for children the world over. better access to open spaces and discussed care facilities which is committed to securing the future of 2012, outdoor spaces and a wonderful outdoor facility for 2012 and her majesty's. what a privilege it is to serve as lord mayor in such a special year, the jubilee of her majesty the queen. a life of beauty and dignity, of service and could disconnecting the agent -- engine institution of the marquee with the demands of an ever-changing world. [applause]

a ban his bicentenary we will celebrate in 2012 as trolls dickens. this lawyer respectfully disagrees with dickens you that if there were no bad people there would be no good lawyers. one of his central themes, especially the responsibility of the house to the have nots. his message is just as important today. at times have changed. we in the city know our responsibility and our vital connections to industry to those .ho need we cherish this role and i will do everything i can to

strengthen it and work with the prime minister and the government for a better and more prosperous future for all. the toast is her majesty's ministers. [applause]

♪

>> praise of silence for the prime minister. [applause] >> my lord mayor, my little lord mayor, yorkers, my lord chancellor, mr. speaker, your excellency, sheriffs, chief, are, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this opportunity to dress up as if we were extras in dining tent at the. now that our sunday nights are so empty, this is a pleasure. although i felt in my own circumstances i rather needed mr. bates to help me out. can i wish you well with your year a head of lord mayor and

the travel you inevitably will do for our country right across the globe. i had a year of interesting travels myself. one of the highlights was going to australia to the commonwealth, heads of government meeting and sharing a meeting of all of the countries to have the queen as their head of state where we agreed in a historic agreement that if the duke and duchess of cambridge have a little girl, that girl will be our clean. at the end of turn to the australian prime minister and said thank you very much for allowing us to have this meeting in australia. she said, i can't quite do the accent but i will try -- not accommodate it. --not a bit, david. [applause] last year, i spoke about

focusing our foreign policy on what objective, promoting britain oppose the national interest. tonight i want to explain what that means a strong and open approach to the world, one that helps us and helps others. there are those that look at the upheavals in north africa or the crisis and the eurozone and conclude that for britain, the best way forward is to draw back. stay out of libya because nothing good ever comes from such interventions. cut the aid budget because the money is always wasted. europe is heading in the wrong direction without any chance of reform, so think about giving up.

first, the failed to appreciate that in today's world, other problems are our problems as well. second, they forget that our strength as a country is built on our economic strength. that means engaging in the world economy, fighting for free trade, making sure that protest interests get heard. third, we have advantages that we should make the work -- most of, like one of the most open economies of the world or are poorly armed forces who sacrificed their service. we commemorate them again this weekend. i want to explain again how we can use our influence and confront the pessimism that claims we cannot make a difference. the arab spring is one of those extraordinary moments when the will of the people changes the world. it also directly matters to us.

yes, change brings risk and no one expects a simple street lined progression from dictatorship and stagnation to democracy and prosperity. in the long term, developing the building blocks of democracy is the best way for the arab world to secure stability, progress, and prosperity which is an all of our interest. in libya, it is true that we did not have to get involved. some told us we should not because they said it could only end in failure. some said we could not because britain did not have the military might anymore. to those who predicted failure, look at what we have achieved. we saved a civilian lives as gadhafi is tanks bore down. we helped the libyan people to liberate themselves. we now have the prospect of a new partner in the southern mediterranean, stronger

alliances with our friends in the gulf, and a refreshed defense relationship with france. i would argue that our actions helped to keep the air of a spring alive. it is also worth noting that although gadhafi agreed to declare and dismantle all of his weapons of mass destruction, although in the last few days we have learned the new libyan authorities have a found chemical weapons. some will ask is this a new british doctrine for intervention. next time will we charge in the regardless. my answer is no. look at the reasons for the success to the libya campaign. we set goals and we worked with them. we work with allies.

we went through the united nations. we had the support of the people predicted that presume to tell the people what sort of government they should have. on that note we should welcome their decision this week and to suspend series membership. to those who said britain did not have the resources to intervene in libya, let me just say this.

few were main battle tanks, more drugs and more helicopters and transport the whole country wants to know the answer to two questions. why are we still in afghanistan and for how much longer. let me answer.

people say you cannot make progress in afghanistan without tackling terrorism and the deep seated problems. they are right. that is why we are squeezing terrorism from both sides of the line. al qaeda has been seriously we can get through the death of been london -- a sum of been laid in. terrorism feet on a broken countries. our response must go far beyond tackling leadership's in terrorist groups. that is why pakistan is set to become the biggest recipient of terror -- of aid. not just politicians but security and military chiefs as well. we are now reaching the point where the afghans can secure

their own country for themselves. that is why i have been very clear. i repeat here tonight, by the end of 2014, there will be no british troops serving in afghanistan and a combat role. somalia is a failed state that directly defects and it threatens the british interest. tourists and aid workers are kidnapped. young british mines are poisoned by -- somalis themselves suffer extreme famine made worse by violence and some of the worst poverty on earth. we should not tolerate this. somali pirates, it is time we properly stood up to them. that is why british vessels cannot carry arms. there is a real pressing need to pull together the international

effort. that is why britain will host a conference in london to focus attention on protecting merchant ships passing through the gulf of aden, tackling part -- tackling pirates, and addressing the causes of conflict and instability in somalia. the next area where the pessimists say that britain should pull back its aid. my -- i agree in the moral argument for aid. we have obligations to the poorest in our world. i also believe that it is in our national interest -- isn't it better to help stop country's disintegrating rather than and up dealing with the consequences for our own country? immigration, terrorism. aid can help us to avoid crises before they explode into violence. requiring bass military spending. the answer to the legitimate

concern that too much aid money gets wasted is sent to walk away, it is to change the way we do development. by 2015, u.k. aid will secure schooling for more people than we educate in the entire united kingdom but at one 40th of the cost. we will help to vaccinate more children against preventive diseases then there are people in whole of england. that is the kind of it i believe and. in europe, these are times of great change. old assumptions are collapsing. no exit from the euro could ever be envisioned. membership of the eu would always lead to ever closer union.

ours would only come to the center. now everything is changing. right now, fears about europe's economic future are understandably intense. he think about how the european union as it is tonight looks to those with growing economies watching from delhi or indeed from washington. not as it should be, a place to admire and emulate but a source of alarm and prices. we are a member of the european union. the strength of our own economy is closely linked to the rest of europe. we have a profound national interest in insuring a return to growth.

it has helped transport eastern europe, build appliances, boost trade, knock down all obstacles to freedom and success. today to the outside world and to the citizens of that some countries, the eu's achievements are dramatically overshadowed by its problems. it is not just the crisis in the eurozone, urgent and all consuming that it is, it is how out of touch the eu has become one its institutions are demanding budget increases while europe citizens tighten their belts. it is the. this interference rules and regulations that stifle growth. the sense that the eu is somehow an abstract and in itself immune from developing in the real world rather than a means of hoping to deliver that -- better living standards for the people of this nation. it does not have to be like

this. out of crisis can come opportunity for the european union if its member states are ready to grasp it. now is the chance to ask, what kind of europe do we actually want? for me, the answer is clear. one that is outward looking with its eyes to the world not to gazing in words. one with the flexibility of a net worth. not the -- t. whose institutions helped by strengthening its members to drive and a vibrant world rather than holding them back. one that understands and of values national identity and sees the diversity of europe's nations as a source of strength. i feel this very personally. the attitudes of my predecessors at this dinner in previous decades were very understandably shaped by the events of 1945 and the need to secure peace on our continent.

the experiences of the second world war gave birth to the european union we have today. for me, 1989 is the key date when it europe toward down the iron curtain and came together as democratic nations working together right across our continent. what needs to change? of course, the immediate answer is growth. europe's our arteries have hardened. a sitcom -- as a continental are slipping behind and growing less fast and the rest of the world. european countries have indulged in debt and over spending and have looked uncertain and worse when confronted with consequences. unless we all get a grip on growth, the european union will remain a continent in trouble.

we are promoting open markets, flexible economies, and enterprise. it is why we must continue to work for the completion of the single market of services, the opening up of our energy markets, and scrambling of the democracy that makes it so hard to open a new business. european countries account for much of our inward investment. leaving the eu is not in our national interest. outside we would end up subject to every rule of the single market made in brussels but not able to ship those rules. if we were not in there helping write the rules, they would be written without us. the biggest supporter of open market and free trade and we would not like the outcome. for too long the european union has tried to make reality fit

the institutions. you can only succeed in the long run if the institutions fit with the reality. for years people who suggested that doing less at the european level have been accused of not being committed to a successful european union. we skeptics have a vital point. we should look skeptically at to ground plans and utopian visions. we have a right to ask what the european union should and should not do and change it accordingly. an opportunity to refashion the eu so it better search of this nation's interest and the interest of its other 26 nations as well. an opportunity in britain's case for powers to add back instead of flowing away. to underpin prosperity, stability, and growth.

this is the kind of fundamental reform by yearn for. i am determined to do everything possible to deliver it. if we are to earn our living in the rest of the world, we need to forge a stronger relationships with countries like brazil, russia, india, turkey, nigeria, and south africa. i have led trade missions to six of these countries. a former labor minister called this low-grade mccann to listen. that comment since so much about what has gone wrong with our foreign policy in the past. we forgot to old friends, we missed opportunities, and it damaged british interest as a result. i am proud and not embarrassed to head off to visit the most vibrant markets on the planet. i am not intending to reduce international relations simply

to a commercial agenda. in dealing with other countries, their politics matter. when the politics are troubling, the answer is not to deal with the politics and put the trade on hold. we must be bold enough to try and deal with the politics and the trade at the same time. in september, i was the first and british prime minister to visit russia for five years. there are things that i think russia is in the wrong. we cannot pretend it these differences of human rights and the root of lot do not exist. they do. we should always be a champion of human rights. we should address our differences candidly. we should not allow them to define and limit the whole relationship. it is in our interests and offer new opportunities to

trade and invest. is our interest and russia's to help russia join the world trade organization and help grow in key areas like science and innovation. shared prosperity is one of the best ways to insure shared security. i refuse to accept we have to choose between politics and trade. i believe we can advance both. here we are in the city of london, the center of world trade and commerce from commodities to currencies, this is the place the planet looks to to raise capital, to flow to business, to set the price of goods which will power the world economy. no other market on earth can match the city of london for the range and scale of its activity, a place that has always reached out to the world. this country has always been at its best when it projects its influence, when it stands up for its values and the defense its interests.

o project open, outward looking, engaged. to get the best for britain, we must always reach out to the world. that is what this government will always do. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] more than 300 members of the u.k. youth parliament gathered for a debate. >> please be seated. have you enjoyed your lunch?

order. you parliament will consider the fourth motion of the day relating to child poverty as printed on the order paper. to move the motion, i call -- [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to start by a key for the tremendous opportunity for us to speak and what is called the motherland of all democracies. hawaii sought a dream to speak from this very -- i never thought it would country so fast. i would also like to thank my constituents being this is my last time speaking on behalf of the youth parliament. especially my region of east

midland and a few special people including my mother and young sister who have always supported me, and my local mp. also my mentors who has worked with many young people and raising their aspirations. child poverty is one of the biggest issues in our country, yet it goes unnoticed. with over one-third of our young people, our children that is equivalent to nearly 4 million children living in poverty. this is atrocious. we are doing a disservice to our

children and young people. it is time we make sure britain's future is bright. if you believe in a brighter future for britain, if you value a brighter future for britain, you should vote for this motion. life expectancy is also one of the biggest issues were child poverty plays a feature factor in. a child born in chelsea has the highest life expectancy in britain as compared to costco were some of a few of my friends are from has the lowest life expectancy rates in any comparable developed nation. if you believe in britain, and i do, you must believe in a britain for all of our people, not just the privileged few at the top of society. if you believe in better left chances for our people, you should go for it. look what we have already achieved in some of our local authorities grid the deputy city mayor has set up a commission to tackle child poverty consisting of members of parliament to set

realistic targets and tackle these issues by 2014 before the end of their term in office. it is something which every local authority can replicate. would you look at the county of less to shier, the fund inc., a family poverty structure. this is what we can do. this is what is local authority can do to tackle it. the chances are if you are born in a deprived area in a deprived the family, you may not get a high enough level of education due to lack of resources. when the i tell you dd -- mr. speaker,

aspiration is a big word but what does it really mean? it's the hope and ambition that you are able to progress and achieve regardless of your background, it's belief that everyone has the equal chance in life. when we looked at used unemployment which is at its highest rate in recent years. in northern ireland, people are living in poverty. this must change. my fellow colleague is running a very successful company to tackle youth unemployment if you value britain's biggest goals, aspiration, education, you should vote for this today.

so if you believe in social mobility, you should vote for this. and you may say why choose it over environment? you choose it because this is the foundation for all these topics. you choose this because another generation are entering a cycle of poverty, a very vicious cycle. unemployment and lack of opportunity is what waits for them at the end of the cycle. you choose this because the people in power can do more to end child poverty. it's inspired me to run for the elected mayor in lester making me the youngest candidate to do so. i believe if i can do it, every single one of you can do it too. looking at child poverty rate reminds me of the movie "back

to the future." the character was traped in the 1950's. let's make this change today. economic stability for all hard-working families must be the basis of a more flexibility and progressive future for britain. our instinct as siblings neighbors and representatives that makes us insist that no child in our country shall be left behind. so when politicians talk about the promise of britain, this is the promise of britain. when they see change we can belief in. ns the change we can believe in. these are the fast steps for a fairer britain. i can see some faces saying he's using quotes from the

westminster. if you believe in this, you should vote for this today. i believe in the power of politics to change things. you can come to a place like this and reflect how much things have changed in your local authority and city. it changed because of your political decision before you were in office. so i think today is a day to be proud of the achievement that we have done in every single one -- [applause] a mandate for change that is all i ask. you can use parliament, fourth of november, 2011. every single child, every young child living in your constituency is calling out to you, asking you if you hear their concerns, asking them to

seek a better future. we must seek the future. >> it's not over until it's over. this is a fight we have to win. there is a choice between poverty whether you end it or you ignore it. and it's not a choice of a political opinion but it's a choice of futures. and i tell you this, never ever let child poverty back to do the damage that it has done to our society over the years. so tomorrow you can wake up to another five or so years with this issue being brushed under the carpet. or you can elect a campaign with new hope, fresh ideas and vision for the good and better of britain. [applause] and i could see the expression

on your face. so i must end here. but it's because i'm passionate about your issue just as much as you are are passionate about change. we need to focus on this and things can only get better for britain. [applause] >> mouhammad, thank you very much for that speech. to oppose the motion i call ms. simons. >> hi name is jessica simons and i represent the dragons. i'm here to oppose the notion. stand fast, you know. what is poverty? what do we measure it? we can look at countries such as somalia whether the male life expectancy is only 4 years

old. most people lucky to reach their life expect tansy. mortality rate under five is 1 0. we cannot look back at the united -- our country that gives millions of pounds to somalia. suddenly a report done by frankie dragon found out that 65% in wales has never had their rights explained. although these statistics are only for wales the high numbers represent a missing link that can only be stretched throughout the united kingdom. looking at the united nations, they believe the way young people are treated is more than an issue than poverty showing that it's not our priority. child poverty forms the biggest

circle. the rate in your shir is twice as much as that of england. looking at the national low pay commission report on the national minimum wage written in april of this year, the commission displays how young people are amongst those. average earnings of those people roughly in line with those of adults. since then it's been evident that the wages of young people have increased at slower pace. this leads to a look of resources, lack of inspiration. my point now the end poverty now coalition has charities all over the u.k. to try to tackle this problem every single day. it's part of the millennium goal improving child health and universal primary

organizations. these have not been mapped. the deadline has been extended on the concept of these goals has not been reviewed. the will is changing and what is important in the present day. we have global leaders, government and so many people. if they can't make a difference? how can we? what is achievable in the next 12 months? think about what we can do to make a difference, young people all over the u.k. and make way for the next generation? thank you. [applause] >> thank you, i would like to call this gentleman here. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i've mentioned before. we need to talk about what is poverty. is poverty a child who has no food, water, shelter? or is poverty a person -- a young child who can't get an

xbox or ps 3? we must remember that every young person matters and what we do this is a big campaign. you can make change. we were elected to do this. and we can improve and change the lives of young people and therefore i believe we should make change not only in our constituencies, not only in our communities but in society. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. looking for a young person from the southeast. yes, please. the young woman here, please. >> katy lambert. i do believe ending child poverty is a really big issue but as my two other m.p.'s have mentioned we can't do anything about it until we all rie realize what poverty actually is. if i were to go to my school and talk to my school colleagues and ask them what

poverty was they're more than liking going to say famine and drought. until we change what people per september we are, we can't do anything about it because there's no way in judges the poverties in minutes. [applause] >> thank you. >> woman at the far end with -- yes you looking around with the pink top. >> why you say poverty don't usually instantly think of the u.k. however as you've already distinguished child poverty is a majorish shy affecting a third of the children in the u.k. i believe the awareness you can create from the campaign you can curtail the poverty we're facing. they will go and experience a normal life so they can see how a normal life works. and they get inspired and they

get motivated and we need to inspire them because they have ambitions and some of them are so intel jent that they enjust don't have -- intelligent that they just don't have opportunities. we need to do this. thank you very much. [applause] >> this morning in possibility 2 -- possibility the first debate. if he wants to speak now. he can. he's not obliged to if he doesn't want to. >> oh. [laughter] >> i'm doug lewis from london and there's a trouble in the u.k. and it's a national disgrace. for example you can see that france only % of child suffer from child poverty. in finland is about 11% of

children. but in the u.k. is 1/3 of children. so it really is a national issue. i don't think we should don't this. there are many things already being done. some of these things including working with local people. one example is this. this is the children and young people's partnership. in this state since 997 crime has been increasing a rapid rate. but the -- this intervention of holy street children and young people's partnership, child poverty has reduced by 30%. they've got people in other initiatives. also i come from the very affluent area of london and many people are unaware the issues surrounding child poverty and what the situation actually is. so i think before we should don't this out of the campaign.

people need to be educated about exactly what it is and how we can track that. and also more things need to be promoting. sasha's campaigning and different parts of charity. this should be taken into consideration. thank you. [applause] what about the young person in the east midlands. young man at the back. >> this has been my last opportunity to speak in the house, i would like to express my gratitude. mr. speaker, i couldn't agree more with the gentleman from lessor. the biggest impact is that there are just over 1 million that are unempty ployed. and the last thing was to knock their aspirations. they're telling them you're lazy. you no ambition, nonsense. young people are ready for

work. and it is an sensual opportunity to have look at what organizations linkage counts council have already achieved. and di demonstrating the hope and prosperity that can change if you believe in young features. we must unite to express this. this is a fight we have to win. i'm asking for this motion. thank you. [applause] >> is there anyone from northern ireland? >> northern ireland? >> yes. thank you mr. speaker. four million yourching people live in poverty in the u.k. in 1979 this figure stood out at 1-10 this can no longer be ignored. the u.k. has one of the worst

streaks of child poverty in the industrial world. child poverty cost us 25 billion each year. due to this deteriorating situation. we must look at our european neighbors for inspiration. as child poverty and many members did, it is low as 5%. removing child poverty ensures that we live in a just society. that equal stunt is available for all. support this motion. [applause] >> >> what about a young person from the southwest. yes, i've got a call from this woman here. you jumped without huge enthusiasm. >> we need to hear from you.

we associate poverty with places like africa but really the real issue has to be england. we've got this huge problem and no one knows what it is. 1-20 people are homeless. i mean, they keep them. they go to school the next day. we don't see it. we know that poverty leads to a lack of education which can trummable. if we talk about it know and we talk about early, we can get it before it gets completely off your hands and i can could the society. >> what about somebody from the northwest. who have we got from the northwest standing up? yes, what, and all the way we see the connections deaf mated

and we're saying low pants. we have pulled the services. 500,000 workers losing their jobs. youth unemployment is sky rockets. we must make sure that the government is aware of its catross troughic effect. by 2015 there will be 3.1 million children living in poverty. i must not vote for both. vote for children's lives and futures. thank you. >> it was about a young person from wales. >> hi, i'm jess from north

wales. mr. speaker, i think it's disgusting that children are in poverty. are we really in poverty or are we just under like the norm? so we need to figure out what poverty is before we tackle the issue. and i don't really think it's our issue to tackle. it's too big. and there are schemes in place already. i think we should vote for this. [applause] >> what about the east of england? who have we got from the east of england? what about from the young person here?

i think we need to instead help people break the circle within the poverty. we need to help them. so let's not talk this youth services because they have people in poverty. they help them get out of crime when many people turn to when-year in poverty. we need to think of other issues. also done incontrolled poverty and will help in child poverty. it's a realistic thing but let's not give up. thank you very much. >> who have we got from there? we've the threesome. [laughter]

>> i don't support the motion. but i support a statement being nut the manifestor -- manifesto on this motion. east try den which is my constituency have some of the most deprived areas in the u.k. all of us are supporting people like in my sitch went si. stopping people from having opportunities and having a good life like most of us enjoy in here now. we're having a really fantastic opportunity that hardly anybody else in the u.k. is getting. and young people are the future. so we must make the future right not just stuck in the

darkness of poverty. thank you. [applause] >> how about the northeast of england and then we would have covered all regions? what about the young woman thrm? child poverty is a severe issue for all of our constituents. while we certainly should take steps, our nationals campaign should focus on realistic goals that will help all of us. all you people should benefit from the campaigns we decide on today. not just a few. we have voted in to represent every single person in our sitch went si. if we vote in this campaign, that is something we'll not be doing. child property is such a broad issue. we should stand and fight. every single one of those

factors until child poverty isn't anything that affects. we should shout and make noise. but not for here. this is not to say we do not oppose it. we are in danger of affecting the silent majority. other issues make take precedent. [applause] we have a heavy sub scrix. but i need to call shola morrison to conclude this debate. and then we've got one more. shona? [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, and mr. speaker, i am cindy morrison the nyp. i think it's important to summarize it before and against

the motion. such content can be a little too close for some. and we would have this problem abolished instantaneously. in sing that about it, it's always a concern. their target of helping the po portion nat people of an income of $1 a day. the government truly does seem to be struggling. so how realistic is it for us to take these elected task. so many resources are having problems which is a basic issue. what can we do as young people with limited budgets and even more limited time. however, this is not an issue for the day.

even here in the so-called highly developed united nations kingdom. is there any different? our poverty is a going problem. some they diffused it by saying a fraction of last year's growth. in real terms this means nothing to those financial hardship on a daily basis. the end of the tour our population hit 7,000. but they do die every day. more young people reborn into poverty than ever before. poverty is something of which you're all fully aware. benefits and shocking statistics. it said be heading toward field

poverty. to be defined as being a property, we must be spending $10 on heating and electricity a year. 50% of its under 16 living the poverty live. which just goes to to you that poverty runs behind us. there are no cracking issues today. i don't say this talk this way. i say this meeting that we have an opportunity to wok vote for. ideologies are all well and good. we have to consider about the issue in our win. our government is attempting to address the problem poverty. but they're much easier to embark on. we will be able to see the difference.

we are able to influence on monday morning. therefor it's important to choose an issue and not just an issue to which they will forget about the service and completely forget it. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for that. we've just been joined in the back of the chamber nick smith. nick, thank you for showing your support for the youth parliament. we will consider the fifth and last motion of the day relating to a greener future as presented on the order paper. to move the notion, i call mr. kyle thornton. [applause] >> thank you very much mr.

speaker, a greener country is a subject we've been talking about for far too long. climate change has been affecting us. it has become for our generation the norm. harsh winters, horrendous falls and hot summers. well, maybe not. we as a youth parliament must stand up and campaign for action now. especially the national coordination of recycling. all people no matter where they were they lived in the u.k. share the basic same standard. that saves 18 million tons of steel too, the equivalent of taking 5 million cars off our rhodes. imagine what we could do with even more recycling. it's simple and easy action. secondly we want to use more renewable actions.

but in scotland alone there are -- there's 25% of europe's offshore -- 10% of its weight power. the u.k. together has a massive renewable resource with public and private investment. we can harnest that natural power. but he would design and build the technology like this. young people we have nearly 1 million unemployed people. young people i don't employ. building the winter solar panels and building our dream future. we can take simple and easy actions at home. they can all play their part in a greener britain.

it seems for young people their familiarries what if they showcase themselves and money freed up in conclusion better recycling. pro -- saving money is a step towards a better britain. we simply don't have the time to waste. this government has promised to be the greenest government ever. so let's work together to bells, i dream a future for friends. >> kyle, thank you. to oppose the mission i call mr. ron barnes. [laughter] [applause] >> y ramian downs.

the future's bright and when the future's orange. it's not but it's green and it's already got a lot of people written all over it. any politician will tell you things only work best when they're sustainable. it's tacking of problem from the bottom up looking for the foundation of what's wrong. the only way question reach this is using sustainable goals and standards. things boil back down to sustainbility. we need to grow trees.

this is just one example. it hasn't quite worked out in the long run. 40% is now recycled. 40% 10 years ago that was just 11%. in the first five years of this decade we on average cancel co2 emissions per person by more than an average body weight. per person, safe. think about the fact that more than your way is killing the environment has already been

there. we are already winning. recycling's great. we can tackle climate change. the floors are so prominent. we can't ignore them. >> the inconvenience truth is that there's no automatic answer for cleaner future. they need three times that for maximum output. how's that? it's ridiculous campaign for renewable energy when at the moment the only real option we have provides just 30% of its already tiny maximum outburst.

a greener future and a future with climate change are universal. rob robinson once said there's no free flunch anything of anything. and that's the best way with get it. the campaigns have been in existence by the people like green piece. there watching really well but the only way we can campaign for a greener future is by spending a yeah on it. come and expect a yeah that will affect the rest of the u.s.a. seven send me your microphone. a i was here, they did it in

the manifesto. we don't need to be campaigning for renewable energy and that kind of thing. so don't foot for green future. thank you. [applause] >> thank you the general debate is flow open. can we have somebody from scotland? >> yeah, what about the young guy right up the back. thank you. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i don't actually support this motion today. i do believe the other motions are far more practicing. first, i think we should be looking for our local authorities to be putting more pressure on us to do our best and how helping your environment. my local authority can share a pencil.

save -- second, i think we need to look at the con sue morism or vimplete. we like to intake things. we need to look at how we can address for this issue. it's not damaging the planets, it's great, extent. although i don't support this motion, i do believe that it's something that must be changed in britain today. thank you. >> our young people is this really a key viewpoint for ourself to put forward?

of course. uqy supports a greener future. but we must prioritize our campaign to actively bettering the young people of the u.k. [applause] >> ok. what about the young woman here? >> poppy johnson, the option on the side league. as ryan bon said the u.k. has developed significantly in the amount of anything and wasted with reduced. i think they need to develop the schemes nationwide. and we need stand up guys. a lot of areas just have a zpwreenbings. a lot of side -- screening. and it should provide a lotment in situations like that to allow constituents to develop

the road and it helps provide a brighter, greener future for britain. thank you. >> what about somebody from london? quite a bit. i think you're about to burst. we must hear from you. >> me? >> no, this is a theatrical performance. the money is back to a state that we want to use more renewable energy. you'd be using turbine. and as england is not going to go for economic are. ls you have to think about people's holes. where are you going to put these things. and you can't force people to recycle unless there's they

want to. this will be an example of the older generation of how much we care for our country and our constituencies. >> what about a man from east midland. >> we cannot enforce people -- we can enforce people to recycle. but what was it would y'all go out further. everyone opposes against them because you're not wondering them on the lands they married all night things. they said -- the whole country money. you can do a lot more things go greener. how about cycling. it is much better cycle.

it's healthier for you and better for this country. thank you. >> what about the northeast from england. this person doing a marry go. >> we need to stop relying on fossil fuel because everyone know the amount of soil is going down. so the competition for oil has gone off. so much so that any country will do anything to get that last drop of ale. i support this country because it doesn't focus on the children, it doesn't focus on the minority of young people. our focus is every single jump pass. [applause] >> you're nearly there, i'm sure.

>> i asked for the people -- do you think this is an ambitious campaign? the government needs to start this out. i reply to you this court. we do not do challenges because they are easy. we do challenges because they are hard. a youth parliament member. i urge you to point you region, rise to the occasion. and take it like a tiger. what you have got! that's it. >> if he hasn't heard, within a matter of minutes, i must say to inform the gentleman mr. jay cop reese mog of the fact he has been named in the chamber.

let's hear from somebody from the southwest of england. i see the approach is great. what about the woman fwrp the third row? >> british forces, germany. and as ryan said you have to work for what you want. and we have to work to get a greener britain because nothing comes easy especially in these days. we need to reduce, reuse and recycle otherwise we're not going to get anywhere. and this isn't just young people. it's our children and their children and it carried on for generation. this is to help everybody not just the minority or majority. not helping people in the u.k. it will help people around the world because the u.k. is an

flurens to other countries that are not quite as developed. so aniness pir -- if we reuse and reduce, then openfully in the world will do the same. thank you. [applause] >> what about somebody from northern ireland? what about the young man from northern ireland. >> thank you mr. speaker. i think we should have vote for a greener future for britain. there's so much letter on our drives. i can just be one small thing and make them mark them differently. for example cigarette puts it could make a big difference. it's called thousands of thousands years.

the letter and look it up. even more can be done. the cans, it can be recycle. there's a lot more we can do. and i support this motion. >> let's have a speaker now from the west mid lands. she's been standing very much. ok. basically i've always parted with iceland and it's always been a mass ink him for me and i'm all about saving the world. so basically, to me if you do a letter it can can really make an impact. recycle in the school that was delone in the fish. so it's a different in the future.

tomorrow night. i'll tell jenna the night before, i said that's not act and it might not be the topic this year. and it the might not be the most important thing. but it is so thin that it will save us and it will help save the world. and i really want, you could think about it. kathy. because this was something that can make such a difference to us. banks. >> what about the speaker from the southeast of england? >> ok. what about this guy here. yeah. thank you. thank you. thank you, mr. speaker my i draw it toer yes. you may are not may not about it. but you might have to pay for it as well.

it's a $pound project. if we wanted to invest such a huge sum of money. i think it's more of an appropriate to only go ahead of it. if we aren't 150% sure. but first of all, i'm not kinsed. indeed many people across d country are not convinced. so let's put 33 billion pounds 31 bill crowds they are critting for 1,000 miles each. he's the cost of one will have 2 stadium. mary has an opportunity tunistic assumption.

and the governments have indeed by minutes. but we'll ask them where is bebe. we do the project such as improvement. if this thing broke network to reduce submissions and to reduce it is payment is due 2011 and you now, i think the money come to mind and she was even cleaner. my concern from one of the constituents if then they should do the right thing and be the centerable thing. this ideological speed someone from wales.

what about the young person there with the very blonde hair? yes. thank you. quickly. >> basically i've seen a lot of people talk about good ideas and how we could do things in the environment and how we could save the world. but we need to think about how we go get that stage. we talk about tuition fees. we've got so many things that we could do with the environment. that's the only thing. nobody's talked about the green gutters that we can use to make electric cars. that is one huge factor that we'll be developing in maybe 10 years. this is such a big project. we've got only one year to do it. we've got many here. and we can make a change. and i think with the difference

things you've seen. vote for it and we can change. [applause] >> i'm striving for balance. you might be interested to know that ir my assistant has turned out to me. he said, mr. speaker, you need a woman from the northeast. please. >> i'm from the northeast. people across the country say it's such a big issue. it's only getting bigger. we need to tackle it now. this is going to be an issue. many generations to come. in the middle of many general races to come.

if we sold this now maybe tackle the issue. >> ok. i could deal with i think another speaker from scotland if there is such. what about the gentleman right at the end there just pointing at himself. before i talked about how we should focus in the grand picture but studies have should. -- we can make it more available. we need to focus on local authorities and give them more of an opportunity to ex-tenkt their vote. it's not going to happen. [applause]

>> how about the number. who have we got from london? it's somebody who hasn't spoken before. the woman with the pale blue top. yes, you -- how crute the penguins and you look at the landscape and it's fantastic. how self-ish we are to not -- because we're lazy because we don't want to split rubbish. and we don't want to do that. everyone in the u.k. can work on this. the government has already signed a form to say that we have to recruit on carbon

difference. we can really make a change. that's my point, thank you very much. what about somebody from the west midlands. >> uncontrollable excitement and we must hear from you. >> i do think what made britain gener is a good issue. i don't really see as a financial campaign. i think it should be practiced more. as the ug government would agree. should we be. he's not many. and so -- and yeah, and it costs quite a lot to do these kind of things. i'll be using on this topic.

we can make a big difference in our local communities. what about the northwest of england. yeah, the young woman here. thank you. >> oh, sorry. crystal from rig begins northwest it's the trans port practice box. if it's not in the box we need to do that. [applause] >> ok. i think we need to hear somebody there the southwest. what about theout west? what if this young man here with this -- yes, blonde hair. >> thank you.

three of my colleagues are here. we can't russia into it. -- rush into it. the environment a greener britain, a greener future. the future is going the to affect every single person in the room and every single person outside of this room. number five is we caught the support in this, to support one project, one project. not two. but three, nor more. we have to be reasonsable. copenhagen, everything. you need to focus with the environment and no we have no eems to get anywhere. i completely respect every single person that's rule. i have to look at it.

reasonably respectively and look at what they're looking at. people who are scientist. i am afriday that we are not. i have said we can help our young people. unfortunately it's not the time. not year. . i can do something with my constituency. we can bought something that our young people can represent now.

>> oh, elizabeth bale from southeast. we are getting better out there. -- but the environment tells us at the end of 2010 we only have years. stomach needs to change because this couldn't be transferred. lots of you have said because they called them one. we have different size for local authorities. so we need to go to try to make the change there. but when you think about about things reopening. people not having trees -- but not forget them. [applause] >> we have reached the point at

which we must conclude the debate. and i must call, i know it's disappointing for people who have worked to accommodate a strong variety of people. and i hope you're warmly welcome. mr. alec houls is to conclude [cheers and applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i before i guess i would like to raise the point he raised. i want you to keep in mind the speech. i always like do make that promise. you'll hear about your locker room. in my submission. this really is the most important thing, you must keep in mind. climate change affects

everything. it is possibility the longest challenge. the planet we live on was recycled. -- skewed by human actions. and there's snag must be done. soon you'll be the campaign you wish to be the national one. we can talk of issues such as transport and tuition fees and under one canopy, we can see every single consequence to our action. every single implication to our work. a greener future simply ain't like this. the enormity of the issue means we'll be speaking. the answer have not been fixed out.

an exciting but unsure adventure, we have to take this risk. winners keep in mind the easy targets we can meet such as repsych degree -- recyclele degree. the smaller targets read more benefits such as employment, hitting home. do i want to ricks campaigns to something which could be deemed redundant a number of years. would i rath every campaign an issue where i can make sure that all of my efforts have definite predictable and practical outcome. >> if the presence about the how we ares in this issue. either you come out.

we work on it. it's unique to our areas. the point is, the country is already working on the issue. we have arguments as the u.k. climate change. question be sure that something will be done. do you want one where they may not be a voice to replace ours? this issue touches a of mankind. it is infa netly larger than us. and it has indications well beyond what we can be obliged. should we campaign for this because it is such a large issue. you could argue with me to do so. i want to remind you all of the

power we have. the true question, you must when you reach the ballot box. it's not what we think. no matter how class sal and un approachable. if by work together as an organization of young people. we can make irreversal changes. . and that will affect peoplewhat? what are our responsibilities? should we be getting justice to youth that have no other voice, or should we be giving our contribution to the worldwide fight much larger than ourselves? i ask you when you place your vote today, think heavily whether your -- where do your

duties really like? thank you. [applause] >> thank you for that speech to conclude our formal debate proceedings. in the course of the five debates which have been heavily an impressively subscribed, i have been able to call 70 speakers from what we call the back benches. every region has been represented. of those 70, 35 have been men and 35 have been women. does that mean that there is total satisfaction among absence of complaints? it is never possible to pleasers satisfy everyone. i absolutely understand his disappointment that people may feel that did not get the chance

to speak. i can say only come back on a subsequent occasion in we would try to accommodate you. and keep working and practicing and honing your skills and generating the passion and come forward with the ideas. we're going to hear from others in due course. i have given you something very exceptional for any politician and is to mention a couple of other people have to warrant a mention. as far as i can tell, there are at least two members of the press who had been here pretty much all day and probably all day. i think they do deserve a mention. i hope they will not be too shy. they are sensitive souls, you understand, and it would be reluctant to be identified. one of them is from the "independent." , to ensure yourself. -- come on and show yourself.

[applause] that there are others that have not been noticed, there will be rightly put off. i will get bad press, which i get any way. but i am genuinely pleased that he has taken an interest. and also this reporter. give him a round of applause. [applause] i think that is really very good news indeed. the youth parliament will now vote for the main debating topic for the year ahead. those of you on my right should leave the chamber by the door behind me and turn left into the lobby behind you. those on my left should leave by the door at the far end and turn

left into the lobby behind you. in the lobby, you'll be given a ballot paper with the five debate choices. you should choose the topic that you think should be the main debating topics, for the year ahead. and your ballot paper to the doorkeeper in the lobby after. then return to your place in the chamber. the house of commons staff will be on hand to assist you. the division lobbies are now open. order, order.

order. order. colleagues, thank you for that. it will provide a permanent reminder of a very successful day. before anything else, i am very conscious that there is one person here who i am going to ask to say a few words. a quite simple explanation for the importance they attach to her speaking. it is twofold. since she was elected to the house in 2005, she has been a champion of the rights, the interests, the opportunities of young people. and a passionate supporter of them from the moment she entered the chamber of the rights of young people to air their

concerns at the highest levels. a big believer in the of parliament. and the second characteristic of the honorable member is that she chair is a very important newly established and now highly effective committee in the house called the back bench business committee. she has given real opportunities for backbench members, sometimes on the strength of petitions involving members of the public and sometimes simply on the strength of their own initiatives as members of parliament, to secure slots for debate in the chamber on subjects for which there would not otherwise be time and for which the government for what ever reason has not chosen. her role in this place is a very important role. that member of parliament is an attache at -- natasha an.

gel please give her a very warm welcome. -- nasasha angel. please give her a very warm welcome. >> if is only my second time at the dispatch of. it falls to me to say thank-you to a whole host of people who have made today possible, who have made it possible for you to perform in a way that you have. i want to start with lawrence ward. [applause] and next to him, robert farrell. [applause] the two of them more than anyone else in the last few months, every time i pass them, thank

you very much for all that you have done. [applause] vey, ann foster, and dominick liven. along with them, all the banqueting staff and the security staff of the house of commons. [applause] thank you very much for all the work that you do all year round, but especially today, for making today a very special day. [applause] i've got a few more people.

a big thank-you to all the workers back here. [applause] the other person that has done a lot of work, two people actually, i know how much work they have put into this to make today possible. [applause] and what we call the official

box, the education team in parliament. [applause] also i want to say thank you to clark, who has been here throughout the day. this is an truth can and -- andrew ke and paulnnon, both of them have been mass of supporters of the u.k. youth parliament. i want to say a personal thank- you to a man dead and another. he was single-handedly responsible for making it almost impossible for the youth

parliament to sit here. he said he had always been a supporter, just not here. so i thank you very much for coming to that. [applause] but i think of very bigger thank you moscow to one person and we all know this is, without whom none of this would have been possible. when he was a humble backbencher, he and i spent many hours trying to organize a campaign to get people to stay late hours to have to use parliament here. without the speaker, none of this would of been possible. the biggest bank you is to you. -- thank you is to you. ]heers and applause

a very brief few words. some of you on the front, as long as you hear us out. i think what you have demonstrated today is that the art of oratory is alive and well and is happening in the u.k. used parliamentary you have demonstrated the importance of the chamber. of the last couple of years, increasingly m havep looked's campaigning to keep of their speech and a quality of debate has suffered. i think that one of the things we can really learn from the youth is how seriously to take the chamber. it really matters. what we say here matters and people are listening. we have learned from you, or at least i have, that you can say a lot in a very short frame of time.

robyn has mentioned this already. but you've also shown an enormous passion and commitment to the causes that you are promoting today. how important personal experience is, and i have personally learned that and i thank you very much for that. i think also you have demonstrated that you supported five topics and we are going to find out which one you're going to campaign them. the topics of chosing for campaigning does not mean that the others are not important. it means that u.s. politicians are prioritizing. that is what really matters. -- that you as politicians are prioritizing. that is what really matters. this is what you have chosen to have your voice is heard. demonstrated today that you are young people with strong voices and we are listening.

this is the third year of the u.k. youth parliament sitting in this chamber. after you sit here, you choose your debate, you choose the subject that you want to campaign on, but we have been pleased and we have not done enough to take those issues for. we personally will commit to ensuring that we have a debate that you have decided to campaign on today. but we will see what we can do about getting that further representative the government's agenda. -- further up the government's agenda. [applause]

and finally just to say this is the first time we've ever had parliament we care. it has been a massive police successful week. thank you for introducing that, mr. speaker. that theme of this year's event and hopefully it will be so forevermore, the theme was sorts of democracy. our biggest bank hugo's to you all in the u.k. huge parliament for having written from -- written one of the most important chapters in the story of democracy to date. thank you. >> attache, thank you for that stirring a magnificent speech. -- not pasha -- natas, thank

you for thatha. to all the youth workers and the staff of the house as a result of these teamwork, we have been able to translate aspirations to fact. it has been a formidable efforts. each and every one of them is gone about his or her work meticulously, conscientiously, and with your interests in mind. natasha return to it -- referred to the history very briefly to secure the presence of the u.k. unit parliament in this chamber. she has generously and rightly referred to the present earlier today phyllis davis. -- of phillip davis. he was a principal and passionate opponent to your being here. but he did turn up earlier and he is a good sport.

i hope that one day we might be able to turn him around. i would want to underline another point. as a result of campaigning by you and your supporters, there was strong support across all of the parties for you to be able to meet and debate here. and amongst those who work early champions of your right to meet here was very fittingly that children's minister, tim walton, who is with us today. i remember him speaking and he is an absolute -- he has been absolutely consistent on the issue. in many years in opposition, he was responsible or children and families issues. he knows people and he met with them and it took an interest in he has been on your side and he deserves a big round of applause. [applause]

when the ideal was debated in the chamber and there were passionate opponents, there was one who was very strongly opposed to your being here. he is no longer a member of this house. [applause] [laughter] but not for that reason. it was a private one and it will remain a private conversation, but he heard that i had decided to take the chair of these debates. they originally would be chaired by the deputy speaker of the time. i said to allen, it is ok, you can spend the day in your constituency. i want to chair the debates to demonstrate my support for the cause in parliament and respect for the cause of young people meeting.

alan readily accepted that. this member came up and said, mr. speaker, i hear you are to chair the debate in the uk parliament. let me tell you, it will be an unmitigated disaster. i said to him, i do not accept that. i do not accept that at all. i have been here 30 years or more and i know what i'm talking about. my point is what is your argument. after some coaxing, i managed to persuade the honorable gentleman to give me his argument. his argument was this. at the very least, you mark my words, mr. speaker, chilling them -- chew will theing gum for. in pen knives will be used to leave damage to the seeds. i said to him, if that is your honest opinion, you are welcome to it, but you are profoundly in

grievously mistaken. and in my view is you are absolutely should not stereotyped, character culture, and misrepresent young people -- caricature, and misrepresent young people like that. [applause] i said to him, if these young people come to our house of commons as they will, they will be proud and pleased and privilege to come here. and i made simply two predictions. they will speak well and they will be a better than we do. ey wil than webe. have -- they will behave better

than we do. i was right on both counts. the great thing about the u.k. if parliament is not just that dynamism and the energy and the idealism. and its persistence and effectiveness. but also its representative character. i think in conversations with them, we have agreed about this. i of a mention this as well. you really take seriously representativeness. you have a substantial portion of member from the ethnic minorities, and you have people with disabilities as well. they are all engaged in this enterprise of representing young people, telling us what you think, expressing your views,

giving voice to your fears, trying to advance the aspirations of not only ourselves but of your community. in the process of coming here, you not only with respect but you hone your skills and you learn to do it better and better and better. and you are performing on a scale and with an insurance -- an assurance that most of us an elected members of parliament today could not have boasted at your age. that is the staggering scale, i think, of your achievements. you are doing so well now and very few members of parliament now were doing what you are doing by way of public speaking and active campaigning when they were in their teens. and in concluding, i want to say one thing that i think it's quite significant.

you have evaded five massively important topics chosen by you, -- you have to pay did five massively important topics chosen by you. -- debated five massively important topics chosen by you. you wanted to ensure that progress was made, and that is right and welcome. 10 and i and and and hashed out know that -- ti and i and nastasha know this. you do not always get the change if you want overnight. sometimes you do not get what you want at all. but it is good if you can say

here is a staging post. here is evidence of a positive, concrete, identifiable result. and that fact that we look like getting that on one of these issues is great. from my point of view, what i would say is that you have five debates on five important issues, and the very least that i could guarantee to you is that i personally will write to each of the sponsoring departments that is responsible for those debates and asked irrelevant secretaries of state to respond to me and to the youth parliament. briefly recap. we remind ourselves that you have debated public transport. i will ask the secretary of state for the transport to study the debate and to send me and the parliament a response.

similarly on tuition fees, we're talking about the department of university innovations and skills, and i will ask the secretary of state, bends cable, to respond to your debate. a debate on bullying that falls into one in the department. we can ask the secretary of state to the paper on child poverty, it falls to the secretary of state for work in pensions, ian duncan smith, to respond to your debate. and it is a joint responsibility of rural affairs and energy and climate change, to respond. all of those ministers will be sent the debates they relate to their departments and asked to respond and to respond in writing. i hope you feel double it -- that is some indication of the importance that we attach to you to ensuring that you are

representing and to ensuring that your arguments receive a considered response. [applause] it is one of the most stimulating days on the political calendar as far as i'm concerned. it is moving toward a close, and i think is right that a member of the youth parliament, before i announce the results, should have the last few words. please give a magnificent deafening welcome to the member of the youth parliament i am about to call, charlie binge. -- bench. >> thanks . yesterday we made history by

debating here in the house of commons. we've been privileged in taking part for this. well done. it shows the country the young people really do care about society. thank you for taking part and thank you for those who are not able to be here today. but work hard to let the year to ensure that the young people's forces in their areas are heard. a lot have taken place behind the scenes to make this possible. i felt that i could speak for all of us when i say that we've all had a maid -- had an amazing day and an experience that we will never forget. thank you for your hard work. [applause] our youth workers and not only bought us here but support us in our roles as a member of the youth parliament.

as we carry that our campaigns. -- as we carry out our campaigns. thank you also to our fantastic people who worked so hard on our behalf to ensure that this was truly youth-lead. he without them we would not be here today and we would not have the of parliament. -- the use parliament. -- youth parliament. a special thanks to you, mr. speaker, for helping in this

truly amazing, inspiring day which while -- which i will remember for the rest of my life. finally, i like to think the 65,000 young people have voted in our ballots to decide the debate topics. together we've demonstrated that politics is important to young people and that our voice is an important one and one that should be heard. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, charlie. i am told that this was 1000 times as many people who voted in previous ballots on this matter. i do not know of my staff is accurate. that was the figure was given period of remarkable increase in the level of interest in choosing the topics. thank you very much indeed for everything and for all of you have done. i am clutching a piece of paper

are. it is a ballot paper and i have got the results. i think that i will read the results to you in reverse order. we ought to have a bit of suspense. [laughter] there were five motions. in fifth place, was motion no. 2, node tuition fees, a graduate tax. with 36 votes. in fourth place, was the motion on a greener future for britain. with 43 votes, in third place, was motion no. 3, zero

tolerance toward bullying in schools. with 57 votes, in second place, was motion no. 4, and child poverty now. -- end job poverty now. the number one topic was made public transport cheaper. order, order.

two hours. >> we will talk about the pocketbook and its condition. i am wondering, given the dimension of this problem, if we could take a minute to do all laying of the landscape and then address what is on the mind of the ceo group. every year i've talked to the ceo's and inevitably the discussion of uncertainty about the future comes up. we do not know what the regulatory structure will be, but tax structure, and so we cannot make business decisions. if you ask about hiring, that is one of the fundamental problems. at root is our fiscal well-being in this country. i am wondering, erskine bowles, if you can start us off with the

dimension of the issue now for folks who may not have spent the last five minutes reading the newspaper and whether or not you think that the super committee is actually going to have the political will to do something about it. >> shore. good morning. if you have not blown up yet, you're about to get ready to. [laughter] >> ♪ >> like you, i am a business guy and makes me sick. [laughter] i think we're facing the most predictable economic crisis in history. i think it is as clear as the nose on my face. i know that the fiscal path they are on here in washington is not sustainable. worse yet, i know every member of that fiscal commission knows it too. the economics are very clear, the politics is very difficult,

and someone asked me the other day, to give them an analogy. i said, yes, these deficits are like cancer. they are simply over time going to destroy the country within. i will give you a simple arithmetic. then you can draw your own conclusions based on your own company. if you take 100% of revenues that came into the country last year, not 20 years ago or 20 years from now, came in last year, every single time of it was consumed by are mandatory spending and interest on the debt. mandatory spending in english is basically the entitlement programs, medicare, medicaid, and social security. that means every single dollar we spent last year on these two wars, on national defense, homeland security, education, infrastructure, high value-added

research, every single dollar was borrowed and half of it was borrowed from foreign countries. that is a formula for failure in anybody's book. we did nothing but just take the hostage terry and stick our heads in the ground or do very little -- the ostrich theory and stick our heads in the ground are do very little. this is not a problem that we can sell in grow our way out of. we could have double-digit growth for decades and not solve this problem. it is not a problem that we can solely tax our way out of. if there is another democrat in here, and there is usually one r two. [laughter] i can tell you, you cannot tax your way out of it. raising taxes does not do a dern thing to change the demographics of the country and health care growing at a faster

rate than gdp. we cannot simply cut our way out of the problem. i think that has become pretty clear as they have gone through this last debate. that is why alan and i came up with a balanced and what i think is responsible, reasonable plan that takes $4 trillion out of the deficit, $1 trillion from the revenue, and $3 trillion from spending, so we do not get caught in one of those deals back in the 1980's. and we have a supermajority vote for it. we got a majority of republicans and a majority of democrats. we had six u.s. senators on our commission, 5 voting yes, all three republicans. and two of the three democrats. the vote was as the spurs from the far left purging -- as

disperse from the far left to the far right. we built it around six basic principles. but the first principle is simple. we did not want to do anything that disrupted a very fragile economic recovery. i do not think there is any doubt that this recovery was pretty fragile. today, where are we? obviously what alan and i want this group to do is to go dig, to be smart and bold, and i am not sure that they're going to do any of those three. the reason we came up with a $4 trillion is not because the no. 4 we thought was a great number. $4 trillion is not the maximum amount we need to reduce the deficit. it is the minimum amount we need to reduce the deficit in order to stabilize the debt and get it on a downward path to gdp.

if they end up just doing $1.2 trillion, i guarantee we will be back in this game as early as next year. we hope they will solve the problem. my best guess is that the probability is very low that they will. >> alan simpson, if $1.2 trillion is not enough, my guess is that you two wonder if they will even get to that at this stage. is that a fair characterization? >> first, i want to reflect on that thing before the last panel started. the work fiscal looks like -- right down there. all these great things were said and i found that fascinating. we do not use charts. we do not use powerpoint. we speak all over the country together. this is a magnificent man.

if you spend more than you earn, you lose your butt. if you spend a buck and spend -- and or 40 cents of it, you worst to bed. doing that today and tomorrow and the next day, you have got to be dull. and that is where we are. why is it not moving? what is happening? the $4 trillion is an absolute -- we thought it would be something they could swallow. we thought we could restore the solvency of social security without balancing the budget on the backs of poor old singers. stick your finger down the throat the next time you hear that baby. we protect social security for its own sake. we cannot raise the retirement age to 68 by the 2050. we cannot change the co to thela

change -- we cannot change the cola to the chained cpi. you have seen the ads from the aarp, they are savage eds. they point the finger. and they are impossible. and in grover norquist wanders the road -- wanders the earth with his white robe on. i tell you, it is not funny. because grover norquist has 95% of those republicans and says to them, don't you raise taxes one shred unless you reduce. so coburn stix and the thing to get rid of ethanol, 6 billion bucks, it passes, and grover calls it a tax increase. that is ludicrous and deceptive. he is going to ask them to deliver. i think this disappoints both of

us. what can he do to you? he cannot murder you. he cannot burn your house. the only thing he can do to you is that beat you for reelection. if that means more to you a date and your company in extremity, then you should not be in congress. -- if that means more to you than your country in extremity, then you should not be in congress. >> [applause] november 23 comes along, there is an all-schneider beforehand if there is any sort of history playing out again, and i say we do not get a deal. and the triggers fire off. $1.2 in trillion comes out of defense and discretionary spending. is that an acceptable, painful resolution? >> no one will get blamed for because the election will be over. it only takes place in 2013. if he really gets up, they would

just going to session and take the sequestration away. all they have to do is let just chile -- legislate -- -- or rethink the defense portion of the trigger. >> it will be a tragedy to do that. i say let leon panetta alone. i've known him for 40 years and he will do it with a scalpel. he is dealing with health care system that is $470 of your premium? $470 a year for military retirees? i was in the military. 2.2 million of them in a cost that much? bob gates, what the he is al? l he said, you take them on. i have to take on the professional veterans. the reason things are so hot now is that we were so specific. we knew the interest groups would tear up if they ever thought this goofy thing would

work. they laughed at first and now they are thinking, man, here we come. here comes the whole mortgage in the insurance industry and blue cross, all of those tax expenditures are trillions. $100 billion a year and they are only used by 6% of the american people. the little guy never heard of half of them. >> you would have loved it when we went to see gates. we were talking about these things and the defense department that we could cut. we got around to contractors. [laughter] i said, how many contractors view actually have? and they all huddled up and came back a few minutes later, we got somewhere between 1,000,010 million. that is a narrow range. but that is the of -- 1 million

and 10 million. that is a narrow range. i'm afraid the american people will think it solves a problem and it certainly does not. worse yet, as you are intimating, john, we're going to go to the sequester process. the cuts are basically $600 billion in defense and 600 billions in non-defense with a few exceptions of to decide. -- off to the side. if we only do the $1.2 jury in, most people will look at us and decide the debt and a full the s -- default fiasco that we went through in the summer, this proves that these guys cannot govern. if they put the sequestered and and then they turn around and try to figure out the but the sequestered, because as allen said, because to not go into effect until 2013, then i think

you can see some really negative effects in the marketplace. >> you're saying before we came on that the various groups that you have spoken with have said please save us from ourselves. we're looking for some outside divine intervention to untangle the political seizure that we are in. can you describe that a little bit more? you mentioned a a r p and various interest groups. why is that? why is that so on movable this time around. and second, what can this group do to help the process? who needs to be given some backbone? >> if was not the groups we were surprised that so that, because we spent 10 months on the campus here -- i college campus, because there are a lot of students there. -- i call it a campus because there's a lot of students there. that would come up to us as they

go out to roll call votes, democrats and republicans, saying, save us from ourselves. these are good people in both parties. they are frozen in place. they are frozen in place by a system -- and we did not spend any time on how we got there, but let me tell you about that. we were sent to congress to bring home the bacon. we were sent to get the tax code change. we were sent to get this and that. this gimmick, that gimmick, this grant, this railroad, this whatever. and if you did not do that, you were not reelected. now they are caught. the pig is dead. there is no bacon to bring home. they cannot leading gay guys on the appropriations committee -- they cannot even get guys on the appropriations committee. the power of comte brain -- of campaign contributions is reached its ultimate point

review help the guy with the primary, maxed out on on the generals, and at the end of the day, he came in and said, we never bought you, we just love you. that is how we do this so gingerly at all times. but now, when they see what could happen to them, they are in that congressperson's office, saying we never ask you for thing, buster, but this is it. we go down the pike if we lose this tax expenditure and you're going to deliver. i do not mean that in the form of retribution a bribery, forget that. it is called washington reality. and that is what is out there right now. >> these guys are absolutely understand the need to do something and the need to do something now. and do it in a smart way. it is the politics that keeps them from doing something smart. you know, i spent my life in the

business world. we really do need your help. and the problem you all have is not too different from the problems that the members of congress have. as i talk to -- alan and i both together talked to thousands of business leaders from the chamber to hear, and all of you had your individual thing appeared that you are worried about. you have your issue, your sacred cow. by god, someone like us talk and you get it. you know that these guys have to really cut spending and they have got to reform the tax code. whenever a form a task code, they have to get rid of some of this back door spending in the tax code. things called tax expenditures. so you get charged up and you say you are going to help on that. and then you go back and talk

you're washing guy, and they say, wait a minute. we've got this big issue and if we do this this guy would get mad at us. you can be for it in the general but do not do anything specific. so the business community really does need to step up. if you think this is really important. alan and i happen to think it is one of the most critical issues the nation faces today. i do not care if you are liberal or conservative. this is going to bite us all. the one thing we did fine as we went through this process is the more comprehensive we made it, the more people we got to support it. no one wanted their own office to be gored. ox they said, if everyone's is going to be gored, then everyone is being asked to sacrifice somewhere. so we were able to get a broad coalition of people to come on board, because they saw that we

were doing it for the country and everyone would pay a price because as a nation we had promised more than we could deliver. >> we have half a minute before good questions. but make sure that i'm clear on the answer -- what is going to happen, november 23? no deal, a deal? >> in my opinion, there is a 10% chance that they will go big. that is about 9% higher than anyone else in town gives it. [laughter] all they have to do is get a simple majority. we had to get a supermajority and we got it. i think the politics has changed some since last december. because of what is going on in europe, because of that old debt default fiasco in the summer, i think more people understand the problem in the polls show that. and last, we have this hammer

that makes these across-the- board cuts. and as you know, across-the- board cuts are never the way to get any budget under control. we have about a 10% chance to go big. doing about $4 trillion over 10 years. probably a 25% chance that they will actually come up with a real cuts that add up to $1.2 trillion for $1.5 trillion, which is their mandate. hopefully they will not all the gimmicks. that leaves about a 50% probability that they will not do anything. it would just completely failed. >> allen. -- alan. remind that you can submit questions on your thinkpad.

no as well as anybody that this cannot be solved by committee. it ultimately requires leadership. it is a dismal view of the state of our leadership at the moment. what are the chances that after the election you have the leadership and the political will in place to really tackle this in a serious way. >> i think after the election, the people who have been hiding and do not have the guts or courage to come forward when their country demands their leadership and their congressional leadership, i think in the elections some of those people will be defeated instead of allotted to the high heavens that you did not cut social security, you did not touch the fence, you did not touch medicare, if you did not touch medicaid, and we love you for that while the country sinks. forget obamacare. colin l. this press late care, i don't care, it cannot possibly work. you know that in your heart.

the honeywell ceo was on our commission and got up after six months and said who are you people? it's just stupid. but the problem is that politicians think that business people are stupid and business people think politicians are stupid. that is a real thing. i did not answer your question but i got a lot off my chest. [laughter] >> if if you look at the forecast, you would die. again, you can imagine what's $1 trillion does to the contras operating balance statements. if you put a balance sheet and one side and an end, she and the other side, they could not tell you which is different. most of them, you can see what the results are. the current path is not

sustainable. the markets are not going to let it go forward. as soon as the markets get their eyes of europe and refocus back on the u.s., i think you will see a real reaction. i think it will be a crisis and it will force these guys to it. >> how did you describe our country, as a horse? >> selwyn ask why interest rates were so low, because we were the best looking horse in the glue factory. >> it will not just an election, it will take a crisis. >> i think will will have a crisis before these guys will act. i hope they will light now. i hope it will act next year and right after the election. but again, in 1997, i negotiated a balanced budget between president clinton and gingrich and lo steelt websitet.

wanted to get a deal done and they were ready to put their partisanship aside and there was severe partisanship then, and they work toward a common goal of getting a balanced budget. but it takes up the leadership of both parties to get behind it. without the megaphone of the president who has been largely absent, it is really tough. >> question right over here. >> good morning, bob reynolds from popular investments. you're a presidential commission. you deliver your report in december. how surprised were you that your commission gave the president tremendous coverage to do something and it was not even mentioned in the state of the union? and i like to hear your reaction. i thought was an unbelievable opportunity for him to really

take control of this problem. >> if you think your surprise, you should have looked at us. as i said, and the [laughter] gushy headed the budget for president clinton. -- as i said, i negotiated the budget for president clinton. i knew what success was so i could go in there and negotiate the deal. i did not know president obama. neither did allen. we spent a tremendous amount of time up front with him and his economic team defining success. we did not want to come back with a plan that was here and they were here and the plan would fall apart. it does not do anybody any good. we negotiated a deal that got a majority of republicans to vote for it, we had plenty of cover on the other side, that exceeded every single one of the goals that he gave us. so i fully expected them to grab

hold of it and say that is great. though i like clinton, i created this, it is wonderful. -- go out like clinton, i created this, this is wonderful. [laughter] like every white house, there is a small, all of people that surround the president that he -- small cabal of people that surround the president that he trusts. they thought that it would be smart for him to wait and let paul ryan go first. we fully expected in the state of the union when he mentioned the stimulus that that would be a great time to say, not only are we going to do this to get the economy moving forward, but we have to do this in the context of long-term fiscal

reform and responsibility. he did not. we were sure that it was going to be in the state of the union. if you remember, he talked about the real need for this country to invest in education and infrastructure and high-value research to compete in a political economy. he was right about this. but he left off doing it in a fiscally responsible way. limited resources main choices and priorities. >> the terrible irony is that the mandatory programs are eating a whole for those programs. they are on automatic pilot. they cannot be stopped. i mean, medicare is on automatic pilot. and medicaid and these things, and every day that they get deeper in their train wreck, if it takes it out of the things that he is speaking out. these things will disappear, get squeezed out. >> i spoke to the president of

the university of north carolina. the money that we spend on k-12 is not up to international standards by any stretch of the imagination. we wanted to do our part to do a solution. we wanted more teachers and better teachers, more math and science teachers, and i said, are there some federal programs to do this were to mark this said, yes. let's look at it. >> 82 federal programs. do we need 82? hell, now. these guys when we were doing as, this would be a great nobel prize winning scientist, when his nobel project was running out of money and he turned to his team and said, we're running out of money. now we have to start thinking. [laughter] that is what america is. we're running out of money and we have to start thinking and

use our money more wisely. just like you do, you have to spend your money more wisely. >> question, comment? >> there is one thing that is very difficult and that is the word trillion. no one understands what a trillion is. a trillion is 1000 billion. if you really want to know that is -- what that is, the big bang theory of the universe was 13 billion years ago. we 016 of those babies. -- owe 16 of those babies. the unfunded liability of the united states and all programs is $63 trillion. what we have these deficits? we always say, what you all

think? i swear, we get the same core answer for tempered people say, is waste, fraud, and abuse. it is far and aid. -- foreign and oils a city'sid nancy pelosi's airplane. those other little things. the first thing is health care. we spend twice as much as any other developed country on health care, whether as a percentage of gdp or on a per- capita basis. and unfortunately, while we spend twice as much as any other country, how outcomes are not as good. we rank between 25th and 50th on things like infant mortality your life expectancy or preventable death. so health care is number one. we have to get the cost of health care under control.

secondly, defense. we spend more than the next 14 largest countries combined on the fence. -- defense. that is causing us to hollow out the rest of what we're doing in this country. we're not making the appropriate investment in education or research. it is not even making common sense. we have this treaty with taiwan that we will protect thai one of their invaded by a chinese. there's only one problem with that. we have to borrow the money from china to do it. [laughter] it's crazy what we do. listen, the third reason is, it would give away half of our revenue in the form of back door spending in the tax code. the plan we put ford, we said,

look, let's get rid of all of the tax expenditures. 100% of them. to's use 92% of the money reduce income tax rates and 8% of the money to reduce the deficit. if you do that, you can reduce the deficit by about $100 billion a year for 10 years, so about $1 trillion, and you can take marginal rates to 8%, up to $70,000, 40% of to $210,000, and have a maximum rate of 23%. and you can take the corporate rate to 26% and you can pay for a territorial system so that we can take that up to $2 trillion captured overseas and bring it back to this country to bring -- to create jobs over here. i think that would have real

dynamic growth. our tax code is the third reason. and the fourth reason is interest on the dead. i know you guys understand the power of interest. when interest rates go back up and we get downgraded again, it will hit us like something you've never seen. and that $1 trillion i talked about in 2020 of interest on the debt, it will not even come close. >> when that tipping point comes, markets will decided. one not be anyone with a chart from the white house of the congress. markets will decide when that comes. an interest rate creeps, guess who gets hurt most? the little guy, the most vulnerable people in society that people talk about and babble about all day long around this place. >> that is a perfect example. we talk so much about trying to make social security sustainable. i am a democrat.

i thought democrats were supposed to be for something that would actually be up the pavement to the little guy. and we did that, we took the minimum payment to 125% of poverty. that costs money. we get a bump in every economist told us that is when people's personal savings or now. and we made the -- we were the devils, right? we made a grave mistake by retiring -- raising the retirement age according to the aarp. we raised it one year, 40 years from now. we want to get -- give people a chance to get ready. [laughter] but we did get the rate of growth, we slowed it down. we increase the pavement for the people at the bottom.

-- the payment for the people of the bottom. the people attacking us are the aarp you're supposed to be protecting these people. >> then when you reduce the payroll tax to stimulate the economy, guess what system goes further into insolvency? social security. >> i hate to interrupt this presentation. thank you very much for your time. >> for those of you do not know, he literally just walked into the door. soou missed the simpson-bowl or show, but you're in the middle of it. now showing that you are a brave

man, you agree to respond to it. if you did not agree, that is what you are going to have to do. let me start with what the crew just heard from those guys, and you have probably heard a variation of their presentation before. they say things about the federal deficit like unsustainable path, broken process, and ability to get to the heart of the problem, and erskine at one point said we will have a crisis before those guys figure it out. by those guys, i think the man everybody in this town. you, cant by asking you offer a more optimistic scenario than that? >> if is not hard to be more optimistic than that. i think they did an enormously public service this year in bringing their commission along to a set of bipartisan recommendations. while it did not get the job done, it helped shape the

debate and in a lot of ways, we've all been working in a world shaped by the work that they did. i have to be more optimistic than that. i've said this a lot of the last 10 days. it is a parlor sport in washington, calling process is dead before they had their final chance. i've never seen something that complicated done before the last minute in whington. so the next few days are critical. i will not sit here and say that it is not% likely that a big deal comes out of the super committee. but i think it has been written off prematurely. let me take a step back and then i stepped forward to frame it. if you look at the negotiations that went on the summer, the president and the speaker were this close to a really historic agreement. one could take the depressing view that it fell apart, thefore nothing can happen, or

that they started to show way towa working together. but working together is ultimately this week or sometime in the future going to be a balanced package, as the bowles- simpson commission did to put revenue and spending cuts on the table, big enough to get something done, that inspires confidence. it is not going to be done in a lopsided way. over the summer, president obama was willing to do things which were quite painfulrom the perspective of the democratic presidents. it was willing to enter unchanged changesn the coal -- he was willing to entertain changes in: and payments for various services that there are no payments for medicare. at the end of the day, we had all wall in july and august, and another story has been told it somehow the president raised the r. i think we had a wall because ultimately republicans in the house were unwilling to accept

revenues as part of the package. if you look at where we were in the summer to now, we put our views before thsuper committee in a quite comprehensive package at the president sent them in september. they are now struggling with the same thing we were struggling with in july. what is the balance between mandatory entitlement savings and revenues savings that is fair and balanced and prect those who are at the most unfortunate position in life? and i am not sure what the outcome will be this week. i think if one c read in the tea leaves, they are struggling to get to revenue number that is large enough to have democrats move forward with serious and common changes, and it is ill not care whether they can sell that in the republican process. >> you are describing the situation in which a deficit reduction plan up $4 trlion over the next decade in the

summer was unsustainable. now we're back up few months lar to talk about whether a duction deficit plan of a $1.2 trillion is even achievable. that sounds like it is walking backwards. >> let's remember what we did over the summer. over the course of the negotiations, we did not accomplish $4 trillion as we hoped. we did like emplace $1 trillion of savings in discretionary spending, the annual appropriation. if someone is putting together a 2013 budget, those caps have real meaning. the measure of doing well and an agency will go from did i grow or did i get frozen at last year's level? frozen will be the new high one. -- i w closeon of by. billion dollars in savings and the defense. these are serious tradeoffs.

we have made clear we think the sequestered, work that happen on defense, would not be a good thing. that should not erase the thing that there are $1 trillion in savings. >> are you arguing -- >> the target for this committee is to get from one $1 trillion to another $1.2 trade and. i think this committee and members of the committee are going back and forth as we did over the summer and in an odd way, it is easier to go bigger than smaller. if you're picking just a few sacred cows, it is very hard. everyone in it together, it gets easier. i am not sure what number they are shooting for. in some ways, they may get a slightly larger number. they may not succeed at all, but and make it a larger number

rather than a smaller number. >> and a desire to inject some optimism here, are you suggesting in its own messy way washington has turned on the spending debate? the significance of the discussion is not whether to cut the spending, but how much and how soon and how fast? >> i think we have started. most americans do not realize that we have already started. it is not reasonable to say the goal was $4 trillion. we did $1 trillion and then we got up for an accomplice. -- then we got nothing accomplished. getting more than half way there would be a very important step. i have been rooting for success in the super committee. i think it would be hugely important for the country and for confidence, both to get the politics accomplished and to show that washington can work. it was a very bad day to have a

display of dysfunction in washington. if you compare the united states to europe, look at the rating agencies have said. we do not have an immediate economic crisis inur deficit. we have a problem that we can see staring us clely in the face, just a few years down the road. we have time to deal with it. the reason the downgrade happened was not because we did not implement immediate cuts. it was because the rating agency as the american people did, saw washington that was dysfunctional. i think breaking through that would be as important as the economic accomplishments. >> the cynical view of the process at the moment is that the white house would be more than happy to see failure, because it sets up an election year dynamic of a president who wants to do the right thing against republicans in congress who will not budge. >> i think we i think we have ce debate.

a very small number of extreme members of congress were able to hold everyone andhe -- at the edge of a cliff. would we be willing to default or would we give in to what were the kinds of policy changes that with an even distribution were unacceptable? we said no to that for a good reason. you cannot deal on those terms. you cannot capitulate. we are not in that situation right now. the reason it was important for the world for us to get agreement on the debt limit is recreated a window of time to have a more civil debate. i think there has been that kind of conversation. theyre struggling. these are hard decisions.

to turn it into a political issue is a mistake. it would be better to be done sooner rather than later. it has to be done right. it has to meet the same standards. is everyone being asked to do their part? get something meaningful done. >> you prefer success to failure. you being the obama administration. >> we have been routine for success. we have been trying to strike a balance. this is something congress set up. as you were saying, al simpson, the process is broken. it does not take a majority to get something done. it takes 60 votes to do routine business. it is almost impossible to do difficult things in th environment.

this process was set up to critic congress could function. a lot of people have said where is the administration? we sent a document in september withhe detail. we went through a negotiation or the whole worl saw what the president was willing to do. i do not think there has been a congressional prague -- process with more transparey than this one. we have been giving the committee some room because they are in the best position to get a majority. one of the things they are focusing on is how to balance short-term actions the economy moving was medium and long term action to get a definitive amount of deficit reduction. that is the right balance. >> one step back. the thing that would be

reassuring to the markets and the people would be a deficit- reduction agreement that was a bipartisan and had the consensus behind it that allows it to endure and lasting. when you look at the budget that you have put together, you are projecting a percentage of gdp for government expenditures. you have republicans talking about expentures the code down to 18%. that is an enormous gap. hundreds of billions of dollars. is there consensus? >> there is more consensus on what we need to do to stabilize the medium term. there is a strong consensus that if you look at the beginning of the year, $4 trillion would keep

the debt and deficits from going into the danger zone. we would have to take more action. this question of government size, it gets very abstract very quickly. i have to bring it back to what is driving the numbers and are you willing to accept policy. i do not think democrats or republicans are willing to accept the consequences. it would mean a massive reductions in the national defence. aassive reduction in social security and medicare beyond making those programs sound for the next generation. on an abstract level, it would be attractive on the campaign. i would doubt if they would own the consequences of those policies. it would mean ignoring the fact

that we have a new generation retiring that is driving up social security and medicare. that is going to happen. they are getting older. the system was designed to pay for that. we need to deal with the shortfall. doing it as a percentage where it pretends these this happen without consequences is a mistake. we need to balance revenue with expendure but we cannot pretend that we are willing to drop our guard in the world or eliminate social security and medicare for many of those who need it. >> you think the consensus will be in the 22% range of gdp? >> i think you have a mixture of issues. on the regulatory stage, if we

were where we were in the late 1990's where we were balancing the budget, i do not think you'd be hearing this debate. what has happened is you had a tax cut we could not afford. wars we did not pay for. a recession. we need to get back on track can be honest about what it costs to conduct war. we need to be honest in terms of tax cuts. i think that the issues on the regulatory side are related to the conversation. we have tried -- i do not think it is well known or understood, to take the regulatory process and bring it into a check. we can show the benefits of

regulations and have a better record in terms of out when costs than the clinton or bush should ministrations. the president had stopped regulations he thought we could not handle. we had a debate over health-care reform and wall street reform. these issues are inflated. we're not taking a step back from the fact we need to implement those initiatives. that will involve having rules. the sooner the better. the debate is creating uncertainty that is self fulfilling. delaying actn only adds to uncertainty. we should implement it and settle things down. >> let me ask you one question. you have seen this process for a long time. i am wondering if you think one of the things that is obscured is the fact there may be a

consensus on the need for tax reform. is that correct? when the dust settles, is that going to be a realization? >> prior understand to be the conversation, tax reform has been at the core of dealing with revenue, a balanced approach. i think we need reform on its own. we have a system that has gotten out of shape again. every 30ears you need to clean it up. the tax system shld not skew investment or creating disparities of burden that, apart from being unfair, creates a lack of confidence that the tax system is on low level. you end up with confidence in the basic instrumentalities of

e public secto i think we need tax reform. to potentially lower rates and end up with a more progressive tax system. it has to be connected with dealing with the deficit. then we will be back where we started from. >> let's open this up. alan, do you want to start? the lights are tough. let me ask jack on behalf of the group. there is a strong sentiment in this room, and we heard it again last night, we have heard it over the last three years that this administration is unfriendly to business. does not understand what drives it and what would be necessary to get to these companies to

start creating jobs again. i know you have heard this before. you oversee many of the policies on the budget front and the regulatory front. what is your response to that criticism? >> at the core we have overlapping interests. there ought not to be that sense. we know that the key to the economic future is all of the private firms investing in creating jobs. right now you have a situation where washington does not have the resources or the ability to create long-term engine of economic growth. the private sector is sitting on resources and lacks confidence in t economy to make investments. unlocking the confidence is critical. my own view, and conversations i have had, issues tend to get

conflated. if we saw demand going up, i think there would be more confidence. i do not think it is because of the rule making. if it were about will making, there would be more of a sensitivity to the ft that there are many areas where we roll back rules, we have tried to create a lower burden of regulation. thethe latest one was decision to delay the keystone pipeline. >>n the area of energy and environmental policy, we have been trying to balance our core responsibilities to protect the health and safety of americans and to make sure we are planning ahead while the energy security of united states in a way that

gives bothalves of the equation the time and space to work get out. if you look at rules, they are a model for how to do rulemaking. we have had the auto industry and some of our biggest critics in the business organizations acknowledge that is a way you ought to deregulation. we have been working hard to do it that way. our record is outstanding compared to the predecessor administrations. the fact that the economy has not cked upper is not because of the regulatory policy. there have been studies on it. we started this administration with an economy will in a deeper recession. if you look at the pattern of the recovery, it is more similar to other recoveries than not. in a long recovery from a

recession, that was something the president inherited. the actions he took, i was not part of that team that was working on that in 2009 i think it is responsible for a significant amount of growth and millions of jobs. our opponents ridiculed it and that is fine but we also have to ask, what would add ripped demand have been like if we had not done the recovery act? would we have had a long recession? when the double dip have been inevitable? there is a lot talks but ware to be able to continue to grow. the economy is coming back. the regulatory program is more balanced than it is given credit for. we understand the need for there to be a partnership. we also have to ask our friends

in the business community the financial crisis put an imperative on the public policy process to respond. wall street would -- reform was necessary. it has to be done right. we cannot be at alace where we look at the past problem and have a government interventn and save the financial system and not reduce the need for the government to step in. >> a question from one of the members about tax reform, does fair and balanced mean more than taxing millionaires and billionaires? doesn't class warfare impede the ability? >> i think that the charge of class warfare is overstated. if you looked at what we have

said, no one is criticizing people who are wealthy or successful. in the conversations i have with ceos, i have yet to meet a ceo who has argued that the tax rates shld stay where they are. maybe some of you have different views. i think it is a broadly held view among the people i have talked to that we should be talking about tax rates. political rhetoric is not the core of what i do. it is hard to talk about fair and balanced going up from where they were in the bush administration without critics saying it is class warfare. if i can offer everyone in packages that would accomplish meaningful reduction and establish a corporate tax system with lower rates with tax rates

that reflected what we can afford, i would give most of the people to sign up to it. i think it is common sense. >> ron, did you have a question? >> i am ron williams. we heard from the panelists about the impact that medicare is having. we also have an introduction of the care act. how d.c. the title of programs being modified -- do you s the entitlement programs being modified? >> the affordable care act had

substantial savings in health care. they were scored in savings from the congressional budget office. i think they were politically validated because in the midterm elections, democrats who voted were accused of cutting medicare. because of the savings. the affordable care act is the largest set of health care savings ever. in addition to the size, it put in place a process that is intended to ban the cost curve. you look at what is driving public's help -- sector health care spending, it is the same thing in all of your corporate insurance plans. it is the inflation in the health-care system. the public sector is not growing faster than the private sector. we have to address some of the issues in our health-care

system if we're not going to get our hands around it. if the only decisions are to say that a poor person does not get care, i do not think thais going to do the job. i used to run the academic hospital. you have to cover it and charge everyone else more. if you look at the affordable care act, it was a systemic change. it is hard and conoversial. the supreme court is going to have to decide. it has to be given a chance. if you look at the things the speaker was negotiating, it was taken on on the provider side and the beneficiary side how to get a balanced package. there was an openness on our part to things that would have been considered heresy.

we are going to have to get out of our comfort zone and set some boundaries. we cannot go to a place where we say we're going to start cutting benefits for the poor or disabled or the elderly. we have to bend to the class curve and put more burdens o providers and individuals. that is what the system is willing to do. there has been substantial progress over this year in terms of theebate. i think the negotiations -- >> we are out of time. one more question. >> i will keep it short. sticking with the deficit reduction plan, if the super committee is not successful next week, to you think it is possible to resurrect simpson

and would you recommend that the president take the leadership sense even though -- they would have failed to do something? >> i think the notion -- it is important for the super committee to succeed. i think it would be important to do it now. it is a mistake to think that should thefail, th issue goes away. if you look at the end of the year, there is a perfect storm at the end of 2012. you have an automatic set of cuts that is triggered now that takes effect in january 2013. i think that is unacceptable. most republicans think in this. and democrats. it was designed to be obnoxious to everyone. it was supposed to focus

congress on getting its work done. one of the reasons the super committee is in gaged is bause they want to avoid those cuts. another thing happens in january apart from these automatic cuts. that tax cut are set to expire in january 2013. the tax cuts should be permanent. for the top brackets should go away. i do not think there is going to be a strong sense that taxes should go off on all americans. on t contrary. there's pressure on congress to take serious proposal to send the payroll x cuts until january 2012. we need to move this year. should it get to the end of 2012, there will be action. if the super committee fails,

i'm not sure it is the goal but the consuence of failure is that it will bome a political ise. a framed with real consequences at the end, creating a window for action. it is better for that to happen now. i am willing to be optimistic that t risk of being rotten -- written off as a pollyanna. i think there is a lack of desire to fail. i think they may pull something out. >> jack, thank you very much. >> the deficit reduction committee has a monday deadline. roll call reported on saturday that talks remain stalled after

some warning conference calls failed to produce a breakthrough. negotiators are trying to get the plan approved by the official deadline on wednesday democrats have rejected a proposal by house speaker john boehner for $700 billion in cuts. if the committee fails to reach a deal, a series of automatic cuts would go into effect starting in 2013, including reductions in defense spending we have continuing coverage of the debt talks here on the c- span network. >> the c-span.org home page is easier to use. there are 11 video choices making it easier to watch events live and recorded their is a place on the home page to access washington journal, book tv, american history tv, and the contenders. we have a channel finder that helps you find networks across the country. it is at the all new c-span.org.

>> our coverage of the wall street journal form on the economy continues with former white house national economic director, larry summers and paul ryan. their remarks focus on the global economy and the budget and deficit situation in the u.s. this is a little over one hour. >> i think we are all here. i would like to welcome my guests. there is no better group to have right now. we have spent a lot of time on united states fiscal position. taking a look at european markets, we have the 10-year government bond all at record highs against the german tenure -- 10-year.

austria and france, four 0.5%. the first question i have is, what role is the imf's going to play in the european debt situation? is it really too big to fail? -- italy too big to fail? >> if you are looking for them -- i think that brings the picture. net income is moving in the right direction. we are working closely with european members. we are pushing for comprehensive improvements.

we are happy politically that the new government in italy and greece, we're looking forward to working with them. italy is in the g-20. we are happy and honored to have them. >> the yield is above 7%. that is or greece and portugal got bailed out. >> that is true. they're determined to do cuts and reform. that is all the right direction. they have to act now. implementation. >> larry, is there room? >> i am discouraged by what my friend zhu min said.

recognition is the beginning of a solution. the october agreement was ludicrous to suggest that to greece was not going to default. it was impossible to suggest that the esfs could be leveraged and the kind of arithmetic in the stress test on the banks, if you believe that i have some stuff i would like to sell you. it was the beginning of having a solution to this problem. recognizing the things that have been said before have not been right and have been in denial. if the imf continues to stand with the october framework, it is continuing to perpetuate the denial that has brought us to this point.

the great concern here is we have seen major changes in government for greece and italy. we have seen as much commitment to fiscal discipline as we are likely to see. it is likely to be erosion. the markets are giving a verdict. the prospect, this is not new. every financial crisis there is a moment when people stop worrying about the fundamentals and they start worrying about the other guys and when they're going to flee. we crossed to the point about a week ago. the prospects for success depend on discontinuous change with respect to the nature of the support to prevent panic.

we have not seen anything like that yet. perhaps we will from the ecb, the imf, or some coalition of countries. this is not about road shows about your measures on the deficit. this is about a panic and whether it will be contained. >> i am encouraged by my friend, larry. he is right. this is the starting point but it is a good starting point. finally they are at that moment. confidence is key because we observe that consumers start to

change the way they behave. a stable confidence with the new government, we work closely with them. obviously we are encouraging governors to move as fast as they can. >> i am very worried that the situation learned very few lessons from the u.s. one discussion is what do we do to wall off the prospect of financial crisis? that is about to the esfs and ecb. there is another conversation about initiating plants that provide growth as well as austerity in peripheral europe. both of those conversations need to happen.

half measures do not get you halfway there, they make it worse. we learned that in the u.s. >> buying european debt is the only way out, true or false? >> is the most natural way out. there may be other ways. they have to be mobilized and demonstrated. i thought anyone in the official sector who invested their credibility in the esfs was putting their credibility at a substantial risk. how could anyone suppose that people would a value insurance from a group of officials who were not recognizing there was a default in greece?

it is like buying crash insurance from the pilot. it is not a viable mechanism and i think there has been a consistent failure in europe. it is not like we have never made a mistake like this in the united states but there has been a failure in europe and in the imf to recognize that credibility is something that is crucial. when you speak anyway that is directed at improving confidence by being optimistic, it may work for a time but there is a cost to your credibility. the nation of the -- nature of the assurances have taken a substantial toll. speech wasgarde's

a breath of fresh air in terms of identifying reality in this situation in a stark way. i hope that the imf will return to that kind of pattern rather than into the pattern of expressing confidence with whatever the europeans come up with however flawed the underlying concept is. a sense of they oive crisis? what is the threat here? >> looks, anyone who knows for sure should not be heard seriously on this subject. i say this to you, there is, reading the wall street

journal, there seems to be a substantial doubt about the location of the sum of $600 million that was tied uppe at mf global. it is hard for me to believe that anybody has a a good handle on all of the exposures coming what is happening in europe. we do not know all of the channels of contagion. it is not seen this is an experiment we should be eager to undertake. if financial history teaches us anything, it was a hedge fund with $4.5 million of capital. it was pronounced in the summer

2007 that subprime was only a couple of hundred billion dollars and the market was measured in the trillions. everyone who was walked into a troubled company knows that the surprises are not neutral. they have a consistent way of being bad. i cannot predict where all of the exposures and links are but it seems to me that the likelihood is that the ramifications will be unfortunate. to take up one other comment, it is sometimes suggested that exposure is complicated. people have had a long time to get ready. this story has been unfolding for a long time. those who favor passivity had a

major consideration that people had learned from the experience. therefore it would be ok. they did learn a great deal. the lessons had to do with accelerating their exits in the face of trouble. i would hesitate to buy into the syllogism that exposures have been run down, therefore it will all be ok. it might be. >> i am always on larry's side. he has a good point. if you're looking for -- there

was more on this market to the other side. it is really almost 100 percent pro rated. the european banking system has lost 800% of their gdp. the risk to the banking system would be a global issue. the leveraging -- deleveraging has some costs already. it is a pretty serious issue. the whole world should work together to help europe and to push them as will to solve the issues. >> i want to give glenn a chance. you are an adviser to mitt romney. most people were watching a

rerun of ncis. the number of times europe was mentioned was once, maybe twice. we're talking about parallels to 2008. should mitt romney be more focused on this issue? >> on the european situation, we have some strong suspicions, european banks getting in trouble, money market fund issues, a repeat of 2018 with a nasty downside which is the fiscal ability to offset that is much more attenuated. this is not an experiment we want to find a race to the bottom. i think there is concern among all the major candidates about the global economic situation.

governor romney has said this is something we need to have the u.s. engaged in. he has talked about the need for a strong mechanism in europe. >> what is the role here? we have to fill any void? this is not a situation where we can pinpoint this moment. italian debt became a toxic accept -- asset. >> toxicity changes over time as people's attitudes change. the fed has been the organization most seriously engaged in the european situation. some of that is unfortunate. the fed is walking a line because the treasury has not taken the actions it should have taken. the fed is on the case. >> should the fed to do more?

we have the european situation and the question of weak growth in the u.s. as well. there has been some talk if they have been too aggressive or not aggressive enough. >> that has the dual mandate. the real role of the central bank is low and steady inflation and to be a lender of last resort. the fed has performed well in those tasks. it has politicized itself more than i would think wise by getting involved in regulatory debate. >> larry, do you think it has been too aggressive? >> i'm at a loss. i understand about political pressure. until the last 12 months, it has always been from the populace left. people want easy money.

the fed does not give easy money. there is a fight between the political process and to the fed. that is a common theme. we understand it. what we are living through is inexplicable to me. it is a serious attack on the fed for the access -- access provision of liquidity. if you think it's too easy to get loans, and you think it is doing damage to the economy, that is a natural critique to make with respect to the fed. i see an economy where the growth forecast has been missed every quarter. i see an economy where nobody is clear what the engine of

recovery is going to be. it seems if there is a debate about monetary policy, should we be doing more to support growth, not whether doing too little. i am at a loss. you have proposed radical schemes to bring down interest rates on every mortgage. they may or may not be good ideas but i don't know how you square those with the view that seems to be ubiquitous in your political party that we have a major problem of an active fed providing too much financing to support the economy. >> that is not what i said. i gave the fed high marks. my concern has been --

>> those for whom you advised to not to draw the sharp distinction between regulatory policy and monetary policy. >> let me speak as a glance -- as glenn. we do have an issue a policy can do more. i do not think operation twist is going to be successful. we have to understand that the consumer is over-leverage. -- over-levered. i think that monetary -- monetary policy can do more. i happen to think it is a good idea but the government is not acting. it has pushed the fed into a territory it should not be in. >> is it your view that the

government should be pushing to expand the current activities or that the government should be pushing to contract the role of the public sector with respect to the housing market? how do your views compare with the general run of views that have been expressed in a debate? >> the difference between the serious candidates and the current president is they are and -- focused on short run decisions. the canada -- candidates have said it will give as room to do the things right thing in the short term. the refinancing of mortgages does not require an expansion. if we rotate guaranteed mortgage credit. not something i would have done

but we have done. >> let me ask min about asia, underpinning the caution about the outlook for the u.s. is the slowing in china. how severe is that going to be? >> is nice we are moving away to china. >> an interesting comment. >> china is moving into a softer landing. inflation is down to 5.6%. it is still way high. export growth is high but dropping. it is roughly 4% of gdp.

we have 9.2% gdp growth this year and 9% for next year. compared to the chinese growth is slow but compared to the world, it is very strong growth. obviously china is facing a lot of challenges. the global economic growth is slowing down and china has implemented -- implemented fiscal policy. whether china keeps hold for a while, i think that is the challenge that we have to be careful about, particularly inflation that is high. we will see of china will remain high around 5% in the next few

years. the second concern is too strong. last year china had 47.8% of gdp. that is not sustainable. you have to be careful. if you slow down investment, how you make growth? that will be the second challenge for the chinese government. >> one last question before we open it up, i'm still struck by the speed at which the european debt crisis continues to worsen. and a lack of real options for anyone to do anything about it aside from the european central bank. is there a sense of urgency about dealing with this crisis that is missing? and my overplaying the problem of -- am i overplaying the

problem of getting our arms around the situation? >> i wrote in the financial times -- excuse me, an alternative newspaper. [laughter] about how the best analysis of the vietnam war had established that the way the vietnam war happened was policymakers were presented with three options. if you do nothing, it will collapse. if you do a, b, c, there is a process of success. a and a bit of b, you can avoid disaster in the next month. again and again and again they chose option 3 and eventually

the policy collapsed around them. that is the product -- a process we have been witnessing in europe for the last two years. the challenge is to break out of that kind of approach. pieties about fiscal rectitude have the virtue of being right. there needs to be more fiscal rectitude. one should not confuse actors with sufficiency. they are not sufficient given or the situation has gotten to stabilize the situation. contrast to these financial experiences. the swiss have spent the next to no money and have moved their exchange rate by 10%. they made a commitment.

the japanese have spent vast sums and have achieved in negligible movement in their exchange rate. there has been no commitment. policy has been episodic and with an uncertain future. there is a lesson about the kind of ways you do and do not succeed in solving financial problems. the doctrine about acting with overwhelming force has a resonance in the national security area. something similar is instructive in the financial area. >> that is the point wanted to make. i agree with everything larry said. i'm concerned we do not see the lesson for ourselves. our failure to act, many

economists did the math two years ago on greece. i think we have a day of reckoning coming here as well. our leadership needs to be as focused on blending austerity and gross as the sermons we're giving across the atlantic. >> we have a question for zhu min. you talk about a soft landing but one of the members of the council who knows about the chinese economy asked if there is a possibility of a bubble in real estate. could there be a hard landing there? >> he is a big owner in china. where is the bubble? >> the question was directed for you. [laughter]

>> i will give you the answer. the property price is clear. it has become a problem because affordability is a big issue. things are more expensive than in new york. where there is a bubble, if you're looking for the realtor, 15% are mortgages. the total lending is relatively low. the prices have stabilized. i would say the focus has a lot of issues and has trouble.

>> other questions? >> a question for zhu min, should china increase its contribution to the imf to help europe? >> you had better ask larry. [laughter] >> i will make you this prediction -- china will contribute substantially to any international effort where there are many other contributors and where the situation has all zero -- already been stabilized so it is unlikely that their contribution will be decisive. the best bankers always have a standard rule. they are certain to give you a

loan if you do not need it. [laughter] if the situation is not realistic to expect that china will put a large amount of money into a risky european situation, just as the united states was not willing to put a large amount of money into risky situations in asia. >> you did not ask about whether you would put more funds in the imf. china is the third largest. china also has the members contributing. they can open the bilateral credit line as well. there is a lot of pooling

resources. if you hear from the emerging markets, it is clear they are willing to help. china also says they are willing to lend a helping hand but obviously a lot of details needed to be worked out. >> the probably the only italian passport holder in this room. a question for larry summers. you said it really is too big to fail. i think it is too rich to fail. it has a lot of private wealth. it has a background in manufacturing infrastructure and has an economy. for the first time i heard the toxic word to a g-8 country.

we are in a situation where things can go under control. somebody should do something. the ecb should step up their efforts but there is no willingness to go there. the question for larry summers, if you had a european passport, what would you do? what would be they guarantee, what would be needed to trigger the ecb or whoever to detoxify the debt? >> let me say an two things. business people like yourselves suggest that economists are unworldly and a variety of respect. you are often right.

let me say the single thing or business people tend to make errors in judgment. to confuse the strength of technology, the basic function of the micro economy with the health of the macro economy. in 1999, it was phenomenal in terms of technological leadership. a staggering in its dynamism. stood out to the rest of the world. when finance was mismanaged, it did not matter very much. it is a mistake to suppose that the kind of strengths the site of italy, which are right, necessarily ensure you against financial distress. where the deal has to be is more

reform and more support. what is the degree of commitment on privatisation on a five-year plan that is coming from italy? what is the willingness to look at labor laws? what is the willingness to accept common european discipline over fiscal policies in the future? what is the willingness to seed issues around various subsidies from the northern part of europe to the southern part of europe? what is the willingness to look at gold resources.