, i'm not sure --

i think probably the pharmaceutical companies are as big a beneficiary as anyone else. i could be wrong. it could be hospitals, too. host: robert is joining us on the independent line. caller: in comparison to the recent comments from massachusetts, about the balance that she is mincing, -- mentioning, there's one thing i would like to read. i'm basically an independent. one of the deaproblems that we e in dealing with crisis and need, for example, we feel like of which have a roof over their head and food on their table, which are very good things. but thewe do not expect them to have a duplex in the sky, nor do we expect caviar on every table. what we are dealing with health

care, that is the standard that everyone is set to. aita know if there is any way around that. -- i don't know if there is any way around that. guest: thinkhat is a really interesting question and a very good point. i think you are totally right. in other words, the people who are most needy, who pay nothing for their own health care, basically two reasons -- to expect and alesi these sries in the newspaper every day -- and we see these stories in the newspaper every day where they expect to have these complex, expensive procedures. apart transplants -- heart transplants, etc. and if they get sick, how do you say no?

the world out by vendors like wal-mart, cbs, etc. -- the rollt by vendors like wal- mart, cvs, etc. this is how we can see cosco des moines. -- see the costs go down. you can go into wal-mart to get your flu shot. some of these new clinics that have been established, they have a nurse practitioners that can swap your throat or your child's throat to see if they have an infection. they can diagnos minor illnesses and so forth. i think that is huge. it is a tremendously profitable undertaking for these organizations are willing to roll these units out. and for american families that do not want to spend a gigantic

amount for daily treatment it is helpful. police there are the beginnings of some commercial interest in providing low-cost medical care. not acute care, of course. not for people that are very ill, but for people that need blood pressure monitoring and that's sort of thing, i think the government should be backing this wholeheartedly. maybe that is the middle ground that we should be excited about. host: karen you are on the air with liz peek. caller: i would like to highlight something that does not get a lot of attention with obama care, and that is, the medical loss ratio. i'm stunned that the [unintelligible]

to force 15% to beat the overhead for profit and then compelled in massive collective rebate to people in the country is so be on the payout. what is next? are they going to limit my income? guest: well, they just tried to with raising taxes. i think that is an excellent point. by the way, the unintended consequence of that is some 200 companies have to get waivers from the government because their so-called mini-med plans did not satisfy that requirement. if you're covering employees of the very large company, than 15% ti probably makes sense. but if you are providing

insurance to mcdonald's that has 30,000 workers on these so- called mini-med plants, there ar two small a number of workers and it makes the 15% of a workable ratio. -- not a workable ratio. like all the giant government mandates like that, it has unintended consequences and often it simpldoes not work. as i mentioned before, the government already, in effect, controls are health care. a great deal of our health care industry. many of the problems emerge because of the inherent sloppiness of government control. i think one of the problems with this bill is that it imposes a

government oversight and discretion on far too many aspects of our health care industry. which we are just beginng to see things that are going wrong. obviously, one of the most egregious is the form that had to be filed -- and everybo is still puzzled how this got into this bill. every transaction of $600 or more has to have a form filed with the irs, a so-called form 1099. and the irs is saying, stop this. but we cannot possibly handle th avalanche of pipa work that will flood our offices, but so far they have not beenble -- this avalanche of paperwork that will flood our offices, but so far they have not been able to back it out. it is absurd. i think you are totally right. host: we will go on to sarah, a democrat, louisville, ky. caller: first, of like to point

out to the gentleman in maryland -- i wld like to point out to the gentleman in maryland that in most nations health care is a public utility. it is not allowed to be a private an unregulated industry. it is horrifying that involves what is supposedly one of the progressive and wealthiest nationon earth that we allow our underprivileged people to die simply because of lack of money for proper health care. and secondly, toomes peek, your statement -- to ms. peek, your statement a moment ago of expecting to have the same standard of health care of people who can afford to pay for it out of their own pockets, well, certainly they do. they expect to be ab to live,

just as anyone with money expects to be able to live. they expect to be treated with proper and decent medical care. another point is, because of the lack of government regulation of insurance companies and drug companies and for-profit hospitals, they are running rampant. -- running rampant over our citizenry. host: 11 -- leave it there and get a response. guest: our health care industry, porter says wealthy, i do not think that anyone is arguing -- poor verses wealthy, i do not think anyone is arguing that they should have the same health care. but the fellow that called in and said that we do not expect that in any other phase of our

life, you can certainly come up with other issues, such as facelifts. part of that 17% is cosmetic surgery. should people who do not pay for anything also be entitled to cosmetic surgery? most of us would say, no. that does not seem like a basic need. are hip replacements a basic need? i do not know. i've never had one. but some people seem to get to the point where they cannot live with the pain and have to have one. other people argue that you can dedicate that pain away. it raises and into a -- you can medicate that pain away. it raises an interesting diussion. i will tell you that if we continue on a course tt we are on, we will all have our health care ratiod. i think that is what goes on in great britain. your comment that the united states is one of the most

progssive countries in the world, not really. we are actually one of the most conservative countries. and some of the countries in europe that have these giant budget problems, i think they are paying for some of their more liberal policies, including health care in great britain. i have a friend whose mother at age 90 or something had a shadow on an x-ray and basically, it was that she was old enough not to have to go in and get treatment for what turned out to be breast cancer and she was dead a year later. in fact, those kinds of horrifying decisions are made when it is -- when a society decides they cannot provide the will to live in health care for every single person. i hope we never come to that. host: next will call, ogden, utah, stephen on the independent line. caller: why hasn't anybody

looked at, in this day and age, socialized medicine so that everyone will get equal health care? and number two, according to the obama health care law, why is it that the government takes people who cannot afford the health insurance -- who thinks people who cannot afford health insurance can afford to pay a fine? guest: one of the problems with the health care bill is that the fine is not enough. insurance is still more expensive than paying the fine. it is an interesting question. the chances are that people will -- who do not want to buy insurance probably will not. and they will wait for the them.ment to find thefine

s to socialized medicine, and also in response to the lady that just a couple of questions, too, one of the misconceptions that came out early in our conversation about health care reform in the united states is that we do not have the best health care in the world. that is simply not true. i will tell you where that came from. there was one survey proded by -- it was the oecd or the world economic forum or one of those global organizations that rated countries on various standards, such as life expectancy, prenatal care and things like that. the heaviest part of the waitinweighting was comparing io gdp. the united states got the nod because given how well the this -- the united states got dinged

because given how well our insurance takes care of because, it was not in comparison to our gdp because not everyone has it. if you look at various diseases, the health outcome, that is, the health outcome of the treatment for various diseases, the u.s. is way ahead of its competition. if you ask people in canada why they come here for health care is because they have socialized medicine. people in europe come here because they have socialized medicine. socialized medicine takes out incentes for the brilliance in innovation and treatment of the kind that we have here. have attracted doctors from all over the world as a result of that system. and doctors get paid a lot more here.

i do not believe in socialized medicine. i do not believe in socialized anything. like any other industry in business, you have to provide people with an incentive. and if you want to pursue that, you are to look at what happened in the state of illinois. a good portion of the state lost everything go ob/gyn. they went across the border in missouri because of the courts in southern illinois over so egregiously pro-plaintiff that the doctors in that region could not make money practicing medicine, so they basically left. it is not exactly analogous to your question, but i think you have to provide the medical community, just like any of the committee, with an incentive to do well. host: here is a tweet.

guest: employers? host: why are employers allowed to dictate our health care? guest: i do not think they are. if you do not like the health care insurance that the employer is providing, one, you can quit, and you can also opt out. host: just that being the middleman between you, e person who wants to buy the insurance and the insurance company. guest: oh, look. the reason corporations got involved in the first place is because it is economies of scale. if i want to buy insurance as an individual, it will be much more expensive for an insurance company to minister to my needs and individual paperwork that it is 10,000 people. they can boggle the together and have cost savings and it is passed -- they can bundle that together and have cost savings

and it does pass along in lower insurance rates. if you compare where you are paying compared your best friend and is working for a big company, believe me, you will be happy that they are involved. host: next call from pennsylvania. caller: i happen to be one of the poor. i was disabled halfway through college. i have medicaid. i can tell you that recently i was sent for a consultation. and i needed a procedure done an nessun is the doctor flip open my file -- and as soon as the

doctor flipped open my file and saw my car, he decided right en and there there was no problem. host: your reaction? guest: because medicare pick it up? a host: think that is what she is saying. host: i think that is what she's saying. guest: i think

it tax on speculative ideas of impertinence -- ideas alone. the majority does this without any appreciation of the regulatory costs. did they kill the future of the internet? of course not. they have no rational means to estimate the damage they did to the feature of this model.

the commission put its them on the scale as to where it will be focused and how future networks will be financed. it expresses concerns about the consequences to the internet companies if their instances -- companies incentives are ignored. it is regrettable that they do not take a more holistic view of the economy. i keep returning to why do we intervene in the one sector of the economy is still -- that is working so well to create jobs? i must respectfully dissent.

i have seven objections. i am more than that -- i have more than that. the net neutrality proceedings have been an economic drag on operators for over a year. they need certainty to jumpstart efforts. it is our foundation that gave investors the confidence in the internet economy. i object to the majority suggesting that it provides regulatory certainty. at best, it solves the problem of it on making. i have some opposition to the legally a precarious opposition.

the majority's decision lacks an analytical framework. competition has insured that the internet remains open and offers no evidence to suggest otherwise. there are cracks in the infrastructure. to fix it.vored there is no crisis of madness to -- of magnitude to justify the overreach. the language is consistently conditional. they are out the desisting from it they presume -- they are out it, they presume line of

reasoning with practice. one would assume the record would include widespread examples of competitive conduct. even the factual efforts show it as an indispensable platform supporting the nation's civic life. they ignored the warning for regulators should be wary of enacting net neutrality regulation solely to prevent perspective harm. the majority's claimed that consumers will benefit from the government over reached is unsupported and flawed. they tout this as a pro-consumer

approach to prepare. internet applications [unintelligible] i disagree that promoting it over the networks because there is no choice and necessary. in the long term, i am worried the micromanagement will lead to consumers to be worse off. adoption efforts to give the house will such are not subscribers online will be challenged.

entrepreneurs will not be able to create the next great application. forgive me if i do not view these developments as a pro- consumer. privatization -- priorities asian and -- charging end-users is fine but internet companies is not. the practical effect may be the cost will be borne by the consumers. a similar preference is

reflected by the approach to transparency. it should be above giving them an informed decision. this is not the approach to the majority takes. it is prescriptive. they see to micromanage. by doing so, they said the three teams that may be sowed detailed that the average consumer will be no better off. the majority is focus on preserving network operators current decisions. given the dynamic nature,

focusing on preserving today's networks is the wrong objective. the internet is not a mature market. it will strain the resources of all operators and test practices. there is a great amount of experimentation and consumer expectations. the threat of government center w -- censure will chill involvement. i am troubled by the-treatment of summoning users. it is about quality of service.

4g will not work properly without prior position -- priortization. it is viewed as a potential loophole. i do not believe they think these are problematic. the focus on the potential for wrongdoing is in place purda. it is the context of a more balanced presentation. the majority put the commission in the unworkable role. there is no central command, in

a unitary authority to dictate how innovation -- no uniform authority to dictate how innovation involves. it forces the commission into the role of judging how broadband networks will of all. -- will evolve. the majority has entered new practices will be subject to its approval. i feared the government will take too prominent a role in shaping the internet. the majority regulate an entire sector of the internet without legal authority to do so. the d.c. circuit rejected the net neutrality principles. it will return to court with the

basic ideas. the legal theory would give the commission and unfounded right to adopt any policies it wants. the ftc has no authority to act unless congress gives its authority. in doing so, if a contorts the spirit of the act to try to justify rules adopted in the .rocess it

i will focus on sections. i'm not persuaded by the intent to twist a 14-year-old regulatory policy statement in an affirmative grant of authority. it encourages broadbent employment, relying on authority. our decisions are informed. it is a guidepost to how to use our authorities prevent a -- authorities. it attempts unsuccessfully to rewrite the position.

the analysis is the ms characterization of the advanced services order. they have never interpreted it in its totality. it was appropriately rejected. even if section 7 06 were a grant of authority, [unintelligible] it is clear. it is about encouraging broadband deployment and removing barriers. the commission has no authority to arrest obstacles.

the commission has given itself the authority to regulate the internet. anything could be regulated. this is my biggest concern. the maturity has replaced an unfounded authority rejected by the report with an equally unfounded direct report states, treating one power for another. when they feel declined to our rules, [unintelligible] i believe a court will be >> >> skeptical of the manner they

have decided it to be a superpower. there is political pressure to find some legalization. the majority's provision to act as a legislator is a mistake that may undermine our agency's mission. it is almost a word forward -- for word a draft bill in congress. when the commission makes political decisions, proceedings turned more partisan and controversial.

we have squandered months on this effort from will problems. this spring, a commission called for broadband deployment. our focus belongs on that agenda, and actual pro-job game plan. we should redouble our plans to attract the billions more in capital necessary to expand and improve our broadband and for structure. today's action is not the kind of the debate -- end of this

debate. this debate may move. it will take up too much oxygen in our community. i remain always the optimist. when we work together, there is much we can do. i hope this brings a fresh perspective on the communication challenges and working collaborative lead to get their. ly together.tive t you earned a christmas break this year. i want to thank my staff for their hard work.

i could not have done this without your tireless ability to get everything done. thank you to all of you. thank you to your family's prada = = famillie -- to your families. we can disagree about decisions, but we should all agree that an open and some process is critical to our decision making. millions of jobs depend upon it. the most significant failure happens to be the last one.

12 hours before the meeting is not sufficient given the magnitude of the issues that are at stake. it is inexcusable. you have lived up to that. this is an inopportune time to do that. it is the have to be done in such a rush to manner -- it does not have to be done in such a breast manner -- such a rushed manner. >> the web as we know it is being threatened. the inventor of the world wide web says "a neutral communications medium is the basis of a competitive market

economy, democracy. although they generally thrive on lack of regulation, it has to be legally preserve." today we are adopting rules to preserve those values. one of the commission had pursued a bipartisan enforcement of open into the principles, we have not have properly adopted rules. for the first time, we will have forceable rules to preserve internet freedom. we stand here now with free them -- with freedoms of the internet and protected. there is no process for monitoring the internet, no recourse for speakers harmed by

improper practices. this will change once we vote to approve this order. it comes after many months of debate. it has often produced more heat. everyone agrees the openness of the internet is essential that has unleashed an enormous wave of innovation and growth and a vibrant free expression. despite this allegiance, there has been a disagreement of the role of government in preserving internet freedom and openness. some said the government should do nothing at all.

others would adopt rigid regulations. a few oppose litmus tests. to others, unless there testis met, -- test is met, it is considered a government takeover. i reject both extremes, in favor of a strong and non ideological framework that promotes express some.d sa

we do encounter a familiar counters opposing any government action. there are many points that do not need response. we are told that we should not try to fix that which is not broken. countless innovators and business executives say the opposite, including many who generally oppose government regulation. we have heard from so many venture capitalists and those working daily to distribute new internet projects.

their message has been clear, unless it is -- the internet is at risk unless sensible rules of the roads are established. the lack of basic rules of the road is starting to hamper innovation and growth. as we heard in the letter, " common sense rules are critical to ensuring the internet remains the global competitive." recognize the vital need for massive investment in broadband infrastructure.

based on their experience, if they tell us that providers are gatekeepers in ways that would stifle limitations. we have seen clear deviations. our record is still with consumer groups alike. at the same time, the government must not to overreach or assume

perfect knowledge. providers must provide the incentives to provide many millions of dollars to build up their network. today we are adopting a set of high-level rules of the road. it will increase certainty for businesses and entrepreneurs .repar

innovation and catalyzes consumer demand, consumer demand spurs faster broadband networks i believe our actions will continue an ongoing cycle of innovation and consumer demands both at the end-and in the middle of broadband network. -- at the edge and in the middle of broadband networks. it will ensure internet freedom at home and around the world. the order we are adopting, based on a sound and legal framework,

is straightforward. here are the key principles designed to preserve the openness. consumers and innovators have a right to know the basic characteristics of their internet access and how the network is being managed. it will give innovators the information they need to make informed choices in choosing networks. shining a light on management practices will have an important deterrent effect on bad practices. innovators have a right to send and receive lawful traffic. they can experiment with their ideas.

the rules prohibit the blocking of content, applications, and services. consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. no company should have the right to pick winners or losers on the internet. that is the role of a commercial market. we are adopting a ban on discrimination and making clear we are not approving priorities. as a general rule, it is not consistent with those to skew the market place with one idea or service.

broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage this. it is an expansion of high-speed broadband network. the principle of internet openness applies to local broadband. there has been some confusion. it must remain an open platform. we are adopting broadly applicable rules involving transparency and prohibiting the

rabin providers from blocking competitive applications. many entrepreneurs have told us that there are differences between mobile and fixed broadband that are relevant to determine what action the government should take at the time. the unique technical issues. it is just began providing -- has just begun providing this prepar. we are not endorsing or approving practices.

it is a way that is consistent with internet freedom and openness. any reduction in mobile openness will be a cause for concern as in any reduction of innovation in broadband applications bad today's order recognizes vigilance in monitoring development. i am pleased we have created an open internet advisory today. we are also launching a challenge that will foster applications to empower consumers that will help protect

internet openness. the rules are rooted in ideas that are endorsed in a unanimous policy statement. they are grounded in more than 100,000 public comments and meeting to stakeholders. there is supported input do -- is support from the doj. i am proud of the process. it has been one of the most transparent the data -- transparent. i am proud of the results.

there is support from investors. our framework has drawn support in civil rights groups. they have worked so hard for many months on this. a framework has been supported by a number of broadband providers as well who recognize the sensible balance of our actions in the value of putting a level of certainty to this process.

i think each of those who took their time to take on these difficult issues to find submissions. i want to thank my colleague for their bigger -- bigger -- vigour in pushing this. you have improved our rules and order. the commission does tend to agree on the issues before us.

i cannot express enough appreciation to the staff who has worked so hard to wrestle with difficult issues. we cannot honor your service enough. many others are working hard behind them. broadband is horizontal. it stretches across the

commission. thank you. let me join my colleagues and thinking pawlenty staff. m -- in thinking -- in thanking my staff. you have gone beyond the call of duty, keeping a wonderful sense of humor every day. you make me a lot smarter. they join me in honoring your service. thanks to our new media office

that has worked around the clock to make sure that everything we do is available online. we set a new president in the -- president -- precedent in the ways we opened up the meeting to interact online. it is very hard to do, especially given the infrastructure challenges we have. thanks to the work of all the incredible servants. they are adopting rules to make sure it is a powerful platform for innovation and job creation

and to empower innovation and protect free expression brita the rules will increase -- expression. the rules will increase certainty in the marketplace. the rules the film many promises including a promise of the future. i will be very proud to cast my vote. let's proceed to a vote. although is aaye first day -- all those in favor say aye. although na is a poseye say --

all those opposed say nay. the aye's have it. we would be out of fear for your plane. -- let it get you out of here for your plane. >> my team did not like to be thanked publicly. i get yelled out publicly when i do that predell. for all of the spouses to of been left behind, -- we do have to law clerks -- two law clerks who are leaving as per thank t he to us. -- leaving we want to thank them. >> on behalf of all of us, we

will say goodbye. many longtime employees will be retiring at the beginning of next year. each has made an enormous contribution. they represent many centuries of service. i am not going to acknowledge all of them individually. a couple of of bint honored all the 30 -- and evince a couple of weeks ago honored all of the 30

plus employees. we have to make sure we get the oral history. all of our predecessors wrestled with issues a lot like those we are wrestling with today. the success of this government and our nation depends upon the quality of our public servants. those who work here understand how hard the agency works. join me in thanking all of our staff.

[applause] i would like to wish everyone a safe and happy holiday. we will see you in the new year. >> the next agenda meeting is tuesday january 25, 2011. >> now we are interned. -- and turned -- adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> this morning, and a news conference on the results of the 2010 census brit. then "washington journal" will take your calls. president obama signs the repeal of the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" .

policy you can see the signing today on our companion network c-span3. >> is to not take a constitutional crisis or a financial calamity to summon from each of us the greatness of which we are capable. >> as the one in 11 countries reaches its final days, -- hundred and 11th congress reaches its final days, he can find them all online at c- span.org. every weekend, experience american history tv starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern. here historic speeches and eyewitness accounts of an offense that h --

toar historic speak witness accounts of things that shaped our nation. >> we spoke to a reporter about the political implications of the 2010 census. >> the initial population figures show three entered 9 million americans 30 -- 309 million americans. how does this figure manifest itself for new numbers in the house? >> there is going to be a shift

to the sunbelt. they are all going to get more of representatives. new york will lose two seats. news jersey and massachusetts losing one seat. battle royale is breaking out. >> does it translate into a shift in political views? >> no.

i do not think you can make that assertion. there are movement from the north to the self -- south. there are a huge number of latinos moving there. they are not breathing within a conservative out loud. it gives them an enormous ability to try to shape it to make it more conservative in to look at the patterns of emigration. that might be very hard in a place like texas and florida. >> these numbers translated into

house seats. >> under the new one, and the president would have gotten six less electorate in 2008 and he actually got. it does have some affect. these are the effects on the margin. it is a path to victory by reconstructing the map. some have turned back into red states. he can lose those dates and still win. because ohio is losing two seats, it becomes less important. nevada is having an additional

electric college seat -- electoral college is seat. harry reid one in nevada. n.lorado says obama wo the electoral calculations are not plan to change very much for the president or his republican adversaries. >> commerce secretary barry locke -- they released the 2010 census data. it includes the congressional apportionment totals for each state. this is just over an hour. [applause]

>> loven to the national press club. it -- welcome to the national press club. i'm with the communications office. i want to take care of a few housekeeping duties before we get into the program. you will hear from all three of them. we will open it up to a question and answer session. we will have questions on the phone and via twitter.

ideas want to introduce a short video -- i want to introduce a short video that shows why we are here. >> ♪ >> the census is not a modern innovation that was thrust upon the american people. it is as old as the republic itself. we can what the united states transformed from a republican with a sparse population scattered on the atlantic board

and transform into a superpower that is able to project so much power globally. >> once a decade, we are called upon to stand up and count. once a decade, the census bureau rises. every day of every year the needed your community will be met. american answered. >> the bureau is kicking off the road to war -- tour.

>> you can make your voice heard. >> find a, fill it out, be accounted. >> we did it. we did it prepar. >> this is a snapshot of who we are as a community.

>> ♪ ♪ open the door to your senses taker. -- census taker. >> when we join together as one nation, we rely on common knowledge that comes from the senses -- census. it empowers as to make better choices in moving forward.

when every the people are well informed, they can be trusted with our own government. in the process, the census tells as much more about where we've been aware a gallon. -- and where we are going. >> we are happy to be here today.

they are keeping it off. -- takkicking it off. we will begin with a set of remarks. >> good morning. i of would like to echo what we had talked about many times. we went in to this -- we went into this with the intent of being a team. it has been a pleasure and honor to work on the senses. the bureau is in very good hands

preve. i appreciate the work of americans who became temporary workers and helped collect the actual data. congratulations to you all. this is only taken place 23 times in the nation's history. they empowered the people over their government. it marked a turning point in the history. it had mainly been used to collect taxes or to put resident

in military service. that is not what it is about. it is about making a tool of political empowerment for citizens over their government. it does manage entered the direction of thomas jefferson. if james madison recommended and least five that were asked on the same. the same.