♪ [playing "made in america" by toby keith]

♪

♪ [playing "that's what it's all about" by brooks & dunn] ♪

♪

[playing "made in america" by toby keith] ♪

♪ [playing "that's what it's all about" by brooks & dunn] ♪

>> president obama was in chicago wednesday for several fund-raising events, including one at the university of illinois. this is half hour. >> hello, chicago. [applause] thank you. thank you so much. thank you. hello. caller[applause] it is good to be home. it is good to be home. no place like it. it is great to see so many old friends. i do not mean in years, although some of you are getting older. i will be honest with you, i would not mind hopping over to the united center. i think the bulls are playing tonight. they're off to a fine start. you might have heard the dallas

mavericks' came to the white house to celebrate their championship. i told them to enjoy it because the chicago bulls will be here next year. [applause] that is what i said. i want to thank it jessica for sharing her extraordinary story. jessica is so representative of all of the folks who did so much for years ago and is doing so much now. the gipper a big applause. we are appreciative of her. -- give her a big applause. [applause] we had them at the state dinner. the korean president and his whole family, they were moving around. do you remember that?

they loved it. music is the universal language. her team is incredibly talented. i want to thank my dear friend, he and i went to law school together. he decided to make something of his life. you see him on tv all of the time. [applause] one of the finest public servants and one of the finest senators in the land, dick durbin is here. thank you, dick. [applause] danny davis and jan stokowski. [applause] i also want to say a special word about a friend of ours, a

man who has done an extraordinary work for me and perform extraordinary service for our country over the past year. that is bill daley. [applause] first of all, we got off of the plan and we said, is it really 45 degrees in january? we were a little confused and thought we landed in the wrong place. when bill first told me it was time for him to return to our hometown, i asked him to take a couple of days to reconsider. it is tough to reconsider the greatest city in the world. as much as i will miss him in the white house, he will be an extraordinary asset to our campaign. he will tell us when in 2012. i also want to say how much i appreciate you. [applause] i love you. i love you, too. [applause]

[laughter] i love you back, man. you know, i am here not just because i need your help. i am also here because the country need your help. there was a reason why so many people like jessica worked their hearts out in our 2008 campaign. it was not because you thought it would be easy. when you support a guy named barack hussain obama for president of the united states you have to assume that the -- the odds might not be in your favor. you did not need a poll to tell you it was not a sure thing. you understood the campaign was not about me. it was about our common vision for america.

it was not a narrow vision and america where everybody is left to fend for themselves. the most powerful are able to play by their own rules. it was a pig and a passionate and gold america where everybody has a chance to get a head. -- it was a big and a passionate america where everybody has a chance to get ahead. we are greater together than we are on our own. a vision where everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share. there is a sense of fair play were the rules apply to everybody. that is the vision we share. that is the change we believe in. we knew it would not come easily or quickly. i am here to tell you that three years later because of what you did in 2008 we have begun to see what change looks

like. sometimes because things are moving so fast and the mood -- the medium is from thing to thing to think, we sometimes do not take a step back and say what happened because of the work you did in 2008? change was the first bill by signed into law. [applause] change is the decision we make that was unpopular at the time to go and and help the auto industry to retool and prevent its collapse. even when you had a lot of folks say we should let detroit go bankrupt. as a consequence we saved 1 million jobs and businesses are

picking up again and fuel- efficient cars are rolling off the assembly line. the auto makers are back and that folks are working. that is because of you. [applause] change is the decision we make to stop waiting for congress to do something about our oil addiction and raise fuel efficiency of cars. by the next decade we will be driving cars that get 55 miles to a gallon. that is one change is. it will save us billions of barrels of oil. it was a consumers billions of dollars from their pocketbooks. it means we have a better chance we leave the planet a little bit cleaner and better off for our kids. the fight to stop handing out $65 billion in taxpayer subsidies to banks that issue

stood at lunch and give that money directly to students so that millions of more young people are able to get the kind of education that they need in this 21st century economy. that is what changes. [applause] change is finally after a century of talking about passing health care reform, to ensure that in the united states of america nobody goes bankrupt because they get sick. 2.5 million in people already have health insurance because they can stay on their parents' plan. [applause] nobody is dropped from their insurance company when they needed it most. that is what change is. changes for the first time in our history, you do not have to hide who you love in order to serve the country love. [applause] don't ask don't tell is over.

change is keeping one of the first promises i made in 2008, that is ending the war in iraq and bring our troops home so we can focus our attention on rebuilding america. [applause] focus our attention on rebuilding america but also on our efforts on the terrorist who actually attacked us on september 11. thanks to the brave men and women in uniform al qaeda is weaker than it has ever been and osama bin laden will never walk this earth again. [applause] these changes were not easy. some were risky. almost all of them came in the face of fierce opposition, powerful lobbyists and special interests who spent millions trying to maintain the status

quo. not all of these steps we took were politically popular at the time. certainly not politically popular with the crowd in washington. you know what kept me going is you. i remember all the work you put in. i remember your hopes and your dreams. i knew that on every one of these fights to guys were out there making your voices heard and knocking on doors, making the phone calls, keeping up the fight for change long after the election was over. that should make you proud. it should make you hopeful. it should not make too complacent. everything that we fought for is now at stake in this election. the very core of what this country stands for is on the line. the basic promise that no matter who you are where you come from there is a place that you can make it if you try, that is at stake in this election. the crisis that struck in the

months before i took office put more americans out of work than at any time since the great depression. it was also a combination of a decade of neglect. it was a decade were the middle class fall further behind. more jobs in manufacturing left our shores and our prosperity was built on risky financial deals, homes that we cannot afford it. we wrapped up greater debt. even as incomes fell and which is flat land, the cost of everything from college and health care went through the roof. those problems built up over a decade. they did not happen overnight. we knew we could not solve them overnight. it will take more than a few years to meet the challenges that have been decades in the making. the american people understand that. what they do not understand is leaders to refuse to take action. they are sick and tired of watching people who are supposed to represent them put

their party ahead of the country. put the next election ahead of the next generation. that is what they do not understand [applause] president kennedy used to say after he took office, was surprised and the boast about washington is it was just as bad as he said it was. [laughter] i can relate to that. when you have the top republican saying his number one priority is not solving the health-care problems, is not creating jobs, is not making sure that we are competitive in the 21st century but it is to beat me, you know things are not on the level. that is how you end up with republicans in congress voting against all kinds of proposals -- even proposals that have supported in the past. tax cuts for workers, tax cuts for small businesses,

rebuilding words and bridges, paying cops and teachers. suddenly, they are opposed. they will fight to protect tax cuts before the most fortunate of americans but they will play political games with tax cuts for the middle class. i guess they thought it was a smart political strategy, but is not a strategy to create jobs. it is not a strategy to help people trying to get into the middle class to get there. it is not a strategy to help america succeed. we have a clear choice this year. the question is not whether people are still hurting, the economy is still recovering. of course folks are still hurting. we have a long way to go. the question is, what direction will this country move towards. republicans in congress, presidential candidates who are running, they have a very specific idea of where they want

to take this country. they have said it. they said they want to reduce the deficit by gutting our investments and education and gutting our investments in research and technology. letting our infrastructure further deteriorates. my attitude is, i have already signed one trillion dollars worth of spending cuts. i proposed even more. it is time when we are talking about reducing the deficit to ask people like me to pay our fair share in taxes. we can do that. we can have a system in which folks who have been incredibly blessed by this nation do a little bit more so that the next generation is able to get on the ladder of success. the republicans in congress and on the campaign trail, they want to make medicare a form of private insurance where seniors have to shop with a voucher and

it may not cover all of their costs. i think we can lower the cost of medicare and still guarantee the dignified retirement that our seniors have turned. he had earned it. [applause] when i hear some of them talk about, this is an entitlement. these folks have arctic. it paid into it. -- these folks have earned it. they think the best way to compete for new businesses is to follow other countries for a race to the bottom. since china pays really low wages, let's roll back the minimum wage here and bust unions. some of these other countries can't live as much as they want, let's get rid of protection that makes sure our water is safe. i do not think we should have any more regulations than what

is necessary for our health and safety. we have made reforms that will make sure that businesses and save billions of dollars. we want government that is that smart and the efficient and a lean. we have issued fewer regulations than the bush administration. they have been better regulations. i do not believe in a race to the bottom. i think we should be in a race to the top. we should be competing to make sure we have the best schools. we should be competing to make sure we have the most highly trained workers. we should make sure that a college education is within reach for everybody. we should be in a race to make sure that our businesses have the best access to the fastest internet. the fastest railroads, the best airports, i want a race where we continue to have the best

scientists and researchers making the next breakthroughs in medicine and clean energy. i want to make sure that happens right here in america. that is a race we can win. we should be in a race to make sure that the next great manufacturing takes place right here in chicago, in detroit, in pittsburgh, and cleveland, in charlotte, in national. -- nashville. i do not what this nation to be known for what we consume, i want us to be known for building and selling products all around the world. i had a meeting with ceos from some very big companies like intel, some of them small manufacturers. they are starting to bring jobs back to the united states. they have started to figure out that some of these countries may have lower wages.

when you factor in all of the costs and quality and the productivity of american workers, that it actually makes sense to build a plant here. they are moving plants back from china and plants back from mexico because they know business is to succeed here will succeed anywhere. what they also said was we can only come here if we know that we have the best workers. that means the education system has to work. we cannot come here if we do not think that the internet and our roads and transportation infrastructure is the best in the world. the competition for new jobs and for businesses and middle- class security, that is the reason i know we can win. america is not going to win if we given to those who think that we can only respond to our challenges with the same tired old tune.

and out more tax cuts tooth -- to folks who do not need them and were not asking for them. hope prosperity trickles down on everybody else's heads. it does not work. it did not work when it was tried in the decade before the great depression. it was not what led to the incredible postwar boom in the 1950's and 1960's. it did not work when we tried it under the previous president. it will not work now. we cannot go back to this brand of"you are on your own"economics. we believe everybody has a stake in each other. if we can attract a teacher by giving her the pay and training and support that she needs, she will go out and educate the next steve jobs. suddenly a whole new industry will blossom. we believe if you provide a

faster internet to some little town out and rural america, that now has the whole world marketplace. if we build a new bridge that saves a shipping company time and money, that workers and customers all over the country will do better. if we invest in basic science and research that the next new thing will be invented. instead of listening to janelle on the ipod, who does what the next big thing is. because we have invested in the innovation that mixes the greatest nation on earth. this has never been a democratic or republican idea. this is not a partisan idea. it was a republican president from illinois named abraham

lincoln who launched the transcontinental railroad and the national academy of sciences and the first land grant colleges. teddy roosevelt called for a progressive income tax. he was a republican. dwight eisenhower built the interstate highway system and invested in boosting our science and math and engineering education here in this country. it was with the help of republicans that fdr helped millions of people. returning veterans like my grandfather had a chance to go to college on the gi bill. that same purpose still exists today. it may not exist in washington, but out in america when you talk to people on main street and in town halls they will tell you they still believe in those values. our political parties may be divided, but most americans

understand we rise and fall together as one nation. that is what is at stake right now. that is what this election is about. so chicago, yes it has been three tough years. there are times when the changes we wanted did not come as fast as we want. after all of the noise and washington, i know it is tempting to believe that maybe change is not possible. remember what we said during the last campaign. yes, we can. a real change and big changes not easy. i warn you it would take time. i said it was going to take

more than a year and maybe more than one term. it might take more than one president. it takes ordinary citizen to keep fighting and keep pushing, keep inching this country closer and closer to our ideals. that is how the greatest generation overcame a decade of depression and ended up building the largest middle- class in the history of the world. that is how young people be back billy clubs and fire hoses and ensured their kids to grow up in a country where you could be anything including the president of the united states. [applause] change is hard, but it is possible. i have seen that. we have lived it. if you want to end of the cynicism and stop the game playing that passes for politics these days and you want to send a message about what is

possible, you cannot back down. not now. we will not give all, not now. you have to send a message we will keep pushing and fighting for the change that we believe in. i said before, i am not a perfect man. i am not a perfect president. i promise you this, and i have kept this promise, i will always tell you what i believe. i will always tell you where i stand. i will pick up every single day thinking about how i can make this country better. i will spend every ounce of energy i have fighting for you. [applause] so if you still have that energy, if you are still fired up, if you are not wary, if you are ready to put on your walking shoes and get to work and knock on some doors and but

some phone calls and talk to your friends and neighbors and push through all of the obstacles and keep reaching for that mission that you hold in your hearts, i promise that change will come. [applause] if you are willing to work even harder in this election that you did in the last election, i promise you that change will come. if you stick with me we will finish what was started in 2008. we will remind what this -- we will reminded this country and the world why we are the greatest nation on earth. god bless you, chicago. i love you. god bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause]

♪ ♪

>> see the latest video and click on links, all of this and

more online at c-span.org/ campaign2012. our road to the white house coverage continues, and on the 31st with the primary and florida. in february, coppices it in nevada and maine. join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> in a few minutes, and look at the similarities and differences between president obama's health care plan and the health plan and implement it in massachusetts. then more about the 2012 campaign from talk-show host tavis smiley and professor cornell west. and then the white house forum on jobs, including comments from president obama. >> this weekend, "book tv it looks at the life and legacy of

martin luther king jr., on the walking with the wind, a memoir of the movement, and sunday afternoon at 3:00, dexter king on growing up king. the many speaking stalls of the rev. king, and the international manhunt for james earl ray. also this weekend, and a new release, a correspondent looks at the first couple and their attempt to balance a busy personal life with the requirements of public life. that is saturday night at 11:00. "book tv" every weekend on c- span2. >> jonathan gruber has been an adviser for the massachusetts and national health care reform plans. at a town hall in seattle, he compared president obama's health care plan with the plan implemented in massachusetts. this is a little more than one hour. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> i really appreciate you being here at the town hall tonight. we have jonathan gruber here to speak, and award winning mit health economist and director of the program of the national bureau of economic research. he was a key architect -- i heard of him live when he was working in massachusetts helping the massachusetts people put together their reform. he has also worked with the administration and congress when they developed the health care reform legislation that was passed about two years ago. he is also the co editor of the journal of public economics, associate editor of the journal of health economics. he has published more than 125 articles, has edited six research volumes, is author of public finance and public policy, which is a leading undergraduate text. which is why he probably speaks with great authority about the law. he has written a book called

"health care reform: what it is, why it is necessary, and how it works." i think it is a very fast and very informative read. please give a warm town hall welcome to jonathan gruber. [applause] >> thank you very much, and thanks, bob, for the kind introduction. i have about 10 minutes to start and there's a lot to talk about with healthcare reform. i will start with a little story. my lunch -- your sister lives here in seattle and this story involves her coming into the house and said, dad, dad, i need help, where is mom? and my father said, i don't know where she is, but can i help? she said, no. he said, what you do need help with? she said math.

he said, why can't i help you with it? and she said, i don't want to know that much about it. [laughter] in that spirit, i will try to tell you not more than what you want to know. i am eager to hear your questions. i want to start by setting a little bit of background, which is understanding the importance of where we are historically and in terms of the numbers. we have been trying to do, the mental health care reform for about 100 years on an average of every 17 years. and we have always failed until 2010. and as we have failed, the problems have gotten worse. the number of uninsured in america continue to grow. we now have 15 million individuals. and the cost of health care continues to grow. health-care spending continued

more slowly last year, but more slowly still means increasing health care to about 18% of our gross domestic product. if nothing is done, by 2018, will spend four out of every $10 on health care. that may be good for the doctors in the crowd, but not really for the rest of us. and that is not feasible. we have these twin crises. in my book i represent them as a twin headed alligator up we are trying to deal with, and yet we have been mvet -- unable to decide how to deal with them. the real breakthrough came with governor mitt romney in massachusetts in 2006 when he signed into law a massachusetts health care reform, which took a new reproached -- a new approach that has not been tried before the i like to call incrementalism. meaning, leave people alone if they like what they have, but

help them if the system does not work. the universalists are from the left, meaning getting to universal coverage. this was not a bit up and start over approach. it was recognizing that we need to keep the things that people like, but that we can get to universal coverage. he set up a system that i like to say is a three-legged stool. the first leg was ending discrimination in insurance markets. to end discrimination we have a flawed system in america where people are just one bad gene away from bankruptcy. the second was to get away from mandate so that insurance companies could price fairly. and a third step was subsidies, so health insurance could be affordable for individuals under this mandate. this system was put in place in 2006 in massachusetts and has been enormously successful. we have covered about two- thirds of the uninsured in the state and have lower the cost by about 50%. and this is the basis for the

affordable care act. the same basic structure as the affordable care act, but the affordable care act is more ambitious in two fundamental ways. the first is, and candidate mitt romney may not tell you this, but his bill was paid for by the federal government. we get reform in massachusetts and we did not have to raise taxes, as he will tell you. but what he will not tell you is that we did not have to raise taxes because the federal government paid for it. the federal government does not have that luxury. if we have to raise revenues. but that is one place we had to be more ambitious. the second is the bill in

massachusetts is not really the second head of my two-headed alligator. it was not about cost control. it was not about dealing with this probably more important problem in the long run, honestly, which is controlling health care costs. and i'm here to tell you that is okay. that is a lot harder problem. ultimately more important problem, but a lot harder problem, but a problem we are moving forward toward solving. we are not there yet the affordable care act moves forward in a number of ways to try to control health-care costs. it will not be the last word on cost control, but it will move us toward ultimately controlling health-care costs and not ending of spending 40% of our income on health care. -- 40% of our gdp on health care. i hope we will go through those details and answering questions that you have tonight. that is an overview for now. i would love to talk with bob and hear his questions and hear your questions. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you very much, jonathan. i think this is an interesting topic you brought up. obviously, a lot of us here care about our health care system, what looks like and feels like. you mentioned one thing in the beginning that has to do with incrementalism verses a broader sweep. could you speak a little more about why incremental this time, why not a broader sweep? how can we meet our goals if we do not -- ? >> the pattern is interesting. in every round of health care reform the approach has moved to the right. we have moved from a single pair to a somewhat less single payer to the clinton, which had these regionally cooperative, but would still configure the health care system. this time around there are two fundamental problems that would

reconfigure the health care system. the first is, most americans are happy with what they have. they wish it was cheaper, but they have a variety of choices. there are employer picks up most of the cost and they are happy. in american politics you do not get far by ripping up what makes to under 50 million people happy to make -- 250 million people happy to make 50 million people happy. we have bailed out industries much smaller than that. we are not going to wipe a $300 billion insurance industry. we had to bring them along to make this feasible. it led to a realization by many of a single payer system that was not happening in the in the near term, but that we could move to a system that is feasible and get us to the goal of universal health care, george. -- a universal health-care coverage. >> that is very good. on a lot of us care about that. one of the issues i you brought

up that is really important -- you said it was a two-headed alligator. you mentioned you were working on the access issues, but really, there's also the cost control. in massachusetts, you did not bite on that bullet, but you did in the national. what has to be done to make that successful? >> health control is really hard. i think the book is that it was like having to go over two hills. the first hill is scientific, which are frankly, there are a lot of good ideas out there. we do not know how to bend the so-called cost curve in a way that would not put u.s. health at risk. if we just that we are not spending more than 18% of gdp on health care, that would do it, but that would not be the solution. how you distinguish what does it

and what does not? the second is the politics. this is a very hard problem to solve. anytime you pose something that can help control costs, it is easy for the opponents to attack it. our political system is not prepared to deal with this. my favorite example is -- many of you may remember in november of 2009, an independent set of doctors who recommend when your kid is immunized recommended that mammograms no longer be recommended for women in their forests -- in their 40's. this was an economically based decision, but based on -- this was not an economically this decision, but based on the false positives we were given early. the political system went haywire. the government wants to take away your mammograms was the headline.

this is not a government agency and they are not taking away anyone's mammograms. it is bad enough if you read the affordable care act, which i recommend that you do not, but in their it actually says that preventive screening is not covered for free. every american with health insurance now has the right to get preventive done for free. they literally could not bite the bullet and they are agreeing with that because of the political blow back. it is a long winded way of saying, we have got a long way to go before we're going to get to fundamental cost control. what this bill does is take a spaghetti approach to cost control. it throws a bunch of stuff against the wall to see what sticks. there are a number of different approaches, each of which is the best from experts. we're going to try them and see what works. >> how are we going to make sure we get there?

>> there is a famous statement from a nobel prize-winning economist, herb stein, who said, if something must end, it will eventually, we will not spend 100% of gdp on health care. i do not know how we are going to get there. i can tell you that it is unlikely we are going to get there in the way that england did, for example, where they said that no one over 75 gets transplants. that is not the american solution. i see it moving to an explosive two-tier health care system. -- explicit two-tier health care system. right now we have an implicit 2-tier health care system. all the bad statistics are driven by the people who are out of the health-care system. and right now, it is implicit. we need to move to an explicit 2-tier health care system where everyone is guaranteed good, basic health care. we have to recognize that it is

america and some people want to buy better health care, we need to let them in most european countries you can buy with your own dollars -- we need to let them. in most european countries you can buy with your own dollars better health care. >> you change topics quite a bit. you mentioned revenue, and how massachusetts was lucky. it had $350 million coming down the pike. the national bill does not have that. the national bill also raised a lot of revenue. and i think it is -- our deficit is decrease because of it. can you tell us about that? who gets taxed? who pays for it? >> president obama plaze --

>> president obama plaze -- laid out the number one principle in this bill, that there should not increase the deficit. to make this work, we had to spend about $1 trillion. we had to raise revenue to reduce spending. first, it cuts private health insurance that injured the medicare population -- that insured the medicare population. but we were paying $1.17 for medicare insurance. we raise about $300 billion by reducing reimbursement to hospitals that treat medicare patients. about half of it was costs and spending, but half of it was also increasing revenues. those come from two sources. one is the sectors that operate on this bill. there's the pharmaceutical sector, the medical device sector, the insurance sector, they will all pay new excise tax. the second is the new tax on the wealthiest americans, an increase in the medicare payroll tax for families above $250,000.

>> he mentioned the pharmaceutical industry, health insurance -- you mentioned the health insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, does this help them become better citizens? >> i think it does. the trade off with the political feasibility argument is that we had to bring private insurers along. i know that upsets a lot of people. the bill tries to keep them as good citizens in two important ways. the first is the so-called health insurance exchanges. right now, if you want to buy health insurance in the so- called non-employer market, it is hard to shop effectively. it is confusing, prices are high. this sets up an exchange for all non-employer in jurors will come to one place that will be competitive -- insurers will come to one place that will be competitive and easy to shop.

we have done it in massachusetts. i think it beats the pants off orbits. it is a terrific shopping experience. that is when competition can work its best. there will be new competitive pressure on insurers. blue cross and charges more than other insurers because they are blue cross. that is because people know them. and when they are on the shelf, they will say, why am i paying more? those benefits are the same. the second is the medical law regulation, which regulates and limits the amount of money they can have in profits and overhead. >> a want to get to a couple of parts of the bill but i think are important. one of them is the protections. many people do not trust the insurance companies and that is not just because of transparency, but how do we know

that people do not have limits to keep them from getting pushed into bankruptcy or something else? can you talk about the protections that are there? >> it is a great question. i think this is the most important part of the bill, and the least appreciated. most people in this room will have insurance on they -- from their employers or the government. we have to recognize that with 50 million uninsured americans, and in many individuals better in the non-employer market, they are facing enormous risk to their financial security. we are in a system in america in most states, such as this one, where you can buy insurance and the minute you get sick, you can be dropped. or in some states they cannot do that, but they will say, up to $1 million per month. it is totally illegal. we do not have real interest. that is a fundamental failure of an economy as wealthy as ours.

it is greece -- crazy to put that much uncertainty ahman the public -- is crazy to put that much uncertainty on the public. blogger will you be kicked off because you are sick and blogger will be charged -- and no longer will you be dropped if you're healthy. >> we have community-based intervention, which i think are really important. if you look at the health of the committee, it is often times driven much more by what we do in our community as opposed to political intervention. what does the bill do to make a difference in those areas? >> the bill is trying to make a difference in those areas. it puts a lot of money and resources into community health centers to try to improve those centers to meet the needs of their communities. as i said, a lot of money for individual-based prevention. there is a lot of money for

wellness and initiatives. what the bill tries to do is not just to ensure people, but to built on the resources to improve people's health beyond medical care. >> i have spoken to a lot of people who are very upset about people getting a entitlements or a gift given to them. the issue of personal responsibility rises with the population of the time. how does this bill address personal responsibility? >> it is fascinating, because what is more personal about personal responsibility than an individual mandate? the genesis was in a conservative think tank. when mitt romney signed the bill in 2006 from on the podium with him was a spokesman for the heritage foundation saying how wonderful the bill was. because that is about personal responsibility. it is about ending the free ride for individuals when they are sick and to jump back out when they are healthy. this bill is trying to thread the needle of using the individual responsibility, but

not putting such a burden on people or for the affordable for example, an individual mandate, but we offer low tax credit. and we have an affordability extension so no one has to pay more than 8% of their income for insurance. if it costs more than 8%, you are no longer subject to the mandate. as you said to me in the greenroom, is as if you shot a bullet with are hitting somebody. we are trying to do this amazing bouncing ask that -- balancing act. >> you wrote a book that is a graphic novel. why? >> it couple of reasons. the publisher approached me and said it would be a great way to learn about the health care bill. i was very eager for people to learn about the health care bill you read the polls and you

ask people what they think about the affordable care act and they would say they like it. you ask them what they think about ending discrimination in the insurance market and 70% like that. what you make about making it more affordable to get insurance. 70 percent time liked it. they just did not understand it. -- 70% like it. they just did not understand. i thought a comic book was a great way to learn. my son was a great reader of this novel -- a graphic novel format. he convinced me to do it. >> but you did not have batman. >> i did not. >> i read it and i really enjoyed it. the next up, who is the audience for this book? who you think is more to read it? what difference does it make? >> i have in mind the audience

being anyone who has an open mind about this bill. i do not think is going to change anyone's mind if their mind is made up. but this is a really radical transformation of our system. it is complicated. and i think there's a lot of misinformation and disinformation about this bill. i think this is appealing to two groups. one is the cautiously skeptical too cautiously supportive, but just unsure. they want to read it and learn and decide for themselves. i also have a particular audience in mind, which is the people who are inclined to like universal coverage, to like what a democratic president does, but feel like this bill did not get there. it did not meet their needs. they are just not satisfied. i am stunned with the number of self-described liberals who do not support the bill. i think a lot of that is the people not understanding what

the bill does and what is in it. that is another audience i would like to reach with this book. >> i will do one more question, but i'd like -- would like to open this up to the general audience. we have to devote microphones, one there and when there. if people want to start asking questions, feel free to line up. i want to go back to your area of rationing. and i will not call it rationing, but that is what the opponents of this bill call it. they are comparing what we're doing, whether it works or not. and you mentioned the two-tiered system. how are we going to approach health care in the long run in this country? there are limits to what you are going to do. as the different mechanisms are

built in, are they going to take care of that? how are we going to make those hard decisions and how will we inform ourselves of the best way to do it? >> basically, if we think about the coverage problem and the cost problem, the coverage problem, we sort of knew what to do. it was a matter of crafting it in a way that it would get through tough politically. the cost problem is much harder. it's because we just do not know. we do not know what will work scientifically and what will pass politically. health care is the single largest and single fastest- growing sector of the economy and we have no idea what works. it is crazy, right? what do you do in that situation? if you need to learn and research on what makes health care work. however, once you mention this bill, then that -- then people say, that means the government is going to ration my care. there is $1 billion to be prepared this institute to study what works and what does not. but the results of that are not

allowed to be setting insurance decisions. that is crazy. but that was the political compromise. the bill has in its dozens of pilots of alternative ways of organizing care. we have the so-called fee-for- service medical system where doctors essentially get paid more than they do. there is a famous quote about having a doctor decide how much medicine you take is like having a butcher decide how much red meat. we assistant where doctors are paid based on how healthy you are, not -- we need a system where doctors are paid based on how healthy work, not on how they treat you. but that is hard to do. anytime you're going to control health-care costs you will be cutting someone's income. that is hard to do. what the bill does is to set up dozens of pilots to get us to around two.

now we deal with the cost. >> here is the first question. >> i am definitely one of the liberals who does not understand the bill, so i am delighted about your graphic novel format. ipad out of pocket for my own hundred because i am so often -- i pay out of pocket for my own health insurance because i am a self-employed. i recently became pregnant and i was delighted with group health until i became pregnant. once there was a series of tests that became recommended, i became mired in the quagmire of as to make cost up front of what i would be paying out of pocket from -- toward the deductible. why is it legal for the health- care industry, for health care providers to not actually tell you up front exactly what you will be paying for a given

service prior to getting the service? what ended up happening is that i pay double for what i was quoted initially. now i am fighting it. it is a quagmire. i would love your answer. >> that is a great question and this is a great example of the -- first, congratulations. it is a great example of the type of problem we will be solving with health care reform. i mentioned these exchanges. i urge you to go to health careconnector.org, not to make you jealous of massachusetts. we show you exactly what you will pay under each plan. not just deductibles, but service cross. -- service cost.

what we need is an explicit description. you need to be able to go on to the website and say, i want these services, what will each insurer charge me for them? there is a great model for that. if you have got medicare part b coverage, on the medicare website, you can enter -- medicare part d coverage, you can go on the web site and enter the medicine you would be taking. that will help consumers become more informed and shot more effectively. more effective shopping will bring prices down >> how is it legal, though? the up-front costs are not stated overtly? >> i am not an expert on health care law. it would be illegal to state them incorrectly. >> well, they get around them by saying it is an estimate. >> i do not know how to answer that. >> nobody knows. really, how much it is going to

cost until they see the experience. i was on the public employees' plan. we had about 10 plans. i did not know how to compare one versus the other. until you have some way, is -- some way to compare apple to apple, you are stopped. >> professor gruber, i think the substance of this conversation is a trade -- is way more interesting than the politics. but i will wallow in the politics for a moment. as someone who was behind closed doors with mitt romney on this, i am very interested to understand if he was engaged ceo participating in these conversations in a thoughtful way? or did he do this kicking and screaming and over his life body? [laughter] >> low was actually writing speeches for our previous

commander-in-chief, president clinton. he knows about this well. basically, mitt romney was a real believer in this. i really only had one meeting with the team. and in that meeting, it was basically mitt romney defending this against his political advisers. they said, this is a terrible idea for you. and he said, no, this is really cool and we can do this. because in his heart he is a management consultant. he is an engineer. and massachusetts was getting money from the federal government. we can put this together without raising taxes. as a republican, he thought this was pretty neat. we will have personal responsibility for the mandate and we will cover it without raising taxes. he was excited to put the puzzle together. he was a human shield in the spirit of -- shield in this.

i'm not saying that because i'm a democrat. he was really for this. it is really true. i am as disappointed as anyone that he has walked away from it the way he has. >> thank you very much for your clear presentation. your answers are terrific. my question is about the public option, which died a sad death. and whether genuine cost control is even possible without a public option to drive it. you discussed these various experiments that we will be doing, but meanwhile my understanding is that in massachusetts, the costs, particularly for employers, are skyrocketing at an unsustainable rate. it has to be sustainable for it to work. can you have cost control without a public option? >> a great question first,

mass. -- a great question. at first, in massachusetts, it has risen fast, but no more than in the regular market. the public option is a great issue. i am a big fan of public option, partly because it is the brainchild of an academic like myself. he had a great idea. the left wants a single payer, the right wants a competitive exchange. let's put them together. both sides hated it and basically, both sides hated it because the left did not want it unless there was a huge advantage for the single payer in the exchange. the right did not want that if it was there at all because they were worried it would be too successful. do not get too upset about that. here is why. the public option was never as big a deal as it was made out to be.

let's say, there are three sellers of the apples, and they are each 20 minutes away from each other. each of those sellers of apples do not have to worry about competition because there is no way to compare practice -- prices effectively. now you set up a fourth apple that is 20 minutes away and it is cheaper. that will help some, but a lot people will not know about it. it will not help much. now let's say you have introduced a website to compare all of them. i will help a lot. -- that will help a lot. the website puts them on a level playing field. that is the big difference. it is putting their feet to the fires and, lo, show us what you've got an show was on a level playing field. if that does not work, then we will have to revisit single pair.

in the meantime, states have the ability to have the public option. which is great, because then we will experiment and see if it is good and useful, as some like to think. the message is not nearly as big a deal as it got made out to be. we have done it in a way to make them competitive and make it easy to do comparative shopping. if that does not work, then we will have to do some kind of single payer system. this is the last effort for private insurance. if we cannot control costs under the structure, then we have to rip it up and start over. >> is there anything in this

that addresses preventive care of? and not just things like mammograms and screenings, but as far as nutrition, chemicals in food, sugar, incentives to dissolve these things by companies? it seems like you will have good incentives on one side, but on the other you will always have somebody pulling, and you've already got subsidies in place. without getting rid of these, how do you later more on top? >> it is difficult. with a bill like this, in principle, it will address all of that. but it would never get past. my biggest frustration is for not going far enough with the spirit -- the biggest frustration from the critics is that they say it did not go far enough. it went as far as it could go. insurance will depend on the efforts people will make to take care of themselves. if you take care of yourself, you can pay a lower price. on the other hand, it could become discrimination on health.

the bill tries to strike a balance between the two. what it does not take on is things like food systems and other kinds of production problems in the food systems. other issues of sugary soda available in our schools and nutrition, these are larger, systemic issues that we need to deal with in additional legislation. the bill does not get into them. >> my question is, why does health care spending -- why is health care spending in the united states to war three times that of other countries -- two or three times that of other countries with no better results? [applause] >> that is a great question. our health care spending is about twice the developed country average. part of that is because we are richer and bigger, but even if

you control those factors, our health care spending is on an order of one-third higher than it needs to be. we do not exactly know why. it is partly prices. we pay a lot more for things like prescription drugs. we pay a lot more for our cat scans and mri is. we pay our doctors more. not our primary care doctors, but our specialists. they make a lot more. part of it is utilization, but that is not all of it. in many european countries they go to the doctor more than we do. in japan, the use twice as many prescription drugs as we do. what isn't unique about the -- what is unique about the mess up system in the u.s. is that it gets all of you and does not let you go. it's a test you, keeps you in the hospital longer end does more procedures. it is about the intensity of the treatment once you are in the system. that is hard to know what to do

with. many of you have seen the 2009 new yorker article written about health care. it was written about maccallum taxes and a passive, texas. they are very different demographic -- and el paso texas. they're very different demographic regions, and very different outcomes. in mcallen, texas, all of the extra stuff they do, the problem is, if you go to those doctors they will say to you in case by case, this person showed this symptom. they make a compelling case forge each example. are we going to tell the doctor they cannot do that? that is the problem going

forward. in european countries, part of it is because they control to regulation and part of it is because they do not have the history of excessive treatment that we do. they have not run into this problem. >> it seems to be one of the big benefits of these changes is the ability to change jobs, that they will not get shut out either from employer to employer, or even the ability to go off and start a business of the rhone and move away from -- of their own and move away from an employer-based health care to an exchange base. does the bill put anything toward that? >> a question after my own heart. that is what much of my academic research was on when i was getting started, the so- called job lock. the notion that people will be afraid to change jobs. but among people who have

health insurance, there is about a 25% reduction in changing a job because they are afraid of losing health insurance. that is an enormous problem. a positive of u.s. exceptional as some is how fluid our labour market is. health insurance tied to employers blocked about. this will end that. i think it will be a major boon to our economy. to answer a question, no, we do not have a great estimate. we do know it will greatly improve mobility. >> t.r. reid noted in his book that we are the only country in the world that house at 4- profit insurance companies. -- the house for-profit insurance companies. is the relevant here? >> in massachusetts, aren't health care is as high as anywhere else -- our health care costs is as high as anywhere else. we have no for-profit insurance companies.

the problem is mostly not even insurers. not all, there are some bad actors. some of those bad actors will go away because we will get rid of the kind of insurance they sell. that is the insurance that says they will pay $500 a day for a stay in hospital. the people the insurer, do not realize it costs $3,000 a day. with the regulations in place, there is not really evidence that for-profit vs not-for- profit insurers behave very differently on the key elements of health care costs. it is about products and excess of margins, and that will go away -- it is bad products and excessive margins, and that will go away. >> he is right. >> when this was set up, we were looking at a static system, but health care is not a static system.

there is convertible -- comparable effectiveness, but again, that is a static system. health care is also driving forward because we have not cured most diseases. very few. there is also an industry, if you will, be it at the university or private industry. how will the bill address the ability to go forward, and how will it be flexible enough to allow the appropriate changes to occur? >> that is a great question. there are two facts that combined to explain the

difficulty in controlling health care prospered from 1950 to today, health care costs have almost quadrupled to gdp. and yet, it has been worth it. there's a great article written by my colleagues at harvard university where he documents health care. in the 1950's, you were twice as likely to die of a heart attack. babies were likelier to die. if you had a ski accident, you have arthritis rest of your life. if you look up the way people are treated in hospital and you look at what is necessary and what was not, we waste. how can the health care spending be worth it? and yet, we waste 1/3. the other two-thirds are awesome. [laughter] basically, the other two-thirds have carried the other waisted

one-third along. so the answer is not to say we will no longer spend 18% -- no more than 18% of gdp on health care. some great innovation has come along since the 1950's, and new ones will come along in the future years. how do we separate the fat from the muscle? how do we keep what is good and get rid of the copycat drugs that cost a lot to develop and are not doing any good? the key will be effective research and more competitive market. but that is why costs are so hard to control. >> one of the economic arguments i have heard against the affordable care act is that healthy people will simply pay the penalty until they become catastrophically ill, at which point they will jump back into the system and cannot be denied coverage and they will drive up costs for everyone.

is that a valid objection in your mind? >> there is a balance on the mandate. on the one hand, if you have a mandate that says if you do not have health insurance, we will kill you. it would be effective. if you have health insurance because it is a good idea, that will not work so well. you have a mandate that it is the larger of 2.5% of your income. there is a balancing act there. in massachusetts, it is comparable to our polland -- r penalty in massachusetts. and in massachusetts, almost everybody works with the mandate. we're pretty law-abiding people. we massively under cheat on our taxes. [laughter] if you have a mandate in place with a penalty that is real,

which this does, by and large, people will comply. this bill will cover 60% of the uninsured in america. there are three groups that are left out. unfortunately, undocumented immigrants are left out. that was a political decision and there's nothing to be done about it. second, there will be people exempt from the mandate. if you have to pay more than 8% of your income, you are exempt. and there will be those who do not comply. if you get enough people in the system where we are healthy and can keep costs down, then that will work. this will be a constantly evolving scenario. the biggest change ever made to the medicare program was the prescription drugs act added 40 years after the program was introduced. we are far from done with health care reform. but this is our best estimate that will work to balance and

have a mandate that is humane, but will really work. >> i have a question regarding the ending of reimbursement for readmission in hospitals. i will start by saying i am very much -- i do support universal health care. i'm very liberal in that aspect. but i am a cardiac nurse and congestive heart failure is one of the top reasons for readmission into hospitals. and knowing that is a degenerative disease, and especially in these economic times it is very hard to prevent readmission, just due to lack of insurance, lack of being able to afford the medications needed to control congestive heart failure, and at a certain point, you cannot. you need to be readmitted, and eventually, you end up not getting out. i have seen this bill do in that aspect, the course -- the

closest thing i can correlate it to with teachers in the passing of no child left behind. it has put tons of pressure on nurses, the amount of charting, the discharge instructions and the people work and we have to do. that is where the hospital has put the pressure, and we are already spread so thin. i wanted to get your opinion and if you could expand on the decision behind that and the logic behind that. >> economics is called the dismal science and, and the reason is because a lot of times we just point out problems without solving them. you are pointing out a problem. it is a balancing act. on the one hand, the key cost of high health care costs is excessive hospital readmission. hospitals rush you out when you are not ready to and leave and you have to be readmitted.

on the other hand, there are genuinely people who have to be readmitted. how you balance those? you get health care that lowers the hospital we admissions to try to penalize hospital readmission, but not get rid of them completely so that hospitals are not left without any reimbursement for readmission spirit of the bill may go too far. it may be that cutting -- for readmission. the bill may go too far. it may be that cutting readmission is difficult to measure. but what we have now is too much readmission. in 1983, medicare went to a brand new payment system called the de rg. we used to pay fee-for-service. it went to a new system where it was a fixed amount regardless of what was done to the patient. there was an enormous reduction in how the elderly was treated in hospital.

enormous reduction with no reduction in older health. there were no less healthy as a result. we were just reading them to excessively. we have to try these things and see if they're going to work. we hope we will get the same kind of outcome. >> stage left. >> there was a piece in the new england journal today or recently about one of the challenges in the supreme court, not in the individual mandate, but that the federal government could not force the states to raise the number of people who were covered by medicaid. it was rejected at the lower level, but the supreme court reached out and decided they wanted to hear it again. what are the chances that none of this matters, that the supreme court is just going to pull a citizens united and get rid of the lot?

>> the supreme court decision has four elements. one of them is the mandate. another one is this, quite frankly, much scarier one, which is the question of whether the federal government can compel states to offer medicaid coverage that the federal government is paying for. the federal government reimburses 100% for the first several years and 90% after several years. the state barely have to pay anything. that is a hugely broad implications for many programs for a large part of how we do our social insurance in the u.s. i was very distressed to see this. only one decision support of this. it was the most radical decision of all. this was a judge who went out of his way to cite the boston tea party. i'm very confident they will not sign is as unconstitutional. it will cause a radical rethinking of our entire social

service -- social insurance system. >> stage right. >> you spoke a bit about the question from a woman who was trying to compare the cost. you spoke about how massachusetts was trying for greater transparency in insurance. i am a practicing physician and the one the istore what is the lack of transparency i have in terms of understanding the things i do that will cost patients, and for that matter, what the outcomes of my choices are. i'm still unclear how this bill, if it does, short of the acl model and other things, however increases the feedback of providers to health care so they understand the consequences of their requisitions and can make better decisions for patients. >> the bill does not do enough to explicitly on that. it does basically implicitly, through the notion of setting up structures for insurers to provide feedback to physicians. once again, it hit a political

barrier. there were discussions about end of life care. we know what sarah palin did about that and it got pulled from the bill. physician support of abled as rationing and got pulled from the bill. -- got labeled as rationing and got pulled from the bill. we hope that this will bring physician interest in having that information and using it more effectively. we are seeing it in some of these organizations that are being set up. i work with one in maryland that a setting up a very cool model where primary care physicians will see the cost of all of the things that specialists are recommending and bear some of the risk of those costs.

they will say, you should care about that because we will take some from your pocket if you send people to expensive specialists. we will give you some if you send them to more effective and less expensive specialists. the government is politically unable to set these things up itself. it is up to insurers to set this up. >> there are a fair amount of us who are residents and i think in training we hear a lot about ordering this test to cover yourself, make sure you document is to cover yourself. is there anything in the bill that will have changes in medical legal, so you change your reasoning of a bit about what you are ordering so that it is not always about covering yourself, which inevitably raises the cost of health care? >> thank god, because i have never talked to prouts -- to crowds were there are doctors and we have not talked about malpractice. i was getting worried. [laughter] in all seriousness, it is a

tough problem. you add up all of the costs of malpractice and is a 0.3% of health-care spending. the best evidence comes from the kennedy school. one leader their estimates is about 3% of health-care spending but the truth is, he just pulled out of a hat. we just do not know how much is defensive medicine. that is why the bill includes the ability of states to set up pilot for alternative ways to adjudicate malpractice, legal panels and other things. if you have a relative killed by a doctor, you would be

hacked about only getting $100,000. it is not clear that a damaged cap would be the answer. it is not clear if that is the right answer. we need to move to a more rational system. cases are handled in a way where compensation is appropriate to the damages. we do not know how to get there yet. my instinct is that they still worry about doing the right thing. >> there have been some editorials in the medical community about the success of medicine is that more people are living into old age and then we will actually have more dementia. is that with managing those costs? >> is an important issue that

is dealt with partially in the bill. one major feature was insurance. they decided it was not written appropriately. there are other features of the bill which tried to improve community-based care. it is cheaper and makes it happier than being in a nursing home. to be honest, it is not a major focus of the bill. that is something we need to keep working on. and the hard decisions have to make.

it will be a challenge. >> the want to talk about and access issues. -- i want to talk about the access issue. and hear about the shortages of primary care physicians. if we're going to have 50 new people coming in, is there anything in the bill to address that? >> that is a concern of a lot of people. you cannot add that many people of putting some strain on the system. that is why it has a number of features to try to improve try many care doctors and access to it. it is not enough. you go to med school right now. here is your choice. it can be a community doctor

and make $120,000 a year, a good living, work 60 hours a week. or did they a dermatologist and work 35 hours a week. -- or you can be a dermatologist and work 35 hours a week. there is a fundamental reimbursement that we're putting in place for different types of doctors. until we get that in place, we're not really going to do with the shortest of america. >> i want to ask a question about basic help. i know you have written something about how it moves from 138% of poverty to higher. it is not helping it that much. it is going to be really hard to talk about the premium. it is a little too high.

it is also a problem for reconciliation. the members are going to be mad when they find out there buying health care. i think you could make the case better. can argue that we should have a basic health plan? >> someone has run my work. thank you. the question was about the basic health plan. flexibility in this bill, the way it works is to extend public insurance coverage of to 103% of the poverty line. that is about $33,000 per family. above that level, there are tax credits. he pay certain percentage of your income on a sliding scale. the government picks up the

rest. one option is from $30,000 to $40,000 a year. states and say they will continue to put people on public insurance. we will all for that because we take after the public insurance program. we will have people pay less. you can imagine doctors are not a huge fan. there are arguments for and against it. the argument against it is that it does increase insurance turning. we just had the question of primary care doctors. they are already strained to see our population. it puts more strain on that. it is a state-by-state decision. each state needs to look. some states that washington will want to keep it. it fits well with the insurance system. some states will have to consider it. i do not think it is there a.

>> will just a two more questions. >> some of the ways it mitt romney tried to disavow what he did in massachusetts, and that it would not be the right thing for the nation, from an economic perspective, is there any reason why the massachusetts approach would not scale nationwide? >> no. [laughter] [applause] basically, mr. romney had a choice of three things could have done. he could have done what newt gingrich did. the second is the cadet said it was the right thing to do and it was a great idea. he try to do it. to do so, he told a couple of disingenuous things. we do not have to raise taxes. the feds pay for our bill.

it is pretty cheap to try to argue that. then he said it is not right for the rest of the country. he never said why. he just said a man or for the rest of the country. that is not a reason. it does work for the rest of the country except for the fact you have to agree with that. i was just being disingenuous. >> in seattle, we estimate that there are probably 8000 people who are homeless. some of them are used to apply for medicaid. what will happen to these people who refuse to get access to help concerned? >> i am glad for all the things it did. it does not do everything.

in remaining problem is low people on the margin. the to discern that are uninsured are people that give free insurance. they did not take a. they do not understand our comprehend. they may have language barriers. it is a huge role for community average. they explained that the system is there for them. just as we talked, this is not follow all the problems. we still need help from organizations to make sure people get into it. >> i would like to thank the audience. you were enjoyable. great questions. we actually got public education about 120 years ago.

we have been fighting about it ever since. a lot of the questions, the coals and the system, it is a structure. i like to see s making more. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you very much. thank you for having me. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in a few moments, more about the 2012 campaign from tavis

smiley. in 40 minutes, the white house forum on jobs including comments from president obama. then gop president candidate mitt romney campaigned in south carolina. >> a couple of live events coming up tomorrow morning to tag you about. the president of the u.s. chamber of commerce speaks to the stated u.s. business. that is on c-span2. here on c-span, at the center for american progress hosts the head of the white house economic advisers, alan krueger. >> in this place who will stand for all time. a black preacher with no official rank or title somehow

gave voice to our deepest dreams and are most lasting ideas. >> saturday at 9:30 a.m. eastern, president obama is joined by civil rights leaders in king family for the dedication of the memorial on the national mall. scholars at the direction of the war as well as strengths and weaknesses at the end of 1861. john kerry became a vocal opponent of the vietnam war. his story this weekend on c- span3. >> more now on the presidential campaign from pbs television host tavis smiley. from "washington journal" this is 40 minutes. continues.

host: our guests are tavis smiley and cornel west. guest: nice to be here. host: i want to talk to about your symposium coming up called "remaking america: from poverty to prosperity." you talk about how the word "poor" or "poverty" are words that have not come up bunch. guest: the word does not come up one time. "poverty" does not come up one time. there is an arrangement for " poverty" not to be discussed. that was four years ago.

the number of pork in this country are abysmal -- the number of poor. they keep climbing. the new poor of the former middle class. i do not know who they are going to speak to. we cannot go through this campaign not addressing the concern of the poor. it is the telling of truth that allow the suffering to speak. we have to address the angst of the poor. host: reflect on the new hampshire primary and what you heard talked about and debated and we took away from the results. guest: i think we see concerned about fears and anxiety as it relates to social anxiety and a

little concerned about poor people. we see the big money and little ncern -- 50% of americans live in or near poverty. we believe poor people are is precious and prices as investnt bankers and pharmacists and professors. guest: you said there is a complicit agreement not to talk about the issue of poverty. is it as simple as poor people may not vote as much? guest: if the new poor of the middle class, that is why politicians want to speak to the angst of middle class. it is that poor people do not matter. there is what seems to be a

bipartisan agreement -- a part partisan consensus that the poor do not matter. two-minute spineless and milquetoast -- too many spineless and milquetoast candidates. whether it is mitt romney or newt gingrich, this verbal assault of words being waged on the poor -- that is not the answer to the prayer. there's a consensus in this town that the poor do not matter. host: let's look at the numbers.

guest: those numbers do not count the many citins who have given up looking for jobs or part-time workers. it is much higher than that. the issue of poverty is a matter same waynal security, semi ir that iraq and afghanistan is. it is sad we cannot shift away from the park crafts at the top with their big money -- away from the poor credits -- plurrats. poor people are losing their homes and their jobs. children can hardly get it

limelight in a democratic society. host: here are the numbers to call if you want to join the conversation. democrats, 202-737-0001. publicans, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. what brings people together? guest: we're pushing the issue of poverty higher up on the american agenda. i did not want to do a campaign for the white house when we do not get traction on this issue. we got on the bus and traveled

around the countrynd trying to put a spot on the port in this country -- on the poor in this country. this is the next step, to bring these poverty expert together and talk about how we can not just reduce poverty but to adicate poverty. when we bring these voices togetherthe drumbeat gets louder. this drum beat musket ever louder between now and november. i hope we can advance the conversation tomorrow night. in april, we're working on it new book, a party manifesto that will be out in april. we're trying to use the platform to get this issue discussed.

ho: janet from baltimore, maryland. caller: i like to ask the question to tavis smiley and cornel west. wh do they think president obama is doing? he is doing all he can to get jobs created. i don't understand the concept. host: do not see that is happening, that the president is trying to work towards helping the poor? guest: you begin your campaign and give nearly $1 trillion to investment bankers. that's not a good start in terms of fighting for the poor. in the last few months, he has given some good speeches about jobs. we applausd that.

he has been fighting for the payroll tax cut. we applaud that. that is not a substitute for a massive job creation and housing and jobs with a living wage. we applaud the president when the president does the right thing. the president -- you have tim geithner running things. tim geithner is not a fighter for the poor. i hear people saying obama is better than the republicans, but he is more work to do to fight against poverty. guest: people act in this election like there are two choices. either obama or mr. romney. there's a third choice and that's a better president obama.

just because somebody is trying are doing x, y, or z, that they cannot be pushed to do better. offer them ideas or suggestions but to push them toe better at what they do. this is not demonizing the president. this is pushing him to have more spine and more backbone. this is not just a critique of president obama. there is a bipartisan consensus that the poor do not matter. everybody in this town has to do better about making poverty a priority. poverty is not a priority. host: president obama is hosting a white house jobs forum today. he is calling a in forcing --

in-sourcing american jobs. is that touching on your message and helping out? guest: he has been giving a lot of great speeches and making the kind of moves that you would expect from a politician that wants to get elected. this is what house has capitulated and caved on too many things. it does not extend the unemployment benefits or close a single loophole. you get these kinds of -- the president can be a bit schizophrenic. respectfully, i want to push the president to make poor people a priority.

this issue gets sustained on the american agenda. those in the media used the platforms to challenge folks about how we will eradicate poverty. keeping the issue front and center. host: david in lincoln, virginia. caller: arlington, virginia. i thank the gentleman for bringing this to the forefront. there will always be some people that do not want to change their situation. some people will not put forth the effort. if we want real poverty, i spent time in afghanistan. there are some people with real poverty.

people of a warped sense of what it means to not have anything. i hear you saying that we need the government to stepped up. the government has been fighting this since the great society and it continues to get worse. i did not trust them. the dissolution of the famil unit is what it is. we have to start with the building block of a society. people are less less-- it's just repeats itself. guest: i think mike republican brother makes a good point in terms of the central role of the family. it is difficult to keep your family together when you don't have a job or use of bullets

flying for your housing project. it has to do with structures and institutions. workers are pushed out like these private equity companies in relation to brother romney. push out the workers. the workers are dealing with foreclosure and unemployment. individual responsibility is very important. we have to do with a massive transfer of wealth. policies tied to washington. rich citizens getting even richer. host: we have aomment on twitter. guest: good question. there are the perennial poor

in thisountry and the new poor and the near poor. we're talking about poverty now because the middle class is falling into the ranks of the poor. -- we'reking on the laying out specific ideas of what can be done to help the perennially poor. a quick comment about the last caller. he mentioned afghanistan. we're spending countless millions rebuilding afghanistan, rebuilding iraq. we spend billions destroying

these countries and then we come behind it with diplomacy, which includes spending billions more to rebuild these countries. if we could spend that kind of money on rebuilding amerans cities, we could have a marshall plan where american cities -- something would be done with the poverty in this cntry. guest: we spent three under billion dollars since 1980 on jails -- we spent $300 billion. when it comes to spending for the poor, we pull back. we have caramelized poverty. -- we have caramelized poverty -- criminalized poverty.

caller: i have a comment. i am an educator. the amount of people that participate, a 85% unemployed and they were unable to get a job because of criminal backgrounds and credit history. many places where to go to apply for a job, they want a credit report done. i don't think president obama should be held accountable for the low unemployment rate when employers are crucifying people for having passed criminal background and it could be something like a misdemeanor. if you're in the court system and considered guilty, that remains on your record for the

rest of yourthey are being chasr paying their debt to society in spending five months to five years in society. you have paid your debt to society. when you come out and look for a job you are turned away because of your cabicredit history and past. guest: let me say very quickly that we agree with your assessment. too often the poor are demonized anpenalized. the poor are treated in four ways by our body politics. number two, this is why we have to have a robust and creative conversation about how to help the poor. the white house and other leaders want to beat up on the president, but the white house and other leaders can use the bully pulpit they have to talk

about these issues. we were in a conversation last night about the fact that there are too many american employers like the ones you referenced will direct you on line these days to allow your application. once you get online they tell you if you are presently unemployeddo not apply. getre are people that go is not right. ar again, it is not about demonizing or belittlinghe burden on president obama. it is about saying again that the republicans and democrats in this town, and on this campaign for the white house, the republican nominee and the democratic nominee have got to be respectfully and lovingly push to address the issues of

the poor in this country. that is all we are san. is a veryis important point in which the criminal justice system imposes such major constraints on poor people gaining access to jobs and housing and other opportunities. what is upsetting also is the degree to which criminal behavior is not investigated and prosecuted, market manipulation, predatory lending. what do they do? they get jobs in washington in the white house and other places. they go back and forth, bacand forth. there has been criminal behavior wall street that at this moment that has not been in any way as counted. host: i wanted to show this graphic, the number of children in poverty by race and ethnicity. you can see here different paths

charted. you can see the numbers relatively low for whites in comparison. peeking up and going back down. now they are back up. 6.1 percent signed among latinos. 5.0% among whites. 4.4% among blacks. that is in terms of millions. guest: 40% of all black children. we need red. we will never forget our precious indigenous babies. american indian party among young people is obscene. guest: we want to add to that chart, indiana university school of public and environmental affairs has a white paper that we commission that is out literally today, so we're happy be on c-span talking about

e new data and the most recent imports about party in america and what the great recession has done to the american people. there are couple points i want to highlight about this new report. we now know the younger you are in this country, the more likely you are to be in poverty. that is unacceptable. the younger you are, the more likely you are to be in poverty. number two, we know we have the largest ever, the most significant number of americans who have been long-term unemployed than at any point in this nation's history. we did not collect t data since 1948. perhaps most damning about this report is the fact that even as the economy starts to experience some sort of an uptick -- there has been debate lately about what the december jobs numbers mean, or is this a trend to

something better -- i know all us are hoping towards a trend. the point is even when this economy starts to uptick, the are goingthe poroor to grow. because of the pace of the recovery. because oa long-term unemployment, and because of the high rates of unemployment. even when the economy starts to uptick, the numbers indicate the poor will still grow. guest: we have what we called jobless recovery. what is the criteria of a recovery? what are we talking about? just the language itself needs to be reexamined in the constructed. host: let's look at details from the new white paper out.

amg the bullet points, the findings of this paper by indiana university -- you just mentioned a hard time young people are having here yen ge. guest: that is why so many young people joined occupied movement. they understand their future is not so bright. we say all the time that something is wrong with a country that forces their children to surrender their life chances before they ever know their life choices. that is where america is right now. host: democratic caler from maryland joining us. caller: good morning. mr. west, you are my hero.

i look at things like this -- they say they blame things on the president because of the job situation and certain things. one thing you have to realize is no one is holding a gun to your head to not hire people. if you have the money and there ain't no problems hiring people, you have made money. that is obvious. the richer even richer and the poor are even poorer. look at the situation. if ewing got money, you ain't got nothing in this country. this was by design. i have never win -- been one to hand out. i want to hand up.

am't keep telling me i brainwashed by the democratic party. and i not brainwashed by no one. i am a man that stand on my own 2 feet. that is why i choose to i want as the president. -- who i want as president. you have to keep the president's speech to the fire. you have to push him. he has to have the extraand up with a stronger backbone. people think because he is fair skinned then he is not that bad. you know how things go when they talk about it your skin is fair, you are not such a threat. people have to understand, and all you have to look it is -- how urban places that use be

dominated by blacks where the crime rate was so high. now you go down there and see how it as changed in the crime rate is down, because that is a part they wanted to go through. look at the difference for blocks of the street where they are still selling drugs. do not tell me you cannot control drugs in this country. host: that is a lot of points. guest: when he talks about the fact that too many american employers are notiring people -- he is right about that. we know companies can do better. we knowore jobs are being shipped abroad by these companies to make more profits here at home. we know that these companies nowadays, and some could argue and we are debating in this new book, we are debating whether

the economy will ever recover in the way we think it shld. primarily because these most rigid national companies understand they can do just as much with us. -- primarily because these multinational companies understand they can do just as much with less. the demand for the product is so great, they have to put more people on the line to make it happen is the only reon. other than that, they want to squeeze out more profits for shareholders. the is no competitive reasons for folks to hire people. here is what we're talki about. we bailed out wall street, and the very people we bailed out are now sitting on a trillion dollars it will not turn around and invest into the economy to hire people. if the media and those of us that have platforms do not raise these issues, how did these issues get addressed? host: that is why i think those

that have the courage to raise these issues. -- guest: that is why i think those that have the courage to raise these issues. do not let anybody convince you you are only a collection of interests. we have principles. there are certain things called andintegrity, a memory. a person is not a nobody because they have no money. they may have more love and joy and integrity and spiritual mobility san a rich person who is empty in his soul. this is very important. we talk about martin luther king jr. next week. we talk about dorothy day. they taught us there are certain things about human life better not reducible to market calculation. there are human values that are not reducible to market price. all we talk about is money, money and power and power.

that is the road to spiritual emptiness. ere has to be more than that. i know the brother understand. when you look at barack obama, we vote for interest and principal. the reason why barack obama is better than republicans is because we have principles. the reason why we criticize him is because we of principles. if all we have is interest in not principles, we are reduced to a animalistic calculation about interest on interest, interest. is that all life is about? how empty to go to the grave about. host: when you talked about holding the president speak to the fire. twitter --s iwrites in on the centralis

question. they are scared. and they do not want to be unpopular. we are not committed deep eugh to our long-term principles. it is our short-term consideration. i think this white house is -- does not like being critiqued. they are very temperamental about that. what happens is, and this last calller was right, there is no doubt about the fact that the president has a vicious head when he is running up against every day. what he needs is a tail wind. he needs us to get behind him and push him. group presidents are not born, they are made. they need a tail wind to push them into greatness. there is no abraham lincoln without douglas pushing him.

grt presidents have got to be pushed into their greatness. we know obama has a head wind, and ugly, nasty strong gal force headwind. he needs a tail wind. the white house needs to understand this tail wind is not to disrupt your flow, it is to help you get to give you some velocity. host: the last time you appeared, you said before the 2008 election, senator obama appeared on your show record week came on to talk, but since then you have not been invited to the white house, nor has the president agreed to appear on your program. guest: i am afraid to even answer that question. the last time i sat at this table -- i did notay anything. i was asked a question by c- span, have you interviewed the

president? the next a headline -- "smiley whines about the fact he was not in the white house." i know full well whether or not i had been invited to the white house. nothing has changed. with regard to be invited to the white house, with regards to the interview request. he continues to talk to everybody else but us. someone will take this comment out of context again pure yen . host: recently you said this in "washington post" -- he is long interviews with brother bill o'reilly. i think from the left of tre

is a reluctance. in general thiadministration has been reluctant to engage the joseph stieglitz. let me tell you this, brother tavis smiley in michelle obama were selected among the top 100 people in the world. we saw her in new york. she was lovely, kind, sweet. we know she was brilliant. that was not obama verses others in that sense. the show reaches out and will hug. she has always been kind in that regard. she has criticism of us, and that is fine, but she does reach out in that sense. if she is reaching out on behalf of the president, then there's been some connection of the obama family. but the president himself -- you start hanging around with rahm emanuel -- these folks push you

in some certain direction. you are affected by who you spend time with. int: let's hear from john new york. turn down your tv. caller: how are you doing? brothers.your all the only way we will get the economy back together is a we get back the industry. we have to bring back manufacturing companies. when we were doing the manufacturing thing, we had a lot of jobs. all the manufacturing plants were going north. because our manufacturing jobs, we have these jobs available.

the people's standard of living was a lot higher. we notice all the schemes behind-the-scenes that manipulate the legitimate government of the people. we have to really take a look at that. nobody is talking about that. but obama we have a lot of h ope in him. i hate and distrust in government somewhat because of the secret associations that these pollutants figures have. host: and next year went to talk about an article in the atlantic called making it in america. it is about keeping jobs here and why they're here versus going overseas. guest: he is right. this country has lost its place as the leading manufacturer. it is a couple of things.

as i have said the the issue, it is the greedy american corporations to find it cheaper to do it and other places around the world. look at the epicenter of so much of what is wrong with this company -- country. number two, it comes back to poverty and why we're doing what we're doing and why the conversation tomorrow night is so important. we have to push our leaders. if they're going to get away with all of this, at the very least the government has got to have an aggressive rust job training -- job retraining program. you have to retrain the american workers to have more jobs. something is wrong with this country when military veterans are more likely to be unemployed. i want to get that out there, because if we cannot do right by

them and find ways to retrain them and put them into the work force, there is no hope for the rest of us. we heard from so many veterans that are down and out. we heard from them that they uphold their indivisibility, but have not given up. that is what is a wonderful about it. so many say they still have a sense of humanity, resiliency. you may see them on the streets down and out, but they are clever in terms of how they survive. most are not involved in criminal activity. all they want is just a chance. that actually was inspiring. host: our guests are dr. cornell west, and tavis smiley the co-

host together the radio show. they're having an event tomorrow, remaking america. that will be a george washington university and broadcast live here on c-span. it will be rebroadcast on pbs for three nights starting on january 16. guests. ests include that

. .

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captions performed by the national kppings company]

>> lastly, a lot of these companies come back with a competitive edge. go ahead, leave your jobs offshore. you are hurting yourself. i think that a lot of people coming back, there are a lot of examples. my c.f.o. and i all the time sit down with companies and show them the new operating model, and we are happy to do so, even if they don't come to my outsourcing company. i'm just happy to bring them

back. >> that's great. they come from the great state of maine with the sort of iconic l.l. bean sort of approach. there is a connection between the customers. >> what's less of those contextually centered, there might be some down in the $10 or 11,000 wage center, but they go up after that. we have a number of people that their family is now in middle class. they both work in a call center on the phone, and they are middle class. i have four generations of people in the call center. i have one woman on the phone, 92 years old, miss charlene, and

she recruits for the army. these are not minimum wage jobs. these are harder job. we need to get our high school graduation rate up. some of these jobs require college, all of them require high school education skills. critical problem solving. when i walk into cities, and frequently i walk into major cities that have 50%, 60% graduation rates out of high school, i can't be there. i left a city that has -- i select a city that has an 85 perv, 90% fwradwation rate. we start competing for those jobs when we come back. >> that brings into attention some of those things. you mentioned master lock. we probably all know that brand.

you are producing in milwaukee, and one of the things i think the president talked about when he introduced you this mourning, he said you are at capacity now for the first time in a long time, and what you said is, boy, i need more skilled workers. i have business here, i can ship it overseas. i immediate to make sure i can work with others in building a secure workforce. >> absolutely. i am the c.e.o. of master lock. we make locks. i know that surprises you. about $65 million locks. we are a medium-sized company. we are part of a new york stock exchange traded company called

fortune brands home and security. if you take master lock and go back to the 1990's, as a matter of survival, we outsourced many of our jobs to china and mexico. what happened then is we had a facility with about 1,200 people in milwaukee, wisconsin, and we kept it open. now i can say we're up to 400 people and growing. some of the challenges -- you have heard about the economics. the economics are working in our favor, and we're moving jobs back. we feel good about that. when you are a businessman and you are making that decision, economics is a huge role in making the decision to move jobs back. we are making that dynamic change for all the reasons you have heard today. we won't go into that. some of the things we talked about today, what could make that happen faster? i thought i would share with you

some of the challenges that we have had. and we talked about that today. that's just our access to skilled labor. that is something very important to us. when we talk about skilled labor, we are talking about machine building, repair. we're talking about electronics people, we're talking about a higher level of skilled people than there -- we were 10 years ago. the jobs we are bringing back now we are bringing back to a higher tech facility than we had during the late 1990's. so with the challenges put in front of us, how do you go out and recruit for skilled trades people. honestly, there are a couple things that have gone on with the transition of manufacturing out of the u.s. a lot of people lost their jobs, a lot of people were skilled trades, and now they have found other things to do. then you find the new generation that has never had shop class.

it is hard to aspire to something you have never known about. we have a real gap in this country. if i look at our skilled trades people, we're approaching 55 plus in terms of an age group because we have a gap. we have to fill that gap. if we are going to bring back jobs faster in this country, we have to do some pretty intense training. some of the things we've done, we are partnered with some of the local technical colleges and universities. we have done that in terms of being on their boards, in terms of how curriculums are participating, and allowing people to enter those programs and join an apprentice and jor neyship. at the end of the long day, it is a long process, but it benefits us. we have been on that road a while, but we have talked about, how can we get better and faster training, and how can we make

manufacturing a business that kids aspire to coming into school. >> i am on a board. we are teaching precision manufacturing. the community college folks were saying that they are having trouble recruiting. the reason they are having trouble recruiting is that they go home and the mom says,, i want my kid to do computers. and we are standing in the middle of the manufacturing floor, and the operator said, i am running a computer. i'm running a computer that happens to be attached to a machine. this is a computer job. it is not the same kind of manufacturing as before. we have a lot of work to do, i think, to change that fear that

you'll go into a skill, and there won't be a job there. >> and this moment, and this effort, have a lot to do with helping our youth and our generation get in a pathway that successfully takes them to a good paying job that's going to stay here. that's something that this administration has a lot of engagement w. a lot of program around, and we're highly committed and succeeding i think in building the foundation to do that. >> i've been promoting the idea that ties together the need for financing and the need for more skilled work force. the idea would be that for companies that can't get ploons conventionly, let's say they are not an a.b.c. credit or a d credit, and if the s.b.a. guarantees the loan, for every,

let's say 250,000 or 500,000 dollars worth of loan that is guaranteed, they have to have one registered apprentice. you can't get the money on your own. if we are going to guarantee it for you, you have to contribute something to society by training the people that will help you or help some other company in the future. >> i think that's a great idea. it does tie together specifically a lot of the things i think we have heard from folks here or from labor this morning that are committed to apprenticeship as well. the department of labor has a good program where we have capital available, grants available. i'm going to turn to the audience for a whole set of questions. think about that. i'm going turn back to the panel. a a few more questions from them.

>> i was interested in the 2009 time frame, and the business forum. >> this is a focus on the service industries. >> we do know that 80% of employment today in the united states is a third sector focused role. a couple things can be considered. >> the first is, as we are focused on trying to build

skills. i would like to say we take half of the 280,000 identified teachers who are identified as not employed in the jobs act and suggest that they be skilled enough to learn to teach people jobs skills. in the service sector, for example, you could teach those folks how to deliver those job skills in a virtual manner. what we are able to do then, is educate people without any constraint. we allow people to connect from their computer at home and be able to perform these new service oriented jobs. >> it is a great idea. one of the things i know you do, you have a lot of home-based call center people. >> thank you. we have 22,000 folks today in the united states who actually do back office and call center work from home.

we were 11,000 when we last saw you, and we are now 22,000. and we accept another 8,000 workers in the united states alone in the year 2012. so that's an idea then to be focused -- i would like to focus first on skills but second on the work. also to look at work that's being done that has a need to be done in a facility. what we're finding in many of the fortune 500 companies today are doing, they are looking at ways in which work can be virtualized. so that the work can be placed with a worker as opposed to making workers have to tumly commute or relocate to a community in order to be able to find a job.

it is very difficult for people to decide to relocate. zoo this would allow the people to move the jobs or the work that's being done to where the worker rides. that would be the second suggestion i would make. let's look for ways to take work that people consider have to be done and let's figure out how to virtualize that work and bring it home. >> i am glad you mentioned it. part of the reason of being able to do it at 15% cheaper is the work at home. for the employ, they -- ememployer they see a pay raise to at least 6%, maybe $6,000 or maybe $8,000 if you think it is not being taxed. >> not having to outfit yourself

with a professional work force puts more money in the pockets of american workers. we have 100,000 people express interest last year in being able to work at home. >> this is one of the things we see over and over. which is, you can re-invent the way work is done and how we do it here because technology will allow you to connect everybody secure ily in the home for instance. we can continually look for new opportunity. >> if i anl am a manufacturer from los angeles, california. yes, we still make clothing in the united states. we don't sell it to walmart but the debter department stores and on up. those jobs are coming back. like we heard, there are issues in china. there is a raise in prices. there is a drop in quality. we found over a year ago that we

were having more and more difficulties with the products we were bringing out of china. we maintained production in the united states. one of the issues facing us. there are a number of issues facing us. one of the issues, one, vocational training in california is horribleible. the state curriculum is that every child that does graduate, and not many do, will be trained to go on to a four-year education, not to become a plummer or electric tradition. so we need to deal in a realistic way with immigration. we as a country have looked past immigration as an issue. until we deal with that, we have

a work force -- workforce in california that's predominantly latino and predominantly illegal. they are going to feed their families some way. a large t-shirt company was raided. they lost 5,000 jobs in the city of los angeles through a raid. there are still companies throughout this country that are being raided on a regular basis by i.c.e. that are losing thousands of jobs. they cannot find the replacement to put them back in. we need to be realistic. we need a work visa program that is manageable and realistic for the problems we face. >> thank you. i think you have been following some of the president's immigration proposals, and i think there is a lot of agreement that these are issues

that we need to get solved. yes? >> our company has been manufacturing products in the united states. we have the largest sleeping bag factory in this country. we have been expanding our plants, and one of the issues we have being competitive in the global market is material that we cannot get in the u.s. we are having to compete with countries in work-free trade zones. how can we bring our costs down to compete against international companies that are working. >> you used to be able to buy those things. they all went to china. i have the same problem with decktive hardware and even door glides that i can't get in the

united states. well, there are some made in the united states, but they are very, very expensive. stame with -- same with decktive hardware. that's a good point. >> did you want to discuss that? >> so we have ideas about helping you with some of the sourcing. also, if you wanted to produce any of that in house, how you might, you know, get some financing to do that. one of the things that you wanted to mention, though, bruce was the level playing field. did you want to talk about that a little bit? >> there is a level playing field now. i feel like we can definitely compete with the chinese and with the other asian countries.

it's going to be interesting to see those people that will also take these initiatives and manufacture furniture again and other consumer products in the united states. one thing that has not been mentioned today, the furniture industry in china has been heavily subsidized. chinese businessmen got very wealthy with it. those export generous subsidies in china have all but disappeared. now they are incentivizing these same factories to sell products domestically. so you are getting subsidies that used to be for export, and now they are subsidies for domestic sales. that will really, really impact not on furniture but all consumer products in here. we will be selling furniture to

china. there is no question about it. they love -- asians love american-made products. there is a real appetite for it. >> so i would say "made in america" is hot. some of you have really gotten that sense. >> "made in america" means a better america. for sure. >> i am the c.e.o. of king footwear in portland, oregon. it has been a fascinating day. we find ourselves now at a place. we find ourselves at a place where we have to work in a capital situation. we have built a factory in oregon. we lost in a category of -- we decided to expapped to steel-toe footwear. we went from 95 in the company to 132.

the challenge we have now is not so much around the dynamics we're hearing about today. when i look to the future, it says "made in america" how do you protect that? we have brands appealing around the world. prands like the north face. in our terms, they are the big guys, and then it breaks down to specialized brands. and the notion of protecting not only innovation, and quite frankly the counterfeiting dynamic is rampant. it is not just product for product. making a product that looks like ours and selling it. there is the digital platform that gets set up quickly, the product gets to the market quickly. and just when we figure one thing out, we say gosh we got hit with this, it would be interesting to see what the fall

business administration can do. let's assume in 10 years we're wildly successful. how do we protect that platform? does the software you created take into consideration long-term consideration and the cost of that? >> would you like to answer that ? >> how many of you have heard we are supposed to be an innovation company? we are supposed to be sort of like apple. innovate and forget about manufacturing. in apple's case i think 25,000 employees are in the u.s. and something like half a million to three-quarters are actually in china. so apple has a trade deficit so to speak. if you want to innovate, apple's case has worked. it doesn't work when you

separate engineering from manufacturing. harvard business school has shown that you put manufacturing and engineering together and you let the manufacturing come over here the effectiveness drops off dramatically. we have seen that with cases where it has been brought back by g.e., by n.c.r., by others, putting them together, the innovation works. if you let the manufacturing go over here, and you don't bring it back, pretty soon, the clodge cal conclusion is to -- the logical conclusion is you get the engineering over there. so you now have nothing. we think to be an innovation country we have to be a manufacturing country. >> this is a big part of the advanced manufacturing partnership. that is, some universities,

corporate leaders, and the administration working together on keeping manufacturing -- doing advanced manufacturing and keeping the pilot stage of that. right after innovation, when you start to scale up, keeping that hoor. it is real any n -- it is really in that first stage up that it gets codified. if that manufacturing expertise happens here, it is a foundation for the next set of jobs here. i think we can take a couple more questions in the back. >> i am the founder and c.e.o. of claptive software. we recently opened up a development center. my question -- well, we are

trying to bring jobs going to india back to the united states. you say you believe a 20% to 30% miden cost is hidden in -- 30% cost is hidden in jobs going overseas. do you believe that is hidden in i.t. as well? >> it is a little more difficult to measure with i.t. in manufacturing there is the duty and the freight. there are a series of things relatively easy to measure. whereas with services, it is a greater question about the relative productivity of the two. there are still travel costs to go check on them. there are still intellectual property risks.

on the subject of services in general, i would give way to the experts here who have noted that it is about equivalently costly off shore and domestically the cost is higher and the satisfaction is higher. i would be glad to work with you on that project if you would like to find a better solution. >> i will tell you, it is exactly the same metrix organizing back and forth about product. it was even more amazing in i.t. to me when i ran a major i.t. operation. so i think it is very, very similar. >> we have t we have taken two jobs going to india and be able

to harness them. >> one of the things i encourage people, go ahead and do the same activity on shore. that you can take a look at the productivity line, whatever it is, and the output, and you can make a comparison. when you shipped everything over there, it is really hard to tell. >> i.t., we have done soft where development. actually, it is the same collaborative consulting. we work together with that person. >> i like when business gets done here. it is really just a dream. the problem that we have solved

onshore is we figured out to retool under-employed workers and put them in advanced soft ware development jobs and put thpth in bootcamps and training in world america, there are like 60 million pourple and they hav been over-shot by the i.t. economy. why can't wsh when i see 22,000 twobs, couldn't we get -- why can't we, when we see 22,i s0 twobs, get together and say, there are this many people without jobs, just with targeted efforts in being aggressive how we give those people these jobs? couldn't the pourple in this rom create a million jobs and just do it?

>> i think what you're saying is exactly what the president has said and this administration have said. and the nuts and bolts of that are part of what you see happening around you. part of the pieces that come out to do that, we have to have our small and large businesses, our supply trains connected to our training proortams. i hope you take away from today that -- you said this to me. when you actually come here and you see what's happening, there is a lot of talk about what doesn't go right in washington, but on the other side, we're taking a lot of program that's out there and focusing it. now is the time that we have to be very efficient on doing what you said. whether it is workforce tr thaning. we have to make a better match between the skills that we train for and what the businesses need. one of the ways we're doing it,

i am very proud to say, is that small business has a much larger voice. we are listening, we are finding ways to get what small businesses need and making those connections. part of it is the retail operation. it is happening in clusters. it is happening with our mayors. it is happening with linkages with fy, ks like the department of agricultural that on rathes rates in rural america and our smaul small business groups. if you see ways in your communities that we can be of more help, that we can facilitate the activity of your at find more trained workers, connect, get permitted better, we are committed to being on the ground. whether it is on the select u.s.a. operation, whether it is our on the ortound operations

that we have. we have 900 small business development centers. there is one probably within 4545 minutes of your business. if you are thinking about issues you have in your business, we want to make sure you can navigate your way to a sy, utio that is helpful to you. that's how we need to make government work in the 21st century. we need to make sure the sy, ution is finding its way to you. so in that pitch we announced the doall businesses. those are places that you can come and put in what it is you are looetwng for. we can find more and more effective ways of connecting you to those federal resources. do we have a closing comment?

i will take one more qnustion. ãis tut before that, i want to the president said to say to you, the things he has heard from all of you, you will be hearing that back. he has really apprep,ated understanding where you are in bringing your business back to this country, what it will take for you to do it, and how we can ãis te your partner. ã d> i'm at the rochester institute of technology. it has been a great meeting, and there are lots of inspirational stories here. i wonder if the academic side of me -- the academic side of me

wonders what's going on here. is there any way to measure these individual case studies? ã d> we have a library that accuusinelates all the publishe stories about work that has come ãis tacof yo right now it has 100 articles in it. it will be sea and mhable. we encourage a - of the media that is left to write lots of artiays es. we can help you find the cases. secondly, you can send them to me, we get them into the data base. when i have searched that in the past, sea and mhed that and sead the web, you find the reported cases of reshoring doing this.

it isn't absy, ute proof, but i could be reporting getting ãis tettetak there are enough of the contract manufacturers that i have talked to saying they are doing dramatically more of it today than they were a couple years rs.o. the lconrary would be the best quantity identification that i knowiona- qid tntification that a cow of. >> you can get that at my web site numberone.com. >> i want to thank the panel for spending the time. thank you for helping to pull this together. i think we have greg for some last words. thanthe pyobein thank you very much.

>> great. thanks everybody. we have one final speaker who just wanted to come over and say thanks. it is my pleasure to introduce her. now that i worthe pin the t ioverelpent and the white houi have a chance to see how a lot of things work on the py, icy side. the next thing you are about hear about is the thing that works on policy and make sure all of our policies focus o secyeaically on how to help small businesses. with that i wanted to introduce nancy. [applprase] >> i want to thank the business leaders who shared tspeay with the president and vice president your stories about bringing jobs back to america. the president and vice president noted that america is the best place in the world to do business and create jobs. after hearing fronow tall of yo toch.y i think we can agree.

throughout the day we have heard that the economics are clear that locating in the u.s. makes sense for companies that are ãis toth ma+ 4facturing and providing services. the u.s. has added over 3i s,0i ma+ 4facturingant to ts in the pas two years and we have improved our competitiveness. the businesses that we heard from today are making a choice to invest and grow in theiesniãe states creating jobs at home becprase it makes sense for ther ãis tottom lines.

>> we are calling on other companies to follow their lead and brings job back to america. the president asks you today to do whatever you can to look for every opportunity to bring jobs back here. we can and should do more to celebrate the trends we have heard about today. one of the reasons we wanted you to come here is so you could give us more ideas so make it easier for you to bring jobs back, to locate your businesses and the expansion of your businesses in the united states. the president has put forward and implemented policies like tax breaks, research and development credits, and recently signed trade agreements that several of you noted helped your businesses compete. today we announced new initiatives, including new tax

proposals. a proposed expansion to the recently launched select u.s.a. program that helps build investment in the u.s. we have export officials in more than 100 cities. we heard today over and over again about how much more productive our workers are and how much more so they have gotten over the last three years. we will continue to develop partnerships between labor and businesses to help ensure america's work force are ready to respond to the needs of workers. in addition to the needs of the great programs highlighted by people here today, we are working with skills for america's future and the president's jobs council to ensure that the skills training remains a key element of our job strategy. most importantly, we thank you

for taking the time to come here today, because we need to continue to partner with all of you. as many of you have said, one of the biggest potentials is in sourcing. today we hoped to shine a bright light on the economic advantages of doing business here in the u.s. and you will go out and continue to be ambassadors for them. by working together, we can address this lack of awareness, and we look forward to getting it done with the white house as your partner. thank you very much. [applause]

>> in a few moments, republican presidential candidate mit romney campaigns in south carolina. after that, a fund-raising event with president obama in chicago at the university of illinois. >> on "washington journal" we will discuss the campaign with ari melber. at 8:30, david chavern. at 9:20 we will discuss with amy schatz f.c.c. rules. "washington journal" is live on c-span at 7:00 a.m.

>> on c-span2, the state of american business. here on c-span, alan kreuger. council of economic advisers. >> climate change. >> i think there are a substantial number of scientists that have changed data. >> i rate politicians. if you say something outrageous, you get four pinocchios. >> in his "washington post" fact checking column he rates the political truthfulness of others .

>> whether or not they are clib deliberately lying? i think when a politician says the same thing over and over again, even when it has been pointed out to be not true, then they know it is untrue and they are just going to say it anyway. >> glenn kessler saturday night on c-span's "q & a." >> mit romney had a rally. this is about 45 minutes. ♪

♪ i was born free ♪ >> welcome, welcome. what a great turnout. i will tell you, it has been an exciting night for a couple of reasons. was that a great win in new hampshire or what? [cheers and applause] >> so i said, the joke was, we all take wagers on how he was going to do, and we wagers, and i said iowa is going to win by a hair. someone called back and said he won by eight hairs. i called back and said new hampshire will be a landslide. they said, shh, you can't say it will be a landslide. it was a lapped slide. i want to make sure that you

know your supporters are here. we have p [applause] >> jay lucas has thrown his support behind governor romney today. [applause] >> i want to talk to you a little bit. everyone has asked the question, why mit? i want to take you through what my process was in doing that. what i knew i was going to face as governor was unemployment problems. it was economy problems. it was bag balancing our budget and dealing with the spending and trying to find a way to

prioritize it. i had no idea that the hardest part about being governor would be the federal government. it all started with the great company we have in south carolina called boeing. [applause] the national labor relations board saw we created jobs at a time we needed it. at the same time they expanded 2,000 jobs in washington state. not one person was hurt. but president obama allowed the nlrb to stop production. they removed that one now. we're free of that one. [applause] you know i ask every president in the presidential to acknowledge the nlrb. only one candidate did not speak on it. that was president obama. that says something.

we passed illegal immigration reform. guess what, the department of justice sued us and said we can't do that. we said if you have to show a picture i.d. to get a sudafed on an airplane, you should have to show a picture i.d. to do the one thing we have a right to do in our country, and that is to vote. what i knew in this thought process was, we need a president that has nothing to do with the chaos that's washington, d.c. nothing. we have had enough of that, and we don't like what we see. the second thing is, you know me. it is not about what we say, it is about results. it is about elected officials remembering who they work for. this was a man that worked in the private sector 25 years. not the government sector, the

private sector. he fixed broken businesses. we have a broken washington that needs to be fixed. this is a man -- absolutely, give him a round of applause. [applause] this is a man that tock a -- this is a man that took a failing olympics -- this is a man that went in as governor of a very liberal state, cut taxes 19 times, balanced his budget with an 85% democratic legislature. do you think we could use that in washington right now? [applause] so i took all of that into account. michael and i were thinking

about it. by the way, i would like you all to know that the coolest first man is in the house tonight, michael haley. so the first thing is, we're a military family. we know the sacrifices that our families deal with every day. we need to make sure that we have someone that strength jensens our military and doesn't weaken it and tell us we have to be embarrassed for it. he believes in strengthening our military. [applause] so i sat down and had a conversation with the governor, and i said governor romney, we don't want health care mandates in south carolina. we can't afford it. he said nikki, we will repeal obama-care. [applause]

>> i said governor, we're trying to pass voter i.d. he said i've been a governor of a state. you know how to handle your state. i will keep the federal government out of your way. [applause] i said governor we have this issue with yucca mountain. they made a promise to us. they said they would take our nuclear waste. after a year of paying a billion dollars for other states, they pulled the rug out from under us just for political purposes. he said i will bid it out to any other state, and if we can't do that, i will fight to get you your money back. [applause] that is why i am endorsing mit romney. i know i will have a partner in the white house. i won't have someone fighting me

every step of the way. they will understand that what we care about in south carolina is jobs, spending, and the economy. this is a man that will fothe totally focus day one on jobs, spending, and the economy, and make sure we have jobs in our state and not out of our state. [applause] so i know who you are really here to see, but i have to tell you this story. i come into the governor's office this morning and was shocked because congressman acliborne was outside of my office. he had democrats all around him. he was sitting there saying, we can't have governor romney. we don't want the free market. he was bashing it. i felt like i was in the twilight zone. i thought, wait a minute, there are still six people in this primary. why is he automatically hitting governor romney now. and secondly, and i say this as

a warning, i am proud of all of our republican candidates. i am proud of the people that have taken the time to come and campaign in south carolina. we have a real problem when we have republicans talking like democrats against the free market. we believe in the free market. [applause] we don't ever want people to come in and say that boing can hire and fire. we don't want people to come in and say they can make profits or not. during tough times you downsize and make hard decisions and during good times you expand and help businesses grow more. that's what he's done. he has done what every one of us has tried to do. so with no further ado, i will tell you that michael and i are

very proud to have in columbia the next president of the united states governor mit romney. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, governor. thank you. thank you so much. you are so kind to be here tonight. it is so warm outside. it is different than new hampshire. what an honor with you tonight to have your treas our with me today and state legislators as well. how nice of you -- in this case, how many kids you got here? they are not all hers she says. six. they are not all hers, she promises. i hear a little one.

the she wants to see what's going on. let the little kids up front, right? it's been a tough year. it's been a tough three years for people in the palmetto state. unemployment at 9% still. remember the president was going to get america working again. he was going to repair the country, repair the world. it was going to be a new era in washington. people were going to work together, collaborate across the aisle. remember all these things he said in the campaign? he's failed. he's failed. [applause] by the way, we all know what's happened here domestically. there are failures internationally as well. probably the greatest threat we face for our security over the coming decade is a nuclear iran.

he came into office. he did not organize sp communicate that we had effective commill military options to take, and he did not -- when there were over a million people in the streets of tehran screaming for freedom, he was silent. can you imagine ronald reagan being silent in a case like that? even bill clinton would have had something to say. it is unthink wrableable, his failure internationally. then his failure here at home, look what's happened with government. this is a guy critical of george bush for having racked up large deficits. his have been a multiple of what george bush did. if you look at what he's on track to do in his first term -- and his only term by the way. [applause] he will have put together as much public debt, almost, as all

the prior presidents combined, he is leading us down a path to become like greece or i will lit. i am convinced we will be there at some point. 9.9% people unemployed. 25 million people out of work or have stopped looking for work or are seriously unemployed. i think you have to say, this has been a failed presidency. i don't think he tried to make it bad, he just didn't know what to do. he's over his head. so i'm going to go to work to do a couple things. i'm going to stale back the size of the federal government. we're going to get the country on a balanced budget diet.

and people say how are you going to do that? everyone says when they run for president or national office that they are going to cut federal spending. actually, as the governor of my state, i did not just cut spending, we were in a cash squeeze. i said let's pull back spending. i did that. we balanced the budget every one of the four years i was in office. we looked at the budget and said what are the things we have to do and what are the things we just like to do. and the like to do things we cut back on or eliminated. here's what i'll doo. i'll take eafer single program and i'll say is this program so critical to the country that it is worth borrowing money from china to is pay for it. on that basey, i'm going to ut can a lot of programs. i think it is immor -- on that basis, he said i'm going to cut

spending on these little ones. we have to stop that. it is wrong. it is not moral. i will stop it. [applause] and to get our economy going, i will make america the most attractive place for job creators, for entrepreneurs for businesses to grow here, small business, big business. i will get our tax rates competitive. i will get regulators to ensure we are working to privatize enterprise. why in the world do we kkt act like an energy poor country? it makes no sense to me. i'll open up markets for american goods so we can sell more things around the world.

when countrys like china cheat i will hold them accountable. i will say no more. you can't keep stealing our jobs. but this election is about the president's failures, of course, internationally, domestically. this failure to scale back the size of government. but it is also about something more. it is about the soul of america. the question is, which course are we going to take? are we going to good on the path he's put us on, which is to go more on a european welfare state, or are we going to hold true to the principles that made us the most powerful nation on earth? [applause] those principles welcome people that are willing to work hard and take risks and maybe have a little luck and have treams and