autograph collection. and from the pioneer heritage center, medical history in the civil war. >> this week, the president of the center for american progress. >> the president and chief executive officer of the center for american progress. how much do you remember about going out with your mother on food stamps? >> i remember going to school

and i had a free and reduced lunch at school. bedford is a middle-class area in boston. i was the only kid there with a voucher. 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 and i ran for my first elected office, vice-president of the student body 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 1988. 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. we're here to make the evidence-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. >> this will not be easy. 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 . so we do see an area for pulling back in these times where there's a little -- there's much more fiscal austerity. he has set forward specific proposals over the last year how to reduce the pentagon budget. i think it's been an important part of the debate that heas -- that's happened over the last year. because he's had the experience of being in the pentagon, he has looked at specific programs and specific weapon systems and we put forward a series of ideas that account for $100 billion a year. very there any benefit for somebody watching that they get a sense they like what you have to say and they want to get involved? is there a way to use the material that you produce?

>> well, we have a varietyy of mechanisms and one thing that he said is how we communicate. that's our website, center --s if americaprogress.org. you can sign up for newsletters. we do a daily progress report which provides analysis of key issues that are happening in washington from day-to-day. and that goes time-out about 100,000 people. it's always gratifying and hear from somebody who's reading the progress report and is informed by it. that's another vehicle. we have a strong presence in social media, facebook page, twitter feed which provides updated analysis on issues, day by day minute by minute. >> bill press used to use your radio studio. >> he used. he's no longer there. >> and air america? >> yes. they used to use our radio

studio at one point. >> heritage used to do the same thing which is the conservative side. >> i believe, it may no longer be the case but they had a tv studio and a radio studio. we unfortunately just have the radio studio. it's been something that a lot of progressive organizations can use and be part of. >> so what is -- what is a conservative view on defense vs. a progressive view on defense? >> well, we both share our view that america's national security is vitally important. you know, i think defense is an area that, you know, has been contested in interesting ways. i don't want to speak for all conservatives, but our view is that the best way to push forward america's national security is to have a strong national defense but to think of the unified budget for this. so we strive to do that. it involves defense and you know, military weapons and

traditional defense spending but also looks at diplomacy and development and ensuring that leading the world thry strong alliances is a way that america can ensure that it's -- it's actually what it's national securities aims are through a variety of way, it's not just the military budget alone. i don't want to speak with conservatives. i don't think they would disagree with any of these particular statements but they focus more on the defense budget and we focus on the full array of america's power both for a lack of a better term, our hard pow we were and our soft powers. >> i want to show you a photograph that you're in. this was taken back in between. it's over here on the screen. if you look carefully, you can see 11 people in front of a big photograph of hillary clinton. was that in the background when the picture was taken? >> no, that was definitely not

-- a piano was actually in the background. >> an this was a washington post photograph. >>s that not a washington post photograph. . "the washington post" photograph had a black background. the new republic put that picture behind it but i could be wrong. >> and you are where? >> i am to the left looking at the screen. i am to the far left. we also found this in new york magazine. >> it might have been in new york magazine as well. >> who's in that picture and why was it taken? >> i believe the story for this was the women of hillary land and it was actually -- it was a story about the women in hillary's campaign and so there's as variety of leaders in the first row is patty who was our campaign manager and anne lewis and they were a

variety of people who have worked with hillary and who were engaged in our campaign effort. i think the point of the story was that it was a slightly different campaign than other presidential campaigns because there were so many women leader in that. >> katricia martin now works for hillary clinton and so does milan revere. >> huma abadeen. >> her personal assistant is married to anthony wiener. >> the reason i show this picker is to show you how this town works. are you all friends and do you all stay close? a lot of those people have gone to other jobs? >> yes. >> how does it work? >> i work with hillary. you know, off and on for over a decade. and, you know, i sort of worked for -- i started working for

hillary when i was 28. and -- >> three or four years ago. [laughter] >> i won't say how long. >> and so we -- i think most of those people are still friends. . obviously, hillary's campaign was challenging and had some rocky moments in it, that you know, that has affected relationships. but i am -- i consider myself friends with most of the people in that picture whom i was friends with at the time. >> how did you get your first job with hillary clinton? >> so, i worked in the -- i was working in the communications office at the white house and actually had become -- >> president clinton? >> in president clinton's white house. there was a job opening in the domestic policy job council, the children and family's team under president clinton. there was a domestic economic council and the domestic

security council at that time was divided into a series of teams and the children and family teams and there's an education team, turned time-out be a tobacco team, a welfare team. there's a children and family's team that worked on head start, childcare after school. and there was an opening in that team and that team had traditionally, i mean, in the clinton years worked for the domestic policy team and also worked on hillary's -- first lady hillary clinton's domestic policy issue. there was an opening on that team and i applied for it. and there's a lots of people they interviewed and i interviewed with ms. revere as well as bruce reid. he was the chair of the d.p.c. and i was fortunate enough to get the jofpblet and so i worked, you know, head start for the president but i also 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 a half. and then, i was actually -- i started there in november of 1997. and in the summer of 1999, i was ging married. my husband and i were going to move to new york. and so about a few weeks before i got married, i went to hillary and said, i'm moving to new york and i'd like to -- you know, there was a lot of talk of her running for senate. i said i would like to help you from my job. i'm going to go work at a law firm and hillary turned to me. i still remember it was in the bottom floor of the white house, the mansion of the white house and i was walking back from an event with her. i told her this and she turned to me and said i want you to work for me and i'm thinking

about doing this thing. you should -- you should work on it. and it was -- i was getting married just a few weeks later. it was -- i didn't expect it at off. and it turned everything on its head. but it was -- it was a fascinating ride. so i did that. and then i worked forer in a variety of -- variety of ways. >> where did you meet your snuzz >> we met on the campaign. we were both precinct leaders in 1988 out in california. we were both freshmen at ucla. and he -- we were both at this event where there were signing up precinct leader and they were taking different districts and he took the lalk -- ucla dorms and i took this area next to it that happened to be bellaire. it's one of the wealthiest places in america.

it's the neighborhood north of l.a. ronald reagan used to live there. lots of hollywood star live there. all the houses were gated. so i had 150 voters. and every single one -- almost every single one of my voters had given money to michael dukakis. barry manilow was in my precinct. i didn't really have much work to do. so i decided to help this person named ben edwards. >> there's a picture of him that the audience can see with your kids. how long ago was that taken? >> that was taken about two years ago. >> that's my daughter alina and she's 9 and jayden is 6 years old. >> what does your husband do? >> he's a painter. he has a gallery in new york and paints down here. >> so go back to mrs. clinton. did you work on her senate

staff? >> i did. only for a period of time. i worked under her senate stafment i was legislative director. i oversaw all her policy positions an her legislation that she was moving. i was with her 2003 through 2005. >> you do have a yale law degree? >> i do. >> has that been important in all the work you've done? >> it's been vital. i mean, you know, yale is a nontraditional law school. and so in the sense that a lot of the law professor there is actually like to think about what the law should be rather than teach you what the law is. and so my law school classes were all actually in some sense public policy classes that needed to be how laws were created, why they were created, the role of incentives and changing human behavior how the law affects human behavior which was actually incredibly helpful in the year since.

my time at yale was fantastic. many people don't like law school but i loved i. >> so what impact have you had yourself on the health care bill that was passed out of the obama white house? >> well, i think i've worked on some nettleson issues. i worked on the abortion issue. and i worked on -- not as much the immigration issue for nettle som. >> they were deeply comfortable and they were detractable forces on both sides so we needed to come up with new solution. and that would bring a majority of support behind the bill. and so there were a bunch of compromises forged in the law that you had to get a majority of support to get both houses of congress for. that proved difficult but it ultimately happened. and i did a fair amount of work on the exchanges and how to set

up the exchanges and how to set up the public plan. >> when you look back at it you were in the obama white house for how long? >> i was at my official job. i was at the department of health and human services was an advisor. and i was working on that health team. so i went to the white house every day. >> so when you look back at the passing of that bill, how many people were involved? >> oh, i mean, probably in the congress and in the house -- in the president -- for president or just for the president? >> yeah, just kind of the overall, of how many people get their hands at some aspect of this that was passed? >> i say 100 people, 150. there were several committees of jurisdiction and in the house and in the senate. from the president's side, you know, i don't think there was more -- there was 12, 15 people

that were really working on it every day. but a lot of the -- of people rahm emanuel worked on it. >> are you happy with it? >> i am, actually. >> any piece of fundamental legislation is going to have compromises. you know, one thing that, you know, i try to remind my progressive friends is that we didn't accomplish everything that progressives wanted. and i think people lose sight of even many progressives when the law is fully implemented that will cover 30 million more americans and it will be the case that no one will go bankrupt again. i think that's a fundamental premise that the president has delivered. and it's something i'm proud to be part of. >> what are the chances that the supreme clourt throw it out? >> i work on a lot of these

issues. i work on the amica legislation. >> what's that? >> the supreme court allows interested parties to allow briefs on their own analysis of the constitutionality, they're own analysis of the dwhea the supreme court is considering in any given case. in this situation there are a number of dogs involved in health care, people who have pre-existing conditions today. so there are a variety of groups who represent cancer survivors and breast cancer victims an people with disabilities who are heavily impacted by the law itself because it eliminated pre-existing conditions and the individual mandate falls apart, the pre-existing requirement will be heavily undermined. we work with a variety of groups that who made the argument that the individual

mandate should stay because it has this impact on all these people who who will rely on it to get health care in the future. there are a variety of other groups, hospital groups, ensurers, small businesses who believe the individual mandate is helpful to them. >> what's your reaction when you hear governor romney say that i will -- or newt begin grimp, the first day i'm in the white house i will repeal obama care? >> well, i had a different reaction for both of them, particularly for governor romney. you know, he would be appealing in some sense romney care. we did -- you know i work on the health care bill. i know we used meas as a model. -- massachusetts as a model. they're 7% with the same structure and they're in the affordable care act. you know, i have -- if mitt romney never passed health care reform in massachusetts, it

would never have happened so to the better level because we use that model as a basis for moving forward. i think that's an instant where there's a lot of politics in play. romney has 100% shifted, you know, from my point of view, unfortunately, because he actually did accomplish something very significant that very few governors accomplished that he created a universal health care that people love. >> let's just say for a talking point that he wins. and -- does he ve the power as president to eliminate obama care over night? >> no, no. he would have to pass legislation and, you know, that would mean overcoming a fill buster in the senate. there's difficult 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 me, you know, get a shake of the hand or whatever, just be able to repeal the bill. >> why do people listen to these candidates? >> i don't know. because he's shifted a lot. so, you know, i think that he's being overly glib in his assessment of what he can do. i think, you know, my own view is that actual clearer thing would be the supreme court overturning the bill. if you look at the case itself, you know, the challenge is 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 themselveses have adopted in recent cases to overturn the bill. so my -- people stay consistent which is always the question. if they stay consistent it should be a 6-3 opinion. >> i want to show you some video of your chairman who's job you took recently. john padesta. >> going back to the 19th century we've had a history of politicians being attacked personally and viciously by their opponents but i think the intensity of that, the use of opposition research particularly, the way people are attacked on television sometimes i think quite unfairly, i think is -- that is now really the parcel of what happens in television advertising today, has been imported into the governing side. so you see the nastiness that plays out on the personal level, being, i think intensified from at least what it was during that period in

the 1960's and 1970's and even into the 1980's. >> he's teaching a class at the university of denver in our studios. who is john padest and the padesta family. he and his brother are big lobbyists. what kind of a role have they played in the last 20 years? >> so john was chief of staff to bill clinton and at the end of the bill clintoned a minutes started center for america for progress. he took the leave to be the head of president o bam's transition team and then come back to the center and his brother tony and sister-in-law heather are -- you know, tony used to be at the people for the american way and worked at

the dukakis campaign as chair of california, dukakis campaign and worked a fair amount in pennsylvania. and now is a lobbyist. and has a -- has a thriving practice. >> has john being on the hill for a while? >> yes. in the early 1990's and in the 19 0's, he had worked for -- in the agricultural committee. he worked i believe for chuck culver's dad, don culver. >> senator. >> i.o.s. and he worked fsh tom daschle. -- he worked for tom daschle. >> he's actually a distinguished fellow with us. >> who are some of the fellows we might recognize? >> carol. matt miller is a senior fellow. he writes in "the washington

post" and is often on msnbc. and you know, andre kerney is a senior fellow with us. he worked in the clinton administration and was a speech writer for a lot of folks. they were all brilliant thinkers. and we have a hopeful roster of -- eric alterman who is a senior fellow with us. eric is much more liberal. and we like to -- we consider ourselves progressive. we're a centurist on some issues particularly in liberal an others. >> one of the things that has developed over the years is rich people who give money to washington institutions for whatever reason and i'm thinking of adelson who gave all that money to the gingrich campaign tor coke brother who is give a lot of money to charities and places like that. you have a list like george sew

roles. >> no singer doner account for more than 10% of our funding. we have a very diversified portfolio. so, we have -- there's no -- there's no single person, george southerlies, you know, gives -- he's not our biggest donor and he never gives more than 10%. are your have herb and marilyn sanders and peter lewis. 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. when you start 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. i think the great thing about the center for america

progress, is that we are able to work on longer term issues. the thing that we're proud of is the work we did in 2005 to put out a universal health care plan that actually became the basis of massachusetts and the obama and hillary and edwards plan that president obama took to the white house, the framework that the congress adopted. and we were able to spend a year developing that plan and working on it and to push it into the process for 2008, 2009. so what i consider very rewarding about being in a think tank is that you with work on a longer time run. when i worked in the white house in the clinton years, you know, you're working on policies at most, a month or two months out for, you know, your time horizons are so short that you're also dealing with a new cycle that is so intense

that you don't have much time to plan or think through what the country should be doing a year out or two years out what the president should be saying next week or in the next month. and in the senat, i worked in the senat as a legislative director for about a year and a half that it is an area where hillary was a senator, she was on a number of committees. there's, you know, there's a psych to the senat things are particularly on the floor that your adjudicating but they -- it's hard to -- you a greater ability but it's hard to drive an issue for a long period. it is, you know, the best centers do that. they build a case over many years around the legislate, senator moynahan did that on a number of issues and hillary did that on a number of issues but that takes a lot of -- that takes a lot of, you know, real

stick and focus on that issue because so many things will pull dwhrufe kind of work. >> you can do the math. you were born in 1970. you've done a lot. -- at your age. >> what advice do you have for younger people that are looking at what you've done. what were the things you did in the binning that led to all this that were important. >> you know, the most important thing i did was -- working on campaigns, you know, i worked -- i really wanted to join a campaign. i really wanted to join the presidential campaign. so i took a very low-level job on the clinton, bill clinton presidential campaign in 1982. i worked really, really hard. i don't have family connections. none of my family members are donors or anything like that. so on my success has been that i worked really hard and then other people saw my hard work and took a chance on me and you know, reck membered 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 because the most important thing is that you will work really hard at it and it's much easier to work on something you like or love than it is to work really hard on something you don't like. >> easier or harder to be married or single or children and all that and do what you do? >> well, i have -- i have never been single because i got engaged at 19 throughout this period. so i don't really know. it is much easier to not have children to work, you know, work the kind of hours that can be demanded at the white house on some of these jobs. you know, one of the things that i was just really lucky about to have worked with hillary when i did work for her

my son was 17 months old. it was really important for me toe be there for him. you know, i -- i got up in the morning and i was with my son when i went on that campaign conference call and i went to work. i left the office at 6:30 which is unheard of in a campaign. i came home. put my kids to bed, was with them almost every single night. i worked really hard late into the night but you know, and hillary was incredibly understanding as well as the campaign in part because a lot of the folks on my campaign were my friends. i worked with them a really long time i remember one time, you know, it was hillary's second debate, it was in narp. it was her second day bait. debates were a big deal and my job on my campaign i oversaw all of the debate preparation.

it turned out one time that it was good for hillary was at the time of my daughter's kindergarten graduation or pre-k graduation and they have the white outfits. you know, i was just like -- i can't miss it. so i told hillary, i put my deputy in charge. she said no, i'll move my debate hour. it was very inconvenient for her. but she moved it for me because, you know, it was really important for do you be at alina's pre-k graduation. and she did a number of things like that. it really helps in politics to have a boss who understands what -- about your daughter's pre-k graduation. >> here a quote from you. i'm a big supporter of their president but their campaign was a character attack on

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

but asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as a secretary in taxes, most americans would call that common sense. we don't be grudge 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 something 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 right. >> what are the chances that the taxes will be increased in 2013? after this year the bush tax

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

cuts for all incomes. you know, and we support the middle income tax cuts. and so, you know, i think in that moment after the election, i believe the president will be re-elected and i happy to you'll see people after politics play out to come together and have a negotiation both on taxes and on spending to actually reduce the deficit over 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 is you have two different organizations. you the action fund and the center for american progress. one is a 50c4. one can lobby. one can't. >> you can spend significant

forces and the other has limited resources. >> but a talk show host lobbies. >> i think 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's talking about ideas. you and i are talking about ideas. and a lot of people are trying to influence the debate in different ways. so, you know, the -- the -- i think -- i think there becomes -- and then sometimes the legislative language 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, in most of the work we do. but that is, you know, i mean, i think people are concerned about lobbying in the sense that they feel the game is kind of rigged against them. i think average americans worry

that there are special interests that have a lot of money who can get things that they want out of the legislative system because of the resources they give to campaigns. >> but for a moment what's the difference between a talk show host that makes $25 million a year on a radio show, having members on his show saying this is the way you ought to do things, versus your organization, as you say no one funds more than 10% but a lot of money comes in from people that have lots of money and you go up to represent certain issues in congress and white house or the paid lobbyist that says, this is what my client wants? >> i want to say something about cap which i want to be chris cal clear about. we take money from foundations for particular work we do. we don't take money from individuals to do directive research. there are organizationings that take money for particular interests. we don't do that at all. no corporate money we take goes to directed -- like a directed

paper verge. there is a little bit of a difference there. but i would say that, you know, i think there is a point of influence and who has influence and what is considered lobbying under the system and rules yfying yourself as a lobbyist or not. lobbyist do have a particular agenda y team that they are working with members of congress rather than an ideological argument. do i see that there are a lot of flaws in the way we describe lobbyist versus nonlobbyists. >> how do you feel about these super packs and the ability for people to spend $10 million in support of appear candidate? >> you know, i think that the super packs are dangerous. you know, i think that idea that you could spend unlimited amount of money, obviously directing the course of event in campaigns is very scary for

our democracy. and i think that the supreme court has made a fundamental error it's a citizens united and changeing the spigot. >> would you work on it? >> yeah, i think a lot of people work on that. additional disclosure requirements are are allowed. the most important thing for us is democracy that people feel they have a stake in. when some billionaire can spend $10 million basically hidden to influence the outcome of who the republican nominee is i think it's scary. it's disconcerting. weapon don't spend any -- we don't spend any money on add. >> but you have to publicish it? >> we don't disclose all of our donors but we don't work on --

we don't spend any money on ads or any money of ads in that police cal context. we have the 501 c-4. cross roads. the big difference between us is that you spending a lot of money on the election and the election process an we're not in -- we're investing those resources and i think the challenge is, you know, if i were a republican primary voter, you know, it seems abundantly clear that these billionaires have a billion time more influence than actual voters because they're dictating the outcome of these races when you're being outspent 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 the 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 ucla system is. when people go to their elected leader and they write them leaders but more importantly, show up and talk to them, it makes a profound difference and that's why it's important for people to recognize that ucla was there for them and it's important for this event to be there for ucla. not for this year but for years to come. >> why did you do that? >> because i actually, you know, i got a great education at ucla. and -- but, you know, the u.c. system is a -- it's a huge american treasure actually. the university of california

system is one where there are fantastic public universities that have really been an open door for the middle-class and lower income americans. and if you look at the average income of a ucla student and compare it to a harvard student or a tuft student which is a good college and in boston, you know, that -- 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 that the university of california was an opportunity. i went to ucla and i was able to go to yale after that. you know, i probably could have gone to private schools with a lot of -- a lot of pell grants and other things. but my first year, i had to -- my roommate was from engelwood.

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

>> 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, we're together. he moved here. he commutes occasionally up to new york for his work. but he's here. >> and 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 and moving ideas is something i've been working on and committed to doing my whole life. i feel like by have an impact every day and there's nothing more rewarding. >> one last question is it better if for center for american progress that barack obama be re-elected or that the republicans get in the white house? >> well, the senator for american progress cares deeply about the direction of the country. so it's better for the centers

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 to be re-elected. 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 it because a lot of opposition magazines do better when the other side wins. >> oh, yeah, fox news does better. but our goal is not to just change the debate, engage in the debate but actually to change the country. and we believe that's easier when you that progressive president. >> neera tanden, c.e.o. for centers for american progress. thank you for being here. >> it was a pleasure to be here. dd >> for a d.v.d. conny of this

program, call 1-877-662-7726. for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program visit us at q&a.org. q&a programs are available at pod casts. -- as podcasts. >> coming up next on c-span this evening, we take you to london for this week's prime minister' questions with conservative party leader david cameron. after that, our "road to the white house" coverage continues with republican campaign events from sunday. ron paul speaking with small business owners in hudsonville, michigan and newt gingrich returning to his home state of georgia to speak with supporters at a church. later highlights from day two of the national governor's association in washington. including discussions