the congressional republicans plan would trim more over six years. on washington journal, we will hear more about the proposal with a focus on social security. our guest is the former president of the service employees international union. that is tomorrow morning at 9:15 eastern here on c-span. on c-span tonight, a discussion about the future of the news media on the new orleans literary festival. defense secretary robert gates talks to reporters about military operations in libya. former governor jerry johnson launches his presidential campaign. a discussion about the occupational safety and health administration. coming up next, we take you to new orleans or a discussion about the current state of the news industry. it was part of the 25th annual

tennessee williams new orleans literary festival. panelists include republican strategist mary matalin and columnist and the dickinson. this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> let me introduce the panel. amy dickinson is the author of the best swelling memo. she is a syndicated columnist. her column has 22 million liters a day. that is a lot of readers. she is also a panelist on npr. for those of you familiar with our, you will understand when i say that her voice is often someone's engineering machine. -- answering machine. [laughter] mary matalin is a political consultant doing work with the

republican party. she has been an assistant to george w. bush and counselor or vice president dick cheney. she is president of a republican publishing company. she has appeared in various documentaries and movies, some with their husband james carville. ellis henican is a contest -- columnist for newsday. he has a syndicated radio show on the talk radio network. he is also a stand-up comedian. on the cartoon network series called "sealab 2021," he is the voice of "stormy." for those of us who have no idea what he sounds like, would it be possible to hear it?

>> it is like me after drinking. [laughter] >> i think this is a great topic. after a while we will have time for questions. let me throw out a job wrote to all of you -- -- jump rope to all of you -- if you want to learn, and get the information, and get the details, outside of the people you work for, do you turn to to get an informed opinion that you respect and trust? >> i will start because i am at the end. i have npr on all the time. that is sort of natural. [applause] i know. hey, we do not need you. [laughter] but, like everyone, i am at this

transition where i am keeping it together in different ways. when this japanese incident, when this tragedy happened in japan, i ran to my computer. it's your home page is not to or msn -- yahoo! or msn, you get what they feed you. i have not watched network news in a long time. i turn to cnn rebecs is bleak -- we flexibly if there is a breaking story. -- reflexively if there is a breaking story. i have been very disappointed with cnn's coverage. i have been disappointed, especially when anderson cooper shows up and they get the camera

on him as a waltz around. -- as he walks around. but i digress. those are my sources. >> management spends a lot of time in the gym. >> i know. >> that he sure does not come for free. i am spending less time in the gym myself. what characterizes mine is multitasking and short attention span. i am the guy with a remote in and going between boxing, cnn, and bloomberg. i see stop on the net and on the i phone. i think it has resulted in meat being very broad in my knowledge and very shallow in my knowledge. i think that is where most of us kind of neat to be these days. we need to be quick and at

least appears like we kind of know something on a huge amount of topics. eventually we get around to remembering how a nuclear power plant meltdown in japan, but in the meantime, we have to be semi-smart. i soak up a lot of things from a lot of places. >> mary, i will come backwards to your question. the absence of knowledge and never includes the presence of many opinions. there is almost an inverse relationship. i would say everybody out of the box on japan, on egypt, on libya was off. that is a consequence of having a lot of air time to fill. the quality diminishes as the quantity increases. over all when that happens and there is an international

disaster or any kind of news event, people turn to cnn. i have been doing this for 35 years, but their ratings are a testament that cnn does not to cover this. just because he brought it up, anderson cooper is a dear friend of new orleans. >> i know that. the reason i like him as i do not know it is a conservative or a liberal, but he could reverse the stories compassionately. i have not seen that. i find him an incredible, unique reporter for the times in which we live. the data suggests that if people want headlines, they turn to cnn. if they want opinion, they turn to any of the other cable networks or their online source of choice.

if they want in doubt pratt, they turned to the "wall street journal" or the "new york times." people are not supplanting necessarily the traditional sources of media. they are mixing them and integrating them with the traditional. the good news is that 83% of the people say they had some source of news yesterday. that means only 17% of us are ignoramuses. what's the definition of news gets very broad. >> they checked in at some level. >> as someone who witnessed what happened during katrina, i did not know to think if there were journalists telling the story for the sake of journalism or if they were putting on a show.

sometimes you wonder about that. you wonder about that with anderson cooper and geraldo. i am not sure where they land. it was something called the "newseum," there is a news clip where mary landrieu is talking about money she just got from congress. anderson cooper put it down and says, "you can talk about making deals with politicians, but there are people suffering." it was a very yahoo! tight moment. a senator has to deal with congress set and make relationships. >> he really emerged after the coverage. bless him, months after the storm i love the fact that he kept coming back. he would not leave. he made something happen, which

sort of speaks to our topic. he became an advocate for the little guy, the faceless said a socitizen. i feel that in the course of doing that, his brand as run amok. now you do not see the faceless citizen, you see him advocating. he does more good than not. >> i am not totally sure that is bad. one thing i have tried to work across a bunch of different media is that each one does one thing well. no one brings depth and perspective in a way that works on paper or worse on a screen -- writing is the best way to learn something. but television does a hugely better job of connecting us with people. people see you on tv and they

feel they know you. it is like a little window on the soul. somehow or another, we are not as good as doing it. i think the answer is to recognize what each of these media does a great and then do not apologize. t be put on a really good show. there is some good stuff about putting on a really good show. i do not know. i feel like at this point, we all work across them. you want to just ride the hell out of them. >> this is just an observation. it will make my kids as an academic aspirations. the equation is that you have a lot of time to fill, there is an inverse proportion between quality and quantity. they all can start out with all these people in journalism.

i have met in 35 years of one person say that i want to be in theater, but i will have to be in music. all the young people want to be journalist in the emerging democracies. they want to tell the truth. they want transparency. they are critical -- it was critical to our elders to have transparency and accountability. -- our founders thought to have transparency and accountability. a good reporter starts out at point a. much of what gets out on television or the paper gets diluted down or expanded out, however you want to think of that, by editors who want to milk a story. you are often on television -- if i am try to get a simple answer to somebody, [laughter]

>> i thought you liked made? >> i love you. i think the most important thing since we now have increasingly stations for opinion and delegating your own opinion is that we know what we are looking at. we are looking at anderson cooper on day one, we know he is bringing his passion and his skills. if we are looking at him on a date can -- day 10, we are in the commercial break saying, "you got to stop eating all that fried food." [laughter] as of viewers, we have to know what we are looking at and why it morphs into what it does. i do not think we are necessarily cynical, but respect for accuracy and bias for

traditional sources of news is at an all-time low. i am talking about opinions. they think regular news reporters are biased, inaccurate, and do not correct stories -- do not correct mistakes when they make them. >> i am try to figure where we are in terms of opinion. the nation was built by opinion makers. thomas jefferson had his own editors he would go out to john adams. politicians themselves used newspapers. when you look at where we came from, is this comparatively a golden age? [laughter] >> i was just talking to one of my kids about that two days ago, explaining thehearst

phenomenon -- the hearst phenomenon where a william randolph hearst wanted to go to war, it he could make it happen. people do not realize where we are in the cycle. with the explosion of technology, it is hard to know where we are in the cycle. anyone with a youtube upload can become a commentator. i think that could be a good thing. a lot of us as consumers just go to the think that is going to feed us what we already believe. i really see this in my own little world where my mom in the assisted living facilities, they are all watching msnbc nonstop.

in many long visits with her, i started watching msnbc and wondered "how can you watch this and not want to shoot yourself?" i watch box more often because i have been on fox. msnbc -- msnbc just blew my mind. it was all. it blew my mind. msnbc has the nbc component that i consider to be one of the founding broadcast news sources in this country. i had no idea that msnbc had become so, i do not know, left- leaning i guess you call it. opinionated. >> all of my elders in louisiana are not delivered to msnbc. [laughter] -- are not glued to msnbc.

for the first time in modern history, it is possible to have a huge diversity where you never hear anything said you do not disagree with. you can watch the cable channels that point to your values. you can look at the dumb stuff you think are right and only agreed opinions you agree with. there is something bad about that. most of us to think about this stuff get some benefit from watching something we have not thought of for a bias we do not immediately share. i will tell you, it is tough to get people away from that. this is something psychologically reassuring to hear somebody who is more articulate or better in four or more passionate than we are saying in a more articulate than we can something that we already kind of feel. it is disquieting, i think, for

a lot of people to hear somebody make a good argument we do not agree with. i do not know how you get people to do that. i am considered a liberal. i am viewed as the visiting team. [laughter] i know it is disquieting. you should read my e-mail. >> this is something i noticed on the fox and msnbc -- i thought the anchor's sort of read the stuff. it is sort of in this topsy- turvy world, the anchors, who are most of their own shows basically, they are the ones with the opinion. the commentators have come on to be reasonable. really? does that seem backwards? >> as a commentator, i like that

model. [laughter] >> if it is true. the anchors are the ones who came up with the -- come up with the stupid, provocative statements and then they toss it to the commentators to say, "well, not quite." >> we are talking about the choices. a lot of people do not remember growing up, as a kid there were three choices of network news -- nbc, cbs, and abc. i grew up watching this newscast. i think, probably, nbc is where a lot of people learned the news. that resonated with me. i watched the 5:30 newscast. the times have shifted. you can see the news at different hours now. it used to be that if you missed

the news, you missed the news. it was over until the time shifting aspect. since you mentioned fox, sometimes even in the conservative style, people get angry when you mention fox. why do people picked on fox? -- pick on fox? >> because it is people who are political and our politics have become very emotional. again, codified at byte data. they did a study at emory where they took people ought to an mri and engaged in a political debate. the rational parts of their brains what black. [laughter]

people bring that same emotion to what they see as a proxy in politics that they do not like. the reality is that all of these cable networks get a big uptick in viewership, particular erie during presidential cycles or -- presidential -- particularly presidential cycles. fox stayed steady. a lot of democrats watch it, believe it or not. i think the emotion about it goes to people who are excited about politics. i want to speak to your larger question about this golden age. what i first came to washington from the midwest, admittedly naive, i was shocked before the advent of cable.

favored reporters would get into the oval office and they would be spent that the story. it -- spoon-fed the story. it is one thing if you know you're getting opinion, but if you pick up the washington post or the new york times and they had been spoonfed by the president himself, that does not happen. one of the reasons i left the white house besides having a tag team of terrorists, they are not teenagers -- i think all you do is side with the president. all of my friends are all doing their job. it is so adversarial, but my job is to not cut them off, which a lot of political people try to do to control the message. the more you give them, the more

they can bring to a story. that is different from spoon feeding favored reporters. now the norm is somewhere between locking them out of real information, which makes it even more adversarial, and adding some favorites. i think we are in a better age than we were. we are skeptical of everything that we read. it goes back to another piece of data where people do not believe any more. it is good to be skeptical. we should be skeptical of anything that can evolve into an institutional power, which the media is. i think we have to have the help the system. >> i have given a lot of thought to your fox question, what it is that makes it so powerful and the ratings so high. fox does several things well. it is great looking television.

>> and dave brandt at all of their people. >> -- and of the a brathey branf their people. i read about bird they get their blond -- a pundit farm somewhere? [laughter] >> i think it is true. it is good-looking television. it also speaks to a feeling that is out there in america that certain issues and certain points of view were not adequately represented by the mainstream media for many years on television. there is obviously an audience for that. it is a big audience. it is kicking butt in the ratings. >> that is true.

when you have newsreaders same the following, this past week during the president's visit to latin america, the news reader said -- and i was watching fox. i was really paying attention to fox that day. the news reader said, "hundreds down in brazil have asked brazil to produce more oil." i said, "that is a story." then she went on tuesday, "when we already have plenty of it right here." i thought, "oh my god." this was 2:00 in the afternoon. this was not a cross fire type show. this was just their regular news cast. i thought it was extremely bias. i was surprised. >> well, you know what else they

all do? they spend a lot of time picking on each other. it they spent so much time trashing each other -- not politicians, but other members of the media -- it is so boring. i think people do like these stories, but this sort of trashing -- as mary said, there is a lot of time to fill. >> it is the basic element of a free-market society. a market for, not just opinion, but stories people were not getting. it was not just the news that was not being covered, it is the stories. i live here now. i think the -- i saw the tea party activity way before anyone. i had to do in politics for 35 years. this is not some astro turf.

fox just their first -- there first. they cover what is not considered political issues by the new york times or the boston ballet in excess. re first.he the response to that by those who were not succeeding and continued to not succeed because they are trapped in an old model for their own biases inside the news room -- it is there. i am stating a fact. i should get hospital pay. i should get battle pay. there is a market for it. people were not getting what

they wanted, not just a different point of view. also, it is also a market based. it makes prettier tv. on the old crossfire, we would sit with a black backdrop, bob novak and i talking to each other. he would talk and i would talk. we had too much synaptic disconnect with all our tools. >> it is a lot tougher for the william -- for the women than the guys. we have to not look grotesque. [laughter] right? >> i feel the privilege of aids. -- of age. i am not just going to botox it up for you, baby. [laughter] [applause]

>> mary makes a great point about it is not just the chatter and the opinion, i completely agree about the tea party movement. i lived in a rural area. sometimes you can actually set a clock. during the day after morning edition, i listened to glen beck and rush limbaugh. >> politics is emotional. you can almost set a clock when urfaces, it is days before its services elsewhere. they actually do cover stories that are not being covered elsewhere. >> let me be pro-beck just a

little. that place to something some people believe. it is a very specific and kind of, i would say, slanted and narrow view of the world. there are other ways you could feel about the world. >> many days i hate myself. there is a whole bunch of other ways. in radio, that has not happen very well. i am not quite sure why. >> npr is being sniped at where it hurts the most, the money. >> don't look at me. i did not do it. >> some people say it has a reputation of having a liberal

bias. do you agree with that assessment? >> i do. i do agree with that assessment. i actually do. i cannot work for npr news. i am on a comedy quiz show, people. i have a long history with npr, some of the editorial. i do agree with that. >> does anyone want to comment? >> hoop cares if they are liberal? ares if they are liberal? even though it is an infinitesimal amount of money, the overarching issue we find ourselves, what are our tax dollars going for? i listened to npr all the time, but i don't like paying for it.

>> i fully understand that, and when you see the devotion -- talk about an audience that is absolutely devoted, i know that the npr audience is willing to pay for it, to keep their local stations going. that is legitimate, and what they should do. >> some of this is in the eye of the beholder. i know mary will see the media as being more liberal than i see it. i see it being more established and down the middle. i would rather have a thought about why we have to define the world in that way. most smart people i know are not listening to nancy pelosi for their world view, nor to john boehner. most cannot go home at night talking about continuing resolutions to fund the united

states government. maybe it is different in the room -- >> not in my house. >> the people you know -- let's be honest -- you are conservative about something, you what taxes to be low, but if a couple of gay guys want to get married, what you care? isn't that the way most people are today? why is it that the media, we still have to be red teamed or blue team? i would love to find a way the bus that. >> i am a member couple of the best right wing conspiracy, but i listened to smart people thinking anew, looking at a problem in a new way. for years, i am sure we have been engaged in this, let's have a program about -- and they tell you something, nobody watches it, it does not get any ratings,

but minute argument is, we are in a niche world now where 100,000 viewers is huge. there might be 100 thousands of people where people want to watch chatter. the answer to your question, the existing model and no one has broken out of it sufficient to convince people who find the stuff it is an operable business model. >> you permit me to refer to the liberal and conservative here. the so-called conservatives commercial radio has succeeded. rush limbaugh and glenn beck -- hasn't commercial liberal radio succeeded? why has it worked on the conservatives but not on the

liberals side? >> al franken did a terrible radio show. >> it is not like i wanted to listen to jeannie garafalo. >> npr may suck some of that way. it has huge audiences, and for many years we had no idea how many people listened. it turns out there are a lot of them. >> they walk amongst us. >> they are the kind of stuff advertisers like. i do not think -- some people make the argument that people on the left make the argument that those conservative ideas, they are so dumb and civil, and they work well on talk radio. the complex nuances of liberals -- >> everything gets a score.

that is not correct, and that is why i listen to glenn beck, because there is a lot: on their, and you have to be sophisticated about it, you have to meet out -- sometimes i worry about where he is headed and where he is trying to leave. he seems eager to lead people, which makes me nervous. there is a lot going on in there. enn, and itush, gelnl is a very hard job. glenn beck is a libertarian and never speaks to the party. pudiated and as the season with a party.

russia is a conservative in the old-fashioned, edmund burke rational -- his daddy, whole family, carribean jurists. he prepares harker if you disagree with his opinion, he reduces them to clarity, and enough to inspire you to want to dig deeper. he is entertaining. my husband loves him. they laughed out loud. >> is good on politics, and i have learned a lot from listening to rush limbaugh. i hate the fact that i feel light he shills for himself a lot of excess of it. "i am on an awesome golf holiday weekend." there are hours of that.

>> you have a different bond with your audience. they know golfing is amusing, and they know all about his wife. i do not think it is only in the media that he can do it over a period of time where people feel feel the intimacy of speaking to people one on one. >> there is a tolerance for selling that has grown in radio. >> kerr rooting -- >> television has do not do live commercial reads. that is part of radio's selling. when glenn goes on about cold, there is money involved there. >> the you think that rush eightgh golfs for

days -- >> rush has enough money to pay for his hotel rooms. he is a hugely generous person, and it would be helpful -- and i doubt they would be paying him. he does not like to take guests. >> there were times -- after september 11, he made good speeches. there were times when he seemed at the call the communicating. the you ever worked with him in terms of relating to the media or what recommendations did you get to him? >> whoever had the privilege of working for president of either party, whatever your advice is, you keep it between you and your president. part of communicating what is

done on in a transitional world, the difficulty of it obviously is not the exclusive province of wanting -- one president or one party, evidenced by barack obama's complete lack of clarity. versus given minute, over arching. this morning, the press was not on obama and a fixed and egypt or libya, and their excuse was they were getting facts, and then we will ask the questions. after 9/11, i was in that room. they are americans. we have seen that kind of threat on our shores, and they felt then that they were doing their jobs, so they came back a psychological force, a need for a personal and collective redemption that they've went too much away. what happens to the person who

is supposed to be giving information, they feel like a beat up hopping. go out there and we can prove you can walk on water picket they will say he cannot swim. it is the environmental issue, and this is what i am not a knee-jerk attack her of for obama. i know what it is to be so exhausted. in the last two or three months, we have had more news than a decade. what for every country in the mideast to japan, these people are responding to it in real time, across a vast bureaucracy, and they are exhausted. it is hard to communicate, these yore --heseyore

>> they did not know that much. >> they were removed from what. >> in england they read denise. >> if you respond in real time, you are not contemplate of enough. have some mercy for those people who put those lives in those offices. >> a different direction. tradition ofif comedians offering political opinions. will rogers, mark twain. today you see a lot of comedy like "a daily show" being used,

and a late night talk shows, very opinionated politically. how powerful are comedians? the audience -- the comedians are more powerful than the commentators >> it is a different demo. >> the only thing my college student -- jon stewart -- they think that is a news program. >> there is smart stuff there. >> absolutely. >> you would not want it to be your only source. if conservatives have done a good job in talk radio, i think the left has probably -- the left is still a lot more fun, isn't it? [applause] >> see, we can fight about everything.

it is more fun. it was not that long ago, the 1992 campaign when bill clinton went on arsenio hall. he had a cat. we have gone from bad to now, i think john mccain announced on jay leno, they all go on the show is cheery i am for an informed citizenry, and i think it is very much in the condition of america at the fogh fun at people who put themselves in the position to be poked at. before jon stewart, there were curtains. i think our kids, they live on -- they are smart integrated it into a larger world view. >> we work hard to get younger readers, of yours, and it is

tough. those outlets have found ways to connect with wonderful us that the traditional sugar last delivery of news, maybe we have not done as well. >> great moments in american political speeches, in which roosevelt and kennedy -- and then you would see an excerpt from bush saying something like, where is the coffin? -- the coffee? it seemed like it was a cause, night after night. did that ever cause any reaction where you are? >> for that stuff to be funny it has to play to something people already plea. you can tell george w. bush stories that connected with people. maybe that is why that work ed?

>> humor works only if there is an element of truth in it. it does not work when it gets angry, and what you are suggesting, and if you do it night tonight, you're right to -- it is just angry and that is the antithesis of human. after a few times, the first thing you do you are a communications person, let's go into lions den, and when does not help, you cannot win everybody over. >> let's talk about individuals. who are some people -- some commentators -- whom are people you admire as commentators thought, list -- columnists? it is funny, i read a lot

columnist, and i find something to dislike about all of them, which is good. that is what we have been talking about. i am trying to think of someone i run to -- "doonesbury." on politics? someone who i love to see walking down towards the mike? i cannot think of anyone. >> i am focused on people who can make nonpolitical junkies and caged and interested in politics. gail collins the best person writing today. she is someone who can make it interesting and fun for people who do not care one little bit about it. i wish there were more of us who were doing that well.

>> i used to love maureen dowd, but just got so caustic. everything inside, so i do not know. >> beautiful writing and speaking are a consequence of -- it is a skill and talent. i always thought maureen dowd -- i told her she was that the bout for the smart set. -- she was a diva for the smart set. get a beautiful later is haiti -- the other beautiful writer is peggy noonan. she writes beautifully. i do not care if they're right or left, can the right

beautifully, can they make out a coherent argument, and can they do it without at homonyms can they do hit densely. i will give you a liberal. t, a great writer and thinker and can form an argument. >> i was thinking about wayne. i do not know if i would think of him as a writer. >> in a densely, factual -- >> a salesman for itself is brought obama. he is very articulate and has a charm to him.

>> i do not see that at all. i don't see him as having a charm about him. >> something must have worked when he ran for president. >> did he charmed us? >> i think there were people who were charmed by him. >> i would describe myself as a supporter, but i do not see him as being charming at all, not at all. you have mentioned salesmanship. >> what kind of a salesman is he for his own administration in terms of selling himself? >> pretty poor, i would say. i feel like a leader who is good at selling himself, inspires people the way tony blair did before he went off.

i remember when tony blair was urging england's to engage in the iraq war, he was -- it was really something to hear. it was truly inspiring. i do not think a president obama as an inspiring, charming salesman, not at all. i think he is super smart. i feel like he is the man for the moment, but i do not think he is doing a good job of selling. >> he is in a horrible situation. he has approval ratings in the 60's. >> he is under 50 in a majority of the states. >> but the big states that have more people -- i am not a math

major, but i think his numbers are pretty good. >> do you think of him as a charming? >> any of these presidents, yours as love, there are things they do well and not so well. the part that is not so charming is the impression that he is not a commanding enough to figure on what he believes on and selling that hard. >> it is like he is waiting, testing. i do not know if it is clear to us as citizens. >> there are few people in modern american history who can stand in front of an audience and inspire people. any of us who have listened to some of his great speeches, they are almost noonan-esque. >> i think it is not unfair.

the defining moment of what you like about or do not like about a president is what they do when they do not know the camera is gone to be on or their captors but in real time. i want to take this in as we can all hear you,. if it is not authentic, it does not ring true. it is not a problem with asking that question, that we keep asking that question, a template for success, how charming, popular is he? that is a bad way to measure a presidency in era of people focused on what are you going to do? there's a saying, the dog will not eat it. you have the best packaging,

placement, the dough will not eat the -- the dog will not eat the food. they do not want it, a year later, the increasing majority want it repealed. the dog won't eat it. he could be prince chiming, and we will not needed. if i was working in the obama white house, i would say quit trying to sell -- they think they can translate his part of a popularity to unpopular policies. they resist in the face of all manner of data -- i'm talking about losing he jersey and massachusetts -- you would think they would come around, but he also does not have bill clinton's political skills. >> i am comparing him to bill

clinton, and watched carefully. whether or not you agree with him -- he knew how to connect with people, said he was unforgettable. >> that is a pretty high political figure. i give you the last 20. >> i think hillary clinton is pretty compelling. i do. increasingly wanting her to run for something. >> i think our shh charm, what we find charming in during, admirable and our leaders, the hands on who it is. what is happening externally, i agree that hillary appears to be the most effective in this current milieu. i am going to say what my

husband said, which he was roundly criticized, hillary gave -- hillary barack obama won a first. so that he has to. -- so that he has two. that is charming, but my larger point is it depends -- the effectiveness as a person of the on policy depends on what they are doing at the end of the day, what positions are they taking. >> and what are they selling. >> and our analysis of it ends up where we started, whether it was a poor person or not. it is true in the political update we have the of use people think are predictable. -- the views people have are predictable. >> to the larger person to

determine election outcomes, independents whose wong 18 points to republicans in the last midterm. they cannot like democrats. they like or oppose policies. there is something to being able to clarify and committee for policy, but you are not -- we are not their audience. >> we are going to questions. we will do a lightning round. a couple names and comments. people who are in the life of offering political commentary. elio spitzer. >> why does he have his own show? i did not get that. he has a very narrow expertise,

and as a resident of new york state, and after years of seeing and the state -- i am over him. >> it was a bold choice, but not for the reasons most people think. i cannot think there is another bald male television anger in primetime? [unintelligible] >> i am a conservative. i believe in redemption, so i will put that aside. i was prepared to not like him, but i met him. he is incredibly charming and it comes across on tv. tv is for making money. if he was not a charming and coming to the screen in some

way, and i got people were fighting in charming on television, because he is smart. i think the country -- to the extent they remember -- we are redemptive by nature. >> james carville. >> i like men from louisiana to be good. few people can boil down complicated issues that can make them understandable and feel fresh, especially for people who are not thinking about it. >> but he has the attention span of a hummingbird. another we this, they will tell you he is the worst -- tv is a cool medium -- he is hot sauce.

we work along with add people himself. they tell you in tv, he is the exact opposite of and there is something that people stop him in airports. they do not connect with him. i think a part of it is, you are so weird. they say things like, there is so -- you are so weird, there's hope for my son. he is smart. he couldn't do what he did if he is not as smart as he is. >> i think we agreed that she is unique. he really is. i remember the first tory i read about him, and it was a style

peace and "the washington post," and he jumps off the page. this was before anybody met him or knew of him. >> let me tell you something about that piece, because we were dating. whoever the reporter was shall remain unnamed to. they put in there that james carville had a million portis in every store. at the moment i was the only one. the upshot of that, i tortured him for so much that he bought me a car. >> see, journalism works. >> the one to the point the phrase, -- he was the one who coined the phrase, it's teh economy, stupid.

>> i have watched network news for 60 years, and i want to tell you what is journalism at its best. watergate, the mccarthy hearings, the moon shot. is that i of the camera. we do not good looking people, words, it is actual ewing of events, we see them, we draw our conclusions. >> amen. >> this gentleman is quite correct. unfortunately, i find this panel disappointing. proved positive of why journalism is stale, is in bed with politics and thinks entertainment is its objective. the role of journalism in democracy is to be a check on

government, taking releases from any politician, whether tea party or white house is going down the wrong road. i will give the phrase. weapons of mass destruction. came from a politician. it was a lie, and the preston not penetrate its. we live in terror of a muslim attack. how many muslims domestically have killed and american -- an american since 9/11? >> that is not true. >> domestically. the point that was not a foreign muslim. think about it. when politicians speak, instead of investigating the truth -- a person attacks government

programs as being a waste. if i were a journalist, the first thing i would look in to is he, members of his family, or anyone else he is associated with politically benefiting from the french, or have they given the back of journalism, to be effective as to advocate -- and to the extent that we are, the news is entertainment driven, attractive people, and using politicians as a point of departure, you can guarantee that the must receipt is in deep trouble. >> thank you. >> i think you are watching the wrong stuff. there is the day, and none of us are going to defend everything under the banner of media, crap.e some of vick'it is

there is a greater diversity than ever brought for, a wider range of points of view. there is more investigative work being done by more aggressive and smarter people that ever, and everyone in the room has the opportunity to engage in it ourselves. >> and participate. >> and judge what we do, do your reporting, and that is what makes me excited about being a part of this. it is a little, frankly, kind of throw up your handsy to say there is nothing out there. get busy, man. >> i am going to ask a question -- jeb bush. >> what do you want to know? >> he is not getting in, but for

the moment he is the only one who could unify a very fractious party, which i love. we love to internally debate. we are good at circling the wagons. to the larger issue, the nominee that will be merged in this era will have to have the breadth and depth of experience and a record and a capacity to articulate it the way everyone knows, because they have seen it. he will not get in. >> i am glad you mentioned thomas payne because he is one -- thopmamas paine. >> what would you write if you could write a simple pamphlet right now? what would you write in a short pamphlet and what would you call it? my second thing is, would you

consider noonan a writer or a rhetoricist? >> what a question. i think she is a beautiful right there. that is why i read her. she is a thinker. i do not always agree with her thesis, but i do love to read her work. thank you. that is a great question about pamphlet, and i got to think about that. i love that. >> the absence of the beauty of paine is common sense. anybody of us could write 10 pages of common sense, starting with money does not make education. the essence of a virtuous

society, which is what the founders were striving for and about which they were concerned, was that we would not be educated enough, artisan the torre and f, moral enough, and reasonable enough, and apply common-sense across to all these things. 40% of the kids today are out of wedlock. teenagers are having babies trade we have 35-year-old grandmothers. we could all, and it is a good fought exercise -- thought exercises. >> one of the reasons i listened .o npr is women's issues ticket this issue about health care, you break for commercials, and it is a health-care provider or a hospital or a pharmaceutical.

>> defund. pharmaceutical companies find a great space for commercial broadcasting, certainly news. and if you're looking to buy product life depends or something intended for an older audience will watch abc, nbc, or cbs at night and that is what you see. actually, i think these commercial providers do, and for local news, they dictate a lot of the stories you see. you will see if there is an era- style that will show on, that night your local news station will run a story, allegedly,

about the very issue that was on the network that night. it is crazy. public broadcasting is great, but then you get the founders -- the funders, who are these foundations? >> you have read my mind on the local news because when i was a politician i started being interviewed, my kids got a stop watch out, and if i was like at 6:00, it was one minute i was talking, but the normal store it was to have a half minutes and i got to sentences in. when you talk about the local news is like to cover this, if you get your stopwatch out it will be 2.5 minutes of coverage,

the the first political media -- meeting i went to, the reporter was there 15 minutes, did not know what the meeting was about, but at the 2.5 minutes left. how does that fit into television educating us, and all of us make better decisions because of what we see? >> go to your local bloggers. there are some amazing local internet -- amazing, local reporting going on. these are people that stay for an entire meeting and they attack the transcripts. the newspaper.d he should be reading the "times picayune."

be a smart consumer about it. there is actual people covering this stuff if you can find it. we need to find a way to pay for ait. >> the closer to the people, but that of the coverage, believe it or not, because you could go down to the station -- same gambit," buthe "damn a national tv and radio, james and i used to laugh because what he just said. when you know you are only going to get quoted a certain amount of time, because of,pithy you are, there are people in washington thinking about two-

second sound bites. you could see that they had been waiting to use this, it had nothing to do with what they are doing. the point it affects your behavior if you want to get coverage, he would adjust to what they would cover. you can march that indecision, battered local and national. >> i would like to follow up his question, jeb bush, with my question, haley barbour? >> liberals and conservatives are like venus and mars. it would never occurred to me to say joe biden -- ugh. haley barbour is an experienced politician. he has the best infrastructure,

he has fundraisers. he is a very effective policy thinker and an experienced officeholder, and he has gone to the better than the pa unditocracy will think. >> thank you very much. it is start to head down. thank you all very much. >> defense secretary robert gates talked to reporters about military operations in libya. gary johnson launches his presidential campaign.

>> here are some of the programs featured on c-span. three former secretaries of state, about american diplomacy, a revisit of the starr vs. clinton case, and memories of the white house during the presidency of her grandfather and father. on bob dole. for complete list of this week and cost programs, go online at c-span.org. the congressional directory, a complete guide to the 112th congress.

contact information, including addresses, maps, and assign this. information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. >> robert gates told reporters the president had authorized the use of drones in libya. he was joined by james cartwright. here is part of that news briefing. >> i thought we would take this opportunity, so we'll go to questions. >> the situation in libya, where

hair and reports the british, french, and the italians are going to send trainers. has there been discussion about the united states providing additional military and air support over the course of time as things move ahead, particularly considering things appearing to be a stalemate, and whether or not you think it is a statement. secondarily, the decision yesterday to provide aid to the opposition. does this suggest that we now know who the opposition forces are there has been a great deal of concern about, that the united states did not know who these people were. --t for the general [unintelligible] is the regime using cluster bombs? >> the president's strategy from

the very beginning -- out in advance with our allies -- was that we would have a significant role at the beginning of the establishment of a no-fly zone, use our capabilities to suppress the air defenses, and treat the circumstances in which we could then recede to support role and our allies and friends sustain the effort overtime, including the effort to prevent a humanitarian disaster. that is essentially what we have done. i think there was some precision in identifying as military objectives the no-fly zone and preventing a humanitarian catastrophe, particularly in nghazi.

regime change was a political goal, and regime change is complicated, and that it works best when it is done from the inside, and that it could take time, and that is what the sanctions and the embargo and everything are associated with that. the president has said where we have the unique abilities he is willing to use those, and in fact approved the use of armed creditors -- predators. today may have been their first mission. at that will give us some precision capability, and the general might want to say something about that. in terms of the assistance,

sending uniforms, it is all nonlethal. i am not worried about our canteen technology falling into the wrong hands. there is still a lot we do not know about the opposition, the only ones with to any of us have contact are the ones in benghazi. as you say, there others providing trainers. >> on the cluster munitions, we are hearing the same things you are hearing. we do not have verification of any one using them. we will keep running on that one. predators, wecredit started with them and then flew them until today, and the first flights launched today, but the weather was not enough.

what they will bring that is unique to the conflict is their ability to get down low are, and to get better visibility on targets that have started to dig themselves in to defensive positions. they're uniquely suited for urban areas where you can get low collateral damage, so we are trying to manage that damage, but that is the best platform to do that with. they are extended for a full day, working targets, so you have this capability is in addition to being able to get in targets where collateral damage near depots.uring it brings capability to the commanders that they did not have before. >> how would you answer the

question, since you are having to introduce weaponry like armed predators, one, the u.s. withdrew their assets, or it is proof that nato cannot do the job? >> what we are trying to do is in the context of a humanitarian mission see what we can do in places like misrata and elsewhere with different capabilities. we actually continued our role for several days longer than had or originally been planned, hour strike role, and nato has shown an ability to sustain this mission. we have been in touch with our counterparts and they seem confident and seemed to be fully

comfortable with the notion of having to continue what they are doing for some period of time. obviously, it is and devolving situation, but we saw an opportunity here and recommend it to the president and he took it. >> why are these predators being reintroduced? >> because of the humanitarian situation we are seeing. for all the reasons he just cited, a pda capability that provide.s cannot >> things that are out in the open the they will perish if they nato bird sees them. you are seeing a dispersed

fight. the other issue out there we are trying to struggle with is not have the mixing of the lines, so it is difficult to pick friend from foe, said a vehicle like the predator helps us. >> are we witnessing mission creep here? are we doing one slice of salami at that time, as the united states involved more in this operation? >> no, i don't think so. the president has been firm with coons on the ground. there is no wiggle room with that. this is a limited capability. he said from the outset where we had he assets could contribute and would do that. this is a limited additional role on our part, but provides additional capabilities.

i do not think there is mission creep at all. i think the president has been cleared us that they primary strike role has been turned over to our allies and friends. if we can make a modest contribution with these armed predators, we will do it. i do not think that anybody of creep.at as mission >> are you talking of less than half a dozen, coming out of it get afghanistan? >> two birds would be in a country at any one time. they have the capability of being there 24 hours a day, so we can maintain two birds for 24 hours a day. they are currently based in the theater, not in afghanistan.

>> they did not come from afghanistan. >> nato said this week that air power alone will not solve the problem of fighting in cities like misrata, that the shelling remains indiscriminate, and there is close eye and that -- there is no sign that qaddafi will go. if humanitarian is the key goal, why two predators? to the firstmber principles in terms of why the president structured out of rolled away hess' three we have, we are the most stretched militarily. we have close to 100,000 troops

in afghanistan. we have 50,000 in iraq. we have 19 ships and 18,000 men and women in uniform helping on japan relief. the indicted states -- the united states has significant commitments. the president agreed to take a lead role because of the worry that gaddafi could destabilize the fledgling revolutions in the region, and to prevent a humanitarian disaster. the third reason was that while it was not a vital interest for us, how i allies -- our allies considered it a the battle enters. we thought it was important to help them in libya. there was never any lack of clarity about the limits on the

u.s. role, and i would say other things in terms of nato. one is they are concerned about not going beyond the mandate of the u.n. security council resolution, and most of the opposition said they do not want foreign troops on the ground. regime change imposed from the outside as we have seen in iraq and the balkans is incredibly difficult. it works best as we have seen in tunisia and egypt when it is done from within. where trying to provide enough space in order of protect the pposition from gadaffi's military. to the extent we can we are reducing his capabilities were hopefully those who rose up in many of these other towns as low as the places that are under siege now will have a better

chance of being successful at bringing about a change there. >> you mentioned we are the most stressed military in a row. i want to get your reaction to the news last week when you were told by president obama he would be forced to as much as $400 billion over the next 10 years. in august he said cutting the defense budget greatest fear. what was your reaction? >> the key is the way the destruction -- is the way it was structured with the president's comment. the way i am thinking about this review is the worst of all possible worlds in my view is to give the entire department of defense a hair cut, saying everything is going to get

caught x percent. i want to frame this though options and consequences and risks are taken into account as this is are made by the president and congress. what i hope to do is framed this in a way that says if you want to cut this number of dollars, here are the consequences for structure. here are the choices in terms of capabilities thathere are the cf this. this needs to be a process that is driven by the analysis. it is about risk management with respect to future national security threats and challenges as well as commissions that

elected officials decide we should not have to perform or cannot perform anymore because we do not have the resources. i want to frame those choices because the easy thing for everybody is just to give a broad percentage cut. then there are no evidence consequences. i wanted to frame this in a way that the consequences and the rest are identified so people can make well thought out decisions. >> last november you could have said the cuts were met. could that same criticism be applied to the white house number of $400 billion? it seems to have come out of thin air. >> that was the target. i do not had that same criticism because of what the president said -- no specific budget decisions will be made until we review these things.

>> i hope to get an update on afghanistan. last month we were told the last few weeks would be important as the taliban and we knew there fighting in the warm weather. as the fighting bid renewed? what are you hearing from afghanistan? >> i will make a few comments. there has been some uptick in activity, but we are still in the middle of the harvest. i think they are really expecting whatever return to the battle field there is about the taliban will be some time more in may or june. my own view is that this year is a critical year.

we have driven the taliban out of areas they have controlled for years. that includes their heartland. they clearly intend to take that back. if we can prevent them this year from retaking areas we have taken away from them and we can continue to expand the knesset -- the security bopper, it is possible that by the end of this year we will have turned a corner. but that is months into the future than it is weeks. i think that we are all expecting an increase in the level of violence and activity beginning in a few weeks. >> i will just say that the seasonal issue is that the poppy

harvest is in full swing. it goes to around mid-may. the character of the fighting is along the lines of the individual spectacular attack rather than groups of people. we are trying to posture ourselves right now against the rat minds, as we would call them. they are coming up from the south and the southeast. we want to stop them said they cannot rebuild their stocks. >> before the decision to intervene was made, he warned about risks and challenges and difficulties of that mission. once the president decided and the whole team came together to support it -- are you ready to say i told you so? what do you see that gives you confidence to sustain and succeed?

how long is that going to be? i what's the answer to that is nobody knows. >> the answer to that is nobody knows. we have succeeded in avoiding the mass deaths that we believed we would have. in my personal opinion, the fears people have about a potential catastrophe in the -- in benghazi were made more real. i think we did accomplish that. this is a guy that the entire international community has essentially come together and said has to go. the circumstances here are unique.

in my whole experience i cannot recall the arab league voting one of their own members out. the resolution of the gulf cooperation council and the security council evolution -- there is a desire on the part of the international community to see him gone. i think there is an understanding that the real work of that will have to be done by the libyans themselves, but we can provide them with some comfort from the air. i think the kind of training some of the allies are going to do and some of the assistance provided will help them. but this could likely take a while. >> there is a bit of an over match given the constraints.

unique except maybe a little bit less than one other%. given the white house wants to make further cuts, where you're looking at 60% now? as we were told yesterday, major programs may be on the line. you have to start looking at the joint strike fighter -- >> these are the decisions i think need to be teed up for the president. there are those who argue that if you funded the department at roughly inflation for the next 12 years that you could find this money. that may well be true, but some of our big-ticket items are items that do not fall within that category. health care, fuel, and others like that.

we have some investments that we have to make. we have to buy the new tanker. we have to replace some of the surface ships that will h. ellis. they were bought during the reagan years and will age out. how many as one of the questions that has to be answered. -- is one of the questions that has to be answered. >> how many of the -- how much of the savings would be attributed to the department of defense? how will you decide how to compress the time line? >> i am sorry? >> of the $400 billion, how much for the department of defense? >> we do not know at this point. my cabinet colleagues are looking at me very suspiciously. [laughter]

that has not been worked out yet. then the second part -- >> how would you describe the process? >> we have just gotten started on this. i have had one meeting to begin thinking about how we structure in this. it will not be a mini-qdr. what approach we have talked about, and i have not settled on which approach we will take, but one approach would be to take the scenarios in the qdr and translate those into forces. that is what forces would be required to perform that range of missions. then if you began cutting off missions, if you began saying, why it we did not do this? what if we were not able? what if we decided we cannot

fight in two regions at the same time, what are the implications? it will start probably with the qdr and the terms of the scenarios and try to translate that into some of the programmatic implications as she began to reduce the emissions. >> are you worried that you could leave office and libya will still be at a stalemate? what more can nato duties change -- or should nato consider doing more than it has done so far? >> the worry will be my successors. [laughter] i think that -- i actually think some of the things that are being done in terms of trainers and in terms of providing nonlethal assistance are

important contributions. i talked about this in a hearing two or three weeks ago. i think one of the biggest deficiencies on the side of the opposition is the lack of training, the lack of structure, the lack of command and control, the lack of communications, the lack of experienced military people. i think if you can render the those, there is a -- if you those, theremedy opposition has been able to access some of the armories, particularly in the east. i think the biggest need on the part of the opposition right now, particularly in the east, is what the alliance members are doing. >> you say you see a need for

trainers on the ground. they are based on the grounds in one sense. >> they are not our boots. we never made that commitment for anybody else. the argument that the -- of the british, the french, and the others is giving these people a better capability of defending themselves is directly tied to the humanitarian mission. last question. >> if the opposition needs training, or you interested -- has the nato requested the u.s. send trainers there? >> no. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> on tomorrow's washington journal, a look at the republican presidential field with the -- with andy roth. we will talk about the government's decision to use unmanned drones in libya with jon alterman. washington journal begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> two-thirds of the american people dependent on the network news see those networks as the primary source of their news and information. all were hostile to richard nixon. >> bill inside pivotal moments in american history online at the c-span video library. share every c-span program from

1987 to today. it is washington your way. >> former new mexico governor, gary johnson, announced today that he will seek the republican nomination for president. he served as gunner from 1995 until 2003, advocating in favor of legalizing marijuana and gay rights. after the announcement, he is introduced by the former new hampshire state representative. this is a half an hour. [applause] >> thank you and good morning. this morning i am here to introduce what i hope will be the next president of the united states, gary johnson. he is a former two-term governor from new mexico. during that time he cast more vetoes than any other governor in the country. he was not willing to compromise on issues like taxes. he is more than just a ex-

governor, he is also a former businessman. he employed over 1000 people. he is a great athlete. he has climbed mount everest. he is a new type of leader that we need in the united states. he maintains core republican principles of like smaller size of government and less taxes, but also believes in a personal responsibility and personal freedom. the is the leader we need. it gives me great pleasure to be able to support someone president that i can say he is better than the lesser of two evils. gary as someone i can truly support and i hope he will be the next president of the united states. gary johnson. [applause] >> well, this is the first time i get to say this, but i am running for president of the united states.

[applause] to do that, i think you have to have a certain resonate to be able to do that. i like to think that i do have it. i have been an entrepreneur my entire life, ever since i was 13-years old, throwing newspapers, doing lines. since i was 17-years old i get paid for everything i have had in my life. when i was 21-years old i started a handyman business in albuquerque. 20 years later, i employed at 1000 people -- electrical, mechanical, plumbing. an american dream come true. naively, when i was elected governor of new mexico, being governor of new mexico and being in business was not really a plus. we were not getting the work that we should have. in 1999 i sold that business. nobody lost their job and that

business is doing better than ever. i ran for governor of new mexico. i had never been involved in politics prior to running for governor. i introduced myself to the republican party much like i am doing right now. i introduced myself to the republican party a couple of weeks before i announced. the chairman of the republican party of new mexico said, "i like you. the republican party is going to love you. we are an open party. when it comes to running for governor of new mexico, it will be an open process. you'll be able to take part in the debate and the discussions. then he says, "i think you are great, but you need to know that you'll never get elected. it is not possible to come from

completely outside of politics and get elected governor in a state that is2-to-one democrat." everything should be a cost- benefit analysis. what are we spending our money on and what are we getting for the money we are spending? in new mexico i think i was more outspoken than any governor in the country regarding school choice. i really believe in free markets. [applause] i believe it bringing educational on super norse to bear when it comes to education would really make a difference. -- all entrepreneurs to bear when it comes to education would really make a difference. i may have vetoed more bills when you consider the line-items that i also vetoed in new mexico -- i may have vetoed more legislation than the other 49 governors in the country

combined. it was not just say no. it was looking at what we were spending our money on and what we were getting for the money we were spending. i really do believe in smaller government. i really believe there are consequences of legislation that gets passed. maybe it is not in our best interest to pass all of the legislation that we pass, that it layers of bureaucracy on transactions that are not made any safer by you and i, but end up making it so much more cumbersome, so much more burdensome, and ends up adding a lot of money as opposed to the notion of liberty and freedom and the personal responsibility that goes along with that. as governor of new mexico, i raised a dialogue regarding the war on drugs. it was just an extension of everything that i did as

governor of new mexico, which was what are we spending our money on and what are we getting for the money we are spending? i am outraged over the fact that this country is bankrupt. how did we get here? how did we get ourselves into this position? my entire life i have watched government spend more money than what it takes in. i always thought it would be a day of reckoning with regard to the spending. i think that day of reckoning is here and that it is right now and it needs to be fixed. two is responsible? a week ago i was asked should president obama's health care plan be repealed? yes. i think that president obama's el care plan should be repealed because we simply cannot afford it. but what i said then and i will say now, i think republicans would gain a lot of credibility

in this argument if republicans would offer up a repeal of the prescription health care benefits that they passed when they controlled both houses of congress and ran up record deficits. [applause] those record deficits and debt spending pales in comparison to today, but the point is that both parties can share in what we have gotten to right now. i think we are on the verge of a financial collapse in this country. the writing is on the wall. this is not fear mongering. this is "we are going to encounter a financial collapse." quite simply, we cannot repay $14 trillion in debt when we are racking up $1.65 trillion in debt going forward. it is not going to happen. i am advocating balancing the federal budget tomorrow. i do not have a 20 year plan for

balancing the federal budget. the plan for balancing the federal budget is tomorrow. that is $1.60 trillion in reduced federal spending. the debates and the discussion that went on a couple of weeks ago regarding government's reduced spending -- we need to be cutting government spending by 43 cents. what went on two weeks ago was about less than one penny. it turns out after some analysis that it actually was like one one-hundredth of a penny of the 43 cents we need to cut when it comes to federal spending. we need to play out what happens in washington -- what happened in washington a couple of weeks ago hundreds more times if we want to bring this to bear. when we talk about balancing the federal budget, it is important to start out talking about medicaid, medicare, social

security -- not cutting social security, making social security solvent. and defense spending. when it comes to medicaid and medicare, i think the federal government should simply block grant the states a fixed amount of money which would be 43% less than what we are currently spending, do away with all the mandates, and give states the ability to deliver health care to the bork and those of 65. that would be laboratories of innovation. i will be talking about is the whole time running for president -- this is about 50 states. this is the country that we have. i worked 50 laboratories of innovation all out on this notion of best practices. best practices get emulated. of course there will be failure. but the notion that washington knows best has us in the position we are in right now

which is bankruptcy. when it comes to social security, it is a problem that is pale in comparison to medicare. medicare is going to end all the entire federal budget in a short amount of time if it is not brought under control. social security is a system that needs to take in more money than what it pays out. without raising taxes when it comes to social security, you can raise the retirement age. he could have means testing. you can change the escalator built into social security from the wage index to the employees and indexed. that third item would, as i understand it, make social security solvent into the future. when it comes to defense spending, can we cut 43% of our defense budget and still maintain a strong national defense? i believe that we can and we have an obligation to do that.

we have an obligation to provide ourselves with a strong national defense, but i think a strong national defense is way different than what we are currently engaged in, which is in my opinion just nation building across the world when we have our own nation to build. i would have been opposed to iraq at the get go. i thought we had the military surveillance capability to see iraq broke out in the weapons of mass destruction. if that they would have done that, we could have gone in and militarily address that situation. i thought if we went into iraq we would find ourselves in a civil war to which there would be no end. afghanistan, initially -- i thought that was totally wanted. that is why we have the military. we were attacked, we attacked back. if we are at war with the sum of bin laden and al qaeda. we should remain vigilant to the

terrorist threat. but after being in afghanistan after six months, we had effectively taken out al qaeda. that was 10 years ago. we are building roads, schools, bridges, and hospitals in iraq and afghanistan and we are borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar to do that. in my opinion, that is crazy. i think we should get out of iraq and afghanistan tomorrow. [applause] for all of the debate and discussion that we will have over that issue, all of which will be wanted, i suggest to you that we will have that same debate and discussion 25 years from now it that is when we finally decide to get out. in the meantime, we will continue to spend more money in those locations. we will continue to spend money we do not have. worse, a lot of men and service women will end up losing their

lives. libya -- in the environment i am in right now, i have to issue an opinion right away. i am opposed to what happened in libya a through z. where was the constitutional authority? where was the congress check off on us going into libya? where is it in the constitution that says that if we do not like a born leader, we should go in and toppled the born leader? who are the rebels in libya? have we not injected ourselves into a civil war in libya? are there not by other countries in the middle east right now that qualified for the same military intervention that we have implemented in libya? under the umbrella of a no-fly zone, saddam hussein existed for 12 years. under the umbrella of a no-fly zone, the atrocities in bosnia

occurred. at what point do ground troops become committed in libya? i think we have already seen that. the unintended consequence of government and its actions -- we take out saddam hussein and there goes the check to iran which may invest via military threat or may in fact be a security threat to the united states. i do not believe it exists at all at this point. it is something i think we should remain vigilant toward. it goes on and on and on. i believe in free markets. the discussion and the debate will be over government, government regulation, and three markets. i am always going to defend pre- market.

-- free markets. when free markets are talked about, i always point out that the fact we do not have free markets is a result of the problem we end up having. it is government and the unintended consequences of government and its actions, picking winners and losers when it comes to business, picking winners and losers when it comes to banking, and picking winners and losers when it comes to foreign government. the unintended consequence of government. having been governor of new mexico and having vetoed 750 pieces of legislation, i try to put myself on in the position of what is going to be the unintended consequence of this legislation. will it make a difference in anyone's life in new mexico? will we end up spending a whole lot more money when it came to these issues?

looking at health care in this country, believing in a free markets, believing that the government could really provide solutions when it comes to health care by just eliminating impediments for health care entrepreneurs to deliver better services at lower prices. by the way, health care in this country is about as far removed from free-market as it possibly could be, but always in this process, in this upcoming discussion, which i relish, i will be the one to take up the defense of the free-market system and hal if it was actually applied, it would make a difference. immigration is a really hot button issue right now. it is a debate. it is a discussion that should take place. i happen to think that immigration is really a good thing. i think this country is based

on immigration. in view immigration as a job creator, not a situation that takes away jobs. right now because of our convoluted immigration policy, is from abroad are coming and getting educated in the united states, but because of our convoluted immigration policy, we are sending them back to their countries of origin where, ultimately, they will employ tens of millions of indians as opposed to tens of millions of americans -- businesses that would have started up and developed an been nurtured in this country. i advocate its elimination of the corporate and contacts, recognizing this it is a double- taxed. by doing this, it would create tens of millions of jobs in this country. this would be the place to start up, build, nurtured businesses that are currently

taking place in other countries. corporate income tax started out as zero in this country. get back to that, and that is when we will release the some job creation. immigration -- immigration should be about work, not welfare. we have issues in this country regarding welfare. our emigrants coming across the border and taking entry-level jobs from americans? absolutely not. we as americans, we can sit home and collect a welfare check that is the same amount of money for doing nothing. i think we should make it as easy as possible for emigrants to get a work visa -- immigrants to get a work visa. i am not talking about citizenship or a green card. i am talking about a work visa which would entail a background

check and a scissors suit -- and a social security card so applicable taxes could be paid. regarding the illegal immigrants in this country right now, this is an unintended consequence of government. government has made it impossible for immigrants to get a work permit. they know if they get across the border, even illegally, that they can get a job because they had dozens of friends and family that lived in the united states and that they can get across the border, they will get that same job. when ronald reagan set up an amnesty period in the '80s, he put the government in charge of quotas. do not get the government and called in quotas. make it easy to get a work visa. but business decide whether or not there is a need for labor. if not, emigrants will go back to their countries of origin. if that there are jobs available, we'll see those jobs filled. there needs to be a grace period

where the immigrants who are in this country right now can get legal work visas. background checks, social security card -- said that taxes will be paid. the notion of building a fence across 2,000 miles of border, the notion of putting the national bar across 2,000 miles of border, in my opinion, would be a whole lot of money spent with very little if any benefit whatsoever. as i said regarding drug policy, a legal lot -- legalize marijuana and arguably 70% of the border balance with mexico goes away. that is the estimate of the drug cartels activity that is engaged in marijuana. if we cannot connect the dots between violence and prohibition, i do not know if we ever will be able to. these are disputes being played out with guns rather than in the

courts. let's really take a new look at all of these issues. now back to my announcement -- might announcement that i am chris -- seeking the republican nomination for president of the united states and i looked over to the debates and the discussion that will take place. this is a great country. this is a terrific country. we went to the moon. we can solve these problems we have right now, which burst and foremost is insolvency. we need to do this now. i would not be here right now if what i was saying was being said. it is not being said. the idea here is to actually -- what i am posing it is to take part in a contest to be the spokesperson for the republican party. if the republican party does not have options, then perhaps the republican party checks off a name that is not all that rep of

what republicans might believe. i think i speak on behalf of the majority of republicans. that is a contest i am engaged in right now. i looked over to the debate and discussion that will follow. if i did not say it earlier, i had a "mr smith goes to washington" experience. i realize there are lots to go to washington, but i was one of them. i feel like they made a difference and i feel like i can make a difference in this whole process. thank you very much. [applause] i will take some questions. questions? comments, any insults that any of you have?

describe my approach in new hampshire. i have been to about 34 states in the last 16 months. one of the places i really enjoyed more than anywhere is new hampshire, which is really good because of new hampshire is key to this whole process for me. i have to do and what to do really well in new hampshire. i will spend a lot of time in new hampshire where you can go from obscurity to prominence overnight with a good showing in new hampshire. i will go out on a limb and say that i will not be at work when it comes to being in new hampshire and talking to people. [applause] yes, it is. it is key to the equation. it is key to the equation to do well in the early primary states where, again, you can go from obscurity to being in a place

where the lights did not shine a brighter. i love retail politics. i love the fact it is really a one on one discussion, debate. i love the fact that in new hampshire -- and i saw all this might all be back -- what do you think about mitt romney for president? i am having him over for dinner sunday night, but i am undecided. i have to meet them all. i like that. what is different? i ran two campaigns for governor where i did not mention my opponent in print, radio, or television. the idea was to present ideas and give people a choice to the lesser of two evils. when it comes to me and comparing myself to others, i am

not the person to talk to. i will let you draw those conclusions. bypass the exploratory committee? first of all, i am committed to doing this. why do an exploratory committee f. i am committed to doing this? fund raising is part of this. we will have a very aggressive, online fund-raising campaign. the website would have gone up 20 minutes ago. it is garyjohnson2012.com. >> can you talk a little bit about where you have been? >> when it comes to gun control, i absolutely support the second amendment. as governor of new mexico back in 1995, concealed-carry it was something being hotly debated.

i saw that as an issue that would actually lead to less gun violence. that would be supporting conceal-carry. i would have been able to sign legislation allowing concealed- carry, believing it would lead to less over all gun violence. i thing we have seen that play out given the simi states have passed that and it has come to pass -- so many states have passed that and it has come to pass. >> the president was talking about raising money for his reelection campaign. >> the question was, how can you compete in a market that takes so much money? we believe we will raise enough money to be competitive. we will raise it in the

republican primary. it will involve a lot of work. it involves some entrepreneurialship on our part. i had no complaints about the way -- about the process. having run for governor of new mexico, i do not have any complaints. the rules or what they are -- are what they are. i accept that and expect to do well in this process. how do i feel about unions? i just have one issue with unions. just one. -- unless this used two hypothetical members of the union -- of those two

hypothetical members, one is the worst worker that i have ever seen. the other one is the best worker i have ever seen. i cannot reward the best and i cannot fire the worst. i have to accept them both as being equal. i do not think it works. thank you very much. [applause] >> may 1, your questions for university professor tibor machan. he will take your calls, in emails, and tweets. >> we ask students across the

country to consider washington, d.c. through their lands. the second prize winner addressed an issue that better help them understand the role the federal government. >> december 31, 2010 was a very important date for the federal government and the people of our country. major change in the tax policy would be made. these changes could increase the amounts of money paid by the citizens to the federal government. the bush tax cuts were set to expire on december 31, 2010. congress had not decided if they would extend them or let them expire. what are the best tax cuts? the bush tax cuts are the reduction of taxes passed by president george w. bush as part of the tax relief reconciliation act of 2001 and the regions of this state -- reconciliation act of 2003. in 1999 and 2000, our economy

was under a budget surplus. bush thought the tax cuts would be a good idea because he wanted to get more back to the consumer. >> by assuring that americans have more to spend, say, and invest, this legislation is adding fuel to an economic recovery. >> their past with this artificial expiration date. >> unfortunately, congress was divided on the topic. president barack obama developed a compromise. >> we ship permanently extend the bush tax cuts for all families making less than to under $50,000 a year. that is 98% -- $250,000 a year. that is 98% of the population. >> john boehner was the leader of the republican effort to convince congress to extend all the bush tax cuts.

>> i think extending all the current tax rates and making them permanent reduce the uncertainty in america and help small businesses and began to create jobs again. >> however, democrats were at a stalemate. one side endorsed president obama while the other side endorsed republican ideas. one thing everyone in congress was concerned about was middle- class families -- 98% of the population. it's the republican plan would have been realized, after several years, the deficit would have been at $3.50 trillion. bet that obama wanted to let the cuts expire for the top 2% of the population breeder >> if you think about the percentage of income by the top 1% of the population, it is a very large

number. they are responsible for the majority of the taxable income in the country. >> they talk about saving $700 billion over 10 years. it does not release citing the $700 billion. it is choosing to spend only $2.50 trillion as opposed to $3 trillion over 10 years. >> republican said tax cuts would hurt small businesses. -- said extending the tax cuts would hurt but small businesses. >> small companies had to determine how they would map out their spending for 2011 if they do not have the certainty right now about the tax rate. >> this higher income tax will affect small business. >> i do not think small

businesses would be hurt if the top brackets expired. >> in the new york times, peter orzog gave the possibility of a compromise -- extend the tax cuts for two years. on december 2, 2010, the house of representatives passed a house resolution -- the middle class tax relief of 2010. this bill partly includes bread the obama's idea of extending only for families earning less than $250,000 a year. however, the house and defended the bush tax cuts permanently. president obama try to create a compromise between the house and senate.

on december 6, 2010, president obama said a deal had been struck with the house republicans to extend the biggest tax cuts as part of the house tax package. on december 9, 2010, harry reid proposed an amendment. this amendment to the tax act included the extension of the bush tax cuts for all income levels for two years. on december 15, the senate passed the tax bill with an 81- 19 vote. on the same day, the house received the amended tax bill to vote on. on december 17, the house voted on changes to the tax bill. it passed the tax bill to 77- 148. on december 17, 2010, president obama signed the tax bill into law, effectively extending the push air -- the bush era tax

cuts to all citizens for two years. [applause] how will the economy be affected by the new tax code? >> i think we will still lose. >> what would be an alternative to the tax cut in the future? >> one has to realize that consumption gets smaller than an come. >> if we can't combine climate change policy with tax policy, maybe we can put in a carbon tax. it is not a great idea in terms of politicians. they do not like it because it sounds like a tax that will raise energy costs to consumers. in fact, that is probably true. >> what should be our long-term goal? >> hold steady.

we do not need any more changes until we get on firmer ground. >> compromise, by definition, means taking things you do not like. the overall package was the right one to ensure that this economy has the best possible chance to grow and create jobs. something that has always been that the greatest rate of america is a thriving, booming middle-class where everybody has a shot at the american dream. that should be our goal. cam.orgood to student to see the other videos. >> coming up on c-span, the 40th anniversary of the occupational safety and health administration. a discussion about the creature

of the news media from the new orleans literary festival. and defense secretary, robert gates, talks to reporters about military operations in libya. >> today, the ipod mini is no more. no! do not take it away. what are you doing? i give you the ipod nano. >> mike daisey comments on the world the he's -- as he sees it. >> all my monologues come out of my obsession. they are in collision with one another. >> find out more sunday night on c-span's "q&a". you can also download podcasts available online at c-

span.org/podcasts. >> now available, c-span's congressional directory. inside, new and returning -- returning house and senate members. information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> this month marks the 40th anniversary of the occupational safety and health administration. assistant labor secretary for osha, david michaels, talked about the beginnings and the future of the agency. this discussion was hosted by the center for american progress in washington, d.c. this is one hour and a half.

>> as was written in a book about the fire, it was the fire that changed america. we should also remember that it took nearly 60 years before comprehensive occupational safety and health legislation that created it a shot became the law of the land. in the years before the occupational safety and health act was signed into law, 14,000 workers die each year and millions more where disabled or harmed by workplace accidents or exposure to dangerous chemicals. osha opened its doors in 1971. we have work to ensure that all

americans can go to work without fearing for their health, safety, or their lives. the mission is never complete, but it is being fulfilled. thanks to our efforts, where place fatality, illness, and injury rates are down more than 65% over the last 40 years. under the leadership of david michaels, the agency is pursuing its mission with renewed energy and renewed focus. we can rattle of statistics about the difference osha has may, but what brings us home or the personal stories on the front lines. i want to thank kathy stottard part traveling here today to share her story. kathy works as a nurse in pittsburg. mike worked as a pipefitter in topeka, kansas. but that witness that as a result of workplace accidents.

in 1983, 10,000 health care workers contacted hepatitis b through accidental contact with contaminated needles. that number began to fall as osha investigated the problem and issues. after the agency adopted new regulations in 1991, the numbers -- the number of workers infected plunged into fewer than 400 by the end of the decade. osha as a long history of protecting -- protecting manufacturing workers. one of our first major standards came to protect workers from fumes by coke ovens. the risk of lung cancer among these workers has declined by over 300%. democrats and republicans alike should celebrate our success and they should celebrate these stories together. the legislation that created a

ship was passed late a democratic congress and signed into law by president nixon. fewer workers of dying or suffering injuries on the job is good for our economy, it is good for our families, and it is good for business. today congress and the administration are wrestling over the federal budget and how to deal with the deficit. we should make sure that osha does not become a bargaining chip in that debate. we must reduce our long-term deficit and stabilize our debt picture, but osha's 2010 budget was only $559 million. it was less than the annual cost of the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of americans. we cannot balance the budget on the backs of american working men and women. we could not if we wanted to end we should not. that is something that i think

we all have to ensure does not happen. osha is doing more with less already. during the ford administration, 2400 osha civil servants protected workers at 4 million work sites. by 2007, the american work force and more than doubled to 132 million. to 2200.aff has shrunk i agree with the obama administration that instead of cutting osha's budget, we should be investing more in the health and safety of our work force. that will lead to greater productivity, stronger growth to our economy, and higher wages. a detailed plan has been released for cutting down our deficit. we cut plans that are misguided or do not work.

there should be no doubt that safe and healthy workers boost america's competitiveness and there should be no debate about the need to revitalize osha. osha can be a money saver. every year 6 million workers suffered non fatal workplace injuries that cost us more than $125 billion. fewer injuries and be work illnesses mean lower medical disability expenses for both government and businesses as well as for workers. smart companies like johnson and johnson, which is represented here today, understand -- understand this and have worked with osha to improve health and safety. david michaels, the assistant secretary of labor for osha, under his leadership osha has developed new relationships.

they have modernized operations to better technologies, boosted efforts in enforcement and compliance, and completed long awaited, sets standards to protect workers. before his confirmation in 2009, dr. michaels served as professor of embar metal held at the george washington school of public health where he was a nationally recognized epidemiologist. previously he served in 1998 as assistant secretary of energy for environment, safety, and health. he was the chief architect of a historic initiative, which we work together on, to compensate nuclear weapons workers who suffered from exposure to radiation and other hazards. david is also the author of numerous studies and publications on workplace

issues and regulatory policy. the center for progress was pleased to host david two years ago after the release of his book. we are honored that he is back today to celebrate osha's 40th anniversary. david, the podium is yours. [applause] >> good morning, and thank you for that war andm deduction. 40 years ago, a new law was created dedicated to propositions that all workers deserve a safe workplace, that injuries are not just acts of god, but are preventable. workers should not have to choose between lives and their jobs. president nixon call it one of

the most important pieces of legislation ever passed. a doctor appointed by president ford as administrator described of aas the most instrumenta revolutionary lot. it is hard to believe before osha up workers did not have the basic human right to a safe workplace. passing laws was a historic moment. 60 years after the -- the government set in because neither state or local governments had succeeded in eliminating the carnage in the workplaces of that era. before osha, when a worker was killed on the job, perhaps there was an investigation. perhaps there was not. there was no compulsion to fix the problem so another worker would not face the same risk. when a worker died of an

occupational disease, often many years after exposure, it was one of those unfortunate things that workers and their families had to live with. workers did not have the right to know the names or the properties of the chemicals with which they worked. that reality is captured by the phrase "occupational hazard." this nation has made great progress since then. deaths are down from 14,000 in 1970 to 4400 in 20009, with a work force that has doubled in size. injuries are down as well to -- in 2009. much of our progress is due to tougher standards and greater awareness of safety and practices brought about by osha. despite this progress, there is

much work to be done. this month marks the first anniversary of the death of 11 workers on the deepwater horizon. the seven killed at a refinery in washington, and 29 killed at the upper big branch mine in west virginia. all of these only a few years after the deaths of workers in a mine in west virginia. these are the few workplace tragedies that have been chronicled in headlines, i do not tell the whole story. every day an average of 12 workers are killed on the job, a deepwater horizon every day. if the deepwater horizon disaster was on the 7:00 news every evening, it would be a public outcry. 4400 deaths, for a hi

they rarely make headlines. less visible on the more than 3 million workers that series or injury every year and tens of thousands more who develop illnesses. the walls of the osha conference room are lined with photographs of workers who have lost their lives on the job, photographs contributed by family members, to ensure these tragedies will not be visited upon by other families. the -- they understand what is most important, that these are preventable. preventable by basic precautions such as providing a safety harness for workers when they fall off a one roof, preventable

by compliance with osha standards. in the late 1980's, osha and acted standards in grain facilities. osha's cotton dust standards drove down rates of disease, and since we began, exposure to asbestos has been court dramatically reduced. i never cease to be surprised at how 40 years after this law was passed the americans do not know what should the. a study of low wage workers in the chicago area found one in five had suffered injuries on the job, almost a third never receive training, and more than half the workers surveyed had never even heard of the ocean.

at a forum, a policy maker ast, why doesn't osha have a service to give businesses assistance before they are cited for violations of we have that program. we provide free on-site assistance to worksites last year. osha does not kill jobs. it stops jobs from killing workers. despite the evidence and the progress made, we are engaged in a debate over protections over the benefits and costs of regulation, taxpayer dollars the society is willing to invest to ensure our workers will be able to come home safely. our challenge is how to make this law work effectively in today's cost economy. in the past 40 years the face of working america has changed. industrial work and hazards are still with us, but we face a growing number of hazards in the service sector.

trying to improve the tools we have to address conditions in high hazard industries and to change the behavior of those employers who endanger workers. it is not easy. standards have saved countless lives over the past decades, but the process becomes ever slower. old hazards remain inadequately addressed, and some of the chemical standards are antiquated. while recognitions of newark problems -- newer problems rose, osha fines are too low to have impacts. osha and state partners at 2200 inspectors to address hazards in 8 million american workplace. too many workers remain in the dark without the legal right to safe workplaces. the creators of the osha law

attempted to ensure workers have an important role, but sadly the whistleblower language in the osha law is old and weak. far too many workers the not know about the hazards they face and the rights they have. far too many of those who understand problems cannot feel safe raising issues in the workplace. osha cannot face these challenges alone. we work with representatives of labour and business is and community and faith based groups to find better ways to protect workers. i am excited about the new approaches we are developing. pochette embarks on a fundamental new way to address health in the workplace, programs, a process where employers will be able to identify hazards and find a way to fix those hazards before workers are hurt. i say this is new because it is new for osha. it is not new at all. osha first issue its guidelines

in 1989, over 20 years ago. the standard we will be proposing is based on an long anexperience. programs have been the core requirements of protection programs and another program which recognizes companies that protect employees. in the spirit of keeping workers say if, i am honored today we are joined by some of the nation possibly the experts in safety and health, along with workers who are on the front line of workplace safety. i want to take this moment to remind everyone that april 28 is worker memorial day. this is a day dedicated to the number of workers who lost their lives on the job. i am proud to say next week the department of labor will establish a long overdue memorial to these workers.

the tree will be a permanent reminder of those workers we have lost and will serve as a cost to the action that we must commit ourselves to address the many challenges facing us today to dedicate at ourselves to the partial promise of the osha act, to ensure every worker comes home safely after a day plus work. healthier workers, safe workplaces, and a stronger america. thank you very much. >> are now gone to transition to the first panel discussion. if you could come to the stage, and cathy and mike. watch your step.

david and john did a great job of setting the context, so i will introduce cathy and mica to get started with questions and after about 20 minutes will open it up to the audience. cathy stodar has worked in nursing since 1979 and served on the exec the board of her union. she is chair of the nurse alliance health care policy and politics committee. sciu represents more than 1 million health care workers in the united states. mike weibel works at a year tire in kansas where he was hired 25 years ago. he has held and served in various safety and health positions for the united steelworkers, including his

current position. he previously spent 14 years as a first responder, medical officer, emergency medical technician, captain, and safety officer. he has conducted numerous training is on osha standards and workplace health and safety. cathy, let's start with you. many people do not think of health care workers when they think of osha. we do face dangers on your job. maybe you can talk about some of the dangers health care workers face, your experience, and hal osha has helped make things better over the years. >> every day health care workers walked into a disease-infested workplace, and they do it on christmas and holidays. it is a dangerous place to go to work. it is also exciting and awarded. in my career, things have

changed so much in the workplace as far as safety. early in micronesia, and ours was stuck with a needle and contracted hepatitis. she later died from complications. health care workers, 17,000 of my colleagues in the 1980's, contracted hepatitis in that time before -- and since osha has instituted safety regulations for blood borne pathogens, that has fallen to 97% of the workers go to work every day, and do not even think about it. we have training and education, the department make sure that employers were required off for vaccinations so health care workers did not have to worry about hepatitis. changes have been completely dramatic. today i go to work and none of

my colleagues and up with hepatitis. >> mike, you have also experienced workplace tragedy. maybe he could start by telling us about what got you interested in the worker health and safety and describe the changes you have seen. >> exactly. when i was hired at 25 years of age, i was hired at a pipe fitter. we heard the alarm system go off and the plant, because you may have to -- two weeks after i was tired, and we went to this area and found a first responders, all these guys on the machine, and they are: this man out on

machine, has been crushed. i had no idea what to do, what action i should do. it was not completely guarded according to the standard of machines gardening stuff. we fight that battle every day, simple things such as machine guarding, another story, my father is active in the union, but my father used to build tires. he was a smoker.

he had a lighter he always carried in his pocket, and when he was a builder, instead of by being the lighter fluid, he would take benzene, and he would use it to light cigarettes. he always carried it in his pocket, and he developed a tumor because of that. when osha -- has played an impact on the change that osha does in the workplace, and we have a lot of room to go. >> one of the other things that has been important is needle stick, having saved needles, and systems where i do not have to use a needle for everything, has imagine lives and e

the worker that had to find needles in garbage. there was a time when i worked where we carried our needles on the tray hall. now and every single room, there are needle boxes. i think back in the day there was a time when we did not wear gloves. that was for surgery and very special cases of sterile dressing changes. imagine that now. patients at the time, they said, patients will be scared to death, and now they are scared to death if he did not have gloves on. imagine that things we take for granted every day in health care. i work at allegheny general hospital in pennsylvania, and my hospital does the right thing. we have a committee. we'd walk around, and the law is find places in the workplace

that are unsafe now. adding that power and an employer like mine is so important. those precautions have changed lives, have saved lives. >> david, we have heard mention of the standards, and they say obvious, very common sense. there were challenges getting them done when it tries to protect worker health and safety. >> that is almost always the case. when we announce we are moving toward a new standard, there are always employers to say we cannot make that change, it will cost too much, it is not necessary. when we moved toward blood borne pathogen standards the dentists said they thought we were

requiring they could not give teeth back to little kids, which was not true. you cannot wear masks because it will scare the kids off or cannot wear gloves because we will not be able to do the procedure. we created a new normal. the best example is the fluoride standard. it was discovered in the 1970 cost the cause cancer, and when osha said they would require full protection and the workplace. it did not cost a single job and made the industry more competitive, and it goes without saying these are closed systems. we created a new normal. what lessons do you take from that --

we need to make people look at the evidence and not just listen to the rhetoric,. the studies show they save lives. >> maybe you could talk about the challenges you face on worker health and safety. >> i have a contract a carrot that gives me extra rights above and beyond osha regulations. the thing that i see out there, with my years of teaching, a lot of the workers do not have a voice. david said earlier that the 11c

laws, they are weak, we did not have enough education for workers to know what their rights are, how to utilize their rights without the fear of being disciplined or discharged or something like that. what we need to do is give workers strength and let them be a voice, some type of structure that they are part of the process in the workplace. >> kathy, what are the challenges that still remain and some of the things, so working collectively in that area would be important. airborne precautions, we need to

have stronger standards on airborne pathogens and protections. something that is up and coming, workplace violence. they were in nursing homes, prisons, they will be working in the community now, and a major focus on workplace violence and people get mad when their families are sick. we have a completely educated public. it is important. observing patients' rights and figuring out what to do and working with unions together to fix that, those are very important things i would look forward to. having regulations and working with the administration. a lot in your introduction you mentioned that you are working on a workplace injury and illness standards. how might a standard like that help? >> osha cannot have a standard

for every happening. there are a huge range. standards are like minimal wage. most responsible employers, to really protect workers, you go beyond the standard, you change the culture of the workplace, where safety is important, and we have lots of programs what the standard will do this try to bring all employers to a higher level were essentially -- it will take us will be on where our standards have gone up before. >> i think we are ready to open it up to audience question answers. >> part of a vision about osha

to give more of a role in making workplace is safe. last week i was talking with construction workers, people involved in the industry, talking about how they were trying to build iphone apps, so workers could report violations right away. the biggest problem for them was in terms of putting these powerful tools and their hands was every state had differed regulations, it was tough to make these social mediums. what tools is osha looking more power and to workers' hands? but we think there's a lot of potential to send photographs and information with specific gps linkage.

we think that is important. there are 21 states that have programs that cover private sector workers. the regulations are the same. while they may look different on the service, there with is no reason a construction worker could not use that same app. we will work on that issue. >> question here. >> i happen to be looking back at the historical research at the time of trial work place deaths were estimated to be at 100 a day. it is terrible.

my question you is looking forward, your budget has been cut by 18% for the rest of the year. what is that: to do to enforcement, to the new program you're talking about? >> our budget has not been cut at all. in the agreement reached two weeks ago, there was an across- the-board cut of .2%. we did not have a budget cut. we were pleased in their wisdom the house and senate and the president recognized that osha should not be cut. it was not. everything the point that it is worth recognizing 100 years ago things were that much worse, and this is the 100th anniversary of the american society of safety engineers.

and the national fire protection association. there has been great progress made, and we celebrate that, but we look the future to see how we can further protect workers. >> other questions? >> i am with bloomberg government. we're just completing a study, and one of the reviews, and we reviewed the 15 states that have programs in place, and we noticed a dramatic spike in inspections immediately following an accident. does osha have any plans to change their inspections in light of the implementation or adoption of an i2p2 rule? >> we're looking at the enforcement issues associated

with any new standards. but we are a few years away from completion of these r ules. we will have a discussion about how to move the ball for. -- forward. >> you know me and i just have my yeaned at a question. tell me what difference you think your role as a full-time safety guy company-wide has made and the health and welfare of goodyear employees? >> over the years, we have had a lot of tragedies in the factories.

it has come to like that without workers' involvement, getting active with safety and health programs, being a voice -- expertise on the floor. [unintelligible] that is what important out that, getting workers vault to -- getting workers involved. allowing them to network between factories, so we can share that and hope to reduce injuries. >> kathy, i would be interested in your perspective. >> it was over a million health- care workers in our union, and we do not just advocate for ourselves, but our patience. --