planned. i accept that. i have always said that. ultimately, the framework and stability between the change in character of nature -- you put your finger on it earlier. if interest rate is on the potential, everyone will like them. -- let's bring in enda kenny >> let's bring in enda kenny on that point the two made their. .

>> what do you want to do with bondholders? like are you going to, enda kenny, when you go to europe, do you want to burden share and if you want to burden share and they say no to you, what do you want to do? >> it's important that we are realistic here. if that indebtedness is more than we've been led to believe, then from the fine gael perspective we won be putting money in unless there is a relief for the bond -- bondholders. it's an obscenity that the irish taxpayers --

>> but -- >> in terms of banking policy as we all know there is going to be no change. there will be no change because he has signed up for the fundamentals of banking policy. >> but going back to -- >> but he did support the bank guarantee. >> we're not sticking oon the bank guarantee. eamon gilmore, on the bondholders? >> there are two fundamental problems that fi in -- fianna fail have here. first thought advertised the bank bailout strongly. that's now resulted in the fortunes offer -- or misfortunes of the banks being tied to -- >> stick with the bondholders. >> yes. that's why we ended up not able to borrow on the international markets. fianna fail denied week in and week out that they were anywhere on the scene.

you then did a deed within the space of a week in a hurry at a time when there were other countries in the firing line and the e.u. itself was in the firing line. the deal was a sellout of ireland. it doesn't work for ireland and doesn't worg -- pork -- work for the european union the mr. cowen, your boss at the time, said that the interest rate couldn't be changed. -- >> what about bondholders? >> on bondholders it's not fair and not right and not sustainable that the irish tax pair has to pay the full cox and burden of bad decisions made in the banks. >> but our european -- >> our european colleagues are already saying that there has to be burden sharing with bondholders. i herd chance eller merkel --

chancellor merkel say that. what we have to do is negotiate the best way in the best interests of the irish people. >> the bombed line here is this. i've made this point before in terms of the bank guarantee. independent analysis by professor honin, to less made it clear we did have an obligation -- >> but -- >> they didn't stick on the bondholders and i want to make my point and it's important. we said the modern wages system would still exist. it's graphic about what would have happened if we didn't put in the bank guarantee. there would have been banks closed within days, immediate catastrophic impact on workers and equally said, the ango -- anglo at that time was a

systemic bank. but -- but that's not me saying that. this is independent analysts. thve -- can -- it's the kind of dishonest propaganda and rhetoric -- >> no, enda kenny, come back in -- >> no, at the mome the bond holders are saying -- >> actually, what the professor said was that the garnee should have been limited to deposits. >> don't twist what he said. don't twy and twist it. >> thank you. people were flabbergasted in europe at the extent of the guarantee given by this government. we may never find out the real reasons why this happened. but we do know the irish taxpayer is now caught for 100 billion because of the in competent and collusion of the

developers and the bankers and the fianna fail party. >> but -- >> i need to move it on. enda kenny, i think a lot of people, certainly a lot of international, even domestic analysts, believe the figure jumps out and simply we don't have enough money to pay everything we owe back. what do you believe about that. i hate to mention it to you before -- but is there a possibility we need to think about the default road? >> that's precisely the difficulty we're in. we don't actually know the scale of what's out there until these stress tests and tests of lick widity are complete -- liquidity are completed. we hear there be another 15 billion required but we've got

to wait and see what that number is. but you're right. this is so true. our country can't borrow money. our banks can't borrow money. we are living for banks and existing for families and that's the way the fianna fail party have left us. >> i don't believe we will be able to bear the burden of the debts of the banks. that's why from a working point of view it has to be renegotiated. they have gone on with a lot of nonsense about -- >> he did not -- >> it's quite clear he said that. >> read it. >> i did read it. >> did you not say that anglo was a systemic bank? >> you are giving the wrong impression. >> you did say that -- [all speak at once]

>> i want you to go back to -- >> your government made a policy decision and he makes clear in your report that your -- >> no, no. >> your fianna fail government -- >> that's distorting what he said. >> you are interrupting. >> eamon gilmore, i want to go -- >> half a dozen branches throughout the country. it didn't have a.t.m.'s. it was a foil for developers. a piggy bank doctor >> this is on bnking -- banking -- >> i'm moving on actually. >> do we know who the bondholders are? >> we do, actually. we're moving on now. >> that's the kind of empty stuff that's been said without -- >> nobody heard this exchange in this debate here because of the through thions from my left and right. i think your point is very

valid. the irish people are now faced with a crushing burden here. it's the legacy of the fianna fail party. we are we are now going to be faced with, whatever government is elected friday, will be left to deal with this situation here. the -- >> at the moment, the nightmare that is our banking system and currently out $ -- 145 billion to our own central bank, how are we going to pay that back? stick with that, please. don't go to the garnee. >> i'm sorry but the fundamental mission of the banking system is to get the two back, a.i.b. and bank of ireland, for the 1.3 million working and the small business people. that's the only agenda and motivation behind the government and behind our banking policy, ok?

now, we have to work with european central bank and the european commission in terms of getting the banks right. that does mean bringing confidence back into the banks and the stress test spoken about earlier is underway of the we've had a number of stress tests already by the regulator and the central bank. the key is to restore order into the banks. there will have to be recapitalizeation to get their reserves up to the levels recommended by the european central bank to get market confidence back in them. that's the situation ultimately that the banks are currently in. >> how would you pay off that $ -- 145 billion? how would you even envision paying that off? >> >> it's an absolutely phenomenal amount of debt. in respect of the banking system i would close down anglo irish and irish nationwide before the end of the year. i would see bank of ireland having the opportunity to trade

as it always dfment i think it's going to be necessary to sell a.i.b. there are those tho -- who want to invest in it and have it as a working bank here. i see it as a future with outside investments. there say group very interested in that -- that. there are possibilities for the smaller niche banks like sill i canon valley for investment in the niche sector but we're never going to get the economy moving unless you get jobs growing, unless you grow your economy. you've got to stimulate our indigenous economies -- >> i wall street -- just want to stay with banks though -- >> to be able to repay anything touf be able to get the economy moving the >> but the 145 billion is such a staggering sum to have to pay back. today we hear there would be an extra 55 billion.

can we afford it? >> we have to understand that the banks always do owe money to other banks including to the european central bank and so on and so on. we have to restructure the irish banking system and look at not just what money is going into the banks but what we want to get out of the banks. there are a number of object ivers we have to have. first we have to have lending restored to small and medium sized businesses so they can create jobs. there has to be a minimum amount of lending done. secondly there has to be a strategic investing arm in ireland, along the lines of. the i.c.c. we had in the past or along the lines of the similar type of bank in germany which would invest into the economy, start-up companies and provide the money for infrastructure and so onlt thirdly, there has to be a deal with families and householders because there are people who are already stretched now in paying their mortgages and i

think one of the understanding we have to have with the banking stp is that no family with lose their home during the banking crisis, that whatever happens, no family will lose their home who is making a genuine effort to repay the mortgage. i think there are new things we have to do with the banks because we cannot allow the culture of crony capitalism we had in the past. and we have to look at ways by which the banks will repay the monies. >> what do you think of that plan? >> eamon's got his program for an investment bank which i differ from that actually. we have enough banks as it is. i'm talking about recapitalizeation and restructuring. the catastrophe where people keep writing checks -- but do people understand the agony and the hurt and the fear that so

many small businesses and retailers and shop keepers have every week when they can't get credit in from any bank? i know hundreds who have put a proposal for manufacturing, for taking on excellent employees, who cannot get a red cent if the -- from the banks the what fine gael proposes to do is have the state take a greater portion of the risk, which gives greater flexibility to the banks which then can give credit to the businesses. it is absolutely critical because we're going absolutely nowhere without credit extended to the small business, which is the life's blooved the economy. >> and sticking to the amount of money we need to put into them, we've already mutt -- put in 45 billion of irish

taxpayers' money, these are people who have even had their minimum wage cut. and if you were to get into government again, micheal martin, how much money would you actually put into the banks? this is a very specific question. >> first let me deal with the facts of your question. we all know anglo irish and nationwide are done wr07b8g9 we need them back on a strong footing and all our policies are designed to do that. in terms of at agreement with european institutions, we're talking about first of all a 4 to 10 billion recapitalizeation the >> you prefer that of course? >> that's because of the conclusion. we're in favor of it and going to do it if we're back in government. the stress tests are currently being done by the regulator and

the central bank governor. we have to await the outcome of those stress tests and i would envisage depending on the outcome of those stress tests, we then have to discuss again dealing with the central european banks because -- >> do you agree the 10 billion that's been deferred -- will you put that 10 billion into the bank? >> this was actually approved for being injected into the banking system and the minister for finance said he didn't want to do it because he didn't have the mandate zeps -- despite the fact that the government is technically still in situ. hasn't stopped them filming various ministers and boards acrowned -- around the country -- >> well, they said that was a very prudent decision and then changed his mind. that's the kind of politics going on.

>> the point i make is this. michael noonan was quite correct when he said this was a prudent thing to do to also wait until we see the scale of what is emerging from the solvency and lick widity tests. -- liquidity tests. you can't burn bondholders unless you see what the scale is. i would like to see it make etc. way back to being a proper trading bank as it always used to be. but in the context of putting extra money into these banks, the fine gael party would be reluctant to do that until we see the scale and if it's beyond what we're committed to, it would be bond sharing the >> i find it interesting that micheal martin has has admitted here tonight that the recap tal

-- >> it was not a mandate. >> [all talking at once] >> the reality is this, miriam. the banks do require recapitalizeation and whoever is in government is going to have to deliver on that. we don't know the extent of that recapitalization until the stress tests are completed at the end of march. what we do know, and i welcome the fact that the payment of the 10 billion was deferred because it allowed a period of time to renegotiate with the bond holders and it allows a space to look at the restructuring of the banks because additional million -- money going into the banks has to be dependent on a number of things.

one of the main issues i hear raised with me by people all the time is the worry about interest rates going up permanently, other banks talking about increasing their interest rates. thaze huge worry, and any recapitalizeation of the banks, there has to be a quid pro quoment >> we have to be open and honest with people in the debate and people are saying things in terms of what people want to hear but a.i.b. and bank of ireland would have to be protected and have to survive. that's the bottom line no matter who get pro -- elected. >> that would be the bottom line but -- eamon just said he would have to see what happens with the stress tests. the bottom line is those two banks would have to be strengthened an enabled to recover to do your bit on mortgages and the economy and stuff. we're getting two different messages -- >> if you read the detail of

the plan you will funed that the threat has been mained -- made that there would be -- >> we've got a very clear message, let me repeat it. i'd like it see bank of ireland get back to where it used to be, of its own volition. that's in reach, i think. got to wait and see. a.i.i.b. -- a.i.b. has some difficulties. we believe it should be sold and that we have a third banking force -- >> let's go on if that's ok. for people watching, these billions just get bigger, taxpayer money they are suggesting it could be double. are you happy the way nama is going? >> no, i'm not. i believe it was the wrong kind of creation. fianna fail had a view it should have been broken into

good banks and bad banks at the beginning the people are working in banks, hundreds of them, for assessing transfer of assets to nama it's not open enough, not transparent you have. there should be competition between groups for delivering the ats -- assets there. it's in situ. it's got to have cookt -- accountability and transparency. this is going to make tribunals look like chicken feed in the next number of years. >> i think what we have to do now is stop the problem geth worse. the labor party thought namas was the wrong way to go in terms of the bad loans. the next phase of it, nama two, the second-tier loans, the smaller loans, the labor party bleebs that should not proceed.

>> do you agree with that? >> and the third phase of it, nama three, where loans are so-called warehoused, that shouldn't proceed either. what we need to look out for is what nama should do with the sale of the assets. they've taken the loans in at a sale, a discount. what we have to know it that those are going to be sold back out again at a further loss to the irish people and the irish taxpayer. we've been burned once with the biss -- discount with the bad loans going in at a discount. we could as taxpayers be burned again about them being sold off, and in some cases being sold out to companies who have some of the same principals and -- >> first of all, they're going to run with nama. they're not going to change it. the one concern i have, first of all, it the up and running

about a year and a bit. we saw the kind of deals it can do here and win back the money of the tax marries -- taxpayers. the most important thing is that the taxpair has to get a prost on this -- >> but that's at the end of 10 years -- >> no, the big wording here, eamon, if you read, they want to outsource the management of 70% of nama to private companies. it's privatizing the profit that should be going to the taxpayer. it's a small thing in your document and it needs to be fleshed out more. >> what it is is a secret society -- society -- >> it shouldn't be privatized out to management companies who will in he isence -- essence make the profit on that. >> the author of nama said what

emerged and was created was not what he envisaged. this is effectively a secret sosa ivement property cannot move and will not move unless there is an injection of competence in there, until there is transparency and accountability. >> i want to move on -- [all moving at -- all talking at once [ >> we're going to move on to public finance s -- finances. because to be honest for many people watching tonight it's money in their pocket they're counting on. in your manifest you say you accept the fiscal target set out in the budget for 2014 abandon you plan to achieve the program with 73% cuts, 23%

taxes. spell it out for people tonight who are worried about next year's budget what will those taxes be? >> well, there won't be any increase in income tax. no change to the rates that have been and of the three parties here, the fine gael's proposals in terms of cuts in administration and inefficiency work at -- out at 73 and 27. that means that for the average family in the context of the labor party frings -- for instance have changed its view, the extra amount of income tax per family would be about 1,300. in the case of the fianna fail party it would be about 1,400. so we recognize as has been pointed out that you did not -- cannot not tax your way out of this recession. you've got to keep the tacks low and the interest rates low and keep confidence moving so that unemployment can come down

and jobs can be protected. we have put together our program without a property tax and i'll tell you why. >> because there won't be a property tax? >> well, not from fi -- fine gael nationally. what we have done it -- is say to local authorities, we have going to give you the authority after 2013 to consider whether you should introduce a profits tax on the sale of houses. both parties in respect of their annual recurring charges are going to evaluate whether you are negative equity, unemployed or living in a mansion or attached house. so it the based on not having a property pax president -- tax. we will give local authorities the decision. >> before asking your breakdown of taxes, what's your reaction to that proposal?

>> i think it goes back to what we said at the beginning of the program. you have to be straight with people. he says the total pack is 2.4 billion. that doesn't include the taxes that will go through the local systems. the introduction of a water tax, freaks, the taxes for young people coming out of people. when you add them all together the fine gael tax package is 1.4 billion. and at the end of date it's, the bottom line is the amount of tax you are paying. it doesn't matter if it's coming out of your pay packet or it's a charge for water carrying. the labor party is absolutely clear we will not increase income tax on people earning less than 100,000 a year. we will have some on v --

v.a.t. and some in the areas of pension relief and some on very high pensions and phasing out of the property relief. that comes to just under 3 billion euro between now and 2014. >> would that be a deal-breaker in terms of the tax for these two going into a zphoolings >> well, i'm not going to get into any questions of deal-breaking situations here. the election's not been held yet. but i note eamon's comments. we have signed on for water charges only after meters have been installed and allocations have been given. we would start that as part of or 7 billion in investment in water renewals and broad band. >> let me bring in one more.

-- >> could you -- >> let me bring in one more -- i will come back to that actually. 2/3-1/3 division is your plan. micheal martin, you plan to raise 1.5 billion in taxes. what would those be? >> we have a good track record. we've taken very tough decisions and difficult ones to correct the public finances. we're talking about 6 billion in expenditure cuts and spelled it out in the plan. we're the only party that's spelled out everything in deale -- >> through higher taxes. >> what fine gael is doing, what we're doing, we're talking about broadening the base, which has been recommended by every expert tax group that's been sitting for quite some time. the fine gael plan is neither

honest, credible or workable. it hasn't even been costed. they're talking about 6.5 billion without a detail? that's not credible the also saying 30,000 public servants, just like that, are all going to go voluntarily despite the fact we're in a period of very high unemployment. our plan is credible and we've laid it out before us in terms of what we're going to do. .

>> let's talk solutions here. >> let's talk about some of this -- what they propose to do if we are elected in government, is the jobs budget. >> why didn't you tell journalists where are you going to make the savings department by department? why did you not give the

spreadsheets like we did? it all out there in black-and- white, what the department of justice will have to save, you refused to do that. >> answer the question. >> i know you are going to say again -- 14 years -- we need to know more than that in terms of the future of this country. why didn't you give the detail to journalists -- >> its not on there. it is not there. it is not there. truthfully, the detail is not there in terms of the 6.5 billion cuts. >> it do i get a word in

edgewise? >> a series of interruptions here from a man who -- >> you cannot say to people you are going to get 6.5 billion in loans -- >> plays a couple of charges year and then proceeds to interrupt. we will [unintelligible] to give them that extra encouragement. we will reduce the lower-level to 12%, affecting construction, tourism, labor-intensive industries, food outlets and all of these things. we will bring in the credit insurance scheme to deal with those who look for credit. where our counselors are in control of councils, we issued instructions to freeze rates --

>> i think we have to be clear with people because these are the questions people want to know. they want to know what a new government is going to do in terms of taxation. the labour party has been very clear on this. we have spelled out where taxes will be adjusted between now and 2014. the other side of this equation, it is all very well to say we won't raise taxes, but to introduce cuts like cutting child benefits which its families or making other cuts hitting people in schools and in the health services and so on. you also have to look at the cuts that will lead made in terms of the numbers of people who are employed. the labour party does believe we can reduce the payroll and the number of people employed in the public service and we can do that on a voluntary basis.

my concern is that they would proceed with this plan to take 30,000 people out of public service. that would reserve -- that would result in my view in making people compulsorily redundant and it would have to have cuts and a greater degree of say insist on getting the deficit down to 3% by 2014. that would result in additional cuts and charges we have not heard today. on this subject, i think fianna fail has no credibility on this subject. you have crucified people in this country with 25 billion in cuts and taxes over the last couple of years. every worker in this country looking at their pay packets in january sees the amount taken out in terms of the universal social charge and additional taxes. you have no credibility now because you have imposed excessive taxes on people, you have cut people to the bone,

families are suffering and they cannot afford to suffer anymore. >> but you have both said your not going to reverse any tax. yet campaign against amateur going to retain them. [crosstalk] >> we will reverse the decision you made -- >> [crosstalk] >> on the universal social charge, we will make changes because there were people who were hit with that universal social charge to cannot afford it. people on very low incomes, widows, pensioners --

>> [crosstalk] >> why haven't you publish the details behind that. >> we are not going to go back to that. >> that is going to be increased to 21%. it is going up next year. all along the way, they are not saying the painful side of what they want to do. that's the point i'm making. >> the fine gael party said we would abolish the quangos and we no duplication that exists. if we are to deal with the public service in terms of its numbers and in terms of its costs, i value the work public servants do. many of them have come to me in the last number of weeks and say if you want to see a way to save 2 million, 5 million or 10

million, i will show you. i do not accept and i differ from them in this regard, the government program is for 12,000 people to leave the public service by retirement. everyone understands that. our program is for 18,000 over four years beyond that. two weeks before christmas, at a fortnight's notice, there were 2000 voluntary redundancies. we know there are 1500 offices around the country that take down the names and addresses and numbers, duplicating all of that kind of work. it is possible in my view to have one in 10 over four years reduction. that will give the protection to the front line services which are so critical. you will have a leaner, more efficient public service which will protect the public salaries which we said we would do. >> if it's not done by the third quarter this year, the imf -- >> [unintelligible]

>> if you talk about one in 10, you're talking about taking to teachers out of every school. [crosstalk] >> you just promise everything to everybody in the audience. >> if you exclude people at the front line, you are no longer talking about one in 10, you're talking about one in five. that's a tall order to get on a voluntary basis in three or four years. if you cannot get them on a voluntary basis, the question is are you going to proceed with compulsory redundancy. in terms of the budgetary proposals, they simply don't add up. this is an issue -- will you and i may have to sit down and

hammer this out after the election because if you do not -- that is where we then have to talk about the time when the deficit is reduced. >> let's comeback -- >> there is a difference between the labour party and fine gael party here. i think the fianna fail has the same view. if the objections are not as strong as originally envisioned, derek is a further extension allowed within one year -- there is a further extension allowed within one year. ours is based on 9 billion. we -- >> go back to public sector.

>> we said we would honor things as far as the public salaries were concerned. there are conditions set in there about redeployment of staff and all the rest of it. our program does not envisage any compulsory redundancies and we believe very strongly that over the four years we can achieve a reduction by voluntary redundancies. >> the big issue here is the lack of credibility for the fine gael party plan. talk to the civil servant as as i can get half a million here or half a million there. abolishing 145,000 quangos is not going to get that. this is cutting people.

the big thing they wanted to put up was no income tax. therefore it is 6.5 billion, nothing else, notre detail. -- know how true detail. [crosstalk] >> i am talking about 6.5 billion. let's be realistic. [crosstalk] >> we all know and we all understand that there can be efficiencies achieved in our public service. the expert group that looked at the health services estimated 19% in savings can be made

across health services. if you give the management of those state agencies the discretion to do the savings, one of the things the labour party will do is we would say to state agencies and public service managers, if you can get 2% reduction in our budget each year in your expenditures over three years, that is a total of 6%. we will give you discretion as to how you manage the budget. the problem at the moment is you have an over-rigid management of the public service system. it is managed by fiat and if you take for example the embargo, the encouragement embargo that fianna fail brought in -- >> i am trying to give you all equal time. >> if we can get to savings, we don't have to specify what we're going to get. we need to be up front giving --

given the seriousness of the issues before us. some departments are 8% and 9% in savings down already. if you talk to people, they will say there can be more savings made and there will have to be, but there has to be cut as well. we say that explicitly in our profile. department by department, we say we are going to make savings. it is not honest to say you can just put 6.5 billion without spelling out where you are going to get. it is not credible to say you're going to take out 40,000 public services without affecting -- [crosstalk] >> he accepted no responsibility for not reading -- a >> that is not true. that is more propaganda. that is false.

that is not true. >> for many people watching tonight, 100,000 emigrating in the next few years. what is the fianna fail's plan to create jobs? is it possible that it will work if you have been in government for 14 years. >> we are in the worst recession since 1929. it's not just an irish recession, it is a global recession. it is not just fianna fail saying this. has to be an export-led recovery. we have laid out sector by sector where we think jobs can be created in this country. we have prepared a blueprint for the agriculture and food industry. >> how many jobs -- >> can i finish? food is one and technology and

medical devices, far as it -- pharmaceuticals and digital media. we have targets that are 150,000 jobs in those particular sectors and you can add towards them as well. side by side with that is a capital program which would be labor-intensive. the national retrofit program, the installation of water meters would create thousands of jobs and infrastructure projects. there is a coherent jobs plan there. we have actually did it before in this economy which created significant wealth and jobs. exports last year were up by 7% and it's looking very good for 2011. >> enda kenny -- >> where were all of these ideas

when he was in government? let the people want to know is this, if you knock on a thousand dollars, 980 of those people will say jobs, work, and all the rest of it. it's important for dignity, fundamental for the person to have that opportunity to good work, raise a family and have a career. that's why in our five. plan, jobs is the first and primary function of that. >> how would you create them? >> we invest 7 billion from the national pension reserve fund in non-strategic state assets to invest in a program where we create 100,000 jobs over four years in water, broadband and renewable energy. an analogous creature "-- we would abolish the travel tax.

it's a measure and call their bluff, [unintelligible] the changes that we make for employers to take away those tax obstacles to employment, plus deal with the issue of inspections, the plethora of red tape that's costing 500 million a year. you can do these things swiftly. >> what do you think of these job proposals and then tell me about your own. >> i do not think the fine gael party are credible on this. i talk to someone today who said she could not remember a time when the fine gael party was not in government. we were creating a thousand new jobs a week. what's happening now is that thousand people are leaving this country every week. there are a number of ways we

have to create jobs. first caller in the short term, construction. we have to get people back to work in construction. we would get the retrofitting program moving and immediately establish a jobs fund from which employers would get relief where they're taking on new employees. we would make changes in retail. one of the big areas where there has been lots of job is retail, allowing the retail business to continue. in the medium term, the strategic investment bank would provide credit for small and medium-size businesses who are the people who generate employment and create jobs. concentrating on particular sectors of the economy where there is potential for growth. one thing we should remember is that in this country we have a huge potential for trade like china and india. this is the fastest growing country in the world and its economy is growing fast. we need to be more up to speed

with our trade and have trade missions there and be developing our trade with those countries and expanding into areas like food and new energy. alternative energy, we know that oil is going to run out. our see area is 10 times our land area. we have a huge potential for wind, wave, tidal energy. if the government creates jobs -- it is the business that creates jobs. government has to create the circumstances for business to create jobs. >> we all know 700,000 people are unemployed -- are employed in this country in small and medium-size businesses. quite a number of people watching the program said they are literally crucified by the banks. i do not want to go back into the banking problem, but what would you do to get credit to

those businesses? people are waking up in the middle of the night and cannot sleep because they have no money and cannot get access to credit. >> for small businesses, we have to reduce the commercial rates and reduce development levies. that would give breathing space to small business in this country. if obviously the banks have to be financed and there are funds to try to find them. small businesses, there's an issue of getting credit to small businesses. the governments do not create jobs on the road and accepted capital program. enterprise ireland has been -- i've been on trade missions to china with them.

research grants in terms of marketing and not just grants but improving and enhancing management capacity, what i was on trade missions to silicon valley, we brought people up there to advise us. they said irish companies have the best technology in the world. the one problem you lack is marketing capability and ambition and a certain degree of management capability which we need to support companies. these would be largely export- oriented companies. for domestic small companies, we need to do what i said in terms of commercial rates and development levies. this is about being credible with the people. you cannot raise 7 billion with a fire sale of strategic assets.

you are not going to get 7 billion. that makes no sense. he said it was a public- relations add-on. he did not believe themselves. >> what martin didn't tell you is that ireland is slipped in terms of our competitiveness. facts. second fact, stock brokers have done an evaluation of the sale of non-strategic assets. there were 7 billion to be had there. there was a report. it was not published because of the elections. i'm quite sure there are a list of others.

transmission lines are strategic. the power generation unit is in competition with other competition for electricity at the mellon. they also -- at the the moment. >> eamon gilmore -- >> its not true to say you cannot put together a fund of 7 billion are -- it would not be sold at fire sale prices. i would like by 2016 to demonstrate we are the best small country in the world in which to do business. their non- agree strategic assets. i think power is strategic,

particularly within an island. that's the first thing. even if it were a good idea to sell these assets, he would not be doing them now where the market is very low. we need to have the resources to put into employment creation because we cannot tell people who are out of work for young people who are emigrating with their parents that we have to wait until prices right in order to generate the funds to get people into employment. one of the issues about employment is there are lots of good ideas. the irish export economy is doing good. the food sector is doing well. what is not doing well is the domestic economy. this comes back to the whole issue of if we take too much money at the economy in budgetary measures that insist on getting the deficit down to 3% by 2014, too much money would be taken out of the economy,

domestic demand would be reduced. walk down any street in do you see 50%, 60% reductions. >> i want detail and credibility in the plan moving forward. the most strategic issue facing this country in the next decade even as we come to this difficult recession will be energy. the state needs to keep the flavor of control over energy. that means -- to take that would be a huge mistake. i am very suspicious of your proposal. [crosstalk] we also let happened with russia and other states and we have seen with the middle eastern crisis at the moment, this is a

very serious issue. we need to be extremely careful in how we are going about this. [crosstalk] >> there are a lot of people worried about health issues. it is a big issue. you have this health insurance scheme based on the dutch model. it sounds a good model, but how would it work here? we did not have the big insurance companies that have in the netherlands. is there a risk he would end up with quite a few companies here and it would be privatized service? >> note is the answer to that question. -- no is the answer to that question. what happens to most deputies from all parties is that they are now getting volumes of phone calls from people about the situation that their families are in every day of the week.

sunday night, a woman seven months pregnant at the light on the floor in the hospital for 20 hours in 2011. he said he would abolish an end to waiting in 2001. what the fine gael party wants to do here is not tinker at the edges but change the system radically. it will take two years to bring it in fully. it is going to end the two-tier system, and the code-location of private hospitals on public land. -- co-location of private hospitals on public land. this will allow for a situation where money follows the patient and hospitals get paid for what they do and not what they think they might do. >> i want to bring eamon gilmore in on that. >> i know you don't want to

remove that. what is your review -- what is your view because it has so much money to be set up. is it wise? >> we have to concentrate on reforming the system rather than performing structures and institutions. we could get bogged down for a number of years and you end up having to set up something similar to it. we would it change it. we are in broad agreement with the objectives in the health service. we have to reform our health service and we have to base it on universal health insurance and do it to end the two-tier system is of people get treated on the basis of need rather than the basis of money. we have set out a two phase strategy to do that. the first phase is to concentrate on primary care, upgrade our primary system to

have free primary care for everyone as part of the insurance system. it would cost 489 million bureaus. we have identified where the savings will be caught -- it will cost 489 million euros. the second phase is the hospital phase which will take another two years where we end up with a fully insured system and and but a transformed health system which would be more efficient, save money and would be fairer for patients. >> it sounds a good idea, which except it? >> i think it is a crazy idea. this is another part of the plan that has huge holes. could that themselves don't believe it. in recent study has said there are major flaws with this that model.

one of the doctors said he would look into it. it cost the dutch system and extra billion in the first number of years. he has not factored in the capital reserves required for private health companies of their to take it on and work themselves. the last point is this -- in holland, a cost an average family by thousand 500 a year. >> in ireland -- and you were minister of health for some time and responsible for setting it up, what we have ended up with

is a very expensive health system. we are paying a huge amount of money between what we pay in taxes, health and shreds of what we pay out of our pockets. it is dysfunctional. we have more people lying on trolleys and unable to get to hospitals this year than ever before. [crosstalk] >> you are putting is something ford on which there is no detail. >> there is detail. >> he knows the last thing the health system needs is a major restructuring. the two-tier system is working fairly well. if anyone was going to privatize the whole system, it was the fine gael party, which took up private lands which could have been used for the expansion of

public hospitals. a good friend of mine died recently of cancer. tumors. he could not get that in his hospital. what did they have to do? they have to drive to the accident emergency and camp until they are admitted for treatment. that is all legacy -- that is the legacy. many fine people working in this service work under enormous stress. they tell me about the millions of waste in that system. >> i know there are problems and in the health service. but thousands of people walking around -- we are trading far more people faster and with better outcomes than ever before. an increase of 400,000 since

2005 and we have transformed the way we deal with heart disease in this country. he talks about his five. plan and -- and what does he want to do with halt service, it is going to cost him a billion to layoff 8000 health-care workers with a plan that will take 10 years to employment. >> i'm not sure where he's been for the last 14 years that he talks about himself. >> he said he had 2000 people and could do the job with 700. people have come to me and said here is three save 5 million. there were 200 million wasted on the computer system which never worked.

[crosstalk] >> why are you avoiding the detail of your plan? there is no detail. [crosstalk] [crosstalk] >> come up with a decent, detailed solution, which you have failed to do. [crosstalk]

>> after 14 years, yes we have some of the finest people working in our health services. we are a country of less than 4.5 million people. >> 10 years ago, he was best to eliminate 19,000. responsibility lies with the minister of -- >> there were some that one need to address issues tonight -- issues of social justice and equality. whether they are things like issues of visibility, gay marriage, issues that over the years the government has dodged and not done enough about. if you had one key social justice or a quality issue you

would pursue in government, what would it be? >> looking after people with disabilities. that is what fine gael party in terms of cutting. in terms of giving decent support to people, it would be the area of disabilities. as a country -- >> i feel an absolute priority should be the people who suffer from mental illness every year. the ratcheting up of a priority for those two have the tragedy of suicide visit their families. >> we did not dodge issues of visibility is. we made a national provision for special needs children -- especially the children in mainstream schools.

acknowledge something that was done and was a decisive game changer in terms of disabilities. >> my passion in life is that every child in this country should have the opportunity to progress and there should be the opportunity in education and we shall lacing -- always seek ways to enhance our education. >> i want to close talking about leadership. we started at the beginning talking about the position our country was in. this is an election like no other. people are frightened and it desperately needs strong leadership to give up, inspire confidence and give people a belief that there is a way out of it. why do you believe, a generally, why do you believe you can be that leader? >> i have a deep sense of the conviction that i know how to fix what has been wrong in ireland for sell long period to give people a sense of

direction, a sense of comfort and security that there is a way forward here. what i want to do from my life in politics, if it ever comes my way is to be able to say on the centenary of those who rebelled and died and fought for economic and political independence and sovereignty, that on the centenary of the year, we sent the imf home and our borrowing only four homes and job creation. you have the best small country to do business, the best small country to raise a family and the best small country in which to grow old with a sense of dignity and respect. >> in terms of leadership, what is required is honesty in terms of the issues we put before the people and in terms of one job and one task. another fundamental aspect is the capacity to be radical and a decision that reflect on where we are and make radical decisions, such as fundamentally changing the way we do politics in this country.

to change our electrical -- to change our electors -- our electoral system and enhance the role of parliament. the capacity to embrace the radical -- i would do so again as leader of the country and to unify people and not to be targeting the special-interest groups but rather build consensus in terms of the future of this country. building that consensus, what we did before, rebuild and recover our society, which we can do and will do. >> eamon gilmore, what kind of leadership which you say that would be different from the man -- the men r & d . >> what is different is it values. the labour party says we are all equal and should be treated equal and in a fair way. whenever decisions we have to make in government, about health

services or anything else, that it's done fairly. the second is the issue of good judgment. there will be moment it's in good judgment when there will be a crisis -- there will be moments in government when there will be a crisis. when the labor party was tested on the bailout of anglo irish banks, labour was the party that stood by the taxpayer. i have a passionate belief in the future of this country. yes, we're going to a very difficult time right now. we can come through it but we have to pull together as a people at work together. i believe the labour party is best placed to bring it together. >> thank you. best of luck to all three of you. that is it for tonight. thank you for watching. we're back to our night with other special show at 9:35.

good night and take care. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> it debate coverage here on c- span courtesy of rte. the irish elections are this friday and latest polls show voters supporting the fine gael party by 40% -- supporting -- 40% supporting fianna fail and 38% supporting fine gael party. >> the c-span networks, it is all available to you on television, radio, online and social media networking site.

find our content any time through the c-span video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle. it is washington your way -- that c-span networks. now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> within the hour, wisconsin gov. scott walker will hold what he is calling a fireside chat to talk about his state's budget and the ongoing union protests there. we will have live coverage beginning at 7:00 eastern on c- span. shortly after that color remarks from earlier today from libyan leader, muoammar gadhafi. we will she does comments about

7:15 eastern on c-span. >> c-span's book "abraham lincoln" is a unique, contemporary perspective on abraham lincoln. from his early years as a springfield lawyer, to his presidency during our nation's most troubled times, while supplies last, publishers are offering the hardcover edition for the special price of $5 plus shipping and handling. go to c-span.org/books and use the promo code "lincoln" at checkout. >> president obama's economic adviser said today that the pace of economic growth will accelerate this year. he defended the administration pause economic strategy and explained his view that the house republican approach to the budget does little for long- term economic growth. this event from the washington think tank ,ndn is about 50

minutes. >> and old friend visiting from japan is here. are we on? thank you for coming. i'm simon rosenberg. we have a wonderful event today, special events. just before we get into the formal program, since this is being recorded, if we can make sure that everybody puts their mobile devices on some setting that does not make noise. that would be great. we appreciate that. let's get right to it because i know is a busy time for many.

as many of you know, for the 14- year history of this organization, trying to help fashion a for-looking economic agenda that responds to the incredible challenges globalization is bringing has been the core of our work. we are known for other things, but if you go back to the history of the enterprise, there's been no more important work and i would hope to believe the place we have made the greatest contribution over time is helping with ideas and fashioning an economic agenda in times of change. in the spirit of that, we had a wonderful discussion with leading economists from the left and right looking at the fiscal and economic challenges the country faces today. we have a very special guest today.

he is the no. 2 economic official in the white house. he has many titles but to simplify it into plain english, he is the principal deputy of the national economic council, reunited with his old friend, gene sperling, with amy has collaborated over many years. let me just say a little bit about the moment we are in. he and dr. robert shapiro will be leading a robust question and answer session after his remarks. before he was in the white house, and he has taken leave from the brookings institution to take the original position the hat and was just given the title of principal deputy director of the economic council, he is the most senior economist in the whole unit in addition to being a very

thoughtful political interpreter. he was a senior fellow in economic studies at brookings and began his career during the clinton administration as staff economist for the council of economic adviser and a assistant to the president. he was a senior adviser to the chief economist and senior vice president of the world bank. he worked as a visiting scholar at nyu, yale, columbia and a senior fellow at the center for budget and policy priorities at brookings. he has conducted research in a wide range of areas, including fiscal policy, tax policy, social security and monetary policy. he is published in a number of scholarly journals and popular publications. he edited to economic policy books. he earned his ph.d. in economics and a master's in government from harvard university and a

master's from the london school of economics. in a time of enormous economic challenge when we just recently are coming out of what could have been a very serious global economic and then faced with the double challenge now of trying to craft an american response to the way the world is changing today and in a way they global challenges creating a competitive global environment, we are lucky to have someone with the skills he brings to the job and it's an honor to have you with us today. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for organizing this and robb, for joining and for everything ndn does. the budget came out eight days ago and that's ample time for everyone in this room to read it

from end to end. that law allows me to be more brief, assuming that has happened. i recommend reading the budget itself rather than some of the commentary. the last two years were really dominated by a macro economic imperative which was an economy that spiraling downward when the president came into office, losing 750,000 jobs per month. while we did a number of important long run things in areas like health reform and financial regulation, a lot of effort, especially when it came to fiscal policy, a lot of the offer was about creating jobs and stabilizing the situation in the short run. we are not passed that in the sense that unemployment still remains unacceptably high. we have a long ways to go, but we're moving in the right direction. we have put the right financial

and microeconomic policies in place and we're beginning to see the dividends from them. this is a budget that pivots toward winning the future. to do that, a lot of it is an investment agenda, investing in things like education, infrastructure and innovation. at the same time, doing it in a way that shows we can live within our means and start bringing down the deficit. to give some of the highlights from that, things like when it comes to domestic spending, a five-year freeze, including a two-year pay freeze that would bring spending down to the lowest share of the economy since eisenhower was president. in total, $400 billion of deficit reduction. we have a trillion dollars of deficit reduction, of which one-

third comes from the revenue side and two-thirds comes from the spending side, including defense spending. it is important to contrast this trillion dollars of deficit reduction the president is proposing with the republican plans to date. based on what they have said, they have talked about $100 billion per year of spending reductions. that $100 billion is extrapolate out at $100 billion a year would be a trillion dollars of the next decade. the question is what does that trillion dollars go toward? it is not going towards reducing the deficit. it is going to pay for two things the republicans also want to do. one of them is to continue the tax cuts for high-income households which would cost $800

billion, plus the estate tax over the next decade. the second thing is to repeal health reform which is a repeal the congressional budget office says would cost more than $200 billion of the next decade. to date, based on what the president has put out, which is a detailed beginning to end plan which cuts the deficit by a trillion dollars of the next decade while making very important investments that i will talk about in a moment, you have a contrast between that investment and deficit reduction and what to date has been the republican plan, which is very deep spending cuts but they're not actually reducing the deficit. all they're doing is paying for tax cuts for high-income households and paying for the repeal of health reform. i stress that is the republican plan to date. they could come out with additional ideas and additional proposals, but so far, those

ideas are not ones that would actually reduce the deficit. at the same time the president is doing this, he is making very important investment in the future and wanted to very briefly highlight a few of them. we can talk about more of them in our conversation. one area is education. in some places, that means keeping what we have, which is the maximum pell grant, and in other areas, it is setting new goals like 100,000 new teachers. the secondary is innovation where we more than double energy research and get on a path to doubling nsf. also, growth the zones as a successor to empowerment zones

but improved in a number of ways. finally, infrastructure where we have a six-year reauthorization of surface transportation. that incorporates things like high-speed rail, and infrastructure bank, and a wireless initiative with the goal of high-speed internet for 98% of the country. that is a wireless a initiative by better allocating the spectrum would reduce the deficit while making those investments. this is a budget that does not claim to solve all of our long- term problems. if all of this was enacted, we would roughly stabilize the debt to gdp ratio over the next decade. we would bring down the deficit by a trillion dollars, but we would continue to have a rising deficit at as a share of gdp and a debt increasing as a share of

the economy. that is why we describe this as a down payment and want to work together with congress on the areas that are really driving that long run situation which include things like health care, it includes something like the president put forward of cutting tax expenditures for high-income households in order to reform the tax code and reduce the deficit. that is where things are right now. we obviously just put the budget out. that's the beginning of a conversation. we're also having conversations about last year's budget, which was for fiscal year 2011. we are really trying to keep our focus on growth, on jobs, on innovation. an important part of growth is it will bring down the deficit, but over the medium term, that's an important thing we can do for economic growth. we view those two as

complementary objectives. to -- at i'm happy >> we can see the economic logic embedded in the president's program of pairing gradual deficit reduction with investments in elements of growth that cross industries and sectors, industries and training, innovation, and the structure so that the public investments can raise the rate of return as more capital is being freed up by the gradual deficit reduction and then you get a big boost in business investment and hopefully employment. we can recognize it because it is much like the clinton program. what are the economic implications of the republican'' approach?

date -- >> they do not have a complete approach right now, but the concern you have is you do not want a plan that is starting future investments, that is reducing investment in education, reducing investment in innovation, not moving forward on innovation, and the worst of all worlds, is it you are doing that as a way to pay for tax cuts for high-income households and repeal health- care rather than doing all that to reduce the deficit, we do not have any debate with the republicans about the need to cut spending and live within our means, but we want to make sure we are doing it in a responsible way that is investing in the future and bringing down the deficit. i think that's the crux of where things like. >> -- of where things like. >> one other question before we

get questions from the audience today. at last week's event, we had stand colander -- stan colland er and a former colleague of yours from brookings. one area in which there is more uncertainty across the panel then some was the economic implications of problems with the debt ceiling. how do you see that? >> we fully expect the debt ceiling to be raised. it is something congressional leaders from both chambers, from both parties have said that the president is obviously -- he

takes them at their word and thinks it will be raised. this is not an issue we expect we will have to face. secretary tim geithner road letter where he outlined some of the questions if it were not raised. it is good that people seem to appreciate that. it would have a huge, long lasting ramifications for the united states economy, for our ability funding the obligation to our seniors, for contracts the government rights to people for goods and services as well as things that we think for the most part are unthinkable. everyone has rejected it as a thought. >> this is a time of historic

transformation in the middle east. we are now seeing unrest spread to significant oil producers. in the case of libya, certainly. we do not know what the next step is. the beginning was limited to areas that are relatively minor in oil production. is there concern -- how great is your concern about the impact of these events on oil prices or the impact of oil prices on the american recovery? >> that is something we are obviously monitoring very closely. the national security visit -- national security situation in

the impact would have on oil markets and our economy. the american economy is a less oil-intensive economy than it used to be. oil prices still affect consumers at the pump, but not to the extent that they did in the past. the same thing when you look at commodity prices in the area of food. american consumers are not completely insulated and to bear some of the brunt of those commodity changes, but a lot of the cost of food in a country like the united states is the wholesale distribution, the resale distribution, the manufacturing and packaging and things that are not effected by global prices. it is something we are monitoring. it is something that should not be the type of event that there is the american economy off-

track and a significant way. but certainly commodity price increases increase the challenges consumers are facing as the economy is trying to get off the ground and grow. >> the risk of that is another reason to be very wary of republican attempts to slash spending in the current year. you do not have to comment on that. why don't we take some questions from all of you? >> is there anything else you like me to ask? >> there has been a lot of

clamor for the president to show leadership on long-term debt and deficits. he has not proposed anything yet. i'm just curious about the calculations behind that. what are the political upside and downside given that you had been dealing with their republican congress that says no to almost everything? is that part of it and what else can you tell us about the approach and timing and what's going on behind the scenes? >> i reject the premise of that question is that for the last two years, the president has shown leadership. something like health reform is the most significant deficit reduction we have undertaken in this country in over a decade. although we continue to face a long-term challenge, that long- term challenges a lot smaller than it was last year. you can look at the

congressional budget office. they updated their long run budget outlook. it incorporates the health reform and you will see the long-term deficit fell by about 2% of gdp as a result of that reform. we usually talk about a trillion dollars over the second decade. i reject that promise historically and i reject a going forward in that the president put out a budget with a lot of tough choices. we have heard criticism from across the political spectrum about some of the choices that were in the president's budget. that is a budget that satisfies the goal that we had for the last two years which was to figure out how to get that deficit down to 3% of gdp in the medium-term to stabilize the debt to gdp ratio over the medium term. a year ago, our budget did not do that and we called for a fiscal commission to bridge the

gap between our deficits then. this year, through the additional things on the discretionary side, the defense side, new things like a bunch of other areas -- we achieved that medium bowl. the president has put out a major down payment. if we were to adopt it from beginning to end, it would be a significant contribution to our fiscal policy over the next decade. it does not solve all our problems, so we still want to leave some room for congress to work with us as well. >> what is your opinion on the current state of the economy? >> we have seen six consecutive

quarters of gdp growth. we have seen a year of job growth. normally, recoveries are pretty bumpy, it gets better, it gets worse. we have been lucky enough to see a pattern that pretty much every quarter has been stronger than the last in terms of job growth and most every quarter stronger than the last in terms of gdp growth. that is looking backward. looking forward, it is important to recognize things like the tax agreement we reached in december. most forecasters were forecasting growth of about 2.5% before we reached that agreement. since then, they raised their forecasts to the neighborhood of 3.5% and 4%. people are expecting about a million extra jobs as a result of the tax agreement. you see that because consumers are spending and business is

increasing their investment due to things like the expensing provision. companies like the one you work for and others cited that as a reason they're able to invest more in the economy. >> could you tell us what role you think the global economy will play in the american recovery? >> the global economy is unfortunately, the main role is playing is more of a role of a downside risk and an upside opportunity for us. -- than an upside opportunity for us. based on what you expect now, our gross would be robust and our exports continue to grow, the world is continuing to buy our goods and services. we are on track in terms of the national export initiative in terms of doubling exports by 2015. the hope is it will continue to

play a role in helping get ourselves out of this. consumption and exports are the places to look. investment is not going to be the biggest driver to get out of this cycle and having investment, there is certainly more ways that could turn negative from our expectations. >> please turn off your phones. >> a tax policy question for you. the president mentioned in the state of the union and the treasury secretary testified until recently regarding the possibility of corporate tax reform. that was not part of the budget, unless i missed it. particularly given the success of the president had on this issue where he reached across the aisle in december as you noted, what the status of this

proposal is -- is this something the president is going to advocate aggressively and how would the issue relates strategically to discussions relating to long term deficit and debt reduction issues? >> we put forward a bunch of specific ideas when it came to -- we put forward a bunch of specific ideas. when it came to corporate taxes, there were similar to ideas in the last budget. those are things we continue to think represent a strong economic policy. at the same time, there may be an opportunity something much bigger and much more fundamental than what we put down there and if we were able to do that, we would be willing to do it in a way that is revenue-neutral and would not be ax -- would not be asking for corporate tax reform to reduce the deficit.

we would just stipulate in an area of tough budget, you cannot increase the deficit and at the same time, making a clear you would have to contribute to growth and increase investment in the united states. that is not an explicit, we have figured it out, here is the corporate tax reform plan. it is a dialogue. it's one we have been having with leaders in the business community, that we have had with experts, that we have had with both democrats and republicans in the house and senate. we are still very early on in those discussions. it's something the president is very enthusiastic about. we have heard from an awful lot of ceos who say the rest of the world has cut their tax rates and the united states is left with the second and soon-to-be highest tax rate in the world. that interferes with our

competitiveness and the ability of our companies to create jobs here in america. no one can defend our current international tax system. you might debate the best way in which to change it, but from scratch, no one would construct what we have today in that area. at the same time, our high rate is not a measure of our companies being overtaxed. we are about average and some of our tax rates are quite low. that high rate is a measure of how efficiently our companies are taxed. that means there is an opportunity to eliminate some inefficiency, simplify the tax system, broaden the base and bring the rate down. that is something we are very enthusiastic about. we would like it to emerge from a set of discussions rather than start the conversation by putting our ideas forward.

>> thank you. i'm with the software agency and industry association. some of the criticism that comes from the republicans -- i don't watch fox news regularly, but you hear that repeated attacks on the administration. there are two that i would like to hear your response to. the first one is you are in the process of reducing the budget from a very high level of 2011 and while some spending may have been necessary to stabilize the economy, there is little excuse for the inflated budget of departments like justice, the epa, commerce, agriculture, and we're cutting those budgets from inflated levels, inflated since obama took office. the second piece we hear frequently from the other side of the aisle, especially among folks in the tea party who

argument -- to argue the fundamental tax structure is unfair because 46% of americans paid no income tax and have no stake in america. how do you answer those criticisms from folks on the other side of the aisle? >> the first question, i would just point to our budget. we take spending to the lowest share of the economy since eisenhower was president. that was a long time ago. that's the way i think most economists -- they make comparisons to spending over periods of time, so we have a very tough budget that brings down spending a lot. i'm sure we needed to increase spending both to deal with the recession and that we have things in the discretionary budget like hell grants, or you have a lot more students to go

to college, in part because of the economy, so that goes up. a number of things in the budget are discretionary even though they are affected by the economy. a lot of that is health care. having that grow with inflation or be flat in nominal terms is not going to help you continue to provide the same level of services you were in 2008. some of that is a lot of different items there to do what you were doing before, you need to increase as a result. that is why we are bringing that down to the lowest since eisenhower. you canyou look at the programsg cut. there are 198 examples, totaling $33 billion. in answer to your second question, one question i would

ask the tea party is, if they would like to increase taxes 47% of americans, and that would seem to solve the problems as they have identified and defined it as according to your question. if that is so, that would be interesting. whyever i read op-dseds, didn't they come out and say they want higher taxes on 47% of americans? people cost circumstances vary a lot. they are students or people who have recently retired. looked at over the course of a life cycle, the number is not anywhere near that. there was a clever paper on

refundable tax credits, a carry forward and carr back, and refundable credits, extending credits to individuals who would be paying taxes in the future and would be in a lower income cycle. >> huffington post. my ring tones is off, so you did not have to worry. he touted the economics text keep it -- text deal that was reached in a lame duck section, and is -- if the economic conditions have improved demonstrably in two years, is the door open for the white

house to further extend the tax cuts because of the economic impact you said they had this go around? >> the president has been completely clear that the extension -- the reason for the economic benefits i talked about was everything the president secured in the agreement. the payroll tax cut, the 100% expenses, the refundable tax credit, unemployment insurance. those are the reasons that forecast increased. part of the reason we know that is most of the forecast was assuming the higher income extended. that is what most forecasters thought. the news to them was that the president fought for and secured all these economic measures. he has been clear he did not want them and then, he did not think even the circumstances we had two months ago that a high

income tax cuts were appropriate or remotely cost-effective. the way to deal with those problems, that answer will not change two years from now. there is no economic circumstance and a high-income tax cut make sense. >> there was a story today about social security and not enter bidding at all to the deficit problems. is the white house's position that the social security reform is off the table as people conceive it for the next couple years? >> if you look at what the president said in the state of the union, said in a press eek, the social w security challenge is one you are not concerned about because you are worried about a long- range fiscal future. the reason you care about it is you want to continue social

security. it is a critical part of our social insurance, bedrock of retirement security for senior citizens. one of the leading anti-poverty programs for children, critical support for people with disabilities, and other survivors. for those reasons and the fact it is -- its solvency is another 26 years, through 2037, the real motivation is strengthening the program like that. the president talked about what he would do and not do, not slashing benefits, not hurting the basic benefits of current retirees, not privatizing the system, and improving those perspectives. . we do not see this as the part of the solution to the long run

physical challenge, but it remains important for the state of social security itself. >> you mentioned the savings, but that is the adjusted baseline. the regular cbo baseline has been looked at as not counting during the time when the tax cuts -- before the tax cuts expire. what i am trying to get at is, if everyone is not sure by what measure to measure fiscal policy by, does that not mean that at some point you need to go back to the cbo baseline to measure your policy against the gop's policy?

is there confusion in the air, wanting to serve -- wanting to you use different baselines? >> this is a topic i could talk about four hours. i will try my hardest not to. some of the differences, the plan the president has put forward and the part of a plan that the republicans have put forward to date, the trillion dollar difference between those, obviously unrelated to any baseline we choose. that is the basic contrast. that holds true regardless. number two, could make an argument that the baseline that has been used by everyone from the committee for a responsible federal budget to goldman sac hs assumed all tax cuts were continuing. we would have claimed an extra trillion dollars in deficit

reduction for not allowing the high end income tax to continue. we decided, given the statutory paygo and a shift in the p framework, we are not taking credit for that extra trillion, that under other circumstances could have been reasonable to take credit for. the problem with the cbo baseline, nobody thinks is realistic to think that all the tax cuts, everyone of those things is going away, so we try to make a set of adjustments, largely grounded in statute congress passed, additional adjustments. most significant we made were based in a law that congress passed and the president signed. none of that changes the basic story, which is that we stabilized the gdp ratio, which

is not where we are today. >> we heard it said by the president's opponents over -- count of times that the plan was before the stimulus and a plum it would be capped at 8%, and the answer was the economy was much worse than we thought. we are going to hear it countless times more, included in what ever debate the president has in the fall of 2012. is that his best answer, that the economy was worse than he thought? two, competing claims of why these trillions of dollars are sitting on the sidelines. you hear people say uncertainty. you hear economists say lack of demand. do you see any support for one position or the other, other than the rhetorical flash?

>> in answer to your first in a year and a half we can figure out exactly what the best line to use in the debate. the truth is you look at every forecast that every forecaster made. and compare it to that paper you referenced. the baseline absent the stimulus rate was the same as what other forecasts have. this was -- even the most pessimistic forecasters -- they had an unemployment rate a little bit above that line, but nowhere near what we sell. that is the truth. the baseline forecast that was done there was grounded in what ever went was projected at the time. the people who have gone back

and looked at the effects of the recovery act and other fiscal measures say it made a huge difference in terms of what the unemployment rate was. when you take it with the financial stabilization, they said you would have a 15% unemployment rate. the other thing people will see now and more a year from now is that the economy is growing, creating jobs, over 1 million last year. that pace will accelerate this year. a certain amount of the proof will be in the pudding, and some paper released in january for years ago, but what has actually happened, if you are moving in the right direction or the wrong direction. in terms of your second question, it is interesting. i had seen the uncertainty of

arguments made much less frequently in the last few months. maybe that is for a whole bunch of reasons. that is not the dominant -- i do not feel that as one of the dominant arguments anymore. i am more partial to demand as an explanation. the reason for that being most of that capital is in sectors where it is hard to imagine regulation or another set of issues having a big impact, as much as they say they would, and the fact that a year ago it was perfectly rational for somebody not to invest because they were concerned about the future of the economy. it becomes less and less rational overtime. you actually saw for the first time that total amount of cash sitting on the sidelines actually fell. we are trying to give it an

incentive to fall to business investment. it is a good question in terms of the evidence on those hypotheses. >> that me interject one point that is a little more partisan. if you want to see the impact of the stimulus and of this particular kind of stimulus, compare the jobs record for the first 18 months of this administration with the first 18 months of the budget ministration. they both came in with recessions, although the bush recession was the briefest and mildest in the postwar era, and the one the president had to deal with was the longest and deepest in that era. if you look a whole 18-month period, on that we have created

750,000 jobs that after we lost a million and then created 1.7 million. in the first 18 months of the bush administration, they lost 1.7 million jobs. jobs have been destroyed for over two years, despite the very large but entirely tax-driven stimulus of the bush administration. by any measure, the jobs record and a record of responding to a downturn of the obama administration' is league superior to the approach by the bush administration. if we could have another question. >> all the commissions that have looked at the deficit, medium, long-term, have suggested more substantial will have to happen,

like raising income taxes for the sacred 97% of the population. the president has so far held that harmless -- >> you can see the remainder of this event online. madison, wisconsin, the governor of wisconsin, governor scott walker, will address the public. to madison, wisconsin. >> good evening. wisconsin is showing the rest of the country have had a debate about finances. that is a midwestern trade and

something we should be proud of. i pray that this civility will continue as people pour into our state. let me be clear. i have great respect for those who have chosen a career in government. in 1985, when i was a high- school junior, i was inspired to pursue public service after i attended the american legion's boys state program. administrators to put on that event the honor in holding that the event. we appreciate it. we all respect the work that you do. i understand how concerned many government workers are about their futures. i have listened to their comments and read their emails. i listened to the educators from the wall: -- from milwaukee.

that is why last week we agree to make changes to the bill to address many issues. i listened to the others like a correctional officer who emailed me, arguing that bargaining rights for public employees are the only way to ensure workers get a fair say in their working conditions. i understand and respect those concerns. it is important to remember that many of the rights we talk about to not come from collective bargaining. they come from the civil service system. that law was passed in 1905. it will continue long after our plan is approved. despite a lot of the rhetoric, the bill i put forward is not aimed at state workers, and it is not a battle with unions. if it was, we would have eliminated collective bargaining entirely. we would have gone after private

sector unions. they are partners in economic development. we need them to put the people to work and the private sector over the next four years. the legislation put forward this about one thing -- it is about balancing our budget now and in the future. wisconsin faces a $137 million deficit for the remainder of this fiscal year, and a $3.6 billion deficit for the upcoming budget. our bill is about protecting the hard-working taxpayer. it is about wisconsin families try to make ends meet. people like the woman from wausau, who said she was a single parent of two children. she had been intimately involved in her school district, but can no longer afford the taxes she pays. i am in favor of everybody paying for benefits as i have to. it is also about the small business owner who told me about

the challenges he faces making carroll. -- making payroll. the substitute teacher in madison who wrote to me last week about having to sit at home unable to work because her union had closed the school down in protest. she sent me an e-mail that said i was given the choice in joining the union. i am forced to pay dues. i am missing out on paper today. i feel like i have no voice. i assure you that she does have a voice. so does the factory worker in janesvilles, laid off two years ago. he asks why everyone has to sacrifice except those in government. last week i traveled to manufacturing plants, talking to workers. many of them are playing up to

50% of their health-care premiums. most had retirement plans with limited or no match from their company. my brother is in the same situation. he works as a banquet manager in a hotel. a sister-in-law works askin department store. david mentioned to me that he pays nearly $800 a month for health insurance and a little he can set aside for his 401-k. heat like other workers would like the deal we are pushing in this budget repair bill. we are asking for something modest. our measure asks for a 5.8% contribution to the pension and a 12.6 scion% sean -- 12.6% contribution from the pension. this is one part of our plan

that it -- to balance the budget. some question what we have to reform collective bargaining. the answer is simple. the system is broken. it costs taxpayers serious money, particularly at the local level. as a former official, i know that firsthand. i tried to use modest changes in health insurance contributions as a means of balancing our budget without massive layoffs. on nearly every occasion, the local unions told me to go ahead and lay off workers. that is not acceptable. another example, in wisconsin, many local school districts are required to buy their health insurance to the -- through the wh trust. when our bill passes, these distance can change to the state plan and save $68 million a year.

this can put more money into the classroom to help out -- to help our kids. some have suggested wisconsin raised taxes. governor doyle and the legislature did that two years ago. they passed a budget repair bill just one day that included a billion dollar tax increase. instead of raising taxes, we need to control government spending to balance our budget. two years ago many of the same senate democrats who were hiding out and other states approved a budget that not only included higher taxes, but included more than $2 billion in one time federal stimulus a. that was supposed be a onetime cost for roads and bridges. they used it to balance last year cost budget. now the state faces a deficit for the remainder of this fiscal

year and a whole for the budget starting july 1. what we need now is a commitment to the future. as more protesters come in from nevada, chicago, and elsewhere, i will not allow their voices that overwhelmed the voices of the millions of taxpayers from all across this state who know we are doing the right thing. this is a decision that wisconsin will make. fundamentally, that is what we are all elected to do, make tough decisions. whether we like the outcome, our democratic institutions call for a separate debate. that is why i am asking the missing senators to come back to work. do the job you were elected to do. he did not have to like the outcome or the vote, but as part of the world's gladys the baucus, you should be here in madison, right here in this capital. the missing senate democrats must know that their failure to come to work will lead to dire consequences very soon. failure to act on this budget

repair bill means at least 5000 state employees will be laid off before the end of june. if there is no agreement by july 000 employees would be laid off. there is a way to avoid these layoffs. the 14 state senators stay outside of wisconsin as we speak can come home and do their job. we are broke in this state because time and time again politicians of both political parties ran away from tough decisions and punted it down the road for another day. we can no longer do that, because what we are talking about today is our future. the future of my children, of your children, of the children of the single mother from walsusau. i want my sons to grow up in a state at least as great as the wisconsin i grew up in.

our interest -- our ancestors approved wisconsin's constitution envisioned a new state with limitless potential. our founders were pretty smart. they understood that it is true of frugality and moderation in government that we will see freedom and prosperity for our people. now is our time to seize that potential. we will do so at this turning point in our state house history by restoring fiscal responsibility that fosters prosperity for today and for future generations. thank you for joining me tonight. may god richly bless you and your family, and may god continue to bless the great state of wisconsin. >> budget issues very much on the mind of other states, including indiana and ohio, and the house and senate still not done. after the house passed hr1 on

saturday, harry reid announced today he will it is a bill temporarily extending federal funding to give time for the talks with the republican house. house leaders responded by saying they intended to reveal a resolution later this week that would continue funding past march 4. that would include cuts from the current spending level. early next week look for action on that in the united states house. the house is back next week, the senate, as well. the house on c-span. the senate on c-span2. >> "abraham lincoln" is a unique perspective on mr. lincoln from 56 scholars. from his early years in springfield to his presidency, and his relevance today.

publishers are offering to c- span viewers the hardcover edition for the special price of $5, plus shipping and handling. the two c-span.org. use the promo code lincoln. >> united nation security council condemned more about these crack down. they expressed grave concerns and called for steps to address the exhibit demands of the libyan people. he refuses to step down and says he will use force if need be. this is coverage of his remarks , and this is just over an hour. >> i salute you.

people of challenge, youth of challenge, generation of anger and challenge. i salute you and before the world, that you have gone out -- you get the truth. which being that the agents and cowardice, trying to distort the cover it.

to give a wrong picture of the world. some arab medias arbitrating you. -- are betraying you can picture you as a bad people. look at libya. they want people of turbans and long beards. libya wants the colonialism, but in the green square, -- libya is leading teh continents

of africa, asia, and south america. they want no identification -- identity. lebanon -- or they say the libya revolution, all african nations considered as a a mecca, rulers of the world, even the superpowers -- they want to converge on bank zazi, on tripoli, to make a show

of you in some arabic media. want to insult tyou. we want to retrieve in the square everywhere. moammar ghadafi has no rule, he is not the leader of the revolution. he has nothing to lose. revolution means always sacrificed and the end of life. this is my country, the country of my great-grandfather's. we planted and we watered it with our grandfathers' blood.

se agents? hey have -- they do not have originality. all tribes converged -- all shopping the same slogans, everyone challenging. we challenge america with its mighty power, we challenge the superpowers in the world, and

here they put their heads down. libya -- [unintelligible] it is a victory for the libyan people. this is the victory that i want to give a bad picture about. italy, the emperor on the time -- [unintelligible]

i am a revolutionary -- the voices that brought victory, generation after generation, and we will leave africa and south america. we cannot hinder the process of this resolution. from these greedy rats and cats. i am staying here. my grandfather, who became a martyr in 1911, i will not leave the country, and i will die as a martyr.

there remains -- the remains of my father is a proof -- my in the cemetery of -- [unintelligible] that cannot enjoy the shadow -- as we planted these trees with our blood. i am talking to you from the house which was bombarded 117 days by america and britain.

that left all -- they left all resistance, freedom, a victory, revolution. this is an admission that from the biggest power, you can lead demonstrations against him. bombs were falling on my house.

where were you, those with big beards? where were you? you were in america. you were applauding americans. 170 planes. left all palaces and kings and came to libya. this is a victory that will not be relinquished. fighting back -- we did not give in.

we were resilient here. now too few people who were given tablets -- raiding police stations like rats, they raided a barracks, -- security, and soe

barracks and stations, they also bombed -- destroyed criminal records. but they have no -- they are young people. there emanating -- what is happening in tunisia. what is happening in some cities, like a raid on a court building, there is a group

giving money to these young people. pushing them towards this war. the people who were killed lived with the police -- the people outside the country, and joined the safety of their relatives and families and children. giving them people so they can be killed and -- each other. [unintelligible] under my command in the revolution [unintelligible]

20,000 people -- was occupied by the american forces, under complete control, when i asked him to attack to overtake the radio and benghazi.

nobody dared to change the name. where were you and your grandparents, you mercenaries? the five american bases, who did you send? we were against america and britain on libyan soil. if the forces cannot leave, the fight will carry on and continue. we paid a price for libya. it as a victory. .t cannot be reckoned with her we left the regime to the libyan

people. we do not have any authority, we do not issue any -- we left it to the libyan people. it is the libyan people who are -- all of them. in the hospitals, in the schools, in the apartments, in agriculture, and everywhere. the powerful -- when -- raided us, we fought the french in the south and we fought sadat as well.

all agents of teh colonial masters have fought them. we left everything to you. leave the revenue for the petrol, for the oil, for the government. for the people's committees. i call on the libyan people to form a new principality as was mentioned by -- that he was --

they asked, why did you come to fighting for the revolution. he was the champion. he was shot by a person. is this your gratitude? who are you?

we talked about the people's committees. i know it will lead to this. they are capable of the own people's committee.

did not want to be joined. they established their own committee. there were three as well. i am sure tomorrow is called for new contingencies. it will be within reach.

this sets our history. these people -- it goes here. young people are given the other vehicle.

apelles should collect the children -- police should collect the children. children, men, women, it should search for a victory. when oil goes back to the ownership of the people, 90% of the lines to the people. -- it belongs to the people. keep them out o f the streets. we did not keep this so far. if we have to use of force, we

will use it. if i was the president, i would -- but i do not have that. you were bitten by the american aggression. take your children from the street.

take your children. your children are dying. for what purpose? for nothing. protect libya. your children are dying. what is the scale of this? it means nothing. it is one in a million from the libyan people.

they are imitating the people in egypt. tomorrow, the help lies with the people. follow them. get out of your home. chase is a. -- chase bid. they can read to the oilfields and blow it. -- reached the oil filled and blow it.

we are still building its. we are using your children. how they are using it.

the where -- beware. it do you want americans to control your like afghanistan? -- do you want america ought to control you like afghanistan? go out into the streets. take it away from them. handed them security.

they are dropping bombs on it. all three offices are trying to flee these people. they will be prosecuted. that is the punishment. they do not want me. they want libya. this is the criminal act.

anybody who lifts and arm shall be punished with a death sentence. those who spy with others shall be punished with a death sentence. anybody who undermines the sovereignty of the state shall be punished with deat.

they do not bring that in. they shall be punished with death that commit crime against the army. shall be handed a death sentence in a foreign country that undermines the defense of the country. them. they will be begging for mercy.

they will not be forgiving. anyone who undermines the constitution by force or otherwise to chase it, the punishment is death. anyone who uses explosives or bombs shall be punished by death. please, keep quiet so we can hear.

started givin g the orders to use bullets. any use of force against the authority of the state shall be sentenced to death. anyone committing murder shall have the death sentence. all this is punishable by death. --one causing civil war

this act is punishable by death. you wn't have to [unintelligible] if you do not apprehend him. if you undermine the unity of , i will see it.

they live like that. the worst is not by force. members of parliament do not have any answers.

they approach with tanks. they were accosted. the unit of china is more important than those people in the square. the future of the russian federation was more important than those in the building. they sent them the tear gas and armored vehicles.

those took over the [unintelligible] we are looking in fallujah nobody can be critical of what they did. that was destroyed.

so many matters. wedding ceremonies, illegal gatherings. 3 million died so we can eliminate terrorism. from air and sea and land. tanks entered the city, killing as they wanted. do you know what is happening in

somalia? they are doing what they wanted. i wrote fallujah . same gangs, same group. >> now secretary of state hillary clinton response to the latest violence in libya directed at anti-government protesters. >> good afternoon. before we began, i would like to say a few words about the middle east. the united states continues to

watch the situation in libya with alarm. our thoughts and prayers are with those whose lives have been lost and their loved ones. we join the international community in strongly condemning the violence. we have 3 sealed records of many injured. this is completely unacceptable. it is the irresponsibility of the government of libya to respect the universal right of their own people, including the right to free expression and assembly. the united states is also gravely concerned by reports of violence and yemen and elsewhere. we urge restraint and ask the government to respect the rights of their people. in bahrain, we welcome the decision to release a number of prisoners. we look forward to implementation. we also welcome to initiating a

meaningful dialogue with people spectrum of the society. we hope friends across the region and across the world will support this initiative as a constructive path to pursue -- preserved the aspirations of all its people. these steps will need to be followed by concrete action entry form. we urge all parties to work quickly so that a national dialogue can produce meaningful measures that respond to the legitimate aspirations of all the people of bahrain. we call on the government to exercise restraint. there is no place for violence a peaceful protesters. the process for a new egypt has only just begun. we welcome egypt's leaders

signaling their commitments and an orderly transition to a government. we look to them to face the concrete steps needed to bring about political change. we will continue to be a supportive partner to the people of both countries as they seek a better future. across the middle east, people are calling on their government to be more accountable and responsive. the united states believes it is in the interest of government to engage peacefully in addressing the demand. without a genuine progress, the gap between people and their governments can only grow and instability can only deepen. >> thank you. there is bloodshed in libya.

he spoke recently. he said he will never surrender. the frustration and the filling of a bit since right now to really get into help people -- other than words, what is the ninth is states doing to try to help this? >> first, we are watching developments in libya with great concern. we have joined with the international community in strongly condemning the violence in libya. we believe the government of libya bears responsibility for what is occurring and must take action to end the violence.

this has to be the highest priorities. we are in touch with many libyan officials and other governments in the region to try to influence what is going on inside libya. the consulate is meeting to assess the situation and determine that the international community should take. as they have a greater understanding of what is happening, we know that communication has been effectively shut down. we are trying to gather as much information as possible. we will take appropriate steps in line with our policies and laws. we will have to work in concert

with the international community. i think the message today is very clear and unambiguous. there is no ambivalence. there is no doubt that the violence must stop and that the government of libya has responsibility to protect the universal right. we are deeply saddened and very upset by the murder of four american citizens -- whose quest was seized off the coast. of this deplorable act

underscores the need for the international community to act more decisively together. we have to have a more effective approach to maintaining security in the ocean alain sutter so essential to commerce and travel. our deepest sympathies go to the victims' families at this time. we will honor their memory by strengthening international responses and partnership to bring these criminals to justice and to more effectively help the policy. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tonight we will hear from the former cochairs of the debt commission.

vice president joe biden talks about bipartisanship in congress. later, a discussion on the u.s. constitution. >> it is critically important that the house avoid a government shutdown. >> we all have irresponsibility to make sure there is no government shutdown. >> see what was said when the federal government is shutdown in 1995. with every program since 1987. >> the congressional budget office projects a deficit of 1.5 trillion dollars. next, a discussion with the head of the national debt commission. the release the final recommendation in december.

the national center for policy analysis hosted this one hour event in dallas. >> good afternoon. one of the board members is here today. we want to note that her mother , wife of the former chairman, is also here. thank you for coming. we respect that. [applause] also seated here is the mayor of the great city of dallas. thank you for coming, sir. thank you for coming, sir.