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 cent 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 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 and did college work at brandeis university in massachusetts.

they both had degrees. 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. it was almost a majority minority. 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. and won. 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? >> in a way, it is funny. when i was 11 -- you know, it is funny. when i was 11, i was an active

ronald reagan supporter. my mother has always been a democrat. i was having big arguments with currenher. 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. -- 250. 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 "we'll 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. c.a.p. 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 250 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. through policy analysis and positive policy development. 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 have an advocacy arm, but that

is not all we do. >> here is a video clip talking about the issue of defense. >> he is a senior fellow. >> 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. reviewsentagon's on have said, determining the size of the pay raise, regular military compensation, you can reduce the military costs.

tri-care is a great program. 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 -- 550 billion. 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. he has put forth as if the proposals over the last year on how to reduce the pentagon budget. it has been an important part of the debate over the last year. because he has had the experience of being at the

pentagon, he has looked at as the programs and specific weapons systems and before to a series of ideas that account for a least $100 billion a year. >> is there any benefit for somebody watching that they get a sense they like what you say and they want to get involved, is their way to use the material that you produced? >> we have a variety of mechanisms. once thing we have always focused on is how we communicate. there's our website. center for american progress. also you can sign up for newsletters,. we do a daily progress reports that provides analysis, key issues that are happening in washington from day to day, and that goes out to about 100,000 people and is always gratifying to go out in the country and hear from someone reading the progress report and feels informed by it. that's another vehicle. then we have a strong presence

in social media. twitter fields provide updated analysis on issues day-by-day, minute by minute. >> my memory serves me right, bill press used to use your radio studio. studio, have radios to but he's no longer there. >> heritage does the same thing, which is a conservative group? >> desk. it may no longer be the case, but they used also have a tv studio and radio studio. we only have a radio studio at this stage. it has been something many progressive organizations can use and be part of. >> what is a conservative view on defense versus a progressive view on defense? >> we both share the view that america's national security is vitally important. defense is an area that has been

contested in interesting ways. i don't want to speak for all conservatives but i would say that our view is that the best way is to push forward america's national security is to have its own defense but think of a unified budget. a strategy that involves defense, military weapons, and traditional defense spending, but also looks at diplomacy and development. and of ensuring that leading to whirlpool -- leading the world to a strong alliances is a way that america can ensure that it is actually what its national security aims are, are being achieved through a variety of mechanisms, not just the military budget alone. if i don't think they would necessarily disagree with any of those particular statements, but they probably focus more on the defense budget and we focus on the full array of america's power is, hard power and soft

power. >> i want to show you a photograph that you are in, that was taken at least back in 2007 probably before that. it's on the screen. if you look carefully, 11 people in front of a big photograph of hillary clinton. was that in the background when the picture was taken? >> definitely not. a piano was in the background. >> and this is not the washington post photograph. the washington post photograph had a black background. i believe this is the new republic took that photograph and put hillary clinton behind us. i could be wrong. >> where are you? >> i am to the left looking at the screen. i am to the far left. >> we found this also in new york magazine. >> it might have been in new york magazine as well. >> who is in the picture and why was it taken? >> i believe it the story for

this was the women of hillaryland. it was a story about the women in hillary's campaign. there's a variety of leaders in the first row, our campaign manager, and ann lewis. and tamera and the brightest people who had worked with hillary over a long time and who were in her campaign effort. the point of the store was it was a slightly different campaign than other presidential campaigns because there were so many women leaders in it. >> marshall was in it. >> she was in the center. but she works for mrs. clinton now. anybody else in that group? >> cheryl miller works with hillary now too. >> and her personal assistant as well, memory to anthony weiner. the reason i show the pictures

to ask you about how this town works and -- are yo9u all friends now and do you all stay close? a lot of the people have gone to other jobs. >> behalf. >> how does it work? >> in work with hillary off and on for over a decade. i started working for hillary when i was 28. and -->> 3 or four years ago to. it's i will not say how long. i think most of those people are still friends. wasously, hilary's campaign challenging and had some rocky moments. but has affected relationships. i consider myself friends with most of the people in that picture who i was friends with at the time. >> how did you get your first job with hillary clinton?

>> i was working in the communications office of the white house. i had become -- >> president clinton? >> yes. there was a job opening in the domestic policy council on the children and families team under president clinton. there was a domestic policy council, national economic council. the domestic policy council was divided into a series of team spirit the children and families team, there was an education team that turned out to be a tobacco team, welfare team, so on. there was a children and families team that worked on his start child care, after school. there was an opening on that team. that team in the clinton years worked for the domestic policy team but it also worked on first lady hillary clinton posing domestic policy issues. so, and there was an opening on

that team and i applied. they interviewed a bunch of people and i interviewed with hillary clinton goes to tipstaff, the chair of the dpc. i was fortunate enough to get the job. i worked on the start for the president and a slew of issues for the first lady. we worked on health care. >> follow-on? >> it was about a year-and-a- half. and then i was --i started there in november 1997. in the summer of 1999 i was getting married. my husband and i were going to move to new york. and so, a few weeks before i got married, i went to hillary and said, i am moving to new york and i would -- there was a lot of talk about her running for the senate, but i did not know

anything definitive. i said i would like to help from my job. i will go to law firm. hillary clinton turned to me -- i was walking back from an event with her and i told her this 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." i was getting married a few weeks later and i did not expect it at all and it turns everything on it said, but it was fascinating. so i did that. and then i worked for her in a variety of ways since then. >> where did you meet your husband? >> we met on the dukakis campaign. that was 1988 in california. we were both freshmen at ucla.

we were both at this event where they were signing up precinct leaders and taking different districts. he took the ucla dormitories and i accept the area next to it that happened to be bel air. that's one of the wealthiest places in america. it is a neighborhood. it's north of ucla. >> ronald reagan used to live there. >> as well as lots of hollywood stars. all the houses are dated. about 150 voters. every single one -- almost every one of my voters had given money to michael dukakis, and barry manilow was in my precinct. he was a committed dukakis supporter, did not have much work to do, so i decided to help this person. >> there's a picture of him that the audience can see with your kids. how long ago?

>> that was taken about two years ago. >> how old are the kids now? >> my daughter is nine. my son is 6. >> what does your husband do now? garcia's a painter. he has been an artist ever since that time and has a gallery in new york and pants down here. >> go back to mrs. clinton. did you work on her senate staff? >> i did. only for a time. i was her legislative director. i oversaw policy positions and legislation issues former. i was that from 2003 through 2005. >> you have a yale law degree. >> i do. >> has that been important in of what you have done? >> it has been vital. yale is a non-traditional law school in a sense that a lot of the law professors over there like to think about what the law should be rather than teach what

the law is. my law school class is were all in some sense public policy clauses. debating on what laws were created and how, the role of incentives in changing human behavior. which was incredibly helpful in the years since then. my time at yale was fantastic. many people don't seem to like law school, but i loved it. >> what impact have you had, yourself, on the health care bill that was passed from the obama white house? >> i worked on on some issues, the abortion issue, and i worked on not as much state immigration issue. >> why? >> they were deeply controversial and there were

intractable forces on both sides and we needed to come up with new solutions that would bring a majority of support behind the bill. so there were a bunch of compromises for it in a lot. you had to get majority support from both houses of congress. that proved difficult but ultimately happened. i did a fair amount of work on the exchanges and how to setup the exchanges and a fair amount of work on the public plans as well. >> you were in the obama white house how long? >> i was at my official job was i was at the department of health and human services, adviser to secretary kathleen sebelius, and worked on the president pose a health reform team as part of that. i went to the white house every day. >> when you look back at the passing of that bill, how many people were involved? >> probably -- in the congress

and for the president or just for the president? >> just the overall idea of how many people get their hands about some aspect of the bill that was passed? cracks about 100 people may be 150. many people are working on the committee's. in the house and in the senate. there are dozens of people working on it from that end. from the president goes inside, maybe 15 people really working on it every day. but alatas the president goes the most senior staff -- rahm emanuel spent tons of time on the health care bill, but it was not the only thing that he didn't. >> are you happy with? >> i am. any piece of fundamental legislation like that will have compromises. one dingbat i try to remind my progressive friends of is although we did not accomplish everything, it was an important piece of legislation and i think people lose sight of that, even many progressives. we will cover 30 million more

americans and no one will ever go bankrupt again because they don't have health care. that is a fundamental promise that the president has delivered and something i'm proud to be part of. >> what are the chances the supreme court will still out? >> i do a fair amount of work on this issue. cap has organized a lot around this. the supreme court allows interested parties to file briefs on their own analysis of the constitutionality -- or their own analysis of the question that the supreme court is considering in any given case. and so, in this situation there are a number of people involved kindle care. for example, people who have pre-existing conditions today. so there are variety of groups who represent cancer survivors

and breast cancer victims, and people with disabilities who are heavily impacted by the law because it eliminates pre- existing conditions and if the an individual so, we work with a variety of groups who have made the argument that the individual mandate should stay because it has this impact on all of 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 is your reaction when you hear governor romney say or newt gingrich -- the first day in the white house, i will repeal obamacare. >> it is different for both of them. for governor romney, he would be

repealing, in some sense, romneycare. i worked on health care bill. i know we used massachusetts as a model there. 97% of the same structure. it is their own affordable care act. if mitt romney never pass health care reform and massachusetts, this would never have happened at the federal level. we really use that model as a basis for moving forward. so, you know, i think that is an instance where there is a lot of politics and play. romney has 100% shifted, from my point of view, unfortunately. if he did actually accomplish something very significant and very few governors have actually accomplished. he created a universal health care system that people in massachusetts law. the approval ratings are 65%,

70%. >> was to sit for talking, he wins. does he have the power as president to eliminate obamacare overnight? >> no, no. he would have to pass legislation. that would mean overcoming a filibuster in the senate. he would have a lot of ability to slow it down or undermine it, but he would not be able to with a, you know, shake up a hand, just repeal the bill. >> so why do people listen to these candidates and a believe them ? >> i do not know how people take the information from that romney on health care. i think he is being overleap glib in his assessment of what he can do. i think my own view is that the

would belearer thing overturning the bill. if you look at the case itself, the challenges, there are so many supreme court justices who have opinions that favor a strong executive branch in that matters around commerce. they would have to really wiggle around or overturned the language they themselves adopted in recent cases to overturn the bill. my opinion has stayed consistent. it is an open question. it should be a free opinion. >> i want to show you some video of your chairman, whose job you took recently. >> going back to the 19th century, of course, we had a history of politicians being attacked personally and sometimes viciously by their opponents. the use of opposition research,

particularly the very people who are attack on television, sometimes unfairly, i think is now, really, at the parcel of what happens in television advertising today. it is in the governing side. you see a nationalness that plays out on the personal level that is intensified from what it was in the period of the 1960's and even into the 1980's. >> he is teaching a class at our studios here. at that time, though, who is john podesta? what kind of role of the plate in may -- in this town in the last few years? >> he was chief of staff to bill clinton. and then a few years after the clinton administration started, the center for american

progress. he has been with the center throughout. he took a leave to be the head of president obama's transition team. then he came back to the center and was president before i elevated. his brother and sister-in-law are involved in progressive politics. they worked on the dukakis campaign in california. they also worked a fair amount in pennsylvania. and now they are a lobbyist -- and now is a lobbyist and has a thriving lobbyist company. >> has he been on the hill for a while? >> yes. in the early 1990's and in the arly 1980's he worked for senator on the agriculture committee.

senator culver. and he worked for,. >> and he is now with you all? >> yes. >> who are some of the other fellows you have that we might recognize? >> matt miller is a senior. he writes on "the washington ."st quote they are all brilliant thinkers. we have a full roster. eric alderman is a senior with us. there it is much more liberal. we consider ourselves progressive. we are central on some issues and particularly liberal on some

issues. >> one of the things that has developed over the years are rich people who give money to washington institutions, for whatever reason, i'm thinking of the man who did all that money to the newt gingrich campaign for the koch brothers. you have a number on your list like george soros. >> no single donor accounts for more than 10% of our funding. we have a diversified portfolio. we have a lot of small donors. there is no single person. george soros is not our biggest donor and he does not give more than 10%. >> you also have peter lewis. the reason i bring that up is from your experience, you worked in the senate, in the white

house, and now you're here. when you started, a lot of people said this is the clinton government in exile. where is the most productive place to be in this town? >> that is a great question. it depends on the time horizon. i think the great thing about a think tank at the center for american progress is that we are able to work on a longer term issues. the thing we are most proud of is the work we did in 2005 to put out a universal health care plan that became the basis of massachusetts and eventually the obama, hillary, and edwards plan. it was the framework that congress adopted. we spent one year developing the plan and working on it. we pushed it into the process for 2008, 2009.

what i consider very rewarding about being in a think tank, you can work on a longer time horizon. so when you're working in the government and i worked on health care in the clinton years, you are working on policies at most, one month or two out. your time horizons are so short. you are also dealing with a news cycle that is so intense, you do not have much time to plan or think through what the country should be doing one year out or two years out. you have to think about what the president should be sent next week or in the next month. in the senate, i worked in the senate as a legislative director for one year and a half. that, too, is an area where hillary was a senator. if she was on a number of committees. there is a cycle to the senate. things are on the floor. issues are in the committee. it is hard to -- you have a

greater ability, but it is hard to drive an issue for a long. even in the -- for a long period even in the senate. a lot of senators do that. hillary did that on a bunch of issues as well. that takes a lot of, you know, focus on those issues because so many things will pull you off of that kind of work. >> you can do the math. you were born in 1970. you have done a lot at your age. what advice do you have for young people who are looking at what you have done? what were the things you did in the beginning that led to all this that were important? >> you know, the most important thing i did was even working on campaigns. i really wanted to join a campaign. i really wanted to join a presidential campaign. i picked a very low-level job on

the clinton administration in 1992. i worked really, really hard. i do not have family connections. none of my family members are donors or anything like that. on my -- all of my success has been that i worked really hard. other people saw my hard work and took a chance on me. you know, the recommended before other jobs. not based on friendship or anything, they just thought i did good work. i got a lot of breaks that way. my advice, when people ask me, is a do something you love because the most important thing is to ensure you will work very hard at it. you need to work for something you like or love. >> easier or harder to be married or single or have children or all of that and do what you do? >> well, i have never been single because i got engaged at

19 throughout this period. so, i do not really know. it is much easier to not have children and to work the kind of hours that can be demanded at the white house or for some of these jobs. one of the things that i was really lucky about was to have worked for hillary when i had young children. she was a phenomenal boss. when i joined the hillary clinton presidential campaign, my son was 17 months old. it was really important for me to be able to be there for him. i got up in the morning and then i went on the campaign conference call. i left the office at 6:30, which is kind of heard of at a campaign. i came home, took my kids to bed. i was with them almost every night. i worked really hard, late into the night. but, you know, and hillary was

incredibly understanding as were the campaign. partly because a lot of the people from the cabin were my friends. i work with them a long time. i remember one time during hillary's second debate, i think it was in new hampshire. it was her second debate. debates were a big deal. my job on the campaign, i oversaw all of the debate preparation. it turned out hurd debate prep kas during my daughter's pre- graduation. i was like, i cannot miss it. i told hillary i would put my deputy in charge. she said, no, i will move might debate prep. it was good for her. she moved it for me because it was really important for me to be at a graduation. you cannot miss that. she was great. she did a number of things like

that. it really helps to have a boss who understands what it is like to have family when you do not want to miss your dr.'s pre-k -- your daughter's pre-k graduation. >> this is a quote from you. the obama campaign was an attack on hillary as a liar. >> you know, the full " of that is that the president did not do what is happening today. he did not run negative ads. he did not issue assaults on a daily basis. but his campaign, i think, they would even admit to it. it was not an issue contrast. it was not a differentiation between hillary and obama on health care or the economy. it was that you could not count on hillary on a certain set of issues.

i think all primaries become difficult. the gist of that is their critique of hillary was a character-based and not issue- based. >> let me show you a clip of the state of the union and get your reaction. >> you can call this 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 do not begrudge a financial success in this country. we admire it. when americans talk about folks like me pay my fair share in taxes, it is not because they envied the rich. it is because they understand that when i get a tax break that i do not need and the country cannot afford, it either adds up 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 is not right. americans know that is not 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 you think will happen? >> i hope there will be a moment where we have an actual deal with taxes and on spending around deficit reduction going forward. i think at the end of 2012 we will face two big decisions appeared to be automatic decisions, there will be automatic occurrences that force decisions. on january 1, 2013, you have sequestration, which is a part of the debt deal that past last

summer. this idea that we will have automatic cuts across the board in the defense and discretionary spending. so, all the programs like defense and spending. a large-scale cut that will happen. and we will also face the expiration of the bush tax cuts. all of the bush tax cuts for all incomes. we support the middle income tax cuts, but i think the country cannot afford tax cuts for the very affluent. i think in that moment after the election, i believe the president will be reelected. i hope we will see people after politics play out actually come together and try to have a negotiation built on taxes and spending. reduce the deficit over the long term. we do face fundamental challenges with a large and growing deficit.

>> in what would suffice all about lobbying? the reason i ask is you have two different organizations. few of the action fund and the center for american progress. one can lobby, one cannot. >> one can spend significant resources in lobbying and the other can only spend like very limited resources. >> if you think about it, talk show hosts lobby. >> lobbying, there is a particular definition for lobbying which is to push pieces of legislation with members of congress. but everybody is talking about ideas. you and i are talking about ideas that people hear about. a lot of people are trying to influence the debate in different ways. so, you know, i think there becomes -- i think sometimes the aboutative llanguage

lobing becomes very general. -- about lobbying and becomes very general. you are taking a piece of legislation on the hill and asking members to support it. that is, i mean, i think people are concerned about lobbying in the sense that they feel the game is rigged against them. i think average americans worry that there are special interests who have a lot of money that can get things they want out of the legislative system because of the resources they give to campaigns. >> for a moment -- what is the deficit with a talk-show host who makes $25 million a year and a british show having members on the show saying this is the way you ought to do things, compared to your organization, were you say nobody funds more than 10%. but money comes in for people who love lots of money and you got an represent certain issues in congress or the white house. or a paid lobbyist walks in the door and says, this is what my client wants. >> i will say one thing about

cap which i want to be crystal clear about. we take money from foundations for particular work we do. if we do not take money from corporations or individuals to do direct research. we are different from other think tanks that way. we cannot do that at all. no corporate money we take goes to direct it -- like a directed paper research. there is a little bit of a difference there. i would say that, you know, i think there is 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 agenda item they are working on rather than just making an argument. i do see that there are a lot of flaws in the way we describe lobbyists compared to non-

lobbyists. >> how do you feel about these super pacs and the ability for people to spend $10 million in support of a cat in it? >> i think that the super pacs are dangerous. i think the idea that people spend unlimited amounts of money, obviously directing the course of events in campaigns, is very scary for our democracy. i think the supreme court has made a fundamental error in the citizens united decision in basically frame the spigot. >> would you try to change that? >> we are working on different ideas on how to address citizens united. a lot of folks are focused on a constitutional amendment. i think that is a legitimate idea. also, additional disclosure requirements are good for people to see. i think the most important thing for our country is a democracy the people feel they have a stake in spirit if some of

billionaire can spend $10 million, basically hidden, to influence the outcome of who the republican nominee is, that is scary and it disconcerting. we do not spend any money on ads. >> you have to publish every concert -- every country and you get? >> no. we do not really disclose all of our donors. but we do not work on -- we cannot spend any money on ads and we not spend any money on ads in a political contest. we are a 501c4. the big difference between us is that he is spending a lot of money on the election and we are on the election process. we are not -- we are investing those resources. if i were a republican primary voter, it seems clear that the billionaires' have a billions of tons more influence than actual voters because in some ways they

are literally dictating the outcome of these races when you're being outspent six to 1. >> we found this video of you. let's watch. >> when i think of the american dream, i think of what ucla has been contributing. we are only competitive as a country because we have a highly-skilled, higher-wage economy. if we close the door of opportunity to any group of people, that sends a signal to that generation that the dream is not there for them. the most important thing, i think, is to communicate to our leaders how important ucla is. when people go there, when they write the leaders, the show up in their office, talk to their staff, even talk to them. it makes a profound difference. that is what it is important for people to recognize that ucla was there for them and it is a born for them to be there for ucla. not for this year, not for the next year, but for years to

come. >> why did you do that? >> i got a great education at ucla. the uc system is a huge american treasure, actually. the university of california is one where there are fantastic public universities that have been an open door for middle- class and lower income americans. if you look the average income of the ucla student and compare it to the average income of a harvard student, is is just a much lower average income. the average income of a harvard student is $150,000. it goes to the 1%.

you know, i really feel like the university of california was an opportunity. i went to ucla and was able to go to yale after that. my first year, my roommate was from inglewood. >> california? >> california. it was a tough neighborhood. her family had very little resources. she was an african-american girl at that time. she was only able to go to college and only able to get into such a good college because it was a public institution. it seems to me that this idea of insuring everyone has opportunity regardless of their family's income is kind of central to america. to me, what distinguishes america from every other country is this investment we

have in america. >> what happened to mom and dad -- where they live and what do they do? >> they are both retired. my mother lives in massachusetts still. my father lives in a nearby suburb and he is retired. >> did either one remarried? >> my father remarried. i have a stepmother and a half sister and a stepsister. >> your husband, does he still live in new york? >> no, we are still together. he lives here. he is here. >> how long do you want to do this job? >> for a long time. it is great working on a whole series of issues. it is a great experience, using ideas. is something i have been committed to my whole life. i feel like we have an impact

every day. there is nothing more rewarding. >> one last question. is it better for the center for american progress that barack obama be reelected or that the republicans get in the white house? >> the center for american progress cares very deeply about the direction of the country. so, it is better for the center for american progress for the president to get reelected, in our view, because he will be better for the country and for america's families. it might be more fun, day-to-day to be in the opposition and be there and be able to be critical of the republican president, but that is not what motivates me every day. >> i asked that, because a lot of opposition magazines do better when the other side is in the white house. >> oh yeah. our goal is not just to change the debate and engage in the debate, but to change the country.

we believe that is easier when you have a progressive president. >> neera tanden, thank you very much. >> thank you. it is great to be here. ♪ >> for a dvd copy, call 1-877- 662-7726. q&a programs are also available podcasts.s p >> our quick look across the networks today. here on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern, former state attorney

eliot spitzer talk about federal government could -- prosecutions in the wake of the two dozen a branch of crisis. at c-span2 on at 9:00 eastern, we are live in d.c. at the closing session of the national governors' association clockmee. on c-span3 tonight at 7:30, live coverage for a rally for rick santorum. he will be in michigan. in just one moment, the "washington journal." the former senator has been in town this week in participating in the meetings which wrap up today. at 8:00 eastern, we will speak with kenneth goldstein about the latest technologies in customized political advertising and the collection of a voter inrm