time and i got involved. guest: i got involved out of college doing campaign work around virginia and i got to know some of the people during those days. i came to be acquitted with the notion that people can be forced to pay union dues. it struck me as ridiculous that people can be forced to pay dues to a private organization just to have a job to feed their families. the more i learn about how much money the union's final into their political agenda, it became clear to me that that was where i needed to be spending my efforts and my life, fighting against this tyrannical powers to confiscate wages for people and spend it on things people don't believe in. politics in negotiating the

contract hurts those people. host: david madland, how did you get to focus on this as your career path? guest: on the personal side, i saw the difference in the union made in my grandfather's life. relatively uneducated, but was able to retire with dignity, because he had a pension, good wages, good benefits. also, as an academic, ph.d., i went to school and looked at the impact unions have on our broader economy and democracy. you will not have a strong middle-class without unions. the ability of providing the kind of country i want to live in is why i focus on these kinds of issues. host: would you agree that the unions contribute to a strong middle-class?

guest: when they were first created, they had a really important role to play in checking some of the excesses of the business community, but in this day and age, i would suggest to you that most workers find that unions no longer serve their needs. host: hello to mary, a democrat. caller: i am 66 now. i have lived in three states. my first was brooklyn, new york, and connecticut, and now i am here in south carolina. i were to jobs that had unions and and did not have unions. it is better to work for a job offers unions, for the simple reason that the bad experience with one job. we worked all day, it never gave -- a girl worked all day, never give the company any problems. they fired her one day, never gave her a reason. that is part of having been in,

to protect the workers' rights, being fired because the supervisor didn't like you. that is why she got fired, the supervisor it didn't like her. the union -- why this particular worker is in performing his or her job. another thing -- i moved here to south carolina, and the wages were so lousy that i wouldn't work. i started my own business. state to work for -- this state is the worst state to work for. you don't get no benefits. my aunt worked till she was 74 years old. she cannot live a decent life on social security. she had to work until the day

she died. that is how lousy south carolina it is to employees. they want to make you work for slave salary. host: either of you, our response for mary? guest: again, this is not a discussion about whether or not unions should exist. i am glad unions exist. it is about whether people who don't want to be in when it should be forced to pay the fees. guest: you have free riders who don't want to pay in. but -- in it but reap benefits. no businesses survive under those conditions. there was no doubts that right to work states to radically cut union's. the idea that unions have had their day -- maybe unions

created a middle-class and then. today we have record height inequality, same as the 1920's and 1930's. same kinds of things are happening. unions have a fundamentally important role to play. states with a hired union density have a strong or middle- class. host: richard, it independent. caller: good morning. i am an older fellow, but i have a personal story. when i was in my early 40's, i went to work for a gentleman because he at the paper wrapped -- wrapped -- he had a paper route, "houston post," no longer exists. this particular gentleman did not have a right arm.

he told me the story about how people in this area told him he was a great athlete. i remember him kicking 30-yard field goals. this guy at scholarships everywhere. he went to -- cut off his arm with a saw. i said, what did you get for that arm? they did not pay medical bills. that is all anybody got back then. unions abroad about good things for this country, and i would hate to see anything destroy that. the gentleman is supporting this right-to-work -- it is just a word. it is a race to the bottom. i hope we don't go back to those

days. guest: i hope we don't go back to those days either. it is not about whether unions have done good. they have. it is about whether people who disagree with a particular union in their particular place ought to forced to subsidize them. host: sally, you are on the air. caller: good morning to you, and the gentleman. my father owns two businesses in houston, texas. one had eight union, local 211. 211 wanted to manhandle and make him buy materials for union reps. he opened another company for stress relieving, and the unions have brought down the work of the country. they have said jobs overseas -- sent jobs overseas. i don't think the union has been beneficial to this country

overall. host: response? caller: sure. union density in the private sector is 7%. very hard to believe. strong decline over the past few years. hard to believe that it contributed to the problems today. host: al -- have to push the button -- you are on the air. caller: i look at it like we have this common theme and a narrative that exists in this country, that blue-collar workers are somehow anti- american to unite together and sell their labor justice entrepreneurs would do. some of the largest ceo posture in biggest companies in --

ceo's in the biggest companies in the nation don't hesitate to band together to assert their power in the chamber of commerce. the petroleum institute, that group danced together to assert their authority -- bands together to assert their authority. people victimized by this attitude of blue-collar workers could look at it another way, thinking outside the box. a lot of corporations, there is going to be a union inside the corporation, may be legislation to have it limited to two unions, people within a workplace that would be more along the lines of the corporation they work for than the traditional union under the symbols. -- same rules. host: ok. have you recovered enough for your response? ok, we will go to greg mourad.

guest: the workers can cut their own deal or form another union and negotiate with them, to and make a contract with them. all that is allowed. the unions have a very strong interest in disinformation on this. they want to propel the story that they represent everybody because it helps the idea that that they need everybody to pay dues. if the majority union would refrain from exerting what they call exclusive representation, what we really call monopoly bargaining, and instead only represent their own members and let everybody else figure out their own solution. host: bruce, independent. good morning. caller: how are you, gentlemen? i'm really not sure it is a good idea to have a union, because it does protect the guy out there that doesn't work.

i have seen this time and time again. this hurts the guys out there who are working. the yen has three different contracts, and the new guys coming at the door, and they have nothing, they ain't got nothing. we have the union, and around and taking union dues from these people. they pay union dues. i don't see the yen and volunteering to give the money back -- the union falling to give the money back. host: what kind of work to do? caller: i -- do you do? caller: i deal with foods. there is a lot of misrepresentation by the unions dealing with people. i have a hard time understanding that, when they turned around and they have three different contracts and everybody is on

three different rules. they have hard workers, and the people who go off. off.-- goof host: he is essentially making greg mourad's argument. caller: it was hard to hear, but not everything unions do is good. same thing with corporations and businesses. the idea is that there is a democratic right to join unions, and that without them, workers would have a very little power. you would have an economy and democracy are run by corporations and the wealthy, and unfortunately, that is the situation we are getting close to right now, and this would be far exacerbated if we passed right-to-work laws. we know the effect on the economy, know the effect on

employment, that it is bad for workers' wages. why support this? we know it will weaken its unions, which will weaken their ability to advocate politics. host: what is the next thing you expect? guest: the bill should come to the floor of the indiana house of representatives. it has cleared committees in both chambers. we are hoping and expecting that they will have the votes to defeat all the amendments. the unions are proposed in number of amendments that are just poison pills. host: what is the breakdown of the legislature? guest: in the house, it is 60- 40. i think and they cut a deal a couple of days ago -- the democrats have agreed to come back to work and let them get on with the business of the state, and the speaker agreed to put the bill off until tuesday. host: it was in protest of the

right-to-work -- guest: they abandoned their posts and left to go high in the basement to avoid having a quorum. they eventually realize they cannot keep that up forever. i think wednesday's final passage. host: did i also hear or read in the interim that the legislature as proposed, $1,000-a-day see if members are not on the floor? guest: exactly. republicans previously passed a law to up the fee significantly for members of the representatives out of the legislature. they use it to tonight --t o deny a quororum to advocate for that -- to deny a quorum for the

minority to advocate for what they want. they want to be able to offer amendments. those seem like reasonable requests. guest: they will have a chance to offer amendments on the floor, and i absolutely disagree that this is being rushed through. last year they did hours and hours of committee hearings, hours of testimony, five hours just last friday. this has been very well vetted in indiana. host: joanne, republican. caller: i wanted to make a comment that i was in a union over 10 years ago, and i did have wages -- i think it was a little too much for what we were doing. most of the time i was so embarrassed that i was in it, because like some people are saying, it is not the wages that is the problem, it is the work rules.

we have one guy who would it work, because there was an incident -- wouldn't work, because there was an incident -- he had 15 minutes to change his clothes. very uncooperative, people who were deadbeats. i would have loved to have not been in that union, but i didn't have a choice. that is my comment. everyone calling has had at either good or bad stories from experiences, so we will let joanne's comments stand. what happens in new hampshire with this? guest: i think for the time being is over. guest: i think it will be a major issue in the next gubernatorial race. host: a very special thanks to our guests, david madland and

greg mourad, for being here and helping us understand what is happening in indiana and around the country on this issue. for our final segment, we will be looking at more details for independent voters. they are at the highest level recorded now. we will learn more about who they are and how they are likely to break in the upcoming election. >> this weekend, the life and legacy of martin luther king, jr. congressman and civil rights activist john lewis on a man more -- memoir of the movement.

jonathan rider examines the many speaking styles of king, and hampton sides on james earl ray. in her new release, "new york times" corresponded jodi kantor looks at the first couple and their attempts to balance public life. >> in this episode, we will look at rick perry's surprising comment on climate change and the science behind research. >> there are a substantial number of scientists who of manipulated data. >> what i do is i rate different comments by politicians on a 1-4 scale. if you see something that is outrageous, you'll get four pinocchios. something slightly misleading,

as little as one. >> glenn kessler evaluates and rates the truthfulness of political figures and others. >> whether they are deliberately lying, and the politician says the same thing over and over again even as it has been pointed out as untrue, they know they are saying something untrue and they are just going to say it anyway. >> "the washington post's" glenn kessler, sunday night on "q&a." > "washington journal" continues. host: frank newport joins us to talk about independent voters. the number of americans identifying themselves as political independents is the highest you have measured.

guest: it is the highest we have measured, but just by some points, so it is important we don't make too much out of it. more americans are disengaged, less involved, and are more likely to tell themselves they are independent, -- tell pollsters they are independent, which is what we saw last year. host: back in 1988, 33% of people identified themselves as independents. what is contributing to the seven-point increase? guest: there are ups and downs. 1988 was an election year, when bush won over dukakis. in general, we think americans are -- this is probably the key factor -- very disengaged from, angry with, disappointed in the political process. we have 10 different indicators

we look at last year, each of which showed at or near a record low in terms of americans' assessment of congress and the political process, including congress' approval. images of the two parties are at or near all-time lows as well. part of the reason we may be seeing a high and that percentage is americans are saying i am not a democratic or republican, because i'm fed up with the whole process, and that would include both political parties. host: for those of you who are independents and will be using the independent line, tell us a little bit about how long you have been independent, which way you mean, a republican, democrat, conservative or liberal, and when you made the choice to lead the party and become independent. you will help us understand it a little more what we're trying to get out with our segment with

frank newport today. a lot of things looking at annual averages of democrats, lean democrat, sort of thing. if we look overall at how independents tend to break, what do we find? guest: that is an important question, because when the 40% say they are independent, that does not mean if they are totally politically apathetic. that means that when a pollster calls, their first response is to say they are independent. they are loose in their party affiliation. when we follow up and say, "do you lead one party or the other," the majority say they lean one way or the other. if you look at the percent who say they lea democrat or republican, there is a slight democratic edge, but when we ask which way do you lean, more

lean republican. believes just about 10% of americans who are -- it leaves just about 10% of americans who endents. indep host: it reflects the debate in washington. if it is 45-45, that comes to bear in congress and washington. guest: we have had gridlock or deadlock in washington. yes, in some ways that reflects that. in the good old days -- i shouldn't say "good old days," because that implies a value judgment -- but in the old days -- it is the change now, and it

is a change from 2008, when obama was elected. there was more democratic lean then. now he does not have that advantage. host: when you go to ideology, liberal, conservative -- trends what independents -- you learn from this? guest: 80 is not a great shock that it depended -- it is not a great shock that independents can to be moderates. host: conservatives, 41%, moderate, 35, a liberal, 30 -- trends among independents.

sometimes it is hard to read. you are correct that if you look at all americans, more conservative, but independents, moderates top out as i mentioned. host: thanks for clarifying. guest: we do need to use maybe big x's or o's. host: we're talking about the effect of independents in the election year. what is your question or comment? caller: i conservative democrat, reagan democrat, for 81 years now. i am 81. over the past 15, 30 years, the democratic party is becoming so corrupt it is unbelievable. look at this president right now.

his re-election gambit is almost $350,000, for water thousand dollars in his bank already, -- $400,000 in bank already, and he is campaigning when he should have been in washington, d.c. taking care of the problems of the american people, and everybody in poverty right now and no work, people not even looking for a job anymore. host: i will start with his first comment. he describes himself as a reagan democrat. i don't have numbers that go back to the 1980's, when ronald reagan built a coalition of conservative democrats to join him in his bid for the white house. what happened to those people over the years? guest: you have a lot of moderate and conservative democrats, mostly white and in the south -- remember lyndon johnson in texas? he was a democrat, and in the

years before that, they tended to be democratic. a lot of those whites now call themselves republicans. there are few of these white conservative democrats left. you used is the entire democratic identification in america -- you use to see a higher democratic identification in america, because republicans were more isolated. host: our next caller is our first on the independent line. robert, welcome to the program. how long have you been independent? caller: since daddy bush was in office. host: what is your ideology? caller: i was a republican up until then. pretty much conservative.

i am still conservative, but not in republican anymore, because of ronald reagan and his so-called conservative voice that was not conservative. he raised the debt ceiling 18 times, taxes 11 times, killed the union working people. he was not for the working people. he was strictly for corporations. host: what you do? do you vote for the person? caller: i vote for the person. host: do you tend to vote more republican or democrat? caller: i vote pretty much independent . host: you have to end up choosing. caller: yes, and i write names in. i voted for ron paul last time. i wrote his name in. host: independent candidates, third party, or none of the

above? guest: independents lean one way or the other, but we ask, do you support the idea of a third- party candidate, an independents are more likely than republicans or democrats to say yes. not particulate surprising. -- not particularly surprising great people affiliate more with parties as we get to the election. one exception to that was 1992. that was a year when we did have an independent candidate, ross perot, who got 19% of the vote. did perot create an appetite for an independent candidate when he ran? we don't know. this year, the conditions would be, generally speaking, ripe for a well-finance third-party candidate to get a significant

vote. you talk about michael bloomberg, because he has the money, as did ross perot, but the caller mentioned ron paul. if he ran as independent, he might siphon off some votes that would have gone to the other parties. host: there will be an online primary for candidates. that might provide another avenue for people to express their concerns about washington. speaking of concerns about washington, my next several sites for you about the job americaelected officials are do. what can we learn from this, july to january? guest: joppa approval is important as an indication of -- job approval is important as an indication of reelection probability. even the mood of the countries

expressed her presidential job approval. after 9/11, president bush's job approval went up to 90%. obama has been in that range, 40 to 45%. typically, to be reelected, in our limited history since world war ii, he needs to be a 48% or higher. one thing we will monitor for obama's job approval rating is can he in the summer and fall get it up to 47, 48, even 50%? so, his chances of being reelected -- if so, his chances of being reelected are good. if it goes 40, 45%, or lower, he could be in the same boat as george h.w. bush in 1992, and jimmy carter, job approval ratings in the 30% range, and of

course, both were denied a second term. host: democrats a 81%, independents, 42%, republicans, 10%. guest: obviously, it democrats, a high percentage approve, republicans, low percentage. independents are right there in the middle. host: we have a three slides that are about your feelings about congress, as polled by gallup. let's take calls for st. matthew is a republican. aller: i'm registered as republican, but actually, i am more of an independent, again because of the disenfranchisement of my party to the middle-class and the

population. we are no longer in a democracy. we are in a plutocracy. that is what we are. we work by the rich, for the rich. the whole political system is built around funding to get a job, a congressman or senator, who is going to give them the money? the rich. that is all i have to say. host: chicago, where michael is watching us. michael is an independent. caller: we need a third party in this country. we have been forced for too long to choose between republican or democrat. host: michael, how long have you been independent? caller: the last five years. host: which direction do you usually go? caller: i'm from chicago, so i usually vote democrat, and unfortunately, i voted for the current president, and i regret it. host: why is that? caller: he did not do everything

he promised he would do when he was running. he sold us all a bogus bag of goods. he spent almost his whole term on the health care plan that is not going to help america, is going to hurt america. he has not put us back to work. he should have focused on the economy from the get go, the day he started. we have to stop selling out american jobs, have to stop selling out the unions. we need a third party, and let the party be the libertarian party. we need to go back to what the government said it would do when they created the constitution. host: interestingly, voted for president obama, but leans the libertarian. interesting to validate there -- interesting duality there. when you ask people about issues that are most important, is it all economic? guest: that is clearly the

dominant issue, but we drilled it down and this is fascinating. you tell us the economy is a bigger problem. what worries you about the economy? americans mention jobs and employment, and all the candidates are talking about that. second is debt and deficit. third is the efficiency and effectiveness of washington to be able to do something about it. republicans lambasted obama -- he is not handling the economy. democrats tend to say it is bickering in the house. the third group of responses, people said it was washington who cannot fix the economy. a lot of the problems people are having is that they think their elected representatives in washington are not doing the job well, all. host: republicans talk about what they call obamacare, and

the supreme court is set to hear several days of oral arguments on this. does health care show up as an important issue among voters? guest: spontaneously, not to hide. every month at -- not too high. every month at gallup, we ask what is the most important issue? it has been unemployment and the economy. we see a few people imagined health care is the largest problem, but it is kind of dwarfed by the other problems i mentioned. one of the next things that people say it is important is inefficiency in government, dysfunction in government. a lot of americans are disgusted by how things are working in washington. host: let's look at the congressional approval numbers -- guest: you will see the disgust. host: the question is and do you

approve or disapprove of the way congress is handling its job. do those numbers change depending on party affiliation? guest: congress are provocative little higher -- congress' approval gets a little higher -- republicans are more positive because republicans control the house. but in general, everyone is low on congress. opinion,of people's including mine, it is not a positive state of affairs in our representative democracy went over eight out of 10 americans say they is proof of the men and women they elected to sendoff to represent them. host: looking back it 1974 forward, what happens it if we look over a span of a generation or so? guest: the context of approval is it is generally fairly low.

the president's average over time is 55%, congress' is lower than that. americans are not generally abelian to about their elected representatives -- not generally ebullient about their elected representatives. with president bush after 9/11, people were coming together. if you look at the graphics, they tend to go down after that point. host: what happened with the other time there was a bottoming point? 1992, then 1979? guest: both of those years were bad economic times. that is a warning sign for obama, because in 1979 led to 1980, when president carter was

defeated. when the economy is poor, there is a classic displacement effect. when you have a bad day at the office, you kick the cat when you walk in the door. we tended to get angry at congress. host: job approval by party id -- i still wrinkle my nose over those greens, which are hard to discern. dark green is democrats, light green, republicans. focus on that with your high- definition tv's. next call. caller: i was raised with pro- life, pro-union, conservative democrats. that may seem like an oxymoron

in today's society, but that was out i was raised. i did not vote for mcgovern so much as i voted against nixon. protest votes for pat paulsen one time. i have a perfect record of 0-10 in elections. did i vote for obama? i may vote for him this coming november, because in my own mind, the gop has taken a turn for the worse. it is strange that the gop is angry at obama for what was done by the most powerful vice president in the history of mankind and his sidekick, george bush. i don't know what to do other than say i will hold my nose in november and vote for obama. host: we will let that stand as a comment.

this question asked in a different way -- would you say that you are satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the nation is being covered? what is different from the earlier number, 81%? guest: symptomatic of the same underlying construct. that is that the american -- that is the american view of government. very disappointing results. very, very low marks. some of that is the bad economy. some of that is what we saw last summer with the debt ceiling debate, where congress appears to be wrangling and bickering more than looking for solutions. we asked americans a number of times, would you want your elected representatives to stick to his or her principles or compromise, even if it means abandoning principles? the majority of americans say compromise and abandon principles.

when it sees it bickering and intransigence, i will not give in because it violates my principles, we see these kinds of results. host: trust and confidence in the legislative branch, senate and house, of the federal government. here, the number is different. 69% stake not very much at all, different from 81% -- guest: different scale, but on a relative basis, it has also dropped to a new low. i mentioned earlier that we had 10 different measures like this. whenever we put in front of people and ask them, whatever scale we use to rate congress, it is extremely low. we asked the same question about all the branches of government and the legislative branch is the lowest of the three. we also say how much confidence

do you have in the average men and women of the country to make decisions about policy, and that is the highest we see. americans have a lot of confidence in themselves. they don't think that the men and women they elect to represent them are doing a good job in washington. there is a disconnect between what a day at home when representatives to do and what the representatives are doing. host: how is the supreme court during in public opinion? guest: it does better fit the three branche -- it does better. of the three branches, the judiciary does better than the executive or legislative branch. host: frank newport is head of the gallup polling service. texas, independent named linda. caller: i am going to vote christian and go by what the

bible says. i was raised democrat. but i have mostly in the last seen years of voted republican -- the last congress in years voted republican -- last recent years voted republican. i am against abortion. i may agree with some democrat issues, but i think it is wrong if the democrat is for that. i cannot vote for them. with obama, some of the christian stations i am listening to say he is spending billions of dollars or sending billions of dollars to the muslim countries when our country is hurting so bad. i believe that is terribly wrong. host: where did the so-called christian conservatives fall in

the party breakdown? guest: they are republican. religion is one of the big dividing lines we see in american politics. you have to take away african- americans, who are very religious and vote democratic. basically, the more religious you are, the more likely you are to vote republican. the caller from texas exemplifies the data. what we're seeing in south carolina is the republican candidates trying to vie for that vote themselves. host: next call -- after that -- this is too much to digest for people at home, but a demographic view, independents -- but first, tony, a democrat

louis.. caller: one of the problems i have with independents is they swing so much, and everywhere. they are responsible for a lot of things that happen in america, the new republic as we got -- as far new republicans we got as far as governors and etc. they never get blamed for anything. who are these people? again, i know that you get into the ages and so on and so forth. i would like to know more about that. guest: well, i think the question is who aer the -- are the independents? his comment is that they swing is so much.

do we find a greater velocity in how they end up with their decisions, left, right, conservative, liberal? guest: clearly they are more movable. if you are a hard-core republican or heart or democrat, and by that, -- or a hard-core democrat, and by that, when we call them on the phone, they immediately say the eight votes for that party -- independents by definition are more open to moving one way or the other. yes, they are more switchable, and that is my political strategists, when they develop strategies for candidates, and they try to get messages that meet these people. we have some message for the base, because we want to get them motivated, but if you are a democrat, he will vote democratic. the only issue is are you going to vote?

host: will they make a difference in elections -- guest: turnout -- host: they are not an organized group so you cannot point to think -- point the finger of blame. what region of the country do they come from, what race? guest: great questions. intendeds -- independents tend to be disengage, much less likely to attend church. if you are disengaged from church, you tended to disengage from the political process. younger men are more likely to tell pollsters they are independent, all the women are least likely -- older women are least likely. low-income people are more likely to be independent than

people with higher incomes. host: you do ask a race question. guest: non-blacks are more likely to be independent. host: hispanics? guest: blacks are more likely to identify themselves as democrats, no great shock. strongest party affiliation of any group we look at today is african-americans, who reliably vote democratic. if you look at hispanics, asians, people who say i am another race, they tend to be more disengaged from parties. host: we have about 10 more minutes in "washington journal" bisciotti morning, and on this topic of demographics and other

characteristics -- this friday morning, and on this topic of democratic and other characteristics of independents. does that trend is still hold? guest: absolutely. a lot of people ask us, how come a high percent of incumbent members of it house get reelected? part of that is the way redistricting runs, and part of that is they don't have strong opponents. yes, in general, even when we ask overall, do most members of congress deserve to be reelected, the number is way lower but then when we say is your particular member of congress deserve to be reelected, much higher. that is down as well, but it is an interesting phenomenon of things we look at.

how is the health care system? terrible. how was your doctor? oh, he is a good doctor. we find this local-national distinction, and that is good news for incumbents in washington that despite the tremendous negative image and a half as the body, the local representative as well in his or her -- as well in his or her district. host: why do people tend to criticize the larger and like the media? -- like the immediate? guest: is an interesting question. when people have experienctial knowledge of things, at they can be positive. most americans are living pretty positive lives in their own environment. but when we call them and say to rate something nationally, a

lot of times americans are reacting to something they see or read in the media, and a lot of that is negative coverage by definition. it is not news when it dog bites man, it is when it is the other way around. they here negative politicians always saying we are in crisis, and so they tell pollsters -- underneath it all, most americans are positive about their little bubble of life. host: pat in philadelphia. caller: good morning. how are you? host: great. what is your question about the electorate? caller: how is he determined -- i am a person of color, african- american. i swing independent more than

anything, although i have a republican in my background. i want to know how he determines -- the identity of the person he is pulling. -- polling. how does the document -- he document what the party affiliation is other than what people tell you over the phone? my other question is about independents. independents by definition are independent. when we hear press reports about exit polls, results of polling, for example in to enter, mitt romney and the independent -- for example in new hampshire, mitt romney and the independent vote he got. i have a comment about new

hampshire, too, because the local paper describes how angry republicans and all of that are at barack obama and how he had to fight for the state. new hampshire economically is not doing all that bad. if they are angry, what is the source of that? i would like to hear your response. host: thank you, pat. guest: the first question is a good one. yet dealing with self-reports. there is no nationwide systematic basis for looking up on the record who is a republican or democrat and who is not. in new hampshire, the independents can come over if they want to. there is no national way of having some sort of census-type data of saying whether you are a republican or democrat. as i have been saying, we call

them up and say, do you consider itself democrat, republican, or independent, and we take people at their word, which is useful because that is what we are after. tell us how you view yourself -- we find that to be useful and important data. host: her question about new hampshire voters -- do you have at your fingertips? guest: why are they unhappy? a lot of people are unhappy and i am not sure new hampshir ites are different. economy isa's booming and i'm not sure they are happy as well. host: do you think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens or not? have you just been asking this question since 2003?

guest: in this form, yes. host: what is the purpose of asking this question? guest: we initially ask this in a different form when their work militias, ford, angry at the government, and not paying income tax. we are surprised by the percentage of americans saying yes -- host: split, almost 50-49 -- 50% saying no, 49% saying yes, the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary -- guest: draconian wording, and we did it that way on purpose, and we are surprised by the a lot of people who agree. a lot of it is income taxes and things that are a little more benign than the questions seem. half of americans saying yes when you were the question that strongly is another indicator of unhappiness with

washington. host: scott, independent. caller: i love you guys. you are some of the greatest news reporting out there, and i appreciated. host: thank you. caller: americans are independent. they think independent, and naturally, if something stains their representation, they will go away from that and go to an independent-type status, because someone in their political party may affect their belief in the governing system. i think we need a citizen's referendum. host: let me pick up on scott's american routes are

independent -- roots are independent. guest: we were pulled away and wanted to be independent of england initially -- we resulted away and wanted to be independent of england initially. i'm not a true scholar of those things, but in general, i think that is right. it may be some other reason we are finding a pushback on some other things they don't like the government doing. host: i will ask you to wrap up with the big picture you started with. what should people understand about the state of the electorate? guest: if the percentage of independent does not come down, we are ripe for a third party challenger to,. -- to come out. host: appreciate your time and your numbers. that does it for friday's program did you have a great weekend. g"washington journal" will be

back tomorrow morning and every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we have a number of live events to tell you about coming up here today on c-span. about 30 minutes the hudson institute hosts a discussion on recent developments in pakistan where the former ambassador to the u.s. is being investigated for allegedly seeking u.s. assistance to prevent a military coup following the death of osama bin laden. scholars of the middle east institute answer georgetown university are on the panelists. that will get under way at about

10:30 eastern here on c-span. we are also following the republican presidential candidates today as they continue their campaigning in south carolina. mid romney will be an event today where heal speak to veterans at a town hall meeting. he'll be joined by john mccain and nikki haley. live at 5:05 p.m. eastern here on c-span. also, rick santorum, newt gingrich, and jon huntsman will take part in a g.o.p. presidential candidate forum today. in duncan, south carolina. an event hosted by the greenville county and spartanburg county republicans. live at 6:20 eastern. back here in washington this morning, president obama is meeting with treasury secretary tim geithner and later the president is expected to announce his intent to ask congress to approve an initiative to merge six trade and commerce agencies into one. to shrink the size of government

and help consumers save money. the house and senate would have to grant the authority and decide whether to approve his ideas in an up or down vote in 90 days. according to the hill newspaper today, the merger could save about $3 billion over 10 years. and up to 2,000 jobs could be eliminated through attrition. the president makes the announcement this morning at 11:20 eastern. you'll be able to watch it live on our website at c-span.org. as we mentioned we are going to the hudson institute for an event on pakistan in about 30 minutes. until then a look at congressional redistricting plans from this morning's "washington journal." 7 host: david is one of those guys who has all kinds of information about the house of representatives in his head. we'll tap some of that this morning. let's start with an overview of redistricting. where does the process stand among the 50 states right now?

guest: there are seven states that don't need to redistrict. 31 states are done. and we have 12 states that still need to redraw their congressional lines. some states it's been a very, very contentious process. that's led to the court. other states it's been simpler than we expected. one of the ironies here is that the inventor of gerrymandering, massachusetts, and gerrymander is named after former massachusetts governor, actually ungerrymandered their lines this time. there are other states that probably deserve awards for creativity in drawing some of the most protesk districts in the country. -- grotesque district notice country. host: which gained the most and which is the biggest loser? guest: the big winner was florida which picked up two sites. the big losers were new york and ohio which lost two seats. and a smattering of other states that gained or lost one seat apiece. all in all 12 seats changed hands.

so it's a continuation of migration from the northeast, the rust belt we have seen. it's unclear who ben physical. even if texas is a republican state, the four new seats were largely driven by minority growth. so that's exactly what the support right now determining whether hispanics or republicans ought to get more of those four seats. host: this is not the first time with redistricting battles in texas. we were talking about jack abramoff and 10 years ago there was the earlier texas redistrictsing issue in the state. this one has landed in the supreme court give people more details about what brought this case to the court and what is at stake. guest: it's a complex case because it's operating on several different traction. under section 5 of the voting rights act, states with a voting history drimmings need to obtain federal preclearance before maps take effect. texas' legislature, dominated by republicans, had the map and signed by governor perry that would have granted republicans three out of the state's four

new seats, even though 65% of the population growth over the last decade was among latinos. so latinos cried foul. there were a variety of lawsuits filed in federal court in san antonio. the court ended up drawing its own map. replacing the republican plan when it was determined there wasn't enough time for the states to obtain preclearance from the district of columbia circuit court. and so we have a situation now where the state is actually suing to block a federal court map at the supreme court level. the supreme court last monday heard orel -- oral arguments in the case to he do side whether in effect the federal court has jurisdiction to draw this map superseding what the legislature did. so there are two seats that are at stake. it's going to be 3-1 republican, or 3-1 hispanic-democrat. host: to our viewers we'll put the phone numbers on the screen.

this is not just a discussion about texas redistrictsing, in your own state if you want to call in with your comments, observations, or questions about what happened there. there have been a lot of positive effect with sitting members of congress as a result of redistricting. we'll talk about some of those as well. we welcome your participation. email us and tweet us as always on the "washington journal." this tweet from cray wright who writes in texas 70% hispanic votes become all g.o.p. district? way to go. what are the possible implications of the supreme court finding? are they doing this on a expedited basis with the election? guest: there are all kinds of implications. what the tweeter was refundraising to is the fact that republicans in their map drew a district that was between 66% and 67% hispanic in southwest texas, stretching from san antonio all the way to el paso. but it was designed, according to latino plaintiffs in this case, to elect a republican because it swapped out latino

precincts with high voter registration and turnout for latino precincts with lower voter registration and turnout. there are all kinds of maneuvers that republicans in the legislature allegedly undertook. but the implications of the case before the supreme court are pretty big. republicans, a lot of them hope that the supreme court will take this opportunity to strike down some of the of the voting rights act, which they feel is antiquated and requires a lot of southern states that don't need to be covered by federal big brother here to submit their plans for preclearance to the justice department or the d.c. district court of appeals. if that were to happen, and most experts i talk to don't expect the court to overturn the -- part of the voting rights act in this case. that would be huge. but it's certainly something that in the back of the minds of

some of the proponents of the federal court map that are arguing this case before the supreme court are very nervous about. host: one implications. what are the others? guest: the supreme court could also issue a little bit of a milder ruling telling the federal court to go back and take a look at the map that they drew and draw something closer to what the legislature did. one of the hints that chief justice roberts gave during oral arguments was that he didn't like the way a district in the dallas fort worth area was drown compared to what the legislature did. there was a little bit of a hint that the justices on the conservative side of the court didn't like the judicial activism involved in drawing a coalition district in that area. a district that would be majority minority but made up out of a coalition of black voters, hispanic voters, and others. and the supreme court has simply

frowned on districts that involve a coalition of different minorities. whereas in the past they have supported districts that have a majority of one minority. host: the outcome of this case could in fact other states have to revisit their redistricksing -- redistricting based on what happens in the texas case? guest: i couldn't think so. texas has been the legal crux of this redistricting cycle. we were originally thinking that the justice department since this is the first democratic appointed justice department in a redistricting year, would apply more scrutiny to maps that southern legislatures would draw because this would be the first time that we had a lot of legislatures that were controlled by republicans in the south. instead what we have seen is that the majority of states in the deep south, the maps that republicans have drawn, largely preserve very heavily packed african-american majority districts and the justice department hags been fine with that arrangement. after all there is some incentive for republicans to

keep african-american voters packed in those districts so that surrounding districts are republican. so we have seen a total demise of conservative white democrats from the south as a result of these plans. but the one exception to the justice department's laissez faire attitude was texas. they vociferously argued in their previous against the texas map that was passed. i think it really shows the prioritization of the justice department and what they are looking at with regard to 2012. their focus hasn't been so much on blocking southern maps with a huge exception of texas as it has been on combating voter i.d. laws. host: you mentioned we were going to talk about texas but other redistricting issues. "los angeles times" has its lead story today about the announcement by long time member of congress, jerry lewis. in fact he's the dean of the california delegation, long time congressional appropriator who

announced he was retiring. you see the headline on the "l.a. times." more seats up for grabs. they write it is the sixth and most significant departure from congress in the week of a new redistricting plan. a few words what's happening in california, please. guest: redistricting years tend to be convenient times to retire. and we saw this not so much in 2002 but in 1992 we had over 50 retirements in the house. we are not even half of the way there i believe to the 1992 benchmark as we currently stand. but in california over the past week we have had a flurry of three republican retirements bringing the total number of retirements there to six. what we are starting to see is the fallout from the state's very unique redistrictsing process implemented for the first time this year. voters in a ballot initiative took the power to redistrict out of the lands of legislatures and put it into the hands of a 14-member silt zen commission which redrew the lines last august. i think deserves credit for untangling a very confusing mess

that california had for the last 10 years. now, what incumbents saw as seniority voters saw as entrenchment. the map 10 years ago was designed to preserve you incumbents advantage and get california seniority. it's worked. california has twice as much seniority, even accounting for its size, as other states. but now what we are seeing is a huge amount of turnover and i don't think six retirements is going to be it from california. that's already more than one out of every 10 members from the state. when you have so many incumbents who are faced with the prospect of meeting so many new voters or who have been drawn out of their districts or politically tougher districts, it's expected. host: here's a list of the current retirements. 14 in the house so far. nine democrats. this up to date? guest: i blove so. host: you can look at the list on your screen, including steve austria of ohio. dan boren. he's the youngest. what was his reason?

guest: he is the most conservative democrat remaining in the house. in this climate it's kind of tough to blame some of the conservative democrats when they are in a minority. and certainly there are outnumbered ideologically in their party. not only dan boren but mike ross was another young fairly democratic member from southern arkansas who is retiring this year. many think he will run for governor in 2014. so there has been i don't want to say mass exodus, but minor exodus of the remaining conservative democrats. one of the interesting statistics about 2012 is after 2012 it's possible there won't be a single conservative southern democrat remaining in the house as a result of both these retirements and redistricting. host: these are also a source from you, another consequence is redistricting is house incumbents who have been pitted to run against other house

incumbents. here's a quick look at this list. california 39 has gary miller against ed royce. california 44 pits richardson against janice hohn. illinois 16, don man zulea guess adam kinzinger. younger, two terms? guest: he was elected in 10. host: first term. iowa three, leonard boswell against tom latham. louisiana 3, because standy against landry. -- boustany against landry. ohio nine, dennis kucinich against marcy kaptur. and ohio's 16 is jim renacci against betty sutton. and pennsylvania 12, altmire against mark critz. what do you have to say? guest: these races are some of the most fascinating house races because they pit members against members and force other members to choose sides or stay completely out of it. and involve a lot of different

interest groups having to choose who their congressional friends are. in fact, since we put together that list, it's already changed. gary miller yesterday after jerry lewis announced his retirement decided he was going to move into the district that jerry lewis had been running in. so that member vs. member race in orange county california. gary miller is moving to a completely new district to try to save his congressional career. part of the challenge for democrats is that they have more of these member vs. member races than republicans. there are 12 we count right now. there are two d vs. r races. we haven't seen a trend pairing democrats vs. republicans. out of the 12 member vs. member, there are 10 that involve the same party. three of those are r versus r, seven are d versus d. that's a problem for democrats because when they have so many of their own members running against each other, it tends to suck a lot of the energy and money out of races that could be

competitive against republicans. and enter races like this gargantuan expensive race in the san fernando valley between berman and sherman. it focuses a lot of the attention on those kinds of matchups. that's going to be one fascinating aspect of the house to watch. host: to your calls. we are talking about house races in the wake of redistricting. also texas contested redistricting map. all on the table with david wasserman of the cook political report. lincoln, nebraska. sean, a democrat. you are on the air. caller: good morning. last year i was redistricted. ben nelson's district. i believe daniel conrad won my district. i didn't always agree with ben nelson, but you could call him both a blue dog and rhino. i would like to have more democratic representation in my state. and in 2008 we had three electoral votes. it got split one for democrats, two for the republicans. now after redistricting we have

a five electoral votes and they want to make it winner take all. i want more democratic representation for my state. host: thanks. thank you for your call. nebraska? guest: there hasn't been a democrat elected in nebraska since 1992. even though democrats probably account for at least a third of nebraska's votes in any given presidential election, democrats haven't held one out of democrat's three districts. the caller may be a little confused. i don't know how it's possible to be redistricted out of being represented by a senator. since they represent entire states. believe it or not gerrymandering is alive and well even in places like nebraska. the legislature there does not have party affiliation, but republicans who presumably have the control in that unicam, drew a match that stretches the rural

third district all the way from the western end of the state to the eastern end of the state, taking in more counties than any other congressional district in the country. it was designed that way. you can see that to enable the second district to remain as republican as possible. barack obama won the second district's electoral college votes as you might remember in 2008. and so the goal here was to design a little bit of a nub in the southern part of the second district, you see that little light blue corner of that district, and draw out that area of bellevue to keep the second district as red as possible without extending it far into rural areas. that has helped keep the potential race against congressman lee terry, a republican, off the table so far. and the first district as well authoritien berry appears to be

safe. host: john in florida, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, susan. good morning. i'm so glad that i got through. you are probably the institution that has the most trust in the united states of america, at least for me. my question is pretty simple. ok, the original 13 colonies, now we are up to 50. why is it along with the increensing pop powligse, up to 300 million or so right now, right now we have the same amount of congressional -- congressmen? each representing about six million. why wasn't the body itself grown with? i realize there are arguments against that. but the argument for that would be that the corruption would not be so -- the power would not be so centralized. as an aside, the fact that each of the 50 states has only -- and always two senators makes such large states as the northwest,

wyoming, let's say, states like that, have no more power than large population states such as california, new york, florida, etc. i'll take my answer off the air. thank you. guest: this is actually a question we have raised before in previous "journals." the number of members of the house, i believe, has not changed since 1911. in that time obviously the american population has grown astronomically. right now just to correct the caller, the number -- average number of residents that members of congress represent is not six million, it's closer to 700,000. that's still higher than it's ever been. so there are some people who would argue for expanding the size of the house because when you have districts with 700,000 residents, it gets hearter and harder to conduct retail campaigning to meet your constituents and get around to

those county fairs and have a relationship with the people that you represent. the problem i think is that even if we stand in the house by 2 teams, the population would catch up to where we are currently are in two short years. i'm not sure there is a way to combat that student-teacher rasheor. host: former member of the house and former two-term governor of south dakota has died this week. a photograph from this morning's "washington post," mr. jack low is described as a force in the politics. 72 years old. died of brain cancer. interesting note along his career, he left the house after a conviction with a driving zent in his home state. his biography and obituary in the "washington post" this morning. former governor and former house member of south dakota. we have a florida call and tweet from a viewer in florida asking what's happening with florida's

redistricting law that the voters passed? guest: that's an excellent question. voters passed a law in florida in 2010 that was a silver lining for democrats. it required that the legislature pay no attention to political data or the residents of incumbents when drawing its new downtries. -- downtries. that supposedly -- boundaries. that supposedly was going to tie the hand of the sure to create a map with a few more competitive districts and probably reign in the 19-6 advantage that republicans had in the florida delegation even in a state that barack obama carried in 2008. well, what we are seeing in the initial draft out of the florida legislature of the map they plan to pass is maybe a couple of districts that are more competitive, but republicans still have the advantage and the vast majority of the congressional districts in florida. part of the democrats' problem here is like their problem across the country, their base

is geographically inefficient. democrats have more precincts that are 90-10, or 80-20 for their size. it's easy to cordon off the democratic vote and pack it into a select few number of districts. for the remaining districts to be 55-45, or 60-40 republican. so that geographic inefficiency is hurting democrats across the country. but particularly in florida where after you draw a couple of mandatory minority, majority seats in places like miami, jacksonville, orlando, fort lauderdale, it gets very difficult to draw other districts that are competitive or even democratic leaning in other parts of the state. i think florida, which is gaining two seats, will probably see new republican leaning kiss tricts. somewhere in north central florida or southwest florida. i think we'll also see a new democratic leaning district in the orlando district with a high population of puerto rican voters. it's going to be a map with some

changes, but perhaps not the kind of earthquake that democrats were looking for. host: we are talking about the house. two senate stories in the news today. we'll put them on screen. from the "wall street journal," texas size challenge fills republican senate congress. the race to succeed retiring senator kay bailey hutchison is emerging as a test even in the age of twitter, the grassroots campaign can work in a state as vast and costly as texas. leaving washington next year after 20 years in the senate is likely to be a member of her party. to win the g.o.p. nod, the candidate will have to figure out how to reach more than one million primary voters expected to turn out in april across the state's roughly 260,000 square miles. across more than one million a week to run radio and television adds across texas. political consultants said including four of the biggest markets in the country. dallas, houston, san antonio, and austin. those markets and members of

congress are also affected by those high cost of advertising. this from "usa today." kerry weighing bid to lurn to the senate. this is bob kerrey. . host: next as we talk about the house and redistricting. town bluff, texas, of the dorothy is a democrat there. thanks for waiting. you are on. caller: hi, david. i have a question regarding the keystone pipeline. what would that have an effect on the need for this redistricting? especially here in southeast texas? democrats and republican votes

want that keystone pipeline that's been projected for three years to route to motiva which is owned by an arabic prince. if canada has contracted to refine. and they have built facilities. what does the keystone pipeline have as far as, you know, the need to redistrict? and the votes for -- the hispanic vote, which you know is going to be there because it's a job. guest: the caller has a really good question. how do issues like the keystone pipeline play into redistricting? i'm not sure that there are huge consideration in the districts that were drawn in texas or anywhere else. i think members of the texas legislature prioritize what incumbents wanted in the process, and most of east texas is represented by republicans who got to keep most of the

territory they already had according to the sure's -- legislature's map. and that map wasn't changed very much in the federal court version. but i think where the keystone pipeline could play a big role is actually in the senate. out of the four seats that democrats have up in 2012 that republicans would need to win because they are essentially seats that barack obama lost in 2008, you think it's a must-win, north dakota, montana, missouri, and nebraska, states that are all kind of in that same keystone pipeline corridor that will all have pretty serious contests for republicans trying to get those four seats to take over the senate. i think it could be a big issue in senate races. host: just a couple minutes left with david. we are talking about redistricting and particularly the supreme court's hearing of the challenge to texas' redistricting plan. the supreme court now releases the audio of its oral arguments

on friday of each week. we will have the audio of this case tomorrow somewhere around 1:00. we'll have it on our website and you'll have access to the audio if you are interested in hearing the arguments on this. delaware up next for david. this is albert, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. mr. wasserman, i wanted to find out what's happening to the new york redistricting? it was supposed to come out last week. do you know anything about what's happening with new york redistricting? and why the hold up, please? thank you. guest: florida and new york are two of the states that are kind of the big outstanding question marks in redistricting. and the caller raises a very interesting question. what's going to happen in the empire state? and frankly we don't know. this is a map that will likely be decided by three very powerfulmen in a backroom in albany new york. the majority leader of the state senate, the only republican in

that trio, and then sheldon silver, the assembly speaker, and governor andrew cuomo who are both democrats. cuomo has said in the past he will not sign a new set of maps that represented partisan gerrymander. cuomo has tried to burnish his credentials as a reformer in new york state and anti-gerrymandering and redistricting reform has been a part of his message. but when push comes to shove, i think it's likely that this map will be drawn by legislatures, and it won't necessarily be pretty. you look at the district map that's been in effect for new york right now, and it certainly has lot of creative districts with interesting names like the bull winkle district. i think we used to have that in parts of queens and brooklyn. but with the state losing two members the question is, which members are going to get the axe? is it going to be one democrat and one republican? is it going to be two republicans? there is going to need to be one

seat at that cut off from downstate and one seat that needs to be cut off from up state. according to census numbers it's possible that tradeoff can come from special election victors from past year. democrat, kathy hochul from the buffalo area. republican, bob turner, from queens. that could be one solution to the problem. but there is going to be all kinds of horse trading between now and the map is passed. host: las vegas, paul, independent. good morning. guest: i'd like to ask mr. waserman, the term congressional redistricting, why don't they call it political shuffling? guest: i guess you could call it that. or you could call it musical chairs. congressional redistricting is -- has all kinds of nicknames, both pejorative and formal. certainly that's how the process works in some states.

other states redistricting is pretty simple. host: let's close here with more on the supreme court ruling. do we know when they are expected to tell us their opinion on the texas case? guest: good question. i think we'll expect it sooner than most supreme court decisions because texas is filing -- texas' filing deadline has already been pushed back. the primary in texas has some of what the justices were wary -- weighing in oral arguments was what is the need for texas's timeline? does the primary need to take place by may, as both texas parties had wanted it to take place before may? it was pushed back from march to april. can the primary be pushed back as late as other states as a state to have it in september? the goal line keeps moving for texas as this legal argument continues.

host: a tweet. guest: the court revisited redistricting as recently as 2006. that year, we ended up with a new map on the instructions of the supreme court to redraw texas to include more latino voters. this time around, it is possible the supreme court could do something similar and remand the map back to federal court for changes to make it more similar to what the legislature's intent was. but we are only playing a guessing game. >> redistricting has caused a lot of interesting races this year. we hope that you will come back and tell us about the details. >> live this morning at the hudson institute, a discussion on recent developments in pakistan. >> until recently, pakistan's

ambassador to the united states. he is an old friend of mine, a former colleague, a former colleague of the others here at hudson. among other things, together, hussain and i founded the journal called "current trends in islamist ideology. to our first interest was to redress the destructive forces abroad in the muslim world generally, but also in his native pakistan. in accord with his faith in islam, and as a pakistani patriot, he strives with all his great energy, intelligence, and courage, to help to find a way forward for the help of this country and relations with other countries, including the united states.

eventually, it became his logic to pursue that ambition as the pakistani ambassador. his ball club lead of duties came at a most difficult time in u.s.-pakistani relations, perhaps the most difficult ever. still, hussein to cut this task and defended his country and interests with exemplary bigger and skill. no one in washington is in any doubt about this, or his dedication to the cause of pakistan. but all are amazed at the success he achieved. for his pains, he now finds himself under virtual house arrest, at risk of his very life. a serious risk in a country which has in the past year already seen several political murders. why is he in this situation? well, he endeavored to protect and advance his country.

by whom is he accused? by a man whom many people know -- have known for many years, who described him as a serial liar and con man. active in these hard for nearly 20 years. and whose evidence is nonexistent. in other times, these charges would receive no credit, but unhappily in today's pakistan, they do. it is not because these charges are actually believe, but because they are believed in present circumstances useful in the low and dangerous political struggles that now involves pakistan, a struggle that reached a new and heightened state over the past few days. it is thus that his situation represents, as i said earlier, the crisis of pakistan, and i

should add, the shame of pakistan. it is the double shame of men who speak of honor but instead this honor themselves with attacks on the most loyal, genuinely loyal and able sons. perhaps they will come to reflect on this, reflect on what true honor requires, perhaps discover the great american president abraham lincoln described as the better angels of their nature. i hope so and pray so, pray that hussain will soon be able to return to his great and patriotic vocation, the health of his country. it is my last duty to turn over our broader discretion to our panelists. let me only add that they are all lifelong students, distinguished students, and

lifelong friends of pakistan, and all associated with the most distinguished institutions in washington. their presence here today and the discussion that will provide testifies to their concern for pakistan and its relations with the united states, as well as their concern for whose singer connie. it is now my privilege and pleasure to turn the proceedings over to teresita schaffer. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i am going to remain seated, as my fellow panelists have decided to do, but i wanted to set the stage for this discussion. the invitation you received referred to pakistan, the crisis state. we do meet at a time of crisis

in pakistan. it is, first of all, i would say, a clash of institutions. the civilian-elected government doing with both the army and supreme court. the supreme court, whose independence it probably reaffirmed during the days after president musharraf tried to fire the chief justice, but the definition of that independence at the moment, at the least, is up for grabs. in the past, the supreme court has been overly controlled by the elected government and has also shown deference to the military. it is not clear that both of those dimensions of independents

are still in full vigor. secondly, another dimension of the current crisis is a clash within the civilian political sphere. this is by no means new to pakistan. in fact, i would say it is the normal order of business, but you have a government headed by the ppp and opposition from the arab league, and you now have a third actor. one of his admirers describe to me about a year ago as having planned but not supporters. it appears that he now has some supporters. whether that is going to change his ability to gather votes at the polls, we will only know when the polls happen, but he has certainly become an important part of the political landscape.

i know a number of people in the room just came from a skype conversation with him in which he said some things that were quite familiar, things that will less familiar. the big themes that we wanted to pursue this morning are two that are tremendously important for pakistan's future, and indeed, any country's future. one is justice and the other is a rule of law. my fellow panelists will have a perspective on this. i would just like to end my introduction on a more personal note. my husband and i lived in pakistan in the mid 1970's. our older son was one year old when we got there, our younger son was born there. the news of the assassination of the punjab governor clutched at our hearts, not for the reason that many people share, and this was of voice of toleration that

had been killed by his of bodyguard, but also because he was killed a few feet from where we used to go to the bookstore, barber shop, where our kids played on sunday afternoons. let me turn the floor over to the first of our speakers, marvin weinbaum, who i knew at pakistan -- in pakistan at the moment. he is now with the middle east institute. >> thank you. we have a crisis, certainly, in pakistan. there seems to be a crisis for which the moment is driven by some specific events that have lately taken place. this panel will help us understand these event, what led up to them, where they are

likely to take pakistan, but in looking at this, i am going to ask whether it is something more than simply events that have led to this crisis. after all, the topic of this meeting is the crisis at state -- crisis state. i have been looking at pakistan some 40 years now. as a pakistan observer, i really do not know if there was any time in the period or i would have characterized pakistan as a normal state. i know when you use the term crisis, it and you have crisis all the time, the term loses its meaning. so i am asking, before we begin this specific discussion,

whether there is something deeper involved here. deeper and the body politic, in the political culture of pakistan, in which this is the latest and perhaps, in the order of things, one of the most dangerous crises. after all, there are certain degrees of cumulative effect here. -- fact here. how do these recent developments and the ones that received them, how do they relate to a system in which people have faith in their institutions? in which there is a deep distrust of authority, where justice and the rule of law is so easily violated, and regularly violated.

where so much of what goes on is blamed on the outside forces, where there is regular denial of responsibility. outside forces, i might mention, that are plotting to weaken and in the overthrow the state, overtake that assets from it. -- and their assets from it. a society, where once was a set of fringe ideas about something like 9/11, is a virtual consensus in the country, about it being an american plot, perhaps an american zionist plot. this is generally believed throughout the country. and it is only one of many such

beliefs, which, as an outside observer, one finds so difficult to understand. the obsession here with india and lately with the united states. i could go on and you could go on. certainly, everyone on this panel could give us a far better examples here. to sum this up, let me give you a list. long-term lack of trust. feelings of the lurking danger. interpretation how of the actions of the others as hostile. misconstrued friendly actions

looking for hidden motives. conspiratorial explanation of events. easily slighted, in denial, refusing to accept responsibility. difficult in its relationships. now, you might think that i abstracted this from some of my remarks. actually, that list comes from googling. googling the term "paranoia." these are the textbook, classic, clinical syndromes of the port -- paranoid personnel. i was astounded. there were none there that i would have said, that clearly

does not belong. so, if pakistan is, as we said, a crisis state, and others have other labels. it has been called a national security state, and insecurity state. lately, it is being called a hard country. do we also have to say it is a paranoid state, but go further than that, and say it is a paranoid society? that is what we are really talking about here. it is not just a matter of the elite reacting. it is a matter of something that is far more pervasive and deeper into the political culture and body of politic. now, is this fair? is it fair to throw around terms like this? after all, individuals are not

nation's. what is said and done in the interest of the state obviously can sound very rational, and i do not mean to demean pakistan, i do mean to understand it. also, there are individuals who clearly are very far away from this and pakistan today. individuals who have shown enormous courage in being the voice of sanity, but they are embattled, and that is why we are here today. it is not peculiar to pakistan. other countries have experienced periods of paranoia, including this country. but there seems to be something more resilient about what we are talking about in pakistan. and it does not mean that

everyone -- everything that is being said is irrational, but if you look at the assumptions upon which this dialogue often occurs, you find those are, indeed, non-rational. and i could go on here and suggest another part to it, because of the belief that while the world is hostile, there are some figures out there that can deliver us the good against the evil. i do not have time to develop that notion, but that may now conclude by saying, so what is the value in using these terms? can in better help us understand what to do? so let's go back to the textbook and see what they suggest.

it says, first of all, that it is not really terrible, but it is manageable. -- curable, but it is manageable. it says there are no simple formulas of political policies which are somehow going to change them. i am putting this now in state terms. but there are no therapies, as such, that can work. no silver bullets. it says, do not get angry. don't act in a threatening manner, because it only exacerbates the symptoms. that the individual will understand its problems. so finally, where is the

application? you know, it is easy to deal with this if you want to break the relationship. you move on. you have no interaction. but if that relationship needs to be preserved, it is of interest to preserve, then we have to go back, again, to what is suggested about how you ultimately manage it. the textbooks tell us, clinical textbooks, tell us that you manage it with regular interaction. yes, engagement. that is the therapy recommended. in the inter state terms, that means diplomacy, keeping in mind the limitations.

in intrastate terms, it means democracy. both of these are processed cheese. both a do not assume easy short- term solutions. -- processes. so, there is, here, a formula after all. it is not one that is very satisfying, one which enters our problems immediately, but again, if it is worth preserving, it is what we have got to work with. i will now turn the panel back to the crisis at hand, but i thought this was perhaps useful to understand that the problem might be far bigger than just the immediate events that we are

confronting. thank you. >> thank you. our next speaker is dr. christine fair, assistant professor at georgetown. she has written on everything from politics to food. i believe she will be a little closer to the political end of that spectrum this morning. >> i will try to leave allport jokes aside, but i have bacon on the brain. memogatek about what' is. understanding that is important for understanding who hussain haqqani is. he has done all sorts of things that are bizarre. he has the credibility of a snake. nevertheless, he ostensibly delivered a memo to the chief of the joint chiefs staff, admiral mullen, who said he got the memo but thought it was so insane, he

disregarded it. this was allegedly delivered in the aftermath to the death of bin laden, a tenuous time for pakistan. i had the privilege of being in pakistan. it was like going to the michael jackson never land rich. was pretty bizarre. whatever was going on with the army's thinking, we will let the historians decide, but we will allege that a coup was in the brewing, something that i did not share. the memo requested that the u.s. government intervened to help put the army back in its place, and in exchange for doing so, the memo promise that the government would be civilly controlled with more same policies when it comes due nuclear proliferation, as well with other groups. as well, what was being offered, pakistan would behave

as its constitution, in fact, tells it to. what a very piu people had the sense of saying, even if the memo was offered by the government, it is hardly treason. it is simply articulating and requesting the united states to reinforce the constitutional structure that pakistan actually has. it is not the first or last time that some pakistani official has asked the u.s. government to get involved in their internal affairs. the first of which, i believe, pakistan's first premier. he said if the americans would help the pakistani army, he would not even raise an army. this memo, provided it was authored by a pakistani official, did the army howl when musharraf came here asking for other stuff. so let's put this in context. this is not unique, in any way, shape, or form.

how did the supreme court get involved? what is the nature of the proceeding that faces hussain haqqani and others involved? for those of you watching pakistan, you know the supreme court has characterized its independence. that is a grotesque mischaracterization. it is very interventionist. it has powers that our supreme court does not have. it can actually take up an issue if it thinks it is of public importance, and we can question whether the issues it takes up are of public importance or of the personal importance of the supreme court justice in question. that is a different debate i do not want to go into here. where the particular case came to be is another interpret -- interpretation of the pakistan constitution, that anyone can petition the highest court, ordinarily the highest court of appeals, the court of last resort, if the issue pertains

to a fundamental deprivation of human-rights. so, under this clause, this provision of the supreme court, who claims he is a democrat, says that this memo by lights this fundamental -- violates this fundamental right to liberties, and therefore, is the subject of the supreme court. the first ruling that the supreme court engaged in was whether the petition was made payable. having concluded it was untenable, it ordered a judicial collection of judges to rule within four weeks on the dispensation of the memo, where did it come from and who wrote it? what makes this particularly curious and also invidious is whether -- hussain haqqani lawyers argued that it would not be attainable. what makes it particularly invidious is that he himself is not being tried.

that is not with the supreme court was evaluating. there had been no charges filed in any other lower-court, which and all other proceedings there has to be charges filed. what this process has allowed the supreme court, working not explicitly inclusion with the military, but in a parallel simpatico with the military, has allowed various pieces of so- called evidence which have not been principally-validated -- there have been no custodial chains for these evidence to be entered into the supreme court, put into various affidavits, and blundered on the website. let's take a concrete issue, the blackberry exchanges. there have been no forensic evaluations of the authenticity of those blackberrys exchanges. they have a series of exchanges. he writes in his affidavit, this

explains this. this is how this exchange connects hussain haqqani to the memo. in any court of law, this would not be admissible, not considered. there is no forensic evidence validating the changes, much less the time of the changes to the memo. but because there had been no charges filed, there is no requirement to do so. this also means mr. haqqani was not allowed to file a counter narrative. they never denied the messages -- at least the most recent communication does not suggest that. however, all of this information is being turned in the public domain. so in other words, hussain haqqani is being labeled as a traitor. there is no actual evidence that has been frantically-validated,

presented before the court. in other words, this is really trial by media circus. i want to take on the other canard of pakistan, this notion of a free, vibrant media. the most free and vibrant media that you can buy, that the eyes i can influence. i know countless the journalists who are speaking strictly on the isi payroll. it is not this entirely free press. also, others may have their own views about the extent to which the press is entirely free. it is important that we understand what is actually going on here. i wrote a piece in "front policy" where i talk about the role of the supreme court in manipulating pakistan's democracy. in my view, while many of us are concerned -- because we work with in a variety of capacities,

friends with hussain haqqani -- we to understand what this is -- >> we are going to leave this event to go to what is expected to be a quick house pro-forma session. if you watched the past few times the house was in pro forma, democrats tried to seek recognition to speak urging congress members to return to session now to debate a full measure of tax cut extension. democrats want a full year. democrats have tried to speak. they have not been recognized to speak. members were left speaking in the chamber with no tv coverage of their remarks. we may or may not see that again today.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. january 13, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable andy harris to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our

chaplain, father conroy. father conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we pause now in your presence and acknowledge our dependence on you. we ask your blessing upon the men and women of this the people's house who are soon to return to their stations here on capitol hill. as the new session begins, help them and indeed help us all to obey your law, to do your will, and to walk in your way. grant that they might be good in thought, gracious in word, generous in deed, and great in spirit. make this a glorious day in which all are glad to be alive and ready to serve you. may all that is done this day be done for your greater honor

and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 4-b of house resolution 493, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from virginia, congressman moran. mr. moran: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the white house, january 12, 2012. dear mr. speaker, pursuant to section 3101-a-2-a of title 31 united states code, i hereby certify that the debt subject to limit is within $100 billion of the limit and 31 u.s.c. 3101-b and that further

borrowing is required to meet existing commitments. signed, sincerely, barack obama. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on ways and means and ordered printed. the chair lays before the house sundry communications. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on january 3, 2012, at 1:02 p.m. that the senate, pursuant to the order of december 23, 2011, senate appoints conferees, h.r. 3630, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena for testimony issued by the superior court of the district

of columbia in connection with a misdemeanor case now pending before that court. after consultation with the office of general council, i have determined to comply with the subpoena to the extent that it is consistent with rule 8. signed, sincerely, patrick hirsch, director, house recording studio. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on january 3, 2012, at 1:02 p.m. that the senate insists on its amendments to the bill and agrees to a conference asked by the house. h.r. 3630, with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 4-a of house resolution 493, no organizational or lemming business will be conducted on this day. pursuant to section 4-c of house resolution 493, the house stands adjourned until 2:00

p.m. on tuesday, january 17, 2012. >> it is the same result as it has been for the past few pro four sessions for democrats. oran inld see jim m the well of the house. the house has conducted these sessions to prevent the president from making recess appointments during the congressional break. the tactic failed to work last week. the president was able to make watcher appointments including richard cordray. republicans are rejecting

those appointments. they are legal and they could withstand a court challenge. we don't control the cameras in the house. our coverage is based on what they feed us. what you see is what we are being fed. the house returns on tuesday and we will have live coverage. the senate is also in pro forma today at noon. we're going to go back to the coverage of the discussion on pakistan from the hudson institute. >> the argument is that pakistan is in trouble. it is best to assume the stability. i think this is the view of jonathan in his study out of london about the future of pakistan and in his book.

our book looks at five years with a shorter time frame. their tubes of the time frames -- there are two other time frames. there's an added a book by the former ambassador to the united states and a renowned journalists. i call this the if syndrome. it is a collection of essays. if pakistan can reform its economy if relations are normalized and let the terrorist and if this and that can happen. "if" is the operative word. nobody had a bright future given the resources of its people.

pakistan has underperformed in many ways. if all these things happen and when we have the meeting to discuss our book, i wrote about the term -- i ruled out the term "if." we should stop using the term "if." the mulling through -- the muddling through minus there is much difference. "armageddon and pakistan,." in a new book, "poppa stop on the brink -- "pakistan on the brink."

the three authors are concerned with this reason. there will drive pakistan to worse and worse scenarios. they pick on the islamic factors in a negative future for pakistan. they are less optimistic than others about what happens if muddling through does not work. there is another option, the serial transformation of pakistan. i would not be surprised if there is a could but d'etat. pakistan is a mixed constitution. it is part military. these are very hard to predict. parts of pakistan are changing

in different ways. it is spelled out in my own chapter in the book. i visited first in 1977. pakistan is changing in bits and pieces and changing for the good. to conclude, pakistan is a crisis state or crises, and why is this the case? it is a paradoxical state. it may express a truth. there are many paradoxes. the domestic political paradox. aristotle talk about mixed constitutions. you cannot sell at any given moment what kind of state

pakistan is. that is an asset. it behaves like neither all the time. it is hard to know which pakistan we're dealing with. pakistan is too nuclear to fail. it is important to others and their own population. it doesn't bring pakistan many advantages. how big nuclear-weapons have kept the indians out of their -- having nuclear weapons have kept the indians out of there. war between the americans and soviets. he wrote about catalytic work.

think that pakistan's relationship with india and china deserves further study. there is the issue of nuclear terrorism. with otherrelations nuclear powers is problematic. it is america's most dangerous ally. it professes to be a democracy. so pakistan's identity is problematic. i am confident there are enough good people back to manage the state given the opportunity to do so. prices are going to continue -- crises are going to continue.

i have some comments on policy but i will deliver those after lisa. >> thank you very much. i am reminded that professor fair has to leave at 11:30. if there were one or two questions that touched on the legal and judicial issues that she raised, i would take them now and then we would turn to our final panelist. ,f you'll ask a question identify yourself and your affiliation, even if i know you, and to wait for the microphone so that our watchers on c-span can also hear your question. there's a question down here in front. wave to the microphone. >> thank you.

you have a good handle on the affairs. the haqqani case -- the case is in the judiciary. he was opposing -- i received the chief minister and a best friend and adviser at that time. he went to the supreme court, to the prime minister. if somebody wants to help haqqani, what needs to hire a good attorney who knows the international law and the

constitution of pakistan. that would be helpful for him. if that could be done -- there's not one individual -- the democracy -- on whom the democracy of pakistan lies. >> if there is another question for dr. fair. right there. >> i'm a professor. -- a free-lance writer. i would like to please ask you what mr. hussain haqqani faces. is it that instead of the people hiding bin laden, the

ambassador was trying to control -- he faces all this problems. it shows pakistan is a state. >> i can accept the premise of the question. i don't except those premises. us go back to the case with hussain haqqani. no charges have been filed against him. he voluntarily went back. his passport was seized. he is experiencing fundamental deprivation of liberty. the relationship goes way back. he was his prime champion. that was the reason why the coalition broke apart in the first bascase.

i want to point something out that i find -- this is pakistan's judicial system. the supreme court has been pushing the perimeter of what they are allowed to do. while hussain is not subject to charges and this has become almost a proxy discussion about him creating treason -- him committing treason. i don't know how much this has been picked up here. the director-general of the ifi went to the gulf seeking permission to sack him. at least one journalist wrote

about this and he is no longer in pakistan. if he did do that, that is treason under article 6 of the constitution. where is the independent judiciary with their concerns that is in taking up the question of him going to the gulf. that is in article 6, a high treason offense, if it is true. so the relationship and the supreme court justice is very much a core of what is going on. the court has not exercised similar interest investigating whether pasha was part of active high treason. >> i have one more question for professor fair which has been submitted on twitter. >> yes, twitter!

>> i don't know that the twitteeeter is identified. >> i do not know. i have no idea how this works. i don't know the statutes. we'll know he is notorious for capitalization. there have been -- when i was a student, he was mr. 10%. there have been a number of charges against zardari. he spent some time in jail.

the supreme court has handed dazardari for quite some time. they conducted the legality of the current ppp who read cases against them. the entire liability of their elections can be potentially invalidated. he himself becomes vulnerable to charges. the supreme court push in that envelope of what they can do because they say they can. zardari l president the da that he has to request immunity. it is cleared the court may not granting immunity. this is part of the evolving set of actions the supreme court has

taken which i think identifies it as being interventionist including with those that that issue with this government to bring it down. >> thank you, dr. fair. we will move to our final speaker, lisa curtis of the heritage foundation. lisa has worked in the executive branch of the government and also on capitol hill, so she has a broad perspective from which to address her topper, which i believe is the implication for u.s. policy. >> thank you and thank you for coming today. the heritage foundation is proud to co-sponsor this event today. i was asked to look at u.s. policy options in dealing with pakistan. the perpetual instability in the country is escalating internal power struggle between the

military leadership makes it difficult for the u.s. to develop a coherent policy toward pakistan. i think we've seen that with the response to the memogate affair. it broke just before our thanksgiving holiday and afterwards, you had the strike on november 26 against the pakistanis soldiers and sent u.s. pakistan relations into a tailspin. this has complicated have the u.s. has responded to what is happened to hussain haqqani. the state department has spoken out on two occasions. i agree that this is not enough. they spoke out after it was claimed that the government was pre notified or knew about the bin laden raid before it happened. the state department corrected

the record and said no pakistani officials were informed ahead of time before the bin laden operation. a group of us including everybody at this table who follow pakistan closely wrote in a letter to the administration calling on the administration to assure that the person of hussain haqqani was protected. we thought his life may have been in danger. as we were drafting the letter, the state department did speak out in support of a fair and transparent treatment of hussain haqqani. aside from this, the u.s. has remained relatively quiet. i think they have their reasons for this. one is the nato air strike, which has complicated the

military relationship. the u.s. has an interest in having good relations with the military for fighting terrorism. the u.s. has an interest in seeing democracy succeed in pakistan. zardari e if the sce government is forced out, if it is forced out before its term is over, this is going to sent a negative signal that civilian democracy has not taken root in pakistan, that the army still wield control in the system. even though the government may not be perfect, it is an elected government and we need to keep that in mind. this crisis in the civil military relationship is distracting all of the leaders

from dealing with some serious problems whether the economic malaise or the ongoing terrorist attacks. we just saw some more terrorist attacks. in the last couple of days. i do not want to get into details of the case. i have been disappointed with the pakistan it media in not exploring -- there's a whole and has a resolve'volves certain reputation for exaggerated his role, particularly when it comes to specific u.s. foreign policy issues. this happened when i was a diplomat in pakistan and the first time i met hussain

haqqani. what happened in 1995 was he went to benazir bhutto with information about a potential beingl's coup that was plans in the army. benazir bhutto took that information and went straight to the chief of army staff. we could ask why the mons sort did not go to the chief of staff at this coup was being hatched -- why the monsour. it seems that he is involved in selling seeds -- sewing seeds of dissension. what are the u.s. options?

one option is the cooling down scenario where each country takes a step back from the relationship and reassesses -- maybe the u.s. reduces aid and maybe pakistan pulls back in its cooperation. there is no strategic dialogue or any alliance as such but perhaps some cooperation on overlapping interest and not a complete cutoff of u.s. assistance. the only problem with this scenario is that pakistan is not cooling down. pakistan poses a threat to the region and beyond. extremists can seem to wield influence in society. teresita schaffer talk about the assassination, which is indicative of the trend of rising extremism and the inability of people opposed to

extremism able to raise their voices. east of links -- you still love links with the military and the civil military clashes that open doors for jihadists to come in and exploit these problems. just add to the competition, pakistan is the fastest growing nuclear power in the world today. a study out yesterday questioned the safety and security of those nuclear weapons. ignoring pakistan is not an option for the u.s. the second option is containment. people have thrown around this word "containment" for a few months in relation to pakistan policy. the idea of intent was brought

in 1947 in trying to stem the advance of communism. it has been used with a rock and and iran.ra now we think of containment -- now when we think of contend that we think of north korea. we might view it as trying to stem the advance of extremism and terrorism. pakistan is under threat from extremism. pakistan it leaders or indirectly promoting this dangers ideology by their physical support to groups that adhere to it. most pakistanis officers are disdainful of the extremist ideology and they do not want

their children to grow up in a society that is dominated by it. how did you deal with a state institution that is willing to take risks to its own country's stability and willing to provide support to violent groups that they do not control? trying to formulate a policy to such an institution is next to impossible. i will talk about the last and the most sensible u.s. policy approach and i call was principled flexible approach. there is no grand strategy or containment, but there are a few broad principles if the u.s. allows itself the flexibility to devolve to the unpredictable events in pakistan.

some of the principles that i think would be important is standing up for civilian life and democracy but not getting involved in the details of the power tussles that are happening. the u.s. should be making statements, standing up for the importance of democracy and not try to shift the power balance within the country in one direction or another. this almost always backfires when this is tried. just to accept the pakistan does not share the same priorities with regard to the terrorism issue. this would lead to not providing pakistan undue influence in afghanistan. this recognizes that we don't have the same goals. there would have to demonstrate that they are willing to squeeze insurgents and use the leverage that they do have with

the afghan taliban to bring them to the table to compromise. the third would be conditioned aid to pakistan by not cutting off. we're already moving in that direction. congress passed legislation -- we're moving in that direction. why would you condition the aid? it is not going to work. even if it does not change their calculations, at least the u.s. can stop throwing good money after bad. this is u.s. resources and that we should be deciding how to spend them based on what the u.s. is actually seeing in return. working with partners to top shape pakistan the behavior.

this would start with the nato partners and would involve china and pakistan. pakistan has put up its relationship with china in the aftermath of the bin laden raid. china has concerns about the future and stability of pakistan. it opens a door for the u.s. to be able to seek cooperation with china in convincing pakistan to take a more comprehensive view against terrorism in the country. saudi arabia would be an important country for the u.s. to reach out to. i think saudi arabia would have to be convinced that the u.s. would have a long-term presence and commitment in afghanistan before it would seriously work

with the u.s. in trying to prevail on pakistan to crack down on the taliban. thank you for your attention. >> thank you, lisa, and thank you to all the panelists. now we will take questions. once again, if i call on you and i will try to keep track of hands as i see them, please identify yourself and your affiliation, and please wait for the microphone. the first hand i saw was in the middle, sir. >> thank you. asia.one some writing on i will open as to the panel. the timing of the memogate. why now?

why exactly monsour? why were the two officers given extensions, which was a violation of a general norms in most democracies and law enforcements? thank you. >> and by want to take those -- anybody want to take those? >> the letter was released or gave an interview about his letter. and thise do witit all time? there's not a clear answer. there are lots of suspicions.

the same charges could in principle have been leveled against him. the motivation for that has to lie in stuff that we do not know about but can only speculate on. what were they given extensions? i have to assume the government of pakistan and the army leadership wanted things to come up that way. there's lots of speculation about the u.s. haven't encouraged the extension. i have no knowledge of that. i felt the u.s. should stay out of decisions of that sort. front row. >> hello. hudson institute. i wanted to ask some questions

that were posed that belong to the panel as a whole. the first has to do with the question of internal stability, whether want stability,-- look 20 long-term relationship with the pakistan government. it seems that the behavior of the supreme court has added a whole new element -- or layer of problems at this point. you had a situation where it was a struggle between governments and the military, but there wasn't an arbiter between them. the court has claimed that role in a way and was heralded a few years ago from step 2 musharraf -- to step up to musharraf.

that seems to remove one final element in the institution which provides for adjudication internally. dissected it has to do with the policy approach questions -- the second thing. there was this debate that said that we could have a strategic relationship with pakistan or that we could have won or a transactional one -- we could have one or transactional one. tried to go to the strategic level to improve things to address some of the issues of paranoia that was referred to by marvin weinbaum.

now what seems that we're looking at transactional and at the transactional question is between our military and their military essentially. our military seems to have lost its patience with their military. i think -- >> could you get your question? >> i wonder whether we are moving -- whether there is a kind of motion towards the kind of disengagement that comes precisely from that part of our government that has been most engaged with the pakistani government. >> i think the u.s. tried to have a strategic relationship with pakistan. there was a strategic dialogue to handle a host of issues that

were of concern to pakistan. that did not seem to pan out. we have been forced into a transactional relationship because that dialogue did not work out. you could argue what happened -- was it drone strikes? i would just say that if pakistan feels it needs to force the u.s. to choose between india and pakistan to of a strategic relationship is not going to happen. the rest to be an understanding that -- the u.s. like a strategic partnership with pakistan. it's not going to choose between india and pakistan. my fear is that pakistan uses as a litmus test the u.s. relationship with india and that

would be to pakistan's detriment. the relationship can be broad based but the u.s. has clear interests that at the moment seem to diverge with pakistan, so we are forced into a transactional relationship. i do not buy the relationship. both sides have been trying to kortrijk our relationship with pakistan as it wall-to-wall strategic in gauge meant, what you might call -- engagement, a big strategic bear hug. that has been a great talking point and a great rallying cry for high-level meetings.

it has twice already become a cropper in the basic difference in strategic difference between the united states and pakistan. if you count the current strategic relationship from 2001, we are at least three or four years into the period in the difference in u.s. and pakistan's strategic interest has reared its head again and has interfered with our collaboration. i do not think that identifying now oarrower interests is a bad thing. you may give it the name transactional and intend that as an insult. if the united states and pakistan could work seriously towards a more limited

interests, we would both be better off. i think that is where u.s. policy needs to be going. i think it may have been going in that direction. the talking points are still strategic relationships. the largest and most ambitious version is out of reach at the moment. >> until recently, early last year, it was all about building trust. the idea was that what we had to do was to demonstrate that it was more than simply a relationship based on a made for pakistan to deal with our problems with terrorism, al qaeda, afghanistan. there were some real moves on our part to move in that

direction. the events of this past year demonstrated a few things could that we did not share that many strategic interests in common. there were some basic divergence is between what pakistan saw as being in its interests and in our interest. so we're left with now is being suggested -- we are left with finding those common denominators on which we still have a convergence that is critical. there are not very many at this point, but they remain critical enough that both sides do not want to see a rupture of the relationship. that is where we are. it is by necessity going to be characterized -- the strategic

implied a far more comprehensive set of common interests that we now find possible. >> did you want to speak to this point? you get the full treatment. >> it is my understanding there is no formal written agreement between the united states and pakistan on any issue. we have american legislation which is interpreted differently by americans in pakistan. if you talk about trust, he talked about trust in a contract that is not written. we do have trust but we also need to have verification. we should be consulted with india. india has a vital interest in

the future of pakistan. i think that the pakistan army may want to see the relationship. the shipments to afghanistan have not been renewed. our're trying to speed up withdrawal from afghanistan. the problems -- that proposition will be tested. >> i think that chris would question whether they are an arbitrator i would characterize it more as a surrogate for the military so that it does serve indirectly to implement what the military's interests are. it still has to be viewed as

independent in the sense that it acts in fashion with suggest independence but reflects far more -- i don't want to say a set of instructions. >> i have a couple of people on my list. i want to pass what a question from twitter. 1/3 of the pakistan senate will be elected in march and this will take place in the state assemblies. not a national election. the question asked what would be the implications of a ppp victory in the senatorial election? what do these senate elections mean? would any of my colleagues like to tackle that one? go ahead, lisa.

>> if the ppp does very well, that will help them in the general elections that are scheduled for next year -- a year from now. i think it comes up to the timing. somebody had asked about the timing. we have to -- the timing of the memogate -- we're talking about timing and chris raises why two years later the supreme court is threading to disqualify gilani mr. for not following through with the supreme court order to banish the nro and move forward with corruption charges against president zardari. i see suspicious timing all the way around here. it raises the question of why is

this happening now? we only have a year to go until elections. it is my feeling that nothing would be more to help solidify democracy in pakistan then to allow the government to run its full course. it seems to be subject that has included pakistan throughout its history. i think that all of these issues perhaps are related. i come back to respecting the electoral democracy and that is the best thing if we're talking about preventing future crises in pakistan. pakistan wants to be a powerful state. talk about retaining the regional position. they can strengthen democracy and strengthening its own economy. >> the next question -- wait for

the microphone, please. >> i am with the american enterprise institute. i have a question about pakistan's liberals. he was killed more than a year ago. we have people on the streets on pakistan celebrating the anniversary of his murder. pakistan is striking in some ways because there are no shortage of intellectuals, writers who in fact been willing to challenge the dominant narrative often at great risk to themselves and have taken a position that go against fundamentalism or intolerance broadly. i want to get your sense of where -- how strong are

pakistan's liberals today then compared to four or five years ago? where do you see the trend heading? >> i used the term "embattled." nobody doubts they have been courageous and have spoken up -- in some ways, you have more criticism in pakistan then you get in india, certainly with regard to foreign policy. there is more of a dialogue that goes on in pakistan. those who think the savior's here are going to come from subtle society -- there are many pakistanis progressives who see civil society as somehow being able with a youth bulge and some

of this will create a constituency here which can counter the islamic constituency, for example. i don't see evidence of this. there is one real problem, as i see it. that class where talking about -- they are losing faith in the system. this is what happened in iran in the 1970's. many pakistanis have one foot inside pakistan and 1 foot outside pakistan. that strikes me as something which could very well be overwhelmed by populist forces

and islamist forces. so in answer to your question, it is going to have to come from below as well as from above. >> a couple of observations and a small question. we talked about disengagement with pakistan. an analyst right now -- disengagement is not an option or a solution. both these countries need each other. their friendship --

>> courage to lift the microphone closer -- could you lift your microphone closer? >> we're talking here, the highest level of the american army are still engaging. it is important to bring stability -- the stability in pakistan and in afghanistan, it is independent. lisa mentioned about pakistan relationship with the u.s. these things have changed the test of time. the relationship is independent of relations of u.s. into india. it is independent of pakistan's

relationship with china. both laser chips are important for china and critical -- both relationships are important. i'm amazed that so many things -- many people have met him. how could such a man have access to the highest corridors of power in america? to the national security? and that have access in pakistan? how does that happen? >> i cannot speak to the taxes that he has had in pakistan. i think -- i have not fault the case to the ddot that chris has

. he is made claims and in my conversations with u.s. officials, he never met any u.s. official. the only contact was with general jones, when general jones was not in his position of general security adviser. we could speculate on why general jones decided to pass this memo onto admiral mullen. i do not think it was a great decision. general jones has filed his affidavit and has said that he had no believes that the memo was drafted by haqqani. he thought it was a personal effort. i think the problem is that this picture is being painted about all this access in the corridors

of the u.s. but if you talk to people, he did not. the u.s. government is not going to slander somebody or pronounced something that is not asked of them. the u.s. government has not been able to get their side of the story to the extent that would be more helpful here. i thought it was helpful when they clarified the claim that the government knew about the bin laden raid before it happened. no pakistan officials were informed before that raid. until questions are asked specifically, the u.s. government does not answer. i think there has been some misperceptions, particularly in the pakistani press about is access here in the u.s. >> i think lisa says is correct.

let's dot a couple of i's. this is the third instance in which i have been aware of him climbing to have been an emissary or envoy trying to resolve some nasty international conflict. the u.s. government in each case was involved in some past -- in some fashion. the people involved in the issue contradicted the claims that he made about the deaths -- depths and effectiveness of his involvement. that is the first point. the u.s. government does not want to make itself the story in this case. as far as the action is concerned, admiral mullen has

confirmed having received the memo, having concluded that it was not credible and decided to do nothing about it. that is the only action that was taken by the u.s. government. the u.s. government would not consider that it was doing either itself or ambassador haqqani any favors by raising its profile and becoming a part of the story. a part of the story. u.s.e not going to see a government position paper on the credibility or otherwise. >> a footnote. his role model seems to be a character in a woody allen movie called "zelig." zelig was an all american

major events his whole life. >> the second foot putt. a different order on the perspective. he has had minimal effectiveness. he is a blowhard. he is all the things you have heard. my information is he has been used in the past as an emissary. that is not all factitious. people in high places have turned to him and sought his assistance. it is not entirely that he is an imaginary figure here. why individuals would go back to him, given his reputation, is for me the hard thing to

understand. >> we have one last question from the gentleman in the third row. >> the learned scholars from mr. de, from different -- from yesterday, up from different think tanks. in pakistan, bin laden was killed, but some worry -- zawahiri is supported by the pakistan military. when are you going to be prettily frank and call a spade a spate? -- a spade? is pakistan a rogue state? >> one of the messages you get

from this panel, maybe an unsatisfying mention -- message, is a tremendous dilemma that the united states faces in trying to work with and around pakistan on very important policy issues. this is not new. this is something we have dealt with for at least 50 years, but i would say at a more acute stage now than it ever was. it was said both countries need each other. that is for better or for worse still true. the united states is probably not by to come out and say pakistan is a rogue state, we will have nothing to do it, for all the reasons that these a curtis just mentioned. what the united states is trying to do is pursue its interests. that is what countries do. these interests, some of them

are in line with what the government of pakistan seeks and some of them not. that is where it gets difficult. pakistan is done to pursue its interests and all of what we have been talking about this morning, suggests that there is agreement on some of those interests and disagreement on others within pakistan and the pocket caught up in the internal drama of pakistan, which unfortunately our friend hussain has also become a pawn. >> i agree with everything that was said, but the only thing that seems certain at least to me is that until the pakistan military leadership develops a clearer and more comprehensive policy toward terrorism, rather than this idea of fighting some to facilitate the others, that there will be no clarity in u.s.-pakistan relations, and

both sides will continue to remain fairly dissatisfied with the relationship. >> final comments from the panel? lisa just had hers. relationships to support terrorism complicates its relationships with china and india. >> it comes back to what pakistan thinks is in its own interests. it is not supporting or choosing among terrorist organizations without reason. it has in its own objectives sensed that some of these organizations do work in its interests, do work to benefit of what it seeks as the way at its strategic regional goals. until that changes, i think we can expect that pakistan will continue to be selective among

good terrorists and bad terrorists, and it is only when the correlation of forces is such that it recognizes that these elements are a danger to pakistan itself and moves away from the denial of this that i think we will seek real change in its policies. >> with that, let me invite you to join in expressing our thanks to the panel. [applause] and thank you for being with us today.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> live pictures of the u.s. capitol this afternoon. the house held a brief pro forma session earlier today. it is the last one before they return for legislative business on tuesday. a democratic member came to the floor to be recognized, only to be ignored by the president pro tem. jim moran was on the floor for about 10 minutes. he talked about the year-long payroll tax cut extension democrats are looking for, and that unemployment benefits. we are unable to show those moments in the house because we do not control the cameras there. we can only show you what they feed to us.

the house is back on tuesday, january 17 come up with boats at 6:30 eastern. we'll have live coverage here on c-span. a short time ago president obama announced an initiative to shrink the size of government by merging trade, commerce agencies into one. the president spoke for about 20 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. please have a seat. welcome to the white house. i see all sorts of small business people here, and i am thrilled to have you here. as small business owners, you know as well as anybody that if we are going to rebuild an economy that lasts, an economy that creates good, middle-class jobs, then we will all have to up our game. the other day i met with business leaders who are doing their part by insourcing, by

bringing jobs back to the united states. i told them that you are willing to keep asking yourself what you can do to bring jobs back, that i will make sure you have the government that helps you succeed. that is why we are here today. i ran for office pledging to make our government leaner and smarter and more consumer friendly. from the moment i got here i saw up close what many of you know to be true. the government we have is not the government that we need. we live in the 21st century economy, but we still have a government organized for the 20th-century. our economy has fundamentally changed. our government, our agencies, have not. the needs of our citizens have fundamentally changed, but their government has not. instead, it is often -- it has often grown more complicated and

sometimes more confusing. i will give a few examples. there are five different entities dealing with housing. there are more than a dozen agencies dealing with food safety. my favorite example, which i mentioned in last year's state of the union address, as it turns out, the interior department is in charge of salmon and fresh water -- in fresh water, but the commerce department handles them in fresh water. [laughter] if you are wondering what the genesis of this was, it had something to do with president nixon being unhappy with the interior secretary for criticizing him up about the vietnam war, so he decided not to put -- and what would have been a more sensible place. no business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary

complexity and their operations. you would not do it when you are thinking about your businesses. why is it ok for our power ferment? it is not. -- why is it ok for our government? it is not. it pass to change. but we have tried to do over the first three years of the administration is to a whole range of steps administratively to start making processes, procedures and agencies more consumer friendly. we need to do more. we need authority to do more. today i am calling on congress to reinstate the authority that past presidents had to streamline and reform the executive branch. it is to the same sort of a party that every business owner has to make sure his or her company keeps pace with the times. let me be clear. i will only use this authority for reforms that result in more

efficiency, better service, and a leaner government. a little bit of history here. congress first granted this party presidents in the midst of the great depression so they could reorganize the executive branch to respond to the changing needs of the american people and the immediate challenge of the depression. for the next 52 years, presidents were able to streamline or consolidate the executive branch by submitting a proposal to congress that was guaranteed a simple up or down vote. in 1984, while ronald reagan was president, congress stopped granting that authority. when this process was left to follow the usual congressional praise -- peace and procedures, not surprisingly get bogged down. committees fought to protect their turf and lobbyists fought

to keep things the way they were because they were the only ones who could navigate the confusion and because it is always easier to add that to subtract in washington. inertia permitted -- prevented any real reform from happening. layers kept getting added on. the department of homeland security was made to consolidate agencies, but congress did not consolidate on their side. now the root department of homeland conservative -- now the department of homeland security reports to many agencies and panels. that is not making it safer to file a bunch of reports all the time. it has been a generation since the president had the authority to proposed streamlining the government in a way that allows for real change to take place. imagine all the things that have happened since 1984.

1984 -- did not have the internet. a generation of americans have come of age. land lines have turned to smart phones, so much has happened, yet the government we have today is largely the government we had back then, and we deserve better. go talk to the skilled professionals in government who are serving their country, and by the way, you will not meet harder-working folks and some of the folks in these federal agencies. they devote countless hours to try to make sure that they are serving the american people. they will tell you their efforts are constantly undermined by outdated bureaucratic mazes. if you talk to ordinary americans, including some of the leaders here today, they will tell you that to deal with

government on a regular basis is not always a highlight of their day. [laughter] over the past three years, we have tried to take steps to fix the problem. to bring our government into this century, and in doing so, to root out waste. just to take some examples, we made sure the government sends checks to the right people in the right amount. this should be obvious, but we have been able to prevent $20 billion of waste of the last two years by making sure that checks are sent properly and we are reducing errors. we cut government contracting for the first time in more than a decade. we cut a whole range of overlapping programs. we have tried to yank the federal government into the 21st century when it comes to technology and making everything we do more web friendly.

by the way, that helps in terms of accountability and transparency, because the public can get on whitehouse.gov and they can see what is happening and track where money goes. we have done a lot, but we have got to do more. we need to think bigger. today i am outlining changes we could make if congress gives the green light to allow it to modernize and streamline. these changes would help small business owners like you. it would also help medium and large businesses, and as a consequence it would help create more jobs, sell more products overseas, improve our quality of life. right now there are six departments and agencies focused primarily on business and trade in the federal government. 6.

commerce department, small business administration, u.s. trade representative's office, and in this case 6 is not better than one. sometimes more is better. this is not one of those cases. because it produces redundancy and inefficiency. with the authority i am requesting today, we could consolidate them all into one department with one website, 1 phone number, one mission -- helping american businesses succeed. that is a big idea. [applause] we have put a lot of thought into this. of the past year we have spoke with folks across the government and across the country, and most importantly we spoke with businesses, including hundreds of small businesses to hear what works and what does not when you

deal with the government, what is frustrating, what is actually value added. frankly in those conversations we found some unsatisfied customers. a lot of times what we heard was the individual who i am working with was really helpful to me, but the process itself is too confusing. most of the complaints were not about an unresponsive to the federal worker. they were about a system that was too much of a maze. take a look at this light. -- at this slide. i do not usually use props in my speeches, but i thought this was useful. this is the system that small business owners face. this is what they have to deal with if they want even the most basic answers to the most basic questions, like how to export to a new country or whether they qualify for a loan.

by the way, this is actually simplified because there are some color codes here. [laughter] business owners did not get the blue and purple. there is a whole host of websites, all kinds of toll-free numbers, service centers, but each are offering different assistance. it is a mess. this should be easy for small business owners. they want to concentrate on making products, selling to customers. we are supposed to make it easier for them, and we can. there are tools we can put in place where every day they are helping small business owners across the country, but we're wasting too much time getting that help out. if congress would reinstate the authority at the previous presidents would have, we would be able to fix this.

we have one department, where entrepreneurs can go the day they come up with an idea and need a patent until the day they start building a product and need financing for a warehouse, to the day they are ready to export. one website, easy-to-use, clear, one department where all the trade agencies would work together to ensure businesses and workers can better export by better enforcing our trade agreements, when department dedicated to help businesses sell their products so that 95% of the global customers can buy them beyond our shores. with this authority, we could help businesses grow, state does is time, save taxpayer dollars. this is just one example of what we could do. the contrast between this and this sums up what what we could

do on the business side, but these kinds of inefficiencies exist across government. there is a real opportunity right now for us to rethink reform and remake our government to meet the demands of our time, said it is worthy of the american people so that it works. this should not be a partisan issue. congress needs to reinstate this authority that in the past has been given to democratic and republican presidents for decades. in the meantime, as long as folks are looking for work at small businesses are looking for customers, i will keep doing everything i can with my current authority to help. to take one example, as of today i am elevating the small business administration to a cabinet level agency. [applause]

karen mills who has been doing an outstanding job leading that agency is going to make sure that small business owners have their own seat at the table in our cabinet meetings. in the coming weeks we will unveil a new website, business usa, and this will be a one-stop shop and consolidate information that right now is spread across all these various sites, so it is all in one place and is easy to search. with or without congress, i am going to keep at it, but it would be a lot easier if congress helped. [laughter] this is an area that should receive bipartisan support, because making our government more responsive and strategic and leaner, it should not be a partisan issue. we can do this better. we can provide tax payers better

value. so much of the argument out there all the time is up in a 40,000 feet, these abstract arguments about who is conservative or liberal. most americans and certainly most small business owners, you're just interested in how we make things work. that is what this is about. i will keep fighting every day to rebuild the economy so our work pays off, responsibility is rewarded, and we have got a government that is helping to create the foundation for the incredible energy and entrepreneurs ship but all of you represent. i will keep fighting to make sure that middle-class families regained the security they have lost over the last decade. i have said before, i believe this is a make or break moment for families who are trying to get in the middle class, folks trying to maintain their

security, try to start businesses. there is enormous potential out there, but the trend lines and our global economy are moving toward our direction of openness and innovation. we have to take advantage of it, and you need a strong ally in effected, lean government. that is what this authority can do. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. [applause] >> candidates are stumping in south carolina as that state's primary approaches. mitt romney is campaigning in south carolina in aiken.; he will travel to hilton head later. rick perry is hosting an event today in bluffton.

rick santorum is in the york. mitt romney will hold a town hall meeting in hilton head, and joining him will be john mccain and south carolina governor nicki haley. our road to the white house coverage continues today at 6:20 eastern as santorum, gingrich, and huntsman take part in a form today in duncan, south carolina. it is hosted by the greenville county republicans, and that begins live at 6:20 eastern on c-span. >> this place, you will stand for all time, among monuments to those who have fathered this nation and those who defended it, a black preacher, with no

official rank or title, who somehow gave voice to our deepest dreams and our most lasting ideas. >> saturday at 9:30, president obama is torn by civil rights leaders and the king family for the dedication of that martin luther king jr. memorial on the national mall this weekend on american history totv. civil war scholars look at the history of the war, and sunday at 3:00, from serving in the navy, now senator john kerry begin a vocal opponent of the vietnam war. his story on the american history tv this weekend on c- span3. this weekend, but t.d. looks at the life and legacy of dr. martin luther king jr.. saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern,

congressmen and civil rights activists, and then sunday afternoon, an examination of the many speaking sides of martin luther king jr.. also, in a new release, "the new york times" correspondent looks at the first couple. aberdeen that at 11, -- saturday night at 11:00, book tv. the jonathan gruber is at a communist who has served as an advisor for the national health care reform bill. plan implemented in massachusetts. this is a little more than an hour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

basic health care. we have to recognize that it is america and some people want to buy better health care, we need to let them in most european countries you can buy with your own dollars -- we need to let them. in most european countries you can buy with your own dollars better health care. >> you change topics quite a bit. you mentioned revenue, and how massachusetts was lucky. it had $350 million coming down the pike. the national bill does not have that. the national bill also raised a lot of revenue. and i think it is -- our deficit is decrease because of it. can you tell us about that? who gets taxed? who pays for it? >> president obama laid out the number one principle in this bill, that there should not increase the deficit. to make this work, we had to spend about $1 trillion.

we had to raise revenue to reduce spending. first, it cuts private health insurance that insured the medicare population. but we were paying $1.17 for medicare insurance. we raise about $300 billion by reducing reimbursement to hospitals that treat medicare patients. about half of it was costs and spending, but half of it was also increasing revenues. those come from two sources. one is the sectors that operate on this bill. pharmaceutical sector, the medical device sector, the insurance sector, they will all pay new excise tax. the second is the new tax on the wealthiest americans, an

increase in the medicare payroll tax for families above $250,000. >> he mentioned the pharmaceutical industry, health insurance -- you mentioned the health insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, does this help them become better citizens? >> i think it does. the trade off with the political feasibility argument is that we had to bring private insurers along. i know that upsets a lot of people. the bill tries to keep them as good citizens in two important ways. the first is the so-called health insurance exchanges. right now, if you want to buy health insurance in the so- called non-employer market, it is hard to shop effectively. it is confusing, prices are high. this sets up an exchange for all non-employer in jurors will come to one place that will be competitive -- insurers will come to one place that will be competitive and easy to shop. we have done it in massachusetts. i think it beats the pants off

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

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

that much uncertainty ahman the public -- is crazy to put that much uncertainty on the public. blogger will you be kicked off because you are sick and blogger will be charged -- and no longer will you be dropped if you're healthy. >> we have community-based intervention, which i think are really important. if you look at the health of the committee, it is often times driven much more by what we do in our community as opposed to political intervention. what does the bill do to make a difference in those areas? >> the bill is trying to make a difference in those areas. it puts a lot of money and resources into community health centers to try to improve those centers to meet the needs of their communities. as i said, a lot of money for individual-based prevention. there is a lot of money for wellness and initiatives. what the bill tries to do is not just to ensure people, but

to built on the resources to improve people's health beyond medical care. >> i have spoken to a lot of people who are very upset about people getting a entitlements or a gift given to them. the issue of personal responsibility rises with the population of the time. how does this bill address personal responsibility? >> it is fascinating, because what is more personal about personal responsibility than an individual mandate? the genesis was in a conservative think tank. when mitt romney signed the bill in 2006 from on the podium with him was a spokesman for the heritage foundation saying how wonderful the bill was. because that is about personal responsibility. it is about ending the free ride for individuals when they are sick and to jump back out when they are healthy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clinton. he knows about this well. basically, mitt romney was a real believer in this. i really only had one meeting with the team. and in that meeting, it was basically mitt romney defending this against his political advisers. they said, this is a terrible idea for you. and he said, no, this is really cool and we can do this. because in his heart he is a management consultant. he is an engineer. and massachusetts was getting money from the federal government. we can put this together without raising taxes. as a republican, he thought this was pretty neat. we will have personal responsibility for the mandate and we will cover it without raising taxes. he was excited to put the puzzle together. he was a human shield in the spirit of -- shield in this. i'm not saying that because i'm a democrat.

he was really for this. it is really true. i am as disappointed as anyone that he has walked away from it the way he has. >> thank you for your clear presentation. your answers are terrific. my question is about the public auction, which died a sad death, and whether genuine cost control is even possible without a public option to drive it. you have discussed the experiments, but meanwhile my understanding is in massachusetts the cost for private employers are at an unsustainable rate. they have to be controlled for

the program to work. can you have cost control without a public option. >> the great question. they are raising at the national rate, which is fast. the public option is a great issue. i am a big fan of the public option. it was a great idea. the left wants a single pair. the right wants a competitive exchange. let's put them together. it was such a great idea that both sides hated it. the left did not what it unless there was an advantage for the single payer. the right, was worried it would be too successful. the message is that do not be

too upset about that. it was never as big of a deal as it was made out to be. let's say there are three sellers of apples and they are 20 minutes from each other. each does not have to worry about competition. they could charge a high price. thatlet's set up another is 20 minutes away. they are cheaper. it will help some, but a lot of people will not go there because they do not know about it. if you also go back on the web site, that will help more. putting them on the web site, that is the big difference. it -- the public option is putting their feet to the fire to saying the show was what you

have relative to the alternative. let's see what that does. if that does not work, we would have to revisit the single payer. i have worked with connecticut which plans to include a public option within its exchange. we would then see if it is as useful. the message is not that the public option is bad, but it is not as big of the deal as people make it out to be. if that does not work, we will have to revisit a single payer system. this is the last best hope for private insurance. if we can not control costs under this structure, we would have to start over. >> yes. over here. >> yes.

is there anything in this that addresses preventative care as far as nutrition -- chemicals, food, sugar -- incentives to produce these things? it seems like you will have good incentive on one side, but on the other side someone will always be pulling. without getting rid of these, how do you later more on top? >> it is a great question. this is my frustration -- my biggest frustration with critics of the bill is that it went as far as it could. there are a lot of issues it needs to address. it does prevented screening. it also a dresses -- addresses a

tricky issue -- prices based on the efforts people make to take care of their health. you could pay a lower price. that is a good thing. if it goes too far, it becomes a discrimination. the bill tries to balance. it does not take on the food systems and production problems. sugar so the availability and information about nutrition -- these are issues we have to deal with. the bill does not get into them. >> my question is why is health care spending in the united states two or three times as expensive as any other country with no better results? >> that is a great question.

we are twice the average. part of that is because we are richer and bigger, but it is still one-third higher than it needs to be. we do not really know exactly why. partly, it is prices. we pay more for prescription drugs. we pay more for mri's. part of it is prices, but it is not all of it. part of it is utilization. in many european countries they go to the doctor more than we do. in japan they use twice as many prescription drugs. what is unique about the u.s. is the system squeezes' you and it does not let go. it keeps you in the hospital longer. that is the quantity -- the

intensity of treatment once you get into the system. that is hard to deal with. many may have seen the "new yorker" article. it compared two regions in texas. they had similar outcomes, yet one spent twice as much. the reason is an -- they do tons of extra procedures. the problem is, if you go to those doctors, they will say this case needed this test. they make a compelling case for each example. are we going to tell doctors how they cannot do that? that is a problem we have to figure out. in the european countries,

partly because they control prices, they have not really run into this problem. >> he is right. >> it seems to me one of the big changes is the ability for people to change jobs -- they will not give shut out from employer-too-employer, or even if they set up a business of their own. has there been work done to put a value to that to the economy as a whole? >> a question after my own heart. that is what much of my economic research was on, questioning the notion that people will be afraid to change jobs. among people that have health

insurance, there is a 25% reduction. that is a problem. a positive source of exceptional was and is how fluid our labor market is -- people could move to jobs matches that are best for them. health insurance tied to employers blocks that. this will end back. i think it will be a major boon to our economy. it has not been well quantified. we do not a great estimate, but it will improve labour mobility. >> t.r reed noted in his book we are the only country with for- profit insurance companies. is that relevant? >> it is really not prevalent. -- relevant.

basically, the problem -- by and large, honestly, the problem is not insurers. there are some dead actors. some of them will go away. some insurance says we will pay $500 a day for your state, with people not realizing that a stay in the hospital is $3,000. some earn excessive profits. that will go away with medical loss ratio regulations. with those regulations in place there is not evidence that for- profit and non--profits behave differently. -- nonprofits behave differently.

>> stage right. >> when these plans are set up, we're looking at a static health-care system, but it is not static. there are new drugs, new procedures. there is compatible effectiveness, but that looks at a static system. health care is also driving forward because we are not cured most diseases, in fact any, or very few. there is also, if you will, an industry. how will the bill address the ability to go forward, and how will it be flexible enough to allow the program -- appropriate

changes to happen? >> there are two factors that explain the difficulty. from 1950 until today, health care costs have almost quadrupled gdp. most of it has been worth it. there is an article that documents how much healthier we are. in 1950 if you had a heart attack your three times as likely to die. if you have a skiing accident, you had arthritis the rest of your life. health care is better now. fact two -- we waste about one- third of what we spend on health care. how was that consistent? how can the increase be worth it, yet we lay -- waste 1/3. the answer is the other two

thirds is awesome. that is why the right answer is not to say we will no longer spent, -- spend more than 18% on health care. that would be a mistake because we do not know what is coming down the pike. new innovations will come along. the question is -- how do we separate the fat from the muscle. it will be more competitive research and that is why cost control is so hard. >> one of the economic arguments i have heard is that healthy people will pay the penalty until they become catastrophically ill, and that

will drive up costs for everyone. is that a valid question? >> there is a balancing act with the mandate. if you have a mandate that said if you do not have health insurance, we will kill you, that would be effective. [laughter] >> on the other hand, if you say have health insurance because it is a good idea, it will not work so well. the other penalty is paying 2% -- there is a balancing act. it is comparable to the penalty in massachusetts almost everyone complies with the mandate in massachusetts. we are relatively law-abiding. people should cheat more on their taxes than they do. we are pretty law-abiding people. if you have a mandate in place

with a penalty that is real, which this does, by and large people comply. the estimate of the congressional budget office is this bill will cover 60% of the uninsured. three groups are left out. undocumented immigrants are left out. second, it is people that would be exempt because while we want to bring people in we do not want to penalize those that cannot afford it. one-third will not comply -- the third is the people that do not comply. as long as you have enough people to keep costs down, that will work. this will be constantly evolving. the biggest change we ever made to the medicare program was the prescription drug act. these programs change a lot. we are far from done, but this

is the best estimate how to balance mandates that are a humane but will really work. >> stage right. >> i had a question regarding the ending of reimbursements. i am very much -- i do support universal health care. i'm very liberal in that aspect. i am a cardiac nurse and congestive heart failure is one of the top reasons for readmission into hospitals. knowing that that is a degenerative disease, and in these economic times is very hard to prevent readmission just due to lack of insurance or being able to afford the medications, and at a certain point you can not. you need to be readmitted.

eventually, you end up not getting out. what i've seen in this bill in that aspect -- the closest thing i can correlate it to is how teachers felt during the passing of no child left behind. it is put pressure on the nurses. charting, discharge instructions, paperwork we have to do -- that is where the hospitals put the pressure, and we are already spread so thin. i wanted to get your opinion, and if you could expand on the decision and the logic behind that because it seems a little backwards. >> economics is called a dismal science because a lot of what we do is point out problems and not solve them. this is a balancing act, as i have mentioned many times. no one hand, a key cause is

excessive hospital readmission. hospitals rush you out when you are not ready to leave. then there are those that need to be readmitted. how do you balance those? the bill lowers medicare reimbursement for hospital readmission to penalize hospitals with excessive readmission, but not get rid of it completely. that is the kind of thing we need to study. the bill may go too far. it might hurt patient health. we have to study that. what we know for sure is we are doing to many real admissions, spending too much money. the closest parallel is in 1983 medicare went to a brand new reimbursement system. you were paid a fixed amount for each admission regardless of what was done. after that was put in place,

there was a reduction of patients readmitted with no reduction in health. hopefully, that is an example where we did the right thing and save money without risking health. we have to try these things and hope to get the same outcome. >> stage left. >> there was of peace in the "new england journal" about one of the challenges in the supreme court out of florida that the federal government could not force the states to raise the number of people covered by medicaid. the supreme court decided they wanted to hear it again. what are the chances that none of this matters and the supreme court will pull a citizens

united and get rid of the log? -- law? >> the supreme court decision as four elements. one is the mandate. another is a much more scary one -- the federal government reimburses states for 100% of medicaid coverage for the first several years, and 90% after the for several years. if the federal government can not compel states to undertake the public good, that is a huge consequence. i was distressed to see that only one decision supported this. it was the most radical. this judge cited the boston tea party. it was a radical decision. i am confident they will not

find this is unconstitutional. >> thank you. stage right. >> there was the question from the woman trying to compare the costs and you spoke about how massachusetts has made transparency greater for people in the market. one thing i struggle with is the transparency i have in terms of understanding what the things i do will cost patients, or for that matter what the outcomes of my choices are. i am not clear how this bill, if it does -- short of the aco model, how it increases feedback? the bill does not do enough explicitly on that. it does things basically been

pleasantly to the notion of setting up structures where there is the incentive to setup feedback. it ran into political barriers. a great example would be discussions about end of life care. we know what sarah palin does with death panels, and we were done. a lot of it was labeled as rationing and was pulled from the bill. the hope is that implicit in this will happen. insurers will set up ways to use that information more effectively. we see it in some of these organizations set up. i work for an insurer called care first. they have a model where primary physicians will see the cost, and bear some financial risks. they will say you should care

about this because we will take a little bit from your pocket. i think it will really -- given that the government as politically unable to set those things up, it is up to the insurers to lead on that front. >> stage left. >> there are a fair amount of us here that our residents, and in training we hear a lot about ordering this test to cover yourself or document this to cover yourself. is there anything in the bill that would have some changes in medical legal so that if you change your reasoning about what you are ordering, so it is not always just covering yourself, which inevitably raises costs in 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 sets up pilots.

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. instinct is that doctors would still wary even without malpractice law. certainly, we would like to try with work which to work with malpractice and see if that could help. >> stage right. >> there have been some editorials in the medical community about the success of medicine. more and more people are living into old age, and we will have more dementia. it is actually increasing.

with end of life care been so expensive, will build support ideas with helping to manage those costs? >> that is a growing share of the health-care bill and it is an important issue dealt with harshly. one major feature was to introduce insurance, the so- called class act. that was decided to have not been written appropriately so did administration is not using the program. there are other features that improve community-based care, which reno is cheaper and makes people happier -- which we know is cheaper and make people happier than being in nursing homes. it is not a major focus. it is something we need to keep were eight -- working on. i think it is going to be a

challenge. >> stage left. >> hello. i like to ask about an excess issue if we have a bill that is bringing many more previously uninsured folks into the fold of health care. i hear about the shortage of primary-care physicians. if we're going to have 50 million people coming into our office, is there anything in the bill that addresses that? >> that is a great question. in massachusetts, we have a shortage of primary-care physicians, a shortage after, and it has not changed. there will be 30 two million people added to the insurance rolls. you cannot add that many people without putting some strain on the system. that is why the bill has features to improve the number of primary care doctors and access to primary care physicians in america, but it is

not enough. look, you go to med school right now. here is your choice, be a community doctor, making a good living, works 60 hours a week, where you could be a dermatologist, work 35 hours a week, and make $400,000 a year. we have a system that is out of whack with the fundamental reimbursed we are putting in place with different types of doctors. until we get that addressed we're not going to deal with the primary care shortage in america. >> thank you. stage fright. >> i want to ask a question about basic health. i know you have written about how churning most from 138% to 20%, so it is not helping much. -- 200%. so it is not helping much.

travel members will be mad when they find out i talk them into buying health care. i think we should argue. >> somebody who is read my work. thank you. the question is about something called the basic health plan. the way the bill works is we expand public coverage up to 36% of the poverty line. until we get to four times the poverty line, there are tax credits or you pay a certain percentage of income on a sliding scale, and the government picks up the rest. one option is from 133%-to-200%.

states could say we will continue to make it free. we will afford that because we pay doctors less. what we will do is have people pay less, and paid doctors less. doctors are not a huge fan of this option. there are arguments for and against it. the argument is to make insurance more affordable. in my view it does not increase insurance churning. primary care doctors are already strained. it puts more strain on that. i think is a state-by-state decision the basic health plan is based on a plan here, in washington state, and i think washington state would want to keep that. other states would have to consider it.

i think it needs to be decided state-by-state. >> two more questions. >> shifting back to politics, briefly, one of the ways mitt romney has tried to disavow what he did in massachusetts is the are given.ht is there a reason why this would not scale nationwide nex? >> no. [laughter] >> mitt romney had a choice of three things. he could have done what newt gingrich did to marriages and just this about it, i did -- i need a problem, and it was in the past. he could've said it was a great idea. he tried the middle ground, to say it was right for massachusetts, and in the

process he said some things that was disingenuous, because he said it did not have to raise taxes. he said it is not right for the country, but has never said why. it does work for the rest of the country, except for the fact you have to pay for it. that is the big difference with the federal bill. >> our last question. stage right. >> in seattle, we estimate there are 8000 people that are homeless tonight, some of them for reasons of their own, refused to apply for medicaid. what will happen to these people who refuse to get access to health insurance? >> as you can tell, i'm a big fan of the affordable care at,

but it does not do everything. a remaining problem remains low- income people on the margins of society. in massachusetts we have achieved a 90% insurance rate. the 2% not insured are mostly low-income people did get free health insurance and just do not take it. these are people that do not understand or comprehend. maybe there is a language barrier. there is a huge role for community outreach to continue to explain to people that the system is there for them and if they get in while they are healthy, the system could help them so much more. so, this bill does not solve all the problems. we still need help from community organizations to make sure people get into the system. >> i would like to state thank you to the audience. this is the most knowledgeable and in durable body and. i of won quick comment.

-- enjoy audience. i have won quick comment. i think we're going to get a structure in place and try to improve it over time. i think it is an important thing to do. i think it is a structure. we've made decisions for the country. i would like to see us make them better i would like to citywide to jonathan, for a great presentation. -- state thank you to jonathan for a great presentation. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you very much. thank you very much tied thank you for having me. -- very much. thank you for having me. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> as a presidential candidates to continue their campaigning in

south carolina this week, mitt romney is holding a town hall meeting for veterans later today. arizona senator and former presidential candidate himself john mccain and south carolina governor niki haley will be there. the governor has endorsed mitt romney. we will have that live here on c-span. our road to the white house coverage will continue with rick santorum and newt gingrich taking part in a presidential forum in duncan, south carolina, hosted by the green go county and spartan county republicans. -- dreams of county and spartan county republicans. we'll bring you the oral arguments on the fcc rules of policing foul language and nudity. the court decides if they have the constitutional ability to enforce rules. that is tonight, it can't p.m. eastern progress in this episode of fact check video, -- eastern.

>> in this episode, we look at rick perry. >> an extraordinary number of scientists have manipulated their record >> irate different comments on a one -- i a great different comments on a 1-to-4 scale. >> in his "washington post" fact check column, glenn kessler evaluates the truthfulness of candidates and others. >> if a politician says the same thing over and over again, even when it has been pointed out that it is not true, they know they are saying something that is not true and will just say it anyway. >> sunday night at 8:00 on c- span's "q&a."

>> the chair of the president's council of economic advisers says the income inequality threatens economic growth. alan krueger spoke with the chancellor for american progress yesterday here in washington. -- center for american progress yesterday here in washington. this is about one hour. >> good morning. welcome to the center for american progress. my name is neera tanden. i want to thank you for joining us. i want to welcome alan krueger to the center. he wants to discuss how rising inequality in the united states is a threat to our middle class. he has been engaging in a broad body of work around this. we are excited to kick off the discussions this year. we are very lucky to have him here at this point in time when

the nation is really engaged in a debate about america's growth and how much and how important a thriving middle class is to that growth. i think on a regular basis we talk about a strong middle class. these ideas have become, in some ways, almost a cliche. i think it is important for us to remember that the actual notion of a strong and vibrant middle class is the most important ingredient to a strong economy. a growing economy. a point that is uniquely american. the united states model that was developed in the 21st century of a series of proposals in the public and private sector and

insuring that growth is shared has been fundamental to american strength. while we debate it back and forth, it is particularly important as progressives that we recognize how important it has been. a thriving middle class is under attack. we have been going through economic change and dislocation that has made people very wary of the economic challenges we face. we would like to focus the conversation of economics on where we are today. i think from the perspective of the center, we have to be reminded of how much the roles

have really changed. how conservative economic policies have really hindered growth for the middle class. just a few statistics i would like to cite. in 1966, the richest americans held just 9% of all income. today, they take home almost 24% and control 40% of the nation's total wealth. they have seen their share of the national income fall. a child born into poverty after world war ii -- only one in three would get that kind of shot today. when we think about that promise of the american dream and we think of ensuring that we have opportunities for all americans, we have to recognize that is a real question today.

some of the stuff we have seen in the political debates challenge that. at its core, our country is wrestling with how do we ensure our children have that same opportunity and fairness that generations previously had. this is why i think the president's speech last month in kansas was so important. he really located this debate in terms of the long-term struggles we have had in wrestling with those policy and economic issues about how we have to ensure that the middle class received that sense of fairness. that wariness that the american dream is no longer alive for everyone is really in our politics today. one quote i would like to read from the president's speech is, "what made this country great has eroded." he went on to say, "our success

has not just been about -- it has been about building a nation where we are all better off." that is why we are so excited to have alan krueger here today. there is no one i know in the field of economic policy who has dived deeper into that question of ensuring how we can have policies that ensure we are all better off. i met him two years ago. we worked together on health care reform. he was a star in the field of economics. he combines an economics rigor with a warm heart. he really has spent his career diving into these important issues around policies. which is, why do people do what

they do? how can we ensure a public and private sector -- that we are making policies that work for everyone? that we focus on economic opportunity for all americans and ensure that we are doing the right things by all americans. that is the set of values and approaches that he brought every day to our discussions of health care reform. and what he does every day now as chairman of the economic advisers. i cannot think of a better person when struggling with these questions about inequality and shared values to have here with us than alan krueger. alan? [applause] >> that was a more dramatic

transition then i was expecting. thank you everyone for inviting me here today. i want to congratulate you for becoming the president of cap. i know it is not easy to follow in your predecessor's footsteps, but i am sure you can. as you mentioned, we worked closely together on health care reform. what i remember most about you from those days was how cheerful you were at every meeting and how dedicated you were to the goal of expanding health insurance to all those who could not afford coverage or who had been denied coverage for reasons of previous health conditions. we will return to this issue at the end of my remarks. the topic i will address is an apology. as you may know, i am a labor economist. labor economics is studying work and pay. it occurred to me that labor

economics can also be described as an attempt to understand inequalities related to the job market. although i have done much research in my career on inequality, i used to have an aversion to using the word "inequality." in fact, the wall street journal once ran an article in the mid-90s that i preferred to use the word dispersion. but the rise in income dispersion along so many dimensions has gotten to be so great, that i now think inequality is a more appropriate term. the rise of inequality in the u.s. over the last three decades has reached the point that inequality in income is causing an unhealthy division in opportunities.

and it is a threat to our economic growth. restoring a greater degree of fairness to the u.s. job market would be good for business, good for the economy, and good for the country. president obama summarized the rise of inequality very successfully in his kansas speech when he said, "over the last few decades, the runs of the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther a part. the middle class has shrunk." these trends are well documented, but worth reviewing to understand the implications. if you indulge me, i will show you some charts. the first chart shows the annual growth rate of real income for families in each 1/5 of the income distribution over

two periods. the figure shows all 1/5's put together from the end of world war ii to the late 1970's, but since the 1970's, income has grown more for families at the top of the income distribution than in the middle. it has shrunk for those at the bottom. we were growing together for the first three decades after world war ii. but for the last three decades, we have been growing further apart. here at cap, i should point out that the pattern during the post-1970 period is not monolithic. the next chart shows the period from 1992 to 2000. this period was an exception. strong economic growth and the

policies of the clinton administration led all segments of the income distribution to grow together again. indeed, all income groups experienced an increase in income for years in this period from 1992 to 2000. i can also note that, parenthetically, there is no sign in this data that the tax increases of the early 1990's had an adverse affect on income growth. the next chart shows the level of income earned by the median household each year after adjusting for inflation. half of households earned less in the median, half earned more. the median is right in the middle. you concede that the median household saw a decline in real income in the year 2000. if the first decade of the

2000's had saw the growth of the 1990's, middle class families would have an extra -- to spend on their mortgages, rent, food, or to add to their savings. the next chart shows how much after-tax income has grown for parts of the income distribution since 1979. again, after adjusting for inflation. this is based on a different source of data from income tax returns. the numbers are from the nonpartisan congressional budget office. the congressional budget office noted in a recent report that the top 1% of families saw a 278% increase in their real, after-tax income from 1979 to 2007. the middle 60% had an increase of less than 40% in this period.

because of these trends, the very top income earners have pulled much further ahead of everyone else. the following chart shows the share of all national income by the top 1% and 0.1% of households. not since the roaring 1920's has the share of income going to the very top had such high levels. the magnitude of these shifts is mind boggling. the share of all income growing to the top 1% increased by 13.5 percentage points. that was from 1979 to 2007. this is the equivalent of giving -- to the top 1%. put it another way, the increase of the share of income over this period exceeds the

total amount received by the entire bottom 44% of households. as a consequence of the momentous shift in the income distribution that i have just described, the middle class has shrunk. the next chart illustrates this development by showing a percentage of households whose income falls within 50% of the median. that is, we placed a band around the middle, plus or minus 50%. we calculated households that fell within this band. we found that just over half of all households with income of

50% of the median in 1970 to -- the middle class has been shrinking for some time. my friend from harvard used the term "polarization" to describe what is going on in the income distribution. we have more families falling into the extreme end and far fewer in the middle. the statistical word for this, i should note, is [inaudible]. i can see why polarization has caught on. higher income inequality would be less of a concern if low income earners became high income earners at some point in their career or if children of

low income parents had a good chance of climbing up the income scales when they grow up. in other words, if we had a high degree of income mobility, we would be less concerned about the degree of inequality in any given year. but we do not. moreover, as inequality has increased, evidence suggests that year to year, generation to generation, economic mobility has decreased. recent work finds that a worker's initial position in the distribution is highly predictive of how much he or she will earn later in their career. studying tax data, for example, finds that income mobility over

the career has been stable since the 1970's when all workers are considered as a whole. for men, however, there has been a decline in income mobility over their career since the 1970's. this decline has been offset by an increase for women, but a different pattern for women is probably a result of changing the labor force attachment over their career rather than an increase in career mobility due to a fundamental change in the operation of the labor market. more research has been done on the question of intergenerational income mobility. studies that followed data over long periods of time between parents and children find correlations between parental

and child incomes. a reasonable summary is that the correlation between parents and their children's income is around 0.5%. this is remarkably similar to the correlation that was found between parents' height and their children's height over 100 years ago. this fact shows a correlation of 0.5% between parents' income and children's income in perspective. a child born to a family in the bottom 10% of the income distribution rising to the top 10% as an adult is about the same chance as a dad who is 5'6" tall having a son who grows up to be over 6'1". this happens, but not that often. another statistic between

parents and children as income is called the intergenerational income elasticity. this means that if someone's parents earned 50% more than the average, their child can be expected to earn about 20% more than the average in their generation. as was recently highlighted in "the new york times," parental income matters more for success in the u.s. than a dozen other economic countries. new research from the university of ottawa finds intriguing links between inter- generational inequality and income inequality at a point in time.

countries that have a high degree of inequality also tend to have less economic mobility across generations. we have extended his work using after-tax and income inequality data. i can show you this in the next figure. this figure shows a scatter diagram. it is the relationship between income mobility across generation, that is on the vertical axis. thatality in the 1980's, is on the horizontal axis. each point here represents a country.

higher values along the horizontal axis represent greater inequality in family resources, roughly around the time that the children represented in the vertical axis were growing up. higher values on the vertical axis indicate less economic mobility across generations. i have called this curve "the great gatsby curve." this indicates that countries that have more inequality across households also had more persistence in income from one generation to the next. i documented at the beginning of my talk that the u.s. has seen a very sharp rise in inequality since the 1980's. if this relationship across countries holds in the future,

we would expect to see a rise in the persistence in income across the generations in the u.s. as well. that is, we would expect to see mobility decline because of the trends that have taken place over the past few decades. while we will not know for sure whether and how much income mobility across generations has been exasperated -- i should say income immobility across generations has been exasperated in the u.s., we will not know this until today's children have grown up and completed their careers. we can use the great gatsby curve to make a rough test. the next figure displays this forecast. forecast.