out that far. the other thing i should say is that when we look at fiscal policy, we tend to look at it from the point of view of a unified federal budget. social security and medicare are very important parts, but there are other parts as well. we focus on these reports as the overall fiscal gap, the increase in revenues a reduction in spending that would be needed to put the gap. is a very large i think the specific question about what happens when one raises the payroll maximum, i don't know offhand but there are estimates of that on policy options for social security. that is one of 40 policies we looked at. >> your near-term framework seems appropriate. the longer-term framework

depends on a budget next. to what extent does cbo consider the impact on policy growth? smaller transfers, equal increases in the estate tax rate and infrastructure investment? >> that is a good question. in the modeling we do for the near term under the current circumstances we think the economy's output is constrained by a shortfall of demand. we think that will not be true in the long run. over those time horizons we think constraints on the output will be in the supply of the factors of production. that means particularly the quantity of labor and quality of labor, the amount of savings and capital available and technological factors that

bring the labor and capital together. the modeling that we do 5, 20 years from now we focus on those factors. we tried very hard to model the effects of changes in fiscal policy on the labor supply in the supply of savings to the capital investment. we are better at that for some aspects than others. we mall the effects of changes in tax rates. you can see this in a set of reports we do. in testimony i did last fall at the senate budget committee we analyze the effects of different ways of extending the tax provision. look at the near term, the end of the decade and a few decades

beyond that. we report different estimates for the longer-term effects for different assumptions about the responsiveness of people's work ethic to changes and tax rate. that is one of the aspects of the economy that economists are uncertain about. you can see the assumptions about the responsiveness of people. al that matters with the longer- term effects. you can see this and work we do. we do analysis of the budget each year. we have done analysis of the roadmap that congressman paul ryan put forth. all of this analysis appropriate what we are talking about. the part we are not including are issues about quality of work force based on money spent on

education and training. we are not as good as capturing the effects on the technology in the future from the government support of research and development. those are factors we just are not capturing in the numbers because we are not confident we have a sound way of doing it. that is a gap to what we're doing. is a weaknessit that is only hours. it is a weakness that we feel in the work that we do. >> we have two questions on health care. how feasible are proposals to limit health-care spending to gdp growth? what are the most effective ways of curbing medicare and health care costs? [laughter] >> those are easy.

it is certainly feasible to limit the federal government's spending on health care, to limit the rate of growth of that spending to parameters one might choose. one could do that by establishing vouchers to medicare recipients and grants, and increase those vouchers at specified rates. if we were to analyze proposals like that we would see if one had growth rates under current policy we would see a substantial savings. the challenge is to think about what happens to the health-care system and the people seeking health care. we don't know very well what would happen.

in the growth that proposal of congressman ryan put to the fiscal commission last year. we have taken those numbers on board and reported the effects. we have emphasized that if 1 cents people into the health insurance market with less money over time, that is likely to reduce the quantity or quality of care they purchase. it is likely to shift risk to them regarding the changes -- the possibilities of higher or lower costs for health care. if one picks certain numbers and

reduces its risk -- that risk has shifted somewhere else. by shifting the risk to individuals and state and local governments, 1 has made them more attentive to costs of the care they are purchasing. that greater attentiveness, the fact that they have much more of their own money at stake in their decisions about purchasing health care is likely to make them much more attentive purchasers. it makes them confront some of the choices individually that we are currently confronting at the national level, which is what to spend money on. an analysis we did with specific proposals we find what we show based on existing evidence if people are more -- higher price

of health services they will consume less. whether that would have a negative effect on their health is less clear. some evidence suggests it does not. how does this play out for the health care system as a whole? it passes our understanding and passes the analytic professions understanding. it is very difficult to know. on the second part of the question which is what are the best ways -- i think we have a system today in which there is almost nobody who has an incentive and the authority to make health decisions in a cost- sensitive way.

people are reluctant to let their insurance companies choose what health care they get. they are electing to have government officials choose which -- reluctant to have government officials choose their health care. most people have insurance in which only a small share of costs are borne by them through deductibles. one possible way of making them more sensitive to the cost of health services we have a number of examples of is to increase deductibles through government programs, perhaps to encourage those increases through privately provided health insurance. the and to make people more sensitive to the prices of insurance. even still, any significant

amount of insurance people will not be sensitive to the costs of care that they get, -- for people who are getting a large amount of care is consumed by people who are quite sick. they will almost certainly remain insensitive to the incremental costs in that situation. >> doctors are not the most natural people to make cost sensitive decisions either. we end up with a section -- situation where nobody has the

ability to reduce spending. all the methods being discussed in medicare and medicaid amount to finding trying to get somebody a little more latitude for making cost sensitive choices. it is a true challenge. >> i would like to thank you for a very stimulating discussion. i would like to thank all of you for your comments and interest in this issue. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> more from the national association for business economic conference with the discussion on how members can work together on the federal budget despite political differences. here are comments from palmer -- former republican tom davis and

stuart rothenberg. this is 45 minutes. >> i want to once again thank the peterson foundation for their strong support of the educational initiatives. this session is sponsored by adolf laurenti -- he will moderate this session. >> thank you. first of all, nabe past president is not with us. unfortunately she has to be in california after the passing of her father in law. i am adolf laurenti.

i in the deputy chief economist and i have the privilege to continue this discussion of the public finance situation with two terrific speakers. they need no introductions, but for the benefits of this who come from distant lands, let me say tom davis served for seven terms in congress representing virginia's 11th district. home among the others of my alma maters george mason university. we have a basketball plug for next week's tournament. during his tenure in the house he was chairman of the house government to reform and oversight committee. several distinguished the

complements during those years. he is now director for federal government affairs. our second speaker, stuart rothenberg, editor and publisher of the "rothenberg report," he has several years of experience and monitoring the policy- making in our national capital. his opinions have been published from all the major media outlets including the "wall street journal" and "washington post." with no further hesitation, just a housekeeping notes, questions will be taken on the card by our staff. do not hesitate to send them to

us. with no further hesitation, i will lead tom give our interaction remarks. >> thank you. the most important part of my resume is i left converse undefeated and unindicted. i was a chairman for two cycles. i will just start running over the good news on the budget. the first chart talks about how federal growth is grown. if you look at the chart for 2010, 24% of gdp is federal government. if you add state and local 30% is -- if we look at current projections, by 204039% will be the federal government alone. that is the direction we are going.

doug had a chart that was similar but i like this because it shows over the last 40 years spending priorities have shifted. that is with two wars going on. the money has shifted to the entitlement programs, a care and medicaid. social security this year generating surpluses that will be $50 billion out of the budget. another way to look at this federal debt burden -- it has debt the government goes to social security trust fund that is payable as do. if you take a look at that the% of gdp is higher than the figures they give for debt held by the public. this is a cbo numbers.

the current course is unsustainable. if there is one point we all want to make is that major changes are coming. how they occur and when they occur if the unknown. we will talk about some of the political ramifications. u.s. government debt is the dominant issue of our time. the last campaign it was all about the economy but we are seeing a new focus on the debt we calibrated by both parties. u.s. debt will be 100% of gdp by 2020 under the current wave we are going. 200% of gdp by 2013. states -- there was a brief chart -- at the same time we have many states in big trouble right now with debt issues as

well. one of the things federal government has done is they have passed mandates to the states. the health care bill. another $1 billion is sent down by the federal government which added pressures on the states along with their pensions and the other items. that has been manifested in some ways but most states are under tremendous budget pressures not just from the economic growth but just by some very structural pressures. comparative debt burdens -- i have one that illustrates us along with greece. if you look at portugal and ireland we are not much different when you look at that. as you look at it by the numbers

we are in the same boat and projected to get worse. this is a bipartisan problem. i am no longer a member of congress. i don't have to go with talking points. this illustrates what happens to the republican congress and what happens to the federal debt. the best illustration of this is there was a bill in the house that set out this federal debt commission. it lost in the senate because members who had co-sponsored the bill decided they would not vote for it after pressure from tax kirpes. interest groups say we will talk about taking a strong role and putting a lot of discipline on members in terms of some of the options they are able to consider. in december 2010 the numbers for

the president and congress went up. you have a bipartisan cooperation with the extension of the bush tax cuts and tax extenders, unemployment extenders and another $830 billion added to the deficit. that is the easy way to get bipartisan cooperation. in the current political climate for the last dozen years you had a political establishment that has given no good news to american voters. you have 9/11, two wars that have not gone according to plan. you went through katrina and an economic meltdown. the political establishment has given no good news. you have seen a revolt at the grass roots. in 2006 the voters fired a republican congress.

in 2008 they went further and would not -- fired republicans from the white house. another is nationalized election. these are the rarities'. we went through 12 years of basically localized elections. that has not been true the last three cycles. the last time after firing a republican state rehired them. the largest midterm game for a party since 1938. republicans did not take the senate because it was not there for them. the combination of not having the right seats and having dysfunctional candidates -- they made major strides in this areas as well. the disciplining factors are as follows -- the parties are ideologically resorted.

weast to have a solid. for liberals -- we used to have a solid area for liberals. and today parties are very ideological. the most conservative democrat is more liberal and liberal republicans. this is the first time in a generation it will be that way. most of the blue dog democrats work wiped out. their local voting records became irrelevant. you now have a very liberal democratic party and a very conservative both public and bass. your most liberal republicans are more conservative than your conservative democrats. the point is that a lot of the issues that were always there in congress are partisan in their nature. this last election was the last

election where you had more money spent by interest groups than by the parties. campaign finance reform -- the campaign finance reform took money away from the parties. it restricted how candidates can raise their money. part of that is because of the case of buckley and free speech cases. this money did not disappear. it went out to the winds. it is there for moveon.org and the tea party. we have seen large chunks of money coming from individuals. it does not even have to be disclosed. the effect on members as soon look at robert bennett and mike csatle in their primaries -- you

are frozen. democrats have a similar problem. it was more pronounced on the republican side. that is a very disciplined factor in terms of their ability to tackle these issues. with the growth of the internet and blogs, you have msnbc and fox. it is like two different planets. they had a major influence on political opinions. for democrats, msnbc talking to your base. i would just that the republican gains this last time were not the result of people turning back to republicans. this was just voters trying to put some balance back in the government. we have divided government. this is the norm.

this can bring gridlock and impeachments, but under bill clinton and also brought us the house party back. right now it is much different than 1994. my voters wanted to protect themselves from bill clinton and they elected me. it was one of these things where they don't really trust either party. they are kind of dancing. you still have a dissatisfied electorate but you have interest groups and outside media influences that were stronger than in 1994. >> thanks. after all that he has covered the entire landscape. i should just take questions. a pleasure to be here. you have already figured out we are doing the politics which

means we are not talking about what should happen, what needs to happen. we deal with what could possibly happen. given what we do and what goes on, the alternatives are extremely narrow. similar between and not much and nothing. if you think that to how difficult it was for the democrats to get health care reform through, it gives you an inkling of how difficult or impossible it is to deal with these fundamental questions of spending and entitlements. the democrats had a 60 seat majority from january 2009 until the middle of january 2010 when the special election in

massachusetts elected scott brown. throughout that time they could not even get health care done even though they had a seven seat majority in the house. he would have thought that would have been in an environment which would make it likely for the parties to do its premiere issue's, but they were only able to do it after they lost the senate race in massachusetts in a frenzy of trying to get something done. we have had an election in the meantime. we now have divided government. we had a party with fundamentally different values, are these, assumptions -- priorities and assumptions. the extension of the bush tax cuts. the american public said congress can actually do

something. then we had the shooting into some -- shooting in at tucson. the president came out as a figure of unity and represented the national sympathy. now suddenly what is happening is we are talking about the budget and spending. we are back to politics. you will see those numbers change again because this country -- although we have had these three traumatic swings it looked like there were lots of democrats and very few republicans. that is not the case at all. we still have a divided country that reacts on the basis of short-term events and makes it look as though we had these wide swings. one of the things i do is a talk to candidates for congress.

i know we are not supposed to do action research in order to have opinions. if you are a political commentator you are supposed to show up on a television show and tell people what to think. i interview candidates for about an hour. what did your folks to for a living? where did you go to school. what is your education? some of them actually win. this time a whole bunch of them won. a lot of the conservatives who were elected were described as a tea party folks. they are often lumped together. they are an interesting group. we started asking one question to these candidates midway through the cycle.

we did not know if he would win. he owns a pizzeria in illinois. an arizona dentist had never run for office before. regardless of the candidates we started saying how are you different if you win? remember the republican class of 1994? they had a revelation that would change washington and it was the same thing. we did not know how much weight to give it because we did not know if these people what run. they all said the same thing. they said we have the same values and beliefs as that class of 1994. there is only one way we are different. we are different in that when

they got to washington they caved to the establishment. they fell in line with the leadership. we are not going to do that. for many in the two-party and many in the anti-tax movement this is -- compromise becomes a dirty word. they will not acknowledge compromise. john boehner did an interview where he was asked about his leadership in his party. he refused to use the word compromise. the interviewer asked a number of times. what are you skirting around compromise? because that has become a dirty word for political outsiders. for those of us who follow

politics -- i would be shocked. for many of us it is the art of politics. that is how you achieve some legislative output. nobody can get exactly what they want, but if you think about that think about how difficult it is to address questions of entitlements if you had a vocal element on both ends of the party that thinks compromise is a sellout. it is difficult. it makes it more difficult for the leadership. tom is exactly right about how the changes come. it makes it more difficult to achieve consensus when if you are bobby schilling, and if you

know that the tea party folks in your district are watching you and they are not going to give you any play or freedom, it puts significantly more pressure on the members. it used to be you could depend on the party. now you have this decentralized control and alex for candidates and members of congress to go on rachel maddow and glenn beck and rush limbaugh, an appeald to their folks and raise money for their people. we don't have the common language and assumptions that we

once had. i want to turn a little bit on the survey data before we open it up. doug mentioned the survey data. the numbers also make it harder for candidates to compromise to find some sort of middle ground, which most people seem to think would be a combination of additional tax revenue and more significant cuts in entitlement spending. it easyers don't make for politicians to do that. there are any number of surveys i can look at. i don't know if this will get me anything. one of my favorites is the wall street journal survey.

i think the numbers don't bounce around a long. they take great care. this was one of my favorites. there is a recent one that was out february 24. thinking about yourself and your family. when you think about our growing federal deficit and increasing national debt, how much does this concern you personally in terms of how it impacts your future? think about the deficit and how much it impacts you. 34 is -- 34% said a great deal. 80% said quite a bit. that would seem to suggest they are worried about this. they have internalized this and they are prepared to act on this.

here we go. two questions later. do you think it will be necessary to cut spending on medicare in order to significantly reduce the federal budget deficit? 80% of these people think it will affect them and their family a great deal. will it be necessary to cut medicare? yes 18% and bo 54% -- no 54%. do you think it will be necessary to cut social security? yes, 22%. no, 49%. they said here are three options. if the deficit cannot be eliminated by cutting waste, because let's go with wasteful

federal spending. if it cannot be done which one of these steps would you favor of more? the three are coming important programs, raising taxes or postponing elimination of the debt. the responses are almost even. 35% say we better cut important programs. 26% say polk -- postponed elimination of the debt. there is not an inherent consensus there for immediate action. i will be happy to the questions and comments or whatever. doug mentioned it surveys show people don't want to cut individual programs but there maybe -- if you ask the question

in a different way, maybe they show a greater willingness of cutting entitlements. fortunately nbc news used those questions. let me read you a number of programs that could be cut significantly to reduce the current deficit. please tell me if you think significantly cutting funding for the program is totally acceptable, mostly in acceptable, mostly unacceptable, totally unacceptable. there were four where 50% of the public said cuts were mostly acceptable. the one with the biggest support at 57% saying mostly

acceptable is subsidies to build nuclear power plants. that is one that will balance the budget tomorrow. number two, 52% said it was acceptable. only 45% said mostly unacceptable. cutting federal assistant to state government. in other words, just past the problem along. that may help the federal deficit. it will not help the problem of government funding programs. how about social security? i am collapsing the acceptable and unacceptable. it is acceptable to cut social security. k-12 education, unacceptable

77%. medicaid for the poor, 67% unacceptable. 52% of people said it was totally unacceptable to cut social security. they did not even say mostly unacceptable. if you are an activist and the poll numbers are distorting. if people know how serious a problem -- the alternative is bankruptcy or cutting social security. then you may get them to say cut social security. it is the wording. over and over again we get the same answers. you are the politician. make yourself a moderate. even worse, make herself a

moderate. you get these kind of numbers and say ads on television from interest groups attacking new -- attacking you. don't even mention the internet. you cannot even look at the internet. you see how difficult this is. when somebody like me says how do we address this and our immediate reaction is i don't know, it seems we are -- we have to reach some tipping point where all of the sudden everybody froze their hands up and says it is greece, we better do something tomorrow. we are still too far from the edge of that clef. i am not sure if these folks are looking down and say we have to do something to avoid that. thank you. [applause]

>> let me go first asking a question. policymaking in washington has really been driven by crisis over the last 10 years. even dodd-frank. clearly there will be some event that changes those attitudes and might prompt action -- we hope it will not be a crisis of greek nature but something that will still happen to rally the strength. what might that be? do you envision something happening that may change the perception in the public opinion? or do we need to wait to become greece before something is done?

>> i will take the first shot. congress generally waits for the crisis and permission to act in a decisive manner. 911 -- take a look at this crisis. that is when you saw a proliferation of legislation. there is very little reward for getting out in front of an issue, like clinton on health care back in the 1990's. i think it will take some kind of crisis. a lot of this u.s. debt is short term. this is not long-term. it would not take much to trigger a crisis for someone to one day decide they will not buy our bonds. i was in the house after the tarp vote. i supported tarp, but it took

two votes to get through. if you look at that as a legacy vote, that was not a winner. that is like an albatross for those who voted for that. >> i agree completely. if you look at the end of any session that is when you have this frenzy of activity. look at the cr, they let it drag until the end. it is the nature of capitol hill at the moment. it is hard to put together coalitions on most controversial bills. maybe in naming a post office is easy if you can find someone not controversial, but when you're talking about spending and winners and losers -- i think that is part of being a free country. it makes it difficult to get the

majority. add to the fact that leadership has less clout with the members and the increased democratization in terms of political power, yes, it will take a crisis. >> the incentives in politics are to win elections. as long as that continues to be the incentive that is predictable. >> how to you rate the members of congress in terms of the complexity of the federal budget? >> i don't know how you would rate some of the veterans. my first year under the capital -- somebody came from a mother was brought up with five kids. how does a guy like me ever get there? i think when you start taking a look at the way it works, there is a lot of education that needs

to be done. your constituencies are fuelling a lot of this. this is difficult to come together because even members to understand it represent certain constituencies. compromise is very difficult. >> particularly freshmen members know more about economics and policy. in terms of economics, most of them don't know the theory. they do not have the depth of knowledge. their idea of economics is they run their business and this is the way we do it in my town. why can we not do it the same way? is that an extensive sophisticated knowledge? no, but at least they have some instinct and opinion.

they have ideas on economics. when they come on foreign policy they are blank slates. they do want to talk about jobs and spending. >> before we pick on freshman, they came here as a result of the problems created by their predecessors. they are focusing on an issue that has not been focused on for a long time. they are reflecting a constituency that recognizes something is very wrong. asi don't want to be seen beating up on them. when i said they did not want to compromise, it is refreshening to have politicians come into washington and say i said this on the campaign trail and i want

to do it. to them, the size of government -- these are huge issues. this is what motivated the size of government. some of this is a philosophy about government, but candidates over and over would say we decided to run because we saw how big government was getting -- the amount of spending, the stimulus and the financial bailout. that frighten us about whether we could afford this. i think they also did look at europe. they made a connection. it is not unreasonable to have made. >> a $1 million question, given the influence of campaign contributions, what changes should be made to our political structure?

>> i voted against mccain-find gold. you are limiting the money parties can raise. political parties have been a centering force and not a polarizing force. it moved money to the extremes. it start the party is at this point. one is the case of buckley versus vallejo. individuals can spend as much money on their own behalf as they want. now it has been extended to corporations. i like the virginia law where everything is disclosed. you have millions of dollars of attack ads and we don't know who is paying for it. you know who it is. at least you could go to the voters and say look who is behind these voters.

now he cannot even do that. the candidates do not control their own campaigns. it has gone off the cliff at this point. going back to full disclosure is the best way to go. >> i have nothing else to add except i feel like the genie is out of the bottle. it is hard to put it back together again. how do we make our conversation more civil? eliminate half of cable television and the internet. it will just not happen. i agree that making the party is stronger, giving candidates more control over their message, and it would be helpful but i don't think it will happen. >> another question on political reform.

would you favor redistricting for congress? [unintelligible] leading to more middle-of-the- road congressman? >> we have an argument in the political science community about what is redistricting and is this aering -- cause or a consequence? the voting rights act means you cannot pass -- you have to pass minority so they can get representation. what has happened is you had districts in the south and urban areas that get taxed one way and make them less competitive. from a partisan point of view -- it is a very difficult situation. iowa has a great planner or you have redistricting commissions.

i don't know i would want to make a recommendation in terms of how you do it best. in virginia when my lines were redrawn, my wife was chairman of the house committee so i like that system. [laughter] >> let me add that drawing district lines is inherently political. there is no right way to draw lines. i was always somewhat skeptical of non-partisan commissions. i am changing my mind and warming to them because of this ridiculous and diazes' in drawing absurdly shaped districts. -- because of this ridiculous ness and drawing absurdly

shaped districts. i would argue it is more important to have open primaries rather than closed primaries to allow independent voters to pick. that might help candidates who are in the center. we do have a problem in terms of where people are living. increasingly, people are living with their own kind of folks, sarah it is not surprising you have very red areas and kerry blue areas. what do you think? >> i like the open primary. i like getting more people involved in the primary. i came out of a system in virginia where i had to fight my way through a republican congress. i think california has some interesting views. they have a jungle primary where

the top two go into the primaries instead of having to caitiff -- cater, and independents to vote in these primaries is a great way to go. what has happened over the last couple decades is moderates have become independent. the largest growing registration group is independents. they have not picked up market share. allowing them to participate in the primary process which means the election would probably be the best thing you could do. >> just to give a quick example -- last example you had evan bayh retire and judd gregg in new hampshire. at this time you have joe lieberman retiring and dick

lugar who is likely to face a very difficult primary. a lot of these guys who tend to be in the middle -- it is what tom talked about. it is proving to be a problem. >> thank you. this has been a fascinating session. unfortunately we are out of time but plays thank me our speakers today. [applause] is a vote to protect our nation's >> the nevada senator announced earlier he will not run for

reelection next year. the republicans said he was worried about the effect of the campaign on his family. he acknowledged in june 2009 he had an extramarital affair with a former member of his campaign staff and they helped her husband attain lobbying work with the company. he is currently under investigation by the senate ethics committee. >> we see a world of broadband and broadcast. we think that is a huge mistake. >> the future of broadcast television with the head of the national association of broadcasters. the communicators on c-span2. >> here is a look at a prime- time schedule. at 8:00 we will hear from republicans who may run for president in 2012 on c-span. then the democratic leader of the house energy committee henry waxman looks at climate change

issues. after that, vivian schiller talks about the current budget deficit. >> with the congressional chronicle you can follow every word from the house and senate floor, read transcripts and find a full video archive. a joint meeting of congress with australian prime minister. see what others have said during their joint meetings and at c- span.org/congress. >> up next, a discussion from this morning's "washington journal." a law that forbids same-sex marriage. host: we are here to talk about the defense of the gay marriage act.

thank you so much for being with us this morning. john boehner announced on friday the house will defend the defense at marriage act. maggie, how significant is that decision? guest: it is huge from our point of view. we will get someone in the courtroom actually trying to win these cases. president obama has formally declined to defend the law because he is losing these lower court cases because he is not bringing the best arguments into court. court. we have been strategizing behind the scenes on how to get someone into court that can intervene. president obama made our job a lot easier. host: the national a court -- organization for marriage is

against gay marriage. it was not a suspect -- a setback when the obama administration said it will not keep defending? guest: if they are unable to repeal the defense of marriage act by going to congress, it is unilaterally declared that these laws are not defensible. we were appalled by that. on the other hand, it was good news for us, because we recognize the obama administration is not seriously trying to win these cases. host: here is one comment.

>> how significant was it the obama administration pulled back on this and said we will not defend it? guest: it is a very major step and important. that we should not put a rubber stamp on the constitutionality of laws, that he cannot keep people from for dissipating in the laws of this nation. it is a tremendous step forward for our community. >> the attorney general said the law was unconstitutional. he actually said in a letter to the house speaker that some of the language in that actually

makes it harder to defend because of his opinion that it almost goes too far, has to much character in the language. can you talk about that? guest: the original congressional justification what was passed in 1996 was an ugly thing, -- was that was an ugly thing, about gays and lesbians, that we need to enforce traditional notions of morality through the law. the idea that the supreme court makes it clear that does not comport with our constitution, suggesting that gays and lesbians are not a pop -- proper place for children to be raised in their relationship. it is really not surprising, i think, given the position on gays and lesbians in this community in this country and the way that they contribute to society and for dissipate. host: human rights campaign is a proponent of gay marriage. matthew gallagher, you were shaking your head. guest: if you go back and read

the report, the rationale of the law, the one that is most important, he is misdescribing, saying what he thinks about gay people, is that marriage is about responsible " creation. we have an interest in bringing mothers and fathers together to raise their children in the same family. the majority of courts as well as the majority of people have recognized that this is in fact the rational basis for our marriage laws. for the obama administration to go back and exercise a line- item veto and refuse to head knowledge that is the purpose of the law as it was laid out is just another example of its, i think, irresponsibility on the issue. its job is to execute and even the laws. the idea that marriage is not defensible as a union between has been a life is i think irresponsible. host: let's look at the statement that attorney general eric holder has put out. : here is a comme

what is the statute in some cases? [inaudible] guest: the portion that defines marriage as a man and woman only for federal purposes -- we have to raise that and talk about the discussion. we have some states that have chosen to grant marriage equality to same-sex couples. now the federal government is saying some of your marriages are valid and some are not. some couples are worthy of the federal benefits, rights, protections. there are over 1000 incidents in

the code attached to marital status. these same-sex couples are not able to receive these benefits. that they didty wh passed.tdoma whet when doma was it is not about how the president feels on marriage. it is about what states are ready doing. host: massachusetts, connecticut, iowa, vermont are haveof the state's debt approved same-sex marriage. caller: i do not think they need to waste their time in trying to defend it. i will make a couple of comments about this.

if someone has a gay kid, they must not be good parents. a heterosexual couple having a good -- a kid, so they are not a good parent? you cannot judge a person because of their sexuality. you have so many good people that can raise kids. the important thing is you have to think about the child itself. if you have two man taking care of a kid, trust me, the kit will not know what is going on in the bedroom. i have a sister that is gay. she can watch my kids any day of the week. she will not tolerate them knowing anything about her relationship. they think of her friend as they are not. a -- unt.

-- aunt. we are trying to play god. we should not waste our time with this. guest: i think it is right that millions of children in this country are being raised by gay and lesbian couples. child where for air -- welfare organizations -- it is almost universally that same-sex couples make good parents. marriage helps protect families. same-sex couples raising children is happening around the country and many are disadvantaged that their parents cannot be married and those marriages are not recognized fully. host: the idea to make a marriage to have a husband and wife, that their own mother and

father loved each other -- it does not imply that a people are not good parents. there are many parents not married in this country and do well by the children. there is scientific evidence -- we do not have a study that looks at how children raised by the two fathers with no mother there at all. we have the summer research on lesbian mothers and they look quite encouraging. -- some research on lesbian mothers and they looked quite encouraging. the main point is that -- it is not going to waste any of the time of congress.

do not worry about that. government will not come to a halt about this. host: i want to take a look at this story in the "washington post" looking at a couple and their daughter. they relaxed at home in maryland. they have lobbied a state senator to vote for the gay marriage bill. they talk about how personal appeals are making a difference when it comes to helping members decide how they vote vote in maryland. personal appeals from members of congregations that are against gay marriage. how do you see this personal touch affecting the debate right now? guest: it affects it

tremendously. at first it was an abstract concept for many americans. now a picture like this of a couple in the paper or goes on television to talk to their neighbor or fellow parishioners, people are viewing same-sex couples raising children and making families together and understand it is not fair to treat them differently. they do not want to deprive them of the benefits, particularly in economical times. host: you are more likely to get government benefits if you are not married, but let's put that aside. some states have resisted the republican ray in the last

election cycle. richardway in the last -- way in the last election cycle. one person was originally for same-sex marriage changed her mind when she heard from her constituents. the government has no business redefining marriage according to some people. host:maggie gallagher is with an association that is against a marriage. brian moulton is with an organization that is for gay marriage. let's hear from our republican line. caller: my name is tom. host: we are glad to have you wanted a.

caller: i heard the lady say that marriage is a contract. in our county, and in the last census, we have less people here. that is what marriage was set up for, a contract. it used to be that the laws were for the benefit of the producent' so they can assets, which are kids. one thing i see that we have done is no fault divorce, which has 50% of the people getting a divorce. so now we are going to go to gay marriage, which i understand 80% of gay couples split. that is going to be a boost for the lawyers. if gay couples want to take care

of each other, they can sign a contract any time. but to change marriage is just not right. guest: i am not sure about the 80% figure. i am sure my partner would find that appalling. marriage is the way our society recognizes relationships. there are good reasons that same-sex couples should not have access to the same institution. but a same-sex couple cannot attend all of the rights and privileges under the law right now. you cannot contact and its social security benefits for your partner. you cannot contact or have continuation coverage for your health coverage for your partner or for immigration

purposes or file your taxes jolly to get economic -- jointly to get in the economic benefits that may come with that. we do not have the same legal protections. that simply just is not true. host: the idea that the way marriage protect children protect not only economic benefits is not true. the history and research is that the way marriage protect children is bringing the child's mother and father in a stable union. children's that -- of parents that we mary do not do better than single mothers. re regionmarry d -- remarry do not do better than single mothers. we all have an interest in being

together whether we marry or not. host: do you see the defense of marriage act as potentially just that, the government getting involved in people's lives? -- love lives? the federal government got involved in the 19th century when the issue was polygamy. this is nothing new. the fact that judges in one state can decide policy on their own, which is what happened in massachusetts. it is not reasonable to say a single state can decide what the national policy is. host: president obama and eric holder said they would not defend the marriage act anymore. house speaker john boehner said

that they will defend it. take a look at what this means. this is from npr. house minority leader nancy pelosi -- a differen a group of house leaders will get together and look at this. what do you think may come out of that? because john boehner says he is moving forward does not guarantee an outcome. guest: the voters will call around the office. the speaker does not go to a group to make a decision about what he is going to do. be a 3-2ructured to be3 a-

vote. we can guess what the outcome will be. guest: all three members of the republican side said they would call for intervention, making it clear that they have at least three votes on that panel. host: speaker john boehner says he will move forward. guest: perhaps the democrats will make angry statement, but i do not think it will be much of a process. guest: once this gets underway, there are at least nine cases that we have been made aware of in the justice department -- a role in this. it could mean that the house

spent a great deal of taxpayer dollars defending this issue. [unintelligible] they could spend money on the appellate level on cases going to district court where they deal with discovery and other litigation expenses involved. they're taking on quite a large scale challenge and a costly one. they have said many times dealing with some economic and job issues that are very important. host: they haguest: they have ls on staff, so i do not think it will cost that much money. that is not a real issue. host: in the pan , st. charles, missouri. thanks for joining us -- independent line, st. charles,

missouri. thanks for joining us. caller: you have hundreds, thousands of cases of married couples that have exported their children. before the civil rights act, blacks and whites were not allowed to get married. when he throws studies out there saying that a people are not as efficient as -- at raising children, they are usually brought by a right wing organization or something like that. i do not think that you can just say that it is not true that they have more rights because they are not allowed to get married. if they have a house and the partner dies, they do not enjoy the same rights as everybody else. i just do not understand why we

are wasting time on this subject. we talk about wanting a small government, but republicans want to jump in and divided the country by going after somebody who they candying is unworthy of the same rights as everybody else. host: what is your response, maggie? guest: our classic definition of marriage is could and should be defended. many disagree with us. in this case, if john boehner wanted to take this up, it is because president obama decided to decline to defend the law. the house and the senate are given the opportunity to intervene in the john boehner has done that in a quick and

efficient in clear way, for which we are grateful. all i can say is that millions of americans do think it matters. it is not about demonizing other people. that is not what we think we are doing so it may sound like back to you. among the great issues of the day, it is important to know what the public considers to be marriage. it makes it hard to understand why governments are in the marriage business at all. if it is not about protecting the children, then it is about giving the government this house keeping seal on people's relationships. i do not understand why the government would be in that business? -- business. guest: i think the government

has an interest in supporting families. we continue to deny the reality that same-sex couples merit the same support as opposite sex couples do. i do not think it is a radical idea. i would hope that people would be flattered that same-sex couples want to be a part of this institution that we think is very important and what to be a part of it as well. the president's action, i find it interesting that it is characterized as extra- constitutional. when the justice to permit follows the process is laid out in law, giving congress the opportunity to defend -- whether i agree or not as to whether they should be defending, this situation has arisen a number of

times over our nation's history. that is even when republicans who controlled just as the promised decided not to defend the law. i do not think it is as quite a major issue. host: a recent story in the ""the wall street journal" looks at this. lets look at some of the history of the events of marriage back. it was enacted in 1996, into law by bill clinton. that comes to us from the national conference of state legislatures. our guests are brian moulton, a

kit for the human rights campaign and maggie gallagher and from the national organization of marriage, which is against it. let's go to albany, new york. democratic caller. caller: i just want to say i do support the gay marriage and hopefully things do turn around and they come to some current of conclusion -- some type of conclusion. hopefully we can put our brains together and work on this issue. host: both of my guests are laughing and smiling. why is that, maggie gallagher? guest: "put our big brains together."

it would be nice if washington would do that. host: next call, go ahead. caller: i do not particularly care if gay couples have the rights and privileges of a man and woman if they're married. what i do have a problem with is a system being called married. it seems that marriage end pride and groom and husband and wife are traditions for sense -- marriage and bride and groom and husband and wife are traditions for centuries. host: brian moulton? guest: every union in this country is a civil union. we call them marriages, but they are a function of the state.

but the way that some states have moved really positive in that it does grand the same rights to gay couples, but it is kind of a trap because it is different labeling. why do we need to be put in a box that is little different? -- labeled differently? the real significant issue for us is a societal and cultural perspective. but the government right now does not recognizable unions and same-sex couples. states are deciding to do this before same-sex couples. -- to do this for same-sex couples.

host: turning to maggie gallagher, chuck wrote in a question from west virginia and asked if you consider civil unions for gay couples to be an acceptable compromise. guest: i do not think it is a compromise. i think it is just a way station at this point. there are forms of civil unions that i could support and some that i would not. and what we found in connecticut and california is that when you process the same-sex union bill, a gain marriage lawyers say that now means you're laws are unconstitutional. i think it has to be carefully drawn. and to offer civilians to opposite sex couples is a really bad idea and will affect our culture. when we talk about changing the law of marriage, we are not talking about changing just what

gay couples doing their private life. we're talking about what our government is going to say in public and is going to say the meaning of the word marriage has now changed. these very words that we used will take on new meaning. and if the goal is social respect, i think you should go to the people and ask for it and not through the courts. host: with go to champaign, illinois. caller: i think this whole question is the semantics. i think you should be able to choose. if you are a couple -- a gay couple and want to go to a church to marry you, you should be able to say you are husband and wife if you want to. but what about those that do not want to use those terms?

the government only got involved in marriage to tax couples. if you have the same rights, you get those tax breaks for children. you protect the children of these couples. that is the most important thing, regardless of what you call it. i have a friend who is gay. hi, chad, in chicago. he is a wonderful person he is 24, so not married yet. he told me that he does one children one day. he wants to adopt a child that nobody else wants in the foster care system. he is a great person and he will make a great father when he is ready. he does not care what the government or anyone else says about it. he wants protection for his job and his partner and they will call themselves has been and has been if they want to.

host: maggie gallagher? guest: i'm sure they will and if they are in massachusetts, the law will agree with them caridad most of the benefits that are directed at children have been separated from marital status. if you are the legal parent of your children you can get tax breaks. i do not want to exaggerate. there are some cases where a gay couple will be better of financially if they are married. but there are lots of cases where you are worse off if you are married. you can get health insurance or you could lose your health insurance. i do not want to leave you with a misimpression, whether you are gay or straight. do not think that the government will hand you a check when you get married. it is not true. host: the we are also talking about legal rights and to a

child. guest: ministates offer the option of -- many states offer the option of adoption of forcing sex couples but not everywhere. marriage would change that in many instances. unfortunately, to boil it down to economic advantages and suggest that this what we're talking about a, it is a large package of obligations and responsibilities under the law. and society looking at same-sex

couples and treating them with the same respect as opposite sex couples, it is a combination of those things. host: here is a tweet. in recent and "washington post" story about that african- americans response to the pres.'s shift on doma. it talks to one woman who had conflicting views of it and she is among the 68% of churchgoing african-americans who oppose same-sex marriage and among the 90% who support president obama. as the black community wrestles with this issue, how do you see the president's role as the commander in chief and his opinion the nation has been very

influential? guest: i think it is extremely helpful to have the president of the united states arguing that a flawed as unconstitutional. he has been calling it discriminatory since he came into office and has been calling for its repeal. this is another step forward. and obviously, his voice carries weight with -- carries weight with all sorts of communities. the african-american community is not monolithic on this issue. a for instance, the effort to pass marriage equality here in the district of columbia has the support of many african-american churches. there was a clergy coalition that was led by the leaders of churches in the northeast. and i think there are supporters all over the country. but there is a continuing dialogue in the community and all over our country. certainly, having the president weighed in will be helpful part of that conversation. host: the "washington post"

says -- the president found a new formulation, he was evolving on the issue as he met more same- sex couples. guest: i do not think that electric doors or other people are going to be that affected by what the president says on this issue. this is an issue that people feel they understand. they are not looking to the president to tell them what to think. it is true that african- americans, like people of all ethnicities, disagree on this issue. but the city council worked hard to prevent the people of d.c. from having the right to vote on marriage and because they do not trust the community here. i am highly confident that if the politicians in maryland pass a gay marriage build up the people will veto it in maryland

to just as they did in maine and california. host: let's go to dade city, florida. caller: i think the constitution will prevail. it really is not up to public opinion. if you left it up to the south to decide civil-rights, i think we would see a very different situation. in that regard, the constitution is the one that makes the decision, not public opinion. we have that for a reason. it predicts everybody, the minority from the majority. basically, the sanctity of marriage -- you know, women were viewed as property until the 1920's. this idea that it has been eons of the sanctity of marriage is a misnomer. host: let's go to brian moulton

and as human rights campaign. guest: i think the constitution will prevail and, related to your comments and in response to something maggie just said, it is not to put people civil- rights to a popular referendum. we are sort of reducing this idea is to simply what should people think marriage should mean and they should be able to vote on that. i think we're also talking about, how does the state treat gays and lesbians entered would be able to put that to a popular vote, i think you made a very good point that there have been other civil rights issues of historically and if we put them to a vote, we would not be anywhere that we are on any of them. guest: this is the oddest message point that i have ever heard that is okay for politicians to vote on marriage, but not the general people. it is one thing to say that it should not be voted on by legislatures at all, and another

to say that it is wrong for people to vote on this issue. i would also said the majority of courts as well as the majority of people when given the opportunity have upheld the idea that there is not a civil rights to gay marriage. marriage is between a man and wife for a reason. it is not just in this country. the french high court and others of reject the idea of gay marriage. steven on the to phone. caller: i have a question for brian. polygamy through history has been a very efficient way of producing children and keeping family life together. i grew up in kenya where polygamy was common and the fathers were very attentive to their children. i would assume that brian would

sponsor the red for polygamy to take place in this country, based on what he has to say. i would like to hear what he has to say. guest: i think every restriction on marriage has to rise and fall on its own merits -- own merits. polygamy is not what i'd work on. the reason for keeping same-sex couples out of marriage are highly legitimate. if folks want to push for other changes, then they have to do like i do and get up in front of the american people and defended. host: christopher in manhattan, good morning. caller: it seems to me that this particular issue, just from observing it, is that the line between the religious feelings of people and the civil rights of people seem to get blurred.

we keep talking about traditional marriage. the truth is that marriage has lot of traditions. solomon had several wives. it seems like they want to set the clock in the '50s. i think there are lots of families that need civil protection. host: maggie gallagher? guest: there are lots of families and they all need the support protections. they are not all marriages. and there is no reason to treat non marital relationships as if they were. it is no accident that in less than 10 years after the canadian high court established the rights to gay marriage we are now having polygamous in court asking for their right to marry. the same argument can be used. many of these people are responsible, taxpaying citizens. they love their children. why not? when you cut marriage off from

its roots and the natural family and the sense that we have a common good, whether gay or straight or married or single or childless or not, we all have an interest. it is necessary to bring together a commercial union for the next generation. once you decide that is not what marriage is about the, that it is a demonstration for all kinds of relationships, then it changes a lot. guest: marriage is not about a husband and his property, which is what we thought of marriages for many years. marriage is not about only people of the same race. it is not about people only of the same religion. the nature of the rules within marriage have changed. if we have divorce, which was not a reality for a very long time. to suggest that opening up marriage to same-sex couples, giving them the freedom to

participate in that common good, which i agree is a common good that we should all respect and promote, it is really disingenuous to suggest that marriage will fall apart. marriage will descend into all sorts of horrible because we allow same-sex >> tomorrow on "washington journal," the former cia director discusses the latest developments in libya and what the obama administration's response to the violence should be. the national education association vice-president on how budgetary cutbacks are affecting teachers through the education system. after that, eric lichtblau talks about lobbying efforts by

democrats on middle east issues. "washington journal," live tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. >> there is a new way to get a concise review of the day's events. "washington today" on c-span radio. every weekday, we take you to capitol hill, the white house, and anyone is is happening. top with experts, politicians, and journalist as we put the day's events to your perspective. the stories that matter to you the most on c-span radio. you can listen in washington and baltimore area and nationwide on ex-im satellite radio, or go online. it is also available as an iphone act, and you can download the program every evening as a c-span podcast. >> a little more than a half- hour from now, we will hear from several republicans who could run for president in 2012.

the list includes former house speaker newt gingrich, former minnesota governor tim pawlenty, and former minnesota senator rick santorum. >> we see a world of broadband and broadcast, obviously a world where -- some see a world where broadcast goes away, and we think that is a huge mistake. >> tonight, the future of broadcast television with the head of the national association of broadcasters, gordon smith. "the communicator's" on c-span to. >> earlier today, the president of ncr said cuts to public broadcasting a more likely now than during the past. she said the cuts would disproportionately impact npr member stations in small and rural markets.

this is hosted by the national press club, and we will show you as much of this as we can until our live coverage of campaign 2012 starts at 7:15 p.m. eastern. >> good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. journalist for the associated press. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists, and we are committed to our profession's future through our programming and by fostering a free press around the world cared for more information, i would ask that you visit our website at www press the board -- www. press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker and attendees of the day's events, including our guest speaker as well as working journalist.

we would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences as well as those listening to our broadcast. after the speech concludes, i will ask as many ideas questions as time permits, and i would like to introduce our head table guests. we begin with the president of strauss radio strategies and member of the press club, as are most of our head table guests. barber, and is curtis b hurley share and public officials and for the university of missouri. it should be noted she also oversaw creation of npr's morning edition, and she has written a white paper on public media, a little visual aid for today's presentation. next, we have the editor for research days magazine and foundation for biomedical research. patrick butler, president and ceo of the association of public television stations and guest of the speaker, mike palmer, director of journalists tools, design and strategy for the associated press, and the

president and ceo of pbs and guest of the speaker. we skipped over the podium, and we next go to alison fitzgerald, vice chair of our press club's speakers' committee and government and enterprise reporter for bloomberg news. skipping over our speaker for a moment, the senior business editor for npr and speakers' committee member who organized today's event. thank you. patricia harrison is president and ceo of the corporation for public broadcasting and a guest of our speaker. senior washington correspondent for aol news. and washington bureau chief with the nightly business report on pbs. how about a warm round of applause for all of our guests. [applause] npr usually delivers the news, but in recent months, the media organization has been making news itself very last october, decisions to cut ties with juan

williams infuriated conservatives who accuse npr of left-wing bias. now, npr's in the news again because some in congress are working to eliminate funding for federal broadcasting. it would be a blow to local stations and destabilizing for npr itself, which celebrates its 40th anniversary on the air next month. the federal funding battle is not the first crisis the npr president and ceo has faced. she came to npr in january 2009. the u.s. economy was unraveling, as we all know painfully well. countries were cutting jobs. the stock market was plunging. consumers were hunkering down. shiller had to start her career as corporate underwriting was shriveling and workers were being laid off, programs eliminated and budgets cut to the bone, but even as she held npr retrench, she began pushing hard for innovation and excellence in our digital world. her efforts seemed to have paid

off. npr has stabilized financially and flourished both on the air in the mobile and digital spaces. and your continued to haul in top awards for journalism, was named by fast company magazine as one of the world's most innovative media companies. her job is to ensure the fiscal, operational, and journalistic integrity of npr, whose programming reaches nearly 30 million people a week. before joining npr, she served as general manager of the "new york times" website, the largest newspaper website of its kind. previously, she headed up the discovery times channel and served as senior vice president of cnn productions. she has made some controversial decisions since coming to npr, but one may seem particularly strange to longtime listeners. last summer, she pushed to quietly change the name of the organization itself. no longer refers to radio, as being on for so many years as

national public radio. it is now just npr, the abbreviation. she says the media outlets delivers news to summon a digital devices, there were radio does not quite fit anymore. as a personal aside, i would like to make it known that i work for public radio stations early in my career and filed those stories to npr, and i remember fondly when satellite radio network distribution was new and npr was on the cutting edge even back then hear it was amazing to hear the voices of the likes of bob edwards coming into the studio as if he was in with next door. one of my goals this year is to use this forum to engage in a more robust discussion about journalism. i think it is something both the public and i know our members are eager for us to do, and i'm grateful that our guest speaker has agreed to grace our podium once again today. please give a warm national press club welcome to vivian schiller.

[applause] >> i want to begin by reading an e-mail from an npr reporter. she sent it to her editor after she and a newspaper colleague made their way into eastern libya. they were the second team of western journalists to make it through. she writes -- "we basically pushed our way in. we walked across the border and were incredibly lucky to find people to drive us and guide us. yes, we had an unfortunate incident at a loaded army base where people were nervous about being photographed, and we were surrounded, and a photographer from the "wall street journal" had his camera smashed, but that has proven to be the exception. everywhere else we have gone, we have been greeted with cheers and shouts. this is a country that has not been exposed to western media, and everyone just said they were so relieved to see us. they were desperate to have

their story told. we were led to a huge hall used to be the people's revolutionary town building where the first meetings of the new local government was being held. everyone was stunned to see us. they gave us a standing ovation and started shouting and crying. i know it is corny, but i have never been prouder to be a journalist." kurd note is a potent reminder of the meeting and impact of the free past -- her note is a potent reminder of the meaning and in an impact of the free press. this is what i would like to talk about today. what npr and public radio stand for. how we think about our audience, the nature of our funding model, and a vision for the future. for well over a decade, the media conversation has been dominated by reports of shrinking newsrooms, collapsing business models, game changing

technologies, but the breathlessness over the shifting media landscape can blur with the work of journalism is really about -- reporters on the ground working sources and chasing leads to tell stories that have meaning and in fact. then bearing witness, often at great personal risk. all good news organizations, whether public or private, share in the critical work. for those of us in public media, it is our only mission. it has been 44 years since the passage of the public broadcasting act, which established the corporation for public broadcasting. for those of you too young to remember, that was a time when the big three broadcast networks have foreign bureaus all over the world, not to mention deep reporting staff, and slots on the network's schedule for hourlong documentaries. yet, even then, there was concern that commercial interests would drive the networks away from quality news

and cultural programming, so public broadcasting was born. i do not need to tell this audience about the changes that have happened in our industry in the last 10 years, let alone the last 40. the economics of the news business are undergoing seismic change. demand for the news has never been higher, and yet, mainstream news organizations continue to cut back the number of journalists available to report the news, particularly at the local level. so npr has worked to try to fill that void in news gathering, and we are working with our member stations to do the same. what does that look like today? 17 bureaus overseas, far more than any of those big three have today. we are opening new bureaus while still retaining a full-time presence in iraq, afghanistan,

pakistan, jerusalem, cairo, east africa, west africa, china -- we actually have two bureaus in china -- and other spots around the world. over the last couple of weeks, and the our journalists have been in tunisia, saudi arabia, bahrain, qatar, and as you heard a moment ago, libya, covering the world-altering events covering -- unfolding. closer to home, we have reporters on just about everything imaginable. race and demographics, food, education, religion, rural affairs. we have entire unit dedicated to science, to the arts, to books, and to music. last year, we launched and the our's first investigative unit. it now has nine full-time staff. we stay on the story when everyone else moves on.

on thetill reporting upper big branch mine of west virginia where 29 workers died nearly a year ago. debbie elliot lives near the gulf of mexico and continues to follow developments since the bp disaster. danny swerling stayed with the story of returning soldiers suffering from traumatic brain injury. we are the opposite of a parachute journalism. our reporters have subject matter expertise built up over years, sometimes decades. member stations have the same, filling the growing void in local reporting. over 900 journalists spread across nearly 800 member stations -- that is in addition to npr journalists. they serve communities large and small and very small. in fact, 1/3 of the stories you hear on npr programs are

produced by member station reporters. they define the very character of public radio. in nashville, wpln covers fort campbell and the role it has played in iraq and afghanistan conflict. in stillwater, oklahoma, kosu has reported on the resurgence of met last through the u.s.. cutbacks in rural police departments, and cattle rustling, which has made a comeback in this top economist. frank morris in kansas city is npr's go to guy for agriculture, reporting on land prices, as in all, and the rivalry between family-old and corporate farms, but stations contribute more than just reporting. they also provide critical, live-saving information in times of disaster. on the gulf coast, tornado alley, and since california. this past january, a severe

winter storm blanketed much of northern arizona with as much as 6 feet of snow. -- kuyi ation kuwi lost power. it lacks the station 120 miles away was knocked off the air, airkuyi -- but kuyi was able to continue broadcasts to their audience. they stayed on the air thanks to two diesel generators funded with federal dollars. without it, nearly 100,000 people over four counties would and i have had access to vital information on emergency relief efforts, whether, and road conditions. this is just one story. there are hundreds more like it. with journalists on the ground and transmitters that reach far beyond major population centers, they provide the kind of vital service that only free over the air broadcasting can deliver. the results of this work is an

extraordinary and deeply engaged audience. almost unique in american media, npr's audience, this is the audience for our traditional core service radio, which we have not abandoned radio, i might add. it is core to everything we do and more relevant than ever, as witnesses -- witnessed by the fact that the audience to radio is growing and has been for the past decade. we just got our ratings last fall, and i'm pleased to report the mark another all-time high in the top 50 markets. that is four consecutive quarters of record ratings for npr. 34 million people listen to an npr member station every week. 34 million people. and they listen on average six hours a week. in the digital of arena, we now reached 17 million people a

month. that is a 100% growth over the last two years. they come to us on npr.org, the iphone, the ipad, the android to both read and listen to the radio, and a connector was on facebook where we have a larger audience than any other american news outlook. and on twitter where we reach over 3 million. and it is not just about the numbers, but also about the impact. npr's social media strategist, who is here with us today somewhere in the audience, has become something of a one-manus platform, serving -- i hope you are tweeting this -- serving as a hub for hot spots where news breaks. we are also growing in the audience trust. according to a recent report, npr is the only national news organization to see a meaningful

increase in public trust over the last decade. left andience is not a right coast phenomenon. we are urban and rural, north and south, read state and blue state. our listeners are equally distributed throughout every part of america because of our unique network of local member stations and rooted in their communities, locally owned, operated, and staff. these are citizens serving citizens. not long ago, i was walking around a reception. people do not know who is steve is by looking at him. we are radio, after all. but as we mingled, i was struck by the reaction people had when they realize to he was. not merely a media celebrity,

but someone with whom they feel a deep personal connection. of course, always the same joke. i wake up with you every morning. he is a good sport about it. steve is headed to cairo tonight, so you will hear his reports from the region. our listeners tell us they appreciate the fact that our reporters report. our listeners tell us they come to us for the craftsmanship, the civility of programming, and the range of opinions and diversity of stories. outreach has its limits, of course, and our coverage has its critics. we're working to expand the diversity of audience, our staff, sources, and stories. to do a better job speaking to people across the spectrum of thought, experience, and background.

we are paying aggressive attention to our ethical decision making. the standards and practices that journalism at our level demand. in doing so, we hope to deliver an even larger following and better serve our mission to enlighten an informed. let me shift to our funding model. i did this not because i think you are so fascinated with their balance sheet, but because it points to the death and a variety of a public support. it is a success story, though often a misunderstood one. npr is successful, not because we are smarter than anyone else. we certainly are not. nor because we have different to values. we do not. and certainly not because we do not have to worry about the bottom line is. believe me, we most certainly do. we are successful because of the investment that the american public has made in public media

over 40 years. the way in which we have gradually been able to leverage that investment to build other sources of support. those sources include listeners whose contributions make up the largest share of station revenue, corporate underwriters his support is not simply a transaction, they want to be associated with the credibility and the value of the npr name. we are also supported by philanthropic individuals and institutions who share our vision of an informed society. finally, we rely on continued government funding, grants represents 10% of the public radio station economy. it is not the largest share of revenue, but it is a critical cornerstone of public media.

this money is particularly important for stations in rule -- rural areas. 30, 40, 50% or more. these are areas where listeners may have no other access to free over the air news and information. government funding is critical because it allows taxpayers to leverage a small investment into a very large one. it is seed money. that can% plates -- that 10% plays a critical role in generating the other 90% that make their broadcasts possible. the fact that we have four sources of revenue, listeners, philanthropy, corporates, and government, helps ensure that public media is not beholden to any one source of revenue. indeed, it is through this

diversity of funding, but we are able to maintain our journalistic independence. but the nation facing continuing economic uncertainty, it is both right and necessary to scrutinize all federal spending. if the public value is the prism of their weight spending decisions are made, public broadcasting stand strong. the american people believe in federal funding for public broadcasting. a national survey conducted last month by a bipartisan polling team shows that 69% of americans oppose the elimination of federal funding for public broadcasting. at a time when our industry is cutting back, when country is drowning real news and thoughtful analysis, npr is moving forward with quality reporting and storytelling

delivered with respect for the audience. the sound of sanity. one original reporting is increasingly short supply, we continue to build and not retreat from that 44-year investment. as guardians of the public trust, we have an obligation to address the current crisis in journalism and not simply fall victim to the turbulence of these times. i would like to acknowledge that npr is not alone in this mission. here at the head table are some of my colleagues from public broadcasting. the president and ceo of pbs, which present programming unique in a television landscape, expanding the minds of children, documentaries, and cultural content that exposes america to the world of music, theater, dance, and dark. patrick butler, the president and ceo this job is to advocate

for public television and white is more violent -- a vital now than 44 years ago. he is also taken on the mantle of president of the public media association, which represents both television and radio stations. pat harrison, the president and ceo of the corporation for public broadcasting. the private corporation created by congress to serve as a steward of the federal government investment in public media. i would like to thank all of them, as well as might other npr and public media colleagues and my colleagues do out journalism for joining us here today. in closing, at npr, up we have charted a vision for the future, one built around high- quality journalism, radio craftsmanship, and storytelling, smart use of social media, a seamless user

experience across platforms, one that combines strong, local, national, and global reporting. it is a work in progress and always will be, but our growth in audience tells us that we are on the right track. i would like to end where we started, in libya. recently, we spoke to an entrepreneur in the midst of a major protest about 25 miles outside of tripoli. to what the conversation, you could hear gunfire and chaos on folding. it was driven to listen to and brought the story home with clarity and immediacy. when the interview was finished, mohammad asked michel what radio station he was talking to. npr, i listened to that station most of the time. i have it on my waking clock. this is in libya.

i really love that phrase, a waking clock. every day, the men and women of npr go out into the world to bring back news that matters to people like muhammed and people like you and me. that is both a privilege and responsibility. it is sometimes good to have a waking clock to remind us that what we do matters. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. we have had a good month before we knew you were coming and we are grateful that you have. that has meant that the internet traffic has been spiking into my in box or torture accounts. that is a good thing. -- in my twitter account. that is a good thing.

there are some subjects that are particularly of interest to these people. it seems as if the one that is garnered the most amount of traffic involves someone with, you know -- share a professional relationship. that is one williams. -- juan williams. it seems as though we have to get that subject dealt with. i guess you of that date -- five months to reflect on how that whole episode transpired. it does cause some pain for the organization in a sense that it had shifted the discussion away from the important issues. as you reflect on that episode now, what can you tell people about the way that that transpired? about how you would have done it

differently? ultimately, there are a number of questions that did to the issue of the perception of left versus right bias. >> ok. thank you. we handle the situation badly. on reflection, i stand by the fact that we handle the situation badly. we acted too hastily and we made some mistakes. i made some mistakes. the key thing now is to reflect on those mistakes and to fix some things that fell down on bad day and to make sure that it does not happen again. that is the learning experience. >> is there not a process that you have in place where you are reviewing that? can you tell us about how that works? how you will be in line to buy back or your stakeholders? >> we did not handle it very

well. there were some prophecies that were not followed on that day. >> from -- processes that were not followed on that day. >> do you think that you have moved past it and you a fixed whatever the issues were in place that caused the problem? >> yes. the process issues are fixed. >> can you give an example? it sounds hard to understand. >> there were some communications and process issues around the events of those couple of days that did not work quite as they should have prayed and we put those in place. >> [laughter] >> a lot of ink has been spilled about this issue. >> by virtue of the question we got, either people feel as if there are some questions that linger. this is an opportunity for you to not have the lender anymore.

>> -- we incur any more. -- linger anymore. >> since october, we have undertaken a thorough review of our news code of ethics. this is something that any news organization should do from time to time. it was high time for us to do that as well. it is clear, of today -- up to date, and is consistently applied. our news code of ethics was created in 2004 and has been tweaked, but has not been fully updated. we just finished a process by which a task force of 13 people and there are some

recommendations that are coming out of that to task force that i am very excited about. we will be making some changes. we are not quite done with our drafting. but sometime this spring, we will release the document publicly. we will be creating a new position at npr of the standards editor. the standards editor is on top of all the other checks and balances. we have an ombudsman at that is here today. we had editors, editors of editors, a correction's policy, comments section on our website. the addition of a news standards editor will help the another critical check in the process. look for more about that sen. >> there was a question anticipating that issue given the well-informed nature of our

audience. the task force reviewing your ethical standards has called for the end of the practice to allow npr journalist to appear on other media outlets. there is a specific question. how will this affect cokie roberts? >> would of the recommendations of the task force -- the task force embraces the notion of npr journalist sharing what they have learned with a broader audience. we embrace the notion of reporters appearing on other media. we need to make sure that our process is in place for approvals and that we are all coordinated. the task force has recommended that having a long time -- longstanding permanent relationship with two different news organizations can be confusing. we will be taking a look at that. >> can you expand on that? >> a couple of our reporters have relationships with other news organizations that have

been long term. what you will see is that we will likely not have any npr of journalists have relationship longstanding, long-term relationships or contracts with news organizations going forward. with regard to the specific individuals, and we're not ready to make any statements about that. >> over the years, and d.r. has been criticized for not having enough minority voices on the air. what is being done to open up and d.r. to more diverse voices? >> this is a big priority to us. at the time that he left the organization, he was the only male african-american reporter on our air. the main thing is that this is a

very, very big priority for us. in the room with us is keith woods, who came from the dean of studies at the poynter institute, and is now the head of diversity for npr. we have a number of different initiatives under way to diversify our staff, our reporters, the people that we interview on the air, and our audience. we think we have made some progress, but it is not nearly enough. she has given us an organization -- she has given us a very hard time in the past read the title of the column was in d.r.'s diversity, better, but not enough. diversity, better, but not enough. >> there was an entry in the national review published today

from someone who tells me that he is here in the audience. from the heritage foundation. addressing a question from another angle. do you believe there is in balance at npr in terms of liberal and conservative in the newsroom? if the answer is yes, what do you propose to do about it? >> every news organization -- i have worked now from -- you can see the rest of this act c- span.org. >> we're joined now by republican lawmakers. also on the agenda, i would governor -- iowa gov., steve king. this is sponsored by the iowa state and freedom foundation.

>> please take your seats. please turn off your cell phones, please. hello. i am the vice-president of the iowa state and freedom coalition. on behalf of iffc, i want to extend a warm welcome to all of you. we are proud and honored to host this historic event. for the first time, in this election cycle, several potential 2012 republican

presidential candidates are sharing the same stage. therefore, allow me to express some of our concerns and let me know whether you agree with them. we are concerned that the world- famous capitalistic country is now doing a slow dance with socialism. [applause] we are concerned that a rich country, which rebuild other countries after world war ii, is now borrowing mind-boggling amounts of money from other countries. [applause]

we are concerned that the world's most -- that was respected and feared by the enemies is now abandoning friends and apologizing to the enemies. [applause] we are concerned that a country that was a melting pot for all the brilliant minds in the world has now become a land of lawbreaking illegal immigrants who want amnesty. [applause] granting that amnesty will be a slap on the face of all legal immigrants.

[applause] we are concerned that a country that was founded on european- style christian moral values has now become a multi-cultural haven for every weird and kinky lifestyle. [applause] today's program is a small part of our efforts to take back our country and restore its principals, moral values, a financial independence, physical strength, and leadership. let's get started. [applause] the lead pastor of this church

will give the invocation. he is a leader who was not afraid to publicly campaign against the retention of the supreme court justices. [applause] we need more courageous pastors like him. iowa's fourth district state representative will lead us and the pledge. please rise and remain standing until the end of the national anthem. thank you. >> welcome. welcome to point of grace church. this is going to be a great

night. that is what we do here. it is going to be a great night. let me play with you. -- pray with you. father, thank you so much for this night. thank you so much for this nation. one nation under god, thank you for our freedoms, the freedoms you have entrusted to us. thank you. thank you for the joy to live in this great nation. thank you for the joy of gathering together to hear from those who are willing to lead. i pray that he will bless each speaker that is here tonight. you will and power them tonight. i pray that each one of also be reminded what it is to live in this republic.

i prayed that each one of us will walk out of your humbled tonight with the freedoms that we so often take for granted. i pray for the our president and for those is around him, for the influences in his life. father, i pray that he will bless him, that he will choose to follow you. father, i pray for our state leaders, our governor, lieutenant governor, for those killed are leading in the house and senate. i've -- for those who are leading in the house and senate. thank you for this evening. in jesus' name, amen. [applause]

>> will you please join me in the pledge? >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> ♪ [the national anthem]

[applause] >> thank you. let us recognize several groups and we will apply for that group. we want to recognize three people who have worked long hours for the past several months to put this evening. diana hanson, drew kline, carl, thank you for your hard work. [applause] next we want to recognize the officers and members of the board of iffc. president -- [applause]

morace heard, lisa smith, mike hannity, keith hunter, norm rosenthal. [applause] we want to recognize billy kirkland. [applause] we want to recognize our special guests, otani and nancy, the founders of the wisconsin faith and freedom coalition. [applause] we want to recognize the leaders of other organizations. when you hear your name, please stand and remain standing until

we applaud the entire group. matt strong, steve chevler, kim layman, katie coburg, jennifer bowin, tamara scott, kevin mclaughlin, dave, several republican county terrorists who are here. thank you for working with us. -- several republican county chairs the are here.

thank you for working with us. [applause] we want to recognize all of the pastors and clergy. please stand up. thank you for all of your inspiration and guidance. [applause] we want to recognize all school board, a city, and county elected officials. please stand. thank you for your service to your communities. we want to recognize all the members of the iowa hub. thank you for representing house. we want to recognize the iowa senate minority leader. [applause]

we want to recognize all members of the iowa senate. [applause] thank you for representing us. we want to recognize the secretary, the state auditor, secretary of state. [applause] thank you for your leadership. we want to recognize lt. gov. tim reynolds. [applause] thank you for your help to our governor. when governor was campaigning,

-- when he said that we needed a lot, i started having nightmares. believe it or not, a police officers stopped me recently, it even though i was not violating any traffic laws. he simply said, can i see your license, registration, and insurance? i promptly gave him the my engineering license cards, my voter registration card and my medical insurance card. you can guess how angry he became and what might have happened after that. i guess we do not need english as our national language.

[applause] after winning election, the governor has been busy finding ways to cut expenditures, reduce taxes, and create jobs. please welcome our governor. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you for that introduction, i think. [laughter] thank you for being here. this is a great turnout and i want to thank the faith and freedom coalition for putting together this kick off. your turn now tonight shows how interested you are in changing the direction of this country.

restoring leadership and the white house. -- in the white house. this is the first significant events of the caucus season and your turn now tonight says, you are very interested in making significant changes we have some great candidates. i want to thank all of the potential presidential candidates who live come here to be in iowa today. we are very proud of the people of iowa. they are people that care and they are people of faith and people with a great work ethic and there are people want to see a future for themselves and their children and grandchildren and this country. we are looking forward to your ideas to help make this possible. [applause] i want you to note that these people of faith and freedom that are here tonight are people

that showed up to caucuses. they vote. they participate. they talk to their friends and neighbors. you are talking to a great audience. i also want you to know that kim reynolds sincerely appreciate all the hard work and help that you gave us in the election last year and the help that you gave us in the other offices and in the legislature. thank you and god bless all of you for what you have done. [applause] we know that you pray for us. i want you to know how much that means to us. as governors across this country, we are making the tough decisions to get our financial house in order, and are focusing on reducing taxes and regulations and bringing jobs. many governors are taking a lot of heat. it is the encouragement and support and prayers that we

received that are so uplifting and so appreciated. we ask you to continue to pray for all of our states and for all of our country and god bless you all for being part of this. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, governor. we are glad that you are our governor. [applause] there is no one like congressman steve cain. -- king. [applause] i have a lot of respect for him. however -- [laughter] after watching all the commercials, congressman steve

king is not happy with my credit cards. he always wants to see my visa, and i always show him my american express. [laughter] please welcome congressman steve king. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] thank you very, very much. you are going to make me blush here. i have so much to be thankful for. we all do. i was reflecting on sunday and

that was sitting there meditating and thinking about the blessings of three sons grown now and three daughters a lot and they seem to all be happily married. they blessed us with five grandchildren. this girl has no chance to grow up to be a liberal. how could you ask for more? i think and those sons and they have known one father, one mother, one church, and one school. [applause] i could not have written a better than that. i just look back now and i am thankful. i am thankful who made an

appointment to the state supreme court. i am glad those vacancies were there to fill. i think all of you for your efforts in doing that. those three justices that were turned out from the supreme court on retention last november 2 did not understand that the constitution means what it says and it means what it was understood to mean at the moment of its ratification. we need to hold all the justices accountable for such a standard. [applause] marriage in iowa has been under assault for some years ago. it is also under assault at the national level. as they began to bring litigation, the obama administration announced that they would not use the justice

department to defend federal law in court. they took an oath to uphold the constitution and to take care of the laws better faithfully enforced. they say they were not going to enforce the law and not going to defend federal law in court. that is a violation of their oath of office. [applause] in the first few minutes after that announcement, i got on my black barry and i typed in a little -- blackberry and typed a tweet. when the appropriations bill comes out to fund the department of justice, he is not going to need that money that he would otherwise use to defend the defense of marriage act. [applause]

some other things are happening. some of those would be -- and i want to say that in this state, mike thank you -- he started down the path of initiating cutting off funding to planned parenthood. a couple of weeks ago, we passed an amendment to do just that. you know that i did in fighting obama-care. we cannot afford it. i could go through the whole list, but you know all that. it needs to be repealed. i introduced the repeal. i introduced the discharge petition. michelle laughlin was with me all -- every step of the way pier -- michelle bachman was with me every step of the way.

i got a clear picture of its in january. by the end of january, came to the conclusion that there is $105.5 billion in automatic finding that automatically appropriates in perpetuity, as congress takes an act to shut it off. that was the language that i tried to get on the floor for a vote in february. it was shut down by the parliamentarians. we're coming back again. [applause] i send out a memo a couple of days ago to our leadership. of all the appropriations bills that, come at any plan that fund's planned parenthood, or obama-care, i will vote no. that is my commitment to you. [applause]

i did remark earlier traded at in 1992, james carville put a poster up and said, it's the economy, stupid. we will get this solved some how. america's resilience will bring us out of that. even at that time, it is not the economy, it is our culture. it is our fate, our family, our liberty, that cornerstone of civilization of marriage. the things we believe, how we transfer our faith to the next generation, the things that cause us to put -- pork from marriage to our children. we cannot let it come under assault. i will stand -- if we get the culture right, the economy will be right eventually. we have to get the culture right. [applause]

you have some really good leaders emerging tonight. i really like this will crowd tonight, the full parking lot, all of the involvement that we are going to see. you have in your hands the direction of america's destiny. thanks to your work and prayers, america is going to get turned and the right direction again. god bless you. [applause] >> thank you, a congressman. this is one of his short speeches. [laughter]

all of you know that my name is not adam, but i still like steve. i like him because he is determined to preserve adam and eve type of relationships. [applause] i can assure you that he will always fight vigorously against adam and steve type of relationships. [applause] please welcome our president. [applause]

>> good evening. this is a great night. when we decided to set the stage, a lot of people told me that this could never be pulled off. we would be lucky if one candidate showed up treated -- showed up. this is the start of the 2012 presidential caucus. the focus on the nation is on iowa and want to tell all of our friends and the other states, we are going to be first. that is the way it is. first of all, i think this turnout tonight is indicative that the conservative pro-family movement is alive and well in iowa. we saw that in the last election cycle.

for the first time since 1962, we defeated an incumbent democrats and we were certainly glad to see him go into permanent retirement. [applause] i have to tell you, there are a lot of great organizations in this state. but this organization, without question, is one of the most effective pro-family organizations in the state. in this state, we should be very thankful for the leadership of kim reynolds and terry. it was such a refreshing change. for the great efforts of people -- were hoping that we could take back the iowa house.

60.ended up with a 6 listen very carefully to the next thing i have to say. we are outnumbered in the senate 26-24. there is one man who thinks he is the ruler or the king of iowa. you'll be asked to do many things in 2012, but i want you to partner with this organization and work overtime day in and day out and we are going to take back the senate in 2012. [applause] last of all, little did most of us in this room who remembered to mcartor, bill clinton --

jimmy carter, bill clinton, presidencies that were less than admirable. little did we think that we would live to see the day that those of ministrations look like a sunday school picnic compared to the socialist obama agenda. the silver lining is, when we come out of this process, we will be united and we are going to put barack obama into permanent retirement. [applause] i will go so far as to say if that we do not put him into retirement, i fear for the future of this great republic because we cannot afford the excesses' in spending and big government and the assault on the perot family culture that we have seen for the last two years. -- for the pro-family culture that we have seen the last two years. i wanted to know that last

cycle, this organization, we did over half a million contacts and got involved in nine legislative races and we are all about engaging people to participate in the electoral process. as much as i think it is important to have a lobbyist, it is important to do other things, go to rallies if that is -- go to rallies, the bottom line is elections have consequences. you can have a half a million people at the capitol tomorrow lobbying, but guess what, if it is not going to happen. we have to elect men and women with integrity stand for the right values. that is my charge to you tonight. [applause] last but not least, i would like to introduce to individuals the that i am very proud of.

i do not know how many of you received our e-mails. getting our e-mails about two times a week is worth its. he cuts through all the muck. norm is a tenacious bulldog. i also want to thank drew kline. he is 22 years old, but he is our organizational director. without his efforts, we would not be where we are at today. are you here, drew? [applause] thank you for all that you do. we are excited that you are here. is bill anderson in the

audience? here you are. bill anderson is a member of our coalition board. we have become very good friends. bill is one of those articulate young state senators who is aggressively pursuing an agenda debt -- an agenda of limited government. he is now going to make the introductions. [applause] >> i have attended this event for a number of years and it just keeps getting bigger and bigger. that is a true testament of the hard work. i think we should give them a round of applause for their work on behalf of the family and our values. i'm just proud to be part of the freshman class in the iowa senator. fighting the fight against -- we

will do that every day. we will have to get creative, but we will continue to fight for you. [applause] you did not come here tonight to hear from me. i want to thank steve before inviting me to make this introduction. ralph reed was the first executive director of the christian coalition. he was the chairman of the georgia republican party in 2002. he was the senior adviser to president george w. bush, a founder and chairman of the faith and freedom coalition, and chairman and ceo of centuries strategies and public relations firm. it is my honor to introduce to you, mr. ralph reed. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. are you ready to begin the process of choosing barack obama's successor here in iowa? [applause]

i do not know about you, but this could not get started soon enough. march 7 is a little early, i said, i could have gotten started march 7 of 2009. we are here tonight, not just to listen to speeches, and not just to hear from those who seek the mantle of the leadership of our nation, but we are here tonight to do something that is more fundamental. that is to assert a truth. it is the most transformational truth, the most transcendent truth, apart from the gospel of jesus christ. it is an idea as old as america itself. it asserts that all men and women are created equal and the eyes of almighty god.

they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, rights that are inherent to their very humanity. come on which our life, liberty, and upper -- among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the sole reason why we established a government on this continent was to protect and guards those rights. that is the only reason why we established a government. [applause] our founders went on to make it -- make an even more radical statement and declaration of independence. they said that if that government so formed ever failed to protect those rights or cover abrogated those god-given right, that it was not only our

right, it was our duty and moral obligation to replace that government by force if necessary it was one that respected our rights. that is our right as americans. [applause] tonight, the reassert that idea -- we reassert that idea. we understand what a lot of people have forgotten. america was not settled by a department of covered wagons operating out of washington, d.c. it was settled by god-fearing men and women with retooled, and? , a plow, and a book -- with a set of three tools. that book was the holy bible. [applause]

petraeus is that -- the the truth is why we want to see our economy recover, the truth is that america up will prosper and be strong in direct proportion to how she otters god and lives according to those principles and she will not prosper if she fails to observe them. [applause] two years ago, when the fate and freedom coalition came to iowa, withk obama's job approval 72%. the media was throwing flower petals at his feet. people were thinking at the speeches. people were swooning at the healing powers. [laughter]

you went out and you ignored the polls and you stop to principal and you kept the faith and you knock on doors and made phone calls and the result was that in 2009 and 2010, when nobody said it could happen, you were placed nancy pelosi it would john boehner in the u.s. house of representatives. -- nancy pelosi with john boehner. in new jersey, we replaced john core resigned -- corzine with chris kristi. in iowa -- [applause] we removed from the iowa state

supreme court's three justices who refused to honor the traditional institution of marriage. we are not done yet. [applause] in ohio, a state that we were told was gone to our values and principles, we replaced ted strickland with john kansas said. -- casic. in florida, marco rubio was catapulted from an asterisk in the polls to the u.s. senate or he will be a leader for our values for the next 25 years. we are just getting started. untilnot going to rest barack obama is replaced by a president who will