rejection by some business leaders of a very powerful social contact that many of their predecessors had embraced. that is, a duty to others the other than simply to oneself. according to this, people recognize that they had amends' sway over investors -- recognized that they had immense sway over investors. they help themselves to a higher standard. it was an understood -- unwritten rule. it seems to have been supplanted by the notion that personal profits are supreme, and that making it to the top means having the largest bank account. we also, importantly, seem entrenched in a system where moral behavior is condoned because it is not illegal.

instead of asking if a deal is appropriate for everyone involved and do in the gut check of wondering whether you would cringe -- and doing the gut check of wondering whether you would cringe if the details were laid out on the front page of the paper, they seem to view their ideas more narrowly. if you can argue it is profitable and not illegal, go for it. who cares if it is immoral or wrong or hurt people. i have an old new yorker cartoon that sums this up. in it are a group of executives seated in a boardroom. the man at the head of the table is saying, "it is not a lie if it makes us money." lies that made some people a lot

of money were a crucial element of the credit crisis. mortgage brokers selling bonds to customers who did not understand them. firms peddling securities to clients who were not told of their fall to structures. ratings agencies slept in -- slapping high grades. very few of these participants have been held accountable. indeed, these players continue to argue to anyone who will listen that their customers come first and that their due diligence is strong. these arguments are stunningly disconnected from reality. joseph stieglitz said "america's financial players created risk. this allocated capital and

encouraged indebtedness all while imposing high transaction costs. they brought our entire economy to the brink." to this day, we hear regulators and those in the industry extolling the praises of financial innovation many of the innovations that were praised in the years leading up to the crisis did contribute to its depth and damage. credit default swaps and clever as that politicians are two exit -- and collateralized debt allocations are two examples. this is not what financial innovation should create. prewitt innovation -- true innovation should help society, not hurt it. rather than raising risk, financial innovation should have helped these people mitigate the risk of homeownership.

instead, they help a small band of industry participants profit at the expense of the rest of us. in spite of this, and we continue to hear from bankers that tighter regulations of the financial sector will cripple their innovation tennis is -- innovative tendencies. they continued to resist regulation designed to prevent taxpayers from having to bella any of the companies in the future. this failure to admit culpability is bad enough. it has also been worsened,

exacerbated, by an even more disturbing failure by the government to assign responsibility for this mess. holding people who were central to the crisis accountable for their roles in it has seemed too difficult for our government, regulators, and prosecutors to do. let's consider the case of one man, the former chief executive of countrywide the financial, once one of the zero largest lenders. -- of the countries largest lenders. he was sued for insider trading. people alleged he had pronounced his company healthy while privately deriding the company. he seemed to understand the risk his company was taken. -- taking. publicly, he maintained that his

company was first-class and financially sound. all the while, he was selling shares he had received as compensation. he sold $500 million worth of stock over several years time as the crisis was approaching. the sec said he sold the shares improperly. he knew the danger that was facing his company. yet, and a year later, in 2010, they struck a settlement deal requiring him to pay just $22.50 million. that is $22.50 million against $500 million in stock sales. that is a pretty good trade. meanwhile, the rest of the fines that were levied, $45.5 million, were paid by bank of america. what is the lesson we can take

away from this example? it while the getting is good -- get while the getting is good. during the financial crisis, it seems that we have been too happy to lower the bar for what constitutes bad behavior. one of the arguments for why there has not been more criminal prosecutions is that the actions taken by people in positions of power were not technically illegal. it was not right or proper for

the head of a large financial institution not to understand the risks that his underlings were taking. was it a legal? perhaps not. that is why some people say we see no prosecutions of those who marched lehman brothers, countrywide, and merrill lynch off of the cliff. neither was it correct or proper to sell a mortgage security to customers that had been designed to fasil.

bentsen argues did it closed -- banks argue that they disclosed all of the information. they maintained it cannot run afoul of securities laws. the as -- they maintain that they did not run afoul of securities laws. eric holder said, "much of the conduct that led to the financial crisis was unethical and irresponsible. we have discovered that some of the behavior, while morally reprehensible, may not have been criminal." he is explaining what everyone wants to know, why there have not been more criminal prosecutions. it is hard for many people to accept this argument. it is too hard to believe that a financial debacle so large and so destructive did not involve any criminal activity. i certainly am the first to say

that i am not a prosecutor. i do understand well how difficult it is to mount a criminal case. because so many people have been hurt by the destructive activities and their outcomes, it is disturbing for many to see leaders of american corporations walk away from the wreckage and unscathed. yes, they have suffered losses in their stock holdings. many are facing private litigation. the damage that they have done to innocent taxpayers, borrowers, and shareholders, is nothing short of titanic. these wrecking crews appeared to have paid little for their transgressions. the trouble is, if prosecutors did not pursue a wide array of illegal activity, you wind up

encouraging more of the very destructive behavior. by not punishing these practices quickly, firmly, and forcefully, you incentivize the miscreance to push the envelope even further. if there is no penalty for the legality, there is none for immorality. again, it is hard to month-to- month cases. -- to mount criminal cases. only one official had been sentenced to jail time. his name was lee farkas. he was sentenced to 30 years in prison. they were certainly not at the center of the financial crisis. it is possible, of course, that additional indictments and prison sentences will be forthcoming. the fact that so few people have been held accountable for this mess by the spring of 2012 makes some people wonder if

there is something more pernicious at work. perhaps an effort to protect some of the primary participants. this is not an idle question. given that so many high power players were involved in the practices. many healing from wall street and washington, digging too deeply into the mess could touch somebody participants. one might ask whether the government really wants to identify who did what to whom. with regulators at the federal reserve, the comptroller of the currency, and the sec so

involved in allowing the bad practices to go on, you would wonder whether a government investigator might not wind up probing himself or his colleagues. it is my belief that many people know that if they launched a full-blown investigation the spotlight might soon come to their doctor. -- door. it is important to point out that our current situation, with zero prosecution, stands in contrast to what went on that during the crisis of the late 1980's. that was a time when hundreds of banks failed. in the wake of that mess, a government task forces referred

1100 cases to prosecutors, resulting in more than 800 bank officials going to jail. many of these people were chief executives, not lower level flunkies. among the best known, the ceo of lincoln savings and loan in arizona, and david paul. here is another datapoint i find interesting. in the early 1990's, president bush made it clear that finding fraud was a top priority of his administration. he directed the justice department to make these cases with vigor. if we fast-forward we find the opposite approach. in the spring of 2000 it, but just as the storm was gathering, the fbi scaled back plans to assign more field agents. that summer, weeks before the collapse of fannie mae and freddie mac, the department of

justice rejected calls for a task force related to mortgage related investigations. leaving these cases understaffed. only much later did the justice department establish a more general financial crimes task force. why have there been so few prosecutions that succeeded out of this mess? some of the prosecutors i have spoken to argue that the types of fraud perpetrated were easier to litigate. those cases were characterized by embezzlement, self dealing, and other bad behavior that was more easily identified and

exposed. we do know that wall street likes to great complexity. there is no doubt the securities involved in this debacle were far more convoluted. i think a more interesting reason for the failure to prosecute lies in an answer i have been given by some prosecutors. it brings us right back to the colossal regulatory failure that fueled the crisis. we all know that regulators declined to weigh in -- ran in dubious practices. the failure head buyer consequences. -- had dire consequences. this regulatory incompetence lead to a lack of prosecutions in the aftermath. that is because so many of the

overseers failed in their duty is to compile the kinds of information that traditionally is used to build successful criminal cases. in effect, the same dynamic that helped enable the crisis, weak regulation, asleep at the switch, also made it harder to pursue fraud. to's go back to the presses talk about how important regulatory referrals are to successful prosecution. in that time, the fbi opened 5500 criminal investigations using regulatory referrals. as i mentioned, by 1992, there had been a love and hundred criminal prosecutions of major

bank fraud bosh been in 1100 criminal prosecutions of major -- been 1100 criminal prosecutions of major bank fraud. one of them is william black, a professor of law at the university of missouri. he was the federal government posts of director of litigation during the crisis. he told me that the relaxed regulatory approach, "created an exceptional environment." there were no criminal referrals from regulators, no fraud working groups, no national task forces. instead, we have had silence from the highest levels of government. a former federal judge in new york who had been head of the justice department for less than a year discussed setting up a task force with deputies. he decided against it. announcing the decision of june, 2008.

there have been attempts to put money into investigation. two years into the crevices, congress passed the fraud enforcement and recovery act, allocating one chris $65 million -- $165 million for new financial crisis cases. congress took away all but $30 million of that later. but all this together and you can see how this contributed to our current and frustrating situation where participants seemed to have skidded away from the scene untouched.

equally disturbing, the fed needed to put resources into law enforcement -- the failure to put resources into law enforcement shows a dangerous suspicion. there are two sets of rules. one for washington and the powerful companies that contribute to their reelection campaigns, and one for the rest of us. even when the top security cops have a clear standard, they come up to suddenly short. -- decidedly short. congress set up to hold executives accountable. under the sarbanes-oxley act, the sec was encouraged executives where it hurt, in the wallet. it was supposed to keep managers honest.

centive pay, like bonuses,ck even if they themselves did not fudge the accounts. that was the idea. the records just embarked worse than the bite. the first case bosh records suggest a dark worse than the bike. -- records a bark worse than the bite. most of the cases involved stock options. they produced big recoveries. in the wake of the financial crisis, the dollar recovered have amounted to an asterisk. the sec pursued 18 executives at 10 companies. it has recovered $12.2 million

from 9 executives. other cases are pending. half of the companies pursued have been small and relatively obscure. for those interested in accountability, the case brought by the sec against new century financial, now defunct, is a severe disappointment. a partner at a law firm and the bankruptcy investigator uncovered seven different types of accounting fraud.

it fattened the pay of top executives. during those years, he found brad morris, the chief executive, collected %2.9 million in incentive pay. when the sec brought its case, recovered only 540 two thousand dollars -- $542,000 from mr. morris. the examiner told me he found violations in the investigation. he laid them out as clearly as possible. how assiduously the sec brings these cases cannot be more important. that is because only the sec can bring cases under section 304. companies cannot and neither can shareholders.

even when it does crack down on wrongdoers, the sec does little to discourage them from becoming recidivists. according to an analysis by my colleague, nearly all of the biggest financial companies in the nation, goldman sachs, morgan stanley, jpmorgan chase, and bank of america, had settled fraud cases by promising that they would never again violate an anti-fraud law. all were found to have done just that if the years after. -- that just a few years after. at least 51 cases in which the sec concluded that wall street firms had broken anti-fraud laws they had agreed never to breach. this ban 19 different companies. in the face of this, the

commission has not brought any contempt charges. i think when we consider these facts, it should not come as a surprise that trust in the nation's institutions, both public and private, have been decimated as a result of the crisis and its aftermath. the credit crisis was a two- pronged failure. first, the failure by the private sector. second, the abysmal regulatory performance. the phillies by people at the highest levels of our financial le -- the failures by people at the highest levels of our financial system to understand the risky practices being used.

this refusal to recognize peril when it was staring them at the face meant that ben bernanke was far behind when the crisis began to metastasize. it seems pretty clear to me and to a lot of readers i hear from that many people in positions of power seemed to have lost their sense of duty and obligation to others. there is a meat first approach that dominates today. i do not know how to force people in high places to forgo profits for propriety. i do know that those of us in the media can help by shining light on the dark corners where such practices often flourished. at least some of the people who blew up these institutions must be held accountable. investors, pensioners, employees, and taxpayers, all have been hurt by reckless risk-taking. it will be beyond exasperatingly if the people who created this disaster and

profited from it are allowed to slide off into the night. i would like to close with a quote from a 19th century economist and writer that seems especially on point. he said, "when plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society,

they create in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." that is what we are all up against. we must not allow it to prevail. thank you very much for your attention. i will be very happy to take questions from the audience. [applause] this person's hand shot right of. >> i am local here in virginia. the one question i had. would we have had a stronger financial system with those people out? >> if the banks had been allowed to fail, would we be in a better position? it is a difficult question to answer. i will answer in two parts. the way i would have liked to have seen this play out if i could start it again would be for the government to allow bear stearns to fail. bear stearns was a smallish firm, it was extremely heavily

into mortgages. it had made it bed. it had taken great risks. it had made amends profits. i think the fact that the federal reserve pushed jpmorgan chase into the shotgun wedding sent a pernicious message. it was that you will get help. you will get selvage. you do not have to pay the price of failure. i think bear stearns would have been a less damaging failure if it had been allowed then lehman was. it was a larger firm with more interconnections. if i were to want to go back in time and change how things were done, i would like to see how

things would have played out. if it were allowed to fail, people would have gotten the message quote. there was a six-month period in which little happened. it was they come before the storm. -- the calme before the storm where we had these nonstop phil years. there was a six-month window of opportunity. it could have been used to be more aggressive. that is one answer to your question. the other answer is, we have a f opportunity that i think could have been used to be much more aggressive about getting down assets on balance sheets, taking leverage down if possible. that is one answer to your question. the another answer i would say is that we just have to get to a position where these large firms are not so interconnected that they can make the rocket -- make the argument that, if they

feel, they could bring down the financial system. it is clear that everyone who was running the country then believed that, if they were allowed to fill, they would bring down the financial system. -- allowed to fail, they would bring down the financial system. the failure of the money market funds, etc., that was clear that we could not let these things fail appeared my reaction is that how do we get these brokerage firms better fantasize that is manageable and will appareimperil the entire financl system. yes. >> ramon mueller. i noticed there were two groups you did not explicitly discussed in your analysis.

one of the elected politicians who empowered fannie and freddie. >> that is a week-long discussion. [laughter] >> and who also spent taxpayer money to bail out these folks and to then come a few look at barney frank and chris dodd, who were deeply involved in the process, fostered a bill allegedly to solve the problem. the other group didn't mention was the business media. one of the things we count on is, when politicians this behavior as they generically do and when the private-sector prioritizes profit and bends the rules as sometimes happens, should we not actually blame the business media for not blowing the whistle on some of these activities we before they did? >> i certainly agree with both of your themes.

the role of legislators cannot be minimized. but, again, it is an enormously long conversation. i did tackle it in my book. we were quite unsparing with the details on just how fannie mae really was the leader in teaching companies how to co-op congress, how to neutralize their regulator, and had to make sure that they were able to make all the decisions about things like regulatory capital and their business model. meanwhile, get rich while they're doing it. yes, that is a huge topic. it is one that has not been addressed in any meaningful way after the crisis. as far as the business media, i certainly would agree that they did not do -- we did not do as good as the job we should have

in the years leading up to the crisis. i think there may be a couple of reasons for that. first is a kind of mindset that you have to have appeared i am a tough reporter and i like being a tough reporter. but it is hard. yet to have a backbone. you have to have an editor that is willing to stand up against the pressures, which are immense. and you have to have a different mindset. you don't want to be part of the party. you don't want to be invited to people's houses that you cover. you don't want to feel like your part of that scene. and there are a lot of journalists who get sucked into the idea that they can be friends with the people that they're covering. i don't do that kind of journalism, but i think it is unfortunate that there are quite a few who do. i will also say that newsrooms have been devastated by the internet and the creative destruction that the internet

has brought to the new spacer -- the newspaper business. so you have a lot fewer newsrooms covering local scandals, far fewer reporters covering business, covering everything because the numbers don't work anymore. the revenues are just not there. so you have to lay off people. i think that is an element that has to be recognized also. i did raise red flags are leon as early as 2005 when fannie mae had their accounting scandal. i talked about mortgage crises. i talk about credit default swaps very early on. so i know what you have to take from people when you take these large institutions on. and it is not fun. but if you want to try to educate and expose the truth, that is what journalists are supposed to do.

i am a firm legal that that is the -- i am a firm believer that that is the standard that we should hold ourselves to. i am hopeful that maybe we can change that dynamic. >> as a question from an on-line viewer. she asks -- you have called for prosecution of the perpetrators of the financial crisis. but you also know that their actions were immoral and not illegal. >> there is the question of whether they broke no laws pay being a prosecutor and not having -- no laws. not being a prosecutor and not having all the facts before me, i think it is hard to imagine that you cannot bring some cases, even for regulators to bring cases under servings

oxley. the degree to which there has been so little regulatory or criminal prosecutions sends a bad signal. the case i mentioned is a prime example of walking away what looks like pretty fact-oriented /fact-based case. perhaps eric holder is right. perhaps there was no illegal activity. but i don't think -- i think that that is a perception that people don't support. i think early on, my reporting and my colleagues reporting, early on, there was a sense that the highest levels in washington that we shouldn't pursue these institutions until we got on a firmer financial footing. there was a sense that we did not want to aggressively pursue prosecution while we were still

trying to find a way in the dire months of 2008-2009. i think that led to a sort of lax approach to the idea of prosecuting some of these cases. of course, we have time limits. and we have all kinds of statutes of limitations that are running on these cases, whether we're talking civil or criminal. so there is a real danger, i think, in saying let's not do anything right now until things settle down and get more calm. the danger is that you let precious hours go by, weeks, months, and precious data and information that you need to make a case go by. and what i think what professor black has told me and other prosecutors is that they're more civil cases that were not made. there certainly were regulatory cases that were not made strongly enough. even if those had been made,

there had been made for a perception out there about accountability than we have today. yes. wait for your microphone. thee're talking about corporation. how would like your thoughts on this. corp. executives are supposed to be responsible to the directors who are in turn responsible to stockholders. the truth is that the directors are often picked by the chim. they socialize the night before the meeting, they and their spouses have dinner. and the next day, the director is expected to look them in the eye and say, bill, you are overpaid, which is really hard to do. behind that is the stockholder who is supposed to be able to invoke the rascals out.

the truth is that i can buy a stock on the phone right now and sell it in 10 minutes. so i have no incentive to stand and fight. has anyone thought about some way to inject the truth scrutiny in the corporate process that is not there right now? has that been brought aboard discussed by anybody? >> i have heard the question brought up, which is why we don't have more aggressive shareholder activism or even just policing, shareholder policing of boards. there is the sense and i think it is absolutely accurate, that the boards are the cronies of the management and that, yes, men and women -- maybe they are there to justify what their decisions are, but in any case, the opaque keeps ratcheting up and there's no one accountable. one of my -- one of the things

that i think is one of the biggest dysfunctions in the system right now, something you're alluding to, is the failure of the large institutions that run your money, my money to hold these people accountable and hold their feet to the fire appeared if i/o -- if i own 100 shares of exxon and i vote against the pay raise, that will have no effect whatsoever. but these companies do not really take this on as a goal or as a purpose. and i find that to be very disturbing. they are running of the people's money and yet they are not acting responsibly in holding gorda accountable. and holding boards accountable is the only way that you can start to hold the executives

accountable. we have seen this year a little bit more action on pay practices. we have seen some pay compensation deals that were rejected by a majority of the shareholders. that is very unusual that seems like a start. an idea of shareholders expressing their views. but there is a slow, slow process. and if we do not have the help of the people that are managing our money for us, if fidelity or vanguard or name-your-fund- company doesn't want to rock the boat, perhaps because they have other dealings with the companies whose shares they own, then that is a problem and that contributes to the, sort of, laissez-faire board approach that i think is common at some meat companies. one person said to me -- at so

many companies. one person said to me that maybe social media is a way to get .houldershareholders together but i have not seen it yet. this is a glacial process to weaving get shareholders to vote against pay packages. i am as frustrated as you are. >> washington's response to the financial debacle was the frank law.of the dodd- what is your opinion for that loss potential to keep from that kind of debacle happening? >> i think the law -- it is 2000

pages of impenetrable, complex details that really end up not protecting us anywhere, maybe not even protecting us a bit more leading up to the crisis. i like to compare to glass- steagall. glass-steagall was 34 pages long. k is about two thousand pages long. glass-steagall save this for seven years. i think there -- glass-steagall protective vest for 70 years. -- protected us for 70 years. dodd and frank will say that, yes, we did, we put in the resolution authority that will

allow the unwinding of a threatening institution if it is too big and too large and too politically interconnected or on the press of this. we will unwind it through the resolution authority. but the problem with the resident -- with the resolution authority is that it requires the committee's, the fsoc, to vote to resolve and unwind the institution. that is a step that many, many people would not choose to take. it would be a moment just as the moments that face to geithner and paulson in 2008, which was it is easier to bail it out. it is easier to make the taxpayers pay and then deal with it later than it is to make the hard decisions to let a firm get unwound. and these are very large and powerful firms that have a lot of friends in washington. i am just very dubious that the

resolution authority will work as well as dod and frank seem to think it will with large internet -- with large interconnected institutions. there were a lot of failures. there were some good some gooddod -- some good things about dodd-frank. but i don't think that it has gotten us closer to where the taxpayers can sleep at night without worrying about bailing out companies in the future. yes. >> thank you very much. my name is tyler o'neill. recent graduate and aspiring journalist pierre >> good for you. you'll be a good one, right? >> that is the idea. holding these business accountable, president will send argued that the economy had

become so complicated that we needed bigger given to rein in accesses and yet we see the movement in the tea party that wants smaller government, smaller regulations, and it seems that you are talking almost both sides of the spectrum. that it would have been better if we hadn't bailed out these businesses and just let them fall apart from their own bad practices. but at the same time, you want to hold people accountable, responsible and we need more administration to do that. >> i think letting them fail would hold them accountable, right? to some degree. if they failed, that would be the first step to accountability. but, no, you are right good it is a fine line to walk. you cannot have zero regulation and you cannot have too much regulation. so where is the happy medium? i have never made the argument that there was not enough regulation on the mortgage industry your financial sense --

financial services industry in the years leading a to the crisis. there were plenty of books -- there were plenty of rules on the books that regulators did not pursue. we need people in these jobs who have an appetite to regulate and an appetite to really go after the problems that they see. but there becomes this mind set in the regulatory community that you are a partner with the entity that you are overseeing. you have the same brain mailed, as it were, with the bankers you're dealing with. in fact, many of the regulators in the years leading up to the crisis were believing that the banks had the answer on their risk assessments and were able to present the regulators with their own assessments of risks on their books and let regulators work with that instead of the regulator being the watchdog or policeman. so i think that there were rules that were completely ignored by

regulators in the years leading up to the crisis. i don't feel that we needed way more regulation at all. we just needed people with an appetite to regulate. which we did not have. in fact, there were many cases, you know, of partnering with institutions, the idea of reducing capital requirements and reducing those kinds of standards. so that was, i think, hey disappointing element at work. so it does not -- more regulation is not the answer. you have to have people who are willing to actually regulate. in the book that josh and i wrote, we had a conversation with barney frank and we were asking him about his undying support for fannie mae. and he had been particularly difficult with the regulator that was put in place in the mid-1990's to beef up regulation

on fannie. he was tough in congressional hearings. he would rail, really made it difficult for this regulator. we asked him what was the idea of being so hard on this guy doing his job and he said we thought he was trying to be too adversarial. adversarial? that kind of looks like a good thing for a regulator to be. no, no, no, there were too adversarial. that is not the right ideal for a regulator. it is almost like a journalist. people who are right about that don't like what i write call me adversarial a regulator should not be part of the spin of the institution they are regulating. i thought that was a very interesting comment that he made, which reveals a lot about the regulatory community and how

it is viewed and seen by members of congress who oversee these people. that was kind of an eye opener for me. but i would argue for a more adversarial relationship than less. >> one more question. >> this person has been very, very patient here. here you go. >> i don't see any hope -- >> oh, don't say that. >> for actual things happening, regulators, everyone. what you think is the ultimate answer? >> the ultimate answer to getting us out of this boom- bust cycle? >> the legal and immoral actions on the part of government and businesses? >> again, i think we have to see a few cases.

it would not take a lot of cases. it would not take hundreds of cases. it would take one prosecutor that is trying to make his or her spurs to make people sit up and take notice. but, again, it is a multifaceted question pick it goes to the question about boards and it goes to the question of investors. it is massive. there are a lot of failings at every step of the way. so what can we do as individuals to try to change this dynamic? this is the toughest question i get and i am very disappointed to say that i don't have a ready answer because it does feel like individuals are powerless. it does feel like individuals have no voice. and are particularly up against ever-increasing power on the other side on some of these very important issues. i'm not without hope, but i think the idea is that people have to take some of this on themselves, whether it is

complaining to your fund company if you don't like the way the vote to your shares, voting no against excessive pay at companies, even if you have 10 shares. it is a message that you can send. i agree with you, there is a sense that there will not be enough traction and that is unfortunate. because we are ultimately the people who are paying the price. >> thank you very much for your time. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> up next on c-span, remarks from chris matthews of msnbc. then a discussion on the presidential race. we will hear from officials from the obama and romney campaigns. >> tomorrow, a senate panel looks at the employment of

veterans by federal contractors. we will hear from veterans organizations and government contractors. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. and on c-span 3, a hearing examines anti-party programs, including temporary assistance for needy families. live coverage gets under way from the senate finance committee also at 10:00 a.m. eastern. now remarks from chris matthews of msnbc at the gerald ford awards ceremony. he gives a critique of the obama and romney campaign. this was held at the national press club. and four were

friends. the gerald r. ford presidential foundation will be honoring that friendship with an award in o'neill's honor at the annual dinner tonight. o'neill was speaker of the house in 1996 -- in 1977 until his retirement. chris matthews was born in philadelphia and graduated from the college of holy cross. he served in the peace corps in africa from 1968-1970. after coming to washington, a districtked as policeman. he worked for o'neal for six years during the speakers epic legislative and political battles with president ronald reagan. he started his talk show, hardball with chris matthews, in

1997. in 2002, he started a syndicated weekly political talk show, the chris matthews show. he is the author of six books. please join me in welcoming chris matthews to the national press club. [applause] >> thank you. it is great to be here for gerry abd tip and their friendship. by the way, congratulations, corinne. i couldn't believe your nervous

here but i am never nervous you're going to have a dentist and get to me and scot you are great. every time i cover campaigns and that was the people at the quality newspapers i watch them file things and check things, i pick up the paper and a beautifully turned out facto peace, i was blown away by this trade reporters. commentary is easy. but reporting is work. you guys are good. i want to talk about what is going on today and the way it used to be. i always tell kids after i write a book -- on father's day, they sell 1/5 as many books as christmas. i always tell young people that it is all true. times have changed and you have to tell them about the past and i waited your parents and as a new grandparent i feel the responsibility to tell people about the past. my parents always did that and made me see much older than my age because they always told us about the world war two. there was before the war and after the year -- after the war

and housing was never as good people like catholics got in the door after the worst of good things happened. politics is different today. i don't think it is better. my secular religion after being here for years, the city without smokestacks and factories, we only make one thing. the only thing we make is deals, good deals, compromises, it is called government. we come here from different points of view and keep our points of view but find a way to govern this country. that is what we do. that is why we are here and that is why we cover it. it is important how we run this country. people come here with another point of view and the only point of view is to make the government work. i think about the different directions we come with. the speaker at one point of view and gerald ford had another. i think it takes a couple of things for the city to work. you have to listen to the other side even if they are lamebrains. you have to listen. you have to listen to the tea

party, they might have something, maybe. you have to listen. it like being married. [laughter] the guy's got all the good girls, listen. you have to be willing to negotiate because you will never make a deal or arrive at an agreed upon direction for the country. we would just have chaos. right now it is something like that. i want to talk about jerry ford and tip o'neill. when tip o'neill -- tip o'neill was one top boss. -- one toughed boss. i knew how tough it was. we got to bat .1000 around here. tip o'neill had one great quality that made him a man of the house, he loved it. he loved that place. it is like san francisco, if you love san francisco, they will love you. the one key entry would go to

san francisco, tell everybody love this city and you will be incredibly welcome. loving the city is what reminds everybody. what makes you a man or woman of the house is you love the house. i once told jerry brown -- he asked why anybody would run for the house. i told him the camaraderie. he had no idea what that was. hanging out with the men and women of the house is what it is about, sharing the community. tip o'neill love the the floor. they were both floor leaders. they like to be ready action was. they liked the cloakroom. the democrats had their cloakroom chez ramone but everybody would go there for lunch. he loved junkets. it is the best thing in the congress. it is a time for the husbands and wives to get together with each other and creates a wonderful friction remover.

you are able to get mad at someone else but your wife will say you like that guy. it is amazing how it cools things down on both sides. jackets are expensive but after two weeks, you'll probably be friends. he also liked the food in the dining room. he loved anything they had been there. he loved the gymnasium. he would grab a handful of cigars and said to his secretary, allen r. i am going over 48 rub. -- he would say, elena, i'm going over for a rub. you had to be there. they love the other members of congress on both sides of the aisle. a few people bother him greatly.

there is a group of three stooges and there are a moving group. gingrich at a permanent membership in the three stooges and bob walker as well. there is a phone call for mr. walker and he takes the phone call and this is out worked. it did not happen often but it was somewhat mirthful. jack murtha was the one who did it. his friends were not all democrats. he had some really close friends, george bush's senior was a close friend. they both loved the house because the house was something that george bush won completely on his own he did not get in there because of coattails of president reagan. he got elected on his own and that means a lot. triedk that's why gore to do it but he did not quite make it.

he liked george grossinger a lot. -- he really liked george bush, sr. a lot. i can probably guess what he thought of dukakis. he really liked bush anti -- and he loved bill conchie, he and bob michael were buddies. he really loved gerald ford. he talked about him all the time. he said he is loving the good life in palm springs. he dresses for dinner now. he doesn't fit in. it was great. it was always about status. i could tell when his real friends or around because it his face would break into a real non-political smile.

that would happen one ever israel bodies were around light murtha. rosti would come in and be jealous. it was like a little boy's club, like a tree house. they were proud of the people's house. compared to the august u.s. senate. tip o'neill said it was filled with the 88 sons of the rich. -- it was filled with the idiot sons of the rich. i loved it when he talks like that. -- he said it was filled with he is to cut the lawn at harvard. he is to cut the lawn which years in the 1930's. the over seton -- the overseer would get him to work. i think he would sit around and even members of the congress would save seats. he only ran against a communist widespread he got elected 50

elections in a row. there were not all close. the great thing about the house compared to the senate is you have to stay in touch because they have elections every two years. you also have to worry about a young opponent in urban areas. you had to read the paper. tip would read,"the globe." i have a great respect for people who lead when it is tough, when you are politically incorrect, not when it is you everyone light. -- that everybody likes.

ronald reagan will be remembered for his consistency end his career that preceded his popularity, just like churchill. your rights respected for being right long before was popular. they don't want people adjusting every year to what is popular. they love people who are consistent. tip o'neill was like that. when i was with them, those years were brutal. he said be nice to president reagan. that was tough. he was not popular. liberalism was not in fashion but we did pick up 266 seats in 1982. 1982.seats oin it is tough to get our plans

with everybody hated you. tip o'neill wound up getting great popularity but it was tough. jerry ford did something as president that i didn't like. he pardoned nixon. when you think about what he did, it was very unpopular and cost and the presidency, he had the courage to do what was right. if we let the richard nixon problems remain our problems, we would never have gotten out of it. it would have been three more years at least a fighting over him. instead, he said let's start over. i think that was an example of country first. that is not a bad motto. country first, not you. i was warned when i went to massachusetts and looked in the first pew at st. john's where tip o'neill was christened and was married and buried to see jerry ford in the first pew. it was nice to see that. they stuck together. tip would have been there for jerry, friend. that is the way it was in politics when i worked in that.

i got to love this cycle of the week of the house of representatives. i loved working in the house. monday was always come back today. tuesday was the general debate, wednesday was amendments, thursday was always final passage, and when all members would comment, it was just like -- when all members would come in, it was just like in mr. smith, they would come in and watch closing debates between people like jerry ford and tip o'neill when they were giving their best and everyone would be there. it was great drama. i remember one thursday night -- they had a hot debate, a really hot debate on thursday night. one guy had been yelling red- faced at the other guy from the other side of the aisle. they're debating heatedly. as the room began to empty out and everybody went to catch their playing thursday night, it was like an accordion

closing, everybody is leaving, this guy walked across dial and said to -- across the aisle and said to the democratic member, what are you doing this weekend? it was the guy he was yelling at. he said say hello to your wife for me. that is what it was like and that's what was like the way jefferson wanted it, the way madison wanted it, and that's the way it was with jerry tip, the old days. i want to thank you for letting me begin my conversation about current events that are not as pleasant. i want young people here and there are some of them here, where are you? i'm a grandfather. it is all true. it really was like that, thank you very much. [applause]

>> now for the fun stuff. do you feel that political talk shows like yours is responsible for the growing lack of civility in our discourse? [laughter] >> not at all, it gets off your chest. i think it can. there is a tendency of people to only watch the road show. -- i think that people who only watch their own show is a mistake. i think you want to look around. take a look at fox once in awhile. if you don't like it, take a look at it and make sure you don't like it. i think you're crazy -- the days of walter cronkite are over. that's the way it is will not work again. it is too many points of view. i just finish the cronkite book which is excellent. he had a point of view and we all knew it. he was a liberal the whole time and we all know it.

he did not know we were aware of it. he is a great reporter and an honest reporter body had a point of view. those points of view or more transparent. there is more knowledge if you watched television, you cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion, that is rare because almost everybody can. i think al sharpton is known for his points of view. they know what they're getting when they watch him and i know where i am standing very i think people are smarter. they no opinion. they know facts and i think they want three levels every night did the 1 fax, the news, they wanted around 5:00. but what now. -- they want it now. the wants and what it means that i want to know what you think. what my shirt to find out what you think. we fight over facts. i say every fact must come from a quality newspaper. it may come from ap but i don't want to hear it comes from anywhere else. i want facts. we do announcements and we want to be smart on the analysis and with the opinions. i tried to do all three. i find that people tend to vote after they watched me. i cannot imagine being able to

follow my show without reading a good newspaper. secondly, i cannot imagine watching a show like mine and not being committed to vote. it forces people to read the paper, if you like it, a widethe lehrer hour, george stephanopoulos is damn good on sunday. put it together. i don't know anybody gets angry after watching television. many people get confirmed in their views. there is somedittohead thinking. i don't think they are growing. [laughter] [applause] >> how would you rate your show -- left or right? >> i would say we are 40 yards left -- 40 yard line.

my voting record is not consistent. i've pretty much advertise how i voted my views on a lot of things -- i thought the iraq war was a disaster. i made that clear since 2001. i am right on that. fiscal policy, i want to see a long-term -- i want to see my daughter work for the debt commission. i think the president should have staked out a position on day one. if he had done that, he would've been better off. he should have gone with the keystone pipeline for jobs. i cannot think of the environmental reasons because nobody has said what it is. he should have sold more health care and explained why it is important to the middle class. we already have a health-care program for poor people called medicare. this is a program to be fair to

the middle class and force them to pay their share. he never sold that way because he had to keep the left happy. it was a conservative proposition and never sold properly. i think it is pretty critical. i think the have put it together. i have been doing this longer than anybody. i have been on live television since 1994 every night six times a week and everybody has figured me out. i think people are smart. you get to know the person after a while. i think. >> what do you make of the changes taking place in the media? what about the decline of traditional newspapers and the role of new media? >> i love newspapers and editors. i don't know where i would have been without them. there is nothing like turning

in a take out these friday -- a take out piece on friday afternoon and getting the call back that i have two or three questions. where did to get this? was this officials? it is great. you get the call back that you are free. you are off the weekend. i love to be edited. i tried to edit the people --who wrote this? there is an expletive there. i have an instinct for what may be wrong and get everything but you don't have a corrections page on the internet. i want to know who the editors are. -- on social media, i want to know who the editors are.

everybody reads upington but-- everybody reads huffington, but editing will be a big part of it. can i just have opinion pieces. fact checking, i worry about it. i always wear -- worry about weekend wire people. young people don't know the history and they will let things get by them and it drives me crazy. but controversy -- the controversy over a spy. there is some controversy. he was a spy. i like to see adults editors. in social medea, i worry because people come up with something they throw on a blog. what are you not pay attention to blogs? don't read any of them. that would be my view. is that liz over there? i did not count you. you are a real journalist which is different than somebody in their basements asking for pancakes said it brought down the government.

mom, guess what i just did? first of all, get a job. [laughter] high making enemies now which is part of my life. i like journalists, i love trade reporters, i am fascinated by the ability every day of a1 reporter is that right for the first page and they are astoundingly good and their editors are great. what goes into these newspapers in the news section is spectacular. the quality of the op-ed pages in the times and the journal -- the times and the post are really good. the screening that goes on the best cases, we have great journalists. i get up in the morning and i read "the washington examiner." it has a lot of little items and it has some right wing

people that are good. then i read "the washington post." i read a different ways. i checked a style page. i always read the op-ed page and then i work my way to a section. there's a stop on a page right before it --al kamen is fabulous. i read "the times." you have to get your speed up to read the times. you have to get ready for the times. by an ambitious, go to the-- if go toally ambitious, i the journal but my wife reads

that. she is in business. if you put that together, you know a lot. if you want to know more, turned on yourxm radio and listen to one of the three news network. i flip around and it is fabulous. i go from cnn and check fox because some of them are ok. s not big onean but - big on sean. [laughter] o'reilly is a mixed bag. he is not just a right winger. he is an angry irish guy. the club. get in there's something to him that i find unnervingly truth sometimes. i like his attitude. people have to put -- i give this speech to everybody -- and there will not be an uncle walter to tell you exactly what is what. the big networks had established liberalism as their base true north. that is what they were, walter cronkite and edward r. murrow. it was a point of view. they laughed at goldwater. cronkite mocked him the way he

pronounced his name and it is true. barry goldwater said today -- you know where he stood. the idea that there was objective reality is a mistake. >> obama promised the public and journalists you have the most open administration in history. as he delivered? >> i don't know what the question is really. >> transparency -- -- transparency in government. >> i don't know what the relative scorecard is. is that something we could find text do you have a point of view on this? >> i am moderator. i don't have a point of the [laughter] u. when he came to office, he said he would be the most of but -- open and be having press conferences and be open. >> i don't count them. the daily press, ja andy carney journalistsgi andbbs is

smart. -- andy carney is a journalist. gibbs is smart. he beat me at jeopardy a couple of weeks ago. he has a lot of press conferences. people are not dying for more press conferences. i don't that is a big issue. i think mitt romney is used to a business press. they only seek journalists when they want to see them. i don't think he spends a lot of time answering questions at the rope line. it is not a big issue with me because i am in commentary. reporters have to deal with this by getting up close to them. i don't have the ability to judge that. you might ask schock or someone else here. chuck for some of tear.

-- chuck or somebody else. >> why has compromise become so unacceptable in congress? >> because of the way the voters are behaving. i grew up in a ticket-splitting state and pennsylvania. you would vote for the state representative and senator because you wanted your kid to get a state scholarship. you would vote for the congressman because you are hoping that your kid would go to the service economy that's where it worked when i origin where i grew up. it was also a purple state where you have almost every election except two of the 20th century were split. if a governor and senator were running that year, it would go both ways. it was like this all the time. bill scranton could be popular and jack kennedy could win the state big. there are no ticket-splitting states left free this year will

see less ticket-splitting than ever and people will vote straight. massachusetts could be the exception because scott brown is in the running. he may even be slightly favored. people will generally vote for the president if they vote for claire mccaskill. i look of the tricky mass t -- rickiness. had the vote for george allen and barack obama? that's a tricky one. the other thing is the way our districts are broken up by neighborhoods which are segregated. as a younger person, the only person you have to fear is the person to your left. er neverr by going to your left as it -- in the black caucus.

the tendency is to heads toward the save and of your party's spectrum. if you're a liberal, you are probably 100% rating. in politics, it is safer to be with your base. these men and women tend to vote with their base. it is the safest mode and you figure you'll fight it out for the independence. a member of congress just got beaten any said there 40 house seats that are up for election but the rest are taken. you can i use -- you cannot lose a general election. california has a new system or the top two vote getters get to run in september. that will not be a big surprise. the voters are -- because we have been apportioned and gerrymandered, you don't have many seats. you have been in places like bucks county. these are selling seats and eric toth. -- these are -- there are 40

seats and they are tough. -- these are swing seats. and they hold them for 40 years. how many seats are like that? dingle is still here. these guys are here for a long time. massachusetts does not change. you have these one-party districts and you have this kind of voting or the don't want to risk going to the senate because a young kid will come along and says he sold us out. luger just got bombed, bob bennett got bumped. orin hatch could get bombed in utah. it is sad, i think, that you cannot put it together yourself the way reasonable people do. they don't buy the blue plate special. voters love union and they are pro-choice and they go down the

list and every single thing, they are against free trade. there are some but they are about 30%. we just go down the line left or right. i like it when people say on one issue they are not with the party. you hardly ever hear that. then you are marked as some kind of pro-life nut. if our voters become independent, we will have more independent politicians, i think. that's a sobering isn't it? >> what you think the biggest mistakes of the obama and romney campaign have made so far? >> romney has not made many mistakes. he has the strategy of being the last man standing. it does not try to sell his personality. [laughter] it is like roller derby.

just not the other guys off the court. you cannot hide from the incoming. it was a relentless negative advertising. it was done by these super packs like restore our future. he got the nomination through a process of elimination. i have not seen mistakes from him because he has won every contest. they are all endorsing him to various degrees. women are coming back. the republican party has starkly falls in line. -- the republican party historically fall in line. they don't fall in love, they fall in line. democrats have to like you. republicans are an organized

political party. which is unusual. growing up as a kid in the early 50's i watched the conventions and there was a woman at the head of the convention that asks the delegates to clear the aisle and i never did. that was the democratic convention and at the republican convention when they were asked to clear the aisles, they did. they are obedient. the democrats look at who's popular. the republican party would not run a guy named barack hussain obama. in a million years, they wouldn't do it. bush, let's go for a wild guy, bob dole. the republican party insists on you being around a long time having lost a number of times and being beaten up and gone through this horrific cases and -- horrific hazing and when you're through, they run you.

they finally ran john mccain. he is the perfect republican. these other guys come out of nowhere. bill clinton? it is unbelievable. when you lose as a republican, they run in next time. in the democrats you lose, they shoot you. that's why people like al gore have to grow bear to go into a cave somewhere nobody knows where michael dukakis is right now because no one has ever asked. if you lose the democratic party, you are finished. you lose the republican party, come on back. jack kemp is available. let's put on a ticket in 1996. let's bring dold back. 20 years later they brought him back. who wanted that? it is a different culture. the democrats are a hot hand political party. if republicans had run john

mccain the first time, it would have been interesting. if nixon had won in 1960 before the end betterment, it might-- before the imbitterment, it imight have been different. they wear them out and they get better by the time they get in there. you have to completely back to everything. on the mitt romney is driven by hard principle. whatever they wanted in a commencement speech, he would give them. he tells the neocons everything they want to hear. he will do the same thing with grover norquist on tax policy. nordquist is allies say the name. donald trump is proof of the pudding. anything he wants to get, it is unbelievable. he is like the golden idol.

why? he wants to keep the party together and wants all elements of the party. he said he wants 50.1%. if you want transparency, you'll get it from him. he tells you how he will win the presidency. he will accept what these guys want and will become independent of them every gets in. that is the trick part. he is a moderate. i think he is a practical guide -- practical guy but how many deals will he strike? the obama mistakes have been pretty obvious. he should have explained health care bill as a moderate republican plan coming out of the heritage plan. it is not socialized medicine. he should never have let that get started. he never should aboard the used stimulus. it is the worst word in politics. it -- it says it is wasting money. stimulus means nothing. it means road building, stop

that mean something, not just pain of states and localities by muting their bills. eisenhower build the interstate highway system. all obama * -- has to do says ira rebuild the automobile system and now i will rebuild the highways. both trends are all over asia and we have amtrak. we should catch up in the world in our public sector. the jobs that have disappeared last four sector have been in the public sector. private-sector job growth has been there but it has been offset by pullbacks and laos in -- and layoffs in the states and localities across the country. it is ironic that nobody knows that. interest rates are 0 and people

are sending them money to germany. invest in infrastructure and put people to work. i'd think he should do it until the republicans to no say. they are saying no to everything he is saying. he said, but something big. does not think big enough. just like truman did discuss, call the house back into session and posed a problem. we have this many people unemployed, let's put them to work. let's do it. at least then, the public would know what the election is about. that would be and my advice on how he can fix it. [applause] >> we're almost out of time but a couple of housekeeping items to take care of. i got one more for you. i want to remind you on june 9, the press club is having its 15th annual 5 k race. there will be pancakes. tony horton will be here.

>> how many miles? >> and 3.1. you don't even have to sign up. -- you don't even have to run, just sign up. i would like to present you with our traditional coffee mug because the islamic her coffee tastes better when your facts checking. my last question for you is what do you think about how you are portrayed on saturday night live? >> darrell issa armond is a genius. he does clinton like he is clinton. it is unbelievable. i went there once and watched and just call laramie. before they start at 11:30, they are actually live, a dourhammond -- and darrel

hammond would be prowling around as cheney. he is already in character. he does the best. i like him doing me, too. >> thank you all for coming today. a reminder that you can find more formation of the national press club on our website para thank you. we are turned. >> tomorrow morning, mark zandi looks at the jobs report.

lichtman discusses women's pay. and then recent polls on the recent health care law. plus your e-mails, phone calls, and suitetweets. >> for over the last four years, david maraniss has been researching and writing his 10th book, "barack obama, the story per " included traveling the globe and speaking with his relatives in kenya and discovering his african ancestry on the shores of lake victoria. he also toured the family home in kansas to find the origins of his mother's family it comes out in bookstores on june 19. but book tv will give you an early look with exclusive pictures and video, including our trip to kenya. join us sunday, june 17, at 6:00

p.m. eastern time. later, at servant -- at 7:30 p.m. that night, your phone calls and e-mails and tweets. >> now a discussion on the 2012 presidential race and the role of domestic policy. we will hear from a campaign advisor for mitt romney and a poster for the obama reelection campaign. hosted by "national journal," this is 45 minutes. >> all of you have sat through an incredibly nutritious evening and to panels on the issue of domestic for policy and obama and ronnie. now comes desert.

before either man can implement any of his policies, he has to win the election in november. we will explore how the issue debate will affect the election campaign. to do so, we have joe benson, he has advised an array of governors and senators. kevin madden advised the mitt romney campaign in 2008. he had the good sense to be headquartered in charleston, n.c.. peter brown is a lead architect

and analyst of the ubiquitous battleground states and national polls which have made quinnipiac and a likely household word. welcome all. as we have heard over the last hour or so, there are very substantial issue differences between president obama and mitt romney on a range of issues. of those differences, which do you think will be the most important in shaping the general election campaign? >> let me thank everybody for being here. joel is one of the best in the business. i am very grateful to the appear with them. -- to be up here with them. usually, i can just cover the phone and roll my eyes. now i cannot.

it really comes down to the view of the role of government. if you look at the economic debate temecula get the health care debate that we had in 2010 -- economic debate and if you look at the health care debate that we had in 2010, and the arguments of free enterprise and the governor's background and comparing and contrasting it with the president's experiences before he became president, i think the role of government will be one of the big differences. fundamentally, republicans believe what governor romney believes that the goal of government is to encourage and incentive fives the business -- and incentivize the business sector. whereas we see the obama world view as being one or the government has a central role in deciding the winners and losers in the economy and a central role in the american individual's life. health care, the economy, and

other issues that will be important related to the economy, like energy, there's a similar contest that we have. >> what are those important differences? >> the most important difference is proving itself more start today. what is the values and the vision than each of these women bring to the case. because of that, it will come down to who will basically fight on behalf of the people who have been struggling the most, who have been fighting the hardest to get back to where they were before this economic crash. and who will create an economy that is going to restore middle- class security and do that through smart investments and entrepreneurship and small business and manufacturing and education, research and development plan so that the folks were able to work up from the middle-class and working- class can do so again and i think those values and the contrast is pretty stark. they take different approaches. president obama believes that we need an economy that gets

everyone a fair shot. mitt romney with his career and his life in business, his policies clearly believe that, if we take care of those at the top, that is what we have to do and everything else will take care of itself. and it hasn't worked. >> you heard a very efficient summary of the ideological frame. each side wants to put on the election appeared whose side are you on? is government the problem were the solution? are either one of those frames inherently more relevant to voters, especially the swing voters? >> firstly, their two sons of the same coin could let me do one thing first. i want to thank "the national journal" for giving me a ph.d. but we be very clear point i don't have one. their two sons of the same coin. -- their two sides of the same

coin. this is about who is on your side. it is the same thing. this is about the economy. one of my stock alliances that the economy is 129 and everything else is after that. the economy is a lot of stuff. it is the unemployment, the debt, health care, a whole host of things. and they just gave you the ideological spin for both sides on how you argue the economy. but it is the economy. >> does anyone inherently matter more to voters, the role of government or the -- is any one of those inherently more persuasive? >> what is more persuasive is what voters think will work. often, elections in swing states is about to his closest to the ideological center.

this is one weird swing voters will vote on who they think will solve their problems. >> i enjoy the question you have been asking all the way through, regardless of who you intend to vote for, who do you think will do a better job on the economy and you can ask by comparing romney and obama. generally speaking, romney runs slightly ahead. what is the basis of that advantage? >> firstly, you are right. we ask if president obama is likable or not and if mitt romney is likable or not. obama is more likable and romney is better on the economy. which one wins out? >> is it kind of a shadow of

dissatisfaction with obama? is it a derivative? ability? inheriteinherent >> it is obviously a derivative of where the economy is in the eyes of people. i think that drives them >> can romney sustain the vantage in that poll and others? he has been even or slightly ahead in most polls on who can do a better job on the economy. in terms of the broad question, who can get the economy moving, romney has been sustainably ahead. >> i don't want to take your question could you glossed over the other questions that are important. there are components of how people contextualize and assess the economy. it is not just to they think has good ideas on the economy. it is who understands the

problems of people like me are facing. who will make sure that there are not to sets of rules, one for those of the top and one for everybody else? those are all variables that go into this equation cricket is not just whether people like president obama, although they do, but that is why his job approval ratings have been higher. that is why people's economic confidence ratings in the last two months are also higher. the consumer confidence indexes higher than it has been in years. the highest percentage increase since election day of any president in recent times. they are comfortable with the factors that people bring to this discussion. >> if you look at the poll numbers now, you have these divergent assessments where obama will have significant and advantages on standing up for the middle class, promoting policies that help all

americans. but on this underlying issue one who might get the economy moving faster, romney has an advantage. there are many factors that go into decisions. how do you try to assess that kind of landscape? >> i agree with what they said. it comes down to the question -- we have this attribute vs issues question. fundamentally, this will be -- i agree that the president does score very well and people judge him harshly on his performance. but in this performance right now, it will not be an e- harmony.com election. it will be a monster.com election. is this a me i really like or is it somebody that can get the job done? ultimately, elections are still job applications. the president has trouble selling economic optimism when people are not feeling it.

the numbers on whether people feel that we're in a recession, whether -- let's not let economists ruin that in here. the president, who has a giant canyon between his message and how people feel, that is one of the reasons why governor romney is doing well on the issue of the economy, which is the central issue of this campaign. he is talking exactly about what he would do to address the enormous anxiety that people have about rising costs to stagnant growth. we saw numbers come out today that revised to down the gdp under 2%. and have jumped -- and we have job numbers coming out tomorrow. those are the big dynamics that are driving these numbers. >> let's take a step that. let's not debate whether it is a

recession. the fact of the matter is what people know. the way they approach the selection is that they understand that we did not get into this crisis overnight and we will not get out overnight. why then is intangible to them is, if you look at polling after the 2004 election, working and middle-class americans already knew then that things were out of whack in the economy, that things have fallen out of balance. in places like massachusetts, where governor romney was governor, their income went down under his governorship. he is running as mr. fix it and you have a governor who took the state from 36 in job creation to 47. they're facing 40,000 manufacturing jobs lost while he was governor, twice the national average. >> as you hear and see, starting with the bane and moving to the

massachusetts record, obama is trying to challenge romney's credentials as a job creator and he has looked at for the few at the expense of the many. given that that is a factor, how effective will this line of argument -- how effective can it be to raise questions about romney's credentials for the voters who are also dissatisfied with obama? >> everything is at the margins. but on the economy -- the question is not what the unemployment rate is and the gdp number. it is what people in quinnipiac-plan, florida, ohio, virginia, what they think about their life. is it getting better? is it getting worse? who is responsible? that is not as quantifiable as

saying that the unemployment rate is down. >> but do people feel the economy will be better a year from today? >> can it be sustained if the job growth continues to slow down? that has been the principal reason that obama is in a better position than six-eight months ago. >> there was a large increase in november to march in economic outlook. it has plateaued. it is not growing. we're seeing national polls and a dead heat. that is why swing states are in a dead heat. it is a dead heat. >> i think we all agree on that. >> how significant is that ford- looking assessment in terms of whether people will be willing to give the president -- >> i think people are very forward looking. we are in an unprecedented time

in the lives of most americans who will be voting. there was a small sliver people who are alive that were in the 1930's and there will be voting in this election proved there were a lot of things that happen in the first decade of this century that undermined their security. paying for college for their kids, dealing with companies that suckered them into credit card rates with rate changes in the dead of night -- i think they will look at both what president obama did to fix those things -- fixing the auto industry, which mitt romney said to let them go bankrupt. there was no private money for them. the only way it could have been said was the way president obama did it. and he did it by getting concessions from the company and union to go forward. i think people understand that we are going forward. everybody knows the the progress has not been rapid as there with like, but they want to go

forward. they don't want to go back to the policies from the governor romney in massachusetts. and he is proposing to do it all over again. >> the health care issue between romney and other republicans, it really has not come front and center. but if the supreme court breaks down part or all of the law and the next few weeks, how do you think that changes the campaign debate? >> i had lots of lunches and dinners with reporters. they said, your guy will not win because of health care and the tea party will not win with romneycare in massachusetts. health care will be an issue. it will not be the issue. that was largely proven through the primary. >> did you have to pay for your own meals? [laughter] >> it is no longer meals. it is just drinks.

i was trying to segue to my other point. i think the public opinion on obamacare has calcified. i don't think there are many people out there that have a press wettable opinion on this -- a persuadable on this. the way many voters view -- the way they view -- they view the obama administration to that particular bill. it was very expensive. it was a chaotic and partisan process. i think any real litigation of it is bad for the obama administration. >> if it is raised by -- if the visibility is raised by the supreme court decision, kennedy defended by the obama administration? >> it is all dependent on what the court does and what they said.

i agree that it is an issue, but not the issue. if it becomes part of the campaign, it will be an issue through which voters will be able to assess very clearly the values of these candidate. do you think that insurance companies ought to be able to put lifetime caps on you when you work your whole life and your knowing your 50's and 60's and your sick and they will cut off your coverage when you need it most? that will come on the value side if that becomes part of the debate. >> peter, i want to ask you about a different health care issue. there is a steady movement in the republican direction among all the whites, especially white seniors coul. on the other hand, we see consistent resistant in polls

about converting medicare into a premium support. even with the option of allowing people to stay in traditional medicare. how big a threat to the republican gains among white seniors there is with the romney embrace of the ryan proposal? >> both will have to see what they're for. i assume that the governor will be for allowing or making sure that people with pre-existing conditions can get health care. you can be sure that he will be for not having lifetime caps. if they are, there will be astronomical. if the court throws out part or all of the law, the two candidates will have to say what they're for, not what happened in the past, what they're for.

one assumes on the gritty stuff, the stuff that everybody is for, which is not lifetime caps. >> it is not clear that you can do those things without the individual mandate. >> but it is clear if you have it in a campaign. >> about the idea of converting medicare into a premier-support program, there is a movement among democrats -- how big an opening this the medicare debate allow him to begin talking to those voters? >> the president's approach on medicare has been on most budgetary issues. you have to take a balanced approach. i find it ironic that, when we find savings through fraud and everything that republicans have talked about on medicare and revising payments for providers, the republicans ran a hint --

ran a campaign against obama cutting medicare. obama has always had a balanced approach on how we take programs like medicare and make sure they're stronger for future generations. an issue around vouchers and changing would have been a guaranteed benefit for seniors and will be a broad discussion during the course of the campaign. it will play into it because it will reflect an approach that extends beyond that to other issues. >> as republicans are doing better with the older whites and, even with romney winning 60% of white seniors, does that make it more or less likely that he will pursue and a republican congress would pursue a ryan- type of vision, which is still heavily resisted? >> i disagree with the notion that you have boxing debates over legislation that belongs to somebody else were named by

somebody else. oftentimes, when you get into a presidential campaign, you have the opportunity to talk directly to voters about your framework. the governor has talked about the principles that he agrees with, whether it was ryann or some of the other debt commission recommendations. i think that is where we go back to a value-driven debate could you can win a lot of these seniors and a large swath of the electorate based on how you can change the way that the status quo is operating today in washington. i used to get that all the time early on when ryan was being proposed or there were debt limits on different proposals on capitol hill. we tended to resist the idea that you had to come in and have an up-or-down, yes/no decision. and instead talk about what you fundamentally believe in terms

of government reforms, spending reforms, deficit reforms to people outside of washington. they're not stuck in this emotional recommitment mentality on capitol hill. >> i think you want to focus on medicare issue and how that relates to seniors. and the whole ryann budget. but there is a related issue to the ryann budget, which is that come it will blow a massive hole in the deficit.

.

>> it would again be a moment just as geithner and paulson, back in 2008, where it is just easier to bail it out. make the taxpayers pay and deal with it later. that is to make the hard decisions to let a firm failed. these are very large and powerful firms. i am just very dubious that the resolution authority is going to work as well. i think there were a lot of failures. for the 2000 pages of what ever

, i distant it will put us that much closer to a. -- to a period where taxpayers can sleep at night without worrying about the future. yes? >> thank you very much. i'm a recent graduate. >> is good for you. you'll be a tough one. >> says the idea. my question is the idea of holding people accountable. the economy has become so complicated that we need to do something to rein in accesses. it seems that you're talking almost both sides of the

spectrum, that would have been better if we had not built up these businesses and let them fall apart by their own spectrum. at the same time, you to hold people accountable and responsible. >> i think it would hold them accountable, to some degree, if they fail. that defers step to accountability. but you're right. it is is a fine line to walk. he cannot have zero regulation. cannot have too much regulation. where is the happy medium? have never made the argument that there is not enough regulation on the mortgage industry or the financial service industry. there are plenty of rules and the books of the regulators just did not pursue. i would say the answer is to have people in these jobs to have an appetite to regulate. to really go after the problems

that they see. they become this mindset or you are kind of a partner. in fact, many of the regulators in the years leading up to the crisis believed the banks had the answer on their risk assessments. they could be allowed to present regulators with their own assessment of risks on the books and let the market that, and some of them being the person who is a watchdog or policeman. i think their rules or completely ignored by regulators in the years leading up to the crisis. i do believe in more regulation, bridges and people with an appetite to regulate, which we did not have. there were many cases of

partnering with institutions of reducing those kinds of standards. that was, i think, a disappointing element. in the book that i wrote, we had a conversation with barney frank will work as a team of his undying support for fannie mae. he was particularly difficult with the regulator that was put in place in the 1990's to try to beef up regulation on fannie. he was tough in congressional hearings. he would rail. he made life difficult for this regulator. we asked him, what was the idea?

he said he felt there trying to be too adversarial. i said, moon. adversarial sounds like a good thing for a regular to be. it is almost like a journalist. people who ride a beverage not like what i write, the adversarial. i'm not part of their corporate spin. a regulator should not the end member of the institution they're regulating. how he is seen by members of congress. that was kind of an eye opener for me. i would argue for a more adversarial relationship than less.

>> one more question. >> this person has been very patient. there you go. >> i do not see any hope for actual things happening. what you think is the ultimate answer? >> the ultimate answer for getting us out of the boom? i think we have to see a few cases. it would not take a lot. it would take maybe one prosecutor who make people sit up and take notice. i think it is a multi-faceted question.

it goes to the question of investors. it is massive. there are a lot of failures at every step of the way. what can we do as individuals to try to change this dynamic. this is the toughest question i get. i am disappointed to said to not have a ready answer. it does feel like individuals are powerless. it does feel like individuals have no voice. against ever-increasing power and these very important issues. i am not without hope. but i think the idea is that people have to take some of the song themselves. whether you're complaining to your fund company if you don't like with a vote your shares. voting no against companies even if you only have 10 shares. it is a message to consent.

i grew to the there is a sense that it will not get a lot of traction. -- i agree with you that there is a sense that it will not a lot of traction. >> thank you very much for your time. [applause] >> former president bill clinton and president obama criticize republican party said a fundraiser yesterday. that is next on c-span. republican governor scott walker is being challenged by milwaukee mayor tom barrett. and on this morning's washington journal, the chief economist for moody's. today, a senate panel looks at the employment of veterans.

we will hear from veterans organizations and government contractors. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. on c-span. a hearing examines anti-policy programs. live coverage is under way from the senate finance committee, also at 10:00 eastern. former president bill clinton attended a fund-raiser in the new york for president obama, one of three campaign events. the former president and current president spoke for about 45 minutes. >> thank you. [applause] thank you very much. i am the warm-up act for the president, and i will attempt to bring him on while you are still warm.

i want to thank eric for his elusive statement on the case of what is at stake in the selection and for his service in the states of new york. good thank you keith wright and stephanie for coasting this dinner, and carol mo'nique, -- maloney, thank you for your friendship and everything you have done. i believe on his last days in the party, thank you for being one of the best democratic chairmen in the entire nation. i want to thank my longtime friend jon bon jovi for performing and being there for us. [applause] here is what i want to say to you. most of my life has nothing to do with politics.

i work in my foundation and around the world. i work with democrats and republicans and independents, and half the time i do not know who i am working with politically, but i do spend hours studying economic trends and what is going on in america, and i care about the long-term debt of the country a lot of your gut i was the only man to give you -- long-term debt of this country a lot. i hope what i say to you will have some weight, because i want you to say to everyone you see between now and november. i do not think it is important to reelect the president. i think it is essential to reelect the president for the

future that our children and grandchildren deserve, and here is why. when i left office, we returned to the trickle-down conference. big tax cuts, mostly for people in my income group. i love saying that. since i never had them before, i did not know what it was like, and we've doubled the debt of the country again, and after totally anemic growth for seven years and eight months, on the day before the financial collapse, median family income was $2,000 lower than the day i left office while the cost of health care and college had gone up, and then all of a sudden december comes and goes

-- september 15 comes and goes. president obama was the only person ever to be elected before the first tuesday after the first monday in november. the bad news is he was elected president on september 15, 2008 company in the teeth of the worst recession since the great depression, a collapse of enormous proportions. the last 500 years such financial crisis has taken five or ten years to get over, almost always 10 years. he said the vow to try to keep his original dream to return broadbased prosperity and to do it in a way that made a world with more partners than pure

adversaries, and he did it under on imaginable circumstances. is my opinion that he has performed extremely well under very difficult circumstances, and i want to tell you why. he set about to do what was necessary to prevent a financial collapse, to begin to create jobs again, to save 1 million or more state or local jobs for health care and fire departments. he set about to bring american manufacturing back, to make america a leading nation in the korean energy revolution that is sweeping the globe now -- in the green energy revolution that

the sweeping the globe, in which only the republican party seems to deny it is necessary, and he set about to reform health care, knowing it was a moral, health, an economic issue because we are 18% of our money on health care. none of our competitors is over 11.8. that is one trillion dollars a year that could be going to hire new people, and he did it while trying to make college more affordable because we have dropped from first to 15th in the world in the last decade, and the percentage of adults graduating with degrees, and while doing that, he presented a plan to deal with long-term debt of the country, understanding that when you have

a total financial collapse, interest rates are zero, no private investment, you cannot have austerity now. you remember those austerity budgets? they came about for three reasons. spending controls, revenues, and economic growth. if you do not have economic growth, no amount of austerity will balance the budget because you will always have revenues go down more than you can possibly cut spending, so what he did was to say growth today, restraint tomorrow, here is my budget, so build the economy, then take the burden of the debt off our children's future and avoid exploding interest rates and declining living standards

it would impose on our children's future, so where are we? he offered politics of cooperation. he said, we will do an individual mandate. all of a sudden, they were not for it. all of the republicans who co- sponsored the bill were forced to vote against statehood -- against it. he said, let's have an infrastructure base so we can have private and public capital like other countries do. it has always been a bipartisan area. once he was for if they were all against it. where are we in spite of that?

in the last 47 months, this economy has produced for 23 million private sector jobs -- 4.3 million private sector jobs. that is about what it produced on a monthly basis during my two terms coming back. why do the numbers show 3.7 million? because congress refused to pass a bill to send money to localities to keep teachers on the job, to keep firefighters and police officers on the job. i was in wisconsin the other day. 73% of districts have laid teachers off. that is the austerity policy. the obama policy is that 4.3 million private sector jobs is 60% more private jobs then came into this economy in the seven

years and eight months of the previous administration before the financial meltdown, and you need to tell people that, and what happened with manufacturing, it is growing again for the first time since the 1990's. an article said we are going to have two or 3 million manufacturing jobs in the next three years. jobs flooding back into this country. what happened to clean energy and? governor romney goes out to a company that had a loan that did not work out and says, this is a bust. we rank first or second in the world in every survey in capacity to generate electricity from the sun and the wind. clean energy fell twice the size of the rest of the economy. this weekend germany became the first country in history to

generate 23 gigawatts of electricity from the sun. i will tell you what it means. that is as much as 28 nuclear power clarence -- 20 big nuclear power plants. if we did what they did, that is 1 million jobs alone, and that is what president obama has done on the job front, and where he could cooperate with people, the auto makers, they restructured the auto industry, and what happened? we have 80,000 more people making cars today than when he took office, and we save 1.5 million jobs that would have gone down the tube. america is back in the car

business, and then labor management, the environmental groups, and the government got together and agreed on a schedule to raise car mileage standards, to doubled them, and it will create 150,000 new high-tech jobs. in health care just before you play dead on this issue let me give you two or three facts. for the first time in 50 years health-care inflation has been at 4%. it has not been that low in 50 years. it has been killing people economically. americans got $1.3 billion in refunds on the insurance policy. 2.6 million ill people 26 years of age or younger are on their parents' health care now because of the bill the president signed.

i spent a lot of time with people in the health-care business, with doctors and people who manage medical practices and people who manage insurance plans. i do not know of anyone who wants to repeal obamacare. i do not know anybody who does not believe we should start paying for performance and not a procedure in health care and improve our quality, and that is what people in the health- care business are doing today because that law passed, and finally, every day -- never a day goes by that i do not see an article about the burden of student loans, but when student loan reform is implemented, the cost of loans will go down and no one will have to drop out of college because of the cost, because everybody will be able to pay their loans back as a small fix% of their income over 20 years. at one bill can take us back to

number one in terms of college graduates because no one will ever have to drop out again. and his plan to reduce the debt as extraordinary spending restraint, including in medicare, as modest tax increases, and is phased in as we grow the economy. his opponent who says he has got a better idea was governor of the states that was 47 and the country in job growth. he promised he would reduce the debt, but when he left office the debt was going up, and his plan is to go back to the bush program, except on steroids.

good cut out everything that helps middle class people, cut out everything that helps poor people, and all non-partisan analogies say the plan were they have 1 trillion dollars to what the debt is going to be over the next who years if we do not do anything, and all the plans say if the president's plan were implemented, it would reduce the debt by several trillion dollars if we do not do anything, but gross now, restraint later. the romney republican plan is austerity and more unemployment now and blow the lid off later at a time we are worried about higher interest rates. what is the difference here? shared prosperity verses continued prosperity and high unemployment.

constant conflict and divide and conquer. this is a big clear election. it is important to say he has done an amazing job of making our country more secure, more safe, more peaceful, and building a world with more partners than adversaries, and that is very important. [applause] he has had to get this done well people as recent as last week were still saying he was not born in america. he has had to get this done with the house of representatives that had one of the tea party members planning members of the communist party, and neither the nominees or the leaders rebuked him for saying that.

this is not the 1955 period of lis joe mccarthy could skate on the fact there were at least -- this is not the 1950's. at least mccarthy could not say their work who some communists are round. no one has been a communist in more than a decade. [laughter] [applause] you have to take the facts out there, take the facts of the economy, health care, education, and the fact is we have gotten economic policy that has a real chance to bring america back. why did you think long-term interest rates -- republicans will say obama is such a big spender and interest rates are going to go of the roof. interest rates were one quarter of 1%.

they are giving away the money. you are laughing, but why are they doing that? people believe america has a solid economic strategy for the long run, and you would have thought republicans would increase austerity and jobless policies of what they used to call old europe? i never thought they would say, let's to the eurozone economic policies. we are laughing. this is serious. too much politics is fat-free. think about the world you want your children -- is fact free. think about the world you want your children and grandchildren to have.

you have got to have the right captain of the ship, and i am depending on you to take care of future generations by making sure that capt. is president barack obama. bring it arm. -- bring it on. [applause] ♪ >> hello, new york. thank you. well, thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you. thank you so much.

thank you. everybody, have a seat. thank you. i plan on getting four more years, because of the. let me say some thank yous. first of all, you had an outstanding attorney general, please give him a big round of applause. he is doing the right thing on behalf of consumers, working people all across this great state. he is having an influence all across the country. i want to thank my dear friend, john bon jovi, who has been a great supporter. [applause] i have to say that the only thing worse than following john is following john and bill clinton. i want to acknowledge carolyn maloney.

[applause] thank you. thank you for the great work you have done. i want to thank all of you who have helped to make this event possible. most of all, i want to thank the guy behind me here. president clinton and i had a chance to talk of a dinner before we came up. -- over dinner before we came out. we talked about a lot of things. we talked about basketball. we talked about our daughters. we agreed you cannot be daughters -- beat daughters. [applause] sons out there, we love you too. we both agree we have improved or gene pool because we married outstanding women. [applause]

but, whenever the topic, whatever the subject, what i was reminded of when i was talking to president clinton is just how incredibly passionate he is about this country. and the people in it. you do not talk to bill without hearing at least 30 stories about extraordinary americans who are involved in clean energy or starting a whole new project to teach kids math or figuring out how to build some new energy-efficient building. you name it. it is that passion and connection that he has to the american people that is infectious.

it is a curiosity and a love for people that is transforming the world. i could not be prouder to have called and president. i could not be prouder to know him as a friend. i cannot be more grateful for him taking the time to be here. [applause] i thank him for putting up with a very busy secretary of state. [applause] now, the reason i am here tonight is not just because i need your help. it is because the country needs your help.

if you think about why we came together back in 2008, it was not about me. it was not even just about the democratic party. it was about a common set of values that we held dear. a set of beliefs that we had about america. a belief that if you are willing to work hard in this country, you should be able to make it. you should be able to find a job that pays a living wage. it should be able to own a home, send your kids to college, retire with dignity and respect. that everybody in this country, regardless of what he looked like, where you come from, whether you are black, white, gay, straight, hispanic,

disabled, if you are willing to put in the effort, this is a place where you make dreams happen. by you putting in that effort, not only do you do well for yourself, you build the country in the process. we have seen that those studies is -- those values were eroding. the bedrock contact we make with each other was starting to diminish. we had seen a surplus, a historic surplus, wasted away on tax cuts for folks who did not need them and were not even asking for them. suddenly, it turned to deficit. we had seen two wars fought on a credit card. we had seen the recklessness of

a few almost bring the entire system to collapse. there was a sense that, although a few of us were doing a really, really well, you had a growing number of folks who were struggling to get by. what we set out to do in 2008 was reclaim the basic american promise. it was not easy. many of you who supported me, you did not do it because it was easy. when you support a guy named bachus and obama -- barak hussein obama, you know that is not a sure thing. you sensed the country was ready

for change. we did not know. we knew there had been a decade of problems. that since this man had left office, we had been going in the wrong direction. we did not realize how this would culminate in the worst financial crisis since the great depression. the month i was sworn in, it hundred thousand jobs were lost. we have lost -- 800,000 jobs were lost. we had lost 1 million before the election place. we did not give up. we did not quit. all across this country. you had folks who dug in. they focused on what was necessary. i do believe we implemented the right policies. when folks said we should let

detroit go bankrupt, we said, no, we are not going to let 1 million jobs go. we are not going to let an iconic industry waste away. we brought workers and management together. gm is back on top. with some more market share than we have seen in a long time. manufacturing is coming back. even though that decision was not popular, we made the right decision. we made the right decision in starting to free up credit again so that companies could borrow. we made the right decision when it came to insuring that all across this country, states that help to keep teachers and firefighters on the job. we made the right decision in making sure we used this opportunity to rebuild big chunks of america. we made a lot of good policy

decisions. the reason we can back was because of the american people. because of their resilience and strength. they made it happen. they decided, maybe i will retrain for school. small businesses decided, i'm going to keep my doors open. one of the great privileges of being president is to go into every corner of the country. you see people from every walk of life. it makes you optimistic about the american people. even over these last 3 and a half years, it has many more optimistic. we have all of the ingredients for success. it is because of them we have seen more than 4 million jobs created, more than 800,000 jobs this year alone. because of them, we are seeing more manufacturing jobs coming back since anytime since the 1990's.

but, this is where you come in. all of that work that we have done, all of that effort, that stands to be reversed. we head had an opposition that has had a different vision of where we should take america. they had it from the day i was sworn in. they made a determination that politics would trump what was needed to move this country forward. they have tried to put sand in the gears of congress ever since. now they have a nominee who is expressing support for an agenda that would reverse the progress we have made and take as back to the same policies that got us

into this mess and the first place. the reason we are here today, we are not going back. we are going forward. [applause] we have worked too hard and too long to write the ship and move us in the right direction. we're not going backwards, we are going forward. that is what we are doing, new york. we are going to do it with your help. [applause] the reason they think they might be able to pull this off is because things are still tough. there are a lot of folks still mired in out there. too many folks still looking for work. to many people whose homes are still under water. we know we have more to do.

that is why i am running again. our job is not finished yet. this election, in some ways, is going to be more consequential than 2008. the choices are going to be starker. when i ran in 2008, i was running against a republican who believed in climate change, immigration reform, campaign finance form, had some history of working across the aisle. we had disagreements. even during the midst of a financial crisis, there was an agreement of the need for action to create jobs. we do not have that this time. by opponent, governor romney, he

is a patriot american. he has seen enormous financial success. he has a beautiful family. his vision of how you move this country forward is the same agenda as the previous administration except on steroids. it is not enough to just maintain tax cuts for the wealthy. we are going to double them. we are going to do even more of the same. it is not enough just to roll back the regulations that we have put in place to make sure the financial system is transparent and working affectively. we are going to do even more to eliminate regulations that have kept our air cleaner and water

clean and protected our kids for 20 years, 30 years. when you look at the budget they have put forward, they are not just talking about rolling back obamacare, they are talking about rolling back the new deal. [laughter] that is not an exaggeration. so, there is an enormous amount at stake. we are going to have to make sure that in this election, we are describing clearly what is at stake. we should not be afraid of this debate. we have the better argument. we have got the better argument. it is not just a matter of being able to say the change we brought about in lifting the auto industry, that is something we are proud of. it is not just the 4.3 million

jobs. it is not just two 0.5 million young people have health insurance. it is not just that millions of young people are getting grants, they have the capacity to go to college. it is not just the track record i have amassed that i am proud of, it is also the fact that when you look at our history, america has not grown. it has not prospered with a philosophy such as, you are on your own. that is not how we built this country. the reason we became an economic superpower is because for all of our individual initiatives, all of our entrepreneurship, all our belief in personal

responsibility, despite all of those things, we have understood there are certain things we do better together. creating a public system that works so that everybody gets agitated. we understand that. understanding that we build a transcontinental railroad. he understood there are certain things we do better together. investments in the national academy of sciences. investments in land grants. eisenhower building the interstate highway system. my grandfather and his generation going to college on the gi bill. these things we did together. it created a platform where everybody had a chance. everybody had a fair shot. everybody did their fair share. everybody played by the rules.

if you look at our history, the reason why we have the best capital markets, the reason why wall street is the center of finance, because we had rules in place that made as the most transparent. investors could trust if they put their money there, they would not be cheated. you had entire infrastructures that allowed our capital markets to is the lead. that has been a strength, not a weakness. throughout our history, there have been certain things we have to do together. what was true in the past is true now as well. that is what is at stake in this election. i am not going to go back to the days when suddenly of young people cannot afford to go to college, just to pay for tax

cuts for me and bill clinton. we are not going to go back to the day when 30 million people cannot get health insurance. where young people cannot stay on the parents policies. seniors suddenly find prescription drugs more expensive. we are not going to go back to the days when women do not have preventative care or we eliminate funding for planned parenthood. we are not going back to those days. i want my daughters to have the same opportunities as our sons. i want our women to have the same ability to control their health care decisions as everybody else. [applause] we are not going back. we are not going to go back to the days when you cannot serve in our military and admit to it is you loved.

we are moving forward with an agenda of dignity and respect for everybody. we are not going to go back to the days when people thought there was a conflict between economic growth and looking after our environment. we are not going back to those days. [applause] but, we are going to have to fight for it. this is not going to be an easy race. because of the citizens united decision, we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars all across this country, and president of numbers -- unprecedented numbers. there has never been this amount of spending before. in newspaper just printed, somebody abided negavtive ads. 7% of our advertisements have been positive.

-- 70% of our advertisements have been positive. 70% of theirs have been negative. people are still scared about the future. what the other side is counting on is fear and frustration. that that is going to be good enough. they are not offering any new ideas. all they are offering are the same old ideas that did not work then, they will not work now. even when it comes to their big issue, the deficit and the debt. as president clinton just mentioned, the truth is the two presidents over the last 30 years, 40 years, who had the

lowest increases in government spending, you are looking at them right here. they are on the stage. [applause] they are on this stage. the agenda we put forward which says, let's put people to work right now, rebuilding roads and bridges and the vintages back in the classroom to accelerate growth -- and putting teachers back in the classroom to accelerate growth. that is a recipe that works. we have seen it work before. we saw it work in the 1990's. that will allow us to make sure we can still invest in our future. as i travel around the world. and the president clinton does as well. you talk to people -- nothing gets me more frustrated than when i hear reports about

america's decline. a run on the world, there is nobody who would not trade places with us. we have the best universities, the most productive workers. the best entrepreneurs, scientists, we have all the ingredients we need to make it work. now we just need the best politics. now we just made the best politics. that is what this election is going to be all about. the bottom line is this, all of you, you are going to have to work, not just as hard as we did in 2008, we are going to need to work harder. one of the things we learned was that for all of the negative

ads, for all of the politics, for all of the distortions and nonsense, when folks come together, when citizens come together and insist it is time for a change, guess what, change happens. what was true then it is just as true now. i want you to know that it is true my hair is grayer. i have not caught up to billy at. -- bill yet. we end up showing a few dings and dents along the way. that is inevitable.

i am more determined them up and i was in -- now then i was in 2008. i am more inspired by america now. i have seen more of this country. i have seen its strength and its passion. i have seen what is possible. i have seen the changes we have already brought. it should make as confident about the changes we can bring about in the future. it means that we are going to be able to do even more to double clean energy. it means we are going to be able to do even more to bring back manufacturing. we are going to do more to put people back to work. we are going to do more to make sure we are in asian of laws and immigrants -- a nation of laws and immigrants. i am only going to get it done because of you.

i used to say that i am not a perfect man. michelle will tell you. i will never be a perfect president. no president is. i promised you i would always tell you what a thought, where i stood. i would wake up every day, just thinking about how i can make the lives of the american people a little bit better. i worked as hard as i knew how to make that happen. i have kept that promise. i have kept that promise because i still believe in you. i hope you still believe in me. [applause] if you are willing to join me this time out, and knocked on doors and make phone calls and talk to your friends, i promise

you, we will finish what we started in 2008. we will not go backwards. we will go forward. we will remind the entire world why the united states of america is the greatest nation on earth. [applause] thank you, new york, i love you. god bless you. god bless america. [applause] >> president obama will be back in a fund-raiser next week the house of sarah jessica parker. to read about where candidates stand the issues, go to our web site, c-span.org/campaign2012. voters go to the polls today in wisconsin and the governors recall election.

republican governor scott walker is being challenged. we will bring you last week's debate between the two candidates next on c-span. on this morning's "washington journal." >> he has been researching and writing his 10th book. research included traveling the globe and speaking to his relatives in kenya. he also toured the family homes and sites in kansas to find the origins of his mother's family. barack obama -- the story comes out in bookstores on june 19. we'll give you exclusive video, including our trip to kenya when we traveled with the author. join us sunday and later, at 7:30 that same night, your phone booktv. c-span 2's

>> the candidates running into the's recall election held their final debate last week. republican governor scott walker and mayor tom barrett discussed the state economy, campaign ads and on raising as well as investigations into the governor's staff. the hour-long debate is courtesy of wisn tv and took place at the marquette university law school. it is moderated by news anger mike gousha. scott walker defeated tom barrett 42%, and statistics%. >> the following is a patrol special election. in partnership with marquette university law school. >> good evening. we are just five days away from wisconsin also historic gubernatorial recall election. >> tonight we are proud to present the final joint campaign appearance by republican governor scott walker and his democratic opponent, milwaukee mayor tom barrett. >> this conversation will be

moderated. 12 news of fronts -- up front's mike gousha. this broadcast live, unedited, and commercial freight. historic nature of this recall election. it is only the third time in our nation's history when citizens of this date have tried to recall a governor. > the decision about how this election day, june 5. >> the go to the home of marquette law school for an extraordinary hour of debate and discussion about the issues that brought us here and those that will define our state's future. gousha. [applause] >> hello everyone and welcome to our conversation. we are joined by the republican incumbent, wisconsin governor scott walker and his democratic challenger milwaukee mayor tom barrett. we are here in the courtroom at

marquette law school. i work here as a journalist. i'm the host of the statewide public affairs program. the rules for the discussion are simple. we have asked the candidates to join us for a conversation about where we have been and where we are headed in wisconsin. we ask them to answer questions as concisely and directly as possible and to stay on point. candidates can talk to one another but i will be managing the time we spend on the particular topic. each candidate will have a one minute closing statement but there are no opening statements. we flipped a coin to see you got the first question and will begin tonight with governor walker. thank you for being with us tonight. i began with the question that needs to be asked. it is about what this contest really means. i do not want to overstate the importance of a single election in wisconsin but what is at stake next tuesday? >> it is uat