get the job skills. host: bob templin, thank you for being here. tomorrow, we will look at private, public partnerships and job creations. the house is about to come into session. we are learning this morning that president obama is headed over to view the returning bodies of the service members killed saturday. you can go to national journal. we want to let you know about the markets, of about 1.7%. we will be back tomorrow. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker.

>> the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c., august 9, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable jeff duncan to act as speaker pro temporerary on this day. signed, john boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer today will be offer by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. dear lord, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we come to you as a nation, indeed as a world, in the midst of great uncertainty and worry. as people look for causes and solutions, the temptation is great to seek ideological position. we ask that you might send your spirit of peace and reconciliation, that instead of opponents, the members of this people's house and all elected to represent our nation might

work together, humbly, recognizing the best in each other's hopes, to bring stability and direction toward a strong future. we pray also on this day in gratitude for the generations of young people who have served this assembly as congressional pages. like so many in our nation, their dedicated work for many years is giving way to improved technology and economic forces. may their contributions over the years never be forgotten and always appreciated. and may all pages find in their life pursuit the fulfillment of their giftedness and desire in continued service to others. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 5 of the house resolution 375, the journal of the last day's

proceedings is approved. the members and guests, please rise. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. pursuant to section 4 of house resolution 3 -- 375, no legislative business will be conducted on this day. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on august 5, 2011, at 10:13 a.m. that the senate passed h.r. 2553.

with best wished sometimed signed sincerely, deputy clerk. the speaker pro tempore: the following enrolled bill washington was signed by speaker pro tempore harris on friday, august 5, 2011. the clerk: h.r. 2553, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund, to amend title 49 united states code, to extend the airport improvement program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3 and 4 of house resolution 375, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on friday, august 12,

people should be no doubt that

bill will do everything necessary to restore order to british streets and to make them safe for the law-abiding. let me first of all completely condemn the scenes that we have seen on our television screens and people have witnessed in their communities. these are sickening scenes, scenes of people luting, vandalizing, stealing, robbing, police being attacked and people attacking fire crews as they're trying to put out fires. this is criminality pure and simple and it has to be confronted and defeated. i feel huge sympathy for the families who have suffered, innocent people burned out of their houses, and businesses wghho have seen their premises smashed, their products stolen, and livelihood potentially ruined.

i also feel, to all those living in fear, because of the appalling scenes that we have seen on the streets of our country, people should be in no doubt that we are on the side of the law-abiding people who are appalled by what is happening in their own communities. as ever, police officers have shown incredible bravery on our streets in confronting these ducks. but -- these thugs. , but we need more police on the streets and more robust action. i have been discussing that this morning in cobra. the metropolitan police commissioner says compared with 6000 police on the street last night in london, there will be 16th thousand officers to night. full leave has been cancelled within the metropolitan police. there will be aid coming from police forces up and down the country and we will do everything necessary to

strengthen and assist those police forces that are meeting this disorder. been0 people have arrested. we will make sure procedures and processes are speeded up in the courts and people should expect to see many more arrests in the days to come. i am determined and the government is determined that justice will be done and these people will see the consequences of their actions. i have this very clear message to those people who are responsible for this wrongdoing and criminality. you will feel the full force of the law. if you are old enough to commit these crimes, you are old enough to face the punishment. and to these people i would say this, your not only destroying the lives of others and your own community, you are potentially wrecking your own life.

my office this morning has spoken to the speaker of the house of commons and he has agreed that parliament will be recalled for a day on thursday so i can make a statement to parliament and we can hold a debate. we are all able to stand together in condemnation of these crimes and also to stand together in determination to rebuild these communities. if you'll excuse me, there is important work to be done. thank you. [unintelligible] >> prime minister david cameron this morning in london. he has recalled congress to one day and will deliver a full statement on thursday before members. we will have that event on the c-span networks including c-

span.org. meanwhile, in the nation's capital today the president has canceled a planned event on fuel efficiency of a local moving company. they have also cancel the white house briefing today. news reports indicate the president will be heading to dover air force base today to receive the remains of those soldiers killed in saturday's afghanistan helicopter attack. we will update that as we get more information from the white house. also today the education department is holding a three- day conference on learning. secretary darnah -- duncan will be the feature speaker today and will possibly say more about his proposal to offer waivers from the "no child left behind bill. we will have that speech at 1:30 eastern on c-span. >> the testing ground for presidential hopefuls, republican candidates gathering in iowa for grass-roots politics, and state fair custody. starting thursday, live from des moines, iowa, if we will interview candidates and take your phone calls.

saturday we will go for the iowa straw poll with three of the past five winners have gone on to win the iowa caucus and two have won the presidency. "road to the white house in iowa this week on c-span. >> from this morning, a discussion on the standard and poor's debt downgrade and the stock-market drop yesterday. >> we're back with senior fellow from the center of american progress and a representative from the hudson institute. welcome to you both. thanks for being here. let's begin with questions a lot of people are wondering and we have two, mr. help us with it. panic is the headline in the daily news. are we headed for a double-dip recession? guest: i don't think so. there's enough good stuff when

it comes to the economy and even on the housing market. the bad news is what we have in the economy is not enough momentum to carry a sport to much lower unemployment. what that means is we need much stronger growth, we need a president and policy makers, congress, state lawmakers to start paying attention to jobs and growth. while we can avoid a double-dip recession, i think the bigger threat to us is that we will keep lumbering along at very low growth and high unemployment for many years. host: how quickly do we need policy intervention? do we need it in the coming days to have the markets react in a way positively or is it something that can wait till congress gets back to town? guest: our policies should not be driven by what wall street thinks for one day to the next. but we should have held on jobs sooner rather than later.

the debt ceiling debate was never really connected back to economic growth, to jobs. that is what a lot of us, economists and policymakers, are looking for, conversation about how this should all fit together. jobs and growth. not just about spending or taxes in an abstract form, but how does this create jobs in the real economy? that needs to happen sooner rather than later. it is necessitated by the reality on the ground. high unemployment, slow job growth, not by what wall street thinks the one day to the next. >> -- procession? trouble have forecasting the future. we have serious economic problems. it's not the debt downgrade. it's what's going on in the economy. the fact that a week ago friday we had a very slow gdp numbers, completely unexpected. that was the big downgrade from

1.8% growth in the first quarter to 0.4% in the same quarter. that caught most people by surprise. the second quarter growth was also a lot lower than people thought, around 1.8%. if people thought it would be higher. so we have serious problems with the economy, with jobs, with gdp growth. these need to be fixed right now. i think the president is capable of doing a lot, and fixing them without waiting for congress to come back to town. host: what can we do immediately? guest: many regulations are set by different cabinet agencies that he has control over. he can say cooling off the new ozone rules that would put 75% of counties in the u.s. out, meaning there will have to cut back on the missions and factories and industry. he could call his secretary of the interior and say how about

moving those drilling permits through in the gulf of mexico? the call is acting general counsel at the national labor relations board and say to layoff the buildings you had planned out of the country. we need more those in the u.s. host: here's what the president put forward yesterday, his plan for recovery. entitlement reform on the table when the super committee is named and starts doing their work under the debt deal. he's also calling for a payroll tax cut, tax reform as part of the joint committee, and unemployment insurance. let me take payroll tax cuts and the unemployment insurance. is that -- what is the impact of that? how does it help or hurt? guest: people have to understand we already have under the tax bill that was struck last year between the republican congress

and president obama, we have an extension of unemployment benefits and we have a payroll tax holiday. those two expire at the end of the year. the fear is that if it expires and there's nothing to follow on, there should be a severe cut of income to low-income families who spend the money immediately and boost consumption. limiteto one11t ye, they thought there would be a catch up to bed with a strong economy. at this point, we note that the economy is weak than expected. the labor market is weaker than expected, and that these additional measures are necessary, especially because long-term unemployment is at historic highs. they are on average out 40 weeks before they find another job.

they really require some measure of support that they do not have. extending unemployment benefits is a way to boost income for lower-income families. guest: i would say it that unemployment benefits has been longer, 99 weeks, that is why we have such high unemployment rate. we need to move back to the traditional 26 weeks. many people say the way into the last moment until their benefits are about to expire. that is not the right place to focus. we need to focus on getting employers to createore jobs we need more jobs for all of these people out of work. and their many things we could be doing about their right now. all the regulatory burden that we have preventing small businesses from creating jobs. the new $2,000 per worker

penalty under the new health care law in 2014, if the firm does not have the right kind of health insurance, they have to pay $2,000 per worker per year. there's a lot of uncertainty about how the new regulations will affect jobs and we need to fix that. host: whatbout the payroll tax? is that a good idea to help employers? >> we've had to cut and the payroll tax and it has not been helping. it has not been giving an incentive to hire more workers. that should end. host: let me ask each of you before we get the phone calls, you sound like s&p made the right call. guest: i think the united states has very substantial fiscal problems. i would not say that they made the right call in that we're going to continue to pay the interest on our debt. no danger of us defaulting. moody's and fitch made it

different call, but i do not think the current problem in the market aren't due to the s&p downgrade. it is due to the fundamental economic problems. if the s&p gave us back to triple or raid -- the aaa rating, i not think the market will go up. it's more about the unemployment report a we had last friday. guest: i did not think the s and p did itself any favors with this decision. there is nothing new here. the economy is weak. we know we need to focus on jobs and growth. the policy makers need to put a plan motion to reduce the long- term structural deficit, the lack of revenue, the driving factors. those things need to be addressed. but there is nothing new in the s&p's decision. they have not open the vault and found new information that we did not know we had.

the media announcement, they bundle the whole thing, and did not focus on the real problems of the economy. host: the senate banking committee is going to look into the decision, gathering affirmation about how they came to that decision. let's go to steve, a democrat in florida. caller: hello. host: we are listening. ller: i have two questions. you're referring to a lot of cutbacks on regulations for businesses. guest: yes. host: what if we cut the corporate income tax rate down to 14%, because most do not pay more than 40% anyway.

-- 14% anyway. and as a counterbalance, repeal law that enables corporations to take their operations overseas? i heard the reason that ey do this is to prevent double taxation. but if a corporation is not providing jobs for americans, why would that be our problem? the other thing i wanted ask, when the market was going down yesterday, i was listening to a show where they were saying that a lot of people were taking their money out of stocks and purchasing u.s. treasuries because that was a good thing. and i will go offline to listen to your comments. guest: that is an excellent question. the united states corporate tax rate is the highest in the world

right now. it was second-highest to japan, but in japan lowered its tax rate so we have the highest in the rld. but top tax rate of 14% would be a substantial improvement. unfortunately it is not possible to repeal any laws that prevent u.s. corporations from going abroad. companies can locate wherever they live. as i just mentioned, a general election just moved its x-ray headquarters to china. we have a big impediment with a high corporate tax rate, companies repatriating these funds and bringing them back. when they are coming bac in, they are taxed at 35%. so corporations lose millions of dollars immediately. if we lowered the rates, that would give a stimulus fund right there. host: and the story about treasuries.

investors are pouring money into treasury bonds. guest: people still look to the united states dollar and treasuries as a safe haven. host: given that, the federal reserve meets today. there are a lotf headlines in here that the fed might have to dig deeper to do something. what can the fed do at this point? guest: the fed could institute a new buying program, buying up securities and providing more liquidity. would allay any fears that the turmoil in the markets would transle to the credit markets. the other part is the fed could announce that it will do whatever is necessary if the economy weakens further to help the economy. that would be contrary to statements bernanke has made so

far. i think to some degree that is what we are looking for from the administration and federal reserve, to have some reassurance that poles makers are -- policy makers are ready to step in if necessary. that is one thing i would look for. but let me address the corporate tax issue. statutory highest tax rate in the world but we have so many loopholes and exemptions and deductions that the effective rate is fairly low, in the middle of the industrialized countries. all tax professionals agree we need to streamline and simply fay the tax code -- simply if i the tax code. it is going to be easier if it would mean the layoff of tax accountants but it would make it easier for corporations to operate in the u.s. we know from all international tax studies tax system misty is

something -- simplicity is something they value. so we can't look at the top tax rate but the effective rate. that is actually fairly low because of the gamut of tax opholes. we started the conversation about closing loopholes and so far republicans have been reluctant to start the conversation. host: we are having an economic roundtable on the "washington journal" until about 9:15 a.m. we have two different perspectives about what we are seeing in the economy and how wall street is reacting, what the fed might do today at their meeting and what president obama had to say yesterday and republican leaders about had you to spur economic growth. here is president obama on the payroll tax cut and unemployment. >> specifically we should extend the payroll tax cut as soon as

possible so workers have more money in their paychecks next year and businesses have more customers next year. we should continue to make sure if you arene of the millions of americans who is looking for a job that you can get the unemployment insuran that your tax dollars contributed to. that will put money in people's pockets and more customers in stores. host: let's hear from the republican in little rock, arkansas, bill. stkpwh i see obama time remember the peter principle he is over his hd but i think this lady has something here. here is what i wonder. we have a of these minds in washington and you folks in these think tanks. what about some leader, the president won't, but some leader saying to the chamber of commerce i want you to come to the white house, labor unions i

want you to come to the white house. we are going to have a conference, we are going to have it public and we are going to brainstorm every chance and find a way -- you talk about repatriation. forget the loopholes. if you need no tax rates. unions, you have to give up something to get some of these jobs. busiss, you have got to want to take care of americans. want it in your heart. yes, it is a business and you have to earn money. but this is nothing we are playing with here. get to the white house, both sides give up. unions with osha and the environmental regulations, it is no wonder the businesses had to go overseas. host: let me stay on the point of regulations because here is a tweet. look of regulation adds to the financial market cause a huge

hit on the economy. that led to the taxpayer bailout. ugh. guest: i would beg to disagree and i would think the overregulation of sarbanes-oxley and dodd frank are making it more difficult for companies to upgrade in the united states. a lot of firms are not hiring here, they are hiring abroad. the dodd frank bill sets up an office of minority and women inclusion to make sure that banks and financial firms and subcontractors like the janitors and paper shredders have fair inclusion of women and minorities. that means that the presidents of our banks have to think do i have enough pacific islanders even though none might have applied. plus there are many other bureaus that makit tkeuf for our companies to -- make it difficult for our companies to operate hear and it is easier to

operate overseas. so i would cesar baines oxley -- i would say that those have immeasurable obstacles to locating here that other countries do not have. host: now an independent caller from michigan. caller: the fundamental problem that our system has, i believe, the taxation act of 1920 was supposed to offer the public a n nonburdensome tax -- i thought those key words were voluntary and temporary. but the supreme court has never honored this attitude nor does the politician on top of that. the conce is we are authorized $40,000 of taxpayer money from the federal government to put in --o build an alzheimer's

building bond firm. they projected either a $3.5 million facility or $6.5 million facility. you really can't tell. the billionaires donated $3 million to the building bond fund, so it brought it down to $3.5 million. we voted for it. after two or three years they collect too much money, they claim they can'tay the bond off early without facing penalties. they are lying. they could pay it off but they don't have a process to. the concept is they collect too much money, they give money back to the rich businesses because they are supposed to help us prosper and from that standpoint it is going to be a taxpayer funded mandate and become unsustainable and they won't pay for the building. host: what are your thoughts, christian? guest: when we hear taxes and spending the important piece is sort of you need to look at what the role of the government, what

do people want, and then the taxecome after that. you don't collect taxes just for the fun of it. the important piece is when you look at what the federal government -- and i can only speak to the federal government hear -- what it does is often very popular. it provides the largest program, social security, retirement benefits, disability benefits, medicare, medicaid and defense. that eats up the bulk of federal spending followed by benefits for veterans, education. then a whole host of smaller programs. most of the programs that we have and much of the federal government spending is very popular. it is sort of this amorphous notion of government spending that is unpopular but each program has enormous support and is very popular. once you go through that and say these are the programs we want to keep then you have to find a way to finance them. that requires additional revenue

measures given where we are at this point. buit ultimately manassas more efficient spending. that is particularly relevant on a health care side. we have unsustainable healthcare inflation expected the next 10 to 20 years. we can handle it right now but it is something we need to address. healthcare costs are rising much faster than cost and incomes. healthcare law put in place in 2009 is a first step to increased competition and transparency in the health insurance market to reducehe cost, but that is one small step in the right direction. in the end we have to ask ourselves do we like what the government is spending its money on and once you move below the amorphous notion of government spending to individual programs you will find the vast majority of voters support those. then the taxes need to follow. and we have to have a conversation of how you raise the revenue.

host: here is a tweet from house speaker john boehner about growth. it is time to scrap the failed stimulus policies. d.n.r.'s must come together to cut spending and save entitlements. now craig in manhattan. caller: i think the job creators and entrepreneurs are kind of cowardly -- they want the government cut them a path. business is always fraught with uncertainty. if you g into business, you get the lion's share if you succeed. but imagine if the wright brothers said the laws of gravity are too oppssive i be able to fly. now we fly from connent to continent because they wouldn't take no for an answer. what is more oppressive than the laws of gravity? host: appear now from linco lincolntown, g. -- georgia.

caller: good morning. good to be with you. there is a point that needs to be brought up and that is the finance, insurance and real estate grew to be 40% of profit and 20% of the economy and it was built on the back of the securitization that has proven to be fraudulent. i would submit that that 40% profit and 20% of the economy needs to revert to manufacturing and go back to manufacturing which is 8%. short of that i don't think there is going to be a recovery. host: diana? guest: well, it used to be that many, many americans were employed in agriculture and that shrank. the same is going on about manufacturing as lower wages abroad take some jobs out of here and move them elsewhere to china and india. but our financial sector is making profits right now.

we should be glad that we do have profitable sectors in the u.s. economy. to go back to the previous caller about entrepreneurs, jn kerry and dick luger have the start-up act that would give visas foreign entrepreneurs who could come here and create jobs. if they created jobs for native born americans for five years they wld get a green card. this is the kind of policy, very low cost, that we need to look at to increase innovation and entrepreneurship and growth here in the economy. host: a gentlemen in randolph, vermont responsibilities s responds to -- responds to the commen about repatriating says when you mention repatriating --

guest: i think it is unfortunate that most of the jobs american companies are creating now are offshore because of the lower tax rates. we need to do something to equill celebrate that and -- equill celebrate that. i say more and more of the funds continuously flow into the united states. i'm not talking about a one-time tax holiday. perhaps that will make joan more annoyed but i was speaking about something permanent rather than temporary. host: here is another e-mail. if you want to send us an e-mail send it to journal at espn.org or twitter.com/cspanwj and y can have this conversation with each other on our facebook page.

here is another e-mail, christian. guest: the rating agencies are private institutions funded under the new law. they will be supervised by the s.e.c. we go through this every crisis. the rating agencies, standard & poor's, et cetera, do not have the best possible track record. they mickelsssed a number of cr. there are a number of crises they missed or misinterpreted. let me get back to a bigger we have sort of circled around and that is wt drives job creation. when you look rat employer surveys, what they are missing is customers. they think sales are low. they are worried that their

consumers are maxed out on too much debt and consumers do not have enough income to spend. it is not a question of companies not having enoh cash hand. they are very profitable. they have been building up cash since the early 1980's. they are not spending, not hiring. it is not a matter of regulations. we know that job growth is stronger in countries that are more heavily regulated. germany is doing well and other european countries. so it is not a regulatory or tax issue. at this point compani are sitting on cash and holding on to their cash. there are a number of reasons why they are doing so. primarily they are not investing and hiring because they look at the consumer side and see consumers not getti jobs, consumers running essentially into a wall when it comes to income. the payroll tax holiday and unemployment insurance holidays ending but overburdened with

debt. host: diane? guest: so what do you propose to do about it? how do you propose to get them out of debt? more stimulus? guest: at this point the first order is to extend the unemployment insurance extensions to at least do no harm. extend the payroll tax holiday. there are other things we can do. we need to continue the mortgage reworking, continue toeal through the banks, through the hud nment, through the programs to make sure -- guest: so, no more spending cuts? guest: i think spending cuts in the short run will be harmful. but back to the dt ceiling deal, many of the spending cuts were back-loaded. much of what will happen in terms of long-term deficit reduction is unknown. we don't know what the super committee will do. and i think that is an opportunity to do the right thing. both on deficit reduction and

job creation. that is at this point protect the weak economy, ensure we have job creation. don't cut spending in the short term but put the deficit reduction and spending cuts and revenue increases on the table. host: diane, before you weigh in let me show our viewers what the president had to say about no more spending cuts. >> our challenge is the need to tackle our deficits 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 combine those spending cuts with that additional steps. tax reform that will ask those who can afford it to pay their fair share and modest

adjustments to healthcare programs like medicare. host: he said not much more we can cut. guest: when we've a problem he calls for tax increases. that will take away more funds from private individuals. it will adversely affect small businesses who have the individual tax rates. and it is interesting when the president calls for more taxes on millionaires and billionaires this refers to the bush tax cuts which t people earning $200,000 and more a year. so that is the wrong descriptio we need to look at entitlement cuts down the road, not necessarily now. we are now borrowing 40ents out of every dollar we spend and it is an unsustainable situation. host: john boehner responded to what the president had to say in a statement saying republicans have demonstrated this problem can be involved without tax hikes.

difficult work remains and members of the joint select committee will need to make tough decisions to rein in the spending that is driving our long-term debt. the debt is driven by two factors, low revenue and unsustainable healthcare inflation over the long term. so, we need to have a conversation of how we spend healthcare dollars more efficiently but at the same time we have to have a conversation about the look of revenue. much of the debate over taxes centers around the extension of the bush tax cuts for the top 2% 3% of tax paeurpayertaxpayers. when the tax cuts were enacted in 2001 they were followed by the weakest employment creation on record and weakest investment record on record. so takinthem back shouldn't do anything for economic growth. we're talking about a very small group who have done well the last few years despite the

crisis. i think that taking it back is a sensible approach, a balanced approach because the alternative is to cut in the near term programs that benefit a broad swath of americans such the unemployment insurance and deep cuts into social security, medicare and medicaid. host: we have this tweet. isn't it fair to say s&p's overrating of the 2008 crisis is a factor in the current status of u.s. debt a deficit. next to marie in wisconsin. caller: good morning. first of all i just want to say i do agree with mr. wells completely on many of these points. everyone seems to neglect to mention a couple of key things where a lot of money goes and that is into the billions spent on three wars that quite frankly have not proved to be nation building for the united states in any which. the second point is when you

look at the overall economy of the united states the priorities of the majority of americans have nothing to do with paying welfare to corporations some who are o international. perhaps we need to stop that and ta completely for social security all the way up the fee scale. if they don't want to pay extra taxes fine. start building the fund but collect everything that has been completely robbed from social security by the government for all kinds of nonsense. host: all right. guest: well, the attacks of 9/11 did mean that we went and defended our country and we could have just kept going like we did in the 1990's and not reacted at all. but getting rid of al qaeda,

getting rid of osama bin laden, al qaeda and taliban unfortunately are still very much alive and we mourn the death of those servicemen who died over the weekend. we need to protect the united states from further attacks by attacking these people abroad. there is less chance we will have another 9/11 here in the united states. but we do need to make substantial cuts in entitlement, not just healthcare, social security, gradually raising the retirement age, perhaps increasing contributions also, to bringhe funds become back i balance. we are fornate that americans are living longer but it means cost of the programs continue to grow and we need to be restructuring those. we also need fundamental tax reform. i would agree with christian that we need to get rid of some of the lap holes, lower rates, make the system more efficient. host: go ahead. guest: i would add something to

entitlements. entitlement is this catch-all and it doesn't help the debate. we need to separate healthcare from social security. social security right now still has a surplus. it takes in more revenue than it spends. we need to have a conversation, a national conversation, about what we are going to do about social security in the next 75 years. but it can pay its full benefits to 2036. it has money in the trust funds. we need to have a comprehensive discussion on how to streamline benefits and improve them. there is biptisan support to improving survivorship, divorce benefits, creating poverty benefits, something both democrats and president bush put on the table. that i a separate discussion. security is not the driver of our long-term deficit. it is healthcare. that means we need to have a conversation on how we are going to reduce healthcare inflation on medicare and medicaid. the patient protection and american care act, healthcare reform bill of 2009, started

this by inkraesing competition in -- increasing competition and increasing transparency, lowering costs but that is just one small step in the right direction. host: we will continue taking phone calls during the economic roundtable but joining the conversation is hrurpa senior vt the national so, of realtors to talk about the downgrid of fanny and freddie by s&p. what impact does this have on the housing industry? >> any time there is a downgrade of a company that is not good and e borrowing cost of that company would rise. but what has happened is right now the mortgage market is essentially nationalized. so the fanny and freddie are the children of the government. and given that the government is downgraded fanny and freddie

will be downgraded. but given the uncertainty people are seeking safe havens so what we noticed yesterday is that the borrowing costs for the u.s. government as well as fanny and freddie dropped on the news of the downgrade. host: we saw that it was the lowest it has been in 2011, the interest rate. >> the interest rate, mortgage rate last week w 4.4% average on 30-year late. that is a 50-year low but i wouldn't be surprised this week it would be lower given the situation and the chaotic market conditions and stock market where people are seeking safe instruments and turning toward u.s. government debt even with a downgrade. ani think another thing we keep in mind is sometimes the dog that did not bark and

you have other rating agencies such as moody and fitch. host: is the time to buy now? >> certainly i think the overall macroeconomic pressure is for rising rates. we have high budget deficit and will continue. if there are signs of a respectable economic recovery the rates will rise. so, certainly from a consumer, who are very comfortable in their finances, have secure jobs, it is a great time to lock in these low rates. host: we had a viewer earli who said, you know, when you drive of the car you -- when you drive off the car lot a block away your car is worth 20% less. it naturally tkraoerbts. -- depreciates but he says hold on to the howls.

but what security can you give to people that their house will continue to appreciate? >> i think in some markets -- you go back to the supply and demand situation. i think that during the bubble years clearly prices were way off the handle and you had to see them come down. now prices are now overcorrecting, slightly below the fundamentally justifiable levels based on price to rent ratio or price to income ratio. also in the u.s. we have a growing population, that means there will be a steady demand for housing at some point. it is not occurring right now but at some point it will be growing demand for housing. so i would think from a national price point of view that the are right now bottoming long. we are not seeing any measurable declines. in fact, se price measurement in the past few months have shown increases. so the declines are probably over. but the recovery may take some

time to get back to normal. historically one would about four or fi five percent and we may be a couplef years from reaching that steady 125eu9 state. host: the president said one way he would like to help is have fanny and freddie rent the homes that are now foreclosed upon. do you agree with that strategy? what would be theoutcome? >> certainly less foreclosed property on the mart will help stabilize the market but the key is whether it is better for private investors to purchase and they have -- they would have their own private incentive to rent or whether there should be more government intervention it delay some of the homeowners who are going through the painful process. it is a tricky call. but one thing we have noticed in the past 12 months is there are

an active number of buyers who are willing to buy foreclosed properties provided the price is right. in places like las vegas, miami, we are seeing heavy cash transactions, meaning people are bypassing mortgages and going straight cash and cash makes up close to 70% of transactions in thes depressed markets. nationwide one-ird of transactions are cash. host: fear returns is the headline of the "wall street journal." what does that mean for bank of america and others that hold mortgages? >> the situation on the bank is that they have been making profits. the cash reserve had been rising. they have easily passed the stress test. and we have been hoping for the lending standards to return to normal given that they have plenty of cash reserves. now, the latest news where they are feeling additional financial

pressure could mean that there is overly stringent underwriting standards that could be in place. because one thing that needs to occur for the economy is for the housing to recover and the housing to recover. for the housing to recover, we need the buyers to enter the market with the u.n. -- with the normal underwriting, but the stringent underwriting is keeping buyers from entering the market is not good news that the banks have to reexamine their overall balance sheets. host: before you go, the federal reserve meets today. what are you watching for? guest: i think they will try to say something aboutxtended -- the quantitative easing, not a new one, but just to say that if there is no -- but just to say there is no immediate rise in interest rat anytime soon. i think the federal reserve needs to be very careful not to

just come out and say they will print more money. that could be more psychologically damaging for the investor community. host: lawrence yun, thank you for your time. christian weller, what are you hearing? guest: i think much of that is wishful thinking. when it comes to the housing market, what we have to news -- what we have to realize is that many homeowners are still underwater, about 23% of homeowners zero more on their homes than their homes are worth. 23% of homeowners owe more on their homes than their homes are worth. what that means is that we are going to see years of high foreclosure rates. about 4% of mortgages are in foreclosure, about 8% or 9% of

mortgages are delinquent. we have an oversupp to potentially enter the market, thatre all on the market. there is not that much turnaround because people know they live in these neighborhoods. they know there are lots of homes for sale. they know that prices are not rising, possibly falling, especially in the weakening labor market. in that world, nobody really wants to invest. it is a symbol deflationary spiral. if you think the prices are -- is a simple deflationary spiral. if you think prices will be lower tomorrow, you will wait until tomorrow. the oversupply of existing homes, i do not think we'll see a quick turnaround in the housing market. host: diana, your take on the housing indury? guest: it is very regional, places where people have purchased a lot of second properties, they're doing a lot worse. we need to look on a regional

basis, but the product -- but the prognosis overall is not good right now. host: we have retweet -- "he has called for tax increases, but we have not had any, is his point. and yet the unemployment is up, gdp down. why? guest: we have had $1 trillion in stimulus. we started off in january 20,009 2009 and we have been sucking money out of the private sector. the government has attempted to step in thinking it can spend money better than the private sector can. this just has not worked. that has seen a lot of uncertainty. taxes were about to go up lt december. this is not a good environment for investingn creating jobs. the president went on national

television yesterday, and frequently over the last couple of months, calling for tax increases. there is a lot of uncertainty as to regulations, taxes, and that is one reason why americans do not have more confidence. they are not going out and buying, and businesses are not treating jobs. host: on that point, if fox says, "the market was plunging while the president was speaking. how does that speak to the company's the market has in him? guest: the market is reacting to fundamental uncertainty of what exactly the downgrade for s&p ultimately will mean. it is a technical aspect, to some degree. the s&p downgraded the u.s. debt from aaa to aa-plus. depending on how regulations are written for by financial markets, banks, insurance companies -- some pension funds

have to get rid of u.s. debt. u.s. regulators have said they cannot hold on to the u.s. debt, it is still as good as cash. others may not. the market is trying to figure out the technical consequences of this downgrade. we will wake up in a few days and realize this was all turmoil. that is one part of where the market went dow other point -- and that has hinted at is before -- we are at an inflection point at the economy. some ecomists say we will get faster growth in the next six months. some say we will get a double- dippers session. the market swings are rightly -- the market's swings vary widely as it always does during these times. to reaffirm the markets, to say that we are going to do whatever is necessary to avoid a -- dead recession. we are gng to create the jobs

recession.-dipp so that we have a track record of boosting confidence in the private sector, boosting job growth in the private sector. i think we need to continue those efforts by extending unemployment insurance, not enacting spending cuts in a rash fashion as the economy still weakens. host: ryan has been waiting patiently on the democratic line in arlington, virginia. caller: when the s&p downgraded, they were absolutely right. nobody wants to admit it, but they were absolutely right. and i would like to ask diana -- diana, you keep saying when are they going to lower tax rates for corporations? well, g.e. got a $14 billion tax break, $5 billion

domestically, not abroad. tell me, how could we help a corporation any more? tell me what other loopholes we can close. >> well, as kristin mentioned earlier, there are many loopholes but they just fact -- as christian mentioned earlier, there are many loopholes. lower tax rates in a revenue neutral manner so that we have a more efficient and fair tax system as to the point that we save jobs, maybe we did, but the unemployment re is two percentage points higher than before we started this whole stimulus exercise. the s&p downgrade i think reflects the views of the economy as a whole. gdp is a lot lower than we thought it was going to be.

the employment news came out, only 117,000 jobs were created. the labor force participation rate, americans choosing to participate in the labor force, went from 64.1%, 63.9%, the same level as january, 1984. we have one of the smallest percentages of able-bodied americans working in the labor force in a very long time. so the economy is not doing well, and that is why the markets areoing down. the s&p downgrading is perhaps tangential, but it reflects what is going on in the economy. that is what we need to fix. host: diana furchtgott-roth and christian weller, all this talk about economic news and indicators, what it means for you. tim, from michigan. caller: good morning, greta.

i feel like i hit the lotto today, a kid. i actually got through while you are hosting. host: what is your questn or comment? caller: my comment is about this class war that the republican party has been waging, especially since -- that president reagan started but especially under president george w. bush. it was said that when social curity, when it first started -- you can tell me what the ratio was to people contributing to the people collecting. i think he said it was like 30 to one. when you tie it to the advantages where they are eliminating jobs, corporations

should still be responsible for a portion of the grossomestic product. even though there are not workers, that it will be taken out of, they will not be paying someone a salary, but they should still be responsible to contribute to social security. one other thing -- the way they have taken over the lexicon job creators, it is more like job exporters. as far as entitlements go -- when mitch mcconnell and john boehner and that ilk refer to medicare, social security as entitlements, that is ridiculous. what really scared me is when mitch mcconnell, about three weeks ago, they were talking on the news about trying suspected terrorists in american courts, and mitch mcconnell said, "i'm

sorry, terrorists are not entitled to american justice." how dare he used the entitlement word when referring to terrorists, and referring to entitlements when it comes to senior citens in this country. i don't see how you can refer to terrorists and americans. >> we did not need a rating agency to tell us that the gridlock in washington over the past several months has not been constructive, to say the least. we knew from the outset a prolonged debate over the debt ceiling, a debate where the threat of default was used as a bargaining chip, could do it burke -- enormous damage to our economy and the world prosper that threat, coming after a spring of economic disruptions in europe, japan, anthe middle east, has now dampened consumer

confidence and slowed the pace of recovery. host: here is "usa today" with the headline, reaction from republicans after he gave his address yesterday. the gop rebuffed tax push. and the "financial times" has its headline, "obama seems to have the upper hand in the deficit debt talks." inside the store, it says, "some analysts see the trigger as a democrats' best option. if thecannot come together, automatic spending cuts, half to domestic, half to defense, has to go into place. from being -- that is because the domestic cuts set out by the trigger largely exempt the programs that are important to democrats are being slashed.

without revenue increase, there is no reason for democrats to compromise. there are the best cutshey're going to see, says tom davis, a former republican congressman from virginia. at the same time, shifting party dynamics from rank-and- file republicans and isolationist viewsrom the tea party mean there will be internal divisions of bond many about how far the party should go to protect the defense budget. eric cantor said there will be renewed pressure on republicans to give in to tax increases. but remember to resist that pressure." christian weller, the you think democrats have the upper hand? is there no reason to compromise? guest: it is very difficult to say who has the upper hand. i think the politics on the debt ceiling debate are shifting all the time. we should not make a pronouncement at ts point on how the super committee will react. there are priorities and needs to be addressed.

the first one is to strengthen economic growth, strengthen job creation. and the supercommittee will discuss that the president is pushing in that direction, some members of congress and voters want to see action on jobs, on growth. we will have the conversation about what should happen on the spending side and tax side to help growth, to help jobs. that will dominate increasingly the debate over deficit reduction. that needs to be traded off, the short-term emphasis on job growth needs to be traded off against the long-term challenges of massive deficits, especially the lack of revenue and the health care inflation problem we face over the next t0 to 20 years. but we should not assume anything about the supercommittee at this point. it has enormous power and opportunity here to do the right thing for the economy in the short run, for the deficit and economic stability in the long run. host: here is the latest week

from republican tom price. "house report and put it before back in april that outlined how we can get this nation back on sound fiscal footing." what about the differing factions within their own party? guest: we really need toet a handle on spending. later this month, we are going to get the mid-session review, the new numbers put out by the office of management and budget and the congressional budget office. it will downgrade u.s. growth from the projections they put out in january, and they may wait -- they may well wipe out all the deficit is by increasing the deficit through lower growth. the growth the projected for this year was 3.1%, and it will probably go down to about 1.5%, 4.2% next yr, and we will not get that next year.

taking three or four percentage points off gdp growth increases the deficit. it will basically wipe out all these savings they're having so much trouble over $1 trillion with the special committee in savings over the next 10 years. we will have to come up with a lot more just to keep even. host: let's go to rob, republican, from rochester, new york. caller: for mr. weller, he keeps referring to revenue, an increase in taxes. i'm a real estate broker in rochester, and the market shot. i sold one house here. they're hiding all these houses in foreclosure already. there are hundreds of houses in foreclosure that day are not telling anybody about. if you go to hothomes.com, if you live in rochester, there are four houses.

that is a bunch of hooey. there are hundreds of homes in foreclure. you keep referring to it as increase in revenue, you mean increasing taxes. maybe last year we made $60,000. you cannot increase my revenue anymore. it is like taking blood out of a stone. host: we will get a response from the christian weller. guest: throwing around these buzzwords, if they mean it -- they do not mean anything to real people. important point here is that there are ways to generate more revenue without taxing somebody who makes $60,000. that is clear. when you look at what is on the table, you need to close loopholes for corporations, taking back some tax credits that simply do not do anything for economic growth, treating

income of hedge fund managers and private equity managers the same as my income and your income. those kinds of measures would not hurt you, they would not hurt 99% of america. they would not hurt economic growth, but they will ultimately allow the government to maintain the programs that people value. they will maintain social security, veterans benefits, medicare, medicaid, education, and so forth. we need to be very mindful about when we talk about spending and tax increases, we're talng about real people. there are ways to be smarter about spending and there are ways about being smart about the tax side that do not hurt the onomy and most people. that ultimately is the conversation we want to have, because we need stronger economic growth, we need more jobs, and we need ultimately to have the budget that protect the recovery right now but reduces

the deficit for the long term. host: "companies are -- diana, companies are themselves sitting on record amounts of cash. i wish to misspending keeping themrom that cash? guest: a smaller percentage of it gets taken out, and we need to be encouraging them to bring it back here to the united states. guest: i would like to jump in on the cash issue because we have talked a number abt it. the companies have been building up cash since the early 1980's. when you look through the data, they are largely using it for things other than productive investment of hiring. they are using it for mergers and acquisitions to buy other companies. they are using it to defend themselves against takeovers. they are using it to defer

buying back of their own shares and to pay dividends. there are a number of things companies are doing with the cast that does not necessarily translate into more investment and hiring. at this point companies do not need more cash to do things that are not productive. at this point -- and they say so. they need customers. we need to boost jobs, incomes, and those things are what companies need. they need customers. host: dia wants to jump in here. "u.s. workers were less productive in the spring and that does not bode well for future hiring." guest: the short-term numbers are fluctuating widely, and they go along with -- they are often subject to revisions, but there is a lot of noise and that data. long-term, if you look at the last three years, productivity

has gone up at a reasonable rate. guest: it is difficult to say that we think emersion acquisition deal or dividends is a productive use of company kaspar they're trying to do the best they can -- of company cash. they're trying to do the best they can, and they think it is a good use of the funds. how can we say that it is not? guest: it is not a productive use. they're not investing in productive capacity. terms of net investment beyond depreciation of the lowest levels. you ultimately see that translatesnto productivity over the long term. will we are not investing today it will ultimately come into -- from a policy perspective, that does not mean we should encourage those activities. the dividend tax cut that we enacted in 2003, it led to more

dividend payout, but it did not lead to more it best man, owth, and hiring. -- into more investment, growth, and hiring. guest: the dividends were double taxed to begin with, so the change was getting rid of a double taxation. the whole problem in washington, we think we can tell companies what the most productive way is to organize their assets and the finances. it is possible that new companies emerging into more companies separately? i do not know, i should not say. these are decisions that maybe we should have low corporate tax rates come and take away some of the decisions rather than trying to second- guess. >> we know from the literature that is not boosting innovation and economic growth. there is a vast literature that shows that. we also have to be mindful that we have spending programs in place that people want, that the

country wants, that needs to be financed. we cannot simply lower taxes on corporations and let them get away with keeping a few people their shoulders happy to dividend payouts, and at the same time burdening the american middle-class more and more with higher taxes. host: we will have to leave it there and get back to our viewers. go ahead. caller: i do believe that there is an inability to realize that we have been had. we have been fleeced by our political classes, the elitists in our country. george bush, when he left office in 2008, pardoned one of the biggest housing scammers. the guy stole $30 million from h.u.d. and other programs. they used strong buyers, and it seems to me the political classes in this country produced nothing. it it was not for equity in the

housing market, they would have had no money for their campaigns, and so on. it was silverado savings and loan with the bush brothers, neil bush. it w real estate scamming. on long island, there was a man named john mcnamara who stole half a billion dollars from general motors acceptance corp. in mortgage frauds, and he got away with it. he never did a day in jail. even this other gentleman, he stole $30 million from h.u.d. in one year alone, did not pay any taxes. you can follow the trail and see he paid every executive in my government- and even my current government, steve levy, my county executive, he has had to relinquish millions of dollars of campaign cash. he cannot run for election because of some federal probe. host: got your point, anthony. we go to nebraska.

caller: i'm curious why we do not go back in hiory on the trade problem. back in 1860 week passed a tariff to fight cheap imports from britain. why don't we do the same thing? even mckinley did that, and it increased employment and decrease the cost of labor. guest: it would cause a trade war, and other couries would -- what we really need, speaking of trade, is the free trade agreements to be ratified by congress. we have outstanding free trade agreements pending, but not ratified, with colombia, panama, south korea. this would give more market to our export, and a substantial number of americans work for companies that export. it would be againstorld trade organization regulations. guest: i agree with diana to some degree that we do need to

focus when it comes to trade on exports. we have been doing fairly well on exports since 2004. even last quarter, export growth was much stronger than our imports. clearly, we're doing right on exports and trade. we do need to keep imports coming because what happens is we are importing intermediate goods, we add value, we put them into cars, machines, airplanes. then we export them at our high profit for u.s. manufacturers had not think the solution is passing more trade agreements. what we do need is to help smaller companies, small manufacturing companies to really gain access to the market. jeff insel, who heads the president's competitive this -- jeff immelt, who has the president's competitiveness --

we need to build on that momentum that we already have on the manufacturing side, by bringing in small manufacturing companies into the game. host: diana, there is the situation in europe as well that is playing into what we're seeing in our economy. explain your take on that. guest: we think we have problems here, but it is nothing compared to what your past. the eu has bailed out ireland, greece. now they are needing to bailout italy and spain, and this is taking a tremendous amount of resources. the bank's there have real solvency problems -- the banks there have resulted problems, and they will be able to buy fewer of our exports. some of our banks are also invested in europe.

guest: to some degree that is right. i do not think we will necessarily talk about bailing out italy. guest: d e u. guest: i agree that there is this worrying abt could this spillover into the banking systems. you saw negotiations early into summerhere france and germany were pushing the private banks to participate more in bailing out greece, and the banks, especially finland and others, said, no, if we do this, our banks will gondar. that raises red flags for me and for a lot of -- will go under. that raises flags from me and for a lot of other observers with the bigger countries like germany and france, and how could this ripple effect free more uncertainty in world financial and the world market. host: should there be a coordinated global response? guest: no, i think the you

should be dealing with this on its own. french and german taxpayers will get tired of bailing out greece, ireland, and these other countries if the you decide to do it with their european stability mechanism. host: here is another tweak from our viewer who wantsou to debate the infrastructure bank proposal. kristin, let me begin with you. ,e heard that -- chris ctian let me be with you. why would it work? gas co we're talking about a national infrastructure bank. it would be a loan guarantee program, possibly through the department of ccommerce. there are infrastructure banks that are altertive models that exist in other countries, typically economic development banks, that you have to get some government subsidy and backup

guarantees. but they would be rgely self refinancing through the investments they make. we know we have massive infrastructure needs when it comes to growth, bridges, school construction, greening of office buildings, so on and so forth. it would work because the way theseanks loan guarantees would be structured is they would have to look for a positive rate of return. in some cases, the government would add a little extra, would subsidize the rate of return to bring in investment response. by and large, there would only be profitable investments that the private sector is not undertaken in because the payoff would be over su a long. of time -- over such a long put to of time, and they often did not want to go there. the idea is not to take something over that the private sector is already doing, but filling in the gap for the private sector is not yet going

and will never go. host: why will it work, diana? guest: just for the reason he said, that is because that is where the private sector will not . it will be a question of the infrastructure bank playing political favorites. you can see that there might be a lot of money going to illinois are california, but here we're talking about cutting spending. we do not need an infrastructure bank when we have the private sector. that can finance many infrastructure projects. also our technological capabilities have increased to the extent where now we can toll roads. tolling means that private companies would be interested in building a road, and then there can be told to get back revenues. there is one close to prince george's county, one close to dulles airport. there preventing the private

sector from investing in infrastructure, such as not allowing private sector investment on federally funded projects and roads. we need to look at the regulations and see if we can roll those back. guest: it has always been sort of -- it is surpsing to hear diana speak like this because there has always been an agreement between conservatives and progressive economists -- even milton friedman argued that the government has a role in infrastructure investment. banks will leverage public dollars to bring in private vectorinvestors' dollars. the reason private investors are not going there is they have a short rate of return in terms of recovery could bring their money. the infrastructure bank is meant to deal with that problem. into projects that private investors themselves will not -- guest: 1 infrastructure product

is high-speed rail. the government wants to spend $53 billion on high-speed rail, and fewer than 2% or 3% of americans use rail, so it would get funneled into projects such as that like mass transit that are politically correct. this is not something the private sector wants to invest in and our tax dollars should not go into it either. guest: private companies would like to run rail, they just do not want to invest in the infrastructure on the actual rail along the corridor, which costs $20 billion. guest: because they think it will not pay off. guest: know, when you look at other countries like germany and britain, the privatization of the rail, increasing -- private companies said they would like run the tras. they do not necessarily want to invest in the real capacity.

neither do they in other countries. guest: $53 billion in president obama's high-speed rail project? guest: in the northeast corridor there is the demand for high- speed rail. host: we have less than 15 minutes to continue this debate. i want to show you what the president said yesterday about this supercommittee and what he will do to put pressure on them to come to some sort of agreement. >> i realize after what we just went through, there is some skepticism that republicans and democrats on the so-called supercommittee, the joint committee that has been set up, will be able to reach a compromise. my hope that -- my hope is that from's news will gives a renewed sense of urgency. i intend to -- my hope is that from yesterday's news we will give us a renewed sense of urgency. the committee will have this administration possible cooperation. host: "the washington post"

editorial echoes what the president said, the call for compromise between two sides . it will be wth only of the country's leaders come up with full-fledged solutions. "the wall street journal" says this. "a downgrade awakening. they argue that we are taking a step back to the daily turmoil, look at the larger picture. terming u.s. debt debate is not a sign of political dysfunction, despite what the s&p and the chinese say. it is a sign we're finally beginning to comprehend and correct the problem. the process will be messy, as democracy always is. it is a sign of progress. guest: i thinkhey got it right. the as and he got it wrong saying that we have a dysfunctional system, ignoring the fact that we got audget deal, a debt deal. the important point is, yes, it is messy, but in the end, we

have a deal. there is a national conversation over the right party. how do we get growth? how do we strengthen growth, create jobs, and how do we ultimately address the challenges of the structural deficit? despite incredible divisions on partisan ideology, it can come together to fix the problem. the hope is that the supercommittee will do exactly that, that it will come together and address the nation's priorities, create jobs, broke job creation, promote growth, and address the long-term structural deficits in the long run. host: diana, your thoughts. guest: theact that we went through this battle and all we got was $2 trillion in cuts the white house office of management and budget midsession reviews will come out later this month, and they will add right back at $2 trillion by reducing gdp

growth. we need to look at what is being done in the house of representatives, where the house passed a budget resolution that would cut $6 trillion over the next 10 years. house republicans also passed cap and balance that would cut spending and cap future spending and pass a balanced budget amendment. these are the long-term solutions we need to be looking at. we cannot just cut $2 trillion over 10 years. guest: we also have to understand the cap, cut, and balance approach, the house passed it knowing full well the senate would not pass it. on the other hand, the democracy and budgeting process is a step- by-step issue. it is not that one day congress will fix all problems and we will go home and not meet for 30 years. every congress will face these allenges, especially in an economy that is not as turbulent as ours.

at this point we need to figure out how we're going to start making downpayments and creating growth. at the same time, start thinking about how we're going to reduce the structural deficit. host: cnn is reporting this morning that pressure is on the white house. here is a tweet from congressman connie mack saying that "mac again calls for geithner to resign in the wake of market fears and permanent unemployment of 9%." about: i'm wonderg more campaign reform. host: what about it, dennis? caller: is c-span taxpayers? host: no, it is part of your cable bill every month, brought to you by your cable service. caller: get the presidential campaigns to use that.

host: we're getting way off topic here. go ahead, john. caller: i have been working since 1976. since the epa came in to the government, our government has shut down a bunch of different companies due to the epa regulations. is there any way to get epa to relax on businesses and do a corporate tax on companies that are moving to different countries? guest: diane not addressed that. i want christian to address that. why do you think the epa should not relax the regulations? guest: well, it is not just simply giving polluters what they want. it is protecting natural resources while also protecting the health of people. when you look at countries like

germany or spain, and armenta releases are a double-edged sword. they rearrange costs in the short run, but often these regulations are phased in over long enough periods of time, giving companies exemptions, to prepare for the new regulations. they have made the company's much more fuel-efficient, less polluting. when you look at countries like germany and others, they have used this to really build marine industries, to be very well -- to be world leaders when it comes to win craft and solar power, and so forth. that is where we are behind. we could use regulations, voluntary agreements, and others, as we have done with other fuel efficiency standards to prod companies to become more efficient and to go were clearly markets are. guest: so why don't we just announced that in 20 years everything will be wind and solar? the companies will have the time

to invest in those jobs. we now have natural gas, coal, and oil, and these are the more efficient forms of fuel. america is getting cleaner every year as we've been in new plants, buy new vehicles. it would be relatively simple for the president to call lisa jackson and say l's hold off on the car and regulations, let's hold off on the clean air transport regulations. until unemployment goes down to 7%. host: isn't it that they want certainty that this will go away? guest: even better. these are optional. the epa is not required to put forward any of these rules right now, and what they're doing is making energy production, making any kind of factory usage more expensive here, which is why so

many plants are going overseas to china and india. host: 1 more phone call, richard, a democrat from massachusetts. caller:hank you. the thinking from conservative think tanks -- where was your voice during the bush administration? it had two tax cuts. that prescription drugs and of $800 million that -- $800 billion that wasn't paid for. also, diana, when the private sector is not hiring, it is the duty and responsibility ofhe government to create jobs. president eisenhower did it with the international highway system that created many jobs. host: dianawhat is your response? guest: between 2003 and 2007

when the bush tax cuts were fully in effect, we created hundreds of thousands of jobs every mon. i uld say it is not the government possible to create jobs, rather it is the government's role to invest in the private sector to create jobs. the government could hire one group of people and have one group dig ditches and another fill them in. we have en that in the past couple of years with the shovel- ready projects and the $1 trillion stimulus package, and we're left with unemployment that is two percentage points gher than when we started in january 2009. we have seen it does not work and we need to take a different track. yes, president bush did spend too much when he was in office. many people said at the time -- i was working at the department did labor and the council of economic advisers. part of it was congress. my boss, of the labor

department, went in every year to congress lower budgets and she was called uncompassionate by congress. they put the money right back in. so this was not just president bush's problem. guest: the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were a lesson on how to squander money. the important piece is going back -- and i agree with diana -- that we shoulbe creating a situation where the private sector is adding jobs. when you look at the past couple of years, that is exactly what we have. the private-sector is creating jobs. the private sector added 154,000 jo. that is not enough to reduce the unemployment rate, but part of the problem is that the government, especially states and local governments, are cutting jobs -- laying off teachers and public workers. on all categories at that level.

at the state and local government. education is the largest category, public safety is the second, transportation is third. we're seeing private sector momentum going forward because the stimulus and other measures have created an environment where the private sectors are comfortable hiring. what is putting a drag on it is that the government is cutting back on jobs, and individuals do not have enough income to drive more momentum forward. for the near future, we need to continue the extensions of the unemployment insurance benefits and the payroll tax dollars. ho: we have run out of time. re quick, diana, 20 seconds. guest: how many people would not like to have that back right now? guest: unemployment is the wrong measure. we're talking but job creation. the job creation measure for the

bush and administration, whether after 2001, 2003, it was an ysmal. it was the lowest since the great depression. host: many people would want a 4.8% unemployment rate right now. guest: the job creation track record for the bush administration was the lowest since -- host: we've got to leave it there. christian weller is a senior fellow for the center for american progress. and diana furchtgott-roth is the director of the [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> to aircraft carrying the remains of a helicopter crash arrived at dover air force base in delaware at 10:00 a.m.

the president accompanied by leon panetta to receive the remains of those killed in that weekend attack. in london, prime minister david cameron is recalling parliament this week in the wake of the riots. he made a statement this morning outside 10 downing street. >> >> good morning. we have been discussing the action that we will be taking to help the police to deal with the disorder on the streets of london and elsewhere in our country. i have met with the metropolitan police commissioner and the home secretary to discuss this further. we will do everything necessary

to restore order to britain streets and to make them safer the law abiding. let me condemn the scene we have seen on our television screens and people have witnessed in our communities. these are scenes of people looting, vandalizing, scenes of people attacking police officers and even protecting fire crews that are trying to put out fires. this is criminality pure and simple and it has to be confronted and defeated. i feel a huge sympathy for the families who suffered, innocent people who have been burned out of their houses, and businesses who have seen their premises smashed and their livelihoods potentially ruined.

i feel for all those who live in fear because of these appalling scenes that we have seen it on the streets of our country. we're on the side of the law abiding people who are appalled by what has happened in our own community. police officers have shown incredible bravery on our streets in confronting these thugs. we need much more police on our streets and we need even more robust police action. the metropolitan police commissioner has said there were 3000 police officers on the streets last night. there will be 16,000 police officers on the streets tonight. aid coming in eigh

from across the country. there has been 450 people arrested. we will make sure that processes and core procedures are speeded up. people should expect to see many more arrests in the days to come. i am determined that justice will be done and these people will see the consequences of their actions. i have this very clear message to those people who are responsible for this wrongdoing and criminality. you'll feel the full force of the law. if you're old enough to commit these crimes, you are old enough to face the punishment. you are not only wrecking the lives of others, you're not only wrecking your own communities, you are potentially wrecking your own life, too.

my office has spoken to the speaker of the house of commons, and he has agreed that parliament will be recalled for a day on thursday so i can make a statement and we can hold a debate and we're all able to stand together in condemnation of these crimes and also to stand together in determination to rebuild these communities. there is important work to be done if you'll excuse me. [inaudible] >> that was prime minister cameron from this body. he will deliver a statement on thursday before members. we'll have that event for you on the c-span networks including c-

span.org. today, part of the education department conference. arne duncan will speak on school safety. he may talk more about his proposal to offer states waivers from the no child left behind law. >> republican candidates are gathering in iowa for state fair festivities. starting thursday, we will interview the candidates and take your phone calls. saturday, we will have the straw poll in ames. wrote to the white house in iowa -- road to the white house in iowa, this week on c-span. >> now wait debate on mandatory voting with freds b smith.

mark green will moderate. ralph nader is on your screen. this is 90 minutes. >> good morning. this will be a debate on subjects rendered taboo in our country. the second debate will be july 8, 2011, with the topic being a wall street securities transaction tax. information is the currency of democracy.

motivating the citizenry for their society and themselves. this is what a democratic society is all about. documentedist's have taboos on all subjects. it is open up for examination and the possibility of change. very often, tab oos become entrenched, favoring the status quo. breaking taboos, for instance slavery, those did lead to debates and change in the 19th

century. in our times, taboos are rising at a advertising regarding the dangers of tobacco use and state motor vehicle safety design were broken in the 1960's. reforms followed that saved lives. breaking taboos on politically challenging jim crow laws and discrimination against gays and lesbians has led to real and advancements in human rights. in many areas, taboos remain secure in those that cannot tolerate some might. nearly every candidate for public office knows the taboo subjects which not to be asserted and publicly suggested for discussion, off the table. self-censorship is part of a

politicians might be armor -- almighty armor. political parties tend to love unforgiving hierarchies. legislators are rife withi subjects many choose to ignore. the annual finding that it is unable to utter the pentagon budget as a whole because the records are not there. the media often did go heads - - ditto heads are not asking

certain questions. the choice of subjects, the guests, and questions. the question is not asked. for the first time before national television audience, 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 from the audience submitted on cards. this will be a 90-minute eve nt when the debate starts. norman ornstein, a longtime scholar, an advocate for the electoral reform. his books and articles have led

him to be widely quoted by the media for his insights. his recent book reflects his concern about the state of electoral politics. he writes a weekly column for open quote roll call -- 'rollcall." in opposition to mandatory voting is fred smith, who study theoretical mathematics until he realized that defendant markets was his true calling. he has done it with great humor. he is the president of the competitive enterprise institute. that is in washington, d.c.

he writes and lectures abundantly. mark green performs the moderating function by moderating a national weekly program. he edited the civil-rights sobel liberties law review. author of 22 books including the best seller "who runs congress?" mark green has been a frequent tv and radio commentator and op- ed contributor to leading newspapers. i turn the proceedings over to

mark green to start this first in a series of national debates on tableaus subjects. will the debaters come up? >> been morning, everybody. to my right is norman ornstein -- good morning, everybody. to my left is fred smith. on behalf of all the debaters and the audience, i 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 debate budget deficits when there is such a deficit of conversation about scores of other issues? here's one.

can america state and exceptional democracy if non- voters outnumber voters? voting is probably the preeminent trade aspect of what we regard as a democracy. how can you have a government by and for the people unless people vote, as we're seeing now in the middle east. in 1789, as norm recalls, turnout was extraordinarily high, but only white males could vote. now it is nearly the reverse. there is more universal suffrage on paper, but the turnout is very low in this country, certainly compared to the 80% turnout in the 1800's.

i ran in late new york city primary where not 80%, not 40%, but 8% turned out to pick usually the winner in an all- democratic city. let's turn to the topic at hand. norman augustine, an advocate for the proposition, why should there be -- and take up to do it five minutes, and fred will make his arguments against. there'll be two minute rebuttal and then i will moderate the question and answer and will each ask each other questions and the audience can ask questions. america needs mandatory voting.

why? >> thank you for mentioning my book. it is a great holiday gift. i was an easy when a first came in. i thought it said we were debating tattoos. we will do this informally with a couple of caveats. i am for mandatory attendance at the polls. there is a distinction and it has been impressed upon me by the current austrian ambassador to the united states. in australia, you don't have to vote. you can go to the polls and cast a ballot for and none of the above and about 2% or 3% do. i decry our low turnout as much as anybody, but i'm not for

changing the system just so we can feel good to have a greater voter turnout to approximate what they have and australia, which is about 97%. some of the most vicious dictatorships in the world get 95% to 99% t of t 95tf because there are some pretty severe conditions if people do not vote. i want to discuss a couple of reasons why i came to this position. one is visiting australia a number of times and talking to political figures from all strifes. if you do not vote, you're subject to wait fein, the equivalent of what used to be a parking ticket in the district of columbia, about $15.

you can get out of it by writing a note. where there'sen malik 5 cent tax on bags in the district of columbia -- where there is now a 5 cent tax on bags because people will be damned if they are going to pay 5 cents for a bag. in australia, they do get about 95% of the voters out to the polls, what the politicians of all stripes tell us is that this is not a system where it is all about ginning up the base. political consultants make many millions by having expertise in getting their parking space out

and trying to suppress the others. hear the charges that we have in elections are set by narrow slivers of voters that tend to pull our politics as if we get two giant magnets that pull us off to extremes. politicians know their party's base will turn out. and so will the other sides. the conversation changes. it is not about focusing heavily on wage issues like abortion or same-sex marriage or guns that can't excite your side or suppress the enthusiasm on the other side. it is not about manipulating the voter registration or scaring voters to gin up it is about foe important group in the middle that are personable and who are

persuader will not by user ring -- using fiery rhetoric, but will turn off voters in the middle of a focusing on the issues that mattered the most to them. as i watched our political system move more and more forward for this focus on getting your face out and making sure the other side's base did not, as i watched very solid representatives lose because of slivers of the base that turnout in primaries that may have a voter turnout of 10% or 15% or maybe up to 35%. as i watched general electrics -- elections get referendum on the balance because they will excite your side more than the other side, and as i a bad

people ask all across the country, what we do about political system that can no longer debate these issues in a reasonable fashion, seeing the center completely collapse, the conclusion i came to was that if we adopted a version of the austrian 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. fred smith. >> we believe in many values, and i come from a secretary and, liberty seeking group. then we have our egalitarian friends. and our challenge is to find ways of blending the core values to things that will advance and protect us.

elections are very difficult ways to achieve that, because the people who report to achieve our values, it may not beat us true in minnesota where norman comes from, but i am from louisiana. louisiana is a state that does not tolerate corruption. we insist upon it. it is a very different place. there are people who pretend to represent our values, passionately or less so, and there are people who report to the confidence and so forth. the political process gives us a source of a or b. not surprisingly many people find it hard to discern what these do we really are and whether they really represent our values or not.

we stay home and we stay home not because we're not interested in our government, but because we find it very difficult to discern where they come from and boats in the presence would not only be wrong, it would be immoral. >> there is a feeling somehow if we could just increase per dissipation that the world would be a nicer place. and australia does have that balance, and as far as i know, no one has ever figured out how to be a nice person. everyone realizes canadians are nice. that is what they are. they are really into this kind of thing. there is a glimpse of this knowledge that basically suggests loss of freedom is a a loss of freedom.

about even losing one more freedom. how practical would it be? we would have to enforce it. we want a system that basically realizes that voting is a responsible act, and for whatever reason i should not be coerced to make a decision that is life and death for many people. we should not ask voters to vote without information or responsibility. in the boating business, we make our decisions. we get at least some civic appreciation. norm would eliminate the civic virtue down. who will get credit? that is not a virtue, that is coercion. a lot of this reminds me of the

story of when i was growing up in louisiana, one of johnny's teacher was trying to get johnny into a challenge. and he said do you know the difference between apathy and ignorance? johnny said i do not know, and i do not care. the argument is that many people who are on interested in the outcome are uninformed about the outcome and will somehow produce a better america. that is what mandatory voting is all about. thank you. and for our rebuttals with what is wrong with frets argument. argument. 's >> we are not a nation where we all say -- share the same views. what i find interesting now, given the nature of our election system, nomination process, if

you look at all hold survey, you'll find over half of republicans believe that one way we should deal with the deficit and debt problem is by increasing taxes on the rich. half of the republicans believe there is climate change in some measure by humans. you cannot find the members of congress who believe those things -- i should not say that. you'll find many who believe it did you talk to them privately, but given a system that is dominated by activists, they are forced to take positions that are not even believe by a majority of their own party. we do not have a system at this point where we can get the beliefs of people but which now force them into little boxes. but the talk a little bit about the loss of freedom. in australia 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. there are a lot of people who find that too far and would rather turn out and vote. i do not find that much of a loss of freedom at all. you have the freedom not to vote and the freedom not to vote for anyone if you show up at the polls. i think this is a process that can work out in a very reasonable way and strike a very different balance. >> thank you. fred. >> liberties are a precious virtue. it not only vances the freedom values, it also provides the greatest ability for our society and has democratized more of the privileges that the elites in joye more than anything else. i do think that the question of

when we do course of the service -- we do core vs. hurst civic service, that we treat it fairly. you have to listen for a long amount of time, and you could still abstain at the end for boating. all of those same chords that occur in the same area where we do have civic duty are not abandoned. the other civic duty we did the side of society to abandon decades ago was the draft. we did that because we did not think coercion was compatible with our principal government. i think the argument to move in a society where you will be forced to be free even if you do not are find your $20, $50 and can test your right. restricting your ability not only to not speak, but not

speaking if you wish to do so. we should be able to do that in the voting booth because we do not want to vote for people when they put twiddled the and twiddled gum up there. to go it 80% turnout, 50% usually in presidential election, one-third of midterm elections, 25% of local elections, what would define something that is not a democracy. what it 2% to 4 percent voted? would you call that a democracy? >> it to restaurants are competing and then all of a sudden the customer stopped showing up, you would not say why are the customers failing us?

you say what other restaurants doing better creating such bad choices that people do not want to eat at all. >> when you're talking about electing people that have the power of life and death over you in terms of the justice system, than the analogy breaks down. do you have a problem, since you do not seem to care about the level of turner, by 8% was not hypothetical. does that for a lower number bother you? >> all in all, who cares? most people live their life with the political system as something they cannot control. as we all know, they all say what they want us to hear.

it was always difficult to monitor. and that is why groups have tried to find out what a vote really means. politicians have developed an incredible camouflage screen between their actions that to affect our lives, and for some of them to stay out of that and refuse to give legitimacy that fraud is not an immoral act and does not bother me. if 100% of the people did not show up in america, i think that says something. >> you seem to imply that the electoral system has constituted it is a fraud. not voting is ok -- >> i do not believe it is a fraud.

i believe when we sell select some of whether we know enough or care enough to participate in the process, what is wrong with this of selection process? induce people who are less informed to vote for us? to go the opening statement you seem to imply that if you were numbers is not all that important. -- that fewer numbers are not all that important. there was a very important 1998

book called why americans do not vote. institutional arrangements produce voting by working class and working people in the united states. does it not matter if more people voted independent of the focus, which is on not just having appeals to basis, but to non ideological centrist. >> in an ideal world you have nearly everyone voting because they want to vote and be engaged. i want to get turnout up for other reasons, sure. and what the evidence suggests is there are certainly significant numbers of people who do not vote because they do not see a difference. there are some that are dissatisfied. all of that is true. what we see with the example of australia again, and getting back to the early point that we damaged the satisfaction that comes with exercising your civic

duty, what has happened over six decades now is there an enormously high level of patriotism that comes with voting. people see it as a civic duty. you can also get some outlets. fred talked about the ability by not showing up to make your statement that you do not like your choices. it is far more effective to show up and vote for none of the above than to not vote at all. let me quickly addressed the ignorance issue. -- address the ignorance issue. i am appalled by the level of ignorance in this society. i might make a deal with you. if we can have these test for presidential candidates so we no longer get one who says we need to read the constitution and " from the declaration of independence.

if we get a better understanding of history running for office, maybe we could find a different way. >> sent you are announcing ignorant or disinterested boating, should there be a literacy test? -- since you are announcing ignorance or disinterested voting, should there be a literacy test? >> people spend very little time -- people are busy. they spend very little time learning about things that are very complicated is the low priority item. most people have real problems, where should they spend a vacation, where their kids should go to college to and so on. most people are little different. most people do not read the federal register before they go

to bed at night. they have other things that occupy their time. they are not stupid. they are rationally ignorance. people allocate their time and waste that they see as having values to themselves. voting in most situations does not all of that category. most people in this city do care about politics and think about it a lot. for most people doesn't matter whether you're -- what your senator's name is. you did not really care because you cannot monitor know much about them anyway. so occasionally, and this is why it is so important, we reach these times all from right or left where they attempt to say we do care.

we will vote, and that upsets people, too, because they are very compassionate and boats. -- and vote. >> norma, fred said it does not matter much if your name was obama or bush. in other words, he is taking a good example in universalizing it to apply e elections have no consequences and are not important to people because they have private interests. plus, they also care about what they pay in taxes, what they're breathing into their bodies. fred seems to imply elections do not matter. >> i disagree with that.

we some rakowski was bumped off the ballot for running as a republican, despite her enormous popularity in this state because a small fringe group of extreme boaters decided they did not want her to have a nomination. there is a real difference to me if your name is bob bennett, a very conservative figure, or the man who has replaced him, mike lee was less interested in working to solve problems than scoring points. i think it does matter. i should note other things. the verses we have lots of research that shows it is not only this group of apathetic and ignorant people wall builders are engaged -- while voters are engaged a much more involved. the political differences are not much difference. the difference, once again, is

we're creating a group of candidates and a focus on issues that has moved away from what most voters think or want. the majority of republicans think part of the deficit problem could be fixed by increasing the taxes on the rich. and we have a process of voter suppression. leopardi's actively engage trying to make sure the other side voters did not turn out. >> why do people not vote? -- we have boaters actively engaged and to make sure the other side voters do not turn out. [unintelligible] guest: they had difficulty in ascertaining what the ideology is and what the real presences.

those are not easy things to do. >> not to be argumentative, but not every election is a no consequence. not every election is tweedle dee and little bump. i want to ask both of you. actually we boat at half the rate of western european countries that has some countries comparable to ours. why? >> you could call this an ulterior motive. the we did not get mandatory attendance at the poll it would affect the significant light. the united states is the only

democracy in the world that puts the decision in the hands of the citizen, not the state. we need voter registration modernization so that it becomes easier for people to register and vote. among other things, i have helped create a situation -- an organization called wide tuesday? what we vote on tuesday? it has to do with market did back in the 19th century. i would like to move our elections to the weekend. maybe have a couple of days of early voting. you need to make it easier for people to vote. you may -- need to make it easier for people to register. and open up a process and make

it less difficult for people to vote, even as we provide a modest hurdle if you do not vote. it those reforms you suggest early weekend boatinvoting, voting, same-day registration, campaign finance reform, why not try that? before jumping to mandatory voting. >> i am for all of those things and continue to work very hard in those areas. in some respects we are slipping further down. the supreme court issued another what i would say misguided decision today. basically making an illogical argument that more speech is suppressed of speech because these multimillion-dollar

candidates, if someone else has money when they are putting their own money in the campaign, it will be to them from spending all their money. this is a logic that just escapes me. we are not moving in the right direction in terms of getting a broader pool of good people to run. some of these registration and other areas move very slowly. that is not to say you should not do any or all of them. >> why do you think turnout in voting is so low? would you as a libertarian support some of the reform short of mandatory voting that norm has articulated? >> we're getting to the core differences of the debate. we're talking about process changes within a status quo

order. who will pay for the subsidies and except. who gets to marry whom and so forth. when government has both types of powers over our lives, massively more than they did in the founding time, then naturally we ingates those -- and gauge those intend to turn off those to a lesser intensity in those areas. the thing that is concerning largely stems from the fact that government is in too many people's lives in too many ways. norm wants a world where everyone gets a life peer yen he sees gridlock and difficulties and government getting the critical work done as a problem. i see it it as one of the

greatest things possible. will rogers made that point along time ago given that so many of these karma has done this that are essentially taking away freedom some overriding whatever values we might have a right or left, it is time to think carefully about why is it that people but less? because government is so big it becomes increasingly harder to monitor it. we therefore say okay, i will do the best i can. >> i hope you do not regard this as argumentative. it is very easy to sit government is too big. -- to say government is too big. >> you said government is more

intrusive. in george washington did not know about nuclear power. did not know about wiretapping. did not, i assume think of same- sex marriage. if you simply shrink government, are you saying we should not regulate nuclear power because as externalities'? we should have continued to isolate marriage to opposite sex couples. >> i would like to expand the private and shrank the political sphere.

people who are less informed, less caring, less concerned, they need to be anchorage to make decisions that affect my life. with greater complexity kims -- comes greater need for control. we need to use the disperse knowledge and concerns of more people. that means dispersing power, not centralizing it in washington or state capitals. politicians are what they are, but they're certainly not as knowledgeable as we are in our entirety. we need to find ways -- marriage. how did that become a state sanctioned bout you? we created this to get away from state-sanctioned values. america created separation of

church and state. and not because we value religion less, but because we value it more. and who can be married to home as a relationship become a question of state power were some states go one way and other states go the other way. shouldn't that be a private matter? the contract could be handled as a state-sanctioned matter. i respect that fred does not want government making those decisions. that it's completely different than the likelihood tomorrow where there is a nuclear power plant built next to you. you would probably want to know there are safety standards.

>> i must say as i was thinking about his restaurant analogy, i was thinking how much he would enjoy it if we did not have the plant animal inspection service, the meat inspection service that the department of agriculture, the fda that its export coming from china, the meat inspection service took 9 million pounds of tainted meat and poultry out of restaurants and off market shelves. i am not sure i would like that kind of limited government.

>> of the argument is that when the restaurant goes out of business suggests a difference in the incentive and discipline between a political mistake and private mistake. and congress, with your friends, has been ready to slash the number of meat inspectors, which means many more tainted pounds of meat. >> look at the data. did they actually police the power? >> i do not want to slip into a debate about government philosophies, but let me address a couple of areas that fred talked about. fred suggested there is a one-

to-one relationship between the size of government and drop in government turnout. the drop went up in recent decades, but the drop had far more to do with the regulations of registration that government provides and the enormous mobility that we have in the country. it is those things. it is not whether in the history of turnout is people getting turned off by the size of government. just one other point, fred says i want a world where everyone acts nice, i want to go back to an era where we have partisanship were people viewed partisanship of french and not the enemy. i want a public debate where we debate fax and potential outcomes on issues. i want to have a wide range of views represented.

i want to have the public probably represented in their views in washington, not with groups that are moving off to the left and right that do not reflect the larger and more dispersed society that we have? . >> fred has said there is a loss of liberty, and it may be small, but he is concerned about that. i find when this topic comes up, people turn to that argument first. i will say 30 years ago when i worked for ralph nader i would interview law students and ask them what you think of mandatory voting? 99 to one is people were against it. let me ask you a question of principle. of course you can have all the

territory and governments. -- you can have an authoritarian governments. then you can have too weak governments, the articles of federation that did not have adequate ability to construct and tax. what are the in a rigid one of the universal per -- principles between the government taking away your liberty and when it is an overbearing and wrong as happens so often. >> there is a continuing here, no question. you have to look at cost and benefit. i would start with the realization that we should all have a. this will not happen because americans react against mandatory things. if you look at this continue lump and look at -- discontinue

one and look at societies that have mandatory attendance at the polls with modest fines, you do not find it significant loss of freedom that citizens feel. you find instead a civic loss of responsibility. i do not see this when i look at the potential for changing our dialogue and moving from a corrosive this 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 versus having to write a letter to get out of a $15 fine, i just do not see it. >> right now someone can inoculate my child, inject them, even though i may not want it. people can constrict him or her,

force him or her to go to school. what is acceptable government coercion? and what is unacceptable by your standards? >> that is a question that american at the struggling with and has always struggled with and always will. we always society based on limited government. deciding where the limits are is a critical question. one word that norm use is a problem. he said continu om. who should be subsidized and who not? those are more complicated, because there is no moral and sensible. no one will fight a battle over 5.5 per upset change in vs 5.1 change in something.

nuclear weapons went down to a small percentage is. people understood when qualitative wind had been crossed. and it is still up to interpretation, but a constitution concept is too great qualitative barriers for which government shall not go or must go. a black/white situation. over time will this change? yes, they will. and then you will create a process to modify those. when we go to a continuing concept where everything is a little more or less, there is no moral debate going on in the war, because we're in a world of a little bit more or a little bit less, who cares?

there is a big difference between qualitative government and quantitative government. one of the fears is that america slipped from the concept of government will be in these areas and we will change it, to a world where government can do anything. >> let me pull it back to voting. maybe this should be in one of your tabus serious of whether children should be inoculated if parents do not want it? that is an interesting subject. there is a 99 to one majority of inoculating children. let me answer something that norman has answered. he wants early voting. you can go before, you can vote

by mail, you can register that day. then there is the whole history of neutral sounding voting standards literacy tex -- literacy test. are you or were you for any of those reforms? >> i think the early voting we should come back to. that is not a bad idea. one of the things that ralph had me read is the ventura campaign. they canceled the registration program. late registration allows the surges, which may or may not reflect voting on part of the constituency. the second one was the reforms.

voting by mail. that kind of off premise voting bothers me in the following sense. one of the great things we have in this society, you may be subject to massive pressures from your friends, family, union, employer, but you go into the booth and no one knows what you are doing. generally we are pretty confident that happens. if you have early voting, what is to stop your friends from coming over and fell out of ballots to the other. it bothers me. -- and fill out the balance together. and t>> i am only for early votg for perhaps two or three days. one of the problems that some

people have with weekend voting is some people go away for the weekends or not around. i think you can address that by having voting before the weekend where you go to an official place, cast the ballot in secrecy, and that ballot is secure. another problem with both by mail as you can have weeks before you have information from a campaign. >> let me ask both of you a more fundamental question than this particular legislation or acorn and jesse ventura because we can have counter examples easily. critics of the car registration of the voting system say our entire democracy had the class bias against low income people, minorities, younger voters,

because they give less money, and suppression efforts often work against them. do you think -- wealthier people, over $100,000, both in twice the turnout of people with income. does the class bias -- is that a problem that argues for mandatory voting, or is it something that the government really cannot do much more about? >> i think in that sense if you have mandatory attendance at the polls, you will do away with most of what would be a class bias out there. what concerns me now is we're getting all kinds of things going forward, like very

restrictive voter i.d. laws that make it very much more difficult for people without means or those with limited liability and to get the documents you have to pay money. i am not against voter i.d. in principle. but it needs to be something that is provided for free to people that is easy for them to obtain. >> one argument for mandatory voting is the overall class fight. you are saying it will make it worse. that is part of what i think in the current system that we have is we are going to get selected voter suppression for reasons of not just last, but who you think people will vote for. it is not the most driving reason for me to push mandatory

attendance at the poll, but certainly one. >> do you agree with the argument there is the building class bias because public campaigns are privately funded? historically it turns out people will latch onto suppression efforts. >> historically it is very clear that people have very strong suppression records. in mandatory voting is a way to have the wrong remedy for a serious issue. in australia we find the people -- >> excuse me for interrupting, but when australia went to mandatory voting, they had egg

90 -- 94% rate. now it is 97%. people whose votes are spoiled, they are not filled in. the majority of those reasons i think our because of those are the people who find it hard or who are in paris to ask citizens on those things. the people who would not have gone to the pole if we had mandatory voting. i am worried about another form of depression. if we had mandatory voting, then what would be the incentive of the powers that be to enforce those laws against a non-voter. would they vote more aggressively against those who were likely to vote for them, leaving alone those who are not prone to vote for them? there is always the danger, and anytime we intervene -- there is always a danger any time we intervene.

it is elements like this that are likely to lead to unexpected consequences. an effort to get up the boat seized when they realize the were on the other side. >> we have law enforcement and the administration that could enforce the civil rights laws of the tax code and get the republicans. bush could have said get the democrats. of course there is discretion, but fred it raises of their point. mandatory voting will require more resources to enforce, to exempt people of jehovah's witnesses or people that to -- better too frail to vote. are you create an extensive barack receipt?

>> on the latter point, we have had a lot of experiments out there. we have had at times italy. we have had libya. i have not seen any significant instance since where government selectively punished those from the other party any more than governments now administer parking regulations decide they will enforce parking ticket against those whose license plate tell them they live in a part of city they would not be voting for them. that is not likely to happen. as for the enforcement, it cost them money. it is a trivial sum in relationship to a 14 trillion dollar economy, but we also know that if you look at the system for enforcing parking tickets, this is not a difficult thing to

do. you know who is on the voter registration rolls. you know who shows up. you know whether they sent in a letter or found some reason to have an excuse. if not, if you get a parking ticket and do not pay it, a month later you get a notice say you have not paid for parking ticket in works the same way. >> in australia, one way you avoid this is not registering. if you do not register to vote, then you're not under this law. and >> what they do in almost all of these countries -- it is not true in all of the country's, but in many of these countries they make it very easy to register. the burden is on the state. the numbers are a little less and austrian now. there are people what do not register.

in america we have 40 percent who do not register. >> hold your questions for each other. but the pursuit the question of what you do if someone -- hold the question, but let me ask you what you do if someone does not vote? there is a country in which to motivate people to vote, you can participate in a national lottery with a small but mathematically sure the benefit of waiting. -- winning. you could say only if you vote could to be eligible for public sector jobs. let's exclude in america or elsewhere were you exclude people for not voting. you're not executing to mutt -- people of they do not vote? >> only in texas. [laughter]

>> are there other positive ways to have voter duty of mandatory voting so you avoid the problem of finding -- finding for people if they do not vote? >> i would say if we had a lottery and a billion dollar prize, you would probably up your turn out very significantly. maybe you get to audition for " dancing with the stars" or "american idol. " >> when we do see the main yet over the lotteries, perhaps that would work. doing something like that does get you dangerously close to a fictionally -- officially sanctioning this. we tend to do that all over the country in the house. maybe that would not be so bad. >> do any of you have a sense of

any history in this country of the mandatory -- i read the state of georgia in 1777, so you know it is not very current, but what do you think about is there any historic example when this has been tried and failed, and what do you take from that 30 countries around the world that have mandatory voting, only a dozen of which enforce it? >> i have read the time of research -- that kind of research. there were a number of states that looked at them. i think a few municipalities have done it from time to time. internationally it has been experimented. belgium keeps again brought up. do they have a government yet? >> they did not have a

government in place yet, but i have spent some time there. >> i do not know whether it is the mandatory voting or the fact that they have gridlock. there are lots of examples. the theory among our states and others are interesting. i guess we got the ballot from australia. we took some others and did not take other parts of it. of course there are, in any system everyone knows -- look of the atomic world. -- academic world. there is always a cap and gown distinction and an intellectual distinction. in elections are not necessarily

any brighter than the average american, but there are credentials. we know of the distinctions in america, but we do not worry about academic boating biases. -- voting biases. different people we -- will be driven by different densities and different abilities. the best we can do is try to make sure none of the barriers are artificial as they were in america. discrimination was a state enterprise in those areas. >> let me go back to moderating and answering questions. could you an audience start chopping down a question on the paper you have. if you could, right the name of the debater. passed them to the people walking up and some are readown.

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 party to appeal to the hard core base. do you think putting aside the government as beck's that mandatory voting has one good aspect and that more people would vote? -- do you think putting aside the government aspect that mandatory voting has one good aspect and that more people would vote? >> we noticed that the mandatory voting is not exactly plan politics. canada does not end it is paradise politics.

i cannot imagine a country that does not seem more citrus than canada. it does not seem to me like they correlate pretty well. america is not the country -- i am a libertarian. the problem with libertarians is two of them agree and the others are sold out. we are a contentious country in a lot of aspects. we want to be a tolerant country, but not a country that demands we all agree to a consensus. many of the examples norm gave our troops. and there are many reasons why i would think any logical liberal would have been perfectly happy to see him pumped out. it was because he did something

that were unconscionable and bad. that is not the point. and being in the center is weird. it factors the consensus. it is the process by which everyone gives up the belief they really hold and agrees to something that none of them really agree with. i do not think that is the purpose of america. i do not think it is the purpose of the voting process. >> do you think mandatory voting or voter duty would encourage better educated people into saying no the cannot opt out but have to get more engaged because they have to attend and more likely vote? and robert putnam wrote this book, bowling alone. there was a measurable decline in many metrics of voter per

dissipation, cement participation. -- civic participation. civic engagement has been on the decline. would this help make a better citizen and lead to more education and elections, a point that fred says often occurs? >> i think there would be a lot of incentives in the political system to change the nature of our debates and for people who are going to vote perhaps bend a little bit more time or pay attention. and might move a little bit away from what we have now. let me acknowledge that -- let me say again that i am not looking for everyone to be nice. much of the disparity for difference when you look at it cannot predict when you look at canada or other countries is

cultural. -- much of the disparity or difference when you look at these other countries such as canada is cultural. our political system was built on deliberation, a debate, and argumentation. there is nothing wrong with arguments. the problem as i see it is we have narrowed the range of those views in a fashion that turns off a lot of voters. i think it might change a little bit. you might see some different incentives if you moved in a different direction. if we moved in a direction where we deemphasized role of either organizations like acorn or people like karl rove who now have the enormous incentives to create a different dialogue and make money in a different fashion, i do not think that would be bad in terms of what it might be doing to pique interest. >> you make a point about liberty, which is a powerful principle starting in our

revolution. two weeks ago i had jury diruty. i am never called. when they see me, they say you are out. for today's i sat there, and i actually felt excited. i was a part of something. people from all walks of life in class is were there. jury duty for two days. i was almost on a criminal trial that would have taken two weeks. that is far more absorbing and time consuming and labor did losing -- liberty losing them at vote, so what is the big problem? in new york city we send out a

book. in california they do this. each person writes 100 words on who they are and what they think the issues are. if a person wants to be educated, it comes right in the mail. >> i think there is a very big difference between the jury system in jury duty obligation than would be added voting obligation, because the jury duty issue is a pretty serious thing. we need to have some way of deciding the guilt or innocence of a person who commits violence against the other. that is a jury system tries to do. -- that is what a jury system tries to do. so often you almost have the feeling they are trying to get someone who has no opinions on anything when they go to ask you a question. a question.