legislators when we have to go out and work for the votes. if you have to go and work for the votes and appeal to people who are different from you, that makes you a better legislator and makes the process better. [applause] >> a lot folks do not want to have to work that hard for the vote. let's just be honest. . .

>> no young lergets, you need to know the process. if it is a state that does not do that, the legal defense fund and various groups that will

help you. you got to get on the computer and figure out how to draw a district. it is rather self-serving the most important issue for every legislator here is the budget. who gets cut, who does not get cut? you appear to spend your time figuring out how to draw your district, you may draw a wonderful district, which you will probably get retired if they know that what you done. you see texas and three are seats. picked up a seat out of new york. right now 32 members of congress, probably have 35 members of congress, we'll still have 31 members of the state senate. i don't want my lines drawn where i'm just talking to myself.

i want some people that will agree with me to influence. you got to take the element of self out. i been here 20 years, i have served longer than i'm going to serve. i mean, i don't man from the -- for them to roll me out of there into the home. i want to make sure i can impact drawing a district that some person would -- with my values i think could win. they may not necessarily be african-american, most -- most of them in texas has been hispanic. a good number of border states and nonborder states. it is hispanics. i joke, young intern, i told them, one of these days, there'll be one african-american in the state senate and another person in this that probably looks like me but be from the dominican republic, nice brown skin, but that's okay, i want them to have a district where they could fight for issues. you got to back -- these are not

our seats. the -- this is -- this notion of the racial germandering is to create opportunitys for people that think like us. some people that look like me don't think like me. you got to be careful with it. >> americans demographics is moving in favor of communities of color. so community of color's backs shouldn't be against the wall, in terms of scrambling for representation. in 2000, there were 35 million african-americans. in 2010, there were 42 million african-americans. there are seven million mare people of african descent than 10 years ago. that's an opportunity for thking

representation, not decreasing. not retro aggression. so, as senator ellis mentioned, we just need to find where this new seven million is and reap the harvest. it also work with other groups in multi-racial and multi-political coalition so that everybody gets a share. >> clearly we are talking a black state legislators but we do have to confront the issue of the competition that is out this, that is prevalent, that is real when it comes to african-americans and his pangs. so for each over you, give me an example, of not what is worked but a horrible xm pell that you had that you witnessed, that you think hurt both communities by that level of in-fighting and why that can't be the road to progress over the next two

years. >> i can't think of that -- that many issues in terms of redistrict but on political issues, i can. generally black and hispanic legislators are going to agree on affirmative action programs for business. we come together. sometimes african-americans might be more sensitive than criminal justice reforms because right now most of the people in prison are black. won't be long based on the statistics to where there will be another explore. on the immigration issue, from time to time i had to talk to my black colleagues to say we ought motto go take the easy route, we ought to make sure that we're going to give the hispanic colleagues of the -- the benefit of the doubt to think through the issue. i don't want to break up that coalition. we usually have a general person's agreement in san antonio, texas, there has historically been one black

state regtive and one african-american on the city council. they're not black, they're districts. in the houston area, fort bend county right outside my district, there was a black guy that ran for the district, he chairs the martin luther king committee. he didn't win. he was frustrate add then didn't run the next time. a hispanic lawyer jumped up and won the seat. an african-american beat her. we have to have a closed door discussion and say we can't always control these general person agreements. i say we to try to have the dialogue on nafta at the federal level. the issue of labor unions being concerned by jobs. my part of the country where it was important, the african-american members of congress and teixeira politicians restrained themselves from getting that -- out too far that they were defense the issues because they knew it was important to hispanics as it was the case if

it was south africa on the border with with dks instead of mexico. so i think we at least in my backyard we try internly to have the discussions before it blows. sometimes people have a bad attitude. it won't have anything to do with you being black or brown, you got a bad attitude. that had nothing to do with race, it is because i just didn't like that person >> i can give you an example of where -- where african-american and hispanic communities in the redistricting process fought against each other. this comes from rhode island where in the last round of redistricting. >> rhode island? >> yes. >> rhode island? >> i'm just checking. is >> y'all lighten up. >> we not in vermont. i'm guessing. >> the city of province is a

majority city. it has six state senate districts. in the redistricting it would have been possible to -- of those six at least have one majority, one district that would elect african-americans and one hispanic voters. instead they engaged in a jeri mandering that cut out minority voters and ended up with one district. because it was a district that favored hispanics, they didn't -- they opposed it somewhat but not as much as -- as vigorously as they could. it went into litigation we won in federal court and got a court ordered that established two districts. one with hispanics and one with latino voters. using the courts and a league the theory this time around.

-- legal theory that can't be used this time around. >> i want to respond to the comments about not wanting a supermajority district, that's true but from my perspective, redistricting is about whose voices get political strength in the political process. and if you have a district that -- that is -- where minority voters control the outcome, that's the voices and interests that will have power in the political process. i'm not apologetic about having districts that empower minority voters. >> did you see them coming to your table at the justice department? >> yes, over 30-some years, i -- i seen that a hot of times. and in reaching that 50% that anita mentioned to create a new district under section two, i believe and i'm very hopeful that if -- if you could build a consistent record of working together with latinos and asian

americans, then you could add the groups to reach that 50%. if you're fighting with each other, and -- getting evidence in court about the fighting is not going to be hard. then, i think that -- that you know, you -- you lose a real opportunity and given the diversity of the african-american community, now, which includes many people who were -- direct immigrants from africa or haiti and other places, you node to think about unity within. one other point, the southeast, georgia, north carolina that, mississippi, alabama. places are -- arkansas, place that is have emerging latino majorities are the perfect place to start now to build those alliances to get everyone on the same page. and start building power rather than waiting around until there are enough people of both groups

to start can you tell us cutting each other's throats. >> in 19 -- the -- the example -- the positive example i gave was in the 80's where black and hispanic legislators successfully challenged new york city and state redistricting. 10 years later, there was a group of -- of within the hispanic community that actually challenged congressman ringal's district. congressman rangel represents north manhattan. it is central harlem rah to the east is east harlem which is pannish harlem and to the north is washington heights which is dom manipulate con. we had -- we almost had a fiasco in 1992 with blacks and latinos challenging each other over that particular congressional district. it worked out for the best and at the same time i think helping the process was the positive. that was the year, the same time

kong -- congresswoman velazquez vause voted in because she was supported in a spanish district in brooklyn. >> i don't think anybody supports reducing the districts. i don't want to give that impression with anything i said. what i'm talking about is reality and not rhetoric. i deal in the real world and not academicia. what i'm saying is based on 18 years of experience. a he getter and most of us in the south can appreciate this point that some of us are wondering if now is not the appropriate time for us to ask is it better to have power or position? is it in the best interests of the people we care about for us to increase our numbers and husband our influence. >> i would suggest to you the only important color in america is green. if you poor, you're going to

catch hell regardless of skin color. so alliss' point about making sure that we understand the importance of -- of voices, that -- that those of us of color who with fighting for that kind of representation be there is what is critical. i want to say one other point very quickly, because again, black and brown, i want to give you a positive example outside of the legislature. about what some of us, particularly this the south, are doing. et elephant in the room is race in the south. -- south. i serve as the d.n.c. for the southern caucus. in the southern caucus, black and brown have come together to talk about sharing power. our executive committee is made up of black and brown. we're coming together. here. in the south. in january, to talk about the election results, to talk about -- i know this is off the point

but it is more to those of you out outwhich that want to be part of the conversation. it is time to stop dancing around the issue because unless we deal with the issue of race and get the key to figuring out how to get poor white people to understand that it is not in their best interests to be voting for republicans. they don't have pot nor window. 0 simon saying to you that this redistricting is a big issue but for a lot of us it is not just about black and brown. the coalitions that we're trying to build is with black and brown and poor white folk. >> the -- and the next thing to go into was the issue of class. because what you're also seeing when you -- when you're looking at african-americans, hispanics,

asians who are upper middle class and going higher, that is also playing a role in this whole process and so, as folks on the front line, how have you seen class emerge as a significant way of suppressing certain folks' voices? >> it is a tough issue. you take the health care debate as an example. some of the town hall meetings that one of my congress members was having. she was jackson lee. i remember going to one and asking the people who the room that didn't have health insurance to hold their hands up. the whites held their hand up. the people that clearly benefit, the -- many people don't have health insurance and good number white. so it is hard to get them to understand, don't forget about my color because somebody is hispanic. the system played us against one another. it takes time. you know this broader issue by the way, representative, you know, and it really makes sense,

it is okay for a black politician and hispanic politician to fight and have a disagreement. we evolve beyond it. two blacks this the senate, sometimes senator west have to remind one another. it is okay if we disagree. sometimes something that may be good for his district in dallas, may motte be -- that's okay. >> not let the system play us against one another. i can disagree with my white members and it is not personal. so even with hispanics, we got to get beyond that on the growth issue, look, only four or -- four majority states, the first one was from white. the second was new mexico. not a black thing. inate of american, hispanic and anglos. that contutes that -- contutes that majority. third california, fourth and last one right now, according to the federal demographer is texas. it is not a black thing. we -- 12% of the population is

-- we don't always live this seg grated neighborhoods anymore. some point you got to take the california model and talk about cumulative voting, if we keep voting on the color thing, because a lot of people are fing mr. out of those historic neighborhoods. >> i just want to suggest that the data shows that there's not a conflict between recognizing and giving voice to minority voters and low income voters in the redistricting context. my evidence for this, comes from the reno case out of north carolina, where -- where the -- the two -- two congressional districts, we had two congress the districts that were black districts, the first and 12th. when we looked at the economic dem graphics of those districts, those were the two poorest districts in the state. and beyond the -- the raw economics, the 12th district was an urban district, it united all the way from durham down to charlotte, the inner city areas of the state.

the first district was very much a rural district. the issues of the rural poor are different from the urban poor, in the resdefwricting process, you could american interests. i don't see that there's a conflict between trying to -- to look at when voices are left out of the process -- >> anita, we admit sometimes for the african-american or hispanic politician to get to votes of the poor rural voters is more difficult because of the historical things that divide us. even poorer anglo whites sometimes, in my district i do very well with the gay community. i do well with the jewish community. do i well with -- with wealthy whites because they know in the district. we could do a lot worse, we got to go with him. some of the others, the chats issues, it is hard. maybe in time we'll get there. it is difficult for a black

member of congress to appeal to those. in south carolina, perfect example. more rural whites. >> i think there's a dynamic between -- between class and political diversity, also in motion here. the black electorate is becoming more politically diverse, and the white electorate. the one party i don't think we have mentioned is the tea party. they were very much presence in the last redistrict cycle and some interesting things happened to -- two black republican congressmen were elected in -- in white promptly white congressional districts. another factor is that several members, i understand close to half of the congressional black caucus members are representing districts that are not at least 50% african-american. >> yeah. >> which means they're representing whites, latinos and asians and others. so the political diversity is

trumping class in some ways. people are crossing racial lines to vote for elected officials because they feel that those people will represent their interests regardless of race. >> i -- the -- the way i disagree with that is -- you said that they're crossing racial hines. but the class issue is still prevalent. the reason i bring that up, is because when you look at certain areas, the atlanta area, where you have high income, largely african-american neighborhoods, you're seeing the exact same thing in other places of his pan ibs, those are now being perceived as suburban districts and you have legislators, republican, saying how can you possibly grasp those areas because you're no -- now talking to them in an economic discussion as opposed to a

racial discussion. with that being said, how do you think that the class hment looking at -- at the economic numbers, will play in this process thinking over the next 10 years. wreck tpwhifing how the neighborhoods are shifting. recognizing how you have african-american neighbors and hispanic neighbors that are becoming poor, and poorer because they're leaving the areas. their interests changes compared to those in the poor areas. how is that level of class going to play out? i think one thing to be aware of while low income people move frequently, high income people of any choice have more choice of where they move and one thing you need to be aware of, especially in inner city neighborhoods like in atlanta, which right now have relatively scattered minority populations

and then all of a sudden, a bunch of luxury condos pop up. and when you thought was an area of -- that is going to give you a majority of a thousand votes, all of a sudden is 5,000 people who are going to have a different outlook. >> the old model used to be a high-rise public housing complex, or a nursing center, that is now a condo. and -- the people who are -- their earning power in the condo now changes to -- the dynamic and that's where class comes in. >> right? >> and i think another -- another, another aspect of this is that the supreme court especially justice kennedy as he made clear in the redistricting case, is i think eager to find differences among minority populations and there they found that -- a district, a new minority -- a new latino distribute that combined urban area that is were latino and

rural areas in the valley was not a minority district because they hadn't been working together. they had different interests. it didn't count. it didn't satisfy section two of the voting rights. >> his thinking is that -- so because of their focus, so all of the skin color was the same -- >> he finds focus on skin color offensive. i think that surprised people in texas, because the people -- latinos in austin and houston will vote together. >> maybe kenny should visit texas. go ahead, i'm sorry. >> i guess until this last time and that raises an issue of when e -- where two of the districts flipped. i believe some of the -- some of the state legislative districts in texas and if arizona that we thought were mine nort districts

were vigorously challenged by ainge hoe and latino republicans, so the republicans won. one thing we need to do is look afresh at a distribute where minority voters can control the outcome. >> they'll say the last election cycle was a doviation, the hispanic turnout was not as high. those were solid his pang districts. like when i got up on the election, my wife says, you lose, you figured you had it. i got nervous too, that pea party running against me was hand-some, you know, young kids and all. i got young kids awl a. it is a real challenge, some is on the candidate and not just on us. then your learn about zosing and fire safety if you stay in.

that's the nature of politician, you represent your constituency. we change with the times. >> can i respond with the piece about the tea party and i'm tpwhrast glad you raised that and the two congress people of color who were elected. as a floridian, one was from florida and as a current resident of south carolina, a former colleague that will soon be in congress, it is a mistake to believe there was crossover voting for the one from south carolina. the first congressional district that my friend representative tim scott soon -- is now congressman elect tim scott was elected from, there was no crossover voting from -- from voters of color, not significantly in the first congressional district. the whole point about some of us of color being offended when the issue of color is used to define us and to suggest that you ought to vote for us of color, i think representative congressman elect scott would agree that he didn't

run and that -- in that district as a congressman of can color. elect me because i look like you. if he had done that, he would not be congressman elect. the other point that is critical in that. he was endorsed by the tea party and our general simply, he carried the legislation to repeal health care. it is about speaking to the issues as has been pointed out that are important to people where ever. he's going to congress not because people of color put him there, he's going to congress because conservative, mainly white republicans put him in a district that is a conservative republican district. >> i don't -- for me, i don't see that even being an issue because you have congressman steve cohen who represents memphis and that was a district that harold ford jr. held and his father held. even the last two, the former

mayor of memphis just ran against him and got dusted -- because cohen was all about the issues. but do i believe that the point -- the point i think you're trying to make is not a question of the crossover vote but how does an election of a tim scott in a largely white conservative district and alan west in florida, and in memphis, there was plays a role on the judges? when it comes to making the decisions, because typically, the argument has been, need to have district designed a certain way to elect people that look look -- look like us, but if you have hispanics winning largely african-american areas. powell won that seat, how will that impact those -- those judge

decisions as relates to the ruling. i think that's one of the points she was trying to make. >> i do yoling matters. >> class matters. race hearties, they're all important factors but itology has clearly emerged as a very important driver in the process. and the court system and we have to -- we have who lawyers here who will elaborate, is taking that into account. as we go forward in the redistricting process. >> mine says that the legal doctrine has always been about candidates of choice of black voters. the right under the voting rights act is for black voters to elect their candidates of choice. if the people are elected are not candidates of choice, it doesn't impact whether or not there's a voting rights act claimed. what matters is whether or not the black voters vote together, are they cohesive. if not, if they're voting all over the place then they have no voting rights act protection. what is matter is the choice of

the voters. >> the point he's making, as we're becoming more ethnicly diverse and politically diverse, that may very welcome to pass, john, and so, the typical -- the typical claims justice department to the courts, may really -- render themselves moot depending on howe the folks have r-voting. we're talking about a process of obtaining districts for the next 10 years. you're projecting how things will change over the next 10 years. could this very well be, possibly the last round of how we currently look at it, based upon america becoming a majority-minority country? we're one generation from that. i want you to think forward here as you seek to answer the question. >> i think, first of all, the good news is -- for someone who grew up in birmingham, alabama in the 60's and saw the attitudes then, you got -- you got republicans electing the guy

-- for beating a fellow named thurman in the primary, i believe to represent the district that has fort sum. er in it. those republicans -- hell has -- -- a buffer in the district of fort summitter. >> i think that's something to acknowledge and celebrate for what it is but not to be blinded to think that is -- that means i go in other than you know, the bare facts. again as anita said, the focus is on the voters, and are they're getting elemented in fair numbers. it is what the voters want and whether minorities are winning on an equal basis. >> you say what the voters want but typically when you have these discussings, they largely

are, do they look like us? >> what you look at is the election returns. you got the minority and white and mixed. it is not a secret. everyone knows which of the minority precincts, which are -- are the white precincts. you could tell. you could just look at the -- you look at precincts returns as each of you had, you know who is voting for whom. it is not a secret. we could pay experts a lot of money. one other thing i like to add. you need to focus on the particular office, usually black, white contests for a particular office and not get sidetracked by -- by a juddish election where everyone is just voting for the bar and not to get sidetracked by the obama election. great as it is. don't try to take those returns to the bank because you know, they happen to ull a of the

other stuff that you took to the bank. it is it is not -- >> i thinkman davis figured out that real quick. >> roland, i want to jump in on a point about the question about black republicans. give you a simple example. the vast majority of african-american voters are for affirmative action. right? >> yep. >> if you elect a black person from a republican district, if they go carry a banner for affirmative action, they probably won't get that nomination again. >> right. >> so what we're saying is, it is the voters. if at some point in history, african-americans are against affirmative action, we would be out of sync. that -- you got me? >> a court can take, a junge can -- judge can take anything they want to justify anything. that's how -- what we learn in law school, how to justify

anything. they want -- they have three african-americans that hold statewide office in texas, chief justice of the supreme court. been reelected. another african-american on the supreme court, did not get the nod from the governor. ran against a -- went on the republican side and beat that person. then as an african-american on the railroad commission, regulate oil and gas in texas. somebody take the position, you don't have racial disparitys in texas because you got three black people that elect to stay white. you could just justify anything you want to justify. but in reality, you would know they can't take positions as would be the case of the position of most hard-core african-americans, or they get in the office. i want to answer the question about whether the increasing diversity of black voters and their political views threaten their voting rights protection and if this is the last decade it matters. while the data shows there's more diversity than in the past, there's still enormous political

cohesiveness, enormous solidarity, when we look at the data, that's looking at election returns, it used to be you would find 100% of the plaque voters would support the same candidate. now maybe that quon down to 85%. but that's -- that's still overwhelming political cohesiveness. i'm talking about from the mid 0e's until now. i don't think the change is happening so fast that this is the last time the voting rights act. >> looked like he wanted to respond. >> i respectfully disagree. if i understand your question. >> which is why it is a question. i think there's a shift, there's an i do logical shift going on. in the federal judiciary, when you look at line of cases. i'm not a lower but i pay attention to this stuff because i'm a manager. >> what did you do, stay at holiday inn express? >> and we have to be -- i think we need to think conservatively

that the climate today may not work in our best interests. we need a defensive strategy, that's not to assume that the kinds of voting rights decisions that got us to where we are after the last round. i think they're moving in a different direction now and we need to be more conservative in terms of how -- how we set, we play the game and the process. a couple of things out there, shape matters, you know, bizarre and elongated districts, reaching for blacks over here and down the road over there, i think that is out the window. okay? and size matters. attempting to manipulate population deviations. we though it is zero for congress. every congressional district in your state was -- must be exactly the same size. what we have been. what everybody been playing around with up until now is this, so called 10% rule.

there's not a rule. i think the rule is going out the window. when we talk about state and local redistricting, we better stay as close to zero population. the closer we are to zero, the less opportunity there is to critique your plans when they come in. i think those are some of the new directions that this -- this redistricting process is going in. we may -- i think we are seeing the end of an era to use your words in terms of the containeds of standards that are going to be amied against redistricting plans going forward. >> john and anita. >> i think that's -- i think that's true. it is good advice, the courts are getting progressively hostile. one thing, especially those of you in the nonsection five states need to try to do as best you can is have your plan -- your alternative plan better than their plan in these racially neutral standards. lower deviation, get the districts as compact as you can. try and avoid splitting county

boundaries and other boundaries. try to make -- if you can, have a plan that looks better by all of the racially neutral standards that the courts like so much, then -- then you are, well on your way to showing that they adopted their man with a racially discriminatory purpose and knocking it out. >> i was in a federal district court -- district court in the district of columbia yesterday morning, arguing that section five of the voting rights act is actual, at least arguing for that side. i have no -- no doubt that the -- that we're in severe danger when it it comes to the voting rights act and section five of the voting rights act. there are two cases pending that challenge the constitutionality, one from alabama and one from north carolina. the plaintiffs have the cases on the fast track. there's every possibility before the election, there's some possibility that before elections in november 2012 that supreme court could have ruled that section five is unconstitutional. so i don't mean to -- to say

there's no threat to the voting rights act. my point was about the conditions that give rise to the justification, for having those protections in place. >> one more monkey wrench. florida. i had congresswoman karen brown on the morning show. she was dead set against a stayed wii ballot initiative that determined how districts would be drawn. what was interesting, though, she -- she was -- she was absolutely against it. but the aclu, the league of women voters and the ncaa -- naacp were for it. how do you possibly see state ballot initiatives being used to determine how districts are drawn based upon that -- that initiative passing in florida? >> there are about a --

attempting to change the rules of the game. that's exactly what they're doing. they're rewriting the rules for how redistricting is done. >> you say they. who is "they"? the issue of thrrd was, you said it, all of these weirdly drawn districts. with the initiative, they said, let's not look at the crazy districts, let's have sensibly drawn stricts that people can clearly understand and you have people that who, again, those for that, the coalition was pretty interesting that when you hear black members of complaining, saying this is going to threaten our seats, the very people that typically have been there, their allies said no, we're for that initiative. i think it is tough to make a strong public policy argument to convince voters to be against one of these, so called independent commissions. we don't have ballot initiative in texas.

thank god. we would be like california and call kind of stuff. >> constitutional amendment. u got to run it through legislature, you can't just amend the constitution on the pat with, you got to come by us to get it on there. if it is on the ballot, if you could go to florida -- if you could do that in florida, if you could do that, it would be hard to argue against it. even if you have this independent body drawing the lines, they got to comply with what is left of the voting rights act, you made a m koent mr. about us being a majority minority country. i hope i live hong enough and i'm still in my right hind when i'm going to see some of my anglo colleagues that vote against the voting rights act, no. in texas, we got to have that. at some point, my hispanic -- >>ly hispanic going to vote. they had people fighting me on

it. they dig up all of my best speeches. they -- >> and -- the reason i raise that, i certainly believe that -- that we are seeing the -- the frankly -- the roots if you will of that -- of that argument, something i call white victimhood right now. you hear it when you listen to glern beck and those -- and you hear, i hope they don't treat us like we did them. the next generation, threw stuff is going to change. that will be a very interesting argument. >> you take this vote on imgrigse as example manipulate read of history. you went to school in texas, my read on history, the impress sareos, you could settle their hand, you got to do three things, you got to learn

spanish. you got to convert to catholicism. and you can't have slaves. what do you think they were really upset about? what's that again? i didn't major in history, so i won't go there. as woe move out of the neighborhoods and our population changes, a hot of us don't think about the way you vote in a corporation, you vote on a cumulative sector, you don't go to say people, who want to get rid of the c.e.o., it is a cumulative voting. as we integrate our neighborhoods with record foreclosures, a lot of people moving into neighborhoods that they never thought about moving into, they get them cheap. people moving out, they thought were their neighborhoods. it'll change over time. i think there will always be some version of the voting rights act but this notion of a bipartisan independent commission, i don't think we should rule without it. i supported it in texas and got criticism. i supported it when it wouldn't

pass. i don't know if i supported it when it will pass. i'm a politician, you got to understand both sides. the issue is how do you make it truly independent? got me? everybody is against ugly district. to senator jerry that did the salamander. everybody against it until they think about it. they find out the communities of interest, people in buck head may have more in common with somebody out in the suburbs than they think they do. and when they all end up in a nice heightal compact district, you may have a mess. it is hard to argue against a independent commission if the voters have a chance to vote on it. that's tough. >> and the florida lalt initiative. >> it is important to remember in each of the commissions one standards they have is with the voting rights act. i think florida setting up guidin los is a gift to lawyers. it gives you a whole lot of

things to argue about and it is -- it is just -- it is going to cost the state of florida millions of dollars in attorney's fees and going to cost everyone else in attorney's fees. -- the california -- has done this with a very elaborate procedure to insure a lack of partisanship on the members. it will be interesting to see how that works out because there are some delicate issues in california, especially for african-american communities there. but generally, you know, the -- in states the republicans control, they're in favor of independent commissions in districts with democrats control they're -- >> shocking. >> amazing coincidence. >> i want to point out, that we're out of time for redistricting reform process to impact this next round of redistricting. but i think the issue gets at the fundamental question of what

is a redistricting boss and who should do it? who should be in control? i think it is a policy issue like every other policy issue. the people we're holding accountable ought to be the ones that do it. legislatures who hear from their constituents they are in my mind good people to though what communities of intst interest should be brought tole together. we need communities involved in the process. i'm a strong defender of having legislative -- >> i want john to answer this. the reason i raise has and i go back to the earlier point in terms of how people from both parties view this process. i do believe that folks that lean with -- who are democrat spend more of their time, as john said, assuming that games won will be there. the experience shows us with the federalist society and various

conservative think tanks they're not thinking necessarily about this round, but they're thinking about -- about 10 years from now and 20 years from now. they're testing small changes now, the -- to see how they could be effective to spread in a wider area come 020 and then 2030. so that's one of the reasons i made the point in terms of thinking more long-term as opposed to well, what is going to happen in the next six to nine months when you have folks out this who are well funded. well funded by multi-millionaires and billionaire who is are saying, what can we do today that is the difference maker in 2020 and in the very same group that is are progressively democrat and then they're flat-footed, they supposed to be planning for 20, 10 years. john, go ahead. >> independent redistricting commissions.

you need to judge whatever process by -- by the results. you know, i'm -- i'm an avid student of democracy. but at the end of the day, if the roof, the current rules got you where you are now, there are 44 members of african-american members of congress, there are 200 state legislators, 150 senators and 450 members of the lower house in the country. what you need to decide is in your state, is the process they're talking about, what ever label -- they could call it label, independent, none offer them independent by the way. even if california, when they got down to the -- to the -- they had something like 30,000 people apply initially. to get on the commission 37 they got it down to 60 names and then the -- then the four legislative

leaders of the california legislature get to veto half of the final 60. so that is not really independent. okay? there's no quote, process that is totally free of -- of partisan input. even in iowa, they -- another model they hold up, the legislature gets to vote up or down at least on what this quote independent commission does. you need to figure out in my michigan state, in my locality and am i going to wind up with more on the table or less. i don't care what they call it, it sounds good but what is the result going to be. you're not going to be -- to have -- have the same or better, you're not better off than where you are now, you should not be for it. >> we have a time for questions. the camera is there. want three folks to step up at a time. come here and step up the steps so they could see you versus having your back to the camera. you have a question, step up so you could ask about the -- the panel. take three at a time. >> so, then -- once you folks

can answer the question, again we look for questions, not comments. if it goes too long, i will pull your coat. let me also make clear that -- old phil donahue, don't touch the mike, i got it. i will pop your hand if you touch the microphone. cool. your name, where you from, your question? >> state senator, hare miller. >> tennessee. >> can you anticipate a ton of lawsuits. give an example of tennessee, we have 64 republicans, 34 democrats and one independent. in the senate 2013. i agree with you, roland, i don't think they're going to take any prisoners, when they start redrawing those district lines. so we can anticipate a lawsuit, do you anticipate lawsuits coming throughout this country from the parties that are in the minorities? >> heck yes. republicans have more power on the state legislative level than

they have had in 50 years. the end game is all about lawsuits, republicans are far more prepared and far more resources. they focus on this much better than we have. we have been quietly having discussion. we not nearly where they are. we go to the state legislatures and fight on budget issues. they know to cut and plan in the end game for lawsuits. >> my point is not only yes will there be lawsuits but we need to be entering and redistricting and preparing now for them. >> name. >> i'm i'm joe from california, and i'm on the planning commission. we deal with the housing elements and what is going on now, we're dealing with in 20-year increments of housing. what we're doing is moving the housing in to middle class neighborhoods. now back in the day, the change in the names instead of the game. we used to call them projects. now they call them mixed housing. we used to call them duplex and now they condos. one of my commissioners got real

uneasy. he said in 20 years, this will not reflect the community that i thought i was living in. theying rio they think redistricting is taking place by way of the housing element and the housing requirement. what do you have to say regarding that? >> the question. thanks a lot. >> dispersement. eye agree. the changing housing patterns that one word mentioned, foreclosure is moving people out. and moving people in to communities, that's one the reasons that we can't attempt to be overscientific about drawing districts and we have to think long-term and housing policy or lack there of, more -- foreclosure crisis is driving a lot of what you just described. >> john? >> no. the more concentrated you are, the easier to draw districts.

there's societal benefits by having desegregated housing and no free lunch out there. >> in a big state like california, what is california? 40 million? 30 million. >> it is tough, you did elect african-americans and as a attorney general in california. maxine waters districts. those districts are becoming more and more hispanic. if it is a school board or city council you could do it. there's a reason why san francisco before the race issue came up, use cumulative voting. as big as california is and as big as your population is, you just want to stay in the neighborhood, that's historically plaque, you got to move to houston or south carolina or something. get over it. >> state of illinois, chaired the redistricting committee in illinois state senate we're not quite -- >> you're name. >> kwame rowe, we're not quite out of time in illinois. this week we passed, we passed voting rights expansion with

regards to redistricting that would codify what justice kennedy in the bartlett decision was -- said was permissible which is the crossover coalition and influenced districts. i want to -- to -- i want to -- anita. >> you're clapping. >> i think that's a wonderful model. there's a california voting rights act. there's important ways that legislatures can add to the protections of the federal voting rights act. that's an excellent step. >> you also see kwame raul walking around with the cane, the president had bausted hip. all y'all do over 35, stop playing basketball? it is over. go play golf like me. you don't walk around with a cane. don't play golf like you play, because you going to -- >> the way you swing -- >> i broke your pocketbook, that's what we talking about. we'll leave that alone. >> ken duncan, state representative from chicago. question for aneat a john.

you mentioned john, regarding the prison population, is this any pending law our lawsuits that can help us really put that back in the right form? that is the districts. their home districts where they were arrested compared to those promptly none black communities, or hispanic communities where they're being counted for c.b.g. monies, federal accountability and state and local accountability in tems of dollars. now votes. what is pending? >> i think you and senator sponsored an m.b.c.s.l. resolution on this subject. there are three states in the country that passed state laws already on prisoner count. senator thompson and assemblyman perry here in new york led the fight to pass new york's prisoner count law. so you do have model statutes.

i think you could work from. maryland, new york in terms of how it is done or being done in new york. we're working with -- with department of corrections to figure out how to reallocate 60 thouks addresses back to -- back to the -- to the prisoners permanent residence as opposed to where they're being counted now in the prison. >> i'm curious -- just popped in my head with that question. if you're going down that path, do you -- potentially see a problem where the critics will say, wait a minute, we allow clean students to be able to vote in the place where they go to school. all of -- they're living somewhere else, could they use the same argument to justify how they count prisoners? >> people not in the country legally, so you can't -- you count them but you don't calculate them in terms of drawing the line. >> the amount of college

students and prisons doesn't hold, because the issue with the prisons is partly the fact that near not actually vote bug they did prorgs natalie minority. and prisoners don't get the choice of voting where -- whether incarcerate ordinary in the home state, they don't get to vote at all but because they're disproorganizationer natalie mine authority, it impact the communities they come doctor. >> is it where a.m. university has been. they been fighting the county for a long time because they don't want that promptly black college impacting those local elections. again. i'm just thinking out of -- in terms of how critics may see it. if you're advocating on behalf of those students in those areas how can you k-you oppose the prisoners in the same areas. >> this went to the united states supreme court, my daughter could vote at columbia,

new york, or -- it is their choice. >> let them make the choice. that's the difference. the stubts have a choice. they can vote where they in college or the dorm or where they're from. but the inmates don't have a choice. they're not voting. >> i -- i like to add a wrinkle to this. first of recall, fair view, the prayer view voting case was in 1976 was the first one i worked on when i was in the justice department and you know, there's some good steady customers out there. people, people are keeping us in business. but there's a wrinkle on the rich counting. that's you know, it is very important in new york and houston where -- where the prisoners go out in these all-white republican areas and build up their population. this the deep south, a lot of those rural areas are promptly african-american. and they're -- they're in area that is are losing population and if you start taking parchment out of mississippi and

take angola out of louisiana and moving them out, there's people here who might have a real hard time making up that population. and that is a good illustration of how -- how you really need to look at your own district and look at what is on the ground, who is there, who votes doesn't vote? who is a je hovevess witness. get out and drive around and know the areas because there are lots of pitfalls out there. >> questions. name, where you from? >> i'm representing the geraldine thomson from florida, where we now have rules that the legislature will use to draw district lines. i heard if you don't like the sight of blooder, particularly your own, you stay away from redistricting. >> or florida. >> y'all always have drama. >> we do. >> my question is, how do we -- how do we make sure that there's

inclusion and there's fairness in appointing people to serve on the redistricting committees that are -- that our legislature will have because those decisions are made by the people in power. so my question is do you have some thoughts or some ideas or strategies in terms of how we could be involved in the process? . .

>> you have to focus on your budget in florida before you focus on your district. you may not be foreclosed on, but you could be moved and read a little place and your family will come out and see if he can win again. >> two more questions. >> in the new jersey state senator and i have been to this process before. i do not have the luxury of time. in january of this year, going into the junior election, we will be in redistricting again. my question is to the justice department's and others. what is the earliest point in time that we can involve

organizations like yours in the process. we have been to court before. from the black caucus perspective and latino caucus, we need to file with our attorneys from day one. >> i think that each of you should go home and the deal with the voting rights act. you need to learn the website and wander around it. there is a contact list that has two attorneys responsible for redistricting. up.day morning, call them of you should be monitoring systems and build a relationship with the people and the staff to get

a sense of where they are coming from and keep them alert to facts as they develop rather than waiting until the plan is passed and you have a disaster sitting there and expect them to come to your rescue. there are not as many of them as there are states and counties and school boards and cities out there. >> do you anticipate with attorney general eric colder and president obama, do you anticipate this justice department being very aggressive in looking at the views of districts and seats over the next six months? are they gearing up for what is about to come down? >> the department of justice is saying publicly that even though they're under attack in the courts, they will vigorously enforce it.

they will not be intimidated by these challenges to the constitutionality. by the same token, they are getting thousands of submissions, so you really have to get on their radar screen and get your data together so that you can access them. the other resources will give you to get assistance is the redistricting institute. you will see a lot of resources there. >> are you seeing progressive donors coming to your organization? are you seeing an uptick in that area as well? >> yes, the donors are coming to the table but they are slow and not as much as they need. there are resources out there that are non-partisan. you have to work for community- based organizations and other

nonprofit groups, but there is money out there. >> anita, were you at the prayer breakfast? in the black church, you always ask for money. that was a setup question for anita. your answer should have been, "no, the money is not flowing. it needs to follow a lot faster." always ask for more money. >> i wanted to ask senator rice -- you need to pull your resources. you need to hire your lawyers and you will not have enough lawyers to hire the lawyer, but if you pull your resources, -- they have already asked me to give them your district. they know what not to give you if you do that.

>> columbus, georgia state rep. how do you suggest that we develop the best strategy to attack this redistricting? >> at least a committee, a task force. you need a working group of legislators and staff. your staff is one to do all work. -- born to do all the work. -- going to do will work. >> i think that that says it all. all of us are not want to be experts on all these positions. you need to pick out which colleague is really going to read that and understand law, or go to some of the gray hairs. people who have been through it. you need to cool -- pool

resources. >> of the big question is where are you going. the democrats will have an interest in cutting the fat so that those voters can be used elsewhere. you need to watch out that they are not cutting muscle. you need to get together on what you think your best strategy is an keep in mind were you are going. >> big government groups and community. it do your homework. figure it out. understand. >> anita? >> they need more resources out there. >> somebody was paying

attention. [laughter] we are out of time. give it up for our panel. we certainly appreciate it. thank you a lot. >> give it up for roland martin. >> come january, there will be six new members of the u.s. house from the state of ohio. a republican will represent the first district. this covers the southeastern parts of ohio. it is his second time represent this district. he was first elected to the house during the 1994 republican revolution when the gop run and -- won a majority of the house. another new house member from ohio is republican bill johnson from the sixth district that covers parts of southeastern ohio.

he beat the incumbent. that was charlie wilson. ohio is one of the states that stands to lose congressional seats after the rear range of the political map. the population count gives more congressional seats to the south and west and removes some seats from the northeast and midwest. the largest number of seats lost are in ohio and new york, which will lose two congressional seats each. others the -- states losing one seat are ohio, illinois, michigan and others. the u.s. population increased 9.7% over the last de, the slowest rate of growth since 1940. >> up next, the discussion on the future of limited government. also, stephanie flanders of the bbc talks about the economic situation in the united kingdom.

later, we will be air the event on the role of race in drawing congressional and state legislative districts. of limited government and the 2010 elections. you will hear remarks from journalists from "the weekly standard." this is an hour and 25 minutes. >> >> thank you. the title of my paper is, "the keynesian state." this will be in relation to the economy. this paper had its relations this summer when i heard that

glenn beck had [unintelligible] and saw it was a kind of response. it was not an economic response, it was a political response and the thought that runs through is this will never work politically, leaving the economic theory aside which he also criticized. the general theme of my paper here is the estate that comes into being as a consequence of trying to implement keynesian policy kind of defeats in the hands. a big government of the kind that has evolved will implement the kind of a surgical keynesian policy, a more limited government would do it a lot better. in a certain sense, the big

government that comes into being as a consequence of his theory makes it more difficult to implement keynesian policy. in response to some of the things that have been said, i do think that the growing size of the government is compromised in the institutions of self- government. this picks up speed as time goes on. this is not necessarily a criticism. everyone can say that every political tendency that gets a foothold will over time run its course and lead to excesses' of a self-defeating kind and perhaps that is what is happening with canes. -- keynes. he is the most influential political and economic writer

of the 20th-century. and he wrestled with all the great problems of that era. he wrote two great books about world war 1 and the theory published in 1937. each had a different theme but rose from an underlying assumption, which was that world war room and one had destroyed the order in europe and america and a new one had to be built up in its place. i am not sure will be able to get through all this, but that is the general theme of the keynesian state. the u.s. has the oldest and one of the few constitution's organized around the principles of limited -- liberty and

limited government. there were to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and prosperity. for more than two madeiras, americans have understood their national enterprise in terms of the language of liberty and freedom. let freedom ring, they have said. or do not tread on me. lincoln spoke of a new birth of freedom. equality, although certainly a principle embedded in american life is unlikely to displace freedom. when soldiers go abroad, they are not promoting quality but to defend freedom. even though there is a wish to expand the government, do so in the name of freedom or rights. it was strange to look that americans have built a big government. one that is approaching in size some of the european governments they denounce as socialist and collectivist. after the recent automobile and

bank bailouts along with a stimulus package of $800 billion, government spending at all levels surged to 45% of gross domestic product. compared to a postwar average of around 36% or 37% of gdp. an average among the countries of the european union of 50% of gdp. nor does there appear to be a limit to the kinds of programs the government may support or how much they will borrow to support them. several state governments, calif. among them, have grown so large as they are approaching insolvency. even as we speak about limited government, our governments have assumed nearly unlimited powers to tax, spend, and regulate. just as a side point on the

stimulus package, whether or not it worked economically, politically, it represented an expense into the powers of government. think of it this way. $40 or $50 billion of that money went to california. a lot of it to public employees who were able to recycle some money back into the election campaign. it is true that we have reached a showdown between big government and private enterprise. or for purposes of symmetry, between big government and limited government. it is heartening to think that in this battle, limited government is likely to come up the winner. the great majority of voters prefer a regime of limited government and free enterprise

as against one of high taxes, redistribution, and regulation. the big government coalition has proven difficult to dislodge. why should this be so? one -- one obvious reason is that there are so many voters who received benefits from the government as compared to those who pay taxes to fund them and many advocates occupy influential positions in the press, universities, and the professions. this is all true. more ominously, the modern state appears to have changed its character in the process of expansion. we're used to government as a neutral institution open to influence or capture by rotating majorities in the society. that is the longstanding vision of representative government. the federal government, along

with some of our state government such as those in california, new york, and other places, have developed interests of their own that are resistant to pressures arising from the electorate. these governments more resemble political parties, with the capacity to mobilize support for their own expansion. government is not only big, but it is an active force capable of fighting back against those who seek to limit its powers. government is no longer the pass a political force as it was at one time or has been conceived of in political theory. my thought here is this. in the past, different groups in this society have fought for control of the government. free labor, a slave states. later on, labor unions and big business. these troubles have gone on since the beginning of our republic. increasingly, we have been -- we have a new line of government. the political parties have lined up along that line of conflict. that is a new line of conflict and one that has arisen from

the growth of government. our traditional system of limited career has been compromised but not entirely overthrown. what has emerged and how we might go about restoring a liberal state unlimited leverage that is essential for prosperity and national strength. we need a new terminology to describe this which operates as a vested interest in its own right. for want of a better term, it is the keynesian state, after its principal theoretical architect. throughout the 19th century and the 20th-century, the u.s. and great britain were governed according to the doctrines of classical liberalism.

they envisioned a liberal state with liberty as it's essential principle. the powers of government were limited and powers were divided and checked to avoid concentrations of power in the state. constitutions of state were written according to the same design. most importantly, the state was designed to respond to civil society. to the society -- and not to direct the civil society. james madison riding in 1791 -- writing in 1791 feared the public is becoming disorganized. leaving the government to that

self directed course which it must be owned is the propensity of every government. this is what the framers feared and what they rebelled against. a government that asserted superiority over civil society and sought to direct and guided. the system was designed to keep the government checked and controlled by forces arising from the society. during the depression decade of 19 -- the 1930's, to developments challenged these institutions. the first was that because of popular pressure come on national governments to yangon the responsibility for managing their economies to maintain full employment. prior to this time, the tools that states had to promote economic growth were limited. the valuation of currency, and tariffs to protect domestic industries. the second was the john mccain's -- keynes formulated the basis on which this would be done.

the old regime has been displaced by new one operating under different assumptions. in his landmark book, he mounted an attack on the classical school of economics. the influential doctrine of free markets and laissez-faire markets. he one to prove that there existed no automatic adjustments in wages, prices, and interest rates that would correct the slide in employment and output. the markets might reach equilibrium at levels below on employment.

he argued that this is what happened in the 1930's. the market for labor did not work as advertised because despite high levels of unemployment, workers would not accept lower wages that producers could afford to pay them. this was due to the development of labor unions, he suggested. the more some saved, the less others would invest. in order to arrest the death spiral, the state had to step in to borrow and spend. the state can eventually reduce its spending and borrowing when the economy operates at close to full capacity. he looked forward to a time when the state would take over the investment function. he believed the state can make calculations according to broad social events.

this is not true from experience. even though his concept of the investment state was widely popular at the time and also in the early postwar was abandoned by his followers today. he looked to overthrow the classical theory of economics and the theory of limited government. he assigned the state an unprecedented role in maintaining the economy. this had to be permanent, not temporary. as his followers pointed out, if this state would intervene, it could also intervened to prevent them from happening in the first place. the state would steer the market in capital societies

because the marketplace could not function without it. keynes never spelled out a theory of the state to correspond with his economic theory of public spending. he did acknowledge in his last chapter that in order to maximize and maintain full employment, the state would have to take on functions never envisioned by the 19th century proponents of limited government. these included setting tax rates and interest rates to promote consumption and directing investment toward socially useful answer. he was never specific as to how the state should organize itself to carry out these functions. the classical economists had a

theory of the state that dovetailed with theories of the market. what is the keynesian state? his friend and biographer said he believed such decisions could be placed in the hands of experts operating in the public interest, much the way we eloped central bankers to control the interest rates. in democratic systems, the elected representatives control public spending in response to demands from constituents and interest groups. he assigned duties to the state but never stop to think how these functions could be grafted onto the political system that was designed to include them. this is true in the u.s. where you have developed all these constitutional limits and traditions, which prevented such an enterprise from coming into being. his theory came along too late to be much use to fdr. the general theory was published in 1937 while the new deal was in place by 1936. fdr discovered it was possible to build a long-running electoral coalition on the basis of public spending. this was a political but not an economic inside.

it suggests how they would eventually evolve with mutual reinforcement. with politicians pressing for it for a different set of reasons. this is generally what has happened. it is music to and it was music to a politician's years to tell him he could spend money and pilot public debt and win votes of what purpose of growth and prosperity. -- for the purpose of growth and prosperity. keynes's theory came into its own in the postwar period. it guided labor governments in great britain during the 1960's and 1970's. kennedy's tax cuts represented an application of keynesian doctrine. keynes's there is remain influential.

as we see from your daily demands from paul krugman and others for more stimulus to counter act of the slump. the government has a ball from a logic that does not necessarily -- evolved from a logic that does not necessarily come from his theories. they want public spending for different reasons and it is the politicians to make the choice. we can see this in many ways. the federal government's disastrous intervention into the housing market and on the recent stimulus package which was passed out funds to various clemons and interest groups

with little regard to any overall design. if way abstract from his writings, we can see what kind of political arrangements were likely to evolve as a consequence of trying to follow his prescriptions. we can develop the outlines of the keynesian state in theory and as it has to build. there must be a redistribution so the state can command the resources necessary to steer the economy. in 1932, the federal government spent about 3% of gdp. some far too low to exercise keynesian powers. today it's been somewhere around 3% of gdp and steers more at lower levels. consonant with its fiscal powers, [unintelligible] whose authority embraces the economy as a whole. subunit in a federal system lack the capacity to carry out keynesian policies which may make decisions to counteract

them. the state must mobilize a sustained demand for public spending such that the resources at its command are continually increased and never reduced especially in periods of slums. it must able to overcome countervailing demands for taxation. to accomplish the same, one of the political parties must organize itself around public spending. with the expectation that its adversary may organize itself around efforts to limit that spending. the institutions of limited government inherited from the past must be weakened and gradually disabled in able to

open up space for the growth of the keynesian state. these institutions in the u.s. would be federalism, many state governments are dependent on transfers from the national government today. they operate increasingly as some units of the national government. no question that over 70 -- the ideals of federalism have been compromised. doctrines that circumscribe powers in the economy or enshrine economic liberty or freedom of contract. we know the supreme court between a civil war period and the 1930's had a doctrine that was quickly overthrown in the late 1930's. political roadblocks and artificially limiting the sphere of government. according to good keynesian logic, those who receive benefits are not the same people who contribute or benefit from growth. keynesian coalitions began to work against the original ends of keynesian policy which is

economic growth. cannady promoted a tax cut in the 1960's and you cannot find anyone in the democratic party who would promote tax cuts as a way of implementing keynesian policy. they are interested in spending that money. the above may be inferences from keynes's writings. they provide a fair description of what has happened politically in the u.s. in the postwar era. as traditional garments have given away to new regime's shipped by keynesian goals. it is the breadth of the

organization that six makes the state are to reform. now, i made the point earlier that the modern state has developed ways to mobilize its own policies. it provides grants through the federal system to advocacy groups and to local governments which will press for more. the most effective instrument is the public employee union. an institution that transform state and national politics and which has gained control of the democratic party. turning a more into an instrument of the state. public employe unions date only to the 1960's when the government and -- in many northern states allow for collective bargaining for public employees. many states filed suit later. there followed a wave of strikes, mainly by teachers'

unions which petered out in the 1980's as the union's discovered how to when demands through political pressure. nyc was the first of the government's to face insolvency due to the political influence of public employee unions. many states and localities will follow suit in the years ahead. probably not those where unions are weak or nonexistent. thus, the question arises as to what might be done to slow this down or reverse this process of government growth and to restore some of the institutions of limited government which have eroded over the years. the tea party movement is an encouraging sign. their embrace of free markets and the founders' constitution is definitely a positive sign. some have said that the republican majority should start by thinning out the extravagant forest of programs by a narrow but -- that are supported by a narrow interest groups. many groups that receive money

from the federal government augments the power of the government coalition. one could make an effort to trim back the political influence of public employee unions by curtailing their political activities. some have spoken about repressing the balanced budget and tax limitation amendments. this would be difficult to do. it is worth discussing. states could begin to opt out of federal grants programs as some are doing and challenges to be mounted in the courts against some federal programs as many states are challenging the health care law. there are many such ideas. the point is that the hour is late and the hill a steep, and the advocates of limited

government should be bold and -- in pressing things they might not have dared to press before. if these remedies do not work or cannot be tried, there is always bankruptcy and insolvency. -- waiting in the background as options of last resort. increasingly, it is money sooner or later there will have their turn. thank you very much. [applause] >> roger asked me to speak about how the law had screwed up society. i accepted because as long as i do not have to talk about the muslim brotherhood, i will speak about anything for 20 minutes or so. in the first 219 years of our existence, the u.s. fought in numerous wars against foreign

powers and took 5 million prisoners of war. most were held very briefly. some were executed as war criminals. between those opposite ends of the spectrum, most were detained for some weeks, months, or years. there was one common feature in all this during treatment. it was exclusively controlled by the executive branch of the federal government. whether the question for consideration was whether enemy operatives should be captured or which operatives should be

interrogated and how, or what should be released, decisions were made by the government officials constitutionally responsible for the conduct of war. almost all the time by military officers. more fundamentally, it was understood to be for them to decide who was the enemy. to sort out the commands from the civilians. it was for the commanders to determine the battle. the law was thought to have little or no bearing on any of this. this did not mean there were no particles in place. the so-called laws and customs of war are centuries old. older than the u.s. it was understood that the existence of such particles

which are better thought of as guidelines or rules of reason than laws, that was not tantamount to control by the court. still less to the existence of protocols until the powers to a single national authority. no longer is that the case. in 2008, the supreme court transferred responsibility for the detention of enemy combatants and very likely for other aspects of how the enemy is treated in wartime from the commander in chief of the armed forces to the federal judiciary. the astonishing ruling was a triumph for the progress of block which includes justice anthony kennedy, who was appointed by president reagan when the nomination by judge bork was defeated. the majority held that the

rights and privileges of the u.s. constitution, the framework, the american people created to secure them from foreign enemies somehow extends to those foreign enemies. it extends to alien terrorists who are detained outside the u.s., outside what used to be known as the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts. alien terrorists who only -- whose only connection to our country is a hostile one. and whose goal is to destroy the very system that was there to protect them. it was only natural that most of the commentary focused on the specific constitutional rights at issue. the right to habeas corpus. the rights that have a neutral judge. reviewing the legality of the confinement by the authority.

for americans concerned about the erosion of liberty, the shot across about came toward the end of the lengthy ruling. he wrote our opinion does not undermine the executive powers as commander in chief. on the contrary. the exercise of those powers is vindicated, not eroded when confirmed by the judicial branch. was not our servin but our master. and it is no longer the limited from work through which people -- is the omnipresent rule by which our actions are judged legitimate or illegitimate. those who claimed the power to say what the law is. they presumed to be the final word confirming or nullifying the decisions of society's elected representatives and those of society itself. needless to say, it was not

always this way. there is in america because americans were a confident, self determining body politic. they were confident in their basic decency, unapologetically rooted in judeo-christian principles. the worst of determining in to buy a respects. it would have been thought inconceivable to surrender responsibility for the body politics most critical decisions to a contingent of people who work politically accountable. second, americans were possessed of a healthy skepticism about the capacity of law and an equally healthy humility about the capabilities of even the wisest among us to anticipate and legislate for every contingency. the genius of the constitution is that it not only resists prescriptions but accounts for

the human urge to impose them. the framers appreciated that the essence of the legislative authority is to enact laws, to prescribe rules for the regulation of society. they also realize that left insufficiently checked, the lawgiver would give our liberty. the preservation of liberty was the constitution's overriding purpose. other government actors had to be endowed with a bigger is competing authority. sufficient to fend off what hamilton described as the propensity of the legislative department to intrude upon rights and absorbs the powers of the other department. fending off begins with the state which competed with the

central government not only in terms of power but for sovereignty. while the constitution has proclaimed by we the people, it was by the sovereign states that federal authorities -- federal authority was created. the constitution was adopted by the ascent of the individual states. they're a sovereign power remained intact and it was in the state that the framers foresaw a government that would be most consequential to the daily lives of individual citizens. as madison put it, by this superintending care of these states, all the more domestic and personal interests of the people will be regulated and provided for. with the affairs of the estate, people will be more familiarly and my nearly conversant. the members have their ties of

personal acquaintance and friendship. the point is clear. to be accountable to the people and to advance freedom, most government would have to remain limited in scope. accessible to and accommodating of those whose interest is served. federal power would be remote and it would become increasingly remote as the nation group. that did not make it evil but it did increase the potential to [unintelligible] the powers conferred needed to be few and tied to those few interests that were truly national in character, such as the common defense, the conduct of the interstate and international commerce, and the integrity of the currency. to further ensure against tyranny of the federal lawgiver, congress's authority was diluted by division. chambers structured to serve different popular interest. the other federal branches were

assigned their own powers. the executive powers were in a minute -- and were enumerated with some exactitude. the framers took pains to enumerate them. this conjunction of control over executive prerogative insured against those powers being destroyed, as the framers knew they would be if other branches were permitted to share or cooperate. even in thought. to be concrete, congress may enact law but is powerless to enforce law. at the federal level, la maybe enforced by the president and while lawmakers in viewed their -- enforcement is every bit as much a part of what makes the local law in the constitutional sense.

no department has the market cornered on law. all three branches must take seriously the obligation to carry at their duties in accordance with the limitations imposed by the constitution. congress may not enact statutes that encroach on the constitutional powers that are assigned to the president. the legislature may need -- neither seize power outright or prescribe laws directing that presidential power be shared with some other branch or independent regulator. the fact that congress may not use all this way hardly means that it will not do so. congress has tried several times to seize presidential power. it attempted to usurp some commander in chief authority with the 1973 war powers resolution. even more commonly, congress has tried to force presidents to share their power. this was the story of fisa. the statue that was debated so

contentious the during the bush years. directing the executive branch to seek approval before eavesdropping. congress does this thing -- these things because they're human. their propensity to use their powers to intrude on and observe the provisions of other government actors is innate. it cannot be repealed. separation of powers is not just -- does not rely on anything so static and inadequate as a lot to police said. we are a body politic, not aid -- a jurisdocracy. it obliges the president to ignore congressional laws that the great authority and assumes the ballot box will be enough incentive to suppress the urge to press the executive power to its limit. the framers tried to create a

powerful president but not an imperial one. there were several restrictions. enabling the president to defend his office in doing that, the framers were less concerned with the presidency than they were with liberty. they understood the concentration of too much power in one government nobody would be freedoms death knell. they understood the ramparts of liberty could be weakened by law. which is to say by unconstitutional statute. unlike the details of

presidential and legislative authority, the powers were not painstakingly enumerated in the constitution. this is a bit of unwisdom on the part of government founders. the explanation for the framers's oversight in articulating the limitations of judicial power lies in their understanding of the nature of the judicial power. this is probably best articulated by hamilton in the famous exurb from federalist 78. the judiciary was assumed to be to always and inevitably be the least dangerous branch because it was in daily powerless. in thinking about government, the framers were moved by considering first is dangerous,

not its virtues. congress could only in that plot and to the president could only enforce the law. the judiciary could do neither. judges would be dependent on congress to sustain them. courts inferior to the supreme court would be dependent on congress for their existence. no court could enforce its own edict. judges are dependent on the executive branch to carry out their orders. could he pronounced that without the capacity to direct society strength or will, the judiciary may be said to have neither force nor will but merely judgment. judgment turns out to be quite a lot. the reasons for this airplane. the constitution does not prescribe the limitations of judgment.

it leaves the judiciary to find its own power. this produces the premise of the protection of liberty. authority must be reasonably definite in its scope so that it can be balanced by power that is at least of equal measure reposed in the hands of other government actors. by assuming that there judicial power was in daily finite and it was to find a competing powers of the president and they states to overwhelming to challenge, the framers failed to anticipate the willfulness and forcefulness with which jurors would flush out the meaning of judgment. ironically, they also undermined the purpose of having a written constitution. without the majesty of fundamental law would be a simple enough matter to overturn judicial excesses.

the political branches would reverse them by statute. by enabling the judges to define their authority and to swallow them in the commands of the constitution that cannot be amended by statute, the framers laid the groundwork for doing what the constitution was intended to avoid. concentrating in a single office the power to erode and usurps the authority of other governmental actors. in this, the judiciary becomes not only the most dangerous branch, but to invoke the popular phrase, the most dangerous branch on steroids. this is because it is unaccountable by design. the point of this political insulation was to enable it to render judgments without fear or favor. if nothing limits those judgments, a willful judge is encouraged by his insulation from politics to do the

immensely on popular thing. whether it is to endow a foreign terret this with privileges, we define marriage, a social engineer the armed forces, or what have you. of all the things the constitution could have failed to corral, the judicial power was probably the most problematic because of our culture. the inherent weaknesses of legislative governments or not only well known but in many ways the driving impetus for adopting the constitution. similarly, the perils of abuse of executive power were well known. there was controversy over creative the presidency and consensus about ensuring the office did not become one article. by contrast, the idea of law connotes the order a good society must have to forge. we're a nation of laws. we generate reason and the law is seen as reason without passion. to be law-abiding is to be a

model citizen. the tug the law has the power to [unintelligible] as long as there is law that [unintelligible] to be a legitimate and expositor of a lot. a pronouncement will have cachet that no other government actor can boast. if the court is engaged in an active willfulness, the fact that the court is a court and it is reporting to judge with the constitution has to say will be a difficult hurdle to overcome. with this leeway, the metastasis of judicial power has been a simple matter. not easy or quick but simple to explain.

it began by judges climbing -- deciding with finality what the constitution means. the controversial nature of this claim is underscored by the sparseness of its indication. to say nothing of the disaster of dred scott. it is no longer subject to discussion, much less debate. judges are deemed to be endowed with the power to overturn the popular will. this becomes even more problematic, and arbitrary as it becomes more difficult to reckon with the constitutionally actually says. when "equal protection clause " is taken to endorse an equal protection.

that living constitution is a method to give effect to the progressive measures to favor strictures imposed by document they saw as outmoded. individual liberty was anathema to progressives in their grand central planning scheme. in time, the courts developed their incorporation documents. selectively mining the bill of rights for provisions to be mandated on the states. not the provision as written but the provisions as interpreted by federal judges. perhaps more significantly, the supreme court finally acquiesced in fdr's vision of the common clause as a speed

bump. there was no area of commerce that the national government could not regulate. even to the point now of requiring that american's purchase health insurance as a condition of living in the u.s. most ominous is the evolution of the courts so of perception. that is displayed in its forays with foreign law. judges regularly cherry pick international law to impose obligations the u.s. either has never ratified or has ratified only on the condition that these obligations are to be enforced by diplomacy, not lawsuits. that is, these obligations are political, not legal. finally, to touch on an area where we are indebted, the

judiciary has revised the tort statute. at the time of the adoption, this was a narrow concept, limited to such universally condemned both acts as piracy and assault on foreign diplomats. no matter where it occurs or if americans had anything to do with it. the courts once saw themselves as a core part of government. a bulwark designed to make sure that americans get a fair shake from the government. they perceive themselves as existing outside and above the government as a forum where all the world is -- invited to make

its case against america and americans should not find a home court advantage. the answer to an obstruction the call below. as long as we will not train them in, so will we. thank you. [applause] >> i do not know the princeton joke. i will try and learn it. i thought it might be useful to address something that has been in the background of the panel all morning and is illustrated by the last two presentations. we seem to face this dilemma that we want limits on

government, but not on national defense. you might say going back to the earlier discussion about president coolidge, about his mistake, he limited government but he also limit it our military capacity. maybe that was not so good. i want to talk about that for a bit because i think in all lot of ways, that is one of the things people talk about with the tea party movement and other contexts. the republican party is divided or conservatives are divided between people who put the priority on small government and national defence and these things are in conflict. . . in 1939, after almost eight

years of president roosevelt's spending spree, we had the 17th largest army in the world, smaller than portugal and row mania, not just small -- row mania and it's wrong to think of these things as really sharp alternatives. to start with, the founders didn't present it that way, i think rather the reverse. if you look at the federalist papers, one of the things that is striking is how much they come back to the theme that we need a strong national government to defend us against foreigners. federalist 41 has this great passage, he's talking about the anti-federalists wanting to limit the federal power. how could war in time of peace

prohibit it unless we could prohibit the establishments of hostile nations. it can be regulated by the means of attack and will be regulated by these rules. this is not hamilton. and it's important to limit government and keep it to its powers but not in regard to national defense where we have to give the government all the power it may need. cannot maintain adequate national defense if you don't have the resources. it's important to have a successful economy because otherwise, you can't maintain a navy as hamilton says.

you can't maintain a military preparedness. you don't have the resources even in britain to maintain a navy. hamilton says straight out and speaks candidly, he was not a big enthusiast for republican government. he thought liberty was more important than republican government, but he did say, hamilton, what is good is the spur it gives to energy in the people. we always think about hamilton about energy in the executive, but he was concerned about energy in the people. and that is the basis of economic vitality, to have people who are ready to take risks, people who are are motivateded to go out there and do something in private life.

the paper reminds us of this, planning is what people want to do not just socialists but kenesia nmp s if they want to make sure the produce, the product of the economy is properly distributed. they want to redistribute. planning is the strategy. you can't plan for things that haven't developed. if you think about foreign policy, there is something child issue saying we are going to plan in advance. it is worst than child issue. it loods you to schemes that are dangerous. the people who put it together were people who just recently worked in the new deal and were plaque for peace. a lot of what andy said in his

presentation. once you bring courts into the monitoring and supervising of foreign policy and security policy, you don't get more effective defense, of course. you get more legal and slow defense and that turns out to be true even on matters that you think courts would know something about, like conducting trials. our courts had nothing to say about nuremberg. and took less than six months to organ from the first bang of the gavel to the last swing of the gallows of the people who were executed was less than a year and the governments were saying, this is going on long enough. we have debates about how to try people in guantanamo. it's unbelievablely slow because

it is supervised by judges who are not in rush because they aren't thinking about security. andy said, really central point, our judges are saying, we have to make sure that the law, even the law of war is maintained. and andy said the law of war guidelines. it was understood to be king ept. we weren't going to honor it if the other side didn't or adapt our understanding. the first case in american history in which an international convention about war is enforced by a domestic court. that had never happened before, even though they had gone back to 1899. why it never happened, it was assumed that we had to adjust how we implemented it, depending on the people we were fighting. we are fighting with dealing with prisoners of war is to cut

off their heads and show that on the internet, you might think that would call for some adjustment in our understanding of the conventions. you lose a lot if you put it in the hands of judges. let me say finally which i think goes to something that is fundamental in our presentations today, there was this idea, i think really started with the progressives that if you have a state that is has schemes of redistribution that takes care of its people, you will have more national cohesion and that will make you a stronger nation. there is something that makes it plausible and even though it's plausible, it's wrong. what that effect of taking care of everyone teaches is that first, people can be bought off. you don't have real enemies,

because they just don't understand the incentives and we see the fruits of that kind of welfare state foreign policy dealing with iran. for two years, the obama administration says, you don't understand, we can make it very attractive for you to give up your nuclear weapons. we take care o you. we can be friends. it teaches americans that that is a universal solvent and you can just trust, you can trust and you should trust because that's our domestic system bringing people together by a state. i think the fundamental thing that ties together from the time of the founding until today the idea that you want to defend private property and defend limited government at home but want the resources and capacity and complexity to have an

effective defense is that people need to be able to defend themselves, people in private life need to defend what is their own and countries are organized to defend what belongs to that country and defending yourself requires that you be serious and not sign onto the universal solvent that we heard in the opening remarks by roger. >> michael wanted to be here but couldn't. he wrote recently about a trip he took to guantanamo and he was shown around the suite occupied by muhammad and he said i recognize the machine he had there because the same one is in my gym but i have to stand in line to use that one.

different approach that we have people who murder -- who organize the murder of 3,000 innocent people than our enemies have. but i would like to see if anyone on the panel would like to have anything they would like to say, if so, please speak into the microphone, any response to year emmy. >> i agree with everything that year emmy just said. certainly defense is an area, subject, that requires energetic government and no way inconsistent with an energetic government. the domestic coalitions that have been built around the keynesian state are not sympathetic to strong defense.

there is money that can be transferred to their causes. what we have called big government or the keynesian undermines national defense. with regard to the courts on the subject i was talking about, one of the things the courts did during the new deal period when they reversed course was to get rid of the economic liberty document and render the commerce clause an empty vessel and the -- for a long time, the courts feared to intervene in areas of national defense and national security. certainly this is true during world war ii and the cold war. but i think that will andy has made this point, that they have built up to this position, over a long period of making

aggressive decisions more in the domestic field. i mentioned the commerce clause but we went through the entire period of the warren court and beyond where the courts have made aggressive claims and accepted and stood up and no reason for them to believe that when they entered this territory they will meet much resistance either. >> let me -- i want to add something about judges, because i'm not sure it was clear enough -- >> i'm sorry. >> i want to add something about judges because i'm not sure it was clear enough from my remarks, because i tried to be more directed towards the problem flowing from the structure of government where responsibilities are reposed rather than personalities. i can tell you from practical

experience, i had the good fortune of, roger mentioned the judge, but in national security cases, appearing before judges who appeared passionately about the national security of the united states. those judges all directed me to turn over all sorts of information that we should never be turning over to the enemy in wartime and they didn't it because they were predisposed, because these were judges to do it that way. the judges' institutional responsibility is not the national security of the united states. the judges' institution national responsibility is to do justice before the parties that are before the court in a litigation. and the problem is not about personalities but about structure. if you take decisions made by a

body politic and you put them in the hands of the actors who are number one, not accountable to the people whose lives are at stake and number two, whose responsibilities are the opposite to make sure the outcome? a litigation is not only fair but appears to be fair, the inevitable thing is you will ratchet up due process rights for the terrorists. it's inevitable. and what i think it argues is that you have to have to change the structure not because judges are bad actors. most of them probably have done their best to make sure not too much of what we shouldn't be giving up in wartime we had to give up, but the reason i think for having this -- having this debate about how to deal with

terrorists is precisely because you want to get out of the structure that forces you to do the suicidal thing and get to a structure which allows you to hold back national security information but at the same time have outcomes in these trials because we will have these trials eventually that have integrity and our allies overseas will cooperate with. >> i was struck by jim's comments about the welfare state. ultimately it's not friendly to a strong defense.

that is wishful thing that doesn't work well at home. perhaps if the country is specific in spirit and doesn't have too many criminals within its shores. and too many unassimilated immigrants but works at home that people want to wish it works abroad. i think -- it's a bad thing for europe. it's a good thing politically because at least in the u.s., the early welfare state which was pro and strong defense, let's call it the harry truman, john kennedy, scoop jackson, practical matter, if you think of the coalitions you can

buildup with government spending was stronger than the current government party, large chunks of the economy that do depend on military matters which don't have great investments. there are a lot of people who do serve in the military and fond of the military who feel that that party doesn't pay attention and as a practical matter, it's an opportunity -- i mean it's not being pro limited government is not being against a strong defense. george mcgovern and barack obama barack obama is weaker than f.d.r.-scoop jackson party. >> if you go back to the 19th century, instead of welfare spending, we had civil war veteran pensions and huge

amounts of money were shoveled out to the people who fought for the union. if you come to the 20th century, big part of federal spending is the veterans administration in the 1920's. and this is what truman and kennedy and scoop jackson, reward the veterans. the veterans were a large portion of the mail population and becoming a smaller and smaller part because we have smaller military forces. i'm not so optimistic -- well we have to get the veterans' vote. it's not as a big vote as it used to be. >> get to my second point, slightly -- maybe correcting jim's slightly presentation and say which is interesting and

important presentation that the way it works is the kind of vicious cycle and use benefits to elect benefits with whom they negotiate and spend more contracts. and then somehow the taxpayers, the private taxpayers become a smaller percentage and only thing that can safe you is bankruptcy and even though it's not clear it might save you but having said that, i would say, it's true and critics of the welfare state but a lot of people have seen this dynamic and i would say it's not obvious and what strikes me is how the limited success of the dynamic, not as if the proponents of

welfare states spending have had the upper hand. roots velt ran out of steam quickly and much more resistance. you would have thought the next stage would have had irresist tabble force. and there was resistance to big government from the late 1930's through the early 1960's. there was a spurt that was pretty dramatic and since there there has been resistance and now the bad news is the ratchet effect that they produce this huge expansion and holds the line or maybe teeks it back a little. and i think the answer may be yes but concern shouldn't be too fatal is particular.

fewer and fewer people think taxes and everyone votes themselves benefits and the upper income who are paying taxes are being exploited. but actually, that's not where the i am pet tuesday big government liberalism has come from. if you look at the voting tables, upper and richer have become more democratic sm the strongest, the lower class, the poor remain strong democrats but the greatest distances come from people who objectively probably benefit from big government, middle class, huge reties tans and that's showing how it plays

a large role and not just a narrow version, people who care about their children's well-being and don't look at their own ball a answer sheet. people at tea party gatherings are benefit programs. they benefit from medicare and benefit from lower taxes. and got it from the tax code, but thiff some sense that it is bad for the country. not just to triple around the edges but change the underlying

dynamics. franklin roosevelt public sector employees couldn't be unionized. it's not like a private sector union management relationship and whether one could have a radical change in the way that public sector unions are unionized is something to really i think that's strog to strike for and how it is clear how it's played out. there are opportunities for rollback, not just for containment. >> jim is right in one regard that seems to me important that were important about the public sector. they will be reformed by bankruptcy. they will not be reformed by reform but by bankruptcy. and we hope that on other

levels, reform by bankruptcy will be stalled or will get there before the bankruptcy gets there. i want to say two things. i admire jim's paper and it's an important concept, an economic theory behind the state as we seem to have in the modern day. but the key nnesian was born before he published the theory. we have it from the time of william generalings bryant and you pump money in and had to deal with the great gold standard bureau and you want to begin people who are geniuses and also quirky like "the wizard of oz" and fostering watches

wrote a book that a book that president roosevelt said you pend spend and spend and the economy will get better and important tended the words and f.d.r. wrote as governor of new york in the 1920's too good to be true. and i actually want to have that framed sometime soon. so we have the key nesian and some of i9 was political and secondly, knesianism has to deal with that dumb planning because it is too slow and that is what eisenhower was talking about the industrial complex and when we say we are fighting the preceding war. politicians fight the preceding

war. >> and they know how it turns out. because they saw that we need that as it intensifies this era of fighting the preceding war. >> just a few comments. as i was preparing this paper i looked at the record of deficit spending from world war ii onward and 1950's, 1960's, it was a small percentage of the g.d.p. less than 1% and eisenhower ran surpluses and we began to develop chronic deficits in the 197 's. the only exception was that period of divided government in the 1990's when we ran a surplus or two and we are balancing the budget. the keynesianism problem if it

runs deficits year after year in growth and prosperity, it loses the capacity to one those deficits in periods of slumps. you will accumulate such a debt that you won't be able to exercise that latitude in terms of slump and that'sal political problem. our deficit now is close to $14 trillion and approaching 100% of g.d.p. and if we only ran those significant deficits in times of slumps, we could manage it. the political process makes it difficult. the second point is we have developed a moral hazard in the federal system, we know there are moral hazards out in the banking system as people know they are going to be bailed out. is it possible that a state like

california will spend so much money and be ex travagant in their spending. i think someone told me that california is writing a big number so they won't have to cut their spending. if every state thinks that way and receive transfers from the federal government, we will encourage that behavior. i think we are creating that on top of the moral hazards we built into the banking system. >> you have seen that bumper sticker that says it's a good thing that obama doesn't know what comes after trillion. [laughter] >> i would like for a couple of minutes to invite those individuals to the microphone.

>> my question is about obama and the constitution and it occurred to me that his sill bus as a constitutional professor. do you know anything about that >> it's rather misleading. he wasn't a professor. one course. it was about voting rights. it wasn't constitutional law, but about voting rights and minority rights in voting and how to protect minority soters. so it was basically the law of community organizing. >> any other comments or questions? well, if not --

>> i had a question for amity. you mentioned that public sector unions could be reformed by bankruptcy from the states. do you think that bankruptcy should be a strat guy of the states to avoid paying the unions? >> no, i don't, but it's possible they do. >> and interesting question, look at chapter 11 and chapter 9 that that would be a way for them to act more rationale to deal with their creditors and the people to whom they have

various obligations. we are in unchartered territories. we never had this. never had the states with the abilities to do what they have done and assume all these obligations and off-book obligations and i think it's an interesting and challenging question. it is a crisis. i think rahm emanuel's statements is one of the damaging statements that hey, we are in power and let's do what we want. we aren't fooled by that. but this is a crisis which has to be dealt with not as an excuse to other things because it is a crisis? state finances and i don't know what to do about. but i'm not sure we have right now exactly what the solution

is, the right way to not only solve the immediate problem but states govern themselves. >> can i mention one solution? there is one and they had municipal bonds, government bonds, world war i, big part, municipal bonds and when the top income tax rate went to 77, municipal bond market grew and grew and grew after world war i. melonn wanted to raise taxes on the rich and the reason was he thought the money was wasteful that capital was flowing to un productive places and that states were wasteful and they would eventually run into

trouble, states and towns. that failed and some of us in this room might say that was good. but he achieved his end another way, which is he cut the income tax so much that the tax advantage of the municipal bond was much reduced, it no longer seemed so attractive. if you look at the spread on a chart, commercial paper or federal government bonds, you will see that spread narrows as the income tax rate drops because the relative attractiveness of bonds goes away and that suggests there are ways to deal maybe municipal bonds are a big part of our problem and their tax treatment. >> is it certain that the contracts would not survive a default, public sector contracts? why do we think they would not

be protected, and if they could survive a default. >> different states have different provisions as i understand it for their contracts. some look at first glass to be absolute hard core, first in line for all obligations. some are clearly not. more are like public sector companies. some can negotiate past obligations. and some are or ambiguous. did arizona have a referendum going forward? i think in a crisis, people could go to people and say, well this wasn't an obligation made in good faith and we said we will pay you 80%, which is what the calf law for policemen and

firemen and the like, but we can't do it now but pass a law, that changes the agreement going forward. it is very ambiguous. this is a case where the judges will make everything worse since this will all be litigated right and left. >> we have had states default in the pass and you can't sue them and they say sorry, we are out of money. >> they default on their creditors. i don't know if they default on contracts with employees. it depends on state law, wouldn't it, who comes first in line and those kinds of agreements and in mgm who thought they could have been first in mind.

>> mg was first in line and michigan ant be. >> i think a delicious lunch awaits us. i thank the panelists. thank you all for coming. [applause] >> tomorrow, american university's campaign management institute continues hosting its training program for people interested in working on campaigns, including op cyst research and use of polling, it

includes pollsters, media consultants and other operatives. 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs, every morning, washington journal, a program about the news of the day, connecting you with elected officials, policy makers and journalists. during the week, watch the house and every week night, policy forums and supreme court oral argument. on the weekends, on saturday, "the communicators" and newsmakers and questions. you can watch our programming any time at c-span dorgan all searchable. c-span, washington your way, a public service created by america's cable companies.

>> this month, we expand to two programs each weekend to present series from london, the coalition, the program of planned cuts to a variety of programs and compare it to what is happening in the united states. we begin with stephanie flanders. her job is to lead the bmp bc economics coverage. earlier, she lived in the united states and wrote speeches for larry summers. her interview was recorded live.

and i try to explain those especially now when they're so crucial to everybody's lives, explain them in a simple way. teaching function and reporting function. >> what did you learn when you were larry summers' aide back in 1997? >> couple of things. he is a smart guy. interesting to have a serious economist at the heart of things at a time when international issues were pretty important. now they look like pretty small change. when i got there, it was july,

1997, beginning of the asian financial crisis, devaluation by the thai government and rolled into other crises and we felt there was a "time" magazine cover of larry summers, the committee to save the world and it did feel like that at the time. and i learned that they did actually think about very hard as well as the policy and trying to resolve the crises and i think summers has admitted this, easy to electric tier other country and nationalizing their banks and that's what they have been finding out. >> how did you come to work for him and what was his job at the time? >> he was the under secretary of international affairs.

and i had dealings with the u.s. treasury. i was writing editorials for the financial times in london but been to school in harvard and half american and in my conversations with the intellectual types and they knew i wasn't an american citizen and they asked me to come on board and i thought it was a great opportunity intellectually but as a journalist to see things from the inside. >> any way to describe the differences between the way americans govern and brits govern? >> a lot of different things and also to deal with the political culture. i'm always struck and it may seem strange, i think the quality of intellectual discussion in the media is

higher in the u.s. the discussion of political issues is somewhat more dominated by policy rather than creating washington life. here, we get weeks that are bind up with tiny stories that nobody in the rest of the u.k. is interested in, but in terms of the politicians, the politicians in the u.k. do talk about the issues probably more than the politicians in the u.s. i was struck by that. the politicians are caught in a rather superficial level of discourse that doesn't happen so much in the u.k. >> we need get the stephanie flanders' story. those people may know your sister laura. >> she is seven years older. people do ask me, i like to

think it's clear but getting less and less clear over the years, but we have had a transatlantic time of it as sisters because she went to america originalsly for six months. six months in new york when she was 18 when she left high school here in the u.k. and was going to come become to college here in the u.k. but fell in love with new york and stayed there ever since. we have a time of going back and forth. i was in the u.k. system. i went through u.k. high school and objectionford high school and harvard as a graduate student but spent a lot of time going back and forth, my mother was american living in the u.k. and laura has been an activist journalist and very activist work and fine line between her

reporting and her wanting to change the world, which she has tried to do. i felt like i was the boring member of the family and working my way on the inside, although we are interested in the same issues. >> she is known as a leftey. >> i think we would say that. in the u.s., she would be a leftey. she is not in the mainstream and i guess -- we would say that. >> she does talk show and wretion -- >> that's right. she has her own tv show on the web and selling to stations by satellite and discussion program on domestic and political issues. >> the family, what's your relationship to them. >> my sister and i had a

grandfather who is a patriarch who is a leftey but journalistic family. three problems, alexander will be familiar who is left-wing journalism and two other brother sthers, patrick and andrew. patrick is international and war correspondent for u.k. newspapers. they have written about saddam hussein and many issues in the middle east. so they are pretty distinguished family and i knew about them growing up. they are like my half uncles. their mother was not my grandmother, but it was part of the vibe growing up we had this erm journalistic heritage and

all quite a crew and some people have said they were a bit nervous that so much of left-wing journalists was dependent on one family. christopher used to worry about that. >> everybody that has asked who we are talking to in great britain. they mention michael flanders. my british dad was a very well entertainer in the 1950's and 1960's. they taught in the states. and i know from the royalties that people are still buying and enjoying some of the songs and very witty, very british song about animals and they are very much loved here and people my

age and younger generations are brought up on those songs and may not know who wrote them but know the songs. >> how much trouble is britain in on the economic front? >> if you asked me that a year ago, people were gloomy about prospects for the u.k. but funny thing and i like to steal the line that the british people are the only people who kl feel about their own misfortune. we take a glee in things going terribly wrong and we are the worst of this in a way you would never find in america. people love to talk about how bad our weather and economy is. you have to look past that, are we really in such bad shape? but there was worry there was a loss of control and we were

particularly vulnerable to this crisis because we put financial store to our financial system and reliance on the money coming out of the city than the u.s. was. the rest of the world and u.s. economy with its financial system but it's actually quite small relative to the whole economy. that's not so much true here. so people were pretty worried and there has been a shift of focus, not so much because a lot of things have gotten better hear. our recovery is looking quite strong but things have gotten so much worse across the channel in europe. the pressures that they're under i think havery minded people that although we have problems, possibly we have more way s out because we had a big

depreciation of our currency that will make our markets more competitive and competitive depreciation and try to become more competitive. because we have more ways out of it people are more optimistic. but there is uneasy when we get these good economic figures that we are waiting for the other shoe to drop. we are dependent on what is going on. >> how does percentage of debt here compare with u.s.? >> i guess the question is, america with its you neck position and -- unique position, gets off, gets special treatment, i get. so they can get away with borrowing than we can.

our borrowing i i similar to the u.s. this year it was 11% of national income, which i think it will be in the states and that was considered to be an outrage by the incoming conservative government. when the i.m.t. had to bail the u.k. out in the late 1970's, people were focused. with this new government making such stradse against opposition and concerns by economists, but this government trying so hard to bring it down, i would say our borrowing is going on a downward path and our debt has risen a lot but in the middle of the pack in terms of developing count fridays wrazz it looks like it's going up as far as the kwly can see. >> any way to compare david

cameron to any politician in the u.s.? >> i think you would get a similar kind of chark, -- i mean, he is quite an establishment figure in terms of his background. he comes from a very posh background. he is traditional torre prime minister. but he has become known at least in the lead up to this, he was a fresh face and passionate conservative. you could compare him to george bush but i'm not sure he wog embrace the commace son. george w. bush was a more traditional u.s. background. but the key thing is that he has at least given the impression of wanting to change the conservative party, make it more

modern what tony blair did. make it recognize, people were tolerant than they were in the u.k. and open minded approach as to how you run government. that's pretty half traditional. that's something we see here in tra additional governments than what we have seen in u.s. republican governments. >> your bbc economics editor, what does that mean and what's a day like for you? are you every day is different. i'm one of the team of senior onscreen reporters. we have half a dozen editors and the key ones are on the political ones and the international with diplomatic editor. and we are in a sense -- not in

charge of the output on our jubt which would be per different, but we are supposed to be, i guess, providing intellectual leadership and i use my blog for explaining how we should be a story what a stake should be. ry typical day. i started it at 7:50 on the radio speaking from my office after making breakfast for my kids. talking about the irish bailout whether they were going to get it. that's a typical day and the euro is an jog go -- euro is ongoing. >> if you pay close attention,

you can talk about the last government's budget and compare it to what this government is doing. >> present silla of red ink and but it's very, very clonch -- slowly going down. and the difference is down to our policies. now experts will be debating for years whether the government can take any credit that the unemployment and expect the businesses to lower their numbers as well. announcing for the first time in years that the borrowing cost is going down. >> he said the gap twon spending and revenues this year wouldn't be $178 billion as he forecast in december but 167 billion, the number for out tur years is lower.

it will be lower in 2014. that's the good news. the bad news is that the total debt in that year will be 20 times that, $1 nousm 114 billion. they had room and they don't last. the small giveaway of $1.4 billion and the extra fuel payments and that temporary cut zute for first time buyers. look ahead, the plan shows he would take it all back if he stayed? office. it only lasts two years but the rise is worth more than $1 million. he would raise future duties as well. >> the extra money that the bank is getting, they are a net takeaway, higher intertance tax

and tobacco duty. small takeaway. >> that could sound presented prudent ent for the industry. the structural deficit that won't go away is 8.4%. if labour wins, mr. darling says he would cut back to 2.5% by 2014. >> the market is the election and putting to come in two months in the election. the market will move. >> mr. darling has goodies for companies as well, but business leaders were underwheel amed. >> there was help, but there is things about the shape and size of the deficit.

>> to bring down that borrowing, more details in 1,100 pounds in savings. there will be many more but the chance who is that they didn't giving much away. >> they didn't win. >> win was the election, remind us. >> early may and it would kinded with an extraordinary exrice is, so when you talk p about my day, they were busy because you had a trin track crisis and more important for the lobal economy. but had this comploord weekend after those results where the skiffs didn't get a full majority and there was negotiations over creating a coalition which is what happened and they announced a much

tougher approach to the deficit and tougher than what was hinted at. during the campaign, we said the politicians aren't talking about what is going to happen after the elections. >> related to the united states if you were working for larry summers, to the layman, it seems like you are cutting and in the united states you are not. would we have to do that in ort to survive? >> that is a big argument. when the labour party was around in power, there was a meeting of minds between the democrats and labour usually in favor of spending and growth whereas in the euro zone, they were worried about incalculation and slow forth growth. there has been con -- confusion