now more "known and unknown. then former vice-president dick cheney. his book is called "in my time." "nothen connolly's a rise, higher honor." i will oppose the the iowa caucuses are a week from today. three of the candidates are launching bus tours. newt gingrich, at three stops today, and mitt romney, a campaign appearances in new hampshire. over the course of the next week, we plan extensive coverage on the c-span networks. "washington journal," of course, with events from iowa and your chance to call in as well. and live coverage of two

carcasses, one on the c-span, the other on -- live coverage of two caucuses, one on c-span, the other on c-span2. next up, a debate on the role of government in society. the debaters are david callahan and yaron brook. this is just over an hour and half. >> good evening, everyone. thank you for coming out tonight. i am the program director, part and this is part of our series of debates on principles presented by demos and the ayn

rand institute. the topic of tonight's debate is government, what is its proper role, and it features david callahan on demos and yaron brook of the ayn rand center. it is moderated by attorney john mckay g i want to mention a few events coming up to our series. a timely novel set in the great depression. making the case for a carbon tax. and local activists who ask what is the economy for any way. also coming up is a physicist, the newly formed watershed opera, a performance of "miracle on 34th street," and a school musical collaboration between the bush took book club and the seattle rock orchestra. all that is happening in the next two weeks.

if you want to stay on top of what is going on, find out on townhallseattle.org. the best way is to become a member. it provides you discounts on books, tickets, and more. best of all, it gives you a feeling that you are a part of everything we do here. pick up a membership form in the lobby, and sign up online at townhallseattle.org. tonight's debate will be moderated by seattle natives john mckay, who grew up on capitol hill and attended the university of washington. he served as united states attorney under george w. bush from 2001 to 2007, when he resigned with eight other u.s. attorneys. following that, he joined the

seattle university school of law, where he continues to teach. he will introduce our debaters and how exactly the debate will proceed. please give a warm town hall to the principles of the debate. -- more town hall welcome to the principals of the debate. [applause] >> good evening. i am john mckay. it is my privilege to be 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 a very important topics. tonight, to talk about the role of government. our title is "government -- what's it good for?" that may be a provocative line for our debaters. we are privileged to have david

callahan to your left. he is the co-founder and senior fellow of demos, a think tank, public policy group, based in new york. he is an author. like our second debater tonight, he is a commentator and lecture r. his books, particularly "the cheating culture" and "the moral center," are tremendous commentaries. he holds a ph.d. in politics from princeton university. we will talk about the positions he and has advocated -- he and demos has advocated. to my left and you're right is -- and your right is yaron brook of the ayn rand institute, a well-known organization advocating the

ideas of objectivism. we have two very engaging debaters tonight. we are talking beforehand that we were hoping that the debate -- we are not using as the yardstick the presidential debates, just to put you all that ease. [laughter] what we are hoping for is engagement. we have tremendous protagonists here, and we are asking all of you to participate as well. we will have plenty of opportunity and time for questions from all of you for our tremendous debaters. i would like to jump right in to our discussion tonight. my role will be simply to 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 determined them to be.

if we rip from the headlines today, i hate to say that the first issue would be one that could only be characterized as failure. i am referring, of course, to the joint committee looking at the question of the reduction of the united states and debt and the failure of the joint committee, the announced failure by both parties, of that committee. i think that would be an interesting place to start on what the role of government is and should be in our society. we will jump into that question and give you each an opportunity to open in the context of that question. we want to give each of our debaters an opportunity to speak. we will leave that question in the background and you may address it as you open it or we will address it as you finish. david, we will turn to you first and you may make five minutes or so of an opening statement. >> it is great to be here tonight. this is my fourth appearance at

town hall seattle. as always, i am thankful to the fantastic scene that makes these events possible. -- fantastic team that makes these events possible bid at town hall is truly the best venue for discussion in the country, and i have been to a lot of them. in my previous visits to town hall, i was the only person on stage, and while it is certainly fun to be a monopoly provider like that, i am also looking forward to tonight. the role of government is the central issue of our time and our politics. i am 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. let me quickly sketched out the way i see things. for starters, the questions tonight, the real question, is not what should government be doing, as if government were some autonomous entity with its

own agenda. the real question is what to eat, the citizens, what to do -- what do we, the citizens, want to do through government? this is a democracy, after all. government is our common a tool to get things done. government is us. it is a tool we use when we want to do things that we cannot do as individuals. that we cannot do through the free market. and that we cannot 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 america's success and prosperity 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 will talk about a bunch of those things tonight, but let me flag two major and overarching rules for government. first, we use government to protect ourselves. protection is a fundamental role of the state. it goes beyond protecting ourselves from street criminals or from foreign terrorists. we have also turned to government to protect ourselves from other things, like contaminated food, pollution, americans >from contaminated food -- from contaminated food, pollution. we no longer a joke on the air that we breathe in our cities. we also use government to protect ourselves from unscrupulous business practices. government protect us, or should protect us, from being ripped

off by financial frauds or exploited bite you serious lenders, portrait by false advertising, or harm to bite the effective consumer products. government protect us in other ways. it protects us in the workplace. a century ago, 100,000 workers die every five years on the job, often because employers did not really care whether they died. today, 5000 workers died a year in the labor force which is much larger. because of government, too, fewer americans are dying on our highways. since the government stepped in to regulate auto safety and 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 in their own bottom line. this helps to explain why investors lost trillions of dollars went wall street was allowed to turn it into a casino. why so many americans have lost their homes to predatory lending. why so much air pollution still persists, causing as much, lung cancer, heart disease. when government watchdogs are sleeping or have been put to sleep, bad things happen. and yet all of this bad stuff apparently is not enough. there are politicians trying to strip away even more of these protections, trying to kill the fda, the epa, trying to kill osha. we will come back to all of that later, i am a shoe ray.

a second major role for government, again, -- i am sure. the second major role for government, again, a role we have chosen as citizens, is to build a stronger economy and assure prosperity for everyone. look, capitalism is a great system for creating wealth, but it can also be phenomenally harsh and brutal system. a system that allows some people to live like kings and leaves others to start on at the st reet. as well, it can be an unstable system prone to booms and busts. this is not the kind of society americans want. yes, we believe in economic freedom, we want to use business to build wealth and autonomy and realize our dreams. but we also believe in mutual obligation and taking care of each other. as a society, ideally, we try to manage capitalism through

government to get the best of both worlds, to get the prosperity and freedom, but also the fairness and of the security. we have not been doing that very well lately. we have not been getting the best of both worlds lately in that way. government has been at two week, and the evidence of this is everywhere are around us -- government has been too weak, and the evidence of this is everywhere around a spread to many americans are in poverty, to many americans are unemployed, too many cannot afford college, all of this at a time when the top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 90% of americans put together. that is not ok. it is not the kind of country we want to live in. it is not a country that the founders envisioned. we can do better, and government offers us a way to do better together. i am going to come back to the super committee question.

>> let me ask you, in the context of your remarks, you talk about the weakness of government. it seems that perhaps in the joint select committee on deficit reduction and the enormous amount of power, at least on the service, it seemed to have flowed into the committee -- but it has been a failure. when you say government is weak, what we strengthen something that, when given power, it seems to fail? >> the super committee was a failure because the republican party has been taken over by anti-government ideologues who are implacably opposed to raising taxes almost in any circumstances despite the fact that taxes are at their lowest level in 60 years as a percentage of gdp and we are facing retirement of the boomers. that is why the super committee failed. it is not about problems of government structurally. it is about the republican party has lost its mind. >> let me turn -- [applause]

let me turn to mr. brook, and if in the context of your opening statement you want to address the failure i mentioned. >> i would be happy to pick this is my first appearance at town hall. -- i would be happy to. it is my first appearance at town hall. hopefully it will not be my last. i would like to be at home here. >> you are very welcome here. >> thank you. i would also like to thank demos for participating in these events and our moderator tonight for moderating this discussion. i want to take a step back a little bit. i think we will get into all the different concrete issues that gave it has broad up, and i am eager to comment on all of them. -- that david has brought up, and i am eager to comment on

all of them. i would like to take a step back and ask the fundamental question of why do we need government. what is it for? is there something unique about this country and the experiment that is america? i believe there is. i believe in the 18th century, thinkers of the time, the founding fathers in particular, faced a crucial turning point in human history. they had to decide who each w one of our lives belongs to. is your life the property of a gang? is your life -- it is your life the property of a king? a try? a group? a collective? a democracy? is your life the property of someone else? that is the way human beings have been living forever.

before 1776, all countries, you as an individual didn't count. you didn't. you are responsible to some other entity above and beyond you as an individual. what the and white men did and what the founding fathers is published is the first country in he -- what the enlightenment did and what the founding fathers established is the first country in history where that was not true. your life belongs to you -- not to the pope, a king, any neighbor. your life is not owned by the tribe gise. it is yours to live as you please. this country was established on a moral principle of individualism, on the idea that we are autonomous entities that

immoral right to our own life, our own ideas, a right to pursue our own happiness. -- infringed by majorities uninfringed by majorities, popes, anybody. how do we live like that? how do we fulfill that individuals and? how do we live in a society where people are pursuing their own interests in a harmonious way? the founders, following john locke, had a concept of this. they call the individual race. if you live your life the way you wanted to live it, pursuing your life and your own happiness, that was ok as long as you didn't use force against your neighbors. as long as you did not impede your neighbor possibility to do the same. -- as long as you didn't impede

your neighbor's ability to do the same. we have the right to pursue our dreams, our values, our happiness. but we need an entity to prevent us from using force against one another. throughout human history, unfortunately, we are pretty bloody race. we use force all the time. that is what this particular 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 is 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 the government that just does policing, military, judiciary, and leave us alone otherwise.

it leaves us allowed to pursue our lives. -- leaves us alone to pursue our lives. once the government starts to do all the things david would like it to do, they start infringing on my life. let's say there is a really good cause out there. people need more health care. people are not getting the best health care they could otherwise get. there are only two options, ultimately, to get me health care. one is to ask. that is the system a voluntary system, whereby by -- that is the system i'd like. a voluntary system, where my rights are respected. the only other choice is to force me to do it. that is a violation of my right.

that is a violation of my right to life. that is taking property away from me and using it in a way i do not want to use it, or that i have not chosen. that is fundamentally bomb. -- fundamentally wrong. it is wrong when we do it to each other. it is caught stealing. it is equally wrong when people get in a room and vote 51% to take my money away. it is still stealing, it is still wrong, it is still a violation of my rights, still the kind of government the founding fathers warned us against us, the kind of government that tells people how to live and what to do with their money and who to help and not to help. my approach to this issue is very simple. government should do one thing and one thing only, do it really well, and be as big as it needs to be to do this one thing well, and that is to protect our individual rights, and he should

do nothing else. all the wonderful goals that it might have for society out there -- that gave it might have a for society at there should be achieved by individuals pursuing their own life and on happ and -- and own happiness. the super committee -- >> the failure, perhaps. >> in my view, the fear is not the failure of the super committee. the failure is the failure of 100 years of a mixed economy that brought us to the brink of a bankruptcy. administration after administration is spending money on things that government should not be spending money on. the failure is spending money that we don't have, the notion that government should be able to borrow all the time, as much as they want, whenever they want eight. it leads to greece. more importantly and fundamentally, it leads to the violation of each one of our

rights, our life, 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 and what and where we should live. and yes, in some very narrow field, you can aggregate numbers and say somebody is better off, but what if i am not better off? i don't accept the right of the government to dictate that. it little technicality -- yes, they failed. it is funny to blame on republicans when the problem -- >> would you blame both? >> no, i am not here to defend republicans. republicans are awful. the bush administration was one of the great disasters of the 20th century. >> we answer democrats into that response as well? -- could we answered democrats

into that response as well? >> i have great antipathy towards democrats. >> i did not want to leave them out. >> my view is that the problem today is spending, spending, spending, and regulation. to much of it. the only solution is to cut, cut , cut, and reduce the size and most importantly the scope of government. you don't do that and you cannot do that by raising taxes. there is stuff you can do with taxes, and we can talk about that -- >> let's hold off on that for a moment. we will cover all those points. i would like to turn to david, because we have heard a very narrow view of government, and a fairly dramatic clash between our two speakers, which is exactly what we had hoped for. you mentioned the philosophy behind government, what the

philosophy of our founding fathers -- we are quoting john locke, who famously said that our fundamental rights are life, liberty, property, followed by thomas tavis and, -- whfollowed by thomas jefferson, who replaced the word "property" with "the pursuit of happiness." 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? >> government should be what americans want it to be through our democracy and the social contract. i think americans strongly support it, for the most part, the government we have. strong support for social security and medicare, strong support for our role in environmental protection, strong support for the fda and the role in protecting us against bad

food and drugs, strong support for food stamps, unemployment, other key elements of the social safety net. strong support for investing in infrastructure. strong support for having government play a proactive role in science and ensuring that we keep up in global competition. we have a government that americans want. this is not some sort of autocrat dictating to us how your money should be used. we as a democratic society have made these choices. >> yaron says that there is one aim of government. you said there were two, that the government should be there to protect us. there might be some common ground, at least in a first element and yaron's first element. i am unclear as to your second point, quite frankly. you said that it was to address the question of capitalism.

i took it to mean that government should manage capitalism. >> absolutely. >> what is the disagreement in the protection element between you and yaron? >> i believe in more expansive role, as to 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'll lose money because my financial investor rip me off, because the securities and exchange commission has been downsized, doesn't really matter to me. i have still lost money. whether i die because i am murdered or in a workplace 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. >> to americans need to be

protected in that way, yaron? >> no. i.t. forces something unique, something very different, as -- i view force as something unique, something very different, as something humans in effect on one another. to be successful in life, to prosper as human beings, what we need is to be free to use our minds and think, reason, solve problems, engage with a reality, choose between a variety of different options that are out there, make decisions. we need to be free. the one thing that obstructs our ability to think -- when you have a gun at the back of your neck, you are not thinking. you do what the guy tells you. our ability to progress, be successful, pursue our life and happiness, is force. force is unique.

it is not like a virus. it is not like voluntarily taking on a risk that somebody else wouldn't i believed people should be able to take a variety of different risks. force is unique in society. the example david gives is a little fuzzy and that we both against fraud and we believe that government has a role to play in catching fraud. if there should be an entity, it should have one job, and that is to catch bernie madoff. the reason it cannot do that job is because it is monitoring every transaction i make. i have to file loads of paperwork. i am not cheating my clients like bernie madoff. but i am i correct in advance and they are waiting to catch me. crook in advance and they are waiting to catch me. they are spending so much time

on forms that they cannot catch bernie madoff -- >> what about catching the ceo of worldcom that committed fraud? >> that is the job of the sec -- that is the job of the police, whatever you want to call it. catching crooks is clearly the role of government. however, the government is not to be looking over everybody's shoulder and tell you what transactions it can and cannot engage in, how much shares to buy in a particular company, who can sit on a board and who cannot sit on a board, who can invest in stock. when it is of course, and i include fraud under force, that is where the -- governmentwhen it is -- when it is force, and i include fraud under force, that is where government has a legitimate role to play. the notion of safety came from government, like manna from heaven. all the statistics show that

city approves in the industry dramatically, government steps in, put in regulations, actually reduces the rate of improvement following those introductions. safety makes -- i know it is a shock to people who have never been in business, but is not a profitable activity to kill your employees. it's not. [applause] >> yaron, before you -- the statement has been made by david and i want to give you an opportunity to expand. you talk about our financial system here. he has suggested that capitalism needs to be managed. would you care to comment on that? we will give that david an opportunity to expand as well. it is a different concept than protection. would you like to address that from your point of view? >> obviously, i am against it.

government should be doing only one at thing. >> you don't see capitalism as a threat to individualism? >> no. protection causes the heart, not capitalism. -- production causes the harm, not capitalism. i know a little bit about the financial crisis. why did we have the financial crisis? capitalism run amok? the mortgage business, capitalism in the mortgage business? where? it was completely subsidized, complete control. how many of you rent? how many of you own your home out right? thank you. all of you guys are subsidizing my mortgage. freedom? government is everywhere in these industries. there is no accident that three of the major most regulated industries in the united states led to the collapse.

regulation caused the collapse. it is the regulation, the attempt to control a voluntary, healthy win-win interaction between participants in the marketplace which causes those transactions to become lose- lose, which causes the risks and bizarre behavior we saw during the financial crisis. that is what causes the problem. that is not a solution to the problem. eight is interesting that we never blamed the regulators -- it is interesting that we never blamed the regulators, we never blamed the regulations. we always blame the so-called free market, even when there is no sign of free-market in the banking space anywhere to be seen. >> let me turn to david. on this concept of managing capitalism, if want to it turns th8 -- if one turns to the demos

website, it indicates it supports the occupy wall street movement. >> the occupy wall street movement is about taking on the excess of economic inequality that has 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. we did not intervene as structural trends started to siphon more wealth upwards. not only did we not intervene to defend the middle class in the face of those trends, but we made a situations worse in washington by lowering taxes on the rich, making it easier for people on wall street and c.l.'s to make huge portions by -- and ceo's to make huge portions by letting span.org -c-span.or-

compensation get out of control. it is fundamentally incompatible with american values. this is an egalitarian society at heart. we needed to intervene in the economy with 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 some of the photographs of the tea party movement, you would occasionally see a sign that would refer to the ayn rand institute. what does objectivism have to do with the tea party movement, if any? if you would like to comment on the occupy movement, which seems to be endorsed by demos and mr. callahan, that would be welcome as well. >> i have a lot of sympathy for the tea party movement. it is a confused and to some

extent and in a movement, because it doesn't have a real agenda. it knows what it doesn't want. i am with them on that. they don't want big government. how they get there, they have no real clue, or plan, and it is a huge missed opportunity. but the fact that americans stood up and said enough is enough is a wonderful thing. many of them took inspiration from "atlas shrugged" and that is why you see those signs. the occupy wall street movement movement. it is not about shrinking government. it is about extending government. the calls against chronic capitalism -- they are not against cronyism. they are just against cronyism they all liked i did not see any of the side objecting to the -- bailout c-span.org they are just again -- they are just

against cronyism they don't like. i did not see any of the signs objecting to the bailout of detroit. i would like to see government stops subsidizing all businesses. 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 tax deductions to business. get the government out of the business world in terms of manipulating it through subsidies and taxes. slowly phase out all the regulations they imposed. absolutely, government should not be involved in any of that stuff. my sense of the occupy wall street movement is that it is far more about tearing stuff down. they are very much, in terms of

inequality, this issue of wealth and inequality -- i don't have a position on wealth inequality. i don't know what is the right -- i don't think david knows. i don't know what the right it inequality of wealth. i know equality is a good thing. i don't think the quality is good. it would mean tall people would have their legs drop o -- chopped off. [laughter] >> you have an opportunity to comment on the tea party movement and any others you like to add. >> on this question of what is the right amount of inequality, there is no absolute answer to that. but it would be a good thing where we lived in a society where all boats rose together, which was the case it through most of the early postwar decades. the rich got richer, made a lot of money, but the middle class rose and the working class rose.

starting in the 1970's, we entered a different kind of economy where only the jobs went up -- only the yachts went up. a study from the congressional budget office it showed that the incomes of the top 1% have grown by almost 300% since 1979, while the incomes of the working-class have barely moved at all. that is not the kind of society we want to live in. that is the kind of situation that you get when we have an unregulated form of capitalism, when we take a hands-up approach -- hands-off approach. we need to do something about that if we are going to retain our egalitarian democracy. remember, inequality of income and wealth always translates into inequality of political power. people with money and wealth can easily translate those resources

into a bigger say in our democracy. that is not compatible with the values of this country. [applause] >> so, i said that i don't know what you might -- what the right mix is, but i know how to get there, and how to get there is freedom, leaving people them, getting the government out of picking winners and losers. getting the government out of redistributing wealth from some to others. let's have a real free market as you with the redistribution -- that's have a real free market and see what the redistribution of wealth is. >> let me put that question directly to david. is it government's role to redistribute wealth? >> absolutely yes. we do it through the progressive tax system, social security and medicare, which enjoyed wide public support. we do it through education.

redistribution is a fundamental role of government did the last time we had a situation that yaron describes was 100 years ago, before the income tax, before the rise of modern government. what did that society look like? it was a society with incredibly high levels of economic inequality, a society dominated politically by the trusts, a society which in effect was an oligarchy. that is what we will get again if we try to go back in that direction. >> this is a complete rewriting of history. >> robber barons? >> complete rewriting of history. from 1850 to 1900, in comes in the united states doubled. gdp per capita grew from the civil war to 1913 at the highest rate in chemistry at the same time at the united states was absorbing a -- millions -- highest rate in history at the same time that the united states was absorbing millions and millions of the poorest in the

world. freedom works. is there disparity of wealth? absolutely. i am not against that. if some people are making huge amounts of money, that means we value the services they are providing. not today, when some people make money by getting subsidies from the government p. you get money the way microsoft made money, selling a product you value. the fact that bill gates made 40, 80, i don't care, $100 billion, good for him. he exerted himself. he worked to the max. he lived his life to the fullest r. and at the same time, he made all our lives better and make a lot of money. that's great. [applause] >> so let me ask you -- microsoft here in seattle -- let

me ask each you one question it should the government will be to promote disparity in wealth? >> now, the government is neutral but this is the radical position i take. -- no, the government is neutral. this is the radical position i take. david is right, americans want what he wants. nobody wants what i am advocating for. but i am right. [applause] i believe in the separation of government from economics. i don't believe that government should be involved in redistributing wealth, managing capitalism. i don't believe it should be involved in the economy. you want to be a socialist under freedom? you can, as long as you can convince other people to go live with you in a commune. if you want to bail out detroit, get a bunch of people together, pool your money together, and

bail out detroit. that is called freedom. >> is it a good thing to have a significant wealth disparity as a product of society? >> i think if it is a product of freedom, then yes. i am a strong believer that equality is an evil goal. the regime that came closest to achieving equality of income was the khmer rouge in cambodia. if you were smarter than anyone else, you had a college degree, you went out into the killing fields and were shot. who among you is equal? i don't believe in equality. when the founders talked about equally, at they talk about equality before the law. if you were accused of

murder, the aristocrats and got a much lighter sentence p.m. at the presence did. -- than the peasants did. the government should treat everybody the same, but the marketplace will treat people differently trade that is what makes it fun. >> i think we have our clash as to what the role of government might be, at least as it comes to outcomes with relative wealth. i perceive perhaps some agreement between our debaters, and that may be the role of government as it regards to national security. if you wish to throw in law enforcement, i invite you to do that as well, the idea that one thing government should do well as keep us safe. i would pose the question to each of you, does that mean you favor significant, even massive increases in our military budgets? i will turn it to you first, david. >> yaron and i both agree that

government has a major role to play in national security. we would even agree on the size of the resources at the national security state needed for that. >> should we increase it? >> now, at this point we need to reduce our military obligations, and that is going to happen under the budgetary deals reached by congress in august and also by the trigger agreement. we are looking at defense cuts of about $1 trillion through the next decade. that makes sense. we have been fighting two wars abroad. we need to turn to the domestic challenges. and we need to really focus on the economic challenges that we face to compete with the likes of china, brazil, india. it is a geo-economic game in the 21st century and we need to be much more effective at that game. >> david is for the military but he thinks it should be cut is that your view? >> i think it can be cut. we have way too many trips all over the world do -- troops all

over the well and doing other is bidding to the military should serve one purpose only -- there is a theme here -- and that is to protect the life and property of americans. i don't think we should be building democracies, i don't think we should be helping south koreans defend themselves when a they don't want us to help them defend themselves. if somebody attacks us, we should find them, crush them, go home. i don't think you should rebuild everything that you break. i believe in a military that is lean and mean, in the sense that it does what is necessary to protect the lives and property of american citizens. >> we want to move soon to the point in which we in fall all of you in the questions for our speaker -- where we involved all of you in the questions for our speakers this evening. i want to turn to the question of why we have government in the first place.

each of you has touched on that. yaron just moments ago referred to a metric, if you will. how are we supposed to evaluate the effectiveness of our government, whatever its size may be? if i may be permitted an editorial comment, i think it is fair to say that if you ask americans today what is their view of the success -- not what it should look like, but the success of government, we would have a very poor response. people see dissension in politics, and they see a lack of commitment, at least even in the words, pursuit of the common good, but rather, the acquisition of power. it seems to be a great infirmity in government today. at least, that is how i think much of the public and use it. what is the magic, from your different points of view, and -- how government -- what is the metric, from two different points of view, on how

government can be successful? you can go to other parts of the wall, and they and choose another kind of determinate for whether or not government is successful. is government's successful when it promotes happiness? if that is true, how is it defined? is it the common good? financial success? the relative to debt of the nation? the degree to which people can engage in beecher ti -- leisure time? what is the magic of government success? >> -- the metric of government success? >> that is a good and tough question. for too long we've been evaluating the success of our society through a narrow economic indicators. gdp is always how we look at how things are going. we need to move beyond that to create indicators which capture how people's quality of lives are, and that involves

different things. how much time they have for the sure, the strength of the community, the environment. demos has a project right now called "beyond gdp," where we look at those different indicators. gross national happiness -- that is going in the right direction. one thing government can do is be the instigator of the new indicators and create the data necessary to measure our progress. in terms of how he measured the metrics for the success of government itself, that is very difficult to do. i think you are right. many americans in the abstract are disenchanted with government, but when you ask them about particular things the government does, they like it they like social security. they think government has been

successful in ensuring retirement security for all people, or that seniors have access to medical care. they like government's role in sharing a clean environment. in those particulars, americans are pleased with the successes government has had, and those have been substantial. in 1960, 35% of seniors live in poverty. today eight is under 10% rate that is a remarkable success -- today he is under 10%. that is a remarkable success for the war on poverty that has been derided. >> is there a mentor for happiness? the national happiness scale, perhaps proposed by others around the world? it may be that the less government does, the happier we are, but i invite you to offer a metric for government.

>> my approach is completely different. this is not about what makes most of us happy, or some measure of happiness. i want to distance myself if i implied that the metric of government is high gdp. it is not i just happen to think tha -- it is not. i just happen to think that good government has that. my metric is freedom did the protection of individual rights, -- i metric is freedom. is it protecting individual rights, or is it the biggest violator of individual rights, as the founding fathers warned it would become? mr. tower ability to make our own decisions. to what extent are you free to

plan out your life, make the choices you need to make in your life? to what extent this government leave you alone to do that, and get rid of the madoffs and crooks and terrorist? to that extent we are failing. i believe that government should not be engaged in, for example, the decision of whether i should be allowed to take vioxx or not. there is risk involved, but i should be able to decide -- the pain it reduces versus the relief it entails. any time government makes a decision like for us, we have

less freedom, and i believe that individuals are less happy as a consequence. i don't even measure happiness, especially -- collective -- i don't think you can measure happiness, especially collective happiness. >> is there a government out there you think we should be emulating? are you referring to the united states government? give us some comparative basis if you can. >> no government has ever been like the government i would like. no government has practiced the kind of government that i think the founding fathers imagined -- even they didn't practice consistently. to the extent that government's advocate for freedom, have focused attention primarily or overwhelmingly on the protection of rights, people have prospered, people have been successful, gdp has grown, i believe happiness has grown, freedom has ground. -- has grown.

i am a huge lover of 19th century america. pre-world war i america. i believe that was the golden age of this country, where individuals or as free as we have been in america. if you compare it china -- if you compare america to hong kong, and singapore and hong kong are up there at least in economic freedoms, i think that there are better governments and worse governments. the u.s. government, which started out as the best government in the world -- i am an immigrant and i came here because i believed this is the best government in the world -- it slowly over the years and in an accelerating sense since the year 2000 has been moving away from the freedom, and even by simple indexes of freedom is dropping dramatically. >> let me let david give a

comparative analysis. >> i find yaron's dark picture of the last century puzzling. last time i checked, the century was pretty good. this was the time we created the first mass middle class in the history of the world. this has been a century -- the 20th century with a time when we became the freest, most dynamic society in the history of the world. it was a phenomenal century when america became the richest country in the history of the world. that period also coincided with the rise of a powerful government that was committed to making america number one in a lot of different areas, a government was committed to the middle-class, the gi bill, the public universities that made a higher education affordable,

scientific investments that put us on the cutting edge of industry and technology. the government played a central role in creating the golden age. the golden age of america was not the 19th century, when children were working in factories and people didn't have the right to organize and robber barons ran america. the golden age was the 20th century. absolutely. in terms of the comparative international comparison, i think one of the best examples in the world right now is denmark, a country known for economic freedom, a country that is a great place to do business, but also a country with a very strong social safety net and a lot of investment in human capital for its education system. we are in a major global economic competition right now with other countries that have a very strong governments that are trying to chart their role in this future, this 21st century.

we have to compete with a strong government of our own. >> let me take this opportunity to invite the participants with us in the great hall of the seattle's town hall to join as at the mike to my left, your right. we will have someone to moderate activity for us. thinking of your questions, come forward. while you do that, i want to make a comment about this last bit. maybe i am standing in the middle for a reason to from my standpoint, i continue to believe that i live in the greatest country in the world, whether we look at it from our economic success and opportunity to the role that we play in terms of safeguarding the world's security. not to say that we're perfect. i think americans, better than

anybody else, expose the weaknesses for all to see, and that is a powerful thing. since there seems to be some agreement that this government may not be good for certain things and that our metrics may be skewed, let me just give a few. this is from "newsweek" magazine, who attempted to pull together some of the of the happiness indices from around the world, health, education, politics. the united states ranked 11th. the united states this 31st. in recent rankings of the world's most livable cities, economists ranks the american entry at 29. the quality of living survey, number 31. perhaps we have another form of agreement here. >> which countries are at the top of those lists? >> i could not say. i believe a number of them are scandinavian.

others believe that china, as the emerging power of the world, will head the list. >> i propose that we take the top of that list, scandinavian countries and others, and open the borders in both directions and see where people move. thewilling to bet that movement will be to this country. that is were smart entrepreneurs want to be. [applause] we would have to have a very different political environment to engage in experiments like that. >> we do want to involve our guests here at town hall, so we will take some questions now for our speakers. >> a question for yaron brook, -- i wonder where is the morality of allowing unhindered

accumulation of wealth. in a country where you have people working three jobs and having no health insurance, i wonder where the morality is coming in. also, a country that prides itself and christian values, christianity does not espouse that you have such a wealth disparities. >> let me just make it clear in case i have been understood. -- misunderstood. i'm a radical. i do not believe in christian morality. i think it is a corrupt morality. i think it is bad. i do not believe you are your brother's keeper. i do not believe you belong to anybody else. i believe in the morality of rational long-term self- interest. i think your own responsibility is to your own happiness, rationally pursue the long term. i do not believe and sacrifice. -- in sacrifice.

i do not believe your job is to take care of other people. i believe one of our jobs is to take care of ourselves, make our lives flourish. i want to ask the opposite question. what is the morality that says that i cannot accumulate beyond a certain amount of wealth? what if i am selling products that you guys love so much that you keep buying, and you buy more and more, and i make a profit? why do we live in a country where making wealth, creating value for people, trading what people value for value, is somehow despicable morality? giving it away after you have made it is good. if you want to make bill gates a sane, do you know what he -- do?- a saint he would give it all away and given to attend. then we would declare him a saint. -- he would give it all away and move into a tent.

then we would declare him a saint. rex thank you for the question. thank you. [applause] >> i do not think that wealth is created by individuals acting alone in some heroic fashion. i think well this created by -- wealth is created by individuals working within a society where there are the foundations for wealth creation, the roads, the schools, the infrastructure, the legal system, and that society decides together how that wealth is used. individuals do not get to decide completely on their own. and actually, this is not a view that i created out of the blue. this is a view that andrew carnegie famously espoused in his essay "gospel of wealth," in which he argued for an estate tax on the grounds that because society created wealth

collectively, created opportunities for people like carnegie, we needed to capture some of that wealth and recycle it so that opportunities were created for others. that is what redistributive tax policy is all about, creating opportunities for all. as to some of the other points, he keeps saying that look, government should not have to solve the problem because people will step forward to solve it through charity. we know historically that that is not the case. he says nobody has an obligation to anybody else. in his world view, we get rid in his world view, we get rid of government and we expect charity to solve it, and then we also espouse the philosophy of radical self interest which takes away anybody's sense of obligation for anybody else.

that is a formula for a brutal, brutal society. [applause] >> next question, please. thank you, sir. >> i would like to bring the discussion down to two very concrete issues that seem to me some of the greatest threats we're facing today. one question for yaron. i did not get your last name. how does your understanding of the role of government deal with what economists call negative externalities, which is simply pollution, the danger of global climate change in the world? and for david, it is a question about democrats who seem to join so eagerly in waging war for the purpose of gathering resources in the world because we realize we're running out of

everything. and finally, if i could ask mr. mckay, to include you so you will not be left out -- >> you are very kind. >> one of the issues i have understood the courts are doing, related to the role of government, is ruling that if we go to war, that is a political issue, and make no judgment about whether the war is legal or illegal despite the fact that our supreme court justice jackson said that initiating a war of suppression is a crime. -- a war of aggression. that should last the three of you for under an hour. >> you can go now. [laughter] >> thank you for the questions. i think our speakers are who

people came to see tonight, but i think that the courts have had a very important role in determining accountability for international activities, especially for war crimes. you yourself mention nuremberg, but also the war crimes tribunals for yugoslavia and rwanda, for abuses in what we consider to be the rules and laws of war. >> media did not make myself clear, against a -- maybe i did not make myself clear -- against ourselves. i am speaking of the invasion of iraq. >> on the question of guantanamo bay, the executive branch displayed a wide view of the power of the executive to hold individuals outside the united states in what could be seen as a constitution-free zone. the supreme court stepped in and said not so fast. individuals there have the

right to petition for habeas corpus. the right to review the conditions and the basis of their confinement. it is a pretty dramatic conflict between the role of the executive in war making any application of constitutional rights. the court spoke loudly about what could go one at guantanamo bay and very much restricted the role of the united states there. -- what could go on. i think we will continue to see the supreme court taking an active role in the national security -- the executive branch. that is my answer to my question. thank you for involving me. i think the better questions are coming from you. he made me feel more useful here, because i think the better questions are coming from you than from me. let me turn to david first to answer the question he posed to you. >> very quickly, it is crazy to be fighting wars and expending

resources 12,000 miles away. we need a policy for developing renewable energy here at home, and in my mind, this is a great place for government to take the leading role. this is a strategic area, and i think the best thing government can do is to set a price on carbon. push up the price on carbon and the market will solve the rest of the problem. if we do not do that now, quite apart from the challenge of climate change, we're going to continue to be dependent upon oil from some of the most dangerous places on earth. >> they are related, i guess, because they all deal with oil. i do not want to get into the question of our policy on war, because that will take this in a completely different direction. the idea that renewable energy is around the corner is ridiculous. it is vanishing. -- it is fantasy. it does not exist. 95% of all the energy in the

world is from carbon sources. except that. -- accept that. it is going to be like that for a very long time. if there was really an alternative, do you think a venture capitalist in silicon valley would not be investing like crazy in it? all government is doing is throwing money at this problem. it will be one of the biggest boondoggles in american history. the idea that windmills and solar panels are going to solve the problems in seattle in terms of producing enough energy for us to consume the way we are today, forget it. the only way to do this -- david is right. to have a carbon tax and lower the standard of living dramatically. that is what happens when government intervenes. the standard of living goes down. to the issue of externalities' -- first, i have to point out that people lois talk about negative externalities', but i want to talk about positive externalities', which are far

more dominant. i keep bringing a bill gates. bill gates is a huge positive externality to every one of your lives if you live in this community. the number of jobs, facilities, the wealth created because he chose to locate microsoft here and build his business. and yes, he did not do it alone. he paid people to work with him. he paid his suppliers. he paid for the private infrastructure. there are no free lunches. i completely agree. the whole society is involved, but that is what the price system does. it rewards people for the degree of their involvement. employees who became early and contributed more get more because of that. you cannot dump your garbage in my backyard. we know that. we have established that for a very long time.

let's get innovative. let's create private property everywhere, including on water. including creative ways over the air. let's figure out how to protect our private property, each one of us. just like we protect our backyard from our neighbor polluting it with his garbage. there are creative, private, legal ways in which we can protect ourselves from harm delivered through the water and the air. we do not need massive government regulatory systems to achieve that, and indeed, i think it is slowing down the process. i think human beings would live in a cleaner environment if we got rid of the epa. it slows down progress. the human environment today is the cleanest environment it has ever been in human history.

it is cleaner and than london in the 19th century when there was manure everywhere. a move into cleanliness -- a movement towards cleanliness. >> government is the government of people. what is the proper government would depend on what your view of people is. what kind of creatures, what kind of circumstance, how do people live, what are their capabilities, whether they're competencies', how should they live, and i wonder if both speakers could address, fundamentally, how do you view people?

>> i think people are moral animals who believe in and cooperation because it is in their self interest. i believe human beings have a high degree of empathy for other human beings and that there are evolutionary reasons for that. when you cooperate, when you make sacrifices of your own self in order to strengthen your community, you get long- term rewards. i think that the government we have, in which people are making sacrifices, letting some of their wealth be redistributed to help others, is a reflection of that basic empathy and desire to advance the public good. -- the common good. >> a believe that the fundamental here is that people are rational. the need to use their minds. the need to use reason in order to improve their lives in order to achieve happiness. all of the values around us are

products of the human mind. the human mind thrives. it is possible to think, to reason and be rational when the mind is free. the role of government is to leave us alone. be rational. be reasonable. create stuff. pursue values. when the government tries to tell us how and what we should do, who we should help, this or that, it is restricting our ability to think about what truly is in our rational self interest. it is restricting our ability to reason. i'm all for corporations. i am again sacrifice. -- against sacrifice. i'm against forced corporations. i'm against slave camps of any kind. free people voluntarily cooperate with one another in a rational way. [applause] >> i have a question for each of you.

david, it seems that your view is that it is better to be a slave than to be poor. i want to see how you feel about my statement and hear your argument. then, for yaron, my question for you is, when government fails to do what we want through the democratic process, is there a point when it is proper to have a revolution, to initiate force, and if so, what the society look like at that point? >> david? >> i think that yaron said he believed in voluntary cooperation among free people. that is what we have in the united states.

not as much as we would like because there is too much wealth and power in hands of a tiny elite who are using that to have a large voice in society, but together, we are making decisions that have actually made us a lot richer. we have become a much wealthier society of the last 70 years in part because of a proactive role of government to enable us to build more wealth, invest in human capital and invest in our physical capital. >> must be choose between freedom and slavery? >> i do not think that slavery is on the table here. nobody is talking about slavery. the closest thing we have come to slavery in this country is when we had slavery, and it was slavery that was an institution run by the free market,

unchecked by government. [boos] >> so, we have raised the question of freedom, the question of slavery. now the question of revolution. >> let me talk about slavery. clearly, slavery is wrong and it is the government's job to make sure it does not happen. i agree about the civil war. i think we should have gone to war because rights were being violated. that is the role of government to stop the violation of rights. >> if it is the position that the government has failed in such a massive way, what we do? -- what do we do? do we have a revolution? >> the founding fathers revolted

against their government for a lot less than what we have to suffer under our government, a lot of it. tax, a tax on tea. i mean, in seattle, the tax your coffee. everything is taxed. it is a different context and a different world. i am not an advocate for armed revolution. for many reasons. among others, we would lose. [applause] [laughter] government needs the sanction of the people in order to govern. that is why we have the government have. -- we have. the people, the overwhelming majority of people, believe, in one form or another, slightly to the left, slightly to the right, with this. david. if you believe in something different, what we need to do is convince them that they're

wrong. convince them that their ideas are wrong. this is an intellectual, philosophical, ideological battle. -- it is the battle of the mines. -- mind. it is the battle of reason. it is not a battle of arms. and we're not going to win the battle unless we engage in it at this level and try to convince enough people that the way we're heading is the wrong way. >> i think you have covered the ground. let's go to the next question. [applause] >> thank you for spending your evening with us. it is my understanding from what you are saying that people inherently tend towards violence and that humans are also inherently selfish. you talk about acting in your own self interest in the basis of morality. i wonder if he could talk about the role of correction in your ideal government.

how do you catch the bernie madoffs if you do not have regulations and checks, and how the use of the rampant corruption -- how do you solve the rampant corruption we see in our government now? >> how big and robust must government be in order to catch all of the bernie madoffs better out there? >> unfortunately, we do not catch them all because we're too busy with other stuff. first of all, let me correct you. i do not think people are inherently selfish. i think to be selfish requires hard work. my conception of selfish is the pursuit of your best interest, rationally, over your lifetime. what is best for me? how should i live my life so that i should live a flourishing life?

aristotle talked about this. that to me is hard work. that is not a common view of selfishness, doing whatever you like or in a momentary sense, lying, cheating, stealing. how do we catch bernie madoff? there are lots of ways. in the case of bernie madoff, it was actually pretty easy. some of the people who wanted to invest with bernie madoff looked at his books and said, this is a problem. -- fraud. and i'm going to call the cops. and they did. a hedge fund manager wrote a nice memo to the sec. he sent it twice. it was about six years before they finally caught him, elaborating on this being a fraud. i think it is not hard.

when all you're trying to do is catch crooks, it is not hard to catch them. let me argue something radical. there are a lot less croaks -- crooks under capitalism than with regulations. regulations create all these loopholes. we live in an environment where business men are taught to do whatever they can get away with. it creates ambiguities. fraud is easy to detect. i do not think we need a huge government -- i think, you know, certainly, the justice department could be quite a bit smaller. you need enough to get the bad guys. >> our other speaker tonight is the author of a book called "the cheating culture and the moral center."

you might be able to address this. >> i said in my opening remarks that capitalism is a great system in many ways. it is fantastic at producing wells. -- wealth. it is dynamic. it rewards hard work and creativity, but it also has some down sides. i talked about inequality being one of the downsides, but another of the downsides is that capitalism, when it is not properly regulated, it tends to become corrupt. the institutions tend to become corrupt. it also tends to corrupt the political process. in terms of the corruption of capitalism in business, we have seen that in spades in the last 10 years. -- 12 years. everybody talks about the financial crisis we just went

through, a crisis that occurred, in part, because the ratings agencies that were supposed to tell us whether subprime mortgages were sound were compromised. they had a major conflict of interest with the companies they were reading. -- rating. there is huge corruption throughout the real estate and mortgage industry as well, with lax regulation of mortgage brokers, appraisers, lax regulation every step of the way, and that helped to produce the collapse we saw. remember, there was a housing bubble in almost every developed country in the world. it turned into a financial crisis here because of weak watchdogs in weak government. -- and weak government. capitalism inherently krebs government because wealth inherently corrupt government

because wealth inequality affects government. the financial industry spent $3 billion lobbying to loosen regulations. the rules.wno th how do we deal with that? we have to get money out of politics. we need tougher rules on lobbyists. we need to do a number of things. >> but you're not suggesting that regulations are actually the cause of the problem. our regulations causing the bad conduct? >> that is totally false. during the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, and into the 1980's, before the systematic attack on the regulation of our financial industry, we did not have the kinds of scandals and crashes that we have seen in just the

past 12 years. we did not have enron, world, tycho, not to mention goldman -- world.comes, tycos, sachs, countrywide, and all of the stuff we have just seen. we had some financial instability. we had some scandals in the 1970's. the accountants were writing their own rules in washington. one reason we had the accounting scandals later on is because we did not respond effectively to the accounting scandals in the 1970's. regulatory changes were never made. got broken. >> >> before the justice department went after microsoft, microsoft spent $0 in washington. today, microsoft spends $9 billion annually. >> let me clarify, you are referring to another washington. >> i am referring to washington, d.c., far away from this one.

>> the clarification is important. >> just a quick warning, we have about five minutes left. >> the questions are excellent. please bring them forward. >> i have to be quick. this has me going nuts, i must say. in full disclosure, i am a big government democrat, no question, but i have run into government 1000 times and thought, this is the stupidest thing. but it does not happen more often in government than in the private sector, wells fargo, comcast, sprint. every single private entity idea with has regulations based on the assumption i am cheating and it makes it more expensive to deal with.

they are arguing as if it is between one or the other. my real question is, why do we believe this is about government versus free enterprise? the american system of government -- those founding fathers -- i read a lot of the federalist papers. they were not talking about john locke and economics. they were talking about roman systems, athenian systems, and how human beings are at risk of abusing power. in government, we tried to set up a system to regulate the abuse of power, and we have no such system in free enterprise to regulate the abuse of power. here is my question. in america, we get a credit for free enterprise which is built not so much on free enterprise for the first 20 years as it was -- 200 years as it was on

free land. >> is there a question? >> the question is -- >> we will ask that question. >> can we take another question as well? >> we will take on the role of free enterprise and another question and give our speakers a chance to answer both. >> why has there been absolutely no, not one mention, that our freedom is about to be taken away with the two stealth provisions put into the defense bill of 2012 that is voted on tomorrow. why are we not talking about this, because it is about ready to happen tomorrow? >> can we take another one? >> we will leave that open to our questioners.

>> we will take one more. >> i was wondering if both of you could try to define for me the common good and what that means to everyone, not just in this room, but across america. what is the common good? i hear that all of revenues and -- all over the news and everywhere, and i have never really heard it defined. it all over the news and everywhere, and i have never really heard it defined. >> that is a tremendous final question along with the other ones. we will give the speaker is an opportunity to sum up with their comments. we'll start with david. >> i think that the society we want to build is a society of balance, a society where the america and the value of mutual obligation is respected, upheld an advanced through government. civil society can play a role, but i think government has a dominant role in ensuring that

we take care of one another. it is also about ensuring a strong free enterprise system. these are not mutually antagonistic ideas. government and business have often worked together, historically, to create more wealth and opportunity. we struck the right balance in the early postwar time when we had strong free enterprise but also strong government. i believe we can do it again. that would be one definition i would have of the common good, a balanced society where you have both strong government and dynamic free enterprise. they're certainly not antagonistic inherently. >> it is no surprise that you have no definition of the common good because there is no such thing. there is no such thing as the common good.

all there is is individual good. we can create a society in which individuals thrive by pursuing their good, or we can create a society in which some benefit by other disadvantaged. some might be the rich. though some may be unions, politicians, whoever. they are all bad. the idea of sacrificing some people for other people is bad. the kind of society -- [applause] i do not want balance. i do not want a little bit of poison. i do not want a little bit of sacrifice. i do not want a little bit of violation of my freedom. i want to be free. i want you to be freed. i want a society in which those freedoms, this individual freedoms are protected, and that is the job of government.

there was a question about the marketplace. it is really important -- we do not have a free market today. when sprinter whoever treats you -- sprint -- badly, that is not the free market. all of these businesses are heavily regulated. there is no competition in cable. there is no competition in these services. there's no competition in ratings agencies. the three are the government granted monopoly and guess what? they do not do very well. what we have is a mixture. lots of government controls and regulations and some freedoms. the reason we have been successful over the last 100 years is because that mixture has not gotten too toxic. the amount of freedom left in our society has allowed business to create the wealth, to create the products to make

the goods that have allowed us to thrive and be successful. but that mixture is becoming more and more and more toxic, to the point where, i agree with the steady, incomes in the united states are flat to declining. economic growth is flat to declining. our freedoms are declining. so, i am an advocate of individual freedoms, individual rights, no common good, government stay out of my life except to protect me from bernie madoff. [applause] >> let me just add a couple of quick words of thanks, first to seattle's own town hall for hosting this event, for all of you for participating in it tonight.

thank you very much. i think all of us would agree that one important role of our government is to allow this kind of criticism and debate to flourish. so i think all of you for joining us. -- thank. i want to thank for being with us -- i want to thank david callahan and yaron brook for being with us. we have had this debate about the role of government for as long as there have been government. it is a healthy debate. i want to thank our two debaters. please join me in thanking them. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> with the iowa caucuses next week and the new hampshire, south carolina, and florida primaries later in the month, c-span's series "the contenders" looks back at 14 candidates who ran for president and lost, but had a long-lasting impact on american politics. tonight, adlai stevenson, who lost to dwight eisenhower. wednesday, barry goldwater. thursday, vice president and civil rights advocate hubert humphrey. friday, four-time governor of alabama george wallace. and then on saturday, senator and congressman from south dakota, george mcgovern, followed by billionaire businessman ross perot. "the contenders," every night at 10:00 eastern on c-span. ooktv on c-span

2. don rumsfeld on is nowhis memoi. condoleezza rice, author of "no higher honor." oral arguments from the supreme court. maple verses thomas today at 5:00 p.m. on wednesday, the case booking a whether a person who works for a religious organization can sue for discrimination. on thursday, whether the fourth amendment allows police to strip search suspects arrested for minor offenses. supreme court will arguments all this week on c-span2. the presidential caucuses are a

week from tonight. we plan live coverage from two caucus sites. live campaign coverage from across the state here on the c- span networks and on c-span.org. mitt romney and ron paul are heading to the hawkeye state for campaign events. michele bachmann stumping in iowa, looking to reach all 99 counties. newt gingrich campaigning today. his campaign saying that he is making the case that mitt romney has "very timid ideas." lots more coverage coming up on the c-span networks. more coming up on tomorrow morning on "washington journal." tomorrow. two guests

a group is planning a people's caucus in iowa. we'll look at the cover stories on "newsweek." our guess is the author of the article, a man a foreman -- amanda forman. the justice department reports that 60% of american children have been exposed to violence. the national task force began gathering evidence and hearing testimony. here's one of the sessions from baltimore. >> good morning and thank you for coming. i want to thank you for all you in your staff have done to bring

aboard this group of leaders. i want to thank the university of maryland francis king carey law school for providing a forum for this critical discussion. thank you for your participation and for your commitment to protecting and in powering the most precious and vulnerable, our children, the american children. i want you to understand that this work is a priority. we have a whole bunch of things on our plate, but this is a priority. i am grateful to my colleagues in the office of violence against women and the office for their leadership in developing the the most effective efforts including the new defending childhood initiative. today as the 30 members of this

task force to gather for the first time, we're launching a new chapter in the work to protect our young people from violence and from harm and insuring that in this country, every child has a safe place to live, to learn, and to grow. this task force is comprised on experts on the issues surrounding children exposed to violence. they represent the legal, medical, research, law- enforcement, and survivor communities. they all share a common passion to the mission that brings us together today. on behalf of the department of justice and the entire administration, i want to thank each of our task force members.

thank you for devoting your time and expertise to this important work. i want to thank everybody here for supporting their efforts and for those who will come to share their personal stories with us. we look forward to hearing from you and from learning from you. friends, thank you as well for joining us and all that you've done to strengthen the department's groundbreaking child initiatives. the work you are leading in each of your offices to better address the threat their children are facing in d.c., maryland, and the surrounding areas, cases that rod and ron have advanced and the communities that they have helped to reform, remind us that

the often difficult work of improving circumstances for young people at risk, solutions are possible. change is possible. progress is possible. the changes that we hope for are possible. they are only possible if we are willing to act collaborative way and if we enlist the help of a variety of partners. that is what this task force is all about, bringing together a wealth of experience and talent to focus on one of the greatest public safety epidemics of our time, a children's exposure to violence. protecting the health and safety of our children has been a personal and professional concern for decades. for me, it has been decades. this is a young-looking crowd. as the deputy attorney general,

addressing the causes and remedying the consequences of children's exposure to violence was a prominent part of my daily work. i'm the parent of three teenagers and it remains a top priority. we must confront this problem had on my understanding what we and our children are up against. i served as deputy attorney general and have the opportunity to work with leading researchers to take a look at the problem of children's exposure to violence. we learned that whether a child was a witness or a direct victim of violence, the experience was associated with psychological and emotional harm, as well as it higher risk for drug and alcohol abuse later in life. children exposed to violence

fail in school or often and are much more likely to suffer depression, anxiety, and other disorders. children exposed to violence are more likely to develop chronic diseases and to have trouble forming emotional attachments. they are more likely to go on to commit violent crimes. although our understanding of the nature of the problem has increased in the 1990's, we did not know how prevalent it was. we did not have comprehensive data that could give us the full story about where violence we did the violchildren and not have the research to tell us about the cumulative effect of the exposure to violence. now we do. we must act. during my first year as attorney

general, findings, national survey of children exposed to violence. the most comprehensive survey on violence, crime, and abuse in children's lives. the majority of our kids, more than 60%, have been exposed to violence, crime, and abuse. these patterns of violence can take many forms, pushing, hitting, to witnessing or experiencing a gun, knife, or sexual violence. they are not limited to any one community or to any one demographic group. exposure can happen at home, in the street, at school, or on the internet, where people -- children face unprecedented threats. children are more likely to be

exposed to violence than to adults. children are likely to be exposed to violence than adults. this problem has significant consequences for individuals, families, and for entire communities. it affects each one of us and we'll have a role to play to address this. we cannot ignore the needs of our children. as a side of fails to make protecting children a toppers party goes against the fundamental responsibilities. that is why failure is not an option. because of the work of leaders, it is not even a probability. despite the challenges that we face, i think we have good cause for optimism. we note it is possible and within our power to help kids

who need us the most. quality intervention programs can foster healthy child development and can counter the negative effects of violence. early interventions which children can help them avoid a repeat victimization and future involvement with the criminal justice system. we have made an historic commitment to apply this knowledge. i'm proud that we are now directing resources for the express purpose of reducing children's exposure to violence, raising awareness of its ramifications and advancing scientific inquiries on its causes and characteristics. committee-based policing and victims of crime are engaged in

coordinating the department's effort to prevent children's exposure to violence. we're building on existing partnerships with the departments of education and health and human services as well as with our law enforcement partners in the field. we have embraced the reality that the government has a responsibility to act. they cannot be successful without community leaders, police officers, coaches, teachers, principals, and parents. we're working to make sure that professionals that work with children are trained to identify those who have been exposed to violence. to be effective and to make the progress that our children need and that our children deserve, we need the full attention of the federal government and of state, tribal, local community, nonprofit, and private sector partners.

we have to do this in partnership with all of those groups. we need to prevent the violence against our young people. we must go on the expertise of policymakers and attorneys, but also with young people themselves. if we listened to them, they can make a difference in strengthening the work that we're committed to doing. we need more information about current approaches. we need to know what works and we need to know what does not work so that policymakers can make informed decisions about how to tailor solutions to meet the needs of individual communities. this task force represents a powerful and promising step forward. i'm counting on the 13 members to study this problem and to provide guidance to the department and to the public on

how we can improve our response to this issue and implement the solution that we need. this task force can help to inspire extraordinary progress. the task force on victims of crime led to the creation of the office for victims of crime and prompted a sea change in how the criminal justice system treats victims and pave the way for them to become partners and to help them attain the rights that they deserve. the task force recommended legislation to provide funding to assist state crime victims compensation programs and their work helped to advance passes of the victims of crime act of 1984. the task force helped to raise awareness of domestic violence.

among the recommendations -- recognizing this as criminal activity and the need to develop multi disciplinary committee response to domestic violence became the core principles of the violence against women act of 1994. today, i believe this tradition continues. i'm confident that the members will strengthen the work that is under way to raise awareness of the issue of children exposed to violence and there will play an important role to this national epidemic. this task force will hold four field hearings across the country to learn firsthand how violence is affecting our nation's children. by december 1 of next year, they will present me with a report documenting their findings that they can take to improve the

current system of care for all of our children. by hearing from experts and practitioners, members will be uniquely positioned to add to our knowledge about how we can better safeguard our children across the in target of the united states. by showing us what works and mitigating its effects, i have every expectation that this effort will help us to better protect our children. there a difference will come from the work that some many of you do in your neighborhoods and in your communities when you respond to a domestic violence call and when you work to remove a child from an abusive setting, when you council a student who was been bullied, or when you recognize a lifetime of drama,

you've become a part of the solution. i believe that together we can transform america for the better one child at a time. i'm not pleased to give the defending childhood task force its charge. the members of the defending child the task force will conduct four hearings nationwide, to learn from survivors, policymakers, academics, and the public to the extent of children's exposure to violence in the united states. the members will seek information about prevention strategies that desert increased attention from the department of justice and from states and local and tribal governments. the defending child the task force will develop a final report to me presenting policy recommendations which will serve as a blueprint for preventing and addressing

children's exposure to violence, and for mitigating the effects experienced by children exposed to violence across the united states. i want to thank you all once again for your service and for your willingness to accept what is a critical responsibility, as you work to fill out your duties, i encourage you to think creatively and broadly and to consider what can be accomplished with cooperation and commitment to the young people that need us most and are dependent on us to act. to keep my privilege to introduce the cochairs and to turn the meeting over to them. joe torre is the chairman of a foundation whose mission is to develop programs that will end the cycle of domestic violence

and to save lives. the foundation has educated thousands of students, parents, teachers, and school faculty about the devastating effects of domestic violence. it currently reaches kids in nine schools and two community centers, markets place -- provides a safee room where people can talk to each other. since february of 2011, mr. torre has been the executive vice president for baseball operations. he was a major league manager for 29 seasons, 12 of them for the new york yankees, whom he led to the playoffs every year including four world series

championships. the glory days. he compiled a .297 batting average, 252 home runs. he hit over .300 five times in his career. he was once the national league mvp. can you spell "cooperstown"? the chief of the juvenile unit since 1997. he serves on several boards that advocate for the rights and the interests of children. these include the minority context subcommittee of the pants of a commission of crime and delinquency. he is a member of the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention committee of pccd,

which advises the governor on juvenile justice policy. he serves on the juvenile offender center and has pe persist dated -- participated and maybe the hardest working man in show business. he is a team leader of the pennsylvania juvenile indigent action network and president of jdht, an organization established in 2006 to advocate for pennsylvania's children and to speak on behalf of the juvenile offenders. joe and robert, i want to thank you both once again. i wish you all a very productive day and i look forward to hearing about and continuing this critical discussion.

the work that you is vitally important. we look forward to the work and the conclusions you will reach. the fate of our children is in your hands. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, mr. attorney general. that was a pretty good play, i guess. [laughter] i forgot about all the stuff. before robert makes the remarks, i would like the task force to introduce themselves. stephen, will you please start? >> 9 name is stephen merrett -- >> my name is stephen maryanmar.

we have learned a great deal of the last decade about the impact of children exposed to violence. we know a good deal about the risk and protective factors and know that early intervention, dedication, and social support are the best way of interrupting the cycle of outcomes that attorney general holder was referencing earlier. and it was this kind of knowledge that led to a unique partnership that was developed at new haven and then proliferated beyond new haven and around the country, a partnership between law enforcement and mental health professionals, and a likely partnership that led to lead to support the they needed. it also led to a new brief answer strengthened intervention

that decreases posttraumatic stress symptoms and disorders in children by 73% when we are able to identify, treat families. the problem of children exposed to violence is great. but so are the opportunities. mental health and law- enforcement partnerships is one example of many possible ways of collaborating, whether in emergency rooms, social service agencies, schools, courts, neighborhoods, and most important, in the homes of the children that are most affected. it is with great gratitude that i am serving on this task force. but it is especially with great gratitude with the department of justice and attorney general holder who has been active in the last decade in helping us develop plans, comprehensive plans, in a way of moving

forward for the country. thank you. >> good morning. my name is thea james. i am the director of a violence intervention program that works of the emergency department. we provide comprehensive care and support to youth who are our patience who -- for our patients who are affected by violence. the goal of our division is to support and to guide them through recovery with the hopes that they will be able to re- enter society as productive

citizens and to become mentors themselves. in doing this work, which is primarily downstream, it has given us a window into the various different things that happen to these kids. we know that it requires more than just downstream work. you absolutely have to do a 360 degree intervention and work upstream. we know that when the victim you're looking at is injured, they're not the only one. everyone in proximity to them is injured, particularly in their children and their families. the work of this task force is appropriate to address that issue. if is a privilege and an honor to work with this task force and i look for to what we will be able to do to work upstream and to address this issue. >> good morning. i am jim mcdonald.

i am the chief of the long beach, calif. police department. i spent 29 years with the los angeles police department prior to going to long beach. it is certainly an honor to be on this panel and to be able to serve and bring a police perspective to this issue. my hope is that we will be able to come away with an honest and straight forward approach to children's exposure to violence. it is a cycle that we have all seen that goes generation-to-2 generation. we're not able to address the with silos, even with the best intentions. this task force brings a multidisciplinary examination to the issue and we have the opportunity to be allowed to hear witnesses from throughout the nation and here -- to be able to hear witnesses from throughout the nation. i am hopeful that we will be able to come away with the product at the end of the day that we can present to the attorney general that will become a blueprint for dealing

with this issue that will be valuable and hopefully a great resource for those who dedicate their lives to making the world and the lives of children better. thank you, mr. attorney general, for bringing your attention to this important topic. >> good morning. my name is greg boyle cred i am the executive director and founder of homeboy industries in los angeles. it is the largest gang intervention and rehab organization in the country. every year, there are 1100 gangs in l.a. county and 86,000 gang members or thereabouts. we run seven businesses. rival any gang members work side-by-side. -- rival gang members work side by side. i work with case management

training, anger management, parenting, domestic violence counseling, and the like. violence is the lethal absence of hope. so we are an exit ramp of this crazy free way of getting involvement. unless we have for folks to redirect their lives, it becomes futile. everybody who walks through the doors at home boy industries obviously has been impacted by violence in their history and in their childhood. the hope is to invite them to be able to transform their pain so that they can cease to transmit it. so we have to offer hope to kids, especially inner-city kids who plan their funerals and not their futures. my hope is that we will have a high degree reverence for how

complex this issue is and we will be more likely to embrace solutions. i feel really privileged to be a part of this. >> good morning, everybody. everybody looks pretty somber out there. i did not see any coffee cups in the courtroom. my name is tony teguba. i have been involved in family advocacy programs and child abuse services in the community. i look forward to providing some of my experience in the task force and i appreciate the attorney-general for appointing

me to this task force. >> good morning. my name is dr. sherry cooper. i am a forensic pediatrician from north carolina appeared by work for the center for your expeditious and missing children. i am very honored to participate in this opportunity and i am very eager to be able to bring to the table, hopefully, the word of children who have been victims from this perspective. and i would like to thank attorney general holder for this opportunity. thank you. >> good morning. deanne durfee.

i have been in the field of child abuse for four decades, first as a social worker and then ended minister. it became clear that one agency cannot solve these problems. as we started with nine agencies and grew to 32, each of those agencies actively participate in the work that we do in our 20 task forces and committees. we have two big conferences. one is one that the attorney general has talked about, called the nexus. the other one is on the traumatic loss of children. these are extremely important to me, only thinking about that toddler and baby, listening to parents screamed and eat yell at each other and then the publisher is the mother and the summit comes out to rescue the baby. not because they heard it cry,

but because they heard the gunshot and then the bebel starts the cycle of foster care, -- then the baby starts the cycle of foster care. thank you so much, attorney general eric holder. i know how many years you have been focused on this issue and dedicated to it. it is so unique and so incredibly important to the children of this country. i think you. >> good morning. i am robert macy. thank you for giving a day of your lives here. thank you, attorney general, for convening in supporting this. i am in the prevention of disaster medicine at the aha harvard school of medicine. over the last 15 years, we have worked with 720,000 war-exposed children in 17 countries and 12

states. we are clinical psychologists and practicing researchers. what we have found is that there are excellent opportunities for us to prevent violence without suppressing it, to create interventions that actually allow children to move out of the cycle of violence. that is the good news. the challenging news, which i think the attorney general said we will prevail, is that we will tackle structural racism. i think we can do that. i appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this panel. >> good morning. i am the senior deputy attorney and community safety director for the city of salinas, calif. in monterey county, two hours south of san francisco. one of the main things that we are working on is prevention and

reducing gang and youth violence in our city. our city is mostly latino and our gains are northerners and southerners. one of the ways that we are looking to reducing gang and youth violence is through a coordinated and comprehensive approach. we believe that prevention, intervention, enforcement, and reentry are critical to work simultaneously if we will have a significant and long-lasting impact. i am also the designated site leader for the california cities gang prevention network as well as the national forum on youthful violence prevention, which is a white house initiative. i am deeply honored to be a part of this task force and i want to thank attorney general holder and all of you for being here. i look forward to hearing more about strategies and recommendations that have proven to be successful and that can be used to work as a model perhaps for the rest of the nation, state, and local levels. once again, thank you very much.

>> good morning. thank you very much for this opportunity. my name is sarah deer. i work with trouble issues and victim issues. i am protected -- i am particularly interested in domestic violence, the intersection of domestic violence and child abuse. but more specifically, the concern that indian reservations have the highest rate of crime, of a violent crime, in the united states. i am looking to consider both rural and tribal issues as a tack -- as the task force moves forward. i am deeply grateful for the opportunity and for the chance to work with the department on this issue. i am particularly grateful to the survivors of violence to will be speaking with us over the next year. i hope that you know that your

words are as vital as any academic or any position we need to hear from you. >> thank you, again, attorney- general holder, for your focus on the epidemic of children's exposure to violence. as you noted, childhood victimization can have long- lasting effects, one of which is higher risk of juvenile delinquency and adult criminal behavior. we are living in an era in which homicide is the leading cause of death for african- american youth and the second leading cause of death for all youth. entire communities are involved with the violence. in detroit, for example, 20 miles from my home town, there were more homicides between 2003

and 2010 than there were u.s. troops killed in afghanistan in the same time. more deaths by homicide in one american city that u.s. casualties in a war zone. baltimore children are eight times as likely to die from homicide as kids nationwide. boys and girls in the juvenile system often have experienced a mild and victimization before they get into the system and they may continue to experience of violence while they're in the system, a compound in the effects. the juvenile justice system is a critical point in the school-to- present pipeline, one that we can use as an opportunity to intervene and provide innovative intervention that encourages healing for our children who are repeating the very same cycle of violence that they observe in their homes, in the schools, and in their community. the federal of budget committee has recommended diversion programs as a major policy alternatives.

we have to look for opportunities to a identify youth who are experiencing are witnessing violence and provide them and their families with the kind of resources and support that will help them. i'm honored again to be the co- chair of this task force and part of the extraordinary effort we represent. we recognize that the goal is to identify ways to prevent children's exposure to violence and reduce its negative effects. as a group, will look forward to hearing today from those impacted by violence and experts in the field. >> thank you, robert. good morning. when we started our foundation, i remember getting people to be interested in what we were doing. i talked about domestic

violence. they kept saying that it was a woman's issue. attorney general holder, i want to thank you for keeping the issue of addressing children's exposure to violence as a top priority. it is so important. every year, many children are affected by some form of violence. over 3 million of them and experience it in their own homes. there is no worse emotion than fear. personally, i was never physically abused, but the fear that my dad brought to my house in abusing my mom was very personal, very real, being the youngest of five children. my older siblings tried to keep it from me. there was a lot of whispering going on because there was a big gap between my age and my next oldest. it was a whispering that went on that i felt i had done something wrong. it was just a weird feeling.

i did witness my dad -- because he was a police officer -- threatening my mom with a gun. as i said, he never physically abused me, but i saw what he did to my mom. i used to walk home from school in the afternoon. if his car was in front of the house, i would go to a friend's house until he went to work. i was embarrassed to share my feelings because i thought i was the only one in my neighborhood or the only one in your that had this going on at home. in fact, when we started our foundation, i had friends that i grew up with who nothing about it and were very surprised about the revolution once i started talking about it. kids need to know that violence is not secret. we have to speak up for them and helping them speak for themselves. we know that witnessing violence between one's parents or

caretakers is the strongest risk factor of transmitting vile behavior from one generation to the next. we know some kids get to these situations without continuing the cycle and some kids can find an escape. but others do not and we need to help them find a way through this. i was very fortunate. i had the ability to play baseball. so i had a place to hide. i had a place that made me feel good about myself. believe aeronaut, i carried this into my adult life and i really did not discover connecting the dots with my fears -- excuse me -- and my lack of self-esteem. i did not face that or get better understanding until probably 1995. at that point, i realized that i needed to talk about this issue, some things that i certainly

have kept secret my whole life, even from my wife. so i was lucky. i had that ability to escape. children are our treasure. they are the leaders of the future. these youngsters need to be tended to and be helped. and as a society, whatever it is we can do to reach the kids were living in fear and make their lives saved, it is our obligation to do that. to let each child have a safe place, a safe home to go to, that is what spells success. i cannot tell you how privileged i am to serve on this task force. i feel especially someone who is in public life and have phone calls returned when you leave a message that it is our responsibility to really address this issue because it is so vitally important.

again, i want to thank attorney general holder for that. i will introduce our first panel, which is called voices, experiencing a children's exposure to violence. young people who experience and witnessed violence are at particular risk for lasting physical, emotional, and mental harm. but also have the opportunity for healing and transformation. we will hear from folks from the greater baltimore community. we are honored the they have chosen to share their personal stories with us to eliminate the cost ofsev four children and communities as well as the signposts for resiliency. i would like to introduce our panelists right now. amim is a community

elder. he will speak about the rise in community violence in baltimore through the course of his lifetime with a special emphasis on the change in the economic landscape that gave rise to high rates of male unemployment and the related rise of intra- community violence. he will describe coming-of-age rituals that his organization offers young people who are exposed to violence in his community. next is mr. rose alma. she is a survivor of domestic violence. she will speak about recently prosecuting her husband for domestic violence against both her and her children when her children sought to protect her. mrs. jacqueline kuhn. she was sexually abused as a child and as adults found

herself in an abusive intimate relationship. she will speak about how she's feeling from these patterns in her own life through educating others about detecting child abuse. earl el amim. ? good morning. -- >> good morning. i am a leader in the muslim community. over the last 25 to 30 years, i have served in the leadership of the moslem community, but also in the community at large and participated in various meeting s and help to facilitate dialogue between imams and other

spiritual leaders. we offer an alternative that started in 1977. i have been with them on and off for the last 20 years. it has been involved in the juvenile criminal justice system. we employ 650 people, 30 which -- 30% of which are ex- offenders. i worked in the baltimore urban league as the director of family and children's services running the uthers the program that was very successful -- running the diversity program that was very successful. my father used to say, before you speak, son, qualify yourself. i guess i am a little nervous, but i have always served as a

leader. so i was always better first, mr. torre. -- so i was always batting first, mr. torre. what you see it is not what you get. what you see is what gets you. our youth and ability to fight off persisted images and acts of violence, be they physical, sexual, gang-related, school- based, or from a committee setter is paramount to many of the problems we see in this society. even those who are not perpetrating or direct victims of violence, they do not experience this daily. it is ubiquitous, reaching every facet of society, permeating our

schools, persistently displayed through media and television and overly is deemed in sports. in both football and basketball, the greater aggression and violence leads to a higher or greater applause. the harder you hit a person or make a tackle in football, the more applause you get on that play. similarly, the most revered play and basketball is the slam dunk. unk,ourse, the harder the don' the better. it is a conflicting message for our young people and most cannot make sense of it. yesterday, the >> box and what they're promoting, i do not know if i could watch that stuff for 25 minutes and not be affected by it. it permeates our society. but in baltimore city, growing up here, being raised here, the loss of jobs in the breakdown of

communities and the lack of fathers in the home also drive many issues related to community violence here in baltimore. even though the city has produced many great lives, some that i have grown up with in my 60 years on this planet. this city is very much a blue- collar city. historically, education has not been a premium for the large portion of the african-american community. there was a time when you did not have to get a high-school diploma here. you could earn good money working in the steel mills. still, koppers, a general lack, etc., the defense industry -- men that migrated from the

south, from virginia, north carolina, south carolina, wanting a better life and establishing their families, they worked as labor spirit there were unskilled laborers in the steel mills -- as unskilled labor. they were unskilled laborers in the steel mills. you could reside on the 1200 block of eager street and all of those folks that came from kingston north carolina lived on the 1200 block of eager street. they were related and were not related. they married into one another's family. they established a strong and profound sense of pride and community. with the decline of the defense industry and the steel industry

going to japan, this changed. now the largest employer in baltimore metropolitan area is health care. the paradigm has shifted from men to women. all the love was not perfect in these neighborhoods and totally free of violence, most of these communities were functional. this happens not only in baltimore, washington, philadelphia, new york, hartford, all endowed the east coast and major cities throughout the united states of america. but there wasn't interconnectedness within the people. -- there was un interconnectedness within the people. baltimore families went out of the city and closer to steel mills and the influx of drugs and the amount of violence with

young boys. the rockefeller law that allows adults in the drug trade handed down to the young people. all those things speak to the psyche of a young child as well as adults in this society. this dream has played out with their children. now we see a city -- i think it was portrayed by -- many of you have seen this year its "the wire." a city has been dismantled by the drug trade and the violence that these children are participating in.

the absent daddy club is now what you see, gangs and this whole violence. if you do not see a man, you cannot be a man. in order to be a man, you have to see a man. what you see is not what to get. what you see is what gets you. a group of people now have gone together. we have formed coalitions. in 1987-1988, we established the passage program for young boys and girls. we expose children to different environments. if you can expose, you can inspire.

these young people are young people. they are easily impressed upon a lot of things. we hope and pray that we can establish an environment that is a peaceful environment for these children. we need to know what pieces for ourselves before we can show children. -- we need to know what peace is for ourselves before we can show children. these programs are designed to evil them so they can make a positive contribution -- are so they to you gulevolve them can make a positive contribution. we have put billboards, bumper stickers, just one thing -- our

community, our responsibility. we also believe that words make people. and when people receive that, they understand that it is our community and it is our responsibility. i would like to say that we have a tough job ahead. but as mr. holder stated, it is not insurmountable. you do not know how strong you are until you go up against something that is strong. so we believe that we can overcome this because truth always prevailed over falsehood. thank you very much and may god bless us in our endeavors. >> thank you very much. >> my name is rose up all meant. i moved to maryland from new jersey about four and a half years ago because of my husband's job. i have two beautiful children, 10 and 9. when i first met my husband, he

swept me off my feet. here is a charming, loving, generous, and he was wonderful. we had a beautiful wedding and a great marriage in the beginning. things started to change as time went on. i started to realize that he had a huge anchor problem. he would punched doors and throw objects when he was mad. after our son was born, his anger increased. while i was in the hospital, after my see section, fred was going back and forth to the hospital. on one of his trips, a kid ran into the back of his car. he got out of the car and punched him in the face. there were witnesses and the kid pressed charges. fred got off because we always had a friend or family member who was a lawyer.

that really scared me. when he came to the hospital and told me, i got scared. i told him i needed him and i was scared he would go to jail for punching this kid in the face. he called me a bitch so much that my 1-year-old son learned to call me a bitch and he called me a bitch often. surely after my son was born, i found out -- i knew he was married before, only for five months, but i also found out that he assaulted his ex-wife and had a warrant for his arrest that i did not know about until then. on december 2005, fred was on his christmas break from work. we got into an argument and he came after me and he grabbed my neck. i left the house with my two children for four days and i went down to my sister's house which was 45 minutes away.

i would not come home until fred made an appointment to see any of your management doctor. he kept calling me and calling me and apologizing and begging me to come home. i would not until he did that. he did go to a few sessions, but that did not help. he would stand over me when he was angry, many times with a fist. he would just stand over me. he is much bigger than me, so it really scared me. in 2009, things were not getting better with fred and i. marriage counseling did not help. i told him i wanted a divorce. he told me he would kill me and put me -- and put a knife on my head. he called me a fat war and a bit and many horrible names. in november, we decided to work things out for the sake of the children and i dropped the protective order. he became abusive toward the children.

february 2010, rihanna hurt my son fretted when they were fighting. fred got angry and tractor across the house by the hair. that resulted in a bald spot. he apologized to her, but i know my daughter will be scarred for life because of this. i was afraid to contact the police because i thought he would get in trouble. he often slammed my son on the couch also when he got angry. the final straw was on may 10, -- i am sorry, may 12, 2011. fred got angry because i was trying to leave the house because he took my things from my arms and landed on the floor. i tried to call 911, but he took it away from me. fred 3 on the ground by my hair and started punching and hitting me. my kids witness this horrible abuse. they were screaming and crying. i never thought he would do this

in front of my kids. if the kids had not been there, he probably would have killed me. he was out of control. each day, i pray for a kid to get the help that he needs to control his anger problem. i never wanted to hurt my kids again. my husband is not the man he pretended to be. one of my old co-workers who was good friends with him back in new jersey warned me that it was all a facade. he had everybody fooled, including both of our families. his father told me he played football in high school to channel his anchor. i was also shocked when i was in court, after i filed charges, that his mother got on the stand and lie to protect her son. natalie has she sent me down -- not only has she let me down, but his sister also sent

me text messages cursing at me. my son makes sure most nights if i have put on the alarm. he is afraid to sleep with the lights off. fred did not have a criminal record because he had attended anchor management programs and managementanchoger programs and has gotten his record expunged. he needs to be held accountable this time around. the restraining order is remained for the rest of my life. the judge only ordered supervision. i want to get on with my life and perhaps find happiness one

day. hopefully my children and i will get there. thank you for listening to my testimony. i hope that it is helpful in your work in protecting children from the many forms of violence they experience. i am actually a realtor for long and foster. but after having the honor of being here, i can see myself helping women and children that have gone through the same experience that i have gone through. thank you. >> thank you. very brave. >> good morning. kuhn.me is jacqueline jun my abuse began when i was five appeared at the time, my family lived in a small town named

cassidy. my neighbor was a teenage boy who lived next to us. he would take me alone into a tree house in the yard behind bars. at first, he just laid down on top of me in our game play and simulated sex with our clothes on. at such a young age and having never been talked about sex, i did not know what sex was. so this type of plea was confusing. but then the abuse escalated -- but this type of play was confusing. but then the abuse escalated. people need to understand that child molesters are masters of manipulation and they know what to say to make sure their victims never tell. first, he threatened me. he told me that if i told anyone or stopped letting him abuse me, he would bring my brother or sister appear and do worse things to them.

-- up here and do worse things to them. then he convinced me that i would be the one to get in trouble. when i finally did get brave and threatened that i would tell my father and that he would go to jail for the bad things he was doing to me, he laughed and told me that i was doing the same bad things and i would be the one to go to jail because my father would be angry with me because i had not told him earlier. one of the most important parts of my story that i like to share with people is that my father was a michigan state trooper. many nights, there was a police car parked in front of my house and my father would come home in his uniform carrying his badge and his gun. if that will not keep a child molester at bay, what will?

if i felt as though i could not tell my father who was a police officer at the time what was happening to me, why would anyone question children who do not tell, who do not have police officers as fathers? my abuse only ended when i was 7 years old because my father was transferred to a new post within the state of michigan and we moved. i never told my family about my abuse until just recently, after it turned 30 and after i went through a very painful divorce from a man that i was married to for over 10 years who also abused me. he knew about my abusive past and knew that if i was not -- instead of loving me through my problems, he abused me by carrying on an extramarital affairs with many different women and treating me at times as if i were a paid performer for him in our bedroom. he even got a vasectomy so he could sleep with other women

without wearing a condom and worrying about unplanned pregnancies. it was during my marriage that might go to personal defense mechanism, perfectionism, or at least the illusion of it, was at its strongest. i had gone back to school to finish a bachelor's degree. when i entered the intensive academic program, i took a full- time class load each semester and work full-time as well. i made it my goal to achieve a 4.0 gpa. in my second last semester, i wept because i felt i would receive and a-instead of and a and this would ruin my perfect grade point average. but i did it. the funny thing about academic records is that they do not equate to live. i have been divorced, laid off and fired from jobs, and it has always been a struggle to build

lasting friendships. as a survivor of child sexual abuse, i shall go with every personal relationship that i have. -- i struggle with every personal relationship that i have. i needed counseling for my own struggles and issues. it was during these sessions that i figured out that i need to tell my family about the sexual abuse i suffered through my childhood. i was scared that my family would not believe me. another part of me was scared that they would comply my abuse and they would tell me to get over it because i was an adult now. that is the same fear that every survivor faces, the fear of wondering whether anyone really cares about you, including our own family. we always feared rejection. i'm working on trusting people enough for liking me for who i am. because i was 5 years old and i had sex forced upon me, i felt

like i was a throwaway, someone who does not matter, someone who does not have worth in the eyes of others. some days, i am still the by- year-old girl. that is how powerful the shame and guilt before the victim who does not get help when she and -- when he or she is still in that state of being a victim. without receiving exceptions, victims end up in abuse in various relationships. that is why i began volunteering my time. baltimore child abuse center is a nonprofit agency that performs crucial work in the lives of child sex abuse victims in baltimore. not only does it conduct forensic interviews for child victims in a safe child-centered

nonthreatening environment, but it also provides advocacy programs for victims and their families. there is a mural called "life after abuse" that is there to symbolize life after healing. as a survivor, to be able to see myself in the reflected mirrors of one of those butterflies and know that i am on the path of healing, self expression, and beauty is a very powerful thing. and to know that it is because so many people in the community banded together to work on this mosaic, putting it in pieces of tile that symbolizes the broken pieces of my life and the lives of all sexual abuse victims together in a way that makes sense and create a beautiful picture of something that does not make any sense, knowing that has taught me how valuable i am.

volunteers put in nearly 40 hours of work. they helped me put together that beautiful mural. i am also currently working with many talented people in baltimore, including musicians, writers, creating expression programs to encourage healing for sexual abuse programs. by using a variety of creative art home -- art forms, it is my hope that victims of child abuse and adults survivors will find their voice. i will continue to promote btac and tell my story to help parents and teachers recognize the signs of sexual abuse and know how to respond appropriately. this way, i feel like i will let you wasting my life and my passion for victims and

survivors and help to prevent this crime from happening to children. in conclusion, i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. i hope that the story and the work i am doing will help others to embrace victims and survivors of sexual abuse to help them heal. >> thank you very much. >> this is the period where we will have questions. >> thank you all very much for sharing your personal stories. it is exactly the type of information that this task force needs to hear and it is important for us to hear. miss kuhn, i have a question for you. what could have helped you as a child to tell your parents or another adult about what you were living through? >> empowerment.

i think that parents labor under the delusion that their schools are teaching their children about what is appropriate about teaching, what is safe and unsafe. and schools are laboring under the delusion that parents are teaching their children. this is something that needs to be enforced in children, to own their bodies, that their bodies belong to them and that nobody should be touching them. if i had been taught that and if i had been taught the correct anatomical names for my body parts, i would have felt safer in telling somebody. >> thank you. >> [inaudible] >> what you experienced as a child was being alone with too many experiences.

i'm glad you're not alone. i'm glad you're here today. i have one question for you, miss solomon. when you're talking about your -- miss all land. when you're talking about your experiences, i wanted to know, at any point, in terms of your feeling and being physically threatened, whether there was any place, any agency, police or otherwise, to whom you felt you could turn for any reliable protection? >> i did contact the department of social services for one of the times that my husband spank my daughter and he was scary my children. they simply said that it was not against the law to spank your child in maryland unless you leave a mark. i was crying out for help then and i felt like they didn't do what they were supposed to to

protect me. a few months later, he dragged my daughter across the house by her hair. i do not think that they responded -- even when i did report, which was a few months after, when he did drag my daughter, i showed pictures of her old spot and the clerk of hair on the counter. the detective said, i do not want you to feel like this is not important, but i have far more cases where children's arms are broken -- in a sense that, what he did to her was not as important, sort of. that disappointed me. i want to touch on that. i was also abused as a child. my grandfather molested me when i was 7 years old.

and my family -- we were at my grandmother's house in long island. my sister went down and heard something going on. she heard something and my grandmother turned on the lights. she started kicking me and asked me which was going on. i remember the family getting together. to this day, it seems a little twisted, but they said we would forgive and forget. my parents never knew about it. i only told my father about it when my sister was pregnant. and he was upset that i had never told him when i was a child. but i was afraid of our family.

causing problems for the whole family. i kind of went through the same thing, too. i am sure that affects me, too. and some of my relationships, also, as an adult. but i am getting counseling to help me deal with that also appeared >> thank you, miss all d.ndalmon >> thank you for your courage and your self-respect. i have a question for each of you. given the story, the narrative, what you have seen and how you have continued and not quit and not given up, can you help us as a task force understand what it is that kept you going, what it is a that help to get to the

place you are in today, sitting before us and try to help? >> for me, it was my faith community, having personal faith in god and having a relationship like that definitely helps me. being able to recognize that, as a being through perfect love and truth, but also learning to share my story and talk about it is very important. i stayed silent and i contributed to the stigma and shame associated with sexual abuse. i help now to break the of the cycle of abuse. >> through calcic, i talk to my children all the time. they keep me -- through counseling, i talk to my children all the time. they keep me going. just knowing that they have me,

that is all they really have to protect them -- my family is very supportive. i am just happy that i am in my house, not walking on eggshells anymore. i feel like i am surrounded by love and support. i go to church and pray and ask god to have me in his favor every day. that is what i do to help me get through it. >> [inaudible] >> how difficult or frustrate or easy was it to get a restraining order or protective order? was that fast, difficult? >> the first time, i remember

going down and getting one and the girl was not so helpful. actually, this was the second time. i had to restraining orders. i guess i got there around midnight, after the attack. i was frazzled to begin with. my neighbor came with me. she did not tell me not to write on the front and back of the sheet. she had to rewrite it. she was being not nice. it made me want to leave because it was so frustrating. i guess it was kind of easy. i knew what to do the second time because of the first time. i also had a lawyer who worked downtown. his office is next to mine and he told me. i told him what i was