success. miss obama has obviously not met jason, peggy, and lisa, three of the most successful people that i know. i will leave you with the tagline. understandsupport, and except. >> to wrap up, we put a call up to all the youth to give us their version of discrimination. we have quite a few submissions. we have our winner here. we are going to let you see it. >> fat, lazy, porker, loser. those are a few of the names i used to get called. it was my first year of high school, and i was bullied because of my weight.

it was bad enough feeling depressed, but to be criticized on top of it may make the worst about myself. over the past decade, with discrimination in adults has increased by almost 10%. not enough is being done to prevent it. being thin is an aspiration. being overweight is associated with failure. it is time to take a stand and say do not believe me because of my size. -- bully me because of my size. >> thank you all. it is time for questions. >> has mrs. obama responded? >> we do not know. >> the question was has mrs.

obama responded to nafa's message. we spent numerous challenges in the past couple of years to her. we have no idea whether or not she has received them. we have not received any kind of response whatsoever to our message of please do not continue to stigmatize thought children. other questions? >> it has been a year ago, the story between the agriculture secretary and top military officials. they had done a survey called too fat to fight. overweight people are being excluded from military qualifications, with the physical constraints of fitness. how you square the advocacy of accepting body sizes reverses certain jobs that require someone to have a different body type? >> our focus is on civil rights.

we're not a health organization. we are not scientists or doctors or health care providers. we are a civil rights organization. we want you to accept the fact that in spite of our body size we are citizens of the united states. nothing should reduce our civil rights. nothing justifies taking away our civil rights. fat individuals are being discriminated against on a daily basis. we are discriminated against in employment situations, not hired. in health care situations, we are often told by physicians that if we lost weight our allergies would go away and other such ridiculous things. often in our own homes and, by our well-intended family

members or friends or neighbors, who feel they are justified in making our bodies and object of their personal opinion and expression. i am sorry, but my body is not public property. it does not give anyone the right to comment because my body is larger than theirs. brandon would like to also address this question. >> to answer your question, i do a lot of work with respect to employment. there is a dichotomy here. what we are saying is that if somebody wants to go into the military, fire department, police department, flight attendant, whatever the job is -- to arbitrarily deny somebody based on weight or height is wrong. if there are standards that say

you have to be able to lift 50 pounds, you have to be able to run, whatever. that is different. i can assure you there are people of size who can meet those standards. but at least did he or she the opportunity to succeed, rather than saying you automatically fail because you do not meet this cookie cutter requirement. it does not matter if it is the military or macy's or a pharmaceutical company, or anything of that nature. >> what, if any, congressional outrage has been done to office is working on the fiscal act? >> some of the people in this room will be going to capitol hill after this press conference, meeting with their senators. >> in response to your question about what actions have been

taken earlier this year, last -- -- naafa sent out a packet encouraging suspected members of the community to write to committee members and address this issue of adding height and weight or physical appearance to the law. we have received some response. i wrote to every single one of them personally, and have received responses from some of them expressing their appreciation for bringing that to their attention. other questions? >> does s 506 has the same sponsors as the old legislation? >> i do not know. >> can we hear what other countries have done to address this issue?

>> would you like to speak to that? >> this is a global issue. you can watch the media in europe, france, the u.k. court cases bring it up. it is obviously an issue that covers a lot of different areas of criminal codes and civil rights codes. some have mandated schools themselves be the ones to deal with bullying. others see it as more dependent on what country you are from -- township, state, provincial level. there has been a movement in canada for a federal law that gives criminal defense standards. the listing here are the ones that are broader in size. there are bigger numbers of

people who are believed. -- -- bullied. >> are copies of your speech available? >> is your e-mail address here? >> i have a card i can give you. >> thanks, everybody, for coming. >> thank you. thank all of you for being here. brandon, do you know the house bill number? >> the house bill number is -- >> 1648. >> 1648. it was introduced by sanchez, california. her sister is also a signatory on it. >> thank you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> thank you very much. i was afraid i was going too long, so i did not talk about that. i just did not say those three paragraphs. >> i am not for trying to change the system just so we can feel good about having voter turnout which may approximate australia, which is 97%. turnout does not mean very much in terms of the health of a democracy. some of the most vicious dictatorships in the world to get voter turnout of 95% to 99% when they hold elections. >> i should not be coerced.

this decision is life or death for many people. >> today and tomorrow, ralph nader and the center for study of responsive law holds a series of debates looking at controversial topics. monday, the pros and cons of mandatory voting. tuesday, professors from georgetown and the university of massachusetts on taxing stock trades, derivatives, and currencies. debating the controversial, it today and tuesday on c-span. >> in prime time tonight here on c-span, and look at the operation to capture or kill osama bin laden, with the man who trained the navy seals who carried it out. admiral eric olson is interviewed at an aspen security event. that is tonight at 8:00 eastern.

earlier today, the obama administration announced it will create a waiver program that would allow states to opt out of the no child left behind education law. the education secretary said the directive is happening now because congress has not enacted changes to the bush-era program. this program is 45 minutes. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here today. as promised, today i have the secretary of education to my left. to my right, the director of the domestic policy council. they are here to talk about an initiative to give states more initiative in talking about the in no child left behind act.

as we ask questions about this subject, i will remain to take your questions after you leave. >> good afternoon. today, i am pleased to announce president obama has directed the secretary to move ahead with flexibility for states looking for greater relief under the nutshell left behind law. congress has struggled to reauthorize the elementary and secondary education act and to fix no child left behind. just in the past two years, the president has frequently and consistently called for reauthorization of no child left behind. last january, he asked congress to send him a bill. in march, he asked congress to send him a bill before the new school year began. in june, a secretary duncan and

-- secretary duncan asked congress to act and said we had to find better ways to provide state flexibility. in every case, we did this saying we needed to do it for our children and have to do this for our economy. this has been echoed by business leaders we talked to all over the country, and consistently by governors and parents. all said it is critical we move forward to make sure our students are ready for college and a career. at the same time, we are a few weeks away from the beginning of a new school year. congress has not found a bipartisan path to send us and the president a bill. instead of being able to focus on flexibility that is necessary in our classrooms, instead of focusing on turning around our lowest performing schools, which have 7000 drop us every day, instead of being able to focus on innovation and support for

teachers and principals to make sure they have the support they need, we have labels that do not accurately reflect what is happening in our schools. we also have low expectations and states that have moved down instead of up in expectations for our children. we also have a punitive system that does not allow reform. it is a cookie cutter system that is not allowing our students to move forward. in september, after we spend a few more weeks consulting with administrators, and governors, parents, and others, we will announce the kind of flexibility secretary duncan will speak about in a few moments. when we are doing this, we are asking -- every state can apply to receive this flexibility. but the standards will be high. the bar will be high. states will have to embrace the kind of reform we believe is

necessary to move our education system forward. we look forward to working with them as we try to provide flexibility. we also want to be clear that accountability will remain one of the bellwethers for our administration, as it has in the past. we have to make sure every single child is getting an excellent education. we will make sure they are ready for college and career and are going to be competitive in a growing economy. any state that is not able to comply with those kinds of reforms, that is not able to embrace reforms, will have to comply with no child left behind as we move forward. we are asking all 50 states to apply, and we look forward to working with them. now secretary duncan will give you a little bit more on what we plan to do. he is one of the best people in washington to do so. he has been going around the

country for the last few years talking to parents, state school chiefs, and governors. he was ceo of the chicago public school system. i give the secretary duncan. >> thank you for being an extraordinary partner. we need more highly trained, highly skilled workers. we need to keep raising the bar. over the past 2.5 years, we have seen unprecedented leadership at the state level. 45 states raised the standard. three dozens removed barriers to innovation. we now have a law that impedes that process, that impedes that reform, because it is four years overdue for being written.

it is far too punitive and prescriptive. it led to a dumbing down of standards and a narrowing of the curriculum. in a time when we have to get better, faster education, we cannot have some of the perverse incentives or disincentives to progress. we want to put forward a very simple trade-off. where it is a high bar and folks are doing the right thing for children, we want to get out of the way and let them hit that. we also want to see congress act. there is no question it should have happened. but it has not, and we cannot afford to wait. everywhere i go, teachers, parents, principals, school board members, and state superintendents are asking for flexibility to do the right thing. i have talked about 25 to 30 governors over the week, republicans and democrats all over the country.

everyone is asking for more flexibility so states can do the right thing by children. states are going to continue to have high standards. whether it is about teacher effectiveness, we will have approved accountability systems focus more on growth rather than absolute test scores, and give them more flexibility to move to greater accountability systems, move off the deadline, the room to grow in terms of growth and progress. tennessee had a lobar on a child left behind. 91% of students were correct -- were proficient at math. they raised the bar significantly. they raised the bar. that was a very tough lesson. but for the first time they were telling the truth.

the current law contains lots of penalties for that kind of purge. we want to avoid those. the achievement gaps doubled. that is a tough message. those are the facts we have to deal with. we cannot have a law on the books that prevents that kind of courage. we will take the next three or four weeks to finalize this. we will come back at some point in early to mid september with a final package. we will work closely with states. we will have a peer review process that will be open and transparent there will be no competition among states. some states can move faster. others can take a little more time. i want to thank the president for doing the right thing and stepping up. congress should have acted. it did not happen. we cannot just sit here.

>> can you clarify? i think you identified a state both as mississippi and tennessee. >> tennessee went from 91% profession under the low standards -- seven children, higher bar, went from 91% to 34%. they are telling the truth. we have to give them the flexibility. >> given that speaker boehner helped draft no child left behind, can you explain the problem in congress? >> i think you guys understand congress a lot better than i do. this should be bipartisan. this is the right thing to do for the country. congress just has not acted, and we cannot afford to wait so long. it is just not done. we have to fight for kids, teachers, and parents.

we hope congress can come together and do this in a bipartisan way. what we are doing in no way stops people from moving forward. we cannot turn a deaf ear to what is going on around the country. >> the waivers you are granting -- will essentially be able to fully implement a new system, or are there limits? you spoke sweepingly about the different things that are going to change under a state that gets the waiver. can you do certain things? if you can follow up on the coverage issue -- everybody was saying that this was one of two things that would have bipartisan support and everyone could move forward together on. i think saying i don't know does not seem like enough of an answer. >> i think it has bipartisan

support in congress, but more importantly in governors across the country. i can give you three dozen governors. right now, congress is dysfunctional. they are not getting stuff done. this is long overdue. you cannot have a law on the books that has incentives that encourage a dumbing down of standards. we cannot afford to wait. it is not my job to psychoanalyze congress. it is my job to help children. i think there will be tough conversations. i think congress needs to get it together. >> there is bipartisan support for what we are doing. i think the secretary spoke to about 40 governors over the last few days. we have spent the past over a year since we sent a blueprint to congress outlining where we

want to go with it, moving forward. but let us also understand what happened. in the house, legislation started to move forward. you can talk to comments about the last bill that moved through the house committee. this is been a serious setback to bipartisan reform, when these kinds of bills are moving forward. we had a serious slowdown and happened in the house. we are going to require the house and the senate to send a bill to the president. we have congress unable to move forward with a bipartisan bill. we also have children, teachers, administrators, and school boards clamoring for some kind of flexibility as they are trying to move to a higher accountability system and put in place college-ready standards. we need some flexibility so we can move to the standards and

put accountability systems in place. we have to provide relief. we cannot do it all through flexibility and the statutory authority the secretary has. we can move forward so our kids can get the kind of education they need. >> a couple of questions. how many students with vouchers are you allowing in this plan? and how much is the voucher plan? also, once we have children able to move to a better school, what does that do to a school that is not performing, one or two? >> there are no vouchers in this. this is not a voucher system. this is waivers for states. i think the majority of

governors -- every governor i have spoken to has been very interested in this. we are thinking creatively around principal and teacher effectiveness, not to say one or two children, but to turn entire schools around. we have over 1000 schools around the nation being turned around the school year with tough work that is important. this is about transforming opportunities for every child. >> how many children would be part of the waivers? >> it would be entire school systems. it is not certain children's or districts. it is about states. every single public child school in those states would be part of that. we have said from day one it does not cost a nickel to fix this and implement these waivers. >> there is no price tag to this

change whatsoever? >> 0. >> how long does the waiver extended? is there a date for two years? >> this is a transition or bridge to fixing the law. >> if congress does finally act -- >> we would stand by the states. if they back off saying this, we would come back in. we want to raise standards and do more courageous work that will support the effort, not impede them. >> under the law, waivers can last up to four bang years -- up to four years. we need congress to act. the pressure will still be on, given the underlying law. >> is this basically rewriting the elementary and secondary education path by executive order? >> it is not rewriting it.

it is trying to take a common- sense approach, where states are showing tremendous courage. for me, the trade-off is the high bar. we need to get washington out of the way. the best ideas are not going to come from me. they are going to come from lower levels. we are seeing coverage around the country and the current law is inhibiting that. we have to give them more flexibility to move to take that. >> under the law, as it was real authorized under and a child left behind, this is not outside of the law. this is within the law. it has been done before. >> there is similar authority around growth models. >> the majority of the governor's your talking to are

interested in this? >> for those who end up to not do it, what would be the reservations on going through? >> i have not spoken to one governor who was not very enthusiastic about this. we have been meeting with staff, trying to figure out how to apply. they cannot come up with a reason why a governor was not interested. if they are dumbing down standards and refused to turn around low performance schools, that is not a partner we want to work with. we have seen tremendous results in spite of the bad law. there has been an outpouring of relief and thankfulness from governors. >> for those states who are dealing with budget concerns, is there anything that would ease their burden? >> we are providing more flexibility.

whether it is the wrong regulations are financial matters, the grand trade-off is folks raising the bar. we want to give them more room to move. that is around flexibility of resources. we want to be partners there. we are seeing massive results from the states. we want to reward that. >> under this new system, which states have to comply with these? >> i do not know the details of those. what we are trying to do is provide more flexibility for states. >> is there any consideration to offer anti-bleeding bills?

>> i think we have been very clear on anti-bleeding. the president hosted with the first lady, -- hosted with the first lady the first ever summit at the white house. we have been clear in our policy that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. we have seen states strengthen laws to prevent that bullying. we will be speaking more about this tomorrow. >> does this preclude congress from passing education? >> we would encourage them with a road map of where to go. >> does this include legislation? >> whatever we can do to increase safety on the way to and from school, we have to do that. if our children are not safe, they cannot learn. >> thank you very much.

>> we will go to other topics. >> the president a minute ago said it is not a lack of bipartisan support, but a lack of political will. can you talk about how he proposes to change that? how can we get at the debt problem? >> i think he spoke specifically about the need for further action congress will take to be approached seriously to the joint select committee. he spoke about providing his specific ideas. he spoke about the fact that there is not a lack of policy proposals already out there.

they are not starting from scratch, whether it is the fiscal commission, the simpson- bowles commission, the gang of six proposal, or the proposal that was being worked on by the speaker of the house and the president. there are ample ideas and a clear path toward achieving a balanced and significant deficit reduction, addressing programs like medicare and making adjustments for them so they are strengthened and will be there for future generations, and dealing with the need to reform our tax code so everyone shares in the sacrifices necessary to get our fiscal house in order. if we do that, we will have achieved something significant. the president has been leading on that from the beginning, and pushing hard for bipartisan compromise. demonstrably, the american people demand it. democrats and republicans

really want it. if our leaders in washington listened to the american public, if they set aside narrow political agendas and political ideologies, we can accomplish something significant to further action. >> is he talking about coming up with a plan of his own? >> i think he will be very specific in the proposal. i think a lot of you already know insignificant detail what is being worked on between the speaker of the house and the president, what we were willing to do and what proposals the white house put forward that the democrats were willing to support and the president was willing to take to democrats to urge them to support. the speaker of the house put revenues on the table, $800 billion of revenues. there is a lot of meat on the bones already. we just need to take actions seriously. we do not have the luxury of

political gridlock. we need to do with the american people sent the leaders the elected to washington to do. >> the proposal he is going to put together -- will it go further than the $1.50 trillion the committee is tasked with? >> i do not want to preempt or narrow the ideas we will put on the table. i think it is important to stand back and look at what people call for, at 8 $3 trillion to $4 billion package to begin to get our debt to gdp ratio in line to take over our long term -- to take on our long-term fiscal problems. to get to that, it stands to reason you would go into $2

trillion or $3 trillion additional. >> what is the white house response to the s&p downgrade? >> there has been a lot about that and the lack of economic justification. we knew there would be danger and damage done simply by playing chicken with our economy, playing chicken with the full faith and credit of the united states. we have seen that. however, in the long run, as the president said, we very clearly are a aaa country with a aaa economy. we are the safest of safe harbors globally in terms of investment. that is the same today as it was last week. the political issue is blindingly obvious. if i were looking for analysis

of the political climate in washington, i would not look to a ratings agency. i would look to you guys. i think he would have a more sophisticated sense of what is going on here. but we have the will. we have it within our capacity to do it. as messy and ugly as this week up to compromise was, in the end, sanity prevailed. the faction on capitol hill that seemed to revel in the prospective default was, in the end, ignored. compromise was achieved because it was unacceptable to responsible leaders in washington that the country would default. damage was done, but fortunately compromise was reached. the process for former deficit -- for further deficit reduction was put in place. >> would the white house like

to see a ratings agency like s&p regulated more strongly by the government? >> i have not heard that conversation. >> the conversation has not come up in the last few days? not to my knowledge. >> to clarify, the president said in his remarks that it was as much detail as we were going to get. >> i did not say that. let us make this process before. the president said he would have ideas to contribute to the process. he also said that we are not reinventing the wheel. there are ample and deeply specific policy proposals that achieve what those who have called for significant deficit reduction think we ought to achieve, and how we ought to achieve it, or the president and speaker's proposal that this is the body of work from which the committee can move forward.

i think we will have significant contributions to make. but i will not get into specifics here. a lot of the specifics about our approach to this are already well known. >> in terms of the legislation to help the economy, the peril tax, the infrastructure -- -- the payroll tax, the infrastructure, can you explain the steps being taken when the congress reconvenes? the is there someone who will be introducing specifically a bill to extend unemployment insurance? >> i do not have a process outlined in terms of how we would encourage that action to be taken by congress. we know historically there has been bipartisan support for everything the president talked about in terms of job-creating measures.

we expect that given the absolute demand from the american people that washington take action to create jobs that there will be pressure on congress to do those things that do have bipartisan support, like the payroll tax, extension of unemployment insurance, and leveraging public sector money to get private companies out there who want to help build infrastructure, hiring construction workers and building infrastructure. we will progressively push forward on that. i believe that given the imperative here there will be bipartisan support. in addition, we talked about getting a patent reform done, unleashing the innovative energies in the united states, and getting free trade agreements done. that would significantly help our employment situation. >> has the president reached out to any of the families of the navy seals?

has he talked to any of the surviving widows? >> i do not have information on that. i think we did offer a readout to the commanding officer, but at this point i do not have more details. >> is he planning a trip to dover? >> i do not have a schedule at this point. >> to clarify the recommendations the president plans to lay out, the grand bargain -- >> i am not going to him in my boss -- hem in my boss or his economic team. the president has said in his statement what we do not like is policy ideals, in terms of clear consensus on the measures we can take to address the long-term drivers of our debt, and a balanced approach getting our deficit under control. those include the ideas put

forward by the gang of six and measures put together by three republicans and three democrats in the senate, and supported by substantially more democrats and republicans in the senate. the fiscal commission set up by the president, with membership including democrats and republicans -- an approach to this problem similar to the approach the president took in his negotiations with the speaker of the house. i will not improve upon the president's words in terms of what he said about what he would be putting forward. i think it is important to note that congress can act with relative speed because they do not have to reinvent the wheel. it is congress's responsibility to act responsibly. >> can you point me to the process for the u.s. to regain its aaa rating? is the white house involved in anything in terms of trying -- >> as has been the case leading

up to this, the treasury department has most of the communications with the ratings agencies. that was the case with regards to s&p. how that process works is nothing i am aware of or have great knowledge about. it is certainly not anything we need to focus on now. we need to focus on, because it has been firmly established, that america's credit worthiness is not in doubt. we need to take the measures we can take to continue to get our fiscal house in order and to grow the economy and create jobs. >> the president said our problems are solvable. he talked about a sense of urgency. why not call congress back to work? >> i think what we can do after the process we just went through is make clear that when

congress does get back from recess it is very clear -- >> the dow dropped below 11,000. where is the urgency? >> there is a great stunts -- great sense of urgency about the need to get our fiscal house in order. the reality we live in is that this is, as set up by the founders, a government that has different branches with different amounts of power. we need to work together. we need to do that. we need to set politics aside and recognize that if we learn nothing else from the news on friday, it is the political gridlock can be damaging, at least in the short term, to our

economy, can dampen consumer confidence and roil the markets. >> to follow on the president saying i intend to release my own recommendations, when will he do that? >> i do not have a date for you. >> in what form will he do it? >> i think that is the same question. >> there was a discussion before about how he communicated his specific recommendations and desires to congress in the grand bargain. how is he going to do it differently this time? >> i think he stood up before you and said he would make his recommendations mound. i think he will do that. the committee does not exist yet. the members have not been named and it does not start its work until september. we will do that. we do not control all leaders of

government. we work with congress in the process. i think many of you know with a great level of detail what the proposals were. those are reflected with the approach this president will take, the tough political choices he is willing to make. the fact that he is not just willing to but demanding to lead in this case, taking the case of democrats about why we need to take further measures to get our debt under control -- he looks forward to finding further partners. >> does the president agree that the s&p downgrade was 80 party downgrade? >> i think what it clearly was, with no economic justification, as the treasury secretary and others made clear, an assessment

of our politics. the three things that were laid out in that assessment, as i recall, were they caused this decision with the unhealthy and unhelpful brinksmanship that was part of this debate. it was, as they sought it, the unwillingness of republicans to accept the need to include revenues in a balanced and substantial package, and the reluctance of democrats to address entitlement reform. on the third item, the president absolutely demonstrated his recognition of the need and the willingness to make adjustments to medicare, social security, and entitlement programs, tough political choices, in a way that would strengthen those programs. he looks forward to a recognition by members of congress of both parties that

the brinksmanship is dangerous. it is not healthy to our system. it is wholly irresponsible to play chicken with our economy. it is irresponsible to rebel -- to revel in the possibility of default as a political victory. we know because the american people have been very clear on this -- democrats, independents, and republicans have been clear on this. that is not an opinion that is widely held. >> did you think it was the tea parties fall? >> i felt my answer was that there was brinksmanship and irresponsible linkage. there was use of the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip in a way that had never been done before, threatening to force the

country into default if you do not get what you want, your political agenda. that is irresponsible. what is important to remember here is that in spite of all that washington proved it can function, that readers can come together and do the responsible thing. not everything that could have been achieved -- legislation ensured that we had significant deficit reduction and set up a process for even more. there will be more significant deficit reduction as a result of that compromise. not as much as could have been achieved here. none of this would have happened if we were willing at the beginning to have approached this in a spirit of compromise and to acknowledge what all the other bipartisan groups have a

acknowledged, which is that we need to do this in a balanced way. >> last night, secretary geithner was asked if the administration's policies bear any responsibility for this downgrade. he said absolutely not. does the white house mean to say its policies have no responsibility for the downgrade? >> i could not say it better. i assume you read the s&p document. the downgrade had everything to do with the political gridlock. the was no economic justification. the economic justification was wholly changed. it was not a rounding error. it was identified in 10 minutes. >> gridlock is a problem. president bush did not pay for two wars. republicans irresponsibility.

we did not pay for it. why can't you say we have some of the responsibility? >> we have the responsibility to take action and compromise. we have shown more willingness to do that and reach across the aisle to meet republicans more than half way, make tough political choices like taking on the issue of the need to strengthen our entitlement programs and make changes as necessary. that is the political will that would have avoided this whole issue. if you are talking specifically about the downgrade, which is related to playing a game of chicken, deciding for a political or communications reason that we should link the debt ceiling, the action by congress to honor its obligations, to pay for the bill -- the bill it has run up

-- it was a dangerous game to play. in the end, common sense prevailed, leaders led, action was taken. we lifted the debt ceiling through 2012 to be sure we do not go to the surface again, and to allow us time to do something more significant in terms of deficit reduction and dealing with our debt. >> the question of urgency -- the president said there was urgency. why did it take him three days to comment on the downgrade? >> i think our opinion is well expressed, beginning on friday. i do not think most people over the weekend were wondering where the president stood or the administration stood on this. the president spoke to that very clearly today. >> there are six specific things the president has been telling congress to do on the jobs front -- free trade, infrastructure bank, and

insurance, unemployment, and payroll taxes. one of bring congress better to do just that? i understand the urgency on the debt. >> it sounds like we are getting a drumbeat. >> the markets are crushing. -- crashing. i am not implying any relationship. the economy and american public seemed to be in a little bit of a panic. >> we are going to stand back and wait. markets go up and down. we cannot react precipitously in reaction to how the markets behave on a given day. we did achieve, after an ugly process, a significant step forward in terms of deficit reduction. that will be implemented. congress will set up the select committee. that process will move forward.

congress will work with this president in a bipartisan way and take action to support job creation to the trade agreement, extension of unemployment insurance -- >> why not do it now? >> we will do it as soon as it is feasible. i will notice if it builds, this desire to call congress back from its august recess. i have always appreciated it. i mean it seriously. i think your point is well taken. we should not waste any time here. the fact is that a lot of the measures the president has talked about -- patent reform, free trade agreements, and other issues -- could have been addressed already and should be addressed upon the return of congress.

>> to get to what was just asked, what does the president believe his role has to be in a moment like this, where there seems to be a bit of a panic on wall street? people are not sure what is going on. what does the president think on a day like this? >> i think to make clear that the united states remains the most powerful economy, the most creative economy with the strongest and best educated work force in the world, with the most enormous potential going forward in the world. while we face real challenges, you would not want to be any other country than the united states, with the power of our people and the intellect of our people, the productivity, entrepreneurship and creativity of our people. what this process has reaffirmed, inadvertently, is that the whole world views that

similarly. despite the ups and downs, the american economy is the most bedrock solid investment in the world. it is also a reminder that we need to come together. we need to do what the american people insist that we do, not the narrow bands of vocal activists that want 100% of what they demand and nothing less. but the great american middle colonies us. they demand cooperation and compromise, and accept that progress does not have to come at the expense of somebody else politically, but can come through cooperation and compromise. at a time like this, that is what is needed most. >> how do you respond to those who say, looking at this political gridlock cuban talking about, that president obama is

the leader of our political system now and it is under his watch that the system has failed in the u.s. was downgraded? taking a step back, that is a theme that is out there. i wonder if you could address that. >> it is a talking point that is out there. i would say the president is the first to acknowledge that there is a lot of work to be done. the hyper partisanship that prevails here does not go quietly into the night. we need to work with common purpose to overcome all the forces that, in a superficial way, pull us apart. one of the things that is remarkable about the country we live in is that less that -- is that less divides us than ever in our history on so many issues. but to hear our political leaders talk about it, you would think the opposite would talk.

-- was true. compared to our history, we as americans have very shared and similar views about most of the pressing issues of our time. that is the power of that reality. we cannot be distracted by those who would pull us apart. i think that with great purpose and a sense of urgency -- the president will continue to talk about that. that is his role. >> will the president be blamed for this? >> we are working for those who were sent here, the leaders in washington who were elected, including the president. they bear responsibility for the decisions they make, the policy they pursue, how they wage debates, and what they are willing to compromise in the name of moving the country forward.

the president understands and carries the responsibility. he thinks it is his job to lead. that is why he has tried so hard to lead toward the kind of compromise and cooperation that is essential for us to get anything big done in a town where we have divided government. >> when he put forward his plan are set of ideas, the as he envisioned that as his idea for what the final compromise should look like, or is this an opening offer? >> i do not want to get too far ahead of the process. obviously, the committee is the acting body here, and will hopefully come up with a proposal that emerges from the committee and moves on that fast track to be voted up or down by congress. he will be contributing to that process, not driving it or directing it. >> he might not, in his perfect

world, want to raise the eligibility age for medicare, but is willing to do it as a trade-off. would he be putting out a plan that reflects the trade-off? >> i do not want to get ahead of him. a lot of people understand where he was and the trade-offs he was willing to make. if the trade was coming in the other direction to achieve a balanced compromise -- beyond that, i do not want to get ahead of him. the process he went through with the speaker of the house is all about trying to find the kind of balance that achieved the goal in an equitable way, significant, sweeping compaq -- sweeping deficit-reduction, and also it could pass both houses of congress. by definition, that meant neither side was going to get everything it wanted. >> there is something like that

which could actually passed? >> yes. >> we saw the education secretary at the white house briefing. we will cover another briefing with him tomorrow, a conference hosted by the education department on ways to achieve drug-free schools in the u.s. you can see his comments live tomorrow at 1:30 eastern here on c-span. 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. tonight an interview with admiral eric olson. at 9:00, president obama talks about u.s. troops killed in afghanistan of the weekend, including 22 navy seals. the also talks about the first ever downgrading in united states credit rating. now, the senator for responsibility for responsible law, talks about whether voting

should be required by law. this is an hour and a half. >> good day. my name is ralph nader. the second debate will be on july 8, 2011, which the topic being a wall street securities transaction tax. information is the currency of democracy. subjects treated as taboo, cut into the open debate and

discussion necessary to motivate the citizenry toward higher expectations for their society and themselves. this is what a delivered of democratic society is all about. anthropologists have documented taboos in all cultures. whenever that this on some of the subjects are pierced, the matter closed out by the taboo is open up for examination and the possibility of change. very often in our society, tablas become entrenched controlling processes favoring the status quo and its related powers that be. the breaking of taboos in public arenas, for example, slavery, women's to vote, and the regulation of misbehaving businesses telling farmers and workers better livelihood's, those did lead to debate and change in the 19th century.

similarly in our time, that is arising out of advertising and corporate political pressures regarding the dangers of tobacco use and stand at motor vehicle safety and design were broken in the 1960's. reforms followed that saved lives. breaking taboos on jim crow loss and discrimination against gays and lesbians have led to advances in human rights. in many areas, tablas remain secure in their service to varieties of concentrated power and wealth that cannot tolerate some light. nearly every candidate for public office knows the taboo subjects which are not to be politically asserted and publicly suggested for discussion. off the table. self-centers it is part of a

politician's a arbor. one example, alternatives to gleason's heart drug policies are off-limits by the two major party platforms and their campaign agendas. political parties tend to have unforgiving hierarchies. the dispatchers are sife with subjects the vast majority of lawmakers prefer to ignore. until recently, the major parties took the ballast military budget and in the ongoing soviet-air weapons systems has given and not debatable. as is the gao's annual finding that it is unable to barter the pentagon's budget as a whole. in its turn, the media often -- toheads and since

censorial nadir. -- behavior. for the first time before a national television audience, due to the presence of c-span, the subject of mandatory voting is to be addressed in its many dimensions and consequences. we want a flexible debate format that encourages multiple back and forth responses on any single assertion, questions by the debaters to one another, and questions from the audience submitted on cards. this will be a 90-minute event in the debate starts. for the debaters, in for mandatory voting is norm ornstein. is an advocate for all the coral or form. his books and articles have led him to be widely quoted by media

for his insights. his recent, "the broken branch," reflects his concern about the state of electoral politics. he writes a weekly column and is an election analyst for cbs news. he is a resident scholar at the american institute -- enterprise institute. in opposition to mandatory voting, as fred smith, who studied the radical ma thematics until he realized that defending markets was his true calling, and he has done that with great fervor and humor. he is the president of the competitive it surprise institute, a policy group and international non-governmental organization in washington, d.c. .

fred smith also writes and lectures abundantly. knowledgeable moderator's help make a debate moved more precisely and substantively. mark green is such a moderator. he performs the function weekly by moderating a national radio program, featuring area huffington. at harvard law school, he added . law review a as a public interest lawyer, author of a mere 22 books, including the best seller, "who runs congress?" and a more recent jolting "using our democracy." he has been a tv commentator a commentator two leading newspapers treat it is with keen anticipation that i turn the proceedings over to mark green

to start this first in a series of national debates on taboo subjects. will the debaters come up. >> good morning, everybody. to my right is norman ornstein. to my left is fred smith. we will avoid cliche references. i especially on behalf of all the debaters and the audience want to thank ralph nader for pushing our imaginations when it comes to taboo topics, a series beginning today. how many times can talk shows and how long this debate budget deficits where there is such a deficit of conversation, about scores of other issues? here is one. can america stay at a

representative democracy, an exceptional democracy if non voters out number voters? voting is probably the preeminent trait aspect of what we regard as a the boxing. how can you have a government for the people unless people vote, as we are seeing now in the middle east? historically, and 1 cents, in 1780 night, as norm recalls, the turnout was extra evening -- extraordinarily high, but only propertied white males could the. now it is slightly the reverse. nearly the reverse. when there is more universal suffrage on paper, the turnout is very low in this country, certainly compared to the 80% turnouts of the 1800's, and i

ran in a york city white democratic primary were not 80%, not 40%, 8% turned out pick usually the winner. having said that, let's turn to the top at hand. norman ornstein is an advocate for the proposition, why should there be, and take up until five minutes, one minute or up until five, four stating your arguments in favor, and then fred will make his arguments against. each will have a two-minute time to say what is wrong with the other's argument, and then i will moderate a question and answer, and then they will answer each other's questions, and the audience can ask questions. result, we americans need

mandatory voting. why? >> thank you. i was uneasy when i first came in. i thought it said the debating tattoos. i want to start, and we will do this informally, with a couple of caveat spirit first, i am not for mandatory voting. i'm for mandatory attendance at the polls. there is a distinction, one that has been impressed by the current australian ambassador to the united states and was his party's leaders. in australia, you do not have to vote, you can go to the polls and cast a ballot for none of the above. 3% did. it is an important distinction. the second point i would make is, i decry our low turnout as much as in the bidding, but i am not for changing the system so we can feel good but having

voter turnout, which may ultimately approximately what they have in australia, which is 97%. the fact is voter turnout does not mean very much in turned -- in terms of the health of the market -- democracy. some of the most vicious dictators in the world get turnouts of 99% because of the consequences are severe if people did not put. there are parts of louisiana where turn night is 115%. i want to discuss all of a couple of reasons why came to this position. one is visiting australia and number of times and talking to political figures from all stripes, let me note the way things work in australia, if he did not vote, you are subject to a fine, the equivalent of what used to be a parking ticket here in the district of columbia, about $15. you can get out of this by

writing a note explaining why could not vote, you were sick, of the country, traveling, or another reason, tax on banks at grocery and drugstores, anybody who lives has had the experience of what kinds of people walking out of the store balancing dozens of cans because they will be damned if they will pave 5 cents for a bag. the nudge theory, a little bit of a cost can make an enormous difference. in australia, where they do get about 95% to 97% of voters out to the polls, politicians of all stripes tell me and us is that this is not a system where it is all about jinning up the pace. here political consultants like karl rove make many millions by having expertise in getting their party's ideas out.

here canada's are nominated and the jurors is that we have in the elections are set by a narrow sliver of voters, those part bases that tend to pull our politics as if we had gtwo and electromagnets that poll us off to extremes. their politicians know that their party cost base will turn out, and so will the other side 's. constellation -- the conversation changes. it is not about focusing on which issues like abortion or guns that can excite your side or suppress the enthusiasm on the other side. it is not about manipulating voter registration or scaring voters when they're out at the polls to try to jin up your side or another site. is about focusing on the sliver of voters, the important group in the middle, who are persuad able, by using fiery rhetoric,

will turn off voters in the middle, and it is by focusing on the esther is that matter the most to them. -- the issues that matter the best that. as i watched our system move more and more toward this model maniacal focused on getting your based out and making sure the other side's base did not, as i watched solid representatives lose the ability to run in their party's primaries for nominations because of slivers of the base that turned out in primaries that may have a voter turnout of 10% or 15%, or maybe up to 35%, and i as i have watched elections dominated by these consultants driven to try to get referendums on the ballot because they will excite your side more than the other side. as i have had people ask all across the country, what can we

do about political systems that can no longer debate is issues in a reasonable factors -- fashion, we have seen the center completely collapsed. the conclusion i came to is if we adopt a version of the australian system, modernized our registration system, we could move away from that and get a better debate about important issues and have a healthier democracy. >> thank you, norm. fred smith. >> we are a disparate nation of heterogeneous individuals. i come from a liberty-seeking group. we believe in stability, and we have friend who believe in all of this, and our challenges to find ways of linking our core bout used the things that will advance and protect them.

elections are typical ways to achieve that, because the people who purport to represent our values, somewhat, it may not be as true in minnesota where norm comes from, but i am from louisiana, a state that makes louisiana is a state that not -- that does not tolerate corruption, and we have to be able to accept the world as it is. the challenge is there people who pretend to represent our whoes, they're people purport to be competent and so forth, but the political process gives us a choice usa or b, and not surprisingly, many of us find it hard to discern what these people really are and whether they represent our values or not, and we do what we do in other areas of services, we boycott those areas, we stay home and we still hope not

because we are not interested in the nature of the government, but because we have found it very difficult to discern where they come from and to vote in the presence of that ignorance would not only be wrong, it would be immoral. there's a feeling somehow that if we could just increase the press's position in america, the world would be an answer place, less controversial, but australia does have that now and as far as i know no one has ever accused -- being a nice person. canada does not have that and everybody realizes canadians are nice. north.e lakbowobegone there's a principle that suggests -- norm thinks it is a loss of freedom. we have lost a lot of freedoms over the last century. let's think carefully before we

lose one more freedom. how practical would-be? we would have to enforce it. we would have voting police? we want a system that basically realizes that voting is a responsible act and for whatever reason, i am uninformed, i did not have the time, i shall not be coerced to make a decision which is life and death for many people. it would be immoral to do that. we did not ask people to vote without inspiration or responsibility. jorors carefully constructed, but in the voting booth, we all make our decisions, maybe we don't, but we get at least some civic depression because if we voted -- who is going to get credit because otherwise how to pay the fine? that is not a virtue. that is coercion. a lot of this reminds me of a

story when i was growing up in louisiana, one of johnny's teachers was trying to get johnny out, and he said, johnny, the you know the difference between apathy and ignorance? johnny said, i do not know, and i do not care. the argument is essentially that the people who are uninterested in the outcome or uninformed about the outcome can somehow produce a better america seems indefensible and that is what mandatory voting is all about. >> thank you, fred smith. for a representative bub-- rebuttal -- >> are not a nation where we is shared the same views. we have a lot of different points of views. when i find particularly interesting now, given the nation of our election system, is if you look at a whole range

of service, you will find that over half of republicans believe that one way we should deal with our deficit and debt problem is by increasing taxes on the rich. you have half of republicans who believe there is climate change caused in some measure by humans. you cannot find members of congress who believe in those things or -- you can find plenty of people who believe it if you talk to them privately, but given a system dominated by activists, they are forced to take positions or they choose people who take positions who are not believed by a majority of their own party. we do not have a system where we can get the police that people have, which range across the board, but which now force them into little boxes. let me talk a bit about the loss of freedom. in australia, as i say, you pay a fine, but you do not have to

pay the fine. you can write a note that explains why you could not vote. just as with a five-cent bag tax, there are people who fi nd that a bridge too far. i do not find that a loss of freedom too far. you have the freedom not to vote for anybody if you show up at the polls. so i think this is a process that can actually work out in a very reasonable way and strike a very different balance. >> thank you. fred? >> the tories are precious virtue, and not only it did vances the values that we have felt, it provides a greater stability for our societies, and it has democratized more of the privileges that the elites of your piece that had than anything else. i do not think liberty is a trivial thing to be dismissed as not that important. i think the question of when we

do coerced civic service of our people, like in the jury duty service with you, we treat it seriously. you get informed, you get both sides of the argument. you have to listen for long periods of time, and then you can still abstain at the end from the jury -- from voting. all those safeguards which occurred in the few areas where we have civic duty are not abandoned him. the other civic duty we did decide as sid to the abandoned decades ago was the service to the draft. we did that because we did not think that were and was compatible with our principale of everett. the argument that we move into a society, i got your car before the free and if you do not, we will find you $20, $50, you can contest your rights, restricted our freedom not only to speak, but not as be if we wished to do so. when of the greatest things we can do in the private sector is

not to show up when we find a company or someone unpleasant to our values structure. we should be able to do that and one of the more important institutions of our societies, the voting booth, but we do not want to vote when they put to go down and we will be up there. >> fred, 80% turnout abroad, 50%, usually in presidential elections. up to 37% in mid term license, 25% local elections -- what would define something that is not a democracy? you are saying tweedle dum and tweedle dee -- what would you call a democracy? >> what is happening that is driving the people out of the voting booth? if restaurants were competing, customers did not show up, they would not say why are the customers failing us?

one of the other restaurants doing that are creating such bad choices that people would not eat at all? >> then you can eat at sam's and life goes on. when you talk about the let the people that have the power of life and death in terms of war, justice system, the analogy breaks down, and so do you have a problem, since you did not seem to care about the level of turnout, my 8% in the new york city primary was not theoretically, is that never bother you? >> who cares? most people live their lives with the political system as a variable they cannot control. doesn't really matter? it is difficult to honor political actors, as we all know. they all say what we want them was what they want us to hear, but reality is that it a-all-

was the command of her. -- it was always difficult to monitor. was that the critical decision that brought us into war that increased subsidies for corporations, that did or did not do something good or bad in our society? politicians have developed an incredible camouflage screen between their actions that could affect our lives and the person on the which is what we apparently vote for. to stay out of gas and refused to give legitimacy to that fraud, is not an immoral act. if people cannot show up in america month that says something, and i do not say when 100% people showed up in the soviet union, that does not say anything at all. >> you imply our electoral system is a fraud, so not voting is ok with in a democracy? >> i do not believe it is a fraud. when we self-select whether we

know enough or care enough to participate in a process, what is wrong with that process? do we want to induce people who are less interested, less informed the vote for us, and does not that weaken the real fun of artisan toward democracy which is to encourage those who spend the time and effort to vote? if we are not, are we not doing a service not only to our shovels, but the ever else, i stay out of the decision. >> seemed to imply that your numbers in terms of turnout is not all that important. is it better if more people vote? george will said people when people do not but it shows satisfaction with the current system, or not dissatisfaction with the current system. others rode in a -- wrote in a ok, "important 1988 wilbo

institutions caused mass of non- voting." does not matter if more people vote, independent of your focus, which is not just having non ideological centrists? >> you have nearly everybody voting because they want to be engaged. i want to get turnout up for other reasons, sure. what the evidence suggests there are significant numbers of people who did not vote because they do not see a difference or are satisfied, and some who are dissatisfied. all of that is true. what we see with the example of australia, getting back to fred 's the point that we damage the satisfaction that comes with exercising your civic duty, what has happened over eight decades

in australia, there is an enormously high level of patriotism that comes with voting. people seeking as a civic duty. -- people see it as a civic duty. fred says he cannot show up and make a statement. is far more effective to show up and vote for none of the above and not to turn out where we do not know why people are failing to turn out. let me address the ignorance issue. i am as appalled, perhaps more so than fred, about the level of ignorance of these is in the society, and i might make a deal with you, if we could have these tests for presidential candidate so we no longer get one who says what we really need is to read the constitution and then quotes from the declaration of independence, another one who says that a shot fired round the world came from new hampshire, if we could get a more better

understanding of history of people running for office, maybe we could find a different way. >> that raises an interesting point. since you are denouncing disinterested voting -- should there be than a literacy test so people who have a certain level of knowledge? knowing that the word literacy test is hardly freighted our society, but you may be eager to point. but it is not an ignorant point. it is a rational point. people spend very little time -- we're all busy people, to learn about things about which they can do during -- very complicated, it's a low priority item. those people have problems, what they are going to do on vacations, what college they should go to, and most people, and this audience and i are different, most people cannot read the federal register before they go to bed at night.

there are other things that occupy their time. they're not stupid. they are rationally ignorant in political science terms. people allocate their times in ways they see as having value to themselves, and voting in most situations does not fall into that category. some do. nor certainly does. i do more than most. most people in this city care about politics and about it a lot. for most people, does it matter whether your senator's name is murkowski or mikulski? occasionally, and it is important, we reach these periods, the green party perot tend to say we do care.

we will vote and that people do because they are and passion, they care deeply, and they vote. norm wants people who are boring and spend their time voting. it says it does not matter much if your name is mikulski or murkowski? would it matter much if your name was obama or busch? taking a glib exam all, universalizing it to imply that elections have no consequences, and are not important to people because they have private interests, because that also clear -- care about what they pay in taxes, whether their child will be a well educated -- fred implies elections to the matter. >> i disagree with that, and of course, if your name is mark kautsky -- murkowski -- was

bumped off the ballot in alaska because a small group of extreme voters decided they did not want her to have the nomination. there's a difference to me if your name is bob bennett, a conservative figure whose instinct was to solve problems along or a man who has replaced .n call mike lee, i think it does matter, and i should of other things. we have lots of research that shows that it is not as if nonvoters art this group of apathetic the ignorant people, while voters are engaged and much more involved in fact, the little bit as between voters and nonvoters in a larger sense are not much different. the difference, once again, is we are creating a group of

candidates, and we are creating the focus on issues that has moved away from what most voters think or what. i will go back to the examples, a majority of republicans think that part of the deficit solution is in increasing taxes on the rich. you cannot find a single individual in office in congress who believes that now. and we have a process of voter suppression. in fact, we have a party is actively engaged in trying to make sure that the other side's voters do not vote. >> why do people not vote? probably not one single reason, but fred implies tweedle dum, italy, and anybody is allowed to run if you're over 25 or 30 for the house or senate. >> some choices arhave difficuly identifying what their ideology

is. politicians tend to camouflage those with the compliancy of the media who are not interested in -- >> not every election is of no consequence, not every election is not to kill them, tweeting ee. d actually, we voted half the rate of western european countries, which had conditions comparable s? our spiri >> i hope if we manage to get mandatory attendance at the polls, it would force the other changes in our election system. the and i did state is the only significant democracy -- the united states is the only the marcy that puts the burden on

the citizens and not on the state, and we make it a difficult process. we make floating a difficult process. we need floater registration modernize aging. we need to change this process so it becomes easier for people to register and to vote, and among other things, i helped create at organization called why tuesdays? it is not because it is written in the constitution. it is because it is on market day. i would like to move our elections to the weekend. they have a couple of days of early voting. he to make it easier for the of the vote, easier for people to register, you need to move away from the missions that there are incentives to keep this limited to a french or small crew of activists, and open up the crisis, and make it less the vehicle for people to vote, even

as we provide a modest hurdle if you do not vote. >> before i asked frederick why people don't vote, if those reforms you suggest occur, just began voting, a holiday, as it is in port re, curly voting, which is a majority of voting, same-day registration, campaign finance reform, why not try that, a critic could say, before jumping to mandatory voting? >> and for all of those things and work hard in those areas. in some respects, we are slipping forward down. the supreme court issued another misguided decision today, keys in arizona, basically making that the starke logical argument on the usual 5-4 vote that more speech is suppressive speech his cause these multi millionaire candidates, if somebody has a

little bit of money, putting their own money into the campaign, it will deter them from spending their money. a logic that just escapes me. we're not moving the right direction there in terms of getting a broader pool of good people to run. some of these registration and other who for various move very slowly. that is not to say that he should not do any or all of them, and it is not to say if we did all the other things, maybe we would not need to move in the direction of mandatory attendance at the polls. >> why do you think are turnout in voting is so low, and you, would you support some of the reforms short of mandatory voting, that nor has articulate? >> we are getting to one of the core differences of the debate, we're talking about process changes within a status quo order.

government is still going to be making decisions on where we go to war, who will be subsidized in our society, gets to marry him, so forth. when government has those kinds of power over our lives, massively more than they did in the founding towns, naturally we engage those who have the intensity about those the greatest. the things that norm concerned about is stemming from the fact the government is skirling too many people's today in many ways. norm once a world when everybody gets along lies, when everybody is nice to each other. i cannot know if that is existed. he sees gridlock and difficulties in government getting its critical work on as a problem. i see it as one of the greatest

things possible. given the things that government has done, which take away freedoms, it is time to think carefully about why is it that people vote last put because government is so big it becomes increasingly harder for us to monitor it, and we say i would do the best i can, and a little island of freedom that survives, let others figure out to take the responsibility to -- >> it is easy to say government is too big, because none of us know if she be however the. may i get specific. he said the government is more -- intrusive than at

the founding. george washington did not know about nuclear power, did not know about wiretapping. i assume he did not think about same-sex marriage. what you are seeing is that if he simply shrink government, are you saying we should not regulate the nuclear power? should we continue to isolate marriage the opposite-sex couples to wiretapping is the free market. if the government wants to eavesdrop without a warrant, they can, gets the senate. don't you want the best people to -- deciding these issues, or nt want government not deciding these issues? >> i want government to decide these issues. the political sphere gives us the kinds of questions we have been discussing the state,

people who are less informed, less caring, less concerned, making -- being encouraged to make decisions that affect my life. one of the great things about -- there are areas that are that with greater complexity comes greater need for control. the opposite is clear. with greater complexity, we have to use the dispersed knowledge and concerns of more people, and that means this person now. we're not d centralizing it. policies are what are, but they are not more brilliant or knowledgeable as we are in our entire day. we need to find ways -- marriage -- how did marriage become a state-sanctioned value? we created america in part to get away from state-sanctioned the use. catholics and protestants kill each other's by the millions in

your. why -- who can be married to him as a relationship become a question of staying power where some states go one way, other states go the other way? should not be a private matter? wicca -- we are so blurred -- in the personal lives we've lived, we end up with a kind of poor story that and norman and i believe it. i do not want government making these decisions. >> i a respect fred does not want government making these decisions. that is different from the livelihood tomorrow, that if indian. decides to build a nuclear plant next year, he would want to know if there were seized and their it's beyond that as the owners of indian point. let's presume government will

continue to regulate and intervene in ways that all modern economies suggests. bibby fred will overrule that. until then, can you respond to his arguments that if the answer is always the government, is always too vague, and political elections are not important enough to motivate people to learn more about the candidates? >> as i was thinking about his restaurant analogy, i was thinking how much he will and enjoying it if we did not have the plant/animal inspection service at the department of agriculture. the fda, inspect the additives in food coming from china, the meat inspections took 9 million pounds out of the restaurants and off the shelves, and the marketplace could handle that. you see people dropped it in restaurants and you say i do not think i will go there anymore. i am not sure i like that kind acrof --

>> when the fda screws up, its budget goes up. there is a difference in the visible between a political mistake and the private mistakes. >> with your friends, congress has been ready to slash the number of meat inspectors, which means many more pounds of tainted meat. i believe in meat and poultry and added it inspection. >> e-coli bacteria spreading? ta.k at the day did they subsidize it? >> i do not want to flip it to a debate of mandatory -- fred suggested there is a relationship between the size of

government and the drop in turnout required that has not happened. we have had problems with turnout, and the drops in the recent decades, it actually went out in 2008, but the drop as far more to do with the regulations of registration that government provides and the enormous mobility that we have in the country. it's those things, it is not whether in the history of turnout is people getting turned off by the size of government. one other point -- fred said i want a world where everybody ax nice. -- acts nice. want to have a rough-and-tumble debate where we is share a common set of facts and the outcomes on issues. i want to have a wide range of and irepresented t and,

want a larger segment of disparate views represented in washington, not those who reflect the large and disparate society we have. >> fred said there is a loss of liberty, and it may be small, but he is concerned about that. i find it when this topic comes up that people go to that argument first. i will say 30 years ago when i worked for ralph nader, i would interview law students, 100 a week during the season, and i would ask them, the you think of mandatory voting, because i knew they had never thought of that, just to see if they could think. 99-1 people were against it, because their first impulse is we do not have it -- let me ask you a question of principle. you can have a territory and

quist of authoritarian governments like russia, or you can have most people thinking too weak governments, the articles of confederation, which did not have adequate ability to conscripts to fight the british and to tax. what are the principles that would distinguish between a government taking away your liberty, compulsory jury duty, vice, and when is overbearing and wrong? how do you distinguish? >> there is a continuum here. i would start with one realization that we all want to have. this is not going to happen because americans react against mandatory things and they will react against mandatory voting. if you look at societies and countries like portugal and

belgium and australia that have versions of mandatory attendance at the polls with modest fines, you do not find a set of that loss of freedom that citizens feel. you find instead the opposite reaction, a pride in getting out the vote because it is a civic duty and responsibility. i just do not see this when i look at the potential for changing our dialogue and moving from the course of this that we have now toward something that might be better. different incentives making it easier for people to vote and broadening the pool of people who are willing to run for office against having to write a letter to get out of paying a $15 fine, i just did not see it. >> what are the universal principles, because right now somebody can inoculate my child, inject them, even though i may not want it, someone make it script him or her, forced him or

her to go to school, what is acceptable government coercion, and what is unacceptable by your standards? >> that is the core question. we are a society based on that the government, and deciding where those limits are is a critical question. norm set a continuum. the difference between qualitative distinctions is made in the constitution, and quantitative distinctions which is what we so often are talking about today, what poverty level should be set, he should be subsidized and who not? those are more complicated because there is no moral principle. there is nobody who is thought to fight a battle over 5.5% and change in something.

during that nuclear age, nuclear power, nuclear weapons down to very small tonnages. it was deadly important because people of the stored when qualitative lines had been crossed, so the court's interpretation, but a constitution concept is to create barriers for much government shall not go or must go. a black-white situation. to modifyprocess fo those distinctions. when we go to a continuum concept where everything is more or less by little bit more, there is no moral of a anymore because we are in a world of the a little bit more, a little bit less, who cares?

what can i do about it? there's a difference between quality the government and quantitative government, and one of the things i fear is america lip, still world were government can do anything. >> let me pull it back to voting, because we could have a debate, may be in your head to series, whether children should be inoculated against disease, by the government, if the parents do not want it. that is an interesting subject, and there is a 99-1 majority not against mandatory voting, but for in chocolate and children. that means -- for inoculating children. he did not simply on a tuesday, as in industrial timeslot schleop to the voting booth.

if you registered that day, there was a whole history of mutual sounding standards, poll taxes, literacy tests, that discriminated by race. are you or were you for any of those reforms, short of mandatory voting? >> that early voting we should come back to, the of registration, i cannot see why that is a bad idea, although one of the things route had me read was a discussion of the jesse ventura campaign, and acorn was involved with setting up people until last week or so when the realized everybody was going to vote for ventura. early or late registration allows those surges which may or may not reflect wise thinking. the second one was -- >> all the reforms. >> voting by mail -- that kind

of premise voting bothers me in the following sense. one of the great things we have had our society, and many societies did not have, the secret ballot. he may be subject to massive pressures from friends, family, a your employer, your roommates, but you go into the boat and no one knows what you're doing, and i think we are confident that happens. if you have or early voting, what is to stop your friend from coming over and say let's do our wallets together -- our ballots together? >> i have been a strong opponent of vote by mail because you lose a zone of privacy and you trivialize the voting. as for early voting, i am only for early voting for two or three days. some people go away for the

weekend or they are not around. you can address that by having voting on the wednesday, thursday, friday before the weekend where you go to an official place, cast a ballot in secrecy, and then the ballot is secret. and other problems with vote by mail is you can have weeks of people voting before you actually have all the information from a campaign. >> a more fundamental question that is that particular regulation, candidate, acorn, jesse ventura, we can have counterexamples easily. critics of the current registration voting system say our entire democracy has a class bias against low-income people, minorities, younger voters, because they give less money,

which is self-evident, suppression office -- efforts often work against them, as we know historically, civil war reconstruction, etc. let me start with norm, the you think there is -- of your people, over $100,000, vote in twice the turnout of people as being under $30,000. the class bias assume by this question, is that a problem? are you for mandatory voting, or is it something that the government cannot do something about? >> and that sends, if you have -- since, if you have mandatory attendance, he will go away with a class bias out there. we're getting all kinds of things going forward like restricted voter i.d. laws that

make it much more typical for people without means or without mobility, and that includes a elderly people, who may not have the right documents and to get those documents you have to pay money. and not against voter i.d. in principle, but it needs to be something that is provided for free the people that is easy for them to obtain. they do not have to go 30 miles -- >> argument is the overall class bias would get worse. >> that is part of what i think in the current system that we have is we are going to get a selective voter suppression for reasons of not just class, but who people are right to vote for. it is not a driving reason for me to push for mandatory

attendance at the polls, but it is one. >> to agree there is a built-in class bias because public campaigns are privately funded and poor people have less money, and historically turned out less frequently because of suppressed efforts? >> historically people had strong resurgence, and as i think our gagne -- and most i think are gone. in australia, we find people whose ballots are spoiled and exactly the people who would not have voted anyway. we are not seen a difference in that situation. >> excuse me for interrupting. before, they had 47% rate of voting.

now they have 95%. they have increased the voting. >> that people whose votes are spoiled, they're not filled and, to for reasons, but the majority of those reasons are because those are the people who find it hard or are embarrassed ask assistance, and people would have been excluded, who would not have gone to the polls if we had not had mandatory voting. if we had mandatory voting, then what would be the incentive of the powers that be to enforce those laws against the nonvoter? when they go more aggressively against those who would be likely to vote for them and push them to the polls and larger numbers, leaving alone those who were not current to vote for them, and let them sit it out there is always a danger, and i think experiments like this, which involves an element of

coercion, are likely to lead to unexpected consequences, and as the acorn experiment said, an effort to get out of the disease when they realized the boat they were trying to get out was not on their side. >> any administration, the obama administration could enforce the civil rights laws, the tax cuts, get the democrats, that the republicans. of course there is discretion. fred raises a fair point. mandatory voting will require more resources to enforce, and sent people like jehovah's witnesses, people who are too ill to vote. you creating an expensive bureaucracy, and is there a risk of unintended consequences is it risk of unintended

consequences? >> we've had at times italy and bolivia, and i have not seen any specific instances where governments selectively punished those from the other party. any more than governments now which administer parking regulations decide they're going to enforce parking tickets against those whose license plates tell them live in a part of a city that wouldn't be voting for them. that's not likely to happen. as for the enforcement, it costs money. a trivial sum in relationship to a $14 trillion economy. but what we also know is it you look at the system for enforcing parking tickets, for example, this is not a difficult thing to do. you know who is on your voter

registration roles. you know who shows up. you know whether they've sent in a letter or found some reason for an excuse. just now if you get a parking ticket and don't pay it, a month later you get a notice saying you haven't paid your parking ticket. it works the same way. >> in australia, one way you avoid this is by not registering. i don't know enough about this law. if you don't register to vote then you're not under this law. >> if you don't register, you're not under this law. what they do in australia and almost all of these countries -- it's not true in all of countries. in some countries you have to register and you have to vote. in many of these countries they make it very easy to register and the burden is on the state and there are less than 20% now in australia but people don't register. >> what is it in america? >> we have in america about 40%

who don't register. >> hold your questions for each other. but let me pursue the point what do you do if someone doesn't vote. if you have mandatory voting or voter duty like you have jury duty, do you have voter duty and could you have a positive incentive? for example, there is a country to motivate people to vote, if you vote you could be in a national lottery with a small but mathematically sure benefit of potentially winning. you could say that only if you vote can you be eligible for a public sector job. let's exclude in america or anywhere that you imprison people for not voting -- you're not for executing people if they don't vote, correct? too much government. >> only in texas do we execute people if they don't vote. and there will nobody pardons in texas, also.

>> are there positive ways for voter duty or mandatory voting, so you avoid the problem of fining poor people if they don't vote? >> i would say if we have a lottery and a billion dollar prize, you'd probably up your turnout very, very significantly. maybe you get to audition for "dancing with the stars" or "american idol." >> let's get serious. is that a plausible, positive motivation? >> it's actually been suggested in some localities and other places. and when we do see the mania over some of these lotteries, you know, perhaps that would work. of course doing something like that does get you dangerously close to officially sanctioning gambling but since we tend to do that all across the country anyhow, maybe that wouldn't be so bad. >> now, do any of you have a sense of any history in this

country of mandatory -- i read the state of georgia in 1777, so by that example you know it's not very current. but fred, what do you think about, is there any historical examples this has been tried and failed, public reaction? and what do you take from the 30 countries around the world that have mandatory voting, only about a dozen of which enforce it? the others are simply exoratory. >> i read on this research, there were a number of states that looked at this. i think none of them fully implemented it. i think a few municipalities have done it from time to time. internationally it's obviously been experimented with in a lot of categories. norm keeps bringing up belgium. does belgium have a government yet? >> belgium does not have a government in place but i spent time in belgium and it runs

very, very well. >> what it suggests is people are happy and have no government and apparently no elections. i don't know about mandatory voting and the fact they have gridlock. the variation among nation states, our own states, are interesting and may suggest alternatives we wouldn't have considered. i guess we got the ballot in america from australia, didn't we? >> it's the australian ballot. >> with took some parts of it. of course in any system, one knows, some classes -- we talked about wealth is making it easier to vote. but academically. look at the election in america and note the often discrepancy between the university community and the rural communities. there's always a cap and gown distinction, an intellectual distinction, credential distinction because intellectuals aren't

necessarily any brighter than the average american. but look at those distinctions in america. but we don't worry about academic voting biases but we do worry about wealth to some stents. different people are going to be driven by different intensities and different concerns and abilities and the best we can do is try to make sure none of those barriers are artificial, as they were of course in much of america. i came from the south during the segregation period and discrimination was a state enterprise in those areas. >> let me get to moderating and asking questions and our gators and then you in the audience start jotting down a question on the paper you have, and if you could, write the name of the debater and pass it to people walking up and down the aisle, john richard, if you're here, if you will then pass it on to me. two quick questions that are different.

norm made the point that if you had mandatory voting, you would encourage more centrist, low-interest voters to come out because the current system encourages parties to appeal to their hard core base. i think michelle balkman and dennis kucinich presidentially. do you think putting aside the big government aspect that mandatory voting has one good aspect in that more people would vote and it would be more roughly representative of the whole society? >> that's an empirical question, obviously. but we know it does have participatory voting -- i mean mandatory voting and that's not planned politics and canada doesn't and it has fairly nicely run politics and can't

imagine a country more centrist than canada, maybe switzerland who have lower rates than we do. but it doesn't correlate well between centrists. america is not a country -- look, i'm a libertarian. the problem with libertarians, two of them agree, so each of the other one has sold out. but that's part of america. we want to be a tolerant country but not a country that demands we all agree to consensus. and i think a lot of the contentions we feel about, can't we all be nice is our unhappiness that not everyone agrees with us. many of the examples norm gave are true. i mean, yes, chris got bumped out of florida, but there are many, many reasons why i would think any logical liberal conservative or libertarian would have been perfectly happy to see chris bumped out and it wasn't extremists, it's that he did some things i think were unconscionable and bad.

but that's not the point. being the center, consensus stuff is kind of where -- a consensus, it's the process by which everyone on any side of an issue gives up the things, the beliefs they really hold and agrees to something that none of them really agree with. i don't think that's the purpose of america. i don't think it's the purpose of the voting process him -- process. >> norm, do you think mandatory voting, or voter duty would a, encourage better educated voters because they know they can't just opt out, but they have to get a little more engaged because they have to attend, and then more likely vote? and robert putnam wrote this heralded book, "bowling alone." there was a measureable decline in many metrics of voter

participation, civic participation, attendance in bowling leagues. unlike de tocqueville when everyone was bumping in the market square that civic engagement has been on the decline. so would mandatory voting help make a better citizen and lead to more education in elections, a point that fred says often occurs? >> i think there would be a lot of incentives in a political system to change the nature of our debate and for people who are going to vote to perhaps spend a little more time or pay a little bit more attention and it might move a little bit away from what we have now. and let me acknowledge that -- well, first of all, let me say again, i'm not looking for everybody to be nice. much of the disparity or the differences, you look at canada or some of these other countries, is cultural. and you're not going to change the culture overnight. you're not going to make any of

these reforms in a fashion that are going to change things dramatically, and our political system was built on deliberation, debate, and argumentation. there's nothing wrong with argument and people having very intense views. the problem as i see it is that we have their odd the rang of those views in a fashion that turns off a lot of voters. and i think it might change a little bit, you might see some different incentives if we moved in different directions and if we move in a direction we deemphasize the role of organizations like acorn or people like karl rove who now have enormous incentives to create a different dialogue and can make money in a different fashion, i don't think that would be bad in terms of what it might do to pique interest of voters. >> you made notice to liberty or loss of liberty which is a powerful principle starting in our revolution and current

elections. two weeks ago, in fact, i had jury duty and i went. and for two -- i'm never called . when they see me they go you're out. but for two days i sat there and i actually felt kind of excited, i was part of something, people from all walks of life and classes were there, and i thought people felt good about it. jury duty, for two days minimally, and i almost was on a criminal trial that would have taken two weeks. it's far more absorbing and time consuming and liberty losing than a vote by mail or on election day, especially in a holiday. so what's the big problem when, by the way, in elections you can't educate voters, they can ignore it in new york city, we send out a booklet, each person

writes 100 words on who they are and what they think the issues are. so if a person wants to get educated, it comes right in the mail. >> yeah, i think that's very different. as i said earlier, i think there's a very big difference from the jury system and the voting than would be a voting obligation because the jury duty, as you point out, is a pretty serious thing. we have -- we need to have some way of deciding the guilt or innocence of a person that commits violence against another. that's what a jury system tries to do. we're human beings and are fallible. two sides look at each one of us and typically reject both of with us, i suspect norm, too. so often you have the feeling they're trying to get someone who has no opinions on anything or knowledge on anything. when they go through the voir dire where they ask you questions, have you ever been involved in government?

have you ever been involved in the occupation of this individual? have you ever had a family member -- pretty soon you start thinking about, is anybody left in the class who have not had any of these things happen? i guess they vary from jury duty -- from judgeship to judgeship but thank you it seriously because if you get picked you'll be up there for up to two weeks and you'll be instructed by both side. and yes, you do feel a sense of civic pride there because it's not a throw away, drive-by voting incident. it's a serious issue. >> voters, tv viewers usually see both sides, depends on how much money you raise obviously, and you can get in the mail arguments about both, you said a jury system is very important, life and death and incarceration and whatnot, that's true. who we elect and make warranties and taxing and environmental decisions you

acknowledge is very important even though you would prefer there be fewer of it. if the state can compel me to take days or weeks at a time and almost nobody objects to that, why are you so concerned about the requirement that you vote when you can vote none of the above or spoil your ballot? >> you of course can't vote none of the above in the united states. >> you can vote for you, you can vote -- you can write in your spouse. >> but none of the above is a quite different idea. none of the above essentially says the voter should have the right to reject the current list of candidates coming out of the two major parties. >> let me withdraw the words "none of the above" which happens in nevada. >> let's add "none of the above" to the ballot and then we can go to mandatory attendance at the polls. >> you think having none of the above would improve a lot of things. but why don't we have none of the above? because the presumption is neither party wants to be that

embarrassed. they really like the idea of faux democracy and faux legitimatization and i think that's a danger here. and i think without none of the one of it -- none of the above it would be worse. we can discuss if none of the above would have less opposition. i'm not sure enough to make me endorse it. >> if i add in a cash payment, would that -- >> we have cash payments of a type in the system already. for years it's been said would you like to donate a dollar not out of your pocket to support political candidacy funding and all of us -- what is the participation rate? pretty damn low. certainly i never do it. >> at this point, i don't know whether you have questions of each other we haven't yet covered. fred, you feel something compelling to ask of norm? >> you don't have to. >> no, i don't. >> and norm indicated fred convinced him we're done.

let me read questions from the audience, an administrative question. what about the homeless, who decides what's a valid excuse? this goes to the implementation rather than the theory behind mandatory voting. >> you are going to have some difficulties, as every society does, in going out and registering people. they're a little bit more difficult in the u.s. than they are in some other countries because we have a federal system. australia and canada do as well. where your residence matters. it's not like you're just voting for a national candidate and we have a substantial amount of mobility. but other societies manage, and of course you are going to find some people that will slip between the cracks and includes homeless people and may include some others. and what they do in most of these countries is they have a set of categories that are

valid excuses and that of course includes being ill, traveling, some of the same excuses we have now that are requirements if you are going to do a vote by mail. those are disappearing in many places as we move towards no excuses, absentee voting. but that's a trend once again in one area where fred and i agree where it's troubling. you know, i don't want to trivialalize voting. unlike fred, i believe if you have mandatory attendance in the polls and the experience of other countries suggest it enhances the notion of voting. it becomes a civic duty and that's a good thing. but vote by mail which is the same as filling out a publisher's clearing-house ballot does trivialize. >> there's a question that relates to something that was mentioned but not discussed in depth which is a bias against less well off people. clearly the supreme court and the 5-4 citizens united

decision now allows corporate treasuries which raise money from shareholders, given limited liability to economically invest, to take those several trillion and potentially spend it politically in elections so to the extent, does it trouble you if a you -- that you said there always will be differences in wealth but was a specific decision that made it easier to put it on the scale, does that argue for more aggressive voter reform measures, probably including mandatory voting? >> politics, as certainly we all know and i'm sure most of you know, is about interest group disputes. interest groups come in flavors and the two major flavors are ideological, groups that have a conceptual frankwork in how the

views should work and economic, groups worried about the problems of government, either reducing or increasing their wealth and good or bad and there are good and bad in the economic and ideological camps, they fight it out. that's the nature of politics. it's not at all clear to me that economic forces are more powerful. most of the dangs -- changes in the world certainly in the last century came about because of ideological pressures, not economic pressures. but the argument nonetheless is it we suppress one of the two factions, suppress economic voices, drive the market out of the marketplace of ideas, we're left withoutize logical ideas. we're libertarian, classical liberal, and many of the people i work with would be more on the ideological coin. i think our voices are important but they're not any more important or less important than those who believe that earning wealth and keeping it is a worthwhile thing or wealth should be

redistributed to them. i don't like corporate, corny capitalism but in our political system they certainly play a role. i wish other businesses played a role in countering capitalism but that's a debate i challenge and i don't think ralph or i have figured it out yet. >> i left off instant runoff voting from among the many reforms that could occur. but if you have a multicandidate field, maybe roosevelt or washington, that if no one gets 40% or 50%, the lowest vote-getter is automatically dropped the night of the election until you get down to four, three or two people, so someone gets a

majority. so quickly, do either of you have an opinion short of mandatory voting how instant runoff voting would work with mandatory voting or inconsistent with it? norm and then fred. >> the exclusive possibilities and different forms of runoff voting or preference voting or things that are very much worth exploring and i'd like to see them tried in different places, perhaps in states or municipalities. along with many of us watching very, very carefully the california experiment in open primaries which may help as well. >> if you want to answer. >> there are a lot of things i don't know much about. >> let me ask on technology. clearly, if a bank -- if records that my bank keeps on me are largely private, please put aside the issue of packing

for a second. we could get to the point very soon where voter rolls are secure and you could register online and vote online, so is that a less onerous alternative to mandatory voting? do you have any problems with encouraging more people voting so long as the ballot is secure online is the question. >> the big problem here, all that encryption, all of that stuff can be done but how do you know who is in the room with you when you press the keys to vote for candidate a or candidate b? is big brother looking over your shoulder or bigster or your friend or your union guy or your boss? i don't know. somehow we need the concept we're going to go to this and the damages of remote voting. how do we ensure when we vote no one is exercising undue influence on them? >> norm, you've thought about this more than i? >> i draw a distinction between

registering online, and i think we have many ideas of voter registration modernization that include, you know, allowing states to share information about registration and there are many places now where they are doing registrations online and it works very well. voting online i have the same problems fred does. and it's just not that you're not sure who is in the room, but you lose all of that zone of privacy. and what we're now seeing with the sophisticated hacking going on is that you really can't be sure what might happen in a system of this sort, so i much prefer voting in person at the polls. and we need to make that easy and convenient for people as we possibly can. >> one point about this following it up, talking about hacking per se, but remote transcription of information is via the web and the web is a big system with lots of points of entry. voting booths, even the electronic ones are isolated

and not part of a web, at least i don't think anyone is hooking them up in a web yet, and i don't think they should either. >> fred, there are thousands of laws and regulations affecting the economy and families. is it reasonable to require that people participate in who makes those laws and then they'd be more likely to be obeyed because people would understand even if they don't like paying your taxes are staying in afghanistan, there would be greater compliance because everyone would feel like they had a shot at affecting the thousands of rules and regulations even though you want them to be in the low single digits, there are thousands. >> there's a report every year called 10,000 commandments which discusses the number of regulations the government does compared to god. yeah, we are worried about that kind of thing. but the question is, again, was

-- >> well, if there are going to be thousands of laws with government officials affecting us, shouldn't it be reasonable to ask people to vote or vote -- write in? >> i think it's certainly important that anyone concerned about the process, as i suspect everyone in this room is, become involved in some way, whether voting or writing or talking or mobilizing. there's lots of ways you can try to influence those who are going to decide very important things about your life. voting is one of those. i think it's not the most important one and therefore i don't think we should do undue weight on that idea. there are other things can you do, and maybe your voting actually encourages others to vote. i don't think the gimmicks of weak -- a new holiday, if we had a new holiday, how many people would take a new holiday and would they really use it to sit home and vote all day? >> i asked a rhetorical

question which usually means you don't know the answer. you ask would it really mean all that more would people vote? is there not experience abroad that -- a lot of people say why didn't you vote? and they go, i was working, i was busy, i didn't find the time. would voting increase if it was saturday voting, sunday voting? god bless veterans day, we have memorial day and veterans day. let's have one of them be democracy day, and then wouldn't more people actually vote? >> there's evidence abroad certainly if you have voting on a holiday or on a weekend, there's an increased turnout. we don't have enough of a base here to know empirically what would happen here. i'm convinced that if we actually did something significant like move to a 24-hour voting period from noon saturday to noon sunday so you ogviate the sabbath problems and for example, if we move more and more towards vote centers which is something

they've done extremely successfully in larimer county colorado where you have voting places centralized in wal-marts or cosco's or supermarkets where people can park and you go in with an ample supply of machines and workers and the like, you do those type of things and you'll get an enhanced turnout. you can make it work better. those things also seem to me to be critical elements if indeed you did move towards mandatory voting. you cannot move towards mandatory attendance at the polls unless you make it much less burdensome for people to go to the polls. >> whether it's mandatory attendance, voter duty or mandatory voting, we have spoken about it more than anybody else collectively combined in the last 10 years. and so i want to thank norm an ornstein and our audience to thank norman ornstein and fred

smith for their participation and their preparation and insights, and i certainly want all of us to thank ralph nader for coming up with the concept of debating not tattoos, which not if you are in the nba, and i want to make sure that you know, as route said in his opening, as of july of this year, there will be a debate on the website debating. debatingtaboos.org. i am guessing, and i think there is a consensus that mandatory voting or voter duty will not be enacted this month or this year.

the most important right women could have was the right to vote, because it affected every other right. in 1882, a constitutional amendment was first proposed, which was ratified and became law in 1920, so we will be reconvening in 78 years to see whether fred is right or norm is right. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tomorrow, we will have

another debate hosted by the center for study of responsive law. whether there should be a security transactions tax on financial instruments. you can see that tomorrow evening at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. now, president obama earlier today on the downgrade of the u.s. credit rating and u.s. troops that were killed in afghanistan over the weekend. >> a downgrade by one of the credit agencies, not so much because they doubt our ability to pay our debt if we make good decisions but because after witnessing a month of wrangling over raising the debt ceiling, they doubted our political system's ability to act. the markets can to believe that our status is triple-a. in fact, warren buffett said "if there were a quadruple a rating,

i would give the u.s. that to." that does not mean that we have a problem. we do not need a rating agency to tell us we need a balanced, long-term approach to deficit reduction. that was true last week. that was true last year. that was true when i took office. we did not need a rating agency to tell us that the gridlock in washington over the last several months has not been constructive, to say the least. we knew from the outset that a prolonged debate over the debt ceiling, a debate where the threat of default was used as a bargaining chip, could do enormous damage to our economy in the world's. coming after a string of economic disruptions in europe, japan, and the middle east. it has not dampened consumer confidence and slowed the pace of recovery -- it has now dampened consumer confidence.

this is a source of legitimate concern, but here is the good news. a problems are imminently solvable. we know what we need to do to solve them. the problem is not confidence in our credit. the markets continues to reaffirm our credit as among the world's safest. our challenge is our need to tackle the deficit over the long term. last week, we reached an agreement that will make historic cuts to defense and domestic spending, but there is not much further we can cut in either of those categories. what we need to do now is combined those spending cuts with two additional steps, tax reform that will ask those who can afford to pay their fair share and modest adjustments to health-care programs like medicare. making these reforms does not require any radical steps.

when it does require is common sense and compromise -- what it does require is common sense and compromise. something that does not hamper economic growth right now. republicans and democrats on the bipartisan fiscal condition that i set up put forth a good proposals. republicans and democrats in the senate gang of 6 came up with some good proposals. john boehner and i came up with some good proposals when we came close to agreeing on a grand bargain. so it is not a lack of plans are policies that is the problem here. it is a lack of political will in washington. the insistence on drawing lines in the sand. the refusal to put what is best for the country ahead of self- interest or party or ideology, and that is what we need to change.

i realize that what we just went through, after that, there is some skepticism that the republicans and democrats on the super committee that has been set up will be able to reach a compromise, but my hope is that friday's news will give us a renewed sense of urgency. i intend to present my own recommendations over the coming weeks over how we should proceed, and that committee will have this administration's full cooperation, and i assure you, we will stay on it until we get the job done. of course, as worrisome as the issue of debt and deficits may be, the most immediate concern of most americans and of the marketplace as well is the issue of jobs and the slow pace of recovery coming out of the worst recession in our lifetimes. and the good news here is that by coming together to deal with

the long-term debt challenge, we would have more room to implement key proposals that could get the economy to grow faster. specifically, we should extend the payroll tax cut as soon as possible so that workers have more money in their paychecks next year and businesses have more customers next year. we should continue to make sure that if you are one of the millions of americans who is out there looking for a job, you can get the unemployment insurance that your tax dollars contributed to. that will also put money in people's pockets and more customers in stores. in fact, if congress fails to extend the payroll tax cut and the insurance benefit reform that i call for, it could mean 1 million fewer jobs than half of 1% less growth. this is something we can do immediately, something we can do as soon as congress gets back.

which also help companies who wanted to repair our roads and bridges and airports, thousands of construction workers that have been without a job for the last few years. they can get a paycheck again, and that will also help to spur economic growth. these are not democrat proposals. these are ideas that republicans have traditionally agreed to countless times in the past. there is no reason we should not act on them now. i know we are going through a tough time right now. we have been going through a tough time for the last 2.5 years. i know a lot of people are worried about the future, but here is what i also know. there will always be economic factors we cannot control. earthquakes, spikes in oil prices, slowdowns in other parts of the world. but how we respond to those tests, that is entirely up to

us. the markets will rise and fall, but this is the united states of america. no matter what agency may say, -- what an agency may say, we will always be a triple-a country. we have some of the most productive workers, the most innovative companies, the most adventurous entrepreneurs on earth. what sets us apart is not only the capacity but the will to act, the determination to shape our future. the willingness in our democracy to work out our differences in a sensible way and to move forward not just for this generation but for the next generation, and we are going to need to summon that spirit today. the american people have been through so much over the past few years, dealing with the

worst recession, the biggest financial crisis since the 1930's. and they have done it with grace. and they are working so hard to raise their families, and all they ask is that we were just as hard year in this town to make their lives a little bit easier. that is not too much to ask. and, ultimately, the reason i am so hopeful about our future is my faith in these united states of america, because of the american people, because of their perseverance and their courage and their willingness to shoulder this as one nation. one last thing. there is no one who embodies the qualities that i mentioned more than the men and women of the united states armed forces, and this weekend, we lost 30 of them. a helicopter crashed during a mission in afghanistan.

their loss is a stark reminder of the risks are men and women in uniform make every day. day after day, night after night, they carry out missions in the face of enemy fire and grave danger, and in this mission, as in so many others, they were also joined by afghan troops, seven of whom lost their lives as well. i have spoken to our generals in the field as well as president karzai, and i know our troops will continue the work of transitioning towards a stronger afghan government and to make sure that afghanistan is not a safe haven for terrorists. we will press on, and we will succeed, but now was also a time to reflect on those we lost and the sacrifices of all concerned as well as their families. these men and women put their lives on the line for the values that bind us together as a nation.

they come from different places. their backgrounds and beliefs reflect the rich diversity of america. but no matter what differences they might have as individuals, they serve to this nation as a team. they meet the responsibilities to get there, and some of them, like the 30 americans who lost their lives this weekend, give their lives for our country. our responsibility is to ensure that their legacy is an american that respects their commitment and their sense of common purpose. thank you very much. >> the downgrade? >> the s and p? >> earlier today, the obama administration announced it would create a waiver program that would allow states to opt out of the no child left behind education law. here is what education secretary

arne duncan said about it at the white house briefing. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. thanks for being here today. as promised, today, i have with us the secretary of education, arne duncan, on my left, and on my left is the director of the domestic policy council and the assistant to the president. they are here to talk about an initiative to give states more flexibility in dealing with the no child left behind act, and i will turn it over to melody first. i will remain to take your questions on other issues after they leave, and with that, i give you melody. >> good afternoon, everyone. today, i am pleased to announce

that president obama has directed secretary duncan to move forward with plans to provide for states who are looking for greater relief under the no child left behind law. for four years, as you know, congress has struggled to reauthorize the elementary and secondary education act and no child left behind. just as we came into office in the past two years, the president has continuously asked for the authorization of no child left behind. he asked congress to send him the bill. in march of this year, he asked congress to send him a bill to his desk before the school year began, and secretary duncan wrote an op-ed, asking congress to act, saying that we would have to provide better ways to provide the flexibility that they need if congress did not act. in every case, we have to do this for our economy and

children. this has been echoed by business leaders that we have talked to her, all over our country -- we have talked to all over our country. this is to make sure that our children are ready for college and career, but here we are, just a few weeks away from the beginning of another school year, and congress has not found a bipartisan path to send us a bill, so instead of being able to focus on the flexibility that is necessary in the classroom, instead of turning around our lowest performing schools that are putting out about 7000 drop out of every single day, instead of being able to focus -- about 7000 drop outs every single day, we also have a situation where we have low expectations and states that have moved down as opposed to up expectations for our

children, and we also have a punitive system that does not allow for reform. in fact, it is a cookie cutters system that is not allowing our students to move forward. so in september, after we spend a few more weeks consulting, we will be prepared to announce the kind of flexibility that secretary duncan will speak about in just a few moments. be sure that when we are doing this that we are asking that every state apply. every state can apply, and every state can receive this kind of flexibility, but the standards will be high. the bar will be high. states will have to embrace the kind of reform that we believe is necessary to move our education system forward. we encouraged them. -- we encourage them. we also want to be clear that accountability will remain one of the bellwethers, as it has

been in the past. we have to make sure that every single child is getting an excellent education, and in doing that, we will make sure they are ready for college and career and that they will be competitive. anything that does not comply with that will have to comply with no child left behind as we move forward, but, again, we are asking all 50 states to apply, and we are looking forward to working with them. and now, secretary duggan will come forward and give you more with what we planned to do -- secretary done again -- secretary duncan will come forward. this is in addition to his experience with the chicago public school system. so i give you secretary arne duncan. >> thank you, melody, for being

such an extraordinary partner. we are at a time where we have to educate our way to a better economy. that is the only way we will get there. we have to keep raising standards, raising the bar. i would argue that you have seen unprecedented leadership at the state level, three dozen states removing barriers to innovation, a huge amount of leadership and courage, not so much what is coming out of washington but at a state level. we now have a lot -- law, no child left behind, which is four years overdue for being overridden. it is far too punitive and prescriptive and led to the dumbing down of the system. we cannot afford the loss of the land to be one that has so many

disincentives to the type of things we want to say -- we cannot afford a lot of the land -- the law of the land to be one that has so many disincentives. to the types of things we want to see. we cannot afford to wait. as melete says, we travel the country. -- as melete says. -- melody says. i talked to many governors, all over the country. everyone is asking for more flexibility. everyone is asking the states to do right by our children. we will continue to have high standards. we will be thoughtful about teacher and principal effectiveness.

we will focus on growth rather than absolute test scores. we want to give them a lot more flexibility. moved to more creative accountability systems. -- move to more creative accountability systems. the state of tennessee, like many states, had a lobar with no child left behind. -- had a low bar. they did a courageous thing. they raised the bar significantly. tennessee went from 91% of children proficient and matt to 34%. that was a very tough lesson -- proficient in mathematics to 34%. that was a very tough lesson. we wanted to report -- reward the states that are telling the truth. those are the facts we need to deal with. that is what we have to

challenge ourselves with. we cannot have a law on the books that impedes our success. we will take the next couple of weeks to finalize this and come back in early to mid september and work closely with states going forward. we will be very transparent. there'll be no competition among states. we will work to take a little bit more time. we will give them more time to work together, but i want to thank melody. we would have loved for them to act, but they did not act. >> we will say -- take some questions. jay? >> mississippi and tennessee? >> 91% under no child left behind. they raised the bar and did the

right thing. they wed to 34%. they are telling the truth -- they went to 34%. >> can you explain what the problem is in congress? >> this should be bipartisan. this is the right thing to do. congress is not acting, and we cannot afford to wait. it is just not done. again, we have got to fight for kids. we have to fight for folks doing the right thing. we hope congress can come together and do this in a bipartisan way. we hope this happens very fast, but what we are doing in no way stops them from moving forward. this can be a bridge or a transition. we cannot sit in washington and turn a deaf year to this.

-- a deaf ear to this. >> fully implement a new system, or are there limits? you spoke about all of the things that are going to change. can you essentially do the whole thing for a waiver? just to follow up on the congress issue, everybody in this white house, we were saying at the end of last year, this was one of two things that would have bipartisan support, that everyone was going to be able to move together on. saying "i do not know" does not seem like an answer. >> from governors. across the country. i can give you governors to reach out to. right now, congress is dysfunctional. they are not getting things done. this should have been done.

we should not have a law on the books that encourages dummying down things. i think there will be tough conversations. i think congress just needs to get back together and move. >> there is bipartisan support for what we are doing, and you can see it and can hear it when you talk to governors across the country, and i think arne spoke to many over the course of the last few days. it has been over a year since we sent a blueprint to congress, outlining where we want to be with this. in the house, in the senate, by carol, moving forward. -- bicameral, moving forward. you can talk to ranking member miller and he said this was a

serious setback to bipartisan reform, when these kinds of bills were moving forward. there was a serious slowdown in the house, even as conversations were going on in the senate. what we have right now is congress not able to move forward with a bipartisan bill, but we also have children and teachers and administrators and school boards out in the states, clamoring for some kind of flexibility as they are trying to move to a height or accountability system. -- move to a high near accountability system -- a higher accountability system. we have to provide that kind of relief. we cannot do it through flexibility and through the statutory authority that arne has. >> april and jeff.

>> how many students or vouchers are you allowing in this plan? and also, once children are able to move to a better school, what does that do for the school that is not performing? what accountability measures are in place when you have one, two, three, four your children leaving? >> there are no boundaries in this. as melody said, we hope every state steps up to the plate. every single governor i have spoken to is very, very interested in this. we are thinking about teacher and effectiveness. not just to save one or two children.

there are over 1000 schools around the nation that are being turned around the school year. it was not about saving one or two children. it was about transforming it for everyone. the entire public school system. it is not certain children in certain districts. these are waivers for the so every single child will be a part of that. >> -- >> it does not cost a nickel. it does not cost a nickel to implement these waivers. >> whatsoever? >> two questions. how long is the waiver? two years? >> this is something we are

doing to fix the law. we would stay on top of the state's. this is trying to give them the flexibility to raise standards and do the work and to support them in the effort and not impede them in the effort. >> under the law, waivers can last up to four years. the pressure will still be on, given the underlying law. >> i was also wondering what this basically we writing the education -- rewriting the education? >> for me, the real trade-off is where there is a high bar. i have always said from day one that the best is not going to come from me or anything in

washington. it takes incredible courage, and the current law is inhibiting that. >> i will also add that under the law, it contemplates and provides for waivers. as a was reauthorized under title 9, -- as it was reauthorized under title 9, this is within the law, and it has been done before. >> similar authority. we are just going to a different level. >> the majority of governors that you talked to are interested, yes? >> absolutely. >> for those who do not want to do it, what would be the reason primarily that they would have reservations? >> i have not yet spoken to one governor who was not enthusiastic about this. enthusiastic about this.