made accommodations for phased-based groups to be who they are and not have to sell their souls to be in the public square. i think that is why you are seeing such a reaction from the catholic bishops because they view this as an interference in their sovereignty. this is how america was founded to protect the minority viewpoints and a small churches -- and the small churches. that was the whole point of i think it is curious is being attacked during an election year. caller: i have a couple of questions. what about the religions that do not believe in blood transfusions or taking blood of any kind? are these organizations going to be able to say we are not going to pay for surgeries or any type of blood?

it is a slippery slope. any religion can claim anything. does your insurance company cover viagra and cialis? guest: on the first one, the blood transfusion cases, that is a different case law. it is not related to what we are pursuing. there have been cases. i remember a a challenge in miami. the supreme court will look at where your religious beliefs are infringing on the health and safety of others. no one is being required to avoid contraception. no one is being denied access to contraception.

that is not what ave maria is doing. that is not even an issue. the issue is who pays for it and why are you forcing us to pay for that. host: long island, new york, you are next. joanne is on the republican line. caller: i would like to say thank-you for your good work. you are an excellent representative. i too went to catholic school. i am not a practicing catholic at the moment. i have used contraception. i have never gone for my health insurance to get it. i have always been taught that life is not just for the privileged or the plant. -- planned. now the government is coming in and saying we know best. i do not understand why everyone

does not seen it as an unconstitutional issue. i find it terrifying the government is coming in and telling me to ignore my faith. i want to tell you to please keep up the fight. it is very important. guest: thank you. some people have tried to say this debate is a war on women. here is an articulate woman who has said she has used contraception, a fallaway catholic who is opposing what is being done by the hhs mandate. it shows many women are bristling against the mandate of the federal government. i appreciate your encouraging words. host: the next call is from fort lauderdale, florida. caller: i have a series of questions.

if i understand correctly, you were head of the faith-based program under george bush. you mentioned you dealt with a lot of different folks of all different religions. that is wonderful. what he neglected to mention is that was set up to divert federal funds into the hands of various religious organizations. if you want to have government money, you also mentioned you took some money at your college, you kind of dance around it. if you do not want the problems of the government coming in with you, stay out of my tax dollars and stop messing around with the government. guest: when i was in the faith- based office, we look at how the federal discretionary grants dollars was expended. only about 10% was going to

faith based organizations. if you do a review of president bush's eight years in office, he will not see money was being diverted to pay back evangelical friends. most of the money went to democratic support to faith- based organizations. it was not a partisan initiative. there is no record of the money being spent that way. i think your first point, there is no record to show that. it is just not true. on the issue of staying out of the public square and being denied eligibility for federal programs, why would the federal government single out faith based organizations that have existed probably in this country for 200 years? why would you single them out and extort from them a

concession in their beliefs in order to have them participate? there are some schools that do not participate. they do not take federal money. our students have been paying taxes. their parents have been paying taxes. our students are coming to be eligible for taxpayer funded programs. it is not like people of the religious conviction are not paying income taxes. i am paying them. i am paying a bunch of taxes like you are. the question is, why would we not be eligible for the student loan program or what our children not be eligible to pursue to play -- to participate? host: you wrote about your analysis of the current state of the office. how would you gauge how the office currently stands? guest: i am disappointed. i had high hopes.

when president obama kept the office open, i applaud him for it. he could have stuck in the smithsonian. he probably had pressure to do that. he did not. i was hopeful he would continue to mobilize america's armies of compassion. what he has done is mobilize armies of contraception. he has turned the office in to political of reach for the initiative. they have been organizing conference calls with groups driving a wedge within the catholic church. i think it is wrong. every white house is political. everywhere else is partisan. the faith-based office when i was there, we worked with more democrats than republicans. i met with the aclu and those on celebration of church and state. i have been disappointed. to see that office out there leading the charge to trample religious rights, and to not

even sit down and meet with the cardinals and bishops and say here is how we can accommodate yourself-insurance me, if they did not make the effort, why does the office exist? it is a huge waste of tax dollars. host: this is an article saying that demonizing the president and ignoring the advancements made in partnering is misinformed and incorrect. guest: i think the big pastor are to read what i wrote. i did not demonize president obama. i wish him well. i am an american like everyone else. -- i think the good pastor should read -- reread what i wrote. he almost made the case for my argument. there's nothing to show in performance from the faith-based

office after three years. there has been a double standard. president obama chose as the director a pentecostal minister who was the head of his political outreach in the campaign to religious groups. he chose a community organizer that would go in there. president obama directed a conference call in advance of the 2010 election, i thought to myself if this faith-based director, if i had gone to president bush and told him the iraq war was unpopular and we should organize a faith-based call out of the oval office to mobilize religious leaders in the balance of the elections in 2006, he would have fired me. that is not with a -- what a faith-based office should be about. it should attempt to be bipartisan. i do not see any effort made by

the office. i think he should be more careful with his choice of words. i also think he made my case. he provided no specific proof of any tangible goals set for three years. it has been purely a political accord reached operation. host: what goes through your mind when you hear people question the sincerity of president obama space? face?sident obama's guest:. i do not like it when people make allegations or accuse people of house and sirte or insincere their faith is. that is not helpful in public discourse. people of faith are on a journey do not condemn and you will not be condemned. we have to be careful. we can raise questions about

policy and go after them with great enthusiasm. that is part of america. when we start to attack whether a person is truly what they said they are, i think you have to be careful with that. host: john is on the democrats' line from missouri. caller: i am tired of being forced to support all of these religions. you ask how i am supporting them even though i am an atheist. every church property in the united states, every church school and hospital, is tax exempt. the largest property in the united states other than the federal government is the catholic church. it pays no taxes. that forces by local property taxes to be higher because of all of the property around here occupied by churches and

religious schools that pay no taxes. that causes my taxes to be higher. if you want to get involved in the government, i would suggest you take away your own tax exempt policies. start paying local taxes and supporting the people here. guest: i pay taxes, too. i am happy part of my taxes are supporting the work that social service ministries do and the work that many organizations do in america. i think the u.s. supreme court has upheld the constitutionality of all this. it is lawful. you disagree with it. you are an atheist. i am not surprised that would be in perspective. the reality is when you look at the good being done today by faith-based organizations and community organizations america

would look completely different if they were not doing good works they are doing. it would cost government more to provide the services. these volunteers are not paid a penny. when you look at the value added by churches, synagogues, and mosques in america and the good work they do, the value is overwhelming. that is why there is preferential tax treatment for faith-based charities and all nonprofits. the government wants to encourage good philanthropy and the work of these groups that work for far less money. i do not think your argument holds up when you look at the economics. american gets a great deal of benefit from these faith-based groups. host: one more call, los angeles, rebecca on the republican line. caller: i went to catholic

schools for 10 years. i do agree religious organizations do a lot of good. however, as a woman, i have pauly cystic bavarian syndrome. -- polycystic ovarian syndrome. you need to take birth control pills. it is $40 a month. it is expensive. health insurance pays the $40 a month so you can take birth control pills so you do not develop cysts on your ovaries. that is a health concern. you say you do not want to hurt people, but this does hurt people. you are denying women who need contraception to prevent this on their ovaries from being able to access it. you are hurting those women.

i kind of think this is the catholic church attacking women. i have a friend who has a friend in the sharia school. then make women sit in a different part of the class than men. they tried to segregate the women. it is like the catholic church is trying to go the same route of islam. you are saying we know better than you and do not want to pay for you to have contraception. what about a woman's rights? host: we will have to leave it there. guest: many catholic health plans provide prescription coverage when it is for the medical issue you raised. that is provided. that is sustaining health treatment. that is not in violation. many dioceses have health plans with that. that is not the issue. my wife would argue strenuously

with you on this issue that the catholic church is attacking women. other leaders are appalled by what the administration is doing in trying to coerce faith- based groups. the idea of a war on women or the catholic church attack on women, i do not see it. my wife does not see it. a lot of women i know do not see it. you can have a difference of opinion about what the church teaches. you had some of this education. you can have a difference of opinion on that, but to make the accusation of the church is attacking women, that sounds like a political stump speech from the left wing of the democratic party. host: jim towey, thank you. at 9:15 on friday, we take a look at america by the numbers. this week is the topic of trade worldwide. we will take up that discussion

when we come right back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> congratulations to all the winners of the documentary competition. a record number of students entered a video on the theme, a showing which part of the constitution is important to them and why. watch all the videos online. join us as we show the top 27 videos on c-span. we will talk with the winners during "washington journal." >> ernest hemingway is considered one of the great american writers.

his works still influence leaders today. not many people know of his work as a spy during world war ii. >> there were instances of german submarines approaching fishing boats saying we will take your cat. ernest says i will wait for them to come alongside. we're going to lob hand grenades down the open hatches. the other members of the crew are going to machine down the deck. >> military and intelligence historian on hemingway, the spy. that is part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> their two ways to watch the festival of books on tv. -- there are two ways to watch the festival of books. the history of the supreme court. at 3:00, panels on forensic science, politics at 4 >> 30.

mexico's drug wars at 6:00. the great depression at 2:30. the american west at 4:00. throughout the weekend, look for coverage streaming live on boo ktv.org. the tucson festival of books live this weekend. >> fired j. edgar hoover? i do not think the president could have gone away with it. >> he details the one hand-year hidden history of the fbi -- he details the 100-year hidden history of the fbi. >> he is like the washington monument. he stands alone like a statue.

he stands as one of the most powerful men who ever served in washington in the 20th century. 11 presidents, 48 years, there is no one like him. a great deal of what we know, what we think we know about j. edgar hoover is myth and legend. >> tim weiner on the history of the fbi. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we take a look at figures released by the federal government and provide context. trade is our topic for this 45 minutes. our guest is steve landefeld. also joining us is ryan avent from "the economist." there were releases of numbers

when it came specifically to trade. i will go through what was said. please put context to them. when it comes to exports of goods and services, that increased $181 billion. please give context to the numbers. guest: although we had a surge in imports, we have been on a good ride with respect to exports over the last year. we have had strong growth in exports. host: classically, america has taken in more than it has sent out when it comes to imports and exports. guest: the crux of that is historically, the decade before the last recession, we were knocking about 0.5% of growth. in 2011, we have a circumstance

where it it was a slight positive addition to growth. host: when it comes to the deficit, it says increased to $52.60 billion in january. guest: when looking at things like the trade deficit and other numbers, you compare to something. the comparison to gdp, is about 4%. host: ryan avent, and how do these numbers translate on how we're doing with what we taken and sent out to other countries? guest: during the past decade or so, we were running a significant balance of trade deficit. during the recession, trade collapsed everywhere. part of what we're seeing in the increase in the deficit is we're getting a little bit back to normal. in general, we are seeing a

trend where america is running closer to balance as time goes on. that is what we would expect to see. this recovery has been unique. normally we see housing and consumption drive the economy back to full employment. net exports have plunged little bit above their weight relative to the aftermath of the past recession. host: when you say you see a trend of balancing, what else could we attribute it to? guest: a strong dollar is nice. it allows us to buy lots of goods from other places. it is cheaper when we go abroad. a weaker dollar is useful in that it helps our exporters and makes our goods more affordable in foreign markets. you also have to look at the strength in emerging markets. we're used to focusing on places like china sending exports to us. as their consumers grow richer,

they will begin to buy more of our products as well as places like brazil and india. host: if you want to ask a question of these gentlemen, we have two numbers to call. we have phone numbers for time zones and for outside the united states. it can also e-mail or twitter. this chart shows a line for exports, a line for gdp, a line for employment. what can you tell us about these lines custome? guest: there is the decline of the value of the dollar. we see the raised exports wind.

if we were to update the chart, we would see the growth we have had in manufacturing employment as of late. host: does that mean those working are working more to make the goods? guest: it may be more hours, but it may be the substitution of capital for their labor term. there may be out sourcing of components. there are a lot of reasons for improvement in productivity. it is probably what is driving that improvement in exports. host: what can you add to that as far as the people putting these things together? guest: there has been a trend in the last half century productivity in manufacturing to

improve. a lot of it is substituting machines and better technology for labor. that means we're going to have a different economy from the 1950's. it is good for a living standards. it allows us to pay workers more. host: the first call is from pleasanton, california, nick, go ahead. caller: i want to question these people on how the imports and exports are counted. when we create parts and ship them to other countries to create something and bring it back into the states, how is that counted? as an import or as an export? has anybody really read the full bill on these trade agreements? nobody really mentions much of them. it is always good for the u.s., but who knows what is in them? host: one example you given the latest figures is that of the apple iphone.

how does that relate to the caller's question? guest: this is a case study that has become rather famous in illustrating global trade. the value of the iphone retail is $499. the manufacturing cost in china is $6.50. the other inputs the command to the u.s. are shipped to china, assembled, and sent back here. part of it is the value being shipped to china. it is shipped back here. when one looks at this, the portion accruing to china is a little over 1% of the total value. over 2/3 of it accrues to the united states. the residual accrues to other countries. that is an example of how the trade components show up in the

data. host: are those common examples as far as the peace work in manufacturing? guest: i think it is fairly common. one thing america is good at is putting in the intellectual property and goes in to the devices. silicon valley is incredibly productive in putting things together like the ipod. we're used to focusing on whether something is important to the west. a lot of the content is american-originated. a lot of it returns to american companies and workers. supply chains are spreading out over the world. it is difficult to pin down where something is from and who produced it. maybe that is important, too. host: this part of the issue become the labor issue region does part of the issue become the labor issue? -- does part of the issue become the labor issue? guest: we do not want to see a

horrible conditions driving workers to suicide. one thing we need to think about is the conditions for these workers in factories is that they are better than when they were a subsistence farmer living hand to mouth. eventually everyone is enriched by it. host: houston, texas, good morning. caller: i was wondering how much oil-based products are helping to contribute to the decline in our import-export deficit. the keystone pipeline everyone is talking about is such a big deal. i have been reading about it. i understand the oil that will eventually flow down to my neck of the woods to be refined here would be exported to china. if that is the case, we do not

need the environmental hazard if it is all going to be exported in the first place. is there a number you can put on the oil-based products, how they are contributing to the decline? guest: over the last year or so, about $1 trillion has been from opec. in the case of canada, about 25% of our imports of will come from canada and saudi arabia, perhaps 12%. when we think about the dynamics of the relationship with canada, we need to revert about 25% of our imports come from canada. guest: a lot of the variation

has to do with changes in the price. when oil becomes more expensive, the bill goes up. even if we're not importing more barrels, the value goes up. one thing that is useful is to think about that as prices have gone up, it has been painful for households. it also means we are moving away from dependence on oil. we have been producing more domestic oil. i think it will help to work out the balance a bit. host: do you follow inflation at all? -- caller: do you follow inflation at all? what the government puts out as a factual number does not agree with what i have to take out my wallet to buy on the open market. there is a disconnect somewhere. i feel it happens to be in washington.

the point about the oil pipeline coming out of canada, against people do not remember the gas lines in the 1970's and what caused it. i know opec controlled the spigot at one time. if that happens again, could we experience gas lines again if the saudis and others curtail shipping fuel? host: address the impact. guest: as prices rise here, that will encourage consumers to buy less. that will have a similar effect on what we're producing. a lot of people feel inflation numbers do not reflect their experience. we focus a lot on the things we see every day. gas prices flash as we drive by. we put a lot of attention on that.

rent and home prices have fallen a lot. that feeds into the overall numbers of inflation. the cost of living has gotten cheaper. host: when looking at the trade picture, there is the chart that looks at goods and services combined taking a dip. goods were taking it. in services, there was an uptick. why is that? guest: we have a surplus over time. there has been strong growth in services. we went from one under 46 01 billion to one under $87 billion in our surplus in services. -- we went from $146 billion to $187 billion in our surplus in services. host: can you break it down for the types of businesses doing these things? guest: 1 that surprises some

people is travel. that is one of our biggest categories where we do well. another is business and professional and technical services. we have been doing quite well and having surplus in those components. it is more difficult to understand royalties and licensing fees. part of it is movies and videos. a lot of it is royalties paid by foreign subsidiaries and manufacturers for intellectual property. part of it is legal services, construction services. across a broad array of professional/technical services, you see a long-term rise in those services surplus. host: have services always been

part of the trade picture? guest: its importance in trade is a recent thing. i think exports of services, about half of the level of goods we export, the services and goods we export are relatively even. that is a recent phenomenon. host: he mentions a call center. is the actual firms setting up organizations in other countries to perform services like tax preparation? guest: understanding is that would not count as an export of a service. that would be taxes done here and sold abroad. that could be to recall or web centers. you may be able to shed more light. guest: you are correct. it is cross-border trail. it is sales from the u.s. to

people overseas. the companies do a sizable volume of business abroad through their foreign affiliates abroad. but those are not counted in the trade statistics. they accounted in the way that they're making money for the subsidiaries and coming back. insurance tends to be a volatile component of your trade picture, reacting very much to natural disasters and large losses. there is a lot of reinsurance business going on. host: gene, good morning. caller: my question has to do with your graph on increasing exports. i want to know if that includes military equipment and services or not. that is my question. my comments are that people do

not understand that canada still imports oil from the middle east. it is not making up all of its needs for its own oil. finally, i cannot vote for any gop person because they're only economic plan is war and the production of military equipment for war profiteers. i will never vote for the gop again. host: military equipment is part of exports? guest: it is included but is not a driver in most periods. with the demobilization, it is down. host: we have upticks when it comes to trade with brazil and the netherlands. why those countries? guest: part of the benefit is the value of the dollar that has been declining for some time. that raises the competitiveness

of u.s. goods in those countries. some of those countries have been less affected by the u.s.- european financial crisis and are doing better in their growth. the ones on the left, a number of them are the countries that have relied heavily on export- led growth and less on domestic demand. host: take a picture of the left column -- pain a picture of the left column and why it is outclassing the others. guest: germans tend to export high-value capital goods. they export a lot to china. a lot of it is associated with

the fact that they are a large economy. there the second-largest in the world. they are producing a lot of manufacturers. in terms of the size of the u.s. economy, it is a fairly small part. it is not necessarily sustainable. the chinese government realizes there will not be able to rely on the export model forever. they will need to make changes in their domestic economy. host: what is the ripple effect of that if it changes? guest: if china can make a smooth transition, it should be good for the rest of the world. they will be able to sell more goods to the growing chinese domestic market. it is not a smooth transition, there is a hard landing. china could differ a recession would have political consequences. -- china could go into a recession that would have political consequences. guest: we have the accounts of

what we buy and sell and what we give away through foreign aid. there is the financing aspect to those. the u.s. has been running a deficit since 1975. throughout that time, we have had to finance that. we have been investing abroad as we have built up debts domestically. it has been brought up a fair amount. i think it amounts to $3 trillion. that may seem a lot as a percentage of our gdp, but it works out to one point 4% of our total assets because we are a rich nation -- but it works out to 1.4% of our total assets because we are a rich nation. host: diana.

caller: i would like to question those statistics. if the exports are going up and productivity is going up but employment is remaining flat or below, i propose it is really just been a fitting the multinational firms and their top executives. productivity is a code word for eliminating the jobs. they are just exploiting the people in other countries hiring them at low wages. we have seen the miserable conditions. they skirt our environmental laws. china is getting polluted. there is a race to the bottom going to the philippines instead of india for the call centers. coach had great earnings because very few people are able

to buy their products. guest: i think we have seen firms become better at generating more output from each worker. during the recession, it seemed like companies took the opportunity to cut the work force to the bone. that was good for corporate profits. it contributed to unemployment. we're seeing a turnaround. we have good numbers this morning. a lot of that is new employment in manufacturing. manufacturing jobs were up about 35,000 this month. that is part of an unborn trend. -- that as part of an ongoing trend. as companies feel more confident, they will bring more workers back. that translates to more of the gains going to the working people and not just corporate profits. host: go ahead. caller: i was calling about a keystone pipeline. i see the pipeline is to bring

oil through america, not to america, all we down to the gulf to be shipped to europe and asia. i also saw the same situation back in the 1970's with the alaskan oil pipeline. we were told we needed that will to lower our dependency from the middle east. when the pipeline was done, all of the oil was shipped to japan and china. i do not see how these things are benefiting america. thank you. host: address the pipeline? guest: oil is a global market. the price is set globally. it will affect us no matter where the oil is shipped. the way to make a permanent reduction in our dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our dependence on oil. host: when you look at the topic of trading partners the united states has with the world, from

2000 to 2010, analysis showed in 2000 was 5% with china. in 2010, it was 12%. everybody else involved shrunk by comparison. could you give context on what caused the change in numbers? guest: much of it has been the growth in china. that is what has been changing the composition of the graphs. i would note one thing that has been something of a constant at its ignored a bit is that if you look at the european union as a country, the european union is actually our biggest trading partner as opposed to china. although canada has fallen somewhat from 18% to 15%, a lot of people tend to be surprised to find that canada is our

largest single country trading partner. next is mexico. that is our next biggest trading partner. a lot of what goes on in trade is not the across the ocean trade we think of. a lot of it is right here in north america. host: that is a good point. other people would think china is the largest part of we have when it comes to trade. i do not know if the other countries to recognize as much. guest: they do not. we can overstate the importance of trade to the economy as a whole. it allows us to take advantage of opportunities to buy foreign goods. it is good for productivity. we are a huge economy. trade remains a relatively small portion of that economy compared to domestic production. host: the president said he wants to increase trade with other countries. where is seat on that?

guest: -- where is he on that? guest: i believe he said he wanted to double exports in five years. i think he is channeling a desire to see a broader rebound in the economy, to have us go back to exporting more than we import. that is going to occur simply because we have borrowed as much as we can. the dollar has been falling. we may not get there in five years, but he is describing a trend that is going to take place. host: arizona, good morning to gerard. caller: the democrats keep saying production is up. the only production that is up is on private land. the epa is trying to shut down fracking. we're down 17% on production in the gulf.

steven chu was caught basically saying in the past that hill and the president both wanted the price of oil to go up to european levels. the other solar things would be worth more on the open markets like solyndra and some of the other failed policies. host: can you relate this to trade issues? caller: we need to produce more oil. the price will go down. it is a simple fact, supply and demand. plus we would have high-paying jobs in this country. host: a simple fact, increasing production. guest: jobs in energy have been growing quite a bit. there is a boom in the planes in north dakota because of this. it is not quite that simple. oil is sold on the global

market. we want americans to consume less of it. the price is going to go up because the u.s. is a small population. as people in other countries go richer -- grow richer, they will want to live a life like we do. host: mr. landefeld, there is a chart for the global balance. it shows the share by country. what does the title mean? guest: this is the rebalancing of economies. germany, china, and japan, the current account balances are in surplus and have been for some time. they depend on the net-export- led growth for their economic growth less than they do for domestic demand. on the left, we have two major

areas where we rely much more on consumption growth. net exports is a drag on the economy. the aim of this administration and previous ones has been to try to repellents that growth. as ryan said, it would be good for china. they cannot eat the dollars they are piling up at a great rate. it would lead us in europe with a more sustainable growth pattern if we were investing more in our country, saving more, and consuming less, and selling our products abroad a bit more. host: what else would you like to add before we move on? guest: the flip side of this is the financing. the u.s. produces one thing no one else can produce. it is in high demand all over the world. that is treasury debt.

everyone wants it. it is in demand in times of crisis. the more that people buy it back, it brings up the dollar. it translates that into our ability to consume more goods from abroad. it is also about a story of strength. particularly in times of crisis, we are a safe haven. that is why people are borrowing so much of our debt. host: this is a chart of what the u.s. owes to foreigners in 2010, total liabilities to china. would you mind an explanation of those categories? guest: we owe a little over $2 trillion to china. we hear a lot of concerns about the chinese on in america. because the united states is such a large and rich nation, that amounts to only about 1% of our total assets. two other countries, we owe $20 trillion. that is larger than our gdp.

-- to the other countries, we of $20 trillion. that is larger than our gdp. those deficits over time have accumulated to a total of over $20 trillion. we also have substantial assets abroad with our investments abroad. the net of those turns out to be only 1.4% of our total assets we owe abroad. that is just providing some check on the relative size of the indebtedness and how much of a policy problem it is for us. host: the relative size also adds to the picture as far as we handle our debt to other countries. guest: anytime you are borrowing to fund ongoing operations, you are at risk countries will decide not to lend to you. the interest-rate the government

is paying now is essentially zero. at times, it has been negative. it is not like countries are getting nervous at this point about lending to us. they feel confident we will be able to pay these debts back. i think they are right to feel that way. host: richardson, texas, gary, go ahead. caller: my question is to ryan avent. for those trying to allay these points to the american people, i noticed this morning -- i am a political junkie. most of the news stations were honing in on the numbers and breaking them down. fox news decided not to show anything and go to different programming. but to a better point, the commerce secretary in texas seems to not be getting a lot of

credit or media play as to the great job he is doing. i think republicans and democrats seem to respect the commerce secretary. i would like you to comment on that. guest: in an election year, there will be quite a bit of debate about how the economy is doing. it will be in the interest of some parties to say it is doing better than it is. it will be in the interest of some parties to say it is doing worse than it is. one thing we see in the political science literature is that people react to a changing picture. if they feel the economy is improving, that will show up. they will see people they know getting higher. they will see their employers are more likely to give them a wage increase. even if the story in washington is confusing, the impact on people's lives and paychecks will show up. that will be reflected in how they vote, i suspect, in november. host: a y, -- ha why a --

hawaii, good morning, go ahead. caller: one lady referred to conditions of war and terrible pay. ask if she has ever heard the words of " purchasing power parity." the dollar is not getting stronger in the long term. short-term, it is. but it has fallen roughly 90% since they started tracking it about 100 years ago. this is the first generation of americans since world war ii where children are in a worse financial position than our parents. they are coming out to a drop in the standard of living. that was not my question. i have lived in china.

the province that had the first movers in regards to exports, the iphone is a lot more made in china than people realize. you factor in the transfer of intellectual property, while living in china, i found i could buy the same items -- host: the question is? caller: most of those had better rules of law and less piracy. china does not factor in all of its costs. you can go to the top of them down and look out, you cannot see across the city for all of the smog.

host: we will leave the points there. guest: i think there is a perception that china is doing things in a way that is somewhat unfair. part of that is reduced labor standards, environmental standards. that is not an uncommon route to development. we have seen that across history. the u.s. follow the same pattern in doing things when it developed that we would look upon now as being irresponsible in terms of environment and labor standards. the chinese remain much poorer than americans. the standard of living here is about four times that of china. the gap is closer in big cities. the u.s. is still the richest. one of the richest large countries in the world. it is getting richer. we should not look at the difficult years of the past decade without remembering the extent to which we have things going for us.

caller: my question would be to the gentleman that called a little while back talking about the pipelines. i do not understand his theory and the part about the gas going across seas. maybe some of it did. does he remember gas back then was 35 cents a gallon? host: we're talking of the larger issues of trade. what would be your question? caller: about trade, it goes into the same thing. we trade gas. we trade all kind of commodities. it is never going to end. i do not understand why people are so worried about us trading gas. if we have an overflow of it, sell it. host: it is time for the final thoughts on the big picture of what we have learned on trade.

guest: the only concluding comment i might make is there is a lot of discussion of offshor ing. a lot of thought that is so often vilified is for access to foreign markets. our data shows most of the production abroad is for local markets rather than coming back here. we keep most of the important -- employment here in the united states for the large multinational companies. guest: the data shows the long- term picture for the u.s. economy is pretty good. it will continue to get better. as countries like china and india grow richer, that is a bigger market for the many excellent goods the u.s. produces. host: we would be remiss without showing these numbers as far as the unemployment rate and jobs picture. it currently stands at 8.3% for february. 227,000 jobs added, according to information released today. steve landefeld serves as the

director of the bureau of economic analysis and ryan avent from "the economist," thank you for joining us. we have another show it tomorrow. we will see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] . >> quiet on capitol hill today, the members were busy yesterday. in the house, they passed a bill aimed at easing regulations for small and medium-sized

businesses going public. members are out next week, but they do have a pro-forma session today at 11:00 a.m. eastern. we will have that for you live. on the senate side, members debated and voted on a number of amendments to the transportation bill. they rejected an amendment that would have authorized the keystone xl pipeline without executive branch input. they fell eight votes short. they defeated a counterproposal by the oregon and democrat that would allow the pipeline to be built but prohibit the export of 80 oil unless the president waives the bear and for reasons of national interest. today, senator lugar said he hopes the keystone issue could be brought up during house floor debate on the measure or as part of a bicameral conference. work in the senate is expected next week on the transportation bill. the latest jobs figures released this morning showing that u.s. employers added 22 copper7,000

jobs in february. the unemployment rate unchanged, staying at 8.3%. speaker boehner tweeting this morning, encouraging, some jobs are being created. while unemployment remains high. we expect president obama to talk about the latest jobs figures at an event today in prince george, virginia. he will be touring a rolls royce manufacturing plant, speaking to workers. we will have the president's comments for you live at 12:30 p.m. eastern. the house is expected to come in for a pro-forma session, no legislative work. until then, a conversation with former california representative ellen tauscher from this morning's "washington journal." host: she is the former undersecretary of state for arms control in international security. a representative from california in which she is part of the armed services committee. she is currently a member of the atlantic council board of

directors. welcome. guest: thank you so much. host: when you look at what is going on in syria right now, what is the best strategy as far as the u.s. is going forward? guest: it is the president's strategy. president assad has been attacking his own citizens for well over a year. the president has led an international effort with ambassador reiskin secretary clinton and built a very important coalition. you have very important voices in the region, like the arab league, very much united. what we have is a syria that is attacking its own people, a president that has to leave, and a transition that has to go forward. the policy is important to get this political transition form the upper. support for the syrian and national council and the efforts of the arab league are very important. but i think you have an increasingly isolated syria that

sees that there very few options left. clearly, military intervention is the last option, as with most things. everything is on the table for the president. right now, this is about diplomacy and political transition. host: looking at what is going on an inside, your thoughts on army rebels within syria? guest: it is very important that we do everything we can to support those that are going to be hopefully leading to a free syrian in the future. there many different mechanisms and different capabilities to do that. i think that many people have spoken out in the last weeks and months about harming people. you know, it is always dangerous when you consider the fact that the armenian people leads to the kinds of conflicts that you have. but when you see what has been going on in the streets of syria and you see the syrian military that choose not to fire on the throne people shot by their own colleagues, you see

children crying and because their parents are dead. it is important to understand that we need a moderate and serious approach to this. i think that all things are on the table. but right now, we're depending on diplomacy to lead to a political transition. and the idea of arming people is on the table, but it is not something we're operational host: lives in reno when does diplomacy turn to something else that? guest: it is clearly turning to something else for president assad. he is going to have to go. i think everybody has made that very clear. the question is, how do you make that transition without further exacerbating an already tense situation where too many people are losing their lives every day? at the that is a decision that the international community has to make. in the region, it is important to see what other members of the region are saying, especially the arab league. it is important to listen to the

syrian and national council on what kind of capabilities they're looking for and how we support them. it is important to look at the humanitarian issue. we have lebanon, jordan, and turkey that have a tremendous amount of refugees. if there was a bigger armed conflict, i think you would see an even bigger humanitarian crisis. the region is not really ready for it. a lot of elements have to be put in place before you look at any other kind of intervention. right now, it is important to have a forceful diplomatic mission, diplomatic message to get a political transition. >> where does turkey and tunisia factor in? >> that is important, too. i think the turks and tunisia and, we have learned a lot of lessons in the arab spring. we have learned lessons about transition. those are important voices, and we're listening to them. >> our guest is with us until 8:30 a.m.. call in numbers for questions.

we have a number for democrats, republicans, and independence. an e-mail can be sent. we can take york tweeds, too. first call for our guest is a buffalo, new york, democrats line. hello. >> let's talk for a moment about international law. most of the people in the administration, it has been my experience, both democrat and republican and, tend to view international law as kind of the dirty phrase. yet, we're the signatory to the u.n. charter. we drafted most of it. and the u.n. charter, as i understand, it spells out that a sovereign nation has the right to suppress an armed rebellion within their own nation. hopefully they do it humanely. look at nations like bahrain.

there is a rebellion there. but we keep our nose out of that. there is one in yemen. we have supported the government there and not the armed people, which of course is al qaeda, bad news. but the point being, we have a double standard. we're not happy with syria politically, the because the you feel they support hezbollah a little bit. but you also forget that syria was with us after 9/11, sharing intelligence, helping work with us. guest: we have respect for both domestic and international law. frankly, that is not the point. this is not about picking winners and losers. look at the region. the region is against president assad. the only country standing with assad is basically its friend iran. let's face it, this is a country that is trying not to suppress

-- is killing innocent people. these are not people taking up arms against the government. these are people going to the market. while the caller is right that international law is the role we try to live by, we're not picking winners and losers here. president assad is picking losers, and it is his own people. what is important here is that the region, the people that know this area best are against this aggression, against president assad, believes he has to leave. and for the syrian people, who we should all before. this is not just any country. this is a country that is a puppet of iran and one that has unabashedly supported both hamas and hezbollah who are two sycophant terrorist organizations in the region. i think it is important to recognize that we're not picking winners and losers. president assad is the one who has picked the losers. his own people. host: a question from twitter.

aren't the hands tied? haguest: ambassador rice and secretary clinton are working on ha a new security council resolution. morocco is involved and other members of the middle east are involved. i think it is important that we go back to the u.n. and try to get something true. -- get something through. of course, especially in china, members of the p5 are important. host: did they turn against sanctions in russia and china? guest: those are details. they need to get worked out of new york. it is important to note all levers of power and influence are being used, including the security council. host: what makes you think that the un will get its way? especially when it comes to syria? guest: i think that while we are deeply discouraged and not happy with the vote in early january and the vetoed by russia and china of the security council resolution, those things

have a chance of coming back and that is what we are working on. host: good morning to mike. independent line. if fruigo ahead. caller: i have a few points. do not cut me off. please. i have heard you make multiple references to international law and that stuns it is nearing the statements of secretary panetta -- mirroring the statements of secretary panetta. he is more concerned with getting un approval then getting the ok from our own congress. in libya, we are fighting with al qaeda or we were during that conflict. i'm sure they are still there. i am concerned with in one country, we have an enemy we are fighting and in the other country, they are our allies.

it is a scam. i really wish everyone would have been vocal when these things were happening in uganda and the democratic republic of congo and these different places. there are millions of people being slaughtered and no one says anything. i do not know if it was because black people this was happening to. or they did not have oil. we already put in that dictators and a ruthless rulers in their neighborhoods. they run the show for us so we do not need to have this international pressure that we put on these other countries. -- on these muslim countries. guest: mike, my references were specific to the question previous to you which was about international law. in the case of syria -- guest: let me make it clear that we have stated our position.

the president has been clear. in the case of syria, president assad has to go. the punishment and killing of his own people who are looking to have religious and economic freedom -- it has been thwarted by him. this is a chance for him to keep power. you have to look at the region. what is going on in the region? we are not from these regions. but we have tremendous influence and economic interests and a lot of friends and allies in this region. specific to the middle east, the arab league who unfortunately sat on the sidelines in too many other conflicts became very active during the arab spring and made some choices in the case of libya and asked for help. now in syria, you see a similar in many of these cases, you mentioned that terrible troubles and africa. it is about what the region is doing. not have any advocates. that is a very bad situation.

i think that was true in many ways for africa, but that is not true for the middle east. we know how close everybody is there in the middle east. it is important that these situations be contained and maintained. host: as far as the region, what are the differences between the actions taken in libya and the actions yet to be taken in syria? are there comparisons? guest: pedro, on a case by case basis, i think that is an important way to look at things. all of these countries look homogenized or not. they have various different forms of government and the different histories. they have the various different interrelationships with each other, and they have different relationships with us.

they have a different relationship with the eu and other european allies. you cannot put one template across the whole region. host: supporting the rebels? guest: these are decisions that are made. someone who is the regime thinks is an insurgent could be a freedom fighter. i think once again these are very calculated specifications that have to be made. we need to be sure we are supporting them. host: warrenton, virginia, good morning. the republican line. caller: thank you for c-span. we appreciate these programs and comments. i would like to ask the former undersecretary that if our

government is struggling against al qaeda, atrocities that they are committing around the region in the middle east and causing a lot of problems for the united states, doesn't the undersecretary think that the taliban in afghanistan would be used to give safe haven to a former bin laden and they are doing it so in the pakistan region between the border of afghanistan. now our government is talking about they are friends with our government, and they have no way of not talking to them to reach the peace process with them. they are setting up offices in qatar, in the middle east

countries with them. and they are finding them. -- they are funding them. doesn't she think we are saving them from basically disappearing? guest: in the case of afghanistan, the taliban was in power in afghanistan. when they created a safe haven for al qaeda -- that was in the late 1990's and the early 2000's. we saw the result of that in new york, pennsylvania, and here in washington september 11, 2001. our military in afghanistan and the afghan government are negotiating with many, many elements of the afghan people to create a peaceful solution and to bring our troops home. the president has been very forceful getting our troops out

and turning this over to the afghan people. that negotiation with whoever it is always excludes anyone with terrorist ties. if you are taliban but you have proved you are not associated with al qaeda and you are someone who can have our trust earned, you are probably going to be part of a settlement. this is led by the afghan government. not the united states. it is important to understand there are taliban elements in afghanistan, and not all of them were harboring al qaeda. it is important whoever we are dealing with have no terrorist ties. host: "the washington journal" this morning talks about the weapons that potentially exist in syria. guest: it is very similar to the kind of work that we did

after libya was freed. libya did have some chemical weapons stores. and some other manpadas and other things. the international community is working to not only retrieve those weapons but to dispose of them. that is the concern in syria, that they have a number of chemical weapons. it is important for us to work with the surviving transitional government to make sure they are secured and put down. it is important that we are calculating that president assad does not get to use them. host: good morning. vermont, democrats line. caller: after hearing leon panetta and the joint chiefs of staff saying if the u.n. decides is the right thing to start a war in the middle east, they will take orders from the u.n. this begs the question -- what happened to our sovereignty and

our oath as far as the constitution goes? i am calling my senator to make sure that these people get re- educated on the constitution. it is another reason why i think americans really need ron paul in office because the people of america have forgotten what the u.s. constitution has done, given us freedom and sovereignty. host: i saw you shaking your head at one point. guest: i know what they said. we do not abrogate our sovereignty to anyone, including the u.n. this is not about that. host: senator john mccain, one of them during the exchange. calling for a more aggressive stance for syria. this took place on wednesday in the senate. regarding the situation in

syria. listen to what he had to say. [video clip] >> assad needs to know that he will not win. unfortunately, that is not the case now. to the contrary, assad seems convinced he can wipe out the opposition to violence and is fully committed to doing so. can you tell us how much longer the killing will have to continue? how many additional civilian lives will have to be lost to convince you the military measures of this kind that we are proposing to end the killing -- how many more have to die? 10,000, 20,000? how many more? guest: senator mccain is a colleague of mine. i think what is important is military force is always on the table, always an option, but that has to be calibrated with the opportunity to save more lives than lose them and have the best effect for political

transition and do things in a reasonable way. what is clear is that the opposition certainly is not ready for something like that in syria. it is important that we have diplomacy and political transition, that we are building the case against syria. in the region, we have the arab league of. we have isolated the country and isolated president assad. we are making sure this case is unambiguous. we are getting support for the transition, both politically and in the region. i think it is important before we decide to continue the violence, we find a way to stop the violence and mitigate the ability to have a transition. there are many other opportunities and levers of influence and shutting assad's capabilities off. this is not a country with a

peashooter. this is a country with serious armament. the president is killing his own people. perhaps he understands he has a bad transition coming up. he certainly does not have the people's best interests at heart. when somebody like this is increasingly isolated and paranoid, they do crazy things. it is important that we are prepared and we have everyone on the ground prepared for what might be happening. we believe we are doing everything we can to minimize the violence, make sure that assad is aware, and we want this transition to happen sooner than later. host: who are our strongest allies at this point? guest: in the region, everyone is stepping up. certainly our friends in europe are very important because we

would have to make sure that we were able to support what ever happened. in the region, the countries that are already taking refugees like jordan, lebanon, and turkey -- they need support, too, to make sure those elements coming into the country are peaceful people and they have the ability to manage it inside their own country. host: nato? guest: nato -- it is important to see what the region is deciding, whether this is something that will include military intervention. host: new york for our guest, ellen tauscher. the independent line. caller: for me, this crisis can be tackled. diplomacy, yes. there should be a clean, no killing zone. i stress no killing zone should

be established and that should be protected. the way we are treating this crisis reminds me of -- we allowed him to go that way. this is not going to be another kosovo. united states does not want to get military during election time. so does france. the only countries that can make a difference for me is turkey. turkey is a strong country. turkey has to be rewarded for what it is doing now. turkey should be a member of the european union. without turkey, there would be no solution in that part of the world. i can tell you that. guest: i think the caller makes some good points. host: there is an op ed today in "the wall street journal," talking about their nuclear capability. they write --

how would you chime in on those points? guest: i would listen to what president obama and secretary clinton has said. clinton has said.

for generations, manufacturing has been the ticket into the middle class.

every day millions clocked in at foundries and assembly lines -- making things. and the stuff we make -- steel and cars and jet engines, that was the stuff that made america what it is. it was understood it around the world. the work was hard but the jobs were good. it paid enough to own a home and raise kids and send them to college. it gave you enough to retire on with dignity and respect. jobs that told us something more important than how much we will work, it told us what we were worth -- told us that we were building more than just products. it told us we were building communities, neighborhood, building a country. it gave people pride about what

america is all about. that is why one of the first decisions i made as president was to stand by manufacturing, to stand by the american auto industry when it was on the brink of collapse. [applause] the heartbeat of america mfg.on was c stake in-sospan than a million jobs -- the heartbeat of america manufacturing was at stake, and a million jobs. together over the past two and a half years, the entire auto industry has added more than 200,000 jobs. and here is the thing -- not just building cars again, but better cars. for the first time in three decades we raised fuel standard so by the middle of the next decade, the cars that are built

in america will average more than 55 miles to the gallon. that will save the typical family about $8,000 at the pump over time. that is real savings. that is real money. and it shows that depending on foreign oil does not have to be our future. it shows that when we harness our own ingenuity, our technology -- and we can control our future. america thrives when we build things better than the rest of the world. i want us to make stuff here and sell it over there. i do not want them selling it over here. and that is exactly what you are doing here. at the largest rolls-royce said -- facility in the world, that

is what you are doing by building the key components of nowhere, faster, more fuel- efficient jet engines. i just took a tour and then learned a bit about how a jet engine comes together. don't quiz me on it. [laughter] i am a little fuzzy on some of the details. i did press some buttons back there. a few weeks ago i actually got to see the finished product. i went to boeing in washington state and i checked out a new dreamliner. i even got to sit in the cockpit. i did not press any but is there, though. if it started going, there would have been a problem. this airplane, the dreamliner, is going to keep america at the cutting edge of aerospace technology.

american workers are manufacturing various components for it, in ohio, oklahoma, south carolina, kansas, and right here in petersburg. in fact, the demand for their airplanes was so high last year that boeing had to hire 13,000 workers all across america just to keep up. and boeing is gaining more and more share all the time. so, think about that. rolls-royce is choosing to invest in america. you are creating jobs here, manufacturing components for jet engines and airplanes that we will send all over the world. that is the kind of business cycle we want to see. not buying stuff that is made someplace else and racking up dead, but by inventing things and building things and selling them all over the world stand with three proud words, "made in america." [applause]

made in america. think about how important this is. imagine if the airplane of the future was being built someplace else. and that if we had given up on the auto industry -- imagine if we had given up on the auto industry. but we didn't. we are americans, we are inventors, we are builders, thomas edison, the wright brothers, and steve jobs. that is who we are. that is what we do. we invent stuff, we build it, and pretty soon the entire world adapts. that is so we are. and as long as i am president, we will keep on doing it. we will make sure the next generation of life changing products are manufactured here in the united states of america.

that is why we launched the all hands on deck effort. we brought together the finest -- brightest academic mines, the boldest business leaders, the most dedicated public servants of our science and technology agency's, all with a big goal, a renaissance in american manufacturing. we called it the advanced manufacturing partnership. the advanced manufacturing partnership. and today we are building on it. i am laying on my plans for a new national network of manufacturing innovation. these are going to the institutes of manufacturing excellence where some of our most advanced engineering schools and our most innovative manufacturers collaborate on new

ideas, technology, new methods, new processes. and if this sounds familiar, that is because what you are about to do right here -- later this summer, the commonwealth center for advanced manufacturing will open its doors. it is a partnership between manufacturers, including this one, uva, virginia tech, virginia state university -- [applause] vsu is a little over represented here. the commonwealth and the federal government. think of this as a place where companies can share access to cutting its capabilities, and at the same time students and workers are picking up the skills, they are training on state of the art equipment, they are solving some of the most

important challenges facing our manufacturers. you just got all of this brain power and still an experience coming together in this hub, and that makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts. it allows everybody to learn from each other and figure out how we will do things even better. it is going to help get that the next great idea from a paper or a computer to the lab, to the factory, to the global marketplace. and that is especially important for the one in three americans in manufacturing will work for a small business to the not always have access to resources like these. obviously the big companies, boeing, larose voice -- they have the resources and capital to be able to create the platforms, but some of the smaller and medium-sized businesses, it is a little bit

harder. so, this gives them access and allows them to take part in this new renaissance of american. and we have to build these institutes all across the country. i want it everywhere. to do that, we need congress to act. hmm. [laughter] [applause] it is true. but that does not mean we have to hold our breath. we are not going to wait. we are going to go ahead on our own later this year. we will choose the winner of the competition for a pilot institute for manufacturing innovation, help them get started. with the pilot in place we will

keep on pushing congress to do the right thing because this is the kind of approach that can succeed, but we have to have this all across the country. i want everybody thinking about how are we making the best products, how are we harnessing the new ideas and making sure they are located here in the united states. and sparking this network of innovation across the country, it will create jobs and it will keep america in the manufacturing gained. of course, there is more we can do to seize this moment, to create more jobs and manufacturing in america. we have to do everything we can to encourage more companies to make the decision to invest in america and to bring jobs back from overseas. we are starting to see companies do that. they are starting to realize this is the place with the best workers, the best ideas, the best universities. this is the place to be.

we've got to give them a little more encouragement. right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. companies that choose to invest in america, they get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. does that make any sense? it makes no sense and everybody knows it. so it is time to stop rewarding businesses who ship jobs overseas and reward companies to create good jobs right here in the united states of america. that is how our tax code should work. at the same time, we got to do everything we can to make sure our kids gets the education that gives them every chance to succeed. i have been told that last year's balloted korean at petersburg high -- valedictorian at petersburg high, she had a

good statement. she said her cap and gown was the best down anybody could hang in their closet. i like that. let's make sure students like her have teachers to bring out the best. let's make sure if they want to go to college, their families can afford them to go to college. [applause] and legs -- let's make sure workers have the skills this company is working for. we need folks in beijing and lifelong learning. the days you started off at 20 with one company and you do the same thing for 40 years, it is not going to happen anymore. as i was meeting some of the folks here -- they have been machinists, they have been in manufacturing for years, but they are constantly upgrading their skills and retraining. some of them have been laid off

and have gone back to school before they came to this company. so, we need to make sure those opportunities for people mid career and onward, that they can constantly go back to community college and retool to make sure they are qualified for the jobs of tomorrow. at a time when so many americans are looking for work, no job openings should go unfilled just because people didn't have an opportunity to get the training they need it. that is why i have asked congress to join me in a national commitment to train 2 million americans with the skills that will lead directly to a job right now. we need to create more partnerships like the one this plant has with a community

college. we should get more community colleges the resources they need. i want them to be community career centers, places that teach people skills that companies are looking for right now, from data management, to the kind of high-tech manufacturing being done in this facility. so, day-by-day, we are restoring this economy from crisis. but we can't stop there. we've got to make this economy ready for tomorrow. day by day we are creating new jobs, but we can't stop there. not until everybody who is out there pounding the pavement has a chance to land one of those jobs. every day we are producing more oil and gas than we have in years, but we can't stop there. i want our businesses to lead the world in clean energy, too.

best colleges and universities in the world, but we can't stop there. i want to make sure more of our students can afford to go to those colleges and universities. everybody knows we've got the best workers on earth, but we can't stop there. we've got to make sure the middle class doesn't just survive. we want them to thrive. we want them to dream big dreams and to feel confident about the future. i did not run for this office just to get back to where we were. i ran for this office to get us to where we need to be. and i promise you, we will get there. some of these challenges may

take a year. some may take one term. some may take a decade, but we are going to get there, because when we work together, we know we are capable of. we've got the tools, we got the know-how, we have the toughness to overcome any obstacle. when we come together and combine our creativity and our optimism and our willingness to work hard, harnessing our brainpower and remained out -- manpower and hp, i promise you we will thrive again and we will get to where we need to go and we will leave behind an economy that is built to last. we will make this another american century. thank you, god bless you, god bless the united states of america. [applause]

>> politico to read -- tweeted that governor bob mcdonnell gave president obama a "virginia is for lovers" gift. the jobs report, the unemployment rate for february, 8.3%. the president heads to houston, texas, next. a couple of fund-raisers, including a fund raiser in event at the minute maid field, and next week the obama campaign

will release a documentary looking back at the president's first term in office, from the collapse of wall street to the fight over health care. it is called "the road we've traveled" and includes interviews by vice president joe biden and rahm emanuel, the chief of staff. here is a short preview of the fund-raising film. >> how do we understand this president and his time in office? do we look at the day's headlines or do we remember what we as a country have been through? >> the president-elect is here in chicago. he named the members of the economic team and they all fly in for the first big briefing on the economy. what was described in that meeting was an economic crisis beyond anything anybody had imagined. >> our time of standing pat and

protecting their root interest and putting off decisions, that time has surely past. >> his advisers would ask, where to begin, which urging -- urgent need would be put it first? >> where do you start? >> if we don't do this now, it will be a generation before 30 million people have health insurance. >> if the auto industry goes down, what happens to america's manufacturing base, what happens to jobs in america, what happens to the whole midwest? >> the entire national security apparatus was in that room, and now we had to make a decision, go or not go. and as he walked out the room, he is all alone. this is his decision and nobody

is standing there with him. >> as you saw, the whole documentary, "the road we've traveled" will be released next week and the president travels today to houston for three campaign events, two fund- raisers and a rally. there is an event at minute maid field, which we will have on c- span.org at 6:15 p.m. eastern. republican candidates are on the campaign trail today. and it romney is in mississippi and alabama, and rick santorum is also heading to kansas.

this evening, newt gingrich travels to alabama for a rally on the uss alabama. and ron paul is speaking at kansas state this evening at a tea party convention -- this afternoon, rather, holding a small tea party town hall rally at the university of kansas. for campaign update, check out c-span.org/campaign2012. live coverage coming up at 2:15 p.m. this afternoon, the justice department hosting a summit on consumer protection issues. the event starts with remarks by attorney-general eric holder and other senior officials. three panels will follow, focusing on the elderly, tax scams, and business opportunity scams. the obama administration designated this week as national consumer protection week. we will have it live here on c- span. next, and look at media coverage of economic issues during the

2012 presidential campaign. colorado christian university's centennial institute held a one- day conference in early march, focusing on the media's role in politics. this portion includes the denver post political editor as well as economist and head of the common run of fiscal policy institute. it is 45 minutes. >> economic literacy poisoned political journalism. the title may be a little provocative, but our aim today is to provoke thought and debate and discussion. the moderator of the next panel is another one of our co- directors of the centennial institute project on news in the 21st century. he has authored books, he has covered the cable industry, he has been business editor of "the denver post." he has most recently launched an it organization, a nonprofit

called psittacine media that is exploring new media -- call it citizen media, exploring new media and technology. our friend, stephen keating. [applause] >> good to be with you today. we will start by having the panel members introduce themselves. we will have a good discussion and then open it for questions. if we are ready to go, we will start with chuck plunkett and move down the panel. >> just one second. >> as john mentioned, the title of the panel is "has economic illiteracy boys and political journalism question show -- political journalism?" i'm sure we will get into the media coverage of economics,

particularly in the context of the 2012 presidential campaign. it is clear that economic issues are at the top of the mind of the major candidates and much of the media coverage. we are ready? maybe we will start with barry. >> i am barry poulson, professor of economics at the university of colorado, retired. what i would like to talk about today is an issue where i think the media has gone astray, and that is the issue of fairness. basically president obama has put fairness at the center of his campaign, and his arguments are very straightforward. basically his argument is income distribution in this country has become more unequal, the wealthy are not paying their fair share of taxes, we need to raise taxes on the upper income groups and redistribute that income to lower income groups, and that

will create job opportunities and upper mobility for the lower income families. i think before we jump on the fairness bandwagon, there are several questions that need to be addressed. first of all, what has happened to income inequality in this country? as an economic historic -- historian i like to put this in a long perspective. the last century, the highest in equality in this country was in the first few decades of the 20th century. then from about 1920 until the end of the second world war, there was a sickness in shift toward a much more equal distribution of income. and then what will the long at that level and then some increase in the rapid growth in the 1980's and 1990's and then about the same since then. over the long haul, our country has experienced a much more equal distribution of income among income classes. >> if i could leave that as the

executive summary and then we can continue the introductions. >> my name is wayne laugesen, the editorial page editor of "the gazette" in colorado springs. we have a libertarian-a leading editorial page, more in the tradition of ludwig von -- than ayn rand. one of the issues i would like to address today is the question are the media economically illiterate. and i would have to say, having been in this field since 1985, i would say that is a resounding, yes. i have been at large newspapers, small newspapers, "newsweek" magazine which is generally

left-leaning, and even at a "soldier of fortune" we were not able to hire many right of center journalists, they were not in the culture. it is not as much bias as economic literacy, the idea that we live and zero world where economics is a zero sum game and everything must be redistributive because of a lack of understanding that things are created. this plays out with right wing issues -- immigration, for instance -- left wing issues, how many cars does not romney's wife have. and i will get more into it as we ask questions. >> good morning. my name is carol, director of the colorado fiscal policy institute, a permanent project of the colorado center of law and policy. we are a non-profit, non-

partisan research and analysis organization. i am thrilled to be here today. i would like to -- if i could have 15 seconds to some of my perspective -- as long as we are more concerned about catch phrases that we are about conversation, we will continue to have a situation where economics and principles of economics don't rule the day. in politics or in our everyday lives. >> i am chuck plunkett, the political editor -- i like to say politics editor at "the denver post." if he's a political it sounds like you already have a bias. -- if you say political, it sounds like you already have a bias. before that, i worked in other parts of the country, in the south, where i am from, and in western as a venue where i worked at "the pittsburgh tribune review." i have been at the paper since 2003.

the enormous changes i have seen. at "the denver post" there has been a dramatic downsizing in the reporters and editors and dedicated journalist, and yet i will take a little bit of a different tack today. so far there has been a fair amount of hair pulling and the moaning of the state in the media. i think it is a fairly exciting time. for these reasons -- these two newspapers were so wealthy that the news rooms could take on a pretty insular air. we are much more competitive now and we must be much more nimble to protect our jobs. and then there is the advent of social media which also -- because it brings your voices, and it brings tons of other voices into the conversation, we have to be smarter, we have to be more able to interact with the broader conversation -- like carroll is talking about, we need to have the conversation.

that conversation is actually taking place in a way that is far more profound than when i got in the business 15 years ago, in light -- when my interaction with people who consumed the news was an occasional phone call or several emails. now would like to use the term at "the denver post" that our audience is smarter than we are. there are so many of you that come from different backgrounds and different expertise kinds of things that no one reporter could bring to the table. and it is nice to have that conversation and to have that interaction. >> thank you, panelists. since the focus is media coverage of economics as it affects politics, i would like to recall for you a moment at the gop presidential debate in november, newt gingrich making this comment -- "the starkly this is it the richest country in the world because corporations succeed in creating

both profits and jobs, it is said the news media does not report accurately how the economy works -- historic leap this is the richest country." but commentator respect -- monitor -- not responded, what have the media reported? then i have yet to see an occupy wall street person ask a single -- single question about, who will pay for the part you are occupying it there is no business making a profit? i will ask the panel, starting with carol hedges to react to that, kind of a conflict between media and politics and the economy. >> i think the very existence of the fact that a group of people who had a particular opinion have defined the entire discussion about economics as it relates to what is going on right now is what i mean by

conversation versus catch phrase. new wants is what -- nuance is what it is all about. it seems born to people. i am a lima bean farmer. what i do everyday is due analysis of what is happening with tax policy, what is happening in investments. from a perspective, no doubt about it, what drives the economy. those are not the kinds of things that are being reported by news outlets tremendously. i can always find it. if you want to know what of romney economic policy looks like, google it, there is a lot of analysis being done. whether it is showing up or not in the mainstream media, who knows? the point being is we all like it to be quick and easy. not complicated and nuanced.

we've viewed the world through our own individual lens rather than the systemic lends. there is true on all sides. the problem is the economy is not driven or determined by one particular strain -- whether it is business or consumers. it is not simply about how low taxes are, but it is also about how well we are educating folks to be more productive. we have to go back to a point where we have a conversation about complexity and about nuance, and in a world where we are all driven to consume in 140 characters, i think the challenges may be bigger. but i think as people's own economic issues -- more so, i would suggest, in this presidential season than ever before -- we have the opportunity to urge people out

of that small catch phrase world into a broader world of nuance and complication, because i do think it is out there. it is out there in a way it has never been before, but we have to drive people to it. i think it is out there. googling, reaching out to new media, and going beyond the tv news formats. >> i think the question of bias, it seems to me, are the people in the media asking the right questions and are they willing to pursue the answers to those questions even though it may conflict with their particular perspective. as i say, if i could, just briefly about the fairness issue. this is an issue where i think the media has given obama a

pass. they have not asked the right questions. whether this is the literacy, whether it is biased, i can't answer that. but let me tell you the questions i think should be answered and are very important in this election cycle. one question is -- what is the effect of the federal income tax on income distribution? the fact is the federal income tax results and a much more equal distribution of income if you look at pre-tax income, it is more unequal, and post-tax income, more equally distributed. why is that? look at what has happened to the top federal income tax rate, again, over the long term thursday -- perspective. we started out the beginning of the 20th-century at a 70% top rate and it went to 90% after the second world war, then reduced to 50% and in the reagan years, significant reduction in the top rate from 50% down to

28%. actually the changes since then have been very modest. so, the question is, what effect has it had on income distribution. what you may forget that when ronald reagan reduced the top rate, he broadened the base and introduced a more generous standard reduction -- deduction. as a result, the distribution of post-tax income was significantly more equal after the reagan tax cuts than before. another question that seems to be at the top of the media, the top 1%. obama has targeted the top 1% and argue they are not paying their fair share, we need to increase taxes on the top 1%. if you look at the share of income, we see by the top 1%, during the 1980's and 1990's, it increased dramatically, about doubled. but if you look at the share of taxes paid for it but -- by the

top 1%, it was also by double. the top 1% are paying about double their share of taxes -- their share of taxes is about double their share of income, the same today as 30 years ago. >> i will let wayne reflect on the media. >> the media -- first of all, let us address bias quickly. 95% easily of any major mainstream news room -- if you polled them, they would be liberal democrats in voting for barack obama in the upcoming election. you have that going on. but most of the journalists are very good people who want to be fair. they do strive toward of it today. they believe they achieve it. they tell you that all day long. i work with them. i have all my life. what is more at play is just a lot of economic illiteracy and a lot of pressure by the audience.

the audience once simple conflict. that is what sells newspapers. that is what gets you hits on your web site. so, if we have a media that sort of use everything from a lens of a zero sum game and the audience perceives it that way, you have great conflict built in all the time. net romney's wife cannot have multiple cadillacs -- mitt romney's wife cannot have multiple cadillacs -- doesn't mean he is wealthy? and does it mean she is wealthy on the back of someone else, someone who is poor and hurting. that is a perfect conflict for any audience. one of the most controversial stories we had in "the gazette" in the four years i have been there was one of the society page stories about the girl who was having her sweet 16 party. it involved limousines and a

fancy hotel and catering, and the audience went berserk. we had just entered the death -- depth of the recession and we arrived with letters. she was spending $75,000 and the party. how many poor people could be fed? how many kids could be sent to a better school? we had to explain on the editorial pages that, look, she is hiring caterers who need work, who is going to pay rent to landlords in -- and on down the list. father is well because he owned a chain of restaurants that deployed people. it was not at the expense of a poor person. author james robison -- i only read a few sections of this book. he has a new book out called "indivisible."

he has this beautiful way of describing it -- steve jobs in his very many -- and his very rich employees did not get wealthy stealing ipads from poor people. i think if we can view of things from that prism we would have a better understanding of how economics works. >> jumped london, i would ask the same question but in a different context -- chuck plunkett, i knew it will last is in question but in a different context. you said this in 2010, i believe in the context of the tea party movement -- "my thesis is you need to supply the intellectual architecture that makes the liberty movement matter or the experiment matter. " two years later, can you reflect on whether you think the tea party of the fiscal conservative movement has done that and how the media has covered their effect on american politics? >> i would love to take that on. the caveat was two years ago i was a member of "the denver

post" editorial board so i had to write opinions these days. i do not now, when i and the public or doing my job, because we do strive, as we mentioned, we do strive to be as objective as possible and we hope we are hitting that goal. i remember that remark and i remember being in the room with a bunch of very excited and energetic and passionate folks who were thinkers, who were interested in dealing with things like the deficit and with government spending. and during that time, it even seemed more bipartisan. there were folks coming into the act took -- editorial board united in one group from the clinton administration -- former clinton people and former bush people, economists talking about what are we going to do about the nation's debt, because the trajectory is frightening, and a

comfortable life we have in america will be endangered if we don't figure out how to get our arms around that issue. and it is something i tried to think about carefully and something i have tried to focus on as a journalist. so, to answer your question, i don't think the tea party had done a very good job in providing the intellectual architecture for that discussion, because of the discussion is not taking place, even among conservatives, that ic -- that i see. what i see from the debates and the nomination process is a rather bizarre switch to social issues and some other in this in -- divisive discussions. it is not all the tea party's fault. and the lack of conversation about shrinking government debt -- the lack of conversation about shrinking government debts, the

whole discussion about 1% versus the 99%, which just tends to play to talking points and attack lines and it really is not getting at a substantive discussion. it wayne pointed out, it really is true -- wayne pointed out, it really is true that some people think if someone has a lot of money they stole it from someone else. in a democracy that the bands on the free market system, you would think it is and ought assumption to make, but it is a story line that gets repeated a lot. i should probably set up for a while and let someone else talk. but that was on the -- off the top of my head. >> let us go to someone who is an agenda center on the economy, president obama. during his state of the union address, this is how "cnn monday" reported it. "the president delivered a state of the union address that was deeply saturated with income inequality, a populist idea of

the white house hopes will resonate on the campaign trail, calling at,", the defining issue on the time, obama said americans face a choice of a country where a shrinking number of people do well and a society where every individual is a fair shot." before you react, i want to read another piece which struck me at the time and i could not believe that there had not been more reporting done on it or i missed it. this is a story right after the health care reform bill was signed, by a writer in "the new york times." the headline -- in health care bill, obama attacks wealth inequality. he writes in part -- the pre-tax income of the wealthy have source of the 1970's what their tax rates have fallen lower than the middle class and the poor. nearly every major aspect of the help hilt -- helped build pushes and the other direction. why obama was willing to spend so was political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as

a percentage of candidates. beyond the health care reform's affect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of a deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of reagan. barry, do you think it is an accurate read of why health care reform was at the top of the president's agenda? >> i think the president's agenda is essentially what he calls fairness, but is in fact policies that would significantly increase the tax burden on the upper income groups. and evidence that i talked about earlier -- and there is a copy of that paper corp. -- paper available -- basically what has happened since the reagan tax reforms is that the share of income received by the upper income groups in the 1980's and the eight -- 1990's had about doubled but their tax burden has doubled, so in terms of progress in the -- progressivity, we are

about where we were. the president's assumption is you can significantly increase tax rates on the upper income groups without affecting incentives. the so-called buffet will -- buffett rule in income of $1 million to $2 million, the marginal tax rate for some is about 100% stock -- 90%. it think -- if you think people cannot respond to a 90% tax rate, look at history. borg moved to monaco for good reason. take a look at the 1970's. obama says he wants to return our tax policies to the clinton years. in fact, these tax proposals would return us to the carter years in terms of the high tax rates that would be imposed. you remember the carter years. people respond to high taxes -- less work, less savings, less

investment, less economic activity, less economic growth. and the sad part of that story is much of the burden falls not on the wealthy, but on the poor, in the form of unemployment, low incomes. we don't want another decade of stagnation. >> carol, is that true? >> that we did not want another decade of stagnation, i think it is true. the difference of opinion is what gets us there. i find this to be a really fascinating conversation because it has turned into -- that anyone who argues that we need to take a serious look at changing our tax structure is attacking the rich. and i would fundamentally argue it is not the case at all. there are many people who suggest that we need to have additional public investment. that would you look at real economic growth and real productivity enhancement in this country, they are often driven by common investments --

investments in transportation infrastructure, investment in education, investments in things that actually drive productivity and often those things are public investments. things that the private sector cannot do on its own because it is an economic system that requires, and contributions. and i find it fascinating that we don't have a conversation about the value of what we buy together. the role that transportation plays in our economy. the role that education, not just among the people who can afford it, but among everybody. i and not about attacking the rich. i and not about -- i'm not about attacking the rich, not about destroying the economy, neither is the president and neither most people trying to have this conversation. it needs to be a conversation about the relative strengths and

values of public investments and the ability of individuals to maximize their own profits. that is the conversation that we need to have, and that is the conversation i hope we can have. i think we are being failed and we are not having it. >> what would the media have to do to put the facts of the matter before the american people so that barry and carol and others can debate the most significant policy choices? >> for the media to do that they would have to get into boring story telling. unfortunately they are not going to do that. fortunately we do live in a time -- of ford -- fortunately we do live in a time where the media is being divided in chunks, and it bodes very well for society going forward. obama is doing to the american people the same thing the media is doing to the american people, which is indulging this common misperception that wealth comes from government, wealth is cash,

we distribution of that cash is the only way to achieve any sort of fairness, because nothing can grow, we will not produce anything, does well is cash produced by the government and we must distributed it more fairly. as long as that is the mindset of the american public, that is what politicians will exploit and that is what the media are going to exploit -- whether intentionally or by rote. as far as health care, that is part of the same thing. that is obama and anyone who supports this health-care redistribution -- assuming that we can just take the existing supply, the existing stock of health care -- doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, medicine -- and distributed to a limited numbers of people and everyone will have plenty. nobody ever talks about the need for more health care. if we can find ways