going to focus on the task at hand, which is accomplishing the limited military mission that the president assigned us, and enforcing the united nations security council resolution and work with our allied partners, and that's where the majority of our time and attention is spent. .

were metn people with extreme violence from their government. the appeal to the world to help stop the protack on them and the world -- but they appealed to the world to stop the attacks and the world responded. the u.n. security council mandated all necessary measures to protect civilians, including a no-fly zone. the regime's forces continued

their assault and last weekend, they reached benghazi itself. we faced the prospect of an imminent humanitarian disaster. hundreds of thousands of civilians were in danger. an international coalition was compelled to act. french planes were the first to reach the skies over benghazi. cruise missiles from the u.s. and u.k. followed. striking the region -- the regime's air defenses and clearing the way for out -- and allied aircraft to implement the no-fly zone. many other nations have joined the this effort. after only five days, we have made significant progress. a massacre in benghazi was prevented. his air force and air defenses have been rendered largely ineffective and the coalition is in control of the skies above libya.

humanitarian relief is beginning to reach the people who need it. for example zukofsky of today kanof if we learned fat least 18 for doctors and nurses from fan organization for sponsored by the u.s. agency for international development had arrived in benghazi and were beginning to provide support to the city's main hospital. the military would be limited in time and scope. our mission has been to use america's unique capabilities to create the conditions for the no-fly zone and to assist in what meetings -- meeting in urgent humanitarian needs. we're seeing a significant

reduction in the number of u.s. planes involved in operations as a number of planes rather countries increase in numbers. we're taking the next up. we have agreed along with our nato allies to transition and control for the no- fly zone to nato. all 28 allies have authorized military authority to develop and operations plan for nato to take on the broader civilian protection mission under resolution 1973. nato is well-suited to coordinating this international effort and ensuring that all participating nations are working effectively together toward our shared goals. this coalition includes countries beyond nato, including air partners, and we expect all of them to be providing important political

guidance going forward. we have always said parrott leadership and participation is crucial. the arab league show that leadership with its pivotal statement on libya. they joined the discussions in paris last weekend on the implementation. we are deeply appreciative of their continuing contributions, including aircraft and pilots from kotter -- qatar. uae is sending planes to protect libyan civilians and enforce the no-fly zone. we welcome this important step. it underscores both the breadth and depth of concern for the plight of the libyan people. in the days ahead as need assumes command and control responsibilities, the welfare of those civilians will be of paramount concern.

this operation has already saved many lives but the danger is far from over. as long as the khaddafi regime turns its people and defies the un, we must remain vigilant and focus. food -- to continue courting with our partners and chart the way forward, i will attend an international conference on tuesday convened by the united kingdom. our military will continue to provide support to our efforts to make sure that security council resolutions 1970 and 1973 will be enforced. this is an important effort that has garnered support and the active participation of nations who recognized the significance of coming together in the international community through the united nations to set forth

a clear statement of action to be taken in order to protect innocent civilians from their own government. it is an effort that we believe is very important and will look forward to coordinating closely with all those nations that are participating. thank you very much. >> secretary clinton mentioning she will attend that conference in london on tuesday. she is back in the united states on wednesday. the white house said she will be part of a classified congressional briefing on the house floor on wednesday that will include secretary of state clinton, secretary of defense states, the chairman of the joint chiefs, and the national intelligence director. they will speak to members of congress in a classified briefing next wednesday.

>> tonight, a look at education reform with former washington ichellehools chancellor masha ree and kevin johnson. they will speak about why they think student achievement has worsened despite a doubling in spending. >> it is always doing our part. there is far too many kids that are languishing in schools that are not doing well but there are kids who live in nice neighborhoods and their schools are not serving them to the degree they need to as well. >> i concur. we are in a position right now in this country where if you were to tell me this of code a child lives in and the race of that child, we could with pretty good accuracy toluol what their

academic achievement levels are. that is one of the most un- american things i can possibly imagine. it is betraying the ideals by which we live as americans. >> watch this event from the university of arkansas tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> former comptroller general david walker has released the new report which details america's fiscal management and wrecks the u.s. in relation to other countries. he was our guest this morning. this is half an hour. host: we are pleased to welcome david walker, former controller general of the u.s. and former head of the genal accountability office and currently the founder and ceo of an organization called come back american initiative. mr. walker, your organization recently came out with this report called the sovereign

fiscal responsibility index 2011. can you just briefly explain what this report is? guest: as you know, fiscal means tax and spending policy and that is the responsibility of congress and the present. basically what this index does, stanford univ.'s -- program assigned four student under my supervision to come up with an index to rank countries, in this case, 34, based upon where they are on the debt, where they are headed, and how strong their systems are. bottom line, the united states ranks no. 28 a lot of 34. so, we are closer to the bottom three than the top three. and our ranking has declined dramatically in the last 10 years. the good news is, some of the countries their rank at the top have had their own problems in the past. they got their act together and they are ranked highly.

and if we were able to adopt the recommendations of the national fiscal responsibility reform commission or ones that have the same bottom line fiscal impact, we would go from number 28 to 8 and have fiscal sustainability 440-plus years. host: ok. let's talk about one of your categories. fiscal space. the results. you call this, fiscal base by country, percent of gross domestic product. listed at the top is chile, with nearly 200% fiscal what does that mean? guest: what it means is the fear of radical amount of debt as a percentage of the economy that they can take on -- so, how much could you take on without having certainly a debt crisis, or a crisis of confidence among investors, versus how much you have right now. for example, there fiscal space is 200%, and they are at a 30%. if they could have 200 and they

could have 30, the fiscal space would be 170 in that example. host: you go through here and you listed by developed countries, emerging markets, and then here comes the united states at what? 60%. what does that mean? guest: basically what it says is it if you look at the theoretical capacity of the united states to be able to take on debt as a percentage of its economy, compared to how much debt we have now, we have room for about another 60%. but keep in mind, we are adding about 10% per year. in addition, we have very low interest rates and a very short average marity for our debt. bottom-line is, we will enter the danger zone for potential fiscal crisis within the next two-three years, and yet washington is asleep at the switch. host: we will put the numbers on the screen as we talk about the u.s. fiscal path and u.s. fiscal

policy with david walker. beacon of fiscal path -- this chart. chile, china, sweden, estonia, plus sever other countries -- 40-plus years of what? guest: based upon where they are now and where they are headed, they have fiscal sustainability -- meaning, they should not have a debt crises -- forever -- for over 40 years. based on this analysis, the united states is virtually certain to have a debt crisis within 60 years. however, we enter the danger zone within the next two or three years. if you look at the people at the bottom of the rankings, below us, the entered the danger zone when to the got within 50% of their limit. we will be within 50% of parliamentithin two or three

years. italy, ireland, japan, portugal, greece, along with belgium, hury, spain -- canada and portugal and britain -- both have austerity budgets prosed, past, or rejected. portugal -- stephen harper, vote of confidence. what is going on? guest: portugal is next-to-last in the sovereign fiscal some -- greece is last but they have a serious problem, more serious than ours. they also cannot have over 60% of the world's global reserve currency so they have to make tough choices. frankly,hey waited too long. to there are going to end up engaging in a very difficult austerity measures very quickly because they waited too long. here is the key. the night -- united states does not exempt from the laws of prudent finance. if we wait too long we will have

to do the same thing -- make dramatic spending cuts, draconian changes in social insurance programs and significant tax increases all of the sudden and ordered to be able to stabilize the markets and restore confidence. we don't have to do that, but we need to start soon if we want to avoid that. host: your conclusion, which you referred to earlier in your report -- for many other countries including the u.s., fiscal governance is moderate to week. while most countries in this index are rather transparent, fiscal roles typically have weak legal stature and edmonton enforcement. the result is that has grown over time and there is little to prevent it from rising and the future. yet, the situation is not irreversible. if the u.s. implemented the recommendations of the erskine bowles, alan simpson commission today, or a package of reforms with the same fiscal impact, it would immediate move to number threend fiscal

governance and become one the top 10 countries in the overall index. guest: that is correct. there is hope. the never take a country, new zealand, had its own currency crisis in the early 1990's. it ty made dramatic and fundamental reforms in what the government did, how did business, however measured success. they've reformed entitlement programs, put in fiscal constraints, reformed the tax policy, and now they are number two. if new zealand can do it, the united states can do it. host: can we do it without tax increases, in your view? guest: no. the simple truth is the government has grown too big, waited too long to restructure and, frankly, promised to much. in my view, to put us on a more prudent and sustainable path, it is about 2 to 3 to 1, spending cuts to tax increases. but w have to reimpose t top statutory budget -- we had it from early 90 through 2002, ones

that expired in 2002 things have been totally out of control so the first thing is to put tough budget controls that wld be an effective 2013, reach an agreement on short-term spending for 2011 and for 2012, and it should include specific -- debt targets, and if not met, automatic spending cuts and temporary tax shirt -- surcharges to make sure we do not continue to worsen the surge which. host: medicare and social security. guest: our first -- big challenge so far is health care. the last health care bill, the one-year anniversary yasser -- yesterday, but when not help the spirit that will worsen our fiscal situation and debt problems. based upon the latest opinion of the chief actuary of medicare, he says the assumptions that were used to estimate the cost were not reasonablmore sustainable. he came up with his own estimate, the estimated cost of medicare would be $12 trillion

higher than otherwise advertise. with regard to social security, social security does not face an immediate crisis. it is not our biggest problem. it is a critically important program. we need to make it solvent, sustainable, secure, and more savings oriented. but we ought to reform at first. why? because we will do it in a way that will make it solvent, sustainable, secure, more savings oriented. it is under funded by $8 trillion in current terms. it is adding to our deficit now, not helping us -- not by a l, but it is adding. and it will permanently end up adding to the deficit in the next several years. it is an opportunity to do something that would be positive and i ink we should take advantage of that. host: the congressional budget office just came out with the deficit projections. currentlyrojecting $1.40 trillion deficit for 2011 alone. the president's budget increes this year's deficit by $26 billion. it at -- and prince iraq's $1.20

trillion deficit for 2012. -- it projects $1.20 trillion deficit for 2012. guest: i think it is optimistic based on reasonable assumptions overtime. the fact that the matter is that today's deficit is not a problem. today's event is not a problem. let me explain why. toy's deficit, as large as it is and shocking as it is, is driven primarily by temporary factors. the recession, followed by weak economic recovery, of very high unemployment, two undeclared and bond-financed wars and another venture in libya. bailouts, stimulus programs, temporary tax cuts. these are the primary reasons we have a large deficits we have right now. so, we need to recognize that the true threat, the deficits we will have in the future aft those temporary situations are gone, that are driven by the

retirement of the baby boomers situation -- generation. tend thousand people per day are eligible to retire under social security. they are driven by health care costs that grow much faster than the economy. and a growing gap between projected revenues and expenditures. so, let's keep our eye on the ball and focus on the real threat rher than what people believe it might be. host: last question before we go to calls. politically feasible? guest: i think it is not politically feasible to engage in dramatic in panama reforms, tax reforms, and spending cuts and read prioritization of this year. because the work has not been done with the american people. the commission did great work but they did not do anything outside the beltway. you need to prepare the american bible for the chubb -- tough choices. what is politically feasible is let's get an agreement on spending for 2011 and for 2012. let's bring back stuff stacked

-- tough statutory budget controls that start in 2013. and let us engaged in an authorized and funded citiz education engagement effort that would inform the electorate for 2012 and allow elected officials to make tough choices without losing their jobs. host: david walker is our guest, founder and ceo of come back initiative, former controller general of the united states for about 10 years. new orleans, a democrat. you're on the air with david walker. caller: thank you for c-span. all i went through school was the eighth grade. but this gentleman was articulate enough for me to understand. i came on the air to jump on him about -- and everybody is talking about expenditures and nobody is talking about revenues. there was a major tax cut for large corporations and the very rich and i was very refreshed to hear him mention it. you cannot keep on giving people tax breaks, giving

multimilliaires more and more money and take it from the people of the bottom. my daddy used as a years ago, he had more trust for a man in an alley with a gun becau you know where he was coming from. the guys in the bks with a pencil press deang more money and has a lot less moral spirit -- morals. you have to have revenue to pay for expenditures. the whole thing is completely out of whack. host: we have to leave it there. let us get a response from our guest. guest: first, the problem is primarily a spending problem. the government has grown too big and promised to much and waited too long to restructure. we will have to reform entitlement programs to make them solvent, sustainable, secure, affordable. the biggest challeng will be health care. secondly, we will have to cut defense and other spending and constrain it in a way that does not compromise national or

homeland security. that could be done. thirdly, we will have to reform our tax system to make it simpler, fairer, more competitive and equitable and to generate more revenues. in my view, it isbout two to three to one -- spending cuts over time compared to additional revenues. but we are going to have to have additional revenues. the ma just doesn't work otherwise. host: the next call for david walker. david from illinois. caller: take a short comment and a question. mr. walker, i have seen him before on your program and when you first left government, i thought when his organization was formed it was funded primarily by a very wealthy man, one individual. secondly, i am really miffed at the fact that mr. walker said government -- government grew too big. tell me where there has been a

steady that government should be of a certain size? we've got 300 million-plus people in this country. we are stuck all over the world with all kinds of adventures and economic interests. why should we have a small government? guest: first, i think it is it -- legitimate to lead a discussion and debate what we think government should do. i think there would be a significant difference in opinion about whether we should be doing the policing actions around the world, including the latest one in libya. the fact is th -- in 1800, the federal government was 2% of the economy. today it is 25% of the economy, and it is on track to be 38% of the economy without any reforms by 24. if you add state and local government to that, government would be 50% of the economy by 2014. you can look at all of the studies in the world and find out the larger the government

gets, the less economic growth peaked, the less innovation, etcetera. government plays an important role. and we need to make sure that government is focused on the things that it must do and we should not rely on the private sector to do. but one thing for sure, you can't have a big government and small taxes. it does not work. he will go bankrupt. host: monty tweets in -- guest: first, we cannot grow our way outf our problem. we are in a $60 tllion-plus hole when you consider not just our corrects debt but the off- balance sheet, unfunded obligations for medicare, social security, a ryan -- variety of commitment to contingencies. in order to grow your way out of the whole, by simple math, it would take double-digit real gdp growth for decades. it has never happened in the

history of the united states. it is not going to happen. yes, if we want to have policies that are pro-growth that will help minimize the number of changes. but we are going to have to make changes regarding spending programs and tax policies. to and the sooner we do it, the less the changes will be, the more time we will have to phase them in, and the less chance we will have a debt crisis. the noble the number one holder of our debt is? the federal reserve. it is self dealing. when they quit buying our debt, we will have to go -- to go to the markets, and based on the current path, interest rates will go up and that will compound our problem potentially very quickly. host: staten iand, new york. arthur, a republican line. caller: hello, mr. peter. if i were to buy both of your generous and breakfast, you would not have a chance to egypt

-- eat it because -- have you made a comparable study with those that have similar fiscal that in the united states and where do we stand? and the second question would be, based on what you say, faugh is it just one party not listening or is it both party's responsibility? because i agree with a lot of things that you said. it's out of the problem to get other than we should be maybe tax. is it just one party not listening or both? host: we got a point. david walker? guest: w compared debt levels to 34 countries and the governance systems for 34 countries and if you and other viewers should go to combat the merkel web site, www.tcaii.org

did you can access the information directly -- comeback america website. regarding the political issue -- there is no party of fiscal responsibility. the facts e that both parties have had a problem regarding fiscal responsibility. the last 10 years has been a disaster. if you look at president george herbert walker bush, 41, and president william jefferson clinton, one republican and democrat -- they did three things in common that were fiscally responsible. they imposed a tough budget controls to keep government from making more promises, they did not expand entitlement programs, and they broke campaign pledges on taxes when they sathey were irresponsible. 343, they did the right thing. george w. bush and unfortunately so far president obama are exactly the opposite -- 043. the president has to show more leadership. he is not engaged in the issue.

he is the chief executive officer of the united states. he has an obligation. and frankly, the leaders of both parties have to work with the president on a construive basis to help keep america great and to avoid a debt crisis. host: 3400 tweets in -- guest: i think we need to understand the difference between the short-term challenge and the structural challenge but let me try real quickly. first, we want to make sure that we don't undercut the heat -- undercut the economic recovery. we need to get unemployment down. and it actually we need to make targeted investments in critical infrastructure and a few other areas that could help us improve innovation, increased economic growth, and our competitive posture. the real threat is not this year and next year. at the same time, we hav