i-bce atnceead an article over weekend in the "the washington p, t" com.eaining a feron the traveler program wharks it would cost you, giving up your privacy. i thiua the public has to know there are people who travel more. there are people willing to give up, quote, some of their pri war that alle though airport screening more quickly and also alle c win te is not going to do so to get through the airport quicker. >> there are t. thee benefits in my view: . rom trom t

>> currently there's a lot of data available to t.s.a. from the airlines about passengers right now. there's in the passenger name record or reservation. there's the data that the passengers provide urppedb secure flight. t.s.a. can utilize that information to do the watch list vetting right now. provided that passengers agree to voluntarily provide additional information that opens the door to leveraging additional data that is also available whether it's c.b.p., the automated passenger information system, the information that comes from the machine readable zone pass port global information that the mentioned earlier. i think one of the keys to that and the beauty of this program is that it will be voluntary. 's

>> captain would say i like that. >> next. effective aviation security incorporates a blending of technology and human intervention. are the privacy conversations that need to be addressed in connection with the risk-based security? >> absolutely. and that's why we are doing this initiative as a voluntary measure, which has been mentioned several times. so what i don't want to do is data mine information that the entire u.s. government has on people who are not willing to share that information. that would affect and go to the core of privacy and civil liberty issues that we hold dear in this country. so i want to use all available information that people care to share. but that's got to be voluntary. >> well, by definition the pilots are sharing all that information about themselves. and awsf as you can see if crew members moving forward. so we're more than happy to

share. >> i just say sure there are privacy conversations and back to the previous comment about these being voluntary programs. those individuals that don't wish to provide additional data don't have to do so. but they do so they withhold that information with the full recognition that they may not stev benefits of providing the data which would be increased efficiency. >> actually, i would. it is a choice. and it has to be stressed as a choice. it is a choice frankly i made with global entry. it is a choice i would meak on known travel program because i want that efficiency and i want that expedited screening process. what i also don't want is somebody telling all passengers that they can't have it because they don't want it. >> with approximately 628 million passengers traveling through u.s. airports each year

tremendous assets are devoted for screening to potential threats. question to the group is, the shift to a risk-based security system will it truly enhance the secure process as well as the customer experience for travelers? and what are the cost implications of this change? >> i think there's potential for some upfront costs to support the networking of data bases and what not. but when you look at the ability of what will be provided through that networking to provide additional data on a voluntary basis, to t.s.a. to assist in the risk assessment that really allows the focusing of resources and screening technologies on those that we know the least about, and in the long run that's going to serve to reduce costs because you may not need to have the

whole suite of technologies available at every single screening lane. you can have certain lanes that are dedicated for those about which the least is known. >> i couldn't have said it better myself. >> again, the whole goal of this is to provide the most effective security in the most efficient way. so any efficiencies we can achieve through this process, such as spending less time physically screening pilots who are in that most trusted position, that allows us to achieve some efficiencies at the checkpoint. so that's exactly what we're trying to do here. >> and sean, the only thing i that i would like to add is it's pretty remarkable when you look at the number, 628 million passengers going through these checkpoints, it's an incredible job that t.s.a. has done every day. they don't get a lot of thank yous and credit. i guess there's a lot of late-night comedy routines on that. but i've got to tell you the

pilots, we thank them for the great job they do every day. and if you look at the trend, the trend is more people flying , especially over the next several years. so the shift to risk-base is the way to go. >> thank you. >> reminder, if you have any questions that you would like to present the panel what i would ask you to do is write them down on one of the pieces of paper in front of you. you can pass them towards the middle. hold them up, one of our staff members will come and grab them from you. along those lines, i hope you're enjoying the forum. i was able to go out with the folks who built the laser green panels. so if any of them like to wear them. with that i'm going to get to my first audience question. what role can airport and airline employees play in being the eyes and ears? and is training needed? >>

>> clearly part of the see something, say something comes home to the airport employees, the vendors and those who are on the premises and we've talked about doing training that goes beyond what they would normally have from their employers to give them a baseline not necessarily behavior detection but simply greater awareness of what may be suspicious activity. there is a cost of doing that and who pays that and is that a fee-based issue? is that something that the employers pay? so there's a number of issues there. but clearly, anybody who can be force multiplier or enhancor for aviation security is welcomed. >> i agree. >> every employee plays a role in security.

and what we've seen has been identified from some of our members as a real innovative security enhancement is that some airports have provided security awareness training to all employees. including jantors. and that results in a feed of information that goes to airport obviously some of that information that is pertinent can be provided on to t.s.a. that helps guide the application of resources. so every employee plays a role. >> next question. should the government's increased risk assessment as pertains to passengers reduce its plans to acquire greater quantities of advanced screening equipment? to the panel. >> i have had defer but one would hope the real allocation of resources would allow them to make the evaluation that

they don't need some of the machinery as chris said earlier at every checkpoint you don't need the full array of equipment at every different checkpoint. >> we were obviously watch this closely to see how the risk-based initiative rolls out and how many people are impacted and the demands that are placed on our technology. so i see security as both the human enabled but the technology enabled part of it also. and the i.t. gives us that advanced opportunity to detect the nonmetallic devices that we saw on christmas day. one of the things we have to be careful of is recognizing there are no guarantees, that anybody even in a trusted status could be somebody who could do something bad. i've worked with f.b.i. agents who tushed out to be soviet and then russian spies. we're obviously aware of major hasen in the military.

an officer, a doctor. and yet does bad things. that have been documented as allegations anyway at this point. the key being though that we have technology that we can use to enhance the screening experience for security purposes for those that we don't know. so the total rollout of the a.i.t. does not cover all check points that we have. that's not the design. but it is to be deployed in a risk-based scenario looking at where the highest risk may be. >> one comment to add on here. what i would say is -- and nick is right. it's absolutely the administrator's calling on this one. but my comment would be that we need to continue the r. and d.

process to ensure that we do have cutting edge technologies available. at the same time, i would encourage our government to work with other governments around the world because ayation security is a shared challenge toward the development of mutually recognized standards for the development of screening technologies. the manufacturers are open to this. it will result in lower cost and more highly effective units. and then back to the question, the risk-based security process, the results from that will help guide the application and investment in security screening technologies. thank you. >> another audyvens question. how can a risk-based security program be used to protect all areas of the airport and not just passenger screening? >> well, obviously t.s.a. has a

shared responsibility particularly with airport police, law enforcement agencies, of the larger airports. and then along with the airline security personnel airport security. so it is a shared responsibility. that being said, we're very much aware of what happened in glass go for example or what happened in moscow in terms of the checked bag area. there are vulnerabilities that terrorists will always try to exploit. the question is again getting back to our most effective tool being intelligence, hopefully there is a trip wire in place someplace across the u.s. law enforcement or intelligence or security community that would identify this person or persons especially if it's an active shooter scenario such as we saw in mumbai going on three years now that we would have intelligence before it happened. if it doesn't then it becomes

really a question of what are the airports emergencies preparedness plans? what have they done to train and rehearse scenarios such as active shooter or something else like that? so that's really, becomes part of the training opportunities that airports along with t.s.a. and airport police have. we spend a lot of time talking act passengers, screening, passenger security. but at u.s. airports we have cargo operations also. and the c.b.p. after 9/11, the amount of cargo coming in, in the u.s. through nonaviation modes of transportation really forced upon them a risk-based security model right out of the get go. with our cargo caring carriers, we were shocked back into

reality back in october 2010 with the cart ridge, ink cart ridge bombs. and then recently, we've had a couple cargo accidents one off mumbai and one off korea not knowing the cause but taking a look at everything that could have happened. so the bottom line is risk-based models in cargo security is key. and we need to be focusing on what's going on the cargo end of the equation at airports as much as the passenger end. >> and in doing so, and we are making good progress on this, i think, we need to move the risk assessment further and the information gathering as far as up the supply chain as you can so you get the information earlier and you get better information at the same time. >> so there's also a need to, as the administrator said, rely on the partnerships and

leverage the intelligence information that you can glean from those partnerships. also, i want to mention that airports do exercises to test and evaluate and learn from various scenarios, some of which have been mentioned today, and these are done in coordination with the airlines, with t.s.a., with local f.b.i. and local law enforcement as well. and then the lessons learned are built back in or applied to their security programs to make further enhancements. and then airports have also done a number of things that are separate and apart from regulation to enhance security, and this is in terms of the implementation of different processes, procedures, and technologies to enhance security. and one of the efficiencies that those have served to

benefit is for passengers being able to get through airports more expeditiously. >> this next audience question. what reaction is t.s.a. getting from foreign governments and airlines o to a risk-based approach? >> there has been a great deal of interest. one of the things that we're doing is working through ikao work on this security regiment post christmas day and post yemen cargo plot so there's been a series of worldwide conferences to ensure that the baseline that all countries and their civil aviation security regiment have meet those standards. there is again great interest from the stand point of how does this impact what they do for passengers coming to the u.s. we are limiting in initially just to domestic flights

because of the impact on international standards and protocols we want to make sure we get it right here in the u.s. assuming that does work then we will look at expanding either bilaterally or multilaterally for example with the e.u. in terms of reciprocity. so a lot of interest. they're looking to us to see how it's going to work here. >> thank you. >> question for the panel also from the audience is, and i know it's probably a little premature since we just stood up chicago last week. but how well are the airports embracing the known crew member program? in terms of initial setup and cooperation and collaboration towards getting the programs started? >> the airports have worked in close collaboration and coordination with us, with t.s.a. and the airlines to

facilitate the rollout of the known crew member programs and it's something that airports have identified as security enhancement and at the same time efficiency. so those partnerships have really streamlined the rollout of the program. >> the airlines would say there's been good cooperation. obviously each airport may present unique challenges and we've been working through that with t.s.a., with alpa and with the airports. >> i've been getting nothing but good reports from airports, from pilots utilizing the services from t.s.a. who is providing all the labor and screening. nothing but good. >> the same. >> very positive. >> for this next question i may have to pass the glasses around so we'll see. voluntary or not, what safe

guards are being used to ensure background data or data base info of known individuals such as passengers will not be able to be exploited? and then here it says the same question per tains to the known crew member programs. so the question is about the safeguarding the personal information. >> i can address at least one part of that. from t.s.a.'s perspective we're not interested in obtaining the information into a government data base. we are interested in working with both alpa and their case but looking at ata. but for, for example the frequent fliers or the trusted traveler programs that exist right now we're not interested in pulling all that information into t.s.a. we're just interested in pinging against it to make a judgment that this person is part of this program, at least in the initial iteration then we can make a determination basically a binary either they are in or out.

and so embedded on the bar code is the fact that that person is a known or trusted traveler. as the program ensures and we're able to use more intelligence information and technology to refine and get greater granlaret, again, it's something that we don't want to be the holders of that information which could be exploited in some other way, somebody hacking into government system ors anything like that. so the focus is on simply accessing for the passenger who has made a reservation, are they part of this known or trusted traveler set? and if so, then there's a likelihood that they would receive the expedited screening. >> and we're confident in the data bases that known crew member is accessing in their security. >> next question. let me change that up. i'm going to one of the one

that is i had ahead of time. >> partnership between the f.b.i. and the private sector an association of business, academic institutions, state, and local law enforcement agencies and other participants dedicated to sharing information and information to prevent hostile acts against the u.s. aviation infrastructure. now that you've given us some feed back with you give us a little bit more of an assessment of how well the current assessment of sharing information and intelligence is actually working? >> well, i can start and give my f.b.i. background. it started in 1995 in the cleveland office of the f.b.i. in terms of a public-private partnership where companies not just aviation sector but across the board could share information in a trusted client type of setting on line where, if for example there had been a cyber attack on x, y, z company, they could share what

the method of attack was, if there's attribution for where the attack came from and things like that without identifying who xyz company is so others could learn from that and take precautionary steps. so that's the model that this question is referring to. it works very well at least from my perspective and what i can get the feedback. i think there are many models like that in public-private realm and the question becomes from a t.s.a. perspective is there information that can be used by us collaboratively that helps inform our decisions as to the best possible security provided most efficiently. so that's like we come back to. >> sharing of intelligence information is something that has improved significantly over the years. and t.s.a. sponsors as nick

mentioned industry representatives to get approved for secret clearances and then t.s.a. provides classified briefings to those individuals. one of the new t.s.a. initiatives is to have what is called field intelligence officers, and these officers are roiveragal and local in nature and can provide that connectivity with airports and airlines to increase the efficiency of the flow of information in both directions which is a significant enhancement. >> thank you. >> next audience question. 9/11 cause add total shutdown of the u.s. aviation system. and the question is, how much progress has been made in developing a prioritized plan to control our air space if we witness significant attacks and a little of a follow i don't

know is the are the agencies partnering with other agencies within the government's security world for harmonized solution? why don't we start off with you, chris. >> you know, there have been a number of exercises that have been conducted at senior levels within the government. some that have involved industry representatives to address this very topic. and i think that there's been a lot of progress made and depending on the scenario that is going to really drive whether it's a localized shutdown or a broader shutdown. >> i think it's pretty well known that very good progress has been made by all parties. and also, i think there's a lot of things that are going on that are nonpublic and have to remain nonpublic.

depending on what the threat is. >> i would just add obviously there's been significant progress development since 9/11. i think the 9/11 commission referred to 9/11 the act as being a failure of imagination by the u.s. government to anticipate that. clearly, given lessons learned from that there's been a huge investment made in the resillsy issue frankly which goes to why the department of homeland security was created to do everything possible with partners throughout the community and private sector to prevent another terrorist attack but in the event something bad happens, either terrorist act or natural disaster, to ensure the resillsy of industry, the american people, the livelihood, the survival of people who have been affected by that attack or by that natural disaster. t.s.a. ds reason for existence is to make sure another attack doesn't happen.

in the event something does happen we have a very robust plan through the interagency to address that resillsy issue. >> it's a two-part question again from the audience. john or jane doe walk into -- i'm going to not put a brand but walk into a cargo shipping office. they pay the shipping costs and shortly afterwards the package a is air borne. how can the flight crew be assured that there's no explosive on board the aircraft and is there a move for a trusted shipper program to act in the same manner as a known crew member program? >> i'll take the first part of that. so 100% of the high risk cargo -- and we don't define that publicly for obvious reasons. we don't want to provide a roadmap to terrorists but 100%

of the high risk cargo coming into the country from foreign destinations, last points of departure, is screened. now, there's various methods screening that we all know but that's the starting point. the whole focus of a known shipper, known shipment program and national cargo security programs that we are working with other countries to recognize are key steps in implementing that along with the advanced cargo information that c.b.p. under the national targeting center utilizes. so there's a number of avenues. so the reassurance that the pilot and the flight crew, anybody on that flight has is that there are robust procedures in place now but recognizing that just as we saw with the human cargo plot we're facing a creative determined enemy who is always looking for scenes that they can get in between and -- seams that they

can get in between and because it's a cargo bomb i wouldn't anticipate it coming out of yemen, i would anticipate they would try to get it into a low-risk area that would be seen as a greater opportunity to inject into the global spy chain. >> the only thing i would add is we focused a lot on risk mitigation now cargo. and the t.s.a. through its coordination with our air carriers and its coordination with -- and training for pilots , that coordination comes into play because our operations are around the globe. not only do passenger flights originate in the u.s., they -- a lot of these flights originating overseas where the air carrier has a country will

have a responsibility for security, but the air carrier will have an increased responsibility for security and in some places the pilots' responsibility is increased. and that's why it's key that we're coordinating intelligence being -- is being gathered, communicated and we have training programs and we ensure that there's individual lint crews and company personnel on the ground in those locations. >> i think this is part and parcel of everything we've been talking about today, increased use of intelligence data, data sharing, partnership to try to figure out a problem, how to solve the problem to the best degree possible. and there's been a lot of work that's gone on between t.s.a., d.h.s., the industry, pilots and all parties involved on the cargo issue. >> earlier this year, the department of homeland security

constituted working groups and charges both government and industry representives with looking at different aspects of the cargo system with the specific task to identify recommendations in these various areas. those recommendations came back and not surprisingly one was for and in support of the development of a trusted shipper program. currently, t.s.a. customs and border protection the department and industry are working together to really flesh that out and there's some targeting initiatives that are under way in u.s. of that right now. >> thank you. >> i'll tell you what, i'm going to do one more question before i thank the panel and the question is also from the audience. and what is being asked is, perhaps we could get an update on the status of the secure flight system as well as any other risk-based initiatives out there that we haven't specifically addressd in this panel. >> the secure flight is

obviously up and running since the last fall when we became fully operational. so all individuals flying either in or through the u.s. and even we're working on some overflight issues are vetted through secure flights so we know, name, date and gender, if they are on a watch list, if they are a no fly, and selectee. and every morning starts with an intelligence briefing and we have a look ahead of all those passengers who either are wanting to fly or scheduled to fly if they're selectees. so we can actually make decisions, for example if there's two selectees on a flight we don't have federal air marshall coverage on we can adjust the schedule to make sure we do have coverage on that flight. so that's another example of intelligence being used. and what we found is that even though it was working somewhat prior to t.s.a. taking over we did see an increase in the

number of no flies that are being identified particularly from certain airlines that are not identifying many people for whatever reason. so it just gets back to the whole intelligence cycle where we are able then to take that information and for example notify my former colleagues at the f.b.i. that by the way, there's individuals travepling, sna you f.b.i. may have them under investigation but you may not know they're traveling so we've had several individuals where we've shared that information to inform their ongoing investigation. so secure flight is a significant advance in terms of intelligence and technology. >> regardless if you're a pilot, crew member, consumer walking through the airports, at one point we're all

consumers, we're all passengers, we're all coming in and leafing airports. so this stuff is just incredibly important for us to discuss. and i think it's been an incredible privilege and i hope you agree that we have the leadership here, the agents of change, the folks who really are at the tip of the spear sharing insights, answering questions, and it's been a real privilege to stand with this group up here and i hope you would agree with me. so on behalf of the airline tilets association i would like to express my sincere thanks for your part of this panel today. and i hope you enjoy the rest of the event. thank you. [applause]

>> and a special thanks to administrator pistol for swroining us today to discuss this very important topic. it's time for another break and we'll be out for 30 minutes. our next session starts in half an hour. see you then.

>> well, welcome. please have a seat. they've given me some instructions. they told me the way the speakers are arranged tonight i'm going to to stay back here and i'm hearing something in the background. are you all hearing something as well? so we've got some type of feedback going. that's better. ok. welcome. >> the whole purpose is for me to hear from you. i'm not very proud of the work

that the senate has done this year. i don't think we've addressed the real issues that are facing our country. i think we've treated lot of symptoms but not treated any disease. and i'm going to sound a little slow and a little sluggish because i'm taking all sorts of cold medicines because my grandson or granddaughter gave me a nice summer cold. so as i leave here tonight i probably won't be shaking nebraska's hands unless you want this cold. and i wouldn't recommend you have that. let me tell you my first thought is i don't think we have a problem in front of our country we can't solve. but i don't think most of the elected officials are interested in solving the problems. they're interested in addressing solutions to the symptoms that end up helping them and not us. and i know that sounds like an unfair criticism but if you look at the votes and you look at what we haven't done and

what we [inaudible] say, it's the whole maneuver in the senate by the majority leader is to get votes rather than have tough votes and go out and explain your position to your constituency there's a big difference between freedom and a real republic and a suedo republic that wants to play a game with the citizen and the electorate. so i'm unhappy with what we've been able to achieve. i've been unhappy with the fact that not hardly anybody has gone through the senate of significance. and i'm also unhappy with what went through two weeks ago actually didn't solve the problem. and let me just spend a minute on that and then we'll start with questions. the problem is not the debt limit. every time we come up against the debt limit we increase it. so that isn't the problem. the problem is we're spending money we don't have on things we don't absolutely need. congress is lazy.

it does not oversight. [applause] it does not do the job of oversight. and we have a list i think actually may even have here, if you get a chance i would recommend you go to our website, coburn.senate.gov and just look at this. this isn't a partisan attack on anybody. this is $9 trillion worth of savings that is backed up by congressional budget office studies. the office of management budget, office of inspector generals, congressional research service. it's all footnoted. pick some of it. but the fact is we can't continue to do what we're doing. and nobody is willing -- this is specific. this is a way to solve the problems in front of our country. you don't have to agree with it but at least it's a plan that will get us out of trouble. and why is that important?

we wrote it. my staff and i wrote the book. and we went through and researched every aspect of what is in that. so you can go on line and see it, you can download it. it's totally searchable format. you can look at every area. and there's revenue increases in there, there's cuts in the defense department. it's across the board. but it actually will solve our problems. and the reason that's important is i think our grandkids are important. i used toorry about just my grandkids. i don't any more. i worry about us. and the problems are that serious and that significant that we need real action and real leadership to address it. and what it will require, it will require the same thing that built our country and made it great. sacrifice on everybody's part. everybody will have to participate to solve the problems because quite frankly we've lived the last 30 years in this country off the next 30

years. off our children and grandchildren. and guess what. the credit card bill is due. and we can't go get another one to make the minimum payments. so now is the time. and it's disappointing to see the lack of leadership coming out of washington to address the real problem. and that is spending money you don't have on things you don't need. so with that, let's stop and what we're going to try to do is spend this whole time answering questions or having people have an opportunity to do that. so we've got some mikes around. where are my guys? >> my question is what you just stalked about leadership. you've got a gentlemen -- and i use that term very loosely -- holding office, the highest office of our land that openly

lied to congress. quote, the proposals that i have put in place will not be spent on people in this country illegally. one of your associates called him a liar and he was censored because of it. we've proven that tax dollars are being spent on health care of illegal aliens and the president knew that when he said that in congress. lying to congress is a criminal offense punishable by prison time. and you guys let him get by with it and you've yet to impeach him for the unconstitutional behavior and the unconstitutional laws that he is enacting. [applause] >> well, first of all, all

impeachment proceedings have to start in the house so you guys have to mean the house of representatives not us guys. number two is you may be absolutely accurate in your assessment. i'm not sure. the fact is, is i'mstill getting an echo here. the fact is we have a problem with illegal immigration and the only way you solve it is to control the border. and you don't do it any other way. and once you control the border you can solve the other situation that is have come about because of the lack of that. and that's not a republican or democrat problem. that's a problem. and by the way, the decision to spend medicaid money on illegals is an oklahoma decision and you need to be talking to your oklahoma representatives if you don't like medicaid money being spent on illegals in oklahoma. so they are the ones that chose that decision. i spent three and a half days on the border in march looking

at it. and the story that i was told by the actual border patrol versus what iffsd told by the management of the border patrol service were 180 degrees apart. so somebody's not telling the truth about the border. and i tend to side with the border patrol agents, not the administration. [applause] >> make sure we get some of the people in the middle too. >> senator, -- >> wave your hand so i can see you. >> i'm floyd bowman, sir, and i want to thank you for your time tonight. i really appreciate it. senator, i'm a proud democrat. but i am also a democrat who realizes that there are some good people in the republican party. and you are certainly one. >> thank you. >> you have proven that by your actions, you have proven it by showing that you have a heart and that you care for people, even of the other party. and i also know that you are

not a for folk fan. i have not read all 614 pages of your document but i have read the section by section outline and summary of the savings and the highlights. and senator, i want to tell you that in my opinion this is truly a historical document. i don't think anything like it has ever been done before that i know of and you and your staff should be very proud of it and you should be commended for it. i have two questions for you sir -- [applause] >> thank you. >> i have two questions, sir. you have broken to some degree the hold on the republicans in the senate. but he has a strong hold yet on the republicans in the house of representatives. my question is, do you think there's any possibility of that getting broken any time in the near future or any time? and my second question is, what

does the future hold for back in black? >> thank you. two good questions. number one, americans for tax reform, i agree with 98% of what they say. but it's like any other principled position. when you carry it to a far extreme it becomes idiotic. and what they've done is carry it to a position that number one is foolish. number two doesn't solve our country's problems. number three, puts this one person in a position to say they're going to decide what one group of people are going to do in terms of following their oath of the constitution. so the thing is, is what we ought to be doing, no matter what party you're in, is what's best for the country right now. and what's best for the country is reforming the tax code so that people like apple don't get to hide money down in the caribbean in tax shelters and g.i. who gets all these wind

credits, pays some taxes -- the fact is, is 20% of the people in this country pay 84% of the taxes. one in five pay 84%. and 51% of the people pay no taxes, no social security, and no medicare by the time you get to their tax credit, refundable tax credit. so we need to change that. and i'm willing to do that. i think we need to solve the problems in front of our country and quit worrying about what party somebody is in and quit worrying about who is in control next election. what we need to worry about is are we going to survive and the only way we do that to make the tough difficult decisions that says let's make the fair tax cut. i'd like to have a national tax and get rid of all of this. to answer your second question, you have a great staff in washington and it's recognized

by everybody else in the senate. what we put out in back in black will be a basis for what will happen in the future in our country for getting our spending under control. it is fully documented, fully researched, fully dug into and that's because people spent lots of hours going the extra mile passed what everybody else looked at and looked at the real basis of why we're spending. and just so, in case you don't know, we have 82 different teacher training programs run by the federal government. 82? why? we have 47 job training programs across nine agencies spending $19 billion a year all of those with the exception of three overlap with one another and there's not one in any of them that says they're effective in job training. why would we have 47 job training programs? we have 42 programs to teach people financial literacy. the last people who ought to be teaching anybody financial

literacy in america is the federal government. [applause] there's easily, easily 350 billion dollars that we could save in the federal government every year from waste, from fraud. there's $100 billion in fraud in medicare and medicaid and duplication and stupidty in the federal government. so that's $350 billion is 3.5 trillion. that's twice what the congress just did. and the fact is the career politicians don't want to do the hard work and make the hard choices because every one of those programs that are duplicative have a constituency out there. and they're afraid to stand up and tell them no. and you know what? we've all got to be told no. because we can't continue to borrow 43 cents out of every dollar we spend. and the answer to that is quit spending money. not borrow more. [applause]

right back up here. >> first i want to congratulate all the people here. the first town hall i went that you gave was in an abandoned school district in broken arrow and there were 35 people there maybe. it's great to see this many people interested today. i would like to make two points. one is i wish somebody would go back and teach the leadership in washington to speak plain english instead of all this washingtonees and political correctness. because in these debt talks, there wasn't one spending cut in any of the plans. you know, people sitting around the kitchen table, their definition of a cut means i'm going to spend less than i have been spending. and that's what we expect out of washington when you tell us there's a spending cut. number two, is, i would really like to see more support for

the fair tax, there's a number of things that you just discussed about a national sales tax and get over all this bickering about what company gets what tax cuts and et cetera. thank you. [applause] >> just one short comment. what they passed, what the senate and the house passed. i'm a part of it. i tend to try to run away from that every now and that. is $8 32 billion more in discretionary spending over the next 10 years. just so you know. $8 32 billion more. there's no cut. there's a $7 billion cut this year in what's called the 302 a number, the authorization for what we're going to spend on discretionary. but that's all more than made up for with increased spending on the out years. the fact is we can easily cut

spending. go talk to people who work in the federal government. our fellow oklahomaens. they do a great job. go and ask, could you cut? they would say yeah, they will. i've had them come to me. half of the fraud investigation that is we're doing now in the permanent subcommittee on investigation come from federal employees that call our office and say did you know this is going on? and so what i have is these wonderful investigators that we send all across the country when we hear from a federal employee and we go dig it out. and here's what we found on the latest one. one in 18 people in this country are getting disability. that doesn't count our veterans. 40% of them aren't disabled. and the program will be bankrupt either next year or the year afterwards. i think it's time that people who are truly disabled get taken care of and people who aren't get all the rolls. [applause]

let's make sure we go to the center, dan. i'm looking for the mike. where are you, dan? ok. come down the center here. >> yes, sir. >> all right. >> i'm steve. i want to say that i appreciate you and i'm pretty tired of people calling you dr. no. the thinking behind that is that they're rid cueling you for your votes. they're rid cueling me and they're making fun of me. i don't like that. i've got some suggestions that will save some money in our budget. bun one of the things that we could do. i did a little research and i looked at our budget. the justice department, if you take their budget comes out to $250,000 per person. they don't produce any revenue so that's just a cost that we're paying. the interior department is $279,000 per person if you take the budget and divide by the number of people.

those are hugse numbers. no company in the united states can operate when it costs that much per person. one thing we could do. i would kind of like your idea of changing the tax system. along with that, the thinking and the assumption is that it will save everybody a lot of money. well, how about we just drop three fourths of the i.r.s. people along with the rest of it. [applause] we have a system here -- >> the fair tax actually saves 110,000 employees. we would have 110,000 fewer employees in the federal government. >> i have some experience with the internal revenue service. i'm not an internal revenue service employee. >> most of the people in here do as well. >> my own expeerns is that there's a number of them that are incompetent. you can't fire them because we have a clktive bargaining agreement that prevents

incompetent people from being fired. that goes across the over agency, the f.a.a., the fcc, core of engineers, the internal revenue service, department of states, department of justice. all the federal agencies have this. you can't fire incompetent people. we need to change that. that would save a huge amount of money. >> thank you. [applause] >> all right. we'll come down into this section next. >> hello, senator. susan here. i am an avid support of you and have been to your office in d.c. a number of times to visit you. my question to you is what can we do, the people, to help you accomplish what you need to accomplish? [applause] >> susan, that's a great question. you know what, first of all let me stop for a second. i failed to thank tulsa

community college for making this available for us tonight. [applause] >> and i really appreciate all so let me do that. you have so much more power than you think you have. i gave a speech about four and a half years ago on the senate floor and the title of the speech was there's a rumble. there's a rumble occurring in america. you can hear it. you could hear the dissatisfaction. you could hear the problems that people were seeing. you could see it. well, what has happened is more and more people have become aware. and the best way i know to hold us accountable is to get everybody aware. so that people will not tolerate the incompetence and the intrangjens of washington. and so everybody in this room has family that aren't necessarily active on political events.

and i'm not talking about campaigning. i'm talking being knowledgeable and blending what you hear from the right and left and making a decision yourself rather than taking the pablum that both sides give you. and then communicating that to your family and friends not only in this state but outside of this state. it's a wonderful feeling to see a guy like ron johnson come to the senate. he as new senator from wisconsin. he built a business from the ground up. he left the business. and he doesn't care if her gets reelected again. he is running to help save our country. so he left the business, he left the family and making the sacrifice to try to change things because he knew that he was able to build that business because of the environment that this country created that he sees z at risk. so i think what you have to do is stay informed. and number two is don't be timid about communicating what you believe to be in the best interests of our future as a

country. i think we can cheat history. you know, if you look at history all republicans die. go look. and we can cheat it. we're the only republic that has ever come together that is this massive mix of everything. and we have the ability to cheat history and survive. and the way you survive is get your fiscal house in order. and your economy back running so you can project the power and competence that is necessary for our people to live in freedom. that's what has to happen. and so i -- you all control it. if you decide to sit back and not do something significant, then your children and grandchildren are going to have the impact of that. we can change it. >> thank you for being here this evening, senator coburn. i want to congratulate you on the research you did for back

in black. my comment is, until -- well first harry reid would not let you submit a bill to up or down votes to apply that. it seems to me like you're going to have to be on every sunday morning abc, cbs broadcast for the next week or two and let the people, american people know what that plan would save us in trillions of dollars. then the pressure would then be on harry reid to maybe at least give you a chance to submit the bill incorporating that. is that not possible? >> well, it's possible. but the fact is, there's a wide range of bias in the media. and they're not necessarily interested in promoting a plan that has us live within our means. they're actually more interested in presidential campaigns now which i think is the most ludicrous thing. we shouldn't even be

considering it. we have big problems in front of us and that's 14 months away. it doesn't matter what happens right now. what's happening right now is over the next three to five months is going to determine to a great extent the future of everybody in this room. and we ought to be after it. holding -- we ought to be nipping at the heels of everybody in congress to make sure they're doing that kind of work. and doing it. next comes down here we're going to have somebody on the military right here. >> right here. >> my name is roberta hill and i'm a disabled vet and i have a little bit of a problem this article that talks about the cuts that you're planning for the military. being an active military family my husband, myself and our son, part of the problem with the military is they get very little pay as it is. not only the disabled vets but

also the ones that are retiring and the ones who are active military. you plan on cutting some of their benefits and you're taking people who are already on food stamps and welfare because they can't make ends meet and you're making it even harder on them. . . more than i do. the average military retires at 21 years. during that time, they have significant benefits. that is the fact. number two, do not take what we have said in isolation.

we have said is everyone has to give. how are we going to lose our freedom? the consequences of that will be a disaster. what is the biggest thing we do? the biggest thing we do is track your prime. someone who retires for 20 years and health care for $250 a year. it has not been looked at in years. we cannot afford it. the average person is spending $1,000 a month or their employer is for health care. this is $250 a year. do not do just that, do everything. so that everybody participates. let's make sure that we keep the commitments that we are making,

not the benefits that were made as a condition of signing up. nowhere can you find the fact we made a condition. number two, let me finish. the secretary of veterans affairs signed an executive order that cost you $42 billion. what he said is no science to back this up. if you served in vietnam or korea or on a ship and you have heart disease as a veteran we will call that agent orange related and we will give you money. as a physician, i can tell you there is no correlation in any scientific study. we're giving checks out to people who weighed 300 pounds and smoke three packs a day and

not care what they eat. there is $350 we can use to take care of someone who was a real veteran and we can solve the problem. what we have done is not have an appropriate look. we are -- have just passed the bill. it is one of the best things that has happened. we can make sure that educational opportunity is greater than anybody else's. we have done all those things. it cannot look at this as one thing. you have to look it and everybody, including congress, is going to participate. >> thanks for coming to tulsa. i want to thank you for your leadership and i am proud to have u.s. our senator.

-- have you as our senator. i have one recommendation. i do not know if you have heard the name gave ramsey but you should go to washington. if you have not heard his name -- >> here is our problem. people who have been successful on not willing to sacrifice and go get criticized and ridiculed as a u.s. senator and that is one of the reasons we have problems. we have people -- there is nothing wrong with career service but when you have no firm of reference in the real world, when you have not done the things that the average american has done and you are called upon to make critical judgments about our future, -- people like dave ramsey ought to run and so should a lot of people who have refused to sacrifice. >> i have one criticism.

you're not on the republican presidential ticket. >> i have to find you. >> i read recently that the u.s. gives financial aid to a least three-quarters of the country in the world. some of those countries are openly hostile to the united states, the heinous. why do we continue to give money to those countries? >> a great question. let me give you detailed. there are 16 countries that own more than $10 billion worth of our debt. that were given -- we are giving foreign aid to. how do like that? 16 countries that on $10 billion. they are loading as money. we're giving the money back to them.

they do not need it very bad. we're going to cut everything. here is the point. this young lady is upset with me because she thinks i am singling out military. if we are solving our problems everybody gets to participate. no exceptions. where there is waste, and has to go away. where there is fraud, we have to put people in jail. where there is abuse, we have to clean it up. for there is access we have to minimize. and then we will have a country that will be worth the sacrifices that the veterans, the people who serve -- [inaudible] let me go back to one other thing. our foreign affairs is at risk

for two reasons. it is out of control on how we spend money. the best way to have great foreign affairs is to be a great economic power. if you are not an economic power, it does not matter how much money is spent. we have to do is we have to recover and embrace what is necessary for us to grow our economy. why is it that we are at 9.2% unemployment? there is no confidence the future is there so that the capital that is sitting on the sideline will come in and create opportunity and jobs and wealth for people that are looking for jobs. so we can solve those problems. it requires leadership. it is not a republican or democrat thing. it is a lack of leadership in the house. it was there with bush and

obama. where are we? wave your hand. gotcha. >> i am from oklahoma. i appreciate you being here. getting back on the military, i have sons were serving in the united states air force. i have one on his way home as we speak from afghanistan. [applause] >> thank you for your service. >> i know there has been so many who of not made a home. that is not the way we want them to make a home. i appreciate our military. not only because of my son's but my father spent 26 years in the military. my brother just retired last weekend. back in the spring, my sons were told they probably would not be paid.

paye was delayed -- it was delayed. these were young men with wives that are serving our country. never did i hear that senators or the president or anyone was willing to take the pay cut or even those -- [applause] or even those that have retired and those getting a monthly paycheck, not one time did i hear anyone say, we should give and not our military. that really disturbs me. i think it disturbs a lot of people. i realize, i have not read your book. i'm just learning about some of that.

maybe this is more of a statement but i think that all of those in the senate and house and our president should step up and say, we are willing to give and take off of however many thousands of thousands they make a year and get down to where normal people having come. >> thank you for your statement. the biggest problem is why would we allow the military to become a pawn in a debate over the future of this country? [applause] once you do that you know you do not have leadership. [applause] it is an absence of leadership. when it uses the military as a pawn instead of saying it is an exception, if you look at the constitution, the number one thing the congress is supposed

to do is to defend the country. all of the rest of it, 70% of what we do looking at the constitution is probably outside of what our standards believed ever supposed to be doing. [applause] i hear your statements. it is a lack of leadership and awareness of what is important. what is most important is when somebody sacrifices and gives of themselves. they have given. that. the point is we should never allow that type of situation where they become a pawn. we had a bill, you did not hear about it. the press does not want to to know about it. we had a bill that no matter what happens the military gets paid. nobody put on a press release on

an. not cover it. where are we? i want to thank you for your our state. grateful we have you. to take take this wrong but i think there is a feeling across the country that career politicians do not listen to wes. i find it very frustrating that a letter, i cannot send an e-mail to someone own representative or senator. i cannot get a phone call not take it from area code. there must be a secret to that. being to if i want to make a or even a senator mcconnell or someone my

representative. i feel like we are not being listened to. i am glad to hear you say we power than we think we have. one thing that would help with the term limits. [applause] i do not want you to take it would love to see the power taken away from career politicians who think they are washington forever with all of the benefits they have and they never want to leave. what did you think is the chance for a term-limit bill to make it through either house? on term limits. our founders wrote, alexander hamilton believed in rotation in office. that is another word for term limits. believe why anybody would want to be in

washington for a long period of time. i agree with them. until you take control, and i'm talking about people, you say, 12 years in the senate is plenty for anybody. is too much. i am feeling the where of it right now. maybe it's the cold but probably not. control and taken back, and i know you hear both the media. it is one of the best things happened, the tea party. [applause] awareness to know the facts about what is going on your country. then when you find out, you are aghast. the report on

which i forced to a year- ago, it will blow your mind on all the a year. from all of the bureaucracies. nobody looks to see if they are accomplishing anything. the likelihood until you enact constitutional amendment and you need 67 senators. only three of us the near-term lamented. long road to hoe. that limit, you do amendments. and on term limits and we are cooking. we're back in the saddle. >> my name is sarah. advocate for

nursing homes and residential care facilities. cuts to medicare and medicaid, i am about protecting our elderly in the medicaid and medicare facility. to know how proposes to balance the budget and still make sure our . >> that is a great question. the first question for you is you look at the constitution in the government's role to do that? [applause] is personal responsibility, not government responsibility. number three is if we're going to decided is a federal

responsibility, we should be much more efficient with medicare which has $100 billion of fraud in it. some of it through nursing extended care facility. designed be inefficient. the average medicare patient in pays in $120,000 out $350,000. how long is that going to last? part a will be bankrupt. that is the hospital portion. something has to happen. a couple of things need to happen. paul ryan to call this heat said we ought to have system where people can use markets to help get the best deal they can. him is changing medicare.

medicare is gonna change because cannot borrow money to keep running. have to change. do we have a commitment that we sure we take care frail and infirm, yes. but we also have a commitment to kids to know -- that we do not take away their opportunities. we can do it much more efficiently and effectively. spent twice as much money on care than anybody else in except one nation. 1 1/3 out of it, one that of every $3 does not help anybody get well. it does not prevent anybody from getting sick. obamacare is not the answer. [applause] my web site did with joe lieberman. bill that changes it. we make it to participate. senior citizens in this room,

for the benefit you are getting from medicare part b. your grandkids are going to pay for it. was passed by republican president so the prescription not be a part of their campaign. it tells you how sick we are. the fact is it is fine to do for seniors. who is going to pay for it? all we are doing is kicking the can down the road. who pay for it. what medicare part b is. cannot keep doing this. nobody can doubt my commitment done it for 25 years. thing you cannot say is doing the same thing and not go bankrupt. it's not that there is not a way

but you have to take fraud out of that and some the waste. took $100 billion that is out you could do lot every year. that is only about 1/4 of it. we can solve those problems. but we cannot have any one group touch me. when we start to say, and if you are nursing homes, we cannot touch me. to touch everything. it all better but we cannot have is the say, i problem but don't you touch mine. i hear a lot. [applause] i am about 100 e-mails from oklahoma. years old. live off the social security

and medicare. some of that. thank you very much. that is the spirit that built america up. that is what we need. we do not have everyone sang because a lot of people are giving. we need that spirit coming back. where are we? >> good evening, senator. you for being here. i appreciate your service. warren buffett made a strong chiding congress for coddling the rich. he made a strong case that increasing taxes on the very harm investments and would be good for the country. what are your thoughts on these views? can money as he wants to tomorrow. [applause]

if you took everybody who made to injured 50,000 and above -- not touch one-fourth of art that. 28% bigger than it was today and. have a government we cannot afford. do before we eliminate stupidity is to raise taxes on people. [applause] >> my name is william. thank you for coming to tulsa. on that note, there is a goa report that says 55% of the companies in the united states

pay zero taxes. if you were in this truman had a job, would you be more taxes than those corporations? how do you propose getting that money back from the corporations that, for example oil. you mentioned on hardball during a debate that you were open to wind and farm subsidies and ethanol. what about the billions that oil companies get in tax break stacks >> i am so glad you asked the question. i think it is great. how many of you know what the average oil and gas companies is in oklahoma and the nation? 41.5%. it is the highest of the standard and poor's 500.

of all the a depreciation of all the taxes that tinges of everything, tax credits and everything else, the oil industry gets less than 8%. the tax credits they do get, they do not get tax credits, they get depreciation. here's where the lack of knowledge is in america. the oil and gas industry actually pays the same taxes without it. they just pay it later. because they are a capital- intensive business there requires -- so they can expense that. a ultimately they pay the same taxes. that is the only benefit we give. 92% of all the tax credits and deductions for energy go to wind, ethanol, thermal, the vast

majority did of it does not go to the oil and gas. you see what happens? let me tell you how we solve the problem. we ought to have the lowest corporate tax rate in the world. [unintelligible] [applause] so we get rid of it. i am one of the few republicans have said if we can solve their problems here is going to have to be increased revenue. that means a smart tax system that will grow the economy and eliminate special interest favors for industry whether it is hollywood or whatever. [applause] so if you go back in the black you can see, everybody has to participate. you have all of the special

things in the tax code that have been lobbied for. get rid of all of them. i do not want misinformation on energy. the biggest tax credits could to win. that is why g.e. did not pay any taxes. why should it ge not pay any taxes? i cannot understand that. i do not it think anybody can. i think you are right. we ought to be fair. but let's be truthful about what the facts are rather than because we're tired of gasping for dollars a gallon we're going to beat up on an industry that has provided us a value and several million jobs and can provide a ton more jobs if we were allowed to drill and get the resources off our own land. [cheers and applause]

we are the only nation in the world's to have the amount of energy we have. it is greater than all of the combined in china, -- and saudi arabia. our government will not let us have our resources because we have an agenda that says we cannot. that is stupid right now. [applause] we need to come back to the center because i'm not sure we treated people in the center fairly. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. i appreciate your candor. we need more of that. i look at you as a leader regardless if i agree with you all the time. >> you are like my wife. >> i appreciate you.

my question is not to get down in the weeds. i am a ceo and i have some specific policy questions i would like to talk about. tonight i want to ask, i ask you over a year ago a question regarding the leadership and what was going on in congress. it only got worse. i was half-hearted the asking last year but i am serious tonight that what i see happen throughout history is that society's crumble from within. that is what i'm afraid of for my own children. not for me. i have had the honor and privilege of working with david petraeus. i was part of the invasion force. we lost our daring as soldiers for a little while. the commander straighten this out and said you represent

something magnificent. you represent the united states of america. you must maintain your bearing regardless of what is going on. we were with people who had good information involved in the murder of soldiers. we had to maintain our bearing. we had to make sure the mission was accomplished. we sucked it up. i do not see that in congress today. i see too much bickering and pettiness. i see them maintaining their bearing. it is not happening in congress. my message is go back to congress. tell them the people said it straightened up, get your bearings and do the right thing for the american people. we are afraid of what is going to happen if you do not do the right thing today. [applause]

>> i appreciate your integrity. as we came in, there was a contract for the american dream passed out as is -- as if it were your endorsement. >> i have no idea -- >> i think everybody got one. maybe i should put it in the trash can on the way out. [applause] [unintelligible] >> we're coming right down here. >> every american between now and snowfall should read a book

that was written in the 1950's by a russian immigrant called "atlus shrugged." it tells everything that is happening in our country. the big worry i have is you do not leave a dog in tehe hen house. [laughter] [applause] it did not take much precedence to realize that she did not invest in the financial industry before it bursts. it was predicted by everybody that it is coming. it was caused by congress passing the community reinvestment act.

it sat upon a malignancy in wall street or they were investing in strange derivatives that nobody had any faith in. it is still going on. we are forcing banks to lend money to people who cannot possibly pay it back. why don't we get rid of that act? it has caused all of the problems we have today. >> the community reinvestment act was the basis behind on the previous discrimination. which was real. i am not sure there is evidence of that today other than economic discrimination. especially as we find ourselves today. i don't know why we can get rid

of it. i think we compound our problems with the dodd frank bill because we did not fix a fannie mae or freddie mac. you're going to about ham -- have about 400 million more that we're going to have to pay. congress would not -- going back to the constitution. what does it say? is there anyplace to said it is congress to make sure you have a home? no. you have congress pushing fannie mae and freddie mac. every time we get away from this document we put our future at risk. it was not perfect and it needs to be changed to one of the things i have done over the past seven years is spending time reading the federalist papers.

madison and monroe when jefferson and hamilton and reading what they said. we are so far from what they thought we should be doing. it is amazing. i do not know how to answer your question other than to say you are correct. but we have to have some way to guarantee we do not read a line of districts in terms of investment. -- red line districts in terms of investment. we can prevent discrimination without being stupid. the last question and then i'm going to go eat dinner with my family. >> good evening. my name is christian and i am here on the -- on behalf of the alzheimer's association. thank you for your support in the past. i would hope you would agree that alzheimer's disease has

become not only a public health crisis but an economic crisis as well to the tune of $183 billion annually. more as a baby boomers entered the medicare system. i wanted to say, thank you for supporting funding for the national institute of health but for holding the institute accountable for returning important data to us. i implore you to support the alzheimer's breakthrough act which holds people accountable to finding whatever amount it is we need to combat this terrible disease and also the hope for alzheimer's act which improves diagnosis, cure planning, and advanced measures. can we count on you?

>> the answer is no, you cannot. here is my philosophy. i think we should have the best national institute of health and the world. and we do. it is to have times the size it was 12 years ago. the last thing we need is special-interest groups telling the scientists where they need to go. francis collins who did the genome project is a good friend of mine. i had dinner with him a few weeks ago. he said police do not pass any more laws telling us what we have to do. let us follow the science to solve the greatest solutions. it is right. i love the advocates for all of the disease. my mother has alzheimer's.

she recently died. the ms patients and the packer attic -- pancreatic cancer patients. we have so hurt the nih because all the congressmen are telling the scientists what they need to be doing. when i think we ought to do is back off and say, you are charged with taking on this new science and helping the most people to the greatest extent can to let you decide what is important based on what you see as progress. [applause] so i am supportive and i am on the latest research, especially the inhibitors and

other things going them to decide. some of them are and some of their are not. is, that is great. you have my support. but it is telling them what you you will do it, support that. i want to scientists to go where the path is to find it years. -- the cures. i'm going to finish out. for being here. is rewarding to see this many people. you may have heard a lot of goofy. you have an obligation to tell me where you think i am wrong. rather than get mad and walkout me an e-mail. read every e-mail the comes in my office.

[applause] you will ultimately get an from me but it takes me a mails as well as be a senator. lot of time goes into preparing the answer back for you. heard something you with, let me know. coburn.senate.gov. if you're out of state, i will take my time. represent people from other states. i represent my oath to the constitution. sometimes you will not like the get a you can guarantee it is my answer. [applause] you have been great. god bless you and could night.

>> ruy teixeira at the >> good afternoon >> and welcome to the fourth american enterprise debate. my name is karlyn bowman and i'm a senior fellow at a.i. paul ryan and david brooks inaugurated this series with the debate on how much government is good government. we had a recent debate on whether social medias destroy friendships. you can see all of these debates on the a.i. website. the idea behind the debates is to offer a simple provocative question and bring two of the best people to discuss it.

executing this is no small task. i'd like to salute my a.i. colleague who's sitting in the corner and kristin, who works in a congressional liaison shop for working to make this particular debate a reality. i'm excited to be mono-- moderating today. the topic of an emerging democratic is central to what i'm trying to do. but i wear another hat. i'm an amateur historian of the institute . today's hyperpartisan environment threatens to united mine that important role. i expect our two debaters today probably disagree on many things

but they have a deep respect for knowledge and history. ruy teixeira and michael barone are here. their interpretations differ but they share a debate that debate can be civil and that think tanks such as ours can play a role. in 1969 arlington house published a book that made a very big impression. the emerging republican majority was written by kevin phillips. after graduating harvard law school, phillips came to washington to work on capitol hill for a republican congressman. we went to -- he went to work for the nixon candidate in 1968 and dedicated this book to nixon and john mitchell. who was then nixon's campaign manager. i'm quoting from the book,

american history, politics, and soleology that converge at the ballot box. phillips believed in the cyclical theory of american politics, arguing that there were clear cycles of ideology, populism and region little. in 1828, 1860, 1836 and 1932 before it had been. he did not believe the republicans had create add new majority? 1968, simply that the ingredients were there. phillips' emerging republican majority was centered in the south, the west and middle american urban and suburban districts. he believed we were seeing the beginning of a new rennera. it emerged full blown in 1982. in their 2002 book, ruy teixeira and his co-author argued that we

are at a similar turning point but one that will yield very different results from one that kevin phillips predicted. they believe that the rennera is over and we are seeing an emerging democratic majority. the first sign could be seen with president clinton's victory. ross perot's independent candidacy. teixeira and judith argue that unlike past realignments, this realignment would be more gradual with forward motion and backsliding along the way. realignments happen, they argue when a new majority wins over voters from its rival party. they argue that majority co-lies are not necessaryly homogenous

and they use the metaphor of an old city that is periodically rebuilt. the city may still be recognizable by its new structures and streets but also contains older structures. it includes reagan and bush democrats but also includes three groups that are coming a larger and more powerful point to have electorate. arguing against the prop schism is my a.i. colleague, michael barone. he believes that we are now in what he calls an era of open field politics, where neither party will be dominant for very long. the ground rules for this debate -- each debater will present five-minute opening argument, after which a bell will ring and you will all hear the bell. then we'll have a 25-minute question and answer period, i time when i hope you will send questions on paper to the front of the room to daniel hanson

sitting over here. just pass the questions up. you can also submit your questions on twitter using the hashtag a.e.i. debate and after wards we'll have five-minute closing states. let the debate begin, ruy. >> thanks, karlyn, for that excellent introduction and summary of my book. it was actually completely accurate, which is not always the case. are we going to get like not only the bell but like intermediate levels? ok. just checking. so what is the claim then that we're discussing here today? i think it's good to get some clarity on it. i'll take this from the flier which i think was taken from something i wrote. american demock if i is shifting

in a direction that would permanently benefit the democratic party. i don't believe in permanent re structure you arings of american politics. one thing that michael has written is that there are no permanent jorptse in american politics. i don't think that's very realist you can to expect at all. there's no permanent majority in the long term because social structure changes, politics change. parties readjust stages adjust to fit the circumstances and nobody is secure forever. even a dominant party will not win all elections. maybe only 55% or of%. so in that sense, too, there's not a permanent majority even in the short term. i want to take that off the table. nor do i embrace lask or hard line theory.

there are these peer roddick 36-year cycles which shift american politics in like a dozen ways that produce a completely new era and party system. i think that is empirically suspect as well. i think michael agrees with me. we've both read and enjoyed david mayhew's theory. but i do want to argue that if not a permanent or 36-year majority for the democrats we do have ape a demographic lean to the democrats and a i think we'll have for some time to come. oh, my god, only three minutes left. the demographics. minorities. 92% of population growth in the last decade according to the census bureau was normentse. they're going up about half a point a year. they're vote 75% democratic and

by 2040, we'll probably be a so-called majority-minority nation. the whites are going down half a point a year, but not all whites are the same. the white working class, which is far more conservative is going down at the rate of 3/4 of a percentage point a year. so three points over a four-year presidential cycle. like college graduates are increasing their share by about a quarter point a year. that is very important to keep in mind and it highlights the difficult situation for the republicans. their chief con stitch owens si is declining rapidly. you're shifting out -- in friendly democratic voters for unfriendly republican voters. now over the short term, of course, it is possible for the republicans to thread the needle

by just upping their share of the white working class vote to ever more astronomical levels and that's essentially what they did in 2010, along with some decline among democratic con stitch owens si. let me zoom to the question of generation. we do have the rise of a new generation, called the my lem yum generation from 1978. if you look at 2008, that was the peeng -- peak of their party idea advantage for the democrats. i'd say average over those two points, and you get about a 20-point party idea advantage that is right democrats. that's a big difference. there are four million eligible voters coming into the electorate each year and eventually they'll be roughly 2/5 of the voters. some key sup groups of women, which are strongly democratic are growing.

single women, highly educated women. single women are approaching about half of adult women at this point. professionals the fastest major occupational group. seculars are the fastest growing religious group. by the 2020's there'll be almost 1/4 of adults. in fact, by 2040 we will no longer be a white christian nation. they'll only be 1/3 of the population of the united states. gee grarvingly we'll see a trend of all these in the most fastest growing metropolitan areas of the united states. so in conclusion, demographic changes is real profound and tends to favor the democrats. i believe it will affect the republicans too by forcing them over time to move to the center. however, it must be stressed by

the democrats converging coalition needs to be effective government. which has dramatically impeded the state of the economy at this point. even a nonmodernized g.o.p. can fare well. but i don't believe such approach is stable over the long term. the country is changing. the grand old party must change with it or they'll leave the democrats to ream the uncontested benefits of social change. thank you. >> i remind you to please send your questions to the front. >> well, thank you very much, and i want to slule ruy teixeira for his courage in making an argument for a permanent democratic majority after the 2010 election and his very fine book that he and john judeas co-authored was published just

before the 2002 election, which turned out to be republican victory. i reviewed that for national review and after a couple of cheap shots about the 2002 election, i think i came to the conclusion that this was a serious and interesting book and a worthwhile analysis of the american elector rate and i think that's true of the points that he's making now. since that book first appeared, we have seen, in fact, democratic majorities emerge pretty strongly in the elections of 2006 and 2008. they, in many ways resembled the demographic protections that ruy and john set out in their book. but we've also seen a republican majority emerge in the election of 2010, a majority that bears a considerable resemblance to the republican majorities in the elections of 2002 and 2004, and

i think in some ways if you look at the numbers and use the metric of popular vote for the house, which since the mid 1990's, i think has been unlike previous decade, a good proxy for basic partisan preference, 2008 and 2010 are for the moment, at least, book marks with the 2008 being the maximum democratic result we've seen in the last decade and a half and 2010 being the maximal republican result we've seen in that period of time. in think introduction to the almanac of american politics, i took seriously after the election of 2004 the claims of republicans like karl rove and others that a natural republican majority and enduring republican majority was emerging from the 51% republican victory of 2004. 51% was the pop percentage for george w. bush and republicans in the house popular vote. i think it was 50.

i took series -- seriously after the election of 2008, the claims of democrats, including the political philosopher james carville that a natural democratic majority had emerged from the barack obama, democratic house popular vote, 54%. in retrospect, i wish i'd taken these claims less seriously. in both cases they were cast into considerable doubt by off-year elections, which president bush characterized as a thumping, which i think can be characterized in 2010 in the same way. and the fact is that those -- james carville protected 40 years of democratic dominance. the cheap shot to that that is

that it lasted 40 months. no election is final. i take a skeptical view to the idea that there are emerging majorities. one reason is that i think that changes in demographics are unlikely to achieve the magnitude necessary to give one party a natural majority and consign the other to minority status over a period of time, as democrats arguably were a majority from 1932 to 1968. republicans arguably a natural majority from 1896 to 1930. i think demographic change are just not enough to do it. ruy has mentioned some of those demographic changes. i have looked at some demographic trends in the past which i thought favored to favor republicans. some of those have not worked out as much as i thought, so far. republican conservatives tend to

have more children than liberals. on the other hand, as ruy points out, the my lenal generation has come in, people born since 1988 or 1980 have come in as a more democratic or less republican group than the older age group so. that projection did not pan out as i thought. i do think that some of the friends that-year seeing may come to an end. projections of the racial composition of the american population tend to be based on the idea that the near future will resemble the recent decade of the past but i think it's entirely possible that we're seeing a -- we certainly have seen during the recession period an end of hispanic migration. the mexican government issued a report last week saying that the net migration from mexico from the previous year was zero.

that's a lot different from the numbers webb seeing, 500,000 to 800,000 a year. whether that's going to come back, we don't know. looking back at migrations and immigrations in american history, people have predicted neither their beginning nor anywhere end. the number of professional women working. maybe it's not increasing, certainly not in the recession. so that -- i think that in conclusion that those demographic changes, we're not assured that they're going to continue at the level that we've seen in the past and even if they do, i think there are of marginal affect on the whole electorate. thank you. >> ruy and michael, thank you for very concise interesting presentations and please send your questions to the font of the room if you have them. if i don't get any questions to the front i'll be able to ask

all the questions myself. >> are we supposed to do >> there has got to be some order in this country as it sank slowly into the sea. i am not talking about a permanent majority. i never used the term permanent majority. i did not use it in my book. it is intellectually unsound and suspect. i have never written a book,

james carville did, 40 years of democratic dominance. he means well. he does not pay as close attention to things as he might. let's leave it at that. it is not my position that we have a permanent majority. i am talking about a demographic lean for the democrats that will continue for years to come. michael is right. they might not continue. the question is, what is more probable? and that they will continue or they will not? a lot of people thought over the course of the last decade that after the dust settled, when we got the census data from 2010, maybe we would see a slowdown in the ratio changes in the united states. we did not. we sought a a slight speed up. as far as the eye can see, i

think we will continue see the transformation and diversification of the american electorate. that favors the democrats. michael mentioned whether this takes into account possible fluctuations in emigration. they do to some extent. there is some economically driven decline in emigration. the economy will eventually come back. that will probably start to increase immigration. the race projections are not as driven by immigration. they are driven by fertility. hispanics tend to have much higher fertility that white americans. it is hardly because of that that hispanics are supposed to increase substantially over the next few decades. the immigration issue, while complicated, does not speak to the fertility issue. it is pretty solid.

a lot of what michael is saying is that the world is on certain. there are no inevitable outcome is in american politics. there are outcomes that are more likely than others. i think that there are coalitions that are growing and coalitions that are declining. on average, that should benefit the party that demographic trends are feeding into. it has a more natural majority coalition should they do better than the party that is not. i want to stress that there was an important interaction with governments. there is an important interaction with the state of the economy. the emerging, and demographically driven coalition. they need to address the

problems that they have set out to do in education and so on. i think they made a start on it. what is getting in the way is that we all know about it. we only talked about the deficit. the other thing is the state of the economy. it is very difficult to consolidate a coalition when the economy is as bad as it is. when the democrats can put together a stronger performance on the economy and put together a new model for the economy, i believe they are in an excellent position to consolidate what was put forward today. andy, more or less, the dominant party for some time to come. i do not mean that in every election. i do not believe it will be a permanent majority. moving forward, for a period of time, for this decade, we are looking at a situation where

the democrats should be in a pretty strong position. is that about five? ok. >> let me just look at a couple of categories that we talked about here. he talked about race or non- whites. one thing he has admitted in his writings that not all non- whites vote the same way. there is some assumption that people of color will vote 90% democratic like blacks have since 1964. black voters continue to be very heavily democratic. one has to say that the long- term outlook is that we are not going to see as high a black

turnout or democratic percentages that we will see every game like in 2008 or 2012 when president obama is up for reelection. i think that will be a high point for the democratic party in 2008 or 2012 or both. hispanics, the record is mixed when you look that different states. you see different responses. you see a house popular vote for the hispanics 60-38 democratic in 2010. that is not a killer margin for the republicans. rick perry, the governor of texas, who has attracted some attention recently, got 39% of hispanic votes in texas. that is a pretty good number for a republican. gov. rick scott of florida won

50% of hispanic votes. without hispanic votes, and he would not have one. the democrat would have won. malty hispanic voters in florida are cuban. not an overwhelming percentage. they are concentrated in heavily democratic states. california, maryland, new jersey, massachusetts. an interesting datapoint, chris christy carried woodbridge and edison townships in new jersey. that is the highest percentage of people from india in the united states. that is an interesting datapoint. they did not favor gov. corzine's policies. on data, we are seeing a flocs. party id, according to pugh

research, from 60-32 democratic to 52-39 democratic in 2011. as is often the case of young voters, there is more movement as they gain experience and build on the initial thoughts that i have had on politics. s. i have thought for some time that there's a tension between how millennial is and younger voters lead their lives. with their own ipod playlists, facebook pages, designing their own future, and one size fits all, welfare policies of the obama democrats that want to stop everybody in one category. that is a tension that the republicans have done little, but not enough, to exploit. they can dump those numbers on

young voters as definitive as to where they will be for all time. the democrats start with the lead. i do not think that is overtakeable. you see the baby boomers and the 1970 to exit poll and how they are voting today. -- 1972 exit poll and how they are voting today. there was some validity to that when you look at the districts they were carrying. they carried a majority of the votes in the south but not in the other three regions of the united states. you look at the 2010 results. it looks like a republican country from the george washington bridge to the donner pass. the fact is that if you look at house seats, barack obama carried 28 districts with 28% or

more of the vote. john kerry carried at the zero districts with 80% of the votes. republican votes are more spread around more districts than democratic votes because of demographic concentration and for the prevailing interpretation of the voting rights act. that gives democrats some disadvantages in house elections. >> now we will get this order right and turn to questions from the audience. some questions that i have of my own. i would like to begin with a question that recently said, i would like both of you to answer this, this was the best friend that democrats had. geography was the best friend that republicans had. >> you can go ahead and start.

>> there is something to that. joe is an old friend. i suspect you have known each other for some time. he set out the case ford tomography been the democrats' friend. my argument is that is marginal. people of color are not nearly as democratic as black americans have banned since 1964. black americans probably will not be back quite democratic after 2012. demography works that way as well. geography, there is a concentration of democrats -- when she was referring to the fastest-growing metro areas, l.a., new york, san francisco. >> those are the biggest. columbus is growing faster than cincinnati. >> you have got more of a white

collar liberal. >> you have an organization of even the outer suburbs in a lot of these metro areas. >> we saw a shift back in 2010 in many of these areas. ousting a democratic congressman. she was cut loose and abandoned. art on the ice flow before the election. >> i love the metaphors. >> i do think that it is at least a minor disadvantage for democrats. they have the university towns. they have the city's central areas. you look in northern virginia and you look at the high rise buildings in arlington. somebody call me that they are infested with obama of voters. there is an ad -- advantage there. in terms of carrying a whole state of virginia, you are

limited to the number of districts you have. you are limited to whether you can summon the enthusiasm from these constituencies. i think the presidential candidates are thinking about this in terms of 2012. >> the demography is pretty straightforward. i will say a word about the geography. i am not so sure that i buy that geography is on the other side of the scales. when you look at where america is growing fastest, the metro areas that are the most dynamic, you will typically find the democrats over time have been doing better in the areas that are fast-growing than the areas that are still growing. in areas where they are declining are the areas where the gop typically holds their strength. if you look at most metro areas, it was believed that if

you have fast growth, it must be because it is on the suburban fringe. we know that they can be relatively conservative. that must benefit the republicans. when you look of the aggregate, typically, the suburbs that lean democratic produce much of the population growth. you look at the outer suburbs. they are tending to become more educated. they are becoming minorities over time. even if they remain conservative overall, the average level of support for the gop is dropping and the level of support for the democrats is increasing. it is an extra couple from the democratic trends. they will win every seat in every metropolitan area. >> the fastest growing areas are still the experts.

democrats in prince william county and northern virginia. democrats did carry those. they move towards the republicans. you look at the ex-urban areas in metro air -- metro atlanta, they tend to be very heavily republican. except for areas with a large black population. >> i am not saying that they're becoming democratic. i am saying that they are less republican than they used to be. when they go from 80% republican to 60% republican, it is mathematically the same number of votes. >> stronger on 2008 results and 2010 results. >> both of you have expressed skepticism about classic realignment. . are they mostly demographic

facts -- demographic? >> when you look at an election mike 2008 and you see the distribution of votes by state and region within the state, you see significantly different patterns emerging. that is a sign. one of the things we see emerging, is that they consolidate their hold over their voters. we clearly see more of their voters. we also see some groups like professionals. we see them making big inroads among more educated white voters. college-educated whites used to be pretty solidly democratic group. they are not any more. they are now quite a contest that group. many states lean towards the democrats. they will continue to be contested. it is a big change to go from

strongly republican to contested. this demographically driven lean towards the democrats. it is so vexed. >> some indicators of gradual change. >> he made reference to the book "a la coral realignment." >> is that not a fun book? >> he looks at the arguments that various people, walter, james have made that everything changes in 1800, 1828, 1896, 1932. kevin reference that in his book in 1968. by the mid-1990s, arthur/enter and others looking at their watch and saying it is time for realignment.

we are due for one because it is generational. you look at the various indicators of realignment and find that there is less there than we have seen. what he does concede in that book is that very major events and issues that cut to the heart of people's concerns in life make a difference in voting behavior. the elections of 1860 and 1932 or examples where those things come into play. you see a different party alignment. party60's preceded by instability in the 1850's that we have not seen in our history. by an economic collapse we have not seen before. >> do you think the democrats can change as the republican party becomes more moderate?

>> i think that over time, it is quite possible and probable. for reasons i outlined in my initial presentation, these trends are big, long standing. i do believe they will continue for quite a while. the mathematics mean that the republicans have to develop a new look over time. right now, i think they are intransigent, absolutely fire breathing stance towards the democrats and everything they stand for works pretty wealth when unemployment is at 9% and people have lost faith in the united -- a democrats' ability to manage the economy. i think this is not going to work over the medium to long term. the republicans will have to move to the center on social issues. they will have to drop their stance that all government spending and only cutting taxes for the very wealthiest

americans is the only possible way to produce economic growth. that is not sustainable. >> i would take a different view of what be more moderate means. i am not disagreeing with the argument that the republicans and democrats need to have an incentive in the electoral system to change their circumstances overtime. the democrats have come up with a series of public policies that as we speak today our widespread majorities as a failure in stimulating economic growth. that will not necessarily be a permanent verdict. it might cause democrats to do some rethinking. one of the things i have noticed is that in the last three presidential alexian's, the percentage of votes for each party's candidate for president

has tracked within 1% or so of for the popular vote for the house the two years preceding is. this was preceded by a 2006 thumping of the republicans. an upsurge in 2002. it was a virtual tie by the house popular vote in 2008. the exception to that rule is the preceding cycles where bill clinton did significantly better than the democrats did in the house election of 1994 when they got 45% of the vote. bill clinton got 39%. he was probably at about 51%, maybe 52%. i do think one of the interesting things for both parties is we have not seen any time recently what we saw when

presidents johnson, nixon, and reagan were reelected with percentages from 59%-61%. i attribute that to the culture war nation -- nature of our politics. each party is unacceptable to parts of our electorate. that was not the case from 1964- 1984. one party was acceptable to a wider spread number of people. >> i will get two questions from the audience. by the end of the decade, while the state of texas be majority republican or democratic? i first read this in the "economist." to the exit polls tell us anything about second, third, fourth generation hispanic voters? how will they be voting in 50

years? >> i have been hearing predictions -- you can go back to southern politics in the 1940's. texas was going to have a majority of working at blacks and latinos. it has not happened yet. rick perry was going up against a serious, competent democratic opponent by what has bend the default number in texas elections, 55-44 republican. that will stick because texas republicans have adapted to the latino voters. at the polls, i do not think they have distinguished between second, third, and forth. >> i have seen some. the question about texas, will texas be blue at the end of this

decade? i tend to doubt that. i think it will be more competitive because of the population changed dynamics that are taking place in texas. we know that the minority population is continuing to grow there. you look at the fast-growing metropolitan areas and you see an increasingly friendliness to the democrats, especially in places like dallas and houston. with the strongholds of texas republican is some are in the rural areas where population growth is not taking place. over time, this will shift taxes in a direction that is amenable to true party competition. it might be a heavy lift to say it will be blue by the end of the decade. we know nothing about second, third, fourth generation that hispanics by the exit polls. we know from other surveys that

there is actually not a huge difference between a native-born and a later generation hispanic and those who are immigrants. immigrants tend to be somewhat more democratic. they are also less likely to vote for many reasons. native-born hispanics had a 32- point advantage for the democrats. that is not too shabby and i will take that over the long term. >> you can tell that they are a little bit more republican than catholic hispanics. >> we have time for a few more. this has been attributed to tertial. if you are not a socialist at 20, you have no heart. if you are not a conservative at 40, you have no head. >> the baby boomers are voted about 50-50 for nixon-mcgovern

in 1972. a big democratic year. that's same age group was going 50-49, republican. they did change. it is fascinating to watch the cultural issues that have been a factor. california had a referendum on marijuana that the baby boomer generation voted yes. as they got older, they would vote no. on medical marijuana, they have been supportive as they get older. questions on gay rights, the question is that young voters are hugely in favor of same-sex marriage. will they continue to be that as they grow older? will this be one more issue where they grow conservative? i think it will continue to be liberal as they go forward. it has happened to the baby boom

generation to a considerable extent. not on all issues. >> the baby boomers were never as pro-democratic or liberal as the generation is today. it is important to differentiate between early and late baby boomers. there is a pretty important difference between them. early baby boomers tend to be much more democratic. they are the second most part of the democrat -- generation after the millennial. that is not clear that baby boomers have changed over time once we take into account the differentiation between generations. will the millennial stay liberal? i think on social issues, the concept is that as they get older and they are more likely to be married that they will throw gay marriage over the side is ludicrous.

i do not think that will happen. this is an indelible change in american politics. these issues are going to go away pretty rapidly over time because of the change in the electorate. they will not change as they get older. this will drive this issue out of politics. i think we will see it in this decade. there will be local fights in some states. >> the boomers are the first generation where the college people have been more democratic than the gi generation. the noncallable boomers have been more republican than gi generation. the non-college folk. >> that sounds right. that sounds about right. >> the other question, while democrats not lose ground if they did not get more people out there defending their president?

the only president that is defending his policies? >> is a question about what obama should do it? >> his spokespeople. >> maybe this is an directly the question about, are people on the left harassing him too much instead of supporting him? it has been difficult for his most ardent supporters and most active people at the base to get out there and defend the president when he spent six months of cutting deals with the republicans on deficit and debt reduction and did not mention the word jobs for a couple of hundred days. that was discouraging to people. as he does that, at his spokespeople will be out there in greater force. >> what is the role of voter turnout in your democratic majority desist?

-- thesis? >> he has a whole section where he tries to say that a high turnout is not with the realignment majorities and so forth. it is hard to make that case. there is some sort of correlation between elections where we see this majority emerge and turn out to get higher. i do not expect to see an outpouring of high turnout. the most volatile constituencies will be youth. there are multiple barriers to them participating in alexian's. we should not count on that as something we will see. a 10-point turnout in voter turnout. progress on emigration would help. >> we are in a high-turnout era.

the biggest difference was between 2000 and 2004. turnout was up 16%. that was a republican year. turnout grows somewhat less between 2004 and 2008, but obviously benefited democrats. >> how long will it take to produce a political center in the united states? do the trends that you discussed make it harder? >> it depends on what you say about a political center. he would argue that there's a centre coalition. i would argue that there is a center-left coalition. you hear it a lot and you read a lot in political writing. there is a center that is different than what the democrats are or what the republicans are. they are for washington working better and reducing the deficit. they do not really care about

social programs. they do not just want to cut taxes. i think the center is a bit mythical. i think that most people lean towards eager to republicans are the democrats. i think the question is which side is going to do a better job presenting their case to activate their coalition? most people who are moderates, moderates tend to lean towards the democrats. people that are moderate in this country tend to favor the democrats. they tend to have the same views on social issues that democrats tend to have. the idea that there is democrats, republicans, and the centrists is just not true. it is not work using as a tool of political analysis. >> when you look about golden era of when it democrats and republicans got together over a drink of whiskey or some non-

adult beverage, it is like chasing a mirage. the 1960's we had riots in the streets. we had southern turmoil. the 1950's, you have mccarthyism. the 1940's, the isolation debate. >> this is the era of good feeling. >> everybody wants everybody to agree with them. the fact is what we have seen over the past couple of years is a leader taking -- leaders taking political risks for policies that i thought were good for the country. george w. bush on iraq for the surge. obama on obamacare. in the short run, those that collect losing bets. >> is there a conservative version of john stuart and

stephen colbert as young people to accept this satire as non by its political analysis? >> i am yet to find stephen colbert funny. i could give you a few youtube clips of stewart being tough on obama and the democrats. at least sometimes, he is an equal opportunists satirist. >> i think a fair minded observer would have to say that both of those guys, if did not vote democrat, i would lose my hat. why are there not republican equivalents? i think it is partly because of the ambiance of that kind of humor. that way of talking about the news is not a comfortable fit for today's republican party. >> what about "the simpsons"? do they that take on liberals

and conservatives? >> they are more truly equal opportunity. speaking to the comedy central type of stuff. >> we will now speak to closing statements. >> we have covered a lot of ground in this debate. it has spent fun. i hope i have convinced you are making consider the idea that we do have a demographic leaned in the electorate towards the democrats that is likely to be here for some amount of time. michael has raised a number of questions about my thesis. i cannot cover them all here. one issue that is worth dwelling on is that minorities continue to vote heavily towards the democrats. will platts continue to favor the democrats by 90% or so. they might not in 30 years or

so. in the short term, i would be surprised if there was a lot of change. we saw it before barack obama and we would like to see it afterward. hispanics are a more debatable issue. in 2010, hispanics were only 60-38 for the democrats. that is a little bit subpar compared to the 2008 performance. 2010 net was a year that a lot of democratic margins were compressed. it is worth noting, and this is a technical dispute, a couple of very good academics who study this issue make very strong arguments that the exit polls tend to underestimate the strength of the democratic vote among hispanics. that estimate may have been a little bit of an underestimate. we will leave that aside.

some hispanics are less democratic than other hispanics. there are some communities and some states that at times will show a far lower level of democratic voting that we typically see. that should not surprise us. they are tendencies. they are probabilities. if inouye nothing else about an area and you guessed it two-one -- two to one of votes for hispanics for democrats, you would probably be right. florida is considered one of the most conservative states considering hispanics. that is driven by cuban- americans. there is a change in the mix of hispanics in florida. cuban americans are becoming a lower mixed overall. we are seeing younger hispanics being more liberal than their

older counterparts. this is going to benefit the democrats. you mention the concentration in certain states. the interesting fact is that if duquette the census data, hispanics are growing all over the united states in lots of places you would not expect to see them. some of their highest growth rates would be in conservative southern states. they are concentrated now in certain states. they may continue to be concentrated in certain states. they are growing all over the country. they are becoming an electorally significant minorities. they will definitely continue in my view. michael mentioned that the millennials may fluctuate with their proclivities. for the democrats, that is true. i think it will go back up when the political situation changes

a little bit. the average level of party advantage is 20 points. if it is around 20 points, that is a significant bump in the scale for the democrats. we will see that until 2018. we have not seen a switch in loyalties of the younger and older voters in this generation. how many minutes do we have? one minute. there are a number of points in our discussion. 2010 was a different election. you look at the demographic trends and some of the variations in the vote, republicans did quite a bit better in 2010 than they did in 2008. we sought a compression of democratic margins among their stronger groups.

we also sought a falloff in turnout among younger voters, minorities, and so on. in the 2010 election, we saw more older voters turned out that are leaning more conservative. that is part of the reason we are doing better. ask yourself this question. if you had to take a bet on what the electorate of the united states would look like 10 years from now, will this look like the voting electorate of 2010 or the voting electorate of 2008? what we will likely see as this decade unfolds is a decade that looks more and more like the electorate of 2008 lf by the electorate of 2010. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. i think the biggest difference between him and myself on some of these issues is not so much

the demographic analysis, but on the long term like the response of voters two different public policies. 2010 represented the biggest change in partisan percentage as measured by popular vote for the house. nine points away from the democrats, nine points towards the republicans, then we have seen since 1946 and 1948, elections for which few of us have distinct memories. i think that nancy pelosi does since she was from a politically active family and she was alive and sentient at that time. if you calibrate what that difference the turnout between 2008 and 2010 means, it means about one to 1.5 points between the democrats and republicans. that represents a huge change.

what this period has in common is that most times americans have been facing questions about the size and scope of government. should we change the size and scope of government? the results of the public policies in the various elections, the republican party in 1946. the democrats in 1948. it resulted in a different balance. the british government have the labor government in 1945. they went the big government route. america went for less big government. my own view is that the obama democrat's policies are vastly expanded the size and scope of government. we are undertaking this stimulus package that would stimulate the economy. it seems not to have done that,

at least temporarily. and americans would not welcome redistributive public policies and things like obamacare. that does not seem like the case among a majority of voters. i think that the 2008 numbers that obama and congressional democrats were able to win from hispanics and millennial voters, they are going to have difficulty repeating those kinds of margins periodically. that is a judgment based on the public responses to public policy about which i cannot be certain. the best i can say is that we will see what comes out of that. politicians, i have an example of political strategists karl rove and james carville, have the natural majority partisan majority for their party.

we agree that is probably like a mirage in the desert that keeps going away. this does have the good effect that they are thinking, not just of one electron, but there to give groups and people and constituencies that will becoming larger overtimes. both parties have given potts to hispanic voters and will continue to do so. it also, the fact is that it seems to me that the goals of should not to be to produce in during majorities, but to have enduring public policy. sometimes you can do that for a pretty lengthy period. social security is an example of

that that may have been threatened bank republicans won in 1936. the taft-hartley act passed over president truman's of the dow continues to look govern relations 64 years later. that has been an enduring achievement. one of the things the 2008 and 12 election will tell us is if at the policies of the obama democrats will be -- 2012 election will tell us it is it if be policies of the obama democrats will be in during. america have been given as examples of both republican majorities in 2002, 2004 and 2010. democratic majorities in 2006 and 2008. many outcomes are possible. thank you very much. [applause]

the pagealf of aei's project, thank you very much. if you missed some of the finer points of this, you can tune in at the website. thank you for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in the end -- > next, a look at americans' perception of it k-12 education. three out of four americans have trust in the competence of public school teachers. we will also learn about digital ruling. the gallup polling company and george washington university hosted this event.

this runs about an hour and 40 minutes. >> great job framing the issues. americans demand quality. there is no surprise that there's an eden -- increasing demand for quality in public schools. it is starting to focus on teachers. this year's got poll results show that americans recognize the need for high-quality teachers in order to have high- quality schools. there's a lot more to this story. i want to tell you a little bit of background about pdk and the

poll. it is an association of 30,000 educators that includes teachers, superintendents, and professors. it is this variety of education professionals that makes this unique. through are highly regarded magazine, which serve as a trusted voice an advocate for public policies that support to improve teaching and increase student learning. this is the 43rd year that we have partnered with galloped to thoughts areica's about the public school system. a complete copy of this year's report is available free at our website. you just search on pdk.org will find it. those of you who have an ipad can go to the apple app store

and download a free example. if you have not downloaded wild birds yet, you can do that, too. the topics are identified by a bipartisan advisory panel that convenes each year. our report is comprehensive. we provide data responses to every question that we asked in a verbatim question just as it was passed. this allows readers to carefully judge the responses as it relates to the wording of the question. third and finally, because we conduct the poll annually, we can closely monitor changes in the public's thought about their schools. almost half of the questions asked this year were asked previously. given how americans attitude has

changed or not change from year to year. let me visit the issue of teacher quality. americans recognize that good teachers are the fastest route to education reform. they understand that in order to have quality schools, we need to have quality teachers. they believe we need to recruit and retain the best teachers we can and to remove ineffective teachers. 74%, three out of four americans, said that they would encourage the brightest person that they know to become a teacher. 67% believe that we should recruit high achieving high school students to become teachers. two thirds of americans say that they would want a child of theirs to take a teaching as a career. americans believe that encouraging high school and college students with skills in

science and math, they should be science and math teachers. that is just as important as encouraging them to becoming scientists. it is clear that americans recognize the importance of getting quality students to become the next generation of great teachers. americans express support for actively recruiting high-quality teachers for the future. they also feel pretty good about the teachers who are in the classroom today. 71% of americans have trust and confidence in our current public school teachers. changing topics, each year, the gallup poll asks americans to grade their schools, much like we asked teachers to grade their students. 51% of the it people in their

communities have given their school and grade of a or b. that is the middle line on the graphic. i want to concentrate on the other two lines for a minute. when we ask parents to grade the school that their oldest child attends, up 79% gave that school either an a or b. that is the highest grades ever assigned by parents in the u.s. since we started this poll. that is the rabbi and of the top. only 17% of americans gave letter grades of a or b to the nation's schools as a whole. that is the bottom line. we continue to be surprised by the declining grades in -- that americans gave the nation's

schools as opposed to the improving grades that they gave to the school that their oldest child attends. on one hand, they are the highest grades we have witnessed. on the other hand, it is the lowest grades we have witnessed. parents know teachers in their local schools. they are their neighbors, their friends, people that they run into at the grocery store and in their community. it is easier for them to know more about their school and the local community. when it comes to our nation's schools, people are much less familiar with the issues. they rely upon what they hear or read in the news. much of the news has been driven by the no child left behind legislation passed by congress almost 10 years ago. poll,t, in this year's

68% of americans say that they are more likely to hear bad stories about teachers than good stories. we also asked americans to a signed letter grades to teachers, to principals and other administrators, to school board members, and to parents. also, to president obama. in comparison with the last time we ask the question in 1984, teachers and principals grades have increased significantly. those are the two sets of bars on the left side of the graphic. a the same time, the grades assigned to parents and school board members has remained relatively unchanged. grades after's declining last year, improve this year with 41% of respondents assuming --

assigning him an a or b and his support of public schools. this is related to the political affiliation of our respondents. that is a shocking discovery to all of you. this year, after the highly publicized debates over collective bargaining in states like wisconsin and ohio, we decided to include a couple of questions on the topic using a question we have asked previously way back in 1976. we hope to get a snapshot of public opinion today as opposed to public opinion 35 years ago. this is where the story gets complicated. 47% of americans believe that teacherage unionization hurts the quality of public schools with only 36% believing that it helps. in the recent disputes between

governors and teachers' unions, 52% of americans side with the teacher union leaders as opposed to 44% that side with the governors. there are lots of different ways to interpret these results. it could be that americans believe or perceive that the teacher unions are protecting bad teachers. as we have seen over and over in the questions that we ask, americans are looking for high- quality amongst their teachers. the teacher union leaders at the national level recognize this and are aggressively addressing that perception with lots of initiatives focusing on the quality of the teacher workforce. the question is locally and at the state level, what kinds of activities will the teacher unions also take. at the same time, americans have consistently felt that teachers

are underpaid. it could be that they worry that that legislation restricting collective bargaining could result in lowering salaries for teachers. not only would that be tough for the current teacher workforce, it would also make it more difficult to attract bright and dedicated people into the teaching force in the future. you continue to monitor americans amending it -- opinions about public school choice, charter schools and school vouchers. 70% of americans favored the idea of public charter schools. that is up from 42% approval rating when we first asked the question. that is a significant change in opinion over the course of one decade. when we asked about school vouchers this year, up 65% of americans oppose allowing students and parents -- students

to attend private school at the public's expense. that is the highest registered in the last 10 years. before we shift to the next portion of the program, i want to thank our partners at gallup. the dean at the university and the co-director of the poll with me. i want to thank the members of our advisory panel. you will see their names listed there. i would like to thank our editor at in chief and her staff for their editorial and design report. [applause] >> i want to thank pdk and gallup. it is a critical time.

that ritual of students returning all the way from pdk. it is a time when legislators are returning, they are coming back, congress is going to be returning. governors are preparing their budgets to present for the next year. an important decision will have to be made in a tough budget climate. he is the one that created the digital learning council. he asked if i would cochair it. what i've learned from this poll, and i think he would be very happy as well, what i learned is the 10 elements of a high-quality digital learning system that 100 representatives of the digital learning council that he was so much a part of, this was back last year, then i

announced that in december. the 10 elements of a high- quality digital learning system, they are essentially born out in the public attitudes expressed in this poll. i wanted to go over a few of them. this is not just the digital learning section. particularly the section on higher education and teacher effectiveness. they come they all come together to say the same thing, that the public onwilling to move forward blended learning. when we think of digital learning and sometimes called online learning or computer learning. there are two images that can come to mind, one is 100 children in the gym with laptops up, how does that make you feel? some say, opportunity, some say, depersonallization, or is it a situation where there's an effective teacher in the classroom in a traditional

school and now you have the best content and pedagoguey, as well, coming digitally, that's blended learning. so what this poll confirms is that this public understands the need for blended learning. it understands that when half the respondents in the earlier section, almost half, say they're concerned they're not going to be able to get effective teachers in the classroom because of budget shortfalls, so what is one approach to dealing with that, it is blended learning so that you get the best content digitally as well as having teachers help guide and facilitate and that learning process. another one is where -- when presented with -- first of all, i think it's incredible statement that 91% of the population overall and 95% of parents, from 80% in 1996, understand and support and approve of internet access in the classroom and want it, i

think that's important. and then i think also it's important, too, then, when in the statement of blended learning, when the question was posed, would you want a more effective teacher -- this one is tricky. when you want a more effective teacher with digital learning or a less effective teacher but personally in the classroom, a majority said the less effective teacher in the classroom. let me suggest that's a false choice. >> why not the best of both? >> why not the best of both and with digital learning you get that so one suggestion i would make for future polls and i think it's a statement that p.d.k. and gallup devoted such a large portion of the poll to digital learning. but one suggestion i would have is that we look at and approach it from a more blended learning approach because that's truly the web 2.0 of education.

one last note and turn it over to tom who is truly one of the nation's experts and has guided so much of this effort in the last decade. one suggestion or one thing i would note is, this poll is critically important to policymakers right now because as we deal with, and i know tony carvalley and jamie will talk about this -- as we deal with a demand for a more skilled workforce, certifications and rapidly changing and negative budget climate, all of this is how can we be more effective and improve student outcome and improve teacher performance and what this poll suggests is that when digital learning the public believes -- they want effective teaching and they want high student outcomes and they can have both.

tom? >> i want to say thanks to p.d.k. and gallup. i also want to the thank you, governor, and governor bush, because you were among our best education governors in the last decade and have been a champion on the dropout crisis in america and the way you've connected the passion with that crisis with the opportunity around digital learning, i really appreciate. i want to talk about a mistake or at least a mistake in an impression that came from this poll. few minutes ago, before i walked in, i got a headline, an e blast that said america doesn't approve of online learning and they were quoting this survey. >> 91% is pretty good. >> here's the mistake in

conclusion. there was one interesting question about, will digital learning allow kids to spend less time at school? and parents were split or slightly negative on that notion of kids spending more time at home, and then the report said, well, maybe parents don't support digital learning. i think parents really appreciate the custodial aspect of school, right? and as the governor said, i think what parents and teachers realize, this is a great opportunity to combine the best of learning online and learning at school, to create a longer day and a longer year, not a shorter day and a shorter year. so i think that was something that's been taken incorrectly but overall, as you stated, i

found two things really striking, one was 91% of people connected the internet with high-quality learning and second, that about that same percentage connected digital learning with college and career preparation. and i think those are two thoughtful insights that almost all of the respondents made. >> so now we have an opportunity for your questions on digital learning or the other issues that we have in the p.d.k. gallup poll. we have two individuals that have microphones. and there's always the challenge of the first one who's going to step up and ask the best but we'll see if we have a hand up and we'll wait for a microphone and ask that you please

introduce yourself, tell us where you're from. anybody? >> bob and i are happy to keep talking. >> our favorite subject. >> there's a gentleman here. >> we have somebody up here. >> research for north carolina conducted by boyd and his associates suggests that as the internet spreads across the landscape, that it actually is a factor in driving an increase in the achievement gap and the speculative explanation for that was that -- they didn't have evidence, but the speculation was that among lower income families, those who have less of a custodial ability, working late hours, et cetera, are not able to watch their children and

monitor their internet use and so as high-speed internet swept across the north carolina landscape, that was the site of the study, they saw a corresponding widening of the achievement gap between low income and high income and the speculative argument was, because of lack of monitoring in low income households, that was the cause of this. >> technology is a powerful thing and can exacerbate good things and bad things. it will make good parents better. i'm not sure it will close the achievement gap because it can do two things, it can lift the floor or blow away the ceiling. what i'm optimistic about is the potential for technology to customize learning, which means more learning per hour, but also to equalize learning. what we'll see happen nationwide over the next four years as we begin to implement online

assessments in almost every state, is that states and districts are going to make provision for universal access or for high access environments so we will do a better job of making sure that every student is connected to the internet as 91% of respondents said was important. so, as we make sure that all kids have 24/7, 365 access to learning technologies and as those technologies are incorporated into a long day, long year, and become a thick part of the student's educational experience, i think we have the opportunity, particularly in low income neighborhoods, to shift a significant portion of that time to productive learning. so i'm actually optimistic that over the next few years, relatively quickly, that we can

provide much better access for all students but particularly low-income students and what that will do is cause a relatively rapid increase in the percentage of students prepared for college and careers. >> and also let me just note, i would also go to north carolina and i'd take you to independence high school in charlotte, mecklenburg, where 63 students started an online program over the summer, predominantly low income, almost got to proficiency in reading and math over that period of time. morrisville, north carolina school district, where they have done a total digital immersion, over half, at least, free and reduced lunch, and seen similar results so my belief is there are a number of positive examples where digital learning is having an impact but i think it has to happen on a blended basis where there's an

instructor helping to guide that learning process at the same time the student, whatever their income level is, or their achievement level is, is dealing with the content coming in. >> let me add, rocketship is an example of that. rocketship is a small elementary network in california. they've used a learning lab to add two hours to the day. so it's almost an eight-hour student day and it's almost all low-income kids and they're among the top scoring elementary schools in california. >> carpe diem in arizona, rawlings in wyoming. and that's borne out in the poll, the public clearly sees this as being a game changer for rural areas and for areas that have trouble getting access to high-quality content and teachers, and particularly in subject areas, stem

subjects in particular. yes, sir? >> my name is decker gonegan with communicates for teacher excellence. are some of the strategies on engaging parents in the new technologies so they can be partners as technologies are rolled out and also in the evaluation and efficacy of if it's working? and one of the things i'm finding is that parents aren't engaged in the reforms going to in their systems so it's not necessarily that they're against technology, it's just that not part of the process. so what strategies do you see in engaging teachers and parents or administrations and parents together? >> i'm going to give a quick observation. one is, you touched on one, parents need to be clearly involved from the git-go. and one way you do that and particularly if you're working with a blended learning model is make that school a learning center beyond the 7 1/2 hour school day so that parents have access to that and indeed in

many homes and this may have been the previous gentleman was alluding to this, in many homes if you don't have internet access on the regular basis, the broadband access or internet access devices, now you make the school the learning center for the parents as well as the student but you're right, the parents need to be -- and that's clear in this poll, as well, there's still a little not so sure among some parts of the population and they need to be more informed. tom? >> i'll just echo a couple of points that the governor made. you hear us advocating for a long day, long year, a really rich school-based experience. i would agree with your comment that we generally haven't done enough to engage parents and that bringing these new tools home has a lot of potential but it's going to require parents to be parents and to be involved and contribute and so we're

going to have to help build that capacity so i appreciate the comment. >> back here? yes, sir? >> good afternoon, bill bartllini from the george washington university. i often hear people talk about the fact that there's such a breadth of information on the internet, how do you deal with quality and finding the right educational materials. did the survey address this in any way or do you have hints for us to find a particular way, window to the right quality information? >> that's a fantastic question, right. a decade ago, we passed this profound threshold of human existence where anybody with broadband with learn almost anything for free or cheap. that's a profound threshold in the human experience and in 2009, we passed this inflection point with devices sold and with

cloud based services and apps downloaded, serious inflection and life on this planet is quite different. we're trying to figure out what that means for ourselves but here today trying to understand what it means for our schools. we're now 15 years into this information abundance and i actually don't think we've made much progress answering your question of how to sort and synthesize and sometimes it almost feels like our kids are better at it than we are. but in the precise area you're describing is where we'll see the most important breakthroughs of the next deckate -- decade and specifically we'll see breakthroughs in search technologies, we'll see breakthroughs in monitoring and data mining, so watching a set

of behavior patterns, learning about motivational profiles and using that data to drive a smart recommendation engine. so as kids make the shift to personal digital learning, one of the profound things that's not often discussed is that almost all of those learning experiences will be rich with assessment data and a lot of behavioral data that tells us about engagement and the sorts of experiences that are most productive for certain kinds of kids. when we turn that data into a smart recommendation engine and face it back at the world, we will become much better, before the end of the decade, at doing exactly what you suggested and making sense of a sequence of learning experiences. when the governor talked about blended learning, my quick snapshot of what my ideal picture is, is a smart play list

tailored to each student based on this recommendation engine that's helping to build knowledge and skills and then a really rich team-based, community-based set of projects that engage students in very authentic ways in producing authentic work products and the mixture of those really represents the best potential that we can bring together for kids. >> the question of quality wasn't addressed in this poll but is one of the seminal issues facing us and taken to the school board level and state level, as we move into this era where much more accessed information, a lot more providers, who determines what it is. the one thing we have to avoid is strapping on the textbook approval process on to data and content process.

and by the same token, you simply can't hand every child a laptop and say now we've got a digital strategy. what is the total environment that you've created to work in. so the issue of quality, i think, once again, not simply judging it by what we've been last 100 years. >> question count -- down here? >> my name is martin apple from the council of scientific society presidents. if you were to picture in the future or even presently, what would be the best outcomes, what would be the best measures of outcomes that you could put forth, realizing that they become the drivers of what happens when you do that, how much will you focus on creative ideas, how much would you focus on problem solving, critical thinking and so forth. what would be the outcomes you

would really try to measure to drive the system forward in the best possible way? >> that's a great question. >> and you're giving it right to me. >> yes. >> those on outcomes, those are what i call the deeper learning skills, it's what you take -- it's joining the core content knowledge that's so important to the creative thinking, the critical thinking, the ability to collaborate, community and self-direct learning. so it's developing a whole new set of performance assessments that is some of which is currently underway in a formative stage, not formative in the sense of testing, but in being formed, in the development of the common core standards which 44 states have adopted and the 202-585-3885 -- district of columbia and those that haven't, have moved to a standard. and the assessments developed by the two consortia begin to try

and reach that. so being able to measure that kind of performance. i think you're much better able to measure that kind of performance digitally because now you have adaptive technology and you can immediately give feedback to the teacher but it's also presenting a picture of where that student is in each of these areas. it also permits you digitally to be collaborating, whether with students in the classroom or across the country or world, it permits you to interact and work in teams. so i believe that the actual digital process can lead you to improving those outcomes and the assessments are underway but we're not there yet as many of you know, and many of you are involved in helping to develop them. not completely developed yet. >> that's a great answer.

>> hi, i'm fred sansone from xavier university in cincinnati. the smart recommendation engine you spoke about, tom, wouldn't that be a good teacher that could evaluate a student and make a recommendation as to what resources that they should choose? what would shane say if he were a student today in a grade school 20 years, 30 years from now, when someone asks him who was his best teacher that he could remember? would he say the ipad or ipod or mac 2. >> it was that great algorithm i had in fifth grade. >> yeah. i think we need to help the population understand, as people, that interface with the students, not just the digital log -- log rhythms that are out there, and that the teachers need to be sensitive and responsive to the students'

needs not only digitally but from an emotional state, nutrition state, and the family complexities they're involved with. >> thank you for that. let me give you a quick snapshot from school of one, a math pilot in new york city, that gives us a quick glimpse of what this looks like. they're the ones that really introduced the term "play list" into education or at least into my thinking of how the -- what the future looks like. when the teachers come together at school of one in the morning and think about the math learning experiences their young people will have, that conversation is aided by a set of recommendations from an algorithm that has been chugging overnight and those teachers can and say, ok, here's the learning experience that each one of our kids will have today. now i can apply my professional judgment to the recommendation because i've also noticed things

about the social, emotional wellbeing of a number of kids and as a result i'm going to add professional judgment to the schedule of my kids. so, yes, it's informed judgment that drives the schedule. here's another school of one example of the magic of dynamic scheduling. most students spend part of their week in small group tutoring at school of one with a teacher. the magical part of it is that the teacher prepared the lesson knowing that every student around that table is ready for that lesson in that mode on that day. that's magic. right? when you compare it to the impossible task we put in front of teachers every day of kids that are five or six years different in terms of reading skill and math skill, 30 at a

time, and ask them to teach a lesson and compare that to teach six kids who are all prepared to learn that lesson in that way on that day, that's magic, right? and if we can create more experiences where professionals can execute their craft thoughtfully and have a high opportunity to be successful, and then have time during the kay to work with other professionals to apply judgment, that's magic. a last quick example is rocketship and the learning lab at rocketship does a pretty good job of building some basic skills and what the teachers at rocketship would say is that it them to spend more time in class on critical thinking, on richer and deeper learning that governor wise talked about. so i think we're both very optimistic about putting

powerful tools in the hands of learning professionals and creating a set of working conditions that are far more positive in places where they can be far more productive. >> let me take this a little different place and i think tom is absolutely correct. one statistic for you, state of georgia. and this can be any state. 440 high schools and 88 certified physics teachers. you can take that to my state. you can take it in the district of columbia, you can take it almost anywhere. we are not going to have the highly certified content teachers as currently defined in every classroom but what we can have is an effective teacher who, with digital content and learning, is able to guide and facilitate that and incidental, i'm not a teacher, but i would think -- and to those of you in the profession, not having to be solely

responsible for every day's lesson plan, the sage on the stage, every moment in that classroom, but now able to, as some of this content is coming digitally, you're able to spend time with the individual learning needs of that child. this one doesn't quite pick up on this fact. it's evident from the adaptive software this one is not getting this and now i can spend time with each of these systems. nothing is taking away from the traditional role of teacher from socrates on, continues, and i think is only amplified and that's one thing that comes out of this poll loud and clear. sometimes with a little tension in some of the questions. this is not either/or. it's high-tech, high-tech requires high-teach. you have to have good teaching in order for the technology to be effective, too. >> up here in the second row?

>> my name is connie spinner and i'm with the community college of the district of clem -- columbia. we're a fairly new entity and looking at how to use the digital array of services provided in new and different ways. this conversation has caused me to think about two things. first of all, scale, and second, gap. we are still dealing with a digital divide that is growing every day between poor and minorities and middle class. at the same time, things are shifting markedly and new things are being learned that have the potential for making that grap grap -- gap even larger and where are the instances where we're taking what we've learned

and using it to close the gap at the same time that we're promoting the new. i'm concerned that we're learning fantastic lessons about what we ought to be doing to enrich the learning experience, but we haven't redefined what it means to teach and i think that, if nothing else, this whole array of technology is redefining it without having the public policy conversation. so i'd like a reaction. >> i would start by saying, there's no excuse for the digital divide. >> there might not be an excuse for it but it exists. >> it does, but it's time for state and district leaders to put a flag in the ground and say, after next august, every student in our care will have 24, 365 access, and make a plan to make that happen. you can do it, now, by shifting

to online assessment and shifting to online instructional materials. you can probably also improve the quality of an access to your professional development. but it takes a planned shift from print to digital and you have to think differently about your instructional materials and how you do assessment and you have to think differently about what your staffing looks like and it's complicated enough that maybe you have to break that shift into two or three phases but the fact that the total cost of ownership has dropped below per year per student for an access device makes it less expensive than buying a backpack full of books. so you can now make the financial case to make the shift and we've tried to make the case

today that if you're thoughtful about it, you can also create a longer day and a longer year and a better working environment for teachers and more support systems for kids. so we can, in the next few years, do away with the digitald thoughtful leadership, state-by- state, city by city. >> last year, it was $300. this year, it is 115. three years ago, we cannot have had this discussion. we also have to have access to the internet as well. what is the day the plan? if i could ask you a rhetorical question, almost every community

college does, you have a high remediation rate. with digital application, it seems to me that you can move students through remediation at the rate they are able to progress rather than having them in class for a fixed amount of time. they can read mediate and get to where they need to be in math in a month. as opposed to a class with a traditional instructor. this is really true and necessary. the student needs more time. what i'm suggesting is that with technology in the community college system and the college system, which have a much better ability to move students at the rates they can advance. they are not able to do what you

need them to do for what they needed to come to that community college for. >> we are looking at this two ways. we are achieving the dream in community college. we look at how we improve. 80% of our students are taking a development class. there is a whole group that says that nobody should enter needing this given the hard statistics. what are we doing to get them ready before they get there? we have a dual strategy around that. our biggest challenge is not our students or their readiness. it is our teachers. it is our instructors and their reluctance to look at the new role they have to play and the new kinds of skills. we have not had a public policy conversation about this change in role that is emerging and

shifting every day as a result of the kinds of tools that are being made available because of the technology. >> we agree. >> digital learning benefit students and teachers by the same token. we need to be truly having learning experiences for both. it also calls on college and teacher education. i see digital learning as being extremely powerful in what is known today as professional development. it is more of a permanent professional enhancement. now teachers will be able to do that enhancement with their peers as opposed to what some of the recall drive by. as a politician, i always loved the opening day of school. it is 300 teachers jammed into a

hot gym. i can go and speak to them. this is about quality learning experiences for students and teachers. i will end as i began. it is about students and teachers. digital learning plays an integral role in bringing them together. >> i am from prince george's community college. i am interested in the difference. we see it more work towards blended education with technology in the k-12 in varmint. i am interested in the thoughts and feedback on higher education to define our credit. it seems that there was a look to define it as sage on the

stage. innovative lending techniques might not actually count as instruction. there was an hour requirement for instruction. it sounded like a push for a legislature to have direct instruction. some sort of way tax on online instruction. how do we balance this between the desire that we want to have high quality and people recognize the need for technology and the importance of it. there is still an attack on its legitimacy. there is a little bit of a different perception between technology in the higher ed as opposed to elementary. >> you are actually way i had a boss. you heard the governor talked about governor bush. i wanted to underscore the role

he has played here. i said, tom, this is all moving very quickly. state policy makers do not have a road map. they need a top-10 roadmap. there are 27 new governors coming in in the fall. we have to be done in a hundred days. the speed and the urgency that he brought to this task to try to lay out a policy framework to avoid the really dumb policies you are talking about. this is standing in the way of everything we have described here as possible. we see a lot of it in k-12. you look at the 10 elements. you will find a bunch of very

specific, almost redundant language. you may wonder, why is that? each of the bullets go after stupid barriers that exist that try to stop learning at a county boundary or a district boundary or take a textbook process and put it on digital content. digital learning now is an effort to create a policy framework that is awful about this shift going forward. we very well may need another one for community colleges. instead of being k-12, it should be k-14. so that we are more thoughtful about the transition. it is the leadership of these governors that are trying to

create a framework for this evolution. we are working hard in k-12 to make this happen. we would lend support to this. >> higher education has this not doubt. i bought an ipad the other day. i know some of you bought something similar. how many of you when you bought your device ask the salesperson, i want a device that they worked on for exactly 180 days? that is my sole interest. that somebody worked on it for 180 days. you ask how many gigabytes or what performance. why do we measure children for their credit by that? i understand that up until about 25 years ago.

this goes to our conversation of the need to advance and what technology permits us to do is a much better measure to adapt to learning of students said that they can advance at their pace. this is going to be one of the leading issues. i hope the next poll tests some of these policies. if the state that you are in requires that the teacher that is teaching has to be certified in that state, that is like i can order a book online from barnes and noble, but i have to go to the local bookstore to pick it up. we would not tolerate in our own lives, the unnecessary frustration for our ability to be enriched via the internet.

we are denying our students. >> we are at an end for our section of the program. please: me in welcoming them. >> i want to talk about how pleased we are to join pdk and gallup. adding the higher education is something that we are extremely exciting -- excited about. i want to share some of the results with you. and i wanted to invite jamie up here to talk about the results to talk about why there were interested in doing this. it was critical to our work

focused on increasing success in post secondary education. as the governor mentioned, there is a growing national awareness for a need for increasing higher education attainment in the united states. this is starting with their own goal for increasing the number of americans to hold pos secondary credentials to 60%. the current level is 40%. we have seen a great deal of support for this framing of the issue and for this effort to increase. it is reflected in the president's goal for making the united states the best educated country in the world. our colleague has documented the

fact that about 60% of the u.s. jobs will require some college by the year 2018. if you think 2025 it is an audacious goal to getting to 60%, they will tell you that we do not have that long to get to 60%. this is reflected in the states, governors, higher education institutions, all increasing the numbers of students who go to college, but meat -- even more importantly, complete college and finished with a college degree or credential, is something that is driving a lot of our work and the national discussions around higher education. along comes the question, are we getting out ahead of the american people?

is this something that is too much of an inside baseball kind of discussion where we are talking to ourselves about the value of education and it is not really recognized or understood by the public? how does the public see these issues? do they see the shift taking place? do they think there is a need or an awareness of this desire that a lot of us are expressing to increase higher education attainment? to increase the number of people who go to college? if so, what do they see that is behind it. we found that having some answers to those questions would be very useful to us. we thought it would also be very useful to the broad community of educators, policy makers, and others who are concerned about the same set of issues. that is what we will focus on in this section of the pole.

we found some results that we think are very interesting. i am pleased to have this chance to share with you. if this works, it does. the first question, i know it is a bit small. on a five-point scale, please indicate your agreement with each of the following statements. you may use any number between 1-5. having a college degree is essential for getting a good job in this country. that word essential is very, very important. not desirable, not nice, but essential. what is the answer? those that strongly art -- strongly agree or agree with that statement is now 69% of the public. 69% of americans believe that having a college degree is

essential for getting a good job in this country. that is a very remarkable finding. it reflects this great shift that is taking place. it reflects the emergence of a knowledge economy. the fact that most jobs in this country, as tony will talk about and has documented, are seeing an increase in the skill and knowledge requirements attached with those jobs across all occupations. that seems to be something that most americans are very aware of and feel that it is tied to higher education and to the need for a college degree. there is another set of questions that asks, is a college degree or occupational certificate some recognition beyond high school of competence and skill in an occupation? is it somewhat important for financial security in the future?

95% agreed or somewhat agreed with that statement. there is a very, very strong perception that this is necessary for financial security as well as for getting and keeping a good job. in your opinion, which one of the following is the main reason why students get education beyond high school. you were asked to pick one. the main reason. this may or may not surprise you. i would suggest that it does surprise some people to see this result. there is the results. to earn more money, 53%. to get a good job, 33%. those are the top two reasons why americans believe that people go to college. to become a well-rounded person, learn more about the world, not that those are not important,

but if you say that is the main reason to go to college, it is to get a good job and earn more money. on a five-point scale where one is strongly agree and 5 that it is disagree, do you agree with this statement? people who have college degrees have a good chance of finding a quality job. strongly agree is roughly half, about 47% believe that people have a good chance of finding a quality job. length aboutk at this and whether this is a surprising finding or not. i would suggest that in today's economy with all of the reporting about the difficulty of getting a job and college graduates entering the labour market and not being able to find jobs, all of this concern,

that 47% believe in that college degrees give you a good chance of finding a job and only 10% disagreeing with that statement is a somewhat remarkable finding. i was somewhat surprised to see the negatives on that were as low as they were. even in this economy, in this extremely difficult jobs market, people still seem to believe that having a college degree is still the best form of insurance. the best preparation to go into the employment market, the job market, the work force, and get a good job. finally, this is the last allied i will put up before asking them to discuss this. on a five-point scale, college graduates are well-prepared for

success in the workforce. people believe that college is the key to getting a good job and making money and having financial security. only about 39% strongly agree or agree with the statement by college graduates in this country are well prepared for success in the work force. most people are neutral on that question. and one out of five disagree with that statement. if there is an area that we really need to pay attention to, it is this. if americans believe that college is essential for success, but they are concerned about whether people who have college degrees, people who come out of college, are well prepared to be successful, we have some issues that we need to think about and talk about.

we are very excited to be a part of this. we are excited to have this and more information, which i encourage all of you to delve into el look at this. let me invite jamie and tony on stage. she is the president of the foundation. tony is the president of the georgetown university's center on education in the work force. i will not give you a lengthy introduction. these are two very respected and recognized experts in this field. i happen to work with jamie. i have no reason to say that about tony. these people know what we are talking about. i would like them to talk about

these findings as it relates to the changing an increasingly important relationship between higher education, education beyond high school, and the work force and the economy. >> let me peirce begin by thanking our host at george washington university as well as our colleagues for their efforts here and particularly the folks at pdk for their trail blazing work we have followed over the years. i did not know it was 43 years. i have not been working for 43 years. this very much motivated us to gain a better understanding of what is happening in terms of public perception at the higher education level. there is an important reason for that. that is that as important as it is to focus on fixing our

schools and improving our k-call system, it is absolutely essential and necessary for our economic and social future as a country. all of that is about getting students to the starting line. we have not succeeded in our task, until the vast majority of our students achieve some sort of post secondary education. this survey shows that perception matches reality. the public poll shows that the public believes that in order to be able to get a job, you need to have some form of post secondary education. they are right. you look at the unemployment data. the unemployment rates are dramatically higher for people with no post secondary education as opposed to those with post secondary education. the rate for people with high school credentials as opposed to college was more than two to

one. the public believes that in order to get a high-quality job, you have to have some some form of post secondary education. they are correct. the vast majority of jobs being created in our economy require post secondary education. about two thirds of all of these jobs being created require post secondary education or will within a decade. the public understands that the importance of getting a good quality education is critical. the public understands that one of the important outcomes we get from a college education is that you make more money. that should not be the only goal of getting a high-quality education. all of these things that ranked fairly low about the quality of life and being able to think critically, those are important

things. being able to make more money is an important factor and one we should not undervalued. the labor market, employers, are actually about when people with college degrees at an increasing level. the labor market is telling us that the premium of having a college credentials as opposed to a high-school credential is increasing. in the last decade, the wage premiums with those with a bachelor's degree compared to a high school credential has increased from about 75% to 84%. their perceptions match what is happening in terms of the higher education system. there is an interesting subset to this, which is the value of a higher education. the cost of a higher education is very high. from a current expenditure basis, it has become very burdensome for people who have

not planned for decades to pay for the increasing cost of college. i think that is a real challenge to higher education and perhaps represents one of the biggest threats to long term success in our country. that is getting a handle on the cost of delivering higher education. one of the things that is worrying the public in terms of what is happening with the higher education system, the relevance of what they're getting caught of the higher education system in order for them to be successful in the work force. only about half of the public is sold on the quality of education will actually match what they need to be successful in the work force. that represents a significant challenge to higher education to reinvent itself. to reinvent the business model in ways that are going to having a dramatic difference in ways that will improve the outcomes.

those outcomes should overwhelmingly be about learning. it is the learning that drives the quality of the education. it is the learning that employers say that they need to fill the high-quality jobs for their companies to be successful. in the current environment, getting a college education is not nice, it is necessary. the public understands that. to put it more bluntly, if you get a high-quality college degree, there is a pretty good chance that you are going to be in the middle class and perhaps be more successful. if you do not have a college degree, there is a very high chance that you are going to be poor. >> they have already said everything i would like to say and everything that i think is

important in this opinion poll. i have not said it yet. i will take my turn. what is most striking to me is one of the things that he said. other polls show deep pessimism on the part of the american public. some is well-founded. the people that forecast of the economy's saying that we will get increases in unemployment over the next several months towards the end of the year. we will probably stay at 9% through 2012. that is bad news at the white house. it will only get below 9% in 2013. despite what has been a very long and deep recession, the longest and deepest sense the great recession where a recession that has had a huge impact on this economy, people

still believe, more so, as i understand it. people believe that it is necessary to get some kind oppose secondary education and training in order to be successful in the united states. that is true. as he pointed out, in 1973, we had almost 70% of the jobs that required less than high school. that is what the people in those jobs had. virtually all of those people were in the middle class. you measure the middle class, you had to do and arbitrarily. in modern terms, between $35,000 and $85,000, and then virtually all of those people were in the middle class. a middle-class participation

goes down about 30%. that includes a lot of the people that started out in a job that did not require college 30 or 40 years ago but requires college now. that is how this process works. what is underneath all of this is something that started in the 1980's after the 1980-81 recession for those of you there remember that one. the second worst recession since the great depression. after the recession, we sought a profound restructuring of the american economy. we took inflation the way and employers were paying workers no longer an inflated dollar. you could give a 5% raise and inflation was closer to 10%. once the inflation was gone, the 5% reyes was real. employers set out, especially in

manufacturing, they set out to fire about 30% of their work force. what they did is they unleashed a modern technology, and in these times, it was the computer. the computer attached to all sorts of other devices. what the computer does and continues to do is it automates particular tasks and everybody's job. as a result, all the tasks that are left over are not repetitive tasks and require a higher skill. there is an engine underneath this. the reason i raise that is that that engine runs faster now in recession and has run up faster in recessions for the last three recessions, so that now we get jobless recoveries, which is something of a misnomer.

it really means the growth rate goes faster than the job creation rate. the amount of money to make grows faster. that structural change is accelerating during recession. the people who answered positively about higher education in the survey, they are themselves going to be proven right, because when we come up the other side of this recession, it is a sure thing that jobs that require high school or less will be a smaller proportion of this economy. and the much greater share, possibly not for a little while -- we are going to live three more times -- by 2016-2017, wrote i think there will be an unemployment rate of 6%. i think when the survey is done then, the numbers will get

stronger. there will be a lot of people left behind. they will not just the 18-24- year-olds, who we need you to find some way to move through the college system so they can make decisions about their education that affect them over the next 40 years. but they are going to be of substantial number of people who are adults who will be structurally unemployed. that is, they will not have the skills necessary to go back to the industry or the occupation and certainly not the job they left behind. they will need new occupational skills. they will have to shift occupation. that is a very tall order in any economic system. we have never done it successfully yet. so there are two issues that are emerging underneath this survey. one is that the larger one, which is how we educate our

children, what kinds of chances they are going to get, and more and more, the education they get beyond high school really does determine their opportunities over a lifetime. access to post secondary it has become the arbiter of middle- class status. you can run the numbers as we have from time to time. it is true the middle class is declining that. but underneath that is the same engine. what really is happening is that secondaryuld post actio- education are staying in the middle class or moving up into the top three income deciles, and people with high school or less are falling down. does not mean there are not still high school jobs. for three out of 10 people that get high school and get a job

for $35,000. that is more robust for males than females. very hard for females to get a job at $35,000 a year. there is still enough construction for boys. women do not have access to that, and the jobs they do have to not pay. threee likened this to out of 10 situation to two simultaneous games of musical chairs. in one group, you have the group with the credentials. in the other group, yet people with post secondary education, and the chairs are being added. the people who want a middle- class life school are increasingly going to have to be in the game on this side, rather

than the game on this side if they want to be successful. of you have if any questions. i am sure you do. i hope you do. while we are getting the microphones set, i want to ask a question. i can hear some in higher education i suspect expressing some concern over the way we frame to these findings, and sang, are we talking about turning our colleges and universities into a job training system? and is this about training people for specific jobs, narrowing the curriculum? tenuto, a little bit about the nature of the skills at -- can you talk a little bit about the nature of the skills that people need in this economy? >> three words -- no, no, no. the important lesson from this

should be an increasing recognition that that thing that will make you successful in life in making that well-rounded person, that person who is successful as a parent, as a colleague, as a neighbor are the same things that make you successful in a job. in fact, the skills that employers say three surveys we have seen from the business roundtable, lots of different places, show that what employers most about are things like critical thinking and problem solving, the ability to communicate, to be analytical. those are all the things we believe we do best in higher education. so this conversation about are we training people for jobs or for life is in effect the same conversation. because those skills for life are the same skills and you need to be successful in a good job. now, the conversation gets

rockier because there are differing returns to different types of credentials. we have to begin differentiating the kinds of things that people are majoring in any occupations they choose. not all of the returns are universally the same, but all of the returns for people with post secondary skills and credentials are higher than those without those post secondary skills and credentials. >> just one -- my sense of this kindt's not an either/or of choice we have to make. first of all, the system as it presently operates is not an either/or system. 10% area.'s only about occupational. educationate i

is occupational. when you go to community colleges, less than half, are occupational. the other half are general education degrees that are supposed to 72 four-year school, where 90% of the schools are occupational. community college certificates and test-based industry certification, which are the new big bullies on the block now, those are clealy intended to be occupational. it is too late to worry about that for starters. the good news is that higher education has been pretty responsive to market demands. there is an issue about whether it should be more so. we agree that it should be more responsive. young people need to know if they get a degree in architecture what was going to pay. they can then decide what they do it -- to do what they want.

i think they should know. my final printout is that i do believe -- thmy final point is that higher education is pitiful. pivotal. in the american system, you cannot be a good system or a good neighbor or participate fully in the life of your times if you do not have the job. we do not make your vote, but we do make you go to work. you do not go to work unless you have a very good excuse. the rest of us will not take care of you. higher education does not deliver on its mission to get people employed, it will not deliver on all of its other missions, either, is my bias. >> questions? yes. first one right here. down over here next

>> i want to go back to something that was asked in the earlier session about aligning policy with the need to improve education. and i want asked about how we help bring this message to policymakers. i was just giving a speech to days ago in a state, i will not even name the state because it will reflect badly on them, and i was giving it to a faculty development group about changing the teaching and learning environment to improve completion and quality. and i was using some of tony's data to talk about the changes in our economy. and later i talked to a dean and the audience to happen to be in that state, a state legislator.

i had never met a college dean who is also a state legislator, but in this state, that actually happened. she said to me, how to help my colleagues understand this data, including tony? i directed her to the wonderful charts state-by-state that you have in your report. she said i showed them to some of my colleagues and they are not buying it. they are not interested. and i did not know what to say, because it has felt to me that tony's data, and the public agrees with your data. this poll shows that they get that there is a connection between the economic health of the state and investing in higher education. in this state, anyway, the legislature was the key and they could not get them to hear this message. >> part of the answer from my perspective, since it is tony's

data, part of the answer from my perspective is, you may not believe it, but the public policy makers in canada, in korea, and 30 other countries that our economic competitors believe it because they are investing heavily in this kind of success. they are investing so much that they have started to surpass us. by the way, states that are your neighbors are probably also doing similar things because there are some states that are taking the path you are talking about, but there are several states now that this has become a bipartisan issue of very high accord among people read canonizing debt increasing educational attainment is necessary. one thing that is missing from this conversation is that the quality of the conversation about the commenon core is going to need to be massed at the

higher education level. we need to have the alignment of that conversation. one of the mistake of the conversation so far is that not enough involvement of the people from the higher education side about, what does college ready mean? it would help to describe what college ready actually is. that would strengthen the equation. at the same time, higher education will have to respond in terms of its admissions processes, it's college placement, its assessment systems in order to be able to align with what i think are going to be quality improvements that we will see a." level.tjhehe k-12 >> i think politicians understand this. they read the same polls. that number comes up over and over again. it is no accident that in the

last two presidential campaigns access to higher education in both platforms moved as the economy moved, even as the economy collapsed, it went from two to three, never fell below 4. the way the political leadership is dealing with this, they are in a box. they do not have money. they have to make it very hard decisions about whether they can take money away from old people or young people. in the end, it will be young people because young people are resilient. old people are not. [laughter] i have a horse in this race. of this. recognition so what you heard in the last presidential campaign, and i would note in the one before you heard the same thing, and that was the political answer was we

are going to make college affordable. there is an implicit assumption in that is that we are going to make college universally available. that is really what they have been saying. the bush administration, interestingly, was the first presidential statement on this. wizen their higher education commission that most people did not like, where they said something of an ambiguous sentence, where they said everybody does not need to go to college. stop. but everybody needs some post secondary education. somehow two-year schools are no longer a college. it is the only way i can make sense of of that sentence. in the end, and they understand what that the voters want access to post secondary education for their children. the answer is affordability. the question is what does affordability mean? and the answer is, you have to do more with less.

that is what they are saying. they then shift the blame for the problem toward higher education. that is the problem is is not affordable. not that it should not be universally available. it's not hard to shifted to the institution. there are two things you know and political polls carried one is gas prices are the only prices if you are a politician you up to worry about. because everybody stands at the pump and watches the meter. so everybody knows about gas prices. the other thing is you get a tuition bill. i can tell you some of these work with politicians. they all know that. one is the gas pump and the other is the tuition bill. it is not hard for them to say, the price of gas and college has got to go down. the next question is how do we do that? we have come up empty on that, quite frankly. >> good afternoon.

i am from fairfax county public schools. started to address my question. can you address the increasing the expense the cost of higher education, especially for those students who do not have a college credential? >> look, the gaps between the haves and have-nots are growing. part of what we need to increasingly recognize is that ignoring those gaps comes at our collective peril. this is no longer an issue of trying to do better by those who are less fortunate. what we are talking about is majority of our population. the emerging majorities of latinos in the large numbers of african-americans. the huge numbers of adults who absolutely have to be trained at the post secondary level because the jobs that they had, which were middle-class jobs, no longer afford them that middle- class lifestyle. to get post secondary education.

the critical piece of this in my opinion is that we have to get serious about a new kind of social compact for those families. that is, we have to find a different way of articulating the value of higher education for them. i've spent most of my career as an ardent advocate for need based financial aid. i was a telegram recipient. i was a telegram advocate -- a pell grant recipient an advocate. the cost of higher education is too high. the solution will not come on the price side, unless we agree to price controls, which have all kinds of negative effects. government cannot control the price of anything, let alone something as complex as higher education. i think price controls would not be the right way to do it.

the only way to deal with it is on the cost side. that is going to mean that the delivery model for higher education will have to change. we have to have a more productive system of higher education. productive meeting efficient and effective, focusing on those that theing outcomes public expects. so this is part of our challenge for those populations you are talking about. the family to deliver on that, however, is going to really impact our collective well- being and our economic and social future as a country. >> the one thing i would add to that is it is wise -- the governor was up here talking about technology. for me, it is like for a share. it is something i do not know much about. -- it is like fresh air.

i heard hillary pennington do it in richmond a few weeks ago. she made me feel the same way. intuitively it makes so much sense. the only thing that bothers me about that is i have been hearing that for 30 years. as somebody who is an expert said to me, he said, if you judge things in terms of your own lifetime. really that is not very long. it feels long sometimes. he said, we have been at this for 30-40 years with technology. will take another 30-40 to do it. in the meantime, we will have a problem delivering high-quality education universally in the united states. and that will simply be a difficulty that we will struggle through into the technology comes on line. >> another question? year masterst

student at george washington university school of education. i wanted to talk a little bit more about the perception that once you actually obtained a post secondary education that you are still not prepared to go into the workforce. and as someone that is new entry into the workforce, i want to speak from my perspective. i think there is reason for that. when he mentioned is the fact that students need to be strategic about choosing a major. when you come into your under graduate degree, i feel like there is very little guidance about what is going on in the market now, but what is going on in four years. more importantly is what experience you are getting in school -- internships. i know this past year, summer jobs for young people were very low. an opportunity to get one was difficult. when you're in school and you do not have worked during its 10-

year are graduating, that makes you less competitive and less able to get a job. what you think the opportunities are for providing incentives for the business sector to expand internship programs to make sure they are not caught in the economy -- when it goes south. >> and there are a growing number of efforts that are trying to connect with this. although, i would say that we have a lot more work to do. lots of organizations, i mentioned a few of them -- the business roundtable, skills for america's future -- are trying to elevate this issue, which is that work based experience combined with education can enhance the learning process and lead to higher quality outcomes. but the degree itself is really the prerequisite. now that you will need to augment that with other things in order to enhance their chances for success.

one issue that i think that our employers need to step forward on it is doing a better job of actually participating in that process, rather than lamenting that the incomplete jobs they are getting from our higher education system. employers are clearly paying a premium for people with college degrees. said they believe very strongly that that is important. but they are also telling us they need more and different. i think there's different kinds of learning outcomes we are talking about, things like internships, are an important way that they can invest directly in their success. >> go ahead. leadership the new alliance for student learning. one of the things that is unfortunate about the results is that students and families are continuing to pay the high cost of higher education. and so the legislature sees those results.

they know they can reduce the amount of money they are giving to the state institutions. families and students will pay for it. it is attachment to the entire system. i look at it like market forces until maybe students and families stand up and say, we are not going to pay or attend. we do not have enough ammunition to force colleges to change and look at the prices. i feel as though it, as long as people are willing to pay, colleges and universities will not be forced to change. >> there is an issue -- we have gotten to the end of the rope and a growing number of states other rate of tuition strategy. the truth is that questions have been raised to a level that are extraordinary, that are causing problems. at the same time, you see states like california where there are legitimate capacity issues. the california community colleges cannot serve the needs of a growing number of people.

they do not have the capacity. so there is something happening on the ground here, where i think we are starting to go over the cliff on the cut some more and use tuition s aas a deus ex machina. we have invested in seven different states on improving productivity efforts. but we think that is the camel's nose under the tent. there has to be widespread acceptance that improving productivity will be critical to the success of the system. not the old way, which is to make faculty teach more. what we have to do is engage the faculty, find ways to bring them into the question to help get to those learning outcomes that will lead to the high quality success we need in order to be successful.

>> noone more question. >> my question for you goes to the folks in response to the last question, about focusing on the degree. especially what we have heard about the perception of the value of the degree. in australia, universities, government and businesses came together and developed a qualification framework that allowed universities themselves to focus on student learning outcomes in awarding degrees. how do you suggest that here in the united states, institutions of higher education can come together to focus, instead of keeping the folks on credit hours, a move to more of a focus on awarding degrees on learning outcomes? things that you may know about anthony or lumina? >> a quick advertisement for our

own work. on defined outcomes of higher education. we developed with you have seen in many other countries of the world which is the first attempt to define the competencies that should be demonstrated by people at the associate, bachelor's, and master's degree, a respected of the field of study. we call it the decree called vacation profile. many countries cullet the qualification and framework. we produced-- many countries call its the qualification for a work. it is defined as companies in ways where faculty, institutional leaders can put their hands on this and better understand about what the potential uses of this kind of framework might be. ultimately, that has to be owned at the deliver level. that is at the institutional level.

that is where the teaching and learning takes place. so i've not in favor of a nationally articulated system that all universities would have to drive themselves through. but i think the reality of american higher education is that we cannot describe what in this searcy's degree represents and what it is come up or bachelor's or master's is. this credit-hour based system will have to be replaced with a learning-based system. >> let me turn it back to shane. jamie and tony, thank you very much. >> sunday on newsmakers, education secretary arne duncan talks about the state of the u.s. education system. and how u.s. companies compare with other countries in preparing for jobs. >> jobs are going to were the

best knowledge workers are. we're not just looking in their districts or states or countries. we're competing for jobs in india and china and south korea and singapore. i think our children are smart, creative, as talented as children anywhere in the world. i want to give them the chance to compete on a level playing field. right now, unfortunately, the brutal truth is that other countries are out-educating us. >> monday on c-span-2, a discussion on the headstart program. we will hear from the author on a recent article proposing changes to the federal program, followed by an overview of the administration's approach from the director of head start. hosted by the brookings institution, the discussion gets underway live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span-2. you can see the entire interview with education se