and he was the reason as i became eligible to vote that i became a republican. what disturbs me today is that the which will well republican -- the first time i voted was for eisenhower when i was able to vote.subsequently i became a republican member, a vice president in new york. subsequent to that, at of the disillusionment, i lost my contact with the republican party. i hate to say this because there were some many elements in the republican party personified by wendell willkie and others. i was just wondering, among your

panelists, whether or not they could determine on why we have lost the essential, how can i put this? how we have lost the fundamental understanding of what capitalism is, political association with capitalism is, and ultimately, the nature of what is going on in our society today, particularly among the parties? >> thank you for the call. next week, we will talk more about the personality and political career of thomas dewey as we bring you our live coverage from the roosevelt hotel in new york city. to the caller's point. >> in understand what the caller is saying and there are days when i would agree with him. but overall, most of the time, in the long run, i do not agree

with the pessimistic view. i am still a great american optimist. part of my optimism is the hope that there will be candidates offering us the choices that wendell willkie offered us in 1940, and especially the wendell willkie after 1940. >> david, what was your grandfather's legacy? >> there were many aspects to his legacy. certainly, the talk about commerce, and to the caller's point, do politics and business have a place at the same table, coming together? as we look at the economic times that we have, i would argue definitely yes. that is part of the legacy. there is also the legacy of race relations and thinking about what it means to be a citizen of the world and understand how the rest of the world affects us here in places like indiana. i would argue, yes, it can

happen again. an outsider can come in and rise to the highest levels. >> why is wendell willkie important? >> he is a game changer. count on it. he is not the last willkie. that is what we're saying tonight. >> amity shlaes, the author of "the forgotten man." james madison, professor of history at indiana university. david willkie, the grandson of, wendell willkie. we thank the rushville historical society for letting us conduct this program here. as we look at the life and career of wendell willkie, he passed away in the fall of 1944. here is a newsreel that reflects on his life. >> wendell willkie republican candidate for the presidency of the united states in 1940, taken suddenly at age 52.

dominated by popular acclaim, wendell willkie won the admiration of all his countrymen for his energy, policy, and forthright courage. he spent the last years of his vigorous life in an effort to promote mutual understanding and good will among all nations. he talked with churchill in london and shared experiences with britain's average folks. he visited and talked with the people of russia, of the middle east, and of china, renewing his strong faith in the unity of all people.

a great american and world citizen who will be sorely missed in the critical years ahead. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this weekend, sunday, michelle obama welcomes military families to see the white house. later, former attorney general alberto gonzalez on his experience in the george w. bush white house. lobbyist jack abrams off talks about his new book. efforts to reform lobbying at 6:30 eastern. then the dedication of the martin luther king junior national memorial. also ronald reagan's use of intelligence. chairman on's telecommunications.

>> tomorrow, freight -- frank luntz talks about the campaign cycle. then they discussion on the future of iraq. we will chat with jeffrey crouch about his latest book, the presidential pardon power. as it -- that is at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. president obama paid tribute to this year's kennedy center honorees at a reception. the annual awards are given for contributions to the performing arts. this year's group includes meryl streep, neil diamond, yo yo ma, and barbara cook. from the east room of the white house, this is 20 minutes.

>> ladies and gentlemen, barbara cook. [applause] [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, and neil diamond. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, yo-yo ma. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, sonny rollins.

[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, meryl streep. [applause]

[laughter] ♪ ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and mrs. michele obama. [applause] ♪ [hail to the chief]

>> well, good evening, everybody. welcome to the white house. what a spectacular looking crowd here. [laughter] i want to start by thanking david rubenstein, michael kaiser, and the kennedy center trustees, and everyone who has made the kennedy center such a wonderful place for so many people for so many years. i also want to acknowledge my

good friend, caroline kennedy, for continuing her family's legacy of supporting the arts. and finally, i want to thank the creator of the kennedy center honors and the co-chair of the president's committee on the arts and the humanities, george stevens. [applause] george and his son, michael, are still bringing this show to life after 34 years, and we are grateful to both of them. so -- [applause] tonight, we honor five giants from the world of the arts -- not just for a single role or a certain performance, but for a lifetime of greatness. and just to be clear, this doesn't mean that they're over the hill. [laughter] it just means they've come a long way. now, at first glance the men and women on this stage could not be more different.

they come from different generations, different walks of life. they have different talents, and they've traveled different paths. and yet they belong here together. because each of tonight's honorees has felt the need to express themselves and share that expression with the world. it's a feeling that all of us have at some point in our lives. that's why we sing, even if it's just in the shower. [laughter] it's why we act, even if we never get past the school auditorium. that's why we dance, even if, as michelle says, i look silly doing it. [laughter] it's one of the downsides of being president -- your dance moves end up on youtube. [laughter] but tonight's honorees take it a step further. by expressing themselves, they help us learn something about ourselves. they make us laugh.

they move us to tears. they bring us together, and they push the boundaries of what we think is possible. and each of them has been blessed with an extraordinary gift. tonight, we thank them for sharing that gift with us. barbara cook has been said to have the most magnificent voice in popular music. but she was born into a family that didn't know the first thing about singing. growing up, while the other kids in her neighborhood were out playing hide and seek, barbara would be inside listening to opera on the radio. by the time she was 23, barbara was starring in her first broadway show, and she went on to win a tony for her performance as the original "marian the librarian" in "the music man." but success didn't come without pain, and she faced more than her share of challenges before a show-stopping concert at carnegie hall in 1975 catapulted her back into the spotlight. barbara's greatest strength has

always been her ability to put her own feelings and experiences into her songs. as she says, "if i sing about emotion, and you say, yes, i've felt that, too, then it brings us together, even if it's just for a little while." these days, barbara has been through enough to sing just about anything. so now she teaches up-and- coming singers to do the same. the lesson always starts with "be yourself," a piece of advice that she has always taken to heart. maybe that's what has kept her so young. and barbara says that some days she feels like she is 30, and tonight you look like you're 30. [laughter] some days she feels like she's 12, although her knee apparently does not agree. [laughter] all we know is that we've never heard a voice like hers, so tonight we barbara -- honor barbara cook. [applause]

neil diamond's songwriting career began like so many others -- he was trying to impress a girl. [laughter] the difference was that it worked and he went on to marry the girl. as neil says, "i should have realized then the potential power of songs and been a little more wary." [laughter] even after such a promising start, music wasn't neil's first choice. he wanted to go to medical school and find a cure for cancer. but then he met reality, which for him came in the form of organic chemistry. [laughter] neil ended up dropping out of college to take a $50-a-week songwriting job, and the "solitary man" was born. with a voice he describes as being full of gravel, potholes, left turns and right turns, he

went on to sell more than 125 million records. elvis and frank sinatra asked to record versions of his songs, and today, neil is the rare musician whose work can be heard everywhere from kids' movies to red sox games. [laughter] when someone asked him why "sweet caroline" remains so popular, neil said, "it's because anybody can sing, no matter how many drinks you've had." [laughter] now, his shirts aren't as flashy as they used to be -- i noticed you're buttoned up all the way to the top there. [laughter] neil can still - [laughter] [inaudible] [laughter] neil can still put a generation of fans in their seats. and so tonight, we honor one of

the great american songwriters for making us all want to sing along. thank you, neil diamond. [applause] when sonny rollins was growing up, he and his friends would sneak into jazz clubs by drawing mustaches on themselves -- (laughter) -- with an eyebrow pencil -- (laughter) -- to try to look older. did that work, sonny? [laughter] we don't know if it fooled anybody, but they did get into the clubs. harlem in the 1930s was a hotbed of jazz, and for a young musician with a big horn and bigger dreams, it was heaven. duke ellington and coleman hawkins lived around the corner. sonny learned melody and harmony from thelonious monk, and miles davis was a regular playing partner. it wasn't long before sonny earned the nickname "the

saxophone colossus," and became known as one of the greatest improvisers in the history of jazz. today, he often plays hour-long solos without any repetition, leaving audiences speechless. people sometimes wonder how he can play for so long, but in sonny's words, "it just means there's something out there, and i know i have to find it." sonny also loves to roam the crowd during a performance. one story goes that he was halfway through a solo one night when he jumped off the stage and disappeared. [laughter] just when the band was about to go looking for him, the solo started back up. sonny had broken his foot and was lying on the floor, but he finished the set with so much energy and passion, the audience didn't notice. to hear sonny tell it, he's just keeping things pure. "the worst thing in the world to me is to play by rote," he says. "you have to play from the inside; that's real jazz." so tonight, we honor a real jazz master, mr. sonny rollins.

[applause] meryl streep was once described as a cross between a den-mother and a class cutup. [laughter] i don't know who that was, but -- [laughter] when a reporter asked clint eastwood why he chose meryl to star opposite him in "the bridges of madison county," he shrugged and replied, "she's the greatest actor in the world." at 15, meryl won the role of "marian the librarian" -- there's a theme here -- (laughter) -- in her high school's production of "the music man," following the footsteps of her idol, barbara cook. [laughter] that led to yale drama school, and then to hollywood, where meryl won two oscars in 4 years. and then she turned 38 -- (laughter) -- which, in

washington at least, according to meryl, is the sell-by date for hollywood actresses. and she remembers turning to her husband, don, and saying, "well, it's over." luckily, it was not over. since then, meryl has tackled incredibly complex roles, ranging from julia child to, most recently, margaret thatcher. today, she's the most nominated actress in the history of the academy awards. she's tossed aside more than a few stereotypes along the way. each of her roles is different, and different from what we expect meryl streep to be. as she says, "i've picked the weirdest little group of personalities, but i think they've all deserved to have a life." for giving life to those characters and joy to so many of us, let's give meryl streep a round of applause.

[applause] one final honoree is something of a regular here at the white house. i was telling him we need to give him a room. [laughter] the blue room, the red room, and the yo-yo ma room. [laughter] we keep inviting him, and for some reason, he keeps on coming back. [laughter] when yo-yo ma took his first cello lesson, there wasn't a chair short enough for him, so he sat on three phone books instead. by the age of 4, he was learning the bach suites. at age 7, he was performing for president kennedy in this room. today, he has 16 grammys and is considered one of the greatest classical musicians alive. but maybe the most amazing thing about yo-yo ma is that everybody likes him. [laughter] you've got to give me some tips.

(laughter and applause.) it's remarkable. in a profession known for, let's face it, some temperament among its stars, yo-yo is a little different. he named one of his 300 year old cellos "petunia." he's a big hugger. [laughter] for every question you ask him, he asks you two in return. people magazine's sexiest men alive. [laughter] he has appeared on sesame street; i thought about asking him to go talk to congress. (laughter and applause.) alsoet, somehow, he's found the time to become one of the most innovative and versatile musicians in the world. yo-yo likes to say that his

goal is to take listeners on a trip with him and make a lasting connection. his sense of curiosity has driven him to experiment from everything from the argentine tango to chinese folk music, and he has brought musicians from around the world together with the sheer force of his personality. as he says, "if i know what music you love, and you know what music i love, we start out having a better conversation." the great pablo casals once described himself as a human being first, a musician second, and a cellist third. there is no doubt that yo-yo ma is a great musician and a great cellist, but tonight we also honor him because he is a great human being. thank you, yo-yo ma. [applause] barbara cook, neil diamond, sonny rollins, meryl streep, yo-yo ma -- at a time of year when americans everywhere are

counting their blessings, we want to give thanks to their extraordinary contributions. they have been blessings to all of us. we are grateful that they've chosen to share their gifts, to enrich our lives, and to inspire us to new heights. and i think, for all of us, each of us can probably remember some personal moment -- michelle, during the rope line, was talking about how her dad loved jazz and could hear sonny rollins blasting through their little house on south side. and it's true -- everybody sings neil diamond songs no matter how many drinks they've had. [laughter] yo-yo ma, unfortunately my association with him is studying at law school, listening to bach and his -- no, it soothed my mind. [laughter] meryl streep, anybody who saw "the french lieutenant's woman"

had a crush on her. i assume they -- everybody remembers that. [laughter] [inaudible] [laughter] i'm ad libbing here a little bit. [laughter] so each of them have made these extraordinary contributions, and it's worthwhile, then, for us to commit ourselves to making this a place where the arts can continue to thrive. because right now, somewhere in america, there is a future kennedy center honoree -- practicing on some phone books, or writing songs to impress a girl, or wondering if she can cut it on the big stage. let's make sure our young people can dream big dreams, and follow them as far as they can go. and let's make sure the arts continue to be an important -- no, a critical part of who we are in the kind of world that we want to live in. tonight, we congratulate all our extraordinary honorees.

thank you very much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain in your seats in tell the president, mrs. obama, and the honorees have departed the east room. thank you. ♪

♪ >> tomorrow, a republican pollster talks about his focus groups on the campaign cycle. then a discussion on the future of iraq and now the u.s. troops have left the country. later we will charge -- chat with jeffrey couch about his book the presidential pardon power. that is at 7:00 a.m. eastern on

c-span. tomorrow, hillary clinton talks about president obama's executive order to establish the first plan to promote women's rights. that is at 11:20 a.m. eastern on c-span. also, henry kissinger joins stephen hadley and james steinberg to talk about their work in the white house at 2:15 eastern. >> this weekend, sunday, michelle obama welcomes military families to see the white house holiday decorations. then albert of gonzalez on his experiences in the george w. bush white house. and jack talks about his new book political corruption in washington efforts to reform lobbying as 630 eastern. monday, the dedication of the

martin luther king memorial at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and ronald reagan's use of intelligence at 1:00 and. at 7:00 p.m., google's executive chairman. >> dejon -- john boehner was among the members of congress that took part in the lighting ceremony. the tree is a sierra white fur from the national forest in california. the architect of the capital was the master of ceremonies for the event. >> good evening and welcome to the capitol christmas tree lighting ceremony. i am the architect of the

capital and i am honored to be your master of ceremonies this evening as we carry out this wonderful tradition which began right here on the west front of the capital in 1964. i asked you remain in your seats until the conclusion of the ceremony. each year, i look forward to this to kickoff the holiday season here on capitol hill. nothing says christmas more than the clang of festive holiday karos. i would like to extend a thank you to the united states army band under the direction of richard winkles for helping us create a such a festive mood. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] behind me stands in the united

states capitol christmas tree. a wonderful sierra white fur from the stanislaus national forest. [applause] in keeping with the tradition, the speaker of the house, john boehner will extend his holiday greetings to you and light this remarkable tree in just a few moments. before we get to that, i would like to extend a welcome to members of congress, and guests, our neighbors, and those of you here visiting our nation's capital. thank you for joining us. i would like to acknowledge the members from the california delegation joining us this evening including dianne feinstein.

this incredible tree has been decorated with more than 3000 ornaments by golden state residence which reflects the theme, calif. shines. it is fitting that this year's tree comes from the great state of california. the united states forest service and the architect of the capital has partnered to bring a tree to the capital from one at carnations national forests. they compromised 193 million acres of forest and grassland in the united states. let's take a moment to think of the dedicated staff in

washington and in california for making this even possible. joining us tonight is the chief of the u.s. forest service. he has a holiday message to share with all of you. >> thank you and i will take credit for the rain whetting off and also the folks from california for sending this nice weather. this is an honor for us to be part of this every year. as was mentioned, the things i want to stress is that this is a collaborative effort, working with the community to come together to put the time and effort into all of this. it is not just to the tree or

the ornaments fettered decorated. it is the message that this is a model for. about the benefits of people working together in a collaborative effort to do something larger than a tree. if you think about the tens of thousands of hours of volunteer time this represents, the effort could into the fund raising and also the food drive. as this streaking across the country, it stopped in a couple of communities and delivered food. that is part of this overall effort. i want to thank everyone from california and the forest service. it is an honor for us to be part of it. thank you for letting us be part of your christmas. [applause]

>> thank you. this tree has been nine and a tremendous journey. it has been across the country from california. nine days ago, it arrived here and are dedicated crew went to work decorating it. didn't they do a fantastic job? [applause] our grounds superintendent, who has the task of picking mystery out of the many beautiful trees that were available for him in the national forest. next, it is my honor to introduce diane feinstein. she has been serving the people of california since 1992. i have had the pleasure of working with her in 2009 as she

-- she served as chair of the joint congressional committee. >> ladies and gentleman, it is great to be here to see this tree. i would call it a slam, a tall, and narrow. however, when it was harvested -- it was 118 years old. it is now 65 feet tall and it weighs 8,300 pounds. it has come through a number of different communities. and the camps from the great national forests. this is a 900,000 acre, three

hours north of san francisco. it is the home of the peregrine falcon and the bald eagle. today we have some students from that area. first i want to recognize and johnny crawford who is a 7-year- old student. it is my understanding he is going to be joining you in lightning victory. we also have here the somerville high school choir from california who will play some holiday music for us. i want to say that this is a bit of california here. i hope everybody understands it. mr. speaker, i am an appropriate year on the energy committee. the other day the staff director

on our side told me he proposed to his wife at the tree lighting ceremony. it does have significance. thank you and welcome. ♪ joy to the world ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful time

of the year ♪ there will be party's for hosting and marshmallows for roasting. caroling out in the snout. of christmases long ago. it is the most wonderful time ♪

id is the most wonderful time, the most wonderful time, the most wonderful time of the year ♪ [applause] ♪ rock, rock, rock around the christmas tree ♪ rocking around the christmas tree mistletoe hong or you can see -- hung where you can see we will do some caroling ♪ you will get a sentimental

feeling let's be joylly, deck the halls with boughs of holly every one's dancing merrily in a new old fashioned way ♪ ♪ rocking around the christmas tree have a happy holiday everyone's dancing merrily in a new old fashioned way ♪ [applause]

>> under the direction of madeline young, another round of applause. [applause] now it is my pleasure to introduce daniel from the third congressional district of california. >> i love this place. i think if you do not get a chill when you come to this fine it is time to leave. every time i go home bioassay that true americana is one we are home and see the folks back

home. today is the best of all possible worlds. we have home with us here, those great students doing a great job. there are three from our home state of california which i might remind you, those of you from the east, our state is owned 45% by the federal government. it is nice to bring part of a government back with you. i represent one county that is 96% owned by the federal government with three national forests. we are proud of that part of our state of california and the fact that this street took a 4,200 mile trip to be here representing us and the nation as this -- at this christmas tree. god bless all of you and let's have a great celebration here at our nation's capital.

>> next, from the 19th and district of california, jeff. >> it is an honor to have the tree come from the congressional district in california and sherry part of california with the rest of the nation and the world. this was made possible by a partnership with the indians who helped us bring the tree here also celebrating across the nation. we did sioux tribes, and then again throughout the nation. having acquired here and being able to raise money within our community to pay for the

expense of having them come, welcome. we appreciate you being here. it has been an exciting prospect -- process to be part of the planning of this. natalie the festivities but it hit home on the tree arrived. we had press from around the world. the significance of being able to celebrate the religious holiday because of our freedoms was overwhelming. i want to thank you, mr. speaker, for having it come from california. >> thank you. now, it is my privilege to introduce the speaker of the house, john boehner. he has served the people of

ohio since 1990 and has held numerous leadership positions. he became the 53rd speaker of the house. the honorable john boehner. >> let me say thank you. i'm going to thank all of my colleagues and all of the year who have come out here on this evening to help celebrate the lighting of the christmas tree. it makes a worthy addition to this tradition of hours. -- ours. the christmas tree forces as a symbol of everlasting life. that life is christ. whose birth promises joy and salvation. the angels broke the silence by singing glory to god in the highest and peace, goodwill toward men. we have -- we serve this story

by serving one another. it is better to give than receive when so many of our fellow citizens are without jobs and are in need. christmas is not a distant historical event. it is a spirit that brings us closer to each other and closer to the peace of which the angels saying. on behalf of our family, i want to wish all of you a merry christmas. >> now we're going to do what we came here to do, light the tree. to help in the honors this is a 7-year-old from california. he is a cub scout. if something goes wrong, he will figure this out.

he is here with his parents, lisa and richard. his older brother and a little sister. how about a round of applause. [applause] >> this is the big switch. how about a countdown. don't push it yet. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 -- [applause] ♪ [oh christmas tree]

>> doesn't the tree look wonderful? thank you, once again, for coming this evening for joining the california delegation, the forest service, the army band to light of the united states capitol christmas tree. good night and mayor christmas to everyone. -- merry christmas to everyone. [applause]

>> sunday, kris van holland on the debate to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance. democrats and the spending and design -- legislation that tenney am here on c-span. -- at 10:00 a.m. here on c-span. >> we're looking ahead to the political environment of 2012. let's begin with congress first. we showed our viewers the latest approval ratings for the congress. 11%. after this payroll tax debate that ended yesterday, what do you think that means heading into 2012? >> there are two ways to look at it. you how marty seen this, the white house and the democrats

can run against the congress. the do nothing congress, out of touch with the american people. flocked into playing politics, politics is -- polaroization. not in sync with what america is trying to do with economic recovery. the question is, once the republicans have attended it, does that candid it also carry the same brand as the republicans in congress or is he an independent entity into the mind of the voters? strategists are counting on he would be an independent entity. he can make the case against president obama and force the contest which is a referendum on the incumbent. they say the problem is not that a -- congress, it will be

president obama's approval numbers. right now he has had a bumper as a result of the gridlock on capitol hill. he is up to about 49%. it is not terrible. he could win with that. if he is in the low 40, then it is a referendum on the president. democrats taking back the house and senate >> taking back the house is difficult. there was such a wave in 2012. i anticipate democrats will make gains. i am in touch with a lot of people in the game of counting. the game of trying to strategizing. it is thought that republicans will hold onto the house.

i think the gains may have increased. 25 is a lot. some seats are swing districts that the democrats could recapture. right now, on average, it is about 15-20 seats. given what has happened. the likelihood of the senate has been the story, you see people talk about, maybe democrats could hold onto the senate. the republican brand is in such disrepute. >> our guest this sunday, when we sat down with him yesterday, he was hesitant to say the debate was a game changer. he was saying, it is going to depend on the economy and jobs. >> that is true. we're talking in the timeframe,

at the end of the year, the immediate aftermath of what has happened. if the election was today it would be bad news for republican hopefuls. it is not today or for a long time. in that context, what you're talking about with your gas comes into play. there is a gem of an agenda. this is a two month extension. they have other issues right there at the same time. this morning you will see a number of the tea party freshmen are angry at their own leadership. because they feel that they should have fought on this issue when they're going to expect a stronger fight when it comes to the payroll tax and arguments about social security. things viewed as extraneous in order to keep the economic recovery moving forward. if that becomes another example

of brinksmanship, forcing the issue, nothing getting done, who gets damaged in that fight? the republicans got damaged. i'm not sure who gets damaged. that some point the people say, a pox on all of you. you do not know how to get things done. you behave like children. husband and wife, father-son, everybody has to compromise. it is not about holding to orthodoxy. the tea party freshmen say we came to create change. we're not going to play the game as usual at the same time, people understand that if you do not something done, the country would be in more dire circumstances. people want something to get down. the mantra starting to

wear. we are tired of this type of deal. you do not think that is something they can scream about to the american people? guest: it is hard for them. the problem is hypocrisy. they were supportive of the idea of using social security. we have had a payroll tax before. that argument is resonating in iowa. it is coming from conservative republicans. that is water over the dam. the second thing is that if you believe in the payroll tax, say it. but they do not want to say it. they brought in things like the canadian pipeline. the issue of allowing any taxes

on millionaires. that kids back to their anti-tax pledge. at that point you say, this is not about the peril tax. this is not about the economy. this is about you and your ideology. you are not being straight with me. host: the gop candidates who are campaigning, they did not talk about this debate on capitol hill. most of them did not want, after the house republicans, most of them were not on the record saying one where the other except for newt gingrich. guest: who said it should go forward. host: how does a play out for them? guest: what you're seeing, michele bock men and rick santorum, the former center -- senator who said this was about

social security. they tried to put the argument in those terms. they are trying to appeal to that same team party segment. they're trying to say we represent radical change. we are saying that we have to do something about spending, taxes. we're going to take a hard stance.

. .

that's out there as well if anyone wants to look into that. but one of my -- my specific question is that usera often protects service members when they come home to get their jobs back, but it seems like it would need an update to protect student veterans who might get called up in the middle of a mideaster or maybe even family members who have to move several times with their service member and, you know, make jobs more affordable for the family members. i know my c.a.a. is out there, but that's not always available

for the spouses. can any of you speak to that, please? >> let me address a couple of those things there. in maryland, we had to establish an employment office within the national guard to focus on getting individuals coming back from their tours of duty, employment, and as many of you know, i have to sign off on the readiness of a unit before it deploys, and i get a briefing on that unit. we have also started getting briefings on returning units in a by-name listing of individuals who need employment when they get back. so we're looking 90 days out and identifying the needs and working, bringing them home is more important than -- or just as important as sending. i think there's lots of different resources that are critical. in maryland, for example, many of you served in the military,

your spouse, your spouse had to quit the job. maryland changed the law a few years ago to allow that spouse to get unemployment insurance. up until that point, they could not get unemployment insurance because they said it was not related to losing their job. so maryland recognized that change. we are also looking at changing licensing in the state to make sure those are accepted as they go from state to state, so this is just a few examples of how we're working on that process. >> if i could just add in here real quick, i've known jennifer hunt for years, and she's actually a purple heart recipient and recently new mother of probably the cutest baby in the entire country, and she's probably one of the strongest female advocates for service members who have served in iraq and afghanistan, so if we could, please. [applause] she'll yell at me later for

embarrassing her, but we love you. >> nice shout out, ok. >> and i'll add context to that real quickly as well. credentials, reciprocity, those are all things being talked about right now, so that is key. i think we're going to talk employment in the afternoon, but with the joining forces campaign, the first lady has been able to leverage her position with many private companies to provide job opportunities. we've teamed up with the u.s. chime br of commerce, and thee decided to put on over 100 job fairs, and that's moving, you know, moving quite well. so there are some opportunities out there. i would encourage you to joiningforces.gov. >> my name is christie. i'm going to tag team this question with my friend over here, because i have a feeling we're going to be asking about the same thing.

you talked about your son having secondary ptsd and your own challenges with mental health. one of the biggest concerns that i have, both as a military wife and an advocate, is we're just not addressing effectively the mental health challenges facing the military faces themselves. right now we really have no standing operating procedures on what happens if a family member attempts or commits suicide. we have a working model we use for the military member, but that does not -- that does not apply to the family member. and i know that there are a lot of challenges around this with hip with a and all that kind of thing, but -- with hipaa and all that kind of thing, but i do think that there is a stigma for a reason. it's not just a reception-based stigma in regards to if it's going to affect your career. we have seen it affect our husbands' career and us going

to get services has had some negative blowback. i do think there's a big reception issue that we could help with education. i also think that, until that never happens, people are going to err on the side of caution. so, karen, did you want to bring up jessica maybe? >> actually mine was also to april. >> get a little closer to the mic. >> mine is also to april. i was talking to a young lady the other day. her husband is also t.b.i., 100% disabled. she went to a caregiver group at the v.a. hospital in jacksonville and said i need help, i need to talk to somebody, and she was told, we're full up, we can't take you, we can't help you. now, i've never been so mad in my life except with jessica and with a couple of other instances of active-duty spouses who have committed suicide and are completely

ignored. but what can we do and how do we make sure that there is enough help for the caregivers, because if you're told we don't have room when you are the sole caregiver for your husband and three kids, there is something severely wrong. i'm wondering, did you find that too, or did you suck it up and pull on your big girl panties and all the rest of it? >> well, it was really difficult to find the healthcare for my family at first in the mental healthcare, one, because our base that we were assigned to is very small, and the mental health there was allocated for people who had problems and needed to be seen right away, that didn't leave a whole lot of appointment for the rest of us. so i have been following with

an off-base provider on my own. the difficulty that came with that is because we do live in a rural area, there's not anybody that's specialized and trained in deal dealing with family members who have gone through -- not only did my husband have an injury, but the things -- even if they come home with no injury, the things they do, hear, and smell stay with them forever. this is outbursts or, you know, refusing to take his medication because he up and demands he's a man. the biggest problem where i live in a rural area is not having adequate care to specialized providers. i was telling dr. brown that

when it came to my son's problems, they were significant, and i won't share them in this room because they're very private, but he was behaving in a way that no little boy should behave. and there are only two mental health providers in the town where we live that are capable of dealing with children, and when i called, they told me it was a four-month waiting list to be seen. i begged, and i cried on the phone, and i called back the next day and the next day and the next day and begged and told them this is what's going on in my house every single day. and they were able to put us on a cancellation list, and luckily we didn't have to wait the four months. i think we waited about three weeks, but it was a long three weeks. so we definitely need more mental health people who are trained in dealing with ptsd and the people that deal with

it, because i may have ptsd from the way he acts sometimes. >> you mean you speak our language? >> well, i think also, even if anything in d.o.d. was working perfectly, and we all know it's not, i get all that. but even if it was working perfectly, we simply do not have the resources and the culture, for that matter, like what you talked about, to deal with what comes after 10 years of war. april, you said they never come home the same. that means no family is ever the same. and so what regulations do we need to change internally, whether they're joint ethic laws or whatever to let those organizations and some of these nonprofits that can step in and fill the gap. i did not know about that organization until after i wrote an op-ed for the "washington post" and i was sitting in the white house. that was the first time i heard about it. what do we need to do internally to open those gates and integrate safely, but we

need to figure out a way to connect those dots. >> is it the attitude and culture? >> there are a great many resources, and unfortunately they haven't been vetted, and trying to coordinate this is daunting. >> i appreciate you bringing this up. i have many a conversation with the general, who's going to have the privilege of hearing him speak. he gets it. he really gets it. we're reaching out to all the respective services, and then also the n.g.o.'s and civilian organizations to do what we have to do to bring that in. that said, i really don't have

a clear answer for you on that. we are doing it. i've taken your drum, and i'm beating it the same as you are. and the wonderful thing is, there are people out there who really understand, really care, their heart is in it, their mind is in it, their intellect matches their passion. and it's just a lot of work. i'm not saying people wash their hands and give up, so stay tuned. >> you two have been waiting very patiently. >> i'm going concede to my colonel here. >> colonel mudder, retired marine. first of all, i want to concur that i've experienced the same thing, at my plight is nowhere near yours of the v.a. saying the problem you have is beyond our capability to take care of with the number of visits you're going to have to have and the time you're going to

take. you're going to have to go out in the civilian world and pay for it yourself. you have this thing going on between eight and 10 years. but the big reason i came up here was to suggest one of the problems the v.a. hospital's fall have, at least three that i've attended and gone to, is that i see people like my two brothers, one who served in the navy and one who served in air force, and a very good friend of mine who had two years in the marine corps, none of whomever had an injury or scratch or anything else, all of whom served over hoe years ago, and all of whom get right in front of anybody else. they get an appointment to the

v.a. listening for service just as though they were 100% or 90% disabled. and i know the v.a. has a prioritization scheme of one through six or seven as i recall. but it's not being enforced anywhere in the country. at least it's not enforced in salt lake city, d.c., or indianapolis. those are the three hospitals i've attended, three v.a.'s i've attended. so there's got to be -- i know we say certainly, on active duty, your sickness can't be any greater than mine, your health is no more important than mine. and as an officer, we always -- i, anyway, always would stand at the end of the line and just wait or come back after sick day was almost over before i went back in.

but you don't have that. your clinician says i need to see new another two weeks, did you out to get an appointment, well, they're filled up for the next four months because there's all these people that are in there that have had probably little -- they're probably classified six or seven and are taking the same spaces, they're taking all the spaces up just in chronological order. >> we only have a few minutes left, so colonel, i just want to ask, is there anyone else who's waiting to ask a question who has a related question to that? >> thank you. i'm from san diego. from 2006 to 2009, we had a program for the wounded warriors. >> explain to people what it is. >> it's an energy work that

research shows that improved healing 40% to 60% is very effective with post traumatic stress. we were very successful, and what i saw was, before they even got out of the military, once they got out of their bed in the hospital,, we could see -- and i'm not a psychologist or doctor, but we could see all the problems. the problem is many wouldn't go to see a therapist because they didn't want it in their record. >> right. we just addressed that. >> but even more, as much as we try to encourage the therapist to work with us, there was absolutely no interest on the part of the medical group. after walter reed hospital, they closed down the program, fixed up the places, and then we haven't been able to get back in. >> well, maybe that's something that you can address, because we -- yeah?

>> but we're talking about the problem. the problem is before they get out of the military. because we understand the problems with the v.a., put as a community support, how can we do it when we are constantly told no? >> we do have a solution in place. >> ok, let's hear a solution for some of these. >> we do have a solution in place, and it is, in fact, the law of the land. and it was created by all the military services about two years ago. and if it is implemented with leadership oversight and accountability and data to back it up, the recovery coordination plans and federal recovery coordination plans and the screening to identify every serious and severely injured service member and a plan that addresses the needs of the family members also and integrate the community assets

where the people live would prevent that kind of thing that april or andrea or pam or the other spouses and families and the kids have to go to. we know how to do this. and there is a stigma that is still out there. and it is unacceptable, but it takes leadership, and it takes accountability. the legislation is in place. the instructions and tools are in place, and it should not be happening anymore. >> all right. anybody want to address? >> ma'am, i know you guys are probably saying, wow, the brain dead guy is not talking up there, so i'm going to talk right now. i'm not quite completely brain dead. but i think one of the big issues that i hear, and i want

to pillyback, you're exactly right, ma'am. everything is put in place. i've heard from people in the navy, from the army, from the marines, from the air force, every branch of the unit has something put in place. the problem is they're not talking with each other. that's the problem. if the air force would talk to the army and the army would talk to the marines, the marines would talk to the navy, the navy would talk to the air force, and if everybody would talk to each other and say, you know what, this is what everybody has, and made one, big, huge corroboration, this is the perfect plan, then we wouldn't have this. that's what i think.

>> tom, you probably said about the smartest thing anybody's said all day, thank you. i think we have time for one more question, and i'll go over here. >> my name's danny. i served two tours in vietnam. and i've got ptsd. one thing i'd like to see the v.a. do is to get -- it was put on by pbs, it's called "the wounded platoon." if they would show everyone that is not familiar with what they're trying to help, they're trying to help people with ptsd but have no idea what it is, if they would show them mandatory that video, i think that would be a big help to make them understand what the guy is dealing with that comes to see them. because pbs stayed with them for about a year and filmed it all, and it shows what happens to people who have ptsd and comes home with it.

>> i think, unfortunately, we've gotten to the end of our program. i know there are other people who want to ask questions. i've all waited very patiently. can i ask the people on the panel, would you be available for a few minutes afterwards if any of you want to come and talk to these people? you know, this is the a-team here. if you do have any questions, i would say come right up afterwards, but we do have to break. if i could just summarize, i think there are a number of things that people have said. mental health is a bigger problem, we are addressing it, we've never really recognized it in previous conflicts, whether it's been world war ii or vietnam, but we are at least identifying it, bit we still have a really long way to go. secondly is the stigma attached to it. third would be the whole issue of families. is there settlement for families. the people, as april said, the caregivers who are giving the care often have a lot of problems as well as a result of their wounded warriors coming home. and then tom, you probably said it best, we do have the

programs out there, but everybody needs to talk to each other. so thank you all very much for participating in this panel. i think we've learned a lot. i've sure learned a lot. and i want to thank everyone here. doctor, general, the cute single guy -- >> am i a doctor now? >> oh, no, no, dr. brown, sorry. and the marcums and lieutenant colonel from the white house. thank you so much for participating and educating us all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> today on "washington journal," a republican pollster talks about his focus groups on the 2012 campaign cycle. after that, a discussion on the future of iraq now that u.s. troops have left the country with daniel serwer of the middle east institute. and later, we'll chat with author jeffrey crouch about his latest book, "the presidential pardon power." that's live at 7:00 a.m.

eastern here on c-span. >> midland high school students, for this year's c-span student cam video competition, we want to you tell us what part of the constitution has meaning to you and why. let us know in a five to eight-minute documentary and get it to c-span by january 20, 2012, less than a month away, for your chance to win the grand prize. there's $50,000 in total prizes. the video documentary competition is open to students grade six through 12. so for complete details, go online to studentcam.org. >> david callahan and the ayn rand center recently faced off in a debate on the role of government. it was hosted by town hall seattle. it was called a tool used to aid brooks. they counter that wealth disparity is good because it's a product of freedom. their debate is just over an hour and a half.

>> the topic of tonight's debate is government, what is the proper role. it's moderated by former u.s. attorney, john mckay. and before i say more about tonight's program, i want to mention a few events coming up through our center for civic life series here at town hall. first of all, a timely novel set in the great depression. make a case for a carbon tax, and local activist john degroff who ask what is the economy for anyway. also coming up is a physicist,

the newly formed watershed opera, seattle radio theater's performance of miracle on 34th street, and a very cool literally collaboration between the book club and seattle rock orchestra, and all of that stuff is happening in the next two weeks. it's typical for town hall. if up to the stay in touch with everything we have going on, you can find out more at town hallseattle.org. the best way is to become a member. membership starts at just $35. it provides the discounts on books, tickets, and more. best of all, it gives you a feeling that you are part of everything we do over, over 350 events a year. so, on your way home tonight, pick up a membership form in the lobby, and you can also sign up online at townhallseattle.org. tonight's debate will be moderated by seattle native john mckay, who grew up on capitol hill and attended st.

joseph's grade school, seattle prep high school, and the university of washington. he served as united states attorney under george w. bush from 2001 to 2007. when he resigned he joined the faculty of seattle university's school of law, where he continues to teach. i want to turn the proceedings over to him now, and he's going to introduce our debaters and tell you exactly how the evening will proceed. thank you again for coming. please give a warm town hall welcome to our debate. >> good evening, everyone. i'm john mckay. it's my privilege to be here at seattle's town hall here in the great hall and to welcome you to what is now the fifth in a

series of national debates on very important topics. tonight, we're going to talk about the role of government. in fact, our title is government, what's it good for. that may be a provocative line for our two debaters, and first, we have david callahan here to your left. he is the co-founder and senior fellow of a think tank, public policy group based in new york. he is an author, like our second debater tonight. he's a commentator and lecturer. his books, in particular the cheating culture and the moral center are tremendous commentaries worthy of your consideration. he's a graduate of hampshire college, and he holds a ph.d. in politics from princeton university. we'll talk some more about some of the positions he's advocated, and i'm sure he will bring some of those to your

attention as well. to my left, to your right, is the executive director of the ayn rand institute. it is, of course, a well known nonprofit organization advancing the ideas of objectivism. he is himself a tremendous intellect and writer as well, publisher and commentator, so we have two very engaging debaters tonight, and we were talking beforehand that we're hoping that our debate -- we're not using the yardstick, the presidential debate. it's just to put you all at ease. what we hope for tonight is engagement, engagement on important ideas, important issues. we have two tremendous protagonists here, and we're asking all of to you participate as well, which is a tradition here at town hall. so we will have plenty of opportunity and time for questions from all of you for

our tremendous debaters. my role will be to simply move this along to various topics, but not to be afraid to linger on important topics as our debaters may determine to be and as you may determine them to be. if we rip the rip from the headlines today, i hate to say that the first issue would be one that i think could only be characterized as failure. and i'm referring, of course, to the joint committee looking at the question of the reduction of united states debate and the failure of the joint committee and the announcement failure by both parties of that partisan committee. i think that might be an interesting place to start on what the role of government is and should be in our society. so we'll jump into that question and give you each an opportunity to open in the context of that question.

so we want to give each of our debaters an opportunity to speak. we'll leave that question in the background. you may address it as you open it, or we'll address it as you finish. so, david, we want to turn to you first, and you may make five minutes or so of an opening statement. >> it's great to be here tonight. so this is my fourth appearance at town hall seattle, and as always, i'm thankful to the fantastic team that makes these events possible. town hall is truly one of the best venues for public discussion in the country. i've been to a lot of them, so thank you. on my previous visits to town hall, i was the only person up here on the stage. while it's certainly fun to be a monopoly provider like that, i'm also looking forward to tonight. the role of government is the central usually of our time and politics. i'm thrilled to be here to make the case for a public sector

that is strong, that is effective, and that can advance the common good. so let me sketch out the way i see things. for starters, the real question is not what should government be doing as if it had its own agenda. the real question is what do we as citizens want to do through government. this is a democracy, after all. government is our common tool to get things done. government is us. it's a tool we use when we want to do things we can't do as individuals, that we can't do through the free market and that we can't do through civil society or charity. the best way to think about government is as a set of

public structures that we have built to make society better for everyone. in a great many ways, the story of the success over the past century is a story of how we together have built these public structures and expanded the role of government to improve our lives. i'll talk about a bunch of those good things tonight, but let me flag two major and overarching roles for government. first, we use government to protect ourselves. protection is a fundamental role of the state, and it goes beyond protecting ourselves from street criminals or from foreign terrorists. we've also turned to government to protect ourselves from other things, like contaminated food and pollution. americans no longer die in

droves from food-borne diseases as they did before the creation of the f.d.a. in 1906. we no longer choke on the air that we breathe in our cities. we also use government to protect ourselves from unscrupulous business practices. government protects us or should protect us from being ripped off in final frauds or exploited by lenders or tricked by false advertising or harmed by defective consumer products. and government protects us in other ways. it protects us in the work place. a century ago, 100,000 workers died every five years on the job, often because employers didn't really care whether they died. at a time there's only 40 million people in the labor force, today, 5,000 workers die a year in the labor force, which is much larger.

because of government, fewer americans are dying on our highways. since the federal government stepped in to regulate auto safety in 1966, the auto fatality rate has dropped by 400%. seat belts, air bags, regulated by government, mandated by government, have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. americans want government to play this protective role, but for decades now, powerful interests have been working to destroy these protections, often to increase their own bottom line. this helps explain why investors lost trillions of dollars when wall street was allowed to turn into a casino, where so many americans have lost their homes to predatory lending, why so much air pollution still persists, causing asthma, lung cancer, heart disease, when government watch dogs are sleeping or when

they've been put to sleep, bad things happen. and yet all of this bad stuff is apparently not enough, and there are politicians trying to strip away even more of these protections, trying to kill the f.d.a., trying to kill the e.p.a., trying to kill osha. we'll come back to that later, i'm sure. a second role of government, again, a role that we have chosen together as citizens, is to help build a stronger economy and ensure prosperity for everyone. look, capitalism is a great system for creating wealth. but it can also be a brutal system, a system that allows some people to live like kings and leave others to starve on the street. it can be very unstable, prone to booms and busts. this is not the kind of society americans want.

yes, we believe in economic freedom, we want to use the market and business to build wealth, to build personal autonomy, to realize our dreams. but we also believe in mutual obligation and taking care of each other. we try to get the best of both worlds, to get the prosperity and freedom, but also the fairness and security. and we haven't been doing that very well lately. we haven't been getting the best of both worlds late until that way, because government has been too weak. the evidence is everywhere around us. too many americans live in poverty, too many americans are unemployed. too many don't have healthcare, too many can't afford college, and all this at a time when the top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 90% of americans put

together. that is not ok. it's not the kind of country we want to live in. it's not the country that the founders envisioned. we can do better and government offers us a way to do better together. so i'm going to come back to that supercommittee question. >> let me ask in the context of your remarks. you've talked about the weakness of government. it seems that perhaps in the joint select committee on deficit reduction, an enormous amount of power, at least on the surface, seems to have flowed into that committee. but it's been a failure. when you say the government is weak, would we strengthen something that, when given power, seems to fail. >> the supercommittee was a failure because the republican party has been taken over by anti-government idealogues who are opposed to raising taxes

under any circumstances despite the fact that taxes are at their lowest level in 60 years as a percentage of gpped and rear facing the retirement of boomers. that's why the supercommittee failed. it is not about the problems of government structurally. it is about the republican party has lost its mind. >> well, let me turn -- let me turn to mr. brook and also in the context of your opening statement, if you wish, to address the failure that i have mentioned. but we want to give you an opportunity to open as well. >> hopefully this is my first comment, hopefully not my last. itch a feeling david's more at home than i am, but i would like to be at home here. >> you're very welcome here. >> thank you.

>> i want to thank our moderator for being willing to moderate this discussion. i want to take a step back. i think we'll get into all the different concrete issues that david has brought up, and i'm eager to comment on all of them. i'd like to take a step back, because i'd like to ask the more fundamental question. why do we need government? what is it for? and is there something unique about this country and the experiment that is america? because i believe there is. i believe in the 18th century thinkers of the time faced a crucial turning point in human history. they had to decide who each one of our lives belongs to.

is your life the property of a king? is your life the property of a tribe? the property of a group, of a collective, of a democracy. is your life the property of someone else? because that's the way human beings have been living forever. before 1776, all countries, you as an individual, didn't count. you didn't. you belonged, you were responsible to some other entity above and beyond you as an individual. what the founding fathers established is the first country in human history where that was not true. the country was established with the idea that your life belongs to you, not with the pope, not to the king, not to your neighbor, not to any group, nice group, bad group,

doesn't matter. your life is not owned by the tribe. it is yours. it is yours to live as you please. founding fathers, this country was established on a moral principle, on a moral principle of individualism, on the idea that we are autonomous entities that have a moral right to our own life, a moral right to our own ideas, a moral right to pursue our own happiness. uninfringed by majorities, by popes, by anybody. now, how do we live a life like that? how do we fulfill that individualism how do we live in a society where everybody's pursuing their own interest in a harmonious way? well, the founders had a really

concept for this. they called it individual rights. the idea was, if you lived your life the way you wanted to live it, pursuing your own value, pursuing your own life, pursuing your own happiness, that was ok, as long as you didn't use force against your neighbor, as long as up didn't exceed your neighbor's ability to do the same. so we all have individual rights. we all have this right to pursue our dream, our happiness, our values. but we need an entity to prevent us from using force against one another, because we know throughout human history, unfortunately, we're a pretty bloody race. people use force all the time. and that is what this kick government was instituted to do, to protect us from our neighbor who might decide to steal our stuff, to defraud us, to take stuff away from us. that was the role of

government. to protect our right to life liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. that requires a very small government. that requires a government that just does policing, military, judiciary and leaves us alone otherwise, leaves us alone to pursue our lives. because once a government starts doing all the things david wants them to do, they have to start infringing on my right. now let's say there's a really good cause out there. you know, people need more healthcare. people are not getting the healthcare they would otherwise get. there are only two to get me to help them.

one is to ask. that's the system i like, a voluntary system, where my life perfected, where i get to make the choice of who to help and who not to help, under what conditions to help them, under what conditions not to help them. the only other choice is to force me to do it. that is a violation of my life. that is a violation of my right to life. that is taking property away from me and using it in a way that i do not want to use it. or that i have not chosen to use. and that is fundamentally wrong. it's wrong when we do it to each other. we call it stealing. it's equally wrong when we get a group of people and vote for 51% to take my money away. it's still stealing. it's still wrong. it's still a violation of my rights. it's still exactly the kind of government the founding fathers warned us against, the kind of government that tries to tell

people how to live, what to do with their money, who to help and who not to help. so i approach this issue -- my approach is very simple. government should do one thing and one thing only and do it really well, and it should be as big as it needs to be to do this one thing very well, and that is protect our individual rights, and it should do nothing else. all the wonderful goals that david might have for society out there should be achieved or not by voluntary association of individuals pursuing their own life and their own happiness. so, in terms of the supercommittee, the failure, way up there -- a failure perhaps -- so, in my view, the failure is not the failure of the supercommittee. the failure is the failure of 100 years of a mixed economy that has brought us to the brink of bankruptcy, the failure is administration after administration, spending money on things the government should

have never been spending money on to begin with, this is a failure of spending money we don't have, the notion that somehow government should be allowed to follow everything all the time, as much as they want, whenever they want it, which leads to greece. it leads to the destruction, it leads to chaos. more importantly and more fundamentally, it leads to the violation of each one of our rights, our life to live, our right to live our life in the best way that we choose to live our life. the system we have today is a system of autocrats dictating how, what, and where we should live. and yeah, in some very narrow field you can aggregate the numbers and say somebody's better off. but what if i'm not better off? i don't accept the right of the government to dictate that. to me, the supercommittee is a little technicality on the way. yes, they failed. it's a little funny to blame

all the republicans when the problem clearly -- >> would you blame both parties? >> no, i'm not going to defend republicans. republicans are awful. they're god-awful at this point. the beneficiary administration was one of the great disasters of the 20th century. >> could we insert democrats into that response as well? do you have the same anti-pathy to the democrats as republicans? >> i have a great antipathy to the democrats. >> wouldn't want to leave them out. >> no, my view is the problem today in washington is spending, spending, spending, and too much regulation. the solution and the only solution is to cut, cut, cut and reduce the size and the scope. you don't do that and can do that by raising taxes. now, this stuff you can do with taxes, and we can talk about that --

>> let's hold off on taxes for a moment. death and taxes, we'll cover all of those points. but i'd like to turn to david, because we've heard a very narrow view of government, and i think a fairly dramatic class share between our two speakers, which is exactly what we had hoped for. you mentioned the philosophy hinlt government, what the founding fathers were, quoting john locke, who famously said our fund mental rights are life, liberty, and property, followed by thomas jefferson, you might say, who as our country came together, replaced the word property with, one might argue, the pursuit of happiness. i'm wondering if you have a comment on the basic view towards government in our society. is it a property right? is there a narrow view of government? is that how government came to be as we know it in the united states? >> well, i think government should be what americans want

it to be through democracy and through the social contract. i think americans strongly support, for the most part, the government we have, strong support for social security and medicare, strong support for a role in environmental protections, strong support for the f.d.a. and the role in protecting us against bad food and drugs, strong support for food stamps and unemployment and other key elements of the social safety net, strong support for investing in infrastructure, strong support for having government play a proactive role in investing in science and ensuring that we keep up in global competition. we have the government that americans want. this is not some kind of autocrat dictating to us how your money should be used. we as a democratic society have made these choices.

>> you said there's one aim of government. you said there's two, the government should be there to protect us. i think there might be common ground, at least in your first element and yaron's first element. yours, i'm unclear as to your second point, frankly. you said it was to address the question of capitalism. i took it to mean that government should manage capitalism. am i right? >> absolutely. >> what is the disagreement in terms of the protection element between you and yaron? >> i believe in a more expansive role, as do most americans, for government protecting us from a whole bunch of things, not just from street criminals, not just from foreign terrorists. frankly, whether or not i lose money because my house is burglarized or i lose money because my financial investor rips me off because the securities and exchange commission has been downsized

doesn't really matter to me. i've still lost the money. whether i die because i'm murdered or whether i die in a work place accident because my employer is cutting corners doesn't matter. i want protection, as do most americans, from a range of dangers that exist in modern society. >> do americans need to be protected in that way? >> no. so, this is the difference. i view force as something very different. it is something that people inflict on one another. and it is the one in my view of enemy life. in my view, to be successful in life, to prosper as human beings, what we need is to be free to use our minds, to think, to reason, to solve problems, to engage with reality, choose between a variety of different options that are out there, make decisions. we need to be free. the one thing that object

structures our ability to think -- when you have a gun stuck to the back of your neck, you're not thinking. you're doing what the guy's tling you to do. the one thing that object structures our ability to think and progress and be successful, to pursue our life and happiness, is force. in my view, force is unique. it's not like cancer. it'sment like taking on a risk that somebody else wouldn't. i believe that people should be allowed to take a variety of different risks. the only thing i want the government to do is ban it. the example david gave is a little fuzzy in that we're both against fraud. we believe a government has a trolley play in capturing the fraud. if there should be an s.e.c., it has one goal, and it's to catch bernie madoff. the reason it can't is because it's monitoring every

transaction that i make. i have to file loads of paperwork. i'm an honest guy. i'm not cheating my clients like bernie madoff, but i'm a crook in advance. they're just waiting to catch me. so they're so flooded with a million forms that they don't have time to catch the real crook, which is bernie madoff. >> what about catching the c.e.o. of worldcom that committed fraud? >> that's the job of the s.e.c. or the police, however you want to call it, catching crooks, catching people who defraud other people is clearly the role of government. the role of government is not to be looking over everybody's shoulder to tell me what kind of transactions i can or cannot engage in, tell me what shares i can't, who can sit on a board and who can't, who can invest in stuff. so when it's force, and i

include fraud under force, that is where the government has a legitimate role to play. if there's a fundamental difference between harm, so, you know, for example, all these ideas about safety, the notion is that safety came from government, it's like manna from heaven. all the statistics show that safety improves everything dramatically, government steps in, puts in regulations and actually introduce the rate of improvement. safety makes sense from a profit perspective. i know it's a shock to people who've never been in business, but it's not a profitable activity to kill your employees. it's not. >> the statement has been made by david, and i want to give you an idea to perhaps expand. you've talked about some of our

financial system here. he has suggested that capitalism needs to be managed. would you care to comment on that, on that? we'll give david an opportunity to expand as well. but he said capitalism needs to be managed. that's a different concept than protection. would you like to address that from your point of view? >> i do not see capitalism as a threat to individuals in any way, shape, or form? >> no, i believe it is the protection that causes the harm, not capitalism. i know about the crisis, i can address that one. where was capitalism before the financial crisis? this banking system is the most regulated business in the united states. the mortgage business, free markets, capitalism, the mortgage business, where? i mean, it was completely subsidized, completely

controlled. how many of you rent? how many of you own your home outright? thank you. pause all of you guys are subsidizing my mortgage. government is everywhere in these industries. it's no accident that three of the most regulated industries in the united states led to a major collapse. it's the regulation that caused that collapse. so it's the regulations' attempt to control a voluntary, healthy, win-win interactions between participants in the marketplace, which causes those transaction toss become lose-lose, which causes the kind of risks and bizarre behavior that we saw during the financial crisis, that is what causes the problem. that is not a solution to a problem. and it's interesting that we never -- we never blame the regulators, we never blame the regulations. we always, for the last 100 years, we always blame the so-called free markets, even

when there's no sign of a free market in the banking space anywhere to be seen. >> let me turn to david. on this concept of managing capitalism, if one turns to the demos website, there's a statement there supporting the occupy wall street movement. can you tie those two together in terms of managing capitalism? >> yeah, fundamentally, the occupy wall street movement is about taking on the excessive economic inequality that this is grown up in this society, and it has grown up because starting a couple of decades ago, we decided to take a more hands-off approach to the economy, and we did not intervene as structural trends started to siphon more wealth upwards, globalization, technological change. not only did we not intervene to defend the middle class in the face of those trends, but we made the situations worse in

washington by lowering taxes on the rich, by making it easier for the people on wall street and the c.e.o.'s to make these huge fortunes, by letting compensation go out of control, and this is, i think, what occupy wall street is fundamentally protesting against. unless we manage capitalism, it does have a tendency to concentrate wealth at the very top of our society, and that, i think, is fundamentally incompatible with american values. this is an egalitarian society at heart. and we need to intervene in the economy through our collective tool of government to preserve that egalitarian spirit in the face of an economic system that has total disregard for it. >> if one were to look at photographs of the tea party movement, you will occasionally see a sign that would relate to the ayn rand institute.

what does objectivism have to do with the tea party movement, if any? and if you'd like to comment on the occupy movement, which seems to be enforced by demos and mr. callahan, that would be welcome as well. >> sure. i've lot of sympathy for the tea party movement. i think the tea party movement is a very confused movement, and it's, to some extent, an impotent movement because it doesn't have a real agenda. it knows what it doesn't want. i'm with them on that. they don't want big government. they want it to stop. they want smaller government. how they get there, they have no clue, and they have no real plan, and that's unfortunate, because it's a huge missed opportunity. but the fact that americans stood up and said enough is enough to me is a wonderful thing, and many of those people took inspiration from alice, and i think that's why you're seeing those signs. i think the occupy wall street movement is a very different movement. it is not about obviously shrinking government. it's about expanding government.

it's against cronyism. they're not against cronyism. they're just against the cronyism they don't like, wall street cronyism. i did not see any occupy wall street person have signs that objected to the bailout of detroit. the auto bailout. they're not against subsidized solar energy. they're for their types of subsidies and corporate engagement. i'd like to see the tea party and occupy wall street, i'd like to see them completely disengaged. i'd like to see them subsidize all business. this won't happen, but if i were in any position of power, the first thing i would do, the first thing i would do is eliminate all subsidies to business, all taxes to business, get the government out of the business world in terms of trying to manipulate it to subsidies and taxes.