neera tanden. then, it is prime minister's questions with david cameron. after that, more road to the white house coverage. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> this week, president of the center for american progress. >> neera tanden, how much do you remember about growing up with your mother on food stamps? >> i remember a lot about it.

my most vivid memory is going to school and i had free and reduced lunch at school. and i went to suburban schools. it was a pretty middle-class suburb of boston. i remember being the only student there who had a 10 cents voucher for school lunches. i knew that was different from everybody else. but i was very fortunate because i was able to stay, going to very good schools in bedford when my parents got divorced. they were divorced when i was 5. my father left for a few years. my mother had never worked a day in her life. because of a variety of government programs, she was forced out of -- she was able to

-- she was forced out of her house, but she was able to find housing in bedford itself, a new development there. i felt very lucky, looking back at it, being able to stay in those schools. >> how old were you? >> i was 5 when my parents got divorced. my mother was on welfare for two years or three years and then she got a job as a travel agent. a few years after that, she started working at raytheon as a contract administrator. by the time i was 11, she bought her own house in bedford. i am incredibly proud of my mom's accomplishments. she was an indian woman with two children.

she used a lot of resources to pull herself up and make sure that i had a better life. >> and both of your parents come from india. when did they come? what were their circumstances? >> my father came in the early 1950's. he came to graduate school here. he went to harvard. he had a master's from harvard law school. he did college work in india. then my father went back to get married. my parents had an arranged marriage in india. then my mother went to college and came ended college work at brandeis university in massachusetts. they settle down in bedford, massachusetts. i was born in 1970. and the story goes from there. >> how did you get from boston, which may have the largest concentration of students in the country, to ucla?

>> my brother, who is five years older, went to usc, the university of southern california in los angeles. he had already gone out to school there. i actually applied to ucla a bit on a lark. i got accepted to schools on the east coast, but decided to do something very different. i decided to go to school 3,000 miles away. i cannot say my mother was ecstatic about that. i wanted a new experience. it was a unique situation. it is a public university in a city. so it was quite affordable. so you could get the experience of the city. los angeles was an incredible experience because massachusetts was not very diverse. at the time, bedford was 95% white. there were very few asians, very

few african-americans, no latinos. so to go to ucla, which was extremely diverse, was an incredible experience. i was very shy and high-school. then at ucla, i started getting involved in student government for my first elected office, vice-president of the student policbody at ucla. when i first got there, it was a cultural shock. but i acclimatized very quickly. the first campaign that i worked on was the dukakis campaign in 1988. that was my first semester at ucla. i first campaign job, i was a volunteer at the ucla debates in 1980 a8.

dukakis was asked about what would happen if kitty dukakis was murdered, which he answered very poorly. but remember i was actually at ucla when that happened, backstage. i had a bunch of great experiences and lots of opportunities because ucla is such a great school and a large school and in a central urban city. >> when do you define your political views? >> inouye, it is funny. when i was 11 -- you know, it is funny. when i was 11, i was an active ronald reagan supporter. another was a democrat paired i had a huge arguments with her -- a democrat. i had a huge argument with her. but then i switch to high school. i was interested in women's issues. i was pro-choice as a move into

college. i was very clearly a democrat by the time i got to that first semester and started volunteering for mike dukakis. >> what do you feel the strongest when it comes to issues? >> because of my own experience, and fill most passionately about ensuring -- i know it sounds a little cliche -- but i feel strongly that people have access to opportunity. we are very polarized in washington about the role of government. i feel like i am living example of a person who was helped by a series of government programs. if those programs did not exist, a mother would have had to go back to india, a divorced woman. my whole family would have been stigmatized. my opportunities would have been far more limited. a series of programs, food stamps, free and reduced lunches, section 8 housing,

those were all make or break for me and an important moment in my life. if i did not have those opportunities, i would not be here today for sure and i would not be doing the things i love doing. insuring that other people have those opportunities and other kids have those opportunities is why i do the work i do. >> you have been the head of the center for american progress for how long? >> three months. i started on november 1, 2011. >> how big is it? how much money do you spend a year? >> we have a combined budget -- there is the center for american progress and the center for american progress action fund is $40 million. we have two hundred 50 people who work there. in 2003, we started, not too long ago. it has been a rapid rise for us

and it has been very stunning. i am one of the first staff members and helped draft our mission statement and a few other things like that. it is something that, sort of, i am proud of to be a part of for a very long time. >> i have a quote here that i wanted to read back to you and you can fill in the blanks produce a "-- fill in the blanks. you say "will expose the hollowness of conservative governing philosophy." what is behind that to? >> we are a progressive institution -- center for american progress is a progressive institution. we got started because there are a -- there is a lot of conservative thinking that works across issues. before, there had been no

progress of organization or progressive thinking that worked on domestic policy, for policy, and national security. we believe that organizations like heritage and the enterprise institute and kato have been very successful in pushing -- in particular, we have strong dissent humans -- disagreements with the positions they take. the idea that cutting taxes always grows the economy. we had tax cuts in the early days of the bush administration. it was the worst growth rate in any decade in 60 years. we think that the ideology -- we think there is a lot of ideology in washington with little facts behind them.

evidence- to make the based arguments behind our own views. when the facts do not argue for our position, we review the position. ultimately, the task is to be right about the position. >> you are sitting on top of this organization. you have to hundred 50 people. how do you relate on tax policy? who benefits by having you there? >> we come from the point of view that we should have a progressive tax code that benefits all americans. >> i am talking more about process. for example, can you lobby the white house? do you lobby congress? " we do not really lobby. we put out our own views.

we will be working this year on progressive tax reform. and we would provide those ideas on our website and send them to the white house and around the hill to both sides of congress. we do not really go lobby on particular pieces of legislation. we have a government affairs staff that works directly. but as an organization, we put our ideas out there and we hope people accept our ideas and work sometimes with the white house to give them ideas on something where we have -- we haven't advocacy arm, but that is not all we do. >> here is a video clip talking about the issue of defense. breakdown was he says. will not be easy.>> this

somebody has to look at the department of defense. if we do not, we will end up like general motors with a payroll cost. for example, when you decide on a military pay raise, how much you should get, they're using base pay. any of you who have been in the service knows that base pay is less than half of your compensation. so the pentagon's on reviews have said, determining the size of the pay raise, regular military compensation, you can reduce the military costs. plus, what is happening, people retire and go to work for a company and they do not take the health care plan. klutz means test this thing. let's see if you have other health care before we allow you to do that. >> larry korb is a senior fellow

with our national security team. he was in the reagan defense department in the pentagon. he was the person in charge of the budget for ronald reagan. he has developed a series of ideas about how to lower costs at the defense department. if you look at it, our defense department is higher on a per- capita basis than it was in the cold war. for a variety of reasons -- we have two wars that we did not have. >> the defense budget is $150 billion, but the cost of the war is $122 billion. >> it is $144 billion. >> that is the trigger you are talking about. >> and we have wars that we were

not fighting two decades ago. i do think that cap has taken a position to cut the pentagon budget. they will schedule something that will have substantial reductions and we will support it. we also have an idea of areas to pull back where it would be good at this time. i think it has actually been an important part of the debate that happened over the last year. because he has the experience of being in the pentagon, he did not look at these specific programs -- we have a series of ideas that i think account for least $100 billion a year. >> is there any benefit for somebody watching that they get a sense they like what you have to say anyone to get involved?

is there a way to use the material you produce? >> one thing that happens is how we communicate. there is a website and you can sign up for newsletters. we do a daily progress report which provides analysis on key issues that are happening in washington from day-to-day. that goes out to about 100,000 people. it is always gratifying to go out in the country and hear from somebody who is reading a progress report and is informed by it. that is another vehicle. we have social media, facebook page, a twitter feet, providing updated analysis on issues day by the -- day-by-day, minute by minute, hour by hour. we do have a radio studio. >> air america used to use your studio? >> yes.

>> heritage does the same thing, which is the conservative side. >> right. they used heavy tv studio and a radio studio. it has been something that a lot of progressive organizations can use and be a part of. >> what is a conservative view on offense vs. a progressive point of view on the fence? >> we think that national security is vital importance. this is an area that has been contested in interesting ways. i do not want to speak for all conservatives. but our view is that the best way to put forward america's national security is to have a financial defense that says think of the unified budget of this -- defense, military

weapons, and traditional defense spending -- but also look to diplomacy and development and ensuring that we're leading the world through strong alliances as a way that america can ensure that it is -- that the national security aims are being achieved. i do not want to speak for conservatives. i do not think there would necessarily disagree with those particular statements. but the focus more on the defense budget and we focus more on a full array of america's power bears. both are hard power and south power. but this was taken back in 2007. >> this was taken back in 2007. there are 11 people in front of a big photograph of hillary

clinton. >> a piano was actually in the background. that is not ashley "the washington post" photograph. that one had a black background. this is "the new republic." >> you are where in that picture? >> to the left looking at the screen. i am on the far left. >> we found this also in "new york magazine." >>hill is in the picture and why was it taken? >> i believe the story for this was the women in hillary's campaign.

they are a variety of people who have worked with hillary over a long time and who were engaged in her campaign effort. the point of the story is that it was a slightly different campaign then other presidential campaigns because there were so many women leaders in it. >> corp. marshall is in it. >> yes. >> she works for mrs. clinton now and others. >> cheryl mills i believe is in that picture. she works for hillary as well. >> her personal assistant is married to anthony wiener. i showed that picture because, how this town works -- are you all friends now? do you stay close? those people have gone to other jobs. >> yes. >> how does that work? >> i worked with hillary often on for over a decade.

it -- off and on for over a decade. i started when i was 28. >> that was three or four years ago. [laughter] >> i will not say how long. i think most of those people are still friends. obviously, hillary's campaign was challenging and had some racking moments in it. i consider myself -- >> how did you get your first job with hillary clinton? >> i was working in the communications office at the white house. >> with president clinton? >> the president clinton white house. there was a job opening in the domestic policy council. there was a national economic

council and in national city council. it was divided into a series of teams. and the children of families team -- there is an education team that turned out to be a tobacco team, a welfare team -- head start, child care after school -- there was an opening on that team. in the clinton years, it was cool-headed. it was domestic policy team and it was all so first lady hillary clinton's domestic policy issues. i applied for it. there was a group of people they interviewed. bruce reed was the chair the de at the time. i was fortunate enough to get

the job. i worked on a whole slew of issues for the first lady. we worked on health care -- >> for how long? >> it was about a year and half. i started there in november 1997. and in the summer of 99, i was getting married. my husband and i were going to move to new york. about three weeks before i got married, i went to hillary and said i am moving to new york. there was a lot of talk at that point about her running for senate. but i did not know anything definitive. i said, i would like to help you from my job. i will go to work for a law firm. and hillary turned to me -- i still remember this -- the bottom floor of the white house, the mention of the white house, and i was walking back from an event with her. i told her that and she turned to me and said, i want you to work for me.

i am thinking about doing this thing. you should work on it. and i was getting married a few weeks later. i did not expect it at all and it turned everything on its head. but it was fascinating. so i did that. and then i worked with her on a -- in a variety of ways since then. >> where did you meet your husband? >> we met on the dukakis campaign. we were both student leaders of the dukakis campaign in 1988, out in california. we were both freshman at ucla. we were both that this event where they were taking district districts. he took the ucla dorms and i took the area next to it, which happened to be bellaire -- bel

air. \ it is one of the wealthiest places in america. >> ronald reagan used to live there. >> a lot of hollywood stars live there. all of the houses are gated. so i had 150 voters. almost every single one of my voters had given money to michael dukakis. barry manilow was in my group. he was a committed dukakis supporter. i did not have much work to do, so i had to help this person. >> here is a picture of him, so the audience can see, with your kids. how long ago was mistaken? >> that was taken two years ago. >> how older the kids? >> that is my daughter, nine years old, and my son who is 6 years old now. >> what does your son do? >> he is a painter. he has been an artist. he has a gallery in new york. >> go back to mrs. clinton.

did you work on her senate staff? >> i did. only for a perio of time. -- a period of time. >> you have a yale law degree. >> i do pierre >> has that been important in all the work you have done? >> yale is in non-traditional law school in the sense that a lot of the law professors there actually like to think about what the law and should be rather than teach you what the lot is. my law school classis were, in some sense, public policy classes. why the laws were created, incentives to affect human behavior -- which was actually

incredibly helpful in the years since. my time at yale was fantastic. many people do not like logical to much, but i did. >> the health care bill that was passed out of the obama -- >> i've worked on some issues. i worked on the abortion issue. i worked on the immigration issue, not as much. >> why not? >> they were deeply controversial. they -- there were intractable forces on both sides. we needed to come up with new solutions that would bring a majority of support behind a bill. so there were a bunch of compromise forged in law, you had to get majority support from both houses of congress for, which proved difficult. but, ultimately, it happened. and i did a fair amount of work

on the exchanges and a fair amount of work on the public plan as well. >> when you look back on it, you were in the obama white house for how long? >> i was an adviser to secretary sebelius. i worked on the president's health reform team. i went to the white house every day. >> when you look back at the passing of that bill, how many people were involved? >> in the congress and ifor the president? >> how many people get their hands around some aspects of this bill that was passed? >> i would say about 100 people, maybe 150. there were a lot of people working on the committee. there was a committee of jurisdiction in the house and in the senate. from the president's side, i do

not think there were more than 12 or 50 people who were really working on it every day. but a lot of the president's senior staff spent tons of time on the health care bill. >> are you happy with it? >> i am, actually. any piece of fundamental legislation like that will have compromises. one thing that i try to remind my progressive friends is that we did not accomplish everything in the reform that we wanted, but there was a lot of compromise. it will cover 30 million more americans and no one will ever go bankrupt again because they do not have health care. that is the fundamental promise that the president held on. i am proud to be a part of a. >> what are the chances the supreme court will throw it out? >> what is the son of it is

group -- what is an amecus group. >> the supreme court allows them to have their own analysis of the question that the supreme court is considering in any given case. people who are involved in health care, people who have pre-existing conditions today, there are a variety of groups who represent cancer victims or cancer survivors and breast cancer victims and, you know, people with disabilities who are heavily impacted by the law itself because it eliminates pre-existing conditions and if the individual mandate falls apart, the pre-existing condition requirement will also be heavily undermined. we work with a variety of groups that make the argument

that the individual mandate should stay because it has this impact on all these people who will rely on it to get health care in the future. there are a variety of other groups, hospital groups, insurers, small businesses, who believe the individual mandate is helpful to them. >> what's your reaction when you hear governor romney say, or newt gingrich, the first day i'm in the white house, i will repeal obamacare. >> well, a different reaction for both of them. particularly for governor romney you know, he would be repealing in some sense romney care, we did -- i worked on the health care bill, i know we used massachusetts as a model, there's 97% of the same structure in the massachusetts plan as in the affordable care act. you know mitt romney never passed health care reform in massachusetts, it would never

have happened at the federal level because we used that model. as a basis for moving forward. and so, you know, i think that an instance where -- that's an ince stance where there's a lot of issues at play, romney has 100% shifted, you know, from my point of view, unfortunately, because he did actually accomplish something very significant and very few governors had actually accomplished, he created a universal health care system that people in massachusetts love. the approval ratings on it are 55%, 75%. >> let's just say for a talking point, he wins. and -- does he have the power as president to eliminate obamacare overnight? >> no, no, no. he could -- he would have to pass legislation and, you know, that would mean overcoming a filibuster in the senate, there is difficulty with that. he would as executive have a lot of ability to slow it down

or undermine it but he would not be able to with a shake of the hand or whatever be able to just repeal the bill. >> so why do people listen to the candidates and believe them, then? >> i don't know how people take the information about mitt romney on health care. he shifted a lot. so, you know, i think that he may be overly emma sizing his assessment of what ehe can do. my view is the actually clearer thing would be the supreme court overturning the bill but if you look at the case itself, the challenges for -- there are so many supreme court justices like scalia and roberts who have opinions that favor a strong executive branch, in particular matters around commerce, that they would have

to really wiggle around or overturn the language they themselves have adopted in recent cases to overturn the bill. if people stay consistent, which is always an open question, but if people stay consistent, it should be a 6-3 opinion preponderance -- opinion. >> i want to show you video of your chairman, whose job you took recently, john podesta. >> going back to the 19th century, we had a history of politicians being attacked, sometimes personally and sometimes viciously by their opponents. i think the intensity of that, the use of opposition research, particularly the way people are attacked on television, sometimes, i think, quite unfairly, is -- that is now really part and parcel of what happens in television advertising today. has been imported into the governing side. so you see the nastiness that plays out on a personal level being, i think, intensified from at least what it was

during that period and -- in the 1960's and 1970's and into the 1980's. >> he's teaching a class at the university of denver in our studios here, a distance learning class, at the time. who is john podesta and the podesta family, the brother, tony podesta and his wife are big lobbyists what kind of role did they play in this town in the last 20 years? >> john was chief of staff to bill clinton and then a few years after the end of the clinton administration started center for american progress and has been with the center throughout. he took a leave to be the head of president obama's transition team and then came back to the center and was the president before i elevated. his brother tony and sister-in-law heather, tony has a long history of people for the american way and worked on

the cue cawkiss campaign as chairman of the california dukakis campaign and worked a fair amount in pennsylvania and now is a lobbyist. and has a thriving lobbying practice. >> had john podesta been up on the hill for a while? >> in the early 1990's and 1980's worked for senator leahy on the agriculture committee and worked, i believe, for chuck culver or chuck culver's dad, john culver. senator from iowa. and he worked for tom daschle at one point. >> and tom daschle is now with you all. >> he's now a senior fellow. he is a distinguished senior fellow. >> who are some of the other fellows you have that we might recognize? >> charles browner is a distinguished seen yore fellow with us.

matt miller is a senior fellow, he writes in "the washington post" and is often on msnbc. ira kearney, he was a speech writer far lot of folks, they are all brilliant thinkers and we took -- we have a full roster of -- matt miller is more centrist, eric is more lebral, we consider ourselves pan progressives, we are centrist on some issues, liberal on others. >> one of the things that developed over the years are rich people who give money to washington for whatever reason. i'm thinking of edelson who gave money to the gingrich campaign or the koch brothers who give to heritage and you have a number on your list like george sorsos.

>> george soros. no single donor accounts for more than 10% of our funding. we have a diversified portfolio. a lot of foundations as well as corporations. there's no single person, george soros is, you know, not our biggest donor and doesn't give more than 10%. >> you have herb and mare whereon chandler. peter lewis. but the reason i bring that up is, from your experience, you worked in the senate, you worked in the white house and now you're here, a lot of people said this is the clinton government in exile. where's the most productive place to be in this town? >> that's a great question. it depends on the time horizon. the great thing about it, the great thing about the center for american progress, we're

able to work on longer term issues. the things we're most proud of is the things we did in 2005 to put out a universal health care plan that became the basis of massachusetts and eventually the obama plan that was the framework the congress adopted. we spent years developing that plan and working on it and to push it into the process for 2008, 2009. what i consider rewarding about being at a think tank, you can work on a longer time frame. when i worked in the government, in the white house in the clinton years, you're working on policies at most a month or two months out, your time horizons are so short that -- and you're also dealing with a news cycle that is so intense

you don't have much time to plan or think through what the country should be doing a year out or two years out. you can be thinking what the president should be saying next week or in the next month. and in the senate, you know, i worked in the senate as legislative director for about a year and a half. that, too, is an area where you're, you know, hillary was a senator, she was on a number of committees, there's a siblingle for the senate, things are particularly on the floor or issues in the committee that you're adjudicating, but they -- it's hard, you have a greater ability but it's hard to drive an issue for a longer period. the best senators do that. they build a case over many years around a piece of legislation, senator moynihan did that on a variety of issues and hillary did that on issues as well but that takes a lot of, you know, real focus on

those issues because so many things will pull you off that kind of work. >> you can do the math, you were born in 1970, you've done a lot at your age. what advise do you have for younger people looking at what you've done, what were the things you did in the beginning that led to all this, that were important? >> the most important thing i did was working oen campaigns. i worked, i want to say join a campaign, join a -- i wanted to join a presidential campaign, i took a very low level job on the bill clinton campaign and worked really, really hard. i don't have family connections, none of my family members are do nors or anything leek that. so all my success has been that i worked really hard and other people saw my hard work and took a chance on me and

recommended me for other jobs, not based on friendship or anything, they just thought i did good work and i got a lot of breaks that way. my advice when people ask me is do something you love, the most important thing is to ensure you'll work very hard at it and it's much easier to work really hard at something you like or love than at something you don't like. >> easier or harder to be married or single or children and all that and do what you do? >> i have never been single because i got engaged at 19. throughout this period. so i don't rally know. it is much easier to not have children to work, you know, the kind of hours that can be demanded at the white house or in some of these jobs. one of the things that i was just really lucky about was to work for hillary when i had young children and she was a

phenomenal boss. when i joined the hillary clinton presidential campaign, my son was 17 months old mitigating circumstance younger son. so it was really important for me to be able to be there for him and you know, i got up in the morning and was with my son, then i went on the campaign conference call, i went to work irk left the office at 6:30, which is unheard of in a campaign, came home, put my kids to bed, you know, was with them almost every night and then i worked really hard, you know, late into the night, but, you know, hillary was incredibly understanding as were the campaigns, in part because a lot of folks on the campaign were my friends, i'd worked with with them a really long time. i remember one time, i had, it was hillary's second debate, i think it was in new hampshire, her second debate and it was still -- debates were a big deal. my job on the campaign, i oversaw all the debate preparation and it turned out

that the one time that was good for hillary to do debate prep was at the time of my daughter's kindergarten graduation or pre-k graduation, they the white outfits and little caps, i was just like, i can't miss it. i told hillary, i'll put my deputy in charge. she said, i'll move my debate prep. we'll do it later. i was like, it wasn't good for her, very inconvenient for her but she moved it for me because she said, it's important for you to be at the pre-k graduation. you can't miss that. she did a number of things like that. it really helps in politics tv a boss that understanding who understands what it's like to have family and not want to miss your daughter's pre-k graduation and will put priorities even in a presidential campaign like that. >> this is a quote from you when you were working on the hillary campaign. i'm a big supporter of the president but their campaign was entirely a character attack

on hillary as a liar and untrustworthy. >> the full quote of that is, you know, the president didn't do what's happening today, he didn't run negative ads and he didn't issue, you know, vitriolic attacks on a daily basis but his campaign, they would even admit today, was not an issue contrast. it wasn't a differentiation between hillary and obama on health care or the economy, it was that hillary, you know, you couldn't count on hillary on certain set of issues. so i think all primaries become difficult. they become a difficult debate. but i think that just -- the gist of that is their critique of hillary was character based, not issue based. >> let me show you a clip of the state of the union and get your reaction. >> now, you can call this class warfare all you want.

but asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes, most americans would call that common sense. we don't begrudge financial success in this country. we admire it. when americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. it's because they understand that when i get a tax break i don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit or somebody else has to make up the difference. like a senior on a fixed income or a student trying to get through school or a family trying to make ends meet. that's not right. americans know that's not right. >> what are the chances taxes will be increased in 2013 after this year, the bush tax cuts

are supposed to be rescinded, what do you think will hp? >> i hope that there will be a moment where we have an actual deal with taxes and on spending around deficit reduction going forward. i think in 2012, at the end of 2012ering we'll face two big decisions. they'll be automatic decisions, automatic occurrences that will force a decision. so january 1, 2013, you'll have sequestration, which is, you know, as part of the debt deal, the idea that we'll have automatic cuts across the board in defense and discretionary spending so all the programs we support as well as defense spending, it's a large scale cut that will happen. and we'll also face the expiration of the bush tax cuts.

and you know all the bush tax cuts for all incomes. we support the middle income tax cuts but things the country can't afford for the very affluent and so you know, i think in that moment, after the election, i believe the president will be re-elected and i hope that you'll see people after politics play out to come together and try to have a negotiation both on taxes and on spending to actually reduce the deficit over the long term because we do face fundamental challenges with a large and growing deficit. >> what's the fuss all about lobbying? the reason i ask that, you have two different organizations. you have the action fund and then you have the center for american progress. one is a 501 c 3 in the tax code, one is a 501c4, one can lobby an one can't. >> one can spend significant

resources in lobby, the other only very limited resources. >> a talk show host lobbies. >> yes, no, no. lobbying, there's a particular definition for lobbying, which is to, you know, push pieces of legislation with members of congress. but, you know, everybody is talking about ideas. you and i are talking about ideas that people will hear about, members of congress and others, a lot of people are trying to influence the debate in different ways. so, you know, i think there becomes, i think sometimes the legislative language around lobbying becomes very general. we try to influence ideas all the time. we aren't taking a piece of legislation that we're pushing on the hill by going to members and asking them to support it and, you know, most of the work we do. but that is, you know, i think people are concerned about lobbying in the sense that they feel like the game is rigged against them. i think arch americans worry that there are special

interests who have a lot of money who can get things they want out of the legislative system because of the resources they give to campaigns. >> for a moment, what's the difference between a talk show host who makes $25 million on a radio show having members on the show saying,s the way you ought to do things, versus your organization which is funded, nobody funds more than 10% but a lot of money comes in from people who have lots of money and you go up and represent certain issues in congress or the white house or the paid lobbyists that walks in the door and says this is what my client wants? >> i want to say one thing i want to be crystal clear about, we take money from foundations for work we do. we don't take money from corporations or really individuals to do directed research for anything. we are different from other think tanks that way. there are organizations that take money from particular interests for particular purposes. we don't do that. no corporate money we take goes

to like a directed paper or research. there is a little bit of a difference there. but i would say that you know, i think that you're raising a fair point about influence and who has influence and what is considered lobbying under the system and the rules around identifying yourself as a lobbyist and not. you know, lobbyists do have a particular ageneral da item they are working with members of congress on rather than just an argument. i do see that there are a lot of flaws in the way we descroib lobbyists versus nonlobbyists. >> how do you feel about these super p.a.c.s and the ability for people to spend $10 million in support of a candidate? >> i think that the superp.a.c.s are dangerous. i think the idea that people spend unlimited amount of money obviously directing, you know, directing the course of events in campaigns, is very scary for

our democracy. i think that the supreme court made a fundamental error in its citizens united decision. >> would you try to change that? >> we are working on different ideas on how to address citizens united. a lot of folks have focused on a tugal amendment. i think that's a legitimate idea but also additional disclosure requirements are important for people to see. i think that the most important thing for our country is a democracy that people feel they have a stake in. when some billionaire can spend $10 million basically hidden to influence the outcome of who is the republican nominee, that's scary. it's disconcerting. we don't spend money on ads. >> but do you have to publish every contribution you get for both of your organization? >> no. and we don't realy disclose all of our donors but we don't work

on -- we don't spend money on ads and we done spend any money on ads in the political context. we have a 501c4, big difference between us is that they're spending a lot of money on the election and we're -- on the election process and we're not -- we're investing the resources. i think the challenge is, you know, if i were a republican primary voter, it seems abundantly clear that the billionaires have billions times more influence than actual voters because they are -- in some ways they are literally dick kating the outcome of these races when you're being outspend 6-1. >> we found this video of you, let's watch. >> when i think of the american dream, i think of the california dream, i think of what ucla has been contributing. we are only competitive as a country because we have a high skilled, high wage economy.

if we close the door of opportunity to any group of people, that really sends a signal to that generation that, you know, the dream is not there for them. the most important thing, i think, is to communicate to our leaders how important ucla is and how important the system is when people go to their elected leaders and write them letters or show up in their offices and talk to their staff and even talk to them and make -- it makes a profound difference. that's why it's important to recognize that ucla was there for them and it's important for them to be there for ucla not for this year or the next year but for years to come. >> why did you do that? >> because i actually, you know, i got a great education at ucla. the u.c. system is a -- is a huge american treasure, actually. the university of california

system is one where there are fantastic public universitys that have really been an open door for middle class and lower income americans and if you look at the average income of a ucla student and compare it to the average income of a harvard student or a tufts student a good college in boston, it's just much lower average income. average income of a harvard student today, their family, is $150,000. pretty close to the 1%. and so, you know, i really feel like the university of california was an opportunity, i went to ucla, i was able to go to yale after that. and you know, i probably could have gone to private schools with a lot of pell grants and other things but my first year, i had -- my roommate was from

inglewood. in california. tough neighborhood. she had -- her family had very little resources. african-american girl, she was only able to go to college because -- and she was only able to go to such a good college because it was a public institution. and so, you know, it seems to me, this idea of ensuring that everyone has the opportunity regardless of their family's income is kind of central to america. to me, what distinguishes america from every other country is the investment we have in a meritocracy that anyone can do well based on their own hard work. >> by the way, what happened to mom and dad? where do they live? what do they do? >> they're both retired, my mother lives in bedford, massachusetts, still, in the same house she moved to when i was 11 and my father lives in a nearby suburb an he's retired

now. >> either one remarry? >> my father remarried and i have a stepmother and a half sister and a stepsister. >> and your husband, does he still live in new york? >> no, he moved here. he has -- he commutes occasionally up to new york for his work. but he's here. >> how long do you want to do this job? >> for a long time. it's a great, you know, working on a whole series of issues is a great experience. using ideas of something i've been working on and committed to doing my whole life. i feel like we have an impact every day and there's nothing more rewarding. >> one last question. is it better for the center for american progress that barack obama be re-elected or that the republicans get in the white house? >> well, the center for american progress cares deeply about the direction of the country, so it's better for the center for american progress

for the president to be re-elected in our view because he will be better for the country and for america's families. might be more fun day-to-day to be in the opposition and be there to be able to be critical of a republican president but that is not what motivates me every day. >> actually, i asked that because a lot of opposition magazines do better when the other side. >> fox news does bet we are opposition, etc. but our goal is not to just chase the debate and engage in the debate but to change the country. we believe that's easier then you have a progressive president. >> neera tanden, thank you for being here. >> thank you. great to be here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> for a d.v.d. copy of this

program, call 1-877-662-77 6. for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q & a.org. -- at q&a.org. programs are also available as podcasts. >> coming up next on c-span this evening, we take you to london for this week's prime minister's questions with conservative party leader david cameron. after that, our road to the white house coverage continues with several republican campaign events from today. ron paul speaking with small business owners in michigan and newt gingrich returns to his home state of georgia to speak with supporters at a church in with supporters at a church in milner.