[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 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 rate. to work. can you have cost control without a public option? -- 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. 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 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. 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 un 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.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> at 6:30, tavis smiley holds a forum on poverty, focusing on a report from indiana university. you can see on the screen speakers. it starts live at 6:30 eastern. now remarks from thomas donohue on the u.s. economy. he predicts the economy will slow down in the early part of the year, but could accelerate by december. held at the annual conference on the state of american business, this is 40 minutes.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> good morning. welcome to the u.s. chamber of commerce. i am market spellings. this is an exciting time for us. 2012 marks the chamber's 100th anniversary. in a few minutes the chamber pots president tom donahue will deliver his annual address.

before he does, i will say a few words about tom. 2011 was a challenging year for america. through it all, tom did what he does best. he turned challenges and opportunities and let the chamber -- led the chamber through a string of victories. tom has the energy and vision to act. that is what makes him fun to work for. he does not keep the business community in the national debate. he helped frame get. he helped position the chamber to be an advocate for business in the most critical issues confronting america. that is why so many of us look forward to his address. i think we are going to get a glimpse of what this year will bring politically and economically and what it means

for the american business community. most importantly, we will hear from tom on out the gender is going to continue to advance free enterprise and defend and protect business over the coming year. as we face new challenges in 2012, i am confident, will leave the chamber to even greater success. please join me in welcoming u.s. chamber president and ceo tom donahue. [applause] >> thank you very much, mark correct, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i would say parenthetically, if half of what margaret said was true it would be true of because of the extraordinary people that we have working at the chamber and the people but we have been able to attract to come here at

this very challenging time for our country. let me begin by saying good morning and by expressing my appreciation to margaret and the national chamber foundation for organizing this event and each of you for being here today. it is something of a tradition that the chamber gathers in the new year and assesses the state of american business. size up our economy, and lay out our priorities for things that we believe are really important for our country. this year is particularly special for us. we are observing the chamber's 100th anniversary, 100 years of representing the business community and standing up for american free enterprise. as we begin 2012, we can say that the state of american business is improving, but it is

slowly, andkly, insufficiently put our nation back to work. we were all pleased to see ositive jobs report last week. let's not forget it was 5% in december of 2007 as the recession began, and we are still down 6 million jobs since the recession ended. there are more than 23 million americans who are either unemployed, in part time, or who have given up looking for a job. our nation's highest priority then must be to put these americans back to work. to achieve this goal, our economy has to grow much faster

than it is today. unfortunately, we think the economy will actually slow down in the early months of 2012. we expect growth to average 2.5% or lower in the first half, and then hopefully, depending on the actions of government, to work its way up to about 3% at the end of this year. there are long lists of what the economists like to call down side and upside risks. these factors could cause the economy to perform either more poorly, or much better than any of us might forecast. our goal is to see the nation take advantage of our many opportunities on the upside, while doing everything possible to address the risks on the downside.

we are deeply concerned that our largest export market and a commercial partner that we most value, the european union, faces an unresolved financial crisis and a looming recession. there will be leadership transitions and elections in taiwan, china, north korea, and in case you have not noticed, there is an election here in united states. we are seeing continued turmoil and violence in the middle east and saber rattling from iran. what happens to our economy if we have to pay $100 or more over

the long term for crude oil. here at home, government policies and conflicts among our political leaders have added to these uncertainties, undermining business and consumer confidence and slowing the economy down. the federal government is expanding its powers, its costs, and its debt at a record pace. we have made virtually no progress in reforming entitlement programs which could eat the federal budget and our economy alive. and in a new survey of small businesses, more than 80% of them are very concerned about the prospect of new regulations, new mandates, and higher taxes, and these concerns the brakes on

their investment and they're hiring. for all of these reasons, the chamber is putting forward an american jobs and growth agenda. with specific ideas to put people back to work -- without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. we are calling on leaders in washington to work with businesses and with each other to build a stronger american economy. 2012 must not be wasted simply because it is an election year. there is no justifiable reason that it should be. the house of representatives, for example, have already pass 30 bills that its leaders say could accelerate growth and create jobs. so far, these bills have gone nowhere in the senate. surely, some of these must have

good ideas that will attract the attention of the majority in the senate. meanwhile, administration spokesman said recently there is just one item on the president's must-pass legislation program for this year -- one item for the whole year -- a further extension of the social security payroll tax holiday. with all the challenges facing our economy and our country, it is inconceivable to me that the president would agree with that, and i trust that he does not. today i would like to briefly outline a few of our hut -- and few of the highlights of the chamber pots jobs and growth agenda. let's start with a big one -- energy. our nation is on the cusp of an energy boom that is already creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, revitalizing entire

communities, and reintegrating american manufacturing. and conventional oil and natural gas development is on the pace to great more than 300,000 jobs in the next few years in ohio, new york, pennsylvania, and west virginia alone, and there are a lot of other states involved in this business. take a look at what is happening in north dakota. the state is booming. unemployment is 3.4%. oil production is just surpassed that of ecuador, one of the members of the ocd. energy is a eight game changer. it is the next big thing. with the right policies, the oil and natural gas industry could create more than 1 million

jobs in the next few years. not only can we create jobs, but we can cut our dependence on overseas imports while adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the government coffers at a time when they needed to. recent discoveries have confirmed that this nation is truly blessed with energy resources. members can be boring, but be patient with me for a minute. we have $1.40 trillion barrels of oil, and if the last for the next 200 years. that is what we know we have. we have 2.7 quadrillion feet of natural gas, and nafta last when the 20 years. we have 486 billion tons of coal, and after last over the next 450 years, and we need to use more of this strategic resource cleanly and wisely here at home while also selling at

around the world. to tap our energy resources, we have got to speed up permitting and and many of the restrictions that have been put on key areas and put these resources off- limits, some for environmental reserves, and others for purely political expediency. instead of and picking a few technologies, we must harness all our resources -- traditional an alternative -- while also expanding nuclear power and driving greater efficiencies. if this is the is the most important environmental advantage we have. our biggest most reliable energy supplier is canada's. the proposed keystone pipeline would bring canadian oil sands down to our refineries and many

destinations along the way. the project has pass every environmental test. there is no legitimate reason to subject it to further delay. labor unions and the business community alike are urging president obama to act in the best interest of our national security and our workers and to approve the pipeline now. we can put 20,000 people to work the day it is approved and 250,000 over the course of the years that it will be built. expending our energy infrastructure is just one part of a broader effort to modernize this nation's entire physical platform. congress -- this is very complicated -- has until january 31 to do the faa

reauthorization. this will ease delays, create jobs, and save lives. lawmakers need to make investments to improve our transit system. the safety law that covers that expires on march 31. if congress does not act then, the highway trust fund would cut a minimum of 35% out of what we now spend -- if we have the absence of a reauthorization -- and put what the people backed -- out of work. every piece of and for shorter legislation should include reforms -- but infrastructure

legislation should include public-private partnerships, and the use of private capital. by knocking down the barriers, we can on lock up to $250 billion in private capital to infrastructure alone. beveridge this with investments, and you can create 1.9 million jobs over the next 10 years. add up all these jobs and you begin to put a lot of people back to work. let me go to our next subject, trade and global commerce. 95% of the people we want to sell something to live outside the united states of america. let's get out there and convince more of these customers and consumers to buy american. the president and congress acted not a moment too soon when they finally pass the trade

agreements with south korea, colombia, and panama. americans who were already starting to lose jobs -- and that is what drove us to conclude those agreements. we could lose sales and jobs in other markets as well unless we act quickly to advance a bold trade agenda. a great way to start is by completing a trans-pacific partnership agreement in the booming pacific basin. let's get a high quality agreement done this year. the chamber has also proposed a new trans-atlantic economic and trade pact with the european union. this would eliminate tariffs on goods that we trade with one another. we're gaining a lot of support

for it. we applaud also at the extension of russia to the wto. congress should grant permanent normal trade relations status to this agreement so that the u.s. business community can participate in these benefits, because without it, we cannot, and we want to put russia in a rules-based system. it is time to get moving on additional trade agreements. there is interest in egypt, brazil, and indonesia. just a few of the countries that should be on our list for consideration. to do this, the tpp that congress must renew its trade promotion of party. any president of any party should have at. the executive branch must negotiate agreements that will not be picked apart by the

congress, but subject to an up or down vote. we also need to complete the task of modernizing the nation's export control rules. there are still rules from 30 years ago, and we need to move it because it is costing us billions and billions of dollars of sales abroad, and we must continue to support the import bank and the overseas private investment corporation's. these organizations, which some people criticize, have helped support our export of goods all over the country, and the government makes money on the deal. our country should make a major effort while we are doing this to attract more global investors. foreign investment supports millions of jobs in the united states, but indirect and direct.

we need to negotiate more bilateral investment treaties to ensure that american investors are treated fairly overseas, and india and china should be on the list for the dish eating those trees. we ranked 44th in the world in the number of such treaties, and that is a fundamental competitive disadvantage of the united states and our workers. we must not overlook the extraordinary benefits of expanding tourism and business travel to the united states. we need to broaden the visa waiver programs to limit wait times at customs to reduce the hassle without jeopardize the security. by simply restoring our share of the troubled market to the 2001 levels, we could realize a $860

billion in new economic stimulus and create 1.3 million new jobs at no cost to the american taxpayers. let me move to a very sensitive subject. to grow our economy and create jobs, we need to have significant regulatory and legal reform. there are more regulations and a pipeline to date than currently exist. the regulatory avalanche confronting our job creators is unprecedented. the labor department has 100 rule making is in the pipeline. dodd-frank requires 437 rules and 59 studies. the health care law establishes

159 new bureaucratic crews and agencies, panels, commissions, and regulatory bodies. the epa has some 200 regulations in the works, and the business community must contend with the national labor relations board that is clearly tilted towards unions. this adds up to a big drag on our economy, and i did not mention many of the other regulatory agencies. when the need is there and the regulatory remedy makes sense, the chamber will support it. but when we see regulatory activism that is based on bad data, a dubious of party, and the pure politics, we will oppose it. we will go to congress, we will go to the courts, we will go to the court of public opinion to explain how a regulatory system run amok is needlessly driving

american jobs out of the country or out of existence. let me be clear, the chamber support necessary, sensible, and forward-looking regulations. for example, our capital markets at advanced positive ideas to reform the sec and is working closely to close the regulatory gaps and minimize systematic risk in our financial markets. dozens of the most critical dodd-frank rules are likely to be finalized this year. on derivatives regulation, the bulk of the rule, the potential money market reforms, and other important matters, we will help ensure that the regulators that the rules were right. we will continue to push for accountability and transparency at the consumer financial protection bureau.

we were deeply disappointed to see the president installed the director without the advice and consent of the senate and without the oversight of the conference. we're not opposed to the director. we wanted to change the process so that one person did not control this whole system. the chamber is also working to modernize and overhaul the regulatory system, including legislation to reform the permitting process and to update the administration procedure act for the first time since the truman administration. our institute for legal reform will continue to fight the expansion of excessive litigation that is sucking the vitality out of american companies and with it tens and tens of thousands of jobs.

we are going to build on our successful work in the states and seek additional legal reforms. we will be engaged in a major effort this year to educate voters as they choose state supreme court justices and state supreme court's general. we also aim to stop the rise up third-party litigation. this one gets me. that is with the outside investor funds a lawsuit in exchange for a share of what the lawsuit will bring in for the court. this encourages the filing of frivolous claims and by its testing claims in court. it gives incentives to prolong claims to get a settlement and raises serious ethical questions in my opinion. who does the lawyer really represent? his client or his investor? in our business, we hear dom ideas every day of the week, but this one takes the cake.

my next topic is a critical one -- how to maintain and advance america's leadership as the most innovative economy in the world. we are still number one, but we are in danger of losing our edge. we can maintain our leadership by better protecting our leadership and intellectual property. everyone is committed to that. congress took the first step last year by passing long overdue patent reform legislation. we are asking lawmakers to perform -- to cast ballots legislation to crack down on foreigners websites whose only purpose is to trick consumers, still american jobs, and pollute the vibrant internet system in this country. by the way, we understand people are very unhappy about some of that, but we are going to get it right. we are working with people on

both sides of that issue, and we will get it right. leadership, as in innovation, also requires that we reform our visa policies to allow the world's best minds and most creative entrepreneurs to say in our country after we educate them. where? in our top universities. they are going to contribute and succeed elsewhere, so let's keep them here. ideas got to be in the united states. beazer reform is just the first step towards the long overdue priority of immigration reform. america's prosperity has always depended on hard work, sacrifice, drive, and the dreams of immigrants. our future will depend on them even more. leadership and innovation also demand substantial improvements

to our k-12 school system. a major overhaul of job-training programs, and close cooperation with our universities to make sure that our work force is competitive and ready for the jobs of the future. finally, innovation demands and depends on a rational, efficient, and globally competitive tax system. if we want to keep industries here and attract new investors to our shores, we cannot continue to maintain one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. we need to lower the rate as part of a comprehensive overhaul and reform that broadens the tax base, reduces the costs and burdens of compliance, and makes us globally competitive. we must also, ladies and

gentlemen, recognize that the current individual tax rates as well as taxes on dividends, capital gains, and the states, are all scheduled to go up in smoke by the end of the year. if this happens, the idea of getting economic growth where we would hope it gets by the end of the year is just not going to happen. it would have a devastating effect on businesses and on consumers and on our economic growth, so i think here is an issue we have got to take to the congress this year. there is one more priority that i would like to raise. the region need -- and it urgently needs our attention. we must rein in government spending and bring deficits and debt under control in an orderly process, and we cannot do that without a serious entitlement reform. our states are doing it.

the country has to do it. despite some progress in controlling the growth of new spending, we still will rack up another annual deficit in excess of $1 trillion. our total national debt has just surpassed 100% of the nation's gdp. that equates to $47,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. medicare, medicaid, social security are the principal drivers of this runaway spending. it is not malicious. it just happens. they already consume over 55% of all federal outlays, and without reform, they will soon consume the total budget of the united states of america. all of us need to face the

fundamental reality that the only way to continue these programs and provide them for the people that expect them and need them is to make constructive changes and to do it now. ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude by underscoring that america's most pressing economic challenge is the lack of sufficient growth to create jobs, to expand in comes, to reduce government deficits, and to fund essential programs. the good news is that our country is superbly positioned for a new era of growth. we still have a lot of strengths, you know. there's no reason to wring our hands or cry in hours of -- cry in our soup. even with millions of baby boomers set to retire, our

country has positive, youthful demographics, and this will be a critical competitive advantage in the years ahead. we are home to the most sophisticated global companies and to over 25 million small businesses and entrepreneurs. america leads the world in manufacturing and services and high technology and in higher education. we have unbelievable reserves of energy and other natural resources and one of the world's greatest breadbaskets. the business community is excited about building on these strengths, and growing our economy, and growing our companies. we are ready to invest, eager to compete, and we want to hire. we really want to put people back to work. in many instances, despite all the uncertainties and the impediments and risks, our

companies and entrepreneurs are already forging ahead. business is leading the way and creating jobs. so the compelling question for all of us to think about for a minute is -- what is blocking our path to a stronger economic growth? to more jobs? and to better opportunities for all americans? there are some obstacles that will always be with us. there will always be uncertainties and risks that we cannot foresee, but what we can plainly see is and urgent need for leaders in every sector and at every level, who are dedicated to meeting the country's challenges, solving problems, and helping america achieve her full potential. we all know that real leaders do not and cannot ignore reality. they do not sweep problems under the rug.

they do not point fingers. they do not divide us. they seek to unite us. real leaders understand that americans can have big differences in philosophy but still find common ground for our common good. this nation has always succeeded when we have worked together. real leaders would not wait another day without trying to solve the serious economic and financial challenges facing our country. they would not tell us that the solutions will just have to wait until after the elections. leadership is also required of we the people. we cannot simply point our fingers at washington and blame them. we have a responsibility to be honest with ourselves and consistent with those who represent us.

as much as we might want our government to balance the budget, reduce the debt, and cut our taxes, all while providing each of us with an unlimited array of benefits, we know that that just cannot work. it just will not work. the business community also has a responsibility to be. we must not lose the spirit of enterprise and of risk-taking that have served this country and our economy so well. and if government starts removing the impediments that we have long identified as stifling growth and jobs, then we will be in a position in the business community to start taking far more risk and making more significant investments. the business community also has a fundamental duty to stand up

for the one economic system that can restore our nation to growth and prosperity and opportunity, and that is the american free enterprise system. if we, the business community, do not do it, wells will? i am refers to say and regularly comment that this is not a perfect system, but no one has ever found a better one. for lifting people out of poverty, for inspiring hard work and creativity, and personal responsibility, for generating dynamic growth that is broadly shared across the society, and for keeping the american dream alive for generation after generation, there is no better system. so as the chamber turns 100 years of age in this pivotal year, we are reaffirming our commitment to free enterprise.

the greatest economic system ever devised and the driver of america's greatness. we all know that this is no time to sit and wait and see what happens. it is time to live up to our legacy and make the right things happen. you will see us striving to do so throughout the year on the hill, before the administration, in the courts, in the court of public opinion, and, ladies and gentlemen, with the most aggressive grass-roots mobilization and voter education program in our history. we passionately believe that it is time to stop apologizing for the one system in our society that really works -- the american free enterprise system -- and it is time for government and our fellow citizens to understand that the only way out of the problems we face is to

drive economic growth from one end of this country to the other. so let's go do it. thank you very much. [applause] >> in this episode, we are going to look at rick perry pose a surprising comments on climate change and the scientists behind the research -- repair is surprising comments. >> there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated the data. >> i rate different comments by politicians on a scale of one to four. if you say something really upgrade is that is completely inaccurate, you will get four pinocchios. if you say something slightly misleading or a little out of context, you might get as little as one. >> in his column, glenn kessler evaluates and reads the truthful of black magic to a full list of political figures and others. >> whether or not they are

deliberately lying -- i think if a politician says the same thing over and over again, even when it has been pointed out that it is untrue, that they know that they are saying something untrue, and they are just going to say it anyway. >> the "washington post's" glenn kessler. >> coming up in 15 minutes, live coverage of tavis smiley's forum on poverty in america. speakers include princeton university professor cornell west and author and filmmaker michael more -- moore. republican presidential candidate newt gingrich signed a pledge earlier today that says as president he would keep the federal mortgage tax deduction in place to encourage home ownership and create new jobs. he spoke at a homeownership rally outside of the state capitol in columbia, south carolina.

this is 15 minutes. >> i want to start for a minute and talk about home ownership on a personal level. i cannot of a family in central pennsylvania. my dad ultimately became a career soldier, but before that, he went to college. while he was doing that, we lived in an apartment above a gas station right on the square, and we rented. when my dad was in the army, we went wherever of sam sent us, and we were always in army housing. i remember the feeling my mother had after my dad retired and they finally were able to buy a house and moved into their property that was their house that they could take care of

that they were proud of. she grew up in wisconsin, a town of 1600. in the late 1950's, her parents bought the house they now live in. over the years, the improved it. bake expanded it. -- they expanded it. the pride they take -- her mother's pride in their work that they put into their home, their sense of a homestead is what america is all about. i just want to say that those who live in high-rise apartment buildings rising for fancy newspapers in the middle of town after they read the metro who do not understand that for most americans, the ability to buy a home, to have their own property, to have a sense of belonging is one of the greatest achievements of their life. it makes them feel like a good,

solid citizens, gives them a place to route their children and grandchildren and have a better future. i have been very involved for a very long time in trying to make sure that we had the kind of program that enables every american to have a chance at buying a home. that does not mean every american understands how the budget. it does not mean every american should be lured into buying a house they cannot sustain, and it does not mean every american knows how to take care of the house without some training. i got very involved in the 1990's with habitat for humanity. habitat for humanity attracted people who were willing to help build their own home. i remember being in sacramento at a house that was being built, and the family was there. the father was a crook, and the one daughter who was about eight years old took me into the place

that was going to be her bedroom that they were building where they had asked her what she wanted. you cannot imagine the sense of pride and the sense of belonging that she had from that experience. let me say first of all -- we need to learn from the lessons of the last four or five years, but what we need to learn is not how to turn our back on home ownership. not how to turn our back on helping every american have a chance to own a house. what we have to learn is how to create a stable, safe mortgage system and how to help develop a system where folks who have never before had an house learn how to budget, learn how to take care of their house, learn how to be involved so that ultimately, we can say to every american -- if you are willing to work and willing to learn, you, too, can have a chance to be and property owner and be a citizen of america. [applause]

my good friend j.c. watts and i had a deep mutual commitment. we believe that when the founding fathers wrote in the declaration of independence, "we hold these truths to be self- evident that all men are created equal and that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that they actually meant every american. it took time to work it out, and we had terrible problems with slavery, terrible problems working our way through women's rights, terrible problems with segregation. america has never been perfect, but the ideal of america is a wonderful thing, and we're still wrestling with it. how do we work together so that every child in america genuinely has the opportunity to pursue happiness? notice it is "pursuit" there is no guarantee of happiness.

that whate suggestion we need our happiness stamps or that you have the right to sue if you feel unhappy or that we would redistribute happiness. that is not what we say. what we say is each of you and every one of your children and your grandchildren has the right to get up every morning and had a dream and work hard and learn every day and pursue that dream. i will sign the pledge to defend that mortgage reduction. [applause] but i also want to make a point. i want to make two sets of points about the mess we are in. one about how the government has failed the average american and what about the right strategy for getting out of it. when i see hundreds of billions of dollars given away so if you are big enough you get the money. if you are a french bank, you

get $19 billion. if you are goldman sachs, you get $13 billion out of aig from the federal government. somehow, that money did not exactly trickle-down. you go talk to folks whose mortgages are under water. they somehow did not get the same break as a multinational bank. you talk to the folks who are going to pay the taxes and pay off the debt, and they somehow do not get the break. i just want to say to all of you -- i believe we should have an audit and every american should have the right to know -- where did every penny go? who got it? why did they get it? why are we on the hook for it? [applause] there is some counterpressure among the elites about raising questions. let me tell you -- the american people have the right to know, and people who run for high office have an obligation to be transparent and available to the

american people because without their knowledge, how do you really have a free society? if the federal reserve can spend trillions of dollars without being accountable to anybody, how do we the people meet our obligation? i want you to know i am converted to we the people being real. i am committed to us knowing what is going on. the reason is we cannot figure out in 2008, 2009, 2010 what went wrong, how will we fix it for the future? we need a lot more knowledge about who got in trouble and who got bailed out and who did not get bailed out and where the money came from and how much we are still on the hope for. with your help and support, i will actively pursue that, but let me talk about the future. the number one thing we can do that would be relatively easy that would start turning around the housing market and start turning around the economy overnight is real simple --

repeal the dodd-franc bill, and you immediately -- [applause] -- repeal the dodd-frank bill, and you are immediately better off. with your help, if i become president, i will ask the new congress when it comes in to not go home, stay in session, and i will ask them before i am is sworn in on january 20, to pass 3 repeals. to repeal obamacare, which is killing small business -- [applause] to repeal dodd-frank, which is killing small banks, small business, and housing -- [applause] and to repeal sarbanes-oxley, which has added tons of paperwork to no benefit to anyone. congress will do that, then on

the first day in congress, i will sign all three repeals, and we can start getting back to work creating jobs in america. let me also say to you the number one key to bringing housing values back up is to create jobs. if we create jobs in sufficient quantity, prices will rise because people will be able to pay for it, and as people's incomes go up, they will have a desire to live better, move into better homes, and be more engaged. i am committed. you can go to newt.org to see a program for zero capital gains tax to see a program and a plan to get it started. the 12.5% corporate tax rate which will make us competitive everywhere in the world and will enable us to bring back home $700 billion in profits that are locked up overseas, and we will get general electric to pay taxes because it will be a low enough rate they will fire the lawyers and pay the tax.

[applause] something for all the home builders. 100% expensing so you can write off all know expenses in one year so american workers have the most modern equipment in the world to be the most productive, most efficient and most creative so we can compete with china and india and we can win. and i am for abolishing the death tax permanently so that everybody is in a position to know that if you work hard your whole life, politicians will not review off when you die. having said that, we also need an american energy policy, and i will apply it right here to south carolina. we need to have a policy of generating so much energy that we do not care what happens in the middle east. we need a policy generating so much energy that no american president ever again bows to a saudi king. [applause] let me give you the south carolina part because it gets pretty good -- we should

immediately begin developing the $29 billion of natural gas offshore, which is worth $80,000 a job if you look at what happens in louisiana. those are good, high-paying jobs. we should have an agreement that the state gets have the money and the fed gets half the money, which helps you avoid tax increases in south carolina, and we should take part of that money and use it to finish modernizing the port of charleston so it is prepared to receive big new ships when the panama canal is open in 2014. [applause] so now you have jobs out of energy. you have jobs at the port, but let me go one step further. the boston consulting group said in austin that by 2015, there will be less expenses in total cost -- energy, paper work, everything -- less expensive to manufacture in south carolina then to manufacture in china. i want to be here as your president when you apply to all

the new tax provisions i have described. when you get things up and running. when you have manufacturing rebuilt on a grand scale, when you have that port modernize. i want to be here with you for the first container ship that leave charleston carrying manufactured goods to shanghai so we are back in business manufacturing. [applause] if you have a job-creation program, and when i was speaker, we created 11 million jobs working with bill clinton in of yours. when i was a junior member working with ronald reagan, we created 1,300,000 jobs in one month -- august 1983 -- if you took that and applied it to our current population, it would be 20 million jobs in seven years, so i know how to create jobs. if we create jobs, housing prices will start back up. if we get rid of dodd-frank,

housing prices will start back up. we make it relatively easy to buy the equipment to be in business, to have a lower tax rate so home builders can build housing, we will see once again of -- a renewal of the american home industry, a renewal of american homes, and the reestablishment of the right to live in your own home as a key part of the american system. i am with you. i want your help, but i want to help you. together, we will get america back on track. thank you and god bless you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> now, pbs talk show host tapis smiley host a show on poverty, focusing on a report from indiana university, which outlines how poverty is changing in america. this follows a party bus tour in south america, visiting some 15 for communities across the country -- some 15 poor communities across the country. >> 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. [applause] them a good evening. we are here live from the nation's capital for what promises to be a wonderful,

rich, and a power in conversation about the one issue that i believe threatens to tear this country apart at its very fiber -- the issue of poverty. in the last presidential race for the white house, the issued somehow did not make its way onto the agenda. we want to change that unapologetically but with humility. we want to change that this year to make sure that between now and november, we do everything we can to push the issue of poverty higher up on the american agenda so that we can get some traction on a conversation about what we're going to do to make poverty a priority and figure out a plan to not just reduce poverty, but i want to be bold tonight -- to talk about eradicating poverty in this country over a time certain. [applause] so i am delighted that we are back here again this year, as we were last year on the campus of george washington university. please think the president and campus for having us back this year. [applause]

we conduct these annual symposia to get out of the studio in los angeles and get out into the country, into the nation to talk about issues that we think matter. we are delighted that we are live on c-span. before i go any further, c-span has always been so gracious to cover these conversations now for -- i guess i lost count. 13 of 14 years we have been doing these annual symposium. please show your love for c-span for carrying us live to the nation tonight. [applause] c-span, we thank you. we appreciate it. i also want to welcome those listening live over radio in new york city on wbai. welcome to this conversation called "remaking america: from poverty to prosperity." delighted to have you turned in to this conversation, again, here on the campus of george washington university. i could say so much more about poverty, but i do not need to because to my left and my

right, i am is surrounded by experts. not just experts, but i would say long distance runners on the issue of trying to reduce and eradicate poverty in this country, and i could not be more delighted to be joined by an auguste panel. let me introduce them to you right now so we can jump straightaway into this conversation. she's the woman who coined the term, and i love it -- "green the ghetto." host of the peabody award winning program cassette and promised wan," please welcome my friend, majora carter. [applause] -- "the promised land." i am always happy to brag on her. years ago, she was one of the macarthur genius is, so we are glad to have a genius on the stage with us tonight. next is the best-selling author of more than a dozen books, including "nickeled and dimed" and "bait and switched," please

welcome barbara ehrenreich. he's a princeton professor, one of the nation's leading public intellectuals, who i'm honored to say as michael was on a national public radio program weekly, and i am also honored to be joined with him on our new book, "the rich and the rest of us: a party manifesto." please welcome dr. cornel west. -- a party manifesto." let's try this, what i said michael, you say moore. michael. >> moore. >> academy award winner michael moore, the author of "here comes

trouble." [applause] dr. west and i had the honor today earlier to be alongside this next person standing on either side of her as she made an announcement to the nation and the world that i think will literally turned the financial services industry on its head. it was that big a deal. the announcement that she made earlier today at the national press club. she is the author most recently kebab "the money class -- the author most recently of "the money class." nobody knows the difficulty of navigating poverty in this country better than the leading expert in the country. please welcome our friend, suze orman. [applause] she is the president and ceo of feeding america, a wonderful non-profit designed to combat the scourge of hunger and poverty in this country.

please welcome our friend vicki b. escarra. finally, the president of the inside center on community economic development and an editor of -- co-editor of "building help the community's." please welcome our friend from oakland, roger clay. [applause] we have here on c-span tonight to a half hours to talk about poverty. that might be the most time ever given to a conversation uninterrupted without commercials about poverty in this country, and i want to take advantage of every minute of it and jump right into the conversation. barber, i am honored you are here. i want to start with you because the numbers have been coming out so much of late. it lies in the last three or four months of 2011, it seemed that every other day, there was a new statistics coming out about how things really are. the most recent one, though,

from the census bureau. our government finds that one in two americans is either in poverty or near poverty. i was no math major, but i think that means half the country. if you add three categories together, the perennially poor, the newport -- the new poor, and talking poor, you're 150 million americans. i want to ask -- how did it get this bad? >> let me say about those numbers, there has been an idea for a long time that the poor are some special group, some special demographic, over there somewhere. we have to face, we are not talking about someone else. we are talking about almost half of america's struggling. that goes for the senior citizen who cannot make it on social security, the young person who

cannot pay off student loan debt. it is the low-wage worker at walmart or something like that. it is a massive phenomenon. but we are going to have a whole discussion about how we got this way, so i will just throw out one possible cause. a theory coming for a long time not only from the right but some democrats is that hardly means there's something wrong with your character, that you have got bad habits. you have added that lifestyle. you have made the wrong choices. -- you have a bad life style. you have made the wrong choices. are like to present an alternative theory which is that poverty is not a character flaw. poverty is a shortage of money. [applause] the biggest reason for that shortage of money is that most working people are not paid enough for their work. [applause]

>> how much of the drama that poor people are entering now you think has to do with the demonization, a criminalization of poor people? >> yes, absolutely. if you go out now to get a job, a low-wage job, $8 or $9 an hour, you will be drug tested, personality tested. all the questions will be whether you like to steal, with the like to sell cocaine in the break room, things like that. -- whether you like to sell cocaine in the break room, things like that. there is an assumption that if you are poor, you are a criminal, which the public sector does its best to make come true. police harassment. some of it is very racially charged, too. [applause] there is the idea that if you are poor, there is something wrong with you, and you should

probably end up incarcerated. >> dr. west, i want to come to your next because i want to build on what barbara has laid out for us, at least in terms of how it got to be this way. indiana university this week released a white paper called "at risk" which details what this great recession has done to the american public. there is a lot we will pick apart, but let me start with this -- it is pretty clear from this report that the new poor in this country are the former middleclass. typically, politicians love -- i'd guess there poles must encourage them to speak to the banks of the middle-class voter, but how do you talk to the middle-class in ways similar to the past if the new poor in this country have enough to be the former middle-class? >> first, i want to salute you

in your leadership. give rather tavis -- brother tavis a hand. very important. i was blessed to go to 18 cities in seven days with him on the poverty tour that he came up with and his team facilitated. we were able to see the middle class brothers and sisters of all colors, all cultures, all civilizations, and sexual orientations. there were also immigrants. our brown brothers and sisters. they were black, brown, white. we started on the indian reservation. it is always fascinating to look at america through the lens of the original people. very important starting point. the original people. [applause] we began with the notion that poor people are priceless and precious. each individual has the dignity that ought to be affirmed. and what did we see? we saw the results of a system

in place that has been driven by corporate greed at the top with oligarchs ruling and politicians rotating with money coming from the big bank, big corporations pushing working people to the margins and rendering poor people superfluous, which is to say either unnecessary, or in the great metaphor of ralph ellison, invisible. anytime you talk about poor people, you have to talk about the larger systemic context. how could it be that the top 400 individuals have wells equivalent to the bottom 150 million fellow citizens -- well -- wealth equivalent to the bottom 150 million a fellow citizens? there is something sick about that. people said that it is because

they deserve it because they are so smart. i know some smart people that are broke as the 10 commandments. they just cannot get a job. if 1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth and 56% of our precious children of all colors live in or near poverty, something is deeply wrong. it is morally obscene. how could it be that poverty has not become the major moral issue of our time? because our leaders lack courage and independence. they are too tied to big money. [applause] how could it be that the presidential complex has been expanding and $300 billion has gone into jails and prisons in the criminal-justice system, but when it comes for money for schools, money for housing, money for jobs with a living wage, it is a warped system. we're here because martin luther king, jr., and others said america is a sick society.

america does not always have to be sick that americans rise up the way the occupy move that has been talking about and talk about these issues seriously. this is what the issue of poverty as it affects -- the middle class is now declining. if it were just a matter of black, brown, and red, we would be voices in the wilderness. [applause] as long as there is a black face or a brown face on poverty, we overlook it. as long as there is a brown face, we overlooked it pure white, middle-class base, we have a problem now. we have to deal with it. [laughter] and that is fine because we believe what brothers and sisters have the same values as red and brown and black and yellow -- we believe white brothers and sisters have the same values. that is why i am is so excited about the manifesto we wrote, brother, and we had a good time

writing that thing. we did. >> let me go to roger clay on the other in because i think he can speak to something that dr. west raises. let's play with it. dr. west suggest -- if i could put it in this way -- that party in this country for too many of us is color coded. how much of -- let's tease out what dr. west has given us to work with -- how much of our lack of will to address, here to for at least, the poverty question has to do with the fact that poverty is so color coded? >> a huge amount. let me throw out an interesting statistic. right now, the unemployment rate is around 8%. 7.9? then at 8.5%. -- >> 8.5%. >> i went back and looked over

the last 40 years to see what the unemployment rate was for blacks. only in one year has it been lower than what it is now. to support what you are saying, black folks have been in it for a long, long time, but no one paid attention because they look at the unemployment rate for everybody and not the various populations. i think it is a good example of what happens in looking at a lot of problems over a lot of different racial minorities. if it does not hit the white community, it did not happen. it did not exist. what is happening now is there are a lot of white folks who have fallen out of the middle class or are in danger of it, so now, it is a problem, but it was not a problem before, and black folks have been there for that entire time, the last 40 or 50 years, since we have been keeping statistics, and of course, much longer before that. >> one of the arguments you are

hearing, michael -- it is hard to ask michael a loaded question because it is just more fun that way. part of what we are hearing from some of those white folks, michael, is that what this conversation represents its class a and b -- class envy. people are jealous, hitting on other people. we are a bunch of haters on all the folks who have money. up to me about the issue. that is the argument -- i literally saw it on the news tonight. mitt romney used that phrase, that it is envy on the part of many americans against those who happen to be well-off. >> it is war. it is a class war that has been perpetrated by the rich on to everybody else. that is a class war. it is one they started. the mistake they made, to deal with the racial card of this,

is there but has been on the next of people of color -- their boot has been on the necks of people of color since we began. this was a nation founded on genocide and built on the backs of slaves. [applause] we started with a racial problem. we tried to actually eliminate one entire race, and then we used another to build this country actually quite quickly into a world power. this country never would have had the wealth that it had had it not had slavery for a couple of hundred years. [applause] if it had had to pay people -- if they had actually had to pay people to build america, we might just be at that point in utah where we are joining the two rails together may be at this point right now. [laughter] here is what i find really

interesting -- corporate america and wall street -- they are always thinking about -- "what is in it for us? how is it going to work for us?" they actually need party. they need poor people. the system does not work unless there is a good chunk of poor people. -- they actually need poverty. they had a permanent port class, mostly people of color -- they had a permanent class of poor that they could use as essentially a threat to the middle class. "if you ask for too much, if you ask for higher wages, if you expect health benefits, it you want a day off, you could very quickly be over there with those people -- if you want a day off. they knew how to use this group to manipulate this group. the huge catastrophic tactical mistake that they have made,

because of their incredible greed -- and they came up with it essentially because of the housing thing. after they used the poor, they thought they were not making enough money, so what could they get off of the middle class. well, wait a minute, they all own homes. let's do the mortgage thing. this was before they went into the inner city to connive and scam poor people. they have been doing that for a long time. the idea over the 1990's and as part of the last decade was to figure out how to make the call middle-class -- essentially put the one thing they had some investments in -- their home -- up to either get a second mortgage or to get a better home or whatever, and they figured out -- this is what is really amazing to me, just thinking about this, because president obama just appointed jack lew as

his new chief of staff. if you do not know who he is, he ran the operation of citibank a few years ago. he ran the particular department at citibank -- the hedge fund department that was assigned to take out bets against the housing industry, that it would collapse. he ran the department to bet on the housing mortgage industry collapsing. that is now the white house chief of staff. >> boo! >> the mistake the wealthy have made and why we have this whole occupy wall street movement, a poll of 76 percent of americans believing taxes should be raised on the rich -- you have never seen that number because they have always convinced the middle-class that they could be there. they could be rich someday.

"we will not because in america, anybody can make it. i might be used someday." [laughter] hooray for welfare, right? they made the huge mistake of taking that away from the white middle class. they went after them. they went after their homes. they moved their jobs overseas. they took their health care away. they made it so their children would be the first generation in the history of this country who would be worse off than their parents' generation. i remember saying this on your show a decade ago, tavis, that when this thing -- you have always asked me when it is going to happen, when people are going to stand up. you show a clip of me on your show. i am down there wrapping crime scene tape around the stock exchange on the back of a brinks truck up to goldman sachs to get

our money back, and i am all by myself. [applause] you kept asking me when the revolution was going to happen, and i said that it would happen -- it is when they will, and they will, go after the people who have things and try to take them away from them. it is one thing you have always been poor and you have never owned that nice house, never been able to take that european vacation. you wished that you could, but you really do not know really what it is like. but if you have been in the middle class and you have had that nice home and that vacation, and you have been able to send your children to the university, and now, the system says, "we are taking that away from you," now there is hell to pay, and that is what is happening. the final thing i want to say is that what i do not understand is

that wall street and the banks -- they have so overplayed their hand here. they should have just east of a year or two ago, you know? they should have just backed off, and they could have had their larger class of permanent war, but i think it works in their benefit. why would we have poverty -- if wall street and the rich got poverty was bad, they could erase it. if they really thought it was not good for them, right? they have the means to get rid of it. they would get rid of it. but they do not. they need it. they need this large -- half the country -- living in anxiety and fear and the other half over here are the ones that they will sell their goods to. that is really actually messed up economics because they have been going for the short-term gain. sooner or later, they are not going to make their money on

that. sooner or later, the chinese are not going to be in poverty. people are going to rise up in other countries. you will not be able to go over there and do this for 10 cents an hour. people eventually what was good for themselves and for their kids, and i think they have made a colossal mistake. i think you're going to see -- you are seeing it now -- this large group of the american public -- 150 million -- rising up. [applause] >> this conversation out here at george washington is made possible thanks to the general -- generous support of the kellogg foundation, so thank the kellogg foundation for making this possible. there's a particular question submitted from the kellogg website that i wanted to get to tonight. it is a great segue to you,

suze. michael just referenced the number of americans who have always been poor. i call them the perennially poor. all too often, children who grow up in poverty tend to stay in poverty. what factors do you really contribute to this lifelong trajectory among american families? that phrase got me -- this lifelong trajectory amongst too many american families? we know suze orman as the most regarded financial expert in this country, to my mind. you might not know that white suze grew up on the black side, the south side of chicago. [applause] in a whole lot of poverty. obviously, she has made her way out of that, but she has a unique perspective on the perennially poor in this country that might -- again, not

seem plausible at first glance. talk to me again about what keeps people in poverty. >> what is interesting is this -- and i will take a little different approach if i can -- >> you certainly can. >> years ago, i have told people, "people, be careful. the rich are getting richer. the poor are getting poorer, and sooner than later, the middle class will not exist." the people that call into the show now used to be middle- class. i am here to tell you, they are all now in poverty. the face of poverty has changed. the face of poverty is the person sitting next to you. it is every single color. what keeps us in poverty is that there is a highway into poverty, and it is no longer even a sidewalk out. to get out of poverty, you have to have a source of income.

you have to have the ability to generate money so that you are not poor. it is not brain science, but you cannot make money if there is not a job for you to have. even if you do make money, you cannot afford to pay things, especially when you see the prices of food out there and what it costs. everything is set up, as michael has said, that once you are poor, they have you exactly where they want you. i do not give them as much credit as you do in that i do not think they are smart enough to know what they did, purposely. [applause] i do not. i think they go after money, and we do not know what to do because we are educated. we are not educated on monday. when someone says to, "signed here, you can have your american dream," you believe them, and you believe them because you want more for yourself, and why would they lie to you?

well, they did, everybody. the one thing i can tell you -- people always say to me when i'm on the shows, "they knew what they were doing. they knew how to sign those papers. do not tell me that they did not get themselves in poverty." i will never forget it was in 2008, oprah asked me, "how is this all happening?" my answer is very simple -- the lies, deceit, and the greed of the corporations and wall street and the banking institutions. it was just that simple. all of you fell for their scams. so you stay in poverty. when nobody can teach you how to get out of it because there are no tools for you to dig your way out of this whole. there is no tools that they are providing for you, but i am convinced that with the right

type of education and with some new tools that could aid the people in poverty, that they can get themselves out, but if you are counting on the administration to get you out, if you are counting on the economy to get you out, if you are counting on any other country to get you out, i am here to tell you, you are fooling yourself. there is you have got to give power to your voice and settle for last -- and not settle for less. what changes is when people start to boys how unhappy they are. if you are simply stopped from the corporations that are keeping me down.

>> i'm going to come back to susie. i mention that she may gain major announcement. i want to come back to that in a second. i want to ask majora a question about poverty, alleviation, and environmental remediation. i want to ask that, majora, andause poorr people not just that in poverty. so often they are stuck in certain pockets, a certain neighborhoods. they cannot get out. often there is no

transportation. there is an varmint to racism. there is a link between poverty and environment. >> thank you. my work has been based that it could be used as a toll to create economic -- tool to treat economic stability. i am known for transforming dumps into parks. what they did was provide a visual reminder that because they look that way they do not have to be there always. no community should have to bear the brunt. we know that race and class is

both. it will determine where you find a good step. it is not just that those are not nice things to be around. they also produce some others. whether it is because of fossiltory problems or fuels causing learning disabilities. it adds to the complex. it has the fabric of our communities. it stabilizes families. it does not provide the different type of development. it can provide different jobs.

it may seem very excited. we have seen in countries. we have seen in inner-city ghettos. there is hope in opportunity that we have missed a lot of. the fact that we can create a new economic opportunities around things like how do we adapt our country, in particular our coastal areas? we can use environmentally sound ways to support things like storm water management and energy conservation while creating real jobs that provide opportunities for people who have been left behind by our education system for so long. whether it is urban forestry management, things of that nature that provide municipal services as well.

it aspires to really help and do the unintended consequences. it made it so that we are more racially segregated. once we have integration, those that have more money were able to leave. if we can use real-estate development to creaturely mixed income communities, bring back the resources so poor people are not always so poor, burning things like manufacturing and other commercial opportunities while keeping an eye toward the environment li-sao things that do not continue to destroy the fabric of our community. we can do that. we can do it. we can do more of it. >> i want to get vicki involved.

there has been for a few years, i think about the number of times i have asked of this of use and others of my programs. it is about the notion of bringing -- greening the ghetto and the way to let people out of poverty was to do just that, to find a green jobs for those persons. has that turned out to be a bunch a rhetoric? can you point any of us to a place where we have seen green jobs come on line? >> we have not seen the kind of green job creation that i was hoping would happen in the south bronx. it really was looking at how you

create markets for the kind of jobs that need to be done at in our economy and make sure their training people to do that work. they make sure there are jobs on the other end of it. that type of work was something that was needed in our city. we knew it. it was helping. we know those type of things actually helped reduce -- improve air quality. you want to do things of that nature. the problem that i have seen is that some of my most well- meaning peers have put the cart before the horse.

we could either chain people to the market ripe enough? we did not do that work. >> i appreciate your patience. >> i love that modesty. it is perfect timing. what she was talking about in these pockets of poverty are the people get stuck with these conditions. one of the things you know better than anybody is that in these pockets of poverty people have access to less food, fruit, meat, vegetables, etc. they are exposed to less. when most americans think about hunger and food and security, they do not think of it as an american problem.

they think about the infomercial's we see on late- night television. the african babies with big bellies. talk to me about what the numbers are saying about hunger in america right now. >> the numbers are huge. there are 50 million americans that are hungry. they do not know when their next meal will come. they're worrying about how they will speak to their children. they come in on monday morning with not enough to eat. they are fidgety and not learning. we know this. they are senior citizens that are living on a fixed income. they are too modest an embarrassed to ask for help. we have seen the numbers doubled

since the last recession, 150 million people? that is a crisis. we have a crisis in front of us. the interesting thing is it is up until now it has been hit in. i read that over 62% of americans really believe there is a divide around it. they are concerned about it. there is the intersection about hunger and poverty and education. it is the ability to get out of the bottom of the wrong. they are worried about it. how do people react and work as far as those that are hungry? they look like all of us. we all know somebody that is struggling. the work that we do, we do the

biggest research around hunger in america. it shows that it has doubled since the nerecession. the people that are coming to our food banks and into food stamp offices for the first time has grown by 30%. that 30% are people that are visiting that have never been there. it is the middle class. i was thinking about this as your getting ready for the panel. it is solving some really big issues. this is an issue of leadership. this is half of our country.

if we do not do this now, we never will. >> i want to have some fun. vicki offers me a wonderful segue. she said what many are leaders. we need leadership. we're sitting in washington right now. i know five under 35 people who think they are leaders. i know a another guy i could definitely thinks he is a leader. there are some folks in this town who regard themselves as leaders. what we are lacking is leadership. why is it that there seems to be a bipartisan consensus and this town that the poor do not matter? >> i hope you all noticed the

tears in the ski -- in vicki's eyes. it has to do with someone who cares. the tears have to do with recognizing the condition of poor people in america. it is a matter of national security like iraq and afghanistan, like whatever foreign-policy we know. part of the problem is we do not have elected leaders who understand the tears. >> i want to jump in quickly. you say that poverty is an issue of national security. >> namely that if we do not come to terms, there is not the external threat. it will lead toward a collapse of american democracy. it is an oligarchy of hypocrisy.

poor people are at each other's throats. america goes under as we know it. am i right about your tears? >> i am right. >> i feel it. one reason why we do not have a leadership among the 536 is that they are not leading in a way that they make working people a priority. when investment bankers are in trouble, and they lead. they saw the problem. when the banking is a problem, if they lead. we need to go to war. >> you're not going to pay for it. that is the kind of leadership. it is narrow. it leads to a catastrophe. what we need is a courageous, progressive leadership.

his starkly in america, it has been primarily black folk -- historical in america, it has been primarily the black people that have shown the leadership. it taught the country how to love. this is what they look like in public. the top is about love. right now the bac folk -- black folks the tradition is weak and feeble. you do not have to be black to be part of that tradition. you have to be connected with it and used to be a part of it.

it is not a matter of stereotype. it is tradition that has taught american the best about itself on how to love others even when you are hated and revenge is coming in. it is not just a political question. we have 536 leaders that are so obsessed with power and money. how are we going to get the lobbyists satisfy? how we get money for the next election? when it comes to the condition of our precious children, it is an afterthought. they talk about it during the election. we're going to go under. >> it is so brilliant what you just said. let's redefined the term.

>> the five under 37 are not leaders. their followers. they follow the money. they do what they are told. as long as we have money in politics, is still be so hard to do any of these things we want to do. they are just a servant to wall street. wall street says do this. "park my car. ."p me some more supe that is why the movement is not called occupy washington. it is god occupy wall street. that is where you go.

they are the puppets. >> it raises a fundamental question. if michael is right, both parties are beholden to wall street. we are now in a presidential race. mr. obama is raising money respectively. if they are both beholden to the wall street money, no matter what they say, what do we do? >> i do not want to break into the panel. i want to push michael and cornel on this.

he is like my leader. he has been tell me what to do. i've been following him around and trying to do it. you are a good leader. you are. however, i want to see the discussions move past leaders. whether we're talking about the ones in congress, a so-called leaders, or whoever we are talking about. we took a huge leap in the last few months. we had for the first time a liter less movement. a proud and leaderless movement. was a crazy? was in not so -- was it nuts? no. everybody became a leader.

by ourselves, we will not do much. you're saying anybody can get out of poverty if they have the right knowledge and skills. i am not going to argue with that. we have discovered something in the last few months that is bigger than the power of any individual. that is the power of solidarity, people working together. defend youroing to house against the share of one for closure time comes. -- against the sheriff when foreclosure time comes. that is our strength. it is a very strong part of the american position. it has been kind of a race for a culture that says you can get

yours all by yourself. don't hang out with losers. it to be a leader yourself. we're going together. we're going to do this together. we have the strength of "we." >> of want to come back to suze now. i bought this -- i brought this up because when you say people can let them out of poverty if they have the tools, what kind of tools are missing? >> to come out of poverty you also need help. you need to believe that you can come out of poverty. it only takes one. if one person can make a move toward it, then you start to

get the solidarity. if you all keep thinking there's nothing i can do and there is no hope, then there is no hope. i was at the national press corps today. somebody came up. i said "what is your name." she said "just another one of those unemployed people." that is how she introduced herself. it means she has no hope. if you have no hope, we have nothing. it takes one person to just have hope and the people around them to get the spark that true change come about. to the one thing that the tool that i think is important that i am trying to work on, i do not know by will be successful, it seems that many people do not want me to be successful with this, but the main thing i want

to change in the united states of america are fico scores. [applause] the way that fico score is used to be calculated was a lot different than we are in now. to no fault of your own, you lost your home, you lost your car, you lost everything. you lost your ability to pay. a of taken everything. they're even taking your fico score. so now you are really fico-ed. without a good score, if you happen to own a good car, no matter what kind, your premiums are high. landlords will not reach you. employers are starting not to hire you.

if you want to do anything to change the situation, good luck getting a loan at all. if you happen to get a loan, it will be at the highest interest rates possible. the main thing i am trying to do is that get people who pay in cash or bond debt that to change. if you pay in cash are on a debit card, it does not report to a credit bureau. there for you do not have a score. therefore you are a non entity. you do not exist in the financial system at all, people. if you want to just pay your way in cash, you do not count. if you count the time if you run up your credit cards and have a minimum paid do every month.

then you really count. you are paying their way with 20's arm and 30% interest. -- 20% and 30% interest. i am trying to change things of that a debit card create a fico store so we can get rid all together.ards when you are tempted to do something when it comes to money, you tended to. i want to get that temptation out. i want to go back to america and build up your fico score so one day he can have a car or a home. the you can one day get that job

or rent an apartment. you are now an entity because you have paid with what you have obverses with what you -- versus with what you wish you had. all i can tell you is that i and many people who do not want me to succeed. there is serious money and credit cards. there is serious money in prepaid cards that charge exorbitant fees. i am trying to do something that is a little out of the ordinary. nobody wants me to do it. and they want to keep everybody down so people that take advantage continue to do so. i am going to continue to fight for you. [applause] in two years time from this date, if this works, you will be able to get a credit score simply if you have a debit cards. that is my goal.

>> i want to come back to you. i want to ask something that is a bit elephant in the room. since to open the door to it, i want to come back. i'm not asking this to beyond the spot. to many americans are suffering from poverty right now. the group that is being hurt the most and being hit the hardest, and the numbers they clearly are african americans. you lived in oakland. it is an pedometer african- american city.

there are other pockets across this country. black people right now are catching the most hell. to my mind, they lovingly and respectfully are the most [inaudible] about the they are catching. it it is about our love and supports of barack obama as president and the effort to get him elected. i get that. i do want to put this out there. i am curious as to whether or not the historical power in the black prophetic tradition, if the people catching the most hell are not saying anything and giving the president cover, and then how did the other folks who are trying to find the courage

to raise their own voices to keep themselves from being invisible, we have done this historically. what happens if we continue to be as silent as we are? i am not saying that the president has to be demonized. i am saying when they are doing that in silence, it raises the question as to what the paying the threshold -- pain threshold really is for black folks. >> we talked about what you're going to ask. i was hoping to give it to somebody else. let me first tell you about how i feel about how i become president. i am extremely disappointed,

more so than i ever thought i could be. i think part of the reason i am disappointed is because i had hoped for a light. the disparity between what he has done and what i hoped, some of my hope was based on unrealistic expectations. [applause] and so even though i am very disappointed, i was born when roosevelt was president. i do not think that there has been a better president for our people since i have been alive. i am very mixed. because he is black, i still have very high expectations. some things are well done. i think he has done some things that are well done that they did

not say much about. my biggest disappointment is that i do not see a leadership on the issue. i do not think you go around talking about race. you do have to go around talking but issues that affect black people. not just black people, because we are just a canary. it is everybody. everybody is experiencing now is something what we have been expressing for a long time. what do we do about that? one of the difficulties now is looking at the alternatives. you really do not know. would you rather have him are one of the others? i am clear on the republican side what i would rather have a. i would rather have barack obama.

my hope is that he does get reelected. but that because it will be his last term, at least the first two years he will turn out to be a great president. right now he is a social president. i do think that we have to keep the pressure on. i am glad there are people that can go out and say it. that is not what all of our roles are. i do not think if he gets reelected and there is not substantial change that people will be quiet. we're going to lose because of that, people are not going to be supportive of the democratic party. >> let's take a step further. black people are catching the most heall among -- hell among

the president's space and they're the most loyal constituency. there is a larger problem year, which is democrats more broadly -- how do you lovingly and respectably push the leader of the free world to say and to do more about poverty? i have never asked. i'm never asked the president to walk around talking about black, black, black. but when americans of all color and race and ethnicity and gender, etc., when all americans are now falling into poverty, it does raise a question as to what they do more broadly to respectively push them to use the pulpit during

this campaign year to say and do more about the poor and about making poverty a priority. do you have any magical way, and a great idea, about how we go about doing that ta? >> yes. i have an optimistic answer. bac in election day dump the 2008, everybody remember going into the voting booth. i looked down at the ballot. i saw this man's name. i never thought in my lifetime that i would ever have a chance to do what i was about to do and vote for him. i cheered up. did anyone else have that experience? [applause] up.terally teared i was literally moved. in mich., weak color a circle with a felt pen. smeared the tears

ballot. >> a you voted have for mccain? >> no. my wife was outside asking what the is going on in theire? it was such an emotional day. we had just under eight years of our country being driven down the toilet. [applause] we had gone through 8 years of after the world feeling our pain and being on our side turning against us after we became a country that invaded other countries. to finally have someone that was going to stand up to this, and yes you're right about the expectations and the rose colored glasses that maybe we wanted. we also knew that goldman sachs was his number one contributor.

we thought it did not matter. we know the man had a good heart. we know that. he still has a good heart. we know his conscience. we know that. we know his wives conscience -- wife's conscience. we know his family. i am profoundly disappointed. those tears on election day have continued through these past three years. here is what i would like to say. we are live on c-span. we are just a few blocks from the white house. it just in case he is watching, which camera would he be on? president obama, here is the deal. the republicans have done as a huge favor. they have run the circus. i do not understand why wall

street did not put up somebody to remove you because they are not really entirely happy with you. yet they have not run anybody who is going to be you. [applause] therefore, without chasing the election, without providing clips for fox news to run the day after the election, let me just say i think there is a pretty good chance you're going to win this election. [cheers and applause] therefore, let's not lose another year before addressing the issues that we're discussing. you do not have to worry. you are going to have another four years. you have the opportunity to be the roosevelt of the 21st century.

if you remember throughout and to brought this country to the place we should be, even though it was genocide and slavery, that somehow it took this african american to bring us to be place where we always knew we could be and to help treat the american dream for every person that suze is talking about. if i put an eight hour day, i can try my own car and semi kids to college. that is all they're asking for -- and send my kids to college. that is all they're asking for. [applause]

>> the irony is just overwhelming for me that you get a white brother from michigan expressing the best of the black prophetic tradition to a black brother in the white house. [applause] who's the head of the american empire. it is not about stereotypes. it is about what type of human being you're going to be when you move from your mom is going to the tune. i do have -- when you move from your mother's womb to the tomb. i do it to say this. even when we knew the mean- spirited republicans pushed as to the brink of catastrophe, we also knew that the system itself was broken. just like when the black mayors took over cities that were in

the process of breaking down, you get a black president in the white house and the process of a national system that is breaking down. we got to keep our focus on the system and the bodies and souls that come together and mobilize. in the end, and this is what elected martin luther king making an indispensable, that it is not about one person or president. it is about a fundamental transformation. we need a transfer of power from unaccountable oligarchies to everyday people. that is what we're talking about. if you know enough about the future that you're willing to take a risk and live and maybe

die. my first prayer for barack obama is the safety of this family. his precious two little ones and his wife. white supremacy is a real. it is very real. all of those who have lived under those threats, and they know exactly what their getting into. most of your friends aren't dead. they're willing to sacrifice. most people do not want to die. they would rather sell out then die. what we're talking about is not just one individual. we are talking about what kind of people we are. if we do not have enough ordinary citizens of all colors to fight for your democracy just like a fight for it in

afghanistan under leadership formulations, then we're going to lose the democracy and poor people will still be caught. that is the challenge is seems to me. people were willing to fight for the british monarchy. they pushed up the imperialists. the second was slavery. they pushed out slavery. it is just another form of slavery. that challenge in america is in the oligarchy. we have to have leadership that says we love oligarchs. they are human beings and make choices and they can change their minds. they can choose to be white supremacists or fight white supremacy. you have to make a choice. >> i want to ask barbara.

to those watching right now see your passion but would suggest it is a bit hyperbolic to say that you have overstated the case by suggesting that the future of our democracy is at stake, that sounds anti-american and you do not believe in the idea of american exception listen. are you overstating the case that our democracy is at stake? >> i was a look at the elections. democracy is all but gone anyway. all you need to do is look at the super pac and the supreme court that is happening for the money flowing in. we have to somehow renew it. it is not hyperbolic in this sense. >> there is a threat that we're

to left. you are correct. he was actually being kind in terms of how it is. >> the overwork him. >> are you building on my optimism? the of the awful truth is that our democracy is hanging on by its last one or two threads. it is paid for a controlled by the banks and wall street by corporate america and by the 1% that rule this country. what are the water to threads that are left? -- one or two threads that are left? they still say it is one person and one votes. they can run ads aand keep suze from getting a good credit for, but she is talking about something so revolutionary. the current debt in student debt

have been fighting each other for number one. [applause] >> what i want to say to anybody watching or listening, and that one thread that is still there, the one person/ one vote, the one thing that they cannot do is come into that booth with me or you once we close the curtain. at their hand is not on our hands. it is our hand. we still get the choice. the problem is the lack of choice. the problem is that in a nation of 300 million people, we have only two choices. one is a nice choice, but they

are both feeding at the same trough. 01 will appoint better justices but they are still feeding from the same corporate trough. until we remove money from politics and have more choices on the ballot in go back to voting on paper ballots so there is a real count so we can see to be voted for, until we get rid of the electoral college -- [applause] until we moved election day to the weekends -- [applause] let's make it easy. the reason why the 1% are trying to get all the laws passed this year to repress the vote to make it more difficult, and the reason they are doing it which is kind of a positive thing is a why would they be doing that if they believed that the majority

of america agreed with them and fox news tax if they honestly felt that the majority of america believed in wall street and the 1% and right wing, and some of casting voter suppression laws, they would be passing laws put in voting booths in every aisle in walmart. they want as many people voting as possible if they thought they were the people supporting the values. the majority of americans are with us. the majority wants the rich to pay their fair share. the majority wants regulations put back on wall street. the majority what somebody arrested for the crap. that is what the majority wants. we're not going to get our third or fourth in this election. where not going to be able to

take the money out before november. what we have to do, all of us, this great movement that is taking place that had stem billion liters that has 10 million -- that has 10 million liters is they have to figuratively put their hands on the third of every leader running and say i want a promise that you will make your priority to remove money from politics and not the money from the banks. if they feel the heat from that. there's a desperate to be elected, that is more powerful than the money than they're getting. they cannot win without your vote. you have to let the democrats and barack obama played that card of where else are you going to go?

they do not want to do that. they really do not want to do that. they saw what happened in 2000. there are enough penstock people that will actually go somewhere else and can cause a huge ruckus. they do not have to go very far to think of an example of what happens when you pump on those that have left. imagine obama calling a press conference in going "i have decided that this year i am returning all the money i have received from wall street and i'm not taking one dime from wall street in this election right now." what you think would happen? think about the support he would have. how many in here went door to door and phone calls and everything in 20008? as, many people can wait to get

back on the phone banks? it is not there. he could turn that around by not waiting until after the election but changing it right now. the majority is already with him. >> for those watching right now you are saying that -- who are saying that we have tried to eradicate poverty and we have for more money at poverty, there are more poverty programs than there have ever been, we have done this since the johnson era, it ain't worked. for all of you guys on the stage, put down the crack pipe and get a life, if there has to be another way to do this. we have tried this, it has not worked. >> i would say, this is my own point of view, this is really

not surprising that there are so many people in poverty when you consider wages and policies. it is not even surprising in the way that we provide so little of a safety net to people who are falling. the disgusting and shocking thing is that not only do we not tell people who are having trouble but we kick them a little further. the whole system is rigged so that if you start to spiral down you're going to spiral faster. there is no latter going up -- ladder going up, ther eis re isa free shoot going down. employers not like to hire people with poor credit scores. most employers now check credit scores. what is that about? they do not want to hire people

who need money? they don't like to hire people who are unemployed. that is so weird i have to say it again. did they do not want to hire people who need jobs. go figure. once you start down, these are going faster and faster. your debts mount. it is the possibility of legal trouble. it is something i was looking into today. it is so horrifying. you apply for food stands in most states. your information enters the criminal justice system computers. if there is a warrant out for you caught red that is it. they found you, right --out for you, that is it. they found you, right? it is part of a dragnet to bring

in more peo =-- poor people, aka "criminals." when we see people who were down, we have a system in place that takes them down further. >> is it an overstatement to say that there is a war on the poor right now? >> no. you can say that. you can quote me. >> roger, i saw your hand earlier period's >> --i m your -- i saw your hands earlier. >> this conversation is seductive. we're talking about poverty. we ought to talking about people being economically secure, something much more

positive. it sounds like we are also saying let's go back to the good old days. i do not remember any good old days. i do not want to go back to anything. if i go to these 1970's, 1980's, 1940's, it was not good. not talk about that. let's talk about what we will do going forward. it may have been good for some people, but democracy has never worked for most of us. it is more visible now. the thing about occupy is that it is 99 as opposed to 50% or 40's there. american use the word hope earlier. americans are really good at hope.

the way we do hope is that it is delusional. poll after poll says that most americans think they're going to be rich. for that reason they protect the rich. it is changing now because it has gotten so bad and you have different people that are poor. people of color have always been in this situation. democracy is the other word. what we have to do is change the systems. the systems create war. the key people pour. we need a totally new system.

i will say what i am optimistic about. things will get so bad that we will actual treaty different system. that is what i am optimistic about. i think over the next tender 15 years we can do that. it is not going to happen anytime soon. we're talking about things used to be better. by so want to talk later about how we imagines that better america. how we imagined going forward and not having to think about the good old days. we will do that later in this conversation. >> no. wanted to go back to what barbara it said. there's a lot of programs that support people living in poverty and people that are poor, people that our food and secure. for most states to fill out a

food stamp application, it is 30 pages. it is easier to get a gun. can you imagine being a single mother going into out reach office what you are working and having to rest their filling out the food stamp application. we cannot even seem to organize around simplification of a simple form like a food stamp application. syndication of benefits is something that we can work on. another met bought a round these programs predict another man -- another myth around these programs is that we are spending too much money on these families. the reality is that food stamps for a family of three are making $22,000 a year. did they get a benefit of about $135 a month. think about the price of food

today. we all know it is at record highs. that is a reality. how far do you think living in washington, d.c. or in new york or washington, how far does that go? when you start hearing people talk about we're spending too much money on programs that are supporting people that are living in poverty and food insecurity, that is absolute nonsense. that is absolute nonsense. [applause] i am really concerned that many of these programs are really up for grabs. the reason they're up for grabs is because that politicians, especially new politicians, do not look at the individuals they are affecting. they did not look at the humans and the stories behind the

people. they did not know the families. they do not know how hard people are trying to work. they look at the numbers. they think "we can cut 5% our or a box of food to a senior citizen that is making $9,000 a year." you try going to a senior citizen in michigan and saying "cannot give you a food box." that is reality. >> i want to ask suze the first part of this question. i want to ask a question specifically about students. michael raise this point early, suze, about student loan debt. i want to do this real quick. it seems to me you get into college, which is what everybody