region to understand it and understand it in a place where she could operate safely and learn. that is a great strategic direction in which she sent her career. if we're going to get these start-ups like ours working, we're going to have to be really attentive to the needs of those correspondents. there's a sort of obligation we hold to really make these correspondent bill like they're part of something. >> we will not open this up to your questions. there are microphones here and the top. if you would, make sure when you say is in the form of a question. also, if you would identify yourself. yes, sir? >> my wife is a student here. i may freelance journalist and have been trying to make my way

of living in india and japan. i found very few people willing to pay more than $5 for an article, but that is beside the point. my question is about the coverage of afghanistan. i worked in afghanistan for a couple of weeks and wrote an article from there. for the last two years, when you watch nbc news or abc news, and your stuff is much better than some of your competitors, it is not just a representative of what afghanistan is. all i see my watch the news is either women getting picked john and victimized, which is true, for men that are television and have begun -- men that are taliban and have guns. >> what is the question? >> at what point does that get

cut off? you're not going to countries and saying i am just going to show the women or the taliban. i imagine you put something together much different that reaches the airwaves. when is it did it did? when does it get chopped down? how the approach to try and get the reality approach -- across? >> one thing is the country is really, really suffering from were fatigue. our country is suffering from war fatigue. through nine years of war they feel, and we have covered these tiem and time again -- time again. i think i'm in a unique position. i'm in charge of what i put on

the air. this is not the only view nor should it be. we have people based in kabul who get out as much as they can. do i think everyone has the complete picture? no. they say the networks put on the blood and gore of war. trust me. when afghanistan comes on, the tv goes off. it is a very sad thing. i do not think my bosses look at that and say we should not doing, but it is really challenging for us to try and draw up and tell stories that make people care or show normal life in afghanistan.

we had this a billion times in iraq. why did not cover the good news? there was not a whole lot of good news. our troops were not there. they were fighting. it is the same in afghanistan. i try more and more -- i do not like it to be based on that i saw horrible things. i think you really have to use this to talk to as many people as you can answer in talk about people who are living normally. right now, we are in a stage were it is very difficult to figure out what is going on there. >> i would like to share a for sharing your experiences. i am a freshman at the college. i went to ask about the difficulties of your job. we have all worked overseas. was there any point in your

life when you were this close to saying, "i am done. i have had enough. i need to move on"? can share with us those moments? >> i am sure that charlie has had 10. i had three happy years as a foreign correspondent. i do remember a moment when i was covering the war in yugoslavia and the birth of democracy, freedom, the free- market in the code -- poland, and found myself in serbia thinking, "how does this happen"? but i remember we talked about a massacre and there were bodies stacked in the old age home and it was very bloody, very upsetting. they said i could have 14 inches inside. i remember just losing it and

think, "what is it that you want here? we have bodies piled up back here? but will it take three people to care about this. this is crazy. why am i doing this"? i thought that maybe i was just not doing my job. they did not care because i have not made them care. i to give back on myself but there is definitely a moment where i thought it was yugo-fa tigue. stories toarlie has tell you. courts probably all of us -- the frustration is never been getting what you wanted, on the air, or something like that. >> i love the way you said you needed to work harder.

if there's anything i take from david halberstam and's history, it is how hard he worked. this is and then there really worry about with younger correspondence who are so busy putting together that life i just described about running in all of these different directions to make it happen. it is hard for them to sit down and really focus on that one big story. david had a chance to do that in vietnam more like the economy. think of the hard work that went into just trying to help us get our hands around this economy and the reckoning. i like the way you and deducting the that is really healthy. i have had much more frustrating moments where i had not had such a healthy response. >> there are not as many fits as i think they're used to. that is my definition.

>> the worst thing you can do is to hang up on an editor when you are on a satellite phone and you will not get another connection. stupidest thing i have ever done. you are in the middle of afghanistan with a satellite phone and you hang up. i had moments of a lot of foreign correspondents having their families with them. we had our kids and the bus bombings were going off everywhere. you are suddenly very connected to the israeli and palestinian people and what they're going through. in a way, you are a part of it. you are immersed in that. living in jerusalem and going off into serious fighting in the west bank and seeing kids shot by israeli snipers and forcing

past the bus bombers and you come home for meat loaf. your little kids are in the garden and you are thinking that this is part of it. for me, and moments of despair was recognizing that three little boys in a bombing right near the kid's school and the hamas bomber's brain was in the school parking lot. we just said, "we have to go." it was august 2001. we moved to london and we arrived in 2001. i thought, "i am out of the middle east. paris, coverto london. it was going to be amazing. september 11th happens in the whole world changes. then you realize that all this and have covered now really

comes into sharp focus. when you have a chance that a tape of the working have done and bring it into the field. i love that ". i will not say it again, but that the spare can often lead to a state which brings you to where you need to work hard. >> i am a freshman at the college. my question relates to safety. we talked about that previously, but when fortin is the consideration of safety going into a relatively dangerous region and you have a story that you know is sort of on safe. what sort of a balanced you try to find and how does that process along? >> i have been in the war zones most recently. i think in a voice to people have not done this before that they should not be lulled into

their own safety. have rules, set-, because when you get in there, you start forgetting that he would to go further and go further. i do not tell my family what i do. i do not tell them half of the stuff that i have done. i share that with the u.s. military probably. i have some disadvantage. the marines i was with said that i should not tell them about it. i tried to be careful and not be crazy. i had a colleague, bob woodruff is doing just great, but it was an amazingly miraculous recovery and that was really

hard. that was hard on me. that was hard on my kids. they knew bob. my son is now a freshman in college. i remember because he was quite a bit younger that he used to kid me that i had never been an anchor on tv. peter jennings had gone the year before and then bob woodruff. then in my child's mind he said, "mom, i do not want you to be an anchor any more. to him, that was how i was being safe. on the other hand i have done things i know i should not have done. i went into the valley when the taliban was controlling huge portions of that. as a woman, i stood out like crazy.

you walk two feet and they know you are an american. that was the moment where i thought i really needed to do this because no one had done it. we did it very quickly. i got out when we got to the car. i interviewed a few people than we drove about 120 m.p.h. are there. in terms of body armor, i always wore body armor. peter jennings years to come and i looked like a complete dork in the helmand. i think you just have to have your own rules. in afghanistan there is security. i will take some credit for that because a couple of years ago we were staying at a hotel there and started going back and forth. we got stopped once by afghan

police which was a little nerve wracking enough remember calling for foreign editor saying that we should not be traveling along the roads by ourselves. is your experience and you tried to get a better they say they will not send people with no experience to war zones. after bob woodruff i said to abc that they had not done this before, but do not send people to work if they have no experience. if you're with people you do not think her during the right thing, you know that. they have to have experience and you talk to people who have been there so you get better. this is a thing that keeps me up at night all the time. we are a small news organizations with limited resources. we are very stout.

we can never be so self that we put people at risk. we have had to be really stringent about being sure that everyone has hostile environment trading with a serious veteran and we have really had to cobble together coverage plans that we can afford by being creative, very precise, sure they check in with us, make sure we know exactly where they are in being extremely careful. as we build these new models for journalism, the one thing we cannot forget is that we have to protect the people in the field. we have to have the resources to be able to do that if we're going to take on covering it. >> i am a visiting international student.

having the piece of information is sensational. i was just curious, and i guess my question goes all of you that if you ever wondered if you had crossed the line or ended up not publishing an article because of moral or ethical reasons? >> wonderful question. >> if you are a good journalist in the investigative brown, i would think you have a better answer, i was just say yes. investigating involves getting information someone does not what you'd have that information. >> i have not written stories that have panned out and i am sure martha and charlie have as

well and to withhold details of the request of the american government. it does happen. adonises said that sometimes just to take a deep breath. when i'm about to do something that i know is hurtful, we have to do it. i never felt we had to hold a particular story. that will be story out on friday and i would tell you but i would have to kill you will. every decent person in the story does not come off like that. it is newsworthy. we have to do it. sometimes storage not pan out and you do not publish them. but >> my question is for charles. you mention the that you were sending nine key to turkey to immerse herself in the country in order to be a better foreign

correspondent, in the future in a globalized, digital news world summit you think foreign correspondents will be from that country and said the sense there? >> good question. many of our correspondents are from the country and right for us as well. when the things we're trying to do is write to an american audience. if you are from that country and have gone to college in the state to have lived in the states, that is great. as long as you know that the nba matters more than cricket. as long as you understand if you're going to make a reference to the west bank and described it as roughly the size of rhode island and do need those touchdowns. we've had such an uphill climb to get americans to care about the world. i do not care where you are from his lawyers who can do that.

-- i do not care where you are from. that is the skill of being the story teller. people talk about crowdsourcing and everyone having equal say. someone had to be the guy who tells the story. there was one guy who came out and told everyone. they didn't have everyone go in. you know, i relly -- really believe journalism is a craft right.etting it >> can i tell the great line? he was asked what he thought about citizen journalists.

this was ben bradlee, senior. this was the executive editor of the "the washington post, " and he said it, "i do not know. what do you think about psittacine surgeons"? -- "what do you think about citizen surgeons"? >> i am a nieman affiliate here. i am a bbc correspondent. i would be interested in your views on sunday that david halberstam and love to address challenging conventional wisdom potentially with the wisdom of hindsight. can you talk about what is involved with that particularly when editors and audience had a particularly effective you about something? >> i think that is a really good

question. there was a period in the late 1980's when the conneen and mine -- when a colleague of mine and i were frustrated. he said, "the the new york times" never be behind, but never be ahead. there is a sense that you can circle too far ahead of the story and it becomes very, very frustrating. that is what great journalism is. if you define yourself as challenging the conventional wisdom, you have to find the great journalism. no one has ever really changed anyone's mind by doing a slightly different version of the story everyone has already done. >> we are running out of time and i want to get the two other questions very quickly into the conversation. >> i am not a harvard student but i am a news junkie.

i the question for martha raddatz. i find your story about cheney breathtakingly cynical but not surprising. my wonder is and what do you think is the chemical reaction that produces that moment? why does it happen with you and not one of your colleagues? is it the time of day? >> i do not know. i know he walked out of that room and you could see the staff in the room just to go -- oh, no. no one was mad at me, which was very interesting. no one was blaming me for that. well he was tired, he had a long day, maybe he misunderstood it, maybe it was your question? what ever. it was just the way it was. there are certainly moments.

i had never interviewed him before. i had covered the white house to 0.5 years and never met him. -- 2.5 years and never met him. sometimes people going to interviews and they think it would be nothing. i think we were in oman. i felt like he had a lot of chances and moments passed where he could have said , "let me go back to that." >> i am a graduate of the kennedy school. i would like to change the subject to something that i think has been an enormous failure. climate change. i wanted to ask what it will take for you guys to cover it? we have had a decade of rapidly

warming environment. >> we have your question. ok. >> we do cover it. i think it is being covered. should it be covered more? absolutely. it is none of the single most important stories of our time. -- it is one of the single most important stories. i think there is an awful lot of court -- awful lot of coverage. i do not think people are ignoring it. >> i am sorry to say we are out of time. i hope that you have endured this as much as i have. and has been a greater efforts in the to honor the tradition, the pier, the passion, and the spirit of david halberstam. panelists, thank you.

[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> coming up live later today, a debate between the candidates running for the rnc. one candidate has already withdrawn from the race leaving five others including the current chair, michael steele. you can see the debate live starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern. also today, from california the inauguration of gov. jerry brown. he will give remarks live starting at 2:00 p.m. eastern. you can see that on their companion network, c-span2. the 112th congress dabbles in wednesday with the house and senate starting at noon eastern.

they will have the election of the speaker of the house and vote on house rules and a number of motions to give the house organized. the new house is made up of the 242 republicans and 193 democrats. in the senate, and live courtroom to bring senators to the floor to swear in the new members. democrats and had 53 seats, rep. 47. a look now at the state social security from today's "washington journal." host: andrew biggs is a scholar at the american enterprise institute, wrote this piece, making the case for raising the retirement age. what economic impact would that have? guest: social security benefits

you can claim as early as 62, even though the official retirement age is 66. if you claim benefits early, you take a 30% benefit cut. that lasts throughout your life, not just until you reach the full retirement age. when social security started, we could not claim benefits at 62. the earliest retirement age then was 65. now that is the most common age at which people claim. the problem is, if people have plenty of money for retirement, that is great, but the problem is people do not. the question is, does social security have enough money to support those people? the typical person will live around 82, 83, so they are spending about one-third of their life in retirement. i am not sure that is something

we can afford. if we push the retirement age back a little bit, it will help taxes, but it will also mean a much easier retirement. host: in "u.s. news and record" there is an article talking about the retirement age. they write -- are you saying we should do this immediately, or how? guest: one of the nice things about social security, in general, any changes are likely to be phased in over a long period of time. the normal increase it is from 65 to 67. that was passed in 1983 and did not begin until 2000 and will not be completed until 2023.

so we have this lead time for people to adjust to it. especially today, in a recession, you do not want to say, all of you who are 62 now need to work until you are 65. i think in correcting people to stay in the work force longer will help them, the economy, and the federal budget. host: in the near term, social security is not in trouble phili. phillip moeller writes -- he goes on to write this, about rising -- raising the retirement age --

guest: talking about social security's overall plan for help, you are right, the plan is solvent around 27. after that, you would have more cuts. for every retiree, every survivor, every disabled person. it is a pretty big problem, looking out over the long term. the question about thinking about different from mortality, -- what people do not realize is the typical person claims retirement early is not someone who has a serious health problem, not someone who has

lost their job. only about 15% of people cite either poor health or unemployment has reason for claiming early. for most people, it is a choice. we can structure the benefits and policy to protect the people who need it the most by letting people who cannot claim disabilities early, while also encouraging people to work longer. host: last phone call. and junior from the low opinion, texas. caller: i have called every senator, congressman, every governor of the state of texas. i can show them on a diagram exactly how to do everything. there is nobody that will return

my call. if you would, c-span, anybody that is a congressman or senator, please have them call me. all the well educated people up there, all those professors will agree with me 100% -- at least 98% of them will. your ok, so let's get to idea specifically? caller: i cannot explain it over the phone. i can show them on a diagram. host: let's talk about the baby boomers that are set to retire in 2011. this is the first year that we will see the baby boom

generation takes security benefits. guest: the first baby boomers turn 65. this is the first year they can claim that medicare benefits -- claim medicare benefits. we have about 10,000 people leaving the work force per day. that means 10,000 more people collecting benefits, 10 doesn't you're contributing to these -- 10,000 who are not contributing to these benefits. it is really this budget tsunami coming at us. we have to find a way to smooth out these things out. host: what does it mean that one out of three working americans do not have retirement savings beyond social security, and many of them rely totally on social

security alone. guest: a lot of people depend heavily on social security for their retirement income. part of the that is a shame -- as i view it -- it is not just low income people. it is middle and high income people who should be depending less on social security. i think it needs to be more generous for those people at the low income end, but middle and high income people will have to save more because we are going into a tighter budget picture in the future. host: next phone call. angela. caller: one thing you do not hear people talking about, he is talking about paying or old people on social security.

how about the kids going into welfare? if people think that being poor is so bad, why do they keep on bringing children into this world? host: how old are you, are you taking social security benefits? caller: i do not qualify for that yet. i have worked as a waitress, clerk, all of my life. i see the girl next door smoking cigarettes on her porch, talking on the phone. she has four kids. i do not have any kids. we reward them for not doing anything. host: you consider yourself a republican, you have voted

republican? caller: yes, but right now, i am not sure because they could not even give us $250 to have a nice christmas. meanwhile, we are letting the rich people keep more money. host: not a popular option, raising the retirement age. guest: she is saying i have a comfortable job, which i do. there are a lot more people who have physically more demanding jobs. for those folks, working longer is harder. no question. at the same time, in the past, we did work longer. the typical person did not start claiming until the age 68 and a half. these are times when people worked on farms, coal mines,

steel lines. one advantage of having a service economy is it is less demanding on people. if people in the 1950's could work to 68, people in 2020, 2030, could probably work until 65. that does not mean there will not be exceptions. disability is there for people who cannot truly work. host: cleveland, ohio. kneel on the independent line. -- neal on the independent line. caller: good morning. i am i diabetic. i had to have my right thumb cut off, my right leg below my knee. my leg, they want to amputate my left foot because it is black. i am also legally blind with my

vision. i have been on disability retirement social security for the last eight years and i am afraid these republicans are going to set me out on the curb. i hope obama can negotiate so that i can at least keep my wheelchair. guest: there is 0% chance you will be kicked to the curb. one of the truisms of social security reform -- once people have claimed the benefits, we do not kick them off. what we are talking about with reforms is changing benefits over the long term. i mention changing the retirement age. from the time it was passed to implemented, 40 years. what people need to remember is, if you are near retirement, nothing is going to change for you. for younger folks, we need to find different ways of financing the program, benefiting people,

which will target things better, and retain the safety net that people truly need, but encourage people to work longer, saved more for retirement. host: john on the democratic line. delaware. caller: i would just like to know -- hello? host: we are listening. caller: i just want to know how come social security is giving someone like me, 47 years old, a hard time getting it when i really need it? i have no savings. the company i worked at fired me because they did not want to report an injury at work, so they fired me. i need help. the government, all they want to do -- they are not helping.

host: an estimated 156 million workers, 93% of workers, are covered under social security. guest: to touch on john's question, he is in the process of applying for disability. this is slightly different, but the application is difficult, long. when i was at the social security commission, there was a lot of work going on to streamline that. you do not want people waiting for two years for a decision. it is a difficult task. the administration needs to follow what the law says, and the law is somewhat complicated. when we think about retirement, social security was intended to be one leg of a three-legged

stool. you have your pension from your employer and then your savings. more and more, people are relying on social security. we want to encourage people who can save more to do that. so things like universal persont makes sense. a lot of people basically forget to sign up. if everybody saves what they should for retirement, that makes social security's john a lot easier, so that it can focus on the poor people who truly can knock afford anything.

guest: the numbers you are siding, availability of pensions. that is completely correct. those are basically going away for a variety of reasons. they are difficult for employers to manage, they can be risky, but also, a more mobile work force that wants to shift from job to job. so a defined contribution is much better for the types of workers. just because people do not have benefit does not mean they havto not have a pension whatsoever. we to make sure people have more savings. host: here is a week from a viewer -- tweet from a viewer --

guest: there is a case to be made. we know that the personal savings rate has dropped a lot over the past 50 years or so. a number of studies have said one of the reasons for that is the increase in social security and medicare benefits. if that is coming through in common programs, rationally, people would save less. -- entitlement programs, rationally, people would save less. so are we filling in the cab for people who cannot work longer? the question is, how do we provide for those people who need it, and are we doing everything that we should? host: next phone call. republican line. john. caller: if a person retires at

62, compared to 65, 66 -- here are some hypothetical numbers. at 62, social security would be $1,100. if you decided to retire at 66, $1,800. how many more years would you have to live and draw social security to make up for the money that you did not get, if you were 66 -- 62 to 66? guest: i am not sure if i can do the math precisely, but this is a common exercise people go through when they think about retiring, the break-even age? at what age do i need to retard to make up for those lost

benefits? -- retire to make up for those lost benefits? it is somewhere around the age of 78 or so. a person who does the light claiming it is, in all likelihood, going to get that money back. but i think that is a bad way to think about it. at what choice do i get the most money? if you delay from 62 to 66, and you increase your benefits from all $700 to $1,800 a month, that will last for your life. these are non-trivial chances. having that extra $700 a month when you are 90, 95 -- at that point, you do not have the option of going back to work. so going back to work is not a

gamble. it is essentially the protection against poverty in old age. caller: i had heard that you would have to live another 10, 12 years to draw your money out at 62. it depends on your lifestyle. i smoke. chances are, i will not live to be 80, 90. i always conserve money in my home but it depends on your situation. some people should consider drawing early, if they do not have any outstanding bills, and kind of relax for a little bit. guest: i will just make two points. even for those people with a short life expectancy -- i smoke. i am a man, rather than a woman.

even for those folks, there is a lot of uncertainty for how long you are going to live. having that extra benefit protect you from running out of money in old age, if you live a long time. a second point -- what i would ask -- as if you are married. if you delay retirement, that delays the benefits that you might get, as well as the benefits that your spouse might get. even if i knew then i would die one year from today, delaying claiming, that money would go to my spouse. host: sal is a democrat in new york. go ahead. caller: why don't we just open up the reserves and sell our own gas and all the money the government makes from gas? they could have plenty of money to fix the deficit and put more

money into social security and we may not have a problem. the only thing that nobody takes into consideration, when you want to buy extra insurance, it is so high you cannot afford it. i just had a lot of dental work and it put me in the poorhouse. it gets extremely expensive. guest: certainly, you want to do everything you can to have a strong economy. there are a variety of things we can do to have the strongest economy we can. that means more resources to support the growing number of retirees without taking money away from #folks. we do not want this to be a zero sum game. certainly, having a strong economy makes sense. i cannot comment on your dental insurance. host: here is an e-mail from

bonnie in texas. guest: no way the disability formula is, it is based on the retirement formula. in general, you get the benefit you would have received had you claim that the full retirement age. if we raise the retirement age or increase in early eligibility, that is not going to harm disabled people. they will still that the full benefits they have coming to them. at the same time, it is not true to say that disability will pay more than retirement. people who are disabled 10 to short work careers, often people with lower income. but the disability program, you

would not want to be on disability benefits, if you could avoid it. host: stephen writes -- guest: that is one reason why we could see a natural increase in the number of people who retire. we have already seen that in the past couple of decades. we have people leaving the work force rapidly and businesses need to fill those spots. we are not seeing that today because of the unusual levels of unemployment we have, but going over the next 20 years, we will have more demand for older workers. some of this may solve itself. what we want to have is policy complementary to that, that said to older workers, we want you to stay in the work force longer.

the key is to keep people in the work force longer. if people can keep their same job for a few extra years, beverley does pay off. host: south bend, indiana, mary on the independent line. caller: i've been listening to you talking about keeping people on the work force longer. i am a 63-year-old widow on a widow's pension and i would love to go back into the workforce, but i find? social security penalizes the amount of money i'm able -- social security -- but i find that social security penalizes the amount of money and able to make. guest: what mary is referring to is something called the retirement earnings tax. i'm actually glad she brought this up it gives me a chance to dispel some myths concerning social security tax. if you are someone claiming early benefits, there is a certain level of earnings

around $14,000, and if you earn above that in a given year, your retirement benefits are reduced by about 50 cents for every dollar that you learned. people view this as a 50% tax. people worked right up to the $14,000 earning limit and stock. you do not want people to do that. what people do not know is that you lose earnings due to early retirement, once you reach full retirement, your security is raised to make up for that. it is basically a delay in benefits. the argument is that if you are working, you do not need the money so much, so we will put it off to a later time when you really do need it. if you are doing the earnings test, you will get that money back later. once you reach 66, they will raise your benefits to account for it. personally, i think it is so

confusing that they should just get rid of it and tell everyone to work as much as they can. host: andy in chicago says -- guest: the first point that he makes, when one person retires another person is hired, in a certain basic case that is correct. but that implies there are only so many jobs to go round and that we want people to retire so we can get jobs for younger people. this is the debate you had going on in france several months ago where college age people were protesting against the raising of the retirement age. it is not because they work sympathizing with their grandparents so much, but because they thought they were going to take their jobs.

this idea is that there's only so much work to go around. this is not true. the idea that there are only so many jobs to go round, i just cannot think that is true. host: va, derica, republican line. good morning. caller: earlier, your guest said that when a person began paying social security, they can dip into the life of the fund as a trust fund. i wonder if that is a pile of cash somewhere. if they go to reach into that, or will they actually be reaching into? guest: there is no gold in fort knox that is going to be used to pay off the trust. it is essentially bonds that the government has issued to itself. when social security runs a surplus, as it has in the past, that money is given to the

treasury and social security is given a bond in exchange. when social security goes to redeem the bonds in the trust fund, this -- they have to produce the cast -- the cash, which means they have to raise the money. the trust fund is in days of no economic meaning. it is not real savings there. as long as there is a balance in the trust fund, social security will legally continue to pay full benefits. once the trust fund runs out, as it is projected to do in 2037, legally, social security cannot pay full benefits. it is not allowed to borrow money to pay you your full benefits. it must cut them. the trust fund has no economic meaning. i cannot think building up a trust fund will help us in the future. it just has a legal meaning. if you to think about your credit card statement, that tells you how much you have

barred from the credit card company. the trust fund says how much of the government has barred from social security. the government has to pay debt back, but it will pay the back by getting money from you. people should not be complacent, thinking that the trust fund will make these problems go away. host: next phone call is from tommy in maryland. caller: i retired about six years ago. january 28 will be six years. i have been waiting all of this time to collect social security. i am only 61 right now. i will be 62 in august. i worked more than 35 years in one job. i worked more than 40 years. to listen to our our politicians to say we should work to an older age, a lot of people cannot do those jobs. you cannot drive a truck if you are not in good enough health. you cannot lay bricks.

some boca not work until they are 65 or 70 -- some people cannot work until they are 65 or 70. guest: i think it is a good question. i guess the point of your question that you have to ask yourself, clearly, we know people that cannot work longer. the question is, how many of them are they? if the typical early retiree is somebody that cannot work lager, the answer to that is basically, no. -- cannot work longer, the answer to that is basically, no. the golden age of american industry, people were to the working in backbreaking jobs. today, more people working in offices. and are not saying that it is easy work. but to think that someone cannot

work beyond 62 in an office when people used to work in factories, that justice not make sense. i am saying that we need to have policies that account that the typical person can work longer and to try to encourage them to do that. host: here is a tweet from of your that is commenting on our discussion about whether or not someone retires, whether that opens up a job. guest: that is certainly possible. the economy is a big animal. trying to break it down to a very simple case of what is going on is hard to do. to go back to an earlier caller, we want to do is grow the economy, have a strong economy that produces good jobs and good income for as many people as possible. but the idea that we have a zero sum game, only so many jobs to go round, is not only

empirically falls, but it is also damaging to our ability to solve these problems because people see us not as coming together to solve a problem, but it is a fight for resources. host: but go to an independent in mount vernon, washington. caller: mr. biggs is reassuring people, and i appreciate that, but recently a friend with the disability who worked all his life, he has diabetes. and the state of washington because of washington's deficit problems send everyone a letter in december that there would be no more foot care, no more hearing aids, no more eyeglasses -- i think there were five things on the list -- and he was in a major panic. he has been looking in the last few years on whether he will have to have his feet amputated or not. he was in a panic trying to get his eyeglasses before the end of the year because now we are in

january and this has gone into effect. this has happened to everyone in washington state on social security. there are a lot of things out there. a man you're reassurances are nice, but it is coming at us in different -- and if your reassurances are nice, but it is coming at us in different ways. guest: 1 to qualify for social security disability, i believe there is a one-year waiting time for in, but after that you are automatically qualify for medicare. that is true of someone who is below 65 or older. you automatically qualify for medicare. if he has reached that point where he is eligible to medicare, -- billone -- eligible for medicare, that will assist his problems somewhat. i'm not saying that there are not problems with the state in general. host: in tennessee, jackie on the republican line.

jackie? i think we lost her. we will move on to sherry in kansas city. caller: good morning. this really irritates me because social security is basically an easy thing to solve. you raise the caps on fica and there might be some other tweaks. i know 7% of the people would be willing to contribute a little bit more because social security is not insolvent. it is probably the easiest program -- 70 percent of the people would be willing to contribute a little bit more because social security is not insolvent. it is probably the easiest program to fix. guest: when you retire, your benefits are only based on your earnings. someone earning more than that cap is not getting higher

benefits. the idea was that social security should be a limited program and people >> will go live now to the national press club this afternoon for a debate among the candidates. one of the candidates dropped out over the weekend, leaving current chairman michael steele and the four people looking to replace him. >> while 168 members will be making the decision on the chairmanship, this is a decision that affects every one that cares about the country, the republican party, the senate right movement and we thought of more transparency the better in candidates making their positions known to the whole country. at the time we also suggested the same offer to the democratic party that decided to pass on that level of transparency. most recently the head of the

dnc announced he thinks he will be chairman again here yen. we have now a tradition with this being the second of the debates and forums and election cycles with the debate for a. and i want to thank all of the rnc members who will be casting a vote shortly. i want to ask them to stand. [applause] i certainly want to thank all of the candidates who are standing for office. i want to thank those that submitted questions. we had over 900 questions submitted to the web site.

3 million hits on the web sites. a lot of interest in this election. i want to thank the susan b. anthony list. debateost for today's tucker carlson asking questions. >> thank you. we have been covering this election pretty aggressively, so it is an honor to be here, almost a combination of the story. the candidates by lottery have been assigned places on stage in the order of the questions -- and the order of the questions has been determined the same way. it is fair and they have also agreed to the rules. we will have a series of

different questions and formats, which will explain as we go along. in round three we will have an opportunity for people watching this debate in this room and on c-span to ask their own questions by twitter. if your interested in submitting a question, please do so. it is rnc debate. we will pose those questions in round three. the candidates will start off with opening statements of two minutes. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, it is time for some tough love at the republican national committee. how can and an organization that lost its credibility, and $20 million in debt, deep in his

management and, actually lead us into the next election cycle of 2012 and offering change? i think it is time for real change. the rnc has been the most important and relevant and impact all political organization in well over a generation. it is broken and needs to be fixed. it needs to be fixed for our country. we cannot well in your four more years of barack obama. and i offer myself to the republican national committee. i believe i offer a true new direction, new leadership and the real new change that we must have in order to restore credibility to the donor base, membership, and most important to the public. i offer 20 years of experience in politics and public service, serving at the most grass-roots

level. i went on to share the missouri republican party and took it over when we had nothing but a line of credit and ended up with a lot of victories. i have the honor of serving as co-chairmen of the national republican committee and travel the country raising money and helping the state victory programs. i offer a true package. i offer something that is complete in its fund raising, management, in communication and knowing how to win elections. i believe our best days our ahead of the national republican committee. i asked you to join me in restoring the rnc. [applause] >> good afternoon. my name is saul anuzis. i think our committee is that

the crisis in our country is that the biggest challenges we of ever have before us. take a look at some of the challenges we face across the country and take a look at the challenges we as a pretty face to bring this country back. we have to elect more republicans and fund at the job that needs to be done. what i bring to the table is a set of unique skills that covers the entire spectrum of what we need from the next chairman. i observed as the national committeeman. i have served as district chairman. i've run for office as well. today will be a lot of fund raising. we have to raise $20 million before we even start thinking money for the next presidential election race. all of the things that are needed are done and funded most importantly. we need someone who can make the trains run on time.

i have the political skills that are necessary based on the roles i have played. most of four and the i think i have a fund-raising skills where i've gone out and raise money in some of the most typical times ever in a state like michigan. in we successfully raised over 29 million in our state alone. it will look at the challenges of what we will face as the next chairman, i think you need someone who can articulate a message and raise the money necessary to fund programs. but that i ever myself as a candidate for chairman. thank you very much. [applause] >> i am maria cino. i want to thank you for hosting the debate. all of you, happy new year and welcome to 2011 and to the 2012

elections. the race for president has already begun and the billion dollar campaign is well under way. that is one of the reasons that the election for the rnc chairman is so important. it is important is the next chairman is faced with significant challenges. in addition to mounting a campaign to pete against $1 billion. -- to compete against $1 billion. that is why i am running for chairman. i have trained for this job most of my life. i've worked of the rnc for the last 30 years. i know what it takes to retire big deficits and rebuild campaign committees. i did that in 1994 when we turned around and went on to win of a jury, a majority in the house of representatives. i developed fund-raising programs. i have the respect of major

donors from around the country and have raised millions and millions of dollars. my past experience has also caught me the importance of a strong state party organization. they are essential to winning presidential elections. they are essential because that is what we did in 2000, that is what we did in 2004. i planned, raised funds, and implemented a victory program for each state. i have even run the national republican convention. i know i cannot do this job alone. and i know it takes a strong team of talented and smart individuals. and that is what it will take to win the elections in 2012. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. i am michael steele chairman of the republican national committee.

in it is a pleasure to be here today. when i began this job in 2009, we cannot find anyone to say they were a republican let alone run for one. we could not find people who actually believed that we could do it, that we still have value. "time" magazine claimed we were an endangered species in 2009. in coming into the rnc where our donors were frustrated and incurred, where our police were questioned, we put together a small team and got busy at the task of winning elections. reaffirming the value of this party for the american people, especially those that have committed themselves to it.

that was hard work. i am a glass half full kind of guy. i do not see the crisis as some may see it. i did not see it does something like the alarm bells may go off and start throwing and blowing up, but you get down to the heavy work every building, and we did. in 2009, new jersey, virginia happened. at the beginning of 2010 at massachusetts in hawaii happened. we begin to see the opportunity to win. as we get through the specs cycle, that reality confronts us larger than anything else. we fired nancy pelosi. the democrats wanted to hire her back. my opportunity for all of us now is to go forward, to continue to bill on the successes we have had, and ask for your support in

doing so as chairman of the national republican committee. [applause] >> i think the cameras can take a break now. my name is reince priebus. i know it is a tough name. and i just want to thank you grover, tucker for putting this on. and i am running because i believe the very american idea is at stake in this election. our country is about to walk off of the fiscal cliff, and as all of you know, pretty soon we want more people writing the wagon been driving by and. the are in a in -- the rnc needs to restore the trust and confidence of the major donors, a grass-roots activists. when i took over as chairman of the wisconsin gop, we have loads of debt in did not a lot to build on.

we did it the right way. we did it with conservatives like scott walker, our new governor. and our new u.s. senator defeating russ feingold. sean duffy. we flipped both houses of the legislator. we won five out of eight congressional districts. we did it the right way. we did it together with the conservative movement. once in thrall -- we can be darn proud to go to the polls on election day and said that is the kind of republican i want to vote for. you know why? because our republican party understands that we're not in competition with the conservative movement, we are part of the conservative movement, and we learned that if we can do three things we can rebuild our party and credibility.

those three things are pretty simple. we need to find people of their word to run for office, we need to win the elections, and finally we need to govern like we campaign. if we can learn to govern like we campaign, then and only then will we be able to take back the white house in 2012. thank you. [applause] >> first question. there is no formal job description for each position you are campaigning for. what do you think is the most important task for the chairman of the rnc in 2011 and 2012? if elected, what would you focus on as your greatest responsibility? >> fund-raising and everything else. i think we have tremendous challenges in the party. this will be a tremendous challenge with respect to rebuilding the credibility for

so many major donors to have left the party. i took the time to call the donors and find out what had happened. i was surprised to hear that almost all of them were willing and able to come back. oftentimes there were not even asked for a contribution. my goal would be fund raising so we can fund the programs in the states that are necessary. >> i would do three things. the first thing is get the fiscal house in order. we have to practice what we preach as republicans. we have called for a two-year budget, matching the budget cycle as an election cycle. and matching that with the dollars that can be spent in the coming election cycle. secondly, i would rebuild the fund raising organization, raising the money that will be necessary to beat barack obama, take back the u.s. senate and add to the u.s. house.

third, build strong state party organizations. we have learned time and time again during a presidential cycle you do not win presidential elections without the strong state party organization. and i have called for an 18- month state victory plan that would be due april 1 of this year to get us on our way. >> certainly dealing with the finances of the organization will be extremely important as we go and your presidential cycle. we have up $50 million line of credit, which restructured with the bank. we have ongoing vendor and other responsibilities and expenses that carry over from the 2010 election cycle. that clearly will be a priority as i articulated to the budget committee of the time they passed the budget in 2010 and sent for this upcoming year in the entire membership knows that is a priority.

just as importantly is what we do to continue to build for the grass roots. going into this time will be incredibly important that we continue to engage the coalition of leaders and opportunities we have with individuals all side of the party itself. i see those as dual opportunities for a least a first quarter to make sure that we hunker down, get the money tight and right. make sure the dollars, whether it is refinancing on the debt, making sure we have the opportunity on the ground with fund-raisers and donors out there to become a part of the team, and certainly the grass roots. >> i think our first priority has to be and must be in electing republicans. to do that we need money and we need a lot of money. we needed chairman that will put his or her head down and spent

five or six hours every day making major donor calls and visits, literally working like a dog for that nexttw two years getting the fiscal house in order. we need unity. we need to speak to the two- party, working together. lastly, what i mentioned before in the opening, we need to keep credibility and the party. that means we need to govern like we campaigned, hold the elected officials responsible so that peace can actually happened. that is a piece that i think could be the most important piece that we need to keep our eye on moving forward. that money and ultimately electing republicans. >> the job description is to be the standard bearer of the party and that has multiple facets underneath it. it is recruiting good

candidates. bringing grass-roots together. talking to new and coalitions out there and welcoming all of those conservatives who have been such a part of our movement is the last election cycle. it is about winning elections, winning the white house in 2012. that is the job description of the republican national committee chairman. to do that you have to raise money. doing a thorough audit of the committee and putting the fiscal house in order, putting in checks and balances, pulling together our finance chairman to put a plan together to go out and to ask for money, put a plan forward that puts forth a plaque to victory in 2012 -- which puts forth a victory in 2012. >> i want to remind our viewers

of the twitter accounts. how you balance the desire to field conservative candidates with what our electoral regality is? did you see the victory of christine o'donnell over mike castle as a triumph of victory or disaster? >> i looked at as the chairman of the republican national committee. our job is to grow the committee from the ground up. the job of the chairman is to make sure we provide our state parties with funds. we provide them with resources, talent, a technology and boots to arrest the candidates at the state parties and the republican voters put forth. i see that as how the balance should be. it goes to the state parties who have the power and recruits the candidates and have us elect the candidates. >> in this last cycle there were

not of dynamic employees among the state party. the first time the state parties were engaged in a way of life they have ever been before. we put in place a comprehensive strategy that would provide the resources for the sole purpose of engaging an activist base so they can come out and participate, and they did. you saw whether it was in delaware, florida, or california, a level of activism that was long overdue and welcomed for this party. at the end of the day the national party's role is to stay out of state party's business when it comes to the above action. our rules are very clear about that. that may upset some who want to to do the same, it is improper and wrong and when they do get paid a dear price.

you pay a dear price in support, from donors, and at the end of the day you wind up losing the that you may be could otherwise one. uld have won. >> the balance is definitely -- at the end of the day the chairman has to support our nominees, there's no question about that. and i do believe state parties have our role. some state parties have taken that rule 11 pledge and supported republican candidates in their states and under the rules we allow for that. we get the power to the states to make the decision. we have a very late primary in september. we had to do it.

it worked. it worked because the state parties have the power under the rules of the republican national committee to do that. i support that, and i would support that as chairman going forward as well. and >> there is one thing we've learned from the last election cycle and that is the people decide who will win the elections. it is the people who will decide who will win the primary. and it is a job of the republican party to stand up for our platform, for our ideals and tried to recruit candidates that will be truth to the conservative principles and values, that the end of the day people will decide the primary and it is our job to win the republican election. it is our job to grow the majority in every single state, every single courthouse and every single legislative district across the country. i think there are many programs that have really lifted up the

grass roots. it is important that we have the fund-raising to see the jobs through. >> i really do not think we need to have a whole lot of balance in the sense that i think the primaries work and i think the voters work. there has always been a mistake when someone from above tries to decide who the nominee will be. i think that is a mistake. i think we should let the primary process work. when we put forth our best candidates we win. when we run the democrats will lose. i think it is a very simple process and we should let the voters decide. ." >> -- >> the third question will be

asked by a representative from the susan b. anthony list. my charge, i am happy to say, was to represent social issues here today, which is a unique opportunity because as families go, so goes the nation and so goes the civilization. that is in direct contradiction on the idea that we should have some sort of truce on social issues where we set them aside. i had the unique privilege of interviewing each of the candidates here along with green canyon -- frank

>> what would disqualify themselves as being a republican? >> i will tell you that i think

the standard bearer must believe in the pillars of conservative many of us hold near and dear -- conservatism that many of us hold near and dear. conservative government. there is also a pillar of national events. i will tell you that after my time as serving of united states ambassador, i have a great appreciation for our national security and how important it is. the third pillar would be that of national values, whether that is the sanctity of life, marriage, amendment, what ever the social values are that we hold dear and year, those are the three things. if you cannot carry all three, i

do not think you should be serving as chairman of the national republican committee. [applause] >> i would use ronald reagan that is someone is with us 80 percent of the time, they are probably republican. we laid out very clearly what our positions are, we articulate them in a very thoughtful way, and if the candidates, someone that will represent the party represented the platform 80% of the time or more, i would think there were republican. >> would fall back on what ronald reagan has told us. -- i would fall back on what ronald reagan has told us. i think that really sums up what is in our party platform and what we as republicans stand for.

>> i would agree with that but also recognize and that the country is much bigger than we think it is and runs a lot deeper with passions but recognize that everyone will have some problem with this platform and your opportunity and responsibility is to work with them and help them if they want to be active and assumed leadership. they will have to come to understand but we cannot be a party that sits back and excludes. therefore i will not talk with you and only talk with you. that is not the republican party i joined a 17 years old. it will not be the republican

party that i lead over the next two years. [applause] >> i think being the standard bearer for the republican party has to take into account the apparel. and promote the conservative platform every time that he or she has an opportunity to do it, because right now without anything barack obama and nancy pelosi did this past two years, normally it costs about 19 cents on every dollar made in america to run the federal government. without anything it will cost 40 cents for every dollar made in america to run this country.

if you are pro-abortion, pro stimulus, guess what? you might not be republican. >> question #6. >> about 15 probe-like democrats voted for abortion in health care will tell you life matters and elections and is a centerpiece of winning and losing elections. [applause] in recent interviews with all of you each of you assume your right to life with the unborn child. given this commitment and the

important coalition partner that pro-lifers are, pearl-like donors have seen a disconnect in are in see operations. specifically what steps would you take to integrate the issue into messaging coalition, technology and all financial and other assets that are at your disposal as chair? >> we worked very closely with right-to-life groups sitting down and identifying who the candidates were, potential candidates, what resources were needed, what we could do legally and what we had to do independently. i think there has to be working relationship with all of the coalitions, particularly those that supports the sanctity of life. when we run for office i think it is very important for us to

stand on principles. i think ideas have consequences and issues matter and when we run away from those issues we run away from opportunities in boaters. we should not hide where we stand on issues. i think we as a party have to integrate abortion and any other issue just like we do everything else. it is an important part of our platform and where most of the voters stand. and so i think that we can spend resources and talk about how we have to do that and do it effectively. >> i will do what i have done for the last 30 years and that is work hard to invest and build in state coalitions. it is how we win elections. it is working with the various pro-life coalitions to make sure we register voters, identify them and get them out to vote.

i would also call for an 18- month state victory plan that has been submitted april 1. each of those states have a significant component dealing with coalition building and development. in addition, as i have always done, have an open-door policy to all coalitions to sit down and talk with individuals, work with them, and plan and strategize as we look to the 2012 elections. >> this is an area that we pay particular attention to, not with only respect to the life issue but a whole host of issues that revolve around a coalition effort. expanding the reach of the party and voice of the party, making sure the party is represented, and certainly that was no less

true in our efforts with members of the pro-like community i met with several times publicly and privately on a host of issues from health care to statewide issues. on the state-wide front here is where the rubber meets the road. having build relationships at the state level where the battle for marriage and life questions are being engaged every single day, having that relationship does not play out of the federal level anymore. it is played out state-by-state and the party has an opportunity to engage with the state legislative leaders as we have over the past two years to help with the important issues. >> i believe it is something that can be very effective. it is a great chapter across the country. i do not believe we either have none or close to none or would guest to venture no state legislators or federal office holders in the state of wisconsin that are not pro-

life. this is paramount to our platform as republicans. and i think we have a responsibility as republicans to the right-to-life issue. this is a coalition that is vitally important to our movement, to the conservative movement, and i would do everything i could to continue to promote the coalition and be proud about the fact that we are pro-life. we do believe life begins at conception. [applause] >> thank you for the great question and the work to do to promote with pro-light women candidates out there. it is unfortunate if anybody at the republican party level would

be discouraging candidates from holding their pro-life values and views out front. we certainly do not do that in missouri. and i think it is important that the right to life coalition and all coalitions have a seat at the table to discuss everything, all of the things that go into the messaging to win a good, healthy election. we do this in misery whether it is direct mail pieces, regional radio. -- we do this in missouri whether it is direct mail pieces, regional radio. the right-to-life organizations out there should always have a seat at the table, whether it is platforms, canada retirement or winning elections. >> over the last 50 years there has been a series of waves of immigration of activists voters

into the republican party. in the 1960 topos the goldwater voters -- in the 1960's with the goldwater voters in the most recent years the tea party. how do you keep the republican party open to the next waves of who can be added to the party strength and what groups to use seat critically available that we ought to be pursuing? maria cino. >> i will try to the sec that multifaceted question. first of all again, my experience has been building strong coalitions, and i would first and foremost welcome open door and talk with all of the

various groups and communicating with and working with them. i think the second thing is to make sure that our state parties are aware of the various coalitions and various groups and working with these folks as we look down the road in building from the bottom up our party to elect republicans in 2012. >> i have spent my entire political life in the trenches in this town where i grew up as an elected official and it has always been about the grass roots, the bottom-up, reaching up in getting out of the comfort zone as republicans. we do get a little comfortable with ourselves and we do become comfortable to the exclusion of others, and i think we have an enormous opportunity with the surge we have seen in the tea party activism to really open up the doors of this party and let

a new light shine in on it, some fresh faces and voices that do not look and sound like us, that do not have the same walk or background experience, but bring a wealth of new ideas to the table. we tried to do that through the coalition department at the rnc, with the idea of making a grass- roots oriented going forward. adding to that flavor every single day as the party expands into the 2012 cycle. >> we need to play well in the sandbox with tea party movement, the conservative movement. i think we have done that, certainly in wisconsin we have done that. we had a lot of success with that. we are not in competition with the basement, we are part of it. our actions speak louder than

words. we have to get out on the streets and talk to people. we were one of the only states in the entire country that set up a hispanic headquarters full- time, hired a hispanic director to get the job done and get out in the community and build coalitions. we brought on the african- american council to the republican party of wisconsin. our actions have to speak louder than words. we can make it happen but we have to work together and ask to be a priority and an important priority of the heart. when it is a priority of the heart, good things will result. you for the question. it is the job to bring people together towards the common

purpose, both new and existing coalitions, all with the purpose of winning elections. and that is what we are all here to do. i love people, i love to communicate and bring people to the table to talk about ideas, listen to what they have to say. this conservative movement that is out here over the last two years is fantastic. let us not forget, the two- party patriot and grass-roots movement is why we have such victories in 2010. [applause] all of these groups will have a seat at the table when i am chairman of the rnc. it is important recognize the importance, to listen to what they have to say to make them a part of a winning coalition going forward. >> as someone who came up in 1987 i was part of the jack kemp resolution that wanted to

bring the party back. this time people were really frustrated with the democratic and republican parties. when we lose our faith with the voters, they have a way of figuring out a different vehicle. i think we do have to reset out to the african- out american community, hispanic community. we cannot just come in 60 days before an election and say we care about the african-american vote or show up 30 days before the election and show up and an event and for pretend like we care. in michigan we were very lucky this year. we did not have to go out and look for choking candidates. we were able to integrate people into the party and make a

difference. >> the next question begins with chairman steele. there has been the get out the vote campaign. it has gone up to week before the election. in 2010 that program was discontinued. do you think that was a wise choice? if you are reelected would you revisit that decision? >> it was a wise choice. it was not discontinued it was not put out the way people were to seeing it. i have heard enough state chairmans saying i do not need strangers coming into my backyard the last week of the election telling me how to run an election when they have no idea what it is about. we decided to turn rnc into a victory center. in 100 funds available to anyone on capitol hill that wanted to come and make phone calls. the money that would have been

spent on an airplane or hotel for a week for capitol hill staffers to go to michigan, wisconsin, to go to new jersey or anyplace else in the country to work was a waste of resources. what we did is we package the dollars and gave the money directly to the states. we believe very firmly in the state-focused, state-oriented program. in every state party gave me a plan in early 2010, actually 2009, that laid out with the strategy will be. we funded that strategy directly. it was developed by each state. we funded those directly as opposed to sending staffers to different parts of the country. we opened up rnc and they could come across the street at no cost to anyone have a sandwich and make phone calls. >> i do not care to revisit the past, but in the future i think

we need a fully funded tv effort across the board, wherever that may be. it comes down to money and resources. you have all heard their estimates. everyone here will agree that the number one challenge to the rnc moving forward is raising about $400 million over the next two years, which basically means the next chairman will be sitting in office for five or six hours a day running through major donor of this, setting up meetings, a national finance network and team in order to fully fund all of the programs. we cannot go into 2012 having to make decisions between which got effort we fund in which one we do not. i think everyone would agree with that. that is going to be the big challenge, whether it be technology, gotv, it will all

come down to money. that is why money will be the number one priority for the next chairman of the rnc. >> good turnout programs are nothing but words on paper if there is no money and resources behind them. we fell down at the national committee in this last election cycle in that regard. we have got to fully fund our state victory programs. it is important for the entire ticket and will be very important this next election cycle of 2012 when the democrats are much more motivated and turnout will be at a peak level. 72 hours does not cut it anymore. we have 32 states that have early voting. 72 hours we need to push at the end in terms of turnout, but that turnout effort, those efforts much start much earlier.

most of all they have to be fully funded. >> i agree. i think one of the most important things we do as the republican party is coronate and fund the get-out-the-vote effort. the 72 our program is more like a 30-day program, sometimes 45- day program depended on what state you come from. the challenge this time around is we do not have enough resources. we have congressional senate races across the country. we will have a lot of challenges with respect to funding, and i think the most important thing we can do is we will raise the money necessary to fund the programs. to me, that is the most critical program we have come at the most critical thing we can do and every state party has been struggling to get that done. >> well, i am a little partial

to the 72-hour program because it was under my leadership that we implemented, funded, and put out 6000 volunteers in 2004 for the 72-hour program and 1000 attorneys. while i believe it is very important to assess our financial ability to do this, i would make sure it's the 72-hour program, which should be a 96- hour program, is implemented again as part of the state party planning. . .

>> finally, -- find me a state that did not have a winning election. i think we won in all 50 states this year, and that is the goal, winning. [applause] >> next question, beginning with reince priebus, is do you consider combating voter fraud at a high priority? what plans to you have to combat it? >> that is a good question for me, because i was chairman when we sued our government accountability board in the state of wisconsin over our non- compliance with an 8-year-old law. we are one of the few states in the entire country, wisconsin, where you can actually vote on election day without registering, and you can also vote without any picture identification at all. our challenge is in states like wisconsin -- challenges in

states like wisconsin are astronomical. we have a board appointed by a democratic governor, all former judges appointed by the same governor. we have no statewide registration list that is remotely accurate still as of this day. as a national party chairmen, i would use the resources to assist, obviously, the state parties and their actions against their states. i think we need to win these battles and the courts. we need to win more races in the legislatures of that we can pass photo id in all states and make sure that we either have photo id, real id, or some method of protecting our constitutional right to vote in this country. i could get past the top priority of the next chairman. -- i think it has to be a top priority of the next chairman. >> voter fraud is a real issue, and it is important that the state party and the national

party provides the resources and the legal basis and resources to stop of voter fraud out there and initiate what we will call ballot integrity programs across the country. poll watchers are important to have out there to keep a vigilant but we had an army of those in many precincts in the state of missouri. provisional ballot is the key way we have to play, to make sure that the rules and the integrity of that are kept. we have to have teams of lawyers that we can call at a moment's notice to go down, whether it is closing a poll, checking on the ballots and voting that is going on at any particular voting place. all that goes into it. technology has given us the great ability to have voting free and fair and easy. we want people to vote and we wanted to be easy for them to vote but hard for them to cheat. it is important we get out there and find these programs at the state and national level -- and

fund these programs at the state and national level. >> michigan, for example, is a blue state that can go read under the right circumstances. one of the challenges is a voter fraud in urban areas. we found tens of thousands of absentee ballots that were signed and never fell out and were apparently for sale. luckily, we were able to hold those ballots -- we call in the state attorney's office. we were able to set up our program that worked. we had to be filed lawsuits were all you had to do is fill in the blanks -- had prefiled lawsuits were all you had to do is fill in the blanks. some of the states involved in these races now and challenges now can be assured with everybody else. it is a best practices aspect that i think we can make a difference, especially with the states that don't have the resources and some of the things that the swing states have been involved in.

>> i, too, have been involved in integrity and ballot security programs, and i think they are extremely important. i would remind you, 1981 -- some of you probably weren't born -- in the state of new jersey 1 the governor. in this state in 2000, whe one -- we won. ballot integrity programs are very important. starting with training in this case and then training and districts, local organizations. additionally, making sure we have attorneys like we did in 2004. we sent out 1000 attorneys from the area to various states around the country and provided resources necessary to go to court when you have to go to court to fight these cases. >> the issue of public integrity is clearly one that is on the foremind of everyone in terms of

whether or not ballots are secure and whether or not people can trust that the process is going to work. certainly in the past year, going back to the 2009 election cycle, we made a very concerted effort to coordinate much more closely with state partisan than we have in the past, whether it was in wisconsin, -- coordinate much more closely with state parties then we have on the past, whether it was in wisconsin or with gov. christie's effort, knowing that there are issues to be concerned of. coming from the states like maryland, we know what it's like to lose a governor's race because of cheating the reality for us at the national level have to be one of direct coordination, not dictation, at the state party's. they know what the feel and the environment is on the ground. having them come to us and say, "this is what we need," and being able to provide that is critical. they know first and foremost with the realities are.

lastly, coordinating with lawyers and individuals who can be a part of that team, particularly when you get into the cycle at the end, as we recently did with a recount, to make sure that the repetitions are there. >> i number of you have made the point that the incoming congress was elected on hopes that it would address spending above all other matters. how confident are you that the leadership will in fact do that? what specific government programs do you think will be dramatically pared down or cut by the incoming republican congress? >> i think we saw a very good at beginning with our republican leadership that came in during the lame-duck session and took a real hard stand against earmarks. we saw the omnibus bill fall under the weight of its own weight. it is important, very much, that the spending and debt be drawn in. as i said a little bit earlier, everything needs to be on the

table. we need to the it department cuts. the gross in cover -- the growth in government -- if you look at the stimulus package, really all that it was pro-government. it did not grow jobs. we're still close to 10% unemployment. it is important that we look at programs to cut. it is important that we look at some of the mandates that are out there that need to be on -- entitlements that need to be looked at. i think that this congress is going to take it very, very seriously, and they don't, the people will have a say in 2012. >> look, i think we have a lot of challenges. i am very optimistic with respect to republicans we have elected in congress. the people came here with a mandate, they understand why they are here. those who listen to the people of america and act on what their elected to will be effective and be reelected whether it is the

aarp and some as or across-the- board cuts that are probably -- whether it is tarp and stimulus or cross-the-board cuts that are probably necessary, we cannot have crony capitalism. otherwise, we will turn into a european-style country bread we -- otherwise, we will turn into a european-style country. from my perspective, there is a cross-the-board cuts that have to be done i hope we never get into a situation again will we even consider tarp or stimulus. >> you know, i think that if we have learned anything from the 2010 elections, our friends in the tea party, it is that we have to be focused and stick to our principles of cutting taxes and cutting spending. i think we have gotten off to a great start with our new republican leadership with regards to doing away with earmarks.

i think that speaker boehner today gestured 5% -- he would cut his personal congressional budget by 5% and the rest of congress' by 5%. but that is not enough to going to look at bills -- but that is not enough. looking at bills that have amendments, bridges to nowhere. as the former deputy secretary of transportation, i can tell you that $55 billion -- they always want more. but from the bush administration, we held the line and make sure we did not go out in our spending i think that is what the republican leadership is going to do and we have to hold their feet to the fire to make sure that they do exactly what they were elected to do. >> i think we have to be clear about the role we have in this position as chairman and. as i was reminded several times

by the members of the senate and house, you don't do policy. the reality of it is, we don't in this perch. we do politics. but our responsibility is, and what mine has been over the last two years, is to take the leadership what i hear from you, what i hear from the grassroots. if you get to sit there and decide what the policy is -- you can have an impact on appellate ticks of the policy by being an advocate on -- you can have an impact on the politics of a policy by being an advocate for the tea partyers or grandmother getting involved for the first time. being an advocate for the up- and-comers just starting on their own. having a conversation about translating the tax and other policies coming off of the hills so that people understand in the

grass roots what is going on and that people on the hill understand what the grass roots want to it at the end of the day, you don't get to dictate the terms to the speaker of the house, you don't get to dictate the terms to the minority leader of the senate. you have to carry the message to them and bring that message from them, and if you get it wrong, you'll be reminded that you don't to policy. [applause] >> one of the things i talk about a lot as chairman of the wisconsin party is that -- wow. [laughter] while we lick the envelopes and put up signs and raise the money, and guess what? we expect a certain result. i think the party does have a role in enforcing with that expectation is with our elected officials. if the results aren't there, we do have power to dictate results or least help dictate results,

and that is called go to the ballot box, it is called primary. you know, the voters gave us a lease. they did not give us the keys. we have an opportunity to put the train back on the rails. how many people who are republican you're actually believe that the idea of america is at stake in 2012? who believes that? well, we started off the right away in eliminating earmarks. our people get it. but we need to go further. one of my good friends, paul ryan -- i was his congressional chairmen for years -- he gets it. he knows we need to elevate the debate because we need to save our country. >> the next question is a video question, and hence the screen, from the college republicans communications director.

>> nearly 20% of the total voting population was between 18 and 29 years old. unfortunately for republicans, that a faction devoted 66% for president obama. however, that same demographics said they only have a 44% approval of president obama and the outgoing democratic congress. this gives the republican party a golden opportunity to recruit and engage new members of the party. as the newly elected chairman or chairwoman, would you do to encourage young republicans with messaging so that we can engage them into the process? >> first of all, our message ought to be very clear and straightforward. i think conservative values work. i think they work on college campuses and would be very successful. we have to understand technology kids are using these days. it is not enough to say, "i use

twitter" or "i use facebook." you have to be part of it and lit it. when you look at the hundreds of thousands -- hundreds of millions of people who are on facebook, for example, and 70% of people get some information online -- all the young voters are going to hear and what they want to be a part of an where they get that information is online sources. we have to be very active with college republicans and young republicans. we obviously have the legal restrictions as to what we can and cannot do. this is an area that is not only the future of the party, this is the party today. this is where we will grow and succeed. >> in 2010, we were very fortunate to elect the next generation of young republican leaders. if you look at marco rubio, jamie herrera, just an amicable, it is an extraordinary group of individuals. i would look at those young new leaders to help us appeal to young voters. it would be so extremely

important. i want to make sure that our state victory plans have a significant component dealing with young voters. going back to college campuses and registering voters and making sure that we get young voters as volunteers. additionally, i would use our young leaders to help us to recruit candidates. we need to have a bench, and that is not a better served than by young republicans. finally, i touched on it a little bit -- we need to be able to communicate with our young voters. we need to be able to do social networking. we need to look beyond what the next generation of the communication is with our young folks. >> we made a significant investment at the rnc my first year just on that front to make what we had to say relevant through new vehicles and technologies. we don't have a webpage, we have a web platform that can be used

in different ways, as saul noted, to really make use of twitter and blogging and the like. that is the first step of many that we have to take to engage this new generation of young voters who are coming into their own. they are getting elected. i have encouraged over the past two years our college republicans, and i would encourage them now, to run for national committeeman and committeewoman from your state party, chairman of your state party, run for local office, run and be involved in this process. get your fingers at the table and helped shape the direction of the party. the feature is not tomorrow, as saul noted. it is right now. at every effort we have made at the rnc is towards in beijing, from the bu -- t owards engaging, from tehe bus tour to engaging young voters to have a seat at the table.

all of us are going to retire, probably sooner than later for some. we need to make certain that the next generation is prepared and ready to step up. >> i think it is a couple of things, i think that is right. you have the congregation people, bring them in the full. -- you have to engage young people. you have to bring them into the cold. we have to promote the new generation of the republican party. someone mentioned marco rubio, one of my law school classmates, and paul ryan, aaron shock. we have a gop rising stars coming out of our ears right now. but at the end of the day, keep in mind that one of the biggest used movements and the country was on a break and -- biggest youth movements in the country was ronald reagan. teenage republicans -- that is how i became involved, as a teenager, and then as the college republican president,

and working my way up the ranks. the way i got involved was one senior guide invited me to lick envelopes. that is how it all started. it was not a young person who got involved. it was a grown-up. here i am debating my potential candidacy here for rnc chairman. >> the youth of this nation and party are not the future of the party, they are the heart of the party. i was reminded of that when i was having a lunch at a senate campaign this last cycle. the use of the party run our party. they are the workers going door- to-door and making calls, the staffers working tell us hours for nothing but it beats the. i am 48 years old. i was old in this last election cycle. i have great ideas to use new

technology and have a conversation with the young people where they live. it is important we begin to institute a virtual precinct. you all have a facebook page, and work, a group of people who follow you, that are a part of your world. you ought to be at the getting to them, just like we did the old geographic -- you ought to be advocating to them, just like we did the old a geographic precincts. the virtual precinct is a way to make them a real part of this next election cycle. >> all right, it is time for our lightning round. i want to remind our viewers that we're still open to comments and questions from twitter. the address is #rncdebate. >> the late and unlamented

governor of florida, charlie christie -- >> crist. [laughter] >> florida, the one down south -- raised a great deal of money running as a republican, receiving money from republican committees and institutions, then decided to run as an independent per had a number of people who ran as republicans raising money from republicans would endorse other candidates if they did not win the primary. perhaps as a result, the standing committee on rules for the rnc passed a resolution, the party unity pledge, saying that anybody who receives money from republicans running as republicans could assign that pledge and be responsible for returning the money if they decided to run on another party line or endorse a different candidate. the short answer to the law question is and do you support the the adoption of this

unity pledge into the rules of the republican party? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> that was indeed a lightning round. [laughter] i am impressed. do you believe that republican primaries ought to be limited to republicans, or should it be open up to anyone? >> limited to republicans. .> republicans brough >> republican primaries ought to be for republicans. >> aside from president reagan, who is your political hero? [laughter] [applause] last year we got caught -- >> this is a request in. > -- a trick question.

>> after reagan, who would you cite as a hero? >> abraham lincoln. >> i will go back to my state. general john ashcroft is my hero. he brought me into the party. he is a man of character and integrity. this is a lightning round, i'm sorry. >> freedomworks. >> margaret thatcher. >> frederick douglass. >> where do you get your news? [laughter] >> the daily caller. [laughter] no, mostly from the internet. the final three pages in the

first section of "the wall street journal," with politics, gop. >> i get many of the internet. i read everything from blogs to newspapers. >> i am probably a religious reader of the drug repor -- drudge report, hotline, politico, all the other information online. >> so much for lightning round. >> i get my news online also -- "wall street journal," "national review." >> i am an old-fashioned guy. i start my morning with a hard copy of "the washington post," and then go on line to get the

real news. [laughter] >> tube support completely -- do you support completely defunding planned parenthood? >> absolutely. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> starting with mr. anuzis, names of the mr. obama has done that you agree with --. name something mr. obama has done that you agree with. [laughter] >> i think this effort to called republicans prosecute the war -- to help republicans prosecute the war. >> i agree with that, if he opposes a end of the bargain. -- he upholds his end of the bargain. >> he has done a good job of reaching out with new technology. >> how many guns do you own?

>> none. >> none. >> five. >> we just got a new gun safe for christmas, and we have about 16 in there. my son is at west point. [applause] >> i am very inadequate, at four. >> ken sarah palin win a general election? -- can sarah palin when a general election? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes, absolutely. >> yes. >> forever. >> "reagan diaries." >> hmm, favorite bar?

probably my kitchen table. >> favorite book. >> all, i thought they said favored by -- favorite bar. [laughter] >> that was deeply revealing. >> "reagan diaries." new like a george w. bush's book, how about that? >> "to kill a mockingbird." >> "war and peace." the best of times and the worst of times. [laughter] >> thank you all. that was the lightningest lightning round i've ever seen. we're going to go to follow the ups that we've received, and we

really just received them. we have not had time to dr. them. these are literally just things we just got. this is from drew walker. did you lobby for obamacare? if so, why? >> no one wants to go to a government-run health care system. i think we have seen what has happened at overseas, particularly in europe. i am proud to say that this last year i work with our republican members in the house and in the senate, i worked against death panels and rationing, i worked to reform malpractice suits. i worked to make to the innovation was rewarded, and i worked to increase -- to make sure innovation was reported and i worked to increase intellectual property protection. >> thank you. >> no, i did not.

i worked for the republican principles i just mentioned. >> ann wagner, how would you solve the rnc's current budget crisis prior to the victory 2011 program? >> it is about fundraising. we have to go out and restore our major donor programs. i have put them forward on annwagner.com. it talk about top tier donor is all the way down to the liver donors. you must note -- around the country -- to the lower donors. you must go around the country. you have to cover the running of the rnc, and most importantly, you have to fund state party programs. >> chairman steele, at times you have defended her record by

suggesting that your critics -- defending your record by suggesting that your critics were acting against african- americans out of bias. >> no, that is not true. you may have heard the media reporting it that way. my record speaks for itself. we wind. -- we won. the fact that we are here right now celebrating that win says a lot about the record. [applause] >> my tweeted question is for the man was glad this is not a write-in campaign. third-party groups helped win elections in 2010. why do we need an rnc at all?

>> i think we can drive the ground game pretty darned well. we have a vast national network of people committed to putting the party and its principles upon their shoulders to make that happen. that does not mean that we should not play well in the sand box with everyone, because we all need to have good relationships, good collisions, wisconsin right to life --, could coalitions, wisconsin right to life, but at the end of the day, the republican party is one of the two major political parties in the country and we need to be strong, well funded, and on the ground with everybody moving forward into 2012. we have to continue our fight. >> saul anuzis, you are from michigan. how would you target predominantly blue states like michigan, the northeast, the west coast? >> will we have to do is reach out to the traditional voter

that we have lost. i grew up in detroit, and we were reagan democrats. we thought we were democrats until we started reading. we have a tremendous opportunity, if you go and look at where the american voter is today, it is us. god, guns, and guts republicans, people who believe in the traditional values that make up probably 70% of our society. as long as we appeal to them on conservative values, we can win. it is always interesting and i think a mistake when we think we have to change. my clock was up, sorry. >> thank you all very much. i think we are ready for closing statements. we're going to go from this di --from mr. priebus and back down this way. >> this is about choices. life is about choices. god gives us different talents

and given a gift. everybody up here is a good person. i'm not running against anybody paid i'm running -- i'm not running against anybody. i'm running for rnc chairman at time of different needs. chairman to his would-be workers, who is going to put on a great convention, at tackle redistricting. i have demonstrated that i can do all that as chairman in wisconsin. as i've said many times, we learned how to work with the conservative movement. i'm asking everybody in this room for your support. i know not everybody can vote for me, but if god bless me to be chairman of this party, all of us are going to have to work as a team to get it done to save our country and in turn to save our party and win in 2012 and take back the white house. thank you, and god bless you. [applause]

>> i would like to thank our sponsors for this opportunity. i want to thank the members, and the members of the republican national committee, the 168 members, thank you for allowing me to serve as chairman for the past two years. thank you for allowing me to take risks for you. thank you for interesting me to break new ground for you. thank you for the opportunity to empower our state parties on like they have ever been before. if you want more of that, if you want to do more of that, if you want to be strong, independent, and engaged state party, you don't need a top-down rnc, because i am not a top-down person, as you know. you need more of the same from the bottom up. as the national chairmen, that is my commitment, not my

promise, because of the record we have laid out for you speaks for itself. we can do more, and we will do it better. thank you. [applause] >> thanks again to our coasts and to the -- our hosts and to the rnc members here today. i believe i am uniquely qualified because i have successfully done this job before. i turned around a national campaign committee that was in debt and won a majority in the u.s. house of representatives. twice i was personally responsible for planning and funding in implementing 50-state victory programs around the country, in 2000 and 2004. my past experience has given me the foundation necessary to build a party in a presidential election. on january 15, i walked into the rnc with no on-the-job training as ever, because i have already done this job. vote and for your

the trust to take over the national committee. thank you very much. [applause] >> well, look, i am a movement conservative who believe that ideas have consequences and principles matter. but i also believe i am uniquely qualified to take this position. i think i have the administrative skills, having run an operation with over 400 employees and $60 million budget. i have the political skills, having worked on hundreds of campaign from the presidential down to the county level. i have the fund-raising skills necessary to raise millions of dollars in some of the toughest times, and believe me, retiring the debt is going to be some of the toughest times. and i am one of the most technologically advanced members, who knows how to communicate with millions of people today who get most of their information over the internet. most importantly, i am a member who believes we ought to be a member-based organization and all members across the country who want to be involved in this process. every single person on the

national committee got there the hard way. they worked their way up because they offered something to their states and they have talents they want to share with us. we have to put together a member-based committee that will help us win in 2012. thank you very much. [applause] >> i am the daughter of small business owners who has been working since i was 11 years old. i've been living my traditional conservative republican values all my life of limited government and free enterprise and personal responsibility. i began my political career as a grass-roots activists and became a leader, a leader who knows how to connect with people and articulate a message, how to win elections and put winning teams and coalitions together to do that. my experience is rooted in the heartland of america. i am at a suburban mother of three. who has been married for 24 years, and whose american dream is all about serving your community and our country -- her

community and her country in the way of serving republican principles and ideals and candidates. i think we have an opportunity to change course on january 14 at the republican national committee. i'm asking for the support, for the vote, and for the help of everyone on the republican national committee and all of you out there so that we can win in 2012 and that i can be elected the next chairman of the republican national committee. our freedoms, our families and our public is worth the fight. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentleman, candidates, ann wagner saul anuzis, michael steele, maria cino, reince priebus, the election is to number 14. thanks to -- the election is january 14. thanks to tucker and marjorie.

see you in four years.

>> if you missed any of our live coverage of the republican national committee debate, we will reair this evening starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span. the 112th congress gavels in wednesday with the house and senate coming in at noon eastern. the house will elect a new speaker, ohio republican john boehner. members will also vote on house rules for the next two use, and a number of motions to get the

house organized the next section -- for the next session. live coverage on c-span. in the senate, a life: to bring all senators to the floor for the swearing -- live quorum to bring all senators to the floor for the swearing in of members. live at noon eastern this coming wednesday on c-span2. >> for these children, and all of america's children, the house will come to order. >> with the start of a new congress this wednesday, look back at the opening of past sessions online at the c-span video library, with every c-span programs since 1987. all searchable, all free. it is washington your way. >> officials estimate close to 100,000 homes will be repossessed by banks this month.

that is according to the company wheel tractor it usin -- according to the company realtytrac. it was recently the subject of a conversation hosted by the new america foundation. this is an hour and a half. >> well,, everybody. i want to think ever but watching on c-span today. -- i want to thank everybody watching on c-span today. this idea was your brainchild, and it cannot have gone on without him. there is a lot of good material archive at newamerica

.net. we will talk about the mortgage at mass, which is sort of tough to define. when the housing bubble popped, we got distracted by a lot of what is going on -- was going on on wall street. there is not in a ton of attention, or frankly, an effort to come in my view, devoted to what is happening on the ground , with a bubble borrower is facing a huge crisis. those problems have not gone away in the past two years. as many as 11 million more foreclosures will come before 2012. we have seen 2.5 million. it is a huge issue, and a costly one, too. the centers for responsible lending estimates that 91.1 million households affected --

the average losses $20,000 in their assets. if you look at the cost of local government, the urban institute reports about the same. this is killing economic recovery. as long as consumers face huge debt overhang, as long as they owe more money than their homes or with, there will not be able to start spending -- that their homes are worth, they will not be able to start spending. there is huge shadow inventories and the housing market is keeping housing prices low and keeping recovery from spreading across the country. now we have received more clarity about a new economic problem. there is some irony because we have had a lot of anecdotal reporting from legal aid lawyers and consumer advocates who have been seeing these problems around. only of the past six months have been investigations revealed what is going on across the industry, and robosigners, which i hope you have heard of,

but if you've got, it is the site of the mortgage servicing industry -- but if you of not, it is accretion of the mortgage servicing industry. once this started happening and someone had to deal with the payments. mortgage servicers spend up to collect payments from borrowers and pass them on to investors and managed foreclosures. it all worked pretty well, as long as it was automated where there were not a lot of foreclosures. when the housing bubble popped, suddenly a lot of people were delinquent on their payments, foreclosures were happening, people wanted to negotiate with someone, the servicers or overwhelmed. this started cutting corners to speed foreclosures, they started doing all sorts of pernicious practices. at the same time, the government's main response to this was the home affordable

program, or essentially the treasury asked the servicers come in exchange to essentially a bribe, big cash payouts, to modify loans to affordable levels. that is essentially been a failure. it's not met expectations. it has been really slow, and it is been on the servicers. this past summer, the robosigners. a loan officers testified that he signed 10,000 affidavits a month. it's hard to believe that someone could review several months of a single borrower's payment history and do all the things you need to do to be beagley sure that you can foreclose in that period -- you need to do to be legally sure that you could foreclose and that period. other practices, like filing lost no affidavits when the nets have not been lost, have sprung -- when the notes have not been

lost, have sprung up to this does not mean that people and not having to pay their debt, but it means that we have serious uncertainty over whether or not who owns people's mortgage loans, who has standing to collect payments. this could affect as many as 32 million mortgage loans, according to the congressional oversight panel for tarp. it is incredibly widespread right now. all the financial innovation we have seen in the housing market and the mortgage markets over the past years -- it has not been matched with similar legal innovation. we are financing mortgages onto an old legal system. it is more than a kink in legal procedure, which is what a lot of these services are due. -- these servicers argue.

people expect these protections, and when they are taken away, they're basically being defrauded. this issue, the revelation of these practices, come up with a couple of different consequences. 50 state attorneys general have launched an investigation into what is going on here, because clearly at the state level there are legal policies. it is clear they want to do something to find a settlement and help homeowners while accepting the right amount of section to the servicers. but there is also broader things that is happening the policy solutions to the foreclosure crisis. one is that we have this high- tech procedure that is not really being matched on the legal level. across the country, there are meetings going on, mediation or borrowers and lenders are meeting with an independent third party. it is an old fashioned solution to a new problem. this sort of pervasive sense of

injustice with the servicers is perhaps an opportunity for more mediation to scale up to a national level. alon is going to talk about that. it is also reveal programs with treasurys and regulation up servicers -- of servicers through various regulatory agencies and with the fledging consumer financial protection bureau the will be charged with watching these industries. it has raised a lot of questions about what they need to do to make sure that that is working effectively. finally, as well as creating problems in the housing market, creating uncertainty there, we're also seeing systemic risk issues, where investors who bought these mortgage-backed securities are realizing that the chain of ownership of these mortgages is not clear, maybe the securities are not in fact mortgage-backed. they will be suing the people who created these investments, attempting to shift the loans

off their balance sheets and back on to the balance sheets of the banks who originated the bid is unclear how much this could eventually cost banks. could be hundreds of billions of dollars. there be a serious threat to the help of the financial system, because the banks are still weak and losses of that magnitude could be very problematic. we don't really know the extent of these problems yet, except that they are pervasive and we don't know the consequences. but it is an opportunity to talk about how to fix these particular issues and rebuild housing market and look ahead to the features of that we don't see these things happen again. the servicing industry has become more than a middleman between borrowers and lenders. it is a middleman between our country an economic recovery. hopefully, the folks who argue with us today will come up with some good ideas to fix the problem. i just want to introduce the panel before they come out and talk for a minute. we have mike konczal, a former financial engineer and now a

fellow at the roosevelt institute read his writings on reform have been very influential over the past few years. he will talk a little bit about a bunch of stuff. he will do the basic run-down on securitization for a spread we are also joined by -- he will do the basic run-down on securitization for us. we are also joined by alon cohen of the center for american progress. we have actually accord with us, senior counsel at the center for -- we have a julia gordon with us, senior counsel at the center for responsible lending tree we also have with us and damon silvers, deputy chair of the oversight panel on tarp, which issued a major report on issues of in the mortgage industry. he will talk about a variety of issues on systemic risk. he is also director of policy at

the afl-cio. we will have a panel discussion and then rounded out with questions. for starters, here is mike konczal. >> thank you. i would like to thank tim and new america for hosting this timely panel, and for inviting me to speak. i will take minutes and i want to explain three things. i want to talk about the origins of this crisis, where it comes from and what it entails, i want to tell you why you should care about it, and i want to start outlining some solutions and some of the incentives and motivations of many of the players right now who are trying to figure out the and goals. i am sure people watching have a

white dissolution of knowledge of the crisis -- a wide distribution of knowledge of the crisis. the iou money. is toole of rththe note explain the debt and terms associated with debt. this is part of late fees, things that come up with the distressed debt and -- this is where you have late fees, things that come up with distressed debt. a note is something that is called a negotiable instrument. it is like a check. it forms the basis of the securitization process. this is complicated, but we will walk through it. securitization starts with the mortgage originator, like countrywide. it creates a mortgage with the homeowner. it takes the note and associated

documents and passes it to sponsor, often an investment bank like restaurants. that's got to take the document and moves it to a depositor -- that sponsor takes the document and moves it to a depositor. you want to create a pure instrument of mortgages. we don't want you to have exposure to bear stearns or the investment bank. the depositor takes those notes and market its entrance into a mortgage-backed security -- takes those notes and mortgages and turn it into a mortgage- backed security. trying to get our arms around how much of the systemic crisis is why we're holding this conference is pre -- why we are holding these conferences. countrywide was not passing these notes through. why is that important? it is important for three reasons. one is that date signed things like point of service agreement. the actual infrastructure of a

contract that everyone science requires the notes to be there as part of diligce -- that everyone signs requires the nets to be there as part of due diligence. this is what investors rely on when they buy these things. the second thing -- the servicers are very thin business. they are designed to take money from one side and walked off the other side. -- walk it off the other side. they're not supposed to be doing a lot of things. they're not supposed to be actively buying notes and moving notes around. they have promoted these contracts -- they have about 90 days to get the notes in there. the third reason why this is relevant is that most of these mortgage-backed security contracts are formed under new york trust law. trust law is a very strict law, for every good reason. we don't want people creating a

trust to go by at lunch or leveraged buyouts. we want there to be specific reasons. .he intentions don't matter it does not matter that there is nothing else we do with these notes. the contracts are very strict about this. it is also worth -- this system of organizing mortgages at organizing mortgage debt is brand-new. people off at mortgages and debt forave had centuries. but the system we are in now is a brand new phenomenon, out of 1980's deregulation. at the left most point of 1980 and that right-most point of 2010, it has pretty much taken over the market. it has never been stressed or tested like it has been right now. what we're finding is that it is failing. this is a complicated chart, and i encourage you -- diane

thompson of the national consumer law center as a document, if you can find it, but these are the various elements of the servicers. the servicers are the ones were supposed to manage passively, taking in money from homeowners and putting it into mortgage- backed securities. when things go wrong, it is their job to manage it. we see so much of the structural factors that go into both the contracts they sign, the institutional settings they operate in, and the personal and institutional motives and financial incentives that they encounter, push toward foreclosure and the speeding of foreclosure. we can talk about it later if people have more questions, but that is the background. we have a system that is brand new, being tested, and failing. the default mode of it is to force people into foreclosure, even when there are negotiations that can be done. when i say "servicers," these are people with agencies and

institutions and a lot of clout. people like wells fargo and jpmorgan. it is a fairly concentrated market. why should you care? this is under water versus the unemployment rate. perfect correlation this is the same chart of foreclosures versus the on employment rate. there is a lot of debate among macroeconomists. supplely about our persistently high on a plane right has to do with our -- something about our persistently high unemployment rate has to do without persistently high rate of foreclosures. -- with our persistently high rate of foreclosures. this kind of net leverage where everyone is trying to pay off mortgage debt associated with the mortgage bubble and the credit bubble has been affecting our economy over the past years

and is keyed into a recession. about two years having something that corrects for delinquency in the mortgage code. the other thing is to have some inflation, maybe 3%. people across the political spectrum, a slightly higher debt. there is no relief from mortgages in bankruptcy. most of the write-down in debt is coming through defaults and foreclosures. foreclosures are lose/lose events. the investor loses because the homeowner can pay something. the home owner loses because he loses his home in what ever institutional place he has. and the community loses.

they affect property values if anyone has a foreclosure on their block, you probably are familiar with this. in great times it creates uncertainty about the way the market marco ultimately clear. ok, so here is -- let's go to the next point. we're going to talk about policy solutions, but let's talk about the government solutions on the table. there is no equivalent of a weekend tarp where if you can fix these 3 are for things it will fix the problem. and let's pretend we have 60 senate votes. we do not have that. if they did, it is not clear makewe could pass to

the problem go away. poughkeepsie and mrs. jaded by the consumer not by the bank. -- bankruptcy is a initiated by the consumer, not by the bank. the banks do not have an easy out for themselves. even if they did, it is unlikely that congress would vote for something like tarp 2. richard shelby has voted against immunizing merz. it is not clear they have a silver bullet to make this go away. and it is also unclear that banks understand themselves with regard to the problem. you may have noticed a major banks put a short-term mortgage foreclosure moratorium in place, which was rescinded about a month later. it is not clear from the internal reviews they did that they got a sense of the scope of

the problem that they outcome of the exposure they have appeared in the one big problem is that if the notes were not pass through, you do not have a mortgage-backed security, you have an unsecured debt security. as such, because of those -- i mention of lemon laws, the natural inclination is to force the banks to buy back the mortgage is on par. 100 cents on the dollar as opposed to the 20 cents or 40 cents it is worth now. that is a major amount of losses that is put back on the balance sheet. right now investors are meeting to try to figure out what options are. some have gone ahead with lawsuits. it is tough to tell if this will be a wave. it will either have been quickly or slowly. it will be a wave of hundreds of trillions of dollars or a

trickle. either way the cutbacks put huge amounts of systemic risks into the system. but regulators from day one have more or less run under the assumption that protecting the six largest banks have been crucial toward the idea of coming out of this recession. whether or not that is a good or bad decision, they are running out of the time to do that. there is now an invtition that will start pulling random records to see of the notes are available. in other people will talk about what the attorney general can do, but something they are doing is they're looking at criminal charges. this has not been discussed enough, but if crimes are committed, it cannot be just an issue of civil court. another thing is looking at actual defects. if payments are being made i

or if theres fees first, is a general problem that needs to be addressed. through the past 10 years through the work of several preamp goods, a lot of the attorney general's were put on the sideline. this is not an accident because attorney general's are very often vocal advocates for consumer financial protection. with the crisis now we will see them be put back into motion. i think that the show a real problem for a new opening and possibility for change in this crisis. thank you. >> thank you. my name is alon cohen.

let's start at the bottom with mediation itself. mediation is a process in which the parties get into our room with a hopefully subject matter expert who is neutral. that person's job is to understand the issues that are being discussed but to not go one way or the other. the basic idea about mediation is you do not have to settle. all we're asking is the parties walk into the room and have a discussion. when the parties to get into a room they settle. we got into a little struggle with this initially. we said if the folks to get into the room and discuss the for closures tend to settle, why don't we tell everyone to do that? we call that mandatory mediation.

we said you do not have to settle, you simply have to talk. what we mean more specifically is if you initiate a foreclosure, you though servicer, than the body managing the foreclosure whether it be a court or organization you're hired to do that for you send out a notice to both parties to show up at a particular location and mediate the case and see if you can come up with a good deal. the reason the foreclosure mediation is important as one of the tools that should be involved in the housing crisis is that it is the last best chance for the parties to get a chance to discuss this issue. what we mean by a last best chance is before you lose your home, before we have to worry about a second-look process from freddie mac, let's have you speak. you have likely gone to housing counselor to attempt to get into contact with your lender and

process that lls an aul lot likeling yr cle company and change your service. the will talk a different person every time in the paper or gets lost. -- and the paperwork gets lost. they have said we simply over the last 2.5 years have not been able to hire enough people to handle the modification request that have come down the pike. the reason this looks all lot like -- this is mike slade, the reason it has been successful is because both sides want to win. lenders have a fiduciary obligation to investors, shareholders, to maximize the total value of the pool of mortgages they hold. that means a modification or short sale can maximize the

value. more often than not they are able to do that. lastly when we go as the center for american progress to a local government, they say why are we going to get involved in this? what is in it for us? they very quickly see that a local government where property taxes are king, that the tax base is eroding and they want to make sure they benefit from that and also lower expenditures. when you have additional public services necessary, they will gain for making sure the housing stakes are as stable as possible. you send in information to the lender, the lender makes the determination and send it back to you. in a room with somebody, the chances are you'll

have a conversation about your particular situation to see if the assumption about your income and appraisal or correct. if they are or not perhaps you are eligible for proprietary modification and so on. then we have the ability to find a process that rapidly in jack's certainty back into the process. the certainty that was shaken by the multistate electronic registration system, these are things that have shaken the public's trust in whether the person sitting across the table from them has a right to foreclose. and if the mediator says the across their i's and dotted their t's that person sees they're doing with the right

person and that person goes and tells other people and you rapidly rebuild certainty been using this one tool. why do we want foreclosure mediation? because it works. in a mature programs such as the one in connecticut in philadelphia we see a 74% settlement rate. of that the breakdown is 60% of the people selling stay in their home and 30% engaged in peaceful exit. other ways in which the homeowner leaves the home but has greater control and participation in that process and gets greater value for the lenders and their investors and shareholders. we're also learning that mediation takes more than one session. why? homeowners to not have all of their paperwork or the servicer or lender needs to go back and get authorization and those mediation sessions take a 90 or 100 days but tend to run in

parallel with the foreclosure process. the foreclosure process begins and starts to run its course whether it is a waiting time for into discovery or so on and in the meantime mediation begins. if mediation reaches a settlement, they both reach it. this is an example of the data we are getting out of states like connecticut. this is from january, although it is fairly consistent. and 26% of participants did not settle. 14% engaged in a graceful exit. in 60% manage to stay in their home. kinetic is interesting because it shows something that we found fascinating. if. -- connecticut is an

interesting test case because it shows something that we found fascinating. there is a piece of paper that says check this box if you would like to show up for mediation. in that leads to a maximum participation rate throughout the programs of 20%. in what happens if you increase participation by going into an automatic mediation? everybody gets a notice to show up. what we worried about is when you grant that up, maybe the people that were going in were self-selecting. these are the best people that would go in and get a modification. conn one from an office in progm early onndhen went back and said this is give us an autatic program and got $3 milln and has shown that previously 80% of people to

us were not of his bidding at all, which means in the total number of foreclosures 12% for keeping their homes. when you go to an automatic program and 75% of people are in, 45% of homeowners are keeping their homes. i think the new america foundation is the right place to talk about this because they have leverage behavioral economics to their advantage, and that is what connecticut is doing is that is what we are encouraging other people to do. to talk about foreclosure and how one brings about the programs, it is a state process. the success is evident in the fact that in 2009 when we looked at this, 11 jurisdictions have programs. in 2010 there were 22 states. most recently the district of columbia now has a program. and the two major regimes of

foreclosures are judicial. where you hear stories about the rocket docket 15 second hearings. the other side is non-judicial foreclosure where there is an agreement in your note that says if we want to foreclose on you for some condition we can simply assign this to a trustee and you never see a courthouse. the majority of states have non-judicial foreclosures. judicial foreclosure states have of judiciary that does not need to go to the legislature and say we want to create a program. they have discretion to divert cases if they need to. they have done it for years with family law successfully. philadelphia among others and florida state why did that. if you need money or if you are

in a non-judicial foreclosures state, you have to go to your legislature and get this passed. it is a lot more complicated. notable among them is nevada, notably missing is california, and they sorely need a program like that. we have published extensively on state's best practices so far. you can read in any of the three papers listed here how we have gone through the very steps one would want to take and we have reported on the successes and shortcomings across the country. most recently the center for american progress published a memo on power that goes through some of the things the federal government can do to support foreclosure mediation. we have been working on this a while. the middle-class tax force came out with an announcement a month ago that said the community

development block grant funds can be to fund housing counselors supporting foreclosure mediation. it sounds minor but they are the subject matterxperts that can come to a homwner and explain the process. then helps them through. congress has been unsuccessful and in the new term likely to be unsuccessful to help either fund programs of the state level or to simply direct the groups of the bottom of the page to do the following, something they can do already with their own powers, which is to direct their servicers. if you are holding -- if you are servicing a government guaranteed, they can guarantee your loss mitigation efforts. they have done so already. fannie mae has required in florida that in any case that is going to go to foreclosure, you

must first mediate. they have already exercised that power. our message to them is why don't you do that everywhere? why don't you do that in california and arizona and suddenly we would have a national system whereby every case, not every case but a large chunk of cases is going to mediation. thank you very much. i will pass it on to the next speaker. a>> thank you for having me here today. this is mostly what i have been working on for the past olivier's and it is always exciting to have an audience for it. these are very important issues. they are very important as to mention to the millions of homeowners who find themselves in trouble and find themselves essentially ground up by a system they never understood and have had no hand in making.

i want to start by bringing up the topic i have not discussed much publicly, but something timm said struck me, which was in his opening remarks he mentioned the problems we're seeing in mortgage servicing. the question i want to pose is one legal aid lawyers handle thousands of cases and see certain problems and report them, why is that anecdotal, then when investors or banks themselves or regulators who are on a very delayed schedule finally look at something reports the same problems, those are somehow not anecdotal? the reason i bring this up is the industry has been going down this road for a long time. these are not problems that suddenly just bring up that we did not know about, and i think

one lesson we can learn for the next time, because everyone is always looking for lessons out of these kinds of debacle's is listen to the people that are closest to the ground. there are lots of good early warning systems out there, and the legal aid lawyers tend to be one of them. they see the homeowners and go through the papers very carefully. they understood what was going on with the servicing system long before anyone else did. speaking of the servicing system, the whole question of was the note properly endorsed, what is happening with the title, were there boiler rooms full of people that were a signing documents one after another? these are problems but there emblematic of the problems throughout the servicing system. in many cases what they do is the attention that has been drawn to them because they're so dramatic has taken a little bit of the focus of a major

problem, which is in many cases servicers are not keeping proper accounts for their customers or in some cases they are actively engaged in practices that will make it more likely for their customers to default on their home loans. in any exploration of the problem and solutions we have to look all the way back through the servicing process from the very beginning. how are the different payments accounted for? if a person is late, how are the late fees handled? when they do pay the account, in what order does the servicer first pay the mortgage or do they pay themselves? is the servicer improperly placing insurance on these loans when either the homeowner already has insurance or if the

homeowner does not, are they buying them insurance at wildly inflated rates because of a relationship with the insurer? these are problems that have been endemic throughout the servicing system for a long time, and in many cases result in a home water going into default not because they were able to cover the basic mortgage payments, but because something happened in the servicing system and then spiraled out of control and end ended up causing defaults. the next topic that i want to touch on is the fact that we saw the housing bubble and plate. we have now seen it deflate. consequently there are great economic losses out there.

nobody debate that there are losses. the only question is who is bearing the brunt of the losses? so far by failing to take on the problem in any effective way what has happened is that we have borne the brunt of the losses. and homeowners, communities, particularly minority communities, and anyone who lives either anywhere near foreclosure or in the house that they own has borne the brunt of these losses. as opposed to banks and even investors, for the most part we have seen the banks it treated very gently and protected at a level that a homeowner can only dream that someday their government would protect them at that level. what i want to do now is talk about some solutions.

i am not promising to talk about only the solution that are the most politically feasible at this exact moment. instead i will talk about what i think wl really work. some a feasible right now in some need to happen anyway. first, in terms of servicing, if nothing else has become clear lately, it has become quite clear to everyone, no one will argue with this anymore, that one of the basic functions of the servicer is not being accomplished correctly, which is to sort out those foreclosures that should be avoided because it is in everyone's economic best interest to be avoided. and those foreclosures that are utterly unavoidable. the system is not properl sorting those, and as a result what we're having is a lot of

what i call unnecessary foreclosures. in some cases, the homeowners are not even in default or their default was servicer cost. in other cases the homeowner is in faults but everyone would benefit from a loan modification of some kind. we need to get the system right, and one of the most important ways to do that is to end what has been a system of parallel processing, loss mitigation, in foreclosures. right now once your loan is in trouble the computer system in one part of the servicing organization start sending you a variety of letters at different times telling you how much trouble you are in at any given moment. at the same time as the right hand is doing that, the left

hand may be engaging in lost mitigation, meaning they may be talking with you about how to do alone modification, how the foreclosure can be avoided. the problem is the right and left hand are not talking to each other. in many cases they are prohibited by the contracts themselves from talking to each other. that has been pretty much a recipe for disaster. and the homeowner is on the phone with the servicer and they think they're working out a deal and all of a sudden they get a legal looking piece of paper in their mailbox talking about for closure. they naturally assume that their efforts to work out a deal have not worked and they proceed accordingly. this happens all the time. this is kind of insane. people have been referring to this as dual track processing. one effective way we can make

this work better right now is to stop this dual track. one way to stop this is something that is already required, which is a servicer should not be able to initiate foreclosure proceedings until a person has been reviewed for some kind of loan modification or a loss mitigation solution. reality being what it is, many homeowners cannot contact their servicer until they have gone into the foreclosure process. because of that reality, what is also crucial to do is that once a homeowner does contacted servicer, which is what all the servicers will tell you they want, at that moment, those foreclosure proceedings should be suspended until the review is completed. this is an automated review. it should not take that long to do. it is really not going to move the dial one way or the other.

it will make the sorting process a lot more effective to do this. one other thing i want to talk about, because i am running out of time here, is this is the solution that may be on the more difficult political end, but unfortunately there is no subject -- substitute for it and that is changing the bankruptcy code to permit george's -- permit judges to modify. that is practically the only debt that bankruptcy judges cannot modify right now. bankruptcy is america's system for handling debt that has gone bad. we have the system for reason. that is complicated. restructuring debt is complicated. -- debt it complicated. we would be able to handle the problem of second liens.

we would be able to handle the problem of very high back-end consumer debt are consumers going a lot of money on things besides their first mortgage. we would be able to handle the problem of concern about whether different conscious of investors will be happy or unhappy with the outcome, and most of all, like with the mediation programs, we would have a disinterested third party available to oversee the entire process. we have been dancing around this issue for four years now. every other solution uc put forward is an effort to create a system in some other way, so i would say why don't we just use the system that was actually intended for this? the last point that i want to make is that it is true that the government loan modification program has been a serious

disappointment and has not achieved what we had hoped for a variety of reasons, the most important being it has been a voluntary rather than mandatory program and the banks have been treated with kid gloves. we have no other program right now. i would say it is an important tool right now. and i do not think we want to see the government dismantle its at this crucial moment. what we want to do is fix some of the applause and put some of the other solutions in place as a backstop for borrowers so that we can get this right, stop the bleeding and helped turn the situation around. thank you so much. >> good afternoon. i am damon silvers. i am the policy director and

special counsel to the president. i am required to say that my remarks are my own, they are not the opinion of the congressional oversight panel as the body or its staff or chair. these remarks are mind but obviously i will talk quite a bit about the work of the panel. i have been asked to address systemic issues raised by the presentations to have just heard. let me begin by saying that our oversight panel has done regular reports on the mortgage crisis, dating back to our third or fourth report in march of 2009. our most recent reports on these issues was issued a week ago which looks at programs under a tarp for mitigating foreclosures.

the greatest relevance to this meeting is a report, last month's report, which look directly at the question of a wide range of irregularities in the residential mortgage market and they're likely implications on all sorts of dimensions. we have a particular interest because we are the oversight panel for tarp. two dimensions of the purposes for which congress enacted the emergency economic stabilization act of 2008, which is the statute known to many americans as the bank bailout, at the two purposes were to stabilize and repair it financial system, in specifically to address the foreclosure crisis. and we have looked at the irregularities issue from both of those lenses. and i have these reports with me. there very long.

-- they are very long. this is a two-sided copy. and they are both available on our website. we have also held numerous hearings on the foreclosure crisis, including one at the end of october for the head of testified. julia testified at that hearing. we have held one hearing a year ago in 2009 in philadelphia where we particularly focused on the mediation programs. the oversight panel has consistently recommended, by the

way, automatic read it -- mediation be a future of federal policy in relation to foreclosure. i think it is quite a mystery given the data that we saw today and also given what some of the panel witnessed firsthand as we observe a mass mediation session in the philadelphia court's, it is a mystery why so little has been done of the federal level to make this happen. it is a good thing to see some steps are being taken. but as a big windup. i'm for to talk about systemic risk. -- that is a big windup. what is systemic risk? it has been searched through googol. i -- through google. it became as popular as to make

harder for marilyn monroe. systemic risk is the notion that there is risk, the possibility of events that would destabilize the financial system as well hole but the financial system to the economy of all whole. this is not the risk that a particular firm that might fail, as painful as that might be for investede better in the firm, what what is the possibility of the risk of contagion in the and it's a system? historically looking back to the great depression, there has been a lot talk about systemic risk

as a domino effect. what we saw in 2008 was there is another type of systemic risk. there is also systemic risks that comes from a collapse of confidence as people learn things and participants in the financial system learn what they do not know, meaning that went out comes into play as to whether or not a major financial institutions that depend on short-term funding is uninsured, you can have a systemic crisis, even though there is not literally the faults triggering other defaults. what does this have to do with what we've just learned about? it is important to note that what i am talking about is systemic risk. it is not a certainty of systemic crisis, it is about

possibilities. there is no way to look at what you've just heard about in my opinion, and not conclude that it raises issues of systemic risk, significant issues of systemic risk. why is that? as at least one of the speakers noted, we have a quite concentrated banking system compared to what most of us thought our banking system was or what it was when we were growing up. 62 percent of the assets of u.s. bank holding companies are held by four firms, at j.p. morgan, bankamerica, city group, and wells fargo. -- bank of america and citigroup. those firms originated 57% of all mortgages that originated during the bubble time and

particularly in 2005 to 2007. how much money are talking about? those firms service mortgages with principal amount of close to six trillion dollars. they originated mortgages just in the 2005 to 2007 time up to trillion dollars. one of the things about an inch a policy of the numbers involved can be mind-numbing. what does that mean, 65 trillion dollars? how much is that? this is the important thing to keep in mind. the total tier one regulatory capital, which is one of the key measures of the solvency of banks, the total tier one capital those institutions is $535 billion. that is approximately one-tenth of the principle of the mortgages they originated in serviced. what does that mean? is that big or little?

what are the implications? long before you get to zero regulatory capital and bank will be destabilized. but to really be as large universal banks that do not just depend on deposits but a variety of short-term funding mechanisms as we learned during the crisis during 2008, you will have solvency problems with banks. those institutions are each endowed of the systemically significant. if anyone of them work to be to stabilize it would create a domino effects and doubts about the viability of other institutions, doubts that could not be easily answered. in addition, as i think you learn from other presenters and as you will find when you look in the report, the nature of the regulatory is -- irregularities

is it is very hard to figure out what is going on. it is hard to figure out the facts of the documents and what the legal meaning is of the documents given that will be subject to separate proceedings and all 50 states, and potentially separate proceedings in different counties. it is a classic situation that would lead someone to conclude i do not know what it's going on with the sperm and their regulators -- and there are irregularities so therefore i am pulling my money. that type of uncertainty was critical to the way in which the financial crisis of 2008 evolves. so that you have both the hard numbers, and then you have the risk that people, the senate to

market participants can conclude that we have too many unknown unknowns. i will conclude by walking through with you a little bit of mass in order to explain the nature of why i believe this is undoubtably an issue of systemic risk. there are different measures of capital for banks. i will shift from tier one capital to market capitalization. today you could buy bank of america for $120 billion. that is about what the stock is worth. that is roughly what the markets think the equity is worth. if bank of america starts taking losses, losses nobody in the market expects, it was start to subtract from that value.

-- it would start to subtract from that i do. bank of america is the biggest of the servicing banks with 20% of the market i just described. it is close to two trillion dollars that they have in terms of originated and surfaced securities. -- serviced securities. several have began the process of trying to force the bank of america to buy back from them mortgages that bank of america securitized and they bought the securitization. they are looking for $47 billion. the bondholders believe that the $47 billion pool as a whole is worth about half of its face value.

if you imagine that all of those mortgages, tens of thousands of them, and if you were able to force bank of america to buy them all back, they would take an instantaneous 50% loss on the transaction. remember this is not being done as a bloc, it is being done mortgage by mortgage. which mortgages do you think they will want to be put back? it is likely to be the bad ones. and now how many of those cutbacks can bank of america absorber? -- putbacks can bank of america absorbe? how many cutbacks will investors be able to force on to bank of

america? completely unclear. analysts have looked at this using bank data and have estimated much smaller adjustments. just taking the one block of bonds, which the bondholders few as not to kill a remarkable, it does not take many multiples to get to a big capital problem. remember when i said a moment ago, bankamerica has two trillion dollars in originated iced loans. what is the likelihood these events would produce some sort of systemic crisis, either across the system or because of the weakness in one large institution? our panel was to assign a likelihood, but we concluded and got hundreds of pages of explanations as to why we concluded this, but we concluded

the risk is there. i am writing over. -- i am running over. the first thought it has been troubling to me and to our panel that it has been very difficult for the bodies assigned it to manage and prevent the growth of systemic risk, particularly the bodies created by the dog/frank act -- dodd/frank act. actionsken a variety of to essentially restrained financial market protest and from the building of systemic risk, all of those kinds of powers depend upon being able to identify issues and practices that identify systemic risk and when faced with a very clear matter that puts these systems

and play, the regulators are afraid to say the words. it makes you wonder how the system will function. if we cannot admit, how can we manage risk we cannot admit we have? second, and final point, as several of the other speakers have mentioned, the irregularities are not the only source of systemic risk. it may be true that the irregularities are not a source of systemic risk, but if they are not coming here is what is it -- 200,000 plus foreclosures every month as far as the eye can see. why is that a systemic risk? because it will eventually force the write-down of assets that are currently being carried on assumptions by banks that housing prices will rise, housing prices will not rise until the extraordinary levels of foreclosures stop.

and secondly, it is a systemic risk to what it does to the economy. consumer demand, social fabric of our country, and in certain respects to the confidence of which hasns are ry, confidence for our ability to manage economic policy. there are systemic risk that everyone is arguing about, and no one is really arguing about but are really real. in some ways they are clearly evident and unavoidable at this point. the notion that tarp has been successful is a widely debated issue in congress. it was successful in dealing with the acute crisis in 2008,

stopping the panic. but much less successful in the purposes of leaving us with the financial -- leaving us with the help it finance system. and-- leaving us with a healthy financial system. certainly the suggestions around mediation are part of the actions, but there is a real punchline to this ultimately which i think really have to face, which is the losses are real. as long as there is an effort to make that they do not exist, the more paralysis we will have in the economy and the housing system. there may not be any real way of dealing with these issues fundamentally without dealing with the fact that one way or another there have to be consequences for financial

institutions for the mistakes they made. whether or not those mistakes include massive abuse of the legal system is a question we will have to wait on, but there is no question that both mistakes give rise to trillions of dollars in losses in the economy, which we are paying for in continue to pay for. -- and continue to pay for. >> thanks to our panelists for talking for a minute about their perspective on this. we will have but a freak panel discussion before opening it up to the audience for questions. we have had a few references to the dodd/frank financial bill that passed earlier this month. who will be in charge of monitoring the services under this new regulatory regime and what are the first steps they should be taking to start addressing these problems going

forward? anyone can jump in on that. >> very quickly, right now the servicers are not regulated. they are regulated if they are part of a commeral bank, which many of them are, but there have been no regulatory actions against servicers in the past 10 years. this will move to the cfcb. the ftc is looking at writing on the securitization process. there is a letter that just went out today, i am blanking on who put it out, that set this servicer has to be part of the risk profile of large banks i think that will be very relevant. >> i want to add to that that it

definitely falls to the new consumer financial protection agency to write industry-wide it rules for services to abide by, and we believe that should be very high on the priority list when the agency comes on line in july. july is not very far away. it is a good time to start looking at this right now. right now there is joint rule making going on with respect to the mortgage risk retention system set up by the dodd/frank act where it secured a kaisers of mortgages have to continue to the rest. est some of bu

they are very much needed industrywide, but we know that servicing securitized loans carries of variety of difficulties, even more so than servicing portfolio loans and the robust oversight of servicers is long overdue and should certainly be on the agenda of any regulator that touches the system in any way, including the potential regulators. >> just to point out a final point on what people said, there are three -- at least three distinct regulatory jurisdictions over servicing. one is the consumer jurisdiction that julia just mentioned. the second is the sec, which might talked about, which is focused on investors. investors in the stocks and

bonds, and also investors in publicly-traded mortgage backed securities. that the servicers. the third and perhaps most important least focused on are the bank regulators whose purpose is a jurisdiction over the large servicing companies. there is different ways. their purpose is the solvency of those institutions. they have a variety of risk- based requirements. these issues clearly intertwine with them. one of the most salient issues that will come up very fast as the federal reserve will be running stress tests on the major banks again. the results of their test will not be public, but it does seem quite clear there will look at the mortgage irregularities as

contributing data points to the test. >> i want to ask a bigger picture question as well. mike showed us the grafted demonstrated this is a relatively new model and how it has grown exponentially in the past few years. in the next year congress is expected to take up gse reform. is this a model that can continue? securitization of mortgages or is there a different way to approach it? what should we look for in the next year when we're talking about fixing the process where it originated? >> i will fight my way around this. and i will answer this by first admitting i will answer this question sidewise, which is to say i will not hit it head on and say whether we should be reviewing.

if you believe and what they were set up to do, namely promote home ownership, then you should keep them in a modified version of what they are today. if you believe that they are an improper method by which, you can do thi then you should get rid of them altogether. that is the basic split on gse's. right now they have been a punching bag and not done everything correctly, but by and large most of the time they're being faulted for that whatever setup to do. if you're going to attack them as to their fundamental purpose, let's do that and be honest about it. the other suggestions that are coming to the floor are what to do instead of this? some of the suggestions have been let's forget about government subsidy mortgage finance, let's go to private mortgage rates.

my colleague did some work on going back and saying let's look at what was being done when we have a purely private mortgage finance and let's look at the rate of homeownership and the luxury its -- and a luxurious rates people were having. when we look at this and our own expectations as participating in the economy, that we do not like that world. we come down to a notion we're if we had the gse's do something we did not like, let's move them in the direction we like, but not get rid of them altogether. >> there is a number of very ironic things about the discussion. the first is you might think that there is evidence that g

se's cause the mortgage crisis, but evidence suggests they were a secondary action. meaning that the subprime bubble got going in the private non- gse' supported market. they have the type of incentive structures for themselves that other private financial institutions had. it became very concerned about market share and profitability and they chased the private lenders. so that you seek big private lending in 2003 and 2004 and the in 2004 for fannie mae. and if there is some notion that they set this thing in motion, it is not true. secondly, -- that does not mean

they're not culpable for the fact of the bankruptcy of -- themselves. ed they have existed since the new deal. we only had the situation in the mortgage markets in the last five to seven years. what does that tell us? does it tell is there something fundamentally problematic about a financial institution intermediating risk? it tells us there's something fundamentally problematic about that is issued having the executives compensated are short-term financial performance metrics and having them play catch up to a completely unregulated private system. the conclusion to those -- so then here is the other thing. the whole narrative about that is out there has no factual

support. second, there is a great political irony here. the major wall street institutions spent a lot of money over the past 20 years attacking the gse's. there was plenty to attack them for. i am not suggesting they're blameless and all of this, but they spent a lot of time attacking because they wanted to operate in the space without competition. when the fan into a crisis happened, those politicians that have bought into a free-market fundamentalism were looking for an end -- were looking for an explanation. and happened upon the gse's they thought that is something the banks would like in support financially. ironically what then happened is the market, investors, walked completely away from privately issued mortgage-backed securities so that starting in

the winter of 2009 and still true today, private financial institutions cannot securitized mortgages without the gse's. as a result there is no longer an appetite for dismantling them. we are now in this funny sort of context in which the rhetoric >> it put in a prime loans. a lot of the early 1980's deregulation came from removing state laws that interfered with the private creation. what goes into securitization? if you stuff them full of really bad loans, you will have bad back -- out comes.

that is how that comes about. it does not seem like that can happen on its own. every industrialized country has some sort of mechanism to regulate housing lending. housing will not be a very good of building assets or any type of equity without some sort of government backstop. do we want to build equity through home ownership? that is the real question trade >> i want to bring this discussion back around to the foreclosure problem. my colleagues here have covered some o the basics. no matter what kind of housing, finance system we have, what we have learned from this crisis is that we need to do a much better

job of understanding how the incentive structures work and in what places there are incentives that might not be very transparent that cause us to be pricing risk of incorrectly? the predatory lending that we salt -- came because we took a system of mortgage lending where it had been in the bank's interest to locate borrow words were capable of paying their mortgage backs and turned it into a system where independent mortgage brokersot paid at the table and where are originatingenders sold the loans out in a matter of weeks and as you saw from the charge, there was a long process. there were very few incentives

there for good mortgages to be made. what we are learning about is the other side of this. how on the mortgage servicing end, there are also these other incentives built in that do not aim toward the maximization of the best interest of either the investors or the homeowner, but do just the servicer. that is where we need real oversight, real transparency. i would suggest that we pay particular attention to anything we do that to purports to throw away a land titles system that has been there for thousands of years. when you are doing something like that, it needs to be done with some serious thought and attention. >> one of the conflicts of interest that people have not

talked about has been the second problem. i want someone to address that. >> do you want to jump in? >> a number of us could talk about it. there are about -- around half of all mortgages in trouble have a traditional lean on them, either a second mortgage or a home equity line of credit. many of the second lanes were piggyback lungs. they were taken out simultaneously at the time of origination to try to avoid any requirements for private mortgage insurance. some of them are just your typical home-equity lines of credit that you get later to pave the way to pay for a new roof. most of the second planes are held in the portfolios of the large banks -- liens are held in

the portfolios of the large banks. they are the same banks that own the servicers. isn't that a conflict of interest? it turns out, yes, it is a conflict of interest. exactly how the conflict works out differs on who you ask. essentially, an investor, which is supposed to have priority, it does not particularly want to see their lien impaired when they second is remaining on impaired and that has been a major obstacle to everything that we have tried to do from the government's point of view to solve the foreclosure problem. ranging from basic loan

modification efforts to any kind of program designed to reduce principal, either for borrowers who are already or borrowers that are current. as well as for solutions where the homeowner needs to accept the home a short sale. the second and third liens gum up the works and that is where much of the optimistic accounting is going on in the banks continue to hold many of the seconds on their books at their original value in the hope that if we just stick it out, these prices will go back up. we will not have to take a large market down -- marked down.

they have been a big problem. they have been a central problem to addressing this issue. it is an interesting situation where policy is being driven by accounting. >> we are running out of time. i want to ask for you all to say what the top priority should be for policymakers in the next six months. then we will take a few questions. >> i will not suggest any specific policy. i will note one thing. foreclosure costs to municipalities about $20,000. three foreclosures are a teacher's salary.

they will have to pay for these foreclosures. >> i've had a particular policy position from the beginning. this is a piece of the solution. if you are going to spend in a relatively modest amount, spend it on mediation. while the rest of these things are getting started, we're talking about a year or a year- and-a-half before the rubber meets the road, mediation is already rolling in many of these places. federal support gives the homeowner the best chance to see that home saved and given greater control over the process.

i am dealing in it -- we have proposed if you were to do a federal matching funds legislation of about $800 million, you should be able to fund 50% a program in every major metropolitan area of the country. that is one example. i do not believe that that will get through in the next six months. i am not even in the same denomination as some of the conversations. >> for a long list of potential solutions, i would refer you to testimony that i have been -- i have given receny treated that can be found on our website. there is what i will say about any solution. we know what we need. in order to get this right, any program that we put out needs to be mandatory, needs to be

industrywide, and needs to give the homeowner some level of control or have a third party involved so that the decisions are not entirely being made by the servicer without the homeowner given any right to appeal. by way of money, i would suggest that one of the best ways to make a very small amount of money go very far is to find legal aid attorneys. there is an enormous multiplier effect of that money on just a few million a year, these are the attorneys who have brought you all the information about the title problems ando are do some of these innovative lawsuits in courts right now. these are attorneys who work for their clients for free, who practically works for free themselves.

there was money authorized in the dog-franc -- dodd-frank bill, but it looks like it will not be appropriated. i would strongly suggest that legal aid lawyers be part of the mix. >> i think that if you look at the policy notions that have been on the table this afternoon, they're all different groups to principal modification. to every riding alone so that people can stay in homes. -- to re-writing loans so people can stay in homes. in order to get policies in place that did that, we have to stop being confused about two basic facts.

there ought not to be any confusion on the part of any policy maker that foreclosures are bad. they are bad for the citizenry in general. there are bad for our country. there should not be any confusion that the foreclosure crisis is a serious source of both financial and economic system it rest. >> all right. i think we have time for two questions. we have a microphone. if you could identify yourself. >> [inaudible] from embracing pure simple suggestion given what has happened in connecticut or

wherever it was. >> there have been built in the senate and the house that have gone into committee and stated in committee. both bodies have been very busy with a high priority issues. this is viewed by -- as something that states could take care of. there is been tremendous receptivity among the policy initiative to understand how this could help. it does not resonate. if you raise your head above the weeds, it will be chopped off. we said mandatory mediation, people said mandated settlement. that is not the case. we say -- it is not the case. particularly if you are funding a state program.

there are talking points objections that are not true objections that people are concerned they will not see. with the new leadership coming into the house, i think the position of the mortgage bankers association is going to be such that it would be difficult for this to pass. to their credit, in those states, while they have objected to the process, once the process is up and running, once mediation is ongoing, as stakeholders in the creation of it, they have often times embraced it. that creates the mystery as to whether a new state, there is an objection. but that was addressed.

when you have an organization this large, what one part is doing and another part is doing are totally unrelated. they do not know each other. there is a dislocation between the people who are acting in tennessee or wherever it is and are opposed as opposed to someone who is acting in florida. >> we have time for one last question. >> do any of you have any statistical or anecdotal information about incidents involving violent during foreclosure mediation? >> googling our research is done

is both schematic and anecdotal. we will go and have conversations. one media reports has an altercation and i do not recall -- i believe it was related to foreclosure and not mediation. if one is to see the least contentious system that one could imagine in the situation where a homeowner is under tremendous stress, that person oftentimes has 100,, 300 cases they are dealing with. that is a system that should be a pressure cooker, but when you bring it into a formal context, that process is meant to alleviate those tensions. they tend to be very amicable. >> in the suicides?

>> on that note, let's hope it does not come to that. thank you so much for joining us today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> a debate among those running to head the republican national committee. that is that it o'clock tonight on c-span. -- that is at 8:00 tonight on c- span. tonight, how the federal government technology policy affects technology companies. the 112th congress gavels then this wednesday with both the

house and senate. the hous select a new speaker, and john boehner are current members will also vote on house rules for the next two years. the new house is made up of 42 republicans and 193 democrats. live coverage on c-span. in the senate, it live for and to bring all senators to the form -- to the floor for the swearing-in. the senate is live beginning at noon on c-span2. from today's "washington journal." this is about 45 minutes. host: brendan robertson is -- brandon roberts is with us from

the project -- working poor families project. 45 million people lived in low- income families. these are 2009 statistics. where do you get these statistics? how did you come up with them? guest: thank you for the opportunity to be here and speak about our recent report on low- income families in america. this is a 9-year-old initiative that focuses on the examining -- examining the conditions of working families in america. since 2004, we have been looking at u.s. census data on an annual basis, and thank you to the census for now having an american committee survey, which

generates the senses on an annual basis rather than having to wait 10 years. each year we have a chance to go in and look at the numbers. the most recent data available is what came out in 2009 in november. the we have a non-partisan data specialist group in d.c. called the population reference bureau. they analyze that data for us each year, and we generate conditions -- generate data on conditions for u.s. working families on hold. and later this spring will -- will release information for the ndividual states. host:ome people mighte wondering if these numbers have changed in 2010. guest: we would assume looking at the trajectory of what happened of them last nine years. -- what has happened over the last nine years. our guess is that the numbers

will not get better, but worse. what we see in 2009 represents a trajectory of the last six to eight years where the conditions for working families have gotten worse, not better. since the recession has -- the issues with the recession have persisted into 2010. we are expecting to see much the same when we look at the numbers later this year. host: what is going on? why these numbers in 2009? and do your suspect, it will continue into 2010? guest: clearly, the great recession has taken its toll. we talked about in our report that we have had issues in the last six to eight years with the percentage of low-income families increasing, but in small bits over that time frame. what we have seen since 2008 is 8% of low-income families actually increasing to 30% in 2009.

that is a pretty significant jump. one report shows that movement from 2000 to how to, 2009. -- from 2002 to 2009. the trajectory is not a good one. given that unemployment has remained high, that it really has been a stubborn, difficult recovery, we would expect much, the same in 2010. host: congress and the obama at ministration have passed unemployment benefits. they continue to extend those. medicaid under the new health care law has been extended. several other things for the working poor. why has that not worked? or has it? guest: we have had some good things happen. clearly, congress and the administration have taken some positive steps to try to address issues around working families, particularly low- income working families. but we believe much more needs to be done. clearly, the recession with unemployment at 9.8%, the lack

of jobs, one of the important numbers i think to keep in mind is as we looked at what happened between 2008 and 2009, we had several thousand low- income working families fall out of the working families. meaning, 700,000 families no longer worked enough to be able to be classified as a working family. that is not surprising given that the unemployment is 9.8%. there are 15 million americans that have been unemployed over the last couple of years. it is not surprising, but it is a reflection of what has been happening to low-income working families. if i could just point out, as we think about low-income in america, we often tend to assume one of the myths that people have in their minds. we assume that families are low- income because they do not work. our look -- one thing as we look at the data, we've worked -- we focus on working families.

we focus on the date of families were the parents get up and go to work every morning and have a substantial work ethic over the course of the year, and despite playing by the rules they are low-income. host: how you define low income? guest: we define that as 200% of the parvin level for families. host: in dollar amounts? -- of the poverty level for families. host: in dollar amounts? if guest: we are talking roughly $43,000 per year, and that is the maximum they can have. host: the former majority leader in house for republicans wrote a column today.

by 2035, the congressional budget office predicts that total spending for just medicaid will increase from 5% of gdp to and nearly 10%. guest: one of the things that i think we have to take into account is that recessions are costly. they are costly to families. they are costly to the government. they are costly all across the board. the quickest way to address these issues is to get the economy going. these families that we are talking about our families that want to work. we are talking about families

that want to go to work when the economy is good. they had an opportunity to get jobs and did not rely on public assistance resources, if you will. the job growth stopped, opportunities diminish, and these families lost the income they were relying on to keep their families of float. -- but keep their families afloat. host: what does your data to assure you about the benefits of food stamps and allowing your family to grow and possibly get out of poverty? guest: all of our research shows -- all of our understanding about the conditions of these families is that these are families that are working hard. these are families that are playing by the rules. they are not looking for handouts. they are working to try to achieve the american drm. they wannothing morehan to able to gooork every day. in fact, as we have analyzed the data over the years, we find these families are working, more

than one person per year. these are families that will have multiple jobs. both adults in the family, when that exist, are working. maybe just walking down the street, interviewing the folks that we talk to, these folks are the backbone of the economy. these are folks who want nothing more than to achieve the american dream. host: let's go to rick on the democratic line noin jackson. caller: i think a lot of what has happened is nafta. it took some good american jobs away and then a person loses the job and he has to go out of work for minimum wage again. plus, minimum wage has not been

raised since 1994. the cost of living is $17. guest: there are lots of reasons why the job growth in the u.s. has not grown as we would like it to over the last few years, , whether its trade is our internal domestic economy. the clear understanding is that there are opportunities to facilitate and expand job growth for these families, and when available, these families will take advantage of that. there are things that public policy can and should be doing to promote those opportunities. host: what about minimum-wage increase over the years? guest: we talk about the issues around the deficit. minimum wage is an example of the top of public policy that can be put into place that has no bearing on the federal deficit. there are other policies like

that. most low-income working families do not receive paid leave. when they have a sickness in the family, when they themselves are sick amount they have nothing to fall back on. they are forced to go to work, or as a result of not going to work, possibly lose their jobs. that again, is not a budget issue with respect to the federal or state government. there are things we can do to create opportunities for these families to get ahead and build economic security, if you will. host: laura is a republican in pennsylvania. caller: good morning and happy new year to everyone. i have a specific question with your statistics there, poverty related, and then a comment. my specific question is, what percentage of black minority and white in poverty are married households? guest: our data show that 51% of

low-income working families are headed by two married people in households. the majority are married couples. host: are nanot, so -- guest: no, they are. that is one of those myths about the working majority. the myth is that they are often female headed households. caller: what is the black percentage? if guest: we show that our data that white families comprise about 20% of low-income working families. and 40% of minority working families are part of the low- income working families equation. however, when we talk specifically about the breakdown

of racial and ethnic families within all of the low-income working families, 43% of all low-income working families are white families. black families and hispanic families are less than that. caller: that is because they only make up 13% of the population. the stuff that i lookup shows that 60% of blacks are one parent households. if your interested in public policy changes, you ought to be endorsing -- and especially the first black president ought to be endorsing assonance education. if you teach them not to engage in -- abstinence education. if you teach them not to engage in behavior that causes this, that would think cents. you also need to put fathers back in those households so they have two-parent incomes.

you teach them to -- and rewarding marriage, that is the key. the rewarding marriage through tax policies. guest: i know that congress has supported things like father would initiatives. the only point to clarify here is that we are talking about - when you look at the numbers you have cited, you are talking about all families in dealing with individuals who are in poverty whether they work or do not work. we specifically focus on families that are working. greta asked this earlier. our definition of what constitutes work is very rigorous. we err on the side of keeping people out of that definition of work rather than inforincluding. these are folks that work hard. these are not folks that are not interested in the labour market.

host: utah, sharon, independent line. caller: you talk about falling out of a working family status. my husband works, but he has got laid off twice in the last few years. he is working again. but i have a theory because it is not well known that you can work -- i was a schoolteacher and then i stopped working to raise my children, planning to go back to work when the children were older. really well known that if you become disabled five years after you left work, you cannot -- you fall into a gatt for you cannot get disability. and you can go back to work because you are disabled. guest: i'm sorry for the situation you are in, first of all. and secondly, the issue of disability benefits and the rules and regulations, i think there was an excellent interview immediately prior to this one

that covered that subject. that is not an area that i'm an expert in. i do know that as we have looked at our data, as the numr o low-income working families has increased, one of the key reasons for that is, men in particular, -- and our data supports this. there hours have been cut back substantially -- their powers have been cut back substantially, or if they have lost their jobs. those are the people pinned the low-income strata. host: between 2007 and 2009, the proportion of working women with an unemployed has been more than doubled from 2.4% to 5.4%. here is a headline from the open court houston chronicle" this morning. -- from the "houston chronicle" this morning.

what is the impact for that -- of that for low-income working families? guest: there is a trade-off for the policies put into place, the stimulus policies. and now, we have a as a result of the tax policies that were agreed to at the end of last year. for working families, there is a continuation of benefits that will occur. reasonablere hais discussion, debate out there as to the balance of whether they were better off with the old stimulus policies verses the new tax policies. we are talking hundreds of dollars there. clearly, the numbers that existed verses those coming into place now, it will offer some benefits. the question we have to ask is are they sufficient. one thing we pointed out in our

report is that the introductory continues in this direction. we would argue that the policies have not been sufficient in the past, going back to even when economic times were good. there is an issue as to whether we are doing enough, even as we do some things. host: down, a democrat in maine. -- dan, a democrat in maine. caller: in the interest of full disclosure, everything the republicans hate. i have a union job, a good wage and a good pension. it amazes me like you're a guy in alaska who can sit there and want to take all of the spare money that is out there and give it to the top 1% or 2%, no problem giving them tax cuts, no problem spending trillions of dollars on useless wars in iraq. but because -- and then you have people that call up and want to blame it on the blacks for being shiftless though goods, which i think is a lot of bunk.

sometimes i think your guess would be better served if they sat there and said, look, your rhetoric is crowd. anyway, i hope you do well in your work -- your rhetoric is crap. anyway, hope to do well in your work. it is warfare and the rich are winning hands down. the playing field is slanted in their direction. so much of the population believes that they get what they deserve and deserve what they get, which is owned. -- which is bunk. host: let's go to bob on the independent line in tennessee. caller: as far as the unions, you only have so many people that can make so much money from each company. if democrats were the want to help the poor, they would start back with the industry.

host: what do you mean by that? caller: what i mean by that is quick running the people off. like the guy that with -- but the guy was just saying about taxes. -- like the guy was just sang about taxes. also, the bible says to go to work or do not eat. i believe that 100%. host: let's just talk about the econic argument for giving those that are low-income more than they pay into the system. guest: i do not think we are talking about giving these working families more. we are talking about having work pay. when someone works a full-time job and continues to work continuously, the idea that they can move up, that they can pursue the american dream.

the idea that economic mobility, something this country believes is part of our foundation is real. data has started to show in recent years that economic mobility in this country is not all it's cracked up to be. moving from a lower class to middle class is much more constrained than it used to be. one thing we talk about is the increase in income inequality in working families in our report. and the reality of that income inequality, i think, no surprise to many, given all of the discussion in recent years, is increasing. in figure three we have a table that shows that the top 20% of working families earners in this country take home almost 50% of the income.

that should cause us some cause about the income inequality among some working families. once again, i stress that we are talking about working families here. another thing that would be interesting to note, when we are talking about the top 20%, those folks earning 80 to one under% of the working income for families in america -- 80% to 100% of the working income for families in america, 20% of those families earning above $116,000. somehow we have gotten this notion that $250,000 is middle class. we a talking at 20 --bout 20% that are at $116,000 or above. host: chesterfield county, virginia. james is an independent there.

caller: my problem with some of these comments that are being made is the stereotyping of the differences between blacks and whites. it is more, to me, it is more of a green thing now. which is more of who has and who does not. i may struggling up and coming business owner -- i am a struggling up-and-coming business owner, who lost my job three months ago and now i'm having to go to find a job now. i was trying to start my business with a plan in place. i go off to different conventions, seminars. i talked to eight banks about what i needed to do as far as getting my plan funded, and when the rubber hits the road and i went to these banks, it was always a situation, well, we cannot do this or that. either way, creating jobs. i'm doing it myself.

and it is a viable business. and you can do due diligence in checking the contracts to make sure they are secure. to me, as a black man, i have to be 10 times better than that of anybody else because of the stereotype that is put on me as a minority. guest: james, thank you for your call. you are the perfect example of what we are talking about when we think that public policies need to be more sensitive to, more focused on the plight, the efforts, the ambitions of people like you, working families and working individuals who really are trying to get ahead. i know the difficulty -- we see it story after story in terms of small businesses being able to bobtained finances. we think that extends across the board. as we look into 2011, there will be much discussion, much debate.

significant choices will have been made -- how to be made about our investment. i think you raise a good point. we have got to give more attention to people like you, low-income working families, in making those public policy decisions. host: let's go to justin in roanoke, virginia. justin, are you with us? let's move on to hartle, alabama. greg on the democratic line. caller: i have one question to ask. kauai is no one talking about the correlation between the loss of manufacturing jobs in america and what has happened to the middle class and poor? working people work at jobs all day long that do not pay what they used to and people wonder why their kids are living with them until they are 50 and there is no opportunity in america. guest: that is an excellent point. it is something that we do raise in our report.

the loss of manufacturing jobs -- and i will extend that a little bit further. certainly, manufacturing jobs have been a core basis for what we have relied on in this country for folks to go and earned a family living wage. they do not necessarily have high levels of education to be able to work with their hands and produce things in america. the reality is that those opportunities have diminished. no one of the things that we talk about in this report is that increasingly -- and as you look at figure to in our report, you see the difference between those who have mourned for cute -- education in terms of the unemployment rate -- those that have more education in terms of the unemployment rate is significant. it is three times, those with their high school degree verses those with a bachelor's degree. the global economy is that more and more workers, individuals

are going to have to obtain additional education. have some type of post secondary education, the community college degree, a certificate or credential, but something that is of value in the labour market. one of the key recommendations in our report is that we have to ensure that those families, the workers as well as their children, that they have the ability to access those close secondary institutions and pay for that. -- those post secondary institutions and pay for that. according host: to the report -- who are you recommending these -- making these recommendations to? guest: we are making those recommendations to public policy makers at the federal and state level where appropriate. in this particular a reno, there

are some -- in this particular arena is that those resources need to be allocated. one, they are not sufficient to cover all in need, and secondly, they need to be directed to those individuals bleeding high school, the traditional student, if you will. -- those individuals leaving high school, the traditional student, if you will. we need to give them opportunity to access those financial resources to go back to college, community college, and get the skills that will help them move up in the labour force. there are folks who were working with like to be able to go back to school. those are some of the areas that we care a lot about. host: who are you talking to up on capitol hill? is there a member of congress who has decided to take up legislation? guest: 1 clarification i would

like to make as u.s. the question is the working poor families project, we focus on state policies. by and the work that we do at the national levels, -- the work that we do at the national level, we are not advocates. we work in 24 states and we have non-profit groups and in those 24 states who work at the state level. there are significant state policies, state resources to our dedicated to education and training and that is what our initiative focuses on. if host: let's go to south carolina, mike, democratic line. caller: about what he was just talking about, the financial aid for training, i have been unemployed for a while and i would like to be retrained. unfortunately, i have defaulted on a student loan, which means i'm not eligible for retraining. i cannot give out of my default because i cannot get a job. if the government would put those things in the firm for 18

months or two years or something to give people in my situation a chance to get trained so we can get in a situation to start paying back, that will be helpful. a guest: i hear your point. it is a very good one. it is something i will pass along to my colleagues here in washington who work on those issues associated with defaulted loans. host: bettendorf, iowa, did on the independent line. your next. -- you are next. caller: do you have specifics if a person on social security can be considered poor in your cystic -- statistical categories? guest: no, we would not have that because i would presume that in your question if someone is on social security, they are probably not working significantly. the key thing with our data is, we focus on families where femme -- where parents are working

significantly. the other point i should make is that we are talking about families that have children in the household 18 years and under. that constitutes about 37 million ha working families across the country. that is who we target. we do not look at it on every american, every household or every family. we focus on working families that have children in the household. host: for more information, the website is workingpoorfamil ies.org. next caller. caller: all you are worried about is the color of people's skin. you have got to stop that. in order to get a loan for a business or contra, you have to be owned by a woman or a minority.

people of low-income, of which i am, they get more because they do not pay their taxes. if you have five or six children, you are going to get that credit and not paid in. the middle class, we do not get that. my son's payout double in taxes and do not get it back because they have no dependants. the low-income gets three times what they get because they get houseful of children. host: are you talking about the child tax credit? caller: that plus -- i mean, he keeps saying minorities don't get this or that. in my state, they get the contracts first. if you are a black woman, -- and i'm not damning them. i'm not meaning that. i know biggest, or whatever. if you are a -- i am no

bvigot, or wherever. guest: i'm not sure if we have been focusing on my door is the with the viewer has heard. the largest percentage of low- income working families, just to be clear here, are white working families. that is the largest percentage of any racial or ethnic group. i just wanted to clarify that. host: the "washington post" this morning has an editorial about the republican plans for cut as you go. they call it paygo hijinks.

they do go on to say the expansion of the current income credit and the child tax program are not the same and would continue to have to be paid for with spending cuts. guest: those are very important programs. and those are very important programs because they actually do target low-income working families and assist them in dealing with there's it -- their circumstances in having limited resources. those programs, i believe, we believe in the work that we do, are critical. i understand the need to make trade-offs and there are certainly plenty of candidates out there that could be used to provide resources that could be cut to enable those programs to continue. and as we say, we know there will be choices that have to be made, that this congress, this

administration given the situation, is going to face some tough choices. in that regard, we would say those our priorities and other things are less a priority. host: carolyn in washington d.c., welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. first, i would like to say happy new year to you. i was really upset when i heard a caller talking about the poor, if you do not work, you do not eat. and he said it was in the bible that he believed that. i would like everyone else to read proverbs 29. it says the righteous considers the cause of the port, but they're not wicked do not regard it. also, proverbs 30: 14. if he believes the word of god, that he should believe that also. i would also like to say --

please do not cut me off. there was another person who was wide talking about minorities. has she been living in america all her life? it has always been white getting the jobs. minorities are the first to get fired. it is bad all the way around and should not be that way. the other thing i by to say about the port, the poor are the ones who protect this country. the four are the ones who go to war. do you see what i'm saying? -- the poor are the ones who go to war. do you see what i'm saying? not everybody is college material. host: we will take that last point. trade in school. not everyone is to go to college. how will that help low-income people? guest: we talk about everybody wanting to go to college. the common perception is going

to a four-year institution. not everyone is to go to a four- year institution, but most people want to gain the education and skills, occupational skills, if you will, that will enable them to get a good paying job. there are pritchard he's without putting a four-year degree. -- there are good opportunities a four-yeart getting degree. many colleges offer two-year degrees and more important, they offer one-years for tickets, credentials, if you will, that are valued in the labour market -- one-year certificates, credentials, if you will, that are valued in the labour market. host: one more phone call. go ahead. caller: i want to say something about the taxes because i keep hearing from democrats calling in saying a 35% is not great enough. the corporations are the ones to

pay the highest taxes. when the corporations do not pay those taxes, the consumer gets those cost on to them. the editing is, the american dream does not consist of me working my fingers to the bone until the day i die. the american dream for me is becoming a millionaire, doing the right thing, going to school, learning things and doing something with my life. guest: i think that is an important point, that the american dream is about moving up. i mentioned economic mobility earlier. and the families that we are talking about, these 10 million working families, aspire to that american dream of being able to work -- to move up to obtain economic success and economic security in particular. what we are calling for in our report is the opportunity for those families to do so. host: you mentioned to you that you worked on the state level. the want to assure you this

headline from "the boston globe." what is happening on this front? guest: as we talked about earlier, the recession is taking its toll. the one of the issues is that with people losing their jobs, with the transition is taking place in the economy, the ability to care for working families is diminishing. our data shows that it used to be one in three working families did not have access to health care through their employer. that number, one in three, is moving up. it is now approaching 40%.

>> a debate among those running to head the republican national committee with five candidates. that is at 8:00 on c-span. tonight, how the federal government technology policies directly affect high-tech companies. this is at 8:00 on the c-span2. the 100 called congress gavels in this wednesday with both the house and senate. the house will elect the next speaker, ohio republican and john banner. -- john painter. the new house is made up of 242 republicans and 193 democrats.

live coverage on c-span. it lies coram to bring all senators to the floor. democrats and independents will hold 53 seats, republicans 47. it is live at noon on wednesday on c-span2. a review of china's domestic issues in 2010. this is courtesy of china's central television. ♪ >> welcome to china dirae 2010, a special wrapup of the year. 2010 has been uneventful one for 2010 has been uneventful one for