the highest quality of care is the care that every mom and dad should receive. they come in and get the treatment they andget and leave. i think having the voice on the job is important because i can stand up for you. some are not so fortunate. more than a million did not have the you and i have. that opportunity, to be able to have a voice and assay, and identify and be safe in it, but what caught my hospital and say let's work together with us, and they do, that feels good. >> how does that work between the union and management? >> it is an easy and comfortable interaction. i say to my management, but i

speak for managements around the country, and i am not management. they do not want people to be heard on the job. they want patients to be healthy. if there is not somebody out there holding their feet to the fire, we have health and safety training. that is money well invested. people live because we do that. they are safe and they leave hospitals without infections. that is the difference, working together with management have training, having regulations that say you must have training on some very important issues like blood borne pathogens. we have safe lift systems. we should have a regulation that no new building should be built without having an ergonomic system.

it takes experienced health-care workers away from patients who need them. it is not ok. >> other questions? here. >> i am with teamsters, and just to piggyback, with the ergonomic issue, ergo standard will be resurrected anytime soon? we are doing a database of ups injuries, and 99% of them are ergonomic. >> a share has no plans to reintroduce ergonomic standards, but we are concerned, and we are taking a number of approaches from issuing guidelines for safe work practices, including safe lifting, but we use enforcement

abilities. osha -- of the law is every employer is required to provide a workplace free of recognized hazards. when we see a serious hazard, we issue a citation on that. >> other questions? one back here, ok. >> thank you. i am with farm worker justice in washington and a d.c. i have -- agricultural workers are ranked as having the second or third most dangerous jobs in the united states, and that they are excluded from most of the osha x safety standards, and i am wondering whether we can hope for any progress on removing that exclusion of farm workers from safety standards that osha hess.

>> i think you can. osha has focused more on urban workers and workers and in manufacturing, and that is something we are going to address. we do not actually issue regulations on pesticides. that is something that only the environmental protection he's as he can get. we're trying to figure out ways that we can ensure farm workers get the production they deserve. >> that is going to be our last question. thanks so much, cathy and mike. we will not transition to our second panel, peg seminario, joseph van houten. [applause]

i am just want to go ahead and introduce our new panelists, and then you go on to questions. these are accomplished people, so their biographies will be abbreviated. if you want to see the full ones, they will be on the web site. peg seminario is the director of occupational safety health and has worked extensively on legislative initiatives at the federal and state level and coordinated campaigns on worker rights to know, our economics, and other issues. she has served on numerous agencies is the architect of worker's memorial day observed on april 28 to remember workers killed on the job record joseph

van houten is senior director of worldwide environmental health and safety at johnson and johnson. his response abilities include global leadership of all occupational safety and industrial hygiene, toxicology, our ergonomics, and fleet safety programs. his background includes over 30 years of experience the pharmaceutical and health-care products industry, initially as a research scientist and now has environment, health, and safety leader. david is the professor at the boston is a very -- at boston university. he is the author of three books and he worked as an adviser to the u.s. department of labor, osha, and other agencies. he serves as a mediator and adviser on a range of issues across the globe.

peg, let's start with you. the afl-cio works closely with osha and often pushes osha to do more. can you talk about the relationship that unions like yours have with the agency. >> we have a long history with this agency and with this law. was the unions that a law passed back and 1970. since that time, i would say that we have been both a friend to the agency at many times and then other times pushing the agency. when you look at standards the agency has set, but borne pathogens, all those came because the younes petitions. sometimes we had to go to court. then we followed up in defending those rulese.

our history is one of pushing for stronger worker protection, and fortunately over the many decades here, there have been in the majority of times at of the agency that were committed to safety and health, going back to president ford, first president bush, president carter, david michaels. we had a good relationship. it is always been one of try to push the agency to do its job because there are a lot of forces against that. we've had a couple of times during the 40 year history where we have not had such a great relationship, unfortunately, during the most recent russian administration where they did not want to work with the union. there is a policy where the head of a shot was not allowed to come to talk to the union about safety and health. we worked closely with them, but

our role is to hold the agency's fee to the fire, to protect workers. >> a similar question to you, joe. how does johnson and johnson approached worker health safety and help you interact with osha? >> thank you. johnson and johnson has a commitment to health and safety that is as old as the company, and we are celebrating our 125th anniversary this year. the values we have as an organization are collected in a document we call our credo, put together by the chairman of the country in 1943, robert wood johnson. the title of brigadier-general because of the work he did for the country during world war ii. when we look at the credo, it details our responsibilities. there are customers first,

employees, communities, and our shareholders. specific to safety, the general road, "working conditions are clean, orderly, and save." while osha has had a general to the cause for four years, johnson and johnson has had the general's duty calls for the past 60 years, and that is what drives us for health and safety. let me talk about about how we utilize that aspiration. we have a systematic approach that looks to control all health and safety risks. this involves management, engagement, and together we come up with a system that yields extraordinary results. when doctor michael talks about injury and prevention programs, this is a big that we think is spot on in terms of standards, as well as for osha, and we support them because we know

what works at johnson and johnson. >> david wile, osha is often attacked for imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens on business. how do you feel that these attacks and how would you describe the costs and benefits of what osha does? >> in public economics we talked about the benefits and costs of any intervention, and this is the six have been stated, but they have to be restated by john podesta. he mentioned that the fatalities in 1970, 14,000 to year, and as pastor, they were only 4300. injury rates dropping from coast to 11 per 100 workers to 3.5, 3.6 this year. each of those complies each benefits, both to private sector

organizations like johnson and johnson in terms of productivity and having people's lives preserved and the benefits and first to businesses. there's also a huge public benefit that goes beyond that that is related to the preservation of life and safety and all the benefits to the individuals and their families and communities from that kind of -- reduction in the loss of life and injury. you're there is enormous benefit that we have to think about every time we reduce entry levels and fatality rates. there is a lot of evidence out there that can show and a lot of that goes to osha, that osha has been response will for a lot of that reduction. equally, on the benefit side, i thought cathy made a really important point in describing

just the change in how workplaces operate versus 40 years ago, the standards, protocols, expectations about health and safety have been transformed by the presence of ocean, where it has not even directed it. on the benefit side, there is enormous evidence that we have gained a lot. the cost side, as david michaels was describing, the site that is most subject to hyperbole when new standards are issued. the evidence has shown that the costs that are anticipated, even those that osha has estimated in advance, are usually much smaller what's the standard corporate and place. that is because businesses are created, that once they are required to do something, to try to do that in a cost effective way, so the vinyl chloride shortage that the assistant secretary described is one store, acre classic story, the

story, and in fact what it did, by reducing exposure to dust increase the productivity in textile mills and the 1980's because of that. my sense of the evidence is the benefits we receive from osha are much larger than i think have been anticipated and the costs are much smaller than anticipated. >> david michaels, we talked a lot about osha standards, but osha has other ways that it promotes worker health and safety as well. maybe he can talk about what are some of those things. >> we had a variety of strategies that we use, and and we know there are many small employers out there that do not have the resources to know

exactly how to protect workers, and we have an emphasis on helping them. the program i mentioned, the consultation garden, run through the states, but we pay for most of all of it. we encourage employers who cannot afford it to call for a free consultation. we have corporate programs with a whole range of employers who are committed to go beyond osha standards to ensure workers are actually protected. those are companies across the country. that program is good because not only do companies get involved, workers, but the workers become special and government employees and they help other employers addresses problems as well. we have a web site with a tremendous amount of aimed at workers. we get 180 million visitors a year to that. we're open to new ideas.

we are working on a number of new smart phone apps. our objective is to have workplaces change before someone is hurt and before osha issues citations. >> show, to follow up on that, you have experienced this with osha and compliance assistance. how does that work? what is the interaction? but we have had a long history of collaborating with osha, and while mindful of the fact that osha is a regulatory agency, we have always looked to build a strong relationship because we feel we have a common mission. one of the best examples of where we have worked well with osha, we have sent the corporate safety director to become the director. he spent 10 years at j and j.

other less notable collaborations were we work with the phone -- to put together guidelines in handling plastic drugs. we used experts the but those guidelines get it. in 2003, we entered into a formal partnership on ergonomics. we need that we had something that we could share with osha and we wanted to help them understand some of the best practice we had at johnson and johnson, and we actually impacted a number of areas. i remember specifically the united postal service facility in rochester, new york, where we had people go in and help them to solve some of their ergonomics problems. we have had a very strong and good history of collaboration with osha, and it works. >> the work that goes it does in

terms around distracted driving. this results in many fatalities. we encourage employers to follow the lead of johnson and johnson which is the ban texting while driving. a number of organizations are getting that message out. >> peg, unions are part of this work with osha and also business. maybe you can talk about how you work in various professions to promote work are health and safety. >> first and foremost, unions bargain with employers, and that is the role of the union, to deal with employers at the worksite. really is the kind of focus of unions in addressing safety and health, and as we heard from cathy and mike, the ship has been helpful to that with its

regulations, it has been helpful with formal partners of the team employers and a shot and the unions this the workers have had a number of those workers as had the auto workers. there is a lot that goes on in safety and health that is not directly things that osha is involved with, but what is really key is the fact that it goes on, a lot of that comes from the fact that there is a law that was passed. it comes from the fact that there are regulations on the book. that puts in place the from mark, requirements, and also the emphasis and the it is to address these problems. there is a lot of work that goes on with the agency, but i think what we have to remember his osha is a tiny agency. this is an agency that 40 years after the law as passed has 2300 people on staff nationally. it is smaller today than it was

in 1980. the work force is much bigger. this is not an agency which is out there in huge numbers, harassing and players. we get a report every year looking at inspections and frequency of inspections, and this year we look at the data, we see those it can be in work places, responsible and work places once every 129 years. they're doing the were day in out.day a >> you have written about how do we invite osha, osha's proformance. maybe you can talk about that. we had these infrequent and texas. how do we know we are getting what we what? >> it builds on what peg saying,

osha will never have. you can double the size of osha and it is gone to be unlikely it will show up at any given workplace. what the defense of a shot ultimately are is its impact on spillovers and changing the culture and the decision making people at about health and safety. it has tolenged is if t affect a range of the employers. equally, osha has to think about the other end of the spectrum. people who are dead set against adopting even basic health and safety standards and practices. ultimately, if you are trying to gauge how does osha have an impact and change things, it is thinking about how does it bring

out the end of the spectrum that is not complying, resistant to change, and moving that up so you can continue to support progressive businesses that are doing the right thing and are pushing the envelope on approaches to health and safety. that is how you have to think about performance. >> another way to think about performance, what was talked about earlier by david michaels, setting new norms. not just bringing up laggards, it is setting the bar where employers need to be. when i look in the last 40 years, where it has made a huge difference is standards, setting those new norms of performance, so in health care, with passage of blood borne pathogen standards but until that time, there was not a whole lot of regulation in health care. that, what came was not only a

standard. it was a tension that out and the capacity that was not there. there is not a safety standard that applies anywhere, but because of that one standard, it brought safety and health and the focus to that industry which had not happened before. when we look at what has happened, it was a particular standard. in textiles, it was cotton dust. one of the challenges that we face now that you mentioned the regulatory process is so ossified, so the volt key issue rules. the last major standards was a crane's standard in 2010. we had not had the setting standards, norms, and a long

time. without those new norms and with so much pressure and competitive pressure, they are not putting the same focus on safety and health, particularly at a corporate level. the concern that there is -- the driver is ending up in reduced energy being paid to safety and health. i am wondering what you think. >> what i was thinking about, in addition to standards are the interest of the ngo community, in terms of overall sustainability. johnson and johnson has created a set of sustainable ability -- sustainability goals. health and safety are part of those goals for it when i i have for david his that companies like johnson and johnson are concerned about environmental health and safety in our supply

chain. we will have the opportunity to influence what goes on with the tens of thousands of small businesses that supply product and services to johnson and johnson. it is a nice complement to regulation, larger companies have an interest in insuring help and safety in supply chain. >> david, this issue of ossification and the rulemaking process. your experience now as administrator, in getting standards done? >> it is ossify. we have issued a proposal, place on the agenda at the beginning of the bush administration, 10 years getting to a proposal, and once we get to a proposal, there will be numerous opportunities for public comment, and this --

are set of standards is 40 years old, and that is using equipment available and majoring up hirsch's that no longer is done. of the 500 standards for chemical exposure, 470 of them are based on a list that was put together in 1968, and it has been unchanged since then, and many of them were based in science in the 1940's. it will take up to 10 years to change any standard and we can only do a handful of the time. it is a severe problem and we look for ways to address that short of legislation. standard is one area we worry about. we also think about when we have standards, we notice compliance.

there are tragic stories. the have a very strong standard of protecting workers from suffocation in grain handling facilities. people go into grain bin, and they are given a shovel to break it up, and what happens is the corn starts to move and you can be trapped in it and in a matter of seconds, trapped in there and suffocate. last year, the highest number of fatalities in 30 years. we sought tragedy after tragedy. one grain handling facility, two 14-year-old along with a 19- year-old, their first day at work, not given training, not getting a safety harness, they were ordered to go in and break up the corn, and a third it was

able to get that. a paris. we sent a letter to every facility in the country say these are the hazards, this is why there is a role. there's no question about the spiris. we need -- standards will raise the bar for some of lawyers and some employers cannot get it. >> one of the things that it's important to recognize, as we celebrate 40 years of osha, the law is 40 years the. it has never been updated. environmental laws have been updated. this law has never been updated. there have been numerous attempts to do so, but we have not gotten there. he still had essentially a law that was radical in 1970, but it is pretty weak, particularly in

the criminal penalty provisions. they are probably the weakest of all the environmental and safety lost out there. the criminal penalties under osha are limited to cases where there is a willful violation that results in the deaths of a worker. that is a hit. we look at -- that is it. in 40 years of osha, we have had only 84 prosecutions under the occupational safety and health act for deaths of workers. in that time, we have at hundreds of thousands of workers die. last year, the epa had over 300 underutions, conditiovictions .ktts law we need to look at these laws and bring them up to date. there are no reasons why the laws that protect workers

there is no reason why the laws that protect workers are so much weaker than the laws that protect the environment and the safety of the public and workers in other areas. >> getting back to what david was saying about the standard, one of the problems is the way that the cost-benefit analysis is done. how was the cost benefit analysis done? what are some of the assumptions that are built into a cost benefit analysis? >> you want to put everyone to sleep. the reality is that the fed costs, the areas make a lot of sense. you want to improve social welfare and make sure any adventure -- and the benefits outweigh the costs.

it has become incredibly politicized. even the evaluation of appropriate benefits and costs become the subject of great conflict and fodder for fighting at the battle of whether you want to regulate in the first place in a nod. in terms of both the science and the economics, there is more and more agreement on what the cost analysis looks like. they have something in the office of management and budget, there are ways to do it. separating of the right way to calculate the benefits and costs

from the policy surrounding it. that is where the difficulties of the standard setting process comes sen. the comments about both standard setting and legislation, the sort of sets up the tension about changing a lot and improving standards versus how much we can do with the existing enforcement apparatus. one of the promising things in the last two years has been a real emphasis on looking at existing enforcement and out reach kinds of capabilities. not to say that you don't want to do legislation, but think often, and the enforcement systems we have aren't as far as they can to improve conditions given what we have. there's been a hard look at penalty policies focusing on enforcement and the nature of the region that is very different. i think our bearings have improved. >> you're starting to do more on enforcement. what are some of those things, and what is the appropriate penalty. >> of the penalties are set by congress. it is $7,000, and we often have

investigations where the penalty is $4,000. that is the cost of doing business. we reduce it for employers as well as other factors. we can't change the penalty structure in a major way, but we can look at what sort of effect we can have. one of the things we can have our severe violators, particular types that will seriously endanger the facilities. they do the same sort of work, because it is reasonable to say that those will be similar. we certainly have that history from a couple of companies. they violate laws.

we also tried to publicize our investigations essentially by talking about the things that could be in the newspaper. they're being very aggressive with their press releases. had you make sure that you don't get one of these press

releases? is very simple. update your hazards. we're trying to be creative. we are a small agency. the ec about , you try to look big. that is what we're trying to do. >> really are ready to take questions from the audience. i would like to follow up and asked whether using the procurement system in the federal government might be a more effective way to encourage good behavior by setting standards about what federal contractors got to be doing in this regard and penalizing people that don't live up to those standards.

>> we have looked at that. it is quite complex. it is not just a supply chain the issue, we can expect in the final purchaser to have requirements. we are doing some specific investigations that go a factory worker and produce material with the department of defense. we're working with asking questions, should the company elects to produce materials for the federal government? >> it is one that we advocated for for some time. there is less movement in that direction. the bush folks came in and wipe out the requirements. is worth noting historic plea, if you look at the law, in reference to a variety of laws that existed. we have the service contract act that said that a federal government contractor had to follow these standards. it was those standards that got pulled in.

they were adopted in 1971 and we live with them today. unfortunately, the whole area has not been looked at or strongly enforced. it is an excellent idea. we have to leverage the change that needs to happen and they need to be bigger levers to bring about the kind of change that we need. the federal government has leverage inconnus. >> when there is a problem that cannot be solved immediately, and how often does this concern

become part of a contract? what is the responsibility of the union, the members, the management, and making sure this is corrected in the future and the contract is fulfilled? >> unions have tried to address these problems over the years, and the think the basic approach of safety and health has been to bargain over the basic structure are the basic rights of having a committee, having the training that is needed, you can actually address problems. a number of units look at specific problems, the language that existed in the steelworkers union, there is very extensive language around particular hazards. you tried to stay on that and use the contract to enforce that as well. one of the things that we have to think about is that this lot is 40 years old.

it came into effect back in 1970. there is a whole generation of folks that grew up with this war on safety and health. and in terms of the work force, many of the basic industries here was that the new generation of folks coming in. they take for granted that this law was always there. we have a lot to do to bring along folks can't educate people and get them involved in these issues so that we have not only an educated work force, but a new generation of advocates. that is one of the biggest challenges that we face in the union movement of government and the month employers today. >> right over here. >> i am jim parsons with engineering news magazine. i was wondering, since this is a look back at the first 40 years, maybe you can speak a little bit to how the construction hazards have evolved and maybe a little bit on the role that industry itself

produces. and if there are any priorities right now, >> construction has been a very important area for us to look out. it has a far higher fatality rate. we have been the focus on construction, we have the number of standards being planned. it will very much impact construction. one thing that we have done recently that we are very proud of is issue a full protection. the number one cause of fatalities are false. -- falls. workers are high up construction, and if they are not protected, they are at risk of falling.

there were a couple of workers the collapse, the firefighters came down and those workers were saved because they were on the scaffolding of wearing protection, where unharness those attached to the building. up until recently, we did not require the sort of help and residential construction. for the residential construction industry, it was exempted from those rules. we were sued in federal court and we were victorious. will be a requirement for all workers involved in any sort of

construction, they will have to wear full protection. we know that will save lives. >> it is obviously a very hazardous industry. there of a lot of efforts over the years to address safety and health with a lot of contractual language between management and unions setting up an extensive training programs. they are basically built into the training of workers. you have funds that are set up, dedicated to the collective bargaining language. they insure that the workers get the proper safety and health training. that is not something that was mandated, it was a bargain between the industry and the construction unions. it has made a huge difference in addressing safety and health,

changing conditions. another thing they have done to give you great credit, in construction, one of the highest risk or groups are those of immigrant and non english- speaking workers that make up a big part of the work force. look at the fatality rates, they are much higher than other workers. they have the terrific job in trying to get out of those sectors. as one to give you credit for that. >> construction is a very heterogenous industry. they have supply chain issues, who drives them all the way down to the contractors, subcontractors. ito wonderful job. and there are many that don't. they pay less than minimum wage, and they don't.

they provide very little with safety protection. we focus on those workers and those employers, doing the things they can do, compliance assistance programs on the web, also reaching out to organizations to reach an immigrant workers and don't speak english. in getting information out to then, you have rights. you could fall. we have made very clear that we will enforce the training requirements. if you're doing required training, you have to do it in a language workers understand. it is amazing to think that we are in many situations where what the to train those workers safely? they did not speak english. you have to make sure they work safely. part of that era -- a part of that is training them in a

language that they will understand. >> up to this point, many people think of sustainability and green jobs. one thing and give them credit for his the partnership that they had to park -- to talk about green jobs being saved jobs. when you talk about solar

panels, it is something we're going the look at to make sure those people are safe. allowed to bring health and safety and environmental aspects together. the way we can talk about sustainability and more. >> i would add one of thing. it goes back to what david is saying. this is a problem with coronation. you don't have one employer, you can have 15 or 20 different employers. that has always a challenge. looking at a future challenges beyond construction, we have more and more industries that have construction type organizations where it is not one employer, but multiple employers where the boundary of who is responsible is becoming very blurred. one of the things that we have to think hard about it and learn is how to coordinate and make sure that we have adequate health and safety of more and more places. >> a big part of that is that with the reorganization of work and employment, we have a lot of workers being classified as

independent contractors and self-employed. they're not protected. when you look at the fatality statistics that are collected every year, increasing numbers come from the death of self- employed individuals. many of them in construction and other sectors. this directly intersects, when somebody is an independent contractor, they don't touch them. >> one more question? in the back. >> i will lead to talk about osha and work force development. i know a lot of nonprofits are taking on workforce development. we're finding none of them do training. they think about doing the videos available online? are maybe capturing all of us by way of the irs.

we could have advance notification and making part of protocol. >> we have a program where we give funding to organizations to train workers across the board in every sort of sucker. we have applications from different groups. we provide training. for groups, we encourage them to partner with organizations that do training. we have ways to reach out to workers to make sure that they know about safety and health. think you for that suggestion. >> this was a great discussion. and join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> we will have more from the center when they hosted discussion about the future of the american economy. they will examine policies on economic growth. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. a discussion about the teacher -- media. gary johnson launches his presidential campaign. it discussed and about the safety administration. >> here 70 programs featured on c-span.

the talk about american diplomacy, a revisit of the clinton case with lawyers that have participated. on easter sunday, president ford's these about public officials pending at the issues. political strategist on same sex marriage. for a complete list, go online at c-span.org. coming up next, a discussion about the current state of the news industry. it is part of the literary festival. panelists include mary matalin and amy dickenson. it is an hour and 15 minutes.

>> i will introduce the panel. amy dickinson is the author of a bestselling memoir. it is syndicated. test 22 million liters a day. his oslo traveling on npr's which we do not tell me. her voice with the answer machine. she is a political consultant. she has this. and that he had a lot of stories to tell.

she is in various documentary's. she is a communist. is a political analyst for the fox news channel. is also a stand-up comedian. as a possible to give a quick one? >> it is a lot louder. it is 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 thisragedy 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 anders 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 spenng less time in the gym myself. what characterizes mine is ltitasking 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 tnk it has resulted in meat being very broad in my knowled and very shallow in my knowledge. i think that is where most of 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 internation disaster or any kind of news event, people turn to cnn. i have been doing this for 35 years, but their ratings are a

testent 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. 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 lk 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 ke coming back. he would not leave. he made something happen, which sort of speaks to o 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 -- writinis 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 mos 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 date can -- day 10, we are in the commercial break saying, "you got to stop eating allhat 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 comparavely a golden age? [laughter] >> i was just talking to one of my kids about that t days ago, explaining thehearst phenomenon -- the hearst phomenon 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 commeator. 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 beeve. 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 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 t 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 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, pticular erie during presidential cycles or -- presidential -- particularly presidential cycles. fox stayed steady. a lot of demrats 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 int 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 getti 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 c 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 soowerful 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 als saks 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 obvious an audience for that. it is a big audience. it is kicking butt in the ratings. >> that 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 s surprised. >> well, you kw what else they all ? they spend a lot of time picking on each other. it they spent so much time trashing each other -- not

politicians,ut other members of the media -- it is so boring. i think people do like these stories, but this sort of trhing -- 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 side 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 taland 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 opini, i completely

agree about the tea party movement. i lived in a rural area. sometimes you can actually set a clock. during the day aft morning edition, i listened to glen beck and rush limbaugh. >> politics is emotional. you can almost set a cck 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 liber 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 anudience that is absolutely devoted, i knowhat

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 inking anew, looking at a problem in a new way. for years, i am sure we have been engaged in this, let's have 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 y 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 nerus. there is a lot going on in there. enn, and itush, gelnl is a very hard job. glenn beck is a libertarian and never spea 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 juris.

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'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. partf 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 clarity. versus given minute, over arching. this morning, the press was not on obama a 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 imore fun. it was not that long ago, the 1992 campai 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 eeches, in which roosevelt and kennedy -- and then you would see an excerpt from bus 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 clins 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 wter 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 grt 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 sesmanship. >> what kind of a salesman is he for his own administration in rms 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 e 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 gure on what he believes on and selling that hard. >> it is like he is waiting, testing. i do not know if it is clr 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 wo'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,ut 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 cmentary. elio spitzer. >> why does he have his own show? i did not get that. he has a very narrow expertise, and a 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 peop 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 fres 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 soeird. 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 gng 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 aocate -- 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, wch 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 pagesf 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 mmon-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, u break for commercials, and it is a health-care provider or a hospital or a pharmaceutical. >> defund. pharmautical companies find a great space for commercial

broadcasting, certainly news. and if you're looking to buy pructife 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 00, it was one minute i s 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 beuse of what we see? >> go toour 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 waitinto 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, witmy 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 blacks who will discuss the decision to use this in libya. a look at the proposal for social security. it the chance to live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

>> they are dependent on the network news. it is their primary source of news and informations. >> coincide pivotal moment online. what it would every program from 1987 through today. it is bringing politics and public awareness, connecting you elected officials. weekdays, watch live coverage. on saturday is the communicators.

you can also what our programming. it is all searchable. it is washington, a your way. >> this year's competition asks students from across the country to consider washington, d.c. through their lens. today's itches is an issue that helps them understand the role the federal government. >> this was very important for the federal government. major changes will be made. the tax cuts were set to expire on december 31. congress has not decided whether they will extend it.

what are the bush tax cuts? the at the reduction of taxes passed by george w. bush. in 1999, our economy was running a budget surplus. it that it would be a good idea. we could stop increasing the surplus in get more back to the consumer. >> i am sure americans have more to spend and invest. this legislation is adding fuel to an economic recovery. >> they were given this artificial date. >> congress was divided. president obama developed a compromise. >> it will extend it for all

families making less than to benefit the thousand dollars a year. that is 98% of the american people. >> republicans believe that it extended for the entire population. >> john boehner was in be there. >> i think extending all the tax rate and making them permanent will reduce the uncertainty in america and help small businesses begin to create jobs. >> one thing everything agreed with was 98% of the population. after several years the deficit would do it.

they let it expire for the top income-tax bracket. experts saw this. >> it is very large. it is a vast majority. >> they talk about saving $700 billion bid they are not really saving the 700 billion. >> republicans are geared to the lahore hurt small businesses. -- concern that it will hurt small businesses.

like it remains how they are going mad about their spending for 2011. it affects small business. it comes to hiring. >> i do not think small businesses would be very hurt. if it expires, i do not think they are going to. >> he gives an idea of a possible compromise.

the house extended the bush tax cut permanently. the white house and the senate republicans and it ended talks to try to agree to compromise. president obama announced a deal had been made with congressional republicans at all income levels for two years as part of the house package. senator harry reid proposed an amendment. among the other at that, it included an extension of the tax cuts for all income levels. the senate passed a tax bill than 81-19 vote.

after two days, the house voted on the changes to the tax bill. they passed it with this. president obama signed the tax bill into law extending the bush era tax cuts. how will they be affected by the new tax code? >> they will extend it for a couple of years. i think we will see this. what will be an alternative in the future? >> it makes a lot of sense. it is generally smaller. >> if we could combine talks, maybe we could put in place the economist.

it is not a great idea in terms of politicians. politicians do not like it. it is probably true. >> what will be our long-term goal. we are just letting it shipped out. it is in so we can get onto firmer ground. >> it means taking some been he do not like. the overall package was the right one.

>> this should be our goal. >> continue the conversation about this at our facebook and twitter days. tomorrow, a look at the republican deal. a look at the proposal for a social security. >> here is some of the programs featured on c-span this holiday weekend. they talk about american diplomacy, a revisit of the clinton case.

he speaks about public officials handling issues. for a complete list. -- go online at c- span.org. there is information on the white house. order online. >> robert gates told reporters this morning that the president.

ba >> i'm here to introduce the next president of the united states. is the governor from new mexico. he cast more vetoes than any other governor in the country. he was not willing to compromise the core principles like taxes. his more just a governor. he is a former businessman. he owns his own company that employed over 1000 people.

he maintains his core principles. he is the new leader we need. disney great pleasure to support someone for president that is the lesser of two evils. he is someone i truly can support. i hope you'll be the next president of the united states, gary johnson. i think you have to have a certain resonate to do that.

i have been an entrepreneur were my entire life. ever since i have been 13 years old. i have paid for everything that i have in my life. and those 21 years old, i started a one-man handyman business and albuquerque. 20 years later i employed 1000 people. it is an american dream come true. naively when alice elected governor of new mexico, of it was really a plus. we were not getting the work that we should have. in 1999 i sold that business. nobody lost their job. entrepreneurialism, i ran for governor of new mexico.

i've never been involved in politics. i introduce myself to the republican party. is much like i'm doing right now. i introduced them a couple of weeks before. he said i liked you. republican party is going to love you. we are an open party. we are used to running. it'll be an open process. i am thinking this is all i could ever ask for. says i just think you are great. many to know that you will never get elected. it is hard to come from out of this. i got elected. i like to think it is based on what i had to say.

everything should be a cost- benefit analysis. what every spending our money hon. i think i was more outspoken than any governor in the country. i really believe in free markets. i really believe that bringing educational entrepreneur would make a difference. i did that in new mexico. it may be a bit of an embellishment. i may have bestowed more bills than the other 49 governors in the country combined. it is not just saying no. it is looking at what we risk spending our money on the what we were getting. i really do believe in smaller government and that there are

consequences of legislation that gets passed. it is and our best interest to pass the legislation. the layers of bureaucracy on transaction. it makes it so much more burdensome. it as a lot of money as opposed to the notion of leave liberty and personal responsibility that goes along with that. i think i raised a dialogue regarding the war on drugs. it was an extension that everything i did as governor of new mexico. what areas spending our money on. what are we get team? i am outraged over the fact that this country is bankrupt.

how do we get here? how do we get ourselves into this position? my entire life i've watched government spend more money than what it takes in. i always thought there would be a day of reckoning with regard to that spending. i think that day of reckoning is here. it is right now. it needs to be fixed. who is responsible? i asked should the health care plan be repealed yes. i think it should be revealed. we can simply not afford it. i think republicans would gain a lot of credibility in this argument if republicans would offer up a repeal of the benefits that they had.

these deficits and that spending pales in comparison today. they share in where we have got into right now. i think we are on the verge of a financial collapse. the writing is on the wall. we are going to encounter a financial collapse. we cannot repay $14 trillion in debt only are racking up 1.65 trillion in debt going forward. it is not going to happen. i advocate balancing the federal budget tomorrow. but not have a 20-share plan. the plan is tomorrow.

there was reduced spending. we need to be cutting government spending. it was less than one penny. it turns out that it was like 1/1 hundred of the penny. we need to play out what happened in washington a couple of weeks ago hundreds of more times if we will bring this to bear? when you talk about balancing the budget, it is important to start out talking about medicaid, medicare, social security. it is really making social security solvent. it is defense spending. i think the government could

block grant to the state. it would be 43% want the more we are currently doing this would be 50 laboratories of innovation. attacking this whole time about running for president that this is the country that we have. best practices get emulated. there will be failure. the notion that washington knows best has as in the position we are in right now. that is bankruptcy. when it comes to social security compound this problem pales in comparison to medicare.

social security is a system that needs to take in more money than it pays out. we could raise the retirement age. you could change the escalated that is built into social security from the wage index. that there at him make social security solvent. when it comes to defense, can we cut 43% of our budget and still maintain a small -- a strong defense? we have an obligation to do that, to provide ourselves with a strong national defense i think that is way different than what we are currently engaged in.

it is just nation-building all across the world. we have our own nation to build. i would have been opposed to i rock. at that we had the capability to see it roll out the weapons destruction. at the like we could have gone in an address that situation. at the that we went in we would find ourselves in a civil war to which there would be no end initially at that afghanistan was wrong we were attacked. we should remain vigilant to the threat. after being in afghanistan we have taken now al qaeda. we are building highways and

hospitals in my opinion this is crazy. i think we should get out of iraq's and at get it tomorrow for all the debate in the discussion we will have over that issue, i just suggest that we will have that same discussion 25 years from now that is well may finally decide to get out. in the meantime we will continue to spend more money. it is money we do not have. a lot more men and service women will lose their lives. in the environment i am in, i have to issue an opinion on everything right away. i opposed to what happened in

libya. starting out with where was the constitutional authority. where was the congress checkoff. where does this say because we do not like a foreign leader we should go and in topple them? q are the rebels? having not ejected ourselves in a civil war? others qualify for the same military intervention that we have implemented under the umbrella of a no-fly zone. saddam hussein existed for 12 years under the umbrella of a no-fly zone. at what point do ground troops become matted in libya. we have already seen that?

the unintended consequence we take out saddam hussein. there goes the check to iran. it may be a military threat to the united states. it is something that we should remain vigilant to board. it goes on and on and on. i believe in free markets. ito be over a government regulation. i am always the one that will defend free-market. they are talked about in terms appear are the roots of all evil. in fact, reason we do not have

freemarket is a response to the problems we end up happening. it is the unintended consequences of government and picking winners and losers when it comes to business and banking at always tried to put myself in a position of what will be the unintended consequence of this legislation. will make a difference in anyone's life? what we end up spending doing when it came to these issues. believing in free-market. the government could really provide a solution.

i just eliminated and pediments for health-care entrepreneurs. it was better products and services. health care in this country is about as far removed as a possibly could be. i relished it. i will be the one that takes on the defense of the free market system and how it actually applies. immigration is a really hot button issue. it is a debate. it should take place. bad think immigration is a good thing. i think this country is based on immigration. i think it is a job creator and not a situation that takes away jobs.

kits are coming and getting educated in the united states. we are sending them back to their countries of origins. they will employ tens of millions of indians. businesses would have started up the developments. i advocate elimination of the corporate income tax, recognizing that it is a double tax. this would create tens of millions of jobs in this country. it to be the place to start up and build and nurture businesses that otherwise a currently taking place in other countries. this started out as 0 in this country.

this is where we will really see some job creations. immigration should be about work and not welfare. we have issues regarding welfare. our immigrants coming across the in entry-level jobs? absolutely not. it is the same amount of money. i think we shall make it as easy as possible. talking about citizenship. about a work visa which would entail a background check. this is one of those unintended

consequences of government. government has made it impossible for individuals who want to work to get a work permit. they know they went across the border that they can get a job. they have dozens of families that live in the united states. do not get the governments involved in quotas. the business determine whether there is a need for labor. if there is not, they will go back to their countries of origin. they need to be 11 million illegal immigrants. it can get a legal work visa.

taxes would get paid. the notion of building a fence and putting the national guard arm in arm would be a whole lot of money spent for very little if any benefits. 28,000 dessau of the border. if we cannot connect the dots between violence and prohibition i do not know he will ever be able to. what's really take a new look at all of these issues i look

forward to the discussion that will take place. this is a great country. it is terrific. we can solve these problems that get a this is our insolvency. i would not be here for dallas and was being said. what i am posing here is to take part in a contest to be a spokesperson for the republican party. it is a republican party does not have options, perhaps they check out the name that is not that representative of what republicans might have.

i look forward to the debate and with that will follow. the recognized for some of's that go to washington. i was one of them. i feel i can make a difference. thank you very much. >> i will take some questions. comments? and the insults? anything? i had been to about 34 states within the last 16 months. one place i really enjoy is the

hampshire. new hampshire is really key in this whole process. i want 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. i will not be out work and it comes to be in new hampshire. it is key to the equation to do well. eking go from obscurity -- you can go from obscurity to being a place with the lights will not shine any brighter. i love retell politics. it is really a one-on-one

discussion. what do you think about mid romney for president? i've only talked to him a couple of times. i'm having him over for dinner on thursday night. i need to meet them all. i ran to campaigns for governor but i did not mention this. the idea was to present ideas and give people a choice as opposed to the lesser of three evils. not theomes to me, i'm person to talk to. i will let you draw the conclusions.

fund-raising is part of this. we have and online financing campaign it would have gone up. >> when it comes to gun control, i am for it. in 1995 a can still carrier was something that was being debated. i saw that as an issue that would lead to less gun violence. in new mexico and would have

been able to have signed legislation allowing that. i think we have seen that played out. so many state that has that. >> the president was talking about ways to deal with the election campaign. how can you compete in a market that takes so much money? we believe we will raise enough to be competitive is enough money to be competitive. it will involve a lot of work. it will involve some entrepreneurial ships on our part to do things and a better

way. i have no complaints about the process. i do not have any complaints. the rules are what they are. i expect to do well in this process. how do i feel up the steps i just have one issue with unions.

i cannot find the words appear to have to accept them. i do not think it works. >> thank you. >> coming up next, it is live with their phone calls. >> the ipod is here. weatherly doing? i give you the ipod nano. >> his comments on the world as

he sees it. the agony and ecstasy of steve jobs. all the lawrence co of of my of session. find out more about it sunday night on c-span was a key and a. this is one of our many signature interviews available online may 1 your questions for the university professor. his books include private rights and public conditions. he will take your calls, e- mails, and tweets.

. they talk about the ability. we are pleased to be hosting that. just a month ago, we remembered and mourned the women it had no alarms or a flimsy fire escape. -- we remembered in more than that it was a flimsy fire escape. it was a fire that changed america. we should also remember that it

took a nearly 50 years before the occupational states became the law of the land. it is signed into law. more were disabled are harm. they insure that all americans can go to work for their health and safety. the mission is never complete. it is being built. it is down more than 65% over the last 40 years. and if the leadership, the agency is pursuing renewed energy and reduce focus? we can rattle off statistics

about the differences they have made. what brings it home are the personal stories. they are traveling here to share their stories. they began working 25 years ago. they are witnessing tragic deaths because of working conditions in 1983, workers contacted hepatitis b. it was issued in guidance. the number of workers infected was pure than 400 by the end of the decade. osha has a long history of

factory workers. it protect them from fumes. it treats feel for manufacturing. the risk of lung cancer declined over 300 sen. democrats and republicans want to celebrate the success. they said celebrate the stories together. it was passed by a decrepit congress and signed into law. we should all live free that these injuries are good for our economy and families. it is good for business. congress is a record -- wrestling over the federal budget and how to deal. we should make sure that osha does the become a bargaining chip. we must reduce our long-term deficits and stabilize our debt

picture. the budget was only $559 million. it is less than the annual cost of the tax cuts to the wealthy. we cannot balance the budget on the back of americans working. we cannot if we wanted to. we should not. that is something we have to ensure this the having. -- and should does not happen. by 2007 the work force has more than doubled. workers had shrunk to 2200. i agree with secretary so least

-- solis that we should work with the work force. the center for american progress has released a detailed plan for bidding down the deficits. we invest and priorities that are central for economic growth. that is including science education. there should be no doubt that workers boost american competitiveness. it can be a money saver. 6 million workers suffered from injuries that the cost of $125 billion fewer illnesses are for

more productive workers. they have worked closely. smart companies have partners under the leadership. it boosts efforts. before his confirmation, he served as a professor of occupational health.

he was a chief architect of this. we work together. he is the author of the numerous publications. they were pleased to host an event for the release of their book. they were honored. we are honored that his back today. the podium is years.

the united states congress said that it created a new loss. they deserve a safe workplace. bishop not have to choose between their lives and their jobs. because it wanted the most important pieces of legislation ever to pass congress. he described osha as an instrument of revolutionary law. it is the right to a safe and healthful workplace.

perhaps it was an investigation. the cannot face the same risks. it dishes one of those unfortunate things. workers and not even have the right to know the names. that reality is captured. it comes with the job. there is nothing you can do about it. this has made great progress.

the work force has doubled in size. injuries are down as well. some of this the climb was for the economic shift. clearly led to this was for a greater awareness. there is still much work to be done this marks the first anniversary of 11 workers on the deepwater horizon. 29 were killed in west virginia. 14 were killed in georgia.

an average of 12 workers are killed on the job. because the she should have been one at a time, they ran to make headlines. the separate job-related injuries every year. tens of thousands had severe job-related illnesses. they are lined with photographs of workers.

they want their loss to have some meaning. it provides a safety harness and line. preventable are the standards. they enacted handling facilities. since then, it declined 42%. it drove down the rate. the lead to this and was

dramatically reduced. i never cease to be surprised how many americans still do not know what osha does. one in five separate and illness on the job. almost a third never receive proper safety training. why doesn't the ocean have a free service to small businesses. we do have that program. this might keep them from killing workers. killing workers.